Kersplosh Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 That's rich coming from you! Not only me thats noticed then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Hi Ryedo ... if you're (I'm/one is) already an atheist, is the God Delusion required reading? [P.S. much appreciated feedback by PM from A.N. Other, but can't reply - your inbox is full ... ] If you are already well versed with all the arguments for theism/atheism - and creationist rubbish that's been rearing its head - then I'd only recommend it as good read. It's a good introduction though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorpusAnimus Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Sorry QQ and Ryedo, I don't have time to read and reply to your posts in detail. I hope that nobody however is mistaking me for someone who might attempt to defend everything that has been doen in the name of religion over the centuries. I have however read Jonathan Sacks book The Great Partnership and am very intrigued by his offer of an olive branch to Science/Richard Dawkins and the acceptance of it. Maybe it is the man of faith who has changed somewhat and not the atheist ... Amen to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 ... and equally a lot of religion that gets criticised is not religion, is anti-religion or plain fraud Religion is just the organisation of theism. The collection of ideas about how God interacts and wants us to live. Even if you find it anti-religion, or plain fraud; all it takes is for those people to organise themselves and believe that God wants them to behave in such a way - it is still a religion. For example; The Westboro Baptist Church are as Christian as any other church. The fact that they preach hate and intolerance doesn't stop them being religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 Religion is just the organisation of theism. The collection of ideas about how God interacts and wants us to live. Even if you find it anti-religion, or plain fraud; all it takes is for those people to organise themselves and believe that God wants them to behave in such a way - it is still a religion. For example; The Westboro Baptist Church are as Christian as any other church. The fact that they preach hate and intolerance doesn't stop them being religious. I partially disagree. It has to be said I don't fundamentally disagree, but I think you're being a mixture of too simplistic and not specific enough (in different contexts, I'll try to expand). Although all religions are technically Theistic, in the way that they all contain God(s) of some nature, there are those that are thought of as Atheistic in the sense that, contrary to your point of Religion is just the organisation of theism. The collection of ideas about how God interacts and wants us to live[/Quote] they aren't a collection of ideas about how 'God(s)' want us to live. The Gods of some religion are part of the belief rather than the cornerstone of the belief. For many religions the identification with the faith doesn't automatically make you religious, my own faith and one other I have alot of interaction with (but these are by no means exclusive) are active, the practitioner has a clear set of principles to live by, not living by those principles, regardless of how much one identifies with the idea or identification of the faith means you are not a follower of that religion. In both the above cases it's usually not the technical misenterpretation of the texts that leads to problems but either addition or subtraction from the scripture to suit ones own personal worldview that causes different 'interpretations'. The difficulty lies in that works both ways, it's not just people making religion more, this is difficult because technically the word is wrong but I think it's the best that comes to mind to describe what I mean, making religion more 'fundamental' but also apologists and people who 'cherry pick' or water down their religion to suit their own philosophy. I think with the exception of one major religion (that shall remain nameless) if you go back to the scripture itself 'interpretation' is not usually a problem if you understand the context. The exception being the one religion who's central tenets are largely post scriptural (or maybe more correctly post founder), but even then there is a general understanding of the 'founder's' outlook, and most diluting or addition comes from the personal philosophy of groups that identify with that particular faith. In regards to all it takes is for those people to organise themselves and believe that God wants them to behave in such a way - it is still a religion[/Quote] I do agree, again in general, I'm not sure anyone has the right to say such and such is a 'cult' and not a proper religious group - that is that group X has any less right to call itself a religion than our group, but again I think we can with some accuracy say that regardless of their personal identification it is quite easy to see how 'in line' with their core texts they are being, and thus assess our personal involvement based on that assessement. That is, do they have a right to call themselves X and practice what they please (as long as they are acting within the law)? of course. Does that make them X in the sense that they are practicing in line with the teachings? Not at all, but that shouldn't mean we judge them. A Jehovhas witness has as much right to call themselves Christian as the CofE, a Tibetan Buddhist has as much right to the label Buddhist as someone who identifies with Zen, but they are only Christian, or Buddhist by their actions in line with the founders teachings, anything else is merely identification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 In both the above cases it's usually not the technical misenterpretation of the texts that leads to problems but either addition or subtraction from the scripture to suit ones own personal worldview that causes different 'interpretations'. I was being a little simplistic. Abrahamic monotheism applies to what I say; the "Big 3". Each group, church, organisation, wing, division, chapter; each one may say of another that "they aren't proper x". That