Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
A Hindu is an individual who accepts and lives by the religious guidance of the Vedic scriptures. While the teachings of the Hindu tradition do not require that you have a religious affiliation to Hinduism in order to receive its inner teachings.......Hinduism cannot be neatly slotted into any particular belief system. Unlike other religions, Hinduism is a way of life, a Dharma, that is, the law that governs all action. It has its own beliefs, traditions, advanced system of ethics, meaningful rituals, philosophy and theology. The religious tradition of Hinduism is solely responsible for the creation of such original concepts and practices as Yoga, Ayurveda, Vastu, Jyotish, Yajna, Puja, Tantra, Vedanta, Karma, etc. There is no “one Hinduism”, and so it lacks any unified system of beliefs and ideas. Hinduism is a conglomerate of diverse beliefs and traditions, in which the prominent themes include:
* Dharma (ethics and duties)
* Samsara (rebirth)
* Karma (right action)
* Moksha (liberation from the cycle of Samsara)
It also believes in truth, honesty, non-violence, celibacy, cleanliness, contentment, prayers, austerity, perseverance, penance, and pious company.
Anjali wrote: "A Hindu is an individual who accepts and lives by the religious guidance of the Vedic scriptures. While the teachings of the Hindu tradition do not require that you have a religious affiliation to ..."Now, it's Hinduism that has Ganesh, the elephant headed god, isn't it?
I always liked him
If you want to set off a great babble (Babel?) of confusion all you have to do is say "religion X,Y and Z!" LolA sense of magic, fear, poetry etc etc are the necessary precursers of religion. A world without religion would very likely be a world without conscious beings capable of these feelings. Doesn't mean now that we have religion, that that's entirely a good thing. Personally I'd like the magic, fear, poetry and so on without the superstructure of religion. But I guess other people will feel differently. But we've all got to live in the same world. So it goes.
Jonathan wrote: "If you want to set off a great babble (Babel?) of confusion all you have to do is say "religion X,Y and Z!" LolA sense of magic, fear, poetry etc etc are the necessary precursers of religion. A w..."
Are you seriously arguing that with out religion people would be incapable of a sense of magic, fear and poetry ect, yet we can't have religion if people didn't already have the precursor sense's of magic fear and poetry ect?
well, Shanna, when I accepted that there were no gods, and became an atheist, I completely lost the ability to paint, and to write poetry, and to knit, and to appreciate beauty and enjoy music... didn't that happen to you?
No - you're inverting what I said. You see what I mean about babble/Babel? If people didn't have these senses (magic, fear, poetry etc) then there would be no need for religion - these ultimately are the sources of religion. I imagine one (the feelings) leads inexorably to the other (the religion). But perhaps we can go beyond religion to a state where we experience the magic, fear and poetry without needing the religion to give them a framework.
ah, i see where you're coming from :) I have to admit, I was somewhat confused about what you were saying, as it did seem to be the opposite of what you've now explained
Aahh I see now, religion is inevitable because we have these senses and a world with out religions would could only be created by beings devoid of these senses... did I get it now?
Hazel wrote: "well, Shanna, when I accepted that there were no gods, and became an atheist, I completely lost the ability to paint, and to write poetry, and to knit, and to appreciate beauty and enjoy music... d..."There seems to be this reoccurring idea on this thread, that since science is seen as cold and logical that by default, imagination gets dibbed by religion.
When both are about imagination, both try to answer questions. It's just that science is looking for an actual answer, where religion is about finding the ultimate question that sounds good.
(To quote Douglas Adams)
It's like fiction and non-fiction are both part of literature.
Jonathan wrote: "No - you're inverting what I said. You see what I mean about babble/Babel? If people didn't have these senses (magic, fear, poetry etc) then there would be no need for religion - these ultimately are the sources of religion. I imagine one (the feelings) leads inexorably to the other (the religion). But perhaps we can go beyond religion to a state where we experience the magic, fear and poetry without needing the religion to give them a framework."Actually you don't need religion to have magic, poetry etc. nor is religion inevitable, unfortunately it is very likely.
Imagine a world without "belief" or "faith", but still retaining "trust" and "acceptance". Many years ago people saw patterns in events like thunder or fortune and explained those events with the hypothesis that there are beings a lot like us but more powerful that are responsible for them.
We may accept this hypothesis as our model of the universe for a long time, until someone comes along with a better model without these entities that are suspiciously like us for all their power. Without belief in these entities, without religion, we could then discard the dated idea and accept the improved one.
Jonathan wrote: "Got it!"wait, so you actually think that we can't have society without religion because we're capable of a bit of imagination? Surely just ensuring people know the difference between fantasy and reality can deal with that, and we can still have imagination and love and poetry. For example, my knowing that the feeling of love is essentially a biochemical reaction in my brain doesn't make the feeling any less intense or important to me.
Travis wrote: "There seems to be this reoccurring idea on this thread, that since science is seen as cold and logical that by default, imagination gets dibbed by religion."And common sense has always forgot its PE kit.
Ironic though really as religion is often a spectacular failure of imagination. (Gods are just like us but bigger, the entire universe is focused around this planet and a handful of humans in a tiny period of history and somehow vengeance and jealousy are fundamental constants.)
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Because it was in the news for quiet sometime earlier this year when the US suggested that Iran could be very near to having WMD."Yeah because that worked out so well when that rumour ..."
I agree with a lot of that but it still does not answer the question.
If Obama thought there was a threat from Iran because of WMD, should he act or not.
I would say that we can't survive without either. I am a cell and molecular biologist and in my 4th year at the university of Toronto. I am a firm supporter of evolution and I am partially religious too (Muslim if you must know). As I see it there isn't too much wrong brought about by both religion and science (if we exclude extremes such as Nuclear bomb creation by science and terrorism brought upon by religion). The world keeps spinning with the existence of both science and religion and we should just leave it be.
