Truce!!!

Essentially, religion is the attempt to systematize 'mystical' or otherwise unexplainable experience.


In other words, it is stupid.


Believers in 'god' are always either hiding something, escaping from something, or else are so deluded as to truly believe that a word, in itself, may have meaning.

 

Religion is used by those in power to divide people, and from this division manipulate them. a war isn't a socio-economic force in the minds of the warriors, it's us vs them. religion is just an extremely convenient way of turning us into them.
and therefore, bad.

a security blanket then.

 

I think it would be appropriate to distinguish religion from organized religion. One is set of beliefs and the other is an institution. Also it may be useful to separate those who hold religous beliefs from those who use religion for political motives. Too many people confuse the issues and decide to throw it all out because there have been many who have used religion to manipulate. There is just so much loaded into that word "religon" that people freak out when they hear it. Maybe if we try and think of some synonyms for those who are having a hard time with it. Or look it up in the dictionary....all the different definitions. To me, ten people living out in the woods with like minds would constitute a religion. It doesn't necessarily have to be what many of you think it means, although it can be, but not limited to that. So let's try and be more definitive when we use such loaded words and understand that not everyone is talking about the same thing. If your definition of religion is Jerry Falwell then that is one thing but there are some of us that have other ideas of what religion means.

 

all started because of religion. in late 1300s, the overly catholic portugese didnt have any borders to muslim maghrib kingdom in spain, in order to go on with "fighting against infidel". and entire nation was formed ona religious unity basis. people were uneasy. as a result, in order to have an outlet for this explosive unrest, they have taken to sea, started sending ships to north africa. this has been the start of the discovery era. in around early 1400s, portugese's main concern started to turn to exploration and trade, with a religious veil.

spanish on the other hand, had granada to conquer. when they were done in around 1492, they faced the same problem - an entire nation totally built its unity basis religion, an entire warrior caste to fight, no infidel to conquer. and they have taken the same step portugese did. but theirs had more economical components, since by 1492 it was well understood that these explorations lead to prosperity.

however the main impulse pushing spanish people and conquistadors to new world was religion up until late 16th century.

it is easily suggestible that conquistadors were in it for the money than religion, as per the usual custom of exploiting religious sentiments for profit. but for such an act to be realized, there has to be religious framework.

this is late 16th century and irrelevant to the start of things in new world.

and for the latter, spain always wanted to convert english (there are no 'brits' then as even scotland is not unified with england), however lacked the means to do so up to that point, busy with religious changes due to protestanism in holy roman holdings.

 

Religion was the excuse. Plunder was the motive.

 

Yes, but it is also more than that. It is also way to create a connection to this experience.

Any unperceived meaning may appear to be meaningless. This is why Mystics speak so often about Consciousness. Consciousness expanding experiences are often thought to be synonymous with religious experience.

Are those the only possibilities?

There is a lot of talk about delusion and meaning. You seem to suggest that meaning is a form of delusion.

Isn't meaninglessness a far more destructive delusion?

I mean, if you want to turn any population into thoughtless tools ready to be easily manipulated (by those whose "authority" rests only in an unquestionable claim of wisdom, benevolence and power), then convince them that meaning itself is a problem. When you confuse meaning with delusion, you deny any meaningful reality, or at least the reality of Questions, abstraction, Idealism, independant thought, Wisdom and Truth itself.

If meaning is not reality, then it doesn't matter whether those who think for you call you an Atheist or a Fundamentalist, Al Qaeda or a Neo-Conservative, Consumer X or one of "the Masses." If meaning is not reality, then it really doesn't matter what you call yourself, or anyone, or anything else.

This does not mean that you must only accept the meaning you are given, there is always more meaning.

Peace and Love

 

Yes!!! Great post!!!

Many people find perfect inspiration in Torah studies and the Mitzvot, in the Mass, in Muslim Salaat, in Zen meditation and the Hindu Pujas, in Nature, in Art, in their fellow humans, in a thousand different ways.

This inspiration is antithetical to the war, crime, hatred, and ignorance that the unenlightened mistake for religion. I don't know why anyone would choose to accept those things as the expression of their beliefs.

I guess if all one knows is meaningless meanness and suffering, then one might assume that the unknown (not to mention the ineffable) is just more of the same.

How does one help?

Peace and Love

 

plunder was in the minds of the leaders. the populace was going for religion.

therefore this directly concludes that religion was the main factor, since it is the thing that made the moves possible.

 

What are you talking about?

If you are going to miss the point and ignore the actual meaning and purpose of the thing itself, then you may as well blame the world's problems on navigation, or language, or literacy, or tea, or thumbs, or . . .

