Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Religion pretends to be the sole road to happiness.
Depends on the religion
Quote:
They try to scare you into believing by telling you that your life will have no meaning, that you will no longer be able to recognize beauty because you are some robot who can only think of things in a chemical matter.
Depends on the religion.
Quote:
Why can't a chemical reaction be beautiful?
The answer to that question lies in another question...why can't the super-ego be considered GOD? Why can't the Grand Unified Theory be considered GOD?
Quote:
I have seen many that would make your eyes pop out. I believe that demystifying nature makes it more interesting and even more beautiful.
As I said, I like to believe the little Myth that my nephew got "misty eyed" when he learned how to ride a bike as opposed to the demystified version that teaches that it is impossible that mist can be in someone's eyes because mist is an atmospheric condition Mist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and that it was just his tear docks pushing out a salt and water mixture producing moisture.
There you have it: the Mystic viewpoint, and the anti-mystic viewpoint of the same phenomenom. It is not a matter of which one is right or wrong, but which paradigm is most preferrable.
I prefer the mystic paradigm.
Quote:
The fact that a flower is there is amazing especially when you recognize it's natural wonder. God does not need to be involved, and in my opinion religion crushes curiosity by claiming to have the answers to everything
I agree. But as I said, not every religion claims to have the answers to everything. Gnosticism teaches that by living the teachings of Christ, we will eventually come up with our own answers, because we have the capacity to do so because GOD is within us all
Quote:
We should give the credit where it is due, not just give it all to God especially when we know more and more about how the world works and no longer need that simplified answer.
What simplifie answer are you talking about? The only "simplified answer" to life Gnosticism gives is, essentially, "Life sucks, god hates you, god hates the world, and you better learn and learn fast how to survive in this sick creator's sick world by trying to figure yourself, and this THING that came before the creator, out...so here's a book about a guy named Christ who may or may not of lived and seems to have came from the THING that came before the creator. Figure it out and try to apply what this guy said and things might get better...SEE YOU LATER!"
In short, once again, I am confronted with anti-theists who can only argue away the notion of the literalist BBWG god (big bearded white guy) which is a notion that I don't believe in anyway. Religion is a Myth...and Myth is a story about the absolute truths of life concealed through metaphor. If it works, go with it!...if it doesn't, well, than that's your choice, as an individual!
So, religion, in and of it's self, is not bad for society...literalist Nicenism? Maybe...Islam?....maybe. But religion, in and of it's self? (the topic of this thread) bad for society? No, not at all. That is an individual choice.
If you said "religions that involve the establisment of literalist understanding of Myth are bad for society" I would believe you! But religion is general is about as bad for society as moonlight is bad for one's teeth.
-"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble."
-Joseph Campbell
It is the TROUBLE (crusades, jyahds, fundies, etc) of the literalist viewpoint that is wrong, not religion as a whole
Religious people love to tell Atheists that if it weren't for religion society would crumble. This study, in the Journal of Religion and Society, found otherwise: Journal of Religion and Society (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html - broken link)
The answer to that question lies in another question...why can't the super-ego be considered GOD? Why can't the Grand Unified Theory be considered GOD?
As I said, I like to believe the little Myth that my nephew got "misty eyed" when he learned how to ride a bike as opposed to the demystified version that teaches that it is impossible that mist can be in someone's eyes because mist is an atmospheric condition Mist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and that it was just his tear docks pushing out a salt and water mixture producing moisture.
There you have it: the Mystic viewpoint, and the anti-mystic viewpoint of the same phenomenom. It is not a matter of which one is right or wrong, but which paradigm is most preferrable.
I prefer the mystic paradigm.
I agree. But as I said, not every religion claims to have the answers to everything. Gnosticism teaches that by living the teachings of Christ, we will eventually come up with our own answers, because we have the capacity to do so because GOD is within us all
What simplifie answer are you talking about? The only "simplified answer" to life Gnosticism gives is, essentially, "Life sucks, god hates you, god hates the world, and you better learn and learn fast how to survive in this sick creator's sick world by trying to figure yourself, and this THING that came before the creator, out...so here's a book about a guy named Christ who may or may not of lived and seems to have came from the THING that came before the creator. Figure it out and try to apply what this guy said and things might get better...SEE YOU LATER!"
In short, once again, I am confronted with anti-theists who can only argue away the notion of the literalist BBWG god (big bearded white guy) which is a notion that I don't believe in anyway. Religion is a Myth...and Myth is a story about the absolute truths of life concealed through metaphor. If it works, go with it!...if it doesn't, well, than that's your choice, as an individual!
So, religion, in and of it's self, is not bad for society...literalist Nicenism? Maybe...Islam?....maybe. But religion, in and of it's self? (the topic of this thread) bad for society? No, not at all. That is an individual choice.
If you said "religions that involve the establisment of literalist understanding of Myth are bad for society" I would believe you! But religion is general is about as bad for society as moonlight is bad for one's teeth.
-"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble."
