many Religons to chose from

[cacian]

In reality how many gods are there in this world? Is the question I asked mysefl the minute I realised religions were around.
When I was growing up I use to think about the amount of religions there are ie Islam, Christianity, Jews Orthodox, Catholics Bhudism you name it is plenty to leave one spoilt for choice.
I wondered about the amount of gods there might be and so thought it could not be. I am sure somewhere in all this there has to be the One God.
So I decided to have no religion whatsoever because I simply could not make my mind up about which is which and why and so made my own little circle of gods. I chose to go with the easy option that is to believe there is one type of god. The one that is both man and woman because it is strikes at the heart of fairness. And as a result of of one nany will soon becomes gods too. .That means somwhere there is a city of gods with the same aspiration and biological make up and that they would be exactly like me. I reached that decision and I stuck with it ever since. I shan't budge ever because it suits me just fine.
My life could not have gotten easier after this I can assure you.
Besides I would not have to adhere to laws and religious practices that are striclty depressing and cumbersome.
No more religous taxes for me as I have other more important to do then to confine to myself with praying or obsessing about a god I neither know nor see.

What do you guys think?

[Lokasenna]

In reality how many gods are there in this world? Is the question I asked mysefl the minute I realised religions were around.
When I was growing up I use to think about the amount of religions there are ie Islam, Christinay, Jews Orthodox, Catholics Bhudism you name it is plenty to leave one spoilt for choice.

In the interests of pedantry, I should point out that with the exception of Buddhism, all those religions you mention do in fact worship the same god - the god of Abraham. One can even make a case for Brahman, the universal spirit of Hinduism, as being cognate with the idea of Jehovah/Yahweh.

Given the Buddhism is more a practical and spirtual philosophy than a religion per se, you can argue that most of the people in the world in fact worship the same god, albeit they come to different understandings of how that god functions.

[phoenixtears]

There is but one God and when you submit your will to that all-powerful God your life will not be cumbersome as you put it but in fact it will become easier and easier. Not in the sense that there won't be difficulties in life anymore but you will get strength to face them. You can only REALIZE this when you TRULY believe in that one God and that BELIEF doesn't come easily, even in the so called believers themselves.
If you are escaping out of religion because life without it is easy then you should realize we always have a choice between what is right and what is easy and we usually make a mistake with that choice.
May God show us all the right path!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There is but one God and when you submit your will to that all-powerful God your life will not be cumbersome as you put it but in fact it will become easier and easier. Not in the sense that there won't be difficulties in life anymore but you will get strength to face them. You can only REALIZE this when you TRULY believe in that one God and that BELIEF doesn't come easily, even in the so called believers themselves.
If you are escaping out of religion because life without it is easy then you should realize we always have a choice between what is right and what is easy and we usually make a mistake with that choice.
May God show us all the right path!

I thought you said that having religion made life easier and easier, but then you say that choosing to live without religion just because it's easier is the wrong reason to choose to live so. Which is it? Is life easier with religion or not?

And what does any of this have to do with the OP.

As to the OP's question:


In reality how many gods are there in this world?

None.

[Charles Darnay]

In Ancient Greek mythology, any thing (noun) could be created into a god, part part of the Pantheon, but a god nonetheless. In Celtic traditions, every part of nature has divinity.

The answer is infinite.

But of course, you could always take the above advice, reject everything except for a book that a group of rich guys created a few thousand years, and not question anything that it says. And your life will be great (unless you are an independent woman, gay, left-handed, &c.)

[cacian]

In Ancient Greek mythology, any thing (noun) could be created into a god, part part of the Pantheon, but a god nonetheless. In Celtic traditions, every part of nature has divinity.

The answer is infinite.

But of course, you could always take the above advice, reject everything except for a book that a group of rich guys created a few thousand years, and not question anything that it says. And your life will be great (unless you are an independent woman, gay, left-handed, &c.)

Why rich guys? could not anyone regardless of money invent a book and a god?

[cafolini]

Why rich guys? could not anyone regardless of money invent a book and a god?

You need to study the ddevelopment of the Greek city-state under the ethic of Protagoras. It was necessary for them to be the new rich being educated by Protagorian, itinerant teachers.

[cacian]

You need to study the ddevelopment of the Greek city-state under the ethic of Protagoras. It was necessary for them to be the new rich being educated by Protagorian, itinerant teachers.

Thank you cafolini. Nouveau rich is what you mean.

[phoenixtears]

Well I have mentioned that life gets easier because you get mental strength to face the hardships that come your way, not that the hardships cease to exist for you if you are religious.
For a non-religious person, life SEEMS easier because he doesn't have to do all the prayers etc., but for a religious person there is satisfaction and peace of mind in the prayers.
(in response to Mutatis-Mutandis)

[cafolini]

Well I have mentioned that life gets easier because you get mental strength to face the hardships that come your way, not that the hardships cease to exist for you if you are religious.
For a non-religious person, life SEEMS easier because he doesn't have to do all the prayers etc., but for a religious person there is satisfaction and peace of mind in the prayers.
(in response to Mutatis-Mutandis)

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not the most religious person in the world. Even LOVE. in which I believe firmly, is not exactly a religion for me. So before I speak about your subject, I want that to be clear.
I believe we can know some things by thinking indirectly, and this is how I agree with you and what you are saying in the few neat points you are making about the religious person's way of life.
I feel that I may thus pray with you and agree. Love forever to you and yours.

