Purpose of non-observed religion

[Conaeolos]

For atheists, the question is simple: for much of human history people have held some type of supernatural delusion from your point of view, I can suppose you think motivated by fear of death or powerlessness, and even claimed “atheists” mostly still offered pantheistic explanations(e.g. Buddhism). In almost all cultures however these ideas spread to affect in one way or another most areas of life and certainly personal moral development and sense of community. What do you see as the modern day replacement for these beliefs? Which philosophies? What community structures? etc.

For theists, the question is how do you view religions which do not conform to your own. How do these unbelievers stack up? Are they just more primitive believers? Are they treated by their standards and you yours? Is there a unbeliever law, like the 7 Noahide laws concept in Judaism? How do you place most people not being right with God?

Feel free to ask any question as to my POV - if you wonder about my motives

 

[MaggieD]

For atheists, the question is simple: for much of human history people have held some type of supernatural delusion from your point of view, I can suppose you think motivated by fear of death or powerlessness, and even claimed “atheists” mostly still offered pantheistic explanations(e.g. Buddhism). In almost all cultures however these ideas spread to affect in one way or another most areas of life and certainly personal moral development and sense of community. What do you see as the modern day replacement for these beliefs? Which philosophies? What community structures? etc.

For theists, the question is how do you view religions which do not conform to your own. How do these unbelievers stack up? Are they just more primitive believers? Are they treated by their standards and you yours? Is there a unbeliever law, like the 7 Noahide laws concept in Judaism? How do you place most people not being right with God?

Feel free to ask any question as to my POV - if you wonder about my motives

Any and all religions are but different pathways to the same God.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

A replacement for religion can be anything you want. We don't have to lock ourselves into a rigid philosophical framework as philosophy is like a buffet where people can pick and choose what works best and makes sense to them. I find a lot of comfort in existential philosophy. I don't believe that the universe or my existence has an intrinsic meaning, rather it is up to me to give it meaning and find my own philosophical truth. For the philosophy in dealing with others, I draw a lot from secular humanism. I see humanity as a bunch of highly evolved apes living on a rock flying through the vast, desolate emptiness of space. We're on this life boat together and we should try not to be assholes to each other. I think we can solve most of our problems with science, and I think that using it to reduce human suffering is the noblest of goals.

 

[Angel]

For theists, the question is how do you view religions which do not conform to your own. How do these unbelievers stack up? Are they just more primitive believers? Are they treated by their standards and you yours? Is there a unbeliever law, like the 7 Noahide laws concept in Judaism? How do you place most people not being right with God?

All religions are true. They all grasp that something-larger-than-ourselves immanent in the world. The intuition of some six billion human beings, not to mention the untold numbers who lived and died in the past 30 thousand years, attests to this truth.

 

[Angel]

For atheists, the question is simple: for much of human history people have held some type of supernatural delusion from your point of view, I can suppose you think motivated by fear of death or powerlessness, and even claimed “atheists” mostly still offered pantheistic explanations(e.g. Buddhism). In almost all cultures however these ideas spread to affect in one way or another most areas of life and certainly personal moral development and sense of community. What do you see as the modern day replacement for these beliefs? Which philosophies? What community structures? etc.

... I find a lot of comfort in existential philosophy. I don't believe that the universe or my existence has an intrinsic meaning, rather it is up to me to give it meaning and find my own philosophical truth....

In an absurd world, yes, Satre's brand of existentialism has great merit. But can we really expect six billion people to read Being and Nothingness, and to read it with understanding and appreciation?

 

[joG]

Any and all religions are but different pathways to the same God.

Possibly. But tell Dawkins that only, if you want to tease him.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

In an absurd world, yes, Satre's brand of existentialism has great merit. But can we really expect six billion people to read Being and Nothingness, and to read it with understanding and appreciation?

You don't have to take his brand of existentialism or anything else. You could combine it with many things to make something new. Some people prefer to buy a pre-packaged meal that may have a lot of things in it they don't want, and others want a buffet where they can pick and choose what they do and do not want. I find the latter camp to be more free.

 

[Angel]

You don't have to take his brand of existentialism or anything else. You could combine it with many things to make something new. Some people prefer to buy a pre-packaged meal that may have a lot of things in it they don't want, and others want a buffet where they can pick and choose what they do and do not want. I find the latter camp to be more free.

But who in your concept will be doing the combining? And yes, "more free" perhaps, but deep? binding?

 

[Daisy]

Any and all religions are but different pathways to the same God.

I think the bigger question would be...are all religions acceptable to God?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

But who in your concept will be doing the combining? And yes, "more free" perhaps, but deep? binding?

All religions are true.

The individual. Look, you're the one always saying that ALL religions are correct. Therefore if I make one up, like that Chtulu a space alien created humanity and told us to seek individual purpose, it is automatically correct in your opinion.

 

[Conaeolos]

Any and all religions are but different pathways to the same God.

All religions are true. They all grasp that something-larger-than-ourselves immanent in the world. The intuition of some six billion human beings, not to mention the untold numbers who lived and died in the past 30 thousand years, attests to this truth.

I greatly respect this view. I still wonder though how others delineate within that truth (pathway to the one true God) from falsehood (deviations such a human sacrifice). If you think there are multiple path to God, short to long, difficult to easy, surely you also think there are many paths away. How can one know the difference?

How do you compare the merits of Judaism to Islam? or Christianity to Buddhism? or Hinduism to Taoism? even if they are all expressions of desire to find God and hence a long term good.

 

[Conaeolos]

A replacement for religion can be anything you want. We don't have to lock ourselves into a rigid philosophical framework as philosophy is like a buffet where people can pick and choose what works best and makes sense to them. I find a lot of comfort in existential philosophy. I don't believe that the universe or my existence has an intrinsic meaning, rather it is up to me to give it meaning and find my own philosophical truth.

I can certainly understand where you're coming from with that. Can I then assume you see religions themselves as “philosophy” convoluted by superstition/tradition and hurt by their insistence on the assumption of there being the supernatural?

I wonder also, do you then support a lot more secular philosophical societies to discuss and offer to teach from the buffet of philosophies as a replacement for church and religious study groups? Or do we already have those in our society with universities and should all just become lifelong learners?

For the philosophy in dealing with others, I draw a lot from secular humanism. I see humanity as a bunch of highly evolved apes living on a rock flying through the vast, desolate emptiness of space. We're on this life boat together and we should try not to be assholes to each other. I think we can solve most of our problems with science, and I think that using it to reduce human suffering is the noblest of goals.

Pardon my ignorance on secular humanism but other than “universally preferable behavior” by Stefan Molyneux I have never heard much ethics from a secular perspective only general appeals to it. Unless we are including neo-Marxist ideas like Foucault and that sort of “critical theory” type approach to ethics, which I am hoping is not the totality.

I would be very interested to hear of other secular humanist ethicists who have influenced you or presented curious ideas on the buffet you have chosen to bypass for one issue or another. And to extent from the previous question, where do you interact with others on these issues? What is your bible study equivalent…where can you (or have you) discussed, learned and debated secular humanist ethics outside say formal schooling?

 

[jimbo]

For atheists, the question is simple: for much of human history people have held some type of supernatural delusion from your point of view, I can suppose you think motivated by fear of death or powerlessness, and even claimed “atheists” mostly still offered pantheistic explanations(e.g. Buddhism). In almost all cultures however these ideas spread to affect in one way or another most areas of life and certainly personal moral development and sense of community. What do you see as the modern day replacement for these beliefs? Which philosophies? What community structures? etc.

For theists, the question is how do you view religions which do not conform to your own. How do these unbelievers stack up? Are they just more primitive believers? Are they treated by their standards and you yours? Is there a unbeliever law, like the 7 Noahide laws concept in Judaism? How do you place most people not being right with God?

Feel free to ask any question as to my POV - if you wonder about my motives

Every religion and religious person I know believes theirs is the one and only true religion. Therefore in order to get to heaven, you must be of the one true religion.

There does seem to be a sort of pecking order. Baptists can tolerate, barely, Buddha's, Shinto's, and Catholics, but not Muslims, Mormons, and at the bottom of the list, eevil atheists. Ironic since I know of no atheist standing on a street corner loudly proclaiming the one true atheism.

 

[MaggieD]

I think the bigger question would be...are all religions acceptable to God?

In my world, they are. Once we believe God loves us, I think we have to extrapolate that he knows those who "believe" are doing the best they can.

Your point, though, is profound.

 

[Exquisitor]

For atheists, the question is simple: for much of human history people have held some type of supernatural delusion from your point of view, I can suppose you think motivated by fear of death or powerlessness, and even claimed “atheists” mostly still offered pantheistic explanations(e.g. Buddhism). In almost all cultures however these ideas spread to affect in one way or another most areas of life and certainly personal moral development and sense of community. What do you see as the modern day replacement for these beliefs? Which philosophies? What community structures? etc.

For theists, the question is how do you view religions which do not conform to your own. How do these unbelievers stack up? Are they just more primitive believers? Are they treated by their standards and you yours? Is there a unbeliever law, like the 7 Noahide laws concept in Judaism? How do you place most people not being right with God?

Feel free to ask any question as to my POV - if you wonder about my motives

Since it is not possible to comprehend or ascertain the Absolute Truth unascended, it is not so important that a Religion be completely correct. What is important is that people learn to obey.

So we have several or many religions that all practice variations of obedience to the Supreme Truth who propagated all these Religions that combine to form a balance of power.

Each Religion has it's various icons that it's members relish in their mind similarly the fruit of transcendental knowledge.

Atheism's purpose serves to protect other's deluded concepts of the Godhead from ruling your mind, then one can live according to the dictates of their heart free of guilt and fear.

When one chooses to be Atheist, God makes their mind steady to believe this way.

 

[Dragonfly]

All religions are true. They all grasp that something-larger-than-ourselves immanent in the world. The intuition of some six billion human beings, not to mention the untold numbers who lived and died in the past 30 thousand years, attests to this truth.

True??? :roll: What's true?

Truth? No.

Your quote should read like this:

All religions are beliefs. They all believe that something-larger-than-ourselves immanent in the world. The intuition of some six billion human beings, not to mention the untold numbers who lived and died in the past 30 thousand years, attests to this belief.

 

[zyzygy]

In my world, they are. Once we believe God loves us, I think we have to extrapolate that he knows those who "believe" are doing the best they can.

Your point, though, is profound.

I would call it facile.

 

[zyzygy]

Since it is not possible to comprehend or ascertain the Absolute Truth unascended, it is not so important that a Religion be completely correct. What is important is that people learn to obey.

So we have several or many religions that all practice variations of obedience to the Supreme Truth who propagated all these Religions that combine to form a balance of power.

Each Religion has it's various icons that it's members relish in their mind similarly the fruit of transcendental knowledge.

Atheism's purpose serves to protect other's deluded concepts of the Godhead from ruling your mind, then one can live according to the dictates of their heart free of guilt and fear.

When one chooses to be Atheist, God makes their mind steady to believe this way.

How do you know that there is an Absolute Truth?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I can certainly understand where you're coming from with that. Can I then assume you see religions themselves as “philosophy” convoluted by superstition/tradition and hurt by their insistence on the assumption of there being the supernatural?

I wonder also, do you then support a lot more secular philosophical societies to discuss and offer to teach from the buffet of philosophies as a replacement for church and religious study groups? Or do we already have those in our society with universities and should all just become lifelong learners?

Pardon my ignorance on secular humanism but other than “universally preferable behavior” by Stefan Molyneux I have never heard much ethics from a secular perspective only general appeals to it. Unless we are including neo-Marxist ideas like Foucault and that sort of “critical theory” type approach to ethics, which I am hoping is not the totality.

I would be very interested to hear of other secular humanist ethicists who have influenced you or presented curious ideas on the buffet you have chosen to bypass for one issue or another. And to extent from the previous question, where do you interact with others on these issues? What is your bible study equivalent…where can you (or have you) discussed, learned and debated secular humanist ethics outside say formal schooling?

Yeah, I basically see religions as pre-packaged philosophies, some with real wisdom. I don't like the idea of having to buy the whole cow just because I want a steak or some milk.

I'll be the first to admit that there is an element of community that the religious have that atheists don't quite get, and that is often bridged with secular groups of various kinds. I'm not big on social groups but I do occaisonally meet up with some other engineers at a local astronomy observatory and we design and discuss things. I exchange a lot of ideas on the internet, like on this forum or Reddit. That and reading is usually enough for me.

How would you summarize your beliefs?

 

[Angel]

How do you compare the merits of Judaism to Islam? or Christianity to Buddhism? or Hinduism to Taoism? even if they are all expressions of desire to find God and hence a long term good.

I don't compare religions. The merits of any religion redound to the followers of that religion.

 

[Angel]

True??? :roll: What's true?

Truth? No.

Your quote should read like this:

No, my post should read exactly the way it was written by me. The word true you bolded is defined in the sentence that follows it.
The word truth that you replaced with the word belief refers to the proposition expressed in my first sentence, i.e.. to my reckoning on all religions.

 

[Exquisitor]

How do you know that there is an Absolute Truth?

What do you mean by Absolute, Truth, is, there?

You wouldn't say that the day you're living was false or that it didn't happen or that it happened somehow else.

 

[soylentgreen]

Any and all religions are but different pathways to the same God.

Great, I will not have to feel any guilt the next time i sacrifice a vigin to the fire gods.

 

[Exquisitor]

Great, I will not have to feel any guilt the next time i sacrifice a vigin to the fire gods.

They eventually have to go back to godhead too, so manifest as pathway to the same God.

 

[Angel]

The individual. Look, you're the one always saying that ALL religions are correct. Therefore if I make one up, like that Chtulu a space alien created humanity and told us to seek individual purpose, it is automatically correct in your opinion.

The individual? Seems like a formula for moral anarchy.
If you made up a religion, you'd be L Ron Hubbard. Scientology is the sort of "religion" your plan is likely to produce.
Scientology would have been laughed out of existence in the 18th century and before, and even the 19th century. Only an age that saw the rise of secularism could set the stage for such a parody of religion.