Organized Religion: An utter waste of time

[Triple-T]

Heh. Just saw that this forum existed and felt like jumping into the fray. (Excellent naming Ian, congrats!)

I guess I have to direct this mostly towards 3 to be 4 and mgteich because you two seem to be right off the deep end.

Religion is not quite the "evil" that grogan or Sam Harris would make it out to be, but I can't imagine a bigger waste of time in the world.

Let me help you out here real quick.

There

Is

No

God

There is also no santa claus, no easter bunny, no ghosts, no goblins and no other such make believe. Also, if you really believe that folks who lived 2-5K years ago have a better understanding of the world we live in than the people of today, perhaps you have not been paying attention to any aspect of human history.

Seriously guys, get a life and stop playing around in the world of make believe. Maybe try pretending for a minute that you live on a planet with a bunch of other people that you should try to find a way to relate to, instead of finding ways to build barriers.

God bless!

er..um..

gesundheit

or please, just stop sneezing.

[3 to be 4]

Heh. Just saw that this forum existed and felt like jumping into the fray. (Excellent naming Ian, congrats!)

I guess I have to direct this mostly towards 3 to be 4 and mgteich because you two seem to be right off the deep end.

Religion is not quite the "evil" that grogan or Sam Harris would make it out to be, but I can't imagine a bigger waste of time in the world.

Let me help you out here real quick.

There

Is

No

God

There is also no santa claus, no easter bunny, no ghosts, no goblins and no other such make believe. Also, if you really believe that folks who lived 2-5K years ago have a better understanding of the world we live in than the people of today, perhaps you have not been paying attention to any aspect of human history.

Seriously guys, get a life and stop playing around in the world of make believe. Maybe try pretending for a minute that you live on a planet with a bunch of other people that you should try to find a way to relate to, instead of finding ways to build barriers.

God bless!

er..um..

gesundheit

or please, just stop sneezing.

Is that how you "relate" to people and "break down barriers"?

Your hostility reveals some insecurity behind your stance, im afraid. Try to be respectful, if not more open, to the possibility of something greater than yourself.

[Triple-T]

Is that how you "relate" to people and "break down barriers"?

Your hostility reveals some insecurity behind your stance, im afraid. Try to be respectful, if not more open, to the possibility of something greater than yourself.

Greater than me?

You've never met me, what makes you think there is something greater than me?

[3 to be 4]

Greater than me?

You've never met me, what makes you think there is something greater than me?

I know its hard to imagine such a thing.


I will leave you with one question.

What if you're wrong?

[Triple-T]

I know its hard to imagine such a thing.


I will leave you with one question.

What if you're wrong?

Seeing as there is nothing greater than I, how could I be wrong?

[mgteich]

I empathize people's problems with "organized" religion. However, I can only feel sorry for anyone who things there is nothing greater than themselves.

[GJAJ15]

Another person with a super infllated ego who writes inflammatory posts only to back them up with some very tired Ali rhetoric, welcome to the surreal world of Pats Fans.com.. will take bets on how long it takes for you to be banned.

[Triple-T]

Ok. Messaged received. Sarcasm and absurdity don't translate very well in written form. So, I'll step it back.

While it easiest to equate religion to a belief in a "supernatural" that is not always the case, but since the majority of religions are based around the supernatural, I'll use that as the basis of any debate.

As to the issue of something "greater", I'll take that to mean something more important than me and that is easy. Of course there are things that are far more important than me. Society as a whole is infinitely more important. Without it, I'd be nothing. But to contemplate that some being, either human or otherwise is more important, I find that hard to believe. Not to say that what I add to the world is more important than anyone else's contribution, but the entire concept of someone being more important does not fly.

Why should I ever have to look at myself as something less than someone else? What does that even mean? If I was compared to another individual (either human or otherwise) who is entitled to make the determination of who is more important? Could it ever even be an objective determination?

[wistahpatsfan]

I empathize people's problems with "organized" religion. However, I can only feel sorry for anyone who things there is nothing greater than themselves.
Things that are greater than me:

My family (well, most of them)
Support from friends
Scientists who work to help the world
Led Zeppelin

I believe there is no god or gods, much less a valid religion. No need to feel sorry for athiests. You need to look in the mirror and get a sense of humor so you can understand sarcasm. The condascending tone religious folks have towards athiests is second to none, as if not believing in an invisible being who is involved in every aspect of nature and punishes and rewards you like a parent would a child is some kind of mental illness.

