Religion on the decline around the world

PJ_Soul

brianlux wrote:

I believe in the God of Sleep. My prayer is, "Oh Lord of Sleep, why hast though forsaken me? I beseech ye to bestow your blessing on my poor little brain tonight. Amen"

Last night, The god of sleep sent an annoying yet cute kitty to paw at my face over and over. I hate your god.

Jeanwah

PJ_Soul wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

And I am always understanding of those who find comfort or whatever else in their beliefs, assuming they don't get in the way of anyone else's beliefs. I'm not open minded about organized religion or how it works, but I am open minded about people and how they choose to live their lives.

Are you dismissive of spirituality as well as religion PJ_Soul? I honestly get this negative feel from your posts, as if you are not open minded to much of anything not only religious, but any sort of spirituality.

Nope, I'm all for spirituality, and am accepting of it in all forms. Too bad that's how I'm coming off because that's not how I am at all (in another post I talked about being perfect open to the connection between loving things, maybe an after life of some kind, the beauty of the world and how amazing the human imagination is... etc. And i feel a very deep connection with nature, and solidly believe in soul mates (both romantic and non-romantic). Maybe you missed that post? Perhaps it's my tendency to be very blunt that is throwing you? I assure you, I'm not negative. I think those who know me would say I'm one of the happiest and positive people they know. I was in an rely bad mood today though, due to some people being idiots at work. .. maybe that was just translating into my posts.

I do indeed, however, have an extremely negative view of organized religion. I do understand all the good that can stem from it, but that is nothing compared to what I think is negativese about it. There is a reason, though, why I always specifically say "organized religion" as opposed to just "religion".

I must have missed that post. And we all have bad days...

How do you feel about the Earth? Paganism may be an organized religion, but it's rooted in nature, and the one I tend to gravitate to (as well as Buddhism) even though I'm against organized religion myself. I don't think you should group all religions as cults though. I've done papers about cults and the classic trait that separates them from organized religions is that members are not allowed to freely leave in cults, nor are members allowed to even communicate with the outside world. It's a huge difference in definitions of the two.

pandora

inlet13 wrote:

Since this has been a pretty open discussion, I'll toss out my thoughts on the reality of religion real quick in two parts:

1) I think there is a God, or a spiritual element - call it what you will, that created time and all that's included within it. I see it like this: We, humans live in time. We can't fathom any timeless aspect. Before we are born and when we die we exist outside of time - this is factual from awareness of those who live in time - we aren't there pre-birth and aren't there after death. But, we don't remember (pre-birth or after-death) because remembering is a function of time. God, or this force, exists both in time and outside.... as the origin of time this force would need to exist in both.

I think this is pretty logical and, personally, I see the probability of what I said above is higher than any alternative. So, I think it's probable that God exists.

This is awesome I agree it is all about time or the lack thereof.
From which come miracles/ phenomenon ...
I have learned some humans who can fathom timeless
and have actually experienced it.

Positively...
You are one smart person, if you don't mind me saying, and I enjoy your posts.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Not to over simplify the issue but I'd say that if the teacher encourages critical thinking and skepticism, that is education but if they dish out information and beliefs as truth without encouraging that kind of thinking, that is brainwashing.

Which method of teaching used most often in religious teaching? That's a rhetorical question. It's also why I personally rejected all religion and choose the simpler beliefs of mystery and wonder.

No offense, Brian... but, I find this post pretty funny.

Let's re-work what you wrote and think about "climate change"... instead of "religion".

To use your words in regards to climate change - If a teacher encourages critical thinking and "SKEPTICISM" that is education, right? If they dish out information and beliefs as truth WITHOUT encouraging that kind of thinking, that is brainwashing.

This is coming from a person who's used the term "DENIER" regarding those who don't completely buy into what global climate change is selling. I mean I was always a person who said - I'm not sure it's real. I don't buy it completely. I build statistical models, like the ones used for climate change, I know they are faulty. I know the data is questionable at best. I know there could be incentives for there to be climate change. It could be real, but it very well may not be. Just like many thought the world was flat, but some questioned that logic.

