Mars

[jamesstew]

Christianity is the cult of Paul........

Absolutely, he was the Joseph Smith, Reverend Moon, L Ron Hubbard of his day.

[Anthony85]

With all due respect, it was not. You simply did not understand it. The original claim was that religion did not need priests, sacred texts, places of worship, or really any other trapping of religion. That in and of itself is absurd, because without an object of worship, central tenets which define that religion (creed), mythos (whether written or unwritten), and concrete expressions of that religion (liturgy), which require authorities to maintain Orthodoxy (priests), there is nothing. In fact, the original claim was that most religions do not have these features, which I showed to be false by naming the major world religions that, in fact, have these features and need them in order to exist.

The only reason we're seeing a rise in rootless, meaningless, structureless "spirituality" in our day and age is because of societal decay. We see no meaning in anything except our fleeting whims and desires, and we project this nihilism in a worldview with no foundation, no purpose, and no goal. It is mistaken to assume that just because we're exhibiting a kind of spiritual psychosis, that the rest of the world is as well.

Whether you think religion is needed or not is irrelevant to the original claim.

[Roo]

All I meant is that religions like Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, et al are far more fascinating, historically and culturally relevant, and worthy of deeper understanding, regardless of any basis in "truth". I am well aware that all religion is the work of one-time fringe/lunatic thinkers, and most religions are in fact reactionary: Buddhism as rejection of caste and asceticism, Mahayana as rejection of monastic exclusivity, etc. I am intrigued by and pursuant of religious knowledge for it's historical and cultural significance, not because I don't believe religious text to simply be the work of competing dogmatic and socio-political rivals. Scientology, on the other hand, does not have a future on the scale of millennia, nor does it have any bearing on anything important to humankind whatsoever. Being an athiest does not make me any less inclined to learn what compels humanity to carry on the way we do and prevent us from moving forward in so many respects.

[sgreger1]

With all due respect, it was not. You simply did not understand it. The original claim was that religion did not need priests, sacred texts, places of worship, or really any other trapping of religion. That in and of itself is absurd, because without an object of worship, central tenets which define that religion (creed), mythos (whether written or unwritten), and concrete expressions of that religion (liturgy), which require authorities to maintain Orthodoxy (priests), there is nothing. In fact, the original claim was that most religions do not have these features, which I showed to be false by naming the major world religions that, in fact, have these features and need them in order to exist.

The only reason we're seeing a rise in rootless, meaningless, structureless "spirituality" in our day and age is because of societal decay. We see no meaning in anything except our fleeting whims and desires, and we project this nihilism in a worldview with no foundation, no purpose, and no goal. It is mistaken to assume that just because we're exhibiting a kind of spiritual psychosis, that the rest of the world is as well.

Whether you think religion is needed or not is irrelevant to the original claim.

My question is, how did some of these religions start. I mean most of the newer ones just copied aspects of older ones, but how did the first religions come into being? I mean, did some guy just make something up one day and tell it to a bunch of people, or did a god come and talk to them and tell them to start it, did they see it in a dream, were they tripping on peote? I wonder how it all started. It seems that the concept of a God or of spirituality/religion in general is woven deeply into the human psyche, and humans are the only animals that seem to have this. Kind of odd, don't you think? Is it because it was an evolutionary trait that developed naturally, or is it something higher. Why is it that most humans, from as far as back the records go, seem to have this feeling that they were created by someone or that there is some higher order to things?


And while I am inclined to say you are right about "societal decay" being the reason for a lot of what we see now, including our "spiritual psychosis", I think it is actually societal evolution moreso than decay. For it to be "decay" it means that it would have had to have been better in the past, which I don't really think it was. Slavery, no womens rights, strict beliefs that you would be killed for if you didn't believe in, a shun on science or free thinking, supreme authorities which cannot be spoken against etc. Are these really the tenants of a society that is superior to ours? We have our own demons now but I think it's just the way the wind blows. With technology allowing us fast travel and communication, information and ideas (memes) spread quicker than ever, and that obviously has a huge cultural impact.

