Is religion an insult to human dignity and threat to freedom of human spirit?

I refer to my previous post: So, I cannot exclude possibility of some "energy" that "holds the universe together", of multi-dimensional space etc. But such things would certainly have its rational explanation.

P.S. Sorry for the multi-post.. don't want to edit constantly :)
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
106
Location
Czech Republic
Sorry, I am not on my humourus side today. I blatantly botched my christmas gift shopping round. Every single item I had planned to buy was either sold out or not released yet, and then I payed for an expensive greek lunch that tasted terrible.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
At the end of the end of the day everyone should be free to decide what to believe - free of societal/familial pressure.... but that's unlikely! I was raised as a protestant and attended a catholic school (not sure they realised ;-) When I was 13 or 14 I finally became exasperated with the irrational (God made it so!) answers I received to serious scientific questions and "lost my religion" - well abandoned it willingly, I should say. I eventually became a scientist. For me the "scientific method" is a rational and logical way to try and examine the Universe with a view to understanding how it fits together, and by extension, how we fit into it. That's not to say that everything admits easy analysis - consciousness, existence itself etc. I'm not so dogmatic as to assert that science has all the answers - or ever will. However, the (religious) alternative of simply accepting things as an Article of Faith (TM) strikes me as an absurd cop-out, especially when willingly embraced by well educated people. My objection to religion is that it somehow seems to cripple peoples ability to *reason logically* about things: some topics are taboo or simply poo-pooed even when proven scientific methods show that there is an alternative logical explanation with a large amount of supporting *evidence*. Science offers theories which make predictions - some of which may only be tested decades down the line. General relativity is a classical (haha!) example of a theory that stood the test of time (heh!) and is still highly accurate at classical scales. Science constantlys eeks to evolve existing theorries to more accfurate theories with greater explanatory power - unlike religion it is not a static set of rules.
I am of course aware of the other extreme which is "Science as a Religion" (regularly punted by Those Who Beleive) - and I accept that being overly dogmatic can lead to this. I think that, perhaps, Science, like computational logic systems (Godel etc), may not be able to explain the most subtle aspects of the world around us. Perhaps nothing we (as limited beings with finite computing power) can conceive of can ever be complete - but to swing back to the opposite extreme of "god explains all" (which I have had thrown at my by those annoying people who knock on your door) is completely irrational. And for those who knock science - you're typing these messages because of science and the human desire to understand the details of how things work. If it offends you so much, become a hermit and retreat to a mountain somewhere. And leave your mobile phone behind.
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,144
Location
Cape Town, South Africa
You can find almost anything on the internet, but spiritual understanding isn't one of them I'd wager. I mean, what forum out there doesn't have a million page long thread on religion with all the misspellings, agendas, pushing, and the like. And the arrogance! My word, we must as denizens of the interwebs, strive to find other means of feeling accomplished and intelligent then by making meaningless posts that are filled with misinterpreted, recycled rhetoric that has been said a million times over.

You see, chances are whatever point you just tried to make is probably based on falsehoods or quacks. I think I recall someone mentioning Christopher Hitchens? Seriously? But look, I don't normally post on religion threads because I always try to follow my own advice (the one about not finding spiritual understanding online) but I couldn't resist... so many egos in this one.

Before you reply (if you bother to reply, I probably wouldn't lol!) I know I am quite stupid and rather bad at grammar and all, but I do believe it or not, try to be modest even online. And yes, I suppose it is rather arrogant of me to claim modesty after posting the drivel above, but I hope that admitting it scores me some points? Anyways, Merry Christmas all!
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
7
What i find interesting is that s-hk determines God doesn't exist because it's unbelievable that He could create the world in 6 days. Well actually, if God is the ALL POWERFUL being we conceive Him to be, shouldn't your question have been why did it take Him SO long? Shouldn't ONE day have been sufficient? The central answer is based in Bible Numerics, but since that was primarily formulated by an atheist scientist who upon further study realised he was wrong about God, so became a Christian, you probably wouldn't believe it, even if it's mathematical in nature. :) Google it :D
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,823
Location
Australia
Tycho said:
You can find almost anything on the internet, but spiritual understanding isn't one of them I'd wager. I mean, what forum out there doesn't have a million page long thread on religion with all the misspellings, agendas, pushing, and the like.
Click to expand...

So what if everything is misspelled, you won't be given a grade at the end of the thread.

