Thoughts on Organized Religion

a reply to: Kandinsky

Our feelings are mutual about this.

I feel the words themselves perpetrating said mythology, are on the same level as channelled information. I'm even willing to consider the writers were under hallucinogenic causes, bacteria that impacted mental functioning, etc

In my humble opinion, flipping over said rock is long overdue.

Thank you for your post.

a reply to: pheonix358

First, very well written reply..

Second, i am i consider myself a gnostic christian..

Thirdly, i have to say, those that are against organized religion usually..(not always)..use science as proof that those who are religious as ignorant.
A. Religion is dogma...it is a way for people to control those who do not think for themselves. Spirituality is people search and find the answers for themselves, and only use the teachings of others as a guide for their spirtual walk.
B. Science and the Bible, (Torah, Quran, other religious books) can coexist. Science is the study of the mind of God. I believe it was paul who said milk is for babes, meat is for the men. When you study holy texts deeply beyond the morality, you can see what scientists are starting to discover.

Sorry this is a bit disjointed, i am replying from the hospital on morphine for kidney stones..

I am a Deist.

We believe in god but reject organized religions.
en.wikipedia.org...

Deist Principles
You shall honor and worship the Creator in a fashion that suits you
You shall treat others with dignity and respect and you shall insist that others respect your dignity as well
You shall live life pragmatically and use Reason as the cornerstone for all you think, say and do
You shall be honest and not lie, cheat or steal
You shall not harm another unless it is in defense of yourself or loved ones
You shall treat others as you want to be treated
You shall take responsibility for your actions
You shall have faith in yourself
You shall honor and be faithful to your Father, your Mother and your Loved ones
You shall learn from the mistakes that you will make
You shall find awe, inspiration and beauty in the creation and the natural order of the universe
You shall search for truth and be willing to accept new ideas based on reason as you are exposed to them

originally posted by: ANNED
I am a Deist.

We believe in god but reject organized religions.
en.wikipedia.org...

Deist Principles
You shall honor and worship the Creator in a fashion that suits you
You shall treat others with dignity and respect and you shall insist that others respect your dignity as well
You shall live life pragmatically and use Reason as the cornerstone for all you think, say and do
You shall be honest and not lie, cheat or steal
You shall not harm another unless it is in defense of yourself or loved ones
You shall treat others as you want to be treated
You shall take responsibility for your actions
You shall have faith in yourself
You shall honor and be faithful to your Father, your Mother and your Loved ones
You shall learn from the mistakes that you will make
You shall find awe, inspiration and beauty in the creation and the natural order of the universe
You shall search for truth and be willing to accept new ideas based on reason as you are exposed to them

Which god? I know that many Deists believe in a hands-off Abrahamic God. Is that the one you're talking about? May I ask what role your god plays in your life/the lives of Deists? Does the Bible or any other holy book play a role?

At what point does respecting the right of others to believe whatever they choose become tolerance of ignorance? At what point does that tolerance of ignorance become damaging? At what point does the extent of that damage become detrimental to society? At what point does that society have a responsibility to deny ignorance? At what point does that denial of ignorance strengthen the resolve of those whose holy books speak of heathens denying their perceived truth? At what point does strengthened resolve create zealots? At what point do zealots become martyrs?

Education is key. But it's a battle that's going to last a long time.

ETA: I agree with the guy below me pretty much:

This is why I like *freedom* and an open market of ideas. If you believe that people are able to recognize the truth when it is presented to them, then you don't need to shove it down their throats...just maintain freedom of speech and of the press and the truth eventually will win out.

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: Metallicus

You couldn't be further from the truth. Hence, stressing not violating rights. No one is calling for extermination of anything.

However, false ideas, are well, false. How would you react if someone came up to you, and told you the Earth is flat? You'd laugh, right? Why? Education. You know better. You might share it years later as an amusing anecdote.

This is true about everything in life.

Education is the exterminator of false ideas. Are you against education away from false ideas? What happens historically when fiction takes authority over sound thought? See Galileo.

Are you against education?

I don't think education exterminates false ideas...it can just as easily engrain them. (If I recall correctly, it was Nietzsche who said that education was an attempt to impose one's own way of thinking on those being educated.) The problem with education is that someone's always doing the educating.

This is why I like *freedom* and an open market of ideas. If you believe that people are able to recognize the truth when it is presented to them, then you don't need to shove it down their throats...just maintain freedom of speech and of the press and the truth eventually will win out.

If, on the other hand, you don't believe that people are able to recognize the truth when it is presented to them, then (1) why do you think education will work when free speech and the open sharing of ideas hasn't, and (2) oughtn't that make us all wary of imposing our ideas on others lest *we* be deceived?

Just my thoughts

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

At what point does respecting the right of others to believe whatever they choose become tolerance of ignorance?

Ignorance, too, must be tolerated. What are you planning to do, force people into concentration camps to 'educate' them?

a reply to: Astyanax

Seriously? Why are you attempting red herrings? I question your motives.

Media giving knowledge, educational classes for our youth, or, changes in public acceptance surrounding humanities mythology is the same as wanting people to be kidnapped into camps?

Thanks for the early morning chuckle.

I think billions (i'm not one) of human beings consider them to be the primary social institution in their lives. from births, dating and marriage, until death across generations they play a role of immense importance to their adherents and their sudden (within this lifetime) disappearance would create a vacuum so large that the people with day to day responsibilities managing society would hang the people that destroyed those institutions.

i'm aware that the church enjoy's committing many crimes against non-members, there is a huge kidnapping operation in lake county illinois where a system of 16 church's allow their facilities to be used as a base of operation.

knowing what churchs are capable of and educating non-members is what's important...not wasting ones time convincing a fanatic that what they are doing is criminal.

a reply to: Not Authorized

Why are you attempting red herrings?

What kind of a world would it be if people didn't tolerate ignorance? That was my question for the poster I replied to.

All the knowledge-giving media and educational classes in the world aren't going to eradicate ignorance, because (1) many people will not listen and (2) many who do listen, even briefly, will reject the authorities who provide the educational content. Don't we see this every day on ATS?

If I won't tolerate ignorance, then I will be obliged to force people to absorb and accept the facts of which they are ignorant. There isn't any other way. Spread the propaganda blanket wide, tuck it in nice and tight. Command the heights of the media. Round up recalcitrants and send them to 'education camps'. In the end, I should have to mobilize the whole apparatus of totalitarianism to carry out my programme — and even then, I shall not succeed.

When we speak of 'totalitarianism', we refer to governments that seek to monopolize public discourse, to occupy not just the physical state but the mental country inhabited by its citizens. I know that is not what you believe you intend, but that, I'm afraid, would be the outcome of it.

Besides, who are you to decide what constitutes fact? You may not consider it a fact that God gave Muhhamad a set of rules and prescriptions for mankind to live by, but over a billion people around the world consider this to be a fact beyond question. You may not consider it a fact that Jesus died for the sins of the world, or that he even lived in the first place, but further billions regard these statements as incontestable. I happen to agree with you that they are probably all false, but nobody knows for sure. I don't, and neither do you. So much for the facts.

I question your motives.

And I question your foresight.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

At what point does respecting the right of others to believe whatever they choose become tolerance of ignorance?

Ignorance, too, must be tolerated. What are you planning to do, force people into concentration camps to 'educate' them?

That's a great slogan if ATS ever decides to change it.

Tolerate Ignorance.

For a couple thousands years, it seemed like a good idea. Then for two thousand years, seemed like a really bad idea.

a reply to: Astyanax

Are you serious? What kind of world? A world where people are educated to RECOGNIZE ignorance about xyz is a bad thing?

What happened after slavery was no longer tolerated? Or women being property? Or various other mythologies celebrating human sacrifice? Fill in a blank on any example.

Incredible. You use technology, right now, as a result of people deciding to no longer being ignorant to how the universe works. This is it humanity, this is as far as we can go!

All like timelines rejected with prejudice.

Think John Lennon, Imagine.



Void, it's what is invited for dinner. It's already in the 'system'.

originally posted by: theatreboy
a reply to: pheonix358

First, very well written reply..

Second, i am i consider myself a gnostic christian..

Thirdly, i have to say, those that are against organized religion usually..(not always)..use science as proof that those who are religious as ignorant.
A. Religion is dogma...it is a way for people to control those who do not think for themselves. Spirituality is people search and find the answers for themselves, and only use the teachings of others as a guide for their spirtual walk.
B. Science and the Bible, (Torah, Quran, other religious books) can coexist. Science is the study of the mind of God. I believe it was paul who said milk is for babes, meat is for the men. When you study holy texts deeply beyond the morality, you can see what scientists are starting to discover.

Sorry this is a bit disjointed, i am replying from the hospital on morphine for kidney stones..

Science is not the study of the mind of God. There isn't an iota of testable evidence proving that God exists as fact. Science concerns itself with facts not stories about supernatural deities (ie. myths). Explain exactly how the application of the scientific method has proved or even could prove the existence of the mind of God.

originally posted by: michaelbrux
I think billions (i'm not one) of human beings consider them to be the primary social institution in their lives. from births, dating and marriage, until death across generations they play a role of immense importance to their adherents and their sudden (within this lifetime) disappearance would create a vacuum so large that the people with day to day responsibilities managing society would hang the people that destroyed those institutions.

i'm aware that the church enjoy's committing many crimes against non-members, there is a huge kidnapping operation in lake county illinois where a system of 16 church's allow their facilities to be used as a base of operation.

knowing what churchs are capable of and educating non-members is what's important...not wasting ones time convincing a fanatic that what they are doing is criminal.

Churches are no different from Wal-Mart except that they don't have to pay taxes. Check the parking lot of the nearest church next Sunday and then check the parking lot of the nearest Wal-Mart. They're both in the business of selling and convincing people that they need to buy. I would dispute your claim that church is the major social institution. Family and friends are. Places of employment are. In the West, churches play a minor or non-existent role in the lives of most people. Actual church membership is greatly exaggerated. Even most church members rarely or never attend. Their names are on the books simply because they once belonged to a church, often as a result of being baptised without their consent as children.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Not Authorized

Why are you attempting red herrings?

What kind of a world would it be if people didn't tolerate ignorance? That was my question for the poster I replied to.

All the knowledge-giving media and educational classes in the world aren't going to eradicate ignorance, because (1) many people will not listen and (2) many who do listen, even briefly, will reject the authorities who provide the educational content. Don't we see this every day on ATS?

If I won't tolerate ignorance, then I will be obliged to force people to absorb and accept the facts of which they are ignorant. There isn't any other way. Spread the propaganda blanket wide, tuck it in nice and tight. Command the heights of the media. Round up recalcitrants and send them to 'education camps'. In the end, I should have to mobilize the whole apparatus of totalitarianism to carry out my programme — and even then, I shall not succeed.

When we speak of 'totalitarianism', we refer to governments that seek to monopolize public discourse, to occupy not just the physical state but the mental country inhabited by its citizens. I know that is not what you believe you intend, but that, I'm afraid, would be the outcome of it.

Besides, who are you to decide what constitutes fact? You may not consider it a fact that God gave Muhhamad a set of rules and prescriptions for mankind to live by, but over a billion people around the world consider this to be a fact beyond question. You may not consider it a fact that Jesus died for the sins of the world, or that he even lived in the first place, but further billions regard these statements as incontestable. I happen to agree with you that they are probably all false, but nobody knows for sure. I don't, and neither do you. So much for the facts.

I question your motives.

And I question your foresight.

Uh...science determines fact via testable evidence. IF you are unable to distinguish between belief and fact, education is in order.

a reply to: Tangerine

I assumed that the question of organized religion included places outside of the United States ... considering that the Americas are not the source of any major global religion (except basketball and baseball), i didn't focus on the west but the impact that destroying Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity and Islam...would have on their adherents in the lands of their origins.

perhaps you are right that organized religion plays a role in the lives of its members not much different than a big box retailer such as Walmart...

I know the problem a few religions present for the civilized world and was reminded yet again of that threat shortly after posting...nevertheless, being a victim is the greatest weapon of organized religion and most of their activities seem to be about provoking people against them. I wouldn't want my state with that type of blood on its hands and wouldn't do anything about them.

freedom of religion is Guaranteed by the US Constitution and I don't want my Constitution changed by social extremists to attack religious extremists.

that's why my thoughts about them is to back away slowly and take the long way around whenever I encounter fanatics of all flavors.

a reply to: Astyanax

I never said ignorance shouldn't be tolerated. Ignorance is part of this world. I'm ignorant in many ways. So are you. It would be impossible to fully understand everything there is to know, in a single lifetime. I did not, and never would, support the idea of "re-education camps", or forcing anything on anyone. Besides the obvious moral failings of doing something like that, the oppression would only strengthen the problem. The actual problem being people believing certain things as cold hard facts of reality, that simply aren't. This is a problem because of the potential negative impact on other people it can have. What I wish to see happen is for people to understand that. I believe just as much passion that goes into exposing religion for what it is should go into fighting for peoples rights to believe it. No concentration camps needed or wanted.

For the record, the particular religions I refer to are the Abrahamic ones.

originally posted by: Astyanax
I happen to agree with you that they are probably all false, but nobody knows for sure. I don't, and neither do you. So much for the facts.

I'll give you that. But when claim after claim after claim about their religion can be shown to be false, illogical, or highly unlikely, do we really want to cling to "well we don't know for sure" straws?

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Tangerine

I assumed that the question of organized religion included places outside of the United States ... considering that the Americas are not the source of any major global religion (except basketball and baseball), i didn't focus on the west but the impact that destroying Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity and Islam...would have on their adherents in the lands of their origins.

perhaps you are right that organized religion plays a role in the lives of its members not much different than a big box retailer such as Walmart...

I know the problem a few religions present for the civilized world and was reminded yet again of that threat shortly after posting...nevertheless, being a victim is the greatest weapon of organized religion and most of their activities seem to be about provoking people against them. I wouldn't want my state with that type of blood on its hands and wouldn't do anything about them.

freedom of religion is Guaranteed by the US Constitution and I don't want my Constitution changed by social extremists to attack religious extremists.

that's why my thoughts about them is to back away slowly and take the long way around whenever I encounter fanatics of all flavors.

Sadly, the fanatics have learned to organize and try, sometimes successfully, to change laws. Of course I want to preserve freedom of religion but that necessitates preserving freedom from religion.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I'll give you that. But when claim after claim after claim about their religion can be shown to be false, illogical, or highly unlikely, do we really want to cling to "well we don't know for sure" straws?

So, back to square one?

How do you force a person to drink at the well of your version of reason?