Too many religions

NIX · Aug 16, 2012

People pick things for their own reasons. (whatever they may be)
And then beyond that, they defend, push and uphold things for their own reasons.
(even if their own reasons, were adopted or borrowed from someone or something else)

paarsurrey · Aug 16, 2012

NIX said:
People pick things for their own reasons. (whatever they may be)
And then beyond that, they defend, push and uphold things for their own reasons.
(even if their own reasons, were adopted or borrowed from someone or something else)

I don't get you. Please elaborate.

InvestigateTruth · Aug 16, 2012

paarsurrey said:
I said the name of the religion is not important; it is the basic beliefs and the attributes of the creator God which are important.

So, are you saying that you agree that all the major religions are from the same God, and we know these religions came at different time, and when their Messenger came, said to people; follow the New revelation from God. So, if you agreed these these Messengers are from the same God, why not find out which religion is the most recent, and follow that one?

charles brough · Aug 16, 2012

crocusj said:
I didn't say that, I said that we are diverse. That a Himalayan mountain dweller and a rain-forest Indian should give up their gods because of big bang theory is just ludicrous and arrogant, particularly if one of them happened to have read Einstein because he had been told that science had all the answers. Why should he or anyone else trust you now.

There is no "scientific justification" for saving pandas, for opera singing, allowing dwarfs to live, bikinis. Must we forgo these too?

Our secular doctrine of diversity is that people of all other religions should be introduced to our secullar doctrins and way of life but their own cuolture and religion be treated with respect---also, the it is good/beneficial for the world to be so diverse. In other words, our system promotes itself without either the intention or ability to replace the diverrse cultures and religious beliefs of the world.

Myself, I think world problems will continue to grow worse because that program is not working. Our secular system's influence is in decline and diversity is increasing at the time when world unity is all the more needed. More unity is needed so that the world (with US leadership) can agree on solutions to common world problem.

Nazism ended when it overstepped geographical boundaries not moral ones. Soviet Marxism was not ended while Stalin slaughtered millions. Bunkers have been around since we have, as have arms races, as have famines. We have already survived an ice age. Terrorism was much more prevalent in the UK forty years ago than it is now. Political corruption is as old as prostitution. "We" are not the worlds policeman.

You put optimism down as facts. And the US is using the UN to be the world's policement.

Imagination is essential to us. Science can build an aeroplane but only a man looking at a bird might want to in the first place. Imagination and curiosity are the source of our scientific creativity. If that also includes us asking the question; "Why are we here?" then so be it. Clearly, this has not been answered to everyones satisfaction, even if it has been for you. Must we stop asking the question because you have arrived at your "truth"? What else must we give up in order to join with your one world order?

It sounds like you are claiming I am against curiosity, imagination, an answer to "why are we here?" and even that I claim to have "the truth"? None of that applies to me and seems insulting.

crocusj · Aug 16, 2012

charles brough said:
It sounds like you are claiming I am against curiosity, imagination, an answer to "why are we here?" and even that I claim to have "the truth"? None of that applies to me and seems insulting.

Well, when you say;

There is no scientific justification at all for the belief in any "spirit" or "god" that alters cause and effect. An effective all-scientific world view system (ideology) would have to be uncompromising on that. It would have to be dead set against any and all such theistic world-view ("religion") systems.

We need one that can, will and must, in time, replace all such now-obsolete faiths .

it does apply to you. Or, at least, only that which can be positively justified by your interpretation of science merits a place in humanity's future seems to be your stance.

JustWondering · Aug 17, 2012

Science dominates the real world. There's no denying that. So why not leave spiritual stuff in the spiritual world? If there be gods they are taking a very hands-off approach when it comes to humanity. When was the last time a god showed up to do anything? So why worry about it? Can anyone actually argue that making important decisions using reason instead of emotion is a bad thing? Emotion is the foundation of religion. Reason is the foundation of science. Religious thought and agendas should stay the hell away from politics and government, IMO. It should be that way in America, but it isn't.

charles brough · Aug 17, 2012

crocusj said:
it does apply to you. Or, at least, only that which can be positively justified by your interpretation of science merits a place in humanity's future seems to be your stance.

Pehaps our mutual misunderstanding comes from your apparent assumption that we humans need to believe in "spirits" to have immagination, creativity and happiness. I personally see no connection at all between them.

paarsurrey · Aug 17, 2012

InvestigateTruth said:
So, are you saying that you agree that all the major religions are from the same God, and we know these religions came at different time, and when their Messenger came, said to people; follow the New revelation from God. So, if you agreed these these Messengers are from the same God, why not find out which religion is the most recent, and follow that one?

My religion tells me the message was always, basically, the same from the creator God; when people lost the message in essence, the message was revived:

[46:10] Say, I am no new Messenger, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you in this life. I do but follow what is revealed to me; and I am but a plain Warner.
The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Man of Faith · Aug 17, 2012

JustWondering said:
One major reason for me, that keeps me from being a theist, is that there are too many religions.

Satan has done his job.

JustWondering · Aug 18, 2012

Man of Faith said:
Satan has done his job.

I don't think a supernatural "bad man" created fake religions. Humans wanted answers to big questions but no way to get them. The Human mind is also wired to seek out patterns in, well, everything. Couple all that with Human creativity and its only natural for groups that are seperated from each other to produce their own belief systems. Just look at all the different beliefs spawned from the bible. There is no "one true path", because there is no divine path to follow in the first place. I believe that if a divine being wanted us to know something, we'd know it, and there would be no room for skepticism. All the religions I've seen are man-made in my opinion. There's nothing to give any of them anymore credibility than another.

charles brough · Aug 18, 2012

JustWondering said:
Can anyone actually argue that making important decisions using reason instead of emotion is a bad thing? Emotion is the foundation of religion. Reason is the foundation of science. Religious thought and agendas should stay the hell away from politics and government, IMO. It should be that way in America, but it isn't.

Yes. People believe in their religion because it is emotionally their support. It provides a sense of community, security, and an ability for those united by it to cooperate and solve common problems. We have evolved as small groups primates and have both a functional and emotional need to feel being apart of the group. Our religions, even our secular belief system, enables us to feel our society as being our group.

Science is the intellectual means we employ to serve and support our group-into-society.

charles brough · Aug 18, 2012

crocusj said:
Well, when you say;

Or, at least, only that which can be positively justified by your interpretation of science merits a place in humanity's future seems to be.

That seems to say that I say that only my interpretation of science merits a place in humanity's future.
Of course! Is it wrong to believe your own understanding of science is the most accurate and, hence, best for our future? I think what you mean is that it is best for our future when social scientists or social theorists interpret their data in diverse ways. If so, I point out that that does not apply to any other field of science. If an engineer bases his building on contradictory theories of physics, it would likely fall on its builders. The scientific consensus needs to have the most accurate interpretion of any science in order to be able to be of predictive value. The social theory consensus has no ability to provide us with even a glimpse into the future because it is rationalizing the data. It is being subjective in order for our society to be ideologically compatable with all the world's older beliefs and, hence, able to set up and intrend to sustain the "world economy."

shivadas · Aug 19, 2012

more religions, more choices..
All paths, lead to truth.
one way is good for some, another is good for others...

no body like an ice cream shop with only one flavor.

charles brough · Aug 20, 2012

shivadas said:
more religions, more choices.. All paths, lead to truth. one way is good for some, another is good for others... no body like an ice cream shop with only one flavor.

If everyone liked the same flavor, it would not be necessary for the icecream shop to have so damned many flavors. How many flavors should we have if everyone wants another one? Would some 6 billion flavors do for some 6 billion people? We humans need enough uniformity to be able to get along together.

The more we think in common, the more we understand and appreciate each other and the more we are able to cooperate and solve common problems---problems like global warming, terrorism, polution, diminishing resources, disappearing species, nuclear proliferation, etc. The US Constitution was aimed to build "a more perfect union" as "united we stand; divided we fall."

Adopting the sick ideal of "diversity" was just a desperate hope dreamed up by academic activists to "appreciate" diversity in order to avoid offending anyone. But right now, for example, the "diversity" doctrine is leading Modanna to turn Russian public opinion against our way of thinking and back to Putin. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy. . .

Astravalon · Aug 20, 2012

charles brough said:
If everyone liked the same flavor, it would not be necessary for the icecream shop to have so damned many flavors. How many flavors should we have if everyone wants another one? Would some 6 billion flavors do for some 6 billion people? We humans need enough uniformity to be able to get along together.

The more we think in common, the more we understand and appreciate each other and the more we are able to cooperate and solve common problems---problems like global warming, terrorism, polution, diminishing resources, disappearing species, nuclear proliferation, etc. The US Constitution was aimed to build "a more perfect union" as "united we stand; divided we fall."

Adopting the sick ideal of "diversity" was just a desperate hope dreamed up by academic activists to "appreciate" diversity in order to avoid offending anyone. But right now, for example, the "diversity" doctrine is leading Modanna to turn Russian public opinion against our way of thinking and back to Putin. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy. . .

There's a difference between unity and uniformity.
Diversity certainly isn't for the faint of heart.

shivadas · Aug 20, 2012

Why not?
Religion is a personal spiritual path shared by many....

I think if we only had one choice of faith, there would be alot more disgruntled Atheists...
And if we had no religion someone would just start one... Its always been around, even if all spiritual knowledge was wiped off the planet it would be re-invented...
Like Math, religion& spirituality have always been around, whether or not people knew about it

JustWondering · Aug 20, 2012

shivadas said:
Why not?
Religion is a personal spiritual path shared by many....

I think if we only had one choice of faith, there would be alot more disgruntled Atheists...
And if we had no religion someone would just start one... Its always been around, even if all spiritual knowledge was wiped off the planet it would be re-invented...
Like Math, religion& spirituality have always been around, whether or not people knew about it

Exactly, religion is a human idea. Invented by humans. If there really was one uber god that desperately wanted us to worship it, there would be one religion. However, what we see is a multitude of very different religions. If all religion came from the same source, there should be something there to tie them together, a common thread. We don't see that either. The FACT that groups of people that are seperated from each other had/have their own religion is evidence that religion is a human invention. Today there are a few dominant religions. That is due to todays ease of travel and communication across the globe.

Astravalon · Aug 20, 2012

JustWondering said:
Exactly, religion is a human idea. Invented by humans. If there really was one uber god that desperately wanted us to worship it, there would be one religion.

Or, that one God exists but simply isn't desperate for our worship or for that worship to be of only one kind.

However, what we see is a multitude of very different religions. If all religion came from the same source, there should be something there to tie them together, a common thread.

Like a belief in a higher power?

The FACT that groups of people that are seperated from each had/have their own religion is evidence that religion is a human invention.

I agree that religion is a human invention. Spirituality, however -- the sense of there being a Divine entity with Whom one interacts -- is not so much an invention as it is a response to that entity, imo.

shivadas · Aug 20, 2012

The link that ties all religions together is the religious experience....
Just because some one decides its a curtain way doesn't mean that saints haven't become enlightened and made a system for others to do the same...
when we experience Non-duality, we are seeing the one true God...
and when we see a deity, we are seeing God through a cultural hero, someone that would be god in your mind...

Religion is important, like the old analogy; The cup(of religion) is needed to give others the waters(of spirituality).

A Cup without water feeds none..
a Religion without spirit enlightens none..

Water without a cup is hard to drink..
Spirituality without a religion is hard to learn..

shivadas · Aug 20, 2012

God is the whole of everything... all matter is its body, all awareness is its soul. Brahman, Tao, Weheguru, Allah, God, Ajah... it is all referring to the one source, the unified whole...

Todays idiocy stems from people mistaking the deity in our minds for the real deal... We project our own beliefs on an essentially attributeless God.

Too many religions

Daughter of Chaos

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Active Member

Jerk

Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Jerk

Member

Member

Member

Member

☯

Member

Jerk

☯

Member

Member