You can find understanding on a forum/website if you are looking for it. If you are looking to argue, well you will find that as well. But getting different perspectives from people who take the question seriously, that can never be a bad thing. Even if some of the answers you don't like, that causes healthy debate (as long as you don't call someone hollow ;))

Do you seriously think that the only way to find understanding within yourself is from a face to face encounter with other people or just by reading books? I can from tell you that I've had to read books and the websites to better understand my own belief. Is that arrogance to search for better understanding from other people? If you think so, well then that's nice for you that you can only find spiritual understanding from wherever you think is the only place to go to.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
skavenhorde said:
So what if everything is misspelled, you won't be given a grade at the end of the thread.

You can find understanding on a forum/website if you are looking for it. If you are looking to argue, well you will find that as well. But getting different perspectives from people who take the question seriously, that can never be a bad thing. Even if some of the answers you don't like, that causes healthy debate (as long as you don't call someone hollow ;))

Do you seriously think that the only way to find understanding within yourself is from a face to face encounter with other people or just by reading books? I can from tell you that I've had to read books and the websites to better understand my own belief. Is that arrogance to search for better understanding from other people? If you think so, well then that's nice for you that you can only find spiritual understanding from wherever you think is the only place to go to.
Click to expand...

I'm not supposed to be posting in these threads, but it'd be rude not to reply, don't you agree?

Anyways, I fear I'm rarely very clear when I post. My point was that people, especially online, tend to be arrogant and disrespectful. It probably stems from not having to be face to face with whomever they are speaking to. That said, when someone honestly seeks knowledge about a sensitive subject like religion online, they tend to be wasting their time. Ask an honest question about say, Peter and you'll get people who "help" you by telling you your question is pointless since there is no god.

Getting different perspectives is a good thing. The problem is that most of these perspectives are impassioned rhetoric and phrases that don't contribute anything. I remember reading an article on how dumbed down we all are when it comes to serious topics. The article recapped a "debate" between Christopher Hitchens and Rev. Al Sharpton. These two "pinnacles of philosophy and understanding" were yelling at each other with goofy one sentence retorts and other misused lines. After about 5 minutes the channel cut to commercial and then the weather or something was on. The article then goes on to talk about how wonderful it would be to have a debate between some of the great thinkers of yesteryear such as Dostoevsky vs. Voltaire or something.

instead we have Dawkins, with his hysterics and "provocative" book names or Haggard and other mindless zealots who always end up being gay. Sigh indeed.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
7
It might surprise you, but on these forums, as well as the impassioned, but meaningless rhetoric, we frequently have some deep and thoughtful discussions. One quickly learns who has the ONLY valid PoV and who is willing to consider all sides of an issue. I have to read all the posts, but I know the people I REALLY read here!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,823
Location
Australia
You wont hear me discarding God, Devil, Hell and Angels on empirical reasoning alone. To me, it's actually possible to prove them wrong to anyone who uses reason rather than emotions/hope/ignorance to create their world.

I can track those ideas back in time, back to when the european understanding of those words were initiated. Each one of them are rooted in older cultures. Some of those cultures left writings behind in which we can clearly see just how little they knew of the world and how great the misunderstandings were that those answers are founded upon. Most of them stealed their ideas from even older cultures. I know about them as well and I know that as longer back you track an idea the more obvious it is that it's spawned in lack of insight.

With that insight, as well as my understanding of other similar ideas that try to explain the same mysteries, spawned by other cultures in other places of the world, have lead me to reach the conclusion that those specific "answers" to hard questions, doesn't fulfill my criteria of useful and trustworthy. That's how I disregard the "truthness" of those previously mentioned words, they are simply spawned by cultures without the insight we do have today. That's also why I do not bother with logical debates that someone wants to answer with "God" as I find the whole practice to came up with serious questions to a nonserious answer.

That doesn't mean we lack difficult questions. It just means that the religious answers to those difficult questions aren't answers at all. Believing you do have an answer to them have actually blocked your spiritual side, plus your ability to really search for strong answers that might actually benefit humanity.

2008-12-17.jpg
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Corwin said:
What i find interesting is that s-hk determines God doesn't exist because it's unbelievable that He could create the world in 6 days. Well actually, if God is the ALL POWERFUL being we conceive Him to be, shouldn't your question have been why did it take Him SO long? Shouldn't ONE day have been sufficient? The central answer is based in Bible Numerics, but since that was primarily formulated by an atheist scientist who upon further study realised he was wrong about God, so became a Christian, you probably wouldn't believe it, even if it's mathematical in nature.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
106
Location
Czech Republic
Tycho said:
I'm not supposed to be posting in these threads, but it'd be rude not to reply, don't you agree?.
Click to expand...

