Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Whats Psychology got to say about God

Aldebaran said:
I explained this already. What is your definition of the word atheist?



Not at all and I explained this too a few times already.
It is the human nature that makes evil done by humans possible. If humans would be perfect and infallible then humans would be God.
I take full responsibility for my own life = for my thoughts and actions, good as well as bad. I am completely free to do good and completely free to do bad.
You on the other hand have a strange self- centred interpretation of “freedom”. I gave the example that by drinking only one drop of water you deprive others from having it. Where is the freedom of those you take the water from? Why do you claim to have the self-administered freedom of taking it while at the same time you deprive them from that same freedom? How do you justify your actions as “doing good” if such action only does good to yourself and harms others?
Religiousness has absolutely nothing to see with what you describe as a “state” although it is the aim of religions to guide people to be as you describe = to be a good person and to do good to others.
Abuse of humanly power has no connection with the existence or non-existence of God. It has purely to do with human nature. How do you plan to change human nature? (and once again you made the claim that if everyone simply becomes an atheist, evil is miraculously gone from this planet.)
Nature is not Allah/God, nature is the creation of Allah and hence for those who believe in the Creator of All the visible sign of His existence.



How do you come to this reasoning? I repeatedly stated that humans are responsible for their own actions. That includes their reaction on the actions of others. You make of this that we “have” to accept violent acts of others and that this is a command of Allah? How?
Religion is not the same as Allah/God. It is the practice of worshipping. One can state that -at least to a certain extend- religions are thus human creations.

salaam

I don't have any definition for an atheist. I don't subscribe to any 'isms'.

In my life i see nature as nature, not something created by any allah or god or human.

Humans are not perfect, but they can practise perfection. In other words they are perfect, but just for periods of time, not the whole of time.

Explaining away behaviour by humans as being just 'human nature' doesn't work i'm afraid. Plenty of stuff i've seen written down as 'human nature' is not my nature at all, and i'm human.

Mate, you may be free to do bad as well as good, but that is not the freedom i talk of. The one i talk of means you won't consider doing the bad, coz as soon as you do, you lose your freedom.

Explain to me how me drinking a drop of water is depriving someone else of that drop. Are you saying there are too many humans on this planet for the amount of water we have? If so, then blame god please, not me.

"Abuse of humanly power has no connection with the existence or non-existence of God. It has purely to do with human nature. How do you plan to change human nature? (and once again you made the claim that if everyone simply becomes an atheist, evil is miraculously gone from this planet.)"

And once again you're putting words into my mouth. I've never talked about atheists, and i've never talked about evil just disappearing from the planet. Furthermore i'm not an atheist. And you're making a big mistake if you think humans all behave according to human nature. Maybe according to animal nature, but being human allows us to regulate our behaviour, and on an individual basis too.
 
Aldebaran said:
How do you come to this reasoning? I repeatedly stated that humans are responsible for their own actions. That includes their reaction on the actions of others. You make of this that we “have” to accept violent acts of others and that this is a command of Allah? How?
Religion is not the same as Allah/God. It is the practice of worshipping. One can state that -at least to a certain extend- religions are thus human creations.

salaam

No, many humans are not responsible for their actions, and won't take responsibility. The latter is easy so long as we are able to blame others (and this is my contention on this thread, that even if don't blame any other human, if we believe in God, then we can at least put things down to him). The former happens when humans are in a crowd. They act in crowd-like ways, not as themselves.

Religions are indeed human creations, they are dogmas, along with political parties and affiliations. They are methods used by the few to dominate the rest of us.

Religiousness that i mentioned is compassion, unconditional love, respect for all living things, including such things as rivers and mountains and trees and grass and flowers, ie 'nature'. Having this, we have no need of religions, politics, war, and bullshit power-mad ego-maniacs.
 
fela fan said:
But whatever is is, whatever happens happens. And therefore nothing is false.

Fine - I feel you haven't really understood what I wrote and we are now getting bogged now in semantics.

an example:
If I put on a mask and I call it my false face I think that is fine. If you want to say 'it is what it is - its a mask' that's fine. If I'm wearing a mask and you don't know that I'm wearing a mask then you would think that that face is not false - it is what it is. But it isn't my face - it is a false face.

If you approach a situation and rather than facing the reality of that situation but impose prior experiences on that situation then your perception of that situation is changed - even distorted. Especially if a lot of fear is involved. That person isn't just laughing at an earlier joke, she/he's laughing at you (for instance). Then you don't engage with the situation with your perceptions matching the reality and you become false - which usually makes it worse throwing the person into a more distorted fearful state. This is what I mean by false personality.

There is no false personality, just guided and misguided personality.

Semantics.... I've no trouble with that.

(though with your style of arguing I could say - 'there's no such thing as misguided as everything goes where it goes')

But look, we're already depending on words and their defined meanings.

Whether one acts automatically or with considered response, either way is not false, just one is wiser than the other.

I agree but think of false personality as the worst case scenario. It's all degrees.

>"I think false personality shows itself in fear of change, fear of vulnerability,
fear of inadequacy, fear of missing out etc..."

This cuts to the heart of it. That is nothing to do with falseness, just fear. Are you saying that fear is false? That is a patently absurd angle to come from.

