Rule-bound religion & Spirituality

Post Reply New Topic

Me, I believe what bites me.

And religions are not the only ones persecuting those who reject unverifiable assumptions. Unless we can agree that Upper Case Science is as much a religion as Mormonism or Socialism.

Me, I believe what bites me.

And religions are not the only ones persecuting those who reject unverifiable assumptions. Unless we can agree that Upper Case Science is as much a religion as Mormonism or Socialism.

Persecution is never my recommendation and I have never advocated it. But where idiocy is obvious it should be clearly pointed out and discouraged by education and understanding. I have never heard of astrologers or tarot card addicts being burned at the stake or even silenced but an educated aware humanity is a worthwhile ideal. Religions in general make unwarranted and unverifiable assumptions and more intellectual caution about absolutes is always a healthy attitude.

All facetiousness aside, for my part:

There is nothing in the Word (specifically the New Testament) which applies to this day and age, that advocates persecuting anyone. That is a common misconception by people who know very little about the meaning and intent of the Word, including people who call themselves Christians but fail to live by the precepts that define them as Christians.

As far as the poor uneducated masses that blindly follow some ideal set before them, that could apply to any set of beliefs. People blindly follow different and individual sets of beliefs all the time. Some are more reasonable and thoughtful than others, and some make little to no sense.

The Word of God doesn't encourage blind belief, but rather demands from any reasoning individual a working, dynamic faith, and a steadily growing knowledge of God's will. That involves critical thinking, which in turn involves study and reflection on Biblical passages.

I don't really know what your motivation was for this dialogue between us, Sand, but I'm not bearing any ill will from it. It's just some stimulating conversation and I've enjoyed it.

I also don't mind defending my faith, at least to the best of my poor knowledge regarding the complexities of this world

I don't hold negative feelings about you. At this point you seem reasonable and intelligent. I do not accept anything without a fairly solid verifiable base and religion appears to me to be mostly wishful thinking. And it obviously has dangerous and unfortunate repercussions clearly demonstrated. I merely think it is worthwhile for people to be reasonable and face reality. I cannot continue this discussion for a few hours. I am in class now.

Thank you, and I will say it's quite reasonable to want a solid verifiable base for believing in anything in particular.
I also agree with you on how many belief systems and religions are dangerous and misleading. It's a complicated obstacle course to run out there in life, in a manner of speaking...

It's been noted frequently that religion is useful in fighting the fears that we all face in the random dangers we all encounter every day and of course on our inevitable deaths. But it strikes me as immature and dangerous to assume a generally beneficent overseer when there is none there. I do not like the general insecurity of daily life nor the absolute of death but I do not deceive myself that they either do not exist or that there is protection in false belief and I take whatever real measures I can devise to combat them. Religion in general seems to me a sham and it disturbs me greatly that people are taken in by its groundless comforts.

This is the sort of thinking I like to see, minds that are constantly challenging the status quo, and also minds that are sincerely challenging previously established rules set in place.

Whether I agree or not, I feel more at home discussing religious issues with nonbelievers than those who have a narrow minded view of what is supposed to be, as in, "their" religion is the "best" one, and so forth... I've been called many unkind things by apparently religious people, and yet I live my life by Biblical, namely New Testament, principles.

Just as it is in science, the "rules" that can stand up to challenge after challenge, that can be proven time and time again, are the ones that are the most respectable, in my mind. They can be established as "law" as opposed to "theory", or even "opinion"

Fuller lectured a few of us guys studying industrial design back in the 1950's and I asked him what he thought of industrial design. He said an industrial designer would die happier if he left the world a little shinier. I was somewhat offended by his remark as there are designers like Charles Eames and Tapio Wirkkala who made the world more useful and beautiful but having worked in the field for a couple of decades I would say that in general he was correct.

Okay, I'm starting to digress because I'm in the middle of reading Synergetics, by my favorite scientist and secular philosopher, R. Buckminster Fuller. Can't help mentioning it, I find it stimulating.