Religion?

[Cruel2BKind]

religion is the opiate of the masses.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Hmn...

We-e-ell... I should say to begin with that I am not Greek exactly. The islands my ancestors were from are rather a bit north and west and regard 'themselves' more or less as a separate republic...

Otherwise, I have heard Greek friends say though, that there is a stone seat inside the Hagia Sophia on which is written the words 'to an unknown god' rather than to no god at all, or to something that they 'don't know exists or not' (which has a different sense of meaning entirely) - and from which is understood to be the derivation of the idea of the agnostic as far as they are concerned. Not that they don't believe that god exists, but rather that Mankind cannot properly comprehend god truly nor do we have a proper identity for 'god' that they can be certain of. And indeed from my understanding of what they say, they do indeed regard others' views of god to have merit and ought not to be derided. This empty stone seat is venerated by the traditional Greek 'agnostics' as if and as though there might be a 'god' represented there. That is my understanding of the matter. And there is an implication in this old traditonal practice of actually venerating the 'unknown god,' of showing civility and the tendency of respect aboveall else.

 

[Thefamiliar]

Seems to me, Pilot, that your post was explicitly about "pre-Christian" religions with beliefs in an afterlife, and TheFamiliar, though vague and general, is quite correct. And I don't think he was claiming their beliefs were the same, or that it constituted proof of an afterlife, just that the notion of an afterlife for spirits of the dead existed independent of Christianity and its multifarious conceptions of life after death. In that, he most assuredly is correct.

Thank you Tio, you are correct, in the intent of my post.

Though I am laughing, because your he, is really a she. Just fyi.

As for the reason I originally posted...

Because, I was curious if I had the definition wrong, I went to dictionary.com

agnostic [ ag-nos-tik ] noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. 3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

Indeed its just semantics, but no where have I ever heard aethism and agnotics can be the same thing. While my interpritation is not 100pct correct. Its not wrong either.

And I will be vague, as posting from a phone, for lack of computer access lends itself to looooong post times, I wont debate indepth, though debate is enjoyable.

One can claim agnosticism and believe in the afterlife, or at least speak about it, without issue.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Thank you Tio, you are correct, in the intent of my post.

Though I am laughing, because your he, is really a she. Just fyi.

As for the reason I originally posted...

Because, I was curious if I had the definition wrong, I went to dictionary.com

agnostic [ ag-nos-tik ] noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. 3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

Indeed its just semantics, but no where have I ever heard aethism and agnotics can be the same thing. While my interpritation is not 100pct correct. Its not wrong either.

And I will be vague, as posting from a phone, for lack of computer access lends itself to looooong post times, I wont debate indepth, though debate is enjoyable.

One can claim agnosticism and believe in the afterlife, or at least speak about it, without issue.

Sorry about the gender reassignment, Familiar; I really should get a karyotype before I jump to a conclusion.

It might be difficult to be agnostic about the existence of a god and still believe in a Christian afterlife, since that afterlife is predicated on their god. Other afterlives, however, don't depend on, or even feature, a god. Inuit spirits traditionally dance in the sky while awaiting rebirth in another human (you can see and hear them as the Aurora Borealis), and Annicinabek souls walk down the path to the village of the dead, having their brains removed by an ogre of sorts so they don't suffer the sadness of remembering those they left behind.

 

[Hubs_in_hose]

You've confused me. If they could edit it before to say don't eat pork, then why don't they just edit again to say you can?

(sorry for the extended time to reply)

Before they could edit it because the church usually had the people that could read and write. Once more people could read and write, the church kept the book written in Latin. It seemed that they only wanted their clergy to understand what was in the book. Now that there are somewhat agreed to contents it is harder for the church to edit what is in the book.

Because it is harder to edit the book now and more people are able to read what is in it you have more people realizing the errors that are in the book. Those errors lead to people questioning "if the bible is not 100% correct, then what else isn't correct about religion?"

I hold the belief that most religions are not about worshiping a god but worshiping a book. When the church controlled the book they had the most power.

 

[topace]

(sorry for the extended time to reply)

Before they could edit it because the church usually had the people that could read and write. Once more people could read and write, the church kept the book written in Latin. It seemed that they only wanted their clergy to understand what was in the book. Now that there are somewhat agreed to contents it is harder for the church to edit what is in the book.

Because it is harder to edit the book now and more people are able to read what is in it you have more people realizing the errors that are in the book. Those errors lead to people questioning "if the bible is not 100% correct, then what else isn't correct about religion?"

I hold the belief that most religions are not about worshiping a god but worshiping a book. When the church controlled the book they had the most power.

I hate to say this, but when the Bible states something scientific, it's been proven to be correct so far.

Pork is a very dangerous food unless cooked well - it can easily make you ill.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I hate to say this, but when the Bible states something scientific, it's been proven to be correct so far.

Pork is a very dangerous food unless cooked well - it can easily make you ill.

What scientific things has the bible been correct about?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

religion is the opiate of the masses.

Religion is often the only safe harbor in a storm.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I hate to say this, but when the Bible states something scientific, it's been proven to be correct so far.

Pork is a very dangerous food unless cooked well - it can easily make you ill.

You should hate to say it, because it isn't true.

 

[Thefamiliar]

Sorry about the gender reassignment, Familiar; I really should get a karyotype before I jump to a conclusion.

It might be difficult to be agnostic about the existence of a god and still believe in a Christian afterlife, since that afterlife is predicated on their god. Other afterlives, however, don't depend on, or even feature, a god. Inuit spirits traditionally dance in the sky while awaiting rebirth in another human (you can see and hear them as the Aurora Borealis), and Annicinabek souls walk down the path to the village of the dead, having their brains removed by an ogre of sorts so they don't suffer the sadness of remembering those they left behind.

No worries about the gender confusion, honest, it amuses me that I can come across "male like". I don't find it offensive in the least. I actually am a very successful male in mmrpg's...just didn't want too much confusion as I have posted about sex from the female perspective here and there.

Well if an agnostic is someone who claims they can't possibly know the answer of whether it exists or not, then one could talk about any afterlife - as in based on the beliefs that are known. It doesn't necessarily mean that one would be claiming the knowledge as true and unchallenged. I suppose I am of the mind that it's possible because I do it on a regular basis when discussing religions and things with others. I don't have any particular claim to a set religion, nor does my definition of God (or lack there of) fit any religion fully. But for the sake of any good debate I can hop on whichever side needs defending, or advocating, and yet at the end of the day I know no more or less than I did when I started.

Now if one said they were agnostic and only ever seemed to take the side of the christian belief, then one may start calling into question whether or not the person's claim to agnosticism is valid.

I do like the ogre eating brains belief...lol

But even not quite as fantastical as that, the simple belief in reincarnation doesn't require a god, but seems to suggest the soul lives on past the life of the body. There are again thousands of beliefs as far as how reincarnation works, why etc.

It just happens to be a subject I enjoy researching, as well as history and the like. Seeing as how I started being curious about Witchcraft when I was a kid, it's been something I tend to do when I find I need a kick in the imagination area, it's interesting enough to get the creative juices flowing.
My curiosity didn't stop at the mystic and esoteric, it just kept growing from there. I can't claim absolute knowledge on all religions - my brain is not nearly big enough to hold all the information. But if it peaks my curiosity I will keep going until my curiosity is satisfied.

An agnostic point of view really would be more like - anything is possible yet nothing is probable, I would think. Perhaps I am wrong though.

I did originally post as it seemed the understanding of agnostic was a bit skewed, it's not a term that is used often really, and once upon a time I thought the terms were interchangeable myself. Until I married an atheist...I have learned a bit since then.

Thank you though, for carrying on the conversation. appreciate it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Mostly, I don't call myself an agnostic because it's an invitation to the masses to explain Pascal's Wager for the bazillionth time, in the fond belief that will make me believe in their god. "Atheist," one would hope, would preempt that a little bit, although my sister says that a couple came to her door to hand her the watchtower, and when she said "I'm an atheist, the young man said "Oh, but there is a female and a male god in the bible!"

She said "Yes, I'm a feminist, but I'm an atheist feminist."

 

[Hubs_in_hose]

I hate to say this, but when the Bible states something scientific, it's been proven to be correct so far.

Pork is a very dangerous food unless cooked well - it can easily make you ill.

There are several times when the bible contradicts itself. Off the top of my head I can recall it classifying bats as birds and the heart as the thought organ.

Also, what about the treatment of women in the Bible? Often it makes them as second class people. If the Bible is wrong about that then what else?

Pork today is not any more dangerous than chicken or beef. If you don't handle them properly you can get very ill.

The point I am trying to make is that the Bible was written by man--and man from 2,000 or more years ago. Its composition was called for and regulated by the church. It is no more the word of the Creator than Webster's Dictionary.

 

[Thefamiliar]

Mostly, I don't call myself an agnostic because it's an invitation to the masses to explain Pascal's Wager for the bazillionth time, in the fond belief that will make me believe in their god. "Atheist," one would hope, would preempt that a little bit, although my sister says that a couple came to her door to hand her the watchtower, and when she said "I'm an atheist, the young man said "Oh, but there is a female and a male god in the bible!"

She said "Yes, I'm a feminist, but I'm an atheist feminist."

Ok that cracks me up, on a couple different levels. Awesome.

 

[Thucydides]

I am a practicing Buddhist. Most schools of Buddhist thought take no position on the existence of a deity. In my understanding of the Middle Way, it's simply irrelevant: we seek to understand the right way to live in the here and now to free ourselves from unhappiness.

One of my favorite teachings is the Kalama Sutta (roughly "the sermon to residents of Kalama"). Basically, they asked the Buddha how to make sense out of the various traveling preachers, each of whom claimed to have the one true way and disparaged all the others. He told them to think for themselves:

"Do not go by reports , by legends, by traditions, by rumours, by scriptures, by surmise, conjecture and axioms, by inference and analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by specious reasoning or bias toward a notion because it has been pondered over, by another's seeming ability, or by the thought, 'This monk is our teacher."

However, Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "Such and such things are unskilful; blameworthy; criticized by the wise; and if adopted and carried out lead to harm and ill and suffering," you need to abandon them.

Overcome and possessed by greed a man takes life, steals or takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, and tells lies and induces others to do likewise, all of which for long-term harm and suffering. It is likewise with hate and delusion.

So what do you think, Kalamas? Are these things skilful or unskilful? Blameworthy or not? Criticized or praised by the wise? And if undertaken and observed, do these things lead to suffering, harm and ill or not?"

"When adopted and carried out, such things lead to harm and suffering, it appears to us."

"On the other hand, when you know for yourselves that, "These and these things are skillful; blameless; even praised by the wise; and lead to welfare and happiness when taken up and carried out, then you should enter and remain in them."

My basic belief is that there are certain approaches to life that, in universal experience, "work", and others that don't. Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity all encourage their followers to be humble and treat others with respect. That "works", the opposite- arrogance and rudeness- universally leads to unhappiness. You can put whatever framework on it that makes you comfortable, but most religions are trying to pass on the sum of thousands of years of human experience.

 

[loquere]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zUcHu5Ah1g

 

[wistfall1]

There are several times when the bible contradicts itself. Off the top of my head I can recall it classifying bats as birds and the heart as the thought organ.

It specifically contradicts itself on when the Exodus was supposed to occur in stating from where which puts it in a time frame, yet very specifically gives a time about 200 years before that place was even thought of.

Also, what about the treatment of women in the Bible? Often it makes them as second class people. If the Bible is wrong about that then what else?

Much of the first book of Genesis is wrong as can be. There are not only two creations (and the second one more than resembles cloning), but contradictory tales by far of the animals Noah was to take in. If you're one of the special kind of Creationists, you also believed dinosours were alive at the time of Noah (there's even a dinosour museum showing kids playing while dinosours do whatever by a close by river in Kentucky). Not only that, but if you believe the bible as inerrant, then they had to take in Blue whales for they breathed air, as do all mammals and all whales are mammals. There's no way an ark the size quoted could handle the animals it had to to be the inerrant word of God

Women were less than second class--chattel is more like it. Women were to be given in place of having sex with a "protected" male even unto offerng up a virgin daughter, and not just as with Lot.

One of the hottest New Testament items is the end days. Jesus is quoted as calling for them before his generation passed away--so did Paul, and that didn't happen, so they back tracked as if nothing otherwise (as said originally) had been said. As you stated below, yes, the church then did hope to control everyone and limit their access to the bible. That is true even to today though it will be denied. They don't really want anyone reading the bible and asking unanswerable questions.

The point I am trying to make is that the Bible was written by man--and man from 2,000 or more years ago. Its composition was called for and regulated by the church. It is no more the word of the Creator than Webster's Dictionary.

Written by many men. The book of Isaiah is thought to have been written by possibly three or more men. One of the most quoted passages in Isaiah is from the part definitely not written by the original Isaiah. A Jew in the middle ages saw this and commented on it. The actual bible as we have it today (Catholic versiion) was approved by the bishop of Alexandria in 367 for his flock. It was accepted many years later. The Protestant bible accepts it also, save for a few books, mostly like the Book of Maccabees, and a few others.

Yes, the bible has been tinkered with. No, no one knows the actual author of any of the gospels, and yes, quite of few of the books of the New Testament are forgeries.

You can read most of this at the stories written as below starting with The Devils Gateway (what one of the original after-the-apostles church fathers like Iraneus and Origin, etc., said about women):

http://www.literotica.com/stories/me...ge=submissions

The stories were written to aid lesbians who have been driven to mental distraction by bombastic and ignorant preachers who tormented them with hellfire.

All that is written in the stories is easily verified since where to find all sources is given, particularly when it is written in the so-called inerrant bible.

 

[topace]

Yes, the Bible calls the 'heart' the thinking organ - but it it referring to the spiritual heart, not the physical one. There is a big difference there.

Here's a few:

Hand washing for health after handling the dead before it became mandatory in hospitals.
The Earth revolves around the Sun.
Air has weight.
The stars are a vast number (in fact we don't even know how many there actually are!).
For more facts the Bible was first correct one, go here.

Many of the Bible's miracles have been proven true as well scientifically as well. A good book on this is called "Ancient Secrets of the Bible" - it's also the title of a series of videos that shows proof.

One of the most stunning videos was that the Ark was very tip-resistant - you could tip it almost 90 degrees on it's side and it would not flip over and sink! In fact, many modern aircraft carriers today has similar proportions as the Ark did.

I'm not saying the Bible is a road map for today's life - far from it! I'm just saying that when it speaks about something scientifically, it's been proven right more often than not.

I also don't agree with what it says about women, but the Bible was written at a time when men were supposed to be the leaders of their families and communities. Got to take that into account when considering what to listen to, and what to ignore.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Haha well, I don't even know where to start.

But calling an observation a "Science fact" doesn't make it one.

this is how science works:
http://www.a1.sciencebuddies.org/Files/339/5/overview_scientific_method2.gif
More here;
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

The bible is pretty much exactly the opposite of that, and the page you linked to is a handful of vague passages that someone interpreted in wild and crazy ways-- even to the extent of outright lies in several places.

Yet you are willing to accept these flat statements at face value? Meanwhile, the proper scientific answer of "We don't know yet" invalidates scientific discovery for you.

That. my friend, is the difference between "belief" and "knowledge."

 

[4glory6]

Anybody here changed your view of religion since posting on or reading this thread? No? I didn't think so. What a waste of time.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Anybody here changed your view of religion since posting on or reading this thread? No? I didn't think so. What a waste of time.

That was never the point of the thread, sweetheart.

 

[4glory6]

Oh, believe me, I did realize that the thread was pointless, honeybunch.

 

[LadyVer]

Oh, believe me, I did realize that the thread was pointless, honeybunch.

If this is a pointless thread for you, why are you even wasting your time commenting?

 

[4glory6]

Why to make fun of you all and your need to jabber on a subject that just isn't going anywhere, of course. I would have thought you'd take enough time out from talking to yourselves and wasting bandwidth to figure that out.

 

[LadyVer]

Why to make fun of you all and your need to jabber on a subject that just isn't going anywhere, of course. I would have thought you'd take enough time out from talking to yourselves and wasting bandwidth to figure that out.

Newsflash: Most of the threads on Lit don't really go anywhere.

 

[Handley_Page]

Much of the first book of Genesis is wrong as can be. There are not only two creations (and the second one more than resembles cloning), but contradictory tales by far of the animals Noah was to take in. If you're one of the special kind of Creationists, you also believed dinosaurs were alive at the time of Noah (there's even a dinosaur museum showing kids playing while dinosaurs do whatever by a close by river in Kentucky). Not only that, but if you believe the bible as inerrant, then they had to take in Blue whales for they breathed air, as do all mammals and all whales are mammals. There's no way an ark the size quoted could handle the animals it had to to be the inerrant word of God

All that is written in the stories is easily verified since where to find all sources is given, particularly when it is written in the so-called inerrant bible.

Try that outside the USA and the laughter will be heard in Heaven itself.
That and the word 'Dinosaur' was not in the English lexicon when the Bible was translated. Look up Job 41 and whatever the Greek word used was translated as 'Leviathan' which could mean almost anything large.

Yes, the Bible calls the 'heart' the thinking organ - but it it referring to the spiritual heart, not the physical one. There is a big difference there.

Here's a few:

Hand washing for health after handling the dead before it became mandatory in hospitals.
The Earth revolves around the Sun.
Air has weight.
The stars are a vast number (in fact we don't even know how many there actually are!).
For more facts the Bible was first correct one, go here.

One of the most stunning videos was that the Ark was very tip-resistant - you could tip it almost 90 degrees on it's side and it would not flip over and sink! In fact, many modern aircraft carriers today has similar proportions as the Ark did.

.

And the plans for the Ark were found - where?