(I always thought Patently Absurd should be an eighties synth band with no talent)

I'm saying it's usually out of all proportion (especially in the beginning) and manifests in subtle ways (like fear of opening up or fear of of not having enough). I'm not talking about genuine life threatening situtions which are usually marked with an increase in perception, I'm talking about mundane situations that are internally blown out of proportion and fear manifesting. The falseness is in the distorted perceptions not the fear itself.
The fear is prevalent in the initial experience and reimposed on subsequent similar experiences.

If I was to public speak then the fear I would feel would be akin to being run down by a lion, which is well over the top, but our fear responses are still geared up to work like that.

Going back to the ego, the ego is nothing more than a mirror into society. Often it buries the self. I think we could agree on a lot, but we're getting bogged down over what exactly the ego is. Nothing of it is false in my book. It is all real. But it is also the bringer of many demons...
[... and those demons are not false.]

I would disagree with you there, there's no such thing as demons... but you started out pretty good. ;)

BL

(didn't mean to leave this in, it was part of a longer piece that I was writing, still....)

...those genuinely dangerous or scary situations that we, especially, experience at at young age create fear and thoughts and emotions that are the foundations on which a mind and sense of self is built...
 
Aldebaran said:
Then what does the word “image” and the sentence “made in God’s image” means to you?

It means that we were meant to aspire to be like Him, and act in the way that he'd want us to.

Creation can never be more then merely creation. Allah is the un-created Creator. To propose that a human is like the un-created Creator is to place humans at the same level of their Creator. It is stupidity at best and blasphemy if you actually mean it that you are the image of Allah.

salaam.

No it doesn't, becuase you're not saying you ARE him, you're saying that he created you "in his image", to be LIKE him.

its also a way of saying you should treat others with respect because humans were made in g-d's image, they are a reflection of g-d's mind as he created them, so if you deliberately hurt someone, then that's really bad.

and it's not "blasphemy" - it's a central part of my religion ... i don't have a problem with the stuff you beleive and probably agree with a lot of it ...
 
BootyLove said:
‘Just as a child needs its parents, so does an immature society need its gods. Freedom is always hard to bear, and the weight of self-responsibility can only be carried after a certain level of sophistication has been attained; - Stephen Goldin.

maybe i didn't explain that well enough ... imo, you're responsible for your own actions but you're also accountable to G-d for everything you do, and He is going to be the one judging you, not something coming from your own mind, or man made laws. that doesn't mean that you can abdicate your responsibility and say that G-d made you do something that you yourself decided to do.

Who mentioned ‘realising’? – my point is that you’d be better off accepting where you are now – thinking you’re imperfect all the time won’t do your esteem much good.

why not?

its not something i think about overly much ... and if you just accept that in life, you're never going to be able to do everything,, there are always gonna be things you can't do, or you can't control, but you just do what you can to the best of your ability, and don't worry too much about other stuff ... it's a much better way to accept the way you are rather than trying to be perfect all the time and then getting depressed when it doesn't work out right.

Good, bad – all personal truths. Who’s talking good and bad? – I’m talking about responsibility and choice. You can’t opt out of your responsilbities – more importantly YOU are responsible for EVERYTHING that has happened to you unless others are messing with your choices.

You're responsible for your choices and the way you behave as a person, but there are plenty of other factors which influence the way life turns out - it's not all down to you.

I’m not ‘shoulding’ anything. I’m saying that everyone really chooses their own morality anyway and that choosing one authentic to you is important. Which is what you’ve done admittedly.

Fair enough.

Sorry but this ‘universal morality’ is bollocks as well – you can believe it (and I might even agree with you) but you ain’t got no proof. You choose to believe in what you’ve read, that’s all.

To be honest those examples you’ve given would be carried out by ‘religious’ people – those who impose their dogma on people because of their ‘faith’ that it is correct action.

I know, that's why I gave them. ;)

I’ve been saying all along that you can transcend cultural laws (positively and negatively) – but occasionally you may get into trouble for it.

But who decides what's positive and negative?

Your religion is as much a part of your culture as anything else.

yeah, i suppose so, if i was a totally different person, living in a different culture or country, i might be an atheist, or a muslim or a hindu, but i'm not, i'm me...

Good for you :). (why?) Religious dogma is one of mine.

Because it prevents people from objecting to certain things and from agreeing with others, because every action one can do is supposedly of equal value, and you're not supposed to encourage others to behave morally because "they decide what's right" and everyone has their own opinions.

Why did you pick Judaism and Christianity if culture has no influence – why not Buddhism?

I've studied buddhism, i don't agree with what the religion says, simple as ... and i'm not going to deny it, i don't have a spiritual link with it, or any reason for me to believe in it. it's just not a doctrine i agree with. maybe that's because there've been other factors in my life that have determined that i think that way, i'm not denying that, but i don't think it's all because of culture.

I really don’t understand what you’re saying here... I'll try:
What’s right for you might be wrong for someone else – this obsession with being right is such a religious thing. In reality there is no right or wrong – they are merely the absolute ends of ‘righteous’ thinking. There are actions and consequences of actions. Culture will impose it’s own idea of what’s right or wrong with its criminal and civil laws, but these are by no means ‘correct’ either, just current.

Nah, that wasn't what i was talking about. I was talking about martyrs and people who sacrifice their lives to save others - given what you've been arguing, what do you think about this?

You seem to be alluding to those who need organized religion to stop them from doing wrong/evil things. Maybe they need religion because they’re a bunch of selfish, greedy, hateful people.

maybe ... religion doesn't stop you doing those things. it's better in G-d's eyes to be an atheist and a good person than be religious and evil ... what i'm saying is since certain things are commonly held to be right and wrong in society, that they must have come from a common source - you don't think that, and that's fine.

Most mature people of course can just put themselves in other people’s shoes.

Sure they can - but where does empathy and stuff come from, if it evolved, why did we evolve it, when we could have easily have done what some animals do and just act in their own self interest all the time ...

I often do – but life’s too short to worry about it. Anyway isn’t this a discussion board?

:) true, thats a good attitude to have .

I believe in what I know to be true – everything else is just opinion or ‘maybe’s’. I do believe in a greater reality – I’ve experiences of my own that confirm that (non – drug related as well). But I wouldn’t impose on those experiences someone else’s ‘idea’ of it.

Fair enough.

To be honest here, I’m not having a go at you, more the idea of faith in general. I don’t believe in an anthropological god who requires to be worshippped – it’s just ridiculous.

It's not that he requires it - he'd still be there even if nobody believed in him - what he really "requires" is for people to respect each other and act in the common good because that's the best way of worshipping him ... but i have chosen to follow my religion's rules, because i think it has made me, personally, a better person, and i derive a lot of strength and inner happiness from praying and meditating on my own or with others, and from meeting other like minded people.

it might not be that way for everyone, and people often have bad experiences, and fair enough if they don't think they don't believe in G-d. i honestly dont mind.

But I do accept the personal validity of spiritual experience – after all you’ve experienced it and not just read it in a book.

Yeah :) and those experiences, for me, convinced me that he existed . i never used to believe until i was about 14, and i'm 17 now. i used to be an atheist, and really scornful of this stuff, but i don't really regret anything, you live and learn innit :)

Well the thread is about psychology as well…. I'm not a big advocate of Freudian thinking - I prefer Jung.

They're both interesting, I don't really know much about it though.

How about just considering it a piece of literature like ‘Hamlet’ or Ulysses, full of old stories written by long, long dead story-tellers and get whatever value you need from it like you would from any other piece of literature.

But that's not quite the same, is it?

Fair enough.

Just to clarify my take on religion. To me religion is the emotional seeking of truth, Science and rationalism is the intellectual or physical seeking of truth.

I don't know - a lot of religious scholars are very intellectual, and argue purely from a logical perspective, and a lot of scientific research is based on desires and human emotions - for example, wanting to find a cure for cancer or something else that will benefit people.

So I don’t have a problem with religion per se – I have a problem with anything that seeks to dogmatise. I think going to a Music Concert or a Rave or listening to inspirational music at home is our modern religiousity

yeah, well people can certainly get spiritual enjoyment out of those things, but why is it such a problem that other people choose to obey religious teachings, if you don't like dogma? surely saying that they shouldn't, or that we don't need it in a "modern age" is another form of dogma?

not some old 2000 year old empty rituals pervaded by usually pompous old men.

But they're not empty - they mean something to the people that practice them, and there are plenty of empty rituals practiced in today's secular society that are of no value to anyone, and that nobody enjoys, and are in fact extremely destructive ...
 
Aldebaran said:
Not at all and I explained this too a few times already.
It is the human nature that makes evil done by humans possible.

I don't agree, I don't think people become evil because of "human nature" - that's just a fallacy used to justify doing bugger all about all sorts of stuff - "we can't do anything about it, it'll always exist, it's just human nature innit?" humans are naturally good, and when they are born they are innocent.

there is an evil impulse in all of us, and we have to work to overcome it. it's the lessons we learn in life that make it stronger or weaker, the people we meet, the experiences we have. G-d has given us free will to choose good or evil and so, in that sense G-d is responsible for the evil that's committed but only in the sense that he's responsible for the fact that evil exists in human beings.

If humans would be perfect and infallible then humans would be God.

yeah and that's not a doctrine i subscribe to.

I take full responsibility for my own life = for my thoughts and actions, good as well as bad. I am completely free to do good and completely free to do bad.

In as far as your life hasn't been determined by outside factors, I agree. It's debatable how much choice we really have.

You on the other hand have a strange self- centred interpretation of “freedom”. I gave the example that by drinking only one drop of water you deprive others from having it. Where is the freedom of those you take the water from? Why do you claim to have the self-administered freedom of taking it while at the same time you deprive them from that same freedom? How do you justify your actions as “doing good” if such action only does good to yourself and harms others?
Religiousness has absolutely nothing to see with what you describe as a “state” although it is the aim of religions to guide people to be as you describe = to be a good person and to do good to others.

Agreed pretty much 100% . :)

Abuse of humanly power has no connection with the existence or non-existence of God. It has purely to do with human nature. How do you plan to change human nature?

You have to change yourself and overcome the temptation to do evil.

(and once again you made the claim that if everyone simply becomes an atheist, evil is miraculously gone from this planet.)

I'm not sure if that's exactly what he was saying ...

Nature is not Allah/God, nature is the creation of Allah and hence for those who believe in the Creator of All the visible sign of His existence.

but some people understand nature as having a higher spiritual dimension to it, and that's an aspect of what we call G-d. im not saying that one can limit G-d to that one particular thing, but some people choose to understand this stuff this way.

i personally find seeing a beautiful sunset or a landscape a wonderful experience spiritually speaking but i don't think the two are the same at all ...

Religion is not the same as Allah/God. It is the practice of worshipping. One can state that -at least to a certain extend- religions are thus human creations.

salaam

Nah, religions are much more than "the practice of worshipping".
 
frogwoman said:
snip (too many words in this post :) .... not something coming from your own mind, or man made laws. that doesn't mean that you can abdicate your responsibility and say that G-d made you do something that you yourself decided to do.

You see I fundamentally disagree with this. Only humans judge, only humans make laws and it's only humans are you accountable to, but above all only humans write about god, spirituality, philosphy etc. The only evidence that 'god' would judge you comes from old books written by humans.
People can say until they're blue in the face that the Bible is the word of god or that only a prophet could have written the Qu'ran but these books were written by men.
They are tales like the brothers grimm to scare and impose morality upon children.

.....but you just do what you can to the best of your ability, and don't worry too much about other stuff ... it's a much better way to accept the way you are rather than trying to be perfect all the time and then getting depressed when it doesn't work out right.

You've basically agreed with me there.


You're responsible for your choices and the way you behave as a person, but there are plenty of other factors which influence the way life turns out - it's not all down to you.

Of course but a lot of people don't even take responsiblity for themselves and manage to blame others, god, fate etc. for almost everything.

But who decides what's positive and negative?

Ultimately you do, but you'd be hard pressed to remove cultural imprinting from the equation. You will find it as easy to reject culture as it is to reject say your sexual imprinting..

yeah, i suppose so, if i was a totally different person, living in a different culture or country, i might be an atheist, or a muslim or a hindu, but i'm not, i'm me...

Yes, influenced mostly by your culture. ie your language, your religiousity, your philosphy, the books you read, the nature of your parents and family and friends and especially with the advent of TV: your countries culture and comparatively other cultures (though always through the lens of the dominant culture) and all this will start from the moment you're born...

...Because it prevents people from objecting to certain things and from agreeing with others, because every action one can do is supposedly of equal value, and you're not supposed to encourage others to behave morally because "they decide what's right" and everyone has their own opinions.

No it doesn't, it's essentially an anthropological term to do with the effect of culture on humans..
Anyway...you can only do that within the culture you're in, unless you choose to go and live somewhere else. To impose your cultural morality on other cultures is imperialistic at worst and arrogant at best. Your 'ethics' or morality is a manifestation of your culture. You can criticise any other culture but you have to accept that you're doing it within the limits of your own culture, at least at first.


I've studied buddhism, i don't agree with what the religion says, simple as ... and i'm not going to deny it, i don't have a spiritual link with it, or any reason for me to believe in it. it's just not a doctrine i agree with. maybe that's because there've been other factors in my life that have determined that i think that way, i'm not denying that, but i don't think it's all because of culture.

If you were born in Tibet or Thailand do you think you'd feel differently? Of course it's about culture, especially at first.

Where do you live Fw?


Nah, that wasn't what i was talking about. I was talking about martyrs and people who sacrifice their lives to save others - given what you've been arguing, what do you think about this?

I'm sure plenty of those didn't need to do it in the name of religion. On the other hand some people don't feel they've lived unless they've 'died for the cause' - in those cases it's a false personality thing as far as I'm concerned. Low self-esteem coupled with an intense desire to surrender to something. Exessive passion is usually involved. That's in general, I'm not talking about real heroism, usually carried out in the moment with little pre-meditation.

(sp).. ... what i'm saying is since certain things are commonly held to be right and wrong in society, that they must have come from a common source - you don't think that, and that's fine.

I think it's as simple as 'treat others the way you'd like to be treated'. Some people need to hear it from Jesus; some people can work it out for themselves. If I don't like to be punched or robbed or killed why would anyone else?


Sure they can - but where does empathy and stuff come from, if it evolved, why did we evolve it, when we could have easily have done what some animals do and just act in their own self interest all the time ...

Well, I think that we do. I'm not an particular advocate of 'survival of the fittest' (they are more likely to be the first to go) more 'survival of the most adaptable'. Co-operation gets you further than non-coorporation in terms of survival. So that's why I think we evolved that way.


.....the best way of worshipping him ... but i have chosen to follow my religion's rules, because i think it has made me, personally, a better person, and i derive a lot of strength and inner happiness from praying and meditating on my own or with others, and from meeting other like minded people.

Fair enough.

it might not be that way for everyone, and people often have bad experiences, and fair enough if they don't think they don't believe in G-d. i honestly dont mind.

Good for you. :)

...and those experiences, for me, convinced me that he existed . i never used to believe until i was about 14, and i'm 17 now. i used to be an atheist, and really scornful of this stuff, but i don't really regret anything, you live and learn innit

I'm an agnostic humanist existentialist (at the moment :) who believes in the existence of 'something else/more', but that's it. I certainly wouldn't put my experiences in any previous dogmatic 'box' - especially religions that advocate 'an eye for an eye', 'homosexuals should be exorcised or killed', 'adulterers should be stoned' or any other medieval barbarian bullshit.

But that's not quite the same, is it?

