• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If No Religion - A Consideration

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
One of the things that I find intresting about debates between those who beleive in some form of religion and those who do not is when the word religion(s) is used as if the religion itself is some type of sentient entity.

For example, statements like:
  • Religions teach [fill in the blank],
  • Religions cause [fill in the blank]
  • Religions are the source of [fill in the blank]
To me, it would stand to reason that this line of thinking doesn't address the real issues and cause an inanimate group of man-made ideas to become some type of unseen boogie-man. That is to say that religions are man made institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations. If that is the case then it seems logical to conclude that the above statements would have to be adjusted in the following way.
  • People create religions, therefore humans teach [fill in the blank],
  • People create religions, therefore humans cause [fill in the blank],
  • People are the source of religion, there humans are the source of [fill in the blank]
Thus, no humans - no religion. Humans eventually create institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations thus there will always be some type of man-made source that causes all of the potentially unnatural problems of the world. (Unnatural meaning that the exertion of free will choices to create, destroy, invent, build, attack, repress, suppress, elevate, lower, criticize, harass, praise, etc.)
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
One of the things that I find intresting about debates between those who beleive in some form of religion and those who do not is when the word religion(s) is used as if the religion itself is some type of sentient entity.

For example, statements like:
  • Religions teach [fill in the blank],
  • Religions cause [fill in the blank]
  • Religions are the source of [fill in the blank]
To me, it would stand to reason that this line of thinking doesn't address the real issues and cause an inanimate group of man-made ideas to become some type of unseen boogie-man. That is to say that religions are man made institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations. If that is the case then it seems logical to conclude that the above statements would have to be adjusted in the following way.
  • People create religions, therefore humans teach [fill in the blank],
  • People create religions, therefore humans cause [fill in the blank],
  • People are the source of religion, there humans are the source of [fill in the blank]
Thus, no humans - no religion. Humans eventually create institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations thus there will always be some type of man-made source that causes all of the potentially unnatural problems of the world. (Unnatural meaning that the exertion of free will choices to create, destroy, invent, build, attack, repress, suppress, elevate, lower, criticize, harass, praise, etc.)

Good luck trying to get religious folks to take responsibility for what their religion teaches, causes or being the source of what they believe.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Good luck trying to get religious folks to take responsibility for what their religion teaches, causes or being the source of what they believe.

But, that just the point, religions are man made institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations.
  • People create religions, therefore humans teach [fill in the blank],
  • People create religions, therefore humans cause [fill in the blank],
  • People are the source of religion, there humans are the source of [fill in the blank]
Saying "the religion" teaches or is the cause is what gives someone the ability to say, "Hey it wasn't me doing that. If was my religion doing it." Once you say, "the creator(s) of your religion and those who promote it/propogate it are the source or the teaching and actions around it," that puts the responbility in the proper place. In the hands of people.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
One of the things that I find intresting about debates between those who beleive in some form of religion and those who do not is when the word religion(s) is used as if the religion itself is some type of sentient entity.

For example, statements like:
  • Religions teach [fill in the blank],
  • Religions cause [fill in the blank]
  • Religions are the source of [fill in the blank]
To me, it would stand to reason that this line of thinking doesn't address the real issues and cause an inanimate group of man-made ideas to become some type of unseen boogie-man. That is to say that religions are man made institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations. If that is the case then it seems logical to conclude that the above statements would have to be adjusted in the following way.
  • People create religions, therefore humans teach [fill in the blank],
  • People create religions, therefore humans cause [fill in the blank],
  • People are the source of religion, there humans are the source of [fill in the blank]
Thus, no humans - no religion. Humans eventually create institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations thus there will always be some type of man-made source that causes all of the potentially unnatural problems of the world. (Unnatural meaning that the exertion of free will choices to create, destroy, invent, build, attack, repress, suppress, elevate, lower, criticize, harass, praise, etc.)
It is my opinion that you are merely nit picking semantics.
Group designations have been around for about as long as recorded history.
With each one separating the humans that fit the group description from the humans who do not fit the group description.

My experience has been that that there are a lot of people who instead of addressing the presented group description, want to whine and complain about how said group description does not apply to them.
If said group description does not apply to you, then it is not you being described.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
It is my opinion that you are merely nit picking semantics.
Group designations have been around for about as long as recorded history.
With each one separating the humans that fit the group description from the humans who do not fit the group description.

My experience has been that that there are a lot of people who instead of addressing the presented group description, want to whine and complain about how said group description does not apply to them.
If said group description does not apply to you, then it is not you being described.

Okay. So using the model you just described who or what created/organized the group and the designations? Inanimate concepts or people?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
But, that just the point, religions are man made institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations.
  • People create religions, therefore humans teach [fill in the blank],
  • People create religions, therefore humans cause [fill in the blank],
  • People are the source of religion, there humans are the source of [fill in the blank]
Saying "the religion" teaches or is the cause is what gives someone the ability to say, "Hey it wasn't me doing that. If was my religion doing it." Once you say, "the creator(s) of your religion and those who promote it/propogate it are the source or the teaching and actions around it," that puts the responbility in the proper place. In the hands of people.
Ah, so in contradiction to your OP, you are claiming that it is "people" who teach it not "religion"?
I mean, you flat out state that it is man-made....
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Ah, so in contradiction to your OP, you are claiming that it is "people" who teach it not "religion"?
I mean, you flat out state that it is man-made....

