U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why are the masses religious?
Fear and guilt induce people to follow like sheep. Good old fashioned brainwashing. 7 15.56%
Most people actually love their religion and the beliefs. 3 6.67%
People are way too lazy to question their religion. 2 4.44%
Group-think and culture. It is just the way we are raised to be and think. 17 37.78%
I have other answers that I think are far more appropriate. 16 35.56%
Voters: 45. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-03-2010, 06:03 PM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,176,805 times
Reputation: 151

Advertisements

good and evil
pain and pleasure
hot and cold
predestination and free will
godman
buy and sell
all decisions imply the excluded after made, so are they decisions
physical/metaphysical
impossibility of communication
life/death
woman/man
man/woman/birth/death/infinity
etc-god does everything, that is the concept, to have g-o-d, but saying god does everything is not saying much, even though it says all; god causes the rain, but then, rain it is caused by a saturation of moisture in the air.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2010, 06:48 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,397,695 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
good and evil
Nothing contradictory. Evil is evil and good is good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
pain and pleasure
Again, no contradiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
hot and cold
No contradiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
predestination and free will
Presumably you refer to God's sovereignty vs. man's free will. What would be contradictory about a sovereign God creating creatures that possess limited freedom?

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
godman
What is contradictory about God appearing in human form?

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
buy and sell
No contradiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
all decisions imply the excluded after made, so are they decisions
??? Please clarify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
physical/metaphysical
No contradiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
impossibility of communication
How so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
life/death
What is your definition of death?

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
woman/man
No contradiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
man/woman/birth/death/infinity
etc-god does everything, that is the concept, to have g-o-d, but saying god does everything is not saying much, even though it says all; god causes the rain, but then, rain it is caused by a saturation of moisture in the air.
...and what causes the "saturation of moisture in the air?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2010, 08:52 PM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,176,805 times
Reputation: 151
-God and man are distinct genus-to be one and the same is the contradiction or paradox, god is
infinite man is finite.
-evil is not the same everywhere, and neither is good. Stealing horses was good in some Indian tribes, white guys hung horse thieves. Some cultures have the father initiate the daughter into sex, bad here. Some Egyptians married sisters to keep the royal line, incest here. Some religions sacrificed children and it must have had some success, bad here. Aryianism could justify extermination of undesirables and Jews,our culture can not justify executing a murderer. It depends who writes out the good and bad. Our law is now positive law, so is not based in some traditional or absolutist source, it can change, so legal decisions are not set and subject to future uncertainty and change.
-I have no definition, death is absence of life, it does have meaning and that meaning is brought to it by one's interpretation, but no one knows the before and after and what "exactly" it is varies.
-hot and cold are interpretations of some state and are variable depending on circumstances and one's meaning, besides, why hot and cold to begin with?
-communication is a selection process by systems, in this case we will say psychic or social. Both selections during the communicative act, by an alter and ego are subject to rejection or selection and are constructed from developed meaning developed distinctly by each distinct system, ie, they do not share collective systemic structures because they are distinct (different); for example, in the social, the political can not communicate with economic communications and remain political-each system views the world from its own code, psychic systems are also distinct and generate meaning from its own self referencing, that is why we may all disagree, and yet it all works (the paradox), well it has better days then some others. One can not force another to understand, as some think here, one has to force oneself to understand, as my psychic system is not yours.
-man/woman are not interchangeable but both are human beings and in christianity, both together is the concept "man"; facing each other in contradiction, and the contradiction brings on little contradictions.
-decisions are always made to annual other possibilities, but in deciding one posits the other choices as also true possibilities in the decision process, the decision could have been otherwise. The future is open to the decision making and can be re-decided at times as the future is uncertain-to get around this, christianity used to have the "once saved always saved"-maybe some parts still do-, so that a decision made in time could not be other wise in the future because one was subject to continual "falling".
-good point about saturation, as it can go on and on, especially as humans learn more, in the face of "it can go on" with the ignorance of what that future "on" is, one can fall back on the god.
-physical is the world out there, and the metaphysical, the one I am using, is the world of ideas, in the mind. Since the thing out there is the "thing unto itself" and is only brought in by sensate activity, one forms ideas from the "images", the "collisions", the existential term, between the ideal "real" and the idea take place totally in the mind as the thing out there is not actually in the mind. These ideas are not the things and we are not ever in possession of the thing, but of the idea, and yet we can work with these ideas as if they are the things themselves. The things themselves, the physical, do not provide meaning as they just are; the metaphysical, provides the meaning to the things; we interpret them and that is subject to much variability and change.