[byquist]

Religion is hard work; hard critical thinking. Thus, it should be embarked upon, rather than lazy denial or tepidness. For instance, study to figure out how the three Hebrew young men were able to survive in the firey furnace, and (2) who exactly was the 4th figure walking around in the fire? Or, what was Jesus' modus operandi when he cured 10 lepers instantaneously? How did he do it? Standard human thought processes will not be enough to reach too many conclusions, but at times do not we all have access to infinite thinking. And, if occasionally, why not more consistently and eventually perpetually.

[cacian]

QUOTE=byquist;1169927]Religion is hard work; hard critical thinking. Thus, it should be embarked upon, rather than lazy denial or tepidness. For instance, study to figure out how the three Hebrew young men were able to survive in the firey furnace, and (2) who exactly was the 4th figure walking around in the fire?
If there is not understanding then it could not have been.
We all know no one does these things when there is a fire.


Or, what was Jesus' modus operandi when he cured 10 lepers instantaneously? How did he do it?

It could be a work of fiction to elaborate and make Jesus look unhuman.
It is a way to make belief readers he was from another dimension.

Standard human thought processes will not be enough to reach too many conclusions, but at times do not we all have access to infinite thinking. And, if occasionally, why not more consistently and eventually perpetually.
Logic is what stands in the way of anything even Jesus.

[byquist]

C, While one can be a happy proponent of Dawkins, Dennett or Hitchens, et al., still there is Pascal's Wager to consider. If you have 100 years on earth, might as well spend it it pursuit of Truth than chillin'.

[cacian]

C, While one can be a happy proponent of Dawkins, Dennett or Hitchens, et al., still there is Pascal's Wager to consider. If you have 100 years on earth, might as well spend it it pursuit of Truth than chillin'.

Sure but it is the word Truth that I have a problem with.
For a truth to be there has to have a lie to begin with.
A bit like saying still waters for it to be still it has to have unstill first if you like.

[cafolini]

Sure but it is the word Truth that I have a problem with.
For a truth to be there has to have a lie to begin with.
A bit like saying still waters for it to be still it has to have unstill first if you like.

and for it to have unstill it must have still first. :nopity:
:leaving:

[byquist]

Ca, Truth doesn't much care if we have a problem with it (Truth) or not, and we are compelled to do the adjustment, rather than Truth adjusting to our whims, wishes, or psychologies. (Note Claudius' speech: "we ourselves compelled even to the teeth and forehead of our faults to give in evidence." See the reasoning behind his entire speech there in Act III. "There is no shuffling there" -- in Truth. Truth is truth; it doesn't change.)

By analogy, this is where Jesus compelled disease to submit to his comprehension of the actuality of God-established health -- thus the disease of the 10 lepers did not influence him, but he influenced them for benefit. They got the benefit of his understanding of Life, and it derived from his spiritual love for them.

Zen mind-games can be a pleasant exercise, all the no "up" unless there is a "down" type of consideration. It is just a game, though, and one can fritter life away by staying with it too much.

[BienvenuJDC]

Why rich guys? could not anyone regardless of money invent a book and a god?

The Bible wasn't written by a bunch of "rich guys". While there were some wealthy men among the writers, there were also some men of humble positions. Some were fishermen, some shepherds, and many very common...

[cafolini]

The Bible wasn't written by a bunch of "rich guys". While there were some wealthy men among the writers, there were also some men of humble positions. Some were fishermen, some shepherds, and many very common...

True. But the supervision was Protagorian. I agree that the writers were of as many kinds as anything required by what could be called The Word of God.

[BienvenuJDC]

True. But the supervision was Protagorian. I agree that the writers were of as many kinds as anything required by what could be called The Word of God.

If by Protagorian you mean, by the Supreme Being, then I might agree.

[RetsixArp]

...all those religions you mention do in fact worship the same god ...I think the important word here is worship; there's a difference among belief, faith, & worship.

I can believe that the Bible is true; I can have faith that the predictions of the prophets will come to pass; but I must worship the God that appears in that Bible (or anything other religious or God-oriented tract) & His Son of the New Testament. Does Buddhism even demand worship? I'm not so sure even Judaism demands the worship of its God; a good Jew need only abide by the laws of the Torah.

I think it's interesting that only after 3 generations (Adam, Seth, Enos) "began men to call upon (this sounds like worship to me) the name of the Lord." Gen. 4:26

[cafolini]

If by Protagorian you mean, by the Supreme Being, then I might agree.

Equivalently.

