152 replies to this topic

[Zaphod222]

Mr Walker, on 21 January 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

in general all religions have two or three sources. They are constructed from human cognitive thought patterns as childen and adults try to make sense of their world. They are the result of a spiritual revelation or expereince, or they are made up to control or to benefit some one or many people.

You are already mixing completely different descriptions in your own sentence. How in the world can you claim that something concocted to "make sense of the world" is the same as something concocted to "benefit one or more people" (which typically includes the founder of the religion in question).

And of course there are other ways religions can be created, as I for example mentioned with Jedi-ism (which is based on a Hollywood movie).

Again, your desire to somehow create inter-faith harmony is understandable and touching. But it is also very naive and ill-informed.

Edited by Zaphod222, 21 January 2013 - 10:45 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Zaphod222, on 21 January 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

Oh really now.
When an Egyptian king invents a new sun god and move his capital to the desert in order to cut out the existing class of clerics..... when Mohammed creates a religion that makes himself the perfect man and absolute ruler and declares that there will be no peace before the whole world is subdued..... when Buddha declares there is no god and absolute achievement is freedom from worldly desires and re-birth.... when Jesus creates a new form of Judaism that puts compassion and selflessness in the center.... when Lord Mahavira declares that all life is sacred and ultimate pacifism is the only way to live life..... when Ron Hubbard creates a religion because finds out in this way his organization can escape taxes..... or when Spielberg SciFi movie becomes so popular that people start practicing the religion of alien planets presented there....THAT IS ALL THE SAME TO YOU?!

And I could go on for pages.

Good grief, what a barrel of purely wishful thinking.

Thats because your post shows you dont have a clue about the actual construction and evolution of human religions The egyptian pharoah doesnt create the religion, not even the one you are thinking of who became a believer in that religion and then tried to make it the state religion..  Mohammeds motivation wasnt as you see it.

Every human religion, as I posted previously, comes from about 3 sources and they all can only exist because of the way human cognitive thought patterns construct belief,

Yes of course they are all the same thing despite different theologies etc Human language is the same thing despite al its different variants. The cause and effect of al languages is the same. Ditto for  almost all religions.

The idea is to pick the one which works best for you, which fits your own ethics moralities cultural values etc. For example take the 3 religions of the book. I could easily live in any of them, relate to the god in them etc. i could, and partly am,also jainist pagan gaean  buddhist sikh etc.  Humans just like to belong to groups, and so they choose to separate themselves. Thats ok as long as the separation is amicable and doesn't cause conflicts.

True belief in any religion will produce the same positive results in a human being as measured by statistics, but some religions in the way they work have more benefits, and others have some dangers. eg a religion involving handling snakes, compared to one which emphasises; vegetarianism, non smoking, non drinking, and plenty of physical exercise and fresh air.

[Mr Walker]

Zaphod222, on 21 January 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

You are already mixing completely different descriptions in your own sentence. How in the world can you claim that something concocted to "make sense of the world" is the same as something concocted to "benefit one or more people" (which typically includes the founder of the religion in question).

And of course there are other ways religions can be created, as I for example mentioned with Jedi-ism (which is based on a Hollywood movie).

Again, your desire to somehow create inter-faith harmony is understandable and touching. But it is also very naive and ill-informed.

Didnt you read the sentences. Religions have about 3 sources. Most are a construct of evolved cognitive thought patterns in humans. Children create them independently and adults do the same. Then there are religions which result from personal experinces involving contacts with gods angels supernatural and parabnormal events etc. like paul /saul or who have met and follow someone like christ or buddah  And finally, yes there are ocasionally small religons which are created by a person to benefit themsleves or their clan  But these are rare and generally temporary, unless they offer the same advantages to a human being that the other forms of religion do.
  However every human who choses to believe, what ever their belief, does so by a process studied as the construction of human belief. Iit has cognitive and psychological drivers which make it almost inevitable that a human being will tend to believe. We have to be specifically taught how not to believe by being taught other forms of thought. So what every "starts their motor" it is kept running by this process.
Interfaith harmony lol I am speaking from facts. I have no interest in interfaith harmony. BUT unless all humans find spiritual wisdom to match our inellectual knowledge, we wil never survive into  species adulthood. In my opinion a relationship with god is entirely personal. No church, no religion required. Just you, and god, and the environment around you.

