What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

[Totenkindly]

If you're not careful, she might throw the bood at you.

 

[Eska]

What are some of these contradictions that you mentioned. I am particularly interested in what contradictions you believe exist in the bible.

I haven't read the Bible myself, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong to assume the Bible contains a contradiction within the confine of it's own story line (disregarding the factual contradictions in relation to science (such as the virgin birth of Jesus)).

I assume some are contradictions between the old testament and the new testament.

Contradictions in the Bible poster | Contradictions in the Bible | Project Reason

The actual image (you can zoom in);
https://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png

Perhaps this too,
A List Of Biblical Contradictions


Do you contest the claim that there are contradictory/inconsistent statements in the Bible?

 

[Coriolis]

In the case in question, they were explicitly *told* what was bad, what not to do.

Just because someone says something is bad, doesn't make it bad. This is part of growing up: being able to judge for ourselves rather than having to take the word of a parent. In this story the parent figure is God, who is supposed to be all-knowing. The story was written by people, though, who put into the mouth of all-knowing God the human foible of demanding blind obedience to a lie. Not the first time that

And Death is the natural end of life, but God is supernatural. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

I read "The Wisdom of the Serpent" and my bullshit detectors clogged within seconds.
Too many errors to list; but chronological snobbery; taking scriptures out of context (cutting a phrase in half and basing his argument only on half of it);
speculation presented as fact; presentation of Christian heresy (Gnosis) as being representative doctrine; sweeping human sacrifice under the rug in passing; and linking materialism
(matter and nature as soulless, mechanistic) to Christianity rather than the occult / magic. Not to mention historical inaccuracy -- he actually claims that
giving up animal and human sacrifices gave rise to violence in the arts, and violent crime. And the Hermetic movement being supposedly inspired by Hermes Trismegistus,
but really dependent upon Taoism? Which one is it? (I can't think of anything particularly "earthy" and "feminine" about Tao...mining comes from goddess worship? Srsly?)
The piece as a whole struck me as trying to throw everything he could think of against a wall, to see what sticks.

Most telling, in Williams' work: "Death is not her enemy but simply an aspect of her rhythm." vs. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
I'm surprised he didn't bring in Kali and the Thuggees as part of this...

He might very well have included Kali. Keep in mind that many non-Christian traditions believe in some form of reincarnation, in which life and death are a cycle, the essence of the natural rhythm of the world, both literally and figuratively. What does it even mean to destroy death? Human immortality? Life after death in the form of Christian heaven? A new earthly life following reincarnation? Repose in the summerland? Viewing death as an enemy is not necessarily the healthiest and most productive attitude. This author echoes the gist of many other more extensive and documented treatments of the subject. See the Pagels book for one that is much more scholarly in nature, at the cost of much greater length.

...for the nonce, you do realize that part of Williams' writing is accusing the essential element of the female as being a snake. I'm sure the gender feminists would just *love* that...

Many feminists do embrace this analogy, since in many pre-Christian and even pre-Judaic religions, the serpent was a symbol of the Goddess and a bringer of wisdom. The author of this piece makes this point, and I think even points out the one legacy of that which has persisted: the snakes on the caduceus symbol representing medicine (healing wisdom). I have long considered snakes a positive and even mystical symbol. Perhaps that is part of why I could never buy Slytherin House as all evil. If that series uses the rat to represent a traitor, a dog to represent loyalty, perhaps JKR used the snake for wisdom after all.

 

[BlackDog]

You are approaching theology as though it is a model designed to either be intellectually satisfying, or to have predictive capability.
Theology (on its own terms) purports not to derive as a model by hypothesis / testing / revision, but but reason coupled with revelation;
and to act not through intellectual knowledge, but through the heart, through trust.

