Is it easier to live a life with or without religion?

[Mole]

Pythia

I am afraid your definitions of the above terms are somewhat different from what one would usually think them to mean. But if we agree on these definitions, we can also agree on most of your claims.

I believe more than ever that my candidate for your new username is very suitable.

Yes, Pythia is a wonderful name and as you say, very suitable.

I don't normally give definitions because I don't normally argue. And I don't normally argue because I don't normally make claims. It is hard to describe to you what I do and that is why Pythia is such a good name. I mean can you imagine the Oracle arguing?

Perhaps if I say, I try to say something interesting and amusing but which comes from my centre. And then I wait for your reply.

An argument doesn't seem to come from my centre. An argument seems to come from my head. And of course we want to win or loose an argument.

An argument seems to me to be a way of avoiding my centre.

I know the form of argumentation is common and even normal here, but I am glad I avoid arguments most of the time.

Of course when I make a post from my centre, I hope for a reply from the centre. And when I get a reply off centre in the form of an argument, I feel the point of my post has been missed.

However I see through a glass darkly, and I can make out your lineaments, and I like what I see.

Victor.

 

[Coriolis]

And today we have three civilizations - the West, Indian civilization and Chinese civilization. And there is no fourth civilization. Islam claims to be a fourth civilization, but it is only a large political religion.

What civilization, then, exists in Africa, or would you maintain that the entirety of that continent is "uncivilized"?

And interestingly the Enlightenment occurred within Western civilization but not within Indian or Chinese civilization.

Did Indian or Chinese civilization need an enlightenment? Western civilization had the "dark ages" and the inquisition to overcome. What similar phenomena were active in the other civilizations?

Of course one can be an atheist and fully understand our religion. In fact most atheists understand our religion better than the believers.

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Mole]

What civilization, then, exists in Africa, or would you maintain that the entirety of that continent is "uncivilized"?

Did Indian or Chinese civilization need an enlightenment? Western civilization had the "dark ages" and the inquisition to overcome. What similar phenomena were active in the other civilizations?

I would say that Africa is tribal.

And the Enlightenment was quite specific to the West in the 17th and 18th Centuries. And led to modern medicine, modern science, modern economics and liberal democracy.

 

[Random Ness]

I think it completely depends on the person. I really don't like it when people try to impose their beliefs on someone else, thinking their way of living is the best way of living for every single person in the entire world. People are different. People's lives are different. What's best for one person is what's worse for someone else. :|

 

[Tamske]

I don't know which is easier, from an individual's point of view.
Well, for an individual in our society, it's best to be somewhere between agnostic and catholic, because most people see catholicism as a sign of being a good person. When I moved in a new apartment, my mother was so relieved to see the previous tenant had a cross sign on the wall... That meant there was good chance the previous tenant cared well for the apartment. I was baffled.
But if you don't criticize the clerics and the pope, you're seen as gullible and dumb. You need to believe in a god, in resurrection (everybody who's okay goes to heaven) and at least that Jesus' idea about ethics is the best; never mind virgin birth or other details.

If I substract the society's expectation and ask myself whether believing or not would make me happier. Probably believing is better, but I can't do it any more. Probably I would be happier, less afraid of death, and more confident in the future if I believed there was a nice powerful being who cared for us all. But "it would make me feel better" is not an argument for existence. I would also feel better if I had a million euros now, so do I have to believe I've got that money and start spending it, or what?
I want to be honest with myself in the first place.

 

[Kenneth Almighty]

I'd call for with.

Meaningful, purposeful, but ultimately false and corrupt. That's what I'd say organized religion is.

And, I'm speaking as a self-proclaimed Born-Again Atheist. All of my family is otherwise religious, with few exceptions, and what is funny that I end up going less against THEIR beliefs as they do go against MINE. When this happens, I defend myself. However I've sort of come to learn the value of a religious belief. My mum has breast cancer, and it's what provides her the most comfort; my dad, likewise, has a depressive history, and a combination of things, including the cancer, causes him to turn to spirituality (he's somewhat of a pantheist). My sisters, unfortunately, don't seem to have any other excuse other than "it doesn't rock the boat".

