This is a complicated question, so please, bare with me. To start out, I'm currently working on my Religious Studies minor (a long with a Political Science major... yes I know it's an odd combination) and in the course of my studies, I have been amazed by how the approaches to religion, God/gods, and morality have never really changed. I mean this:
There have always been people who unquestioningly believe what they grew up with. And there have always been those who are skeptical. And there have always been people who outright reject religion in one or all of its forms. I get the feeling that some people who renounce religion some how think they're original, that they are the ones who are not brainwashed, and everyone who follows a religion is. Although, a religiously-minded person could point to the atheist and say that he merely places his faith, his belief-system, in something other than God, but it's still essentially the same thing that he renounced.
So, I guess these are my questions:
I noticed in many of the introductions in this forum had people who were anti-religion are admitedtly against Christianity. Is the antimosity toward Christianity alone, or toward religion as a whole? And whatever that is, what is your defintion (because there always seems to be a problem with how different people define abstract ideas) of Christianity or religion, and why the animosity?
A Question for Skeptics of Religion
Started by
Guest_Vorpal_*
, Sep 19 2004 01:14 PM
68 replies to this topic
#2
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 19 September 2004 - 01:21 PM
I'm against what, if I may, could be called "stupid." Stupid is blindly believing in god. Stupid is also declaring god, or, for that matter, anything else, impossible. Any extreme statement like that is "Stupid," who either mean to or should mean to say is "Improbable".
I could probably have found a nicer word, but, hey we need more traffic down here at the bottom the Alliance section.
I could probably have found a nicer word, but, hey we need more traffic down here at the bottom the Alliance section.
#3
Korhend
-
- Members
-
- 2,213 posts
The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!
Posted 19 September 2004 - 01:27 PM
well I feel all religions have a positive role to play. Just most of them are outdated and require to much on dogmaticism and faith.
#4
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 19 September 2004 - 01:28 PM
I really don't care about religions at all. They add far too much complication to a life/existence that is already complicated enough.
I don't believe in God, but I don't hate those who do.
"Whatever gets you through the day!" - Granite
I don't believe in God, but I don't hate those who do.
"Whatever gets you through the day!" - Granite
#5
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 19 September 2004 - 01:31 PM
Feh, religious comfort would never do it for me. All I want to know is that I'm right. And I am.Originally posted by GraniteJJ@Sep 19 2004, 01:28 PM
"Whatever gets you through the day!" - Granite
#6
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 19 September 2004 - 01:34 PM
All I want to know is that I'm right. And I am.
This has been another insightful moment about Alak's mind. Please join us next time, when Alak says, "Shut up, I mean it. I'm right."
#7
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 19 September 2004 - 01:36 PM
No, that was last time. Next time is "Doesn't matter, I'm still right."
#8
Guest_Vorpal_*
Guest_Vorpal_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2004 - 01:39 PM
Alakhriveion-
I agree with you on your premise. Though I might not use the term "stupid"... maybe something like "intentional ignorance" Someone who refuses to learn something, or takes one thing for truth without any justification for such assertions, really bugs me to no extreme.
Korhend-
There is something interesting about what you say. You feel that religions play important roles, but they are limited by things such as age, dogma or faith. It speaks to what you percieve to be truth. If a religion were to "become more modern" could that possibly be a sign that before hand they were not speaking the truth before? To seek a religion to change it's beliefs because of what we percieve to be changing opinions in our own times, is to deny that there was any truth behind that religion in the first place, and to deny any higher authority it may say to ascribe to.
So, I guess, (an correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that religion serves only a social purpose. And that if it goes beyond those bounds, it is ascribing too much to itself.
GraniteJJ-
I believe, at least when religions begin (may not be so as things progress and different sects form) that they're formed to give meaning to life, not to complicate things. I would agree with you, that some religions out there do seem to complicate things, but I would not say that is truth in all cases.
I agree with you on your premise. Though I might not use the term "stupid"... maybe something like "intentional ignorance" Someone who refuses to learn something, or takes one thing for truth without any justification for such assertions, really bugs me to no extreme.
Korhend-
There is something interesting about what you say. You feel that religions play important roles, but they are limited by things such as age, dogma or faith. It speaks to what you percieve to be truth. If a religion were to "become more modern" could that possibly be a sign that before hand they were not speaking the truth before? To seek a religion to change it's beliefs because of what we percieve to be changing opinions in our own times, is to deny that there was any truth behind that religion in the first place, and to deny any higher authority it may say to ascribe to.
So, I guess, (an correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that religion serves only a social purpose. And that if it goes beyond those bounds, it is ascribing too much to itself.
GraniteJJ-
I believe, at least when religions begin (may not be so as things progress and different sects form) that they're formed to give meaning to life, not to complicate things. I would agree with you, that some religions out there do seem to complicate things, but I would not say that is truth in all cases.
