The nature of religon

This is a thread about the nature of religion as a whole.
Is it an archaic and outdated concept whose only purpose it is to explain what we do not understand?
Does it explain the whys of life or not?
Is it just an invention of individuals to attempt to wield power over others?
Is it the unavoidable satisfaction of a certain part of our human nature?
Are we designed to be like that?

Discuss. Politely.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

My personal beliefs(in a very truncated form):

There is an aspect of human nature which demands meaning to be ascribed to our lives. We have trouble functioning properly in our lives when we do not have this satisfied. I feel this is actually part of the deliberate design of human beings. Since thi is design, it is only logical to figure that there is a designer, which I feel is God.
God placed in ourselves this yearning for meaning, and I feel that Christianity is the proper vessel through which this is satisfied.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I don't think that religion, in itself, is a bad thing. Only when it is abused and used as a power device does it turn into something outright evil. People should be able to think for themselves, and religion is counterproductive to that point.

I want to know, and take your time to properly and thoroughly explain this, what do you think "religion" IS?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I could write an entire essay on it, but I'll try to keep it as brief and concise as I can. (Keep in mind, I am terrible with words.)

I think religion is just a human construct in which people put all their hopes, dreams, and faith into. I can imagine that without religion, our history as a people would have been vastly different.

Who would those caveman have begged for rain, afterall.

It's a feeling of powerlessness which summarizes religion, in my opinion. ^_^

I am just wondering (so don't think I am attacking), why do you suppose that we have a tendency to put our hopes, dreams, and faith in something external?
Why couldn't we accept that things are not within our control? (although, some religions already ackowledge that things are totally out of our control... like Christianity... so I think that is a bit off :-P )

Anywho, I am off to a friend's house, so I will pick this up later when I get back home.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Because we have no power to control what happens to us here in this life.

Now, I am not talking about today. I am talking about in the days where there were major issues in society and nature.

People had no way of controlling what happened to who and when. So they attributed it to something.

That however doesn't explain WHY you think that people feel the need to put their hope in something. At least, I do not feel that there is a coherent connection. Let me paraphrase, to see if I get you correctly:

"Why must we put our hopes and faith in things"
"Because when humanity was young, many things happened to us which we had no control over"

It does not seem like you answered my question at all. Why is there the need to put our faith in something? It does not seem like you are making the logical link from "we cannot control everything" to "we put our hopes and faith in something"
Perhaps it is just me right now. My brain is getting a bit scattered.

Quote:

I disagree with the latter statement (in parenthesis) almost entirely. I think Christianity - and almost all other religions do say things are in our control. Heaven. Hell. Commandments. Pillars. Expectations. Codes. Ethics, even.

Now, there are some things which Christianity says you DO have control over; but that is something ANYONE would say they have control over; even you yourself would say that we have control over our personal ethics. You do not need religious beliefs to assert that. There are things in your life which you have control over, and there are things in your life for which you cannot. You have pointed out the ones that are obviously within a person's control, but neglect the things which are not. Such things are: life, God, and anyone else. Unless of course you are a strict Calvinist, which then, you would believe that not even your own salvation is under your control. But I am not Calvinist, and I do not think that is good theology to begin with.
I don't know exactly where I am going with this, but that I totally disagree with your entirely disagreeing with me. :-Þ

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by SMX

I'm basically saying that your responds gave away some huge flags on how your mind probably evaluates 'right' and 'wrong.' Because I didn't want to get off topic, which I will if I took the time to arugue against your statement, I just said nevermind.

Minion was saying that your interpretation of what actions might and might not affect other people can vary from person to person, and as such, that sort of standard ("only you can be the judge of whether what you do is right and wrong") is an unreliable system within which to work in.
:ReadingComprehension101:

Let us use an example: Porn.

It is the common understanding that there is nothing wrong with looking at pornography, and is in fact something natural. We need to "flush our prostate" or whatever crap people say. Not only that, but it doesn't hurt anyone else. Right? No one is harmed.



