Topic: The Society: On Religion (Read 28833 times)

Crystalmonkey · « **on:** January 24, 2006, 02:16:24 PM »

Alright, here is the first "chapter".

What is religion? I mean a true/total definition for it, not something like "a system of beliefs based around rituals."

Even a list would be fine, but there should probably be reasons for each point.

1) A rigid system of beliefs that barely changed and struggles to adapt.... etc....

What are the obvious purposes of religion and what are the not so obvious purposes?

What are the pros/cons to religious beliefs? (To both individuals and societies)

Is there a difference between a religion and a cult? (Why or why not)

That should do it for now, if anyone has anything else to add feel free =)

Vespertine · « **Reply #1 on:** January 25, 2006, 11:42:33 AM »

FYI, I'm not ignoring this...I'm still thinking.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2006, 12:57:44 PM »

What is religion? I mean a true/total definition for it, not something like "a system of beliefs based around rituals."
Religion is a snowmobile speeding along the tundra, hitting a rock and flipping over. At night the ice weasels come. Or something to that effect.

Even a list would be fine, but there should probably be reasons for each point.
A means of control of the masses
A means for a few to obtain power
A means to give comfort with respect to the unknown
It is generally like folklore and is handed down generationally
It is not for me.
Is usually hierachical.

1) A rigid system of beliefs that barely changed and struggles to adapt.... etc....
I wouldn't say barely changed. Religions are quite dynamic based on the whims of whomever happens to be in charge at the time, be it a pope, imam, seer, or head meatball (I propose that us pastafarians, make that our earthly top dog). Because most religions predate written documentation, they propogated verbally, and we all know how the game 'telephone' works.

What are the obvious purposes of religion and what are the not so obvious purposes?
It depends on the person.
Religion itself serves as a means to control, a key to power, a means of communication, etc. It can provide a sense of community. It can serve as a moral doctrine. It can be an excuse to discriminate against others. It can be used as a pretext for war, for violence, for exclusion, for inclusion.

What are the pros/cons to religious beliefs? (To both individuals and societies)
Pro and con depends upon perspective. If I'm seeking to hold power over people, religion can be a pro, since it is a time tested tool for controlling others. Whereas if I'm a solipsist, religion doesn't even have to exist.

Is there a difference between a religion and a cult? (Why or why not) Just in perspective. Religion generally has better marketing.

That should do it for now, if anyone has anything else to add feel free =)

Everything you always wanted to know about religion can probably be gleaned from Monty Python's Life Of Brian.

MamaMoonie · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2006, 06:51:31 AM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey

Alright, here is the first "chapter".

What is religion? I mean a true/total definition for it, not something like "a system of beliefs based around rituals."
a means to explain the unexplainable to those who need an explanation

1) A rigid system of beliefs that barely changed and struggles to adapt.... etc....
Well, that explains most major organized religions, ie the Big Three, but there are others just as ancient that have managed to do some adapting. Buddhism, Shinto f'rinstance

What are the obvious purposes of religion and what are the not so obvious purposes?
Depends on what religion you're talking about (or to). Most religions started as a code of daily conduct coupled with a driving need to explain the unexplainable mixed with morality/common sense/daily life parables.

What are the pros/cons to religious beliefs? (To both individuals and societies)
Often Individuals find religion easier than having to think through their own spirituality. Lots of mehums like being told what to think, say, do. Societies find religion an easy way to control the population.

Is there a difference between a religion and a cult? (Why or why not)
Meh. PR, mostly

That should do it for now, if anyone has anything else to add feel free =)
I think mebbe I've opened up enough cans....LOL

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2006, 10:12:16 AM »

Quote from: MamaMoonie

a means to explain the unexplainable to those who need an explanation

But no religion actually explains anything - it just goes "God did it" (or these angels, or your dead relatives, or that spaghetti monster) and claps its hands and has a seat.

It's hard to explain anything when your only "evidence" is word of mouth.

Besides, the unexplainable is only unexplainable for so long; I'm sure we'll catch up eventually.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2006, 12:55:22 PM »

Quote from: Lacerda

Quote from: MamaMoonie

a means to explain the unexplainable to those who need an explanation

But no religion actually explains anything - it just goes "God did it" (or these angels, or your dead relatives, or that spaghetti monster) and claps its hands and has a seat.