is what I was addressing. The notion that a religion isn't a proper religion, or that it's a fraudulent religion. In regards of the quote above, I can't agree. Most religions, and I've not studied them to say all, but I'm inclined to think that way - most religions will have some contradicting ideology at some point. The notion of a Christian soldier amuses me endlessly. Monday - Saturday, learning to kill. Sunday "Though shall not kill". making religion more 'fundamental' but also apologists and people who 'cherry pick' or water down their religion to suit their own philosophy. I don't necessarily dislike fundamentalists. Atleast they're consistent. One of the worse things I've ever seen on tele was Jeremy Kyle talking to the Westboro Baptist Church. For once his council house logic was lost, and no amount of posturing could save him. They just quoted the bible at him and nobody could answer it. They had all the arguments on their side. I do agree, again in general, I'm not sure anyone has the right to say such and such is a 'cult' and not a proper religious group I'll agree, but something can be both a cult and a religious group. Scientology for example, I'd call a cult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 It is to control people though I seen a post from Richard before saying he is a Buddhist, what do you yourself get out of it Richard, this is a genuine question though Richard, please don't take it as I'm questioning it, I don't know much about Buddhism, will have to have a real look into it But what do you yourself receive from Buddhism Looking at it, Buddhism doesn't seem a religion where your controlled, seems very interesting It's like a guide to life, like it gives explanations, i actually mean more advice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 I was being a little simplistic. Abrahamic monotheism applies to what I say; the "Big 3". Each group, church, organisation, wing, division, chapter; each one may say of another that "they aren't proper x". That is what I was addressing. The notion that a religion isn't a proper religion, or that it's a fraudulent religion[/Quote] Oh, ok, no bother, in that case I agree. In regards of the quote above, I can't agree. Most religions, and I've not studied them to say all, but I'm inclined to think that way - most religions will have some contradicting ideology at some point. The notion of a Christian soldier amuses me endlessly. Monday - Saturday, learning to kill. Sunday "Though shall not kill"[/Quote] Again I partially agree, I think it depends what religion and how much of the context yopu understand of the teaching, I think it's easy to take a bit from here and a bit from there out of context and say they are contradictory in any of them. I also agree that there are certainly some that are scripturally inconsistant, again without naming names one in particular springs to mind (though it's not exclusive), but certainly the two I was thinking of, as far as I have studied them, are quite straightforward. I don't necessarily dislike fundamentalists. Atleast they're consistent[/Quote] I don't 'dislike' anyone, and the word fundamentalist is difficult because technically it just means the fundamentals of the religion, which I think is fine, but it's usually used to in the context of 'hard liners', who are equally as capable of taking the teachings out of context as 'hard line' opponants of a particular faith are. One of the worse things I've ever seen on tele was Jeremy Kyle talking to the Westboro Baptist Church. For once his council house logic was lost, and no amount of posturing could save him. They just quoted the bible at him and nobody could answer it. They had all the arguments on their side[/Quote] I can't remember the details of what was said on the show (although I did see it, in fact my uncle was on the panel representing the LGBT movement so the show is memorable just from that aspect) but I have seen them before and they certainly seem to 'add' to their reading of the scriptures, I don't recall either the Old or New Testament saying that people fighting for particular causes are automatically gay, which is one of the things they have proposed. I'll agree, but something can be both a cult and a religious group. Scientology for example, I'd call a cult. Totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 It is to control people though I seen a post from Richard before saying he is a Buddhist, what do you yourself get out of it Richard, this is a genuine question though Richard, please don't take it as I'm questioning it, I don't know much about Buddhism, will have to have a real look into it But what do you yourself receive from Buddhism Looking at it, Buddhism doesn't seem a religion where your controlled, seems very interesting It's like a guide to life, like it gives explanations, i actually mean more advice That's difficult to answer because I wouldn't say I recieve anything from it in a technical sense. All I can say without getting too philosophical (and in this respect it may seem like I'm putting forward counter Buddhist things here but I'm keeping it black and white as you say you don't know much about it) is that it promises a greater understanding of the 'self', more freedom and less suffering, all of which I have found to be the case for me personally. But it is wrong to say I have 'recieved' anything. I'm not sure about the not being controlled bit, it has quite strict rules which 'should' be followed, but it's by following the rules that the freedom comes. The Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh called his reinterpretation of the rules for Nuns and Monks 'Freedom Wherever We Go', it sounds counter intuitive but the Buddhist rules are there to facilitate a greater understanding of the self and give us freedom from the things we would normally be 'held back' by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 What would happen then if you broke the rules, would you be exiled?, I mean traditionally would you be or would you be given the chance of making it up, what would happen Would you be able to tell me alittle bit about who Zen is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.