And on that basis I accept it. But I'm not persuaded that there aren't better approaches or understandings, and it is these I'm searching for. I won't conceal that I wish I believed in the validity of faith as a final (as opposed to temporary) answer; I would say I have faith, and in fact I can't envision seeing the world any other way, as it would be quite bleak, but at the same time that doesn't make me further say that "And I can logically explain why my revelation is more valid, to an objective observer, than someone else's revelation."

The quip is often made that "in the beginning, Man Created God" and Voltaire's line that "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him":
but theology maintains the opposite: that God, in creating man, was theomorphic.

Yes, and it is a beautiful idea. And internally consistent; makes a lot of sense. But I can't prove that it happened.

As an interesting contrast, compare the Greco-Roman deities -- being jealous of humans and competing with one another, killing their own offspring to secure their positions,
having affairs...*those* sound like gods made in the image of man. And the worship of those gods included getting drunk or having sex with temple prostitutes.
If you claim religion is used to justify what people want to do anyway? Hmm, sure.
Compare to the Old Testament: ONE God, not a multitude of Gods corresponding to different geographical areas -- instead of 'sacred groves' and holiness inhering to a *spot*, *mankind* is sanctified:
"Be holy, for I am holy," the Old Testament God says, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than yours"...and instead of commanding drunkenness and fornication
as His worship, the command is to give to the poor, to not defraud the widows and powerless; instructions on ritual cleanliness (including burying feces outside the camp); and wonder of wonders,
The Ten Commandments (granted, our society doesn't do so good on only worshipping God, or keeping the Sabbath Day, and the entire advertising industry kind of screws the entire "thou shalt not covet")...(1)
And the Jewish Law contains prohibitions on loan sharking (usury), restrictions on slavery and indentured servitude, and requirements for witnesses in death penalty cases.

So there is a "test case" as it were, between a God claimed to not have been invented by Man, and gods whom everyone pretty much agrees were man-made.

Again, when you paint a picture of civilization inside the faith, and dark hordes outside the borders, it is clearly compelling. I find it highly compelling. But you can't prove that it wasn't simply a clever idea advanced by clever, wise, and moral individuals.

As far as belief vs. knowledge: there is a difference between intellectual belief in "there is *a* God" and the belief, the relationship, with the Christian God. It is the difference between savoir and connaître,
the difference between "why" (cause and effect, mechanistic) and "why" (teleology, purpose, artistic effect).

Yes, there is a difference. I have the belief, the relationship, but not what I would consider a sound intellectual belief. I love the teleology, but I think that a mechanistic explanation should be able to follow from that. And I don't see that happening right now, and am not satisfied with those who fabricate unsatisfactory mechanisms and then expect those of us who believe on the basis of teleology to accept sub-par intellectual work just because we want it to be correct.

I want to be just as objective and unbiased by my desires in this area, as in any other. Not achievable, but I want that.

(1) Stephen Prager has an interesting piece on the Jewish insistence on monogamy, and what this practice has meant for society.
Dennis Prager -- Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

Again, I find the cultural aspects quite compelling. I think some of his case is a bit thin; for example, I believe that advanced civilization could develop quite easily without the specific doctrines of Judaism about sexual behavior. Just because it happened the way it did doesn't mean it had to happen the way it did, so to speak. For example, the Roman Republic, although not possessing the specific doctrines of Judaism, had an ideal of home and hearth and household gods and the strong father dedicated to the family which was later transformed by the influence of Greek culture.

As the Romans got richer and imported other cultures, they too complained about the collapse of traditional ways and so on.

I can't prove this, but I think that the collapse of traditional family structures is inevitable under the urbanization created by great wealth and trade. I find this personally very distasteful because behavior should be productive and not unproductive, but I can't prove that this opinion of mine is not just a cultural artifact.

Summing up, I think we both more or less agree on what should be done. I just happen to think that we're standing on a city which we can't prove isn't floating on air, and you seem to think the city can be shown to be grounded.

