This was essentially the Devil's advocate argument I presented to you, about religion. If we are a naturally-violent species, perhaps anything can, "inspire," or be invoked as a pretext & justification for it. I know this is a bit grand of a suggestion, but that is only because yours was a bit broad of a thesis. If the problem lies in humans' perversion of religious concepts, it seems unrealistic to think that simply removing religion would solve the problem; we will simply pervert whatever remains, and which serves to fill the void left, in religions' absence. Does this not make sense? Is there really any way to prevent, at this point, people from claiming that they are doing, "God's work," with or without an actual church? And from a pragmatic standpoint, of course, this idea of abolishing religion is moot on arrival.
Stewardship. A sense of belonging to like minded people. Rules to live by that can make the believers try to live a wholesome life. It goes awry often when a religion wants to force their beliefs on others.
Dennis. I recommend the following book for you as something you might enjoy reading. https://www.amazon.com/After-Absolu...d=1&keywords=david+gold&qid=1622429234&sr=8-1
hey, finally we have something to agree on too as long as it's peaceful and doesn't become fanatical and try to force beliefs on others.... it can be good for many imo
I really know nothing about the Sunday Assembly, & the links didn't much help. In order to have a group religious/spiritual experience, those in the group need to share, I think, some fundamental beliefs. Just what this entails, depends on the practice. It could be as simple, in a drum circle, as all believing that the drum rhythms hold the power to spiritually unite them, or to call forth some spiritual forces, etc. Unfortunately, just all of us being human, appears not to be enough. The second requirement, for a potent experience, is a focusing of intention which, of course, is nearly impossible to achieve if it does not proceed from the grounding of common belief. For this thread (@gabmux), I think a better example than atheist church, would be church based on a belief in the bonds of our shared humanity. This is represented, today, by the secular, but not specifically atheist, church of Unitarian Universalists. I have no experience in order to comment on their services; because each congregation is independent, I would imagine there to be a wider range of practices than one would normally find in other faiths. The big plus of this path, vis a vis the OP, is that its foundational beliefs should disincline adherents towards violence directed at other people, since even followers of different faiths represent, within their own being, an image of what I take to be, that which U.U. believers hold most sacred: humanity. For this same reason, it might be logical to expect not only less harm, but more kindness projected, to those outside of their faith (and to each other). Then again, Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbors as themselves, and we've seen where that has gotten us. The less-specific ideology leads me to expect the spiritual force of the service might also feel watered-down, but as I said, that would probably vary by congregation. The determining factor would likely be the strength of the connection one felt, within the given congregation. This brings us back to the heart of the matter, when it comes to religion: we all have different natures and, just as our tastes in music vary, so are the directions diverse, in which we are drawn, in order to satisfy our spiritual cravings. <Snip, from UUA> (The 7 principles) As Rev. Barbara Wells ten Hove explains, “The Principles are not dogma or doctrine, but rather a guide for those of us who choose to join and participate in Unitarian Universalist religious communities.” 1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person; 2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; 3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; 4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; 5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; 6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; 7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. The seven Principles and six Sources of the Unitarian Universalist Association grew out of the grassroots of our communities, were affirmed democratically, and are part of who we are. https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles
Yep...and IMO, those such as Jesus and Buddha had such experiences.... and wished to pass on what they had learned. The Buddhists seem to have carried on the true teachings.... Christians make them up as they go along. Here's a recent example.... Armed with AR-15s, the Unification movement ‘expands God’s Kingdom’ to a Texas town https://www.yahoo.com/news/armed-ar-15s-unification-movement-162748235.html
I hear you...what concerns me is the fact that the same so called "religion" that one might seek for comfort...is the exact same "religion" that the perpetrators causing such afflictions claim to be following
wow, that is just weird, the other weird Christian sect was the snake one where they handled poisonous snakes "Snake-Handling Pentecostal Pastor Dies From Snake Bite" https://abcnews.go.com/US/snake-handling-pentecostal-pastor-dies-snake-bite/story?id=22551754 "These pastors believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.""
