Bookmark and Share

Viewed 3384 times

A reason why most religious theological teachings are sociologically dangerous and damaging

    sabastious posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:45:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 7485 of 9407
    Joined 2/3/2010
    But over continuing evaluation and conclusion that has proven to be false.

    So all those people they locked up weren't locked up in vain. Their suffering was simply and sadly required while the time that was needed to figure out the truth went by. There is always chaos and then brilliance.

    -Sab

    M thetrueone posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:55:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 5769 of 5528
    Joined 9/18/2006

    I think what repulses people more than anything Sab. is your theoretical stance that everything that happens in this world is

    a god's Divine plan and mankind's venture to change this reality to better the human experience is futility wrong and redundant.

    This kind of mindset was prevalent in the middle ages and further back, I'm quite happy and content that we are not living in those times

    and so should you, now we have to honestly accept why it is better to be living now then those times.

    What and where upon should we offer respect to , spirituality or mankind's endeavorers through scientific inquiry and discovery ?

    sabastious posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:10:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 7486 of 9407
    Joined 2/3/2010

    I think what repulses people more than anything Sab. is your theoretical stance that everything that happens in this world is

    a god's Divine plan and mankind's venture to change this reality to better the human experience is futility wrong and redundant.

    You are not representing my beliefs accurately. Let me give you another analogy for clearification. Life is a game with a 64 square board. It has 16 light pieces and 16 dark pieces. The game is not played more than once. A start and an end was always planned. The peices are the humans and whatever they are connected to. Both sides start out with exactly the same thing, but are opposite in playstyle.

    The game has been going on for 13.7 billion years. It spans through all time and space including the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and the humans right now. It's all been the same game, but it looks nothing like when it started and many pieces have been removed from the table.

    So when bad things happen it's because of the way things work. This is not very different from atheism, it just leaves room for imagination. An infinite amount of scanarios can be imagined where both suffering and a caring creator exist (humans creating for example). There are also scanarios for when a creator doesn't care and they reside right along side every other theory. But the theory that God does not exist runs right into a wall. This is because we don't have all the facts, a fact that science rightly doesn't like. But until they can say that we do have all the facts, they will have to deal with the possibility of being totally and completely wrong.

    I believe it's prudent as a human living in this era to, at the very least, leave all possibilities open.

    -Sab

    poopsiecakes posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:20:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 3172 of 2840
    Joined 11/20/2009

    So where did god come from? Something that powerful and complex had to have their own 'genesis' right?

    M thetrueone posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:27:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 5770 of 5528
    Joined 9/18/2006

    So all those people they locked up weren't locked up in vain.

    Not completely for if they weren't there as subjects to be observed and analyzed, doctors may have been able to continue with the research

    of the matter. As the continuing investigation proceeded it was found that masturbation wasn't the cause of

    mental imbalance and mental disintegration.

    A predominance of guilt, pressed on by ingrained religious beliefs may have created his mental depression.

    I retract my comment where I put blame on religious teachings causing people to go nuts.

    They may have actually gone nuts prior to themselves proclaiming to be Jesus Christ, in more practical way those religious teachings

    actually helped to identify these people with mental problems. A plus for religious theocracy

    sabastious posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:28:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 7490 of 9407
    Joined 2/3/2010
    So where did god come from? Something that powerful and complex had to have their own 'genesis' right?

    That's the same question as "Where did the big bang come from?" The answer is complicated. God always was is still the working answer I believe.

    -Sab

    M Qcmbr posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:34:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 2463 of 3331
    Joined 7/31/2004

    NC - re dementia comments. Never thought of it like that. Thank you. Hope you don't mind if I share that idea with some friends elsewhere. I love this forum and those that post on it.

    sabastious posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:36:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 7491 of 9407
    Joined 2/3/2010
    A plus for religious theocracy

    Religious theocracy seems to be the "circumcision debate" of our time. It may be time to cut lose that idea and make a law against religious law. It's ok to have the belief, it's not ok to find ways to slip your belief into the minds of others, including children. However such a law may only exist within an orwellian world where the government is the new Watchtower, which is much worse. Personal responsibility is the answer and unfortunately always has been.

    If this were true it would be justified in God to simply watch us muscle through it. Becuase he knows that 25% make it to the top even though 75% perish. That seems to be how the program operates, does it not? The laws are built in life not written down in some cryptic book. However the books do an interesting job and play an important role.