Both have their pros too. Medicine etc from science; community support and moral support from religion (some people find peace from suffering using religion when medicine fails them).
So ultimately we should just keep both but try to cast aside our hatred and ignorance of both topics. Education is necessary of all topics of the world if you are to truly attain useful knowledge about life.
cs wrote: "I agree with a lot of that but it still does not answer the question.If Obama thought there was a threat from Iran because of WMD, should he act or not."
That wasn't the question you asked. You asked which we should invade first. Despite what some republican hawks think, there are other actions that could be taken from diplomacy to espionage to tactical military action. So my answer is to invade neither unless there is overwhelming proof of the possession of and intent to use WMD and there are no more sensible options (such as supporting an Arab-led military solution). However that does not mean Obama should not act in some manner.
Where you got invade Israel I don't know. The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons is the worst kept state secret in the world (for good reason, the Israeli's want the Muslims concerned about a nuclear retaliation, but admitting the presence of WMDs would lead to uncomfortable questions about where they came from.)
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I agree with a lot of that but it still does not answer the question.If Obama thought there was a threat from Iran because of WMD, should he act or not."
That wasn't the question you ..."
I rephrased the question because you did not answer yes or no.. but reading the about you would invade as a last resort?
overwhelming proof of the possession of and intent to use WMD
I think possession would be the intent.
Hazel wrote: "well, Shanna, when I accepted that there were no gods, and became an atheist, I completely lost the ability to paint, and to write poetry, and to knit, and to appreciate beauty and enjoy music... d..."Haha!
It does seem odd that people are saying art is somehow linked to religion and that science is cold and clinical. I think people who frame things like this have not really dislodged themselves from the Judeo-Christian narrative of bipolar opposites: heaven/hell, good/bad, right/wrong etc.
Speaking for myself, my art actually improved in some ways when I became an atheist.
This is linked, to a certain extent, and not. I guess it's sort of an aside.
I took a fascinating course in college called Plagues, Science and the Humanistic Vision. It was taught by people from the college's medical school, history professors and art professors. We'd explore a certain plague, Bubonic, for example. The prof from the medical school would come in and teach us everything we wanted to know and a ton of things we never wanted to know about that plague and the science of the time. Then, the history professor would come in and teach about the history of the time, with considerable emphasis on how the people lived prior to the outbreak, how they reacted to the plague ... beliefs ..., and how they changed as a people after the plague. Then, the art professors came in and showed art prior to the sickness and after and discussed how the art changed.
Their premise ... after every major plague, incredible strides were made in the world of art. (I bet science, too, but I tended to focus more on the art.) It was awhile ago, so I can't remember all the ideas that were discussed. But, Tim's statement about his art improving after becoming an atheist reminded me of this class.
It's interesting how things can change art.
I took a fascinating course in college called Plagues, Science and the Humanistic Vision. It was taught by people from the college's medical school, history professors and art professors. We'd explore a certain plague, Bubonic, for example. The prof from the medical school would come in and teach us everything we wanted to know and a ton of things we never wanted to know about that plague and the science of the time. Then, the history professor would come in and teach about the history of the time, with considerable emphasis on how the people lived prior to the outbreak, how they reacted to the plague ... beliefs ..., and how they changed as a people after the plague. Then, the art professors came in and showed art prior to the sickness and after and discussed how the art changed.
Their premise ... after every major plague, incredible strides were made in the world of art. (I bet science, too, but I tended to focus more on the art.) It was awhile ago, so I can't remember all the ideas that were discussed. But, Tim's statement about his art improving after becoming an atheist reminded me of this class.
It's interesting how things can change art.
Travis wrote: Think I'm done with you. ..."
......have it printed on your t shirt.
Travis wrote: "Anjali wrote: "A Hindu is an individual who accepts and lives by the religious guidance of the Vedic scriptures. While the teachings of the Hindu tradition do not require that you have a religious ..."Yes
Gana means a pure spiritual particle (pavitrak). A pavitrak is the subtlemost particle of divine consciousness (chaitanya). Ganapati is the master of such pure particles.
Gana also is a group of the eight vasus. The word vasu refers to direction or the guardian deity of the directions (dikpal or dikdev). Ganapati is the nurturer, master (swami) of the directions. (According to one school of thought, Ganapati is the master of the ten directions. The upward and downward directions along with the eight directions constitute the ten directions.) Other deities cannot reach the site of ritualistic worship (puja) from any direction without His permission. Hence any auspicious task or the ritualistic worship of any other deity is commenced with the ritualistic worship of Lord Ganapati. Once Ganapati clears the directions, the deity one is worshipping can manifest itself there. This itself is referred to as Mahadvarpujan or Mahaganapatipujan. [In the Ganpatya sect, the word Ganapati is used instead of Brahman (God) and Mahaganapati instead of Parabrahman (Supreme God).]
cs wrote: "I rephrased the question because you did not answer yes or no.. but reading the about you would invade as a last resort?"Well the question becomes a bit meaningless then. What you are asking is 'Given that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Iran possesses WMDs and is preparing to use them and all other diplomatic, intelligence, military and political courses of action are not available, would you launch an invasion of Iran or allow Iran to use the weapons?' Well that question boils down to "are you committed to pacifism no matter what the situation". No I am not a pacifist and I do actually support the military.
cs wrote: "I think possession would be the intent."
So why not invade Israel, as it is almost certain the US has given them WMDs? Why not invade China? Why not invade France?
Is it just because Iran follows a rival religion to Christianity that possession of WMDs automatically means that you believe they would be mad/evil enough to use them?
Tim wrote: "It does seem odd that people are saying art is somehow linked to religion and that science is cold and clinical."Ironically I think the main reason for this was Newtonian ideas of science and the industrial revolution which gave the scientists of the day the idea of life, physics and everything else being composed of intricate structures designed to slot perfectly together.
