thoughts on your religion

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You sound like a religious man.

no way, i don't follow any religion, i just keep an open mind to anything i can't explain, once (if ever ) we - humans - get enough facts about all the questions we've been asking for thousands of years - questions that spawned religion in the first place - then belief can go spin, becuase we'll have 'knowing' instead of believeing. But until then, i've no problems holding up my hands and saying, God might be, Religion is for fools, I don't know all the answers and what time is dinner.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison Humans are the reason for the cowardly spiteful acts you speak of, not religion. Religion is a reflection of humans nature, not the other way around.[/B]

Originally posted by Shakyamunison If you got rid of all religions, humans would siply make up new ones. [/B]

well id have to agree with you there brother, sheep must be led, and the pyramid that is civilization needs a head stone if God did not exist, it would be necassary to invent him, afterall. Never a truer quote have i ever heard btw.

Originally posted by Juk3n
no way, i don't follow any religion, i just keep an open mind to anything i can't explain, once (if ever ) we - humans - get enough facts about all the questions we've been asking for thousands of years - questions that spawned religion in the first place - then belief can go spin, becuase we'll have 'knowing' instead of believeing. But until then, i've no problems holding up my hands and saying, God might be, Religion is for fools, I don't know all the answers and what time is dinner.

Yes humans are, but in the holy books (the staple, bread and butter for the 3 major religions) Killing. blood, hellfire , segregation and more blood covers alot of text. Did men write the books? I believe so..but they ARE at the core of those religions none the less. Would there be such a thing as A Muslim extremeist if the Quran did not SPECIFICALLY state to "wipe out anyone who doesn't believe as you do, torture them until they turn or die"? (more-or-less). Blame the men that wrote the books? or blame the people for listening to such rubbish..well..thats religions hold on man. But men do these things in the name of there religion, we can sit back and say "well he was just an evil bugger anyway" aye, you might be right, but to him..he's as poious as can be, religion made him do it, so he tells himself to justify it.

well id have to agree with you there brother, sheep must be led, and the pyramid that is civilization needs a head stone if God did not exist, it would be necassary to invent him, afterall. Never a truer quote have i ever heard btw.

But in your ranting against religion, you have lumped the guilty with the innocent. Have you ever hear of Buddhist extremists that kill people? Or are you saying that Buddhism is not a religion?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But in your ranting against religion, you have lumped the guilty with the innocent. Have you ever hear of Buddhist extremists that kill people? Or are you saying that Buddhism is not a religion?

You've a point.

Buddhism is indeed a religion, but while it may be one of the ones that have go the whole "peace and love" thing correct, it is still a faith based position that i feel shouldn't exist. Could these Buddhists be as nice and peaceful and such a credit to mankind WITHOUT religion? Does there need to be Religion at all if they could?

Im a nice man - some might say - I don't need fear of God/Hell or holy text to convince me not to kill my neighbour for being rude to me. Buddhists are nice people and they are indeed religious. But is it the same as just being nice for Humanitys sake?

Damn, im really bad at explaining things dude, and your a smart guy i don't wanna come off as a douche, ok heres an example of what i mean. A mental patient, very unstable, has attacked her family - not killed - but is considered a danger. However if she takes her drugs, she'll be fine. But they alter her personality very much, and the 'real her' will likely never come through the meds.

The drugs keep her in check, she's tolerated, but we'll never know she's better or not, because no one wants to risk stopping her meds. Apply that to religion, Every Human has the capacity to be a good man/woman. Buddhist/Muslim w/e. Religion isnt needed for them to do it. But as long as Humanity holds on to religion so fiercly (like the meds) we'll be stagnant, we'll never move forward, we'll be playing safe, by these thousand year old stories and rules. Some work, some don't but the ones that work are inbuilt, helping your fellow man comes naturally to Humans. But religions will have you belive it comes from those blasted texts, and that those inbuilt human good intentions go hand in hand with the raging hellfire and all that bollox.

A faith based position should NEVER be the ruling body of a civilization. Whether it spouts the good or the bad. Id rather have humanitys good and bad, than the divines good and bad. For goodness sakes, there are some people that think i am am going to burn in hell for eternity because me and my beautiful - soon to be wife - have 2 children together. But have i hurt mankind? no, is this an evil act? no? do i love my family? very much so. Religion? meh i say. If religion didnt exist, small minds would be opened.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But in your ranting against religion, you have lumped the guilty with the innocent. Have you ever hear of Buddhist extremists that kill people? Or are you saying that Buddhism is not a religion?

