1
   

What separates the religious from the non-religious?

 
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 09:35 am
My personal problem with bible thumpers and religious fanatics is that they focus too much on what was, and what they believe will be.....but not enough about what is right now - which I believe is all we really have.

I can't help but think that all those people that spend their entire lives reading the bible, going to church everyday, praying to their god....seriously believing that this life here on earth is only preparation for something bigger and better....will reach the end of their days and as the last bit of light goes from their eyes they realize "oh ****, this really WAS all there is and I never stopped to enjoy it!"
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 10:06 am
Excellent point happycat!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 10:17 am
happycat wrote:
Back to the original topic question: what separates the religious from the non-religious?
The truly religious will forego common sense in favor or what their religious beliefs are, such as the Jehovah's Witness thing about blood transfusions. They will let their child die rather than get help available to save a life.
The truly religious will fight wars and kill other people because of what a book of their faith tells them.

The non-religious believe, for the most part, that we are all equal - came from the same place, will end up in the same place, and deserve to share in all the earth's bounty and joy regardless of what some old book says, and they take advantage of modern medicine to save lives rather than wasting valuable time praying to an unknown 'god.'
In light of the medical dangers associated with blood transfusions, I hardly think the JWs stance is all that irrational. And you can be sure that none of them "will fight wars and kill other people".
0 Replies
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 03:24 pm
neologist wrote:
happycat wrote:
Back to the original topic question: what separates the religious from the non-religious?
The truly religious will forego common sense in favor or what their religious beliefs are, such as the Jehovah's Witness thing about blood transfusions. They will let their child die rather than get help available to save a life.
The truly religious will fight wars and kill other people because of what a book of their faith tells them.

The non-religious believe, for the most part, that we are all equal - came from the same place, will end up in the same place, and deserve to share in all the earth's bounty and joy regardless of what some old book says, and they take advantage of modern medicine to save lives rather than wasting valuable time praying to an unknown 'god.'
In light of the medical dangers associated with blood transfusions, I hardly think the JWs stance is all that irrational. And you can be sure that none of them "will fight wars and kill other people".


neologist - gimme a break Rolling Eyes
I was using the JW's as a simple example.
Maybe you should change your name to "nitpick-ologist."
However, I am going to give you credit for actually understanding what I meant....and I hope you were being a smartass just for the fun of it.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 03:43 pm
I agree with your central point, Happycat, a very Nietzschiean point: that there is only this very present reality and that to mortgage it to a fantastical future is a great blunder.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 04:16 pm
neologist wrote:
In light of the medical dangers associated with blood transfusions, I hardly think the JWs stance is all that irrational. And you can be sure that none of them "will fight wars and kill other people".


Considering the the number of children that have been MURDERED by joho filth because they couldn't get life saving blood transfusions, I'd say joho's are more dangerous. It's obscene that they can kill children who haven't been given the right to make their own religious choices. Luckily in Australia they can't, because the law was changed to prevent these sick demented [email protected] scum from making these decisions.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 04:19 pm
happycat wrote:

However, I am going to give you credit for actually understanding what I meant....and I hope you were being a smartass just for the fun of it.


He wasn't. He would happily see children die to support his dementia. The religious are mentally ill. They should be locked up where they can't hurt anyone. And we should start with Jehova's witnesses, because those sick freaks are some of the most dangerous of the lot.
0 Replies
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 04:29 pm
Hey Wilso.....chill out Shocked
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 05:08 pm
happycat wrote:
Hey Wilso.....chill out Shocked


No, I will not chill out. These sick friggin' animals are dangerous, and the world's got to be protected from them.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 05:27 pm
Equal to the most extreme Islamists are the Christian Dominionists, a home-grown quasi secret organization that strives to turn America into a fundamentalist theocracy. I heard on the radio yesterday the shocking report that the head of Blackwater is one of them.
0 Replies
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 05:25 am
Wilso wrote:
happycat wrote:
Hey Wilso.....chill out Shocked


No, I will not chill out. These sick friggin' animals are dangerous, and the world's got to be protected from them.