It's hard to explain anything when your only "evidence" is word of mouth.

Besides, the unexplainable is only unexplainable for so long; I'm sure we'll catch up eventually.

Easy for you to say Grelnek, after all you're an omniscient being...

oops, perhaps I've said too much :bolt

dur-ril · « **Reply #6 on:** February 22, 2006, 08:52:57 PM »

"that's the only way you'll avoid floating in the void" (i hope that translation's good enough)

That's, obviously, not a phrase i came up with, but it does pretty much sum up the way i feel about religion.
Without it there are so many questions that cannot be answered. Being in that situation is really scary for some people and that's when religion comes into place. It gives them the answers and with it a certain security in their life, it conforts them.
That's the porpouse with which religion was born, it's just a way to answer those questions.
Of course then we moved on, something called philosophy appeared along with science. However, they haven't solved everything and so some people still rely on religion so they don't have to think about those unsolved mysteries. It does make things easier.

PS
this is quite offtopic but… was eve a midget?

pbsaurus · « **Reply #7 on:** February 22, 2006, 09:17:05 PM »

You mean this midget:

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #8 on:** February 22, 2006, 11:03:31 PM »

Quote from: dur-ril

was eve a midget?

Given the average height of people at the time, she might be considered small by todays standards.

Alli-oop · « **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2006, 03:33:54 AM »

Religion is what I find after my first daily bowel movement.

xolik · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2006, 03:56:06 AM »

Quote from: Alli-oop

Religion is what I find after my first daily bowel movement.

Thanks for that stellar contribution!

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #11 on:** March 05, 2006, 11:58:45 AM »

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has a problem with bathroom popes.

12AX7 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 15, 2006, 09:41:27 AM »

Religion:

Quote from: pbsaurus

1. A means of control of the masses
2. A means for a few to obtain power
C. It is generally like folklore and is handed down generationally
4. It is not for me.
5. Is usually hierachical.

Spirituality:

Quote from: pbsaurus

A. A means to give comfort with respect to the unknown

TerrorDronze · « **Reply #13 on:** March 19, 2006, 02:26:52 AM »

What is religion?
Religion is a means to an end, be it personal enlightenment, seeking the answers to the great philosophical questions of life, the universe and everything (the stuff, not the book) through various teachings, lifestyle requirements, and ideologies.

What are the obvious purposes of religion and what are the not so obvious purposes?
Religion, ultimately, seems to provide for that superficial need in almost every human brain that we are somehow significant in some way or another, and that our existence as a sentient, thinking race, is more than just a chance happening in the vast, near-infinite cosmos, as well as providing "answers" to events, occurances, and phenomena that we as of yet do not, nor do we have the means to, understand. It is through use of this "knowledge" that one begins to see manipulations by human leaders with claims to "divine" power, wisdom, or even right to rule. Religion ensures that the followers have a false sense of order in truly random and chaotic situations.

What are the pros/cons to religious beliefs? (To both individuals and societies)
Fanaticism and power, in some cases.... and depending which side of the issue one sits on, these are considered to be either good or bad. It gives a sense of grounding, and in many cases, keeps us from reverting to our more primal and feral mindsets. society and religion are, for the most part, intertwined, and the dominant religion of any country tends to dictate the social and ethical code followed by those residing in these places. These are both both positive and negative points, depending on the situation.

Is there a difference between a religion and a cult? (Why or why not)
No. A cult is nothing more than a fringe religion, and the major organised religions of the world are, by definition, cults.

Phife · « **Reply #14 on:** June 13, 2006, 03:14:09 AM »

Cult vs. Religion

The wiki definition of cult is this: "a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream" I think that it is pretty good. Cohesive might be too soft though...inmeshed would be better. I would also add "obsessively" before "devoted." But the key to the definition is the end...a cult is defined by what society at large finds to be beyond the pale of "normal." As nebulus as that sounds, that is the best possible definition.

While cults fall under the large umbrella or religion...I would make a division between the two. Religion is a human endeavor to seek out something bigger than humanity, whether it be the divine, the universe, interconnectedness, etc. Non-cult religion can be practiced by its devotees while they still function "normally" in society. Thus, Baptists are a members of a religion...Budhists are members of a religion...Heaven's Gate followerd were members of a cult...Branch Davidians are members of a cult (there still are a few of them too!).

