Tradition betrayed

[71 dB]

Then you're not thinking, and that's just what you believe.

How about giving justifications to your statements? That way you give your opponents tools to adress the possible fallacies of your own thinking and the conversation goes somewhere?

I said I believe Abrahamic religions were created to control people. You can control people if you make them not think. That way they won't question your control and it's justification.

Now, could you point out my fallacies?

[Brahmsian]

I find a belief in a creator of all things as probable, and in fact that only opens the mind to all possibilties (scientifically and spiritually).

However, religion dissects, cuts and snips portions of God, to follow a system of rules, and tenets (arbitrarily decided upon).  And I'm talking all religions.

I think Buddhism is the least 'confining' of the religions, and seems to not have the same oppressive rules as other religions do.

I grew up in a Roman Catholic family - and never believed in that religion.  I respect the fact that 'faith' in one religion seems to help some people, but I just don't understand how you can believe the rules and limitations set by a certain "insert___________religion".  Religion is just another sub-form of societal set rules and laws.  Again, arbitrarily created by man.

I don't think you need to believe in religion, in order to believe in 'God' or 'spirituality'.

[Mn Dave]

I think Buddhism is the least 'confining' of the religions, and seems to not have the same oppressive rules as other religions do.

The Buddha said, "the proof of the pudding is the eating!"

(or something like that)

[71 dB]

And yet science undoes itself as some sort of intellectual bedrock: what is knowledge or "truth" one day is not the next.

We don't have the luxury of 100 % truth. Science doesn't give it (at least not yet) and religions don't give it. We must live with what we have and work for better knowledge. Science is just that.

[Karl Henning]

How about giving justifications to your statements? That way you give your opponents tools to adress the possible fallacies of your own thinking and the conversation goes somewhere?

I said I believe Abrahamic religions were created to control people. You can control people if you make them not think. That way they won't question your control and it's justification.

Now, could you point out my fallacies?

Well, confining ourselves to this post of yours:

Religions grow organically (if you like) within the context of a culture. The notion that "Abrahamic religions were created" is tendentious and ahistoric (as well as flat out wrong).  You might as well speak of a singular intent behind "the creation of the Englsh language."

The idea that the intent behind "the Abrahamic religions" is 'to suppress thought' is tendentious and ahistoric (as well as flat out wrong).  For only one thing, Christianity is the cradle of the intellectual tradition which has distinguished the West. (We've mentioned this before, and you've conveniently disregarded in the past, too.)

Your conflation of "the Abrahamic religions" as a single entity is a fallacy all its own, which multiplies in erroneousness through your various points here.

A corrolary fallacy here is your implication that control is necessarily malevolent: governments are created to control people, as well.

In just a short space, then, your unthinking hostility to religion has led you into quite a swamp of fallacy. Can you think freely enough to own your errors?

[Grazioso]

Science is much much more than E=mc². Your poems can be addressed by semantic linguistics. Learning machines (Self Organizing Maps) have been around already couple of decades and in 50-60 years we should have computers smarter than us. By then human spirituality is peanuts for science because the understanding of mental processes is so high.

I think you missed my point, which is that multiple, incommensurable modes of discourse can be used to describe the same thing without either being right or wrong. Is Shakespeare's description of a dawn wrong?

How about giving justifications to your statements? That way you give your opponents tools to adress the possible fallacies of your own thinking and the conversation goes somewhere?

I said I believe Abrahamic religions were created to control people. You can control people if you make them not think. That way they won't question your control and it's justification.

Now, could you point out my fallacies?

Not addressed to me, but I see many problems or questions with that line of thought:

--You "believe Abrahamic religions were created to control people" but provide no data to back your assertion. Why did you choose to believe this? Is this belief true or merely convenient or pleasurable to you? What ends might you be trying to serve by asserting it?
--You imply they make people not think. No data provided to back this.
--Presupposes that belief in the tenets of these religions negates conscious choice or intellectual inquiry. You imply that belief is antithetical to thought, that one cannot arrive at belief through thinking.
--Does not address other cultural or intellectual systems and the possibility they might do the things you single out the Abrahamic faiths for.
etc.

[Grazioso]

I find a belief in a creator of all things as probable, and in fact that only opens the mind to all possibilties (scientifically and spiritually).

However, religion dissects, cuts and snips portions of God, to follow a system of rules, and tenets (arbitrarily decided upon).  And I'm talking all religions.

Have you studied Shinto by chance? You might find it an interesting counterexample to that. It is largely intuitive and pre-conceptual, emphasizing the communal over the hierarchical, focusing on action over concept and doctrine.

I think Buddhism is the least 'confining' of the religions, and seems to not have the same oppressive rules as other religions do.

Are rules in general oppressive, or just those rules promulgated by religions? I think most would agree we need some rules to have functioning societies and to govern our own behavior.

I grew up in a Roman Catholic family - and never believed in that religion.  I respect the fact that 'faith' in one religion seems to help some people, but I just don't understand how you can believe the rules and limitations set by a certain "insert___________religion".  Religion is just another sub-form of societal set rules and laws.  Again, arbitrarily created by man.

Starting to go beyond the scope of the thread, but if you agree to the premise that knowledge of the divine is possible, then it's not far-fetched to say that the rules or limitations set or expected by that divinity can be known through revelation or mystical experience. I.e., not necessarily arbitrary.

[71 dB]

Religions grow organically (if you like) within the context of a culture. The notion that "Abrahamic religions were created" is tendentious and ahistoric (as well as flat out wrong).  You might as well speak of a singular intent behind "the creation of the Englsh language."

Something that grows organically avoids such internal contradictions that for example the Bible is said to contain. I admit that I am not a Bible expert. The holy books of Abrahamic religions are said to be incoherent collections of religious texts of older religions. This indicates that these religions were fabricated fast for a certain use. Control seems to be the main idea since:

1) Abrahamic religions try to spread aggressively (more people under control)
2) Strong oppression of women and (sexual) minorities.

The idea that the intent behind "the Abrahamic religions" is 'to suppress thought' is tendentious and ahistoric (as well as flat out wrong).  For only one thing, Christianity is the cradle of the intellectual tradition which has distinguished the West. (We've mentioned this before, and you've conveniently disregarded in the past, too.)

Even if this is true, I'm not convinced Christianity serves us intellectually anymore (after Darwin's theories about evolution) not to mention the Middle Ages when the development of western civilization was frozen for centuries.

Your conflation of "the Abrahamic religions" as a single entity is a fallacy all its own, which multiplies in erroneousness through your various points here.

They are not a single entity. They share the same "source material" giving them similar properties. Islam is the most dangerous religion. Judaism is the second most dangerous and Christianity the third most dangerous. All of these religions have good things too in them but also dangerous. Islam can be practised in peaceful ways that are downright admirable. My father witnessed this while traveling it the middle east in the 60's before the radicalization of Islam. He has never met people as friendly and hospitable in his life than those muslims in the deserts of Irak.

A corrolary fallacy here is your implication that control is necessarily malevolent: governments are created to control people, as well.

Control to a certain degree. Ideally to keep the society as functional as possible. Goverments have took the task of control over the centuries making religion even more obsolete.

In just a short space, then, your unthinking hostility to religion has led you into quite a swamp of fallacy. Can you think freely enough to own your errors?

There is much reason for "hostility" to religion and a thinking person sees it. I don't say I am 100 % right but I think I am more right than wrong.

[Karl Henning]

Something that grows organically avoids such internal contradictions that for example the Bible is said to contain.

... not to mention the Middle Ages when the development of western civilization was frozen for centuries.

... Islam is the most dangerous religion. Judaism is the second most dangerous and Christianity the third most dangerous.

... Goverments have took the task of control over the centuries making religion even more obsolete.

There is much reason for "hostility" to religion and a thinking person sees it.

Thank you for demonstrating so liberally that religion is not necessary for one to be inflexibly dogmatic.

[Mn Dave]

71 dB is just saying that the big three need an upgrade.

Let's call Apple.

[Edit: What's that? Judaism isn't in the big three? My bad.]

[Karl Henning]

71 dB is just saying that the big three need an upgrade.

Let's call Apple.

Belly up to the Genius Bar . . . .

[Brahmsian]

71 dB is just saying that the big three need an upgrade.

Let's call Apple.

[Edit: What's that? Judaism isn't in the big three? My bad.]

Jobs is already up in 'heaven' (perhaps).  I'm sure he's suggesting the iReligion to the Head Honcho as we speak.

[Karl Henning]

Jobs is already up in 'heaven' (perhaps).

I haven't mourned his passing. Fact is, so much that has been said of him is such glowing praise . . . I've been half expecting a resurrection ; )

[Brahmsian]

I haven't mourned his passing. Fact is, so much that has been said of him is such glowing praise . . . I've been half expecting a resurrection ; )

Yes, I don't understand his 'glorification', like he was the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ, or something like that??  That he improved our lives and the human race so much with all the moocho computer technology gadgets.

The only thing Jobs 'improved' was rampant, ravenous mass consumerism of these technological products, which we will all be remembered by our loved ones when we are gone, I'm sure.   

[Mn Dave]

Yeah, he was a jerk! 

[Mn Dave]

There must not be any Hindus on the Internet, because you never hear them bragging about their beliefs.

[Florestan]

I admit that I am not a Bible expert.

And yet you pontificate about what "Abrahamic religions" are or are not, being completely - and proudly -  ignorant about ancient languages and systems of thought ...

You have been suggested to read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - and you dismissed the suggestion countering it with Richard Dawkins, who in matters of scientific methodology and philosophy is to Kuhn as Donald Duck is to Albert Einstein...

Actually, it turns out you have not read, nor are you willing to read, any single text of relevance in respect with history of religion, history of philosophy or history of science  - yet you parade yourself as an enlightened individual who knows better than a score of individuals who spent their entire life trying to make light of such difficult issues as religion, philosophy and science...

You delude yourself that you are "free thinking" when in fact you are not thinking at all - thinking requires relevant information, straight facts and open-mindendness, three things that you are conspicuously missing.

You are neither free nor thoughtful - just a foolish slave to the prejudices or our time.

[71 dB]

You delude yourself that you are "free thinking" when in fact you are not thinking at all - thinking requires relevant information, straight facts and open-mindendness, three things that you are conspicuously missing.

Who are you to tell my information isn't relevant? I don't know everything but nobody does. I know things you don't and vice versa. A thinking person can fill the caps to a certain degree. There is no time to read every (relevant) book in the word.

[Florestan]

A thinking person can fill the caps to a certain degree.

That's true but you are not such a person - not by a thousand miles.

There is no time to read every (relevant) book in the word.

That is also true but the most intellectually honest attitude in this respect was summarized long ago: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.. No, it's not a Dawkins quote.

[jowcol]

For me Buddhism isn't really a religion. It's a construction of philosophy just labeled as religion. I am not against it at all. I am against Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). I believe that Abrahamic religions were created to control and oppress people (especially women) while Buddhism is about searching for wisdom. Big difference!

A couple points.  Saying that Abrahamic religions were created for oppression is quite a reach--  personally, my belief is that is was necessary to provide a rationale for the world- there are other ways to apply control that are a lot less work.   If there seems more of a need for control, or maintaining an order in those faiths, consider the environment.  Any culture that did not try to maintain it's own customs and identity in Mesopotamia would be wiped out- that was a pretty chaotic corner of the world.

FWIW- I've been a practicing Therevadan Buddhist for nearly 20 years now. (Not that that branch is any better or worse than any other, but you could say I married into it)   In some ways, you are right about Buddhism  being more philosophically based, but I would be careful not to confuse the theory and practice.  If you've been a a Buddhist country, you will realize that a lot of animism and local customs creep in.  I dont tend to follow this aspect of the teaching, but the Therevadan (old school) Buddhists do not recognize female nuns and nearly the same level as males-- they are second class citizens in that respect, and there are sutras where the Buddha supposedly reluctantly allowed women in the order although he said it would hasten its downfall.