 

[Lark]

I'd call for with.

Meaningful, purposeful, but ultimately false and corrupt. That's what I'd say organized religion is.

Sound more like secular humanism to me.

 

[Mole]

Mother Religion

No one can live without religion. Atheists are the perfect example as they are obsessed with religion.

And what particular religion we are depends on the time and place we are born. And like ducklings we imprint on the first religion we see. And the imprint is indelible.

Can we live without religion? Can we live without our mother?

And when the impious cease to believe their mother religion, they believe anything.

 

[Kenneth Almighty]

No one can live without religion. Atheists are the perfect example as they are obsessed with religion.

And what particular religion we are depends on the time and place we are born. And like ducklings we imprint on the first religion we see. And the imprint is indelible.

Can we live without religion? Can we live without our mother?

And when the impious cease to believe their mother religion, they believe anything.

I'm not sure I agree with your line of reasoning.

To an atheist, religion is simply an idea. You can say we're "obsessed" with religion, but in what way? Certainly not as a moral code. I mean, sure, I bet my moral code has somehow been influenced by Christianity, and I won't deny the influence religion has had on humanity. Maybe that's your point; but it's a big generalization.

It's not a positive obsession, and most atheists I know go on without it. Most atheism isn't religious in any way, not in the sense that we're organized and provide ourselves a set rule of conduct beyond, "THINK!"

 

[Synapse]

Its harder to trust you and you and you and you is source energy, religion is a premutation of that source energy between you and you. Possible!

 

[Mole]

Resonate versus Reason

I'm not sure I agree with your line of reasoning.

To an atheist, religion is simply an idea. You can say we're "obsessed" with religion, but in what way? Certainly not as a moral code. I mean, sure, I bet my moral code has somehow been influenced by Christianity, and I won't deny the influence religion has had on humanity. Maybe that's your point; but it's a big generalization.

It's not a positive obsession, and most atheists I know go on without it. Most atheism isn't religious in any way, not in the sense that we're organized and provide ourselves a set rule of conduct beyond, "THINK!"

I am not making an argument so I don't have a line of reasoning.

I simply don't have a linear, sequential line of reasoning to agree or disagree with.

Rather I am ringing the bell and setting up resonances.

And as you know, only a resonance can interfere with another resonance. Or you might say, only a poem can run an interference pattern with another poem. Or only a religion run an interference pattern with another religion.

Of course a linear, sequential line of reasoning makes perfect sense in a printed book. But Central is not a printed book, rather Central is part of the electric media, like the telephone.

And when you are speaking to your mother on the telephone, does she criticise your linear, sequential line of reasoning? Of course not.

So the media itself makes your criticism of my linear, sequential line of reasoning nonsense. Not least because on Central my linear, sequential line of reasoning is as non-existent as your God.

So on Central, rather than reason, resonate.

 

[Kenneth Almighty]

I am not making an argument so I don't have a line of reasoning.

I simply don't have a linear, sequential line of reasoning to agree or disagree with.

Rather I am ringing the bell and setting up resonances.

And as you know, only a resonance can interfere with another resonance. Or you might say, only a poem can run an interference pattern with another poem. Or only a religion run an interference pattern with another religion.

Of course a linear, sequential line of reasoning makes perfect sense in a printed book. But Central is not a printed book, rather Central is part of the electric media, like the telephone.

And when you are speaking to your mother on the telephone, does she criticise your linear, sequential line of reasoning? Of course not.

So the media itself makes your criticism of my linear, sequential line of reasoning nonsense. Not least because on Central my linear, sequential line of reasoning is as non-existent as your God.

So on Central, rather than reason, resonate.

I think you know what I meant. Be it resonance or reasoning, I think you're mistaken by saying that atheists are somehow dependent on religion, simply because it's something that they like to argue against. I'll admit, this world is more religious than areligious; I think that's why occasionally, us atheists might seek to justify ourselves. Does it happen? Yes. Can we live without doing so? Wholly.