Further in the wiki definition of cult is this little gem: "a religious or non-religious group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members." Cults attempt to use people for some nefarious purpose. Non-cult religion does not...it attempts to teach and guide people to peace, love, and connectedness with each other, themselves, and the divine.

In short...cults have bad purposes and non-cult religions have noble purposes.

IFOUNDWALDO176 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 14, 2006, 07:23:12 AM »

Quote from: Phife on June 13, 2006, 03:14:09 AM

Cult vs. Religion
In short...cults have bad purposes and non-cult religions have noble purposes.

But isn't good and bad all about your personal maorals, and because of this the members of said cult would actually believe that they were doing the right thing, and if so, then they might percieve mainstream religions to be cults. just a thought.

TheJudge · « **Reply #16 on:** June 14, 2006, 07:29:30 AM »

Cults do not necessarly have bad purposes and religions certainly don't always have noble purposes.

Min · « **Reply #17 on:** June 14, 2006, 08:56:44 AM »

The only difference between a cult and a religion is 100 years.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #18 on:** June 14, 2006, 02:59:56 PM »

I thought it was marketing.

ivan · « **Reply #19 on:** June 14, 2006, 03:20:46 PM »

I thought it was Kool-Aid.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #20 on:** June 14, 2006, 03:25:07 PM »

Kool-Aid is marketing.

ivan · « **Reply #21 on:** June 14, 2006, 03:29:29 PM »

You're right. I was actually thinking of Flavor Aid. Grape, to be precise.

Phife · « **Reply #22 on:** June 16, 2006, 02:45:53 AM »

The best definition of a cult is akin to the definition of porn.

It has to do with mainstream opinion. If most people think that pictures of penises going in vaginas is porn, then it is porn. In other words, porn lays outside what people consider normal photography, video, etc.

Cults lay outside what people consider normal religion. And most people tend to believe that normal religion is not out to get people to kill themselves or others, etc.

ivan · « **Reply #23 on:** March 15, 2007, 10:52:42 AM »

This was in the LA Times this morning. The link will expire very soon, so I'm posting it in full below.

Quote

God's dupes
Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics -- and are every bit as delusional.
By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
March 15, 2007

PETE STARK, a California Democrat, appears to be the first congressman in U.S. history to acknowledge that he doesn't believe in God. In a country in which 83% of the population thinks that the Bible is the literal or "inspired" word of the creator of the universe, this took political courage.

Of course, one can imagine that Cicero's handlers in the 1st century BC lost some sleep when he likened the traditional accounts of the Greco-Roman gods to the "dreams of madmen" and to the "insane mythology of Egypt."

Mythology is where all gods go to die, and it seems that Stark has secured a place in American history simply by admitting that a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham — the jealous, genocidal, priggish and self-contradictory tyrant of the Bible and the Koran. Stark is the first of our leaders to display a level of intellectual honesty befitting a consul of ancient Rome. Bravo.

The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave. And yet billions of people claim to be certain about such things. As a result, Iron Age ideas about everything high and low — sex, cosmology, gender equality, immortal souls, the end of the world, the validity of prophecy, etc. — continue to divide our world and subvert our national discourse. Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources.

Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.

Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.

Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues — people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure.

Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

People of all faiths — and none — regularly change their lives for the better, for good and bad reasons. And yet such transformations are regularly put forward as evidence in support of a specific religious creed. President Bush has cited his own sobriety as suggestive of the divinity of Jesus. No doubt Christians do get sober from time to time — but Hindus (polytheists) and atheists do as well. How, therefore, can any thinking person imagine that his experience of sobriety lends credence to the idea that a supreme being is watching over our world and that Jesus is his son?

There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith — but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know.

Let us hope that Stark's candor inspires others in our government to admit their doubts about God. Indeed, it is time we broke this spell en masse. Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain — from cosmology to psychology to economics — has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.

Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.

Spot on.

ivan · « **Reply #24 on:** March 15, 2007, 10:54:41 AM »

For emphasis:

Quote

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: The Society: On Religion (Read 28833 times)

12AX7