[cacian]

and for it to have unstill it must have still first. :nopity:
:leaving:

Haha Ok let's consider this again.
If someone says this is still water I straight away think it must have been unstill and yes viceveresa.
If someone says this is water then one leaves it at that.
But if we are to consider water and its source, then one can see that water is on the move unstill if you like for us to collect it.
A source is never still.
So really no such a thing as still water.

[cafolini]

Haha Ok let's consider this again.
If someone says this is still water I straight away think it must have been unstill and yes viceveresa.
If someone says this is water then one leaves it at that.
But if we are to consider water and its source, then one can see that water is on the move unstill if you like for us to collect it.
A source is never still.
So really no such a thing as still water.

There you go. Still. LMAO

[SkyCetacean]

I can see this thread turning into a big cluster... Fornication of intolerance.

In any case, religions (Be they accurate or inaccurate) are simply ways by which a certain people group understand the concept of God, the doctrine of the religion is determined by its followers. Thus, I think that because most religions maintain exclusivity as a part of their doctrine, they are indeed exclusive.

As for my personal beliefs... I am an agnostic atheist. Belief in god, for me, is a matter purely of faith. That's fine, that does something for some people. C.S. Lewis once said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else," and I think that's a beautiful statement on religion as a whole. For some, those with faith, it illuminates the world as light itself, shining and reflecting upon everything, making it lucid and clear. That's not me, though... Perhaps unfortunately, I am too inclined toward pure rationality.

Well that was stupid, long, and overwrought, eh? Basically - I personally think that there is no god, and if there is one it maintains exclusivity within various religions. (The whole synthesis, all religions lead to the same thing idea is... Well I don't agree with it.)

[cacian]

I can see this thread turning into a big cluster... Fornication of intolerance.

In any case, religions (Be they accurate or inaccurate) are simply ways by which a certain people group understand the concept of God, the doctrine of the religion is determined by its followers. Thus, I think that because most religions maintain exclusivity as a part of their doctrine, they are indeed exclusive.
I personally do not think it matters how people perceive god.
It is how god perceive the people that is important.
That needs discussing and need the other way around.


As for my personal beliefs... I am an agnostic atheist. Belief in god, for me, is a matter purely of faith. That's fine, that does something for some people. C.S. Lewis once said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else," and I think that's a beautiful statement on religion as a whole. For some, those with faith, it illuminates the world as light itself, shining and reflecting upon everything, making it lucid and clear. That's not me, though... Perhaps unfortunately, I am too inclined toward pure rationality.
It is interesting that you do quote atheist with rational.
I am not sure I understand how however. I equate rational with logic/maths.

Well that was stupid, long, and overwrought, eh? Basically - I personally think that there is no god, and if there is one it maintains exclusivity within various religions. (The whole synthesis, all religions lead to the same thing idea is... Well I don't agree with it.)
Exclusive is god towards people again.
It is not a people's choice it is how god perceives the people he created and not religion.
The focus is on the people logically.
Religion is manmade but god invented people and so his exclusivity is on them and them only. It makes sense.

[Sydneysider]

Great thread.

Do gods exist?

If we think of literature, does Hamlet exist? Yes he does, in film, on stage and on many an actors CV.

Gods are wonderful literary characters. Do any actually exist beyond literary fiction? No. At least there is zero evidence for any of the thousands of gods created by human imagination.

[Tor-Hershman]

Since the thread's title is "many Religions to chose from"
me a-gonna tell of one I betz ye ain't heard of....
The Church Of Ed Wood

[cacian]

Since the thread's title is "many Religions to chose from"
me a-gonna tell of one I betz ye ain't heard of....
The Church Of Ed Wood



Hi Tor are you sure it is not JedWard?

[Varenne Rodin]

Lifeforms are the only gods of the universe. We/they are the protagonists. We shift and bend and break and mend the machine. I don't know what the universe is. I don't know why I exist. If there are gods, they must be bizarre and grotesque indeed, so I don't even care about the possibility.

How would one cause stars to burn? Why are there so many levels of size? In the infinite space, why would we be important to a deity? Are stars gods? They explode and their particles travel for great distances, creating new life. Is energy god? Was god a scientist that he chose radiation to fuel everything that moves here? Why are such small things so important to us?

We know we live and die. Fear and curiosity are the motives for fantasizing gods. My curiosity has gone beyond petty human ideas of sentient beings turning the universal screws. Existence is too large to comprehend. The greatness at work is too immense for there to be any one cookie cutter answer. Religion is garbage, time wasted; but then, everything is. Human beings are lame and ineffectual here. We can't even get ourselves to another space rock. Like ants trying to ponder Jupiter. They can't see it. They don't know it exists. They can never know. They will never know. We're too small. Get over it.

[Varenne Rodin]

Additionally, I like Tor's answer.

[Tor-Hershman]

Additionally, I like Tor's answer.