The irony is that this view of reality as cold complex clockwork machinery came from the religious conviction that it had all been designed by god!
Shannon wrote: "It's interesting how things can change art."That course sounds really interesting actually, I would have loved to have studied that.
It is true though, after every disaster there is a surge of progress in many fields. Plus isn't it a 'truism' that artists must suffer for their art?
This is not just true of humanity though, it is reflected beyond us. Every time that life was almost wiped out by some global extinction it has been followed by a burst of evolutionary diversification as new species evolve and either die out, or fill the gaps left by their extinct predecessors.
Even some stars themselves when they exhaust their fuel and explode, they rapidly cook most of the heavy elements in that explosion and scatter them across the cosmos. All the elements in your body from the iron in your blood to anything heavier was likely cooked in the heart of an exploding star.
Zaki wrote: "Both have their pros too. Medicine etc from science; community support and moral support from religion (some people find peace from suffering using religion when medicine fails them). "I am sorry but I am no longer convinced about the "pros" of religion. I am not saying that religion is only used for bad things, but I cannot think of a pro that religion has that cannot be sourced elsewhere, and the many of the apparent pros come with cons that are far more severe.
Obviously if you believe that the universe is indeed run by a god/gods which will punish/reward you for devotion then that is a pro that I am not going to agree with until I am convinced of the likelihood of that entities existence, and indeed convinced of the reason why obedience and adoration of something just because it is more powerful than you is actually a good moral choice on behalf of the worshipper or the deity.
Community support can be sourced by mutual respect and the desire for the community to provide an environment that all the people benefit from. The only role religion would seem to play in this would be as the ultimate threat to enforce the community's values on all. However, that is no more moral and no more community building than living under the gun of a dictator. Further, religion and belief then tends to make schisms between disparate communities that quickly become insurmountable because each sides convictions become inoculated against rational discourse and compromise.
Moral support has been brought up repeatedly on this thread and yet no one has made a good case yet for the superior morality of any particular religion. Good religious people seem to specifically select those parts of their faith that they find just and ignore those they do not. This I think means that their morality is actually what makes them choose the aspects of their religion well, not their religion imbuing them with goodness.
Comfort in times of adversity is often cited as a benefit of religion. Whether comfort in the loss of a loved one, or comfort in the face of suffering or our own mortality. My issue with this is that first and foremost it is obvious not all religions are true, therefore when you lose a loved one no one can honestly be sure that their religion can tell you their fate, so is it really a good thing to be comforted in this manner?
To illustrate if a child's beloved parent dies, would you lie to that child for the rest of its life saying that the parent had moved away, but they were well and happy? Would you go as far as to fake communications from this relative to complete the illusion. Surely this lie would provide some interim comfort, but is the comfort worth it if it is possible it isn't true?
This of course leaves aside the fact that many of the big current religions make specific statements about the fate of those who are not adherents. Which means that the faithful of those religions believe that the majority of all loss is unimaginably worse with the loved one always convicted to one hell or another by various faiths
Comfort in the face of suffering, illness and even death is also somewhat suspect as an advantage. No spiritual comfort tested has exceeded the benefits of a placebo (which effect can be truly astonishing). So they would be on equal footing except that of course many religions teach us to accept our fate, that various diseases are actually punishments from god, and some religions specifically forbid a variety of life saving medical treatments for reasons of simple superstition. Is the fleeting comfort of being in gods hands make up for the children denied blood, vaccines or other treatments? Does it make up for the children who have their genitals mutilated in order to prevent their souls from being tarnished by the ability to enjoy sex?
Even in the face of our own deaths is religion truly a comfort? Some religions have reincarnation where we may go on, but our friends, our knowledge, our entire identities are erased and we become a new person ready to live, make the same mistakes and suffer again. Does anyone diagnosed to suffer through the loss of identity of alsheimers really look forward to this erasing of self?
As for heaven or paradise, is that really the fate you can imagine any better than simply not existing? Most religions are also rather specific about the fate of unbelievers. I have once heard the quote "how can heaven be heaven when you know that somewhere there is billions of souls suffering and you cannot do anything to help them?" How can paradise work if its not for everyone? If its for everyone then is that fair for the people who have had rich and happy lives on Earth at the expense of others? If it is not would you really be happy in a place full of people who do not care about the suffering or obliteration of souls out of their sight. Indeed would you be one of those people.
Just like the Pharaohs squandering gold and the lives of workers and slaves to guarantee a luxurious afterlife, imagine if that effort was focused on the welfare and happiness of the actual living people? Why work so hard on hoping for happiness and justice after we die when we could be working for both before we die.
A friend of mine committed suicide a couple of weeks ago. Would I be happy to know he was in 'heaven', would any despair he had that drove him to end himself somehow be gone if he was there? If he no longer cared about something that caused him to end his life, would he even be the same person?
He is at peace now, because he is gone. His afterlife in my eyes is the legacy he has left of children taught and friends inspired. The tragedy of his death meets the comfort that this suffering is now over.
Zaki wrote: "So ultimately we should just keep both but try to cast aside our hatred and ignorance of both topics. Education is necessary of all topics of the world if you are to truly attain useful knowledge about life."
Agreed wholeheartedly. This is why I learned a lot about religion. I do not hate religion, but I do not trust it and deplore its legacy. I am definitely not ignorant of religion, and in fact am more open minded to different religiously inspired ideas than most members of a single faith will allow them to imagine.
However, just as I know about alchemy but do not recommend it as a route to health or wealth, and I know about astrology but do not recommend it as a good way to understand the heavens. Therefore I know about religion, but I do not support the idea that it is either fundamentally necessary or intrinsically good.
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I rephrased the question because you did not answer yes or no.. but reading the about you would invade as a last resort?"Well the question becomes a bit meaningless then. What you are..."
Since the USA not only has WMDs, but has a history of using them, it's amazing more countries haven't invaded us.
