Religion is dying; does it need replacing?

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

All religions are cults- good or bad. You’re confusing what the mainstream (and my teen youth pastors) meant by the word “cult”.

And to say that “Most religions are bad”——- that’s a gross statement.

I call myself a Christian- but let’s not ignore all the “bad” that was/is done in the name of Christendom.
What Jesus taught was love. Love God and your neighbor (meaning all people).

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

In which you prove you have no clue what you're talking about.

Please, oh wise one, show me where I'm wrong.

Natural Philosophy is not precisely "science". More of a precursor.

LOL, redefine things all you want. I guess math isn't science huh? I mean, trigonometry was invented around 150BC. Algebra has been around since about 1800BC.

Hell, the atom was known to be the basic building block of matter in 430BC. How did they figure that out without "science?" What do you think alchemists were doing as early as 300BC if not chemistry? The examples are endless. Imagine building the pyramids with no scientific understanding! Imagine creating the hanging gardens with no scientific understanding!

Science as we imagine it has it's start largely in the Enlightenment.

Science isn't imagined (by definition it cannot be) and sure it underwent a major revolution (just like everything else) during the enlightenment. This does not refute the point that scientific study has been going on for thousands of years.

The common thread in religion is control. Any time you can gather many people into a belief system and then appoint a leader, there is the element of control. History has shown us the good and evil that all religions have been capable of.

People are realizing that they can believe in God and/or any of the prophets, without being classified in a group. Or, of course, they can choose not to believe in anything. I subscribe to the first type. I do not know what God is, but I believe it is something extraordinary.

a reply to: Murgatroid

All the stories are astrological. Stories based on the stars and constellations. But we still beilve there was a profit with magical healing powers etc.

For example the 3 kings that follow the star. The star is sirius that they follow that aligns it self with orions belt (otherwise known as the three kings) around the 24th December.

There's many examples .

a reply to: seagull

There is no path to enlightenment.
Seek the seeker.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You don't have to know every thing to be enlightened....... you have to realise what you are..... Ignorance is the ignoring of your true condition.
What are you really?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Mathematics isn't science.
It's mathematics.

As for the rest of your zealot's ignorant ranting spiel.
I won't diginify with a response.

a reply to: lSkrewloosel

Um no. No one believes they followed sirius. Regulus or Jupiter, or Venus, yes. Sirius No. Polaris Yes. Sirius No. Comet Yes. Sirius No. Supernova Yes.

The only people who think it was sirius are people who are looking for a reason to discredit the story. Sirius doesn't match any of it except the "fictional" angle pushed by anti-theists.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Religion is fictional full stop haha

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Mathematics isn't science. It's mathematics.

You're right math is not science. It is greater than science. It is 100%, pure, unadulterated truth. Science is full of false ideas, math is not. Science is both observation and experimentation. Math is observation and therefore scientific. But really, math is the language of science. Without math, there would be little science.

IOW, science is all of the crap thrown against the wall, it becomes math when it sticks.

As for the rest of your zealot's ignorant ranting spiel.

Well that's a new one. I've never been called a zealot before. But I guess in the face of "science as god" I am seen to be a zealot. I don't take that as the insult you meant it to be.

I won't diginify with a response.

Yeah, it would be tough to argue that chemistry isn't science. I don't blame you for not even trying.

a reply to: lSkrewloosel

Prove it and I'll sing praises in your name.

a reply to: lSkrewloosel

What isn't fiction? That is the question.

a reply to: chelsdh

Love God and your neighbor (meaning all people).

This brings up a question I can never get a satisfactory answer to. Did he really mean all people? He was asked specifically who was considered a neighbor. He then told the parable of the good samaritan. At the end he asked the man who had originally proposed the question, which of these men were a neighbor unto the man who was robbed? Obviously the samaritan.

Now, the original commandment was to love thy neighbor as thyself. So if the samaritan was the neighbor (the man who showed mercy) then only those who are kind and caring and merciful towards us are our neighbors. There is some debate about what "go forth and do likewise" means and some think it makes it clear he's telling the man to be like the samaritan. But it doesn't really read that way at all. Since the man inquired of who he should love as himself christ seems to have made that clear and told him to go forth and love the neighbors as he had just defined them.

Of course there are other examples of christ demanding we be loving and tolerant of all people (e.g. the adultrous woman, or turning the other cheek). But I'm not so certain we were ever commanded to love those who have disdain and hatred for us like we love ourselves. I'm not saying we weren't I'm just not sold on that being so clearly explained, especially in the samaritan parable.

ETA: for clarification, my point with the samaritan story is that if Christ had wanted to portray our neighbor as everyone, he wouldn't have picked the easiest person to love (yes, I'm fully aware that samaritans were hated, but again if you had to love a samaritan it sure makes it a lot easier if he's a nice one, doesn't it? And it makes it a lot harder to love the people you don't hate, like the levites, when they leave you for dead).

a reply to: Dfairlite

You apparently love those non-sequitur.
Don't you?
Given your views one would think you'd know what logic was and it's use.

Also, zealot isn't just applied in a religious context.
This level of wanton ignorance in someone who claims to advocate for science is pretty scary.

zeal·ot
/ˈzelət/
noun
noun: zealot; plural noun: zealots

a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
synonyms: fanatic, enthusiast, extremist, radical, Young Turk, diehard, activist, militant; More
bigot, dogmatist, sectarian, partisan;
informalfiend, maniac, ultra, nut
"reforming zealots destroyed a vast collection of papers"
antonyms: moderate
historical
a member of an ancient Jewish sect aiming at a world Jewish theocracy and resisting the Romans until AD 70.
noun: Zealot; plural noun: Zealots

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: TerraLiga

True faith will never die.

Faith is never the truth..and yes it always dies.

Dies easily, too.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: olaru12
Cults...

unorganized, cultural, amorphous, tribal groups attached to a personality has replaced myth.

Not cults, rather pathways to individual journeys to enlightenment...they come in all shapes and sizes.

The pathways are never to enlightenment however...this is borne out in how all the scripts run.

Nothing has changed, all have indeed failed..BECAUSE all the paths are the same traps they have always been.

No paths seen on Earth have ever lead to enlightenement of any kind.

The proof is clear too see.......

originally posted by: ParasuvO

Not cults, rather pathways to individual journeys to enlightenment...they come in all shapes and sizes.

The pathways are never to enlightenment however...this is borne out in how all the scripts run.

Nothing has changed, all have indeed failed..BECAUSE all the paths are the same traps they have always been.

No paths seen on Earth have ever lead to enlightenement of any kind.

The proof is clear too see.......

But this would imply not just intelligent design, but intelligent design to the degree of tricking people into thinking they are starting to perceive some sort of greater reality. When in actuality, if a greater intelligence did exist, it would most certainly not be so petty. Instead, it would cater to the development of new souls gestating in this system. They would hope for a new command that would persist both logic and love throughout all the creation.

To think otherwise would be assuming that such an intelligence literally made us just to be tortured. I don't perceive from my daily life that such a condition could ever be the truth, instead, I see life as begging all humans to come to its realization, free from inhibition from the Egyptian slave-state that has persistently prevented humanity from expressing itself on a level that is intuitive, loving, and candid to the degree of entire freedom, free from oppressive ideologies.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I know what a zealot is... I'm simply not one. But the fact that you think I am is a great compliment.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Sure you do, kid.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Coming from the poster with a video game character as his avatar, this is pretty funny. Good one!