Well I dig your avatar, Varenne, if I were a hundred and fifty years less ancient :brow: ....
Anywho, take the Holy Wood, Church Of Ed Wood, quiz @ Fun Trivia.
http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz214926189bf98.html

Woodness be with Thee,
Tor

[Ser Nevarc]

In reality how many gods are there in this world?

Zero.

[CaptainHatteras]

In reality how many gods are there in this world? Is the question I asked mysefl the minute I realised religions were around.
When I was growing up I use to think about the amount of religions there are ie Islam, Christianity, Jews Orthodox, Catholics Bhudism you name it is plenty to leave one spoilt for choice.
I wondered about the amount of gods there might be and so thought it could not be. I am sure somewhere in all this there has to be the One God.
So I decided to have no religion whatsoever because I simply could not make my mind up about which is which and why and so made my own little circle of gods. I chose to go with the easy option that is to believe there is one type of god. The one that is both man and woman because it is strikes at the heart of fairness. And as a result of of one nany will soon becomes gods too. .That means somwhere there is a city of gods with the same aspiration and biological make up and that they would be exactly like me. I reached that decision and I stuck with it ever since. I shan't budge ever because it suits me just fine.
My life could not have gotten easier after this I can assure you.
Besides I would not have to adhere to laws and religious practices that are striclty depressing and cumbersome.
No more religous taxes for me as I have other more important to do then to confine to myself with praying or obsessing about a god I neither know nor see.

What do you guys think?

Growing up I was told about a vague God called Jesus, somehow he was both a son of a God and a God himself, so I wasn't sure if there were two gods or one. As I was reading Greek mythology, I immediately recognized that it was fiction, the gods sounded silly and unrealistic. Later on, I realized that there was no difference between the mythical gods and the non-mythical Christian god or gods. Now I don't believe in any. They're just stories written by people like you and me. It makes no more sense to believe in any of the gods made up centuries ago than to make up your own gods. Let's say there is a god that looks like an enormous cat, it sits outside the Universe. Get a good writer to write an elaborate story surrounding this god and publish it. Will this extrauniversal cat god be any less real than any other fictional characters from the ancient texts? No.

I hope this post doesn't offend anyone's beliefs. This is just my honest opinion.

[cacian]

Zero.

capital indeed!;)

[Volya]

Growing up I was told about a vague God called Jesus, somehow he was both a son of a God and a God himself, so I wasn't sure if there were two gods or one. As I was reading Greek mythology, I immediately recognized that it was fiction, the gods sounded silly and unrealistic. Later on, I realized that there was no difference between the mythical gods and the non-mythical Christian god or gods. Now I don't believe in any. They're just stories written by people like you and me. It makes no more sense to believe in any of the gods made up centuries ago than to make up your own gods. Let's say there is a god that looks like an enormous cat, it sits outside the Universe. Get a good writer to write an elaborate story surrounding this god and publish it. Will this extrauniversal cat dog be any less real than any other fictional characters from the ancient texts? No.

I hope this post doesn't offend anyone's beliefs. This is just my honest opinion.

One must point out however, that some of the Bible does correspond to history (as does some Greek mythology I believe? I'm not expert on the subject). Jesus WAS a real person, whether or not he was the son of God is a different matter entirely. Whereas a story about a cat surrounding the universe is based on pure fantasy.

[CaptainHatteras]

There are actually no period documents supporting that Jesus was a real person. No Roman records, that is. No references. All the references start appearing century+ after the alleged events took place. It's not surprising that there are no extant records, even if he was a real man, just like there are no records of most other people. Regardless, just like you said, even if he was a real man we have no way of knowing that he did all those tricks and it wouldn't advance the idea of a universal creator by one bit.

The religious texts are usually based on some tales and real historical events. They're the textbooks of their day, written by different people trying to explain the world that they lived in, recounting whatever they heard or seen and trying to make sense out of it all. We should respect and acknowledge the Bible for what it is, as opposed to using it to explain the reality which we already understand much better than the people who wrote it did.

The hypothetical cat-god can also be based on a real cat. It could be based on my neighbor's cat. And the book about it could be written while taking into account all of human history and all of our scientific understanding of the Universe, but claiming that it was all created by my neighbor's cat which now lives outside the Universe and controls it from there. Consequently we would have a very accurate and elaborate explanation of the Universe, based on science and a real cat. It would contain a more accurate description of how the world came to be than what we have in the Bible, while the moral lessons could be written by the best psychologists and philosophers of today, for instance, but the supernatural aspects of it would still be just a story.

[cacian]

One must point out however, that some of the Bible does correspond to history (as does some Greek mythology I believe? I'm not expert on the subject). Jesus WAS a real person, whether or not he was the son of God is a different matter entirely. Whereas a story about a cat surrounding the universe is based on pure fantasy.

Agreed.
The son of God is fine but where it the daughter then
So yes was Jesus the son of God? I doubt it.
What do you mean by
A cat surrounding the univers is pure fantasy?
There was a dog or a chimp that was sent to space or something like that?!!