BUT! that is not true. Pornography has a significant effect upon your ability to make lasting and worthwhile relationships with people of the opposite sex. Pornography can make you objectify the other sex, so that they are nothing but a hunk of sex-meat. Or pornography can make you have problems with intimacy, because you are used to associating sex with images, and nothing truly physical. And there are numerous other reasons why pornography is wrong.
Nonetheless, your spouse is significantly harmed by these problems. So, what usually would not be considered harful to others, is in fact, harmful to others.
There are numerous other things which have already been said to be unwise through various religious contexts (like Christianity), which people usually deny as being unwise, when in fact these religions were right all along.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I surprisingly agree with a lot of what you are saying.
However, I believe that (and this is semi-cyclical reasoning, I know) there is a reason for us desiring a reason and meaning for our life. Obviously, without meaning and reason, we despair, as you say. This is no good. There is a purpose for our despairing after "realizing" that there is no meaning in our life.

It is because it is not true, and we know it!

The conclusion that life is meaningless is at odds with something at the very core of our being, and this battle within causes the despair. It seems that we are designed to not be able to cope with meaningless.

Solomon pretty much said the exact same thing as you in Ecclesiastes. He basically said "All life is meaningless, and all pursuits are in vain, for all things are forgotten and pass away." That way of thinking is nothing new. But, Solomon realized that there IS something which gives meaning to our lives, and that is through the one who designed us to despair without Him.

It seems to me that your conclusion that "life is meaningless" is a dangerously premature one. How can you know that with certainty? It would seem more logical to say that we are not meant to believe that, because that causes despair.

As soon as you allow yourself to enter into that slight loop of reasoning, it all becomes clear.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Existentialism man, existentialism is where it's at. ;D

Also, I believe that the first statment in your paradox is insubstantiable.
Nor can you really substantiate your next claim either. You say logically and scientifically as if they were the same thing. However, there have been numerous instances where what is scientifically proven has not always conformed to what seems logical at the time.

FELIPE NO

Yes, things that would seem illogical at first but are defied by science make more logical sense after a closer analysis. And my point is that you would not know for sure if your logic is complete. You are not entirely sure that you have broken it down to the most elemental details.

As for the paradox once again. Like you said, it is impractical to try and prove a universal negative. However, though you may be able to support them with logic, I do not believe they are supported by complete logic. Meaning, all the possibilities have not been considered, and thus are not reasonable a priori notions to start with.

You say for example that it is impossible to draw meaning from something that is not complete. However, my contention is that is an invalid claim, not entirely supported by a consideration of all possibilities.
For example, God could come to the world and say "This is your purpose in life. This is why you live." Then, we would have to admit that it IS possible for us to know the meaning of our lives even before we see the end, right? Disproof by counterexample. Let us not get into the argument of whether God HAS done this or not just yet (although I would like to say right now, that I do believe this is the case)

As for the following axiom:
"Anything that has ended will eventually be lost to time, therefore it is the same as if it had never existed. The amount of time it takes for this point to be reached is indefinite, however still logically/scientifically proven."

First of all, although it sounds really cool philosophically to say "anything that has ended will eventually be lost to time," that is a logically incoherent statement. How can something be lost to time? Do you mean the memory of someone or something? This may be true. But that would nonetheless be a logical falsehood if you are implying that the world would not be any different if such a thing(or someone) had not existed. Perhaps my decision to pee in the woods might not be affected by whether there were 3 or 2 rocks for me to hide behind as I pissed, but those are small things, bearing little impact on the universe as a whole. However, the human life is still a very powerful thing, regardless of whether anyone remembers your name and what you did. You still had an impact on the world around you.
Just because someone doesn't remember you completely doesn't mean that you did not make a difference.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by SMX

I understand what he’s saying. I’m choosing to back off because to continue forward would mean opening up a can of worms I don’t feel like getting into. But, I can’t resist this one:

Take your porn scenario for example. On what basis do you have to say that porn causes people to develop intimacy issues, the fact that a correlation exists? This may be true, but I’ll never forget this scenario purpose to be me before:

Let’s say you were driving to work on the freeway. You happen to notice ten broken down cars on the road. In every instance a person was sitting on the hood of the car. They also were all taking to someone on their phone. Is it logical to assume that because they are all talking to someone on the hood of their car, that this is the cause of their car breaking down?