  So any one can be with god. I dont need to promote something like interfaith harmony(havent heard that term for years by the way)  But I will tell people that any of them; from atheist to pagan can connect physically, spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, etc. with god. Your religion, or lack of it, is irrelevant. I guess that is interfaith, in that it will equally upset all religious believers who think their faith is an exclusive path to god.

Edited by Mr Walker, 21 January 2013 - 11:06 AM.

[libstaK]

sslama, on 18 January 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

I think we are here to learn.  The saying "know thyself"...is a great saying.   Sometimes people think they would react a certain way in a situation and they find when they are in that situation they act nothing like they thought they would.  Some people show courage and some don't.  People change as they grow and their ideas and thoughts change with them.  I wouldn't look at any mistakes you made as wrong, even if they were moral mistakes.  Look at them as a learning experience.

We don't hold our children totally responsible for their actions because they are too young to understand that what they have done is wrong.  Same with us....many of us are at a level of just not understanding life totally....that's why age and experience is so important....it's how we learn.  If there was a God, he wouldn't fault you or I for our mistakes. He would forgive us as we would our children.  That's how I see much of humanity....children, learning to be wise, independent, loving adults.

I totally agree - hence my sig.  I honestly believe that people do the best based on what they know, if they knew better they would do better (and I do mean truly KNEW OR KNOW better not just in principle or theory or a socially functioning level of morality, but in seeing within themselves what motivates their words and actions in different situations).

[chhavi150]

Yes, I do believe in God. God who is one for all of us, keeping religions separate..And he himself comes and gives knowledge about who he is to his children in this age when we are seeking him out. I happen to come across the BKWSU (Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University) to get all the answers i needed. It is not a religion. It gave me an understanding of   who God is and his purpose in our lives.

[Zaphod222]

Mr Walker, on 21 January 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

And finally, yes there are ocasionally small religons which are created by a person to benefit themsleves or their clan

Oh really now. I would argue that these are the actually the majority of religions. God-kingdoms, where the ruler is the personification of god, were historically the rule rather than the exception. And they continue today with e.g. islam, where the ultimate goal is to create the world-wide Caliphate, where the Caliph is both worldly ruler and the executor of Shariah law.

Edited by Zaphod222, 22 January 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[Frank Merton]

Well, no, I don't think there is a god, in the sense of a person or being not subject to the rules of existence.  There may be beings more powerful than we are.  That's all I would say on it, since we don't have any really convincing reason to think even such beings exist (except perhaps the laws of probability).

The funny thing is that the conclusions many draw from such atheism are not true for me.  For example, I am reasonably persuaded that we survive individual death, that prayer and ritual have power, that mind is not entirely physical (although probably more physical than we like to admit), and, finally, that human religions stem from unknown sources similar to those from which human art and love and compassion and so on stem.

This is my first try at posting something.  I hope I'm doing it right.  My hope is that participation here will help me frame and develop my views.  Although I see the rules do not allow correcting someone's English, please do so for me.  I am not a native speaker even though my English is fluent, it can always be made better.

[Frank Merton]

libstaK, on 21 January 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

I honestly believe that people do the best based on what they know, if they knew better they would do better (and I do mean truly KNEW OR KNOW better not just in principle or theory or a socially functioning level of morality, but in seeing within themselves what motivates their words and actions in different situations).

The vast majority want to do what is right.

[HavocWing]

Frank Merton, on 22 January 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

The vast majority want to do what is right.

I don't know about that^

[Frank Merton]

HavocWing, on 22 January 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

I don't know about that^

Of course we don't know.  I think I read somewhere that a good assumption to make in managing a business is that your employees want to do what is right, that there are very few who will deliberately sabotage things and that they should be trusted (although of course if money is involved one still hires auditors).

I know this is anecdotal, but I have known some people who I thought were misguided, and a few who had specific problems (such as addictions) that led to problematic actions, but I don't think I've ever known anyone I could describe as deliberately doing wrong.

