imagine...

[waitasec]

so one would gather from the discussions in this thread, that if god poked his head out of the clouds and said, "here i am..." we would cause our own demise only because everyone believes their religion is the true religion...right?

 

[Danmac]

Laws themselves originated to promote social behavior. Human nature is to live in groups, or as part of a society at large, hermits and loners being the exception. While human nature can be selfish, part of that selfishness is greater survival odds as a group.
Even the Golden Rule promotes this, Do to others what you would have them do to you.
What is mine is mine, I do not want it stolen from me, so theft is outlawed by society.
I do not want to die unwillingly, therefore society outlaws murder.
That there are individuals willing to engage in antisocial behavior does not change the overall structure of ethical social behavior as a group.

If our nature is to promote survival why do we need laws? What would happen if anarchy became the rule of life?

 

[waitasec]

If our nature is to promote survival why do we need laws? What would happen if anarchy became the rule of life?

don't forget we are creatures of logic

 

[tumbleweed41]

If our nature is to promote survival why do we need laws? What would happen if anarchy became the rule of life?

Complete and utter anarchy is contrary to social living.
What you need to understand is, the Laws (basic Laws, not the millions on unnecessary ones) are made for those who disregard societal norms.
Just because we have evolved as social animals, does not mean that selfishness cannot override the good of society.

 

[Breathe]

everyone believes their religion is the true religion...right?

Kinda, kinda wrong.

I doubt many, if any religions say "our religion is wrong", though. However, very few say "our way is the only way"--a large number believe you can believe in another religion and still come to know God. Unfortunately, those who do have that view are usually the biggest ones, made large by active proselytism, empire control and coercion. You know which ones I'm talking about - the ones everyone talks about, sadly ignoring other ones.

 

[waitasec]

I doubt many, if any religions say "our religion is wrong", though. However, very few say "our way is the only way"--a large number believe you can believe in another religion and still come to know God.

i consider those beliefs a philosophy not religion

Unfortunately, those who do have that view are usually the biggest ones, made large by active proselytism, empire control and coercion. You know which ones I'm talking about - the ones everyone talks about, sadly ignoring other ones.

imo, it's these that have been tainting or skewing the meaning of the word religion. because they have 2 opposing goals. one is to assist and the other is to control. and unfortunately these 2 ideals are apart of the package.
:sad:

 

[Breathe]

i consider those beliefs a philosophy not religion

So Sikhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto are all philosophies? Even Judaism, Bahá'í and the LDS don't believe people will be able to go to God even if they are not in that religion - but I don't wish to discuss Bahá'í, LDS or Judasim. There's far too much emphasis on Abrahamic faiths on RF at the moment.

You're using far too narrow a definition of "religion" if you think that these religions are philosophies.

 

[waitasec]

So Sikhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto are all philosophies?

from what i understand is yes. unless any of these use some sort of a controlling factor in it's beliefs.
for instance, the pope would say the use of birth control is immoral.
homosexuality is a sin. sex before marriage is a sin.

do you know what i mean?

 

[Breathe]

do you know what i mean?

Yeah, I understand what you mean and can sympathise with your answers, but I still think you are using FAR too narrow a definition of religion. It's a bit too Exclusionary and/or Abrahamic-centred after all. I don't like the idea of saying Sikhism or Hinduism or Buddhism are philosophies - especially when there are actual philosophies out there like Confucianism, Platonism, and so on. It's cheapening the religion.


Perhaps some kind of division is necessary, but calling them philosophies is kind of rude. I'd be offended if I didn't know what you meant.


ETA: Some use the religion to control people, but that's true of all religions sadly. It's not all people though. If it is, I don't care. I do what I like.

 

[waitasec]

Yeah, I understand what you mean and can sympathise with your answers, but I still think you are using FAR too narrow a definition of religion. It's a bit too Exclusionary and/or Abrahamic-centred after all. I don't like the idea of saying Sikhism or Hinduism or Buddhism are philosophies - especially when there are actual philosophies out there like Confucianism, Platonism, and so on. It's cheapening the religion.


Perhaps some kind of division is necessary, but calling them philosophies is kind of rude. I'd be offended if I didn't know what you meant.


ETA: Some use the religion to control people, but that's true of all religions sadly. It's not all people though. If it is, I don't care. I do what I like.

you know i didn't realize that philosophy was cheapening these ideals...
hmmm. in my ignorance i didn't know i was being rude
:sorry1:

control is true of all religions, even those you listed...?
i'm being educated here....:rainbow1:

 

[Breathe]

you know i didn't realize that philosophy was cheapening these ideals...
hmmm. in my ignorance i didn't know i was being rude
:sorry1:

Hehe, you have no reason to apologize. I know you weren't trying to be rude or anything, just make a distinction between the two.

control is true of all religions, even those you listed...?
i'm being educated here....:rainbow1:

Of all religions. It's not the religions themselves, it's just people. Humans use everything to control others when they have power. Money, status, democracy, political ideologies, tradition, culture, race, sex, creed, philosophical view, religious customs, anything. It doesn't matter what it is, people will find a way to attempt to control others in it.

Sometimes they are somewhat minor. Other times they are huge. These go from "If you take Amrit and cut your hair, you've violated Amrit, so don't cut your hair when you take Amrit, or don't take Amrit whilst you cut your hair" of Sikhism, to the "You can't believe in God and soul and be a Buddhist" that many Buddhists have the view of, to the jati ("caste") discrimination that is prevalent by some Hindus and how they use it to discriminate against their own (Jati is "birth-caste", and is a terrible corruption of the idea of varna--the "original caste" of Hinduism, which was dynamic and non-discriminatory. Could explain if you like, but not here) people. It doesn't matter how free the religion is, people will make it less free in time.

 

[Danmac]

don't forget we are creatures of logic

Tell that to the millions behind bars

 

[Danmac]

Complete and utter anarchy is contrary to social living.
What you need to understand is, the Laws (basic Laws, not the millions on unnecessary ones) are made for those who disregard societal norms.
Just because we have evolved as social animals, does not mean that selfishness cannot override the good of society.

You are suggesting that some people, in fact many people, disregard what is better for a society and live to fill their own bellies at the expense of everyone else, while some adopt the golden rule. That would mean that there are two fundamental ultimate preferences at work here , and not one. Why two if we are all the same?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You are suggesting that some people, in fact many people, disregard what is better for a society and live to fill their own bellies at the expense of everyone else, while some adopt the golden rule. That would mean that there are two fundamental ultimate preferences at work here , and not one. Why two if we are all the same?

Do you really think we all think the same?
While social drives the majority, there are still many with antisocial tendencies.
From the petty thief to the murderer. That is why it is necessary to have enforceable rules in a society.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Tell that to the millions behind bars

Many have chosen to ignore social norms, some can't help it. And many behind bars today are their simply because they made the wrong choice.

 

[waitasec]

Tell that to the millions behind bars

so the millions behind bars is supposed to mean what...
that we are evolving primates?

 

[Danmac]

Do you really think we all think the same?
While social drives the majority, there are still many with antisocial tendencies.
From the petty thief to the murderer. That is why it is necessary to have enforceable rules in a society.

Whatever happened to what is best for society as a whole in most people.

 

[Danmac]

Many have chosen to ignore social norms, some can't help it. And many behind bars today are their simply because they made the wrong choice.

Yes, they chose what was best for them instead of what is best for society. That is the premise of evolution. The golden rule is contrary to the rule of evolution.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Whatever happened to what is best for society as a whole in most people.

That is why society makes laws. To enforce what is best for society as a whole.
Although many times, unnecessary and illogical laws are made based on outdated and/or misguided ethics.

Yes, they chose what was best for them instead of what is best for society. That is the premise of evolution. The golden rule is contrary to the rule of evolution.

Wrong.
You are misrepresenting biological evolution with the oft misunderstood "survival of the fittest".
Societal evolution reflects only what is best for the survival of that society, and by extension, members of that society. Like biological evolution, it does not lead to perfection, it merely takes it's own course. Sometimes failing, and at all times not reflecting each individual members will.
Like the individual, society still has it's vestigial structures and cancers.

 

[Luminous]

An astronomer's proof that God exists:


"I always look at the 9 planets and see every movement of it,

I realize all of them are moving,

but One thing really amazes me,

the Earth never changes its course-Not Even a Bit,

even 1 degree..

you know why?

If the Earth gets 1 degree closer to sun - it will burn,

and 1 degree apart - it will freeze,



so I realize there's Someone holding it,


Someone call God ....

hey austronomer,
there is only 8 planets these days...
pluto and planet X destroyed each other.
also, degree is not a measure of distance.
also, the earth's ROTATIONAL degree changes as it wobbles.
also, the earth is constantly getting closer to the Sun. that is the reason why it orbits it. and the orbit is an eliptical one.

I knew that with these new "teach the controversy" thing popping up in evolution, the repugnant evil would eventually leak into physics and austronomy again.
"gravity! what gravity?!...God is holding them!"