What if there would be no religion?
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:20 am
What if there would be no religion?
Let ponder if there would be no religion? We hear no stories,no fears,no mysticism,no unanswered questions,no silences of hard turns of morality. The man who needed first these all aspects of thoughts was terribly important regarding logic of nothingness. Though i am not of opinion that map would be somehow different than it is but i must add that would be no discrimination among humans regarding theories of theists. How history of unknown divided the natural flow of humanism by plotting the boundaries of their own will,my head stops working by just imaging such philosophy. Its bit difficult to assign all the one sided truths over thought "Sin Vs Religion",must be well defined whether crime was before law of religion was after sin!!! A critical approach for historical nothingness.
Re: What if there would be no religion?
I think what you propose is an impossibility. For there to be no religion there would need to be no god since god would reveal himself to man in any variety of ways and religion is man’s attempt to learn about god.
Re: What if there would be no religion?
If god is a necessary condition for religion, then any religion is god revealing itself in a 'variety of ways'. Therefore, all religions are equal.MMasz wrote:I think what you propose is an impossibility. For there to be no religion there would need to be no god since god would reveal himself to man in any variety of ways and religion is man’s attempt to learn about god.
Re: What if there would be no religion?
Not so. While god may reveal himself in a particular way, i.e., provide evidence, people’s interpretation of that evidence and subsequent ‘god’ construction may vary widely and may in fact, be incorrect. Therefore, all religions are not equal.uwot wrote:If god is a necessary condition for religion, then any religion is god revealing itself in a 'variety of ways'. Therefore, all religions are equal.MMasz wrote:I think what you propose is an impossibility. For there to be no religion there would need to be no god since god would reveal himself to man in any variety of ways and religion is man’s attempt to learn about god.
Re: What if there would be no religion?
How do you judge which interpretation is the right one?MMasz wrote: While god may reveal himself in a particular way, i.e., provide evidence, people’s interpretation of that evidence and subsequent ‘god’ construction may vary widely and may in fact, be incorrect. Therefore, all religions are not equal.
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:20 am
Re: What if there would be no religion?
Religion via God or God via religion are relative.
No absolute definitions for proving relative validities.
Neglecting one will let other vanish
That's why
those who love,they need god to prove their unnatural hypothesis valid.
Still they need to prove thier moral less uncertainity.
Regard's.
No absolute definitions for proving relative validities.
Neglecting one will let other vanish
That's why
those who love,they need god to prove their unnatural hypothesis valid.
Still they need to prove thier moral less uncertainity.
Regard's.
Re: What if there would be no religion?
Religion has undergone a great many changes over the course of human history - and even more, before history was written. The structure of human societies, the size and geographical location of populations, the borders and international relations, the political and legal frameworks, the loyalties and leaderships, sexual and economic practices, cultures, public and private mores have all changed over time. Religious observances, church hierarchies, canon and ritual have all changed right along.
In most parts of the world, both the political organization and the religion of the natives has been destroyed by invading empires; replaced with the conqueror's rule and god. In some parts of the world, this has happened several times, or many times. New religions, as well as new political ideologies, have been invented and either freely assumed by, or forced on, whole populations.
Religions can be created and destroyed; they can evolve and reform; they can also grow obsolete and die.
Secular states already exist and operate (IMO) much better than theocracies, because their legislation responds to the current requirement of the citizenry rather than the traditional demands of a long-dead patriarchy. In most modern states, the population has more than one religion, and is at odds internally: if government favours one church over another, it must be unfair to the minority. Therefore, in order to prevent civil war, modern states must at least maintain a pretense of impartiality. And that slackening of force gives people an opportunity to question, to doubt, to speak aloud, to strop obeying every irrational demand of the scripture, to stop observing every silly custom and stop wearing every impractical costume.... A little chance to shed the yoke of gods.
The sooner all religion becomes obsolete and fades away in disuse, the sooner we can contemplate taking sensible action to save our collective lives.
(Never going to happen, but it's a pleasant thought.)
In most parts of the world, both the political organization and the religion of the natives has been destroyed by invading empires; replaced with the conqueror's rule and god. In some parts of the world, this has happened several times, or many times. New religions, as well as new political ideologies, have been invented and either freely assumed by, or forced on, whole populations.
Religions can be created and destroyed; they can evolve and reform; they can also grow obsolete and die.
Secular states already exist and operate (IMO) much better than theocracies, because their legislation responds to the current requirement of the citizenry rather than the traditional demands of a long-dead patriarchy. In most modern states, the population has more than one religion, and is at odds internally: if government favours one church over another, it must be unfair to the minority. Therefore, in order to prevent civil war, modern states must at least maintain a pretense of impartiality. And that slackening of force gives people an opportunity to question, to doubt, to speak aloud, to strop obeying every irrational demand of the scripture, to stop observing every silly custom and stop wearing every impractical costume.... A little chance to shed the yoke of gods.
The sooner all religion becomes obsolete and fades away in disuse, the sooner we can contemplate taking sensible action to save our collective lives.
(Never going to happen, but it's a pleasant thought.)
Re: What if there would be no religion?
By examining each one and coming to a reasonable inference.uwot wrote:How do you judge which interpretation is the right one?MMasz wrote: While god may reveal himself in a particular way, i.e., provide evidence, people’s interpretation of that evidence and subsequent ‘god’ construction may vary widely and may in fact, be incorrect. Therefore, all religions are not equal.
Re: What if there would be no religion?
So how many religions have you examined, and how did you arrive at your reasonable inference?MMasz wrote:By examining each one and coming to a reasonable inference.
Re: What if there would be no religion?
Quite a lot. Christianity made the most sense.uwot wrote:So how many religions have you examined, and how did you arrive at your reasonable inference?MMasz wrote:By examining each one and coming to a reasonable inference.
Re: What if there would be no religion?
What came second? Was it close?MMasz wrote:Quite a lot. Christianity made the most sense.uwot wrote:So how many religions have you examined, and how did you arrive at your reasonable inference?
Re: What if there would be no religion?
People have experimented with this idea.
Stalinist Soviet Union and Maoist China.
Two paradises on earth ?
Stalinist Soviet Union and Maoist China.
Two paradises on earth ?
Re: What if there would be no religion?
How much has tradition played a part in your decision? I'm not for one moment deriding your choice to be a Christian, I am genuinely interested. For example it is next to impossible for a Westerner to be a Hindu as Hinduism is inextricably linked with tradition. At what point does tradition become restrictive on one's worldview? Richard Dawkins argues that submission to tradition can be toxic. What's your view?MMasz wrote:Quite a lot. Christianity made the most sense.uwot wrote:So how many religions have you examined, and how did you arrive at your reasonable inference?MMasz wrote:By examining each one and coming to a reasonable inference.
Re: What if there would be no religion?
1. At first you adopt the traditions of your parents and your homeland because it is new to you and thus interesting.
2. Then you rebel and look for the exotic.
3. Then you see the ugly aspects of the exotic and turn back to what you have known as a child.
OR:
3. a. You stay permanently with the exotic.
OR:
3. b. You start something completely new yourself.
2. Then you rebel and look for the exotic.
3. Then you see the ugly aspects of the exotic and turn back to what you have known as a child.
OR:
3. a. You stay permanently with the exotic.
OR:
3. b. You start something completely new yourself.
Re: What if there would be no religion?
You forgot one:duszek wrote:1. At first you adopt the traditions of your parents and your homeland because it is new to you and thus interesting.
2. Then you rebel and look for the exotic.
3. Then you see the ugly aspects of the exotic and turn back to what you have known as a child.
OR:
3. a. You stay permanently with the exotic.
OR:
3. b. You start something completely new
yourself.
OR:
You stay completely within the tradition in which
you were raised, which probably accounts for the majority of humanity..