Instead, we seem to be situated as the judge of wether other countries should or shouldn't be allowed WMDs.
Strange world.
Gary wrote: "A friend of mine committed suicide a couple of weeks ago. Would I be happy to know he was in 'heaven', would any despair he had that drove him to end himself somehow be gone if he was there? "I'm really sorry to hear this Gary :( The worst thing is, and you may have been being politic in avoiding it, is that there are many religious folk who would tell you (with absolutely no proof or evidence to base the claim on) that because your friend committed suicide, he's now being punished, which to me is an abhorrent thing to say to anyone who's grieving.
Hugs coming your way :)
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I rephrased the question because you did not answer yes or no.. but reading the about you would invade as a last resort?"Well the question becomes a bit meaningless then. What you are..."
This is not me suggesting we should or should not do something. It seems as though the US and the UK and others do not want Iran to have WMD. If it becomes known that they do have them or are very near the stage when they will have then. The US either does nothing and waits to see what happens, or anticipates what could happen and act accordingly. Luckily us lot sitting at computers on forms do not have to make decisions like that and we are able to, with hindsight, say if the wrong decision was made. Like Iraq, if that was wrong.
Gary wrote: "A friend of mine committed suicide a couple of weeks ago. Would I be happy to know he was in 'heaven', would any despair he had that drove him to end himself somehow be gone if he was ..."Sorry to hear that Gary. Condolences. One of my best friends drank himself to death a month ago, also leaving a legacy, but one of beautiful photographs. He was very unhappy in the last year of his life. As you say though, the pain is over for them.
Tim wrote: "Gary wrote: "A friend of mine committed suicide a couple of weeks ago. Would I be happy to know he was in 'heaven', would any despair he had that drove him to end himself somehow be gone if he was ..."never fun losing someone and there are unfortunately no magic words that make it 'better'.
All you can say is we are thinking of you and wish we could do more than that.
Gary wrote: Even in the face of our own deaths is religion truly a comfort"Yes it is. We live in modern times now and maybe religion is not needed as much as it once was, but we should not forget that the Christian religion and the Church was a comfort to people during past times. Long before the internet and even television when communities were smaller and the village church was a big part of the community.
Either there is a god or there is no god, no one knows. All the forums in all the world will not find the answer. God/religion, chicken/egg?
Trying to prove religion and its beliefs are wrong, find fault with religion and highlighting the many negatives that religion has, does not disprove the existence of a god. Unless you believe that they are not able to exist apart. Thus by discrediting the merits of religion, this somehow helps to disprove the existence of god.
I look at it the other way round, god exists or at least the design argument makes more sense to me, regardless of any religion.
Also, even if there was no god that does not rule out life after death, or that life carries on via our soul, spirit, or whatever.
the egg came first, egg layers evolved well before chickens did.And wasn't there something about not continually talking about what it was like in the past, and that atheists kept using examples of past things and that we shouldn't do such things as they don't have relevance in the modern world?
Since there is no proof of god, disproving him isn't that tricky.and it's not a chicken/egg argument, as religion, and therefore the deity of choice are man made constructs.
Bit like saying 'which came first: JK Rowling or the Harry Potter books?'
Gary wrote: "Community support can be sourced by mutual respect and the desire for the community to provide an environment that all the people benefit from. The only role religion would seem to play in this would be as the ultimate threat to enforce the community's values on all. However, that is no more moral and no more community building than living under the gun of a dictator. Further, religion and belief then tends to make schisms between disparate communities that quickly become insurmountable because each sides convictions become inoculated against rational discourse and compromise."
Hey, there, Gary. I think you're missing something here. I'm putting it under community support ... however, it could also fit under comfort in the face of suffering.
I'm going to speak from my experience. Things might be different in other places throughout the world.
In my town, the local churches each hold food drives every month. Different churches take different weeks. They take that food to the local food bank. Now, can that be outsourced? Perhaps. The local CoOp is always holding a food drive, in that, they have a wooden box by the doors and people might drop food in it. Local schools sometimes hold food drives, especially in November/December. When outsourced; however, it's not consistent.
The local churches also hold free dinners for those who are homeless or poor. The Baptist church holds a free dinner once a week. The United Methodist church holds one once a month. Between all the dinners, there are usually two free dinners a month. All are welcome. Could that be outsourced? Possibly. But, it isn't. Yes, we have a homeless shelter a town or two over ... not far from here. They serve free meals. But, if you have an apartment or a house but are poor, you can't go to the homeless shelter for a free meal. Here, you're assured a free meal twice a week at one of the churches. I've honestly not seen that offered by anyone else.
The United Methodist church in town takes a special collection (coins) each week for lunches for Haitian school children. They also send around 5 to 8 church members each year, at least for the last few years, to work on certain building projects in Haiti. They also do special collections throughout the year. Things like emergency kits in case of natural disasters. They include hygiene supplies. Could that be outsourced. Definitely. There are a lot of different organizations who help those in need in poorer countries and in times of natural disasters.
Yes, we could go on and on about the wealth of religions, etc....
However, when we take it from the religious super-structure, if you will, to the ordinary person on the street in a town somewhere, you can see that local churches/church members do a lot of good and support the community.
Heck, I know the UM church even does Green Up day each year, taking responsibility for the road it's on. Other churches do, too. Sometimes local schools take part. But, honestly, I don't see that being outsourced.
I don't see, on a regular basis or even once and awhile, people opening their doors to feed the hungry or picking up trash on the side of the road.
So, we could, in the comfort of our homes, talk about these things being outsourced. And, they could be. But, would they?
I can't prove that God exists, but I can prove that local people I know do great works of charity for our community. For us, that matters. In addition, I've not seen other organizations, with few exceptions, or individuals take that on. So, unless and until non-religious organizations start taking on some of these "good works" ... like weekly free dinners, etc..., saying we can outsource means little to me and nothing at all to the poor in my community. It's not our reality.