    -Sab

    poopsiecakes posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:40:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 3173 of 2840
    Joined 11/20/2009

    That's the same question as "Where did the big bang come from?" The answer is complicated. God always was is still the working answer I believe.

    ummmm no, it's not the same question, darlin. Ok, let's break this down.

    a) we have the big bang caused by natural forces colliding with one another and finally releasing in an explosion that sends the building blocks of life into an ever expanding universe *very simplified version*

    b) a singular intelligent force that physically created everything, but this intelligent force appeared out of nowhere and had no beginning

    One is caused by purely natural forces, like an earthquake, and one has circular quasi-logic written all over it.

    So yeah, not the same question at all which leads me back to my question which is where did this intelligent force come from? You must have a theory on it :)

    sabastious posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:19:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 7493 of 9407
    Joined 2/3/2010
    So yeah, not the same question at all which leads me back to my question which is where did this intelligent force come from? You must have a theory on it :)

    So lets be clear your answer was, "it's complicated" and made effort to dumb it down for me. This is indicative that you see a class difference between us. I would like to note that this class does not exist, but is only within your mind.

    My answer will be philisophical which you seem to consider inferior to an explaination using reason and evidence. That's ok and is yet another attempt at quantification on your part. I am to assume your simplification was indeed accurate enough to constitute a true beginning from nothing. Therefore the conversation will continue with an assumption on my part and my idea will seemingly be on the defensive. When the reply is made you willl know this, but not because of anything other than you moved first. Then your reply to my defensive reply will state exactly what makes it defensive. This will support whatever argument that will most certainly be coming directly afterward.

    Where did God come from? That's the first question and the answer leads you to your soul purpose. The answer differs based on where and when you grew up on the planet. For me God evolved like the rest of us. He probably lived a life just as us and suffered similar things and has complete and total understanding of the nature of life from the beginning to the end. How does Santa Claus get down the chimney? The answer is ultimately: Christmas is about the spirit of giving.

    -Sab

    poopsiecakes posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:31:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 3174 of 2840
    Joined 11/20/2009

    So lets be clear your answer was, "it's complicated" and made effort to dumb it down for me. This is indicative that you see a class difference between us. I would like to note that this class does not exist, but is only within your mind.

    I would like to sincerely apologize for any inference that led you to think that I see a 'class difference' between us. I think you're a VERY intelligent man, Sab. You write beautifully and I actually really enjoy your posts. My brevity was because I'm not inclined to write paragraphs and paragraphs when a simple breakdown will do. I know that you know the concept of the big bang very well, therefore there was no need to go into detail. Again, if my remark came off as anything other than that, I'm very sorry and hope you see that it was not meant to put you down.

    The answer differs based on where and when you grew up on the planet. For me God evolved like the rest of us. He probably lived a life just as us and suffered similar things and has complete and total understanding of the nature of life from the beginning to the end.

    But where did he come from? I know there's no answer to this from a believer's point of view, and I also know that you've been asked this before. The problem is that you can't base your belief in creation on 'things are too complicated to have evolved' and not go back to this fundamental question. If the Earth and Universe and human race and mosquito colonies are too complicated to have evolved, then how is it that the one who's supposed to have created them evolved?

    NewChapter posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:50:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 7403 of 11880
    Joined 1/25/2011

    NC - re dementia comments. Never thought of it like that. Thank you. Hope you don't mind if I share that idea with some friends elsewhere. I love this forum and those that post on it.

    Of course not. You know I've already saved one of your posts because you said something better than I ever could have, and now I intend to use the ideas. So be my guest.

    NC

    sabastious posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:17:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 7494 of 9407
    Joined 2/3/2010
    But where did he come from? I know there's no answer to this from a believer's point of view, and I also know that you've been asked this before. The problem is that you can't base your belief in creation on 'things are too complicated to have evolved' and not go back to this fundamental question. If the Earth and Universe and human race and mosquito colonies are too complicated to have evolved, then how is it that the one who's supposed to have created them evolved?

    To me it's a difference of scales. You have the animal scale which interfaces with the human scale which interfaces with the god scale. The god scale ends with a single source just as science ends with the theory of light. When we can travel faster then the speed of light then we will know that what caused us has God. I don't believe we will ever travel faster than the speed of light. However, that doesn't mean we wont travel to the other end of the universe, it just means we do it in a very different way. And for the record I am not very intelligent. TD is very intelligent, I am adequately intelligent.

    -Sab

    NewChapter posted Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:21:00 GMT(4/9/2012)

    Post 7405 of 11880
    Joined 1/25/2011

    It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. --Carl Sagan

    M thetrueone posted Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:18:00 GMT(4/10/2012)

    Post 5771 of 5528
    Joined 9/18/2006

    I think its worthy to point that most theological teachings throughout mankind's existence has been locked in place by a semblance of fear,

    ignorance and controlling man made power to the real determinate to mankind himself.

    I would not liked to have lived in any era in the past. Why is that ?

    Is religion or spirituality responsible for the improvement of the human experience over the centuries ?

    tec posted Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:56:00 GMT(4/10/2012)

    Post 8170 of 12939
    Joined 3/5/2010

    Late to the talk, I am ;)

    I cannot disagree that religion (many of them) have been and are divisive. Someone mentioned that religion or faith divides people into two categories: friends or enemies of God. (Even for me, this is true to a sense... though I consider a person friend or enemy to God based on what they do, rather than what they claim to believe: murder, lie, falsely accuse... not e x actly friends of God; but love one another, follow the golden rule, etc... friends of God.)

    However, I see divisiveness from non-believers as well as people of faith and/or religion... as in the category of non-believers (reasonable, logical, critical thinkers); and believers (superstitious, unreasonable, unable to think critically, fearful, etc) This is a divisive attitude as well, arrogant, and also unproven. Now, there are plenty of arrogant believers, so I am not saying its okay for one and not the other. I just wish some atheists would recognize in themselves, the very thing that they are pointing out in some others.

    As for co-e x istance, we have to accept that we are not going to co-exist by thinking and believing the same things. We do not have a good track record for this...in fact, humanity probably has a 100% track record at failing to think and believe the same, lol. Personally, I think we've got to stop thinking that 'we' are right, and everyone else is wrong. Whenever anyone thinks that they belong to the one group that has it right, and everyone else has it wrong, then there is divisiveness. Even if that 'group' consists of atheists.

    I might not agree with the atheist on the subject of a creator, nor an atheist with me... but as a person of faith, I am not going to attack your morality simply on the basis of your non-belief. Please do not attack my ability to reason, simply on the basis of my faith.

    Peace,

    tammy

    sabastious posted Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:03:00 GMT(4/10/2012)

    Post 7500 of 9407
    Joined 2/3/2010

    Well said tammy!

    -Sab

    M thetrueone posted Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:04:00 GMT(4/10/2012)

    Post 5772 of 5528
    Joined 9/18/2006

    I'm going to just pop this video of Christopher Hitchens here for people who may not have seen it yet.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3YgQfR3sEM&feature=player_embedded

    cofty posted Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:09:00 GMT(4/10/2012)

    Post 3156 of 13059
    Joined 12/19/2009

    I think you have missed the point of my comment Tec.

    I said that any belief system that divides humanity into god's buddies and god's enemies is corrosive to human relationships.

    How can you really love somebody if you believe they are an enemy of your god?

    Atheists might have scorn for your faith but we don't think you are going to suffer for all eternity because you don't see the world the way we do.

    Please do not attack my ability to reason, simply on the basis of my faith. - Tec

    Of course not, but on this one particular point - the fact that you view "faith" as a virtue - of course I must judge you as irrational.

    NewChapter posted Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:16:00 GMT(4/10/2012)

    Post 7411 of 11880
    Joined 1/25/2011

    If saying that there is lack of critical thinking required for faith is arrogant, then call me arrogant. Atheists are often accused of being arrogant. no biggie. Are believers incapable of critical thinking in all matters? No. They can break down other problems fine. Will I ever respect their beliefs? No. Why would I? I don't repect belief in alien abduction, gods, magic, or lucky charms. Can I repect a believer and their right to believe? yes, I can---unless they are one of those fundies that try to change public policy and meddle in education---then I don't respect them.

    I think a reason that believers feel like Atheists are arrogant is because they want us to somehow agree that they have good reason for holding their belief. But if we saw good reason for holding belief, we wouldn't be atheists! That's the point. I cannot find good things about it beyond some of the universal good that comes from all groups. While the arguments can be thrown that religion has led to terrible injustice---but religion has led to much good---etc are fun, I believe that putting resources and energy into things other than religion will bring about a great deal more good. While we are building elaborate churches, sending out missionaries, printing religious material, and building great big crosses---people are suffering.

    So we coexist. Atheists watch as so much energy is put into building up belief in things we don't think exist. We watch as religious people gain more and more political power---and then scream persecution when they don't get their way. We watch as they try to stunt the minds of children, setting up prison cells in their brains around which they are forbidden to step, and we get called arrogant.

    But if we keep speaking out, secularism will have a greater influence----not to subdue and destroy religion---but to keep it in it's place---personal. We just need to keep speaking and supporting each other to bring about a freer society---for believers and non-believers. And in the meantime, society will trust atheists about as much as they trust rapists. How dare we be arrogant. LOL

      Close

      Confirm ...