Argghh. Now I had to reply or end up being rude :D

Tycho said:
Anyways, I fear I'm rarely very clear when I post. My point was that people, especially online, tend to be arrogant and disrespectful. It probably stems from not having to be face to face with whomever they are speaking to. That said, when someone honestly seeks knowledge about a sensitive subject like religion online, they tend to be wasting their time. Ask an honest question about say, Peter and you'll get people who "help" you by telling you your question is pointless since there is no god.
Click to expand...

Normally, yes people go willy nilly on the net or a forum because there is no consequences for their actions. I call it the butthead factor. I've done it too. It's just too easy to spout out whatever comes to the top of your head because you don't like what the person has to say. But concerning honest answers to a real question well like Corwin said you end up finding out who is pushing his or her own agenda and who is honestly seeking to answer the question.

Tycho said:
Getting different perspectives is a good thing. The problem is that most of these perspectives are impassioned rhetoric and phrases that don't contribute anything. I remember reading an article on how dumbed down we all are when it comes to serious topics. The article recapped a "debate" between Christopher Hitchens and Rev. Al Sharpton. These two "pinnacles of philosophy and understanding" were yelling at each other with goofy one sentence retorts and other misused lines. After about 5 minutes the channel cut to commercial and then the weather or something was on. The article then goes on to talk about how wonderful it would be to have a debate between some of the great thinkers of yesteryear such as Dostoevsky vs. Voltaire or something.

instead we have Dawkins, with his hysterics and "provocative" book names or Haggard and other mindless zealots who always end up being gay. Sigh indeed.
Click to expand...

Ugghh, Christopher Hitches and AL Sharpton I know you were being ironic but even putting them in the same sentence with pinnacles of philosophy and "understanding" sends a shiver down my spine. If you want examples of that go outside Europe or America and I would suggest listening to the Dalai Lama. I know its a cliche to seek wisdom from the Dalai Lama, but he has more insight in his left pinky than most people and certainly more than Haggard *shiver*or the rest, except of course Voltaire and Dostoevsky, but they're dead and he isn't.

Quote from a speech in 2006 by the Dalai Lama:
http://www.dalailama.com/page.69.htm
What one witnesses is of well endowed and capable religious masters remaining in meek withdrawal while there are out there fake religious masters who, devoid of all sense of shame, and brimming with greed and talking naked falsehood, wear the mask of religion with great audacity, carry out irreligious activities and thereby bring disrepute to the Buddhist religion and faith. In view of this, everyone should exercise utmost care to gain purposive determination. It is especially important that the well-endowed religious masters should assume the responsibility to serve the religion and humanity.

I have great respect for anyone who battles his own religion to bring truth to the people instead of lies and fear for their own gain. I would think that Tao and Buddhism would be impervious to this kind of manipulation due to the fundemental message of my belief, but sadly with any belief it can be twisted and manipulated by people with low morals for their own gain and notoriety.

Even though we have people like Dawkins and Haggard we also have people like Dalai Lama and Stephen Hawkins. At first when I read your post I thought you wrote Hawkins and thought you must be nuts. He has brought better understanding of our universe. I won't pretend to understand what he is talking about most of the time but other people do :) But of course I reread your post and saw you meant Dawkins *shiver*.

So with every bad you also have good people out there. In the end it's all about balance. A Ying and Yang approach. You can't have one without the other. Ok that's enough out of me, I'm going to go kill some stuff in Lazarus now:D

Edit:
shadow_hk said:
Oh, no, this was only an example of one of the absurdities (in my opinion) ....
Click to expand...

I'm sorry about the joke about the "In my opinion." I won't do it again :D

shadow_hk said:
WE can't judge God, He judges us and it is presumptious for us to do so.

With this, you can "explain" or exculpate everything.
Click to expand...

I had a hard time with that quote too, but didn't want to say anything. It just strikes me as wrong. There is more than one faith on the planet and if you can't judge or question, you can't understand. Ok, NOW I'm going to play Lazarus :) Have fun guys.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
skavenhorde said:
I'm sorry about the joke about the "In my opinion." I won't do it again :D
Click to expand...

No need to be sorry. Your comment was completely on the spot. :).

to Corwin:

I will generalize it: In my opinion your problem (and not only yours) (or your luck - depending how one looks at it) is that you don't admit the possibility that you might be wrong in your belief. I do. Always. Even now I'm thinking whether I'm not wrong, whether there really is "SOMETHING". And I think we, as people, must ask these questions. I think, it is in our nature. The absolute faith is an artificial suppresion of this natural human characteristic. The absolute faith without any doubt (or suppresing them) is deceiving oneself in my opinion.

skavenhorde said:
Ok, NOW I'm going to play Lazarus :) Have fun guys.
Click to expand...

