What is your personal religious ideology

I see it more that our religions are a pretty much immutable fact of human existence. Humans want religion. In my view, humans wanted religion so badly that they created religions - over and over and over again throughout human history.

So, I see the phenomenon of religion as worth studying. It's just that this examination isn't about whether there is any truth to any religion.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that Christianity in America is doing a HUGELY crappy job of teaching the application of their religion.

How can Billy Graham lobby Nixon to bomb the agriculture of the farmers of North Vietnam in order to cause their economic system to collapse? He's directly advocating starving humans working their fields, trying to survive.

How can Christians lobby to make healthcare harder to come by for people who work for low wages?

How can Christians support the many aspects unequal treatment in our system or to fail to come to the aid of those who lose jobs due to the normal operation of capitalism or who have other downturns?

How can Christianity challenge what we have learned about how this universe works? We have a president who has stupendously failed on COVID by promoting an anti-science that is deeply seated in Christian America and agreed by religious politicians. We have a foreign policy that clearly suggests little to no commitment to our principles of the rule of law, of standing by our word, of promoting humanitarianism - a stance that is hard to square with religion.

There is NO way to turn the Christian new testament into support for right wing policy today.

This is a gigantic gap between religion and how religion is applied.

I think that is a real issue - one that can't be solved by ignoring religion.

 

Well put.

Religions are here to stay in some form or another. They serve a tribal need for security.

Atheist religions and those religions that put man above god will win out.

The secular have already won and a Laïcité form of governance leads the future.

The hard part is having the masses know of this and demand reforms.

Regards
DL

 

??

What is Armageddon?

Think my way or die is fascist thinking and that is what the mainstream religions are.

The bible reflects the majority of us.

Regards
DL

 

If "no one can know" how can you know?

 

I'm a Devout Agnostic

 

I would say that an atheist is someone who doesn't hold a belief in the existence of any deity.

In my view, the existence of a deity is not currently knowable - and is most probably NEVER knowable.

The Christian bible holds that the existence of god must be accepted by faith alone. I don't accept the notion that those things that can only be taken on faith could be considered knowable.

So, I think there are large numbers of individuals who claim knowledge that they simply don't have.

Humans do that a LOT and it certainly isn't limited to religion.

 

That's deep, like a koan, to contemplate. It's also very true, which is why, no matter how unlikely one's theological or philosophical famework may appear to me, I try to remind myself that I don't have the answers &, though probably none of us do, hey, maybe someone got lucky.

It reminds me of that million-monkey idea, though I'd heard it originally in a simplified version w/ only one chimpanzee typing (theoretically) for a million years &, at some point, producing a perfect copy of War and Peace. That's the part of the equation that fools people, thinking that there is a sort of, "expected arrival date." Since one cannot guess in advance which keys will be pressed, nor can one know when, w/in that time frame, the chimp would, by chance, perform his amazing feat. "But," asked the friend who introduced me to this thought-game, "wouldn't it be freaky, if he did it on the first day?"

 

at least before the age of 60

Its already been shown that deities can be material as well as spiritual

material deities certainly are known

What gives you the authority to judge what is considered 'knowledge'?

 

The idea of "material deities" doesn't rise above being a figure of speech.

There are people who get accused of worshipping wealth. That doesn't make wealth a deity.

There are new age beliefs that involve crystals. That doesn't make crystals deities.

 

I think religions refer to things like wealth-worshipping as an idol not a deity.

 

"A deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred."
Maybe what they are calling a "god" is not a "being" at all.
Perhaps that is why religions have never quite got it right.
Maybe what they are referring to as "something" is really no "thing" at all.

 

Exactly.

So, I don't know what could be meant when that other poser referred to a "mateial deity".

 

Tap tap, tap tap ttap.

I, 1 monkey, squawks.

Regards
DL

 

On defining gods and deities and whatever.

Keep it broad or you get bogged down.

This author expresses well, the though that we all hold something at the top of our wish list gods.



Regards
DL

 

The Jews wrote; God condenmed it as sin, so you want to try and sell us on some hypothesis that God is condemning figures of speech to be a sin? seriously?

Ah yes the false god: money

For them it does, you cant pound their round peg in your square hole and expect to come out of it with a reasonable answer.

Yes raised to the same status as God.

Everything that exists is a being.
we have a thread that deals with exactly that http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/omg-you-become-what-you-worship.578153/
no need to repeat it all here.

Very simply, its material placed and seen on the same status as one would hold G/god, hence we cant tell the difference, there is no substantial distinction. These are false gods, otherwise known as idols, the God of the bible condemns false gods as sin.

Idolatry is the worship of an idol or cult image, being a physical image, such as a statue, or a person in place of God.[1][2][3] In Abrahamic religions, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam, idolatry connotes the worship of something or someone other than God as if it were God. In these monotheistic religions, idolatry has been considered as the "worship of false gods" and is forbidden by the values such as the Ten Commandments.

Maybe you should 'readmore' before you start calling people posers, otherwise look in the mirror might help as well.

 

Could you explain what you mean a bit more? Not all religions believe in a physical, much less a corporeal, "being," for instance. The primary attributes usually involve consciousness, that their god has an awareness of the worshippers existence, & agency, i.e., that It can affect things (usually, which are of benefit to the worshippers). But even these 2 have not been hard & fast rules: there are religions that believe that God has no interest in keeping tabs on us, Its creation, as well as, in a modern form of Pantheism, those who, "worship," the universe itself (or the idea of it) w/o believing it has the capacity for any reciprocation, in either feeling or action.

So, it seems to me, w/ the vastly divergent panoply of belief-systems, the bases of both, "being," &, "non-being," have been covered. You know me, gabmux, I appreciate a more precise definition of terms.

 

On a separate track from my prior response-- let's call this discussion, "B"-- there are religions that don't have, "gods," in the traditional sense, at all. For them, their gods are ideals & their associated codes of behavior. Though philosophies, they are also considered religions, as in the case of Confucism & Unitarian Universalism. Both of these, in very different ways, focus on the individual's relationship w/ society as a whole: the human, connective web-- (consequently, if your post was meant to suggest a [Secular] Humanist alternative, it's already covered under the umbrella of, "religion").

But perhaps that was not your intent at all, & I can think of other directions in which to take this conversation; all the more reason why well-defining your terms, up-front, leads to not only less misunderstanding but more productive discourse, down the road.

 

This seems like an impossible argument to have using only vague allusions to behaviors that are then put in very generalized, loosely-defined, conceptual categories, such as, "good/bad," &, "right/wrong." Am I not being concrete enough in my argument? Then let's go to the very helpful aid of illustrative examples (which I highly recommend-- hint, hint).

I heard an interview w/ a person who'd written a how-to guide for poachers, i.e., about catching animals w/o hunting. The author said that w/ a box, a jar of peanut butter, & 1 or 2 other things, one could construct a simple but productive chipmunk trap. The reason, she said, it was so productive, was that once a single chipmunk got stuck in the trap, it would chirp out in distress to the other c.m.s in its extended-family group, all of which would ultimately arrive to help.

But the first on the scene would get stuck, trying to help the original trapee, in its peanut butter tar-pit. Then the next would get stuck trying to help the 1st 2, and so on. And regardless of how many were already stuck in the box, the other members of their clan would continue to risk their own lives in order to save their companions. Eventually you'd fill the box w/ the whole group (she estimated 5 or 6 chipmunks). Does this qualify as, "good," behavior on the part of the chipmunks? And, "moral?" What about the actions of the trap-maker? Hopefully, I'm making my point which, in part, is disputing gabmux's contention-- sorry, buddy-- that these moral concepts of, "right-wrong...good-bad...him or me, must first be introduced before that awareness is possible." Though it's true, one might make the argument that this allegiance to one's chip-'family' is an instinctual behavior & therefore the word, "moral," would not apply. How good an argument that would be would depend on just what was the proposition, exactly, one was trying to argue for, or against. Also, if that proposition had anything to do with morals, the mutually-accepted definition of that word would be of primary importance. To otherwise just use these words according to one's own idea of them, when it is well-established that there is no universally-accepted code of morality, would seem to me, to be pointless.

 

I think the question was more about the relationship of morality and religion, wasn't it?

Greek philosophers emerged 600 years BC. There were religions at that time, but I don't see significant evidence that they defined the work of these early thinkers.

I don't see your post as expressing a reason to discount the golden rule as stated in the post you responded to.

 

Hmmm...

 

@gabmux ; @FreshAir .

You have mistaken my intention, Will Readmore (why am I not surprised?). My reply was to the part of the conversation which I read; that particular part was indicated by the 2 quotes at the head of my reply. Even had I read the entire conversation which-- taking your word for it-- was centered upon, "do unto others..." my reply would not be addressing the Golden Rule, per se. My post was suggesting that to come to an agreement on anything of this sort, one cannot rely on using a word like, "moral," based on one's personal definition, & assume that others in the conversation will define the term in precisely the same way.

The exact disagreement to which I replied is a good case in point. FreshAir contended that, "morals do not require religion...if it feels right to them...if it feels wrong to them..." Gabmux responded that, "the idea of 'right-wrong'...'good-bad'...must 1st be introduced before that awareness is possible..." Which person's opinion is, "right," in this particular exchange-- regardless of the larger subject of the conversation-- depends upon the exact definition of, "moral." That is, the reason for their disagreement seems to be that the two speakers have different understandings of what defines something as, "moral."

For gabmux, from that one post, the concept seems to presuppose a formal, ethical CODE, to which one must be, "introduced," that is, taught. To FreshAir, a sentient being CAN comprehend the concept that, for instance, hurting one of its siblings is a, "bad," thing to do, just based on the way it, "feels," to it; suggesting, to me, that the only prerequisite for the being in question is that it has the ability to empathize. If the two had agreed on what moral behavior entailed, it should be a simple matter, using that definition, to say who's argument was correct.

Even if FreshAir & gabmux were unable to come to mutual agreement on this idea of what makes something, "moral," they would, at least, be seeing the other's, contrasting perspective. And, provided these two are open-minded (which I suspect is the case), this would be a much more interesting & profitable discussion than speaking past each other, as they were in my original reply's quotes, essentially talking in two different languages.

(P.S.-- You needn't reply, Will Readmore, to tell me that my argument is, "denying science;" I am taking that reaction of yours, from experience, as a given.)

 

Surely there is not "one argument that is correct".

In fact, I think that's the point. We have people arguing that religion can be the only foundation, right? Yet, we have those who can point to other sources. Philosophy is a large and storied field of study.

I think this got exacerbated when it was suggested that anyone who makes such decisions without religion is merely attempting to justify actions that are purely self gratifying.

 

As I have said, I had not been following the entire conversation but, if it did happen as you describe in your final paragraph, that would clearly be an inflammatory method of expressing one's opinion, & not a thoughtful way of hoping to have a discussion; & naturally, the same would be true of an, "unreligious," person telling an adherent to some institutionalized faith that they were only deferring to the religion's judgements out of laziness, for example.

I don't think that the mere fact that we see these things so differently, however, is (as you said in your 2nd paragraph), "the point," of a conversation about something which would include participants who would presumably possess a range of philosophical/theological views (since this point needs no further proof of its veracity). The point of that conversation, I would think, would be to give people the opportunity of gaining some insight into others' ways of perceiving things. But this is not the way the discussion came across to me, because it felt as if something were being CONTESTED, not that each party were merely saying, "I see it this way.../To me, what's important.../In my opinion..." and so forth. Perhaps I misread this, or it seemed as it did because I had not read the discussion in its entirety; however, if extending my familiarity with the preceding course of the conversation would have resulted in my seeing people acting as if they were clearly on one SIDE, telling their OPPONENTS, en masse, "anyone who makes such decisions without religion is merely attempting to justify actions that are purely self gratifying," as YOU STATE THEY DID, I doubt it would have seemed more collegial in tone, such that no one was trying to win an argument as your initial statement, "Surely there is not, 'one argument that is correct'," suggests.

So: 1) kudos on finding a way, as is your wont, of misrepresenting my words; I was not suggesting that only one point of view was, "correct." I was speaking in terms of 2 people debating some topic, in which the goal is always to, through logic & evidence, win the argument.
Speaking of which, 2) Your very description of the conversation (paragraph 3) shows that the tenor of the discussion WAS more COMBATIVE, than being carried on in a cooperative, inclusive, accepting-of-all viewpoints manner. Thereby making your first sentence either wrong (from the perspective of two sides in a debate-- yes, in that situation, there's always only 1 side that is considered, "right;" don't blame me, I think these rules of debate, which are put into practice in our systems of LAW, & POLITICS, are contributory to the discord in our society)-- or else, it contradicted your later recounting of the, "exacerbating," remarks directed at one side from the other. As to whether you could-- or can even now-- grasp the contradiction in those two parts of your, not lengthy, reply, I cannot say. Perhaps your thinking is customarily muddy in this way. Or perhaps you were more preoccupied w/ trying to deprecate my comments, than paying attention to the cohesion of your own reply. No matter. I am quite sure you will contend there is no contradiction. I'm not interested. I only pointed it out for the more perceptive readers.

Yours truly, DEFinning.

 

I'm fine with people seeing their religion as having moral and ethical principles that we should follow. There are many philosophies.

What was going on and what I object to is the bald faced claim that such is impossible OUTSIDE of religion - and perhaps outside of one specific branch of the Abrahamic faiths, for that matter.

I get told this about every other day, and I'll admit to being fairly direct about that at this point.

When people tell me that the ONLY possible morality that I as an atheist can muster is full on self justification for what feels good, I will absolutely object.

 

And who could blame you for objecting? But my question is, why do you allow their ignorance to bother you as much as it I'm getting the impression that it does? Especially considering, to be told this EVERY OTHER DAY, you must go seek it out!

I used to work with a guy who was whole- hog into his faith. I mean, a guy in his 20's who spent Saturday nights at church for adoration of the Eucharistic Host (the priest opens the golden doors so you can look at the host inside it's little church-home). Well, he'd asked me about, & I'd tried to explain to him, my beliefs. So one day we arrive at a client's residence who it seems was in the same Church w/ my co-worker, Mike. The first thing, upon his introducing me, she wants to know from Mike where I stand in relation to them (I don't know whether this was a precursor to potential proselytization, or if she just wanted to feel comfortable speaking freely). The point is, though I was in no church, & had a very personalized, unique, set of beliefs, Mike was able to sum me up, in their minds, with some short, very technical-sounding phrase, upon the hearing of which, they exchanged a meaningful glance & she gave him a subtle nod of acknowledgement. I found it interesting, in its bizarre way.

But that is what these people who get under your skin are doing, just putting you in a box, though they don't know or understand you or your perspective, & don't want to. Their fear of your corrupting influence or, even, their antagonism towards you, is merely a programmed response from their religious, "instruction." At that point, it's as if they are reading a script, & their ability for independent reasoning is seriously compromised.

Of course, I'm only going by my impression of your description of the situation; but to tell someone, who you are not well-acquainted with, no less, that they are immoral, sounds a bit hostile to me. And if they are a Christian, they're being not only judgemental, but hypocritical: Christ said, "Judge (others) not, lest you be judged." Under those circumstances, what good could reasonably be expected to come from prolonging the encounter?