I don't mean for that to come across as instigating, I'm seriously curious. It appears to me that some here want religious folks to fit into certain rules, but then don't want those same rules to apply to them if it's an issue they feel passionately about.

Seems kinda... hypocritical. That's all.

"Funny", "hypocritical"? I think not. This is not a fair comparison. Climate change/global warming is quantifiable. God/religion is not. :fp: You'll have to try harder than that to pick a feud with me.

Yes, funny and hypocritical - not trying to be offensive, being sincere in that's how it comes across to me... it seems you want education for certain subjects you don't agree with to be open-minded - encourage "skepticism" and "critical thinking", but if they "dish information and beliefs as truth without encouraging that sort of thinking, it's brainwashing" ummm... you're saying that's what should happen for religious teaching, but not for climate change because you say it's quantifiable.

I've already tried to argue that a creator of sorts is quantifiable. You don't go from zero (nothingness - no life whatsoever - no space whatsoever - no time whatsoever) without a trigger or a catalyst or a force that creates 1 (life - space -time). 0+0=0. 0+1=1. It's simple math.

But, regardless, even if you argue that's rubbish, one can argue back that the models used within climate change are poor, the data is flawed and there's reason for these academics to push for a continuation of this phenomenon both for academic publication rewards, notoriety and perhaps most importantly political idealism.... with all that said, if one were to be skeptical and think critically - one should certainly cast doubt on these models and use a critical eye to study these findings.

I know you don't agree with what I mentioned above - and that's totally fine. I get it. But, anyone who touts the term "denier" towards anyone else regarding any subject is not encouraging " skepticism", "critical thinking" .... and is encouraging "dishing out information and beliefs as truth without encouraging that sort of thinking" or in other words - "brainwashing".

It's the equivalent of the religious extremists. Except using a different subject matter.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

It's the equivalent of the religious extremists.

OK, now who's being funny?

This is about religion, not climate change. Can we stay away from that here? You know my stance on climate change and to repeat everything I've said about it would be ridiculous. This is just too much like Thread Wars and I'm not in- not today.

Over and out!

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

It's the equivalent of the religious extremists.

OK, now who's being funny?

This is about religion, not climate change. Can we stay away from that here? You know my stance on climate change and to repeat everything I've said about it would be ridiculous. This is just too much like Thread Wars and I'm not in- not today.

Over and out!

That's weak. I was drawing a parallel. A lot of people, me including, think the Climate Change ideology is awful close to a religion. I mean the term "denier" and whatnot are thrown around like it's the dark ages.

Anyway, you're right the threads not about climate change it's about religion. You explained your definition of "brainwashing" and how it applies to religious teaching. I explained back to you that your definition was awful similar to what you advocate for global climate change... I simply wanted you to understand that. Because it's completely and totally true.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

It's the equivalent of the religious extremists.

OK, now who's being funny?

This is about religion, not climate change. Can we stay away from that here? You know my stance on climate change and to repeat everything I've said about it would be ridiculous. This is just too much like Thread Wars and I'm not in- not today.

Over and out!

That's weak. I was drawing a parallel. A lot of people, me including, think the Climate Change ideology is awful close to a religion. I mean the term "denier" and whatnot are thrown around like it's the dark ages.

Anyway, you're right the threads not about climate change it's about religion. You explained your definition of "brainwashing" and how it applies to religious teaching. I explained back to you that your definition was awful similar to what you advocate for global climate change... I simply wanted you to understand that. Because it's completely and totally true.