Buddhists have killed people. There was a group that formed a military in ancient China, I believe.

Originally posted by Juk3n
But as long as Humanity holds on to religion so fiercly (like the meds) we'll be stagnant, we'll never move forward, we'll be playing safe, by these thousand year old stories and rules.

I think every historian to ever live would disagree with you here. Humans have advanced in changed in innumerable different areas and in all that time we have been religious.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think every historian to ever live would disagree with you here. Humans have advanced in changed in innumerable different areas and in all that time we have been religious.

The big scientific breakthroughs, i mean the real show stoppers, atoms and galactical ones have always been made by the men who questioned. These men might have been brought up to follow a religion, but after there studies and discoveries you can bet your bottom dollor they wer'nt so cut and dry about believing everything in those holy books. Im not saying they turned atheist, but they i AM saying that when they made those discoveries, they had God/Religion neatly tucked away in the left breast pocket while they sought out REALITY rather than Fairy Tale. GOD..they were open minded to, Religion..im sure they picked it apart page by page until they had the same view as many..God might be, we'll never know..what time is dinner.

Originally posted by Juk3n
You've a point.

Buddhism is indeed a religion, but while it may be one of the ones that have go the whole "peace and love" thing correct, it is still a faith based position that i feel shouldn't exist. Could these Buddhists be as nice and peaceful and such a credit to mankind WITHOUT religion? Does there need to be Religion at all if they could?

Im a nice man - some might say - I don't need fear of God/Hell or holy text to convince me not to kill my neighbour for being rude to me. Buddhists are nice people and they are indeed religious. But is it the same as just being nice for Humanitys sake?

Damn, im really bad at explaining things dude, and your a smart guy i don't wanna come off as a douche, ok heres an example of what i mean. A mental patient, very unstable, has attacked her family - not killed - but is considered a danger. However if she takes her drugs, she'll be fine. But they alter her personality very much, and the 'real her' will likely never come through the meds.

The drugs keep her in check, she's tolerated, but we'll never know she's better or not, because no one wants to risk stopping her meds. Apply that to religion, Every Human has the capacity to be a good man/woman. Buddhist/Muslim w/e. Religion isnt needed for them to do it. But as long as Humanity holds on to religion so fiercly (like the meds) we'll be stagnant, we'll never move forward, we'll be playing safe, by these thousand year old stories and rules. Some work, some don't but the ones that work are inbuilt, helping your fellow man comes naturally to Humans. But religions will have you belive it comes from those blasted texts, and that those inbuilt human good intentions go hand in hand with the raging hellfire and all that bollox.

A faith based position should NEVER be the ruling body of a civilization. Whether it spouts the good or the bad. Id rather have humanitys good and bad, than the divines good and bad. For goodness sakes, there are some people that think i am am going to burn in hell for eternity because me and my beautiful - soon to be wife - have 2 children together. But have i hurt mankind? no, is this an evil act? no? do i love my family? very much so. Religion? meh i say. If religion didnt exist, small minds would be opened.

TV can be viewed as a drug. Maybe we should get rid of TV.
Computers can be viewed as a drug. Maybe we should get rid of computers.
Music can be viewed as a drug. Maybe we should get rid of music.
Sugar can be viewed as a drug. Maybe we should get rid of sugar....

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
TV can be viewed as a drug. Maybe we should get rid of TV.
Computers can be viewed as a drug. Maybe we should get rid of computers.
Music can be viewed as a drug. Maybe we should get rid of music.
Sugar can be viewed as a drug. Maybe we should get rid of sugar....

viewed as isnt the same as being a.
Just like a faith based position isnt the same as a reality based one.

Even more so because one of these positions has no right to exist. And i can say that with all due respect, because no respect is actually due (not to you, i mean to the faith based positions around the world). Human lives on earth are short, we have o concentraite on things we can grasp. God will never be one of them. Never in anyones lifetime.

edit: Wars arnt fought over music friend..nor sugar..etc. Hitler wouldn't have even had a cause if religion didnt exist, Not that im saying it's that particular religions fault, but none-the-less, It sparked the hate in one man.

Originally posted by Juk3n
viewed as isnt the same as being a.

Religion is not a drug. You are simply viewing it as a drug.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Just like a faith based position isnt the same as a reality based one.

I believe you are talking about blind faith. You have faith in a lot of things in life. Like for example, you have faith in science. At the most fundamental level, science cannot be proved; you must have faith.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Even more so because one of these positions has no right to exist.

