Does finding life on another planet disprove religion?

[lttlejoe]

Because with if you assume that the bad that is done in the name of religion is directly attributed to that religion rather than the individual/group who used the religion for justification of his/their actions, you must then equally acknowledge the good that is done in the name of religion as being directly attributable to that religion instead of simply to the individual/group who used that religion as justification for his/their actions.

Religion is a tool, it can be used equally for good or ill, how the individual interprets scripture or justifies their faith is always the deciding factor, where one person may see justification for killing someone, another will see reason for helping someone.

The major flaw with religion ( as with any mass-following such as political/ideologiocal views) is that it has the potential to be manipulated by those with a vested interest, which may not be necessarily for the good of everyone which is evident throughout history.

Religion has additional potential to be manipulated due to the unswerving faith and doctrinal nature of the dogma which for many followers is a major influence from the cradle to the grave with little or no excape, unlike other ideologies.
Religions which have no actual leader makes these highly susceptible to manipulation by selective interpretation of the written text or scriptures which forms the body of their beliefs!

 

[Castiel]

The major flaw with religion ( as with any mass-following such as political/ideologiocal views) is that it has the potential to be manipulated by those with a vested interest, which may not be necessarily for the good of everyone which is evident throughout history.

Quite, although this is as you say not limited to religion and is indicative in all ideologies regardless of the source.

In fact the modern examples of manipulation of populations are mainly secular, rather than religious, those of Mao and Stalin, also to a lesser extent Pol Pot.

So this is not a major flaw with religion per se, but within Human Nature itself and how we address that is open for debate.

The interesting thing about religion as compared to secular ideologies is that when things do enter the extreme, religion is by it's doctrinal nature self limiting, it is difficult to change doctrine to suit an ever increasing extremist interpretation, at some point you will break with that doctrine and the hold you gain through that will also be broken along with the power base that gave you. The same is not true of secular ideologies, which are generally ever changing dependent on the situation that the protagonist wishes to inflict and thus, as we seen with Stalinism can be increasingly extreme without ever losing that power base the ideology gave him.

Religion has additional potential to be manipulated due to the unswerving faith and doctrinal nature of the dogma which for many followers is a major influence from the cradle to the grave with little or no excape, unlike other ideologies.
Religions which have no actual leader makes these highly susceptible to manipulation by selective interpretation of the written text or scriptures which forms the body of their beliefs!

Not all religions have no leader, Catholicism has the Papacy for example, Buddhism, the Lamas and so on. Islam is different in that it is not a centralised organisation and as such as we have seen is more open to extreme interpretation.

As for dogma, I have explained above how dogma (I accept that dogma and doctrine are different, but Dogma is even more difficult to change so the relevance is clear) can be equally limiting on the influence that people hold over their followers, the same is not so true of most secular ideologies.

This all comes down again to Human Nature and justification, the flaw is not necessarily with the religion or ideology but within Human Nature itself.

 

[Tefal]

Because with if you assume that the bad that is done in the name of religion is directly attributed to that religion rather than the individual/group who used the religion for justification of his/their actions,

well the individual was god so it's kinda hard not to attribute the deaths from the flood in noah story to him isn't it?

I'm assuming you've just accidentally quoted the wrong post, unless you're saying Noah caused the flood or someone else other than god caused it in the name of god?

 

[Tefal]

dp

 

[The Running Man]

Id go to the root of the question and ask, why are there so many religions?

If there was one god, wouldnt it make sense to give them all the same message, the same chance and the same rules to abide by. Instead he gives one set to one people, another to another, if any or more than one of them are to be believed? And why would you believe one more than he next one? Number of believers? age of the religion?

Because most of us have grown up in christian backrounds we tend to think that Christianity is the de facto correct religion when infact there are so many more which completely contradict this one - if we hadnt been brought up to believe it and looked objectively - why would we believe that christianity has any more merit than buddhism, the ancient egyptian beliefs that the christian faith is based upon (narrative wise).

For me that is the compelling reason why there is no god. Lack of consistency in the message that he has passed on, and knowing all, he should know that humans cannot handle that lack of consistency - leading to disputes/war.

If we met aliens they would have no bearing on this or how accurate our relgions are, unless they had their own religious text that somehow mirrored one of ours..

 

[Castiel]

well the individual was god so it's kinda hard not to attribute the deaths from the flood in noah story to him isn't it?

I'm assuming you've just accidentally quoted the wrong post, unless you're saying Noah caused the flood or someone else other than god caused it in the name of god?

I thought you were talking about using Religion to justify extreme actions generally and not specifically about the Flood Myths.

I did think it strange that you would post something of that nature as you are normally pretty even handed when discussing belief.

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[Tefal]

I thought you were talking about using Religion to justify extreme actions generally and not specifically about the Flood Myths.

I did think it strange that you would post something of that nature as you are normally pretty even handed when discussing belief.

no I was saying that from the flood story i find the main issue is not the salvation of one man (an a small group) but the very worrying massacre of the others.

Like I said if a countries leader did that (as they occasionally do) we don't focus on the benefit for the small chosen group but the massive negative effect on the others killed in the "purges".

If you put god as the head of a country and played out his actions as a man you'd think him a monstrous tyrant and we'd probably be declaring war on him by now for crimes against humanity.

 

[Castiel]

no I was saying that from the flood story i find the main issue is not the salvation of one man (an a small group) but the very worrying massacre of the others.

Like I said if a countries leader did that (as they occasionally do) we don't focus on the benefit for the small chosen group but the massive negative effect on the others killed in the "purges".

If you put god as the head of a country and played out his actions as a man you'd think him a monstrous tyrant and we'd probably be declaring war on him by now for crimes against humanity.

Hmmm.

The problem is that the Flood Myth is like VonHelmet said, an allegorical story of the salvation of one man's soul in the midst of damnation. It is an allegorical story of Hope, rather than one of destruction.

Of course you can take it as literal and question the actions of God in the way that you have, although that would be down to personal interpretation rather than any theological consensus of the veracity of the literal flood.

The Flood Myth is almost certainly something held over from the original belief structures of early mankind than followed him out of the cradle of Africa, and the myth is present in one form or another in almost all cultures at some point in their development.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

 

[Vonhelmet]

no I was saying that from the flood story i find the main issue is not the salvation of one man (an a small group) but the very worrying massacre of the others.

Like I said if a countries leader did that (as they occasionally do) we don't focus on the benefit for the small chosen group but the massive negative effect on the others killed in the "purges".

If you put god as the head of a country and played out his actions as a man you'd think him a monstrous tyrant and we'd probably be declaring war on him by now for crimes against humanity.

It depends on how much authority you are prepared to grant God, which is a curious and almost laughable notion, but there we go. If we accept that God created everything and it is his to do with as he will, then there's really not much to complain about when he does as he sees fit. It's not as trivial and act as all that, though.

5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

God had created people. He had told them to be good. They were not good. Verse 5 says that all their thoughts were evil. That's quite a far cry from what God had intended. Verse 6 says that God was deeply troubled by this, and that he regretted having put people on earth in the first place. This is not some tyrant punishing his subjects. It's a creator being so woefully disappointed in his creation that he feels like giving it up as a bad job.

Make of it what you will, but it's not quite the way you're painting it, and certainly not if you are prepared to grant God any authority whatsoever over what he's created.

 

[Sayso]

My view is that most humans have evolved to need something to believe in. But there's always a few exceptions, just like adrenaline junkies are the exception, but thought they where needed to be the pioneers.
Some believe in religion, some believe in spiritually but have no religion, some believe in science and use it out side of the correct context. They all have the same belief in something unprovable and rationalise it in their own way. I really do think most of population are Born with a need for a belief.

Personally i was raised as a Christian and hold Christian sensibility's (which seem as far as i can tell to match most other religious sensibility's), now im an adult i feel no need to rely on someone elses word that being "good" makes me a nice person as i feel no need to be good to go to an imaginary heaven. The reason i now act in a pleasant manor to other people is i treat others as i would like to be treated myself....so is religion bad, no of course not the scriptures can teach us a lot but i could show you other books of fiction that could teach you more.
I have no problem with people believing in a higher being i just resent the way the people that do have been manipulated time and time again for other political agendas.
We as humans would be better off without religion.

For myself the multi god religions hold the most interest but i suppose Christianity trys to get around this by having saints...im sorry if i seem to be coming across anti Christianity but its the only religion i have any personal experience in so therefore is the one i have most argument with.

 

[Glaucus]

I have no problem with people believing in a higher being i just resent the way the people that do have been manipulated time and time again for other political agendas.
We as humans would be better off without religion.

really, humans have been manipulated in every single way, you don't need religion to do that. The world would be a far worse place trying to ban it, let and live let. As long as it harms no one.

 

[wannabedamned]

How would the world be if everyone believed the same religion. No Islam or Christianity, But the new Christianilam!

I do believe having the 1 religion would serve to unite, where as the lack of religion of any kind would just allow for other reasons to divide and\or subjugate.

Religion is a good thing, Different religions unfortunately like everything else in the world is just reason to argue\fight\murder.

 

[Glaucus]

It would probably be better, but humans can't agree on anything ever. Even of they believe generally in the same thing, we all still have different opinions and splinter off into groups. So it will never happen in any aspect of life.

 

[Rainmaker]

Crikey, I nip out for a couple of hours because the thread's died, and I come back to a resurrection.

Unless I've missed anything, in summary: spirituality is now astrology, but isn't ********, unlike religion; God is evil; and religion sucks. Did I miss anything? (Sorry but it IS gd...)

I think the astrology/spirituality point is a dead end, and Castiel nailed it closed pretty firmly.

As for the other stuff though, especially God's wrath, why are religions different, isn't it unfair that God handed out different 'chances' to different races etc...

One has to assume, to maintain those viewpoints, that God is a personal god, that he is wrathful and vengeful and that he's rather fickle (dare I say human-like?) in nature.

I think it far more likely that mankind has adapted base religious ideals across times and cultures and as such we have the differences today. I find it highly unlikely that any deity would set a black and white 'live in heaven or suffer in hell' dichotomy, while seeding discord and misinformation everywhere. It just doesn't make sense. Personally I think it's much more likely that human beings have a tendency to project their own feelings and beliefs onto an external personification of the divine.

Don't forget that by taking such a stance, and/or by asking such questions, you're more or less restricting your understanding (and questioning) to the Abrahamic systems and approach to godhood.

While I respect Christianity, for me there has to be more to it than that.

It depends on how much authority you are prepared to grant God, which is a curious and almost laughable notion, but there we go. If we accept that God created everything and it is his to do with as he will, then there's really not much to complain about when he does as he sees fit. It's not as trivial and act as all that, though.

Your post makes sense, and I understand where you're coming from. However, I would ask (seriously, and without agenda) do you not thing that those verses make God sound rather fickle, overly influenced by human-like emotion and subject to whims?

It comes across as rather 'God got sick of what he'd done, but then Noah changed his mind when God realised he was actually an OK kind of guy'. Surely an omnipotent and omnipresent God wouldn't have to go through this kind of process to reach a conclusion?

Personally I find it hard to believe that a God could (or would) create something so bad that he'd want to destroy it. Let's not forget, in the bible God did a lot of killing.

To my mind, it makes far more sense to take it allegorically. If we are indeed all a part of God and have God within us ('The kingdom of Heaven is within you', 'You are all God's children') then it wouldn't make much sense for him to destroy us. Do you not think?

I'm certainly not attacking Christianity, nor theism (I'm theist myself remember). I just don't get the literal Christian interpretation sometimes. Interested in any reply you had time and inclination to provide.

 

[Sayso]

Crikey, I nip out for a couple of hours because the thread's died, and I come back to a resurrection.

snip*

well it is almost Easter (but don't get me started ) got to say though i love chocolate eggs......

 

[Rainmaker]

How would the world be if everyone believed the same religion. No Islam or Christianity, But the new Christianilam!

I do believe having the 1 religion would serve to unite,

So would only having one football team, but it's hardly feasible. People have different levels of 'development' both morally and spiritually. For some, the idea of having no permanent soul (Buddhism) is terrifying, whereas for others the idea of sitting on a cloud forever is equally terrifying. A gross over-simplification, yes. But you get what I'm referring to.

There will always be differing approaches, ideals and understandings about any topic. Spirituality and religion are no different, nor should they be.

Religion is a good thing, Different religions unfortunately like everything else in the world is just reason to argue\fight\murder.

Any man, woman or child who would use religion as a reason to argue, fight or (especially) to murder has missed the point in such a big way that there's no facepalm big enough. You can't blame religion for that, and to be honest I'm quite sure had religion been non-existent such a person would have found some other reason instead...

 

[Vonhelmet]

Your post makes sense, and I understand where you're coming from. However, I would ask (seriously, and without agenda) do you not thing that those verses make God sound rather fickle, overly influenced by human-like emotion and subject to whims?

It comes across as rather 'God got sick of what he'd done, but then Noah changed his mind when God realised he was actually an OK kind of guy'. Surely an omnipotent and omnipresent God wouldn't have to go through this kind of process to reach a conclusion?

Personally I find it hard to believe that a God could (or would) create something so bad that he'd want to destroy it. Let's not forget, in the bible God did a lot of killing.

To my mind, it makes far more sense to take it allegorically. If we are indeed all a part of God and have God within us ('The kingdom of Heaven is within you', 'You are all God's children') then it wouldn't make much sense for him to destroy us. Do you not think?

I'm certainly not attacking Christianity, nor theism (I'm theist myself remember). I just don't get the literal Christian interpretation sometimes. Interested in any reply you had time and inclination to provide.

It's a very good point, to question whether God actually has to think about these things, whether he feels emotions, etc. There are philosophical arguments that run that God could not possibly feel anything, as that would make him subject to an external influence, and able to be "manipulated" or affected by other things, rather than being entire unto himself.

There are other passages that throw up issues like this. There's God arguing with Lot over whether he should destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, where Lot argues that if there is 100, or 10, or even 1 righteous man then God should spare the city. In the end, there are none, so God destroys the city. Would God have relented, subject to Lot's argument? Another is Jacob wrestling with God and demanding to be blessed. Did he really wrestle with God, and could he make a demand that God would relent to? There are similar arguments to be made about prayer, and whether we can change God's mind about what he is going to do, or whether praying merely focusses our minds on understanding what God does, and accepting it.

In terms of the flood story, I would believe that God was prepared to destroy all the unrighteous, but did not destroy Noah, the righteous man. The surrounding narrative about God is for our understanding, rather than being a true account of God's thought process, though that's not to say that God wouldn't have destroyed everyone if they were all unrighteous, or would have saved only Noah if there were other righteous people.

 

[Sayso]

But god doesn't exist trying to make sense of a book of fiction doesn't achieve anything.

 

[Pete.Dakota]

Would the discovery of one more Religion vs. Science thread disprove my faith in GD?

 

[Rainmaker]

But god doesn't exist trying to make sense of a book of fiction doesn't achieve anything.

Which God? Or did you mean any God? Did you mean the personal ones, or the impersonal ones? If you have any evidence we've forgotten about or were unaware of, please do share with the class!