What's your religion?

[LeoXiao]

I doubt that we'll ever reach such a great level of civility, after all humans will be humans, it what makes us all so likable . We can dream though, or atleast strive for a relatively good society.

I think the idea was that people would evolve to become perfectly civil beings.

[WanderingKnight]

As long as people follow the core concepts instead of following blindly I believe that the world would be lot better place

But... you can learn all that without resorting to a religious institution.

My point remains: for what it supposedly "helps" society, it is a completely harmful institution that should not be considered for any project of a sane society. I have no religion, yet I respect my peers the same way Christianity preaches. But I won't listen to the Pope to keep my behavior on check.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

But... you can learn all that without resorting to a religious institution.

My point remains: for what it supposedly "helps" society, it is a completely harmful institution that should not be considered for any project of a sane society. I have no religion, yet I respect my peers the same way Christianity preaches. But I won't listen to the Pope to keep my behavior on check.

True but I believe that the spiritual motivation makes it more pure(?). A person would do good deed just purely out of good will because of the teaching from the religion. Then again not all christian listens to the Pope, as what Luther taught bible or the core idea it carries should be followed not the pope. As for me I don't have Buddhist monk telling me what to do instead I just tend to follow some of major Buddhist belief (though I am a terrible Buddhist).

[WanderingKnight]

Then again not a christian listens to the Pope, as what Luther taught bible or the core idea it carries should be followed not the pope.

What? Catholics are not Christians now?

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

What? Catholics are not Christians now?

Its was a typo . It was suppose to be all.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

But... you can learn all that without resorting to a religious institution.

My point remains: for what it supposedly "helps" society, it is a completely harmful institution that should not be considered for any project of a sane society. I have no religion, yet I respect my peers the same way Christianity preaches. But I won't listen to the Pope to keep my behavior on check.

Oi! I see your view points to be ironically very similar to many of the "sheep" you criticize. Blanket statements, lumping broad groups of people and categories all together, over simplifications, being on the offensive way too easily, etc. Not just you, many people are like this.

My message is getting convoluted, so I'll clarify: Some religious people abide to extremist ways in their thinking, and so do many anti-religious people. When you start saying religion is a "completely harmful institution that should not be considered for any project of a sane society", you are of an extremist mind set of your own.

I must say, though, there is organized religion, and then there is religion. The wonderful teachings of Jesus are good aspects of the Christian religion, for example, and the crusades is a mega blunder from the organized religion aspect of the Christian religion.

It seems many people in this thread direct criticism towards organized religion. I myself do not abide to a certain religion, and I can find problems with the organized religion of Christianity of today (and definitely Islam). That is how people run the organizations. The ideas and concepts professed and taught in religions is generally good, even in Christianity and Islam (although there are certain teachings from them I dislike). So I can say I think that organized religions do have downfalls, while the major world religions are very good, on the whole.

I didn't think about that until now, but that may be an important distinction to be made for the thread. I still think some people can go over board with their hate for religion, though. But it is the (no pun intended) heart and soul of religions I really like. Again, there is a difference between religion and organized religion. That is why I say I greatly value spirituality, which is also something under attack by some people.

[WanderingKnight]

I must say, though, there is organized religion, and then there is religion.

With this sentence I realize you didn't understand anything of what I said.

With no organization there is no religion! Stop and think a little about what a religion means, what it means to share a core belief that's based on nothing at all, and attempt to keep it consistent. You can't unless there's some centralized organizational corps that keeps everything consistent, or it wouldn't be a religion at all.

Heck, even if you want to get a religion approved nowadays you need to have a certain number of followers and prove that you all share a set of core beliefs--and you can't do that without an internal organization of some sort. The "unorganized religion" you speak of is merely comprised by personal irrational beliefs, and we've all got them. Some more, some less, but having irrational beliefs doesn't automatically make you more prone to be manipulated since there's no virtual authority over them but yourself.

(I was simplifying a bit there. Having irrational beliefs does make you prone to be manipulated, but not on the same scale an organized irrational belief does).

