-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Only your religion is right. Justification please!?
- Thread starter futureplanet
- Start date
futureplanet
Member
This was only an example. I didn't say ALL hindu's believe. I just use this as a single example, and it's not the point of the question at all.
Thank you for the advice on studying religions, and yes, I will. I have plan to read the Vedas soon, after I've finished the Quran.
You "don't need to justify it". So that is your answer...not really an answer, but an reply to say, you won't answer. THank you.
Thank you for the advice on studying religions, and yes, I will. I have plan to read the Vedas soon, after I've finished the Quran.
You "don't need to justify it". So that is your answer...not really an answer, but an reply to say, you won't answer. THank you.
futureplanet
Member
I think you can justify love and art.
Love, besides things like Oxytocin and other biochemcial pathways that we can attribute to love, we can justify why we love someone (the way they make us feel, how they look, their family relationship, the type of person they are, etc. etc.). Additionally with art, we usually like art or dislike it because we can rationalize that like or dislike.
Example: I don't understand this piece, therefore it doesn't appeal to me.
Example: It's so colourful, I am attracted to colours
Example: This artwork reminds me of my country home, and thus I love it
etc.
We can justify how things in this world do or do not make sense to your own world view, or you can ignore the question, as you have done on this occasion.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
futureplanet
Member
Love has always been a mystery, but it WILL be as understood as lightening and volcanoes are today. Don't imagine it will stay a mystery for ever, or be attributed as "god's work" without meaning or comprehension.
Some interesting studies on love are:
J Sex Med. 2010 Aug 30. [Epub ahead of print]
Neuroimaging of Love: fMRI Meta-Analysis Evidence toward New Perspectives in Sexual Medicine.
Ortigue S, Bianchi-Demicheli F, Patel N, Frum C, Lewis JW.
Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Memory. 2010 Aug 18:1-13. [Epub ahead of print]
The first sight of love: Relationship-defining memories and marital satisfaction across adulthood.
Alea N, Vick SC.
University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad & Tobago.
Attach Hum Dev. 2010 Sep;12(5):445-61.
Negative childhood experiences and adult love relationships: the role of internal working models of attachment.
McCarthy G, Maughan B.
Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Cardiff Consulting Rooms, UK
Endocrinology. 2010 May;151(5):1978-80.
Baby love? Oxytocin-dopamine interactions in mother-infant bonding.
Douglas AJ.
Centre for Integrative Physiology, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Neuroimage. 2010 Jun;51(2):923-9. Epub 2010 Feb 24.
Love hurts: an fMRI study.
Cheng Y, Chen C, Lin CP, Chou KH, Decety J.
Institute of Neuroscience, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
Nature. 2009 Oct 15;461(7266):887-8.
Behavioural neurobiology: Chemical love.
Gompel N, Prud'homme B.
Nature. 2009 Oct 15;461(7266):987-91.
Front Behav Neurosci. 2009;3:27. Epub 2009 Sep 24.
The pathways from mother's love to baby's future.
Korosi A, Baram TZ.
Anatomy/Neurobiology, Pediatrics and Neurology, University of California at Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-4475, USA.
and just one more of the hundreds and hundreds of studies going on:
Rev Neurol (Paris). 2010 May 11. [Epub ahead of print]
[Love and neurology.]
[Article in French]
Collongues N, Cretin B, de Seze J, Blanc F.
Département de neurologie, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Love is a complex emotional state which is difficult to define. Considering anthropological studies, this feeling can now be divided into three distinct behaviors: lust, attraction for a specific partner and conjugal or filial attachment.
STATE OF ART: For each, recent findings have contributed to identify specific neuronal networks which are interconnected as shown by common activation of limbic and paralimbic systems. A major role of arginine/vasopressin and oxytocin has also been pointed out for mate choice and attachment promotion. In the field of neurology, studies about pathologies of love are sparse and mainly focused on sexual disorders. Pathologies of attachment like autism and borderline personality are beginning to be identified.
PERSPECTIVES: Future investigations would yield a better understanding of this complex emotional state and a better detection of new pathologies related to a major affective disability.
CONCLUSION: Neurosciences have contributed to highlight mechanisms involved in love.
Last edited:
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Terribly sorry. I did not mean to overlook your question and leave my claim hanging.
As Futureplanet correctly posted there have been several studies on the mechanisms of love and his list should be a good starting point.
Our current understanding is that love is initiated mainly by dopamine (in the case of romantic love), although since love is a mixed emotion there are usually other neurotransmitters and chemicals involved as well, including cortisol that contributes to the feeling of nervousness often associated with the initial stages. This dosage of dopamine should be well known to anyone who as ever fallen in love and is sometimes referred to as "lovers euphoria". People in love are, in a very real sense, high, which I guess contributes to the sometimes irrational behaviour they display.