I don't really think it is about competing beliefs....maybe more about mis-beliefs? "There has only ever been one spiritual teaching."
Thanks for reply....Actually I welcome the diversity of views and I don't mind the side conversations going on at all... I can usually learn something....even from opinions I might see as worthless at the time. I don't see any solutions for the current situations in the world... by I have noticed that Christians, Muslims, etc.... are not the answer.
But without their "religions"....would they still claim....they are doing, "God's work," Example...Christians like to back up their opinions on things such as abortion as "the will of God". What if they did not have their religion to hide behind....would they be more honest I never suggested "abolishing religion"...I'm stating that it serves no useful purpose.... Attempting to abolish something would probably only make it more attractive to some.
Okay...but doesn't the local pub do that even better People quickly tire of rules...it is one of the most common human traits... Unfortunately....that is usually what happens to children
1) no - the local pub does not do it better - nor are the folks necessarily like minded 2) So you are arguing for "No Rules" ? - that doesn't fly as mark against religion - unless you are seriously arguing for "No Rules" 3) Children are not Adults - - leave it at that.
Personally I couldn't separate myself from my religion. It is central to my core, my heart and conscience. To bury it would be to bury myself. I like it that way. I like Gods nearness. I love God because he loved me first when I didn't deserve it, but rather deserved destruction. How could I separate myself from that? Why would I? You don't know how much kindness is done in the world because of religion, or how many faithful prayers have blessed the lives of others. We also don't know but that every act of kindness on the face of the earth springs from Gods dormancy within mankind....no trumpets, lectures or exhortations...only quiet acts. Religion is in many ways how one lives. Granted much evil is done relative to religion. But it most likely would be done anyway. Lust, envy, covetousness, pride, vengefulness, etc....the whole world is sown with it. But we are all, from childhood onward, called to hope and industry.
For some. Not everyone wants to drink. Pubs can get some unruly people. Have we grown tired of the rule not to kill other people? Children often go awry? Link?
Then I confess, I misunderstood your point. If you view religion as merely useless, not actually harmful, then there seems no reason to so focus on it. I think you are trying, a bit, to have it both ways; for example: It certainly sounds as if you are casting a good part of the blame on religion. Your mistake, I think, is to believe that without a religion to tell us it is so, we would not still see human life as something sacred. That is, that people for whom the terminating of a pregnancy seems a murder, would no longer find it abhorrent, if their religion was not telling them to think this way. Would, then, murder no longer be seen as a crime? My point is that you are putting the cart before the horse: humans decided murder was wrong & must be forbidden, & hence it became religiously enshrined. The ten commandments, scholars date to between the 16th & 13th centuries, BC. The code of Hammurabi not only predates them by at least 150 yrs. (c. 1750 BC, i.e., 18th century BC), but shows that Murder was ALREADY a crime, since the Code only has this to say, on the subject: "If a man brings an accusation against another man, charging him with murder, but cannot prove it, the accuser shall be put to death." Clearly, murder already was treated as illegal, & in a very serious way, a "sin." No specific religion-- even if religions, of course, did exist-- was required, for that to be so. I feel that religions only reinforced this principle. Likewise, I believe humans, deprived of religion, would not be without an inner sense of right & wrong; in fact, haven't you, elsewhere, made the case that this is innate? Nor do I think that our sense of there being some larger unseen force, or Spirit, overarching life, would vanish, in the absence of institutional religion. So some people would still find abortion to be uncontemplatable, and intolerable; and they would still decry it as wrong, as, "against Nature," and against any other names they might use to refer to God. They just would not use the name Yaweh (which most, now, do not, either). Would a God, by any other name, not be as vengeful? What if they come from within us?
Early theorists in psychology mainly took the approach that babies are born without any sense of morality and have to learn it as they get older. We now know that although a fully developed sense of morality does not emerge until adolescence or later, babies already show signs of a rudimentary moral compass. Are babies born with a sense of right and wrong? - BBC Science ...
Totally agree with this, to abolish all religion would require whitewashing beliefs from the brains of everyone on the planet.
I've known about this for a while. The researchers you mention are actually coming late, to the party, though I've very glad to see some company join the true ground-breakers at Yale's Baby Lab, Paul Bloom, & his wife, Karen Wynn. These two deserve a Nobel. https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/living/what-babies-know-anderson-cooper-parents/index.html <SNIP> Researcher: Babies born as "little bigots, eagerly dividing the world into 'us versus them' " According to researchers at Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center, also known as “The Baby Lab,” babies can actually tell good from evil, even as young as 3 months old...It certainly runs counter to our notion that children are born as blank slates and learn right from wrong entirely from us. But the research paints a different picture. Puppets are used to demonstrate good and bad behavior. In one case, a puppet is struggling to open a box. Another puppet, the “good” puppet, helps it open the box, while another, the “bad” puppet, slams the box shut. More than 80% of the times that experiment is conducted, babies will select the “good” puppet when presented with both puppets and given the chance to choose either one. “Humans are born with a hard-wired morality, a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone,” wrote Paul Bloom, Yale’s Brooks and Suzanne Ragen professor of psychology, in an opinion piece for CNN.com. Bloom, author of the new book “Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil,” collaborated on the research with his wife, Karen Wynn, a professor of psychology at Yale University.
@gabmux , @Kokomojojo , cont'd from post immediately above: <SNIP> (CNN) — As someone who studies the morality of babies, I am sometimes asked “Are we naturally good or naturally evil?” My answer is yes... There is a universal urge to help those in need and to punish wrongdoers and there are universal emotional responses that revolve around morality—anger when we are wronged, pride when we do the right thing and guilt when we transgress. In “Just Babies,” I argue that much of this is the product of biological evolution. Humans are born with a hard-wired morality, a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it’s supported now by research in several laboratories. Babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others’ actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel compassion, guilt and righteous anger. In my own research at Yale, done in collaboration with my colleague (and wife), Karen Wynn, we show babies one-act plays—puppets shows in which one puppet acts kindly toward a character (helping it up a hill, or opening a box for it, or passing it a ball) and the other puppet acts in a cruel way (pushing it down a hill, or slamming the box shut, or stealing the ball). Babies can’t speak, but we can learn about their judgments and preferences from their behavior—where they look, what they reach for, and, for older babies, who they will give a treat to and who they will take a treat from. We find that even 3-month-olds prefer the good guy to the bad guy, and that older babies and toddlers will reward the good guy and punish the bad guy. Babies also prefer other characters that do the same; they prefer a just puppet who rewards the good and punishes the bad over an unjust puppet who does the opposite. The existence of a universal moral sense is the good news. But we are, as the anthropologist Robert Ardrey put it, risen apes, not fallen angels. Our brains are the products of natural selection and so one would expect our innate morality to have certain limits. Indeed, studies find that babies start off as little bigots, eagerly dividing the world into us versus them and strongly favoring their own group over everyone else. Although the baby’s capacity for moral judgment applies broadly, when it comes to kindness and compassion, we start off indifferent—or worse—toward strangers. The biologist Richard Dawkins was right, then, when he said at the start of “The Selfish Gene,” “Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly toward a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.” Or, as a character in a Kingsley Amis novel put it: “It was no wonder that people were so horrible when they started life as children.” <END SNIP> As I, myself, like to say, children are not simply small adults; many adults, however, are just overgrown children. https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/opinion/bloom-babies-right-wrong/
Again...those are not my ideas...they are yours. I'll try again... When Christians express opinions against abortion or gays...they say it is not God's will or something against God...or however you wish to word it. Why not just admit to their own biased preferences and leave God out of it. That's what I meant by being more honest. They seem to think their religion makes their opinions righteous.... when they are still just opinions like any others