There are actually no period documents supporting that Jesus was a real person. No Roman records, that is. No references. All the references start appearing century+ after the alleged events took place. It's not surprising that there are no extant records, even if he was a real man, just like there are no records of most other people. Regardless, just like you said, even if he was a real man we have no way of knowing that he did all those tricks and it wouldn't advance the idea of a universal creator by one bit.

The religious texts are usually based on some tales and real historical events. They're the textbooks of their day, written by different people trying to explain the world that they lived in, recounting whatever they heard or seen and trying to make sense out of it all. We should respect and acknowledge the Bible for what it is, as opposed to using it to explain the reality which we already understand much better than the people who wrote it did.

The hypothetical cat-god can also be based on a real cat. It could be based on my neighbor's cat. And the book about it could be written while taking into account all of human history and all of our scientific understanding of the Universe, but claiming that it was all created by my neighbor's cat which now lives outside the Universe and controls it from there. Consequently we would have a very accurate and elaborate explanation of the Universe, based on science and a real cat. It would contain a more accurate description of how the world came to be than what we have in the Bible, while the moral lessons could be written by the best psychologists and philosophers of today, for instance, but the supernatural aspects of it would still be just a story.

I am not following the cat/god bit.
About the bible having tobe respected I am not so sure.
It is a bit like saying we must respect the AtoZ because it tells us how to drive around London.
A book is for reading thinking and then commenting.
Respect is something that humans show towards individuals nature and other beings.
A bible is written by some people to rearrange society in boxes and create tension between those who read it.
It also teaches people to 'blind believe' . God is clearly being used as the scapegoat to implementing boxed up ways of thinking.
The questions about the making of the bible is to ask this:
Why does the bible insists about religious beliefs? Why do I have to believe in anything that set up by others?
God is not an education that I need to study. It is not science either.
If anything I am better off making my own mind about what god is. I could even write my own recitation and dedicate it to god but it does not mean it is the ticket to heaven.
Religion the one way ticket to heaven is what I am trying to get at.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well I dig your avatar, Varenne, if I were a hundred and fifty years less ancient :brow: ....
Anywho, take the Holy Wood, Church Of Ed Wood, quiz @ Fun Trivia.
http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz214926189bf98.html

Woodness be with Thee,
Tor

That was fun, Tor! Funny and strange, of course. Thank you.

[CaptainHatteras]

By respect I mean the same respect we show to any other archaeological artifacts. When we uncover a 3000 year old statue to a god that demanded human sacrifice, we respect it for the skills that it took to manufacture it and for the imagination it took to come up with that particular belief system. That is my approach to the Bible as well. I accept it as an interesting product of its time; no more, no less. Obviously no being created the universe, it's clear to us now, but the authors of religious texts were a product of their time.

[Volya]

Agreed.
The son of God is fine but where it the daughter then
So yes was Jesus the son of God? I doubt it.
What do you mean by
A cat surrounding the univers is pure fantasy?
There was a dog or a chimp that was sent to space or something like that?!!



I am not following the cat/god bit.
About the bible having tobe respected I am not so sure.
It is a bit like saying we must respect the AtoZ because it tells us how to drive around London.
A book is for reading thinking and then commenting.
Respect is something that humans show towards individuals nature and other beings.
A bible is written by some people to rearrange society in boxes and create tension between those who read it.
It also teaches people to 'blind believe' . God is clearly being used as the scapegoat to implementing boxed up ways of thinking.
The questions about the making of the bible is to ask this:
Why does the bible insists about religious beliefs? Why do I have to believe in anything that set up by others?
God is not an education that I need to study. It is not science either.
If anything I am better off making my own mind about what god is. I could even write my own recitation and dedicate it to god but it does not mean it is the ticket to heaven.
Religion the one way ticket to heaven is what I am trying to get at.

Forget what he's saying about cats, it was just an example of how religion cannot be proven.

You should believe the Bible because (supposedly) it is the word of our heavenly Father, who we must love and worship eternally. If you don't you're damned to Hell.

[cacian]

Forget what he's saying about cats, it was just an example of how religion cannot be proven.

Got it. Not that is very true one cannot prove religion.


You should believe the Bible because (supposedly) it is the word of our heavenly Father, who we must love and worship eternally. If you don't you're damned to Hell.
It seems a rather threatening thing though don't you think.
Because logically on one hand god create people then he turns around and threaten us if we did not believe in him.
Well first of all let's not jump the guns here for a minute.
Here is my idea.
Let's try to establish that god created us first.
Then let's try and see if we can believe he exist.
I feel the first one is more urgent then the second one.
It makes sense.
If I am going to be threatened by God let's firt try and prove our existence to be completely out of his reach.
Trying to believe in a god that I have not met myself is rather dim and quite frankly pointless.
I don't want to believe in a heavenly father let alone a heavenly mother if I cannot prove he created me or not.

And then this comes to mind:
Help me god believe in myself before I can believe in anything.
I think anyone with a bit of sense including god would understand how urgent this point is.

[caddy_caddy]

The important thing is not the religion itself; it's this idea that you are not alone in this world when everyone else turns his back on you. The idea of a God whatever It might me or in any form or shape does it take is very helpfull. It's a source of a great strength . Many people do not have anything in life except that idea of a God ; that's why they are able to face the cruelty and hardships of life.

[cacian]

The important thing is not the religion itself; it's this idea that you are not alone in this world when everyone else turns his back on you. The idea of a God whatever It might me or in any form or shape does it take is very helpfull. It's a source of a great strength . Many people do not have anything in life except that idea of a God ; that's why they are able to face the cruelty and hardships of life.

caddy that is so very true indeed. I wonder what the scientists( those who do not believe) do when the face cruelty of any sort?

[DocHeart]

caddy that is so very true indeed. I wonder what the scientists do when the face cruelty of any sort?

I think, I *think* some scientists might also be believers. But I forget -- you enjoy thinking of anybody with methodically researched and well-grounded beliefs as opposition.

I have promised myself never to read your threads, but there's about five hundred million of them and they keep popping up. I really don't give a damn if I get banned, whipped, hanged, drawn and quartered, I'm going to ask you a favour: either start putting some thought into your posts, or please, please, please, stop littering.

DH

[cacian]

By respect I mean the same respect we show to any other archaeological artifacts. When we uncover a 3000 year old statue to a god that demanded human sacrifice, we respect it for the skills that it took to manufacture it and for the imagination it took to come up with that particular belief system. That is my approach to the Bible as well. I accept it as an interesting product of its time; no more, no less. Obviously no being created the universe, it's clear to us now, but the authors of religious texts were a product of their time.

May I point out that gods did not demand anything especially sacrifice. Rituals of human sacrifices are solely the responsibility of those who engaged in it. God has nothing to do with it from the onset. Humans are known for their desolate lack of thinking and so their interpretation of god is one thing and god's interpretation of them is totally another.

[cacian]

I think, I *think* some scientists might also be believers. But I forget -- you enjoy thinking of anybody with methodically researched and well-grounded beliefs as opposition.

I have promised myself never to read your threads, but there's about five hundred million of them and they keep popping up. I really don't give a damn if I get banned, whipped, hanged, drawn and quartered, I'm going to ask you a favour: either start putting some thought into your posts, or please, please, please, stop littering.

DH

Ok. I mean scientists who do not believe in god. That is what I meant. Usually science is out to get a god that does not exist to not exist.
Littering from litter. Litter is usually something you dispose of. Threads and posts are not litter they are point of views regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Opinions are not litter.
Promises are good when they are kept they are not worth it otherwise. Put some thoughts onto that.

[Ser Nevarc]

Do you know what science is? I can tell you that it doesn't exist to combat religion and is not "out to get a god." Obviously science as a tool for gaining knowledge has helped to displace religion from some parts of the world but that isn't its direct purpose.

[cacian]

Do you know what science is? I can tell you that it doesn't exist to combat religion and is not "out to get a god." Obviously science as a tool for gaining knowledge has helped to displace religion from some parts of the world but that isn't its direct purpose.

Ok what is the basic purpose of science? In other words what the bed rock of science?

[Anton Hermes]

I think, I *think* some scientists might also be believers. But I forget -- you enjoy thinking of anybody with methodically researched and well-grounded beliefs as opposition.

I have promised myself never to read your threads, but there's about five hundred million of them and they keep popping up. I really don't give a damn if I get banned, whipped, hanged, drawn and quartered, I'm going to ask you a favour: either start putting some thought into your posts, or please, please, please, stop littering.

DH

^^^ This. This. A thousand times this.

[Ser Nevarc]

Ok what is the basic purpose of science? In other words what the bed rock of science?

I'd just advise you use a simple reference source to answer that question. Here's Wikipedia's definition of science:

Science is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained."

[togre]

I know I'm jumping in mid-stream, but the thread title blows my mind: Many religions to chose from.

Religions or belief systems aren't like snow tires--many brands, some good, some not so hot, find the one that you like best and I'll find the one I like and all is fine and dandy. No way. There is only only belief system or religion that works--the universe only works one way. Either there is such a thing as the "soul" or not. Either there is reincarnation or there is not. Either there is an eternal God or there is not. Either Jesus died to pay for the sins of the world or not. There are not multiple ways to answer these type of questions, all of which are good and acceptable. There is only one answer that corresponds to reality and everyone variation is wrong, either to a greater or lesser degree.

Of course there is no agreement on which set of answers is correct. I understand that. But that doesn't change reality. If you and I were approaching a bridge in a car and you said the bridge was washed out and I said it wasn't, we couldn't both be correct. Either you would get out and walk miles around and I would drive over the bridge making you look foolish, or I would plunge to my death. One would be right and the other wrong.

Finally to speak of "whatever works and helps you" is intellectually offensive. Wouldn't it be a travesty if a grown up believed in Santa, or the Tooth Fairy? Even it "helped them cope" it would be an outrage to embrace that delusion. Religious people embrace their beliefs not because they like them or because they help them, they do so because they are convinced such things are a true and accurate depiction of reality.

[cacian]

I'd just advise you use a simple reference source to answer that question. Here's Wikipedia's definition of science:

Science is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained."
Hi Ser Nevarc nice to see you back and chatting.
''testable explanation'' is clue here and therefore since religion is not testable then science fails it.

[cafolini]

No scientist is foolish enough to question religion, although there are many people, myriads, foolish enough to pose as scientists. Knowledge could never reveal what is not known.

[cacian]

No scientist is foolish enough to question religion, although there are many people, myriads, foolish enough to pose as scientists. Knowledge could never reveal what is not known.

I am sure science questions religion because it can. Knowledge establishes something that exists. Religion is speculation and so is a god.

[Anton Hermes]

Religions or belief systems aren't like snow tires--many brands, some good, some not so hot, find the one that you like best and I'll find the one I like and all is fine and dandy. No way. There is only only belief system or religion that works--the universe only works one way. Either there is such a thing as the "soul" or not. Either there is reincarnation or there is not. Either there is an eternal God or there is not. Either Jesus died to pay for the sins of the world or not. There are not multiple ways to answer these type of questions, all of which are good and acceptable. There is only one answer that corresponds to reality and everyone variation is wrong, either to a greater or lesser degree.
Is your concept of religion really that literal? I think there truly are multiple ways of dealing with the subject of transcendent reality or the "divine." The notion that there's only one answer is, frankly, the source of the intolerance and divisiveness people attribute to religion. Humans deal with the anxiety of nonbeing and the meaning of existence in a profusion of different ways, all making use of symbolism that resonates in the imagination of the community of believers. Can a symbol be right or wrong?


Of course there is no agreement on which set of answers is correct. I understand that. But that doesn't change reality. If you and I were approaching a bridge in a car and you said the bridge was washed out and I said it wasn't, we couldn't both be correct. Either you would get out and walk miles around and I would drive over the bridge making you look foolish, or I would plunge to my death. One would be right and the other wrong.
I'm not sure religious ideas are truly that amenable to empirical testing. This is the realm of materialistic science, which formulates testable models of reality that help us understand the physical basis of natural phenomena. Concepts like faith and one's ultimate concern aren't on that level.


Finally to speak of "whatever works and helps you" is intellectually offensive. Wouldn't it be a travesty if a grown up believed in Santa, or the Tooth Fairy? Even it "helped them cope" it would be an outrage to embrace that delusion. Religious people embrace their beliefs not because they like them or because they help them, they do so because they are convinced such things are a true and accurate depiction of reality.
Do they really? Sophisticated modern theologians like Tillich dispute that faith is the same thing as knowledge about history or the universe. Religious symbolism is important in helping humans conceptualize human finitude and its connection to the ultimate. You shouldn't be looking at the finger, but rather what's it's pointing toward: Faith, if it takes its symbols literally, becomes idolatrous! (Tillich, Dynamics of Faith, p.52).

Religion and philosophy are supposed to address the problems of the meaning of human existence in an absurd universe, as well as the ethical context of human society. They're not supposed to be journalistic records of events or explanations for natural phenomena.

[SFG75]

Religion and philosophy are supposed to address the problems of the meaning of human existence in an absurd universe, as well as the ethical context of human society. They're not supposed to be journalistic records of events or explanations for natural phenomena.

I would agree with you on this point. The mistake for creationists and others of their ilk, is using religious text as a literal explanation for natural phenomena, when the record shows, it is a rather dismal book of such. The true argument for faith comes from how people live their lives and sensing from them, that extra "something" that gives and purpose meaning that being outside of church walls or sanctuary becomes acutely missing to those around them.

[cacian]

I would agree with you on this point. The mistake for creationists and others of their ilk, is using religious text as a literal explanation for natural phenomena, when the record shows, it is a rather dismal book of such. The true argument for faith comes from how people live their lives and sensing from them, that extra "something" that gives and purpose meaning that being outside of church walls or sanctuary becomes acutely missing to those around them.

I agree in fact there should not be any argument about faith because it is a very personal one.
Although I have been contemplating the idea of redesigning faith religion. I would call it faith by design suited and booted to fit in with the personal needs of an individual a bit like haute couture and designer labels only with religion or faith. I could see us move that way.