In relationships that have staying power the "high" goes over after a while and is to a large degree replaced by oxytocin, a chemical associated with most positive social emotions and which also plays a huge role in the relationship between mother and child as large amounts are released both during childbirth and breastfeeding.
As with most things we certainly don't have the full picture yet, but I think this is a valid basis for saying that we have empirical grounds for our understanding of how love works.
Hope that answers your question.
blackout
Violet.
I want people to be honest, but experience has taught me that this isn't always the case.
I want people to be altruistic because I know that it is a system that works.
Expect is probably the wrong term in this case.
But for the record, I wouldn't support any law telling people to follow my standards.
Although I should probably have said "encourage" rather than "instil", but, yes, it is when the moral standards of honesty, compassion, cooperation, accepting that people are different and the notion of fair play coincide with the preferred standards of the school system.
It's one of the things we agree upon.
In my view, a teacher who doesn't care about their pupils' ethics is a poor teacher.
Honest with who? you?
About what?
and Why should they be?
I am Self'Ish, and do not appologize for it.
I am honest with mySelf about WHO I AM.
(even when it means not being who you would like me to be)
I am a being Centered in my Own Self.
I am Self Centered.
I go out of my way for others when I want to.
For people I like.
For people who... somehow "captivate" me...
When I am moved to.
If I can.
When and if I feel like it.
And when I'm not,
I don't.
I'm thinkin' this is what everybody does.
Even "altruistic" people.
-"honesty" is suprisingly subjective,
with "honesty to others"/"honesty to a system"
stressed in major imbalance,
over "honesty to Self".
In fact, honesty to Self is so often punished, supressed, and belittled.
(yet without honesty to Self, there is little honesty at all...)
-some people deserve far more "compassion" than others.
-"cooperation" is fine, when it is fine.
"cooperate with me because I'm your superior" eh.
It really depends on the nature of the "cooperation",
and the individuals involved.
(ie--in and of itself, "cooperation" is no virtue)
- people are different, sure.
Yet the school system does not in any real way
encourage, develop, or teach to these differences.
- fair play, in systems, and in life itself,
does not exist.
We have illusions of fair play yes,
but they are illusions none the less.
I'm not sure what it is that we agree on?
A teacher in a system,
is going to have problems holding that system together,
if they don't enforce certain rules.
Call them ethics if it makes you happy.
Last edited:
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
As a rule, everyone. But most importantly, with themselves.
Everything really. There might of course be extreme examples where lying -can- be the better path, but as a general rule, I think people should be honest.
Because truth matters and because too many mistakes have been made because people didn't have the true picture of what was real.
Even "altruistic" people.
Seeing as altruism is an evolved trait it could certainly be seen in a "selfish" light.
There is some truth in that. But then again, I never said this was going to be easy.
Not entirely sure what you are referring to here. Could you elaborate please?
I fully agree with this.
It does with the right teacher.
I'm not claiming that the world is inherently "fair". That would be very presumptuous of me. However, this does not mean that we cannot try to act in a fair and honest manner in our dealings with each other.
I have no illusions about that. Rules are in place in the absence of understanding, and since it is impossible to understand everything and everyone we sometimes need rules. As it is in society, so it is in school.
But I make a point of never implementing a rule in my class that I can not present a reason for and I go through great lengths to get my pupils to understand that reasoning. Also, the majority of the rules we have in class have been decided by the pupils themselves.
Also, it should be mentioned that my notion is that rules are in place so that you will stop and think before you break them. Not that they should never be broken.
blackout
Violet.
I see little difference between religious and societal rules.
They each support a structure. A system.
They are both constructed by people.
They are both punishable.
They both indoctrinate.
Their "moralities" are essentially... self sustaining in nature.
(meaning the "self" of the "entity" as a whole)
They each support a structure. A system.
They are both constructed by people.
They are both punishable.
They both indoctrinate.
Their "moralities" are essentially... self sustaining in nature.
(meaning the "self" of the "entity" as a whole)
blackout
Violet.
Honey, If I were honest with people
about mySelf
it would be nothing but a big headache for me.
I owe NO ONE any information
regarding my inner' formation.
As well, some people cannot HANDLE honesty.
It's SO MUCH BETTER FOR EVERYONE
to just tell them what's easiest.
What they WANT to hear.
and they usually make it so very easy.
(on account of the fact that their interest is not "understanding")
Give people what they want,
while keeping yourSelf "eclipsed".
It is an art form.
about mySelf
it would be nothing but a big headache for me.
I owe NO ONE any information
regarding my inner' formation.