In the modern culture, other systems start explaining all this stuff and break down the contradictions, paradoxes, and uncertainty. Further back, religion explained everything and all the other systems came out of it (there may have been politics as well or a combination in some form here and there-the priest/king) and begin the "secondary" explanations, but information is probably infinite (usually not in the minds of most people, but they generally pass after a time and new people form up new ideas) so the sum of things is not in. So when an earth quakes strikes and kills several, one can asked why did this happened. A geologist will say a fault line runs under the place and it gave way and the plates shifted. This is hard to say to a lady holding a dead kid, but religion can use some "religious" motif to bring an explanation of the unexplainable for her, the death that was once life. By positing our temporal theories as truth, from systems outside religion, we de-paradox reality-I personally like contradiction. The comic is a contradiction one gets out of and the tragic is one that one does not get out of, admittedly this is old existentialism, but I have a fondness for it. Life is one of these. Death, is it comic or tragic? It depends if one gets out of it and we do not have certainty while living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2010, 09:06 PM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,176,805 times
Reputation: 151
By the way, on the free will deal. Free will would be free (we are excluding volition, I assume), you used limited freedom, which I assume you want to reduce the contradiction by lessening the impact of the collision, but a limited freedom is not freedom, but a something else. If god ordains everything, and we are free, how does it work? Both partners are sovereign? If god is god, he must ordain all, otherwise we have an archaic notion of the god. Reason has a hard time here, and that is the contradiction. Reason wants to pull the two together
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2010, 11:13 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,952,585 times
Reputation: 909
I'm a big fan of the following. It's an animation of the spread of religion.

History of Religion

If anything, it's pretty conclusive evidence that religion is primarily inherited. It brings all sorts of questions about the validity of religion as well. One would expect a "true" religion to be universally accepted, except it's not. That's for another forum though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 05:13 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,397,695 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
God and man are distinct genus-to be one and the same is the contradiction or paradox, god is infinite man is finite.
There's really nothing new about this being viewed as a contradiction. Can you explain the traditional orthodox Christian doctrine of the trinity? If not, you would merely be basing your charge on ignorance and/or misinformation. Either that, or you just don't understand what it is that actually constitutes a contradiction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
By the way, on the free will deal. Free will would be free (we are excluding volition, I assume), you used limited freedom, which I assume you want to reduce the contradiction by lessening the impact of the collision, but a limited freedom is not freedom, but a something else. If god ordains everything, and we are free, how does it work? Both partners are sovereign? If god is god, he must ordain all, otherwise we have an archaic notion of the god. Reason has a hard time here, and that is the contradiction. Reason wants to pull the two together
Utter and complete nonsense.

If I allow my dog to have the limited freedom of wandering about on a leash, how would this negate my human nature or my dog's animal nature?
Where is the "contradiction?"

Also, if we wanted to argue the semantics of "free will," we could just as easily conclude that no one, not even God, is truly free. In a sense, any supposed freedom is simply that - nothing more than supposed freedom.

The rest of your post amounts to nothing more than aimless, meandering, tangential and excessive verbiage - designed to impress?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 05:58 PM
 
Location: NC, USA
7,088 posts, read 12,705,528 times
Reputation: 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by cncracer View Post
It is a genetic flaw which makes some individuals susceptible to myths, and acceptance on blind faith. I am hoping for a mutation or vaccine which will correct the problem or prevent it from taking otherwise intelligent people down an “Alice In Wonder Land” path controlled by something much worst than a mythical evil witch.
George, Thanks! you said that with a lot more tact than I would have. Wouldn't let me rep ya, "gotta spread around" etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 06:05 PM
 
Location: NC, USA
7,088 posts, read 12,705,528 times
Reputation: 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
...and what causes the "saturation of moisture in the air?"
I have always suspected that it is caused by the long-windedness of politicians and/or preachers. These two groups being the bane of civilized humanity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 11:27 PM
 
4,248 posts, read 5,317,651 times
Reputation: 10287
Here is an interesting theory I learned in 1st year Sociology.

Religion is actually an evolutionary bi-product. When we evolved the capacity for abstract thought we were suddenly able to imagine our own death but unable to reconcile the idea of no longer existing. This is called existential dread, basically a fear of death. The need for spiritual belief grew out of existential dread (or more likely with it).

Our capacity for abstract thought was so valuable for hunting and other beneficial tasks that the need to counter existential dread was an evolutionary imperative. Hence the need for spiritual belief, the idea that we go on in some form after death.

I think that religion has become so firmly entrenched in society and has become such a useful tool for the elite that it did not die out, as it should have a long time ago, for those reasons alone. The idea that you must jump through a certain amount of prescribed hoops in order to achieve the afterlife that you desire is a very effective way of getting people to do as you want them to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 01:17 PM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,176,805 times
Reputation: 151
I don't believe I said it was new-after all the bible calls it the scandal, so it goes back a ways. If one can be infinite and finite at the same time that is a good trick. To bring the two together, one side has to go as it is hard to sublate two very distinct opposites; if one did and tried to maintain elements of both, how would infinity be infinity with a mixture of the finite, after all, the infinite is infinite because it lacks the boundary that defines the finite? To say a man is infinite contradicts the fact that a man is finite, or is birth and death an illusion for me? The trinity has nothing to do with this reason problem here. But since I lack such deep thoughts on the trinity, please explain it to me-I am tired of always having to bail myself out of these things-so, you evidently understand all this in relation to the trinity, so please, explain it, without mere assertions, in a nice flowing rational movement.

The whole of christianity rests on the theological assertion that the infinite (incarnates itself into the finite)-this requires faith to have it, as all things are possible with god, but not with men. Man's freedom is assumed to be able to surmount this hump, but this he can't do, because freedom does not do it but faith, and that is a gift.


The term "limited" applied to freedom, means one is not entirely free-or am I missing something about whole and parts here? So you are saying, I have limited freedom, therefore, I am entirely free-that is nonsense and if that is designed to impress then I certainly am. Course, I guess if one's dog is on a leash then all theological conundrums have been solved especially in relation to human nature. That whole deal about your dog must mean something but it escapes me-I guess you mean god is you and you are the dog.

Let us see. To be god means to be absolutely sovereign as god is the absolute (if god is just a big man, well than he need not be absolute but then he is not god, and if he is like you or your dog then he would only need limited freedom-we could put him on his leash), for man to have free will would mean that he is sovereign-at least in the will. Now, in the ebb and flow of life, this infinite free god collides with the finite free man, both being sovereign or free, looks like a draw, god losses, man gains. God descends to a man state, and man rises to the god state. This sounds like a contradiction to me, even though I do not understand such things. My reason, admittedly the reason of others may not, wants to put both these sides into the same space, same with the god man. Once collided, the tendency is to sublate them and combine elements of each into a third. If this can be done, one works through the contradiction or paradox-course I have no knowledge of such things and ramble aimlessly; if the king is sovereign and the people are sovereign than it seems that there is no reason for a king-much like the king of England would be a figurehead-over paid as well.

A free subjectivity is a construction on our part needed by the modern world to operate modernity. It is already coming apart in a lot of social theory and philosophy now, and as usual, the church is behind. One is built up by the social one lives in, the discourse that goes on around one, etc. (protestant {orthodox} dogmatics rid itself of free will long ago-only to have it come back and make god nothing but a great man; religion absorbed it again because it surrounded religion-the conservative southern baptists were the liberals back a hundred years or so that resurrected free will because they could not make sense of evangelism without it {I guess god commanding it was not good enough, an anthropology had to be added}-now they are the conservatives-others, I don't know why).

I admit, the rest of my post is aimless nonsense, but it is not designed to impress, as no one gives me anything when I waste my time on anyone who reads what I write. Since life is a series of these contradictions, paradoxes if that is smoother, one has to work through them, some can be, and then another forms-the ol' thesis/antithesis/synthesis deal. If it can't be worked through then the movement stops and to attempt it, throws one into contradiction (that is why Jesus is the scandal-how can god be a man; Islam can not accept it at all, a god does not poop and eat and need sleep). When the movement halted in the past, say one observes that men are birthed and then they die, and yet one has a sense of the eternal (the concept of the eternal can be thought but not observed), one wants to bring these two together (I do anyway) and when man's thought could not explain such a thing, then one could shove it into the god and let him take care of it in his wisdom. If man ever works through this temporal and eternal knowledge in a scientific process, then he will not need a god to push it off on-but at this collision, that probably will not happen, so the stupidity of my last post where I comforted the lady holding her just dead child, and she is confronted with the temporal colliding with the eternal (death is eternal at that instant because life is the temporal state-it is life and movement), I attempt to get her through by not leaving her in the lurch of a geological structure that can not explain the two sides of life and death and instead shove the incident into god's keeping, is meaningless. Well, I won't call on you when I need comfort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top