 

[headlessredhead]

I'm agnostic but I've actually been looking into Buddhism lately. I don't know enough to actually claim to be a Buddhist though.
I personally believe in the power of humans, rather than the power of gods. I always thought that instead of being concerned about a gods judgement, I'd rather abide by my own. I want to do good things but I don't feel that I need anybody to tell me how to achieve this. However, there could always be a possibility, I just don't know.
I'm also a big believer in individual power and spirituality. Finding inner peace within yourself and living well due to personal satisfaction, not by superficial or materialistic success. I love to try and bring harmony and happiness to others, it makes me happy. This is what brings me solace, not religion.
I know not everyone would be happy with that kind of life philosophy but that's okay. Just do whatever makes you happy.

 

[Mole]

As I listened to the various atheists I knew that Sam Harris was the most dangerous to religion.

As a neuro scientist Sam Harris had a rigorous logical critique of religion, and as a long term meditator Sam Harris had a deep spirituality. And it is this combination of logic and spirituality that makes him so dangerous.

And as Sam invites us to join him in logical analysis and meditation in his new book Waking Up: Spirituality Without Religion it looks like perhaps I was right.

 

[Lark]

As I listened to the various atheists I knew that Sam Harris was the most dangerous to religion.

As a neuro scientist Sam Harris had a rigorous logical critique of religion, and as a long term meditator Sam Harris had a deep spirituality. And it is this combination of logic and spirituality that makes him so dangerous.

And as Sam invites us to join him in logical analysis and meditation in his new book Waking Up: Spirituality Without Religion it looks like perhaps I was right.

I dont see how the fact that he has written a book proves your point that he is a danger to religion which logically is only your opinion.

Logic is no threat what so ever to religion when you think of all the typical logical fallacies, which philosophically shows the weakness of pure logic as a guide to truth.

That is before you consider ANY of the insights from psycho-analysis or cognitive psychology or neurology etc. which have demonstrably indicated that human kind if more rationalising than it is rational or reasoning, affect and emotion driving, thinking after the fact, often only to vindicate their actions already taken.

Any athiest who is an avowed opponent of religion I tend to find confusing because they are alienated from something which is a mainstay of human experience, even if you so choose to think of it that way human nature. There are athiests who have not quite thought so and instead have recognised a dichotomy of their own between humanistic and authoritarian religion, usually thinking that questions about the existence or non existence of a deity are unresolvable and therefore diversionary for them.

 

[Lark]

I'm agnostic but I've actually been looking into Buddhism lately. I don't know enough to actually claim to be a Buddhist though.
I personally believe in the power of humans, rather than the power of gods. I always thought that instead of being concerned about a gods judgement, I'd rather abide by my own. I want to do good things but I don't feel that I need anybody to tell me how to achieve this. However, there could always be a possibility, I just don't know.
I'm also a big believer in individual power and spirituality. Finding inner peace within yourself and living well due to personal satisfaction, not by superficial or materialistic success. I love to try and bring harmony and happiness to others, it makes me happy. This is what brings me solace, not religion.
I know not everyone would be happy with that kind of life philosophy but that's okay. Just do whatever makes you happy.

I dont mean to challenge your philosophy, as it seems to work for you and you are satisfied with it but I hope you would permit me to make a response given some things that I have been reading lately which your post has made me think about.

Erich Fromm was a freudian and a marxist who investigated theories of alienation and projection from each school of thought, he wrote about religions which challenge idolatry in particular and believed that the basis for this objection of idolatry was an unconscious resistance to alienation.

That is that individuals took qualities which were human qualities, attributed them to and projected them upon something which was their own creation, either conceptually or more often something which they had literally created, in the form of a carving or statue or idol of some kind.

He made a citation of a zen story in which a monk puts out wooden statues for a visiting zen buddhist and then discovers that the buddhist has visited while he was asleep and because he was cold has burned the wooden statues, the awakened monk is totally horrified at his actions and protests that he has been sacrilegious but the visiting monk sorts through the ashes and says he cant find any of a theorised "soul stuff" therefore the wooden images were only wooden images and wooden images are as good as simple wood which is fuel for a fire.