-Joseph Campbell
It is the TROUBLE (crusades, jyahds, fundies, etc) of the literalist viewpoint that is wrong, not religion as a whole
It is not my job to disprove your ridiculous claims. It is YOUR responsibility to prove it. I suggest you start a new thread if you would like to discuss your specific beliefs. This thread is about religion not actually helping society the way people claim it does. Do you have anything to add to this topic?
Victorianpunk, you're preaching to the deconverted. I don't care about your religion or any religion, whatever or however they practice it. I don't care if someone follows gnostic christianity, mysticism, traditional religion or the belief in an invisible black spider fairy, you're all wrong. The day that the world throws out religion will be every country's independence day. Even if a divinity does exist(that doesn't have to be the traditional view of god), they're a universal moron and religious thoughts are an unnecessary evil, I don't care what religious belief it is. You don't need the belief in a divine entity to experience love and beauty in life and all religion does is devalue it.
Religious people love to tell Atheists that if it weren't for religion society would crumble. This study, in the Journal of Religion and Society, found otherwise: Journal of Religion and Society (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html - broken link)
It's definitely no worse than smug atheists that have nothing to base their morals on.
It is not my job to disprove your ridiculous claims. It is YOUR responsibility to prove it. I suggest you start a new thread if you would like to discuss your specific beliefs. This thread is about religion not actually helping society the way people claim it does. Do you have anything to add to this topic?
Again,I will add what I have been adding:
To say that "religion is not good for society" makes the same error every anti-theist I have ever talked to makes: The error of thinking that all religion is belief in the BBWG and all religion is about electing idiots like Bush and banning gay marriage and leading crusades etc.
Society is a collection of individuals...the anti-mystics have not won, and this is not a Borg collective consciousness or a totalitarian destopia alla "Brave New World", so, society remains a collection of individuals.
So, if an individual is a part of a religion that A , does not force them to suspend belief in science, does not force them to be slaves to dogma or some institution, does not make them intolerant of others with differing views, does not force them to believe in the "pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die" only to the detriment of their "real life" and does not make them believe in some outside force doing the work for them and B, the said religion causes the said individual to be allot happier and more fulfilled and causes the said individual to be a MORE PRODUCTIVE MEMBER OF SOCIETY....than how, pray tell, is that religion "not good for society"?
Those are the conclusions I have drawn from my religion and have been bringing up within the context of the topic of this thread as a way of framing the argument (and there are other religions that achieve both A and B besides mine as well)...if you continue ignoring the fact that I rebuttalled your hypothesis you run the risk of looking just as ridiculous as those literalist who ignore the fact that evolution is the reality.
Sorry...I have a habit of doing this with anti-theists (notice I did not say "atheists", as they are two different things)
When a anti-theists brings those same, tired Dawkin-esque arguments to a Gnostic he is bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Ohh, btw, my "ridiculous claim" is that my religion is based on Myth which probably did not happen and the fact that it is based on Myth means nothing because it's the teachings that count and the teachings I believe in...now, if you are trying to tell me that the idea that "The Gnostic Gospels" are real written books is "ridiculous", than please explain what the heck this is:
The Myth is there to teach us something about ourselves through metaphor and the great metaphor of GOD...if that is a "ridiculous claim", than I am in good company...
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that."-
Joseph Campbell
Victorianpunk, you're preaching to the deconverted. I don't care about your religion or any religion, whatever or however they practice it. I don't care if someone follows gnostic christianity, mysticism, traditional religion or the belief in an invisible black spider fairy, you're all wrong. The day that the world throws out religion will be every country's independence day. Even if a divinity does exist(that doesn't have to be the traditional view of god), they're a universal moron and religious thoughts are an unnecessary evil, I don't care what religious belief it is. You don't need the belief in a divine entity to experience love and beauty in life and all religion does is devalue it.
No, I'm preaching to someone who does not want to concede loosing an argument. Period. Everything you have typed here I have already discredited, and again, you simply state the same thing over and over again...no use arguing with a broken record that does not want to admit it's broken.
IF you can come up with new argument, than I'll listen, but as it stands now, I am sorry but, I have already disproved everything you have said and am tired of repeating myself.
Last edited by victorianpunk; 01-26-2009 at 11:11 PM..
[quote=BornOKThe1stTime;7188595]It is not my job to disprove your ridiculous claims. It is YOUR responsibility to prove it. I suggest you start a new thread if you would like to discuss your specific beliefs. This thread is about religion not actually helping society the way people claim it does. Do you have anything to add to this topic?[/quote]
Probably not. Nine out of ten times whenever you listen to a believer in faith objects, it's as if they are(and they are in the way of thinking) tiny babies who even if you clearly explain the truth to them they won't believe it because it contradicts their beliefs. They try to 'prove' that their nonsense is true by using willful ignorance of what the facts actually are and they don't know how to tell if something is fact or fiction. It would be better to have fun with the nonthinkers, alot of them don't even know what they are talking about, they're just rehearsing the same old rambling. It's part of the reason why religion doesn't actually help society since someone has to reject all valid evidence that supports what the real truth is, then pretend that what they believe to be true, is actually true.
How about this: Religion is not detrimental to society - not in the least
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
