To be absurd all one needs to do is to get on a thread called British Literature vs. American Literature and then throw foodstuffs at each other.
To be absurd all one needs to do is to get on a thread called British Literature vs. American Literature and then throw foodstuffs at each other.
Last edited by G L Wilson; 08-22-2011 at 01:48 PM.
How is Religion supposed to give meaning to life? It's not. Christianity, for one, is not a religion, it's a relationship. Relationship gives meaning to life. Having a relationship with God, our creator, gives meaning to life. Praying, reading his words, using the talents he's given us toward our purpose he's given us (Our Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren). Helping others. Obeying his words. Taking care of our planet, our flora and fauna and air, and brothers etc. And so much more.
Live in the sunshine. Swim in the sea. Drink the wild air ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
God does whatever he pleases. He makes us worship him, do what he says. Simple as that.Originally Posted by Melanie
If a President can rule our life, what's more GOD.
GOD rules over everything and everyone in the world.
The reward of worshipping him? A place you call Heaven. If not you end up in Hell.
Just like living in a country. You follow rules you are safe. You break rules, you go to prison.
Simple.
Are you sure you know what the rules are exactly?
God indeed does whatever he pleases.
Chrsitianity isnt a religion. Atheism isnt a religion. I'm now convinced that religion doesnt actually exist.
which god are you referring to? Why must life be a reward-based endeavor, as opposed to just being for its own sake? which heaven? which hell? whats so great about heaven and so bad about hell? have you ever read Siddhartha?
Seems strange to me that atheists attend church to socialise when there are numerous non-religious venues to meet people.
All religions are about a relationship with a deity/deities. They are all characterised by the deity inisisting upon wanting to be worshipped. The rest (following all the directives set out in this very lop-sided realtionship) are not enough to buy a ticket to heaven. The God worship is essential. BTW atheist also concerned about looking after other people and the planet.
The Nastika religions of India all lack deities. Not all religions concern deities. Many people consider "atheism" itself to be a religion.
There is nothing wrong with religion. There is something wrong with saying your world view is right and that all others you disagree with are wrong.
Atheism is no more inherently correct than any other world view.
Drkshadow03
At the very least what you say about those holy texts being meaningful without God is contentious. They may make good stories like Wind In The Willows (or any other piece of fiction) but the killing and maiming and the strict rules of how to behave (including diet ect.) is imo is 'rationalised' or made acceptable only by a believe in God.
re atheism. Absolutely agree. I cannot make my head around when kids are taught to be good, kind and helpful as "they are Christians"(on example of my son's school). I think it is wrong. Kids (who are growing into adults) should be kind and caring as they are Humans. Homo Sapiens. All the rest - if they are Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists Etr. - irrelevant. Atheists are nice people as well. If they are not - it has nothing to do with the religion.
HCabret
So tell us about these Nastika religions and exactly what they believe because frankly I'm not prepared to take your word for it. Even buddhism in some of its forms despite not originally accepting the notion of a deity to be worshipped (because one ultimately becomes God through belief and good works) has changed to where there is a notion of a deity with which a person becomes one. You reiterate a common misunderstanding of atheism. It is not a religion. There is no organised belief system and no commonality among atheists other than they are not convinced there is evidence to support the notion of a deity. This idea of atheism as a religion is only a blacklack by theist who want to argue that fundamentally atheist are the same as theists.
"There is nothing wrong with religion."
That is debateable but too long to go into at this moment in time. (May be at a later date.)
Now tell me where I said that everybody else is wrong and I'm right? I simply put forward a different view.
All Buddhists reject the concept of deities. Jains are even more orthodox concerning this position.
Regardless of your position as to whether it not atheism is or is not a religion, there is a large group of people which do classify it as being a religion.
My beef is with dogma. I don't like when atheists claim that their world view is correct and all other opposing view points are automatically wrong, just because their run counter to atheism. I never said that you said anything, I was simply pointing out my dislike for dogmatic approaches.
HCabret
"Regardless of your position as to whether it not atheism is or is not a religion, there is a large group of people which do classify it as being a religion."
Interestingly no atheist sees it that way! The argument about atheism being a religion is used by some theists to make out that basically atheist are the same as theist, but just with a diffferent set of beliefs. It could be characterised as a retaliotory reaction by religious types to the criticism the receive from atheists. Fundamentally theists work on the notion of 'faith' while atheist do not operate on faith, but 'evidence' (for want of a better word). Many atheists can and do argue that if there was clear and unequivocal evidence for God, there would be no need for faith. In that situation God would be considered a fact.
I did briefly notice yesterday that one of the comments on this forum was along the the line that science/scientists also operate on faith too. I have heard similar arguments essentially saying that when when someone steps on a plane they have faith/belief that they will arrive safely at their destination. IMO that shows a profound misunderstanding of science and its methodology. I do not need to step on board a plane with faith. I can check the the reliability of jet engines, analyse the statistics about the safety of air travel generally or a specific carrier etc. In the light of that I can choose whether or not to board the flight. If there is a life-threatening error in the technology, or mental stability of the pilot, no amount of faith is going to stop the ensuing accident.
Fine you have a beef with dogma - so do I. That said we need to remember that dogma is very common in religions - some would go as far as arguing that it is characteristic of all religions. Science is a methodology and while it has some weaknesses it has given us not only all the technology at our disposal, but also a good understanding of the physical world.
HCabret
"Astika and Nastika do not mean "theism" and "atheism" respectively in ancient or medieval era Sanskrit literature.[4] In current Indian languages like Hindi, āstika usually means "theist", while nāstika means "atheist".[10] However, the terms are used differently in Hindu philosophy.[11] For example, Sāṃkhya is both an atheist and āstika (Vedic) philosophy.[12]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80...d_n%C4%81stika
It would appear matters are not as straightforward as you suggest!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote