True essence of being human (religious and scientifical)

[Itoero]

Despotic rulers of the world.

Do you know about the strong secularity in many countries?

[iNow]

And how do you tell the difference?

Isn't it obvious? The "true" religion is the one to which each individual happens to ascribe.

 

In much the same way, each individuals view of "god" includes characteristics reflective of their own self identity. God is basically a spiritual sock puppet: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/#.WQCS4FROmhA

[Bender]

All hail Banjo the Clown!

 

http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Banjo_the_Clown

 

Sorry; couldn't resist.

[Itoero]

Isn't it obvious? The "true" religion is the one to which each individual happens to ascribe.

Can you give an example of this?

[Strange]

Can you give an example of this?

 

 

Can you give an example of someone who thinks their own religion is not the true religion? ("I know it is wrong, but I am going to believe it anyway")

[Itoero]

Can you give an example of someone who thinks their own religion is not the true religion? ("I know it is wrong, but I am going to believe it anyway")

Yes, but people with a scientific mindset believe in whatever is sufficiently proven...can you call that a religion?

[Phi for All]

Yes, but people with a scientific mindset believe in whatever is sufficiently proven...can you call that a religion?

 

Why would you? Don't you want something you can trust more than religious beliefs? Don't you think requiring a preponderance of evidence accompany the explanations for various phenomena is better than placing "faith" in Iron Age spirituality?

 

Why would you blend faith and wishful thinking with trust by calling them all religions?! To me, that's like calling every tool that does linear measurement a meter stick. It's neither helpful nor accurate.

[Itoero]

Why would you? Don't you want something you can trust more than religious beliefs? Don't you think requiring a preponderance of evidence accompany the explanations for various phenomena is better than placing "faith" in Iron Age spirituality?

 

Why would you blend faith and wishful thinking with trust by calling them all religions?! To me, that's like calling every tool that does linear measurement a meter stick. It's neither helpful nor accurate.

I don't, Randolpin did in #49.

[Strange]

Yes, but people with a scientific mindset believe in whatever is sufficiently proven...can you call that a religion?

 

 

No.

I don't, Randolpin did in #49.

 

He didn't call science a religion (at least, not in that post).

[Itoero]

He didn't call science a religion (at least, not in that post).

iNow said this: "The "true" religion is the one to which each individual happens to ascribe. "

I don't understand what he or she means by that...which is why I asked for an example.

[iNow]

iNow said this: "The "true" religion is the one to which each individual happens to ascribe. "

I don't understand what he or she means by that...which is why I asked for an example.

The core point is this: Everyone thinks their own belief system is the right one and that all others are wrong.

 

My comment included a bit of snark, which admittedly doesn't always come through via text based conversations like these.

[Strange]

iNow said this: "The "true" religion is the one to which each individual happens to ascribe. "

I don't understand what he or she means by that...which is why I asked for an example.

 

 

It means: each person will think their own religion is the true religion [and others are false].

 

Why would you need an example? (Which is why I asked for a counter-example.)

 

No one is going to follow a religion when they think that one is false and another one is true. Are they?

[Itoero]

It means: each person will think their own religion is the true religion [and others are false].

 

Why would you need an example? (Which is why I asked for a counter-example.)

 

No one is going to follow a religion when they think that one is false and another one is true. Are they?

This is semantics I think.

 

It's true that everyone thinks their belief system is the right one...regardless whether they are religious or not.

[Strange]

This is semantics I think.

 

 

Of course, because you asked about the meaning.

 

 

 

It's true that everyone thinks their belief system is the right one...regardless whether they are religious or not.

 

Exactly.

[Randolpin]

True religion is not found in this physical reality. Humans can't create the true religion because we are not perfect. The true religion is a perfect religion. That's why there are many doctrines, denominations because they have different ideas on how they look on that specific theistic view.

[Strange]

True religion is not found in this physical reality. Humans can't create the true religion because we are not perfect. The true religion is a perfect religion.

 

 

The true religion is Bokononism. I know this because it is perfect. Therefore, your religion is false.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Strange

[koti]

 

 

The true religion is Bokononism. I know this because it is perfect. Therefore, your religion is false.

 

Lets rub our feet together.

[No Solid Ground]

1. What is the true essence of being a human-to be religious; to be scientific or both?

 

2. We can't get rid of religion because it is our nature

 

3. To those who get rid of religion makes their life incompatible to the world.

 

1. Neither.

 

2. The concepts of 'religion' and 'religious' are very modern inventions, dating only to the late Middle Ages.

 

3. What makes humans compatible with the world is a recognition that the body / mind is a convergence of patterns and processes innately embedded in terrestrial patterns and processes that are embedded in exoterrestrial patterns and processes ... all functioning as a dynamic whole. Religion is a culturally conditioned narrative that obstructs clarity ... a byproduct of a pathological perceptual alienation from the natural world and the celestial mechanics that drive it.

 

 

There are signs of ritualistic ("religious") behaviour in very early societies, which suggests it might be an innate characteristic of humans. There are also religions with no hierarchy. So I am not convinced that it was "imposed" by a minority.

 

Rites are not evidence of 'religion'.

 

The concepts of 'religion' and 'religious' are very modern inventions that date no earlier than the late Middle Ages.

[dimreepr]

True religion is not found in this physical reality. Humans can't create the true religion because we are not perfect. The true religion is a perfect religion. That's why there are many doctrines, denominations because they have different ideas on how they look on that specific theistic view.

 

The very definition of "the blind leading the blind".

Rites are not evidence of 'religion'.

 

No one has suggested otherwise.

 

 

The concepts of 'religion' and 'religious' are very modern inventions that date no earlier than the late Middle Ages.

 

 

What's your point?

Actually that makes no sense; of course they had a concept of religion, they just called it something else.

3. What makes humans compatible with the world is a recognition that the body / mind is a convergence of patterns and processes innately embedded in terrestrial patterns and processes that are embedded in exoterrestrial patterns and processes ... all functioning as a dynamic whole. Religion is a culturally conditioned narrative that obstructs clarity ... a byproduct of a pathological perceptual alienation from the natural world and the celestial mechanics that drive it.

 

 

Is there a point to this word salad?

Edited May 6, 2017 by dimreepr

[No Solid Ground]

1. Actually that makes no sense; of course they had a concept of religion, they just called it something else.

 

2. Is there a point to this word salad?

1. There is no evidence for the concept of 'religion' (or 'supernatural') prior to its invention by High Scholastic Christian writers in the late Middle Ages. There is no comparable term for 'religion' in Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the common ancestor of Indo-European languages. Prior to the 19th-20th century, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Classical Greek, and Native American languages had no term that functioned as 'religion'. The modern concept of 'religion was imposed by Christian "scholars" on the oral traditions, texts, rites, and symbols of non-Western and non-Christian cultures. The common assumption that the concept of 'religion' is ancient is the result of cultural conditioning and lack of inquiry.

 

2. Is English not your native language?

 

No one has suggested otherwise

Strange did suggest this in his comment:

 

"There are signs of ritualistic ("religious") behaviour in very early societie"

 

...which I quoted in my post. Perhaps you overlooked it.

Edited May 7, 2017 by No Solid Ground

[Moontanman]

Isn't "true religion" an oxymoron?

 

This shows that you don't really understand the subject; our lives are our own whatever 'ism we follow, no-one can live it for you.

 

sorry, what!!!??

 

 

 

Ahh, the old which came first argument, the chicken or the egg? To which the answer is chicken.

 

So your post begs the question (a logical fallacy), how did they start?

 

No the answer is Egg... there were eggs way before there were chickens...

 

This a weird thread, in religion there is no evidence, only belief. Belief is meaningless without evidence. In science only evidence matters belief is not allowed. Religion has no basis in reality, science is a description of reality based on evidence.

 

Humans are social animals, our purpose is to procreate and or further our society in a positive manner, religion can do this but it can also do the complete opposite.

 

I keep hearing the term "true religion" can anyone define this?

[iNow]

I keep hearing the term "true religion" can anyone define this?

 

Challenge accepted! It's a brand of jeans. Duh!

 

http://www.truereligion.com/company-about.html

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

I don't know what he means either. But some of you are acting like sharks in a feeding frenzy. "Being scientific" doesn't have to mean virulently hating every reference to the divine. We already know most things proceed at random. Does it upset the whole arrangement to acknowledge that a Creator also had a hand in Creation?

[iNow]

Asserting a creator is no different than asserting an invisible dragon. It literally adds nothing to the conversation... it adds no value.

 

Worse yet, it paradoxically reduces our understanding of the universe in which we exist. It satisfies us to abandon the search for truth. It extinguishes the desire to comprehend and replaces it with an acceptance of childish fiction.

 

The virulence you reference is not directed at your ridiculous concept of a "creator" but is instead rightly applied to your suggestion...both explicit and implicit... that our otherwise intelligent selves should for any reason proceed as if this dumpster fire of nonsense you espouse has ANY relevance or explanatory power whatsoever.

 

You know the funny part? You agree with all of us when it comes to 99.9% of the other human created fairy tales laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology. Tell us again why YOUR version is any different.

 

Seriously, it's like you're telling us all that Thundercats are fake and instead we should all worship the Transformers. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're being mocked because your beliefs are stupid.

[Randolpin]

I want to point that our best scientific theories points to the truth of a Creator & I believe that Christianity is true because God tells me that it is true and it's teachings are consistent and adequate in explaining our reality. For example, it consistently teach the reality of sin, it's cause and it's effects in our lives and the whole world. It is consistent in defining or explaining our reality. Such as the reality of love, morality, humanity, proper living, purpose of live etc.

I found out also that other religions or views fail or inadequate in describing our reality because they are not the true worldview.