Why Religion Must Remain A Part Of The World...

redrock

catefrances wrote:

i think i'm safe on that one.
after 20 years i doubt i'll ever be a mother like anyone but myself.

Truly spoken! I've only got 12 years experience but, yeah... I like to think we parent in our own unique way...


Now... not to hijack the thread.. back to why we need religion... WHY????

angelica

lucylespian wrote:

As a person with a professional training and long experience working in mental health it is obvious. If you placed a description of Jesus' life into a psychiatry fellow's exam without a name attached, every candidate would come up with "schizophrenia" as a diagnosis.
It is the very intensity of belief that a psychotic person (in the correct sense of the word, rather than teh emotive sense most people use) has that would have motivated his followers.
Delusional beliefs and sensations such as voices, visions etc are TOTALLY real to the person experiencing them, just not to anyone else.
The only thing which prevents all religion form fitting the DSM-4 definition of delusion is the descriptor, "not in fitting with the persons cultural setting", but you only have to move into a different cultural setting to neutralise that even.

I find it scary that you do and/or have worked with mental health patients.

Lack of understanding and awareness cannot be justified by a DSM-4 "diagnosis".

Your story about "every candidate would come up with...." is a figment of your imagination. I don't accept pretend statistics. If "candidates" in the mental health field are being trained to isolate facts and not consider the big picture of where the patient is in their life, that does not indicate illness to me, it indicates poor training in the mental health field.

The bottom line regarding mental imbalance is if the person in question is feeling happy; comfortable; personally empowered; has good, functioning relationships with friends and family; and feels that they are on the right path in life, if one sees that as illness, that's about that person imagining illness. On the other hand, when someone uses "mental health" concerns to try to stifle someone's subjective experience that is not agreed with, I see that as a dangerous abuse of power.

When you talk about "you only have to move to a different cultural setting to neutralize that even", I am hearing that you are saying if one is set on proving delusion, one can find a way to prove it. Using information to back up bias is different than using information to uncover illness.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't mean to flog a dead horse here. But the magnitude of what you are saying is that you discriminate against non-believers. You view atheists as pathetic people that can't control themselves. Maybe not in every case, but that distinction is there in your mind. That alone proves my point that religion has negative affects on our society. It encourages discrimination, in many more cases than just this. A person might be non-discriminate to any other minority, but still have this distinction about atheists and pass judgement on a person. I know from first hand experience, from the closest of family and friends. People persistently tell me that I will eventually "Learn" and realize the "truth". Like I am somehow ignorant and they are enlightened. Unfortunately faith in god is such a hardcore belief that it ultimately has that effect. Atheists that believe in nothing have nothing to believe strongly in. I don't even consider a person's beliefs as a substantial part of their character. Unless they somehow discriminate based on them.

I hear this all the time "we are good Christian folk". I'm not good because I don't believe in Christ? Or being Christian is somehow an adjective emphasizing good positively?

I'd like to clarify my own stance on this. To me, good is it's own indicator of good. It's self evident, whether such action comes from athiest/agnostic/religious-folk. And likewise for bad.

It's clear to me that we are all wired in different ways. But the bottom line is we all have our ultimate lows and our ultimate highs, regardless of what we call them. And to further clarify, when I say I see God, I realize it's relative and that it is my experience. I know others cannot minimize what I have seen. And yet, others may see differently, and yet that is not "wrong".

About enLightenment, though, that concept itself calls upon for people to literally know and understand "the Light", and therefore if one has not experienced the Light, one is by definition not enLightened.

I definitely agree that religion has a lot of fallout. Every physical world concept is dual in nature. Where we have light we have dark. We have awareness and we have ignorance. We have the good religion does, we experience the bad it does. When the group humanity is ready to go beyond ideas of duality, then it will be. The higher we climb in our awareness the deeper into our ugliness we must travel and acknowledge in order to keep balance. If we ignore our ugliness, we begin to see everything outside ourselves through the unacknowledge ugliness within. It is normal on the path to raised awareness to have our ugliness come out. It give us a chance to resolve it. Many people are not willing to learn in theory, and must learn by consequences. In the end, humans reaching potential or enlightenment is the only way to transcend the duality.

redrock

angelica wrote:

About enLightenment, though, that concept itself calls upon for people to literally know and understand "the Light", and therefore if one has not experienced the Light, one is by definition not enLightened.

