Top 5 Misconceptions about Religion

[Rachel Rugelach]

Do you believe, at the same time, that magic exist and doesn't exist?

I hope I'm not thread drifting again, but this so reminded me of the third of Arthur C. Clarke's "Three Laws" that I just couldn't resist:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

That may not be what you're talking about, Heyo, but I want to thank you for this memory, anyway!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, I've read something of "religious naturalism," but I confess I have a very hard time really seeing a meaningful distinction from "naturalism" (without the "religious"). It sounds a little like a solution in search of a problem.

Then you should probably avoid it, The alternative, of course, might be to expand your definition of "religious."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I hope I'm not thread drifting again, but this so reminded me of the third of Arthur C. Clarke's "Three Laws" that I just couldn't resist:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

That may not be what you're talking about, Heyo, but I want to thank you for this memory, anyway!

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with worshipping Arthur C Clark -- at least in a literary sense.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Whelp, guess I don't exist then, nor do a lot of my colleagues and co-workers at the university. Wouldn't be the first time we've been told that.

You and your colleagues and co-workers exist! I know a rabbi who also happens to be a physicist. Rabbi Jack Shlachter is a personal friend of mine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not at all hard for an irreligious atheist like me to say 'most but not all religious adherents in the US have a dogmatic religion, but most religions in the US and abroad don't have dogma.'

But which matters more: the people or the religions?

Looking worldwide, two thirds of religious people are Christian or Muslim. IOW, if you say something about "all religion" that's only true for Christianity and Islam, you're still more than half right.

Also, it's good to remember that here in the West, we get a more gentle, less dogmatic version of Eastern religions. In countries where, say, Buddhism is the majority, the Buddhism tends to be just as rigid and dogmatic as Christian conservatism is in the US.

IMO, the main indicator of whether a religion will be dogmatic is whether its adherents make up the majority of the society... or even a minority, if that minority gets political power. AFAICT, this holds true regardless of the specific doctrines or beliefs of the religion.

 

[Heyo]

Please don't.

“Firewood, after becoming ash, does not again become firewood. Similarly, human beings, after death, do not live again.”
-Dogen Zenji, founder of Soto Zen.

I consider rebirth to be moment by moment (at best) at the mundane level. At the ultimate, there is no self so there is no thing to be reborn (in the way commonly understood).

"The reason why many modern Zen Buddhists now reject the concept of rebirth, especially the realms of Samsara, is because Zen teaches that what is important is to live in the present. Some of the oldest Zen Buddhist teachings make no claims at all regarding what happens after someone dies, but simply teach that we should live in the moment in order to rid ourselves of suffering."
- Do All Zen Buddhists Believe in Rebirth? - SevenPonds Blog

Buddhism is not a revealed religion, nor is it dogmatic. There's no party line to toe. eg Zen monk Brad Warner:
"Rebirth is a myth that some Buddhists believe in. It might be loosely based on fact. But it might just be a fantasy. I used the word myth to define the Buddhist idea of rebirth. These days a lot of people use the word myth as a synonym for falsehood. But that’s not the proper meaning of the word. A myth is a way of explaining something for which there is no good literal explanation."

So, some Buddhists do believe in reincarnation and some don't. I.e. Buddhism at least allows for a belief in magic. But it also allows for a disbelief in reincarnation. Is it possible to be a Buddhist and not believe in magic? What remains of Buddhism that doesn't contradict any science?

 

[wandering peacefully]

So, some Buddhists do believe in reincarnation and some don't. I.e. Buddhism at least allows for a belief in magic. But it also allows for a disbelief in reincarnation. Is it possible to be a Buddhist and not believe in magic? What remains of Buddhism that doesn't contradict any science?

Mindfulness, compassion, self discovery and control of one's own mind remain after both lack of belief in magic and reincarnation. For the non-theist sects of Buddhism. Not all people who follow Buddha's teachings are Buddhist. Zen is a different animal.

 

[DNB]

If you had to write a list of the top 5 misconceptions about religion, what might go on your list? Or, if you prefer, just contribute some ideas - things you hear people say about religion that you consider to be misconceptions (and why).

Here's one misconception to kick things off:

• Religion is dogmatic; that is, all religions have a body of doctrines that are proclaimed by a central religious authority that must be accepted by its adherents without question to qualify for membership (see Dogma - Wikipedia).
  • Examples of non-dogmatic religions: honestly, most of them, when one looks outside of (non-progressive) Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
  • Why it makes my list: I'm a practitioner of a non-dogmatic religion (Druidry) and have affiliated with other non-dogmatic traditions (Unitarian Universalism, contemporary Paganism) for a long time. There are also philosophical complications related to the idea of dogmatism that I find problematic in its application as a construct for understanding human cultures (notably, the fact that nobody is 100% pure in adherence).

That there is absolutely no tangible evidence for the existence of God - every human on earth is evidence for God - man is a spiritual creature.

 

[Secret Chief]

So, some Buddhists do believe in reincarnation and some don't. I.e. Buddhism at least allows for a belief in magic. But it also allows for a disbelief in reincarnation. Is it possible to be a Buddhist and not believe in magic? What remains of Buddhism that doesn't contradict any science?

My answer, alone. Reincarnation is not a Buddhist teaching. I don't consider the term "rebirth" to be concerned with something magical. What remains of Buddhism that doesn't contradict any science? This touches upon the whole issue of whether science is the sole or best tool to address the experience of reality. I think not, and Buddhism is not meant to be science by another name. I would suggest it is more a philosophy of living; thus not necessarily concerned with the scientific method.

"To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualised by myriad things. When actualised by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realisation remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly." - from the Genjokoan.

Hardly science is it, nor is it trying to be.

 

[rational experiences]

It hovers on the fringes of meaning, doesn't it. And no matter how many times I reread, meaning slips just outside my grasp.

Fascinating.

The teaching states humans lost the use of humans origin natural consciousness.

By pretending in and via Human thought and story that they knew everything. That a human only told story taught stated all words by human meaning and by human thinking had created creations presence.

Pretty basic human realisation notified to those still conscious after life's sacrifice. About men pretending they were a creator as a human theist who attacked life on earth.

As a star is fuel in space only. Law. The star that passed earth saved life on earth.
The star that shone bright was in cold night winters sky reflections.

Frozen water.

Seeing ice gave earth four seasons once only. Wasn't really reborn. Winter was just one of four seasons. And most theories you find humans lying.

As evil wasn't saved it was an acted outcome. Destroyed body flesh of earth mass gods body. Nothing stopped you removing it. So you stop removing it at nothing.

Afterwards heated causes cooled. That sin life attack wasn't a sin hole. It was an attack on living biology. Which you just happened to lie about as usual.

If you ask a human why did you get hurt but are still bio surviving. It's because you had survived but witnessed being hurt bodily also.

Being hurt bodily is change. Truly don't know why you pretended that a humans biology wasn't sacrificed. But then theists are liars.

Which in holiness means should never have been changed in the first instance. Which you don't preach as science wanted change to everything and even theoried for it. Non actual natural existence first.

The con was to make other humans believe you knew why we existed as just another human. By stories.

Pretence I'm not existing yet I'm a higher being.

Why a human says no man is God as human men as scientists pretended they were.

How isn't that basic advice now?

I'd ask how many of you are still by human man mind in science as just a human theist self Idolating possessed by your own image?

The actual written warning to yourself in your own future...a reminder you get star mind changed. The reason..you then copy the advice and destroy life.

It is really happening you know. Because you are.

Image machine parts use it via machine to machine and is not resourcing it.

Electricity goes into machine machine absorbs it electricity ends.

Humans aren't electricity humans aren't images.

Your science claim was I the Mage man conjured images from gods mass body. Magic.

Self idolisation self image conjured. The actual warning it changed your mind status.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Then you should probably avoid it, The alternative, of course, might be to expand your definition of "religious."

I'm not a fan of altering generally-understand definitions of common words to allow me to try to say something I can't say using words that are already generally well-understood. "Religious" means "devoted to God or to the powers or forces believed to govern life," according to Mirriam-Webster."

Look at that definition, and the important words in it: "devoted," "God," "believed." I am not "devoted" to nature, I'm interested in it, and hope to continue learning about it for as long as possible -- and understanding how I fit within the natural scheme of things. I don't believe in "God," obviously, and while I sometimes have to rely on my "beliefs," I constantly hope to turn those into things that I can call "facts," or known things.