:fp: Ok, one more time: I've read both sides of that issue. Have you? Have you read the links to realclimate.org that I've sent? I've been studying this for probably as many years as you've been alive- both sides. I wish I could say the climate change we are experiencing is just a natural phenomena, that's there's nothing we've done to influence it and that there's nothing we can do to lessen the effects. I REALLY WISH I COULD SAY THAT. Now does THAT sound like brainwashing? I DO practice critical thinking and am skeptical of what I hear but at some point you just have to accept the OVERWHELMING scientific evidence regarding climate change.

Or not, which is your choice. OK, fine. NOW, PLEASE, LET IT GO!

Jackie is a punk, Judy is a runt, blah blah blah, yada yada yada, wheeeeeeee! :fp: :fp: :fp:

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

That's weak. I was drawing a parallel. A lot of people, me including, think the Climate Change ideology is awful close to a religion. I mean the term "denier" and whatnot are thrown around like it's the dark ages.

Anyway, you're right the threads not about climate change it's about religion. You explained your definition of "brainwashing" and how it applies to religious teaching. I explained back to you that your definition was awful similar to what you advocate for global climate change... I simply wanted you to understand that. Because it's completely and totally true.

:fp: Ok, one more time: I've read both sides of that issue. Have you? Have you read the links to realclimate.org that I've sent? I've been studying this for probably as many years as you've been alive- both sides. I wish I could say the climate change we are experiencing is just a natural phenomena, that's there's nothing we've done to influence it and that there's nothing we can do to lessen the effects. I REALLY WISH I COULD SAY THAT. Now does THAT sound like brainwashing? I DO practice critical thinking and am skeptical of what I hear but at some point you just have to accept the OVERWHELMING scientific evidence regarding climate change.

Or not, which is your choice. OK, fine. NOW, PLEASE, LET IT GO!

Jackie is a punk, Judy is a runt, blah blah blah, yada yada yada, wheeeeeeee! :fp: :fp: :fp:

To play devil's advocate and further my point...

Let's say we have a religious person respond to this post - and your earlier thoughts on them all being brainwashed. They could respond to that like (only italics have been changed):


:fp: Ok, one more time: I've read both sides of that issue. Have you? Have you read The Bible multiple times or the other theologian writings? I've been studying this for probably as many years as you've been alive- both sides. I wish I could say God is just a natural phenomena. I REALLY WISH I COULD SAY THAT. Now does THAT sound like brainwashing? I DO practice critical thinking and am skeptical of what I hear but at some point you just have to accept the OVERWHELMING evidence regarding God.


***You don't seem to get it. You're advocating one position (critical thinking, skepticism, etc.) for a position you don't seem to agree with than advocating another (read and agree with the models or you're a denier) for another position you agree with. I'm just pointing it out to you.

Jeanwah

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

OK, now who's being funny?

This is about religion, not climate change. Can we stay away from that here? You know my stance on climate change and to repeat everything I've said about it would be ridiculous. This is just too much like Thread Wars and I'm not in- not today.

Over and out!

That's weak. I was drawing a parallel. A lot of people, me including, think the Climate Change ideology is awful close to a religion. I mean the term "denier" and whatnot are thrown around like it's the dark ages.

Anyway, you're right the threads not about climate change it's about religion. You explained your definition of "brainwashing" and how it applies to religious teaching. I explained back to you that your definition was awful similar to what you advocate for global climate change... I simply wanted you to understand that. Because it's completely and totally true.

:fp: Ok, one more time: I've read both sides of that issue. Have you? Have you read the links to realclimate.org that I've sent? I've been studying this for probably as many years as you've been alive- both sides. I wish I could say the climate change we are experiencing is just a natural phenomena, that's there's nothing we've done to influence it and that there's nothing we can do to lessen the effects. I REALLY WISH I COULD SAY THAT. Now does THAT sound like brainwashing? I DO practice critical thinking and am skeptical of what I hear but at some point you just have to accept the OVERWHELMING scientific evidence regarding climate change.

Or not, which is your choice. OK, fine. NOW, PLEASE, LET IT GO!

Jackie is a punk, Judy is a runt, blah blah blah, yada yada yada, wheeeeeeee! :fp: :fp: :fp:

From the Akin thread...

polaris_x wrote:

i think the other main issue here that i don't think has been discussed is this guy is on the house committee on science ... :fp: ... this is why so many people are out to lunch on issues related to stem cells, global warming and health ... guys like that get appointed to positions without the knowledge simply to placate industry and corporations ...

Climate science is now in the hands of this guy...

PJ_Soul

Jeanwah wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Are you dismissive of spirituality as well as religion PJ_Soul? I honestly get this negative feel from your posts, as if you are not open minded to much of anything not only religious, but any sort of spirituality.

Nope, I'm all for spirituality, and am accepting of it in all forms. Too bad that's how I'm coming off because that's not how I am at all (in another post I talked about being perfect open to the connection between loving things, maybe an after life of some kind, the beauty of the world and how amazing the human imagination is... etc. And i feel a very deep connection with nature, and solidly believe in soul mates (both romantic and non-romantic). Maybe you missed that post? Perhaps it's my tendency to be very blunt that is throwing you? I assure you, I'm not negative. I think those who know me would say I'm one of the happiest and positive people they know. I was in an rely bad mood today though, due to some people being idiots at work. .. maybe that was just translating into my posts.

I do indeed, however, have an extremely negative view of organized religion. I do understand all the good that can stem from it, but that is nothing compared to what I think is negativese about it. There is a reason, though, why I always specifically say "organized religion" as opposed to just "religion".

I must have missed that post. And we all have bad days...

How do you feel about the Earth? Paganism may be an organized religion, but it's rooted in nature, and the one I tend to gravitate to (as well as Buddhism) even though I'm against organized religion myself. I don't think you should group all religions as cults though. I've done papers about cults and the classic trait that separates them from organized religions is that members are not allowed to freely leave in cults, nor are members allowed to even communicate with the outside world. It's a huge difference in definitions of the two.

I dig the Earth. I find that even paganism attributes nature to a higher intelligence, which I don't go for. But nature itself turns my crank.
I disagree with that definition of cult. What about Scientology? That's certainly a cult, and they aren't cut off from the world. Lots of cults aren't cut off from the world. The only reason those criteria are attributed to cults is because those are the cults that draw attention... the ones that aren't mainstream. I think that people have simply stopped thinking of organized churches as cults because they're ubiquitous. I know that most people don't think of, say, the Catholic Church as a cult because everyone is so used to it ... I do see it as a cult though. A particularly corrupt and hypocritical one. Sorry to the Catholics here, but that's how I feel about the Catholic Church. The CHURCH. Not about regular individual Catholics, but the Church as an organization. Kind of like how I despise Wal-Mart, but not necessarily the cashiers who work there or the people who shop there.

Jeanwah

PJ_Soul wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Nope, I'm all for spirituality, and am accepting of it in all forms. Too bad that's how I'm coming off because that's not how I am at all (in another post I talked about being perfect open to the connection between loving things, maybe an after life of some kind, the beauty of the world and how amazing the human imagination is... etc. And i feel a very deep connection with nature, and solidly believe in soul mates (both romantic and non-romantic). Maybe you missed that post? Perhaps it's my tendency to be very blunt that is throwing you? I assure you, I'm not negative. I think those who know me would say I'm one of the happiest and positive people they know. I was in an rely bad mood today though, due to some people being idiots at work. .. maybe that was just translating into my posts.

I do indeed, however, have an extremely negative view of organized religion. I do understand all the good that can stem from it, but that is nothing compared to what I think is negativese about it. There is a reason, though, why I always specifically say "organized religion" as opposed to just "religion".

I must have missed that post. And we all have bad days...

How do you feel about the Earth? Paganism may be an organized religion, but it's rooted in nature, and the one I tend to gravitate to (as well as Buddhism) even though I'm against organized religion myself. I don't think you should group all religions as cults though. I've done papers about cults and the classic trait that separates them from organized religions is that members are not allowed to freely leave in cults, nor are members allowed to even communicate with the outside world. It's a huge difference in definitions of the two.

I dig the Earth. I find that even paganism attributes nature to a higher intelligence, which I don't go for. But nature itself turns my crank.
I disagree with that definition of cult. What about Scientology? That's certainly a cult, and they aren't cut off from the world. Lots of cults aren't cut off from the world. The only reason those criteria are attributed to cults is because those are the cults that draw attention... the ones that aren't mainstream. I think that people have simply stopped thinking of organized churches as cults because they're ubiquitous. I know that most people don't think of, say, the Catholic Church as a cult because everyone is so used to it ... I do see it as a cult though. A particularly corrupt and hypocritical one. Sorry to the Catholics here, but that's how I feel about the Catholic Church. The CHURCH. Not about regular individual Catholics, but the Church as an organization. Kind of like how I despise Wal-Mart, but not necessarily the cashiers who work there or the people who shop there.

Religions are not cults in the classic definition though, sorry. I don't know anything about Scientology, but from looking at Tom Cruise, he's not being held captive in the church compound and kept from communicating to family who are not Scientology members. Organized religions that are large and widespread in the world are NOT cults. You can't possibly continue to believe this when it's misinformation. Look it up.

callen

Difference between a cult and a religion is the number of members.

PJ_Soul

callen wrote:

Difference between a cult and a religion is the number of members.

Exactly... which isn't a legitimate difference at all. Sorry Jeanwah, the so-called definition of cult just seems like a smoke-screen to me.

Cosmo

Just to set the record straight... whenever I use the term, 'God'... I use it because of the lack of a better term. I do not prescribe to the description of God as the Bible and related holy texts refer. My opinion being, those texts were written by Man... who attached human traits to God in order to connect Man with God and set up some sort of relationship bond.
That's why the God of the Bible can be kind of a dick at times. It's not God being a dick... it's more like Man creating the dickishness that is part of Man.
...
To me, "God" is... something. I don't know, call it Nature or Time/Space or The Force or whatever you want... but, it is something that is beyond our current comprehension... in this current space... at this current time... in this current level is existance. Perhaps when we are unbounded from these chains of this physical universe, we'll get a full understanding. But, in the big picture, Man is nothing more than a highly evolved ape that resides on a tiny blue rock... circling a mediocre star in an average galaxy... that exists on this level of consciousness. That why I believe we cannot comprehend what the nature of God truely is.

PJ_Soul

Cosmo wrote:

Just to set the record straight... whenever I use the term, 'God'... I use it because of the lack of a better term. I do not prescribe to the description of God as the Bible and related holy texts refer. My opinion being, those texts were written by Man... who attached human traits to God in order to connect Man with God and set up some sort of relationship bond.
That's why the God of the Bible can be kind of a dick at times. It's not God being a dick... it's more like Man creating the dickishness that is part of Man.
...
To me, "God" is... something. I don't know, call it Nature or Time/Space or The Force or whatever you want... but, it is something that is beyond our current comprehension... in this current space... at this current time... in this current level is existance. Perhaps when we are unbounded from these chains of this physical universe, we'll get a full understanding. But, in the big picture, Man is nothing more than a highly evolved ape that resides on a tiny blue rock... circling a mediocre star in an average galaxy... that exists on this level of consciousness. That why I believe we cannot comprehend what the nature of God truely is.

I think that the only real requirement for anything that someone calls "God" is that it's an entity of some sort that intelligently and purposefully affects the world and/or the universe. After that, it's just random details.

Cosmo

PJ_Soul wrote:

I think that the only real requirement for anything that someone calls "God" is that it's an entity of some sort that intelligently and purposefully affects the world and/or the universe. After that, it's just random details.

...
I don't know about intelligently and purposefully... that where Man attaches his spin on God.
I'm thinking more along the lines of God setting things in motion and letting it play out, without any purpose. That's why we are all going to vaporize one day when Nature slates us for extinction... when the nature of the universe extingushes our Sun. All we ever were is going to eventually vanish. Is there intelligence in that? Maybe. Maybe we just don't understand it.
I think it is Man's arrogance to set himself at the center of God's focus. Step outside of ourselves and look at the greater picture... of Earth's place in the Universe and the physiology of Man. In this unimaginable vastness of the universe, with the endless number of possibilities... and God chooses to favor a planet of road building apes. I don't know... doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Jeanwah

PJ_Soul wrote:

callen wrote:

Difference between a cult and a religion is the number of members.

Exactly... which isn't a legitimate difference at all. Sorry Jeanwah, the so-called definition of cult just seems like a smoke-screen to me.

Think what you want, but you're clearly wrong. Why the "no other possible definition but what you want it to be"? Why so closed-minded about this? It doesn't change your opinion, just the fact that organized religions are classically NOT cults. Big deal!

PJ_Soul

Cosmo wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I think that the only real requirement for anything that someone calls "God" is that it's an entity of some sort that intelligently and purposefully affects the world and/or the universe. After that, it's just random details.

...
I don't know about intelligently and purposefully... that where Man attaches his spin on God.
I'm thinking more along the lines of God setting things in motion and letting it play out, without any purpose. That's why we are all going to vaporize one day when Nature slates us for extinction... when the nature of the universe extingushes our Sun. All we ever were is going to eventually vanish. Is there intelligence in that? Maybe. Maybe we just don't understand it.
I think it is Man's arrogance to set himself at the center of God's focus. Step outside of ourselves and look at the greater picture... of Earth's place in the Universe and the physiology of Man. In this unimaginable vastness of the universe, with the endless number of possibilities... and God chooses to favor a planet of road building apes. I don't know... doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

What I meant was that once there is no intelligent purpose, it's just not God anymore. God doesn't mean just anything you can come up with including nature. For God to be God, it needs to have intelligent purpose, and if you are conceiving something that lacks that, then you aren't conceiving God at all. Otherwise, we can call anything anything. We can call tree "door", we can call paper "apple", and we can call Pearl Jam "Water Slides".

Cosmo

PJ_Soul wrote:

What I meant was that once there is no intelligent purpose, it's just not God anymore. God doesn't mean just anything you can come up with including nature. For God to be God, it needs to have intelligent purpose, and if you are conceiving something that lacks that, then you aren't conceiving God at all. Otherwise, we can call anything anything. We can call tree "door", we can call paper "apple", and we can call Pearl Jam "Water Slides".

...
Okay... what do I call it, then?
I'm just tagging a term for the sake of this discussion that people can relate to when I'm referencing this... thing... that I can't comprehend, let alone, explain. I mean, could use the term, 'the thing that I can't comprehend, let alone, explain'... but, G-o-d is much easier for a lazy sot as myself.

PJ_Soul

Cosmo wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

What I meant was that once there is no intelligent purpose, it's just not God anymore. God doesn't mean just anything you can come up with including nature. For God to be God, it needs to have intelligent purpose, and if you are conceiving something that lacks that, then you aren't conceiving God at all. Otherwise, we can call anything anything. We can call tree "door", we can call paper "apple", and we can call Pearl Jam "Water Slides".

...
Okay... what do I call it, then?
I'm just tagging a term for the sake of this discussion that people can relate to when I'm referencing this... thing... that I can't comprehend, let alone, explain. I mean, could use the term, 'the thing that I can't comprehend, let alone, explain'... but, G-o-d is much easier for a lazy sot as myself.

I call nature "Nature". Nature can cover all sorts of cool shit, including a non-intelligent, non-purposeful connection between living thing, conceivably. I think Nature is a powerful thing - the word is more than adequate IMHO.