I'm sure I'm leaving a lot of things out. But, I think everyone likely gets my point.
Hey, there, Gary. I think you're missing something here. I'm putting it under community support ... however, it could also fit under comfort in the face of suffering.
I'm going to speak from my experience. Things might be different in other places throughout the world.
In my town, the local churches each hold food drives every month. Different churches take different weeks. They take that food to the local food bank. Now, can that be outsourced? Perhaps. The local CoOp is always holding a food drive, in that, they have a wooden box by the doors and people might drop food in it. Local schools sometimes hold food drives, especially in November/December. When outsourced; however, it's not consistent.
The local churches also hold free dinners for those who are homeless or poor. The Baptist church holds a free dinner once a week. The United Methodist church holds one once a month. Between all the dinners, there are usually two free dinners a month. All are welcome. Could that be outsourced? Possibly. But, it isn't. Yes, we have a homeless shelter a town or two over ... not far from here. They serve free meals. But, if you have an apartment or a house but are poor, you can't go to the homeless shelter for a free meal. Here, you're assured a free meal twice a week at one of the churches. I've honestly not seen that offered by anyone else.
The United Methodist church in town takes a special collection (coins) each week for lunches for Haitian school children. They also send around 5 to 8 church members each year, at least for the last few years, to work on certain building projects in Haiti. They also do special collections throughout the year. Things like emergency kits in case of natural disasters. They include hygiene supplies. Could that be outsourced. Definitely. There are a lot of different organizations who help those in need in poorer countries and in times of natural disasters.
Yes, we could go on and on about the wealth of religions, etc....
However, when we take it from the religious super-structure, if you will, to the ordinary person on the street in a town somewhere, you can see that local churches/church members do a lot of good and support the community.
Heck, I know the UM church even does Green Up day each year, taking responsibility for the road it's on. Other churches do, too. Sometimes local schools take part. But, honestly, I don't see that being outsourced.
I don't see, on a regular basis or even once and awhile, people opening their doors to feed the hungry or picking up trash on the side of the road.
So, we could, in the comfort of our homes, talk about these things being outsourced. And, they could be. But, would they?
I can't prove that God exists, but I can prove that local people I know do great works of charity for our community. For us, that matters. In addition, I've not seen other organizations, with few exceptions, or individuals take that on. So, unless and until non-religious organizations start taking on some of these "good works" ... like weekly free dinners, etc..., saying we can outsource means little to me and nothing at all to the poor in my community. It's not our reality.
I'm sure I'm leaving a lot of things out. But, I think everyone likely gets my point.
Gary wrote: "A friend of mine committed suicide a couple of weeks ago. Would I be happy to know he was in 'heaven', would any despair he had that drove him to end himself somehow be gone if he was there? If he no longer cared about something that caused him to end his life, would he even be the same person?"
I, thankfully, have not had this experience. None of my family members or friends have ended their lives. However, a co-worker's father killed himself several years ago ... the same time as the horrid Robin Williams, I believe, movie came out. Needless to say, she took his suicide very, very hard. I can't answer your questions, but I can say I'm sorry for your loss.
I, thankfully, have not had this experience. None of my family members or friends have ended their lives. However, a co-worker's father killed himself several years ago ... the same time as the horrid Robin Williams, I believe, movie came out. Needless to say, she took his suicide very, very hard. I can't answer your questions, but I can say I'm sorry for your loss.
Gary wrote: "A friend of mine committed suicide a couple of weeks ago. Would I be happy to know he was in 'heaven', would any despair he had that drove him to end himself somehow be gone if he was there? If he no longer cared about something that caused him to end his life, would he even be the same person?"
I've removed myself from the discussion but I saw you talking about your friend, as well as a couple of other people mentioning suicides of others they knew, and I had to say something.
It honestly brought tears to my eyes. It breaks my heart a little bit every time precious life is ended because those people didn't get the help they needed and most often than not they had to suffer in silence because no one that's mentally healthy truly understands the torment that person lives through. I am so, so angry at the stupid stigma and persistent silence, despite the seeming open-mindedness of our society. We deserve to get all the help there is and sadly, others do have to reach out to us because we can't reach out ourselves. It makes me sick when a schizophrenic on a street, for example, is being made fun of by ignorant fools who know nothing of life or human dignity.
Anyway, out of respect Gary, I will concede. Your friend is gone and he no longer suffers. Sometimes, as tragic as it is, nothing less than leaving this 'vale of tears' (no intent to use this phrase other than it at times seems like a perfect term for this world) behind will suffice.
Until we talk again, maybe sometime :)
I've removed myself from the discussion but I saw you talking about your friend, as well as a couple of other people mentioning suicides of others they knew, and I had to say something.
It honestly brought tears to my eyes. It breaks my heart a little bit every time precious life is ended because those people didn't get the help they needed and most often than not they had to suffer in silence because no one that's mentally healthy truly understands the torment that person lives through. I am so, so angry at the stupid stigma and persistent silence, despite the seeming open-mindedness of our society. We deserve to get all the help there is and sadly, others do have to reach out to us because we can't reach out ourselves. It makes me sick when a schizophrenic on a street, for example, is being made fun of by ignorant fools who know nothing of life or human dignity.
Anyway, out of respect Gary, I will concede. Your friend is gone and he no longer suffers. Sometimes, as tragic as it is, nothing less than leaving this 'vale of tears' (no intent to use this phrase other than it at times seems like a perfect term for this world) behind will suffice.
Until we talk again, maybe sometime :)
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Community support can be sourced by mutual respect and the desire for the community to provide an environment that all the people benefit from. The only role religion would seem to pla..."Shannon, its great that your local churches do all these things. But again, all these things can be achieved through purely secular means, religion and churches don't need to be involved, and in contrast you have to look at the larger picture where things like the UK charity, Christian Aid, won't give their aid to a village in Africa until that village converts to christianity. The homeless charity Shelter that requires anyone it helps to attend a methodist church service once a week, essentially holding their aid ransom to Jesus. The american christian charity (the name escapes me at this point, but its a well known story) that raised money to send aid to Iran, and all they sent were boxes and boxes of bibles. The fact that a large number of religious charities use less than 25% of donations to do the actual charitable work, while the rest is spent on church costs (including in some breakdowns of expenses I've seen, the paying off of debts, and the buying of prayer materials for the use in church), whereas secular charities use, on average, more that 75% of their donated funds to carry out their charitable works, while the rest is spent on maintaining charity shops, and publicity materials for raising more awareness. I spent a lot of time researching charities to decide who to give my money too, and the religious ones lost on pretty much every front.
I'm not belittling what the people of your local churches have achieved, but its the people that do it, not the churches, and those people would be good people and still be a community, and still do their charitable work without any religion, and without the church, they would still do it.
@shannon ...there are alot of temples especially in southern India which do annadanam(ie feeds people for charity)...no compulsion of worshiping or belief too...all you have to do is at noon be present in the huge halls where they serve lunch ..A lot of people feel the biggest charity they can do is feed a hungry person ....so they donate to these ...
Some like ISKON run mid day meal programmes in schools...they high class equipments to prepare these meals with the highest hygiene standards ....the programme is called akshaya patra(which means the vessel which never becomes empty)
http://www.businesswireindia.com/Pres...
http://www.akshayapatra.org/kitchen-a...
Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "But again, all these things can be achieved through purely secular means, religion and churches don't need to be involved."
As I said, Hazel, it could be done ... but it's not done. So, unless and until others in the community start feeding the hungry, etc..., the fact that secular groups COULD do it means less than nothing. Children will still go hungry. The elderly will still go hungry. Why? Because could means a hill of beans. Do they, is the question? At this point, in my area, they do not.
As I said, Hazel, it could be done ... but it's not done. So, unless and until others in the community start feeding the hungry, etc..., the fact that secular groups COULD do it means less than nothing. Children will still go hungry. The elderly will still go hungry. Why? Because could means a hill of beans. Do they, is the question? At this point, in my area, they do not.
cs wrote: "Yes it is. We live in modern times now and maybe religion is not needed as much as it once was, but we should not forget that the Christian religion and the Church was a comfort to people during past times.Again you state that it was a comfort, but you don't explain "why" it was a comfort. In past times it may have been a comfort to some, but it was also a very real horror to others. The fear of hell and the demands of god have forced people to suppress their natural feelings or even to carry out acts they find abhorrent because they were terrified of eternal suffering.
cs wrote: "Either there is a god or there is no god, no one knows. All the forums in all the world will not find the answer. God/religion, chicken/egg?"
No one knows, but like the existence of Russell's teapot, Thor, Mr Fantastic, Osiris and the Flying Spaghetti Monster we can surmise on the likelihood of a particular god's existence.
Now I know you have said that you believe that there is only one god and many religions, but;
1. I am sure that insults a lot of religions that do not support the monotheistic model of divinity.
2. This belief means that either you believe that you worship the correct version of a male single all powerful god that was incarnated in flesh briefly, and arrogantly assume that everyone else has got it wrong (which most religions do to be fair), or your definition of god is so unknown and vague as to be debatable whether to call it a person and more of a label for that which you don't understand about the universe.
cs wrote: "Trying to prove religion and its beliefs are wrong, find fault with religion and highlighting the many negatives that religion has, does not disprove the existence of a god.
Actually almost every religion already does that. The Muslims and Jews deny the divinity of Jesus, the Christians claim that the Jews wait for their Messiah was over thousands of years ago and that the Muslims with their crescent "horns" are being deceived by 'Satan' and all of the above mock Pagans for their quaint association with multiple gods that are actually demons in silly disguises...
In fact this debate between theists means that if 'god' exists then religion is still a bad thing because no religion has been in the majority, which means if one religion is right, then religion in general has still led the majority astray!
Atheists cannot prove there is no 'god' just as theists cannot prove that their god exists while all the other gods do not. (Or that god has the attributes they believe he has.)
Atheists therefore do not get involved with that argument and instead wait for ideas that can be "proved" rather than endless amounts of conflicting ideas that cannot be "disproved".
cs wrote: "Unless you believe that they are not able to exist apart. Thus by discrediting the merits of religion, this somehow helps to disprove the existence of god."
No actually discussing the merits of religion come down to the question of the topic and the endlessly repeated and yet completely unsubstantiated claim that religion is necessary.
cs wrote: "I look at it the other way round, god exists or at least the design argument makes more sense to me, regardless of any religion."
Then who designed god? If your thesis is that it makes more sense that things are designed then you either make an exception for god that you do not apply to the universe, thereby simply moving the question rather than attempting to answer it, or you get into a circular argument where you try to say that god designed himself.
Neither argument is rational, and if you say that this is "philosophy" again, or that it does not need to make rational or logical sense, then your entire point that design makes more sense to you is subverted.
This is leaving aside how god is somehow simultaneously brilliant at design and then at other times misses some obvious improvements.
cs wrote: "Also, even if there was no god that does not rule out life after death, or that life carries on via our soul, spirit, or whatever. "
Does not rule it out, but does not provide any evidence or rationale for either. Not to mention the problems with the concept of soul. When a person suffers brain damage that alters their personality (a medically reported phenomena) how is this possible if peoples personality is separate from their physical body? How do personality effecting drugs work?
Belief in an afterlife or souls is still a religion because of the "belief" component. Hypothesising a soul is another matter, but a hypothesis needs proof to become a theory.
This is kind of beside the point though. The question is whether religion has done anything good.
Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I'm not belittling what the people of your local churches have achieved, but its the people that do it, not the churches, and those people would be good people and still be a community, and still do their charitable work without any religion, and without the church, they would still do it. "
Sigh .... We know this how? Because so many good people in the community, who aren't linked to religion, feed the hungry, etc... at present? Oops. None do. Whoa. Am I saying only religious people are good people who do good works? Heck, no. But, the fact remains that only the local churches do this ... here. No one else. Period.
And, while these are good people who are committed to this particular cause, I don't know that, if we woke tomorrow and all the churches went poof, they would do this work. I just don't know that.
Is there some sort of magic ... church magic ... that leads church folk to do this work? No. But, I think, when they gather once a week and decide upon what good works they're going to do as a group, ... when they gather money and resources to put on these dinners, ... when they announce each week and when the dinner will be and ask for volunteers, ... it makes it happen.
As I said, we could talk about problems within religious super-structures all the livelong day. We could even find some extreme examples to throw out to show that religious folk force conversion prior to food. I've never heard of that before. Ever. I guess I wouldn't be surprised, on the one hand, but I am on the other. I'd be interested in reading more about this ... and interested in seeing percentages ... how many local churches give to charity and in what ways without demanding conversion vs. others, that I've never heard of before, forcing conversion.
There are plenty of religious people who do what they do without getting anything in return, including prayers or conversion. The Mormons, not a huge fan, send missionaries all over the place in order to, with the express order to, convert people. It's a big joke here, one I find repulsive, that "you" can get the Mormons to do anything for you. Mow your lawn. Help fix your barn. Etc.... If you ask the missionaries for help with something, they'll help you. The joke ... ha, ha ... you don't have to convert or anything. If you just ask them to do some sort of chore, they will. So, in my experience, even the Mormon missionaries, who are sent forth to convert, will do good works without the guarantee of a return.
Others might have other experiences, granted. But, I imagine many share my experience.
This sort of argument almost smacks of an argument for the sake of an argument. Atheists have asked believers before ... is there nothing that you'll agree with me on? Oh, those believers, closed-minded folk....
Here's the deal. While there are problems with religion and while atheists have some valid arguments, this isn't one of them.
This .... This seems to be an example of ... religion is bad ... it's bad and I'll prove it at all costs. There are good things that come from, notice, please, I stressed ... not religion ... but the everyday people in everyday churches.
Bias is showing through on this one, and bias doesn't do anything to support one's argument, not truly ... especially when one has other valid arguments.
Sigh .... We know this how? Because so many good people in the community, who aren't linked to religion, feed the hungry, etc... at present? Oops. None do. Whoa. Am I saying only religious people are good people who do good works? Heck, no. But, the fact remains that only the local churches do this ... here. No one else. Period.
And, while these are good people who are committed to this particular cause, I don't know that, if we woke tomorrow and all the churches went poof, they would do this work. I just don't know that.
Is there some sort of magic ... church magic ... that leads church folk to do this work? No. But, I think, when they gather once a week and decide upon what good works they're going to do as a group, ... when they gather money and resources to put on these dinners, ... when they announce each week and when the dinner will be and ask for volunteers, ... it makes it happen.
As I said, we could talk about problems within religious super-structures all the livelong day. We could even find some extreme examples to throw out to show that religious folk force conversion prior to food. I've never heard of that before. Ever. I guess I wouldn't be surprised, on the one hand, but I am on the other. I'd be interested in reading more about this ... and interested in seeing percentages ... how many local churches give to charity and in what ways without demanding conversion vs. others, that I've never heard of before, forcing conversion.
There are plenty of religious people who do what they do without getting anything in return, including prayers or conversion. The Mormons, not a huge fan, send missionaries all over the place in order to, with the express order to, convert people. It's a big joke here, one I find repulsive, that "you" can get the Mormons to do anything for you. Mow your lawn. Help fix your barn. Etc.... If you ask the missionaries for help with something, they'll help you. The joke ... ha, ha ... you don't have to convert or anything. If you just ask them to do some sort of chore, they will. So, in my experience, even the Mormon missionaries, who are sent forth to convert, will do good works without the guarantee of a return.
Others might have other experiences, granted. But, I imagine many share my experience.
This sort of argument almost smacks of an argument for the sake of an argument. Atheists have asked believers before ... is there nothing that you'll agree with me on? Oh, those believers, closed-minded folk....
Here's the deal. While there are problems with religion and while atheists have some valid arguments, this isn't one of them.
This .... This seems to be an example of ... religion is bad ... it's bad and I'll prove it at all costs. There are good things that come from, notice, please, I stressed ... not religion ... but the everyday people in everyday churches.
Bias is showing through on this one, and bias doesn't do anything to support one's argument, not truly ... especially when one has other valid arguments.
Anjali wrote: "@shannon ...there are alot of temples especially in southern India which do annadanam(ie feeds people for charity)...no compulsion of worshiping or belief too...all you have to do is at noon be pr..."
Glad to hear you share this experience ... and that these temples exist and help feed the hungry.
Glad to hear you share this experience ... and that these temples exist and help feed the hungry.
Shannon wrote: "I can't prove that God exists, but I can prove that local people I know do great works of charity for our community. For us, that matters. In addition, I've not seen other organizations, with few exceptions, or individuals take that on. So, unless and until non-religious organizations start taking on some of these "good works" "Again I personally have more "faith" (if I must use the term) in the type of people who volunteer their service for charity than I do in the religion. It seems to me that good people do good things, but in western culture as cs has stated this is influenced by the idea that religion is a good thing. Therefore many of these people follow the good parts of their religion and get together using religious structures to do good works.
I have talked to quite a few of these type of people and they tend to have not read the bible thoroughly or as usual actively applied their own morality to the lessons presented.
There are many secular charities and more are growing. I think it may be a US thing that the secular ones are not as obvious. Since the second world war there has been an increasing feeling that the government of a civilised society should have a structure of social support that is fairly funded by all rather than depending on charity (which for all the work of good people is often underfunded). Ironically this idea of community responsibility is actively opposed by the political right of the western world which also tends to be the more religious.
Again the assumption is that religion > good people > charity > benefit, however I still see no clear evidence of this. There are plenty of people who I think would have been kind and charitable without religion. There are plenty of religious people who support capital punishment, the ending of welfare and have cheered the idea of leaving someone to die outside a hospital if they didn't buy themselves health insurance.
I have seen far more hypocrisy with religion than I have seen charity.
What is worse is that certain religious charities use donations in accordance to their ideology. Again the denial of sex education and contraception to those struggling against HIV. The missionaries that bring with them the "good news" of the bible while providing needed care. Is it really charity or attempting to buy converts?
Charity exists without religion. The only advantage religion has at the moment is an established structure for that altruism to propagate along, but that is a historical legacy rather than an intrinsic necessity.
Some secular charitiesRed Cross
Oxfam
UNICEF
Fred Hollows Foundation
Water Aid
Save The Children
Doctors Without Borders
The Gates Foundation
SHARE (Secular Humanist Aid & Relief Effort)
Food not bombs
EWB-USA.org
Goodwill Industries
Plan
EARTHWARD, Inc.
Atheists Helping the Homeless
Humanist Soup Kitchen
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
on a side note, truth, justice, freedom and a hard boiled egg.Happy Towel Day everyone.
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I'm not belittling what the people of your local churches have achieved, but its the people that do it, not the churches, and those people would be good people and sti..."to ape you... sigh... completely missed what I was saying, I wasn;t out to "prove that religion is bad, no matter what", I know that religions do some good things, andthere are good parts of them, but if the religion wasn't there the good people would still do good things.
You're talking about how its only the churches that do things where you are, well, I don't know where you are, so can't really comment on your local area beyond what you tell me. You haven't told me what percentage of your local population is non-religious, I can't check if there are secular charitable organisations in your area because I don't know where it is, you insist that all charitable work is done by the churches where you are, but have you really checked? I'm not saying you haven't, but would like to know whether you did or not for certain. You've made a blanket statement that no non-religious folks in your area do charitable works. What about if there are non-religious people turning up to help in these church events, because maybe your area is so church orientated that anything else is impossible.
You've hinted before that being non-religious is frowned upon where you are (correct me if I'm wrong, please), if I recall correctly, so how long would a non-religious organisation really survive if they are frowned upon?
I'm just spit balling here, you understand, based on the small amount of info I have gleaned or inferred from what you've said of where you live.
What it comes down to, is if those churches had never been there, then those same people would still be good and charitable people, and would still carry out their good works. Its called a hypothetical situation, if the religions weren't there, it wouldn't mean no good, charitable works would get done.
Heres a couple of questions for you? DO people donate money to your local churches for their charitable works? And if so, have you ever followed the money to see where it goes? ANd please don't think this is me assuming that they don't use most of it for charity, what I'm actually wondering about is do you make sure that your money is going where you think its going?
Lila wrote: "Until we talk again, maybe sometime :) "
Thank you.
And thank you everyone else, theist or atheist, who offered kind words.
Shannon wrote: "As I said, Hazel, it could be done ... but it's not done. So, unless and until others in the community start feeding the hungry, etc..."This still doesn't mean that religion is responsible for charitable conscience, it may even mean it exists in spite of religion. As I pointed out before the US has huge amounts of poverty and a massive gulf in wealth, yet the more religious republicans actively oppose welfare as "socialism". The fact that the term 'socialism' (meaning society caring for its members) is now a dirty word in the US really sums things up.
Obviously there is a danger here of falling to far into politics, but suffice it to say that I think it is clear that republicans enjoy the most specifically religious support, and prefer the idea of the voluntary donation of wealth to the poor rather than requiring a fair share of that support from everyone that can afford it.
How well would the already impoverished US African-American minority do when they are dependent on the predominantly white wealthy? How large and how consistent would these charitable donations be?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
The Vedic/hindu scriptures state that this is the smallest Universe and there are trillions of other Universes. Within each Universe there are numerous Planets with living beings."
A very interesting idea, but the definitions are a bit all over the place. "Universe" is usually defined as "everything" ('Uni' singular as in 'Unity' or 'Unit') so trillions of other "universes" would more properly be trillions of discreet realms in one universe. The much cited "multi-universe" theory of quantum physics is not really a theory but a postulation and should be called "branching universe hypothesis" or similar.
Physicists generally use the term "observable universe" to distinguish the directly perceived universe from the possible existence over the observable horizon.
Also "M-theory" postulates our "observable universe" as a 3 dimensional 'brane' (from membrane) floating in a multidimensional 'bulk'. The 'bulk' would possibly, but not necessarily be the limit of, the universe.
The existence of life elsewhere in all this space is estimated to be highly likely, but it is impossible to make a realistic estimate with a sample size of "1".
Anjali wrote: "Just think how insignificant this tiny Planet is in God’s creation."
I realise that Hinduism is actually a catch-all term for a variety of beliefs and traditions that are much more varied than even all of the Abrahamic religions combined, but my understanding was the majority are polytheistic and the monotheistic view of "God's creation" is actually a recent concession a few hindus make to the western religions.
Anjali wrote: "And how insignificant are a group of people who have existed for a few hundred or few thousand years out of the trillions of years that humans have existed on this Planet."
Humans hundreds of thousands or millions of years as a distinct species depending where you slice the hominid line. The planet only a few billion and the entire observable universe just over ten billion. Trillions is well out.
People are only "insignificant" to those who believe in persons much more vast and important. To those who only accept each others existence, humans are each one a significant light in the vastness of the universe, so morally speaking to make that brief existence comfortable and happy is extremely important, and the death of one is extinguishing their light and potential from the universe.
Only when life is compared to vastly more powerful gods, and also when life is considered only the tiniest part of a total period of existence, does that life become insignificant and therefore cheap.