Replacing/Removing God/Religion

[Thief]

But, see, it is the mentality that "There is probably only one approach" that hangs religions in the first place. By thinking there is one "approach" when it comes to spirituality we limit ourselves to perhaps knowing so much more. It is more than just the "visual terms" that seperate us, it is the human ego. The thought of being "right" or having all the "correct" answers. With or without "religion", there is still spirituality and beliefs, and there are still going to be thoughts of what is "right". The trick is not to let go of religion or beliefs, but to let go of ego. To know that you don't know. To be open to being wrong, yet knowing it is possible to have a bit of "truth". If everyone were to just say, I believe what I believe, but I know you believe differently and you could be "right" as well and realize there is enough room in existence for us all to have some glimpse of "truth" and yet never have the bigger picture, we'd "all get along so much better".

We are so close.

Religion is the practice made.
It is also the line drawn between culture and race.

How about we abandon all of it.
Do unto others as you would have it done unto you...is the only belief we really need.
It is the only practice that should be required.
And is probably the only practice allowed in the presence of God.

 

[Draka]

I simply don't agree that we need to abandon religion. Religion is merely a heading for sets of beliefs. We will still have those beliefs, so religion can never be gotten rid of. I maintain it is our attitudes about religions that need changing, not religion itself.

 

[imaginaryme]

It seems to me that there are those taking offense where none was intended. Speaking for the evolution of humanity is not a personal criticism to grow up, for whatever else we may be, we are a product of our times.

And, no. There will always be a god, a religion, of one type or another. Know why? Compassion, for one. Not that religion is necessary for compassion, but religion makes compassion easier to understand. And all religion isn't about crusades and burning people at the stake. There's plenty of forms that simplify to a person knowing one's place in the grand scheme of things, knowing that others are like oneself, knowing that there is a greater good.

Of course there's a grand scheme. If I'm hungry, I don't kill you and cook you up, we work together and grow stuff and we both eat. That's about the end of the story.

 

[blackout]

Some of us love ritual asthetic.
(I prefer to create/concieve of my own)

 

[Thief]

It seems to me that there are those taking offense where none was intended. Speaking for the evolution of humanity is not a personal criticism to grow up, for whatever else we may be, we are a product of our times.

And, no. There will always be a god, a religion, of one type or another. Know why? Compassion, for one. Not that religion is necessary for compassion, but religion makes compassion easier to understand. And all religion isn't about crusades and burning people at the stake. There's plenty of forms that simplify to a person knowing one's place in the grand scheme of things, knowing that others are like oneself, knowing that there is a greater good.

Of course there's a grand scheme. If I'm hungry, I don't kill you and cook you up, we work together and grow stuff and we both eat. That's about the end of the story.

Not quite.
Regardless of faith and religion, there is a grand scheme ...undeniable.

We die.

I believe in life after death. Most people reconcile with their mortality by a practice of religion.
This would be the primary resistance in letting go of religion.
For religion to be dispelled, some other reconciliation must take it's place.

6billion people will die within my lifetime.
As we stand up from our dust, some will call for Jesus, some will call for Muhammad, some for Moses, and so on.

Any prophet who spoke well and correctly will be found in the presence of God. The nay saying will be left at the door.

The rule of thumb is simple.
Do unto others as you would have it done unto you.
This is all Man ever needed.

Here in this world you have choice.
You may be Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, or any other practice.
But there is only One Almighty.
For now you may say as you please. Later on...your objections will left at the door, and it will be done unto you as you did unto others.

Now you are in control....go ahead...say as you please.

 

[blackout]

Do unto other as you would have it done unto you,
is not so "simple".

There have been threads on this.

Neither is it what my "religion" is "about".
(not that you were talking to me)

 

[Kenect2]

Humanism has the potential to replace religion.

 

[Smoke]

And, no. There will always be a god, a religion, of one type or another. Know why? Compassion, for one. Not that religion is necessary for compassion, but religion makes compassion easier to understand.

It has been my experience as a gay man that Abrahamic religion generally does not conduce to compassion. On the contrary, it generally endorses or even demands the marginalization, exclusion, and persecution of gay people, in many times and places even to the point of demanding our deaths. These religions have likewise endorsed slavery, wars, religious persecutions, and genocides. Whether it Cardinal Spellman calling the Vietnam War "Christ's war against the Vietcong" or James Dobson calling Bush's invasion of Iraq a "noble cause", I can't imagine how anyone could view Abrahamic religion as very effective at teaching compassion.

And all religion isn't about crusades and burning people at the stake. There's plenty of forms that simplify to a person knowing one's place in the grand scheme of things, knowing that others are like oneself, knowing that there is a greater good.

And plenty of forms that teach believers to think they know everyone else's place, and have a duty to make sure they stay in it, that divide the world into "us" and "them," and "know" that the greater good means triumph over "them."

 

[TheKnight]

Humanism has the potential to replace religion.