[Fogbuster]

Seeing as there is nothing greater than I, how could I be wrong?



How do you "know" that?? Have you ever had a near-death experience? Do you know what happens after you pass on? What if there is a very orderly world of existence waiting for you, but you are not prepared? A world that someone of a higher order of existence created? It's a little late then, isn't it??

Just asking. All the best.

//

[maverick4]

Are you arguing about whether God/absolute values exist, or about the truth/usefulness of organized religion? They are two completely different discussions.

By the way, please explain to me how a society can function and how integrity can persist if everyone believes in no God? Seems to me everyone would get away with as much as they could under law, or without getting caught.

[mgteich]

well said.

Are you arguing about whether God/absolute values exist, or about the truth/usefulness of organized religion? They are two completely different discussions.

By the way, please explain to me how a society can function and how integrity can persist if everyone believes in no God? Seems to me everyone would get away with as much as they could under law, or without getting caught.

[PatsFanInVa]

Are you arguing about whether God/absolute values exist, or about the truth/usefulness of organized religion? They are two completely different discussions.

By the way, please explain to me how a society can function and how integrity can persist if everyone believes in no God? Seems to me everyone would get away with as much as they could under law, or without getting caught.

I disagree. Rigorous, and indeed draconian, law enforcement in the former Soviet Union kept crime quite frustrated; whereas a full-blown mafia emerged at the same time that the churches were again free to practice. This is still a single-case study, though it is better than saying "just look at [disgraced televangelist name here.] It didn't stop him."

The United States is one of the more religious countries in the industrialized world, yet we also boast one of the highest per capita incarceration rates.

Just as one can not argue that religion causes violence or war, since violence and war are not solely the products of religious wars or pogroms, one can not argue effectively that religion significantly curbs crime, at least not prima facie. By contrast, one can argue quite effectively that religion produces in believers a variety of attitudes and levels of hypocrisy, which are also present in the absence of religion. It is therefore likely that the attitudes and levels of hypocrisy (i.e., ability to act against one's own purported ethical or religious guideposts,) is a phenomenon reproduced among populations whether they are religious or not.

One can imagine an "ideal Christian," "ideal Moslem," "ideal Jew," etc., but these have nothing to do with the influence of religion on the society in question. What happens when a mass population professes these faiths is far more salient. We have only to look at Europe in the centuries leading up to this one, to give the lie to the platitude that religion curbs immorality (just as we need only look at Mao and Stalin to give the lie to the notion that religion is the root of all evil.)

PFnV

[Triple-T]

How do you "know" that?? Have you ever had a near-death experience? Do you know what happens after you pass on? What if there is a very orderly world of existence waiting for you, but you are not prepared? A world that someone of a higher order of existence created? It's a little late then, isn't it??

Just asking. All the best.

//

Honestly, I don't know that. Of course, I'm just like you and everyone else; no one knows what is past this world. (they may believe they know, but they don't.)

So, what if there is a heaven and a hell and a supreme being who will judge me? Am I going to be judged by my worship or lack thereof? Or will I be judged by my actions? I can say this, if I am going to be judged by some egomaniacal supreme being who is most concerned with my worship of it, then I hope I'm judged not worthy of being in it's presence.

What about those who find there is nothing past this world? What have they been doing with their time? Probably could have been better spent playing with their kids or working towards a better world.

And what if I'll be judged by my character? In that case, I think I'm in pretty good shape.

[Triple-T]

Are you arguing about whether God/absolute values exist, or about the truth/usefulness of organized religion? They are two completely different discussions.

By the way, please explain to me how a society can function and how integrity can persist if everyone believes in no God? Seems to me everyone would get away with as much as they could under law, or without getting caught.

PFnV pretty much nailed the response on how a society could function without an organized religion. (And may I add, well beyond how I would have articulated it.) But I'll add a little bit to his points. It is in my self interest to have a very robust and civil society. Why would it be in my interest to undermine it by exploiting any conceivable avenue within the law? That would be pretty irrational.

And to your first point, yes they are two separate matters. I'm talking about organized religion and not absolute truth, but I'm glad you bring it up. Whereas those participating in organized religion tend to already have a definition of absolute truth, I don't believe it is that easy. An absolute truth used to be that the sun orbited the earth and that there was nothing else in the universe. We now would laugh at such a suggestion. There are also those who to this day deny evolution. Someday, we will also laugh at them.

And that is just another reason that organized religion is an utter waste of time.

[SoonerPatriot]

Religion has its place in society and more often than not, it's a good thing. I'm not really here to debate the existence of a higher being. However here are a couple of issues I have with it.

1-For profit mega churches not being taxed, yet bringing in millions of dollars of revenue each year.

2-Churches that openly attempt to influence their congregations in the realm of politics. This is grounds for revocation of a chuch's tax exempt status yet is rarely if ever enforced.

3-Catholics who look at places like Africa where AIDS and rampant overpopulation are major issues yet oppose making birth control available on the continent. The height of stupidity IMO.

4-The disdain evangelical christians have for science. These people actually believe Jesus walked with the dinosaurs which is completely absurd.

5-Killing in the name of relgion. This applies to Muslims and Christians as both faiths have repeatedly gone down this road historically. There are fanatics in both faiths.

[BelichickFan]

Well I'm agnostic, not atheist, but I do basically believe that religion is a pathetic crutch for people to make it through hard times. Something bad happened ? Pray and it'll all get better. A loved one died ? That's OK they're in a better place.

I'll admit I don't know where we are or where exactly the universe is - or what it is. But the concept of God is kind of silly.

[maverick4]

I disagree. Rigorous, and indeed draconian, law enforcement in the former Soviet Union kept crime quite frustrated; whereas a full-blown mafia emerged at the same time that the churches were again free to practice. This is still a single-case study, though it is better than saying "just look at [disgraced televangelist name here.] It didn't stop him."


PFnV, I did not say a society of no organized religion. I said (or meant, anyway) a society where everyone believes in 'no God'. Again, the two separate discussions in this thread are belief in God/absolute values and organized religion.

Am curious to hear people's responses to a society where no one believes in God/absolute values (post-modernism). Under this kind of society, it would be in the best interest of the individual to appear to abide by laws and to be moral, while getting away with as much as possible under the radar. There would be no personal integrity, except in instances where you must appear to show it.

[Fixit]

PFnV, I did not say a society of no organized religion. I said (or meant, anyway) a society where everyone believes in 'no God'. Again, the two separate discussions in this thread are belief in God/absolute values and organized religion.

Am curious to hear people's responses to a society where no one believes in God/absolute values (post-modernism). Under this kind of society, it would be in the best interest of the individual to appear to abide by laws and to be moral, while getting away with as much as possible under the radar. There would be no personal integrity, except in instances where you must appear to show it.

This whole argument that religion keeps people in line more than laws do is silly. Within the law there are only consequences; within the context of religion is the concept of "absolution", which frees an individual from any accountability so long as they repent/pretend to repent and ask for forgiveness.

On any given Sunday, when you may walk into a church for services, you will be sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with philanderers, cheats, murderers, rapists, and drug abusers, just as in any other segment of society...only they, according to their belief system, are still entitled to a beautiful afterlife.

Personally, I'm much more afraid of going to prison than going to Hell.

Whether one is an atheist, devout, or somewhere in between doesn't dictate how they live and act when no one's looking. That's all a question of individual character, nothing more or less.

[maverick4]

Whether one is an atheist, devout, or somewhere in between doesn't dictate how they live and act when no one's looking. That's all a question of individual character, nothing more or less.

I feel individual character, especially integrity, comes from a fundamental belief in certain absolute values (call it God if you want). To believe in no God is to believe that everything is relative and justifiable.

Does anyone disagree?

[Fixit]

I feel individual character, especially integrity, comes from a fundamental belief in certain absolute values (call it God if you want). To believe in no God is to believe that everything is relative and justifiable.

Does anyone disagree?

Yeah...me and pretty much everyone else I consider family or friend.

With respect, the "absolute values" you refer to do not equate to God simply because you say that they do.

I don't know if there is a God, and when it comes to my time here, I don't care. I live the way I think I should live, the way that will make the most positive and lasting impact, whether it's holding a door at Dunkin' Donuts, stopping in the rain to change someone's tire, or putting myself at risk to help someone who needs it.

