Exactly HOW is religion supposed to give meaning to life?

[Hawkman]

Well, it really doesn't matter what you think it means, especially when what you think it means isn't at all what it means. It is not at all foolish to use the term atheist when one wants to define themselves as having a lack of belief because that's what it means. Because you don't want it to mean that doesn't make it so.

Sorry Mutatis but you are confusing atheism with nihilism. Atheism is specifically the lack of belief in God(s) Nihilsim is a lack of belief in anything.

[jocky]

Is there any type of threat in Buddihsm as there is in the three major religions? If not I have no problem with it and see the philisophical and spiritual improvement of the individual practising its precepts as a force for good. As long as it does not advocate mutilation, revenge, the threat of eternal hellfire etc,etc it sounds harmless enough. This seems to seperate it from a religion as most authorities describe it as. I imagine someone here will know the answer to that.

[Paulclem]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that all these philosophies/religions had their origins a long time before they took on the roles you descirbe, which I don't dispute. However, Someone, somewhere, sometime, thought them up. Judaism was effectively invented by Moses to unify the disparate Hebrew tribes during the exodus, and subsequently the Levites developed those laws which govern Jewish life. Catholicism could not exist without first Judaism, then Jesus, and most significantly The Roamn Empire and the emperor Constantine. Protestantism, needed both Henry VIII and Martin Luther - Men - and what did they do? They established rules to live by. These rules are intended to govern behaviour even thought, so they are a method of control.

Did a god come down and hand us our religions? No he didn't. Men invented them to establish rules to live by. Coincidentally they created tribal groups which people identify with and gain strength from, useful in persecution scenarios. All of the above is essentially true. How then is my argument simplistic and unrealistic?



National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men (although I'll grant that if there is a Devil, he may have had a hand in it.)




I never said it didn't, in fact I remember saying that Christ's teachings and the ten commandments are a good a set of rules to live by as any. This dosen't alter the fundamental truth that religions are the inventions of men designed to govern their way of life.




I was put right off The established Christian sects when I read Church History.




They have to be trained how to do it and guided in the early stages by spiritual advisors, Gurus, call em what you will.



Think about it.



Are you serious?



I agree Frued was a loony and obsessed with sex. However, he was the first person to give psychology scientific status and he was the father of analysis. Jungian archetypes are far more sensible, but still fallible. The point is that psychology is still an art/science/philosophy, invented by men as a means of healing, manipulating or controlling people. Rather like religion then.

So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies.

The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.

This is what you originally said. Lots of religions grew up as alternatives to the state religion, and many of them are formed by small groups which then expand from the founders. Their intention is not control - but as an alternative to the religiouys climate of the time. I would contend that control is not the primary purpse. What governments do with such edifices is clear - used for control. I didn't dispute that, but I maintain that your original statements are simplistic.

How then is my argument simplistic and unrealistic?

For all the reasons I've already stated. If you look at the state aspect of religion - as you yourself agreed - then it is a simplistic assessment. If you factor in the meaning of religion to individuals - whether it is used for personal gain, personal fulfilment, spirituality, study, the quest for the ultimate in that religion, etc etc- then it very simplistic. I think it is impossible to sum up religions and their effects in such a way.

National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men

My point being that it was the state power that had control of law.

They have to be trained how to do it and guided in the early stages by spiritual advisors, Gurus, call em what you will.

They don't belong to some guild that monitors what is taught etc. It's very much on an individual basis which also does not fit your all controlling model.

If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said

This scenario is not how the religions develop. usually they come from an established tradition and break off into a new sect/ area/ theology etc. They started small and gradually attracted more followers. I think it's forgotten that most new ones faded and never got off the ground.

Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.

Are you serious?

I could ask you the same thing. Primitive doesn't seem to go with Priests, castes and clans which suggest a more sophisticated society. I just think it's a virtually meaningless statement given the very different origins of religions and the complexity of theri development. Hinduism is so old that they are not entirely sure about the origins, just that itsmodern form has accumulated traditions that include forest meditators and writers of the Upanishads. I can't see how you can sum even that one religion up with that statement.

It's not that I disagree with everything that you say - it's the one line summary that places what are very complex structures in much too simplistic terms. there are lots who will agree wit you, but I don't think it does anyone any favours to not challenge such a simplistic assessment.

[jocky]

Well, it really doesn't matter what you think it means, especially when what you think it means isn't at all what it means. It is not at all foolish to use the term atheist when one wants to define themselves as having a lack of belief because that's what it means. Because you don't want it to mean that doesn't make it so.

Perhaps free thinker may be a better term.

[Paulclem]

Is there any type of threat in Buddihsm as there is in the three major religions? If not I have no problem with it and see the philisophical and spiritual improvement of the individual practising its precepts as a force for good. As long as it does not advocate mutilation, revenge, the threat of eternal hellfire etc,etc it sounds harmless enough. This seems to seperate it from a religion as most authorities describe it as. I imagine someone here will know the answer to that.

The threat aspect in Buddhism is through Karma. The point of Buddhism is laid out in the 4 Noble Truths which say that suffering is a fact of life, and that we all suffer, but that there is a way to escape it.

The teachings then basically advise on what to stop doing - as it will produce bad karma for oneself, what to start doing to generate good karma and then ther are purification practices that help spiritual development.

The purification is seen as necessary because, as we have had innumerable past lives - then the good and bad Karma we have already accumulated is also vast. What arises in any life depends upon what you nurture in your previous life. So living a hateful life will ripen hateful conditions for the next rebirth.

Rebirth can be in any of the 3 fortunate and 3 unfortunate realms.

You can be reborn in hell, as a hungry ghost or as an animal. Or the fortunate ones are human, demi-God and God. Human is the best as it offers the opportunity to learn from suffering and apply spiritual practices.

I should also say that the idea of rebirth is not a simple concept. When Paulclem dies - a long time hence - that will be the end of paulclem. He will be no more. What will be reborn will be a being based upon paulclem's life - not the same but caused by.

Of course what a person taks from this is up to them. No-one will say you can only do meditation unless you are a Buddhist. Some people interpret the 6 realms of rebirth as mental states, and I think that works whether you believe in rebirth and the other realms or not.

The Buddha's last words to his followers were

"Be a lamp to yourselves"

meaning rely upon your own experience. He advocated self discovery using the tools he had found, and not accepting things just because it is told to you. I like this about Buddhism.

[Hawkman]

I'm sorry Paul, I don't have time now to address all your points so I'll just mention a couple.

"National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men" (me)

"My point being that it was the state power that had control of law." (You)

National Socialism did not spontaneously become government. It started as a bunch of disaffected people who formed a loose group and then consolidated their position through political assasination and murder before getting into power. Their philosophy was established and proclaimed before they became the government. The ideology pre-existed executive power.

"This is what you originally said. Lots of religions grew up as alternatives to the state religion, and many of them are formed by small groups which then expand from the founders. Their intention is not control - but as an alternative to the religiouys climate of the time. I would contend that control is not the primary purpse. What governments do with such edifices is clear - used for control. I didn't dispute that, but I maintain that your original statements are simplistic."

Have you read Exodus? The Hebrews were fighting each other over how to live their lives and what to worship before Moses came down from the mountain. The rules of observance by which Judaism is defined were evolved from this moment. Rules of observance are a means of governing a society. Just one example but it has its corrolations.

What you describe as alternatives to state religion is also a bit simplistc. Schism, heresy political resistance, still inventions of men designed to define a way of living. To observe the rule is to obey the rule = control of thought and word and deed.

As for my "primitive societies" I was referring to those lacking scientific knowledge. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. So we have Ancient Egypt. Eg Akenarten and his battle with the priests whose wealth and power were legendary. The Ancient Greeks and Romans, etc. etc.

Sorry, all I've got time for now. have to get some sleep.

Live and be well - H

[Paulclem]

I'm sorry Paul, I don't have time now to address all your points so I'll just mention a couple.

