Well, that was short and sweet.
'Religious Research' conversations ain't wot they used to be

yeah, shame isn't it?

i find this more and more these days - you're either dealing with people who have half formed arguments and can't back them up, or you're dealing with religious nuts who take offence quicker than a feminist in a strip joint.

none of which of course helps to further mankinds collective self knowledge...

I still find the subject fascinating. I don't know why. My Christian friends cannot understand my passion for a subject that I don't believe in ~ nor can they understand why I love to visit churches and cathedrals.

Maybe I'm just a bit odd

But religion is, and has been, so important in mankind's history, and has left us some very old and beautiful architecture.

As you say, Janimal, 'it is interesting to critique the bible' ~ and, sometimes, a religious debate may just get some people thinking. And people need to think, because some aspects of religious belief are very unpleasant.

well. i'm pretty much an atheist, but a peculiar one.

to my mind it has been proved beyond doubt that 'god' is a concept internally generated by the human brain as part of complex tribal allegiance and inquiry behaviours - the fact that logic reason and science are replacing god in the human psyche pretty much bears this out.

so on that level you could say that i am a believer, but i believe in god in the same way as i believe in any other psychological process, like fear, reasoning or paranoia.

the special reason for still discussing holy texts is for me in understanding societal psychology culture and progress. all the worlds cultures have expressed their 'god' concept through their own cultural lenses, and the abuse of religion as a tool of subjugation teaches us much about the mechanics of mass control, and thought control of the individual. a good example of this is the many women who accept blatantly mysogenistic teachings.

god is not a tool for understanding reality, it is a tool for understanding humanity, as are the religious texts. books like genesis tell me nothing about the history of the universe, but they tell me a great deal about the attitudes and agendas of the people who compiled these books.

as i pointed out human psychology evolves entropically, as do all things. the human mind is essentially a computer ( which is why it is so easy for religion to hijack young minds) and religion represents a now defunct program the mind runs on, and theis is now being replaced by the updated program, science and reason.

i do believe religion will by necessity eventually die out as many human institutions do, but the historical value of understanding religion is beyond doubt.

Hi

I have noticed that 'atheist' seems to mean different things to different people.

I don't know whether or not there is some sort of mystical power behind the universe, or if there is a place which we might call an 'afterlife', but I do not believe in God, as described in the Bible ~ or in Odin, Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Etc, etc, etc.

So I call myself agnostic

I personally would like to watch Janimal pick apart Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism or even Confucianism for a change! For me there is certainly a force larger than myself at work in all things. I believe the problem that man has always had is a simple, yet tragic, difference - and that difference is that the "Greater Forces" can have a name and be given human or animal characteristics. The major opinion among "academics", in my opinion, is that any power that could assume any form at will should be defined as just that THE "Omnipotent Nonentity"(quote) - Julius C. Hare, and this is very hard for the average, everyday very busy person to manifest so we put wings on them and call them angels and that makes the being(s) easier to understand. Then there comes the hierarchy? Now we have a legion of angels and their leader the "omnipotent nonentity" or GOD. Now that we have the heirarchy set up their must always be an enemy . . . AH - the DEVIL . . . . . . and you can see where I go from there. Personally I have settled into a group that does their best to harness a share of the one "omnipotent nonentity" and use it wisely I mean after all it is a source of power, magic or "he’s got the whole world in his hands" sort of thing is it not? We, like any other religion(I hate that word) or group have names for certain aspects of this omnipotent power but we do not worship the name instead we chant, pray and sacrifice to the feelings, understandings or power that the name represents. For example when I tell someone that they "Make Hephaestus stronger when they solely rely on technology for their needs." I do not mean that there is a man with a hammer making laptops in the sky I mean that person increases our overall reliance on the "Omnipotent Nonentity" of technology, that could eventually become a burden to us in the future. Money, Religion(General), Money, Politics, Law, Money and Business oh and don't forget MONEY are just a few of the others - I know I typed money a few times but currently Money is being used to control and manipulate entire nations of people so you can imagine the effect it has on the common man. Imagine how many of these things, and others, that control our lives each and every day on a way thought impossible two hundred years ago! I personally find the rest of this post, at least the biblical discussions about she and he, pointless to the point of grinding my teeth simply because there are at least a dozen much older, less violent and loads more interesting "Religions" that you could talk about! I personally think that Christianity is the dominating religion (statistically) because it is so easy both to understand and to adhere to! I mean really if you told a well-to-do Catholic, or protestant, that his church needed him to stand in a cave for two hours at a time all night with one hour breaks, bare-footed and with nothing but a thick rough cotton robe during the next full moon I think that 99.999999% would say some unGODly things to you. I forgot the chanting, praying and occasional blood ritual that must occur but we'll save that for the few who actually say "I'll be there with bells on and nothing else." I gripe, mostly to my OBOD friends, alot about all of our responsibilities in our practice but there is always a party going at any gathering like free medical care (Two of our members are Doctors), something is always roasting (usually hog but occasionally a side of beef), and booze not to mention that our group probably has the single largest collection of "herbs" on this side of the Mississippi.

well. my picking apart often happens around the abrahamic religions, because it's what comes up.

ok, to quickly humor you, zoroastrianism is the bronze age predecessor of the abrahamic faiths, and certainly one of the earliest monotheistic faiths. quite advanced in that sense and the source of much of abrahamic religions - monotheism, the idea of a single 'adversary', i.e. devil, and the judgement day idea. there seems to be some evidence of the existence of the founding prophet, but estimates of his lifetime range from 2000bc to 500bc. pretty big range so not too verifiable, but doubtless the abrahamic religions would not be the same if it hadn't been for this bronze age persian cult. other than that i find the content of the faith pretty typical and unremarkable.

i've always been puzzled as to why confucianism is defined as a religion. to me it is not - its a humanistic socio ethical system of philosophy. it involves no gods or cellestial hierarchy, although under (i think) the han dynasty some cosmological and metaphysical fluff was introduced - maybe to appease a wooly minded emperor, or to maipulate confucianism into a populus controlling religion. there is a lot of good stuff to be found as long as you are not a slave woman or ethnic minority from overseas - no philosophy is immune to tribalism and subjugation.... i don't think south korea are far off the mark with their 'must kill confucius to solve the state' attitude.

i have a lot of time for hindhuism. i've spent time in bali, and a large part of the magic of the place is down to balis particular brand of the faith. hindhuism has been around for a staggering amount of time - possibly around 5000 years - and encompasses a bewildering amount of faiths because self critique and change for progress have always been encouraged. hindhuism has been through monotheism, polytheism, non theism, humanism, dualism, and just about every theistic setup i can name here and has found its present polytheistic state through many transitions.

so i have a lot of time for a religion which has allowed itself to change so much - the current polytheistic state is almost an admission of the irrelevance of gods -the veneration of personal gods is positively encouraged. but for me the great contribution of hindhuism is the concept of karma, which is a long way from the western distorted interpretation of this idea. in short, the more good deeds we carry out the better we collectively make the world better for eveyone. on the other hand we will pay for our bad deeds as their repercussions will be directed back at us by the universe. this involves no judgdmental god as its all based on universal balance, no threat of hell (because we are already there) and it is one of the best constructs for social responsibility i have ever seen.

again, hindhuism is great until you are a woman, or worse, a girls who falls pregnant out of wedlock, or a member of a slave cast. hindhuism has a horribly mysogenistic and racist side, and thats where it all falls apart from me.

buddhism is another non religion - it is farther along the journey hindhuism is on, and has ditched its gods and almost made it out the other side to reason. almost. there are lots of good teachings which encourage the logical reasons for being a 'good' person. it has retained the concepts of karma and balance, but again is not great for the oppressed sectors of society, and it can be a surprisingly oppressive system. where buddhism really hits the ground is on metaphysics - the buddhist nature of reality, their concept of pleasure and suffering and reincarnation are to me needless wordplay and fluff which contribute little to society. and of course a quick look at the inter monasterial wars will reveal that buddhist monks can be staggeringly violent and larcenous, so where does that leave their teachings?

i feel compelled at this point to point out that the billionaire buddhists we now see emerging from hollywood and suchlike (like richard gere) are a joke and embarrasment to themselves and are hypocrytical to the extreme. they should mostly shut up and be idiots in private, because they are only buddhists because they can afford it...

ultimately all the faiths are the same to me- part of a defunct era in humanity from which we are in the process of emerging. i argue about christianity because its what i know best.

i should point out that my belief that god is internally generated by the brain should not be seen as an invalidation of religious belief or peoples right to carry it out. but the bottom line for me is that science has given us much that religion can never give us, and i am unconvinced that religion gives us anything even remotely as useful. we've had thousands of years of religion and a couple of hundred of science - which has given us more? its a no brainer for me.

the dominance of christianity is purely down to the fact that the catholic is the roman empire. same institution, rebranded. and the dominance of islam comes largely from resistance to catholic empirialism. nothing to do with content whatsoever. tribal history, nothing else. and it all has to go. lo.

Good post - Just like you I never have really considered Confucianism a religion. When I eat meals with some of my Chinese friends’ they always tell me that I am "too formal" and one told me that he does not follow Confucius. and it took me the longest time to figure out what the heck he was talking about.

If all religions were about respecting and loving one another and our planet, then there would be no problem, but so many religions seem to encourage, or condone, suffering of one kind or another.

well, religions profess to do the opposite. unfortunately they are human creations and can only reflect the core properties of their creator. and as a violent, oppressive bigoted and self interested species, humans can only create religions of that nature. sure there are minor cults which break this patter, just as there is a section of humanity which is downright lovable, but all of the major cults are equally flawed to me.

i had a conversation about this with a mate the other day, and he said what about the rastas. first of all, they are a rather minor cult, secondly they smoke weed by the pound, which is bound to help. then again they revere haili selassi, who claimed the divine right to rule through lineage from solomon and the queen of sheba, both mere legends. he also engaged in the usual in-fighting and competition supression that goes with royalty. he didn't abolish slavery until 20 years of promising to do so and then only when forced by obligation. you get the picture...

i suspect that if you think you have found a flawless faith, then you haven't looked hard enough.