Whose 'Light'? Enlightenment is an eastern concept. Though it is found in eastern religions (Buddhism and Hinduism) in which it is a state in which a person will transcend desire and suffering to attain a superior state, it is not necessarily religion based. It is certainly not a Christian concept. Enlightenment is the ultimate spiritual goal, an awakening and self-realisation - it's the 'light' within you. Thus ANYONE, religious, atheist, pagan, etc. can achieve 'enlightenment'.

angelica wrote:

I definitely agree that religion has a lot of fallout. Every physical world concept is dual in nature. Where we have light we have dark. We have awareness and we have ignorance. We have the good religion does, we experience the bad it does. When the group humanity is ready to go beyond ideas of duality, then it will be. The higher we climb in our awareness the deeper into our ugliness we must travel and acknowledge in order to keep balance. If we ignore our ugliness, we begin to see everything outside ourselves through the unacknowledge ugliness within. It is normal on the path to raised awareness to have our ugliness come out. It give us a chance to resolve it. Many people are not willing to learn in theory, and must learn by consequences. In the end, humans reaching potential or enlightenment is the only way to transcend the duality.

Do we have to follow a religion for this? This can be any spiritual quest.

angelica

fanch75 wrote:

The existence of God can't be proven, which is why it boils down to faith. WHich is why it's so controversial among believers/non-believers/different believers.

I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.

but again, i can't prove it.

fanch75 wrote:

At the end of the day, the equation is very much binary. God either exists or doesn't; God can't "kinda" exist.

I agree that we all have different paths; I was just making the general statement about total blatant selfish hedonism, folks who add nothing to society.

I am posting these posts together because I don't hear prejudice against all athiests. What I hear is fanch75 saying that in cases where people want to justify self-centeredness and non-contribution, non-acceptance-of-accountability etc, non-religion can be comforting. I see this as a valid point. I'm guessing athiests see this among other athiests, just as religious people see the blind spots among their own. Again, if one is non-religious, and yet believes in aspiring to truth, and to contributing to our society and planet, that's different than what I see being mentioned. I think generally, it's realistic to think we are all somewhere on the continuum: aspiring to do better, and not always being able to.

angelica

redrock wrote:

Whose 'Light'? Enlightenment is an eastern concept. Though it is found in eastern religions (Buddhism and Hinduism) in which it is a state in which a person will transcend desire and suffering to attain a superior state, it is not necessarily religion based. It is certainly not a Christian concept. Enlightenment is the ultimate spiritual goal, an awakening and self-realisation - it's the 'light' within you. Thus ANYONE, religious, atheist, pagan, etc. can achieve 'enlightenment'.

I agree 100%.

Do we have to follow a religion for this? This can be any spiritual quest.

What I see is that there are many, many paths to one's potential. The psychological path to self-actualization has been highly spiritual for me. And I consider what are considered "self-actualized" people who are living at potential, to also be enlightened. There is no way that a universal concept of finding potential can be owned by a certain path.

That said, to minimize the path of another person, to judge it and degrade it is, imho, taking one's self off of their own path to personal power--taking a detour to learn a major life lesson. Yes, all paths are valid. So when we hint that another is "wrong" on their path, it's about us. Not them.

redrock

I don't think I was minimizing, judging or degrading someone else's path. I'm trying to say exactly what you're saying! There are numerous paths to find your 'salvation'. You find the one that suits you and I have said that. There have been posts suggesting that 'religion' is the only way. And posts such as this...

"I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.

..makes you think that those who are 'believers' think they are superior and they are the ones judging and degrading others. When these people can open their minds, accept others and stop ramming religion down your throat, then maybe they can become 'enlightened'.

I think you were being kind in your response to the above from fanch in giving him/her the benefit of the doubt! His/her additional line of 'but again, I can't prove it' states that he/she firmly believes that all those who do not believe in a god are like that!

But in short.. you and I.. lots of words exchanged for basically the same principles, live and let live!

angelica

redrock wrote:

I don't think I was minimizing, judging or degrading someone else's path. I'm trying to say exactly what you're saying! There are numerous paths to find your 'salvation'. You find the one that suits you and I have said that.

I apologize if my words gave the impression I meant that part to you specifically. My intent was to refer to a general principle.

There have been posts suggesting that 'religion' is the only way. And posts such as this...