What does it say about humanity that we must find a replacement for religion that acts like religion?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

What does it say about humanity that we must find a replacement for religion that acts like religion?

That we we still need to grow up.

 

[Smoke]

I simply don't agree that we need to abandon religion. Religion is merely a heading for sets of beliefs. We will still have those beliefs, so religion can never be gotten rid of. I maintain it is our attitudes about religions that need changing, not religion itself.

I agree to some extent, but it depends on the religion. I think mine and yours and some others are pretty benign, but in some other cases -- Wahhabism and Roman Catholicism, for instance -- I think the religion itself needs such radical reformation that it would make more sense to abandon it altogether.

 

[Draka]

I agree to some extent, but it depends on the religion. I think mine and yours and some others are pretty benign, but in some other cases -- Wahhabism and Roman Catholicism, for instance -- I think the religion itself needs such radical reformation that it would make more sense to abandon it altogether.

What about abandoning "organized" religion? A person believing what they believe and following their own heart is far less influential or damaging to others than people being led and told not only what to believe, but how to go about believing it. Would that be more appeasing to you?

 

[Smoke]

What about abandoning "organized" religion? A person believing what they believe and following their own heart is far less influential or damaging to others than people being led and told not only what to believe, but how to go about believing it. Would that be more appeasing to you?

I'd rather say appealing than appeasing, but yes. It's not exactly organization I object to, though, but dogma and authority. I wouldn't object to the bishop if he were less of a viceroy and more an organizer and facilitator. But I do think other forms of organization -- for example the system of Quaker meetings -- are more conducive to freedom of thought and conscience.

 

[TheKnight]

What about abandoning "organized" religion? A person believing what they believe and following their own heart is far less influential or damaging to others than people being led and told not only what to believe, but how to go about believing it. Would that be more appeasing to you?

What's wrong with organization? If you have a group of people with like-minded religious ideas, then you have a religion. Is it so bad if they should decide to organize into communities and have leaders of those communities that would make decisions for the community?

 

[Draka]

What's wrong with organization? If you have a group of people with like-minded religious ideas, then you have a religion. Is it so bad if they should decide to organize into communities and have leaders of those communities that would make decisions for the community?

In some cases...yes it is bad. Just ask those accused of witchcraft, tortured and killed in Africa. Oh, well, I guess you can't ask the dead ones. Just the tortured and ostracized ones.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What's wrong with organization? If you have a group of people with like-minded religious ideas, then you have a religion. Is it so bad if they should decide to organize into communities and have leaders of those communities that would make decisions for the community?

Depends. Organization makes things more effective. For a group that makes harmful decisions, organization would be a bad thing; for a group that makes beneficial decisions, organization would be good.

It occurs to me that implicit in the idea that unorganized religion is better than organized religion is the idea that religion is inherently negative.

Or maybe it's just a matter of how we look at what religion should be; if it's a matter of personal belief, then any compromise of the individual to go along with the group would be a negative thing. And in some cases, having leaders "that would make decisions for the community" goes completely against the teachings of the religion... Quakers, for instance.

 

[TheKnight]

In some cases...yes it is bad. Just ask those accused of witchcraft, tortured and killed in Africa. Oh, well, I guess you can't ask the dead ones. Just the tortured and ostracized ones.

Was caused by religion? Or was religion simply the agent?

Depends. Organization makes things more effective. For a group that makes harmful decisions, organization would be a bad thing; for a group that makes beneficial decisions, organization would be good.

It occurs to me that implicit in the idea that unorganized religion is better than organized religion is the idea that religion is inherently negative.

Or maybe it's just a matter of how we look at what religion should be; if it's a matter of personal belief, then any compromise of the individual to go along with the group would be a negative thing. And in some cases, having leaders "that would make decisions for the community" goes completely against the teachings of the religion... Quakers, for instance.

I see. However, there are some religions, like Judaism, which include built into the religion a framework for government operation. Surely if a group of like minded people wanted to participate and live in a community structured in such a way it would not be a bad thing.

Listening to and following the thoughts and opinions of authorities is not a sacrifice of yourself. Neither is submitting to the organized structure of a religion.

 

[Thief]

Now and then someone makes strong objection about having a belief pressed upon them....even here in the confines of a forum.

Imagine the pressure to live as told to, or die.

Many previous, as well as current day communities have done so, and still do,
far more than use peer pressure to have conformity.

But they believe....and believe to the extent that all members living together must nod the head...or lose it. They fear that God will turn away for the indiscretion of one, or a few.

In this framework religion becomes oppressive.

 

[Kenect2]

What does it say about humanity that we must find a replacement for religion that acts like religion?

We are what we are.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

We are what we are.

At the moment.

That is not to say we can't progress beyond the myth and magic of supernatural religion. In other areas we HAVE.

Maybe we are now early adolescents, just beginning to suspect Santa Claus is myth.

Childhood's End is yet to come.