Again, according to your view. Do people create and promote religions? If so, then religion is man-made, right?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
But, that just the point, religions are man made institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations.
  • People create religions, therefore humans teach [fill in the blank],
  • People create religions, therefore humans cause [fill in the blank],
  • People are the source of religion, there humans are the source of [fill in the blank]
Saying "the religion" teaches or is the cause is what gives someone the ability to say, "Hey it wasn't me doing that. If was my religion doing it." Once you say, "the creator(s) of your religion and those who promote it/propogate it are the source or the teaching and actions around it," that puts the responbility in the proper place. In the hands of people.

Not saying you are wrong just hard to get folks to accept responsibility for what they believe. Most believe what they believe comes from divine authority. Even if from a human messenger.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Not saying you are wrong just hard to get folks to accept responsibility for what they believe. Most believe what they believe comes from divine authority. Even if from a human messenger.

There are lots of things that people have a hard time accepting. Some even in the face of over-whelming evidence. There are some people who have a hard time believing that a product they have been sold is not worth much if they have "beleif in it or the manufacturer." This, in and of itself, is one of the situations that exists with the concept of beleif/faith. Especially, when it stands upon blind faith as a type of tenet.

Yet, this isn't something pointing towards only the religious side of the spectrum. It also applies to the non-religious side. I.e. let's put the blame where it really belongs. If a "religious" war is being waged at the end of the day it is people starting and waging the wars using ideas, concepts, etc. created by other people. Their beleives about where those ideas/concepts don't change the source being man-made if that is the source of them.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
One of the things that I find intresting about debates between those who beleive in some form of religion and those who do not is when the word religion(s) is used as if the religion itself is some type of sentient entity.
Religions aren't sentient, but they are memes (in the original sense of the word):

A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.[5]

Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution[citation needed][who?]. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influences a meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[6]

Meme - Wikipedia
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
My post is about PEOPLE, and has absolutely nothing to do with inanimate objects....
Yet you insist on my specifying which it is about?

Greetings. Your post wasn't clear to me so I asked you questions to clarify. Now that I understand that your post is about people. My post is also about people. I.e. religion is created by people - thus it is man-made. So, it would seem that we agree. BTW, I did not use the statement inanimate objects - I wrote " inanimate group of man-made ideas." There is a vast differnce between the two.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So, since it is from person to person. That means that people/humans are the creators/source of them and also the cause of their results.
Sorta, but that doesn't mean it's not useful to talk about religions as discrete things in their own right.

And it doesn't mean that all aspects of a meme are necessarily deliberate creations of a person.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Sorta, but that doesn't mean it's not useful to talk about religions as discrete things in their own right.

And it doesn't mean that all aspects of a meme are necessarily deliberate creations of a person.

I didn't say it wasn't useful. What I am saying is that at the end of the day one is talking about something that is concecptial and the invention of people. It is not like the idea created itself and manifests itself by itself. It is wholely possible that the people who invented them didn't think through the effects of what their creation would unleash (maybe it didn't matter to them) - nevertheless it is still thier creation and thus man-made. Their creation has no life on its own so if an idea/concepts evolves it is because someone human is updating/changing and then spreading it.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
One of the things that I find intresting about debates between those who beleive in some form of religion and those who do not is when the word religion(s) is used as if the religion itself is some type of sentient entity.

For example, statements like:
  • Religions teach [fill in the blank],
  • Religions cause [fill in the blank]
  • Religions are the source of [fill in the blank]
To me, it would stand to reason that this line of thinking doesn't address the real issues and cause an inanimate group of man-made ideas to become some type of unseen boogie-man. That is to say that religions are man made institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations. If that is the case then it seems logical to conclude that the above statements would have to be adjusted in the following way.
  • People create religions, therefore humans teach [fill in the blank],
  • People create religions, therefore humans cause [fill in the blank],
  • People are the source of religion, there humans are the source of [fill in the blank]
Thus, no humans - no religion. Humans eventually create institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations thus there will always be some type of man-made source that causes all of the potentially unnatural problems of the world. (Unnatural meaning that the exertion of free will choices to create, destroy, invent, build, attack, repress, suppress, elevate, lower, criticize, harass, praise, etc.)
And in keeping with this observation, I would assert that in many instances people choose to adhere to a religion because they feel it ratifies and validates the ideals and ethics (and biases) that they already hold. So that the religion does nothing to teach or change or inspire them. But rather, simply provides them with a feeling of self-righteous verification, and an excuse not to give their presumptions any further consideration.
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Thus, no humans - no religion. Humans eventually create institutions, concepts, ideas, and formulations thus there will always be some type of man-made source that causes all of the potentially unnatural problems of the world. (Unnatural meaning that the exertion of free will choices to create, destroy, invent, build, attack, repress, suppress, elevate, lower, criticize, harass, praise, etc.)
I suppose one could say before humans came on the scene ( aka Adam and Eve) that Earth was just a Zoo without people.
Because God gifted humans with free-will choices then yes always be some type of man-made source.......
The bad type of man-made source we see today is described in the verses at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.
This does Not mean a forever on-going source because such people have caused the unnatural problems of this world of badness.
And such people will come to their final end - Psalms 92:7; Isaiah 11:3-4.
We are all free to act responsibly toward God and those who abuse such God-given freedom will come to an end.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
And in keeping with this observation, I would assert that in many instances people choose to adhere to a religion because they feel it ratifies and validates the ideals and ethics (and biases) that they already hold. So that the religion does nothing to teach or change or inspire them. But rather, simply provides them with a feeling of self-righteous verification, and an excuse not to give their presumptions any further consideration.
The ^ above ^ reminds me of people choosing a religion of 'their choice' in order to have their ' ears tickled ' ( hear what they want to hear ) - 2 Timothy 4:3
 
Top