I think its a good example of beginners mind or the undistorted first position thinking. And that is the point.

On the other hand Fromm seems to validate the idea of God as a conceptual idea to some extent because he theorises it as progressive, so long as a non-corporeal idea, which is perfection itself, is revered then no king, country, cult or creed can substitute itself in its place as a usurper.

I think its interesting because the what you describe as your own philosophy seems to be a kind of person centred subjectivism, it seems superficially innocuous at first but if you consider it in more depth it could be quite terrible, what if whatever happens to make you happy is killing new borns for instance?

I can understand why human beings should not alien their own awareness, attributes etc. from themselves, the certainly should not do so in a way which actually makes their lives difficult and becomes an obstacle to life itself, ie venerating a wooden statue when you may freeze to death yourself as a consequence instead of burning it to provide heat, on the other hand I dont believe that any individual can or should make themselves "the measure of all things" either, that can be equally mistaken.

 

[Lark]

I haven't read the Bible myself, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong to assume the Bible contains a contradiction within the confine of it's own story line (disregarding the factual contradictions in relation to science (such as the virgin birth of Jesus)).

I assume some are contradictions between the old testament and the new testament.

Contradictions in the Bible poster | Contradictions in the Bible | Project Reason

The actual image (you can zoom in);
https://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png

Perhaps this too,
A List Of Biblical Contradictions


Do you contest the claim that there are contradictory/inconsistent statements in the Bible?

Why would the product of human experience, interpretation and understanding be anything other than a precisely that?

A human, all too human product.

Science doesnt possess the sort of internal consistency that you are suggesting religion should, certainly not over historical time and science does not possess anything like the time line of religion which has existed from very beginnings of human consciousness, in fact playing an important role as a driver in the development of human consciousness itself.

Any history of science which is not going to be merely a set of simplistic or reductive observations about research methodology, ie testable, falsifiable hypothesis as theorising, is going to include things such as phrenology, mesmerism, animal magneticism etc.

Part of this is the myopic and blinkered contrasting of good science or good atheism versus bad religion which is unfair at the very, very best but I also think it is a consequence of vogues and fashions in thinking, virtually any and all suspicions of science has disappeared from contemporary society. Mad science or mad scientists are in the popular imagination the endearing and quirky Sheldon Cooper type and not some terrible Dr Mengele or human caterpillar type.

 

[Coriolis]

Part of this is the myopic and blinkered contrasting of good science or good atheism versus bad religion which is unfair at the very, very best but I also think it is a consequence of vogues and fashions in thinking, virtually any and all suspicions of science has disappeared from contemporary society. Mad science or mad scientists are in the popular imagination the endearing and quirky Sheldon Cooper type and not some terrible Dr Mengele or human caterpillar type.

Is it better for scientists to be the subject of ridicule rather than suspicion?

Science is nothing more than a methodical approach to understanding the natural world, intended to allow repeatible prediction of or influence over future events. Though modern formulations of the "scientific method" are - well - modern, humans have been doing this one way or another since we have existed. It is part of human nature.

 

[Lark]

Is it better for scientists to be the subject of ridicule rather than suspicion?

Science is nothing more than a methodical approach to understanding the natural world, intended to allow repeatible prediction of or influence over future events. Though modern formulations of the "scientific method" are - well - modern, humans have been doing this one way or another since we have existed. It is part of human nature.

I'm not sure about your question, I dont believe superstition is a good thing, I actually see religion as an alternative to superstition though so we may differ on that point, it depends on your view of religion I guess.

As to whether or not scientists be subject to ridicule, I dont think that would be helpful to anyone, why do you suggest that? And why is it matter that you either have superstition or ridiculous science? That sounds like the choice of no choice really.

I think that science does indeed comprise methodology but it also involves a philosophy, ie that things can be knowable in the first place, that there is something to know, that there is a reason to know, that there is objective truth and it is knowable and then a lot of myriad things which follow from all that as first principles.

