Religion In A Clubby Hole

I say we should tar and feather every religious person..that will learn`em some tolerance.

How about ``the science of religion,`` or the ``religion of science?``

Or the ``objectivity of sujectivity,`` and ``subjectivity of objecitivity?``

Or proof by declaration?

Or tradition-is-truth? Or ``i-am-the-only-person-who-truly-knows-my-religion.``

Religion wallas have been at this game for thousands of years. You will not convince anyone who is not already convinced.

partha....
Religion is fact of life, which leads to belief, belief of beings, which follows path towards a superpower, called GOD. Now, GOD is depicted in various forms in various religions, but, ultimately every form goes to one GOD. Again, you have all the right to believe or not to believe in GOD. Don`t mix religions with GOD. Religions are monopoly of a specific groups of clans with same rituals, very limited with little insight leading to recessed minds to follow same things over and over again. However, GOD is unlimited superpower, which is the centre of Universe, whole universe revolving around that one magnetic force, called GOD. GOD is neither man, nor woman, or any being.....GOD is a supreme power, which has been balancing the whole universe by being the centre of it, keeping it in it`s place.................

Now, do we need so, many religions?? If, we see idealisticaly,absolutely NO. Ideally, all humans should have one religions with same rituals to be followed over and over again.
That way, we won`t have so, many differences.

But, if we see with realistic approach, all humans are free to make their own set of rituals to follow, called religions. To have so, many religions give them choice of freedom with out any monopoly....

Now, these religions are being used for the dectruction of humans. Sad thing is, religions were created to make this world , problem free...........and ironicaly, religions are now the basis of all troubles.......convoluted by some lunatics and fanatics......jihadis are #1 in their fanaticism.....convoluting Islam for the destruction of the humans with sucide bombings....

Not much new here, though I am in general agreement with the viewpoint presented.

``If religion can`t say, hand on heart, ``this is definitely what a god thinks, he told us so``, then they should shut up and stop making it up.``

Isn`t this exactly what the faithful say, of any religion. Don`t Christians believe Bible to be the message of Jesus and Muslims The Quran to be the word of God?


```an eye for an eye` as defunct compared to flavour of the decade, the `turn the other cheek` ideology, but both are equally admissiblable and merely ideologies, yet the latter appears to be more acceptable, though the former was more acceptable in earler centuries.``

You are mixing up two different traditions. ``an eye for an eye`` is a Jewish concept which has been accepted by Islam. On the other hand, `turn the other cheek` is a christian concept. In practice, I do not see Bush, a believing christian, turning the other cheek.

This is a very good piece, articulate and thought-provoking. It was previously posted – slightly abbreviated - as a response on Sunil Poolani’s recent article. Because of its length and coherence, I wanted to ask if it was original or a cut-and-paste – some passages are vaguely reminiscent of George Carlin, as transmitted by hamidm. Be that as it may, it certainly deserves a read.

The biggest flaw of this article, to my mind, is that it may be too wide in scope. A good answer – not the usual platitudes – to the more specific question of why religion – and specific religions - have persisted down the millennia, would merit a more focused piece.

Re: # 3

zeena:

``However, GOD is unlimited superpower, which is the centre of Universe, whole universe revolving around that one magnetic force, called GOD. GOD is neither man, nor woman, or any being.....GOD is a supreme power, which has been balancing the whole universe by being the centre of it, keeping it in it`s place................. ``

I assume this is your belief.

``Sad thing is, religions were created to make this world , problem free...........``

i think people thinking that their way is the right way is the problem. but thats how religions also spread. don`t you think people from one faith would really like to convert people to chtheir faith rather than think about world peace and tranquility?


``That way, we won`t have so, many differences. ``

the only thing that remains constant is change. even monotheist religions have schisms. thats human nature.

religion can make people do silly things. in chandigarh it is compulsory to wear helmets. however some sikhs objected to this, saying that their religion does not allow wearing of topi etc. sikh men who wear turbans are exempt. many girls have died while riding a scooter/motorcycle because they were not wearing helmets. now very few girls in chd wear helmets. the older women have no problems with it. girls dont wear helmets bec it spoils their hairstyles.

Your remark:
“The differences are glaring to the open minded”.

What happened to tolerance man? You think you are open-minded and someone who is following a religion has a closed mind. I can bet you that: if a religion follower tells you that you have a closed mind you will label him as “religious fanatic.” This is in fashion lately.

Your remark:
“Science can be tested.”

Let me complete the sentence. Science can be tested based on five senses and reasoning from the brain. It tends to change, as more knowledge is acquired, again, based on five senses and reasoning from the brain. You cannot lead life based on something that changes.


Let me open can of worms:
Science cannot provide answers like why are we here in this world? What is the propose of us humans on this planet? Are we humans different from other animals? And in what sense?

Morality comes from Religion and Religion only. This is a fact that you cannot deny. You say that “It (Religion) has taken custody of ``good.” It is simply because it is the good. Laws made by man keeps on changing based on what kings thought in the past and what democracy dictates lately.

Answer this to me: What can stop a secular democratic country to pass a law to allow brothers to marry their own sisters if majority of the voters vote for it?

The example above is an extreme one and put a lot of people who support true secular democracy at unease. The argument I have heard is that this has not happened yet and probably will not happen.

Here is a live example:

Legal age to have sex is different in various countries of the world. Lets look at some countries.

Argentina
Male Female Sex age 13/16
Male Male Sex age 13/16
Female Female Sex age 13/16

Canada
Male Female Sex age 12/14/18
Male Male Sex age 12/14/18
Female Female Sex age 12/14/18

Various ages are supported in various provinces.

Denmark
Male Female Sex age 15
Male Male Sex age 15
Female Female Sex age 15

Pakistan
Male Female Sex age None (I wonder)
Male Male Sex age ?
Female Female Sex age ?

India
Male Female Sex age 16
Male Male Sex age Illegal
Female Female Sex age Illegal

Korea
Male Female Sex age 13
Male Male Sex age 13
Female Female Sex age 13

Spain
Male Female Sex age 13
Male Male Sex age 13
Female Female Sex age 13

California
Male Female Sex age 18
Male Male Sex age 18
Female Female Sex age 18

Maine
Male Female Sex age 16
Male Male Sex age 16
Female Female Sex age 16

Male Female Sex age 14F/17M
Male Male Sex age Illegal
Female Female Sex age Illegal

The point I am trying to make is this: Legal ages (and type of sex) vary in different countries based on what the people of the country have decided either based on religion or secular democracy.

SO how you want to live depends on you; just do not call others fanatics because they do not adhere to your thinking. Worst of all is to force others to adhere to ones thinking. This applies to religion as well as seculars.

Asfand Siddiqui

From the article:

{{Seeing the direct and indirect religious conflicts around the world, why should not there be a minimum age, say 16, after which children can be exposed to this `opium` of the masses?}}

References to religion as the “opiate of the masses”, i.e. as a drug, have become common coinage in ‘educated’ discourse ever since Marx. This metaphor, though seductive, is superficial, outdated, and frankly unsatisfactory. Religions are not drugs; they are viruses of the mind. They engage in a rough mental analogue of the infection-replication-release cycle that is characteristic of viruses.

Drugs typically function because they ‘fit well’ (in the sense of stereochemistry) into cubbyholes in natural biological molecules. In some cases drugs are identical to substances produced by the body in a controlled fashion for specific purposes; in other cases, they are similar enough to such natural molecules to fit like ‘keys’ into the same molecular ‘locks’. It is their mimicking of some of the low-level biochemical machinery of life that enables their devastating effects.

Religions do not appear to be the mental equivalents of such precisely shaped artifacts as drugs. For one thing, a particular individual’s religion is typically a large, sprawling mental structure – drug molecules by contrast are usually quite small – so there is a substantial mismatch in information content. More significantly, there is no obvious analogy in mindspace to the ‘key and lock’ mechanism for chemical opiates. The mindspace-viability of a religion (i.e., its ability to infect individual minds and perpetuate itself) tends to be robust under most (though not all) small changes in specific doctrine. The viability of a religion appears to be a consequence of the whole rather than of any one specific precisely fashioned part.

There is a further extremely significant difference with drug function. An opiate does ‘fool’ biological machinery into behaving in a particular way (not necessarily to the benefit of the organism). However, it typically lacks the capability to subvert biological machinery into churning out copies of the drug molecule. As a consequence, a drug molecule tends to be metabolized, excreted, or otherwise eliminated from the system. Thus the direct effects of the drug tend to decay with time unless further quantities are ingested or injected – though withdrawal symptoms and some permanent changes to body chemistry might persist.

Religions, by contrast (or at least the successful and long-lasting ones) have more drastic capabilities. Firstly, they tend to permanently incorporate themselves into the structures of individual minds – they cannot be ‘metabolized’ away in routine fashion and typically cannot be eliminated without extended and heroic efforts. Thus their direct effects – in fundamentally modifying human behaviour – are persistent and long lasting. They should be seen as large pieces of mental ‘code’ that get spliced into the individual’s mental ‘program’, or the equivalent of foreign fragments of nucleic acid incorporated into a cell’s genetic material.

Secondly, long-lasting religions subvert the mental machinery of an infected individual so as to make him a True Believer eager to spread the True Faith, thus transmitting themselves into the minds of other individuals, and spreading the mental infection through human populations; they drastically modify the behaviour of infected individuals to facilitate this spread. This is analogous to what naturally occuring viruses, and their computer analogues, do in replicating themselves and modifying host behaviour to ensure their spread and persistence in a population.

The core ideas above were originated by a well-known contemporary scientist and celebrated (or notorious) atheist; I’m merely engaging in (imperfect) replication and retransmission. They should not be regarded as a mind-virus, however; they may help in inoculating and perhaps immunizing strong minds against the worst kinds of mind-virus infection.

Are non-religious people tolerant towards religious people or they enjoy calling religious people loonies and misguided?

Partha

The problem is the word `religion` is not definitive. It is contradictory in terms. A religion like Budhism may be a non-believer in god, prophet, etc., and extremely Aahimsic, non-dogmatic and another one, like Islam, believing the reverse of it. This inherent contradiction among various religions gives rise to the political religion. It is the negative and positive (Nafi Isbat) of the relgion which gives rise to political religion like electric power.These are dialectics of religion which are its very raison detre. Ghalib, the great, had epitomized it in a single couplet in Urdu:

``Lataafat be qasaafat jalwah peida kar nahiin sakti
Chaman zangaar he aaeinae baade bahaari ka``

It means in short that the very existence of any thing depends on dialectics.

According to Quran, the prophet once desired Allah to put an end t all `Kufr` (anti-Islamic beliefs) but He did not agree and rebuffed him saying ``You don`t know what I know) or something like that. In fact if this plea had been granted it would have prooved an end of religion as such.

Samosa

That depends on the specific religious people one is dealing with. Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance, but cowardice.

But those religious leaders who are respectful and mindful of others universally are/should be respected.

We place all `religious` people under one category only out of indefensible political correctness. People like the Dalai Lama, Bin Laden, and some predatory Pundit living in India share very little.

#6 by Netizen
Netizen

1:-Yes, I have firm belief in one superpower, called GOD.
It has got nothing to do with religion as I have already said in my post #3.

2:-My experience is totally different. I never wished anyone to be converted in to another religion, unless, someone wishes to be converted by his/her open choice.
I think, who ever tries to brainwash others to be converted in to their sect of religion is ridiculous. Everyone should have freedom to follow , what ever suits him/her based on his/her choice.

3:-I am tolerant for believers and non believers. I believe, in freedom of choice.

4:-I believe in one religion,called humanity................
5:- We don`t need religions, if, we have humanity. But, majority of humans lack humanity and they are bound to abide by a certain sect of rituals, which they call religion.
6:-Yes, change is the one , which leads us to our destiny. Everything changes, except, GOD. GOD is the one, who invites all of humans to explore this universe. Only way to explore is ,nothing but CHANGE.

Religion as a personal belief, one that informs one`s world view, is apparently what most people need. Organized religion, which goes beyond the personal and deals with the social, is just another ideology that must be challenged and contested.
In a world where the god was a cruel hegemon, a loving god was a revolutionary concept. And so was Jesus in his time. The church, however, is just another organization interested first and foremost in self preservation, and like any other organization does whatever it takes to achieve that end.
One needs to delineate these things to better appreciate what one is dealing with.
Religions are here to stay. They give people comfort and easy answers and if there were no religions then, as the old story goes, we`d still be divided along something like stawberry ice cream versus chocolate ice cream people.

Alephnull, don`t mean to put down your fine effort but don`t you think Marx may have meant opiate as in drugged, feeling-good state of mind?

AlephNull:
that i believe was Richard Dawkins, you were referring to. ? :)

#14 soysauce
Yes, religion is for comfort and easy answers. I totally agree with this point.

But, what is the most important point of every religion?

For humanity. If, a religion makes humanbeings miserable and they start fighting and killing eachother based on religion leading towards destruction of humanity.........which is very commonly practiced .....then it means, there is something wrong with that sect of religion........

Religion is supposed to be human friendly. If, religion becomes human enemy, then it fails it`s sole purpose..........

Then again I will say, if, you practice you humanity on daily basis, you don`t need to practice certian rituals to be affiliated with a certain religion.........b/c you`re already serving the purpose of being good human, which religion asks for.........