[Pete Ak]

Faith is a fundamental human capacity which contributes to the meeting of our most basic psychological need - the need to feel safe and secure. (But it is not limited to 'divine' concepts)
Religion is the human community's organisation of faith into the various manifestations we see around the world.
Science also emanates from a human need - which we can call curiosity. Now 'curiosity' though massively important is not essential for a functional existence, in this sense it's unlike security which is essential for a functional existence.
The organisation of faith was found to be helpful in the controlling of communities and populations so added to the requirement to 'believe' was a moral code. These two elements are so intertwined now as to appear inseparable.
Science has never had its own morality so it relies on individual scientists having a code (religion maybe) - this will help us to feel safe that scientists are not researching elements of our life and existence which threaten individuals, groups, communities, countries, continents - the world.
One of my beliefs is that humankind is becoming ever more dangerously arrogant, the diminution of the influence of religion has played its part in this. Unfortunately it means science is becoming feral. There are no beliefs implicit in science that cause it to say "Hang on there a mo, should we be spending all this cash on going to Mars when African children die of preventable ills such as measles and diarrhoea" Sure a few individuals shout it but I repeat there is nothing implicit in science to limit it. As far as science is concerned it's ok to research, research, research because by doing so we become more knowledgeable about our world.
So personally - I behave like a Christian - which includes proclaiming the existence of a force greater than humanity (call it God if you like) otherwise humanity's arrogance will eventually destroy us all and the world we live in.

[Anton Hermes]

One of my beliefs is that humankind is becoming ever more dangerously arrogant, the diminution of the influence of religion has played its part in this.

Well, right, because there's nothing more humble than the belief that we're the most cherished creation of an all-powerful being who loves and forgives us no matter what we do.

[Pete Ak]

But that ain't what I said is it? My perspective is simply that if we acknowledge there is a force greater than the power of mankind our species may then develop more humility. I'm not sure being more humble as a species necessarily has much going for it other than it may encourage a more reverential attitude toward the planet and all the people on it. A lot of people regard Mother Nature as the primeval force which I think is perfectly understandable and I understand there have been societies wherein that belief has proliferated. Unfortunately with the Western world being the major influence on standards, values and norms of behaviour (cultures) the growth of atheistic attitudes will ultimately reduce beliefs that may be referred to as 'supernatural', to a sideshow and the morality which has sustained it will also decline in influence. Some may see this as a major opportunity for mankind to work out a new way of being and new ways of relating to each other and the world, maybe global communication systems made possible by the interweb are a feature of this change.
Humanity's place as 'favourites' is not a precept of Christianity that I acknowledge personally, which doesn't mean it isn't stated somewhere in the Bible or wherever.

[Anton Hermes]

the growth of atheistic attitudes will ultimately reduce beliefs that may be referred to as 'supernatural', to a sideshow and the morality which has sustained it will also decline in influence.

I wouldn't say atheistic as much as secular. Whether or not someone personally believes in God or the supernatural, we should agree to conduct society on principles everyone can understand, ones that at least promise fairness and a respect for the common good. It's probably best that we don't perpetuate laws against blasphemy, homosexuality, or female autonomy that are based on the ethical perspective of Bronze Age nomads.

[togre]

Is your concept of religion really that literal? I think there truly are multiple ways of dealing with the subject of transcendent reality or the "divine." The notion that there's only one answer is, frankly, the source of the intolerance and divisiveness people attribute to religion. Humans deal with the anxiety of nonbeing and the meaning of existence in a profusion of different ways, all making use of symbolism that resonates in the imagination of the community of believers. Can a symbol be right or wrong?


You are actually proving my point. Are there really multiples ways of dealing with the subject or not? If your words have any meaning, they must be describing reality in some way. Is the "notion that there's only one answer" really the source of intolerance? That sounds like you have a grasp on an objective truth. How come the "one answer" point of view isn't one of the many acceptable ways to deal with reality? Hmmm?

Because reality IS. It exists in a certain way. To make any statement with any meaning you have to make some assumptions about reality and be convinced they are true---that is, accurate and factual. If you don't, there truly is no reason to speak or listen.

[Anton Hermes]

You are actually proving my point. Are there really multiples ways of dealing with the subject or not? If your words have any meaning, they must be describing reality in some way. Is the "notion that there's only one answer" really the source of intolerance? That sounds like you have a grasp on an objective truth. How come the "one answer" point of view isn't one of the many acceptable ways to deal with reality? Hmmm?
Um, no.

What you said, exactly, was There is only only belief system or religion that works. Now you're contradicting yourself by stating that the view that there's only one true religion could be just one of many valid approaches to religion. Make up your mind.


Because reality IS. It exists in a certain way. To make any statement with any meaning you have to make some assumptions about reality and be convinced they are true---that is, accurate and factual. If you don't, there truly is no reason to speak or listen.
For the sake of argument, I'll agree. And we have knowledge about what's accurate and factual when it comes to natural phenomena because we've been able to formulate testable models through empirical evidential inquiry. That's the reason we can say that we 'know' what causes lightning, or fermentation, or earthquakes. Can we really say the same for 'supernatural' phenomena like God? The soul? The resurrection of Christ? If not, then what's the basis for claiming 'accurate and factual' knowledge about them?

You're painting yourself into a corner with your literalism when it comes to divine or transcendent reality. Unless you recognize the symbolic nature of the way we understand Scripture, myth, and ritual, then you're mistaking the finger for what it's pointing to.