#9
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 19 September 2004 - 01:42 PM
It's not really intentional, just... stupid.I agree with you on your premise. Though I might not use the term "stupid"... maybe something like "intentional ignorance"
#10
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 19 September 2004 - 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Vorpal
I believe, at least when religions begin (may not be so as things progress and different sects form) that they're formed to give meaning to life, not to complicate things. I would agree with you, that some religions out there do seem to complicate things, but I would not say that is truth in all cases.
No, I mean its just something that ties up your schedule. Sundays are used up when you practice the (Christian) Sabbath.
I realize religions were probably created as a way to give meaning to life...another reason why I don't buy into them. A lot of the stuff seems fictitious.
#11
Hero of Winds
-
- ZL Staff
-
- 2,428 posts
Quiet Riot
Posted 19 September 2004 - 01:59 PM
I think my line of thinking is similar to Korhend's. My idea is that all religions are correct, just different interpretations of the same core message. Case in point, paganism. The core belief of paganism is that there's a High God, who represents man and heaven, and a Great Mother, who represents woman and earth. Then there's also a pantheon of lesser gods who represent the forces (nature) that inhabit the world. But form that belief, came the paganism of Babylon, Caanan, etc. All of them with different names for their gods, and different behaviors for their gods, but still essentially the same. Merely different interpretations of a core belief(s), interpretations that are created by cultures.
I just apply that (the paganism analogy) to all religions. If monotheism is correct, then the pagan gods are merely different representations of God, similar to the Holy Trinity. If polytheism turns out to be correct, then "God" is just a collective term for all gods. Either way, it's the same thing.
I just apply that (the paganism analogy) to all religions. If monotheism is correct, then the pagan gods are merely different representations of God, similar to the Holy Trinity. If polytheism turns out to be correct, then "God" is just a collective term for all gods. Either way, it's the same thing.
#12
Guest_Vorpal_*
Guest_Vorpal_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:07 PM
Hero of Winds-
Where does that belief come from? You also failed to mention religions that don't worship gods. How do they fit into this belief structure you've made for yourself?
Where does that belief come from? You also failed to mention religions that don't worship gods. How do they fit into this belief structure you've made for yourself?
#13
Hero of Winds
-
- ZL Staff
-
- 2,428 posts
Quiet Riot
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:09 PM
I did a bit of research into other religions, paganism mostly. I came to that conclusion through means I can't remember. I just remember that when I did come to that conclusion, it'd make sense to me. Kind of an enlightenment of sorts. 
Give me an example and I'll attempt to reconcile it with my idea.
You also failed to mention religions that don't worship gods. How do they fit into this belief structure you've made for yourself?
Give me an example and I'll attempt to reconcile it with my idea.
#14
Masamune
-
- Members
-
- 4,348 posts
not here but you never know
- Location::noitacoL
- Gender:Male
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:14 PM
There wouldn't be religious wars if all religions were fundamentally the same. They are, in fact, usually mutally exclusive.
#15
Korhend
-
- Members
-
- 2,213 posts
The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:21 PM
the point is a religion doesn't need to have a creationism story or a specific church heirarchy to be an effective religion.
Hero of winds-Buddhism, Taoism, Fascism. Three religions.
Hero of winds-Buddhism, Taoism, Fascism. Three religions.
#16
Guest_Vorpal_*
Guest_Vorpal_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:23 PM
Hinduism, Buddhism, Confusianism, Taoism, Shinto... I could give you a ton, but they'd take way too long to discuss them at length. many of them believe that there are deities in a non-physical form, but they place no religious significance to them (at least theoretically, there are always exceptions).
For an example: A big thing about Buddhism is that there is no god that can help you attain Nirvana (hard to completely explain so I won't, I'll just assume you may have heard of it) Nirvana is attained through your own power. And Nirvana is not equivalent to the Judeo-Christian idea of Heaven.
---Also just so that I understand where you're coming from
You believe that there is a greater truth out there, something beyond yourself, something beyond the physical world, but you don't believe anyone really knows what it is. But it has to be there, because either you feel it, or because there are just so many other people who do.
You also notice similarities in codes of ethics and codes of morality in opposing religions and see that as evidence that they're more or less the same, even though certain ethics and certain beliefs maybe contradictory
For an example: A big thing about Buddhism is that there is no god that can help you attain Nirvana (hard to completely explain so I won't, I'll just assume you may have heard of it) Nirvana is attained through your own power. And Nirvana is not equivalent to the Judeo-Christian idea of Heaven.
---Also just so that I understand where you're coming from
You believe that there is a greater truth out there, something beyond yourself, something beyond the physical world, but you don't believe anyone really knows what it is. But it has to be there, because either you feel it, or because there are just so many other people who do.
You also notice similarities in codes of ethics and codes of morality in opposing religions and see that as evidence that they're more or less the same, even though certain ethics and certain beliefs maybe contradictory
#17
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:24 PM
Actually, Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy, admittedly, one more easily compatible with some religions that other and with some religion than none.
#18
Guest_Vorpal_*
Guest_Vorpal_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:24 PM
Hero of winds-Buddhism, Taoism, Fascism. Three religions.
I hope that's a joke... Fascism is a form of government...
#19
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:25 PM
You clearly haven't met Korhend...