 

[rational experiences]

Religion. A theme. Stated by human man's advice.

Something greater than all inheritance now owned all things. It must be magical as no two things are the exact same. Said men thinking only.

Humans and animals and nature proves it owned mutual equality. Produced twins.

Human thought said I am therefore self important.

Basic advice says a human cannot be what they observe. And as you've seen yourself exact as a living twin you knew where you existed was in biology.

Therefore argued human science advice said... stars dust mass owns light above and it keeps life saved safe as light. A story only not a theory.

Why sun theists were known to be outright liars in theism.

Theorising theories thinking about a star saving life became forbidden updated as Jesus life sacrificed reason. Gods Inheritor important...holy gases cold...holy water...holy dusts not converted...holy ice...holy four seasons.

As men theorised star dust above and had caused life's bio attack.

By forcing it to cross into gas heavens above then sacrificing life upon the mount of Ain.

UFO effect.

Back in the old days technology such as tv computer phone using image hadn't existed.

The witness of dead human images arising emerging in heavens body was how technology of mans invention led him to using ground mass again today in new modern machine technology. Advised...copying effect.

Using image. As he is proven to have invented it as causes.

Image hence only belonged to the past.

Life only lived in the present by procreation only. Told outright.

Men of science were already proven liars as their thesis by intent is to never end...by their practice only.

As human behaviour is involved in the practice of science. Already another taught human fact. Human behaviour hence isn't universal science status.

No satellite use man only looks out into the universe by enlargement technology.

As machine parts use up absorb electricity it proved it never existed.

Science chose to put metal transmitters above our heads where it doesn't belong...as only space owned metal by amount of nothing...space.

It's why we are dying again increased life sacrificed ....increased as removal of the origin human machine science attack was still active as the UFO effect. Already theoried first. Or advised. Recognised as advice first.

What religion meant....to learn to control inhibit your own human self destructive mind thinking condition. Inherited.

The mountain Buddhists who survived taught you...as they came down from the mountain their selves.

Why Jesus is similar in teaching to the Buddhist experience. Attacked in religious temple because science temples once were transmitting on mountains long ago.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If you had to write a list of the top 5 misconceptions about religion, what might go on your list?

For me number 1 is that it is not based on logic and reason and/or lacks evidence.

Sorry if has been mentioned since tour post, I did not read all replies.

Regards Tony

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That people can be religious and scientists at the same time.

Religion (almost all of them) are based upon the belief in magic. Science is based in the belief that there is no magic. People can compartmentalize - but without some doublethink, there is no way to be a religious scientist.

Newton was. The guy who invented the MRI is a Creationist. Faraday was a Christian. Quite a few scientists are religion.

There are mildly more God-believing scientists than non God-believing. Just because someone like Stephen Hawking has contributed a lot to the field, doesn't mean all scientists share his views there is no God.

Actually scientists as a whole are more atheist than theist. The National Academy for Science and Fellowship of the Royal Society are heavily and predominately atheist and agnostic with a slim minority memberships of theists.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you had to write a list of the top 5 misconceptions about religion, what might go on your list? Or, if you prefer, just contribute some ideas - things you hear people say about religion that you consider to be misconceptions (and why).

Here's one misconception to kick things off:

• Religion is dogmatic; that is, all religions have a body of doctrines that are proclaimed by a central religious authority that must be accepted by its adherents without question to qualify for membership (see Dogma - Wikipedia).
  • Examples of non-dogmatic religions: honestly, most of them, when one looks outside of (non-progressive) Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
  • Why it makes my list: I'm a practitioner of a non-dogmatic religion (Druidry) and have affiliated with other non-dogmatic traditions (Unitarian Universalism, contemporary Paganism) for a long time. There are also philosophical complications related to the idea of dogmatism that I find problematic in its application as a construct for understanding human cultures (notably, the fact that nobody is 100% pure in adherence).

Misconception: Religion is the cause of most wars.
Reality: if you look down through history, most wars were fought over resources, especially land.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not a fan of altering generally-understand definitions of common words to allow me to try to say something I can't say using words that are already generally well-understood. "Religious" means "devoted to God or to the powers or forces believed to govern life," according to Mirriam-Webster."