"I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.

..makes you think that those who are 'believers' think they are superior and they are the ones judging and degrading others. When these people can open their minds, accept others and stop ramming religion down your throat, then maybe they can become 'enlightened'.

It makes you think that, I understand. I see it a very different way as I mentioned in my post about it.

I think you were being kind in your response to the above from fanch in giving him/her the benefit of the doubt! His/her additional line of 'but again, I can't prove it' states that he/she firmly believes that all those who do not believe in a god are like that!

But in short.. you and I.. lots of words exchanged for basically the same principles, live and let live!

You are too kind thinking I give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I see that I am as direct as is possible without crossing the line.

Athiests have blind spots. Athiests, when they are not willing to acknowledge their own flaws project those flaws onto others, just like Christians do. When we move past the illusion of the duality: Christian/athiest, we're all people, and are subject to the human condition. What I call out is if athiests believe they are above their flaws. When one does not acknowledge their own flaw and place the "judgment" on another group, it's the same thing, whether done by an athiest or by a Christian. Telling ourselves otherwise cannot make it not exist. Rather it makes it exist beyond our own awareness. Therefore we have two side pointing fingers at one another.

EDIT: I have personally heard different athiests use non-belief to excuse not owning their personal behaviour. Numerous, numerous times.

I do agree--the only way to peace is to accept IS: to live and let live.

redrock

angelica wrote:

I apologize if my words gave the impression I meant that part to you specifically. My intent was to refer to a general principle.

No apologies necessary....

angelica wrote:

What I call out is if athiests believe they are above their flaws. When one does not acknowledge their own flaw and place the "judgment" on another group, it's the same thing, whether done by an athiest or by a Christian.

It's just human nature. Not acknowledging our flaws and thus passing judgement on those that are 'different' is just a way to try to comfort yourself saying 'they're worse than me' (because deep down you KNOW of those flaws in you). This is not just a religious/non religious, believer/non believer thing, it's for everything - thus racism, discrimation against sexes, sexual practices, etc. Not nice, but then man is less than perfect!


EDIT: Quoting your edit! As we have heard religious 'zealots' use their faith to justify the same. See what is happening in the world in the name of religion. Not only fanatics (from which we would expect some kind of irresponsible rhetoric) but also from someone like Bush (and I'm not going into politics here..)

angelica

redrock wrote:

No apologies necessary....





It's just human nature. Not acknowledging our flaws and thus passing judgement on those that are 'different' is just a way to try to comfort yourself saying 'they're worse than me' (because deep down you KNOW of those flaws in you). This is not just a religious/non religious, believer/non believer thing, it's for everything - thus racism, discrimation against sexes, sexual practices, etc. Not nice, but then man is less than perfect!


EDIT: Quoting your edit! As we have heard religious 'zealots' use their faith to justify the same. See what is happening in the world in the name of religion. Not only fanatics (from which we would expect some kind of irresponsible rhetoric) but also from someone like Bush (and I'm not going into politics here..)

I hear what you are saying. I'm talking in the context of this thread where I've heard some athiest points of view that are projecting their own issues on religion and thinking that is about religion. We all do it, like you say, and yet, this thread is bringing out the athiest opinions that are justifying what is not justifiable--making the other guy wrong. By doing so, it highlights where the individual themself is stuck. It is the opposite of letting all views stand with support and respect. And when we partake of what is unacceptable, we contribute "ugly" just like we see that religious folk do. It's human nature, like you say. We're all learning and cannot afford to blame the other guy. Being unaccountable is being unaccountable.

angelica

What I am loving about this thread, though, is that we're human, we're making our mistakes, but I also see a general underlying theme of trying to work out our differences respectfully. That's beautiful.

WMA

angelica wrote:

What I am loving about this thread, though, is that we're human, we're making our mistakes, but I also see a general underlying theme of trying to work out our differences respectfully. That's beautiful.

Well, accusing athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions is kinda pushing it I'd think. I could make the argument that they feel more responsible for their actions and how they effect others, but I really don't want to provoke people.

angelica

WMA wrote:

Well, accusing athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions is kinda pushing it I'd think. I could make the argument that they feel more responsible for their actions and how they effect others, but I really don't want to provoke people.

Please show me where someone accused athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions?