But that's what they are - old books, written by human beings -admittedly very superstitious ones, attempting to understand the cosmos.
Its only because people deify Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao Tzu etc that it all gets out of hand. They're (IMO) great teachers who managed to lift themselves and others above their cultural imprinting with enough charisma and power to change their particular cultures. That's it as far as I'm concerned.


I don't know - a lot of religious scholars are very intellectual, and argue purely from a logical perspective, and a lot of scientific research is based on desires and human emotions - for example, wanting to find a cure for cancer or something else that will benefit people.

That's why I think most religious doctrine has no basis in actual religious/spiritual experiences. It's an intellectual imposition from 'those who know better'.

We are all intellectual and we are all emotional - it's just a matter of degree. And using the appropriate perspective is useful.
Passion will undoubtably rule reason anyway...

...yeah, well people can certainly get spiritual enjoyment out of those things, but why is it such a problem that other people choose to obey religious teachings, if you don't like dogma? surely saying that they shouldn't, or that we don't need it in a "modern age" is another form of dogma?

Fair enough, whatever works for you - if you need to obey things that's your choice, I'm sure you find a lot of value in what you do - I don't mean to disparage it - more just to challenge the faith part.
I'm not imposing anything, I'm just talking, if you don't agree with anything I say, that's fine, you won't go to hell, you don't become a non-believer, you won't be ostracized from society - there's no fear here. We just don't agree :)

The fact is these old documents are literature - nothing more.

But they're not empty - they mean something to the people that practice them, and there are plenty of empty rituals practiced in today's secular society that are of no value to anyone, and that nobody enjoys, and are in fact extremely destructive ...

The rituals you do are mere shadows of what they were to the people of the time, and that's the problem: you have to have faith because nothing is happening.


I pray that Catholicism, Islam and Christianity dies out as a mechanism for hate and the brainwashing of our children stops... That they are studied just like any other old tome in schools that place reason and consideration for others above all else. That's my prayer to the Good in me. :)
 
BootyLove said:
You see I fundamentally disagree with this. Only humans judge, only humans make laws and it's only humans are you accountable to, but above all only humans write about god, spirituality, philosphy etc.

well have to agree to disagree then ;)

The only evidence that 'god' would judge you comes from old books written by humans.

oh i don't think so ... people who do something wrong, generally get their comeuppance, whether that is through guilt, social ostracision or through something equally bad happening to them.

likewise being nice brings all sorts of benefits /inner happiness in itself.

but thats just the morality side of things, there are plenty of very convincing reasons why people would believe in g-d.

at the end of the day though it's not something one can be convinced of through intellectual arguments or just learning something from your parents or at school - you have to experience it for yourself, although intellectual learning definitely does have a value.

People can say until they're blue in the face that the Bible is the word of god or that only a prophet could have written the Qu'ran but these books were written by men.

Of course they were written by men but they all have the same essential message, of the glory of g-d and the necessity of being good to other people.

i think that most of that stuff is divinely inspired - but that doesn't mean you have to take everything that's there literally.

They are tales like the brothers grimm to scare and impose morality upon children.

well, there is a lot more to them than that.

Of course but a lot of people don't even take responsiblity for themselves and manage to blame others, god, fate etc. for almost everything.

Well, yeah, but anyone can do this.

Yes, influenced mostly by your culture. ie your language, your religiousity, your philosphy, the books you read, the nature of your parents and family and friends and especially with the advent of TV: your countries culture and comparatively other cultures (though always through the lens of the dominant culture) and all this will start from the moment you're born...

Yeah, you're right, and i dont accept we have a totally free choice on who we are and the type of person we become or anything. all these factors definitely do have an effect and nobody has an entirely free decision but they can influence certain things.

No it doesn't, it's essentially an anthropological term to do with the effect of culture on humans..
Anyway...you can only do that within the culture you're in, unless you choose to go and live somewhere else. To impose your cultural morality on other cultures is imperialistic at worst and arrogant at best. Your 'ethics' or morality is a manifestation of your culture. You can criticise any other culture but you have to accept that you're doing it within the limits of your own culture, at least at first.

no culture is perfect, and im sorry but i don't think its imperialistic or arrogant to criticise certain aspects of anyone's culture, whether it's your own or someone else's, or certain individuals within it.

otherwise you're in a position of not wanting to criticise ANYTHING for fear of seeming arrogant or offending someone.

If you were born in Tibet or Thailand do you think you'd feel differently?

i see your point, that depends on a variety of things, like my background, family, experiences etc.

Of course it's about culture, especially at first.

Where do you live Fw?

i live in the uk ...

I'm sure plenty of those didn't need to do it in the name of religion. On the other hand some people don't feel they've lived unless they've 'died for the cause' - in those cases it's a false personality thing as far as I'm concerned. Low self-esteem coupled with an intense desire to surrender to something. Exessive passion is usually involved. That's in general, I'm not talking about real heroism, usually carried out in the moment with little pre-meditation.

all of which are good points, but what makes people decide they have to do something that will mostly kill them, even if it is just on the spur of the moment, to save someone else? whether they're religious or not, if we're all out for ourselves?

Well, I think that we do. I'm not an particular advocate of 'survival of the fittest' (they are more likely to be the first to go) more 'survival of the most adaptable'. Co-operation gets you further than non-coorporation in terms of survival. So that's why I think we evolved that way.

fair enough.

