What is religion?

[Osborn F Enready]

Is religion a tool for controlling man, designed by those in power long ago?

How many religions claim their "god" is the only "god"?

If god was all seeing, all knowing, would he not know and prepare for all the misguided souls who follow the wrong path simply because of geographical location?

If religion is not a tool to control man, how can you "prove" any religion is the "real deal" other than talk of faith and supposed correlation to a story book? (Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.etc.etc.)



All questions, not insults. I am looking for intelligent comprehensive answers or counter or support statements, keep the flaming.

[Gorgo]

Defining religion as the belief that a non-material world exerts an influence on the material world?

[Liberty Landing]

IMHO, those who claim their religion is true are missing the point.

You don't know it's true -- you believe it's true. If you knew something was true, it wouldn't be "faith," it would be accepting fact at its face value.

That said, religion is simply an attempt to account for that which cannot be accounted for; it is a scientific theory in its own right. I said in a previous thread that religion, at the very least, wraps up all the loose ends, something to which atheists have no claim.

[LDS]

Is religion a tool for controlling man, designed by those in power long ago?

There are those who did and do abuse it for that purpose. I believe its initial purpose was not that at all.

If god was all seeing, all knowing, would he not know and prepare for all the misguided souls who follow the wrong path simply because of geographical location?

He has.

If religion is not a tool to control man, how can you "prove" any religion is the "real deal" other than talk of faith and supposed correlation to a story book? (Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.etc.etc.)

As someone already pointed out, if it was 100% known fact it wouldnt be faith.

[kingjust]

QUOTE
Is religion a tool for controlling man, designed by those in power long ago?



There are those who did and do abuse it for that purpose. I believe its initial purpose was not that at all.

QUOTE
If god was all seeing, all knowing, would he not know and prepare for all the misguided souls who follow the wrong path simply because of geographical location?



He has.


QUOTE
If religion is not a tool to control man, how can you "prove" any religion is the "real deal" other than talk of faith and supposed correlation to a story book? (Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.etc.etc.)



As someone already pointed out, if it was 100% known fact it wouldnt be faith.


LDS

I'm not here to insult you or anything but something made me kinda think negatively about what you posted. In your response to the second quote, you answer "he has", meaning that you "know" god prepared for the situation at hand (yet honestly, you have the slitest clue if it did or did not...), making it more or less a fact. But then in your response to the third quote you questioned faith, even putting up a comment that seperates faith from fact. To me, that is a hypocrytical statement because of you stating a fact ("he has", which leads me to believe you are a man of faith that "knew" god did what he did), then to put the post in agreement of --> "As someone already pointed out, if it was 100% known fact it wouldnt be faith." Why would a man of faith agree with if something is a fact and known, it wouldn't be faith, yet he is a man of faith questioning his faith. Interesting. To me if you are a man of faith, you can only "believe" that "your" god did this or knew that. That it the level of faith and why it is called that,... FAITH.

Definition of Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

If there is no proof of such, then how do you "know".

Please exuse my shotgun manner of thought, I was trying to put my thoughts down in a logical sense of order. I hope you are not offended, just trying to point that out. Maybe i'm wrong...in someone elses eyes, but I know that i'm not.

[Technosoul]

The real (one of them) meaning of the word religion (Greek useage) would be "way of life".

Thusly, our way of life is our religion.

So we also have organized religion, and we have individualism as a way of life.

Outside the box or in a box. (but perhaps never out of all the boxes?).

In science or nature this would be called "herding or pack animals" or the "lone wolf" types that do not operate with other animals of their kinds.

Schools of fish, flocks of birds, herds of cattle, packs of dogs, and whatever. That would be organized religion or secular governments. An Eagle flies alone or with it's one life-time mate.
(or for a short time with baby eagles - not long). They do not fly in flocks. And so that is the religion of individuals (where two or more might gather - but mostly where one is alone and independant of needing others.

Humans can pick (or be of the nature) to be a loner or a groupie.
As John sang in this song the dream is over, "yoko and me, that's reality". Becoming your self.

Here is a clue for Christians.

Rapture? One will be taken and one will be left behind. Someone asked "where where they go". Jesus answered "where the Eagles gather". Hmmm? Eagles do not gather in flocks. But the Jewish word for Eagles was also used for other large birds like Vultures. So those taken will be where the Vultures gather. So interpretion that way would mean those left behind on earth would survive (be the saved ones) and those taken would be dead and food for vultures. Right? (Jewish or Creek word?).

Technosoul

Technosoul.

[voyager]

Wnen people gather in flocks it is because they can't stand making decisions. When you are in a group then the "group" is to blame for what ever happens. There is no one person to blame if no one is to blame there can be no punishment. Life is good in the groop.

If you stand alone however, only you can be held accountable for what happens. A scary spot to be in for an animal who has been brought up as a group animal.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Liberty Landing, IMHO, those who claim their religion is true are missing the point. You don't know it's true -- you believe it's true. If you knew something was true, it wouldn't be "faith," it would be accepting fact at its face value. That said, religion is simply an attempt to account for that which cannot be accounted for; it is a scientific theory in its own right. I said in a previous thread that religion, at the very least, wraps up all the loose ends, something to which atheists have no claim.

What is the point of faith if you don't have conviction enough in your beliefs to take them as facts?

[Technosoul]

I think we can have blind faith in which case we would continue to stumble along or faith that is an awakening in awareness of facts not before known to us as part of our persepective, that can help avoid pitfalls and problems. Faith should be another word for "seeing" (with the mind more so then with the naked eye).

technosoul.

[LDS]

Definition of Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

This is where you and I disagree.
"And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." (http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/21#21)


Ive never seen France, yet because all evidence points to there being a France I speak as though it does exist.

If there is no proof of such, then how do you "know".

I suggest you read This chapter in Alma.

[kingjust]

This is where you and I disagree.
"And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." (http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/21#21)


Ive never seen France, yet because all evidence points to there being a France I speak as though it does exist.

Both statements are total opposites. One states if you have faith in something.... Then the other one you put ..."if the evidence points..." not making any sense to compare total opposites.

Secondly, the chapter still doesn't divert from the question of all questions, "do you or I REALLY know"!!

[LDS]

Both statements are total opposites. One states if you have faith in something.... Then the other one you put ..."if the evidence points..." not making any sense to compare total opposites.

No. I was giving an example of how though you cant be 100% sure France exists, you can still talk as though it does because of the evidence. There is a huge amount of evidence of a creator, if you will begin to think for yourself instead of thinking the way society tells you to think, look at the world without the preconceptions pressured upon us by society and you begin to realize that all things denote there is a god.

[SlySpy]

LDS, please state your evidence.

[LDS]

Originally posted by SlySpy, LDS, please state your evidence.

"There is no tangible, concrete evidence of the existence of God or the divinity of the Master in the legal sense, but not all inquiry for truth results in proof by real or demonstrative evidence. It is fallacious to argue that because there is no demonstrative evidence of the existence of God he does not in fact exist. In the absence of evidence often thought necessary by the scientific world for positive proof, our search may take is into the realm of circumstantial evidence. We could spend hours describing the wonders of the universe, of the earth, of nature, of the human body the exactness of the laws of physics, and a thousand things, all of which dictate to the conscience of a truth seeker that there is a creator and one who rules over the universe."

Elder Howard W. Hunter
Of the Council of the Twelve


Why should we be so different from all other creatures on this planet? Why should we have our agency, to choose whether to heed my instincts or go contrary to them?

[SlySpy]

Originally posted by LDS,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LDS,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by SlySpy,@ LDS, please state your evidence. "There is no tangible, concrete evidence of the existence of God or the divinity of the Master in the legal sense, but not all inquiry for truth results in proof by real or demonstrative evidence. It is fallacious to argue that because there is no demonstrative evidence of the existence of God he does not in fact exist. In the absence of evidence often thought necessary by the scientific world for positive proof, our search may take is into the realm of circumstantial evidence. We could spend hours describing the wonders of the universe, of the earth, of nature, of the human body the exactness of the laws of physics, and a thousand things, all of which dictate to the conscience of a truth seeker that there is a creator and one who rules over the universe." Elder Howard W. Hunter Of the Council of the Twelve [/b]

First of all, in an argument for a supernatural being the burden of proof is placed on those who wish to establish his existence, otherwise we could have other theories of unicorns and leperchauns.
Second, it is faulty to presume that every one has a teleological outlook on nature. In fact, there are tribes who have no mythical legends of a god or creator, they don't even have a word for god. This is also and ad populum fallacy.
<!--QuoteBegin-LDS,


Why should we be so different from all other creatures on this planet? Why should we have our agency, to choose whether to heed my instincts or go contrary to them?[/quote]
Now you're just assuming that all animals only follow their instincts. Intelligence has been observed multiple times in dolphins, monkeys and in many cases where they go "contrary" to their instincts. But, if you'd like to feel that you're special in that sense then go right ahead, but none of this will go furthur to prove the existence of god.

[LDS]

First of all, in an argument for a supernatural being the burden of proof is placed on those who wish to establish his existence.

"For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God"

(http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/34/32#32)

The burden is on us as individuals, we either take the first steps of faith or we dont. It is our choice. If you do not want to believe there is nothing I can do to prevent you from making that decision.

Now you're just assuming that all animals only follow their instincts. Intelligence has been observed multiple times in dolphins, monkeys and in many cases where they go "contrary" to their instincts. But, if you'd like to feel that you're special in that sense then go right ahead, but none of this will go furthur to prove the existence of god.

Perhaps I am wrong, I'm not well versed in biology or zoology. From what ive seen of animals, there is something which does seperate mankind from beast.