Maybe that is human nature and maybe it isnt, there is an argument to be made that a lot of cognition and consciousness is compensatory, ie that drives being obstructed or channelled differently by external events, ie war, famine, contest, defeat, victory etc. resulted the growth of cultural explanation, story telling and narrative. If everyone had been able to live without any challenges compelling growth then we would still be idyllic herd animals of a lesser nature than we are today, its one other literary or not literal interpretation of the Genesis story as leaving this paradisical early state, perhaps a "fool's paradise" but a paradise all the same.

 

[Eska]

Why would the product of human experience, interpretation and understanding be anything other than a precisely that?

A human, all too human product.

Science doesnt possess the sort of internal consistency that you are suggesting religion should, certainly not over historical time and science does not possess anything like the time line of religion which has existed from very beginnings of human consciousness, in fact playing an important role as a driver in the development of human consciousness itself.

Any history of science which is not going to be merely a set of simplistic or reductive observations about research methodology, ie testable, falsifiable hypothesis as theorising, is going to include things such as phrenology, mesmerism, animal magneticism etc.

Part of this is the myopic and blinkered contrasting of good science or good atheism versus bad religion which is unfair at the very, very best but I also think it is a consequence of vogues and fashions in thinking, virtually any and all suspicions of science has disappeared from contemporary society. Mad science or mad scientists are in the popular imagination the endearing and quirky Sheldon Cooper type and not some terrible Dr Mengele or human caterpillar type.

I think you quoted the wrong user.

If not, I don't know what you're referring to or/and what your point is.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm not sure about your question, I dont believe superstition is a good thing, I actually see religion as an alternative to superstition though so we may differ on that point, it depends on your view of religion I guess.

As to whether or not scientists be subject to ridicule, I dont think that would be helpful to anyone, why do you suggest that? And why is it matter that you either have superstition or ridiculous science? That sounds like the choice of no choice really.

I think that science does indeed comprise methodology but it also involves a philosophy, ie that things can be knowable in the first place, that there is something to know, that there is a reason to know, that there is objective truth and it is knowable and then a lot of myriad things which follow from all that as first principles.

Maybe that is human nature and maybe it isnt, there is an argument to be made that a lot of cognition and consciousness is compensatory, ie that drives being obstructed or channelled differently by external events, ie war, famine, contest, defeat, victory etc. resulted the growth of cultural explanation, story telling and narrative. If everyone had been able to live without any challenges compelling growth then we would still be idyllic herd animals of a lesser nature than we are today, its one other literary or not literal interpretation of the Genesis story as leaving this paradisical early state, perhaps a "fool's paradise" but a paradise all the same.

Would the highlighted have been a better situation for humanity?

I don't know why you are mentioning superstition. Science has always stood in opposition to superstition. Religion may claim to be an alternative, but it has no more predictive value in the natural world than supersitition does. Superstitions sometimes did turn out to have a basis in actual cause and effect relationships. In these cases they were really rudimentary empiricism rather than true superstition.

As for ridicule, you contrasted suspicion of scientists with their prominent role in a modern sitcom. Such caricatured portrayals do nothing to improve public understanding of who scientists are and what we really do.

 

[kingkelb]

I'm an atheist, though I went to a Christian school and have many friends of other faiths so I think I know enough about religion to discuss it. I realise that other people are religious but I will not silence my lack of belief out of 'respect' for their belief.

Marx said it well that religion is the 'sigh of the oppressed creature' -people look to religion for hope that even if their life is shit now, maybe if they follow a load of rules now, after they die it will be better. So many religious beliefs and theories have been proven incorrect by modern technology. Creationists fighting to keep teaching about evolution out of schools are lying and impeding progress. Hopefully one day everyone will be educated well in the true facts of the universe and religion will die out. Every surge of scientific discovery is suppressed by religion and it has contributed to many problems facing the world today- sexism, homophobia etc. Plus the amount of religiously-justified wars and attacks.