[HavocWing]

Frank Merton, on 22 January 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

Of course we don't know.  I think I read somewhere that a good assumption to make in managing a business is that your employees want to do what is right, that there are very few who will deliberately sabotage things and that they should be trusted (although of course if money is involved one still hires auditors).

I know this is anecdotal, but I have known some people who I thought were misguided, and a few who had specific problems (such as addictions) that led to problematic actions, but I don't think I've ever known anyone I could describe as deliberately doing wrong.

I know alot of people, way too many, it's like they are proud to be evil and psychopaths.

[Mr Walker]

Zaphod222, on 22 January 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

Oh really now. I would argue that these are the actually the majority of religions. God-kingdoms, where the ruler is the personification of god, were historically the rule rather than the exception. And they continue today with e.g. islam, where the ultimate goal is to create the world-wide Caliphate, where the Caliph is both worldly ruler and the executor of Shariah law.

That is not what a study of human history show us to be true. Many leaders used religions to make themselves "god kings" or rulers by "divine right" but they did not begin the religions or the beliefs of people. These evolved from different beginnings and became ordered and categorised via human's innate need to group, label, categorise etc. In the process this ALWAYS creates divisions between one thing and another. And people chose which group to belong to and reject others as different, and thus either untrustworthy or at worst dangerous. Think about sporting allegiances or family squabbles or civil wars. Even racism is a form of this process.
Modern humans tend to reject the "god king" proposal because of a growth in other forms of thought, like democracy  and individualism, but happily stick with the "god" proposal.

Edited by Mr Walker, 23 January 2013 - 12:06 AM.

[Zaphod222]

Mr Walker, on 23 January 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

That is not what a study of human history show us to be true. Many leaders used religions to make themselves "god kings" or rulers by "divine right" but they did not begin the religions or the beliefs of people. These evolved from different beginnings and became ordered and categorised via human's innate need to group, label, categorise etc.

With thousands of religions that we know of, I am impressed by your claim that you have studied all of them. Hard to believe though.
But I see now what you mean by the origin of religions that you talked about before is simply the innate willingness of people to accept irrational belief systems. Sure, that is part of of human psychology. I don´t think anybody argued against that.

But your claim that somehow all religions are related or even compatible is and remains pure wishful thinking. The belief systems that different people accept (or have to accept, in case of theocracies) are vastly different.

[The Silver Thong]

Mr Walker, on 23 January 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

That is not what a study of human history show us to be true. Many leaders used religions to make themselves "god kings" or rulers by "divine right" but they did not begin the religions or the beliefs of people. These evolved from different beginnings and became ordered and categorised via human's innate need to group, label, categorise etc. In the process this ALWAYS creates divisions between one thing and another. And people chose which group to belong to and reject others as different, and thus either untrustworthy or at worst dangerous. Think about sporting allegiances or family squabbles or civil wars. Even racism is a form of this process.
Modern humans tend to reject the "god king" proposal because of a growth in other forms of thought, like democracy  and individualism, but happily stick with the "god" proposal.

Who created god. the only answer that is plasauble is man as man exsisted before a god was created.

[Frank Merton]

HavocWing, on 22 January 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

I know alot of people, way too many, it's like they are proud to be evil and psychopaths.

Even one would be too many.  I am just not that pessimistic and have to wonder what sorts of people you know who are like that.  I've known hardened criminals and while what they do is certainly evil, they don't see themselves that way but usually find excuses and rationalizations.  This indicates that in fact they understand the wrongness and find a certain discomfort.

We are told that there exists a family trait called sociopathy that renders the person incapable of forming a conscience, and that those who prey as con artists on the elderly are usually like that.  Also that serial killers are sometimes sociopaths.  This is hard for me to imagine, but that such evils exist in the world is beyond doubt.  They also must be a very small minority.

Still, even if they are without conscience, it would seem to me that over time they would learn that in the long run avoiding such acts is going to be to their benefit.  Otherwise they end up in jail or worse.  That is the way society functions, it is the way the universe functions.  What you sew is what you reap.