You do not have the right to make that choice for other people. If you impose that opinion onto other people, then you are no better then the preserved evil you claim to be against.

Originally posted by Juk3n
And i can say that with all due respect, because no respect is actually due (not to you, i mean to the faith based positions around the world).

You get only what you give.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Human lives on earth are short, we have o concentraite on things we can grasp. God will never be one of them. Never in anyones lifetime.

edit: Wars arnt fought over music friend..nor sugar..etc. Hitler wouldn't have even had a cause if religion didnt exist, Not that im saying it's that particular religions fault, but none-the-less, It sparked the hate in one man.

Hate is independent of religion. An atheist can also hate.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Even more so because one of these positions has no right to exist.

You say this and then go on to criticize Hitler. How odd...

Originally posted by Juk3n
Human lives on earth are short, we have o concentraite on things we can grasp.

How do we know what we can grasp until we concentrate on understanding it? Obviously gods really are untestable, ineffable and such but the principle your setting down is not a good one.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Hitler wouldn't have even had a cause if religion didnt exist, Not that im saying it's that particular religions fault, but none-the-less, It sparked the hate in one man.

Yes he would have. Hitler went after the Jews because they were a convenient target for the rage the German people already felt. "Bankers" would have been an equally good target. The Roman actually were.

You've also stepped into the absolute worst sort of "blame the victim" mentality here. Religion must be exterminated because there are people who hate religion? Hmm...

I am going to throw in my two cents on this issue: Atheism is not a religion. If atheism was a religion, then pretty much anything in the world could be considered a religion, which invalidates the purpose of having that word in the first place.

Originally posted by Impediment
To be honest Shaky, I would call that a chore and an obligation.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I am going to throw in my two cents on this issue: Atheism is not a religion. If atheism was a religion, then pretty much anything in the world could be considered a religion, which invalidates the purpose of having that word in the first place.

But atheism is not anti-religion; it is anti-god. Religion and the belief in a god a not mutually inclusive (see Buddhism). Therefore, it is possible to form a religion whose main doctrine is atheistic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But atheism is not anti-religion; it is anti-god. Religion and the belief in a god a not mutually inclusive (see Buddhism). Therefore, it is possible to form a religion whose main doctrine is atheistic.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It certainly is, and there are many religions that include atheism as an element, such as some sects of Buddhism and Humanism. However, atheism is merely a property of these religions. Not a religion in and of itself.

So, are you saying that atheism is anti-religious? If so, then how could a religion have atheism as a property? To me, that does not make any sense.

It is possible for atheism to be a key element of a religion, so long as you designed it to be. Remember, humans make religions, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, are you saying that atheism is anti-religious? If so, then how could a religion have atheism as a property? To me, that does not make any sense.

It is possible for atheism to be a key element of a religion, so long as you designed it to be. Remember, humans make religions, not the other way around.

Originally posted by King Kandy
When did I ever say atheism was anti-religious... it isn't anti anything, it's simply an absence.

😆 You said "It certainly is" which could mean more then one thing when compared to what I said. I picked: It certainly is… anti-religious.

Sure, there are isolated groups of people in the world who have never been exposed to the concept of a god, but you are not one of them. At some time in your life you were exposed to the concept of a god, and then later rejected that concept. You are not the kind of atheist that “absent” would apply too.

I will not talk about the kind of atheism that has no concept of a god, because none of them are on this forum.

There are no "kinds of atheism". You either believe in deities, or you don't. Just because the context they came to the idea is different in no way changes the substance of the idea itself.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There are no "kinds of atheism". You either believe in deities, or you don't. Just because the context they came to the idea is different in no way changes the substance of the idea itself.

Not believing in a deity is different then an absence of the belief in a deity. Both can exist, but the later is not to be found on this forum.
.

ok Shakya, explain to me what benefit there is to discourse from interpreting "atheism" as a religion.

Your own semantic rhetorical devices would seem to make any definition of atheism seem foolish. In the same way that you said:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, are you saying that atheism is anti-religious? If so, then how could a religion have atheism as a property? To me, that does not make any sense.

it would be just as nonsensical for one religion to have an entire other religion as part of it.

it really seems like you are just picking apart words here. what is your coherent doctrine of atheism that unites me and King Kandy on a spiritual level? Or even just, how do we better understand "atheism" by calling it a "religion" rather than a "social movement" or an "identity movement"?