Although it can help some with moral guidance, people should decide for themselves instead of blindly following rules (which has never helped anything) If the only thing stopping someone from raping is the idea of hell, rather than not wanting to hurt someone in that way, is that good? ...

 

[Mole]

I'm an atheist, though I went to a Christian school and have many friends of other faiths so I think I know enough about religion to discuss it. I realise that other people are religious but I will not silence my lack of belief out of 'respect' for their belief.

Marx said it well that religion is the 'sigh of the oppressed creature' -people look to religion for hope that even if their life is shit now, maybe if they follow a load of rules now, after they die it will be better. So many religious beliefs and theories have been proven incorrect by modern technology. Creationists fighting to keep teaching about evolution out of schools are lying and impeding progress. Hopefully one day everyone will be educated well in the true facts of the universe and religion will die out. Every surge of scientific discovery is suppressed by religion and it has contributed to many problems facing the world today- sexism, homophobia etc. Plus the amount of religiously-justified wars and attacks.

Although it can help some with moral guidance, people should decide for themselves instead of blindly following rules (which has never helped anything) If the only thing stopping someone from raping is the idea of hell, rather than not wanting to hurt someone in that way, is that good? ...

Certainly mystical experience within a religion is a real experience.

And almost all religions have a mystical tradition.

The question is can we disentangle mystical experience from religion? And the answer is yes. And a start has been made with the book Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris.

We have such a rich history of mystical experience going back tens of thousands of years and codified by religion.

And we have a long history of religious mystics to draw from. There is no need for us to invent the wheel all the time, many great mystics have trod the path before us, and left us help and advice and a map for the mystical journey.

So perhaps we should be grateful to religion for preserving and codifying mystical experience, and now we can take mystical experience into our own hands.

Just as the monks in their scriptoriums preserved and codified the riches of Ancient Greece for us to enjoy and develop today, so religion had preserved and codified mystical experience for us to enjoy and develop in today's world.

 

[Evee]

“I have grown tired of the articulate utterances of men and things. The Mystical in Art, the Mystical in Life, the Mystical in Nature this is what I am looking for. It is absolutely necessary for me to find it somewhere.” Oscar Wilde

 

[Mole]

“I have grown tired of the articulate utterances of men and things. The Mystical in Art, the Mystical in Life, the Mystical in Nature this is what I am looking for. It is absolutely necessary for me to find it somewhere.” Oscar Wilde

I like the mystical chapter in, The Wind in the Willows. To read it just click on The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame: Ch. The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

 

[Riva]

Where there is suffering (poverty, oppression, destruction, unjust, corruption etc) religions thrives.

Where there is bliss (abundance, joy and security) philosophy/science thrives.

This is why there are more religious people in under developed areas of the world; where as well to do areas tend to be less religious. I am not saying that the less religious places are atheist but they seldom care about religious obligations and adherence or even prayer.

I think statistics will prove my point.

 

[Riva]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION], [MENTION=22109]Evee[/MENTION], [MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION], [MENTION=4939]kyuuei[/MENTION], [MENTION=4660]msg_v2[/MENTION]

Please tell me what other gods you worship. Don't bore me by saying that you are an agnostic. Please accept my apologies if you have already mentioned this and I have missed it.

 

[Fluffywolf]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION], [MENTION=22109]Evee[/MENTION], [MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION], [MENTION=4939]kyuuei[/MENTION], [MENTION=4660]msg_v2[/MENTION]

Please tell me what other gods you worship. Don't bore me by saying that you are an agnostic. Please accept my apologies if you have already mentioned this and I have missed it.

Processing personal value for the idea of theistic or non theistic beliefs...

...Processing complete.

Output: 0

(Though the term is technically an oxymoron, I would best be described as an apatheist as I've stated numerous times on the forum.)