NationStates Jolt Archive

As children, we are encouraged to believe in magic: think of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, elves, witches, wizards etc. As we get older, we become more discerning and questioning. Eventually, we abandon our childish beliefs and see the world for what it is.

In History, there have been many spiritual beliefs that were relevant at the time: i.e. the Greek, Roman, Norse Gods, et al. We can look back and see those beliefs as being full of superstitious nonsense. God's for everything, including places within your home. Nowadays no one with any sense believes in those myths.

What is believed nowadays however, is the existence of an all powerful entity, which is different things to different people. I personally think there is no evidence for such an entity, yet there are large groups of people who base their lifestyles around this abstract entity. I do not see any real distinction between those who believed in mythical Gods and the present day need to believe in a single all purpose all powerful entity.

The main link is superstitious belief. My question is why, as educated and aware individuals, some need to continue this belief in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. When will we move on from superstitious belief and become rational and free thinking in dealing with personal and wider issues. When will a philosophy of rationality and mutual support of all be the main thing which can unite us in our common humanity, instead of a need to believe in spiritual teachings that advocate so much that is destructive, violent and bigoted.

simply putting, magic does exist !

Isn't it obvious?

We believe in such things to give us a pretext to be destructive, violent and bigoted.

Without religion, all we would have left is nationalism and racism. THose are pretty good reasons to kill people, but 'God told me to' is a little easier to rationalize.

So where would we be without religion? Well, we'd be killing eachother for the flags they wave and the hats they wear("If you see two large groups of people who really hate eachother, chances are good they're wearing different kinds of hats. Pay attention to that, it might be important." -George Carlin) instead of the invisible man they worship and the comparative size of that god's genitals.

Or if you prefer a simpler explanation, It doesn't matter. We'll still figure out a reason to kill eachother. It's what we're good at. :)

Hey Squirrel,

I think that the mistake you make is thinking that allbrains work alike. There are some people out there that are racist, and there are some that are not. The differance in these people is not one party A being rioght and party B being wrong, both groups believe that they are right. Why then would this happen? It is plainly obvious to me that racisim is a dead end, but there are some that will argue the opposite as passinatly as I will argue against them. Why?

Because their brains do not work like mine. I will never be able to understand their point of view, andthey will never be able to understand mine.

So right there, that blows the chance of everybody becoming rational and free thinking, some people will never think like you. So then the question becomes of what to do with our differances, how to handle fundemental differances in our points of view. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that each of us has the right to live our lives as we see fit.

If somebody wants to belive in God, then you have no right to make them change, as they have no right to make you change. get used to it, don't worry about it so much, we (humanity) will never all be reading from the same page, or singing from the same hym sheet(if that is your bag) idealy we need to learn how to live together, or live totaly seperated peacefully, heh although I can't se either of these happening, and you know why?

Beacuse I know that there are people out that that will disagree with me, even on this, and that is just the way things are.

Firstly, I hope you're not using 'superstitious' as synonymous to 'religious', although it seems that you are. Just trying to avoid the controversy of bringing "the R-word" into the mix?

There's still a lot that isn't explained. Yes, we've got a lot of evidence to support a lot of theories (in the scientific sense of 'theory'), but there are many areas that lie uncovered. Where everything in the Big Bang came from in the first place, for example. Even if it was a prior 'cycle' of the universe, we know that neither matter nor energy can be created, so where did all this matter come from?

The way I see it, people still hold on to 'superstitious' beliefs (even many of those who accept modern truths) to explain what is still inexplicable by science. This, however, does not account for those who hold on to 'superstitious' beliefs that contradict what has been explained/supported by science and its discoveries. They're just afraid of change. They don't want to accept that they've been wrong for so many thousands of years. It would mean the utter downfall of everything they believe in, and humanity isn't equipped to cope with entire beliefs systems crumbling out from more than half the world at the same time.

As for the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, in this era we view childhood as being a sort of idyllic, happy time, ergo we do things to make the kids happy, including telling them these things are real.

What it comes down to is people fail to make the distinction between an object of observation and the viewpoint that allows perception of an object.

Say, for example, one wanted to explain gravity to someone. You could start explaining it as a natural force that causes objects with mass to be drawn to each other and even come up with all the formulas to explain how that works.

Some people may get turned off by all the scientific and mathematical aspects of it, so alternatively, you could apply anthropomorphism. Let's call gravity Bob. Bob is everywhere and even if you can't see Him, He's there. You can feel His presence all around you. Bob wants things with mass to come together and be as close as possible. This is all Bob's will.

Either way, one is still talking about the same thing, it's just in the latter case, one thinks the speaker is a bit off.

As children, we are encouraged to believe in magic: think of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, elves, witches, wizards etc. As we get older, we become more discerning and questioning. Eventually, we abandon our childish beliefs and see the world for what it is.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. Literally. Most of us adults prefer to merely distinguish "what is" from "what appears to be", and not exclude everything else. We don't deny that "it is," too.

In History, there have been many spiritual beliefs that were relevant at the time: i.e. the Greek, Roman, Norse Gods, et al. We can look back and see those beliefs as being full of superstitious nonsense. God's for everything, including places within your home. Nowadays no one with any sense believes in those myths.
Or... here's an idea... we can look back at these beliefs as being full of myth, deliberately so, which makes them no longer nonsense. They are only nonsense when we try to make them something they are not --like, the truth for instance.

There are people who understand the myths today, almost as much as they did then. Belief isn't in the myth but the message that it conveys.

What is believed nowadays however, is the existence of an all powerful entity, which is different things to different people. I personally think there is no evidence for such an entity, yet there are large groups of people who base their lifestyles around this abstract entity. I do not see any real distinction between those who believed in mythical Gods and the present day need to believe in a single all purpose all powerful entity.
It all depends on what you are accepting as "evidence." If you accept only the evidence of your eyes, and dismiss the evidence of your heart, then you will not see it.

There is no significant distinction between those who believed in the old gods and those who believe in the one, now. The only significant distinction is in how the meaning of the myth has changed.

The main link is superstitious belief. My question is why, as educated and aware individuals, some need to continue this belief in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. When will we move on from superstitious belief and become rational and free thinking in dealing with personal and wider issues. When will a philosophy of rationality and mutual support of all be the main thing which can unite us in our common humanity, instead of a need to believe in spiritual teachings that advocate so much that is destructive, violent and bigoted.
Hmm, a question with no question mark. There's a name for that, but I forget what it is. Oh yes... a statement of opinion.

We can be rational and free thinking without dismissing things that are. They are only "not" when we mistake appearances for something they are not, such as when we point at myth and call it literal.

Because their brains do not work like mine. I will never be able to understand their point of view, andthey will never be able to understand mine.
How delightfully self-limiting! The great thing about this thought is that we people who *are* able to understand the opponent's point of view don't have to listen to the people who claim this as their own. So we win every time. It's great!

Firstly, I hope you're not using 'superstitious' as synonymous to 'religious', although it seems that you are. Just trying to avoid the controversy of bringing "the R-word" into the mix?Not sure what the Original Poster was saying but religion is mostly superstition.
There's still a lot that isn't explained. Yes, we've got a lot of evidence to support a lot of theories (in the scientific sense of 'theory'), but there are many areas that lie uncovered. Where everything in the Big Bang came from in the first place, for example. Even if it was a prior 'cycle' of the universe, we know that neither matter nor energy can be created, so where did all this matter come from?That sounds like a god of the gaps argument to me.

Earlier civilisations had lightning gods because they didn't know how electricity is able to arc from clouds to the ground.

People from the future will probably say something along the lines of: "They had a big bang god because they didn't know…" (OK, I don't know enough to complete it (if I did I'd be collecting my Nobel Prize :-))).
As for the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, in this era we view childhood as being a sort of idyllic, happy time, ergo we do things to make the kids happy, including telling them these things are real.Teaching people to believe things which don't exist early on could start them on a habit of doing so for the rest of their lives. That is not something that should be encouraged regardless of whether it is cute or not.

Firstly, I hope you're not using 'superstitious' as synonymous to 'religious', although it seems that you are. Just trying to avoid the controversy of bringing "the R-word" into the mix?

There's still a lot that isn't explained. Yes, we've got a lot of evidence to support a lot of theories (in the scientific sense of 'theory'), but there are many areas that lie uncovered. Where everything in the Big Bang came from in the first place, for example. Even if it was a prior 'cycle' of the universe, we know that neither matter nor energy can be created, so where did all this matter come from?

The way I see it, people still hold on to 'superstitious' beliefs (even many of those who accept modern truths) to explain what is still inexplicable by science. This, however, does not account for those who hold on to 'superstitious' beliefs that contradict what has been explained/supported by science and its discoveries. They're just afraid of change. They don't want to accept that they've been wrong for so many thousands of years. It would mean the utter downfall of everything they believe in, and humanity isn't equipped to cope with entire beliefs systems crumbling out from more than half the world at the same time.

As for the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, in this era we view childhood as being a sort of idyllic, happy time, ergo we do things to make the kids happy, including telling them these things are real.

Oh for a-non-specified-deity's sake. You're not still espousing the god of the gaps theory are you? god has been used to explain nearly everything that we cant at one point in history. Just because we cant explain them now, doesnt mean we'll never be able to so filling in the gaps with a god, them moving him when those gaps get filled it stupid.

Hey Squirrel,

I think that the mistake you make is thinking that allbrains work alike. There are some people out there that are racist, and there are some that are not. The differance in these people is not one party A being rioght and party B being wrong, both groups believe that they are right. Why then would this happen? It is plainly obvious to me that racisim is a dead end, but there are some that will argue the opposite as passinatly as I will argue against them. Why?
I think in this instance, culture is parallel with Spiritual belief. Racism has it's roots in ignorance and fear. Why do some choose to be ignorant and bigoted? I would say that society/culture and spiritual beliefs work hand-in-glove at ensuring this happens. "my contry is better than your country, my god is better than your god, my way of life is better than yours"

Because their brains do not work like mine. I will never be able to understand their point of view, andthey will never be able to understand mine.
Well, I have had discussions with some racists who have rejected their racism after much debate

So right there, that blows the chance of everybody becoming rational and free thinking, some people will never think like you. So then the question becomes of what to do with our differances, how to handle fundemental differances in our points of view. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that each of us has the right to live our lives as we see fit.
I think some of the answers include communication and understanding, clouding your mind with superstition is not a good way to do this

If somebody wants to belive in God, then you have no right to make them change, as they have no right to make you change. get used to it, don't worry about it so much, we (humanity) will never all be reading from the same page, or singing from the same hym sheet(if that is your bag) idealy we need to learn how to live together, or live totaly seperated peacefully, heh although I can't se either of these happening, and you know why?
As I said above, communication and understanding are necessary to increase awareness. I accept what you say about me having no right to seek to make someone change their belief but I have every right to try to motivate them to do so. This is especially the case as so many spiritual beliefs permeate into society, which then affects me and how I may choose to live my life.
This is a way in which we can hope to live together, though not separately as you stated. If a recognised group is not part of society, it can feel the effects of alienation and intolerance from those in the larger community. Where I live in London, this is precisely what happens to the Hacedic Jewish community.
Beacuse I know that there are people out that that will disagree with me, even on this, and that is just the way things are.
Lunatic Goofballs and Peepelonia, you both made some interesting points there. You have given me something to think about.

How delightfully self-limiting! The great thing about this thought is that we people who *are* able to understand the opponent's point of view don't have to listen to the people who claim this as their own. So we win every time. It's great!

Heh okay well how about if I include the word fully? Does that make any differance to you?
Just so that I know, which camp do you stand in, and do you claim to fully understand the others point of view?

Firstly, I hope you're not using 'superstitious' as synonymous to 'religious', although it seems that you are. Just trying to avoid the controversy of bringing "the R-word" into the mix?
Yes, he (?) is.

There's still a lot that isn't explained. Yes, we've got a lot of evidence to support a lot of theories (in the scientific sense of 'theory'), but there are many areas that lie uncovered. Where everything in the Big Bang came from in the first place, for example. Even if it was a prior 'cycle' of the universe, we know that neither matter nor energy can be created, so where did all this matter come from?
While we may not know, it's more logical to assume it was caused by the implosion of a prior universe than created by an invisible sky fairy who talks to schizophrenics.


The way I see it, people still hold on to 'superstitious' beliefs (even many of those who accept modern truths) to explain what is still inexplicable by science. This, however, does not account for those who hold on to 'superstitious' beliefs that contradict what has been explained/supported by science and its discoveries. They're just afraid of change. They don't want to accept that they've been wrong for so many thousands of years. It would mean the utter downfall of everything they believe in, and humanity isn't equipped to cope with entire beliefs systems crumbling out from more than half the world at the same time.
Truth. Many people are simply afraid of or unwilling to change. That's why the Hurricane Katrina death toll was so high, and why most of the Bible Belt and Deep South are still living in the late 1800s.

As for the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, in this era we view childhood as being a sort of idyllic, happy time, ergo we do things to make the kids happy, including telling them these things are real.
... Which is incredibly stupid. Childhood is not happy or idyllic until you get to age 30, when you start to think of it as such, imagining it as though you had the foresight and hindsight you have now, which the vast majority of children do not have. Not to mention, being overprotective of your kids doesn't prepare them adequately for the years when they won't have you or your help. And constantly doing things to make the kids happy will just spoil them and they will never learn to actually value happiness in the few moments they will actually feel it in the future.

Not sure what the Original Poster was saying but religion is mostly superstition.
Well, a large part of it is habit, too.

Earlier civilisations had lightning gods because they didn't know how electricity is able to arc from clouds to the ground.
Actually, they had lightning gods because lightning was an appropriate expression of god's anger (the god being the spirit that moves the lightning).

Teaching people to believe things which don't exist early on could start them on a habit of doing so for the rest of their lives. That is not something that should be encouraged regardless of whether it is cute or not.
I don't disagree, but I would say teaching people to distinguish between things that exist and things that appear to exist would be more useful (and less psychologically damaging) than attempting to make them deny things that they are going to experience.

I pity you for you are obviously not one of the lord's chosend children.

I pity you for you are obviously not one of the lord's chosend children.
Please tell me that was sarcasm.

Heh okay well how about if I include the word fully? Does that make any differance to you?
Just so that I know, which camp do you stand in, and do you claim to fully understand the others point of view?
Yes, I am able to put myself in other's shoes, figuratively speaking, and that is what understanding others points of view is all about.

Where are you adding the "fully", and why would that make a difference if our brains are hardwired not to understand each other?

Please tell me that was sarcasm.

of course, . . . .well mostly

Firstly, I hope you're not using 'superstitious' as synonymous to 'religious', although it seems that you are. Just trying to avoid the controversy of bringing "the R-word" into the mix?
I thought I was being clear in equating superstition with spiritual (including religious beliefs)

There's still a lot that isn't explained. Yes, we've got a lot of evidence to support a lot of theories (in the scientific sense of 'theory'), but there are many areas that lie uncovered. Where everything in the Big Bang came from in the first place, for example. Even if it was a prior 'cycle' of the universe, we know that neither matter nor energy can be created, so where did all this matter come from?
That still remains to be established hopefully when we have the "Theory of Everything" but what it should not do is make wishful thinking the manner in which we come to understand that which cannot (yet) be explained

The way I see it, people still hold on to 'superstitious' beliefs (even many of those who accept modern truths) to explain what is still inexplicable by science. This, however, does not account for those who hold on to 'superstitious' beliefs that contradict what has been explained/supported by science and its discoveries. They're just afraid of change. They don't want to accept that they've been wrong for so many thousands of years. It would mean the utter downfall of everything they believe in, and humanity isn't equipped to cope with entire beliefs systems crumbling out from more than half the world at the same time.
Increasing the awareness of those who trap themselves into superstition shouldn't necessarily mean their Paradigm should crumble to dust.

As for the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, in this era we view childhood as being a sort of idyllic, happy time, ergo we do things to make the kids happy, including telling them these things are real.
You argue that just to make the kids happy, we should pass on falsehoods to them? I think there are better stories we can tell our children, that don't involve lying to them
I respect anyone's right to have their own point of view but I respect them even more if they are motivated to try and justify it. What I don't respect is foolish superstitions being passed on to others as reasons for how one should live their life.

what a boring life you must lead

of course, . . . .well mostly
<.<
>.>

Miaow...

2 Squirrel

Well, I can give you 2 more points to think about.

1. Faith and Knowledge, ie belief and evidence, do not cross each other, they are parrallel. You cannot know that God exists or not. You can only believe it. So you are religious in any case, whether you BELIEVE in God, or BELIEVE it does not exist. BTW, so much for the "gap filling" theory. I am amazed that you people still argue about such stuff, it is sorted out since Immanuil Kant.

2. You talk about being nice to each other, but who is telling we can arrive at this notion rationally? We can go in a quite different direction, national-sozialism was a very rational, non-religious concept. And it did not imply kindness to other people at all, no sir. On the contrary, it is religion that is telling us to love other people, without reasoning. Which might be for the better.

what a boring life you must lead
R'amen, brother.

Hey Squirell,

First off let me say London huh where abouts north or south? Me I live in Lewisham. Next let me say yeah I understand that one can change ones point of view, and that given a good argument one may change. Like most of us i have a tendancy to generalise, so please forgive that, and realise that what ever I say I mean in most cases rather than in all cases, and the exception to the rule, blah blah!

You say:

'clouding your mind with superstition is not a good way to do this'

This illustrates my point about differant points of view, I don't see it as clouding my mind with superstious, the mere fact that you do means you do not understand my point of view.

I get a lot out of my faith , it does more to help me, and does not hinder my life in any way, can you then understand why I for one would not be without my faith?

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Literally. Most of us adults prefer to merely distinguish "what is" from "what appears to be", and not exclude everything else. We don't deny that "it is," too.
Yes, quite :)


Or... here's an idea... we can look back at these beliefs as being full of myth, deliberately so, which makes them no longer nonsense. They are only nonsense when we try to make them something they are not --like, the truth for instance.
Yes we can look back on them in the fashion you state, just like we can look back on present day beliefs. The thing is, many people still do see them as "statements of truth" Many of the "myths", which were truths at the time, were deeply offensive and harmful to sections of the society at the time, in fact some of those beliefs/myths still continue to cause harm today

There are people who understand the myths today, almost as much as they did then. Belief isn't in the myth but the message that it conveys.
The messages can include the concepts which can cause harm and offense.


It all depends on what you are accepting as "evidence." If you accept only the evidence of your eyes, and dismiss the evidence of your heart, then you will not see it.
Precisely, I cannot see it in my heart because scientific analysis is not from there but from the brain.

There is no significant distinction between those who believed in the old gods and those who believe in the one, now. The only significant distinction is in how the meaning of the myth has changed.
But the structure of superstitious belief today, is still as relevant as the structure of belief in say, Pharonic Egypt. It is used to manufacture a spiritual and moral lifestyle for society. We are just more technologically advanced but seem to continue stagnating in our "need" for superstitious belief

Hmm, a question with no question mark. There's a name for that, but I forget what it is. Oh yes... a statement of opinion.
Yes, you are quite right, I do have opinions!

We can be rational and free thinking without dismissing things that are. They are only "not" when we mistake appearances for something they are not, such as when we point at myth and call it literal.
Being able to think freely, scientifically and rationally, obviously precludes accepting that which has no basis in fact. When we accept falsehoods, we are failing in proper analysis and will only reach half baked conclusions as a result.

I pity you for you are obviously not one of the lord's chosend children.

I am; I'm a clown! :D

Yes, I am able to put myself in other's shoes, figuratively speaking, and that is what understanding others points of view is all about.

Where are you adding the "fully", and why would that make a difference if our brains are hardwired not to understand each other?

Okay then perhaps I was not clear enough. So please answer this question, do you belive in God or not?

Because LG wants us to.

Having another squirrel around is reminding me of the good old days.




The only real squirrel is Pablo the. All hail Pabs.

Because LG wants us to.

ANything for a little entertainment. :)

Having another squirrel around is reminding me of the good old days.




The only real squirrel is Pablo the. All hail Pabs.

Yes, I miss Pablo. And his nuts. :(

Hey Squirell,

First off let me say London huh where abouts north or south? Me I live in Lewisham. Next let me say yeah I understand that one can change ones point of view, and that given a good argument one may change. Like most of us i have a tendancy to generalise, so please forgive that, and realise that what ever I say I mean in most cases rather than in all cases, and the exception to the rule, blah blah!
I live in Harringey, used to live in Catford "shiver" :D

You say:

'clouding your mind with superstition is not a good way to do this'

This illustrates my point about differant points of view, I don't see it as clouding my mind with superstious, the mere fact that you do means you do not understand my point of view.
Well, I used to have superstitious belief in the existence of a God, as I became more aware, I rejected such notions. All my "belief" was given to me by other people, when I was able to question for myself, such belief could not withstand rational scrutiny. Therefore, i would say I do have some insight into your point of view and respect you for having such point of view. That does not mean you then have the right to impose that point of view upon others. I'm not saying you are doing that, just making a general point.

I get a lot out of my faith , it does more to help me, and does not hinder my life in any way, can you then understand why I for one would not be without my faith?
I would say to you, that if your eyes were (figuratively) opened wider you may get a lot more than what you gain from your Faith. Limiting yourself, in life is (in my mind) such a waste of potential.

ANything for a little entertainment. :)
;)

Isn't it obvious?

We believe in such things to give us a pretext to be destructive, violent and bigoted...

Or if you prefer a simpler explanation, It doesn't matter. We'll still figure out a reason to kill eachother. It's what we're good at. :)

You're in good company on this one LG:


"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." -Stephen Hawking

R'amen, brother.

mmm now noodles I do understand

There is no significant distinction between those who believed in the old gods and those who believe in the one, now. The only significant distinction is in how the meaning of the myth has changed.
But the structure of superstitious belief today, is still as relevant as the structure of belief in say, Pharonic Egypt. It is used to manufacture a spiritual and moral lifestyle for society. We are just more technologically advanced but seem to continue stagnating in our "need" for superstitious belief.
On the contrary, the "structure of superstitious belief" is entirely different today. Back whenever, the world was alive; everything had a spirit that moved it according to its nature. The world was orderly and made sense. "Manufacturing" a lifestyle of religion was not necessary; religion *was* life-style.

Today, the world we live in is a dead thing of effects following effects, causes bumping up against causes in a chaotic jumble. Science is our only means of trying to make sense of that jumble, one peek at a time. Can we really blame people for wanting to restore meaning and order to the universe?

Being able to think freely, scientifically and rationally, obviously precludes accepting that which has no basis in fact. When we accept falsehoods, we are failing in proper analysis and will only reach half baked conclusions as a result.
There is nothing obvious about that. Imagination, the non-literal meaning and the interpretation are still valuable tools, even for the scientist. Where would we be without the vision of exploration that reaches for the stars?

As I said before, the only thing "false" about superstition is when it is mistaken for something that it is not.

Okay then perhaps I was not clear enough. So please answer this question, do you belive in God or not?
I believe in god.

Spurious Squirrel, let me ask this: What is it you think superstition is?

Yes, I miss Pablo. And his nuts. :(
Pablo was funny.

This message brought to you by the Foundation for Stating the Unmistakably Obvious.

As children, we are encouraged to believe in magic: think of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, elves, witches, wizards etc. As we get older, we become more discerning and questioning. Eventually, we abandon our childish beliefs and see the world for what it is.

In History, there have been many spiritual beliefs that were relevant at the time: i.e. the Greek, Roman, Norse Gods, et al. We can look back and see those beliefs as being full of superstitious nonsense. God's for everything, including places within your home. Nowadays no one with any sense believes in those myths.

What is believed nowadays however, is the existence of an all powerful entity, which is different things to different people. I personally think there is no evidence for such an entity, yet there are large groups of people who base their lifestyles around this abstract entity. I do not see any real distinction between those who believed in mythical Gods and the present day need to believe in a single all purpose all powerful entity.

The main link is superstitious belief. My question is why, as educated and aware individuals, some need to continue this belief in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. When will we move on from superstitious belief and become rational and free thinking in dealing with personal and wider issues. When will a philosophy of rationality and mutual support of all be the main thing which can unite us in our common humanity, instead of a need to believe in spiritual teachings that advocate so much that is destructive, violent and bigoted.


Let's see if i get your point of view: Religion, as a whole, is obsolete and also advocating destruction, violence and bigotry, and the only thing that can save mankind is atheistic humanism (which of course is rational and free thinking)?

Here's my point of view: We humans have, in ourselves, the root to this destruction, violence, bigotry etc. We are prone to do evil since we are selfish, proud, lacking empathy, and belive that WE are superior to THEM. It's not in the religion or system. Let me give an example:

Soviet communism was in theory an areligious/atheistic (your post could be a textbook communist view of religion, by the way) system where all members of society owned everything in common and everybody had about the same status and salary regardless of position. Workers and scientists alike would together make it the greatest nation in the world. Very democratic and humanistic. Sounds good? Did it work? No. Why? Because humans are corrupted. We humans think WE should have more. More money, more influence, more power. Too bad if someone else has to pay.


Concerning the "there is no proof for a god so therefore he/she/it can't exist.", and "childish beliefs";
since i'm a christian i'd like to quote mister Jesus himself on the subject:

"O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise and clever, and for revealing it to the childlike. Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way.
"My Father has given me authority over everything. No one really knows the Son except the Father, and no one really knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Jesus called a small child over to him and put the child among them. Then he said, "I assure you, unless you turn from your sins and become as little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf is welcoming me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who trusts in me to lose faith, it would be better for that person to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck.

I would say to you, that if your eyes were (figuratively) opened wider you may get a lot more than what you gain from your Faith. Limiting yourself, in life is (in my mind) such a waste of potential.

Hey Squirell,

Nice to see you do understand. My life has been a bit differant from yours as I grew up in an Atheist household. That is to say my folx paid lip service to the Church of england, but then I put that down to a generational thing. So I grewup with no knowledge of God or faith at all, it was only in my adult life after some seaching that the idea of God started to make sense to me, as it still does.

The thing with it is nobody knows for sure, and so what you call superstion, I call certianty. Does it hurt when people equate me with a non logical fool for this irrational belief, yeah sure it does,(nobody likes to be called an idiot) but I am aware that not everybody gets the God thing, which means that not everybody can understand why I belive as I do.

Umm just goes to show though huh, differant folx differant strokes

Oh for a-non-specified-deity's sake. You're not still espousing the god of the gaps theory are you? god has been used to explain nearly everything that we cant at one point in history. Just because we cant explain them now, doesnt mean we'll never be able to so filling in the gaps with a god, them moving him when those gaps get filled it stupid.
I'm not advocating or espousing it, I'm saying that that's probably why people still believe in a god. I never once mentioned my beliefs on the subject, and that's how I intend to keep it, because I'm sick of people flaming me everywhere I go just for stating my opinion on a situation.

Again, that's just my opinion on why people still believe in a god. It's human nature to find an explanation for everything, and if none is available, to draw on conclusions such as gods. I still maintain that "where did everything in the big bang come from" is a relatively solid question, though.

As for the "But teaching kids to believe in false things will lead to them believing things like that for the rest of their lives": Well, not necessarily. The downfall when they find out it's not real is traumatic, and it tends to break/weaken, at least, their faith in things that have no proof, as far as I've seen. And anything further I'd have to say here has been covered to death and beyond in another thread, so blah.

Umm just goes to show though huh, differant folx differant strokes
Shouldn't that be "different folx, different strox"?

Oh for a-non-specified-deity's sake. You're not still espousing the god of the gaps theory are you? god has been used to explain nearly everything that we cant at one point in history. Just because we cant explain them now, doesnt mean we'll never be able to so filling in the gaps with a god, them moving him when those gaps get filled it stupid.
This is off-topic, but from where does this ignorant idea of gods as "explanation of natural phenomena" arise? I see it so often, I'm wondering if it's taught in schools, or is a formalized theological philosophy.

This is off-topic, but from where does this ignorant idea of gods as "explanation of natural phenomena" arise? I see it so often, I'm wondering if it's taught in schools, or is a formalized theological philosophy.
It was taught in schools when I was in school. The books we got were based on outdated papers written in the previous century. We can thank Joseph Campbell (for all his limitations) for cluing the general public that there is a lot more to it than that. He was like the Julia Child of mythology.

BTW, I'd like to thank you and Peepelonia for your excellent posts so far. Thanks. Keep 'em coming. :)

On the one hand, I understand and agree with the OP about the limiting, damaging, even oppressive effects of superstition, especially when it is dressed up as religion.

But on the other hand, I disagree with the OP about needing to get rid of religion.

There actually are good uses for religion. I'll go so far as to say there are good practical uses for it. When you take the time to immerse yourself in the symbolic language of myth, as Willamena says, you find allegories that reflect instinctive understandings about things that are otherwise extremely difficult to understand with the conscious mind. Things like death, pain, fear, hope and so on. Things that we know for a fact exist but for which we have no facts that explain why they exist or how we can avoid being made unhappy by the idea of them. The value of religion is that it provides symbolic languages that reflect our feelings about these things in a way that bypasses the limitations of logic, and if we allow ourselves to explore these symbols and feelings, we find ways to cope with them and not be oppressed by them.

I'm talking about a certain level of mysticism. Not every religious person has to be a mystic, but mystics (who spend most of their time thinking about such things) compose the myths for the rest of us.

And just as not every religious person has to be a mystic, not every person has to be religious. It's just that religion is a good tool for some people in dealing with such non-fact-based issues. In this sense, although religion is not factual, not measurable, not provable, it is still a rational thought process.

As Willamena points out, the breakdown comes when people take the lazy route and interpret the myths as facts and not as symbol.

But even secular systems such as science are susceptible to that kind of warping. Science has often been twisted to serve determined agendas, such as racism. I admit, however, that of all thought systems, religion is perhaps the most susceptible to twisting and corruption because it has no facts to check it against. It is dependent on the honesty of its practitioners.

Actually, they had lightning gods because lightning was an appropriate expression of god's anger (the god being the spirit that moves the lightning).So why don't we have lightning gods then?

I say it is because we understand lightning better than the people who had a lightning god.
I don't disagree, but I would say teaching people to distinguish between things that exist and things that appear to exist would be more useful (and less psychologically damaging) than attempting to make them deny things that they are going to experience.That is pretty much what I would want to do. They aren't going to experience Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny or God so why teach them that those things exist?

Maybe teaching them a bit of neurotheology might be good.
Faith and Knowledge, ie belief and evidence, do not cross each other, they are parrallel.They are directly contradictory.
You cannot know that God exists or not. You can only believe it.That is mostly true. There are exceptions however.

Many gods are self-contradictory and many others have attributes that would contradict reality (e.g. the Christian god is said to be all powerful, all knowing and all good yet there is evil in the world so from that we can conclude that the Christian god does not exist).
So you are religious in any case, whether you BELIEVE in God, or BELIEVE it does not exist.This is a common mistake made by religious people who wish to bring atheism down to the same level as theism (instead of accepting that atheists do not have a burden of proof since atheists are not making an existance claim).

Positive disbelief in a god is something that many atheists do but if that is because they have evidence that said god doesn't exist (such as that god being impossible to exist) then their disbelief can't be called religious.

Many of the gods that aren't believed in but which could potentially exist (usually of the deistic variety) can be rejected on lack of evidence. You'll find that many atheists don't have a positive disbelief in those gods (i.e. don't believe that those gods don't exist) but instead simply do not have a belief in those gods.
BTW, so much for the "gap filling" theory.Well when you look at what gods of the past have done the god of the gaps theory is the only one that actually makes any sense.
You talk about being nice to each other, but who is telling we can arrive at this notion rationally?Well being nice to other people does tend to benefit you as well as the rest of society.
We can go in a quite different direction, national-sozialism was a very rational, non-religious concept.Based on the Christian religion and quite irrational (the idea that a person's skin colour matters in any real way is not something that any rational person could possibly hold).
On the contrary, it is religion that is telling us to love other people, without reasoning.Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.
--Matthew 10:34Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
--I Samuel 15:3It seems that religion is actually telling people to kill and torture others at least if you read their holy books.

Hardly something which can be claimed to be superior to secular humanism (or even religious humanism which is the morality of most religious people).
As for the "But teaching kids to believe in false things will lead to them believing things like that for the rest of their lives": Well, not necessarily. The downfall when they find out it's not real is traumatic, and it tends to break/weaken, at least, their faith in things that have no proof, as far as I've seen. And anything further I'd have to say here has been covered to death and beyond in another thread, so blah.Well most of them continue to believe in god for the rest of their lives so I would have to say that it doesn't seem to help eliminate belief in things that have no proof.
This is off-topic, but from where does this ignorant idea of gods as "explanation of natural phenomena" arise? I see it so often, I'm wondering if it's taught in schools, or is a formalized theological philosophy.Before science people used religion to explain the world. Gods were said to be responsible for the creation of the world, for lightning, for providing good harvests, etc.

Let's see if i get your point of view: Religion, as a whole, is obsolete and also advocating destruction, violence and bigotry, and the only thing that can save mankind is atheistic humanism (which of course is rational and free thinking)?
You're putting words in my mouth. I don't say that athiestic humanism is the only thing that can save mankind. What I do say is that rationality and clear thinking is necessary to make sense of what is around us.

Have you heard of the "Cargo Cult" story?

A ship comes to an isolated island, laden with supplies. The inhabitants of the island receive all sorts of "goodies", like beads, clothes, trinkets etc. They trade the yellow metal that is abundant on the island with the ship. After a while the ship leaves. Soon the inhabitants need new clothes and more trinkets. As they do not have the technology to make their own sea going ship, they instead build a bamboo one in the hope of attracting the ship back. Before long, they start to worship the ship as the bringer of goodies. Now, they have made sense (of a sort) about the nature of the ship. But going down this road, they will never get to develop their own sea going vessel.

If they had traded for technology and teaching, they would have a clearer idea of the ship, where it came from and their relationship to it. Clear thinking, not minds befuddled by superstitious belief!

Here's my point of view: We humans have, in ourselves, the root to this destruction, violence, bigotry etc. We are prone to do evil since we are selfish, proud, lacking empathy, and belive that WE are superior to THEM. It's not in the religion or system. Let me give an example:
We also have it in ourselves to be supportive, generous, sympathetic, lots of empathy. You see, as humans, we are capable of doing the very best as well as the very worst. Being superstitious only makes it more likely that we tend to do our worst. Look at the state of the world today with regard to Islam and christianity.
Soviet communism was in theory an areligious/atheistic (your post could be a textbook communist view of religion, by the way) system where all members of society owned everything in common and everybody had about the same status and salary regardless of position. Workers and scientists alike would together make it the greatest nation in the world. Very democratic and humanistic. Sounds good? Did it work? No. Why? Because humans are corrupted. We humans think WE should have more. More money, more influence, more power. Too bad if someone else has to pay.
Is it necessary to pigeonhole my argument as a textbook example of a communist view of religion?
In any event, your description of Soviet Communism is unrealistic. The political system was in fact state capitalist. Equality never existed within the soviet system, power was the determining factor in how much you benefited from the sytem, just like under capitalism. Of course it worked, just like it continues to do in other countries around the world. The better question is was it succesful? No, because the principles of Commune-ism were never lived by (I advise you to research a little about commune-ism, it's a vast improvement on Capital-ism).

Humans are not "corrupt" as you put it, we have the capacity to be many things but again, you want to "pigeonhole". We have evolved a system of living whereby the most vulnerable are protected, the poor (in theory) are helped by the better off, we educate our children, provide medical help when necessary, safegaurd life and liberty (in theory). I don't think any of those accomplishments are "corrupt"

Concerning the "there is no proof for a god so therefore he/she/it can't exist.", and "childish beliefs";
since i'm a christian i'd like to quote mister Jesus himself on the subject:
Quoting the words of your book is no basis for arguing against someone who sees no real merit in it, so why do it?

Spurious Squirrel, let me ask this: What is it you think superstition is?
Simply put, superstition is the belief in the existence of the immaterial, the belief there is magical power in symbols, actions or beliefs.

Yes there is power in symbols, actions and beliefs but real recognisable elements that can be recognised and rationalised. Magic/superstition however, has no merit in determining those elements.

Shouldn't that be "different folx, different strox"?

I guess so, but I'm dyslexic, so wot the fuck do I konw huh!;)

So why don't we have lightning gods then?

I say it is because we understand lightning better than the people who had a lightning god.
"We" (Western Civilization) don't have lightning gods because we abandoned the idea of individual spirits in things, in favour of one big spirit for the whole universe (same thing, different scale; it's all the same to god). We also have intermixes of hot and cold weather patterns, ionized molecules and free floating electrons.

We understand the science of lightning better than those old folks. Science is explanations. They didn't need explanation of that sort. If you must look at it in terms of explanations, you could say they were an integral part of what we would recognize as the whole explanation, and an explanation doesn't need to explain itself to itself.

Before science people used religion to explain the world. Gods were said to be responsible for the creation of the world, for lightning, for providing good harvests, etc.
Yes, gods were said to be that... by learned people two and three centuries ago. Scientific theories (read "explanations") have changed since then. For the better. That idea is already archaic, has been since the turn of the Nineteenth Century.

Here's an idea for you, a theory that must be read in the context of mythology (of the story). Gods are the spirits that inhabit all things. They move, and hence shape, those things according to their nature (both the god's and the thing's, because they one and the same) same as our spirit moves and shapes us. This is creation. Gods of lightning were responsible for that thing because they were the spirits that moved and shaped that thing. God of the Bible is responsible for creation of the world because he is the spirit that moves and shapes the world.

Do you like to play Jeopardy? If I said, "He is the god who createss lightning," what would the answer be? If the answer is "What is lightning?" that would be wrong (*bzzz!*). The correct answer is, "What is Zeus?" The statement explains the god, not the lightning. Same thing here --the god is not an explanation of the lightning, rather the lightning is an physical demonstration of something about the god.

That is pretty much what I would want to do. They aren't going to experience Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny or God so why teach them that those things exist?
Actually, I said *are* going to experience...

Existance implies a creator.

Simply put, superstition is the belief in the existence of the immaterial, the belief there is magical power in symbols, actions or beliefs.

Yes there is power in symbols, actions and beliefs but real recognisable elements that can be recognised and rationalised. Magic/superstition however, has no merit in determining those elements.
I think the problem lies with your definition of existence; that perhaps you are limiting existence to the phyiscal world, when in fact "immaterial" things are not a part of the physical world at all.

See, there's a basic contradiction in your first statement that says that if something exists it must be real; yet, we can imagine things that are not real. Imaginings are immaterial things, with no other existence except in our imagination. That is still an existence --they are there in our imagination.

The meanings of symbols are immaterial things, with no existence independent of the symbol itself. The contents of thoughts (similar to imaginings) are immaterial. And the concept of "self" is of an immaterial thing.

Immaterial things do exist. Just involving us, and not in the physical world.

The belief that there is 'magical power' in something is superstition, I agree. It takes the meaning of the something (in this case, its 'power') away from us and places it right into that something, as if that meaning was physical, a property of that thing itself. It takes something immaterial, like this meaning of 'power', and tries to make it material, make it real, make it something it is not.

So, in fact, superstition is the mistaking of immaterial things for physical things.

Existance implies a creator.
It does, indeed, that being the thing itself that is the creation. That's why existence is an axiom.

There is no creation in the physical world. In the physical world, there is only cause and effect. Cause and effect is not creation.

I think the problem lies with your definition of existence; that perhaps you are limiting existence to the phyiscal world, when in fact "immaterial" things are not a part of the physical world at all.
I wouldn't agree with that limiting definition. What I am talking about are ideas as abstract notions, or symbols representing such ideas. I am an Anarchist. Anarchism has no existence expect as an abstract philosophy. That does not mean however, that the philosophy does not exist, it does and can be understood.
See, there's a basic contradiction in your first statement that says that if something exists it must be real; yet, we can imagine things that are not real. Imaginings are immaterial things, with no other existence except in our imagination. That is still an existence --they are there in our imagination.
Again, ideas can be real, or imaginary. Philosophical, ethical, societal notions all exist and have a reality within them understood and shared by all. They also have a practicality that is understood and shared by all. Verbal or written language is just such an example. There is no reality other than that which is shared and understood by all, yet speak in one language to another who does not share that language and what you get is confusion. Without language, we would be lost.

The meanings of symbols are immaterial things, with no existence independent of the symbol itself. The contents of thoughts (similar to imaginings) are immaterial. And the concept of "self" is of an immaterial thing.
The concept of "self" is very relevant to the individual, it's the means by which you can experience, understand, communicate, share, receive, et al. Thoughts are certainly immaterial, however the result of thoughts can have tremendous impact upon the world either physically or spiritually.
Immaterial things do exist. Just involving us, and not in the physical world.
Again I say, thoughts can have tremendous impact upon the physical world
The belief that there is 'magical power' in something is superstition, I agree. It takes the meaning of the something (in this case, its 'power') away from us and places it right into that something, as if that meaning was physical, a property of that thing itself. It takes something immaterial, like this meaning of 'power', and tries to make it material, make it real, make it something it is not.
In this I completely agree with you and must say you put it extremely well
So, in fact, superstition is the mistaking of immaterial things for physical things.
Except to say, again, there is a distinction between ideas that are rational and those which are irrational. I put superstition firmly with the irrational

Thoughts are certainly immaterial, however the result of thoughts can have tremendous impact upon the world either physically or spiritually.


Again I say, thoughts can have tremendous impact upon the physical world.
But the impact that immaterial things have is not a physical one, it is one that happens upon gaining knowledge of the immaterial thing. The 'impact' they have, like everything described about them, is metaphorical. But we are in agreeance.

So, in fact, superstition is the mistaking of immaterial things for physical things.
Except to say, again, there is a distinction between ideas that are rational and those which are irrational. I put superstition firmly with the irrational.
I always neglect to include that distinction, thank you. So we agree that immaterial things exist, and belief in them is not in itself superstition, but the belief that irrationally mistakes them for something physical or real is superstitious.

Even irrational superstition can have practical applications. In psychology it is a virtual doorway to understanding ourselves subconsciously. When we draw an irrational connection between coincidental events and 'the meaning' of those events, or assign 'the meaning' to a symbol (my computer hates me), we can stop and self-analyse and use what we have done to know more about ourselves.

One of the most ancient tenants of pagan religions is: Know thyself.

Let's take another symbol, one more relevant: god. If god is immaterial, as is claimed, then we know for a fact that we will never find evidence for him in the material world, as much as we know we will not find evidence of concepts like truth and beauty. Yet god can have an 'impact', just as they can, and people can base their lives around the idea of it, as they do with any philosophy. God of the Bible refers to himself as "I am that I am," which is generally taken to mean, "I am that which I am." That is self-knowledge, the same religious idea that is reflected in the pagan religions.

But the impact that immaterial things have is not a physical one, it is one that happens upon gaining knowledge of the immaterial thing. The 'impact' they have, like everything described about them, is metaphorical. But we are in agreeance.


I always neglect to include that distinction, thank you. So we agree that immaterial things exist, and belief in them is not in itself superstition, but the belief that irrationally mistakes them for something physical or real is superstitious.

Even irrational superstition can have practical applications. In psychology it is a virtual doorway to understanding ourselves subconsciously. When we draw an irrational connection between coincidental events and 'the meaning' of those events, or assign 'the meaning' to a symbol (my computer hates me), we can stop and self-analyse and use what we have done to know more about ourselves.

One of the most ancient tenants of pagan religions is: Know thyself.

Let's take another symbol, one more relevant: god. If god is immaterial, as is claimed, then we know for a fact that we will never find evidence for him in the material world, as much as we know we will not find evidence of concepts like truth and beauty. Yet god can have an 'impact', just as they can, and people can base their lives around the idea of it, as they do with any philosophy. God of the Bible refers to himself as "I am that I am," which is generally taken to mean, "I am that which I am." That is self-knowledge, the same religious idea that is reflected in the pagan religions.
That is precisely why I dislike superstition. That which cannot be rationalised becomes whatever the individual chooses it to be, the belief becomes whatever the believer wants it to be. The meaning of the immaterial nature of the supposed supra natural being becomes what it's followers need it to be.

My question is a simple one "what is God", not what we want/believe/need it to be but what is it's description of and in itself. Unless someone is arrogant enough to presume to define the undefinable, the question, using the terms you very clearly state yourself, cannot be answered. At least I've never encountered an appropriate answer.

Isn't it obvious?

We believe in such things to give us a pretext to be destructive, violent and bigoted.

Without religion, all we would have left is nationalism and racism. THose are pretty good reasons to kill people, but 'God told me to' is a little easier to rationalize.

So where would we be without religion? Well, we'd be killing eachother for the flags they wave and the hats they wear("If you see two large groups of people who really hate eachother, chances are good they're wearing different kinds of hats. Pay attention to that, it might be important." -George Carlin) instead of the invisible man they worship and the comparative size of that god's genitals.

Or if you prefer a simpler explanation, It doesn't matter. We'll still figure out a reason to kill eachother. It's what we're good at. :)

I like the way you think.

I like the way you think.
LG doesn't think, he just types. His thoughts are consumed by higher things, such as mud and how to get a cow to parachute into the whitehouse.

As children, we are encouraged to believe in magic: think of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, elves, witches, wizards etc. As we get older, we become more discerning and questioning. Eventually, we abandon our childish beliefs and see the world for what it is.
I still believe magic exists. Maybe not the magical sparkles type of magic, but there is an inherent magic and beauty in all things.
In History, there have been many spiritual beliefs that were relevant at the time: i.e. the Greek, Roman, Norse Gods, et al. We can look back and see those beliefs as being full of superstitious nonsense. God's for everything, including places within your home. Nowadays no one with any sense believes in those myths.
How do you know? Maybe the Greeks will turn to right and the Christians wrong.
What is believed nowadays however, is the existence of an all powerful entity, which is different things to different people. I personally think there is no evidence for such an entity, yet there are large groups of people who base their lifestyles around this abstract entity. I do not see any real distinction between those who believed in mythical Gods and the present day need to believe in a single all purpose all powerful entity.
Just because we don't have evidence now does not mean we will never have evidence. Also many (not me) would contradict you with evidences from the bible and tell you there IS evidence that a divine being exists. I do not see the difference either, but what is wrong with basing your life around it? Is the need for spirituality so evil?
The main link is superstitious belief. My question is why, as educated and aware individuals, some need to continue this belief in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. When will we move on from superstitious belief and become rational and free thinking in dealing with personal and wider issues. When will a philosophy of rationality and mutual support of all be the main thing which can unite us in our common humanity, instead of a need to believe in spiritual teachings that advocate so much that is destructive, violent and bigoted.
What about the evidence supporting the existence of a divine being? Also, spiritual teachings do not advocate violence and bigotry; it advocates peace and love and unity. It's in institutionalized religion that man interprets the teachings to their own likings and benefits. And this rational and free thinking way of dealing with personal and wider issues is science, I suppose? Personally, I don't believe science can solve all the world's problems. In fact, mankind needs spirituality as a motivation to do good. There is just too much in the world that science cannot explain. Do you deny the existence of a "god" when there is so much mystery and magic around you?

"We" (Western Civilization) don't have lightning gods because we abandoned the idea of individual spirits in things, in favour of one big spirit for the whole universe (same thing, different scale; it's all the same to god). We also have intermixes of hot and cold weather patterns, ionized molecules and free floating electrons.What's to say that a future civilisation won't abandon the idea that there is a god in the first place?

I mean we've gone from multiple gods responsible for almost everything to one god responsible for a lot less (basically anything religious believers can't explain though science (or think they can't explain)).
We understand the science of lightning better than those old folks. Science is explanations. They didn't need explanation of that sort.No, they needed doubt not gods.
Yes, gods were said to be that... by learned people two and three centuries ago. Scientific theories (read "explanations") have changed since then. For the better. That idea is already archaic, has been since the turn of the Nineteenth Century.So religion evolves and becomes less than it was in the past?
That is pretty much what I would want to do. They aren't going to experience Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny or God so why teach them that those things exist?Actually, I said *are* going to experience...But they won't experience any of those. They'll experience their parents putting presents under the tree and eating what they left out while they sleep, their parents taking their tooth from under the pillow and putting a coin in its place, their parents putting easter eggs around the place when they aren't watching and strange things happening in their brain.

They can't experience what doesn't exist.
I think the problem lies with your definition of existence; that perhaps you are limiting existence to the phyiscal world, when in fact "immaterial" things are not a part of the physical world at all.Immaterial things do not exist. Anything that exists whether it be a planet, you or the pattern of neurons responsible for your thoughts is material.
Just because we don't have evidence now does not mean we will never have evidence.True. But when you are dealing with something that flat out contradicts pretty much all of modern science you do demand the evidence be pretty good. I see it as highly unlikely that anyone will ever find evidence for a god (no one has managed to come up with proof for god that holds up in thousands of years yet many concepts of god have been shown to be impossible including the most commonly believed ones).
Also many (not me) would contradict you with evidences from the bible and tell you there IS evidence that a divine being exists.It'd be like claiming the Force exists because of what was shown in the Star Wars movies.
I do not see the difference either, but what is wrong with basing your life around it? Is the need for spirituality so evil?Considering the amount of death caused by religion as well as the suppression of science by religion I would say spirituality is evil.
What about the evidence supporting the existence of a divine being?Nothing that actually holds up.
Also, spiritual teachings do not advocate violence and bigotry; it advocates peace and love and unity. It's in institutionalized religion that man interprets the teachings to their own likings and benefits.There are a lot of bible verses which would seem to indicate otherwise.
And this rational and free thinking way of dealing with personal and wider issues is science, I suppose? Personally, I don't believe science can solve all the world's problems.It's solved a lot more of our problems than religion has so even if it can't solve all of them it is a much better bet.
In fact, mankind needs spirituality as a motivation to do good.There is no proof of that (and plenty of evidence that humans don't).
There is just too much in the world that science cannot explain.There is nothing that religion can explain accurately. Science at least usually gets things somewhat close to true whereas religion is usually way off.
Do you deny the existence of a "god" when there is so much mystery and magic around you?We do not know is a bad argument for the existance of god.

It is better to not know and admit it then to just make up something that stops you from even trying to find out what is really going on.

its like telling a blind man colors he cant see. But most of the worlds population is blind to true spirituality. Nearly none can see and they are split into two groups. One group of blinds 'want to' believe, other 'doesnt want to' believe. But to me it is not to believe or not at first place, it is to know it is to experience.
There are only a small number of individuals in the world that can achieve some knowledges in their pure form.

Study some occult, experience the power of faith etc then maybe we can talk then. Because its like telling a blind man colors he cant see, he wont believe.Why do you think studying occultism would help?

nothing may help or anything may help. It may be the begginning of some new experiences to step into a new, bigger world.
After all wherever you stand, knowledge is power. occult is insight to humanity's past, esoteric knowledge is carried inside myths. Preserving such is an instinc in general human population. ITs like DNA.
Edit:
Let me summerise this. Religions have at least two dimensions to begin with. One says be good, dont rape kill, steal, etc and if you dont have that much intelligance just copy the prophets life.
Second dimension is tradition it carries, it gives all religions a value that cant be thrown away. Hints and clues of mankinds past.
Yet another dimension is rituals, although you can find them practical values their true value is bringing individual into a state of clear mind and body. After that a person can stop believing and start knowing things.
But the problem is only few like Buddha etc achieve a state of being that they can be in multiple places times and reach information as they wish. ITs like opening a worm hole that just folds and makes two points exactly in the same place. Without being in that stance you just doubt and want to believe or deny. Only in that state you can know.
So studying occult is a beginning to form a background of knowledge about past of rituals and cults etc. What to do or what to not to do.

nothing may help or anything may help. It may be the begginning of some new experiences to step into a new, bigger world.
After all wherever you stand, knowledge is power. occult is insight to humanity's past, esoteric knowledge is carried inside myths. Preserving such is an instinc in general human population. ITs like DNA.Esoteric knowledge? Heh, I bet.

What may be escaping you, is that the non-superstitious aren't nedessarily ignorant or incapable of appreciating & learning from fiction. Occult myth can be great fun, just like folk tales, the Bible or a Stephen King novel.

Esoteric knowledge? Heh, I bet.

What may be escaping you, is that the non-superstitious aren't nedessarily ignorant or incapable of appreciating & learning from fiction. Occult myth can be great fun, just like folk tales, the Bible or a Stephen King novel.
yep you are right, its a good thing. It can be a good scholarly exercise. But what Im trying to say is that they are not just fictions as we think they are, esoteric means understanding the sembolic meanings of those stories. Each word can have 9 meanings in some esoteric traditions.
Plain reading wont give you anything more than fun.

With reference to the original question, I suggest a careful reading of Kierkegaard's works. And as a demonstration of the remarkably limited scope and power of reason, "An Enquiry into Human Understanding" by (the agnostic/atheist) David Hume. That is why there will never be a period of united, rational humanism; humans are irrational creatures and will remain so for the foreseeable future. In my opinion.

As children, we are encouraged to believe in magic: think of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, elves, witches, wizards etc. As we get older, we become more discerning and questioning. Eventually, we abandon our childish beliefs and see the world for what it is.

I was never encouraged to believe in those things as a child, interestingly.

In History, there have been many spiritual beliefs that were relevant at the time: i.e. the Greek, Roman, Norse Gods, et al. We can look back and see those beliefs as being full of superstitious nonsense. God's for everything, including places within your home. Nowadays no one with any sense believes in those myths.

I don't think the fact that most folks today don't believe in ancient myths has anything to do with them having sense. I think it has to do with the progression of human societies and the fact that those myths have been supplanted by others in later cultures. In short, some religions have propogated themselves successfully into our era and others have died and been overtaken by other myths.

What is believed nowadays however, is the existence of an all powerful entity, which is different things to different people. I personally think there is no evidence for such an entity, yet there are large groups of people who base their lifestyles around this abstract entity. I do not see any real distinction between those who believed in mythical Gods and the present day need to believe in a single all purpose all powerful entity.

Neither do I. Belief systems (regardless of to whom they belong) serve the same essential purpose regardless of the particulars of that belief system.

The main link is superstitious belief. My question is why, as educated and aware individuals, some need to continue this belief in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

Interesting. What's the evidence to the contrary when it comes to modern religious beliefs, particularly the core beliefs? I could understand asserting that the materialist explanations are better than the superstitious explanations, but I've observed that the two are generally quite compatible and need not be contradictory.

I think what you'll find if you give the issue considerable thought is that the differing paradigmatic asumptions on the part of both spiritual and non-spiritual folks renders an objective assessment of the likelyhood of either them being correct quite problematic.

When will we move on from superstitious belief and become rational and free thinking in dealing with personal and wider issues. When will a philosophy of rationality and mutual support of all be the main thing which can unite us in our common humanity,

Why do you prefer to use a symbol set comprised of logic rather than a symbol set comprised of religious imagery? Based on my observations, both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, both approaches can be incredibly effective, and both approaches can be misused badly.

instead of a need to believe in spiritual teachings that advocate so much that is destructive, violent and bigoted.

It's strange, this last bit. Most spiritual traditions don't advocate destruction, violence, and bigotry. There are factions within various traditions that do, but on the whole spirituality seems focused on giving folks a means of becoming more happy and peaceful people. Most of the religious folks I've met are primarily interested in being better people rather than engaging in destructive acts. Like everyone else, they sometimes fail to refrain from destructive acts as they should, but this phenomena is hardly exclusive to believers in superstition.

I still believe magic exists. Maybe not the magical sparkles type of magic, but there is an inherent magic and beauty in all things.
You are quite right about that but you should never confuse experiencing wonder and awe with with superstitious concepts.
How do you know? Maybe the Greeks will turn to right and the Christians wrong.
It's more llikely that christianity, or any religious ideas go the way of the Greek Pantheon

Just because we don't have evidence now does not mean we will never have evidence. Also many (not me) would contradict you with evidences from the bible and tell you there IS evidence that a divine being exists. I do not see the difference either, but what is wrong with basing your life around it? Is the need for spirituality so evil?
Yes many would try to contradict me with their evidence from their books of belief. The point is, I don't believe in manufactured fiction, so the "evidence" would not really be relevant. As I mentioned earlier. The existence and nature of a supra natural being cannot be proven, yet people try to do so anyway. That's something I find difficult to come to terms with.

What about the evidence supporting the existence of a divine being? Also, spiritual teachings do not advocate violence and bigotry; it advocates peace and love and unity. It's in institutionalized religion that man interprets the teachings to their own likings and benefits. And this rational and free thinking way of dealing with personal and wider issues is science, I suppose? Personally, I don't believe science can solve all the world's problems. In fact, mankind needs spirituality as a motivation to do good. There is just too much in the world that science cannot explain. Do you deny the existence of a "god" when there is so much mystery and magic around you?
What evidence is there supporting the existence of a divine being? Many, if not most, superstitious spiritual teachings do indeed advocate peace, love and unity as well as discord, violence and bigotry. That only shows how contradictory and divisive such beleifs can be.
Humans do need spirituality as you rightly say, but of a humanistic kind, not confused with false ideas and innate hatred. If we are to develop, we need to embrace a philosophy of respect, tolerance and understanding. I firmly believe that we have it in ourselves to do this. We will never do it by believing in "magic" solutions. If we cannot sort out our problems here in life, what presumption to think we can then do so, in some sort of afterlife environment.
There is indeed too much that science cannot yet explain. To understand, then, requires a structured approach to to observe, analyse, reach proven conclusions leading to increased understanding. That is what scientific analysis does for us. It does not blind and confuse. It does not limit the wonder of appreciating wat is around us, just allows us to have clearer insights.

I think we probably agree more than we disagree. Though I'm not sure if you follow any religious beliefs?

That is precisely why I dislike superstition. That which cannot be rationalised becomes whatever the individual chooses it to be, the belief becomes whatever the believer wants it to be. The meaning of the immaterial nature of the supposed supra natural being becomes what it's followers need it to be.

My question is a simple one "what is God", not what we want/believe/need it to be but what is it's description of and in itself. Unless someone is arrogant enough to presume to define the undefinable, the question, using the terms you very clearly state yourself, cannot be answered. At least I've never encountered an appropriate answer.
Like other subjective things, it doesn't have a choice but to be unique to each individual. And that is its strength. It is not something that cannot be rationalized --literally everything can be rationalized --and choice is often not a factor, at least not conscious choice.

God is the "self" of the universe. We have a "self" that is unconscious to us, and just like the concept of "self" is very relevant to the individual, the concept of the universe we are a part of and immersed in having a "self" is relevant to us. It moves us and shapes us through circumstance, and through being. It cannot be defined any more than our "self" can be.

God is the "self" of the universe. We have a "self" that is unconscious to us, and just like the concept of "self" is very relevant to the individual, the concept of the universe we are a part of and immersed in having a "self" is relevant to us. It moves us and shapes us through circumstance, and through being. It cannot be defined any more than our "self" can be.

Mostly agreed, but...

Well, the self can be defined, but only in a reflexive fashion. It's inherently self-referencing to some degree.

What's to say that a future civilisation won't abandon the idea that there is a god in the first place? I mean we've gone from multiple gods responsible for almost everything to one god responsible for a lot less (basically anything religious believers can't explain though science (or think they can't explain)).
Absolutely nothing! Nothing's to say that a future civilization won't abandon the idea --in fact, nothing's to say nothing about the future. At all. :)

No, they needed doubt not gods.
So religion evolves and becomes less than it was in the past?
No, I was talking about the theories about religion, such as the idea that gods are explanations of natural phenomena. The theories evolve, and if being supplanted by a better theory means "becoming less" in your parlance, then that's what they do.

But they won't experience any of those. They'll experience their parents putting presents under the tree and eating what they left out while they sleep, their parents taking their tooth from under the pillow and putting a coin in its place, their parents putting easter eggs around the place when they aren't watching and strange things happening in their brain.
Really? You never experienced any mystery as a kid? You never experienced the wonder at how the presents got under the tree? You never experienced the joy of searching for easter eggs, or marvel at how the tooth turned into a coin? Because that's the equivalent of those things you mention. They are what they mean, Santa and the tooth fairy --what they mean is what they are.

They can't experience what doesn't exist.
Immaterial things do not exist. Anything that exists whether it be a planet, you or the pattern of neurons responsible for your thoughts is material.
Okay. But the *pattern* of neutrons wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about those things we think about.

Mostly agreed, but...

Well, the self can be defined, but only in a reflexive fashion. It's inherently self-referencing to some degree.
Just so. And those who profess evidence of god point to the universe around us as "reflexive" of god.

its like telling a blind man colors he cant see. But most of the worlds population is blind to true spirituality.This requires that 'true spirituality' exist in the first place. That seems rather unlikely.
nothing may help or anything may help. It may be the begginning of some new experiences to step into a new, bigger world.
After all wherever you stand, knowledge is power. occult is insight to humanity's past, esoteric knowledge is carried inside myths. Preserving such is an instinc in general human population. ITs like DNA.The occult was practised by humans of the past and now so it is a good insight into pathological beliefs though it does not have any existance outside the delusions of those who believe in it (pretty much everything to do with the occult has already been found to have other more material reasons).
Let me summerise this. Religions have at least two dimensions to begin with. One says be good, dont rape kill, steal, etc and if you dont have that much intelligance just copy the prophets life.
Second dimension is tradition it carries, it gives all religions a value that cant be thrown away. Hints and clues of mankinds past.
Yet another dimension is rituals, although you can find them practical values their true value is bringing individual into a state of clear mind and body. After that a person can stop believing and start knowing things.You left out kill all the unbelievers. That's probably the most important dimension of religion in todays world (and to me the only thing that differentiates one religion from another).
With reference to the original question, I suggest a careful reading of Kierkegaard's works. And as a demonstration of the remarkably limited scope and power of reason, "An Enquiry into Human Understanding" by (the agnostic/atheist) David Hume. That is why there will never be a period of united, rational humanism; humans are irrational creatures and will remain so for the foreseeable future. In my opinion.Some humans manage to become rational but not all. I suspect it is more an education problem. We simply don't teach people why religion is wrong.
Interesting. What's the evidence to the contrary when it comes to modern religious beliefs, particularly the core beliefs?God is all seeing, all powerful and all good is a common core belief.

Reality shows that there is evil thereby contradicting those core beliefs.
It's strange, this last bit. Most spiritual traditions don't advocate destruction, violence, and bigotry. There are factions within various traditions that do, but on the whole spirituality seems focused on giving folks a means of becoming more happy and peaceful people. Most of the religious folks I've met are primarily interested in being better people rather than engaging in destructive acts. Like everyone else, they sometimes fail to refrain from destructive acts as they should, but this phenomena is hardly exclusive to believers in superstition.Well the two most common religions sure do advocate destruction, violence and bigotry.

As for the religious folks who are nice. They aren't following the teachings of their religion (e.g. Jews and Christians are required to kill those who work on the Sabbath) but are actually basing their morality on humanism.

God is all seeing, all powerful and all good is a common core belief.

Reality shows that there is evil thereby contradicting those core beliefs.

You're seriously going to try the Problem of Evil? Can't we do something that hasn't been beaten to death over and over and already has pat responses to it?

Well the two most common religions sure do advocate destruction, violence and bigotry.

Oh? Care to substantiate, or are you just going to continue to be contrary and ignore my admission that there are factions within those religions who do that?

As for the religious folks who are nice. They aren't following the teachings of their religion (e.g. Jews and Christians are required to kill those who work on the Sabbath) but are actually basing their morality on humanism.

I guess it's time to let you in on a little secret. Religions develop and grow, and often abandon earlier traditions that they don't like or re-adopt earlier traditions that they do like, just like any other social institution. So it turns out that they don't always follow every little custom layed out in their respective scriptures. Shocking, I know, but there it is. ;)

True. But when you are dealing with something that flat out contradicts pretty much all of modern science you do demand the evidence be pretty good. I see it as highly unlikely that anyone will ever find evidence for a god (no one has managed to come up with proof for god that holds up in thousands of years yet many concepts of god have been shown to be impossible including the most commonly believed ones).
How does religion and science contradict each other? Aren't they both ways in which men seek to answer the question of our existence?
It'd be like claiming the Force exists because of what was shown in the Star Wars movies. Considering the amount of death caused by religion as well as the suppression of science by religion I would say spirituality is evil.
You're thinking institutionalized religion there. There's a difference between personal religion (mostly morals) and institutionalized religion (mostly doctrines and dogma).
Nothing that actually holds up. There are a lot of bible verses which would seem to indicate otherwise.
You're assuming I'm talking about Christianity, which I'm not. Most religions preach good morals such as generosity and kindness. The Bible verses or verses of any other holy book that contradicts this is probably specific dogma of the religion. I dislike the dogmatic side of religion in general.
It's solved a lot more of our problems than religion has so even if it can't solve all of them it is a much better bet. There is no proof of that (and plenty of evidence that humans don't). There is nothing that religion can explain accurately. Science at least usually gets things somewhat close to true whereas religion is usually way off. We do not know is a bad argument for the existance of god. It is better to not know and admit it then to just make up something that stops you from even trying to find out what is really going on.
Science isn't all powerful, you know. Where religion is imperfect, science also is, since both are developed and used by men, who are inherently imperfect. Science also is based on induction, instead of logical deduction, and it is based on the principle that the laws of the universe in the past will be the same as the laws of the universe in the future. This along is such a large assumption that it could throw the entirity of science off course. Of course, this assumption has held up so far, but we do not know if it's going to in the future. Religion is the same. The existence of god has held up in many people's minds so far, but we do not know if it's going to.
We do not know is a bad argument for the existance of god. It is better to not know and admit it then to just make up something that stops you from even trying to find out what is really going on.
Well, we don't know. That's the truth, and I'm admiting that. But it's necessary to make things up in order to test them out and see if they are really accurate. That is a standard scientific procedure of hypothesis and experimentation. Religion is just that procedure on a larger scale. People change religion and faith because they have discovered something they believe is better, and is convinced of it. Isn't that a scientific experimentation in itself? A hypothesis is created in a person's mind, and it fails. Therefore, another hypothesis is developed, and will go through the same experimentation procedure, and if it holds up to all the questions the person has, then it passes the experimentation stage and becomes a theory or even a law to the person.

Science and religion may see at odds with each other, but in the end, they're both put through the same procedures because humans have a certain method of thinking regardless the subject.

People believe in things in order to fill a void, to add some kind of structure to their life.

I think we probably agree more than we disagree. Though I'm not sure if you follow any religious beliefs?
No, at least I do not follow the conventional type of religion you would think of. I'm more of a pantheist.

Also, another thing you're forgetting about superstition is the psychological aspect of it. If a certain superstition does not hurt other people or the person believing it, then I say let him/her believe it. I think self-fulfilled prophecies often work this way. If one believes something so completely, it might just happen to them. Of course, superstitions like smash a mirror and get 7 years of bad luck is stupid, and will cause negative self-fulfilled prophecies. But if one really believes he/she will have good luck after finding a shiny penny or a four-leaf clover, then let it be. Chances are positive self-fulfilled prophcies will occur and make them happier.

This requires that 'true spirituality' exist in the first place. That seems rather unlikely.
The occult was practised by humans of the past and now so it is a good insight into pathological beliefs though it does not have any existance outside the delusions of those who believe in it (pretty much everything to do with the occult has already been found to have other more material reasons).
You left out kill all the unbelievers. That's probably the most important dimension of religion in todays world (and to me the only thing that differentiates one religion from another).
Some humans manage to become rational but not all. I suspect it is more an education problem. We simply don't teach people why religion is wrong.
God is all seeing, all powerful and all good is a common core belief.

Reality shows that there is evil thereby contradicting those core beliefs.
Well the two most common religions sure do advocate destruction, violence and bigotry.

As for the religious folks who are nice. They aren't following the teachings of their religion (e.g. Jews and Christians are required to kill those who work on the Sabbath) but are actually basing their morality on humanism.
This post seems to reflect such a strong prejudice against organized religion that it looks as if your complaint against spirituality is really just an expansion of your complaints against organized religion. That you automatically dismiss others' experiences (which they describe as spiritual) as just "pathological beliefs" and "delusions" shows a hostility that makes me think you are extremely closed minded on this topic. That does not seem more rational to me than the kind of thinking you dislike.

As children, we are encouraged to believe in magic: think of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, elves, witches, wizards etc. As we get older, we become more discerning and questioning. Eventually, we abandon our childish beliefs and see the world for what it is.

In History, there have been many spiritual beliefs that were relevant at the time: i.e. the Greek, Roman, Norse Gods, et al. We can look back and see those beliefs as being full of superstitious nonsense. God's for everything, including places within your home. Nowadays no one with any sense believes in those myths.

What is believed nowadays however, is the existence of an all powerful entity, which is different things to different people. I personally think there is no evidence for such an entity, yet there are large groups of people who base their lifestyles around this abstract entity. I do not see any real distinction between those who believed in mythical Gods and the present day need to believe in a single all purpose all powerful entity.

The main link is superstitious belief. My question is why, as educated and aware individuals, some need to continue this belief in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. When will we move on from superstitious belief and become rational and free thinking in dealing with personal and wider issues. When will a philosophy of rationality and mutual support of all be the main thing which can unite us in our common humanity, instead of a need to believe in spiritual teachings that advocate so much that is destructive, violent and bigoted.
Humans have a natural instinct to believe in a god or gods. When I was a child, my parents raised me atheist, but I prayed to some god that he would let me win a rally (I did win it... strange god to reward an atheist).

But now I am a Christian, and I can tell you that the reason why is because He revealed Himself to me. That's all that matters.

The fact that so many people have worshipped gods in the past is evidence that some god or gods implanted that instinct into us. Reconsider your skepticism: so there is no hard evidence of a god, but is there any evidence against it? Agnosticism ("There might be a god") makes much more logical sense than atheism.

My belief is that there is something -out there-. Theres something greater than this universe. We must have come from somewhere.

Originally Posted by Todays Lucky Number
nothing may help or anything may help. It may be the begginning of some new experiences to step into a new, bigger world.
After all wherever you stand, knowledge is power. occult is insight to humanity's past, esoteric knowledge is carried inside myths. Preserving such is an instinc in general human population. ITs like DNA.
Esoteric knowledge? Heh, I bet.

What may be escaping you, is that the non-superstitious aren't nedessarily ignorant or incapable of appreciating & learning from fiction. Occult myth can be great fun, just like folk tales, the Bible or a Stephen King novel.
TLN is right, actually, though perhaps not as literally as your dismissal of him would require. Occultism and mysticism are both claimed to be avenues of personal experience of esoteric realities. Regardless of whether that is true or not, or how we choose to interpret it, both occultism and mysticism are also systems of thought, just like science and logic are systems of thought. As such, they do hold insights, or, rather, keys to insight, as they can be tools with which to train the mind to process certain kinds of information in certain ways. Even rationalists, materialists, pragmatists, empiricists, etc., can use them. Mysticism can teach us how to articulate profound personal experiences, how to encompass vast concepts within the conscious mind. Occultism can show us, through symbolism, how to track the interconnectedness of systems and phenomena, giving us insight into the inner workings of complex systems. Remember, alchemy produced no results of its own, but it did contribute mightily to the intellectual foundations of chemistry and medicine. I have heard many historians say that, without alchemy and occultism, there might be no scientific method now.

The language of symbols is not meaningless. It is an intuitive language that everybody understands. Haven't you ever had a dream that helped you understand something in your life? (Maybe you haven't, but perhaps, someday you will.)

Finally someothing which will give me a large enough headache to allow me to leave the computer:D .

We must have come from somewhere.

I was waiting for someone to bring this up, if not then I would have, if only to play devil's advocate.

While it is true that gods/goddesses have been created(?), for lack of a better word, to help explain that which science could not explain. However, it is also true that religion in the west has specifically become more liberal (again for lack of a better word), regarding science than it has ever been before (especially regarding Christianity). Now Christian religious leaders will tell you that evolution is correct (although this is different in certain... ancronistic areas of the world), and that the Creation Story is to be taken metaphorically, and not literally. This makes modern religion much more difficult for modern science to... debunk... if you will, and thus makes it harder to "convert" other people to atheism or agnosticism. Personally I am not sure wheather I am an Atheist, or Agnostic as I so often fond myself torn apart by this topic (mainly because of the same "we must have come from somewhere arguement" that just came up).

How does religion and science contradict each other? Aren't they both ways in which men seek to answer the question of our existence?

You're thinking institutionalized religion there. There's a difference between personal religion (mostly morals) and institutionalized religion (mostly doctrines and dogma).

You're assuming I'm talking about Christianity, which I'm not. Most religions preach good morals such as generosity and kindness. The Bible verses or verses of any other holy book that contradicts this is probably specific dogma of the religion. I dislike the dogmatic side of religion in general.

Science isn't all powerful, you know. Where religion is imperfect, science also is, since both are developed and used by men, who are inherently imperfect. Science also is based on induction, instead of logical deduction, and it is based on the principle that the laws of the universe in the past will be the same as the laws of the universe in the future. This along is such a large assumption that it could throw the entirity of science off course. Of course, this assumption has held up so far, but we do not know if it's going to in the future. Religion is the same. The existence of god has held up in many people's minds so far, but we do not know if it's going to.

Well, we don't know. That's the truth, and I'm admiting that. But it's necessary to make things up in order to test them out and see if they are really accurate. That is a standard scientific procedure of hypothesis and experimentation. Religion is just that procedure on a larger scale. People change religion and faith because they have discovered something they believe is better, and is convinced of it. Isn't that a scientific experimentation in itself? A hypothesis is created in a person's mind, and it fails. Therefore, another hypothesis is developed, and will go through the same experimentation procedure, and if it holds up to all the questions the person has, then it passes the experimentation stage and becomes a theory or even a law to the person.

Science and religion may see at odds with each other, but in the end, they're both put through the same procedures because humans have a certain method of thinking regardless the subject.
That's not what religion is to me. To me, there is a personal 'self' that exists in relationship with the world around it, including that world's 'self'. Existence does not require explanation--I am, and the world is, and how we get along together is. Religion is simply us defining that relationship.

Now, that said, modern science has created the predominant philosophy overlying our understanding of the universe today. It has modified the way we look at the world by defining the world through explanation, a world without personal meaning (objectively). This has affected the way people relate to the world, and hence religion. So yes, as science is about explanation, our (institutionalized) religions have also turned an eye to interpretation through explanation. That was inevitable. Explanation is now a part of our religions, but not what they are *about*.

What was once a living world that we were a living part of has become a lifeless thing apart from us that we look at from afar. This we cannot change, not easily anyway, we in the Western civilization. We cannot go back to thinking in terms of the living world without diminishing the philosophy brought about by modern science and adopting a new paradigm for the universe. That's not going to happen in my lifetime.

The fact that so many people have worshipped gods in the past is evidence that some god or gods implanted that instinct into us.
Ouch! No more free will...

Here's an idea: if you believe in something enough, it exists?

say, for instance, you believed in life that god exists. Upon your death, because your belief was that you would go to "heaven", then you will. However, the particular heaven that you go to depends on what you were taught, and what you wish it to be. The same goes for hell. People who know that they have "sinned", would go to their 'version' of hell. But then... this is flawed in that you have to believe in the paralel universe theory for it to work, i suppose. But hey, one can only dream.

*sets to work making self believe that he will die and go to a world made of every type of icecream*

I don't believe in the Christian god but I believe in other gods

Ancient Historians didn't write Factual History, they wrote stories that today would be interpreted as Myths by our much more advanced minds, grown accustomed to BBC and solid evidence. One only needs to look at Ancient writings to understand this.

Myths like Noah's Arc may sound crazy, but we know for a fact that ocean levels have risen dramatically in the last 14,000 years, when possibly a major seismic event ended the last Ice Age. While it seems crazy that one guy travelled somewhere with two animals of each kind, it's not so crazy to think some populations had to abandon their coastal lands as they became flooded, just like it will happen with Tuvalu sooner or later.

Myths are not hoaxes, they are Ancient History written like Fiction. There is a big difference. While some sound exagerated, with Giants and strange beings, we have to understand these people are telling stories and may at times have mixed fact with fiction, to illustrate old events.

Some of these stories may have passed from generation to generation and been exagerated. Some of these stories may be older than writing. 6,000 years ago, there were no historians, just story tellers...

Here's a strange example of Science and Mythology agreeing on a date; 2012.

Introduction:
"The various extinction events which have occurred during the world’s history have attracted a number explanations. One such hypothesis is that these events coincided with the earth crossing the galactic plane and encountering the dense matter in the form of comets which struck the earth. This is known as the Shiva Hypotheisis. Its author is Michael Rampino, Associate Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences."

The Myth
"December 21st, 2012 (13.0.0.0.0 in the Long Count) therefore represents an extremely close conjunction of the winter solstice sun with the crossing point of Galactic Equator and the ecliptic, what the ancient Maya recognized as the Sacred Tree. It is critical to understand that the winter solstice sun rarely conjuncts the Sacred Tree. In fact, this is an event that has been coming to resonance very slowly over thousands and thousands of years. What this might mean astrologically, how this might effect the "energy weather" on earth, must be treated as a separate topic."

The Scientific Version
Solar System - Did you notice? In February 2001, the Sun did a magnetic polar shift. The next one is due again in 2012. NASA scientists who monitor the Sun say that our star's awesome magnetic field flipped 22 months ago, signaling the arrival of a solar maximum. But it wasn't so obvious to the average human.

The Sun's magnetic north pole, which was in the northern hemisphere just a few months ago, now points south. It's a topsy-turvy situation, but not an unexpected one. "This always happens around the time of solar maximum," says David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the Marshall Space Flight Center. "The magnetic poles exchange places at the peak of the sunspot cycle. In fact, it's a good indication that Solar Max is really here."

The Sun's magnetic poles will remain as they are now, with the north magnetic pole pointing through the Sun's southern hemisphere, until the year 2012 when they will reverse again. This transition happens, as far as we know, at the peak of every 11-year sunspot cycle -- like clockwork.

Earth’s magnetic field also flips, but with less regularity. Consecutive reversals are spaced 5 thousand years to 50 million years apart. The last reversal happened 740,000 years ago. Some researchers think our planet is overdue for another one, but nobody knows exactly when the next reversal might occur."

Whether we chose to believe it or not is up to each individual. While I will live an ordinary life on 2012, I'm sure these scientific facts are going to be troubling me a bit...

As children, we are encouraged to believe in magic: think of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, elves, witches, wizards etc. As we get older, we become more discerning and questioning. Eventually, we abandon our childish beliefs and see the world for what it is.

In History, there have been many spiritual beliefs that were relevant at the time: i.e. the Greek, Roman, Norse Gods, et al. We can look back and see those beliefs as being full of superstitious nonsense. God's for everything, including places within your home. Nowadays no one with any sense believes in those myths.

What is believed nowadays however, is the existence of an all powerful entity, which is different things to different people. I personally think there is no evidence for such an entity, yet there are large groups of people who base their lifestyles around this abstract entity. I do not see any real distinction between those who believed in mythical Gods and the present day need to believe in a single all purpose all powerful entity.

The main link is superstitious belief. My question is why, as educated and aware individuals, some need to continue this belief in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. When will we move on from superstitious belief and become rational and free thinking in dealing with personal and wider issues. When will a philosophy of rationality and mutual support of all be the main thing which can unite us in our common humanity, instead of a need to believe in spiritual teachings that advocate so much that is destructive, violent and bigoted.
Not so. I believe in the significance of the old myths AND I see the world for what it is. Conundrum!:p

How does religion and science contradict each other? Aren't they both ways in which men seek to answer the question of our existence?



This is exactly the problem. They contradict one another because their methods are completely at odds and because their findings are completely at odds.

At any rate, superstition is as alive and well as it ever was, now in the form of Islam, Christianity, Judaism &c.

This is exactly the problem. They contradict one another because their methods are completely at odds and because their findings are completely at odds.

At any rate, superstition is as alive and well as it ever was, now in the form of Islam, Christianity, Judaism &c.
Quite so. The sky is blue because God said so? Come on! I'm not stupid.:headbang:

That's not what religion is to me. To me, there is a personal 'self' that exists in relationship with the world around it, including that world's 'self'. Existence does not require explanation--I am, and the world is, and how we get along together is. Religion is simply us defining that relationship.

Now, that said, modern science has created the predominant philosophy overlying our understanding of the universe today. It has modified the way we look at the world by defining the world through explanation, a world without personal meaning (objectively). This has affected the way people relate to the world, and hence religion. So yes, as science is about explanation, our (institutionalized) religions have also turned an eye to interpretation through explanation. That was inevitable. Explanation is now a part of our religions, but not what they are *about*.

What was once a living world that we were a living part of has become a lifeless thing apart from us that we look at from afar. This we cannot change, not easily anyway, we in the Western civilization. We cannot go back to thinking in terms of the living world without diminishing the philosophy brought about by modern science and adopting a new paradigm for the universe. That's not going to happen in my lifetime.
Perhaps that's just a perception of the world -- I mean, a perception that the world is a lifeless thing that we look at from afar. I don't feel that way. People who are not driven by, or don't feel oppressed or hemmed-in by, a materialistic culture may not feel that way, and may never have felt that way. Certainly people in less materialistic cultures than, say, urban USA might not feel that way. (EDIT: I'm not saying this is the way you think; it's just the concept I have heard from others who feel the modern world is disconnected from nature or life.)

I love science, technology, all the mod cons and all kinds of rational thought systems. I classify myself as a realist, a pragmatist, and an empiricist. But I do not believe that spirituality is not real. I have experiences all the time that are not "material" but are certainly real. And I feel very connected to the natural world, every day, and am aware of myself and all of humanity and everything we do and build as being a part of it, every day. I really think the sense that we are disconnected from a living world is an illusion, and a damaging, potentially dangerous one, too. I feel both sorry and a little afraid that so many people seem to suffer from it.

I don't believe in the Christian god but I believe in other gods
Me too, but monotheists always seem to dominate these conversations. ;)

Not so. I believe in the significance of the old myths AND I see the world for what it is. Conundrum!:p
You have a very clear insight then, care to expand?

No, at least I do not follow the conventional type of religion you would think of. I'm more of a pantheist.

Also, another thing you're forgetting about superstition is the psychological aspect of it. If a certain superstition does not hurt other people or the person believing it, then I say let him/her believe it. I think self-fulfilled prophecies often work this way. If one believes something so completely, it might just happen to them. Of course, superstitions like smash a mirror and get 7 years of bad luck is stupid, and will cause negative self-fulfilled prophecies. But if one really believes he/she will have good luck after finding a shiny penny or a four-leaf clover, then let it be. Chances are positive self-fulfilled prophcies will occur and make them happier.
I was travelling to India a few years ago. On the plane to Delhi, I met a woman with a 10 year old child who was flying "one way", no return. It transpired that she had cancer and she was travelling to Bangalore to meet some Yoga called "Baba Yaga".

She believed that he would "cure" her of her cancer because it was incurable with western medicine. The thing is she only had aprox 50 US $ in Danish currency with her. On arrival at the airport, she (of course) was unable to exchange her Danish Krona. When we arived in Delhi, she managed to change her money and was then planning to take the train to Bangalore. I convinced her to spend one night in Delhi because her child was exhausted. I even paid for her hotel room.

However, as we had agreed to meet up for an evening meal, when I knocked on her door, she wasn't there. It transpired that she had "borrowed" aprox $200 US from the receptionist and had then cleared off to Bangalore.

It took her 36 hours to travel there by train, when she arrived at the Ashram, she was refused entry because she didn't have the sort of money the Yoga was really interested in.

Eventually, the police picked her up, handed her and the child over to the Danish Embassy, who repaid the money she "borrowed" to the receptionist (rember the locals are very low paid, it was his life savings). She was sent back to Copenhagen.
After that, I just hope that she and her child were taken proper care of, because this womans "beliefs" were seriously endangering her child.

I was travelling to India a few years ago. On the plane to Delhi, I met a woman with a 10 year old child who was flying "one way", no return. It transpired that she had cancer and she was travelling to Bangalore to meet some Yoga called "Baba Yaga.

Isnt Baba Yaga the crone of Russian Folklore?

Isnt Baba Yaga the crone of Russian Folklore?
Yes,You're right, I've misnamed him. His actual title is "Sai Baba"

Looking on the internet, it seems he is a very questionable character. Just one more reason why I think people shoukld not identify with superstitious belieis.

Here is a link to info about him.....
http://www.sathyasai.org/whereadd.htm

You have a very clear insight then, care to expand?
Only indirectly through conversations not related to the topic.:D

Only indirectly through conversations not related to the topic.:D
Erm, Oh?:confused:

Erm, Oh?:confused:
It's really very simple, so I complicate it as much as possible for a variety of reasons. *nods emphatically*

Perhaps that's just a perception of the world -- I mean, a perception that the world is a lifeless thing that we look at from afar. I don't feel that way.
It's a metaphor, yes.

People who are not driven by, or don't feel oppressed or hemmed-in by, a materialistic culture may not feel that way, and may never have felt that way. Certainly people in less materialistic cultures than, say, urban USA might not feel that way. (EDIT: I'm not saying this is the way you think; it's just the concept I have heard from others who feel the modern world is disconnected from nature or life.)
No doubt. But then, the post wasn't about them. ;)

I love science, technology, all the mod cons and all kinds of rational thought systems. I classify myself as a realist, a pragmatist, and an empiricist. But I do not believe that spirituality is not real. I have experiences all the time that are not "material" but are certainly real. And I feel very connected to the natural world, every day, and am aware of myself and all of humanity and everything we do and build as being a part of it, every day. I really think the sense that we are disconnected from a living world is an illusion, and a damaging, potentially dangerous one, too. I feel both sorry and a little afraid that so many people seem to suffer from it.
I too believe in spirit. Shall we start again?

Perhaps that's just a perception of the world -- I mean, a perception that the world is a lifeless thing that we look at from afar. I don't feel that way. People who are not driven by, or don't feel oppressed or hemmed-in by, a materialistic culture may not feel that way, and may never have felt that way. Certainly people in less materialistic cultures than, say, urban USA might not feel that way. (EDIT: I'm not saying this is the way you think; it's just the concept I have heard from others who feel the modern world is disconnected from nature or life.)

I love science, technology, all the mod cons and all kinds of rational thought systems. I classify myself as a realist, a pragmatist, and an empiricist. But I do not believe that spirituality is not real. I have experiences all the time that are not "material" but are certainly real. And I feel very connected to the natural world, every day, and am aware of myself and all of humanity and everything we do and build as being a part of it, every day. I really think the sense that we are disconnected from a living world is an illusion, and a damaging, potentially dangerous one, too. I feel both sorry and a little afraid that so many people seem to suffer from it.
I'd ask you to marry me again, but I remember how well that went last time.:eek: ;)