Now, let’s apply this to porn. Is it that porn is causing these things to happen. Or, is that indulging in porn is the affect of greater issues within people. Is it unreasonable to assume that people who already have underlying intimacy issue for reasons totally outside of pornography turn to porn because it allows them to be sexually satisfied without having to be intimate with another person? Who’s to say what is what, objectively? It not as easy as saying “there are numerous other reasons why pornography is wrong” because ‘wrong’ is variable.

I am VERY familiar with correlation/causation issues. This is almost my dad's whole life as an insurance company pharmaceutical policymaker, and I hear it a lot. Anyways, I can assure you that pornography is a CAUSE for intimacy problems, not a correlation, or an effect of intimicay issues. This is exactly what Minion was saying. You clearly would not want to admit that pornography is a cause of problems.

Anyways, just to back up my claim that it is a correlation, not a causation. What brings something from correlation status to causation status in a purely scientific inquiry is, in this case, a significantly high amount of absence of said effect (intimacy issues) in those people who have not participated in the act in question(pornography viewing). Which is the case as well. Therefore, it is logical to conclude causation, not just correlation.

Don't talk to me about analyzing data and problems. I know full well how to do this.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

That would require more time than I have got right now.
Which is the main reason why i have not responded to Legato's post either.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

First, that selection you quote is not the thesis. That is the ANTITHESIS of their intended thesis.
They first said:
"some say there will be no problem if you take out the violence" (antithesis)

But then went on to contest that idea:
"Most therapists, however, as well as most ordinary citizens, would not regard the following examples as healthy models of sexual behavior, but all are frequently depicted in "non-violent" pornography:"
list
"All of the above, while lacking violence, still have the potential of having negative effects on some viewers because they model unhealthy sex role behavior or give false information about human sexuality. Additionally, non-violent porn can contribute to acquiring a great variety of sexual addictions."

And no, in regards to your comments about addiction. Because it is not just the fact of addiction which is the primary detrimental aspect.
They SAY addiction, but that is the only due to the fact that it is the most convenient way of describing consistent exposure.

Let us also not forget the pornography is inherently addictive.


NONETHELESS, after all of this bullshit, Minion's point still stands that what you THINK is not harmful to anyone, is in fact harmful. THUS your own opinions are not a reliable source for a moral code.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

No, it is not being nitpicky for you to give improper labels to these things, and then me to call you out on them. Especially as soon as it gets to the level of detail and specificity that we have gotten to.

Also, you had set a universal, yes fucking universal, means by which one is to arrive at their own morality:
"However, genuinely self-effacing people actually take the time to sit there and realize how their actions have negative effects on people. Same people don't need people/religion/society/whatever telling them something is 'wrong,' but reach their on conclusions on 'wrong' based on how it affects people."

The point still stands that your univeral guide by which someone should divine their morality (basically, judge by how it affects people) is flawed, because how YOU think something may affect other people, may not necessarily be correct, as is the OBVIOUS case with pornography. So, given your example of person A and person B: Person A has some background information that Person B does not have, and as such causes him to conclude A. Upon educating Person B with said background information, he concludes A as well. This would imply that it is not just about each individual person's opinion we are left with, but in fact matters of information, and an informed morality will inevitably proceed towards an objective one, as it would be the most complete one.

With your system, people can be deliberately and selectively ignorant, and then do whatever they want, because their self-designed morality permits it. Are they then justified in this act? No, because, whether the persons want to admit it, or are even aware of it or not, their actions could have a negative impact on other peoples.
Lets dig up another example: Suppose a pedophile (like the infamous "sarah" from the previous times) justifies that it is okay to have sex with children because they are in fact sexually aware people, and also have the ability to make conscious decisions in regards to sexuality. Not only that, but he feels that he is doing a service for these children by helping them mature faster.
Now, according to your system Person A (let us say, me) would judge that sex with children is wrong for a crapload of reasons.
However, Person B ("sarah") does not think so.

Is Person B then justified in enacting sexual relations with minors?

Also, we are not missing your "very basic points," we just see them as terribly, pratically flawed, and overly simplistic.

Most amazing jew boots