OK, same with me. But NWN2: Storm of Zehir. There's plenty of gods. i.e. something for me :).
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
106
Location
Czech Republic
Oh, what the hell :))), what has become to my previous post? It has dissappered somewhere? There's only a quote of Corwin... my response nowhere. I don't get it. I had some trouble with Internet connection but the post was saved and edited correctly. I'm sure about it. Even skavenhord cites part of it..
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
106
Location
Czech Republic
Nevermind, I retyped my post from my memory :)

Corwin said:
What i find interesting is that s-hk determines God doesn't exist because it's unbelievable that He could create the world in 6 days. Well actually, if God is the ALL POWERFUL being we conceive Him to be, shouldn't your question have been why did it take Him SO long? Shouldn't ONE day have been sufficient? The central answer is based in Bible Numerics, but since that was primarily formulated by an atheist scientist who upon further study realised he was wrong about God, so became a Christian, you probably wouldn't believe it, even if it's mathematical in nature. :) Google it :D
Click to expand...

Oh, no, it was only one of the absurdities (in my opinion) you can find in the Bible at the very beginning. One of the absurdities I stopped reading any further. I might continue after I get three times a sleep, from studying reasons and because when I am critical about something, I should know about it as much as possible (I know more or less the biblical stories but I decided to know the exact text of Bible from the beginning to the end).

I.E. absurdities, especially when you take text literally (and you probably do?) and if you don’t, how far you can go with allegories? I guess very far – as Vatican shows in a link above regarding the “extraterrestrial brothers“. You, as believers, always figure out a way how to explain the passages in Bible which don’t make sense according to the latest scientific and historical discoveries and laws of nature. You must of course, whether it is a numerology or anything else.
Or you have at your disposal that “magical formula of yours” which you have used a few pages back:
WE can't judge God, He judges us and it is presumptious for us to do so.

With this you can „explain“ or exculpate virtually or literally everything. Even Holocaust or Shoah (I don’t intent to argue you faith, I only point out to that).

You know, your reaction really surprised me. I didn’t expect a sort of answer like that. It shows that our minds work completely differently, we think completely differently about these issues. Or more precisely, you don’t think about some matters, some things at all because they are an indisputable fact for you, because you are indoctrinated by your believes which blind your mind. It is the same with muslims. Even the very word Islam means “submission” to God (and His will and obedience to his laws). Dot. No discussion here.

So trouble is that you don’t admit the possibility or eventuality that God and all this theatre might NOT exist (I’m sorry I don’t mean to offend you, it is not my intention, but it is how I see it). But of course, you can’t. Because otherwise you would lose your faith.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
106
Location
Czech Republic
When you try to apply scientific method to religion, and then fail you cannot extrapolate from that failure that religion is wrong. You are presupposing that scientific method is correct, and for what it is designed for it works.

For instance, the original question is about human dignity, and human spirit. What are those terms exactly in scientific terminology? Well I would say those qualities do not exist, since they are not measurable, or quantifyable.

Also it seems rather odd to me that there are those, for lack of better word, irreligious, ones who claim religions are wrong, or bad for humanity. Sure they can be but the converse is also true. Religion is part of the foundation of our civilization, would we be better off without it? Perhaps, but for me personally
it is the finger pointing to the truth of our existence. Why are we here...etc..I defer to the sages, saints, of old on these questions, and try to follow their advice. On the scientific questions I defer to the scientists.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
296
ffbj said:
Religion is part of the foundation of our civilization, would we be better off without it? Perhaps, but for me personally it is the finger pointing to the truth of our existence. Why are we here...etc..I defer to the sages, saints, of old on these questions, and try to follow their advice. On the scientific questions I defer to the scientists.
Click to expand...

Clergymen too? because I do not think there would be anything that would make them in principle more "qualified" to answer these philosophical questions than anybody else. On the contrary, more likely (because they are likely to be biased).

I think it is wrong to think that if science doesn't give us all the answers we seek, the religion does. Or at least the right ones (objectively, without prejudice) /I don't say that this is just your case/.

And sometimes it is perhaps better not to ask :). But I agree, curiosity is human nature :).

--

P.S. I think I have said enough bad things about religions already. And although I stand for what I said, I think that enough is enough, so I will pause for a (longer) while with my criticism.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
106
Location
Czech Republic
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom