NationStates Jolt Archive

its a simple question but requires a long answer so give it a shot

its a simple question but requires a long answer so give it a shot


Because it doesn't, I suppose :confused: Seriously, what's with all the misconceptions about religion recently?

Because it doesn't, I suppose :confused: Seriously, what's with all the misconceptions about religion recently?

Typically, it is fundamentalists who promote the image of mindlessness.

I wasn't aware of any religion that preached mindlessness ... well ... maybe Wicca (tee hee). The big ones - Islam, Hindu, Christianity, Buddhism - all seem to have a central core that tells people to learn about themselves, the Universe, history, etc, and the smaller ones - Judaism, Taoism, etc - seem to do the same.

I think you're confusing religion with government.

Because I told it to.

interesting thought.... but i feel it does because everytime i start to really engange in a debate with a christian they repeat the same god shall judge all bull shit in a mindless "lets try and convert him" fashion and it makes me wonder is this all religions has to offer

Not all religions promote or teach 'mindlessness', although those that do probably do so for two reasons; inadvertently (lack of understanding that they are teaching mindlessness) and intentionally (because they want to keep their numbers of adherents up).

It's not uncommon for mindlessness to be promoted, spread or endorsed for either reason, and certainly is not restricted merely to 'religions' or the 'religious'.

Because I told it to.

:D

This thread preaches mindlessness.

Typically, it is fundamentalists who promote the image of mindlessness.



And left-wing activists that promote the image of mindlessness in the atheist community :p

Because evangelist christians are wackos.

eg. George W. Bush, insane right-wing idiots, etc.......

interesting thought.... but i feel it does because everytime i start to really engange in a debate with a christian they repeat the same god shall judge all bull shit in a mindless "lets try and convert him" fashion and it makes me wonder is this all religions has to offer



Theology is one of the most mind-consuming fields, at least from what I've seen :) I would have to disagree with your premise.

Typically, it is fundamentalists who promote the image of mindlessness.
And left-wing activists that promote the image of mindlessness in the atheist community :p


Hey! That's not fair. I'm a "fundamentalist" and a "left-wing activist". I'm neither atheist or mindless. :p

And left-wing activists that promote the image of mindlessness in the atheist community :p

Most atheists are not mindlessness.

and first off, stop generalizing about atheists.

Most atheists are not mindlessness.

and first off, stop generalizing about atheists.



Most Christians are not "mindlessness".

And, first off, stop generalizing Christians.


It's not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it? Don't start what you can't finish.

Because mindlessness lies at the core of religion. The whole purpose of religion is to give up a logical train of thought and instead focus on some fairy tale.

Most atheists are not mindlessness.

and first off, stop generalizing about atheists.
I'm really glad I can't read Neo's tirades.

What religion does is try to get everyone to think the same way so there will be fewer intellectual traffic accidents. Everyone thinking on their own will lead to too many people coming into conflict, so they want everyone to play by the same rules and hope thereby to prevent this. It doesn't work.

Because mindlessness lies at the core of religion. The whole purpose of religion is to give up a logical train of thought and instead focus on some fairy tale.



You couldn't be further from the truth, millenia of apologists, theologians, and scholars are turning over in their graves right now...or laughing, whichever is more appropriate.

You couldn't be further from the truth, millenia of apologists, theologians, and scholars are turning over in their graves right now...or laughing, whichever is more appropriate.
Technically, faith requires unquestioning observance

You couldn't be further from the truth, millenia of apologists, theologians, and scholars are turning over in their graves right now...or laughing, whichever is more appropriate.

He's right on the dot.

Well you can read my quoting him, soviet americas. Heheh...

Most Christians are not "mindlessness".

And, first off, stop generalizing Christians.


It's not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it? Don't start what you can't finish.

You aren't accurate. I was talking about fundamentalist christians... so...

It's not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it? Don't start what you can't finish.

BAM! Your argument has been bulldozed.

it is not mindlessness but most people go with science these days...in older times it was religion that everyone believed......mindlessness hell noe we are too open minded now a days to fall for that.

He's right on the dot.

Well you can read my quoting him, soviet americas. Heheh...
...Damn! Foiled again! :headbang:

Technically, faith requires unquestioning observance

You don't know too many practising Jews, then, I take it ...

He's right on the dot.

Well you can read my quoting him, soviet americas. Heheh...



No, you're just saying he is because you hate religion and would disregard all forms of civil debate in order to flame it. Also, I'm a her, not a him. :mad:

Because mindlessness lies at the core of religion. The whole purpose of religion is to give up a logical train of thought and instead focus on some fairy tale.

Being religious does not necessarily make you mindless. Yes, some religious people say moronic, illogical things, but there is no need to create a generalization.

You aren't accurate. I was talking about fundamentalist christians... so...

It's not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it? Don't start what you can't finish.

BAM! Your argument has been bulldozed.



:rolleyes:

Mindlessness is intolerance towards others ideas.

not to offend, but this thread preaches mindlessness. i agree with whoever said it first.

there are plenty of other thread where this topic could be entertained.

it is not mindlessness but most people go with science these days...in older times it was religion that everyone believed......mindlessness hell noe we are too open minded now a days to fall for that.

What "older times" are you talking about? Wait ... what "religion" are you talking about?! If you mean Roman Catholic Dark Ages Europe, you might want to realise that Muslims of the same time period were making huge advances in science, math, medicine, and technology.

Every religious society has its "Dark Ages" ... you can't focus on just one religion and one time period and call it "all religion".

not to offend, but this thread preaches mindlessness. i agree with whoever said it first.


That would be I. :)

You don't know too many practising Jews, then, I take it ...
Assuming faith means acceptance of a single point of knowledge as fact without requiring it to be proven

Assuming faith means acceptance of a single point of knowledge as fact without requiring it to be proven

I've never met a single Jew, Muslim, or Christian who believes in the Almighty without proof. The proof is there - through the texts, the miracles, and the history.

Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean it isn't proof any more than some derranged lunatic will believe the world to be a mere 6,000 years old even though there's plenty of proof otherwise.

Some do, some don't. My pastors always encouraged me to question and to explore as the unexplored faith is worthless.

And Neo, Mesatecala, were you both not warned by the Mods not to tangle with each other again?

My pastors always encouraged me to question and to explore as the unexplored faith is worthless.

That's terrific! I've always said ... any preacher who doesn't is probably trying to sell you something.

I believe that a religion (like anything that may be seen differently by many people) will show a little of yourself in what you see. If you become mindless it was already there. Religion probably helped you find a group for you to blend in and daze off next to. Yet, many wise people are religious. They will find wisedom in religion and their writings. Same thing with violence, understanding, bigotry, and fullfillment. There was a seed for it already in the viewer.

Some do, some don't. My pastors always encouraged me to question and to explore as the unexplored faith is worthless.

And Neo, Mesatecala, were you both not warned by the Mods not to tangle with each other again?



Oh, that's right....nobody ever told me how to put him on ignore.

I've never met a single Jew, Muslim, or Christian who believes in the Almighty without proof. The proof is there - through the texts, the miracles, and the history.
I do not stand corrected, I sit down and have a chortle at being proven technically correct, and as we all know "That is the best kind of correct."

Oh, that's right....nobody ever told me how to put him on ignore.

Go to your profile. Towards the bottom of the left side menu, there's a link for Buddy/Ignore lists.

Copy/paste the names of accounts you wish to ignore into the ignore side and click the update button.

I'm not too fond of organized religion usually, but I don't think you can rightfully say that all religions promote mindlessness. I think it's wrong to blindly accept a religion without questioning it, and seeing if it's truly right for you, and benefecial to your life. I believe that if you're going to be a true follower of whatever religion you claim to be apart of, it requires thought.

Neo and Meste, might I suggest you two just ignore each other?

That's terrific! I've always said ... any preacher who doesn't is probably trying to sell you something.

*Heh* Well, it might tell you something that my first pastor also taught me kempo karate, holding a 3rd black belt and my chuch's current pastor is well known for driving around town on his Harley Davdison, in full leathers. ;)

its a simple question but requires a long answer so give it a shot
Simple really. With mindfulness comes observations, with obersvations comes thought, with thought comes questions. Once you start asking questions religion falls apart like tissue paper in a typhoon.

You know a funny word? Chortle, well chortle and dong. Well you know two funny words: chortle and dong, and straife. Wait, you know three funny funny words are...

I do not stand corrected, I sit down and have a chortle at being proven technically correct, and as we all know "That is the best kind of correct."

How does that make you technically, or in any fashion, correct?

Again, you're like the lunatic who believes the world to be a mere 6,000 years old when there's plenty of proof otherwise. You're simply not accepting the proof. That doesn't make you correct.

Once you start asking questions religion falls apart like tissue paper in a typhoon.

No it doesn't. Proof please.

I won't indulge you in your attempt to start a sham of a "debate." You know, sham is quite funny too..

I won't indulge you in your attempt to start a sham of a "debate." You know, sham is quite funny too..

So ... technically ... I win. You gave up. :p

:D


You post in jest, but I'm serious.

Yesterday morning as I was checking the weather, and my kitten was sitting on my lap purring, I just happened to blurt our "Religion must preach mindlessness!"
And thus it was decreed.

So ... technically ... I win. You gave up. :p
You can't win, because there was no debate to start with. I win with my ability to dodge the bullet

You can't win, because there was no debate to start with. I win with my ability to dodge the bullet


By attempting to argue a point beyond an initial idea you effectivly debate. Thus there was a debate, and technicly, Keruv wins.

No it doesn't. Proof please.
No Christian has ever given a good answer as to how an omniscient and omnipotent god can create free will. No Christian has ever give a good answer as to how evil can exist under the watch of an all good, all knowing, all powerful creator. No Christian has ever given a good answer to why an all powerful God who wants people to love him would screw up so profoundly in the creation of their holy book. No Christian has ever given a good answer as to why most of the scientific claims in the bible are factually and observably wrong. Shall I go on?

You can't win, because there was no debate to start with. I win with my ability to dodge the bullet

*Argument swings at Teh_pantless_hero*
*Teh_pantless_hero makes saving throw*
*Argument misses Teh_pantless_hero*

By attempting to argue a point beyond an initial idea you effectivly debate. Thus there was a debate, and technicly, Keruv wins.
Technically, I can rearrange the letters in your name to call you ol just donut

*Argument swings at Teh_pantless_hero*
*Teh_pantless_hero makes saving throw*
*Argument misses Teh_pantless_hero*
I roll twenties
http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/front/pa_rolltwenties.jpg

Technically, I can rearrange the letters in your name to call you ol just donut


And how is that at all relevant to the debate of religion preaching mindlessness?

No Christian has ever given a good answer as to how an omniscient and omnipotent god can create free will. No Christian has ever give a good answer as to how evil can exist under the watch of an all good, all knowing, all powerful creator. No Christian has ever given a good answer to why an all powerful God who wants people to love him would screw up so profoundly in the creation of their holy book. No Christian has ever given a good answer as to why most of the scientific claims in the bible are factually and observably wrong. Shall I go on?

Maybe you should figure out that "religious" doesn't mean "Christian". I am deeply religious ... even fundamentalist in my beliefs ... but I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Christian.

Maybe you should ask other religions these same questions.

Maybe you should figure out that "religious" doesn't mean "Christian". I am deeply religious ... even fundamentalist in my beliefs ... but I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Christian.

Maybe you should ask other religions these same questions.
Perhaps not, at the same time I know most of the questions for Christianity and I know they can't answer them and thus served as a convenient example for demonstrating religion falling apart like tissue paper in a typhoon.

What religion are you anyway? Knowing that would enable me to give an example directed more specifically.

And, first off, stop generalizing Christians.

How 'bout this: Stop being religious!!! :rolleyes:

What religion are you anyway? Knowing that would enable me to give an example directed more specifically.

I'm Muslim, raised Jewish.

Perhaps not, at the same time I know most of the questions for Christianity and I know they can't answer them and thus served as a convenient example for demonstrating religion falling apart like tissue paper in a typhoon.

Oh ... and maybe you've asked the wrong Christians.

And how is that at all relevant to the debate of religion preaching mindlessness?



*dips you in coffee and eats you* :D

Oh ... and maybe you've asked the wrong Christians.
Given they are professional appologists who use arguments that serve as the basis for modern theodicy, I highly doubt it.


I'm Muslim, raised Jewish. Very well, why is your divinely inspired holy book so horribly ineffective at it's primary function, that is getting people to follow the will of Allah? Surely your God being what he is could do better than something that has failed to not only convert a majority of people, but also failed to even reach the largest minority? Further, why would he make it so ineffective that it couldn't be translated without losing meaning?

I'm Muslim, raised Jewish.
:confused:
You mean ur parents are Jewish and ur a Muslim???
I'm confused....
:confused:

:confused:
You mean ur parents are Jewish and ur a Muslim???
I'm confused....
:confused:

My mother is Jewish, I was raised in Jewish traditions (brit milah, bar mitzvah, etc) and embraced Islam last year. All Muslims are converts. You can't be born Muslim.

My mother is Jewish, I was raised in Jewish traditions (brit milah, bar mitzvah, etc) and embraced Islam last year. All Muslims are converts. You can't be born Muslim.



Pork: Trust me, you're not missing out on much. Bleh x.x

its a simple question but requires a long answer so give it a shot

I think a number of people here are confusing "mindlessness" with a lack intelligence, but then I could be wrong... :rolleyes:

Anywho, from what I have noticed "mindlessness" in respect to religion could be used to describe the practice of accepting the status quo, i.e - to not question one's religion. Questioning one's religion is seen as having 'a lack of faith' and I believe this is where the whole general "mindlessness" of followers comes from.

I'll admit that this may not be the case for some, but I'd imagine those people would be looked down upon their fellows for having a lack of faith correct? And no doubt when one goes to a sermon or whatever, one will hear about how one's life problems can be deal with by having faith in God (or whatever deity you worship) and in his/her plan for the world. Again, "do not question what is happening, just accept it and be happy."

This is preaching "mindlessness". To not question and simply accept things is to be "mindlessness" and I personally believe this is wrong. If certain things in your life are shit why accept them? Why believe that by simply believing in God (or whatever) that all your problems will miraclously dissappear? They don't, if anything they just simply lose meaning to the point where the only thing you care about in life is your religion and having faith. That's mindless.

If something is wrong in your life get off your ass and do something about it. Don't just 'have faith'. Question you religion, indeed study theology and learn as much as you can. As questions, don't be mindless and above all don't sit back a accept the status quo.

Now... considering this is starting to look like a rant (heh :p) I'll swiftly move along to why I think religions preach "mindlessness". In short, the reason can be summed up in a single word: fear. However, things are more complex than that and no doubt there are more reasons and motivations behind promoting and preaching "mindlessness".

No doubt one reason is when people start questioning they start noticing discrepencies. This can either come from a simple lack of understanding or something a bit deeper. No doubt those in charge don't want to have there 'faith' ridiculed so this kind of behavour is generally repressed. Another reason is control. People are easier to control if they do not question - it should be noted that both government and certain religious organisations promote "mindlessness" in order to maintain control. Think about it in regards to religious organisations, you go in, you get your daily dose of "all is well" and then what do you do? You give donations or in some cases 'tithes'. Huh? What is God (or yet again whatever) going to do with money? I understand that some religious organisations require money in order to survive as well as provide charity work but when it comes to funding things such eight million plus dollar 'temples' with gold trimming (*cough*mormons*cough*) or when said religious orgainisation also happens to own a very successful health food corporation (*cough*seven-day adventist*cough*) you should be asking yourself why the bloody hell are you still giving money to this peeps? Yet people don't because it's seen as having a lack of faith...

There are no doubt many other examples, and I realise I've probably only just scrapped the tip of the proverbial iceberg. My conclusion is "mindlessness" is preached out of fear of losing control and hence losing followers which are the backbone and livelihood of these now powerful religious organisations. No doubt there are exceptions, but until it can be proven otherwise I'll consider this the exception and not the rule.

Now... some of you are not going to agree with what I've written here (if you read it, mind you :rolleyes: ) and I've probably misunderstood certain things since, being a 'mild' atheist (I will not say full atheist, since atheism in itself is kind of like a religion) I do not know too much is regards to theology. Hence, I welcome any replies from people wishing to try and 'correct' my misunderstandings.

Having said that, I will more than likely question what you say. So be prepared. ;)

(Note - the above was not meant to be offensive to anyone in anyway but if it has offended you then I appologise. Never the less my statement stands.)

Very well, why is your divinely inspired holy book so horribly ineffective at it's primary function, that is getting people to follow the will of Allah?

I think Islam being the 2nd largest religion in the world kinda proves that wrong. However, the primary function of Qur'an is not to get people to follow the will of Allah, but is merely an instruction book on how to do so if you choose to do so.

People have free will.

Surely your God being what he is could do better than something that has failed to not only convert a majority of people, but also failed to even reach the largest minority?

My God gave the world Torah, the Gospel, and Qur'an. If you count the number of people who follow one or more of those books, you'll find it is the vast majority of the planet. 6 billion people: 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims, 20 million Jews. (all numbers approximated). I'd say 3.52 is a majority of 6, would you not?

If you want to get down to brass tacks, my God also gave the world Buddha, adding to that majority. That is, unless, you can somehow prove there is more than one God in the world.

Further, why would he make it so ineffective that it couldn't be translated without losing meaning?

It can be and has been. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Pork: Trust me, you're not missing out on much. Bleh x.x

What I really miss is alligator. I tried that a couple of times and it is a damn tastey meat ... no wonder it's a sin. ;)

Btw, when I started writing the above, this thread was still only one page long. :p

Btw, when I started writing the above, this thread was still only one page long. :p

Hee ... that's what happens when you're long winded. ;)

If you want to get down to brass tacks, my God also gave the world Buddha, adding to that majority. That is, unless, you can somehow prove there is more than one God in the world.

HOLY SHIT!!! My religion is created by Muslims!?! :eek:

HOLY SHIT!!! My religion is created by Muslims!?! :eek:

In a way ... I believe the Buddha was a prophet of Allah as well. Allah has sent prophets to every nation that has ever been.

Edit: But, then, I tend to be a bit more Sufi in my Islamic practise.

Pork: Trust me, you're not missing out on much. Bleh x.x

I've heard you say a lot of nasty things to people - but don't you dare flame pork.


Hmmm... flamed pork... barbecue... drool.

BTW.... I think the only reason Christians eat a lot of ham on Easter is to show off to the Jews and Muslims. If we had dropped honey-baked hams over Iraq instead of bombs, resistance would have crumbled.

Hee ... that's what happens when you're long winded. ;)

Heh, maybe I should've said "I believe in the fundamentals of the universe" and just be done with it.

If we had dropped honey-baked hams over Iraq instead of bombs, resistance would have crumbled.

What a terrible waste of perfectly good ham.

It is a quandry, though, as both pork and being wasteful are equal in terms of "sin".

I wasn't aware of any religion that preached mindlessness ... well ... maybe Wicca (tee hee). The big ones - Islam, Hindu, Christianity, Buddhism - all seem to have a central core that tells people to learn about themselves, the Universe, history, etc, and the smaller ones - Judaism, Taoism, etc - seem to do the same.

Buddhism does teach "mindlessness", but I don't think no-mind (http://www.unification.net/ws/theme022.htm) is what the OP's thinking of. ;)

Theology is one of the most mind-consuming fields, at least from what I've seen :) I would have to disagree with your premise.

but why do disagree is the real question

Buddhism does teach "mindlessness", but I don't think no-mind (http://www.unification.net/ws/theme022.htm) is what the OP's thinking of. ;)

Lol ... good point. :D

What a terrible waste of perfectly good ham.

It is a quandry, though, as both pork and being wasteful are equal in terms of "sin".

Almost missed the edit, otherwise :eek:

(And as you mentioned Sufi, you may be interested to know my Dharma teacher often uses various Judeo-Christian-Islamic mystical teachings.)

I think Islam being the 2nd largest religion in the world kinda proves that wrong. You have roughly a billion followers out of over six and a half billion people. Second largest or no, you still aren't even close. However, the primary function of Qur'an is not to get people to follow the will of Allah, but is merely an instruction book on how to do so if you choose to do so. The two are one in the same. Allah's will is the life style presented in Qur'an.

People have free will.
And? There is nothing about free will that contradicts a more persuasive holy book.


My God gave the world Torah, the Gospel, and Qur'an. And yet they alls ay different things and Islamic preachers claim that christianity is not correct. If you count the number of people who follow one or more of those books, you'll find it is the vast majority of the planet. 6 billion people: 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims, 20 million Jews. (all numbers approximated). I'd say 3.7 is a majority of 6, would you not? I would if your numbers were right. They aren't. Firstly, religious affiliation numbers are largely overstated to make organizations look good to begin with. Second, you overstated even what is Islamic are claiming their numbers to be. Thirdly, only a fraction of those are actually going to have a pleasant end if any one of your religions is right to begin with/


If you want to get down to brass tacks, my God also gave the world Buddha, adding to that majority. That is, unless, you can somehow prove there is more than one God in the world. Why don't you claim Zeus to while you're at it? The mere fact a religion has a god does not make it compatable with your world view.



It can be and has been. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
Islam proclaims the Qur'an cannot be translated outside it's native language and that if one is to read the true word of God one must learn the original language.

Islam proclaims the Qur'an cannot be translated outside it's native language and that if one is to read the true word of God one must learn the original language.


Actually, the idea behind the only real Qur'an being in Arabic is to eliminate mistranslations and mistakes in ideas because of translations.
Different languages are motre then just a system of words for things, they are seprate systems of ideas. Althougb all languages can express all ideas equally, when you attempt to translate between different languages problems arise where ideas become lost of confused. So the idea of the only real Qur'an being in Arabic is to keep these idead from being confused or mixed, thus keeping them pure. A problem that has befallen the Bible, which has ben translated, retranslated, and totally messed up over the past 2000 years.
If I do remember correctly, the Qur'an is believe by Muslims to be the direct word of Allah, with no human interaction, whereas the Torrah and Bible are believed to be inspired by God (As told to me by countless Christians and Jews) and are thus open to the screw-up that is humanity.

Right.

how can you thinnk of athiests as mindless there the only poeple whos thoughts arnt held down by bullshit beleifs

To be honest i dont really have a religous preference. maybe its because i was never raised to or preached about a religion as a young child. but mainly i like to think its becuase anytime someone religous trys to explain their faith to me they get all biblical like "god will judge you for your sins" and "the truth can only be obtained by solitude and prayer with the one". honestly i like to believe that we are not judged for sins that there are no real sins (except pointless hate) and that we are not controlled by some unseen force, but we are controlled by ourselves and our own choices if any knows a faith that can follows those ideals pls respond to this

Religions that discourage questions or critical thinking do so for reasons of control, nothing else. Organized religion is politics, never forget it.

Islam proclaims the Qur'an cannot be translated outside it's native language and that if one is to read the true word of God one must learn the original language.

First off, no it doesn't. It says quite clearly in Qur'an itself that Allah made us all people of different cultures and languages that we may get to know one another. Translation of Qur'an into other lnaguages is an essential part of that.

Second, you clearly have your preconceived notions, hence, this cannot be discussed.

how can you thinnk of athiests as mindless there the only poeple whos thoughts arnt held down by bullshit beleifs

Except the bullshit belief that there is no god. ;)

First off, no it doesn't. It says quite clearly in Qur'an itself that Allah made us all people of different cultures and languages that we may get to know one another. Translation of Qur'an into other lnaguages is an essential part of that.

Second, you clearly have your preconceived notions, hence, this cannot be discussed.

First off. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
Note that any translation of the Qur'an immediately ceases to be the literal word of Allah, and hence cannot be equated with the Qur'an in its original Arabic form.

http://www.islam-online.net/surah/english/quran.shtml
The various translations that exist today, however accurate they may be, cannot designate as the Qur'an, since they can never hope to imitate the diction or the style of the book of God.

http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa011601a.htm
It is, by nature, an approximation of the meaning, since words and ideas cannot be expressed identically in different languages.

http://www.uga.edu/islam/quran.html
Translations--however inspired they may be--are only shadows of the original. They should always be read with a healthy dose of skepticism concerning the degree to which they reflect the original. The gulf between the original and the translation is an important reason why Muslims must recite the Qur'an only in Arabic for the required daily prayers. A translation of the Qur'an is not the Qur'an; it is simply one person's interpretation of the Qur'an. To a limited extent, however, translations can shed light on the meaning of the Qur'an.

I could go on but I think with this you are sufficiently owned for my point to be made.

My preconceived notions as you call them come from study of the religion. If you can't handle that I guess I will simply leave it at concession accepted.

I have trouble taking a lot of athiests seriously, because they attempt to use science to prove that God does not exist, when the very definition of God defines it as something unknowable by scientific methods (which do not predate this definition of God by a long shot). Agnostics, I can take seriously, as long as we're not having a religious discussion, because I can never get a straight answer out of them. Religious people, I can't take seriously if they decide to take advantage of the specious reasoning I just pointed out, to prove that God does exist, because thats just stupid.

Personally, I think it'd just be a good idea if everyone just shut up about it, and let whatever they believed on the subject exist soley in their minds, and they let their actions speak for their beliefs, instead of taking every oppourtunity to justify their actions through their beliefs.

I could go on but I think with this you are sufficiently owned for my point to be made.

Not really ... once again ... you've cited men ... scholars, teachers, and intelligent as they may be, they are just men. Fallible, imperfect men.

I have cited Qur'an. How can you dispute what Qur'an clearly states?

It would be like trying to prove that Newton never said "F=ma" when he clearly did.

Owned? I think not. It is people who listen to men and not to God who blow up children and fly planes into buildings. Do you really want to be among them?

Not really ... once again ... you've cited men ... scholars, teachers, and intelligent as they may be, they are just men. Fallible, imperfect men. Experts of and practicioners of your religion.

I have cited Qur'an. How can you dispute what Qur'an clearly states?
You have not cited the Quran, you cited a copy which your own faith says isn't good enough. You didn't even bother to present a quote from the original that says any copies of this book in other languages are just as good.


It would be like trying to prove that Newton never said "F=ma" when he clearly did. The two aren't equatable because the scientific community isn't saying he never said that. The Islamic community is saying that translations of the Qur'an are not the Qur'an.

Owned? I think not. It is people who listen to men and not to God who blow up children and fly planes into buildings. Do you really want to be among them?Whatever you say. It is a sad day for the faithful when the atheists know more of religion than those who follow it.

If you want to prove me wrong, find me a passage in the Qur'an that says anything contrary to what I am saying. You won't find one.

Maybe you should figure out that "religious" doesn't mean "Christian". I am deeply religious ... even fundamentalist in my beliefs ... but I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Christian.

Maybe you should ask other religions these same questions.

I am assuming, however, you're Jewish - Orthodox?

Here is the thing, darling, when was the last time you saw a group of Jews band together to gang up on single mums, homosexuals and those of a different faith?

For Christians, it seems like a past time for them, bash a homo or two, demand everyone conforms to their warped perspective of morality etc. etc.

Believe what you want to believe it, just don't expect everyone to go along with that particular brand of your chosen faith.

If you want to prove me wrong, find me a passage in the Qur'an that says anything contrary to what I am saying. You won't find one.

No can do, chief. I'd give the passage in English and you've already decided that if it isn't Arabic, it isn't Qur'an. Get back to me when you learn Arabic.

don't expect everyone to go along with that particular brand of your chosen faith.

I don't ... I do, however, expect people to stop automatically assuming because someone is religious, they must be an "Ignorant Fundie Christian". There are thousands of ways to be religious.

No can do, chief. I'd give the passage in English and you've already decided that if it isn't Arabic, it isn't Qur'an. Get back to me when you learn Arabic.
Doublethink much? Fine then, if you are going to be pedantic, get me a translation of the Qur'an that says copies are acceptable.

Ah well never mind.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/098.qmt.html

Seems Islam calls for purity in their scriptures, something translations by their very nature don't provide.

Ah well never mind.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/098.qmt.html

Seems Islam calls for purity in their scriptures, something translations by their very nature don't provide.


Question pertaining to this.
Are YOU a Muslim?

Question pertaining to this.
Are YOU a Muslim?
Nope. Soft Atheist. I don't believe there is a God but at the same time I have am not commited to the belief there isn't one. In essence, I am waiting to be convinced of a higher power and looking for evidence of such when I can.

Sounds more like agnosticism to me, although really, the literal definition of an athiest is pretty much the same thing.

Nope. Soft Atheist. I don't believe there is a God but at the same time I have am not commited to the belief there isn't one. In essence, I am waiting to be convinced of a higher power and looking for evidence of such when I can.

So um, when did you magicly become an expert on Islam, when you're not a Muslim.
Or an expert on religion when you claim to reject it?

So um, when did you magicly become an expert on Islam, when you're not a Muslim.
Or an expert on religion when you claim to reject it?

When I was looking for the evidence as mentioned above. I am a philosophy major at my university and as part of that I spend a great deal of time in the study of metaphysics and as required learning for the classes I take is some understanding of different religions. In order to find evidence of a higher power, I have spent a great deal of time and effort examining those paths which others before have claimed lead there. While admittedly I do not know as much about Islam as I do Christianity, I am not completely ignorant of it either.

When I was looking for the evidence as mentioned above. I am a philosophy major at my university and as part of that I spend a great deal of time in the study of metaphysics and as required learning for the classes I take is some understanding of different religions. In order to find evidence of a higher power, I have spent a great deal of time and effort examining those paths which others before have claimed lead there. While admittedly I do not know as much about Islam as I do Christianity, I am not completely ignorant of it either.


Now, forgive me as I am merely a History and Linguistics major, but as a student, you're even less of an "expert" in anything because you're still learning.
I also understand that when studying things like religion, philosophy states that so far, you can not prove or disprove the existance of a god or many gods?

And, now that I think of it, isn;t religion a discussion area for Religious Studies majors?

Now, forgive me as I am merely a History and Linguistics major, but as a student, you're even less of an "expert" in anything because you're still learning. Nor have I claimed to be an expert nor has anything I have presented require expertise. The one real claim I have made is that Islam accepts no substitutes for their Qur'an and they consider translations that deviate from the precise meanings Allah laid out in the original, and translations by their nature invariably do, to be a substitute.

I also understand that when studying things like religion, philosophy states that so far, you can not prove or disprove the existance of a god or many gods?
Correct, hence my stance as a soft atheist. However, the key phrase of your statement is "so far".

And, now that I think of it, isn;t religion a discussion area for Religious Studies majors?
Both actually. There is a fair bit of overlap between the two. I am of the understanding that while there are seperate course designations for religion and philosophy at my University, both were lumped into a single department.

"Religion" doesn't preach "mindlessness". Some groups (Scientology foremost of them) have found it easier to control their followers by using whatever holy texts they have to demand total obedience, but "religion" as a whole is not guilty of this.

Religion does preach mindlessness, but so does video games, TV soaps and the NationStates General Forum.

anything can teach mindlessness if you read it that way. People have that choice into what to read. The difficult thing here is that many of us are trying to use a broad brush in something that is so personal.
I have never met two Christians that had the same personal relationship with what they see as God.
I have never met too Buddhist that mediate the exact same way. So how can we say not only all of one religion is mindless. But ALL the sects of ALL relgions teach mindlessness.
What of Daoism? It teaches to find all the answers to you questions within. What about Buddhism? Buddha taught in one of his lestures to NOT believe in anything you have not experienced. I guess thats an ok start to get that ALL out of there.

Institutionalized religions would preach anything, as long as it serves the purpose of power and oppression...

its a simple question but requires a long answer so give it a shot

It was preparation for reality TV. Karl Marx had no idea what the true opiate of the people was.

its a simple question but requires a long answer so give it a shot

Systematic Theology is far from "mindless"...

Institutionalized religions would preach anything, as long as it serves the purpose of power and oppression...
How does a man or woman sitting in mediation oppress the people?!? Who is recieving power there?

Not really ... once again ... you've cited men ... scholars, teachers, and intelligent as they may be, they are just men. Fallible, imperfect men.

I have cited Qur'an. How can you dispute what Qur'an clearly states?

It would be like trying to prove that Newton never said "F=ma" when he clearly did.

Owned? I think not. It is people who listen to men and not to God who blow up children and fly planes into buildings. Do you really want to be among them?

aaaahh dude the Qur'an was written by man ;)

I have trouble taking a lot of athiests seriously, because they attempt to use science to prove that God does not exist, when the very definition of God defines it as something unknowable by scientific methods (which do not predate this definition of God by a long shot). Agnostics, I can take seriously, as long as we're not having a religious discussion, because I can never get a straight answer out of them. Religious people, I can't take seriously if they decide to take advantage of the specious reasoning I just pointed out, to prove that God does exist, because thats just stupid.

Personally, I think it'd just be a good idea if everyone just shut up about it, and let whatever they believed on the subject exist soley in their minds, and they let their actions speak for their beliefs, instead of taking every oppourtunity to justify their actions through their beliefs.
wow that has to be the most hippocritical bullshit ever

Systematic Theology is far from "mindless"...
prove it!!

Organized religions requires mindlessness because no thinking being would follow the bullshit.

Organized religions requires mindlessness because no thinking being would follow the bullshit.


Yanno Jim, The same could be said for occultism and "magick" if not for all of Satanism.

Answer yourself, your the one who thinks its mindlessness.


:mp5: :sniper: :mp5:
The Armed Republic Of Cruel Tyrany

Yanno Jim, The same could be said for occultism and "magick" if not for all of Satanism.

I never excluded them. The difference being is that Satanism has a little less spiritual BS than other religions, and if anything encourages us to think for ourselves.

Yanno Jim, The same could be said for occultism and "magick" if not for all of Satanism.
And you misspelled (Sorry about the pun) magic. :D

perhapse religion dosn't preach mindlesness it is more of the ones who are looking in from the outside who don't understand who think it is mindlesness, but the only religions i can really think that preach mindlessness arn't considered religions more of non religions

And you misspelled (Sorry about the pun) magic. :D


Sorry..the mispelling came from this very forum...someone insisted that the "proper" spelling of the word, has a "k".

Silly me for listening.

But..again....it seems half of the satanists I meet..are the "Devil Worshipping" kind, and not the "Do as you will..but be cool" variety.

So..you get my point.

I never excluded them. The difference being is that Satanism has a little less spiritual BS than other religions, and if anything encourages us to think for ourselves.

Youre of the "do as you will..but be cool" ones, right?

The ones who believe that the only real sin..is stupidity.

That..I can agree with.

Youre of the "do as you will..but be cool" ones, right?

The ones who believe that the only real sin..is stupidity.

That..I can agree with.

I am pof the LaVeyan variety, no the devil-worshipping types. The worship of any exteranl being is a form of denial of the self, something I try to avoid. And the arguement over spelling the word magic is an old one. Occultists, pagans, wiccans, etc add the K to differentiate their practices from the common or "stage" magic. We don't bother.

Well I would like to tell you, sir, that I do not think it is fair to generalize that all religion is mindlessness, in fact religion is not a describing word. I do not know what you hope to accomplish by opening a can of worms here, but I believe that the reason you started this thread was sort of a "well try to see if you can change my mind-cause you can't" I would be happy to explain to you, if you are interested what being a christian means or answer any questions (not smart-elic) that you might have. your attitude is that no one can change your mind- so I will not play that game with you, but I do hope you can know that you are not going to be able to hurt God's feelings, or bully him, he is just sad for you. I know that I do not need to stand up for God, he can certainly defend himself, but I have the understanding that you are confused at this time, and so If you, or anyone else that reads this would like to talk seriously, feel free to contact me.

Religion preaches mindlessness in the sense that it tries to give people the answers to questions without them thinking about them. The Intelligent Design 'theory' is an example of this. Why use your mind to figure out how something happened when you can just say "God did it."

I have difficulty with the concept of faith in that it requires the suspension of rational thought, so that the persons mind can be filled up with any kind of shit.

To answer some of the crap posted here...

Not all religion preaches mindlessness. In fact, very few do. And even so, alot of the practitioners of said religions don't preach mindlessness. For instance, the Bible preaches mindlessness, yet my mother (a Christian) does not.

On the "magick" subject..

Some guy who wrote books on magic and fiction and stuff, decided to put in a "K". It isn't the right, nor the wrong way to spell it. He also defined "magick" as simple actions; such as blowing ones nose.

... If I start a debate, you should know that I'm neber gonna be visiting this topic ever again first...XD

prove it!!

systematic theology is a "topical" study of inter-related disciplines; it is a form of "philosophy" or "science" regarding belief in God.

In the system "studies" are grouped into categorical representations: and differing views are studied in parellel with one another.

For example, in "Theology Proper" (or the Study of God); theological views such as Monotheism, Polytheism and Atheism are studies next to one another; and supporting ideas behind each in turn...

Also, Soterology (doctrines of Salvation) will do parellel studies of Calvinism, Arminianism, Fundamentalism, and Pelagianism in the same way.

Anthropoligy will look at "creation" theologies in regards to Young-Earth Creationism, Old-Earth Creationism, Day-Age Theory, Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creationism and the like also, in those regards.

I have noticed that many of the people stating a loud yes to the quesiton have a simple thought of :
BLIND FAITH = ALL RELIGION.

I do not believe this to be true. I believe there is more of a complexity here, as there is with partriotism v. nationalism. There is blind partriotism where the citizen's country loyality is very high no matter what is going on within the country.
Constructive Partriotism where one critically looks at there country and then choices high loyality due to a positive conculsion from the country's actions.
Nationalism is a coparitive superiority to all other nations.

Like partriotism there are adleast two types of faith. Blind and constructive could work in this venue. Many of the religious people posting are constructive in their faith. Reading the scripts, know the zegist it was written, ect. Yet many of the non-religious are looking at them with an assumed blanket of blind faith.
May we please adleast acknowledge this assumption within the agrument?

How does a man or woman sitting in mediation oppress the people?!? Who is recieving power there?

He/she doesn't. In fact, buddhism is hardly a religion, let alone institutionalized...

Besides that, buddhism consists of very logical and rational teachings. The only thing one must 'believe' is that all human beings are born "good" and that you can become a better person.

Their spiritual leaders don't judge the way people practice buddhism, their writings are free for interpretation...

When I say institutionalized, I mean catholic/orthodox/... church, judaism, Hindu and Islam, who's leaders are infallible, who's writings are divine and uninterpretable and who make you swallow a whole lot of crap.

These are not mere spiritual 'clubs'. They have strict top down hierarchy, membership is compulsary (the ONLY way to salvation...), they're notably intolerant and sexist and have a strong political agenda ...

I won't even consider writing about the abysmal congregations of pure retardedness like satanism, scientology or the likes...

It seems to me that dogmatic religions tend to preach a bit of unquestioning belief. Whether this equates to "mindlessness", I don't know.

There are a lot of religous people out there that I would call "mindless", though, who do believe everything they're told by their religion without ever actually thinking about it or exploring their faith for themselves. They never consider the chance that what they believe might not be "The Truth."

There are also a lot of Atheists out there who I would also call "mindless", who believe everything that they're told as long as it somehow relates to making religion look bad. These people also very rarely actually think for themselves or question the things that they are told and believe they have a monopoly on "The Truth."

Both equally mindless, in my opinion. I wouldn't call religion or non-religion "mindless", but there are definitely a lot of people in both camps that who deserve the label.

Maybe theres a God above, but all I ever learned from love, was how to shoot at someone, who outdrew you. And its not a cry you can hear at night, its not somebody who has seen the light, its a cold and its a broken hallelujah.

-John Cale.

He/she doesn't. In fact, buddhism is hardly a religion, let alone institutionalized...

Besides that, buddhism consists of very logical and rational teachings. The only thing one must 'believe' is that all human beings are born "good" and that you can become a better person.

Their spiritual leaders don't judge the way people practice buddhism, their writings are free for interpretation...

When I say institutionalized, I mean catholic/orthodox/... church, judaism, Hindu and Islam, who's leaders are infallible, who's writings are divine and uninterpretable and who make you swallow a whole lot of crap.

These are not mere spiritual 'clubs'. They have strict top down hierarchy, membership is compulsary (the ONLY way to salvation...), they're notably intolerant and sexist and have a strong political agenda ...

I won't even consider writing about the abysmal congregations of pure retardedness like satanism, scientology or the likes... You give Buddhist leaders iron control over a body of people and oppression will happen. Happened in Tibet apparently… whatever the religion, people will be mindless or mindful.
Most "organised" religions aren't as overly authoritarian as they used to be… especially since some of them you cited don't really have centralised leadership.

Youre of the "do as you will..but be cool" ones, right?

The ones who believe that the only real sin..is stupidity.

That..I can agree with. And, as history will testify, religions always eventually commit the sins they oppose in their core.
LaVey is possibly proof that communism and socialism aren't satanic, though. :)

You give Buddhist leaders iron control over a body of people and oppression will happen. Happened in Tibet apparently… whatever the religion, people will be mindless or mindful.
Most "organised" religions aren't as overly authoritarian as they used to be… especially since some of them you cited don't really have centralised leadership.

I can agree with most of what you say... although I'm not sure about the Tibet issue. I thought that was more about ethnicity i.e. Tibetans are not Chinese.

Indeed Islam doesn't have centralised leadership (whatever Osama may think) still it is very much institutionalised, mainly in states, banks and religious aid organisations. This implies power and privilige and thus corruption.

It is true that the core of most widespread religions contributes to our existence as human beings and that 99% of the believers practice their faith in a harmless, one might even say peaceful way.

However, malpracticed leadership, particularly in large, influential and undemocratic organisations remains the source of most suffering on this planet. Yes, that includes McDonalds, Coca Cola, Exxon, you name it :D

Atheism is equally mindless as theism from a rational point of view.

I guess you could call me an agnostic anarchist ;)

Because religion is a failed system of explaining the world.

At one point, a man could honestly have believed in the explanations provided by religion, but now it is not possible.

One can either have integrity or be a religious fundementalist.

Science-deniers are difficult to trust because they assert strongly what is palpably false.

Thank You New Granada for the beautiful rendition of "Atheistic Propoganda in 4 Movements."

Honestly, you made no point in that post whatsoever. Answer me this, ye people of the board: Why would you say that religion causes mindlessness, and how do you define mindlessness?
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser