can someone explain religion to me?

[etilit]

please.....

 

[playfulxx]

About 250 years ago, Thomas Jefferson said:-

"I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.....Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world."

Which pretty well sums up Christianity.

All religions are much the same - superstitions based on myths and fairy tales. Traditions remaining from our distant past, when our forefathers in their ignorance, attempted to make sense of chaos. However, I don't understand why these practices persist in these enlightened times.

Required reading: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

 

[XMan101]

In short - politics!

 

[diklik]

In short - politics!

YES!! And especially so where evangelical religions are popular - as in North America and the Middle East among other areas of the world.

 

[Tjerk12]

I love life. It is a wonderful experience. A very long time ago by fortunate cirstances human creatures appeared on earth. Many, many years in the future, when cirstances are less fortunate, the human race will disappear, I fear. And together with them all the Gods that framed religion. Religion is a human invention.

 

[richym]

What is religion is an interesting question. Religion too often is the following of rules and regulations. These rules need to be followed so that we know who is in the group, and who is out of the group. Naturally anyone oustide of the group must be seen as bad, and either converted or avoided.
Having said that I am a Christian, indeed I work for a church. So you could say that I am part of 'religion'. But I believe that proper faith in God is more than relgion. Faith in God is a relationship with the creator of all. It's not about following a whole heap of rules, because we keep messing up, so could not possibly make ourselves good enough. Rather it is knowing that God loves us, and that ultimately we are called to do two things. To love God, and to love others. Which means more than just feeling nice about them, but actually going out and doing good for them. If we truly want to be part of the church, then I believe we are to share love, to help others, to make the world a better place.
Unfortunately many people in the church have interpreted that as make the world a better place by enforcing our rules upon others, and making them feel bad. I don't believe that is what God wants. Rather that is religion, when humans take over and use their beliefs to gain thier own power.
Anyway sorry for going on a bit, I'll stop the sermon now. Just thought I would give a different point of view.

 

[Daedalus]

It's so very hard to define religion. Some words that come to mind though are 'worship', 'belief', 'veneration', 'sin', 'hierarchy', 'community', 'values', 'morality', 'punishment', 'iconography', 'emulation', 'conformity', 'meditation', 'charity', 'donations', 'evil', 'god', 'death', 'angst', 'sacrifice', 'eenism'...

What else might these words describe?

Popular music/music industry: 'worship', 'veneration', 'iconography' (think pop. icon), 'emulation', 'conformity'...

Politics/government: 'hierarchy', 'community', 'eenism' (think United Nations), 'donations' (*cough*)...

Maybe some other folks here will have ideas on what else might compare -on some level- to religion. The overall point here is that religion seems to reflect many of the basic or foundational aspects of human society and culture in general. So how is it, in precise terms, that religion is to be seen as distinct from say government, or even the music industry? :thinking:

 

[etilit]

In short - politics!

sorry..your wrong!!! ok sorry babe..i just wanted to say that to you hahaha

its actually an easy question..its about exceptance

or maybe food? i dont know:? hehehe

 

[ozium]

It started as a way of explaining phenomena that didn't make sense. It later evolved into a way of consolidating power, keeping leaders unquestioned and the average man loyal. Which religions became popular and where is almost entirely linked to war and political occupation. The US is just one of the most recent examples.

I think it persists today, in the age of science, because it exploits two of humanity's essential characteristics: our fear of death and love of family. It also appeals to less noble traits, like our massive ego.

 

[Mtw89]

Religion instills fear and thus makes people easier to govern. Our country was founded by people who would now consider themselves "atheist". Religion also allows people to give a reason for things they cannot explain, thus we have the afterlife theories of heaven and hell, phenomena in the bible are our ancestor describing things as best they could based on what they saw. God did not write the bible, man did and who's to say the stories are 100% accurate or even true for that matter.

 

[diklik]

Religion is a human invention.

It certainly was and still is. Belief in some sort of supernatural power or being is thought (by some) to be part of human nature; but devising a set of rules, conventions and formulae to which humans must adhere or suffer some invented penalty, is the curse of religion. The word religion is said to originate from Latin, with a meaning akin to that of re-inventing or re-initiating legalism or laws. That certainly sums up the state of religion these days.