Or, if you are willing to accept the existence of abstract thought, you can find out what the religions actually teach, and intelligently discuss all of the meanings those teachings may actually convey.

Just a thought,

Peace and Love

 

yes, all of them are guilty to some extent. for, there was no genocides in 10.000 bc.

however the degree they affect things is what matters.

for anyone with malicious intents to exploit, something exploitable must be present. this is the first requirement.

there was religion before, a mighty fine framework for exploitation. they have been exploited to the fullest, maximum. then, age of reason came and religion's effect nullified. then, nationalism was brought into play. and when the extremism of the romantic age has passed, world has started to see less frequent and destructive wars.

last streak, major streak was the ideological war of ww2. now for 50 years despite lots of tensions, we are not having any major, far reaching wars compared to our technological level. had the mentality of the world been like in middle ages or renaissance, we would have totally destroyed human civilization with our current tech by now.

yet, it is never to be forgotten that, MANY of those leaders who "exploited" religion, nationalism or ideologies to herd nations have actually BELIEVED in what they do. yes, Richard the Lion Heart probably had some intent on bettering the fortunes of his kingdom and his house, yet, the main reason that made him traverse immeasurable miles (by that day's standards) was his belief. same goes for all others.

 

Varuna:

In everything, one creates ones experience, not a connection to it.

Any unperceived meaning doesn't appear at all. There is no one experience synonymous with any other.

Well, are they? You believe in 'god' don't you? What exactly do you mean by it?

No, only that belief that a word has meaning in itself is delusional.

But who spoke of meaninglessness? Or suggested that meaning is delusion? When meaninglessness is not delusion it is then that we are in our best capacity to give our own meaning in its stead. And what else could we give? Anothers? That's for the religious to try.

 

Why are you all still having the same argument? I look in from time to time and see if any progress is being made, but it is clear that you are all more concerned with proving each other wrong that trying to find any common understanding.

Both sides of the believer/disbeliever argument are obviously wrong and none of you are right and you don't know what you're talking about. It's not like saying the flying spaghetti monster exists or not, because that would be determinable by evidence.

If you need evidence to prove God either way, what evidence would you need? What is the thing you are trying to prove or disprove? You don't even know so you haven't got a chance.

If you say God either does or doesn't exist, then you must know what God is, so come on, tell me and everybody else. What is God, seeing as you know so much about the subject.

 

Man, this thread turned out to be so fucking ironic. lol

 

whats the problem with that, 'lol'.

this is free exchange of ideas. many of the stuff that are used here as terms were discovered/invented long ago during such 'conversations' among philosophers.

 

Atheist= Self-centered, egotistical, religiously-genocidal, intolorant, ignorant, malevolent, rancor, and most of all, angry pricks!

Prove me wrong.

 

Peter Singer. You have been proved wrong.

 

for a sceptic...no proposition can be beleived or held to be true, even this proposition itself.
it is not doubt but rather equipollence of positions for and against. Suspension of judgement.
There are those who claim to have found the truth, those who claim it doesm't exist, and those that continue to search.

 

the statement you posed on the above quote itself exhibits the characteristics you mention.

definition of the atheist is someone that does not believe in a supernatural deity.

 

You tell me. I had no problem with it.
And since you only mentioned 'lol' i asume you agree with me.

What does that have to do with it. That still doesn't change the fact this thread turned out to be ironic...Atleast from my perspective.

 

If that is true then there are several conclusions one must consider:

1. Everyone chooses what they will experience.
2. Everyone is fully in control of their experience.
3. Everyone is fully aware of all the possibilities.
4. Everyone has good reasons to choose what they will experience, and is fully aware of all the reasons they prefer their choices, as well as all of the causes and purposes behind those reasons.
5. Everyone is always happy and/or fulfilled by their choices.

If something existed outside of your experience, how would you know?

What about metaphors?

What about reality, your perceptions of it, your thoughts about it, and your words, are they all synonymous with one another?

There are probably far more possibilities than either of us can count

Yes.

I am only as qualified as you are to define God, but I think we are talking about Ultimate Reality, especially the Infinite Unity and Transcendence that can be identified with Creativity, Existence, Consciousness, Wisdom, Love, Meaning, etc.

A word is just a name for whatever it means.

That's what your words seemed to suggest.

Fair enough, but you should know this - All truths co-exist. The belief that the first meaning you know is the only truth worth knowing is exactly the mistake of modern Conservatism, Neo-Conservatism, and Fundamentalism.

I don't understand. Can you present that idea some other way?

Peace and Love