Its really ridiculous to use a blanket statement like, "religion is bullshit," because religion is one of the things that classifies mankind as mankind.

Has there ever been a society without a religion? No. Will there ever be? No.

Has there ever been a society without a god? Yeah. Will there be? Of course. But religion isnt really about that, religion is a social construct that teaches people shared morals and a similar perspective so society can function. Even Bushmen wouldnt get along and die off if they couldnt agree on what was fundamentally good and evil.

It frustrates and angers me a lot when people dont bother to pay attention to that, and think because they dont like the idea of Jesus that religion is ignorant. If you would teach your children a similar worldview to your own, and believe society should believe in like principles, thats religion too.

WARNING- Posting semantics with a Websters sub-definition of religion that includes the word God will only get you mocked for your transparency, short-sightedness, and inability to grasp the big picture here.

I agree.

I have religious friends, most of them I wouldn't want to see any other way.

Many people deny themselves a religion because it conflicts with science. Science, however, is itself a religion. A system of beliefs created by humans to explain certain aspects of their existance. Peple deen to shop around find what appeals to their souls.

Science sure as fuck dosen't do it for me. I am a Taoist (with little bits from other religions)

"Capitalism Sucks"

I'm not religious, and I dont believe in God, because it conflicts with certain principles i hold, not because of science.

[This message has been edited by Bogey Man (edited 09-15-2002).]

I agree with Spirit.

I also drive a Dodge Stratus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Has there ever been a society without a god? Yeah. Will there be? Of course.

---

I'm not so sure. Even the communists worshipped Marx and funded large societies to study his manifesto.

Actually the definition of religion requires you to worship a god. I think what we are talking about is living by ideals and values. Something that is sliping away very quickly from society.

Just think about it. We respect people based on their dollar value. And how do you get money? By basically throwing all morals and values out the window.

bong.

sn0, which morals?

>>>>Actually the definition of religion requires you to worship a god.<<<<

No it doesnt. Perhaps you didnt read the first post.

-Posting semantics with a Websters sub-definition of religion that includes the word God will only get you mocked for your transparency, short-sightedness, and inability to grasp the big picture here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
But religion isnt really about that, religion is a social construct that teaches people shared morals and a similar perspective so society can function. Even Bushmen wouldnt get along and die off if they couldnt agree on what was fundamentally good and evil.

---

Depends on your definition of religion, yours sounds more like ethics, similar to Confucious, except for the distinction between good and evil.

Try this definition from a Study of Hermetics by the three initiates:

"(At this point, it may be proper for me to state that we make a distinction between Religion and Theology--between Philosophy and Metaphysics.

Religion, to us, means that intuitional realization of the existence of THE ALL, and one's relationship to it; while Theology means the attempts of men to ascribe personality, qualities, and characteristics to it; their theories regarding its affairs, will, desires, plans, and designs, and their assumption of the office of ''middle-men'' between THE ALL and the people.

Philosophy, to us, means the inquiry after knowledge of things knowable and thinkable; while Metaphysical means the attempt to carry the inquiry over and beyond the boundaries and into regions unknowable and unthinkable, and with the same tendency as that of Theology. And consequently, both Religion and Philosophy mean to us things having roots in Reality, while Theology and Metaphysics seem like broken reeds, rooted in the quicksands of ignorance, and affording naught but the most insecure support for the mind or soul of Man. We do not insist upon our students accepting these definitions--we mention them merely to show our position.)"

quote:

---

It frustrates and angers me a lot when people dont bother to pay attention to that, and think because they dont like the idea of Jesus that religion is ignorant.

---

Is this because of differences in theology?

quote:

---

If you would teach your children a similar worldview to your own, and believe society should believe in like principles, thats religion too.

---

Still sounds more like ethics to me but call it religion if you like, the only thing is the distinction between good and evil. Without an Ultimate, an Almighty, how do we determine what is good and what is evil?

There doesnt have to be an all powerful anything to have a religion. Religion is the belief in and institution built around an idea or force larger or more important than men that defines what is right and wrong. Use quotes and stupid shit all you like, that is the common denominator of every religion in history. They are what makes something a religion.

And no, difference in theology doesnt even register on my scale of anger. Being an asshole (with a religion they refuse to acknoweldge as a religion) and telling people religion is stupid pisses me off though.

Ethics and religion are inextricably linked. Even hardcore atheists' moral principles are largely based on those upheld by religion for centuries.

I still want to know why self preservation is not considered moral?

Self preservation is logical not moral.

No, it's instinctual, therefore it must be moral.

And I agree w/ FOAD. Religion is a huge influence in or lives.. directly and indirectly. Too bad it's largely bullshit.

I don't buy that Bongman, would you care to support yourself?

If you are creating a sub-definition of religion , fine. But my point is that your sub-definition is miss guided because religion requires the worship of a god. That is the basis of religion without it, you do not have religion. All Religious beliefs are set down and layout by their god. So, without your god, who decides your ethics? If you think that just having ethics constitutes a religion then you are mistaken.


Religions, by which are meant the modes of divine worship proper to different tribes, nations, or communities, and based on the belief held in common by the members of them severally. . . . There is no living religion without something like a doctrine. On the other hand, a doctrine, however elaborate, does not constitute a religion. --C. P. Tiele

On the subject of theology there still needs to be a god worship defined. It is just different in the understanding of the relationship between you, your god, and your ethical system.

Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God; while theology is objective, and denotes those ideas which man entertains respecting the God whom he worships, especially his systematized views of God

When talking about ethics as a construct of morals in a system. Anyone can create and develop their own morals based on experience and the environment they live in. When it comes down to it, morals are someone being held responsible for their actions.

It should be understood when talking about religion it does imply ethics. But when talking about ethics it does not have to imply religion.

Communism was a religion, and it has no god.

Ya know the definition of God also doesnt imply what you think of as god, so, like I said, I had no intention of debating who or what religion needs to be a religion; I told you in the initial post to leave semantic bullshit at the door.

What else is there to discuss if not semantics?

You said that if secular parents taught their kid, a code of honor; that it was religion too; tribal treaties, etc. To you, any norms or rules concerning social interaction is religion. This is not a common point of view, one that is especially not shared with those that post "Religion is bullshit."

quote:

---

Spirit:
religion is a social construct that teaches people shared morals and a similar perspective so society can function.

---

What kind of fringe religion did you have in mind when you where thinking this? Because, all the popular ones; are fairly shitty in this role.

If you were to apply the top 10 religions to your statement, and substituted "society" with "dumbshits", then I'll agree.

>>>>You said that if secular parents taught their kid, a code of honor; that it was religion too<<<<

It is. Any code or set of principles will both create or acknowledge a higher reality, and use that higher reality to define right and wrong.

>>>>This is not a common point of view, one that is especially not shared with those that post "Religion is bullshit."<<<<<

Thats my point. They tend to have ideas like, "to each his own" and similar philosophies dealing with personal liberty, individual spirituality, democratic or socialistic ideals, but all of these acknowledge and serve something that is both greater than individuals and abstract.

>>>>What kind of fringe religion did you have in mind when you where thinking this? Because, all the popular ones; are fairly shitty in this role.<<<<

Christianity has soaked nearly every nonreligious, "anti"Christian creed. Bolshevism sounds like Christianity to me. Liberalism sounds like it too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Any code or set of principles will both create or acknowledge a higher reality, and use that higher reality to define right and wrong.

---

Not all, Honor among thieves, and Men and Valor are two exceptions that come to mind.

Honor, for the sake of honor, while alive; isn't enough? We need to be "taught" it, by organized religion? That's fucked up.

quote:

---

Liberalism sounds like it too.

---

I agree with the overall point, and with the fact that liberalism reeks of New Testament, but I think that; current liberalism - is the forerunner of a huge secular humanism movement. I think there's a lot of closet-agnostics and atheists amongst the trendy middle-left.

>>>>Not all, Honor among thieves, and Men and Valor are two exceptions that come to mind.<<<<

Why are they exceptions? Is a criminal organization and worldview that has its own morality, enforcement of morality, standards, judgements, taboos, heroes and villains different from the Catholic Church below the surface?

>>>>Honor, for the sake of honor, while alive; isn't enough? We need to be "taught" it, by organized religion? <<<<

My point is, you already are. If an organization or moral code already exists that indoctrinates and perpetuates itself, it has every single characteristic of a religion- it has right and wrong, it has values and ideals, heroes and villains, mythology, legend, stories of those that personified it, etc, it just calls its Gods something different. Its different only by semantics.
quote:


>>>>I agree with the overall point, and with the fact that liberalism reeks of New Testament, but I think that; current liberalism - is the forerunner of a huge secular humanism movement.<<<<

A movement that will have every single trait any religious one could, but it will call its god Reason instead of Jesus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
[B
A movement that will have every single trait any religious one could, but it will call its god Reason instead of Jesus.

[/B]

---

Jesus Name means God is REASON.

In the beginning was the Word/Logos/REASON, and the Word/Logos/REASON was with God/ELOHIYM/Almighty Creator, and the Word/Logos/REASON was God/EL/Almighty.
John 1:1

Jesus{originall} via Latin from Greek Iesous, from Hebrew Yeshua, shortened from Yehoshua meaning GOD is help. (Concise Collins Dictionary)

Jesus Name means REASON/God is help, or as rendered in Bible Dictionaries Jesus meaning God is Salvation - REASON is Salvation!

The ancient Greeks understood this principle well, their first principle of the universe is LOGOS, the idea of a Divine REASON existing universally available to the minds of all men.

From this belief has sprung our modern civilisation, the Romans adopted this Greek thought, as did the early Hebrew followers of The Way. The path of enlightenment is thru Reason, Divine Reason, The LOGOS.
YHSVH HalleluJAH

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Why are they exceptions?

---

Because there is no deity. Sure, OC is just like the Vatican when looking at the structure of it's hierarchy, except when you get to the part about Papal infallibility, and beyond. That's the difference. Catholicism intends to serve the spiritual needs. That's why it's called religion.

quote:

---

it just calls its Gods something different. Its different only by semantics.

---

lol, your preemptive dismissal of any possible rebuttals using "semantics"; is just a cheap ploy to ensure that god is not removed from the discussion. You tell us that all of our social structure is religion at work. Yes, secular social structure is similar to religion - except for the fucking deity!

So, then you say, "Gods walk among us" (loosely paraphrased). I remember when I used to buy shit at this little branch of a supply house, it was manned by three dudes, that all had very similar religious beliefs, and their god was John Wayne. Personally, I don't regard cheezy war-movie heros as being god-worthy. But he was the diety inside that church.

So, it just gets down to semantics, on any level. All organizations, are just the result of following an unknown instinctual code. I'll allow the possibility of a god, if he is responsible for that code, but if that is god, then he's the absolute opposite of the god that religion is pushing.

Religion isn't instinctual, it's just the result. It's a dead-end diversion from the truth. A curiosity at best.

The problem with this entire argument is that any deity is an archetype, and an archetype is a mode of the subconscious. An archetype will manifest itself as anything, be it a communist country or a tribal community.
Once a society is developed around whatever archetype best expresses their subconcious nature, it's leaders exploit it,
develop rules that are prolific for whatever heirarchy is in charge, and call it a religion.
So who really cares if a religion or a society is based on gods or concepts? It's still just another impermament paradigm.

A guy goes to war, putting his faith in the fact that his side is fighting for Democracy and is willing to die for liberty and justice for all. In his heart liberty is an ideal worth serving with his life or death, and says that because it is on his side, he is right.

If you said God instead of liberty, its the same thing. Liberty is just a different word than god, it serves the same purpose, and the institutions around it are a religion of liberty. The only difference between liberty to a Republican and Jesus to a Catholic is the label.

No way that's analogous.

The motive to fight for liberty is the reward of a yoke-less life. NOT necessarily what god would give you.

Only if the man fights for his religious freedom, is this true.

quote:

---

Spirit:
The only difference between liberty to a Republican and Jesus to a Catholic is the label.

---

I mentally substituted "Catholic" with "Baptist", to make this at least partially believable.

Extremel and warped, uncommon versions of Christianity are the only ones that believe religion and the earth cannot coexist dude. You cant say because liberty is an earthly matter, it isnt religious. So is bread, and people pray for that.

Who said anything about their coexistance? I'm talking about common fucking definitions of religious and secular.

All you're really saying here, is that religion is omnipresent. But it's really the forces behind the religion. Religion represents men's emotion and ego. It's roots are from within, not handed down from above.

I know. And thus, when man does things to satisfy those longings, it is religious.

Then, do you find that most of the popular religions tend to misdirect our emotion? at least partially, and some more than others. Enough misdirection to warrant a debate on it's usefullness?

Yes.

As do I, AND the little fuckers posting "religion is bullshit". They're just not as eloquent, and they aren't as educated in religion as you are. So, I'll graciously take your "Yes" - as an admission of defeat.

The only religions that even come close to being useful, are the ones that recognize our behaviour comes from within, and then teaches us how to use this when dealing with each other. Parts of Zen Buddhism do this (although I think the concept of meditation - as a means to reach an ultimate enlightenment is shit.) The Art Of War, although more a philosophy than a religion, has to fit into your definition of extended religion. It would be in my top ten list, but I wouldn't call it religion, because it's just an instruction manual on how the human mind works.

How is yes an admission of defeat? You asked if good religions come from internal desires and functions, and I said yes. Liberty, eating, fitting in, and feeling important are internal desires, and things that answer those calls are just as religious as the pseudo-spiritual ones. My "yes" effectively put The Republic on par with The Redemption.

I think were going in two different directions with this and both completely misinterpreting the others argument.

Bullshit, i got you to agree that religion's service of our emotional needs, is questionable. It negates your whole position.

No you didnt. To be honest until just now I thought that question was, Do you think religion directs our emotional needs, and was under the impression that your argument was based on the fact that religion has little to do with gods, which is why I was under the impression it was you caving. I misread it, but you probably wont believe that at this point. If you look at my comments from that point on though, they are consistent with my initial impression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
I thought that question was, Do you think religion directs our emotional needs

---

Then why would you answer yes, when you agreed to this relationship just 2 posts earlier:

"Religion represents men's emotion and ego. It's roots are from within, not handed down from above."

I said I would allow for the existance of god on page 1, so god should not have been a factor. Besides, you called god irrelevant in this topic, on the first post.

I think we've beat this to death by now anyway.

Deductive reasoning really bothers me.

People forget the contrapositive relationship. Why does it have to be the conclusion that is false, rather than one of the premises?

I do not think, therefore I am not.

Contrapositives, because they add another layer of logic, are used only when inverse variables are not known. Or to lay down some devious trickery...

I believe your statement represented the inverse.

yes it didn't.