I hope you're joking, because there is no way in hell I can take seriously anything you say, when out of the corner of my eye I can see your silly little avatar. LOL!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 01:35 pm
Wilso wrote:
happycat wrote:
Hey Wilso.....chill out Shocked


No, I will not chill out. These sick friggin' animals are dangerous, and the world's got to be protected from them.
Fervently and passionately stated.
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 03:26 am
To revert slightly to the thoughts on souls - it seems to be just a matter of terminology. Another difficult word in this regard is 'spiritual' - someone introduced me to someone else as 'a spiritual friend'. I told him it was rubbish, I was a friend, and as far as I'm concerned that is a close and accepting relationship and the qualification 'spiritual' is meaningless. He couldn't really explain his use of the word, just that we could be apart for years and then pick up where we left off - but as I say, that's just a friend isn't it? A lot of what some call spiritual seems to me just human, emotional, mental.
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 01:42 pm
Re: What separates the religious from the non-religious?
rosborne979 wrote:

I have always asked the question differently: Why do some people belive in magic and others don't? Avoiding the intricacies of religious dogma, the root of the question comes down to whether you believe you are capable of understanding the world around you (naturalism), or whether you believe the world exceeds your ability to understand (supernatural). Religious and non-religious beliefs aline along those basic lines.


That's an interesting response.

I am not religious, but I fall more in the 'believing the world exceeds my ability to understand' category.

I don't consider myself either religious, atheist, agnostic or someone who believes in magic. I don't believe wholely with the scientific worldview, either.

I think what draws people to throw themselves into religion is believing or needing someone else has already figured it out, and has a deeper understanding of things that we do.
Either collectively or an individual.

It's all about social security.

Religion appeals to those who enjoy turning over authority to other people, or collective 'wisdom'.

There is good and bad in that. If you question nothing - you are a fool, imo.
If you question everything, yet hold on to the belief that 'only you can know, and no one and nothing else could possibly know better' - you are a fool, too.

It's a strange balance to try and understand our place in the world. We aren't alone, and we aren't a big glob either.

I do think religion deals a lot with our own relationship to each other, and is mainly a social organizing thing.

The sad thing is: religion does have some decent points sometimes, universal points, but it is fueled so much by hypocrisy.

That's what you get, I guess, when working with people.
0 Replies
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 02:00 pm
flushd - good points, great post
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2007 10:44 pm
I agree with most of flushd said, but I'm a atheist to the core. I don't believe in magic of any kind.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2007 03:42 am
We have arrived at this word "belief" which unfortunately usually goes without analysis and therefore reveals nothing.

The problem is this: "belief" is generally separated from "knowledge" on the basis that "knowledge" is deemed to be a "true belief", but this merely puts the burden of distinction onto the word "true". Now this is where the nub of the problem lies, there may be no such thing as "objective truth". Truth may be merely a statement of temporary consensus within the dynamic flux of inter-relations. Indeed to argue otherwise itself constitutes a statement of "faith" ! All "scientific" paradigms take this on board to some extent. Contrary to lay ideas, scientists do not pursue "the truth" per se they engage in a process whose object is to enhance prediction and control of "our relationships" with "the world" by means of evolving theories and models which are falsifiable in principle. In other words "truth" is "what works". Since many theistic beliefs are not "falsifiable in principle" they will always "work". !

The question of "religiosity" cannot therefore be simply decided on "belief" or otherwise since the distinction between"belief" and "knowledge" has no philosophical basis other than one based on "naive realism" and "confidence levels". Beyond "naive realism" there are realms of existential possibilities some of which might lend themselves to the description "religious" or perhaps "spiritual" even if no "deity" is evoked. Points above about social or psychological "security" are made at the simplistic/naive level of "reality of self" and explain the appeal of "faith in an afterlife". The transcendent level moves the enquiry on from discussion of such insurance policies.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Apr, 2007 01:40 pm
Flushd, that's my perspective as well.
Fresco, what a sophisticated statement!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2022 at 03:39:37