#20
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:27 PM
I would say Buddhism is in many ways the religious form of Toaism.
#21
Oberon Storm
-
- Members
-
- 3,212 posts
And so it begins.
- Location:San Marcos, TX
- Gender:Male
-
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:27 PM
Maybe in that back of my head I do think religious people are brainwashed to go on faith blindly. Maybe I do see myself as not brainwashed. I have aso been known to describe religion as a crutch. Some people here have asked "Doesn't life seem more special if you thought you were created for a purpose?" And I think no. I don't need that to make my life worth living. But really I have no anymosity towards religion. It is organized religion that I just don't trust. I look at the Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, and 100 hill billy hiljacks screaming for holy war against Muslims and I step back and think "Hold on sec. Back the truck up!" In history, more people have died in the name of one god or the other than for any other reason. That makes me uncomfortable.
#22
Hero of Winds
-
- ZL Staff
-
- 2,428 posts
Quiet Riot
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:29 PM
Alright, Buddhism. Enlightenment may be achieved on your own, but I believe that Englightenment itself is a person becoming one with God. More specifically, coming in tune with God. Kind of like prayer does with Christians, just in a bigger way.
As for Hinduism, like I mentioned in my previous post, the different deities are either different representations of God (much like the Trinity of Christianity), or "God" is just the collective term for those many deities.
And what exactly is Taoism and Shinto? I've heard of them, but I don't know about them.
As for Hinduism, like I mentioned in my previous post, the different deities are either different representations of God (much like the Trinity of Christianity), or "God" is just the collective term for those many deities.
And what exactly is Taoism and Shinto? I've heard of them, but I don't know about them.
#23
Guest_Vorpal_*
Guest_Vorpal_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:29 PM
Actually, Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy, admittedly, one more easily compatible with some religions that other and with some religion than none.
That's not completely true... on the surface, Buddhism may be a philosophy, but it is just as much a philosophy as Christianity is a philosophy.
Buddhism has ritual acts, codes of conduct, ideals of spirituality and such. The fact that they don't worship a specific god doesn't really make it not a religion, just different.
One of the things you must say when you become a Buddhist monk is:
I take refuge in the Buddha. I take refuge in the Dharma (Buddha's teachings). I take refuge in the Sangha (the monastic community of Buddhists).
Just like a Christian would take refuge in Christ (and how some might take refuge in the clerical community)
#24
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:30 PM
It's not a religion, like I said. It's a philosophy, which is different. Sorta, at least.Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 02:27 PM
I would say Buddhism is in many ways the religious form of Toaism.
#25
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:32 PM
Vorp: Not quite. Of course, there are people who'll do that, but didn't we just come out of talking about Korhend treating fascist doctrine like a religion? The teachings of the Buddha meet the criteria for a philosophy, not a religion (These are largely intangible, but it's so that these things are accepted.) Confucianism is the same.
#26
Guest_Vorpal_*
Guest_Vorpal_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Hero of Winds@Sep 19 2004, 03:29 PM
Alright, Buddhism. Enlightenment may be achieved on your own, but I believe that Englightenment itself is a person becoming one with God. More specifically, coming in tune with God. Kind of like prayer does with Christians, just in a bigger way.
Enlightenment is not becoming one with God... that's actually a closer belief to Hinduism. In Buddhism, you aren't becoming one with anything, you have become Elightened, you understand the world as it truly is, and it gets really hard to explain after that...
As for Hinduism, like I mentioned in my previous post, the different deities are either different representations of God (much like the Trinity of Christianity), or "God" is just the collective term for those many deities.
Hinduism is not a polytheistic religion. They believe there are many gods, but that is not the basis of their religion. Hinduism is actually what's known as a monistic religion, meaning that humans, animals, gods, are all one already.
And what exactly is Taoism and Shinto? I've heard of them, but I don't know about them.
They are religions that originated in China (Taoism) and Japan (Shinto). I don't know as much about them as I'd like... but they are examples of non-god following religions. (though Shinto may have attributes of god-following)
#27
Guest_Vorpal_*
Guest_Vorpal_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Alakhriveion@Sep 19 2004, 03:32 PM
Vorp: Not quite. Of course, there are people who'll do that, but didn't we just come out of talking about Korhend treating fascist doctrine like a religion? The teachings of the Buddha meet the criteria for a philosophy, not a religion (These are largely intangible, but it's so that these things are accepted.) Confucianism is the same.
Confucianism, more so.
But I could just as easily say that Christianity is a philosophy.
It depends on your definition of what religion is, which was one of my original questions. Religion is not just arbitrarily worshipping some god you may believe in (though that might be what some people do)
#28
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:41 PM
EDIT: NEVER MIND.
#29
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:43 PM
Buddhism, if it is a philosophy, is a very spiritual philosphy with rituals, etc, as Vorpal pointed out. That's pretty much the definition of religion.
#30
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 19 September 2004 - 02:46 PM
No, that'd make a lot of other things religions, too. And it doesn't have rituals unless you create them, it itself doesn't carry that baggage.