 

[richym]

It is interesting that we want to attack religions which focus on a supernatural being as being terrible. Yet the behaviour of those who follow the faith that there is no god is not necessarily any better. Athieism is a faith belief, just like Chirstianity, Isalm, Buddhism, etc. The proponents are no better and no worse. Look at communisit Russia, a society built on athieism, was that really a great and freeing thing?

 

[ozium]

If you want to play the "who killed more people?" game, theists will win every time. There's also a disproportionately low number of atheists in jails, and the more secular a society the more advanced and happy they tend to be.

Just look at the top 10 religious and least religious countries and tell me which looks more inviting. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are 3 of the happiest countries in the world. Sierra Leone, not so much.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/Alabamians-Iranians-Common.aspx


But which side acts worse isn't as important to me as what's true. And the truth is, there's no evidence for gods. If you want to believe in them anyway, that's faith. If there was ample proof of any god's existence...audible messages from it daily, clear miracles/breaking physical laws, etc, atheists would have the faith belief, those who believed in that god wouldn't have faith. Both sides cannot have faith, there's either evidence for X or there isn't.

Why don't we believe in every god imaginable? It's not faith, it's because we haven't seen a valid demonstration of their existence so far. It takes as much faith as not believing in Loch Ness.

 

[diklik]

It is interesting that we want to attack religions which focus on a supernatural being as being terrible. Yet the behaviour of those who follow the faith that there is no god is not necessarily any better. Athieism is a faith belief, just like Chirstianity, Isalm, Buddhism, etc. The proponents are no better and no worse. Look at communisit Russia, a society built on athieism, was that really a great and freeing thing?

That is true. Perhaps one could say that any type of faith system that excludes others by virtue of rules that dictate how "believers" must act, speak or live, is not a system that is conducive to spreading peace and tolerance of one another. I find it interesting that the so-called 'Golden Rule" of Christianity and other faiths......do unto others as you would have them do unto you, never seems to be honoured in the breech, even among fellow believers. Christians, for example, seem to thrive on screwing each other financially and then skipping away without legal penalty on the basis of some biblical text that admonishes fellow believers not to take each other to court or to have contention visible to "unbelievers". That sums up Christianity pretty nicely, "I will do it to you before you get to do it to me, and you have no way to right the wrong"

Nice work if you can get it.

 

[richym]

Thanks for all ur feedback, it is great to have this discussion. I think you all make great points.
Ozium, the fact that people point to things that suggest there may be a god/higher being, suggests that you can not prove categorically that there is no such thing. If someone had proved that, then religions would fall down. Unfortunately we don't have the exact truth, so we must have faith. And I agree with nilstreet, we need to be careful when we use the term faith. It should not mean that I have the truth and I am going to take everyone else down. though I do love the idea of Maragret Thatcher wearing a tutu and singing, I might join you in that belief. Faith is about this is what I have discovered on the journey of life about who this "God" is. We could always be wrong. So we need to listen to others. I am a Christian, but I have Muslim and Jewish friends. Last year I read the Quran, so I could understand what my Muslim friends believe. I often chat with the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses when they pop by. Yes I would love them to see the things that I think are true, but I need to do that in dialogue, because they may have some truths that I need to learn.

Diklik it is sad that when you look at most faiths, or most believers it seems that they are not living out what they claim to believe. Yes we use the excuse that we are only human, but at least we could try and get it right most of the time. I hear some of the things Christian leaders say and want to shove something down their throat to shut them up, because they are just hurting others. (But then does that just make me as bad as they are?) I see how some believers act, and I want to clip them across the ear. I guess though all I can do is to try and show others love (care and concern). I hope that I do that in an effective way.

I can fully understand why you guys look at the church and shake ur heads. We do not have a good history record. And even more so when you look at how the church has treated homosexual people. I'm going to shut up now, because I'm not here to convert you or anything. I like this forum, the way you care for each other, and I want to be a part of that.

 

[Daedalus]

If we accept the statement that 'god is dead' (cf. Friedrich Nietzsche) then there is the concern that 'man' can see himself as a god, i.e. the most powerful, or maybe utilitarian, men (or women!) conceive of themselves as gods. I am thinking here of the Nietzschean concept of the uber-man (super-man). Any person who gains a lot of power can conceive of themselves as (intellectually... physically... genetically...) superior, no matter the context or sphere of influence -hierarchies exist within religions, but they also exist within secular organisations and those at the top either see themselves as human, or super-human! Hence I would conclude that the wider debate here is not about religion, or science, per se -it might be better to first define and understand the nature of power and superiority within human society? Any one -whether purporting to be religious or atheist, or something in between- can be greedy, ruthless, power-hungry, etc.
A religious perspective/solution could be to put forth particular tenets or moral beliefs that might serve to counter the negative side of human nature. Or one might turn instead to science and scientific methodology? But scientific methodology can also be a bad thing in the wrong hands, e.g. a political leader who pays scientists to discover the most efficient ways of exploiting and subjugating the common man. In sum, religion and science are not necessarily polar opposites and both of them are potentially useful and good in the right hands. Religion is a source of power. Science is a source of power. Power is good! But not when wielded by corrupt and egocentric individuals. Beware the uber-man!

 

[ozium]

Ozium, the fact that people point to things that suggest there may be a god/higher being, suggests that you can not prove categorically that there is no such thing. If someone had proved that, then religions would fall down. Unfortunately we don't have the exact truth, so we must have faith.

Do you not see the contradiction being made here? Faith, in religious terms, means belief without evidence. If people present "things" that suggest there may be a god/higher being, they're not proposing faith, they're proposing empiricism. The idea of miracles and faith together are logical contradictions. The faithful want to have their cake and eat it too, with the offense of empiricism (facts back up my beliefs) and the defense of faith (your facts don't affect me).

You can't prove that there's no infinitesimal sentient banana on Neptune, but until sufficient evidence presented for X's existence, more than hearsay, it's silly to assume it exists. Or to even worry about its odds of existing, depending on how extraordinary the claim is. And I think claims of gods are a more extraordinary than an infinitesimal sentient banana, so there would be some work to do.

In sum, religion and science are not necessarily polar opposites and both of them are potentially useful and good in the right hands. Religion is a source of power. Science is a source of power. Power is good! But not when wielded by corrupt and egocentric individuals. Beware the uber-man!

Just addressing the Abrahamic 3 here: is there a conceivably more egocentric idea than that a supreme creator of the universe made this place for you, wants a special relationship with you in happiness for eternity while others are tortured or wiped from existence? That everyone else is sick and you're clean? Most atheists will admit we are apes, collections of cells, that most of this universe is deadly to us, not meant for us, and that we will die. It's the opposite of ego. Science and religion are probably as polar opposite as philosophies can be. Science is assumed to be man-made, fallible, necessary of revision, results based. Religion is assumed to be "supernatural", infallible, its truths eternally consistent, faith based.

 

[diklik]

Religion is a source of power. Science is a source of power. Power is good! But not when wielded by corrupt and egocentric individuals. Beware the uber-man!

That's a good basic summary of the dangers of relying on any one side of a discussion in order to run one's life, and the world in general. I see religion - as it is now practiced among humans - as a divisive and deadly force seeking only to subjugate others for its own end. Science is fraught with frauds over the last 20 years and even experts are more frequently reversing themselves and admitting error or just plain bad research. Equally, there are religious phonies out to scam your money from your pocket and take away your rights to individual beliefs. Both religion and science have been given far too much credence in human life.

 

[ozium]

The whole point of science is revision and progress. Saying it changes in light of new evidence too often is a compliment. Religion's the one claiming to be permanent and infallible (despite it changing). I think science and math are given far too little credence, in the US anyways. Most people don't like, care or know about the subjects.

I just get upset that religion and science so often falsely equated, because one has so clearly benefited mankind and the other's contributions are questionable at best. Your life expectancy, porn, comfortable temperature, transportation, food, are products of science. Not saying science is perfect by any means, but when you get sick you go to the doctor, not the clergy.

 

[richym]

I agree with Putin, science and religion are not the opposite extremes of some continuum, so that they can not exist together. Rather science attempts to answer the how question, how the world works. Religion attempts to answer the why. We want to try and fight one off against the other (and both sides are just as guilty of this as the other.) But the truth is that science and religion can live in harmony, just look at the vast number of scientist who also hold to a religious faith, particularly those who have come to faith through what they have discovered in their scientific endevours.

To say faith can not be based upon facts is quite strange. Surely you must have some basis uppon which to have your faith. If is it all just in your mind then I think you are in trouble. No I can not definitavely proove to you that God exists, but I have enough proofs that I can convince myself, and many others.

I know you don't like it, but you have faith too. You have faith that there is no supernatural being. You can not prove it conclusively, therefore it must be faith. And that is ok.