Well, that settles it then. Nice talk ...

 

[Alien826]

The teaching states humans lost the use of humans origin natural consciousness.

By pretending in and via Human thought and story that they knew everything. That a human only told story taught stated all words by human meaning and by human thinking had created creations presence.

Pretty basic human realisation notified to those still conscious after life's sacrifice. About men pretending they were a creator as a human theist who attacked life on earth.

As a star is fuel in space only. Law. The star that passed earth saved life on earth.
The star that shone bright was in cold night winters sky reflections.

Frozen water.

Seeing ice gave earth four seasons once only. Wasn't really reborn. Winter was just one of four seasons. And most theories you find humans lying.

As evil wasn't saved it was an acted outcome. Destroyed body flesh of earth mass gods body. Nothing stopped you removing it. So you stop removing it at nothing.

Afterwards heated causes cooled. That sin life attack wasn't a sin hole. It was an attack on living biology. Which you just happened to lie about as usual.

If you ask a human why did you get hurt but are still bio surviving. It's because you had survived but witnessed being hurt bodily also.

Being hurt bodily is change. Truly don't know why you pretended that a humans biology wasn't sacrificed. But then theists are liars.

Which in holiness means should never have been changed in the first instance. Which you don't preach as science wanted change to everything and even theoried for it. Non actual natural existence first.

The con was to make other humans believe you knew why we existed as just another human. By stories.

Pretence I'm not existing yet I'm a higher being.

Why a human says no man is God as human men as scientists pretended they were.

How isn't that basic advice now?

I'd ask how many of you are still by human man mind in science as just a human theist self Idolating possessed by your own image?

The actual written warning to yourself in your own future...a reminder you get star mind changed. The reason..you then copy the advice and destroy life.

It is really happening you know. Because you are.

Image machine parts use it via machine to machine and is not resourcing it.

Electricity goes into machine machine absorbs it electricity ends.

Humans aren't electricity humans aren't images.

Your science claim was I the Mage man conjured images from gods mass body. Magic.

Self idolisation self image conjured. The actual warning it changed your mind status.

Mumbo gumbo matty thring. Say a lot but never ring. If I see I never slot. Then I'll never ever got. Happy cambion, happy ray. Upside down I'll run away. Fluff the stuff and lap the snooze, on the roof we'll sit and doze.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I know that many scientists are and even more have been religious. Some, like Einstein found their way through the contradiction by being deists or pantheists. Some are scientists in the lab and religious in church.
But everyone of them has to answer one question to show their true alliance: "are there miracles?".

Einstein wasn't religious or a theist. How he used terms like god (he was strongly influenced by Spinoza) much like how someone like Michio Kaku would when he says god is a mathematician. Not literally but poetically.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are these misconceptions actually misconceptions
about anyone really believing them?
No matter...the points are worth airing for discussion.

I would say no because many things presented are widely believed. But we must first take a step back and be more precise than saying religion, because it's heavily slanted towards Christianity than religion as a whole.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But which matters more: the people or the religions?

Both.

Looking worldwide, two thirds of religious people are Christian or Muslim. IOW, if you say something about "all religion" that's only true for Christianity and Islam, you're still more than half right.

You're also more than half right if you say 'marriage is between a man and a woman' but trying to use that majority stereotype to define marriage is fraught.
Just don't use stereotypes. They never elevate the conversation and always take away from it.

Also, it's good to remember that here in the West, we get a more gentle, less dogmatic version of Eastern religions. In countries where, say, Buddhism is the majority, the Buddhism tends to be just as rigid and dogmatic as Christian conservatism is in the US.

Every society which exists in lower literacy and education access rates, and higher poverty exhibit more extreme tribalism, regardless of whether religion is present.

IMO, the main indicator of whether a religion will be dogmatic is whether its adherents make up the majority of the society... or even a minority, if that minority gets political power. AFAICT, this holds true regardless of the specific doctrines or beliefs of the religion.

This is also true when the majority are atheists, if we take anti-religious regimes as examples of 'where the majority gets political power.'
In those aforementioned states the big problem wasn't religion, it's nationalism, classism and xenophobia. Things which can just as easily be fed in an atheist society as a religious one.