[devilock76]

I don't take anything tom says seriously, he has too many contradictory beliefs.
I'm convinced he's a POE

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for introducing me to Tim Minchin. Rock and Roll Nerd might just be my theme song!

Ken

[lxskllr]

With all due respect, it was not. You simply did not understand it. The original claim was that religion did not need priests, sacred texts, places of worship, or really any other trapping of religion. That in and of itself is absurd, because without an object of worship, central tenets which define that religion (creed), mythos (whether written or unwritten), and concrete expressions of that religion (liturgy), which require authorities to maintain Orthodoxy (priests), there is nothing. In fact, the original claim was that most religions do not have these features, which I showed to be false by naming the major world religions that, in fact, have these features and need them in order to exist.

The only reason we're seeing a rise in rootless, meaningless, structureless "spirituality" in our day and age is because of societal decay. We see no meaning in anything except our fleeting whims and desires, and we project this nihilism in a worldview with no foundation, no purpose, and no goal. It is mistaken to assume that just because we're exhibiting a kind of spiritual psychosis, that the rest of the world is as well.

Whether you think religion is needed or not is irrelevant to the original claim.

Religion doesn't need any of those things. You're playing word games, and trying to justify and ennoble whatever subset of fancy you happen to believe in. Tom's RELIGION is every bit as valid as any other, and diminishing that by use of semantics is dishonest.

[justintempler]

The only reason we're seeing a rise in rootless, meaningless, structureless "spirituality" in our day and age is because of societal decay..

I'm sorry I don't see this societal decay you're talking about. What are you comparing this decay to? The days of witch burning and Geghis Khan?

I don't see anytime in the past history where people weren't preaching about societies' decay. They've been predicting the end of the world since the time Jesus and before I'm sure. Every generation has it's own endtime prophecies.

I grew up in the 60s/70s and they were making the same argument you're making now, I think society has gotten better since then, not worse. You might be more aware of reality now because we live in the internet age of information where things aren't hidden any longer. Ask a woman or a black or Jew that grew up in the 50s if society has gotten worse, I bet you they'll disagree with you.

[Anthony85]

Religion doesn't need any of those things. You're playing word games, and trying to justify and ennoble whatever subset of fancy you happen to believe in. Tom's RELIGION is every bit as valid as any other, and diminishing that by use of semantics is dishonest.

Religion does indeed need these things, for the reasons described above. You made the outlandish statement that most religions don't have the features you've mentioned, and I showed that nearly every world religion does have them, and does need them.

There is quite a bit of difference between an established, organized religion, and pseudo-occultist musings on historic events. You may not see these distinctions because you lump all religion into the same category because you see it through the lens of your own personal biases and prejudices, but that doesn't mean that these distinctions do not exist.

Of course, if you want to believe that they don't exist, there's not much anyone can do beyond showing the facts, which I have done. You may close your eyes, plug your ears, and go about your business if you wish.

[tom502]

The religions may have started with the Annuaki of the ancient Babylonian times. The Sky Gods.

[tom502]

Now, if I had to personally claim a religion for myself.... it'd be hard as I like aspects of so many, but if I had to choose ONE, it'd be Advaita Vedanta.

[Anthony85]

I'm sorry I don't see this societal decay you're talking about. What are you comparing this decay to? The days of witch burning and Geghis Khan?

Why not point to the millions of deaths caused by atheistic movements such as Communism? There's no lack of atrocities in human history because, well, we're human. No sense in trying to lay the blame on differing schools of thought when the one thing they all have in common is mankind.

The societal decay that I'm referring to is that post-modernist inclination toward meaninglessness, rootlessness, and general apathy. Societies are built upon a solid foundation, with a common history, culture, and ethos. What we have now is the disintegration of society caused by nihilism: there is no truth in life, there is no meaning to any human endeavor. This leads to a kind of unbridled hedonism: do whatever feels good, since nothing is true, good, or just. Then we view individuals as obstacles in the way of our pursuit of pleasure, and things such as abortion and euthanasia are condoned and even endorsed by the state. Culture stagnates, the arts become mere shadows of what they once were, and one culture is overtaken by another, more vibrant one. Rome weakened and fell for much the same reason, as did the Greeks before them, and the Egyptians before them.

