Do we even practice religion?

Originally posted by Turq1
Why look at "we" without considering what is does for individuals. Because some die from amoxicillin, should it be banned entirely or given to everyone with force?

They're debating from a utilitarian perspective, making the whole thing pointless. Either of those options which they would be debating are wrong. But it's a good time waster and makes them look smart.

Would not Dawkins, being an atheist and obviously a proponent for the theory of evolution, accept that just as any organism that exists currently or has gone extinct is "the way it's meant to be" that that line of thinking would also extend to the human organism and (not actually separate) the things that it creates?

If it is "there"....where does the debate part come in?

Ironic he supports a nihilistic theory of evolution yet takes an interest in social engineering.

edit on 7/31/2012 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)

I think you are getting to the core of hypocracy of the scientific faith. From my point of view Richard Dawkins is as dualitydriven and closeminded as many of the people of religious faiths. Richard Dawkins is antispiritual/anti new age/antiseeking higher purpose from my point of view and not really a role model for openmindness understanding of reality however much he calls himself openminded. That does not mean you cannot listen to his side and make up your own mind but I will not have blind faith in the clerics of science when I have proof that they are misstaken.

As Robbie Williams said in Trippin
First they ignore you, then laugh at you and hate you Then they fight you, then you win.

Thruth always come out in the end not matter how much people try to hide it/ignore it.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by Turq1
Why look at "we" without considering what is does for individuals. Because some die from amoxicillin, should it be banned entirely or given to everyone with force?

What if it were shown that rather than being helpful, amoxicillin had detrimental health effects on societies that used it, correlating directly to amount used? How would you view this scenario?

eta. I wouldn't advocate banning religion. Though I do advocate lifting the taboo that often persists, about discussing it openly and honestly. I also feel that the practice of indoctrinating young minds with religion, should be banned. Unless it can be supported factually. It should be left until they are mature enough to make informed personal decisions and therefore, choose it if they wish.

edit on 31-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.

I agree that seekers should seek themselves and that religious dogma should be discussed, but the religion of science that is also a conditioning should always be questioned because sometimes people of religion know more than individuals from science. For instance of the system of chakra point in the body that seem to fit the reality of how a body works. But then only people who have achived other states of conciousness would be able to tell their experiances/stories.

reply to post by apushforenlightment


I agree that science should always be left open to question in some way. In fact, scientists themselves would agree with this. Science is always a work in progress.

Religion seems dogmatic and closed. While science is at least open to change based on what can be observed and verified by repeating experiments etc. Obviously for this reason there are things science doesn't concern itself with.

Because various alternate systems don't satisfy the requirements to be accepted scientifically, doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong or have no merit. I have no doubt some of them do have merit, in their own way. Though there is a problem in alternate fields IMO, in that not having to prove their worth the same way a branch of science would, sadly, it can also be an area for charlatans to congregate. Especially in religion.

We need the philosophers, poets, artists and original thinkers who see things in different ways. Whether they are given to the notion of some higher power or not. Though, orthodox type religions are mind stoppers this way and seem to curtail natural curiosity re our existence, not to mention originality. In favour of what ultimately seems a rigid dogmatic belief IMO. You are free to reach any conclusion you like, as long it is the same unalterable conclusion that we preach. Nothing can ever overturn this. There will never be a valid reason to think otherwise, ever. Our god did it. That's mainstream religion, with fundamentalist versions in particular, seeming very cultish.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Religion seems dogmatic and closed. While science is at least open to change based on what can be observed and verified by repeating experiments etc. Obviously for this reason there are things science doesn't concern itself with.

For most who practice religion, perhaps it is closed. This is not the case for all however, and was not the intention of the founders. Religion should be a living experience, and I can tell from my own experience that it has been this for me. I always used to wonder what people meant when they referred to the Bible as "Living", as if it had life of it's own. That wonder is now gone. As I have lived by faith, and continued to study the Word, it's teachings have in fact grown with me. What I found at first reading, no longer exists. My perception of it has changed, and it's teachings became deeper. It is indeed "living".

It is difficult to explain this concept to those who don't have the years under their belt (living and studying the Word) in an acceptable or believable fashion. We fall short in the explaining. It is similar in science as well. When you take a student who is new to mathematics, perhaps learning addition and subtraction, and you speak to him of the wisdom of algebra; you run into the same problem. What many don't understand about mathematics is that it opens the mind to alternate ways of thinking; discovering that which is not known, by applying constants that are known. The more you study mathematics, and use it in your life (live it), your understanding of it's truths become more apparent. Those who have not "lived" it, will not see what you do. Religion is supposed to work in this same way, but it has become dead by lack of living it.

Fair enough. It might be as you say, in the end I can't really know.

The problem with this, as I see it, is that there are so many others who would claim the same thing. That their philosophy is alive, they have living knowledge of their teachings. Yet I have found many of them deluded, some members or even leaders of genuine mind control cults. There is also the problem that some of their "truths" seem contradictory. Though I am not implying this for your expressed views, as I have no reason to assume this.

Though always open to being wrong, I have found some truth in the saying "love is religion, religion is love". IMO, this is the only part of our existence that hints a greater reality (in any spiritual sense). It seems to be the source of all virtue and therefore, it is it's own reward. It doesn't need god. Whether a simple product of evolution, or something else, don't necessarily take in a deep understanding of what it might be. It has never needed any books, philosophies, arguments or beliefs about who might have existed, or deities. Yet it does seem to exist.

One of the reasons I value science, is that it usually begins with what "is" and attempts to find explanations for it . Yet religion usually begins with the implied ultimate explanation and then attempts to reconcile it with what "is". Do you mind if I ask, were you raised as a Christian (if I can assume you are)? Or did you come to it as an adult, after having been able to discount so many other possibilities from many years of genuinely seeking answers. How you can know that other beliefs are not true, if you have not "lived" them?

There is little doubt IMO the "holy" book that so many cling to, appears fraught with innacuracies, exaggerations, outright lies and superstition. There have been many claims to a deeper understanding being the thing that overcomes this view. I sincerely doubt every one of them.

I can see where a naturalist explanation for existence might one day end all notions of god that anyone can take seriously (not necessarily removing the possibility of a more "spiritual" component to existence). Though it doesn't hurt to reserve some element of doubt. To hold open the possibility that no matter how fervently we believe something true, we could be wrong. Particularly where the less tangible is concerned and particularly of personal experiences and whatever meaning could be derived from them. No one is above being wrong. The thing I am most sure of, beyond all else, is of my own ignorance. This attitude of humility is more important than any belief IMO and can be quite noticeably absent in religion.

It is a problem for society when people make decisions that affect others, swayed by what could be belief in myths and story books. Common sense and basic decency seem far more important considerations. It is also a problem when myth that cannot be genuinely substantiated is forced on young minds, as truth. This is a form of cult indoctrination. It seems far more important to encourage the search for knowledge, rather than curtail it with notions of god IMO. All indications are that religious observance doesn't add to societel health, as much as detract from it.

Though if I am not mistaken, you seem to imply that religion itself might not be the problem, as much as the attitudes and actions of people who claim to be religious. In this much, I don't necessarily disagree. Religious fundamentalism (along with staunch patriotism - nationalism) are two of the worst forms of insanity to have so far afflicted mankind IMO.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Pardon my absence, I wasn't trying to avoid this. I love science as well, and I don't feel the two are mutually exclusive. They are both however, only different perceptions of the same thing. According to science these days, all that is, is based on perception.

Like everyone else, my environment and experiences have shaped my perception of the world. I have confirmation of my own which is impossible to share and probably impractical as well. My childhood was a Christian one up until my teenage years. My family kind of got away from it, and I was left to my own beliefs. Once in the military, I became exposed to meditation and witchcraft. Meditation (at least in my circle) was not that popular, and for the most part drug induced. Witchcraft was somewhat more accepted, and was practiced by many, especially those of different heritage than my own. I listened and learned, but didn't practice either during that time. Since then I have practiced meditation (without drugs) quite a bit, and it has become a valuable part of my life.

Around 1983 or 1984, I got "saved" as they say, and although I never went to Church much, I practiced a life of faith. I have practiced that faith since that time, and in my own mind, it was a matter of my own choosing. I haven't even had a doctor's appointment since 1985, and besides my teeth, I am in excellent health. I depend on this faith daily, and cannot begin to explain it's value in my life.

Do I practice religion? No, I would say I practice faith. My faith is in the teachings of Christ, and therefore I call myself Christian. I tried the Church thing, but it doesn't work for me. I personally don't see the Church as a whole practicing faith. Somewhere along the line, I think they missed something. I'm speaking of course in generalities, and am not saying that there are those in the Church who don't live by faith.

I think quantum mechanics (or whatever) supports the idea of faith. Particles act according to the expectations of the observer, and I can think of no better explanation of the idea of faith. I believe, therefore it occurs. I think the book of Job explained it to me the best when Job says "That which I have feared most has come upon me." This means worlds to me in relation to faith, whether I have taken it out of context or not. Fear is the greatest enemy, and the only deliverer is faith...

We are better off without religion in society. I realize that there are some positive aspects to religion such as creating tightly knit groups of people that will help each other out and such, yet I see that the negatives out weigh the positives of religion. If anyone has taken a high school history course you will see that religion has created many conflicts between other religious groups and within the same groups. As a result many lives were lost over nothing. Karl Marx claimed that religion was created to ease the pain for the peasants. Wealthy Catholics could easily pay a sum of money and have their sins erased. While the poor could not do such a thing so all they had was to pray to get into heaven. While the wealthy bought their way into it.

I'm not saying their isn't a God, but if their was it would surely be laughing at humans for creating so many different religions. If there was a true religion to prove God existed, then humans would have only created one and believed in that. And why was it created so long after the Egyptians and other ancient civilizations were around? I believe religion is nothing more than a way for a small group to exert control over a mass amount of people. Those "prophets" back then claimed they saw God, now a days we call those people loonies or schizophrenic, so why should we believe anything that was written a few hundred years ago? Perhaps my logic is flawed but this is how I currently see things.

reply to post by yoohoo

You're not alone in your beliefs my friend. Religion has indeed caused more problems than it has solved. Like I said above, I have my own reasons for believing what I do; nobody can take these from me. My own life has been enriched greatly because of them. That's why I comment on these threads; to let others know that I have been helped by these things.

Going to Church doesn't necessarily get you anywhere. A Churches job is to spread the teaching to those who haven't been reached as of yet, and to minister to their needs. They should show them the love they have been taught, by living the example themselves. The Pastor's job is to prepare his Church for that task; that's it. Meeting every Sunday and Wednesday is only fellowship, although some will also call it worship. I differ here...

My interpretation tells me that what we keep our minds on the most is what we worship. We worship God by keeping Him in mind in all that we do. If we instead think of sex constantly; that is what we worship. If money, then that is what we worship. This is why we were urged to sing praises (internally) throughout the day, and to pray without ceasing. What occupies our minds, occupies our hearts...