I'm an agnostic humanist existentialist (at the moment :) who believes in the existence of 'something else/more', but that's it. I certainly wouldn't put my experiences in any previous dogmatic 'box' - especially religions that advocate 'an eye for an eye', 'homosexuals should be exorcised or killed', 'adulterers should be stoned' or any other medieval barbarian bullshit.

erm...my religion doesn't teach that anything like this should be applied to the modern age. religions evolve and change. oh, and if you actually look at the documentation in biblical times, very few of the things you describe actually happened - the safeguards to prevent such things were so great.

as for gay people, that prohibition was originally only intended to apply in regard to temple prostitutes who were used as part of certain rituals, some of them were children and this still goes on today in certain parts of the world. don't forget as well that when the bible was written having children was a necessity since so many would die due to disease and famine. obviously im not excusing it and it certainly doesn't apply in the modern world and its been TOTALLY taken out of context and misused by "religious" people who want to discriminate against gays. but you need to look at the reasons why it was put into place.

and before someone jumps on me i'm bi, i mostly prefer girls and got masses of stick for it at school. i've never heard ANYTHING like that preached where i go to worship and while i've come across a few people with some ignorant homophobic attitudes they are nothing, and i mean nothing compared to the homophobes i encountered at school, all of whom were atheists and took the piss out of anything involving religion.

in my personal experience i've found the majority of religious people very accepting of it, apart from fundamentalist christians. homophobia is based on prejudice thats reinforced by certain interpretations of religious teachings, it was not created by religion itself.

there are many things that don't apply any more, that haven't applied since the temple was destroyed or that were added in by people who sought to justify their own doings.

in the middle ages, that was another matter, but religion was simply another weapon that was used to stigmatise vulnerable people that already had a low rank in society, such as "witches", the working class, jews, muslims and women so that the church and the other rulers of the countries concerned would keep their power over everyone else and maintain social control. if someone started to organise themselves into a movement that would challenge the authority of the state they could always use the excuse of their being witches and in league with the devil in order to silence them.

it wasn't religion, it was a reinforcement of the class system, and it still happens now albeit in ways that are perhaps less obvious.

But that's what they are - old books, written by human beings -admittedly very superstitious ones, attempting to understand the cosmos.
Its only because people deify Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao Tzu etc that it all gets out of hand. They're (IMO) great teachers who managed to lift themselves and others above their cultural imprinting with enough charisma and power to change their particular cultures. That's it as far as I'm concerned.

i don't deify anyone apart from G-d himself. i agree with you that that's often a really, really bad thing, to believe that a human being can be infalliable and on the level of a deity. it stops you questioning anything that person has said, and it means you have to agree with absolutely everything they no matter how nonsensical it is.

im deeply suspicious of those wankers in evangelical churches who say that the "spirit speaks through them" for exactly the same reason.

That's why I think most religious doctrine has no basis in actual religious/spiritual experiences. It's an intellectual imposition from 'those who know better'.

but so is atheism as a doctrine. we are a secular society, although lip service is paid to religion, you only have to look at the rampant commercialism in our society, the hypocrisy of religious leaders who don't even take what they say seriously any more, the denigration of religion in the media, and who is pushing this? its not coming from below, it is coming from above and people who are in a position to push their ideas onto others.

i think a lot of religion has just become a joke that's lost its spiritual meaning, its just a ceremony really.

when you think about things like capitalism and the state, this actually makes sense, because most if not all religions (as opposed to cults) preach, at their hearts, a message that forbids the exploitation of others and to place material things above others' well being, that says that you dont have to have money to be worth something as a person. it also calls upon the believer to believe in G-d's laws and not men's laws, so you can see how this could be construed as a threat to authority, unless religion is perverted so that it fits the ideals that those people want, or else just weakened so that it becomes irrelevant.
 
We are all intellectual and we are all emotional - it's just a matter of degree. And using the appropriate perspective is useful.

:) yeh, no disagreement there ...

Passion will undoubtably rule reason anyway...

But sometimes that's a good thing isn't it?

Fair enough, whatever works for you - if you need to obey things that's your choice, I'm sure you find a lot of value in what you do - I don't mean to disparage it - more just to challenge the faith part.

i dont "need" to "obey" anything. i question things all the time. its not about obedience for me, i dont think i'll be punished if i don't do certain things, its that i actually WANT to observe the commandments to show my love and devotion to g-d.

I'm not imposing anything, I'm just talking, if you don't agree with anything I say, that's fine, you won't go to hell, you don't become a non-believer, you won't be ostracized from society - there's no fear here. We just don't agree :)

OMG!! you mean...we dont agree? thats absolutely terrible, i think im going to have to burn you at the stake! :eek:

nah, thats cool :) its nice having this sort of discussion.

The fact is these old documents are literature - nothing more.

ah but thats just what you think ...

The rituals you do are mere shadows of what they were to the people of the time, and that's the problem: you have to have faith because nothing is happening.

i know what you're saying and i think it's definitely like that for some people. a lot of that's to do with capitalist society, as well as the fact that many religious leaders have been purely out to gain money and not done anything to help anyone.

but they mean alot to me, and part of whats so good about it is that people rediscover things in the things they do and say and can do things in a way that personally means something to them.