Somehow you would've had to come to that conclusion, hence the term "reasoning". Claims that are based strictly on an intuitive basis without any reasoning framework set up either before or after is just flatulence with no worth.

 

[Mole]

Claims that are based strictly on an intuitive basis without any reasoning framework set up either before or after is just flatulence with no worth.

When you don't understand what I have said, you resort to personal attack.

This is a lack of moral courage as well as against the rules of Central.

However you are not alone as personal attacks are normal and even common here. And that is why we have a rule banning personal attacks.

And personal attacks are so common here it must be said they are group atttacks. Attacks by the herd against the odd one out.

But even worse, they are cultural group attacks. They are attacks by the military/industrial complex against dissenting individuals, for MBTI was commissioned by the industrial/military complex and has been used for the last seventy years to kill vast numbers of people. 1.1 million Vietnamese combatants and 2 million civilians are a good example. The whole ethos was, "Body count", and they racked up three million corpses with the help of the all so helpful MBTI.

And so at the drop of a hat you continue the tradition of personal attacks and body count. What could be more natural on an MBTI site?

 

[Tamske]

No one can live without religion. Atheists are the perfect example as they are obsessed with religion.

True, because religion is very important in our world, unlike gods. There are wars fought because of religion. There are hospitals built and poor people helped because of religion. I don't think religion is bad in itself, but I don't think it's good either. It's got (very probably) one big fault: it's (very probably) false.

And what particular religion we are depends on the time and place we are born. And like ducklings we imprint on the first religion we see. And the imprint is indelible.

True. We're apt to believe our parents (and people our parents tell us to trust and obey, such as the teacher and the priest) and mostly this is a good thing. We don't have to burn ourselves before we know the fireplace is dangerous. Children should better believe the grown-up when the latter warns against poisonous berries.
And a child can't make distinction between "don't eat those berries otherwist you'll be very sick" and "sacrifice a goat each year otherwise the summer won't come back".
The parents don't mean harm by giving false warnings, because they think they are true too. But if the teacher and the priest tell you different things, you'll start to doubt and maybe to disbelieve.

Can we live without religion? Can we live without our mother?

Yes and yes. Ask any adopted person.

And when the impious cease to believe their mother religion, they believe anything.

True. I've chosen for the creed "The outside world follows relatively simple laws which we are able to know. Our senses give us accurate information about the outside world. Let's experiment." And I haven't observed a god since.

 

[Kenneth Almighty]

When you don't understand what I have said, you resort to personal attack.

This is a lack of moral courage as well as against the rules of Central.

However you are not alone as personal attacks are normal and even common here. And that is why we have a rule banning personal attacks.

And personal attacks are so common here it must be said they are group atttacks. Attacks by the herd against the odd one out.

But even worse, they are cultural group attacks. They are attacks by the military/industrial complex against dissenting individuals, for MBTI was commissioned by the industrial/military complex and has been used for the last seventy years to kill vast numbers of people. 1.1 million Vietnamese combatants and 2 million civilians are a good example. The whole ethos was, "Body count", and they racked up three million corpses with the help of the all so helpful MBTI.

And so at the drop of a hat you continue the tradition of personal attacks and body count. What could be more natural on an MBTI site?

It's not a personal attack. It's an attack against the idea that one can simply have something "resonate" and thus make it true. That itself is a concept that is isolate from your being, and thus I was not insulting your being whatsoever, just the idea. Please, please please don't form a strawman here.

If you're wondering why I said what I said, it's because if we don't give something a line of reasoning, through reflection on a statement or through its development, then there is nothing withholding anything I say from being the truth or being false and so on and so forth. Merely stating something aphoristic without putting some substance behind it, especially when there can be evidence to the contrary, and then taking it as an insult when this is pointed out, is just suspicious...

If I don't understand something, good. It means that my perceptions are faulty and that I can be enlightened, somehow. But if one does nothing to provide a reason for an opinion (effectively explaining it), especially when demanded, then one is simply shooting in the dark and ends up looking obfuscatory if no additional information is provided. If anything, one is doing one's self a disfavor, as it would be in one's best interest to get the message across. If it isn't, then that's just intellectual elitism; that itself is a contradiction of terms.

 

[Kenneth Almighty]

Coincidentally this is why religion sucks

 

[Shiet_Happens]

Individually I find it much more beneficial to live without religion. Although I understand why the bulk of the population needs religion or spiritual help to get through thier lives.
But I believe that religion is a mental crutch that we need to abandon in order for humanity to truly progress.

I mean it is obvious why people believed in gods earlier on. People thought lightning was when thier gods were angry(lol), or when diseases ravaged thier people were a punishment from thier god(rofl), and that the only reason bad things are not happening to them was because thier god was restraining it from them(LMFAO)

*Im reading a doctrine written by the Puritans for school, and he basically repeats the third one twice every paragraph -.-

I think a society not based on religion would be very beneficial. We wouldn't focus our time praising only our god, (because come on, all the other thousands of gods are obviously human imagination and ours isn't) and devote our time and money to help better humanity by searching for cures to diseases, discovering new things, and basically providing a foundation for our races future.

 

[Kenneth Almighty]

Individually I find it much more beneficial to live without religion. Although I understand why the bulk of the population needs religion or spiritual help to get through thier lives.
But I believe that religion is a mental crutch that we need to abandon in order for humanity to truly progress.

I mean it is obvious why people believed in gods earlier on. People thought lightning was when thier gods were angry(lol), or when diseases ravaged thier people were a punishment from thier god(rofl), and that the only reason bad things are not happening to them was because thier god was restraining it from them(LMFAO)

*Im reading a doctrine written by the Puritans for school, and he basically repeats the third one twice every paragraph -.-

I think a society not based on religion would be very beneficial. We wouldn't focus our time praising only our god, (because come on, all the other thousands of gods are obviously human imagination and ours isn't) and devote our time and money to help better humanity by searching for cures to diseases, discovering new things, and basically providing a foundation for our races future.

Okay, true, but I'm going to try and be Devil's (or in this case Jesus') advocate here.

How would such a society be motivated to cure diseases, discover stuff etc more than usual? Although religion has resulted in plenty of conflicting nations, on the other hand, people that share a religion can be very charitable towards each other. Religion is just another expression of a tribal mentality, where those of the tribe are looked after and others are seen as threats.

If anything, a religion-less state is just the same as a religious state, except without any notion that good actions are rewarded. In the example of Islam, one of the five pillars is a required tithe of one's income (within reason if you're poor), that's dedicated to fixing poverty. Believe or not such charity has proven extremely successful.

It's difficult for people to be good and charitable without some motivation, and the best motivation seems to be the eternal motivation that a God and His rules provide. And, if anything, we have plenty of time now, while inside a dominantly religious society. Why would making a society secular mean any difference?

 

[Coriolis]

How would such a society be motivated to cure diseases, discover stuff etc more than usual? Although religion has resulted in plenty of conflicting nations, on the other hand, people that share a religion can be very charitable towards each other. Religion is just another expression of a tribal mentality, where those of the tribe are looked after and others are seen as threats.

If anything, a religion-less state is just the same as a religious state, except without any notion that good actions are rewarded. In the example of Islam, one of the five pillars is a required tithe of one's income (within reason if you're poor), that's dedicated to fixing poverty. Believe or not such charity has proven extremely successful.

People and societies can/should be motivated to cure disease, create inventions, make discoveries, etc. by: (1) the practical results that follow; (2) the greater understanding of ourselves and the world that they provide; and (3) the simple enjoyment of participating in the activities that lead to such outcomes. Religions typically offer people rewards for good actions in the hereafter, but can show no demonstrated track record of their receipt. We don't need religion to see the tangible rewards produced by good actions in the here-and-now.

 

[Random Ness]

I am not making an argument so I don't have a line of reasoning.

Perhaps you should add "This post is not up for discussion," on your post, so you wouldn't have to argue with people?

It's a controversial thread, you're bound to have people discussing your post if you don't......