Is Religion Humans most beautiful aspect?

what about this:
American Red Cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




It certainly is asserting some crazy philosophy that we ought to help other people. Is that not stupid, or what? Why should normal people provide assistance to anyone at all? Is that not dogma?

But religions have always integrated the world and are still holding us together. There is still harmony in human society and in fact religions have great roles in shaping all of us.

Religion is a great human invention and imagine if there was no religion in the world. I do not mean religion is not smeared with bloods. Yes there were bloodbaths and atrocities. We know how Hitler took religion to massacre millions; we know the twin towers were hit out of religious fundamentalism. There still people fight for their religions. Even with all these great issues there are some elements in religions that integrate us into one organic whole.

Yes few of us, thinkers, philosophers or men of letters all may use our logic or our empirical ideas against religious beliefs. But religions have always integrated the world and are still holding us together. There is still harmony in human society and in fact religions have great roles in shaping all of us.

..now tell me when does the red cross exhibit these flaws.

It certainly is asserting some crazy philosophy that we ought to help other people. Is that not stupid, or what? Why should normal people provide assistance to anyone at all? Is that not dogma?

It divides us more than it unites us and its dogmatic beliefs still kill thousands every year.

Because the stupid people at the red cross tries to help people. That is dogmatic.

Did i not say it already in here:




Am i going too fast for you, or do you still not see the connection?

I don't think you have even left home yet. When you can comprehend the meaning of dogma, come back and we may have a reasoned debate without your fictional cussing.

I am doing analytic philosophy. What the hell are you doing?

You are going to reply with reason, and logic, or are you going to spout more emotional outburst?

here:
Analytic Philosophy[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]


I know exactly what "dogma" is, and what you are doing now is being dogmatic. How is that feel?

Dogmatic definition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia When you have a little time read this and then explain how the red cross compares with religious intolerance to change and its approach to its core intentions. I think you might need to read just a little more about logic, my friend.

...but i am better than you in philosophy( both in technical knowledge, and the capability for rational thought). Why should i listen to your emotions? You tell me to explain to you why the red cross is dogmatic, and i did so. You are now giving me:

"explain how the red cross compares with religious intolerance to change and its approach to its core intentions."

out of no where. Someone should teach you to be more focus, friend.

You are surely desperate.. :sarcastic:

Ive decided I'm not that desperate to debate with a self assessed fool. bye.

Could it be rather than a weakness, and a means to justerfie things we do not understand. A beautiful connection to somthing more than matter, somthing more than science, that charaterises humans different from other animal.

"self assessed fool"? Who are you talking about? I am better than you in philosophy because i know more than you. I read technical books in philosophy, and papers. I could understand complex arguments that require many many layers of abstractions that are light years beyond you. It is fact that i am better than you. For you to even imply that i "don` t know" is ******* ironic. Don` t you think?

"self assessed fool"? Who are you talking about? I am better than you in philosophy because i know more than you. I can read technical books in philosophy, and actually understand. I could understand complex arguments that require many many layers of abstractions that are light years beyond you. It is fact that i am better than you. For you to even imply that i "don` t know" is ******* ironic. Don` t you think?

Maturity is still beyond your greatness isn't it.

If this was philosophy I turned to Mecca right away. This is a double insult in a public place, a forum. You might become an angry Philosopher without technical skills to teach. So what do you do ?

Religion is virtually ubiquitous in human history, society and culture. Many thought that the enlightenment and the age of reason and science would/should eradicate religion but it has not happened. Religion must serve some human purpose, fullfill some human need, and be about something more than science,logic or reason. I think religion serves an existential purpose in attempting to answer the most basic questions of a self aware, mortal intelligence (why am I here, what happens after death, what is the meaning and purpose of it all?). I think religion attempts to give us a higher purpose, higher meaning more significance and infuse our existence with transcendent values (aesthetic and ethical).

Yes organized religions can become dogmatic and dangerous. Religion itself however fullfills the most basic of human needs and we all have some form of religion in our lives. For we all have assumptions about the meaning and purpose of it all even if your answer is there is no transcendent meaning or purpose. For many, religion supplies motivation and meaning to existence which they do not get from materiaism, science, logic, reason or atheism.

There are things which transcend us and our understandings. There is still mystery, magic, miracles and enchantment in the world; or at least some of us still hope and believe. Faith is hope and trust not certain knowledge.

This is not an excuse for religion to ignore the knowledge imparted to us by science only a plea for humility and acknowledgement of so much that we still do not "know". This is also not an excuse for the many acts of cruelty and violence committed in the name of religion.
Religion however serves a human purpose and fulfills a human need for which there is, as of yet, no adequate substitute.

It is becoming less and less a need as we understand our place in the universe. Just look at the figures of attendances at Church , its not the necessity it once was. I'm glad you understand my views on organised religions having dangerous dogma at its core. I have no problem with faith just the intransigence of many accepted religions and the damage they cause. Religion should serve mans needs not man serve the religion.

Do you really think average people are so desperately in need to know the nature of the cosmos, and that is why they pursuit religion? And How the hell does religion replace physics? I really want to know your reasoning. :shocked:

Im sure my opinions are well below your ability. I would not dare try and confront such a well read philosopher as you. I think you should reread my post though as you have completely misunderstood my reasoning,how funny is that, with your superior ability.

...but don` t you think you reasoning is ridiculous? You are assuming that people care so much about cosmology that they would go to religion. You use figures from church attendance to justify the suggest possibility that science can replace religion. I just want to know how might physics replace religion. Is that too much to ask?