I pray that Catholicism, Islam and Christianity dies out as a mechanism for hate and the brainwashing of our children stops... That they are studied just like any other old tome in schools that place reason and consideration for others above all else. That's my prayer to the Good in me. :)

fair enough, but religion is a declining influence in our (western) society and if you focus your attention on that then you're missing the point.
 
you should not think of god(s), it will only slow you down. you should you be grateful for what you got and what you know, and not use all your strength worshipping someone who propably wouldnt want that either..

and you cant put up god against psychology..

if someone wants to believe in god then he should. als long as he doesnt put god over humanity. god cant be proven non-existing, just like ghost, or the easter bunny for that matter..

is you believed the earth was a balloon with trees on it, then you could start thinking of getting a shrink
 
stoopid said:
you should not think of god(s), it will only slow you down. you should you be grateful for what you got and what you know, and not use all your strength worshipping someone who propably wouldnt want that either..

and you cant put up god against psychology..

if someone wants to believe in god then he should. als long as he doesnt put god over humanity. god cant be proven non-existing, just like ghost, or the easter bunny for that matter..

is you believed the earth was a balloon with trees on it, then you could start thinking of getting a shrink

eh? :confused:
 
this is getting very long (posting in bits)...

frogwoman said:
well have to agree to disagree then

no problem here :)

oh i don't think so ... people who do something wrong, generally get their comeuppance, whether that is through guilt, social ostracision or through something equally bad happening to them.

No god involved there - just society and plenty of people get away with murder. .

likewise being nice brings all sorts of benefits /inner happiness in itself.

No problem with that - though others may disagree. I think you can be too nice (or excessively humble) and end up with low self-esteem.

but thats just the morality side of things, there are plenty of very convincing reasons why people would believe in g-d.

Convince me then ;) Like I say I think there's something more - but a big beardy man in the sky who goes around judging every human being? nah.


at the end of the day though it's not something one can be convinced of through intellectual arguments or just learning something from your parents or at school - you have to experience it for yourself, although intellectual learning definitely does have a value.

The experience is usually emotional but the understanding has to be intellectual.

Of course they were written by men but they all have the same essential message, of the glory of g-d and the necessity of being good to other people.

Well I don't mind the last bit but if you were to have kids would you want them to worship you? Or would you like them to become more than you are? I find the whole worship bit just very silly. That would make god a fuggin' c*nt. And my dad's a nicer bloke than the vengeful Judaic god.

i think that most of that stuff is divinely inspired - but that doesn't mean you have to take everything that's there literally.

With that reasoning almost anything can be divinely inspired - why do old men in white robes have the hotline?

no culture is perfect, and im sorry but i don't think its imperialistic or arrogant to criticise certain aspects of anyone's culture, whether it's your own or someone else's, or certain individuals within it.

Nor do I, but to impose your culture on another like the US has in Iraq is what I meant. Or us in India and Africa back when we were the fuckers in the world (oh we still are).
I just find that often when people criticise a culture (especially through the lense of religion) it's often thinly disguised racism. If it isn't it will still have the taint of the culture that you're from. Which is why Jewish people and Black people can make jokes about their own culture but if anyone else does it's seen as racist.

otherwise you're in a position of not wanting to criticise ANYTHING for fear of seeming arrogant or offending someone.

Didn't jesus say 'remove the log from thine own eye before pointing out the splinter in others'? but like I said - I'm not talking about debate and discussion but imposition.

i live in the uk ...

And you're Jewish (I think), so you'll understand when I say that culture has had an influence on you choosing the doctrines of Judaism and Christianity.

all of which are good points, but what makes people decide they have to do something that will mostly kill them, even if it is just on the spur of the moment, to save someone else? whether they're religious or not, if we're all out for ourselves?

Well, that's a whole 'nother conversation. Some people won't lift a finger to help anyone; others will go out of their way to help another. Some people like to battle, some people like to help, some people like to instruct, some people like to lead, some people like to create, some people just like to learn. Everybody is different as far as I'm concerned and I don't see what god has to do with it.
I do believe in Love though :)

erm...my religion doesn't teach that anything like this should be applied to the modern age. religions evolve and change. oh, and if you actually look at the documentation in biblical times, very few of the things you describe actually happened - the safeguards to prevent such things were so great.

What! Religions evolve and change? - sorry I must have missed the Bible/Torah update - I didn't even get the v1.01 upgrade. :p
No YOUR interpretation may change but plenty of people's haven't. It's the same words :).

as for gay people, that prohibition was originally only intended to apply in regard to temple prostitutes who were used as part of certain rituals, some of them were children and this still goes on today in certain parts of the world. don't forget as well that when the bible was written having children was a necessity since so many would die due to disease and famine. obviously im not excusing it and it certainly doesn't apply in the modern world and its been TOTALLY taken out of context and misused by "religious" people who want to discriminate against gays. but you need to look at the reasons why it was put into place.

That's my problem with believing in old books. You can justify all manner of crap and feel righteous about it at the same time. 'I'm not being racist/homophobic - I'm carrying out the dictates of god.'
An agnostic would have to look carefully at what he believes and what he/she thinks is right action - a believer just says 'look, it says 'ere, I'm right'.

and before someone jumps on me i'm bi, i mostly prefer girls and got masses of stick for it at school. i've never heard ANYTHING like that preached where i go to worship and while i've come across a few people with some ignorant homophobic attitudes they are nothing, and i mean nothing compared to the homophobes i encountered at school, all of whom were atheists and took the piss out of anything involving religion.