"National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men" (me)

"My point being that it was the state power that had control of law." (You)

National Socialism did not spontaneously become government. It started as a bunch of disaffected people who formed a loose group and then consolidated their position through political assasination and murder before getting into power. Their philosophy was established and proclaimed before they became the government. The ideology pre-existed executive power.

"This is what you originally said. Lots of religions grew up as alternatives to the state religion, and many of them are formed by small groups which then expand from the founders. Their intention is not control - but as an alternative to the religiouys climate of the time. I would contend that control is not the primary purpse. What governments do with such edifices is clear - used for control. I didn't dispute that, but I maintain that your original statements are simplistic."

Have you read Exodus? The Hebrews were fighting each other over how to live their lives and what to worship before Moses came down from the mountain. The rules of observance by which Judaism is defined were evolved from this moment. Rules of observance are a means of governing a society. Just one example but it has its corrolations.

What you describe as alternatives to state religion is also a bit simplistc. Schism, heresy political resistance, still inventions of men designed to define a way of living. To observe the rule is to obey the rule = control of thought and word and deed.

As for my "primitive societies" I was referring to those lacking scientific knowledge. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. So we have Ancient Egypt. Eg Akenarten and his battle with the priests whose wealth and power were legendary. The Ancient Greeks and Romans, etc. etc.

Sorry, all I've got time for now. have to get some sleep.

Live and be well - H

No worries. I'm tired too.

[jocky]

The Buddha's last words to his followers were

"Be a lamp to yourselves"

meaning rely upon your own experience. He advocated self discovery using the tools he had found, and not accepting things just because it is told to you. I like this about Buddhism.

Thank you for taking the time to reply I appreciate that. Buddha's last words were similar to the point another literary giant made, by that I mean Shakespeare when he gave Polonius the line " to your own self be true "

My problem is simply this karma, relgion, and so on only refers to grown up sentient human beings. What happens to the children who die of starvation, the insane, the uneducated and all the rest who, without torturing the statisics, make up the majority of mankind ?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Sorry Mutatis but you are confusing atheism with nihilism. Atheism is specifically the lack of belief in God(s) Nihilsim is a lack of belief in anything.

I just forgot to say "a lack of belief *in God*." You can see from other posts that I know the difference, I shouldve just clarified (though, I thought, in this case, it was sort of implied).

[WyattGwyon]

Well, it really doesn't matter what you think it means, especially when what you think it means isn't at all what it means. It is not at all foolish to use the term atheist when one wants to define themselves as having a lack of belief because that's what it means. Because you don't want it to mean that doesn't make it so.

You've misinterpreted my intentions: I do want it to mean that! And if the term only meant "having a lack of belief," I would call myself an atheist. Unfortunately, the term atheist is commonly defined as one who denies the existence of God or who professes disbelief in such an entity, and denial goes well beyond simply not believing. My point is that from the perspective of a nonbeliever, this putative act of denial gives more weight to the notion of God's existence than I think it deserves. By setting up the opposition in this way, one tacitly establishes theism as the norm and denial as exceptional (basic semiotics; unmarked and marked terms in an opposition respectively). I prefer not to make this tacit concession. Therefore, when asked about my religious views, I simply say: I don't believe in supernatural phenomena. If someone presses and asks specifically if I believe in God, I look at them quizzically and ask them what they mean by this term God. This puts the inquisitors in the position of having to define themselves and the results are often very funny. This is the way to approach the issue from a position of strength. By using the term atheist one unwittingly puts ground under the theists' feet.

[jocky]

I just forgot to say "a lack of belief *in God*." You can see from other posts that I know the difference, I shouldve just clarified (though, I thought, in this case, it was sort of implied).

Implication, omission, unclarification. unimplication, clarification, differenciation, shouldveication where does it all end? Goodnight Mutatiscation.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You've misinterpreted my intentions: I do want it to mean that! And if the term only meant "having a lack of belief," I would call myself an atheist. Unfortunately, the term atheist is commonly defined as one who denies the existence of God or who professes disbelief in such an entity, and denial goes well beyond simply not believing. My point is that from the perspective of a nonbeliever, this putative act of denial gives more weight to the notion of God's existence than I think it deserves. By setting up the opposition in this way, one tacitly establishes theism as the norm and denial as exceptional (basic semiotics; unmarked and marked terms in an opposition respectively). I prefer not to make this tacit concession. Therefore, when asked about my religious views, I simply say: I don't believe in supernatural phenomena. If someone presses and asks specifically if I believe in God, I look at them quizzically and ask them what they mean by this term God. This puts the inquisitors in the position of having to define themselves and the results are often very funny. This is the way to approach the issue from a position of strength. By using the term atheist one unwittingly puts ground under the theists' feet.

I see what you're saying. My mindset is this, though: I know what atheism really means--simply a lack of belief--and if others don't understand that, that is their problem and not mine. It's sort of like when people complain about people using big words. "Why don't you just say 'showy' instead of 'ostentatious,' " they may say. Well, because I liked the word "ostentatious," and it was a better word for the usage. That you don't understand the word is not my problem.

And, if we want to get technical, I really describe myself as an agnostic atheist (that's what it says on my Facebook page, so you know I'm serious).

But, I have to concede that, on the whole, theism really is the norm. Last I heard, over 90% of the world's population believes in a god or some supernatural element to life.

Implication, omission, unclarification. unimplication, clarification, differenciation, shouldveication where does it all end? Goodnight Mutatiscation.

[BienvenuJDC]

You've misinterpreted my intentions: I do want it to mean that! And if the term only meant "having a lack of belief," I would call myself an atheist. Unfortunately, the term atheist is commonly defined as one who denies the existence of God or who professes disbelief in such an entity, and denial goes well beyond simply not believing. My point is that from the perspective of a nonbeliever, this putative act of denial gives more weight to the notion of God's existence than I think it deserves. By setting up the opposition in this way, one tacitly establishes theism as the norm and denial as exceptional (basic semiotics; unmarked and marked terms in an opposition respectively). I prefer not to make this tacit concession. Therefore, when asked about my religious views, I simply say: I don't believe in supernatural phenomena. If someone presses and asks specifically if I believe in God, I look at them quizzically and ask them what they mean by this term God. This puts the inquisitors in the position of having to define themselves and the results are often very funny. This is the way to approach the issue from a position of strength. By using the term atheist one unwittingly puts ground under the theists' feet.

I agree with what you've said here. Usually those who claim to be atheists (and it's demonstrated here at this site) tend not only to have a lack of belief, but they are adamant to point out that anyone who DOES belief must be an idiot. They also usually try to demonize the majority of believers as fundamentalist nutcases. ...and yes, I am sure that this comment will get a demeaning offensive response.

[jocky]

I agree with what you've said here. Usually those who claim to be atheists (and it's demonstrated here at this site) tend not only to have a lack of belief, but they are adamant to point out that anyone who DOES belief must be an idiot. They also usually try to demonize the majority of believers as fundamentalist nutcases. ...and yes, I am sure that this comment will get a demeaning offensive response.

Not at all give me a cuddle, you have cherry picked some responses and have made some assumptions that you had before you posted. I do not believe for one minute that anyone thinks that because you disagree with some of the points made that your religion or your attitude makes you a nutcase.

I never admitted I was an atheist, all I did was to point out what it meant and despite some of the criticism it still boils down to the same thing, a rejection of the idea Of God or Gods, how hard is that to understand? I hope that was not demeaning or offensive.

[Vonny]

I agree with what you've said here. Usually those who claim to be atheists (and it's demonstrated here at this site) tend not only to have a lack of belief, but they are adamant to point out that anyone who DOES belief must be an idiot. They also usually try to demonize the majority of believers as fundamentalist nutcases. ...and yes, I am sure that this comment will get a demeaning offensive response.

But you called someone an idiot on the anonymous thread. It said "YOU are an idiot." Now, there must have been hundreds of people who wondered if that was intended for them. I'll admit I was one of them.

If I were you and people called me, or even my buddies - an idiot - I'd feel that I had it coming.

I'm not saying this to be demeaning or offensive. Just wishing I could bring a little awareness. I'd like a cuddle too!