As well, some people cannot HANDLE honesty.
It's SO MUCH BETTER FOR EVERYONE
to just tell them what's easiest.
What they WANT to hear.
and they usually make it so very easy.
(on account of the fact that their interest is not "understanding")
Give people what they want,
while keeping yourSelf "eclipsed".
It is an art form.
Last edited:
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Don't have the full picture?
We're not even in the same building as the full picture.
Unless someone has solved the hard problem of consciousness while I was snoozing.
Also - is it your view that if a phenomenological psychologist was arguing that love is relational, a discursive psychologist was citing it as a construct and a biological psychologist was arguing that it is a result of neurochemistry you have evidence as to which one is definitively correct in the view that they hold?
Last edited:
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Don't have the full picture?
We're not even in the same building as the full picture.
Unless someone has solved the hard problem of consciousness while I was snoozing.
In this, as with everything we try to understand, we should go with the best available evidence.
I don't necessarily see why there has to be a conflict.
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
Fully agree. :yes:
I am a "dyed in the wool" atheist and I hereby dare any believer to call me immoral.
- I never lie. (Not even to get a day off from work). Honesty is very important to me.
- I quit my job as a marketing executive to become a teacher which basically cut my paycheck in half because I wanted to do something that meant something to more people than just me.
- I do my best, every day, to teach my pupils about the worth of other people and instil in them the best moral standards I know.
- I never suggest any standards (moral or otherwise) to anyone that I am not able to uphold myself as I strongly believe in practising what you preach.
- I have never and will never cheat on anyone I am in a relationship with.
- I spend my vacations working in Kurdistan (Northern Iraq) helping rebuild their school system.
- I am a strong supporter of personal freedom and I think that anyone should be allowed to love whoever they want and that what consenting adults do between their sheets is none of my business.
- I am also a strong supporter of the freedom of speech and of ideas, and while I might disagree fervently with what you have to say I would die for your right to do so.
Now, go ahead.
Call me immoral.
Call my view of the world invalid.
If you can.
So in other words, you do not sin.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
That really depends on your definition of "sin".
Do I break the ten commandments? Absolutely.
I have no problems "taking the lord's name in vain" and while I do not have any other gods before "him" I don't have "him" there either. Also, I covet all over the place.
Have I committed any of the so called seven mortal sins? Definitely.
I lust, some would call me proud, I have over-eaten (especially during the winter vacation that you call Christmas), being a citizen in one of the richest countries in the world probably gives me greed just by association, and when I feel like it I'm lazy as dirt.
So, yeah, it really depends on your definition.
Muffled
Jesus in me
3. God creates religions.
4A. People follow religions God created
4B. People follow God
It does help to have all the facts.
Religions justify their beliefs on the basis of who provided them.
That is like saying that you have seen the desert and there is no water so anyone believing in water isn't going by the only facts you need.
Your thread title is "Only your religion is right; justify please." however you have failed to address this in your OP.
This is of course a massive generalization, since those who are religious being fallible are usually wrong in some way about their religion and often enough that becomes part of their religion.
Christianity is the only right religion because it is the only one that provides salvation from sin.
Muffled
Jesus in me
That really depends on your definition of "sin".
Do I break the ten commandments? Absolutely.
I have no problems "taking the lord's name in vain" and while I do not have any other gods before "him" I don't have "him" there either. Also, I covet all over the place.
Have I committed any of the so called seven mortal sins? Definitely.
I lust, some would call me proud, I have over-eaten (especially during the winter vacation that you call Christmas), being a citizen in one of the richest countries in the world probably gives me greed just by association, and when I feel like it I'm lazy as dirt.
So, yeah, it really depends on your definition.
Since you break God's law and are glad of it, then is not God justified in punishing you and ultimately sending you to hell?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
I'm not terribly worried since I don't believe in any gods, but trust me, if I find when I die that there really is a god... He's going to get a good talking to! Knockout
Muffled
Jesus in me
There is a difference between a way that is true and one that is right. A person can be on a true path to hell but it is not the right path.
Everyone thinks their path is true whether it is or not. Some paths do not lead to the promised destination.
For instance some people think that doing good works and following a religion is a path to Heaven. They are in for a rude awakening when they find out their path didn't take them there.
Muffled
Jesus in me
That is like the criminal who isn't worried about jail time becuase he doesn't believe the police will catch him. It is an irrational belief and so is yours.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Is your logical chip malfunctioning or something?
We KNOW that the police is real whereas there is no reason to think that god is real, or, for that matter, that even IF there is a god, that it is the Christian one.
If you can't see the difference, I'm afraid there is little hope for you.
Whatever the belief in a god is or isn't, it sure as heck ain't rational.