Hatred is pretty human. Sorry to hear that though, it must have been difficult.

in my personal experience i've found the majority of religious people very accepting of it, apart from fundamentalist christians. homophobia is based on prejudice thats reinforced by certain interpretations of religious teachings, it was not created by religion itself.

'Created by religion'? - its all man's creation. I think it's the main 'justifier' for homophobia and has been used for centuries to oppress minorities. People seek to justify abhorrent behaviour and religious doctrine is by far the most used way.

there are many things that don't apply any more, that haven't applied since the temple was destroyed or that were added in by people who sought to justify their own doings.

Good, why not regard any of it as non-applicable then? If you don't know what's real and what's not?

in the middle ages, that was another matter, but religion was simply another weapon that was used to stigmatise vulnerable people that already had a low rank in society, such as "witches", the working class, jews, muslims and women so that the church and the other rulers of the countries concerned would keep their power over everyone else and maintain social control. if someone started to organise themselves into a movement that would challenge the authority of the state they could always use the excuse of their being witches and in league with the devil in order to silence them.
it wasn't religion, it was a reinforcement of the class system, and it still happens now albeit in ways that are perhaps less obvious.

I agree with you, it was religious doctrine used by the powerful to oppress the weak, it was the political system of the time and it's power has been waning ever since. 'Conquistadors' anyone?
So why do you accept it, if its main use has been to oppress?

i don't deify anyone apart from G-d himself. i agree with you that that's often a really, really bad thing, to believe that a human being can be infalliable and on the level of a deity. it stops you questioning anything that person has said, and it means you have to agree with absolutely everything they no matter how nonsensical it is.

You deify the Torah and the NT though and they are written by humans.

So do you believe that Jesus was the son of god?
 
but so is atheism as a doctrine. we are a secular society, although lip service is paid to religion, you only have to look at the rampant commercialism in our society, the hypocrisy of religious leaders who don't even take what they say seriously any more, the denigration of religion in the media, and who is pushing this? its not coming from below, it is coming from above and people who are in a position to push their ideas onto others.

No it's coming from an increase in awareness as far as I'm concerned. People know more about the workings of the world and don't have to be as superstitious as they were. But we've a long way to go - we're not a secular society yet - Blair thinks that only God can judge him - that to me is just hubris - men, women and history will judge you mate and harshly.

I’m an agnostic not an atheist – a minor but important distinction.

i think a lot of religion has just become a joke that's lost its spiritual meaning, its just a ceremony really.

That's what I mean about it's rituals are dead and it's books are literature. The whole system is medieval gobblegook but people will always fear the unknown and the priests can always tap into that.

when you think about things like capitalism and the state, this actually makes sense, because most if not all religions (as opposed to cults) preach, at their hearts, a message that forbids the exploitation of others and to place material things above others' well being, that says that you dont have to have money to be worth something as a person. it also calls upon the believer to believe in G-d's laws and not men's laws, so you can see how this could be construed as a threat to authority, unless religion is perverted so that it fits the ideals that those people want, or else just weakened so that it becomes irrelevant.

Like I say I haven't got a problem with religiosity, the emotional seeking of meaning. But once you make spirituality a process that you must follow only this way then it becomes a stick to beat people with.

i dont "need" to "obey" anything. i question things all the time. its not about obedience for me, i dont think i'll be punished if i don't do certain things, its that i actually WANT to observe the commandments to show my love and devotion to g-d.

Fairy muff :)

Lets say for the sake of argument that God exists – why the hell would he want you to worship him or devote yourself to him? He’s created all this – go forth and have fun, live in it! Surely that’s all the worship he’d need. No, I think worship comes out of the patriarchy: You must worship god and then you’ll worship me the male Priest.

OMG!! you mean...we dont agree? thats absolutely terrible, i think im going to have to burn you at the stake!

nah, thats cool :) its nice having this sort of discussion.

:D

ah but thats just what you think ...

It’s the truth, it’s self-evident, it’s scientific, it’s a fact. Words are the creation of man.

but they mean alot to me, and part of whats so good about it is that people rediscover things in the things they do and say and can do things in a way that personally means something to them.

That’s cool :) at least you’re finding your own meaning in it.

fair enough, but religion is a declining influence in our (western) society and if you focus your attention on that then you're missing the point.

I don’t – I only focus my attention on it when discussing religion in a thread about god :)

Nice convo Frogwoman, not much to add to it really.
Peace.
Booty
 
You deify the Torah and the NT though and they are written by humans.

So do you believe that Jesus was the son of god?

errrrm... i don't believe in the NT's validity ;) and no, he wasn't ... no way :D (but if other people think he was, who am i to tell them they're wrong :p)

lol i don't have much to add to it either, but you've given me some interesting points to remember in my rs exam ... cheers :D
 
:D Good luck.

As I bang on about choice a lot, I was just reading about Viktor Frankl - quite a life. I liked this quote:

'We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.'

I think I'll go and buy his book.
 
ahh, but then you get into the whole "are we free, OR... are we determined" argument and we could be here all day ... :D

good stuff though :cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom