secularism is the belief that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact, and not superstitious beliefs, however devoutly held, and that policy should be free from religious domination. (wikipedia definition) This isn't exactly makes religions as religion so it isn't one.
And before I can define those words I need to know what you mean by define. What exactly are you asking?
Well, as you see, I've just misinterpreted the term 'secularism' you are using. I thought secularism is a religion (founded on the belief that there is no God). Therefore, I need to learn first the working definiton of terms used in the present discussion so that I can follow it in the right corridor.Originally Posted by Embarr
Perhaps you didnt got the idea. Yes Budhisti believe in stones, but are they not a continue to the greek belief and egyption belief and romans belief, all these beliefs were different, they worship stones on shape of people that lived long time ago and give them thier names, besied these beliefs are so limited geographic. While believing in one God religioun was always the same, i said its like a chain since Adam and Noah untle last prophet Muhammed peace be upon him, no one of them made his own idea about God, for all history this belief didnt die, only people die. To generalize the discussion about all religioun is wrong, satanism is a religioun and it deserve to be canceled, can we make it equal to other religioun that call to respect people and so on. Perhaps for you who were born christian or athiest religioun is something that call to cancel mind, but does all religiouns call to cancel mind? you know the religioun that it's followers gave the world the most important science, the religioun that encoureged it's followers to read and learn and for 1000 years they discovered alot of facts that didnt made them to suspect God's existence but to become more sure in God existence, because no fact you discover can negate God's existence, you can build a false theory and hide inside it in order to deny an idea you are afraid of but you must know that this theory is not fact and wont be fact. The west is doing that now, like Darwinism, only reklama and lies.
I see that religion is a part of the human character as a whole as man feels he is incompetent before this universe; we don’t know even one-tenth about its mysteries and we feel that we were not created just for nothing. Logic tells us that there must be an afterlife, reward and penalty, just as there is good and evil. Without religion there will be no values or ethics distinguishing us from lower animals. Religion creates a police officer inside the individual; this police officer is his conscience. Religion sets laws, imagine how life would be without law, conscience, values or belief. Religion is also beneficial to the society as much as law is. When everyone believes completely in afterlife, the penalty of evil and reward for good, when everyone becomes happy with what he has and doesn’t envy or make plots against anyone, when everybody feels that God is watching what he is doing, that would be the best constitution for human life. Otherwise, our life would be a mess.
"One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die."
From John Donne's "Death, Be Not Proud"
Visit me at http://differentopinions.blogspot.com
Religious demographics throughout history
Now Im going to point it out before someone else jumps on it that is offensive Shield.It offends me and I was alhamdulllah born a muslim and God willing I will die one, but its just plain wrong to tell people thier religion calls for them to close their minds. Didnt Ibrahiem look to the sun first? then the moon and the stars and it was only then he looked for the creator of it all. But saying somthing like that is what gives us a bad name and people the idea we are intolerant of other religions. You could give people the wrong first impression and eventually be the reason someon doesnt look deeper into islam. arent we all supposed to be a good image and living advertisment to the beauty of our religion.
I think Ill expand on this
Religion has been a catalyst in alot of human civilization if you like. whether beacause they wantedto confirm or deny religion its often caused people to go looking for answers. Albgebra, geography, optics, I think the number zero was somehow linked to religion in india. The 'dead' religions egyptians, romans greeks etc gave us the basics of astronomy and while I cant think of anyone but Galileo Galilei at this exact moment Im sure there were plenty of other seriously devout christians and the Church it self had a hand in some kind of massive scientific breakthrough.you know the religioun that it's followers gave the world the most important science, the religioun that encoureged it's followers to read and learn and for 1000 years they discovered alot of facts that didnt made them to suspect God's existence but to become more sure in God existence,
Im sure I read somwhere about someone who had discover somthing amazing when he set out delibratly to disprove the exsistance on God once and for all. The great thing about it is wehile everyone takes it whichever way they want knowledge is knowledge. And there are people who will say that learning is a type of worship in it self.
I agree with that mostly beliveing we will be held accountable if not before we die then after is a pretty good deterant if some one really really belives it.
My mission in life is to make YOU smile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The time has come," the Walrus said,"To talk of many things:
Forum Rules- You know you want to read 'em
|Litnet Challange status = 5/260
|currently reading
I didnt intend to insult anyone, beside i was refairing to historical facts. The diffuse existing of atheism in europe more than any other place is relaited to the religioun that was before, if i am wrong tell me, i am talking about events that happened in history, perhaps the followers of that religioun used the religioun in other way in order to control people.
You cant compaire the science that islam brought with other science, nearlly all islamic scientists were putting entire holy quran in memory, and they translate the greek science into arabic and developed it in amazing way that didnt contraddict with islam teachings, and all facts they discovered are proven today. No discoverys were relaited to religioun in all history, but only in islam, and they relaited it to the Holy Quran that didnt contraddict with it. Beside the islamic scientists who gave world knowledge were encoureged by islam teachings, the first word was sent from God to prophet is the order READ, and the first thing God created is the pencil, and so on.... Alot of scientific words that used now adays universaly are arabic words, alot of discoveries were discovered by islamic scietists but the west hide them, even 1400 years ago islamic scholars agreed that earth is like a ball by explaining Holy Quran, did the west know that, no they relaite it to other scietists, and so on discoveries. Does such religioun will be canceled by science while this religioun call for science?
Yes egyption discovered and greek but in islam case not arabic or african discovered but MUSLIMS discovered.
Also the amount of knowledge that islam gave to us is large, we didnt contribute in science but we created science. Beside give me one religioun that untle now its going with all new facts, show me one religioun that make every few years a council were scientists come from all the world to show thier discoveries and to show how they agree with book of that relgioun, and some of them say shahadah, the book of that religioun for 1400 years still giving science, not only its followers discover, but the book give them inspiration and facts and science.
Dont feel sorry nightsh, look at news and see the biggest simbol of christianism said, i am against man not religioun, In oposite of them that they are against religioun but not people.
Last edited by Shield&Sword; 09-15-2006 at 11:02 AM.
I am sorry to say, but this is not a rational argument. Apart from the logical fallacies that it presents, it is also self contradictory. Don’t get me wrong, I feel strongly about the right to practice religion personally, but to conclude that it is religion that gives human morals is absolutely wrong. Example: I am an atheist and attempt to lead a moral and rational life. I do what I can to make my existence and the others I come in contact with better. I do this for no other reason than that it is moral and is conducive to the overall happiness of all (Don’t get me wrong, I too make bad decisions and inflict pain on others by my actions, but that is unavoidable). I tend to view morality and ethics from a “categorical imperative” position and often times do things that are right but do not have a positive effect on myself. I do this with no overlying code or divine intervention, and for no reason do I do it because someone says I should (i.e. God). In my mind there will be no reward for my actions after I die, and this makes me comfortable in the fact that I know morality is based on things much better than religion.
If I can, let me juxtapose my moral guidelines with that of a theist perspective. Many theist rationalize their morals by saying exactly the thing you used, (“Without religion there will be no values or ethics distinguishing us from lower animals. Religion creates a police officer inside the individual; this police officer is his conscience”). Now from this reasoning it is clear that when a theist acts morally it is directly caused by the laws that a supreme being has enacted. He is being moral because something is dictating it directly to him, and not to mention the reward he will receive upon practicing and following this set of moral rules. This is what Kant calls a “hypothetical imperative”, in order to be x, you must do y. This is not moral in the fact that the ethical is rooted along with a reward scenario. There is no reason to do the ethical other than that it is ethical. Don’t misinterpret my words to mean that one must act disinterested in all his actions, I think it is good to do things that benefit oneself. However, morality and ethics should not directly stem from that of an authority figure. Therefore reason should conclude that the individual who acts ethically despite no authoritative principles is acting in a more rational and ethical way than those who do so because of a vested interest.
Another problem with this response is the self contradiction within. You say “we don’t know even one-tenth about its mysteries and we feel that we were not created just for nothing.” But despite the utter ignorance we live in, which you yourself admit, I simply do not see how reason can give this type of negative information, and then rationalize itself by saying that it knows how EVERYTHING was brought into existence. This is what I call the oven method. If I take a person who has never seen an oven before, and place an already prepared cake mix inside, when it is done he will reason that the oven itself is the creator. He does not know the process and preparation it takes to create the cake, and he reasons that he knows how the cake was made. This is how I feel about religion and I think it is as far away from the truth as we can get. Not to mention the way religion stifles scientific research, World government policy, education, the judicial system, and etc...
On the whole, I think religion should be confined to the church and the home of the person or people who practice it. Once it makes its way into politics and schools ( which it has) we are doing nothing but thinking about the finished cake rather than all the processes that go into making it, therefore imposing a belief system that is not practiced by all and has proven causes of despair, torment, and hypocritical application.
Last edited by Kurtz; 09-15-2006 at 12:27 PM.
Sorry I fail to see how the fact that muslims discoverd it is of any more or less significance than any discovery made by people of any other religion my use of egyptians or greeks was an example because I am sadly ignorant of the correct name of their religions. Really the significance only matters to the people who feel they can take a kind of proprietary pride in discoveries of people like them.
and ok hows this if all religions faded and only one was left it would be islam because it cant be the only one left in the end because of Alamat el sa'a . The coming of the messiah el dajal ( anti-christ) The big war thats going to happen and lastly because of sodom and gomorrah( yagul and magool.)
My mission in life is to make YOU smile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The time has come," the Walrus said,"To talk of many things:
Forum Rules- You know you want to read 'em
|Litnet Challange status = 5/260
|currently reading
Ok, this could be another of those occassions where I should "keep shtum" (as my granny would say) but I've never really been one for doing what I'm told......
I am having difficulty following what you are trying to say here. From what I can gather your argument would seem to be either that:
a)Christianity leads to atheism
OR
b)Christianity attempts to control people more than other religions
Both of these sound like rather spurious arguments to me, could you please clarify what you are on about?
Firstly, this appears to be more of the my religion is better than your religion mumbo-jumbo that seems to pervade this part of the forum.
You can't surely be claiming that Islam is the only religion that encourages people to read and investigate and question? Or that atheists (such as myself) are not given to such leanings?
Finally, I dont care what religion the people who invented various things were/are it doesnt matter what language the terms originate from. However, I think you will likely agree that most scientific terms acually have their roots in Greek & Latin.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
I don't see why would religion die. To many uneducated people, religion is everything, and to those who are well educated, religion is only support when they are abandoned from science and society.
'Secularism' is tendency to throw religion out of any social life and exclude every effect of religion on society.
At thunder and tempest, At the world's coldheartedness,
During times of heavy loss And when you're sad
The greatest art on earth Is to seem uncomplicatedly gay.
To get things clear, they have to firstly be very unclear. But if you get them too quickly, you probably got them wrong.
If you need me urgent, send me a PM
Kilted. I didnt talk about christianity, i talked about people who were relaited to it and how they used christianity in order to control people so dont put words in my mouth.
Now if a western famous atheist will say that christianism lead him to athiesm will you agree with him or you will ask him in same way you asked me? i didnt get words from my own pocket, and its not my opinion, scentences with same meaning were told by biggest atheists (that ,i think, you consider them biggest), Gotah and so on names. From your own tree i feed you. So i dont say christianity lead to atheism, i think atheists said that.
Secondly about the terms you didnt get it, as you know Latin is the origin of your language which you use today, and because now the west is the leader in science for sure they talk using thier language, but when you use in scientific language words of another 100% different language, and only in scientific, then it show how much the people of that language contributed in science, do you got the idea now?
Before 200 years latin language and greek wasnt language of science, here in italy my friend read a book in which written that first the one who want to know medicine must know Arabic, if you read all arabic books written by muslim scientists you will find pure arabic language, no latin or greek or any other language they got thier own identity, thier own knowledge that no other nation at that time got such wide knowledge and all were going to islamic nation in order to study and learn, even western writers who called thier selves "Mustashreq" this word was given to western scientists and writers who went to study the islamic sosciety and took science from it. Now after the negation of church and revolution in west, books started to be written in western languages, thats why latin was spreaded, but arabic language took it's place in these books without the existence of translations for them in latin and some words are titles to entire parts of science, and enough for me that one of biggest embryology scientists Keith Moore said that we can use words of Holy Quran to describe microscopic development of feto instead of the used language today, and it must be an inspiration by God because such describtion cant be made in time of prophet Muahmmed pbuh, from your same first tree i feed you. you west admit these things. I got videos of western sceintists and prphesors or univ. who admit inspiration of Holy Quran to prophet Muahmmed for the sceintific discoveries.
I didnt claim that islam is the only religioun that encourage learning, i claim that no religioun in whole world go in paralel line of all facts discovered today, Holy Quran and Hadeeths of prophet pbuh. Do you think that if scientists find one sure fact that contraddict with Holy Quran wont they spread it in order to show islam is false, but they cant, instead of that they dont show to you what Holy Quran said 1400 years ago about fact you discovered today, so they go to insult islam in general and try to show that its negative and put all religioun in same basket and call to deny them all.
Nightshade again i say, islam gave people alot of science not only the people who follow this religioun. Holy Quran agree with alot of facts discovered today, like origin of world, expanding of universe, even the lower point in earth is written in holy Quran as lower point in earth, muslims scholars described earth as ball by using Holy Quran and not by misures, hadeeths of prophet Muhammed and holy Quran describe evolution of feto in womb microscopicly. Did egyptions got thier science from thier religioun. Beside if the science of egyption remained untle these days, well thier religioun didnt, no religioun remained untle these days with it's followers discovories,only islam did, because religioun made them discover not that they believed in relgioun as spiritual part and made it far from material life, no matter what you write you cant compaire any religioun with islam and it's contibution to the science since it came by Muhammed pbuh and untle these days.
Yagoog and Magoog are not sodoom and amoorah you mixed things, in order to know them read Surat Alkahf the last 20 verses, and in Yagoog and Magoog case if you know Hadeeths you should know that after they die Muslims will go out leaded by Jesus pbuh and i think only they will remain and life will begin again and people will leave path again. I didnt say only islam will remain, i said only islam wont vanish and there is difference, other religiouns come and vanish but islam since Adam passing with Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muahmmed peace be upon them all remain the same, one massege one belief one way one truth.
Last edited by Shield&Sword; 09-15-2006 at 04:44 PM.
You know what I find sad Shield&Sword? That no matter what people say, you don't listen.
I find your faith in Islam commendable, but be careful with blind faith, never discard views that are different from yours, instead, broaden your horizon, and see the world through the eyes of a young child, eager to learn new things. Find the value in opposing views, and use it to strengthen your own beliefs. If you believe someone is wrong, don't say he is wrong, and refute what he says through faith, instead, acknowledge what he says as a potential truth, and see where it goes, you never know what you will find, but I assure you, what you'll find will be far more valuable than an accepted truth that has lasted for generations.
There is no darkness, there is no light, there is only Lasagne!
I’m sorry to say, your knowledge about Buddhism seems to be so narrow that you think Budhists believe in stones as in they considered these stones to have somekind of divine power.
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/BT/houseofdavid.htm
The 'House of David' Verified in Inscriptions
For many years some critics have asserted that many biblical figures, including King David, are nothing more than myth. But in 1993 a dramatic find again forced Bible critics to retreat. A team of archaeologists digging in northern Galilee "found a remarkable inscription from the ninth century B.C.E. [before the common era] that refers both to the 'House of David' and to the 'King of Israel'" ("David" Found at Dan, Biblical Archaeology Review, March-April 1994, p. 26).
This discovery was sensational enough to make the front page of The New York Times. The inscription also shows that Israel and Judah were important kingdoms in the ninth century B.C., disproving the position of scholars who claimed Israel and Judah were never nations of significance and even disputed that there had ever been a united monarchy under David.
The science of modern archaeology and historical philology actually provides verification of the most ancient biblical texts. Whereas . . . throughout the nineteenth century and almost up to the Second World War, systematic criticism of the Old Testament texts tended to destroy their historicity, and to reduce the Pentateuch, in particular, to mere myth or tribal legend, the trend over the last half-century has been quite in the opposite direction. The Flood, for instance, has been restored to history. Archaeological discovery provides now a firm historical background to the patriarchal society described in the Book of Genesis" (Paul Johnson, The Quest for God, p. 12).
If you want to give comment about other religions, I suggest you read more about them. That way, other people will see that you have strong basis for your arguments and they are not just some comments given by a narrow-minded believer.
And Embarr, to answer your question, well I personally think that as long as there are those issues (e.g. death, spiritual experience/phenomenon) , in which science can't provide answers to, religion will remain to exist in this world. Afterall, that's why human created religions in the first place because we see that there are those gaps in human life, where science can not fill.
You might get value out of googling a guy named Joseph Campbell. He also was video taped in some of Bill Moyer's projects, out at George Lucas' ranch (Lucas has based some of his Star Wars on Campbell's ideas). Campbell is an instance of a very widely-read individual, bridging the assumed distance between "science" and "mythic" thinking.
it's hard to say if religion will die out in the future. yes, of course, everything has some tendency to die out, but i'm not too sure about religion. i guess eventually some will, but then be resurrected in some weird new forms.
as fictional as it is, try angels & demons by dan brown. it's got an pinion wirth reading, that is if CERN really has that sort of technology,.
...don't need therapy to rehabilitate my smile...
http://profiles.friendster.com/6239700
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