If you can make an argument attempting to prove that an entire group of people is more responsible for their actions than others, I'd think you were distinctly operating on a false premise.

fanch75

angelica wrote:

I am posting these posts together because I don't hear prejudice against all athiests. What I hear is fanch75 saying that in cases where people want to justify self-centeredness and non-contribution, non-acceptance-of-accountability etc, non-religion can be comforting. I see this as a valid point. I'm guessing athiests see this among other athiests, just as religious people see the blind spots among their own. Again, if one is non-religious, and yet believes in aspiring to truth, and to contributing to our society and planet, that's different than what I see being mentioned. I think generally, it's realistic to think we are all somewhere on the continuum: aspiring to do better, and not always being able to.

Thank you. You got it 100%.

angelica

fanch75 wrote:

Thank you. You got it 100%.

You are welcome.

WMA

angelica wrote:

Please show me where someone accused athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions?

If you can make an argument attempting to prove that an entire group of people is more responsible for their actions than others, I'd think you were distinctly operating on a false premise.

I thought a few times you did point to that:

I have personally heard different athiests use non-belief to excuse not owning their personal behaviour. Numerous, numerous times.

I am posting these posts together because I don't hear prejudice against all athiests. What I hear is fanch75 saying that in cases where people want to justify self-centeredness and non-contribution, non-acceptance-of-accountability etc, non-religion can be comforting. I see this as a valid point.

And I never said that a group of people are more responsible for their actions than others. I said I could make the argument that they could feel more responsible or accountable for their actions than people who are following a religion. If it is fair game to point out that Atheists use non-belief to excuse not owning their personal behavior, I'm sure it is fair to make the opposite argument also.

Ms. Haiku

When my twin's dog died I realized "why" people need religion to help them deal with death. Not everyone needs religion of course, but it can add a form to how to deal with a permanent absence.

angelica

WMA wrote:

I thought a few times you did point to that:

Are you saying that when I state my personal experience that you feel that is the same as me accusing a group of people of something?

Also, are you saying that when I described what I thought fanch75 was saying, that you felt it was the same thing as accusing a group of people of something?

I said I could make the argument that they could feel more responsible or accountable for their actions than people who are following a religion.

Again, if you feel you can make a blanket generalized argument for or against any one group of people, I will say that the argument is based on a flawed premise and therefore the logic is distorted.

If you want to make a case for how an athiest could be construed as is more accountable than a person following a religion, I'd love to hear it. I'm not talking about the "idealized" image of an athiest, and how one would ideally operate, I'm talking about that I'd love to hear a realistic argument.

WMA

angelica wrote:

Are you saying that when I state my personal experience that you feel that is the same as me accusing a group of people of something?

It seemed you were implying that in your experience that is the way Atheists are.
I'd like to hear the context of it also. In what way did they deflect personal accountablity for something because of their lack of belief?

angelica wrote:

Also, are you saying that when I described what I thought fanch75 was saying, that you felt it was the same thing as accusing a group of people of something?

It seemed that you were saying that you agreed that it was valid that people who want to justify being self-centered, non-contributing, and non-accountable would find Atheism comforting.

angelica wrote:

Again, if you feel you can make a blanket generalized argument for or against any one group of people, I will say that the argument is based on a flawed premise and therefore the logic is distorted.

I agree, blanket generalizations are almost never accurate, even towards Atheists.

angelica wrote:

If you want to make a case for how an athiest could be construed as is more accountable than a person following a religion, I'd love to hear it. I'm not talking about the "idealized" image of an athiest, and how one would ideally operate, I'm talking about that I'd love to hear a realistic argument.

It is kind of hard to account for every Atheist, just as it would be for every person in every religion. Not just the "idealized" practice of the religion.

A hypothetical argument on how an Atheist could be more self aware of his or others shortcomings than someone who practices a religion would still be valid, as that seemed to me to be what was being implied in the reverse.

Acceptance of war and intolerance as morally right by many througout the years is probably a good example. Instead of judging actions and reactions on their merits, many can just use their religion as a filter to completely deflect any sense of responsibility or accountablily to their actions or thier acceptance and support of others actions and just consider it "right".

I don't really want to get into some huge argument and offend people, but I'll just say I think it is completely incorrect that people become atheists because they don't want to feel guilt for things they do.

I apologize if I misunderstood your points.

angelica

premature mis-post.