So, I say that society is decaying because we are tearing down truth and meaning for the sake of relativism. Building a culture on relativity is like building a house on sand: because it has no firm foundation, it can't possibly stand.

[lxskllr]

There is quite a bit of difference between an established, organized religion, and pseudo-occultist musings on historic events. You may not see these distinctions because you lump all religion into the same category because you see it through the lens of your own personal biases and prejudices, but that doesn't mean that these distinctions do not exist.

Yea, one's a bunch of made up fairytales, and the other's just bullshit O.o

[sgreger1]

Why not point to the millions of deaths caused by atheistic movements such as Communism? There's no lack of atrocities in human history because, well, we're human. No sense in trying to lay the blame on differing schools of thought when the one thing they all have in common is mankind.

The societal decay that I'm referring to is that post-modernist inclination toward meaninglessness, rootlessness, and general apathy. Societies are built upon a solid foundation, with a common history, culture, and ethos. What we have now is the disintegration of society caused by nihilism: there is no truth in life, there is no meaning to any human endeavor. This leads to a kind of unbridled hedonism: do whatever feels good, since nothing is true, good, or just. Then we view individuals as obstacles in the way of our pursuit of pleasure, and things such as abortion and euthanasia are condoned and even endorsed by the state. Culture stagnates, the arts become mere shadows of what they once were, and one culture is overtaken by another, more vibrant one. Rome weakened and fell for much the same reason, as did the Greeks before them, and the Egyptians before them.

So, I say that society is decaying because we are tearing down truth and meaning for the sake of relativism. Building a culture on relativity is like building a house on sand: because it has no firm foundation, it can't possibly stand.

That's an interesting take on it. It's kind of a catch 22, because on one end for things to be successful, you have to have a culture that has lots of things in common, be it a common system of beliefs, a common idea of how gov should be run, a common something that bonds you together. In America, increasingly we see that is going away. We don't believe in the American dream, American superiority, and we aren't as nationalist as we used to be.

But why? Well, just like religion, the more information is available and the more people are exposed to it, the more the movement dies. So your left with the choice of, should we build a strong society built on fairytales, be they religious or nationalist, or do we accept that the world is shit and that at the end of the day it really is every man for themselves. But with the "me me me" attitude, chaos ensues for the reasons you point out above.

So do you choose ignorance and strength, or survival and chaos. Hmm, kind of reminds me of the battle between supreme government and anarchism, you can be ignorant and a sheep, but have the state run things and make sure your TV works and starbucks is open, or you can have total freedom and no oversight, which leads to conditions like we see in Africa.

The moral of the story, is that you cannot have either extreme, you must meet somewhere in the middle. The best society is one that has freedoms but still has some solid rules over it to avoid chaos, and the best for "society" is to have a blend of those who hold faith in one thing or another, and those that are just godless heathens to do all of our science and research for us, run our corporations etc. Having just faith alone or just every man for himself alone will not work. We must all have faith in our governments, our spiritual beliefs etc, but we must also realize that at the end of the day it really is every man for yourself, and god/the universe makes you work for what you get in life.

That being said, we are crumbling like Rome because that is just how history works. It is unavoidable and will happen again. But luckily, things get a little easier each time (sort of). So enjoy the ride.

[lxskllr]

That's an interesting take on it. It's kind of a catch 22, because on one end for things to be successful, you have to have a culture that has lots of things in common, be it a common system of beliefs, a common idea of how gov should be run, a common something that bonds you together. In America, increasingly we see that is going away. We don't believe in the American dream, American superiority, and we aren't as nationalist as we used to be.

But why? Well, just like religion, the more information is available and the more people are exposed to it, the more the movement dies. So your left with the choice of, should we build a strong society built on fairytales, be they religious or nationalist, or do we accept that the world is shit and that at the end of the day it really is every man for themselves. But with the "me me me" attitude, chaos ensues for the reasons you point out above.

So do you choose ignorance and strength, or survival and chaos. Hmm, kind of reminds me of the battle between supreme government and anarchism, you can be ignorant and a sheep, but have the state run things and make sure your TV works and starbucks is open, or you can have total freedom and no oversight, which leads to conditions like we see in Africa.

The moral of the story, is that you cannot have either extreme, you must meet somewhere in the middle. The best society is one that has freedoms but still has some solid rules over it to avoid chaos, and the best for "society" is to have a blend of those who hold faith in one thing or another, and those that are just godless heathens to do all of our science and research for us, run our corporations etc. Having just faith alone or just every man for himself alone will not work. We must all have faith in our governments, our spiritual beliefs etc, but we must also realize that at the end of the day it really is every man for yourself, and god/the universe makes you work for what you get in life.

That being said, we are crumbling like Rome because that is just how history works. It is unavoidable and will happen again. But luckily, things get a little easier each time (sort of). So enjoy the ride.

Anyone who conducts his life through blind adherence to any rule book is flawed. His conduct is done out of fear of prosecution, or for some kind of reward. Neither of those has anything to do with what is /right/, and they're no better than a dog who performs tricks for snacks, or to stave off beatings.

[justintempler]

Why not point to the millions of deaths caused by atheistic movements such as Communism? There's no lack of atrocities in human history because, well, we're human. No sense in trying to lay the blame on differing schools of thought when the one thing they all have in common is mankind.

The societal decay that I'm referring to is that post-modernist inclination toward meaninglessness, rootlessness, and general apathy. Societies are built upon a solid foundation, with a common history, culture, and ethos. What we have now is the disintegration of society caused by nihilism: there is no truth in life, there is no meaning to any human endeavor. This leads to a kind of unbridled hedonism: do whatever feels good, since nothing is true, good, or just. Then we view individuals as obstacles in the way of our pursuit of pleasure, and things such as abortion and euthanasia are condoned and even endorsed by the state. Culture stagnates, the arts become mere shadows of what they once were, and one culture is overtaken by another, more vibrant one. Rome weakened and fell for much the same reason, as did the Greeks before them, and the Egyptians before them.

So, I say that society is decaying because we are tearing down truth and meaning for the sake of relativism. Building a culture on relativity is like building a house on sand: because it has no firm foundation, it can't possibly stand.

sheesh you're sounding like a fundamentalist preacher.
"Correlation does not imply causation". No one killed in the name of atheism.
Hitler had a mustache, Stalin had a mustache, Saddam Hussein had a mustache, therefore leaders with mustaches kill people.
Communism was a state religion. You killed for the state. Look up Statism.

Your whole argument is based on relativism, what you consider what is true, what is good, what is just.

You speak about truth as if it is some objective thing and your truth never changes

at one time truth said the world was flat
at one time truth said the earth was at the center of the universe.
at one time truth said lightning hitting the steeple of a church was the wrath of god against sinners
at one time truth said that negroes were sub human,
at one time truth said a woman's place was at home.
at one time truth said life didn't begin after until the quickening
at one time truth said alcohol should be outlawed, prohibition
at one time truth said money had to have something to back it's value. (gold)
at one time truth said men could have more than one wife
at one time truth said birth control was the work of the devil
at one time truth said rock and roll music was decadent and led to hedomism
at one time truth said divorce was immoral, you were expected to stay married to your abusive, cheating husband
at one time truth said single pregnant girls went away to have their babies and gave them up for adoption. (see it never happened)
at one time truth said AIDS was a gay disease
at one time truth said Sunday was for observance of God, no movies, no work, no alcohol
how many examples do you want?

We have cities, counties, that still have blue laws, and dry counties.

Since you're an expert on truth...
Is gay sex a choice? How about stem cell research? Sould rape victims be forced to give birth? Should medical marijuana be legal or illegal? Should dying cancer patients be forced to endure pain until they die a natural death? Can we give them opium? How about interacial marrige? Is that ok this week? At what age should your son or daughter be old enough to get married?

Our whole society is built on relativism. Society decides what is moral not individuals. If society says some action is ok and you think it is immoral, no one is forcing you into doing it.

You want to live in country that espouses Liberty and Freedom but you don't want to give others the right to enjoy them unless you personally approve of them?