The religious tend to think that that it is their religion that makes them the person they are, because that is what they have been told since they were old enough to listen. I say they're selling themselves short.

Conversely, those who do what they want and constantly ask forgiveness, knowing that it will be granted, are the worst kind of people. For them, religion is the single worst thing that could have happened to them.

Regardless, the acceptance, rejection, or bare acknowledgment of God doesn't make the person. That's how you can have good people and bad people proclaiming the exact same faith, each as fervently as the other.

To believe in God means that everything here is relative and justifiable, not the other way around. To believe in no God, or to not care for what he may have to say, means that you live a life of real consequence under the belief that this is all there is.

[maverick4]

Yeah...me and pretty much everyone else I consider family or friend. With respect, the "absolute values" you refer to do not equate to God simply because you say that they do.


What I mean is, there are certain universal ideals espoused by most major religions (love your neighbor as yourself, do not steal, do not kill, etc), and these ideals are considered absolute values that are good even if you aren't religious.

If you throw out not just religion but also completely reject God, I contend you are also saying you do not believe in any universal values. Then, nothing is absolute, everything is relative. Can you please give me an explanation for why you would believe that values such as love or peace can be accepted by a society that is post-modern, if going against those values actually serves its best interests?

[Fixit]

If you throw out not just religion but also completely reject God, I contend you are also saying you do not believe in any universal values.

That's a fallacious argument.

Universal ideals such as love and peace were around before religion, and they will be around after the current crop of religions have expired...religions that, incidentally, have gone a long way to shatter those ideals to serve their own purposes.

Assuming we don't blow ourselves up first. :D

[maverick4]

It just doesn't make sense to me. How can someone reject a universal idea like God, but believe in something like love, or charity, or peace? And I'm not talking about acting loving, or charitable, or promoting peace when it serves your best interests and helps you out.

[Fixit]

It just doesn't make sense to me. How can someone reject a universal idea like God, but believe in something like love, or charity, or peace? And I'm not talking about acting loving, or charitable, or promoting peace when it serves your best interests and helps you out.

It doesn't have to make sense to you, but...

1) God is not a universal idea; the concept of gods is. God may or may not exist. That's all we know.

2) I know for a fact that love exists; I've felt it. I know that being charitable helps both the giver and the recipient. I know that peace is always preferable to war.

3) I don't know if God exists. To be honest, if he does, I don't particularly like Him. Judging by the books and the people who spread the Word, he's pretty much an a-hole.

4) Living a life geared to getting yourself to Heaven is the ultimate in selfishness; living a life geared towards making the world around you a little better with no thought of eternal reward shows real character.

[maverick4]

living a life geared towards making the world around you a little better with no thought of eternal reward shows real character.

I would say that people who believe in this do believe in God, or absolute goodness, and try to live that way during their lives. This kind of belief has nothing to do with eternal life afterwards espoused by religion.

[Fixit]

I would say that people who believe in this do believe in God, or absolute goodness...

Don't even get me started on this.

[maverick4]

Don't even get me started on this.

Ha. Well I am equating God with a belief in absolute goodness. That's what I meant by the difference between organized religion and a complete rejection of absolute values.

[Fixit]

Ha. Well I am equating God with a belief in absolute goodness. That's what I meant by the difference between organized religion and a complete rejection of absolute values.

But equating one to the another has no basis in reason. Maybe I equate the rejection of God with a belief in absolute goodness. See what I mean?

This discussion has gotten away from the original point: that is "organized religion." One can accept God and still believe that organized religion (read: other people telling them how they should think) is, in fact, a waste of time.

[maverick4]

But equating one to the another has no basis in reason. Maybe I equate the rejection of God with a belief in absolute goodness. See what I mean?

This discussion has gotten away from the original point: that is "organized religion." One can accept God and still believe that organized religion (read: other people telling them how they should think) is, in fact, a waste of time.

OK, we'll leave it at that. But I still think it's really unusual to completely reject a general belief in God while believing in values of absolute goodness (where is it based from and how do you justify it?).

[PatsFanInVa]

Interesting (psuedo-?)etymological note -

A sci-fi writer, and a horrible and incorrigible pun-merchant named Piers Anthony once observed that you can just spell it Go(o)d and (D)evil. Interesting, but perhaps irrelevant, if the English etymologies are not in fact thereby derived.

In any event, the note has only to do with a linguistic derivation among English-speakers, as opposed to any overarching truth.

Mav, I think you've broadened the definition of God to the point that religion is, indeed, the worst perpetrator of mass-murder in history, without question.

The devoted Communist or Nazi believes in an absolute good. Less threateningly (thus far,) a Utilitarian can serve the absolute good of "the greatest good for the greatest number," which in fact is hard to argue against, and may indeed underly all governmental thought. The worst ones simply believe in great evil in the service of this purported good.

I do not equate the Party with God, although they serve similar functions in their respective ideologies. The difficulty is that the premise is falling apart. "Doing whatever you want" because of a lack of absolutism has just not been shown to be morally inferior to "doing what obeys a concept of an Absolute Good."

This is not your fault. We have many examples of the perils of following an Absolute, but arguably no examples of a lack of same. Because of the very ubiquity of religious sentiment -- and for the sake of Absolute vs. Relative, we must include totalitarianism -- we have no real examples of its lack.

The fear of Relativism (Post-Modernism, in your formulation,) is alive and well. But there have been no societies based on Relativism. The U.S., for example, a haven of pluralism when at its best, takes the very notion of Liberal Democracy to be an absolute good; that people should be free, unless the government has a compelling interest to control them, is an absolute good; freedom to worship, for example, is an absolute good. But in the secular realm, no Ultimate Absolute which unites and unifies all subsidiary goods is postulated in the American ideology. This does not make the ideology without its absolutes.

Ask the most alienated, atheistic, black-beret wearing PoMo artist you can find, whether he believes freedom of expression is an Absolute Good.

PFnV

[maverick4]

An excellent post, I'll have to mull it over. But here's something to chew on:

Either absolute truth exists or absolute truth doesnt exist....If absolute truth sometimes exists... then it exists.
But, if absolute truth never exists, then the statement "absolute truth never exists" is always true, which means absolute truth exists.
Therefore, whether absolute truth exists or not, absolute truth exists....
Logical dilemma or paradox ?


I guess it's no sense to think about this, since we don't have an example of a society based on post-modernism, no real truth, and where everything is relative. I personally believe such a society has never existed because it wouldn't be sustainable.

I agree that religious dogma and believing in absolutes pertaining to ethnicity for example are disastrous, but I was referring to absolutes related to ethics, and whether they held up even in a rejection of a belief in a God.

Finally, I want to add that I strongly disagree with postmodern art. I think art that usually resorts to shock or destruction and doesn't even attempt to have meaning, is nothing but junk, but that's just me.

[wistahpatsfan]

An excellent post, I'll have to mull it over. But here's something to chew on:

Either absolute truth exists or absolute truth doesnt exist....If absolute truth sometimes exists... then it exists.
But, if absolute truth never exists, then the statement "absolute truth never exists" is always true, which means absolute truth exists.
Therefore, whether absolute truth exists or not, absolute truth exists....
Logical dilemma or paradox ?


I guess it's no sense to think about this, since we don't have an example of a society based on post-modernism, no real truth, and where everything is relative. I personally believe such a society has never existed because it wouldn't be sustainable.

I agree that religious dogma and believing in absolutes pertaining to ethnicity for example are disastrous, but I was referring to absolutes related to ethics, and whether they held up even in a rejection of a belief in a God.

Finally, I want to add that I strongly disagree with postmodern art. I think art that usually resorts to shock or destruction and doesn't even attempt to have meaning, is nothing but junk, but that's just me.
You AS-HOLES!
I was reading this thread and I thought I was gonna get some answers to the cosmic questions that have been bugging me lately. I got NOFIN"!
I'll take Norman Rockwell any day.

Good night!

[PatsFanInVa]

LOL Wistah. "When you can snatch the pebbles from my hand, grasshopper..." Oh never mind, I got nothin.

Mav, I think we're barking up a very aristotelian tree here, as in, "A or Not A" logic. This is pretty much the only way to get anywhere in 99% of endeavors, but I'm wondering if mysticism isn't going to end up being one's last bastion in any religious discussion. I don't mean mysticism pejoratively; I mean that if you take the Truth, try to stuff it into one brain, it doesn't fit, regardless of the nature of the Truth. But Mystics say you can have access to the Truth (God, Nirvana, etc.), but by direct experience rather than by speculative flights.

And now I gotta get to work. Damn ice storm never hit.

PFnV

[PatsFanInVa]

You AS-HOLES!
I was reading this thread and I thought I was gonna get some answers to the cosmic questions that have been bugging me lately. I got NOFIN"!
I'll take Norman Rockwell any day.

Good night!

But if you think about it, by Mav's argument, the fact you got NOFIN means you've just proven the existence of God. (As long as you don't mean you think you got nofin, or you got almost nofin', or you got nofin' relative to someone or something else but not in an absolute sense.)

So cheer up!

PFnV

PS, loosely translated, "I got NOFIN'" is what Socrates said is the beginning of wisdom.

[PatsFanInVa]

Okay. Because work let me go at 2, I am gonna wade right into this now, Maverick....

Right, I see where we're going, where the notion is "Absolute Truth," and we are working within the framework of logic -- which is a very good thing, in many ways -- and coming to the conclusion that any statement which posits anything can be either true or not true, and that in not being true, it is therefore false, and that, this being the case, we have proven absolute truth to exist. Now I also understand that we're doing this in the "logic capsule," i.e., in pure terminology, because if we get caught up in the details, we'll surely F up the underlying argument.

But I look as logic as limited, in the same way (for example) Newtonian physics is limited. Newton is fine from Virginia to Massachusetts, but if you're planning a trip to, say, Alpha Centauri, you really want Einstein involved (relativity vs. classical physics.) This is only to say that logic is most useful for many things, because it is a very satisfying model. In pragmatic terms, what we do is create and respond to models, or if you like, metaphors.

For example, if I say "bird", the word "bird" is not really the bird. We'll leave alone what is meant by "bird," in terms of the many kinds of bird that fit into "birdness." I mean only to specify that my term "bird" is not the bird itself. It is a metaphor for the thing itself, and when I describe these metaphors as interacting, the system is a model of the world, not the world itself.

These symbols, which we confuse with their real referents, are absolutely crucial to thought and language. The various categories, which consist of similarities we notice in or impose upon classes of metaphors (such as "songbirds," "verbs," or "habitable planets," create groupings of metaphors, which we can manipulate by assigning characteristics ("songbirds are usually under three pounds in weight,") or making predictions regarding their nature ("A habitable planet will become uninhabitable whenever it drifts 100,000 miles closer to the star it orbits.") When we have established enough such rules, sets, and characteristics, we say we know something... and in effect, we do. We know the results of actions we can undertake by accumulating and manipulating these symbols of our world. But we really know about our world. We know collections of symbols and operations.

So the mystic says, "see here. The symbol of the bird is not the thing in itself. One can only experience it by experiencing it; and even then, one only knows one moment's experience of birdness from one vantage point." Some add that all these vantage points are in fact illusory, while others claim they are all that matter. But not to get too deep in the weeds (or we'll never come out,) the point I am making here, is that the manipulations of the symbols derived from the world -- empirical data, such as the rate at which objects fall -- is the only kind of knowledge we can create via science. The "suchness" of the world -- the direct experience -- is left to poets and mystics. It may indeed be this "suchness of all that exists" that one can look at as the Divine -- although in the West we tend to insist the Divine think and act rather anthropomophically.

Perhaps this "All" is in some way conscious; perhaps God is creation, and "creation" as we think of it, is the result of conscious and cut-off minds experiencing separate vantage points of the "great thought." Perhaps, God is a verb.

By the way, I am convinced that no word precisely represents the thought it is meant to, and that in any event, any thought smaller than the All is illusory (but the best we can do, given the world as we experience it.) In that way, anything we say to one another is a lie. But these are good lies; they are the little, divided-off truths that make life worth living.

Or, as a far brighter light than I once put it,

"It is what it is."

PFnV

[wistahpatsfan]

But if you think about it, by Mav's argument, the fact you got NOFIN means you've just proven the existence of God. (As long as you don't mean you think you got nofin, or you got almost nofin', or you got nofin' relative to someone or something else but not in an absolute sense.)

So cheer up!

PFnV

PS, loosely translated, "I got NOFIN'" is what Socrates said is the beginning of wisdom.Aristotle my arse!
He stole that line from Billy Preston.
"Nofin from nofin leaves nofin"....

[QuiGon]

While it easiest to equate religion to a belief in a "supernatural" that is not always the case, but since the majority of religions are based around the supernatural, I'll use that as the basis of any debate. Well, considering you

A) Don't understand what the majority of religions teach
B) Don't understand the proper usage of the word "supernatural" or
C) All of the above

then it is unfortunate that the basis of your contention revolves around that word.

[maverick4]

PFnV, I agree with your statements about logic as well as the limitedness of words/concepts, which is why I do not see how an individual can completely reject all concepts of God.

[PatsFanInVa]

PFnV, I agree with your statements about logic as well as the limitedness of words/concepts, which is why I do not see how an individual can completely reject all concepts of God.

I think we're having a heated agreement.

[maverick4]

I think we're having a heated agreement.

Me too, errr.. haha

Back to the thread, I don't agree with some people here who bash organized religion, and in the same breath completely reject any concepts of God. They are two different debates.

[Triple-T]

Well, considering you

A) Don't understand what the majority of religions teach
B) Don't understand the proper usage of the word "supernatural" or
C) All of the above

then it is unfortunate that the basis of your contention revolves around that word.

Hmmm...interesting. So let's start with a definition.

http://www.answers.com/supernatural&r=67

su·per·nat·u·ral (sū'pər-năch'ər-əl)
adjective

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

noun

That which is supernatural.



Are you saying most religions do not teach that there are deities and miracles and powers that seem to go beyond natural forces? If that is the case, then you are absolutely right, I have no idea what most religions teach. And MAN, I think they are doing a great job at confusing most people. Seems almost like...what are the words I'm looking for here...an utter waste of time.

[Triple-T]

Me too, errr.. haha

Back to the thread, I don't agree with some people here who bash organized religion, and in the same breath completely reject any concepts of God. They are two different debates.

Well, you could look at them as two different debates, but they are most certainly intertwined. Isn't the purpose of most organized religions the furtherance of their concept of god? I don't get the sense that catholics, baptists, hindus or muslims are debating concepts of god, they are espousing their version of god. Do you disagree?

So, if you want to debate concepts of god, wouldn't you need to be outside of an organized religion to do so?

[maverick4]

So, if you want to debate concepts of god, wouldn't you need to be outside of an organized religion to do so?

This is possible.

[Harry Boy]

Believing in God is all that some people have, it gives them hope, it helps them survive a tragic death of a child, it gives them something to look forward too at the end of the line, there are billions of people who are not "Bible Thumping Fire And Brimstone Maniacs" they are quiet believing people who try to live decent lives and depend on their belief of a God to help them get through life.
God Bless Them.

I believe but Organized Religion and their obsession with Money turn me off, I believe in my own private way.

If you don't believe, so be it.
:bricks:

[PatsFanInVa]

Believing in God is all that some people have, it gives them hope, it helps them survive a tragic death of a child, it gives them something to look forward too at the end of the line, there are billions of people who are not "Bible Thumping Fire And Brimstone Maniacs" they are quiet believing people who try to live decent lives and depend on their belief of a God to help them get through life.
God Bless Them.

I believe but Organized Religion and their obsession with Money turn me off, I believe in my own private way.

If you don't believe, so be it.
:bricks:

Harry, that is probably the best post I've ever seen you do. I agree 100%... and God is that antropomorphised old guy in the sky, looking down, smiling at this, frowning at that, I truly believe he smiles when you go about your business and do the right thing, more than when you preach. ("you" meaning "one.")

PFnV

[wistahpatsfan]

Believing in God is all that some people have, it gives them hope, it helps them survive a tragic death of a child, it gives them something to look forward too at the end of the line, there are billions of people who are not "Bible Thumping Fire And Brimstone Maniacs" they are quiet believing people who try to live decent lives and depend on their belief of a God to help them get through life.
God Bless Them.

I believe but Organized Religion and their obsession with Money turn me off, I believe in my own private way.

If you don't believe, so be it.
:bricks:
Great post and very well said, Boy.