When you start saying religion is a "completely harmful institution that should not be considered for any project of a sane society", you are of an extremist mind set of your own.

It might look like an extremist mindset, but if you followed my reasoning you would understand more or less why I said so instead of skimming through it and not trying to understand it a little better.

Mind you, many people would consider me "extremist" in that I have some pretty strong convictions. But I don't think extremist is the word you're looking for to describe me--perhaps "someone who has an opinion instead absorbing everything and not producing any idea of his or her own" is more suit? I don't know if there's a word for that.

But it is the (no pun intended) heart and soul of religions I really like.

Please tell me why do I need the core Christian set of moral values when (the sane part at least) more or less stands for "don't fuck around with others". Lots of non-religious people follow that simple rule. And, mind you, lots of Christians don't (and somehow their religion says that if they tell their screwups to a priest they will be forgiven, lol).

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ClockWorkAngel

I don't understand why you're try to make me look like a dick. I don't honestly believe for a moment that you have any right to attempt to belittle my own opinons.

Like your opinion you're not being offensive?

Literally you're not at all understanding what I'm trying to say, in fact you're doing the exact same thing which I pointed out; you're just looking at different points and attacking them and not the argument in whole,

Because you think your "argument as a whole" magically makes it all better?

this is no time for a quote war, but if it is then fine;



I can be so much more offensive,

"I could be a lot worse"? That's your defense? "I only punched him once, I could have beaten him to death" is no defense against the charge of assault.

if anything you're being offensive by trying to troll me into some sort of climax.

The difference being, I don't claim not to be offensive. I don't even claim to try. I pointed out a contradiction in your post, and I'm trying to pull you off your high horse. Of course you're going to be offended. I can live with that.

If you had any sense of the context of laugh you'd realize that there's no actual laughing, how do I give the implication that I call Buddism a joke?

That's what "laugh at" generally means. You could have tried "laugh at the idea that Buddhism is a religion", if that's what you meant, but even there, well, tread carefully. Better yet, don't use "laugh" at all.

Never, I simply used the word laughing, because I never considered it a religion because it didn't fit what most people see as a religion, how am I putting them down?

How does not being a religion make it a laughing matter? For that matter, can't you see that your calling it "not a religion" may be offensive in the first place?

And how would that even be an insult, I'm not degrading their beliefs at all, just pointing out there's a noticeable difference.

And I'm pointing out some practitioners consider it a religion all the same, despite what you think a religion is. If you intend to avoid offense, you're not making a good job of it.

That's a terrible fallacy you've commited, I never said that all the teachings were bad. There's a difference between vegetables are good for your health (a fact) and if you don't believe in X you suffer Y for eternity (belief).

And what I'm trying to explain is that not everyone sees that.

Now you might not know the difference (One which holds factual evidence and one which is unprovable) let me put it in words you might understand, you're comparing teach religion and the health benefits of vegetables in such a way; you can back up with evidence that vegetables = good for health and that me not believing in God will put me in Hell are both legitamite arguments. One of them isn't, now which one is that?

From the point of view of a devout? Both. From my point of view? Neither. I'm not a biology teacher, and I don't think you could explain much to a little kid anyway, so I'd resort to arguments of authority pretty fast.

Then what's wrong with having society as a whole allowing children religious/spiritual alternatives? You've contradicted yourself greatly and that's no way to support your argument.

I haven't said anything about society forbidding anything. All I've said is that parents should teach their kids about the world. That they'd be limited by their own vision of it is only natural.

Neither do I for your own, don't be condescending, I withdraw those arguments as courtesy, in no way did I tell you to challenge them.

Then don't claim to have them in the first place.

What are you talking about, of course it's unfair, just because its "inevitable" doesn't make it anyway more fair. People can choose to not dragging them to church, but they don't, why? Because they don't choose to. I'm confident that most Athiest parents would be fine with the beliefs that their child may have, it may be undermining their own beliefs but I doubt they'd have a problem with it.

While I'm not a parent, I'm an Atheist. And I'd rate pretty low on the tolerance of my kids' religion scale. Not "I'm going to disown you" low, but I wouldn't hide my displeasure at some of the religions they could get. Atheists aren't automatically better than theists. We just don't believe in god.

We can take the many examples from real life; a religious group of people may look down, ostracize etc a nonreligious person, should it be the other way around, a group of Athiest would be less likely of doing the same, why? Because in no way are they indoctrinated to ostracize those of different beliefs, unlike many other religions. This is of course never proven, but social psychology would no doubt have some support in this.

I doubt it. Conformity is important everywhere, and kids would be just as fast laughing at the guy with the invisible friend as they would at the atheist - it just depends on which one's the majority.

When did I say it was proof? I was just pointing out that it was a factor in my choice for being an Athiest. Was I using it in anyway to legitamize my argument?

Ok, then.

You're not objective because you strayed off the point of this topic;

How is being off-topic linked to a lack of objectivity?

describe your religious beliefs. Sounds familiar? Yea, that's the original purpose of the thread, not FLAME WAR, which right now seems like what you're going for. you've used ery negative and offensive language.

Merely saying "I'm X" is boring.

And believe it or not, not caring about other people's beliefs and such even though I have reasons to look down upon them is tolerant. If it isn't what is? Being a mighty person whom is accepting of everyone's religion in the same time? That's not very tolerant to the Athiest is it?

You could try actually seeing things through their eyes. You know, the old "entertain an idea without accepting it"?

More importantly, you could refrain from claiming to have arguments to look down on others' beliefs. Or, if you can't do that, at least have the decency to state your arguments so they can be defended against.

Atleast I'm not saying that everyone else is wrong except for me.

Except for those teaching their own religion to their own kids.

[ClockWorkAngel]

Seriously Just Drop it, like I said just PM war me, not quote by quote war.

Your sense of logic is failing, and you can clearly not distinguish common forum courtesy from weakness. It's the former. I haven't even brough up any evidence of sort and only expressed my opinon, if I did then you won't have anything to day, want proof? Look at The Rational Responders you can go rant your butt over there and you cna ee the evidence I have is very very hard and solid.

If you're going to try hitting my argument atleast back it up with something! You've just been doing continuing taking every sentence. The argument makes it automatically "better" because it includes the rest of the point and not a single part like so;

I think that religion is a bad influence on children, but it does have several positive benefits.

In which you would just take out I think that religion is a bad influence on children,

If you've been offended then express it objectively not like a rushing crusader troll fighting for the great overlord troll.

If you want to challenge my courtesy just PM war me like I said, you've obviously didn't bother to read or do it it seems and I wonder why. Is it the habit of every crusader to spout his war for the world to hear I wonder.

[Kakashi]

Religious debate has even diffused into the Naruto forum*. Or have Narutards simply replaced religion with Narutism? Heck, Naruto would say believe it!

*Don't click you don't want to be spoiled. If you're up to date with the manga or just don't care, read from post 170 onwards.

[ClockWorkAngel]

The way of the ninja shall guide you

Naruto always made me laugh, cause when they see someone sneaking they punch him in the face and say "That is not the way of the ninja!" Always made me burst out in irony XD.

But the manga is alright. I still hold OP over it all though.

@Wandering

I remember someone saying this before, but I gotta look at his videos again;

The golden rule isn't a new new concept, it's been there forever, but it wasn't until you added all the miracles and magic that people began remotely understanding it, and even then they don't do it.

It's a good rule, but of course common sense isn't all that common.

[OtseisRagnarok]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

True but I believe that the spiritual motivation makes it more pure(?). A person would do good deed just purely out of good will because of the teaching from the religion. Then again not all christian listens to the Pope, as what Luther taught bible or the core idea it carries should be followed not the pope. As for me I don't have Buddhist monk telling me what to do instead I just tend to follow some of major Buddhist belief (though I am a terrible Buddhist).

Well, people doing good things because the bible tells them to is the least pure of actions. It's actually quite selfish when you think on it. Forcing good deeds out of a desire to avoid damnation. Most religions have little faith in actual people. "Do this or eternal punishment." I'd rather it be "do this because you want to."

[Vexx]

I'll only observe at this point that "religion" does not equal "spirituality" nor is "religion" strictly a term for an organization. A "religion" is a set of beliefs that may or may not be attached to an organization, set of groups, or bureaucracy.
Often, the complaints anyone has about "religion" are actually about the institutions that people create in response to a set of beliefs and the doctrines created by those institutions.

[WanderingKnight]

A "religion" is a set of beliefs that may or may not be attached to an organization, set of groups, or bureaucracy.

But how can I have a religion without organization?

A religion implies that there's some sort of agreement of consistency between all the followers. There needs to be a centralized organization for that.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by OtseisRagnarok

Well, people doing good things because the bible tells them to is the least pure of actions. It's actually quite selfish when you think on it. Forcing good deeds out of a desire to avoid damnation. Most religions have little faith in actual people. "Do this or eternal punishment." I'd rather it be "do this because you want to."

Never said pure action I said pure motivation.
Even though I am not Christian many Christians' motivation do good seems to be not a way to avoid punishment but they are doing work of God and carrying out his will to do good in the world. Their action is not done out of fear (though I suppose fear of going to hell and other punishment is still on of the factor) instead their strong belief that their work is just.
And lets be honest those eternal damnation are a punishment. Its similar to law there has to be a punishment in order make people follow those laws. Seriously without punishment is there a reason to obey the law?

[OtseisRagnarok]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

But how can I have a religion without organization?

A religion implies that there's some sort of agreement of consistency between all the followers. There needs to be a centralized organization for that.

What (s)he's trying to say is like that one quote from Dogma: You don't need religion, you just need a good set of ideas. (paraphrased, of course).

Organising is when things get bad. How's a group of people supposed to determine the will of god?

[OtseisRagnarok]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

Never said pure action I said pure motivation.
Even though I am not Christian many Christians' motivation do good seems to be not a way to avoid punishment but they are doing work of God and carrying out his will to do good in the world. Their action is not done out of fear (though I suppose fear of going to hell and other punishment is still on of the factor) instead their strong belief that their work is just.
And lets be honest those eternal damnation are a punishment. Its similar to law there has to be a punishment in order make people follow those laws. Seriously without punishment is there a reason to obey the law?

Carrot and stick, my friend. Try rewarding good deeds, rather than threatening bad ones. I don't reember hearing much about Heaven in christianity, just hell. Maybe that was just my personal experience.

[ClockWorkAngel]

Seriously without punishment is there a reason to obey the law?

That's why the law is there. The thing about most crimes is that they already have consequences, the legal punishments are just to streamline those consequences.

Say if you committed crime X to person Y, Y shoots you and you die. While person Z may simply slap your face and demand repayment. And let's not forget about vendettas.

Legal punishments are often less severe than those that the victim can think and wish to do. In the past if you did ill to a high official they would all your friends and family but leave you to suffer like that, even for a petty crime. The law in a way protects the criminal more than anything, but we've civilized more than that, we don't all act like we're in a feudal time period now and now so the law protects the average citizen more than anything.

Humans and anything with enough intelligence to sense pain/resistance will try to avoid it, self preservation is important after all. So threatening them with a hellish doom that happens AFTER they die is a good way to keep people in line, though that worked so much better when it was unquestioned.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

But how can I have a religion without organization?

A religion implies that there's some sort of agreement of consistency between all the followers. There needs to be a centralized organization for that.

It sounds like you're just considering the J-C-I brands of religion rather than indigenous organically evolved religions (animism, paganism). However, it really sounds like a semantic dispute: a "religion" doesn't have to have any followers at all as long as someone wrote down the details at some point. "Religions" like Shinto don't have nor require any centralized organization, beliefs, or even the same set of spiritual forces outside of the local tribe. Buddhism has almost as many forms as there are people practicing it

Hmmm, it may be that *I* should stop using the word "religion" to describe anything outside of those large organized institutional hierarchies that annoy so many spiritual people and humanists

[ganbaru]

And even if the religions would require structure ( some don't have much of a structure, for what I readed the sunni don't have really a clergy) that could not distinguish them from the sects.