"Morality is everywhere the same for all men, therefore it comes from God; sects differ, therefore they are the work of men."

All religions boil down to this: Treat others as you wish to be treated.

But religions go about different paths to achieve this goal.


What makes your religion better than others?

Perhaps this says the same thing better and answers your question too:

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.

If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.

If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

- Marcus Aurelius

No, I was making the point that people think that their faith is correct, even though it preaches the same morals as all the others.

I was also criticizing people for thinking that they could know what God really wanted.

No, I was making the point that people think that their faith is correct, even though it preaches the same morals as all the others.

I was also criticizing people for thinking that they could know what God really wanted.

So what does GOd want?

So what does GOd want?

We don't know, and we should never assume that we do. We should live our life practicing the morals taught by the religions.

If you pray, you assume God is listening. You assume that God is everywhere. You don't know that. Prayer is a work of man, and thus flawed.

We don't know, and we should never assume that we do. We should live our life practicing the morals taught by the religions.

If you pray, you assume God is listening. You assume that God is everywhere. You don't know that. Prayer is a work of man, and thus flawed.

But then again... morals do not necessitate a religion.
You're point is that religions are the works of men, and thus likely to be full of flaws, then you say that the answer is to just keep following your religious teachings... I'm not sure if that's actually what you mean, but the thing is, religions aren't necessary for anything at all.

Therefore,
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.

If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.

If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

- Marcus Aurelius

We should live our life practicing the morals taught by the religions.

We should live a moral life in spite of the religions that teach us to practice it for the sake of pleasing their particular God-figure.

If you pray, you assume God is listening. You assume that God is everywhere. You don't know that. Prayer is a work of man, and thus flawed.

I once read that the brains of someone meditating, a Christian praying, and a pot-smoker toking (or shortly after), all produce the same waves ... which never get produced otherwise, in normal day-to-day life.

No, I was making the point that people think that their faith is correct, even though it preaches the same morals as all the others.

That's not true. For example, in some religions it is immoral to hurt animals or other living organisms.

Plus, morals aren't the only part of religion. Afterlife, specific rituals, child rearing, and etc are also very important.

I once read that the brains of someone meditating, a Christian praying, and a pot-smoker toking (or shortly after), all produce the same waves ... which never get produced otherwise, in normal day-to-day life.

I know that the meditating part is true, and I highly suspect that prayer would be quite similar, but pot smoking...no way.

I know that the meditating part is true, and I highly suspect that prayer would be quite similar, but pot smoking...no way.

Well, for some, smoking marijuana is approached about like meditation... So I could understand that. And I imagine that the same thing goes for "prayer" just sort of hit and miss as for whether anything happens...

... pot smoking...no way.

Way.

Check out the thread about rastas that got moved to BLTC because someones a little too angry.

Check out use by the Sadhu's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_use_of_cannabis#Hindu_use).

Check out how the 'munchies' is actually increased production of Ghrelin, and what Ghrelin can do while fasting.

Yeah ... way.

Check out the thread about rastas that got moved to BLTC because someones a little too angry.


No one is angry except for you, dear Obbe.

Way.

Check out the thread about rastas that got moved to BLTC because someones a little too angry.

Check out use by the Sadhu's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_use_of_cannabis#Hindu_use).

Check out how the 'munchies' is actually increased production of Ghrelin, and what Ghrelin can do while fasting.

Yeah ... way.

Lot's of drugs have been used in religious experiences, it doesn't mean they have the same effects on the brain as meditation. I would be more convinced if you would actually find the study on brain waves that you mentioned.

I read such a study in a magazine of mine; it mentioned only prayer and meditation. At the time - a year ago? more? - it was the only such study done, but perhaps there have been more.

I read such a study in a magazine of mine; it mentioned only prayer and meditation. At the time - a year ago? more? - it was the only such study done, but perhaps there have been more.

I did a quick search and the best I could find was the marijuana increases alpha waves. Alpha waves are seen in people meditating but they are also seen in normal relaxed people.

I did a quick search and the best I could find was the marijuana increases alpha waves. Alpha waves are seen in people meditating but they are also seen in normal relaxed people.
This (http://www.crystalinks.com/medbrain.html) site had some good info. Both prayer and meditation are mentioned (search for "nuns" for a prayer section). Alpha waves are pretty normal; theta waves seem to be what people are going for.

All the different major religions are different interpretations on the nature of God. The ultimately boil down to the golden rule but simply use a different person or method to teach that. If the message is the same then we should simply all be tolerant of the different religions that have been placed on us due to our differing cultures. Tolerance is a virtue and concurrently an extension of the golden rule.

I cant equate simple pot smoking with meditation and prayer. I can understand that it can aid in these spiritual practices.

So to conclude, I dont make the assumption that my religion is "better". I simply understand that it is my way.

All the different major religions are different interpretations on the nature of God. The ultimately boil down to the golden rule but simply use a different person or method to teach that.

No. Do proper research before opening your mouth and thinking whatever comes out of it is in any way truth.

All major religions do not come down to their interpretation and execution of "the golden rule."

For example: Christianity is based on the fundamental belief and acceptance in Jesus Christ; excercising the golden rule is merely a means through which christians depict their lifestyles in an exemplary fashion.

Satanism, for example, associates it's deity to one's worship of the self, and not a god. Also, it very much includes the golden rule, but in no way excercises it the way other religions do. Love of thy neighbor and treating others as one would be treated is regarded as folly; satanism supports hamurabi's eye-for-an-eye. As a major religion as well, how can you consider your above definition to speak of satanism and christianity--two opposing viewpoints--collectively?

Be clear on your beliefs, man. If the case is as you say, why not just convert to buddhism? If it's all the same, then do you mean to say that one can choose a religion based on the ease with which they can be followed seeing as how "all major religions" hold the same principles?

Do you see how it can't be defined that easily?

No. Do proper research before opening your mouth and thinking whatever comes out of it is in any way truth.

All major religions do not come down to their interpretation and execution of "the golden rule."

For example: Christianity is based on the fundamental belief and acceptance in Jesus Christ; excercising the golden rule is merely a means through which christians depict their lifestyles in an exemplary fashion.

Satanism, for example, associates it's deity to one's worship of the self, and not a god. Also, it very much includes the golden rule, but in no way excercises it the way other religions do. Love of thy neighbor and treating others as one would be treated is regarded as folly; satanism supports hamurabi's eye-for-an-eye. As a major religion as well, how can you consider your above definition to speak of satanism and christianity--two opposing viewpoints--collectively?

Be clear on your beliefs, man. If the case is as you say, why not just convert to buddhism? If it's all the same, then do you mean to say that one can choose a religion based on the ease with which they can be followed seeing as how "all major religions" hold the same principles?

Do you see how it can't be defined that easily?

Valid points you make Kipperelly. Looking back on this post it was pretty thoughtless but I'll try to follow through and justify myself.

From the perspective that the highest purpose of religion is to guide human ethics (what does it take to live a good life?) you can see that all the major religions, definitely not including the laudable "satanism", ultimately give you the golden rule as the basis of ethical action. Forgive me as I was vague in that I shouldnt have said the golden rule was the basis of the religious belief. Perhaps religious purpose, yet I wouldnt agree with that. Also, I dont consider satanism a "major" religion only because it doesnt have anything near the following of all the others due to not having a historical, or cultural basis.

On my beliefs:

I believe in a God-creator and that the universe if of him as there is no such thing as two things that occupy one reality not having connections of some sort and therefore can be categorized as a whole with the universe.

I believe that a man called Jesus (the Christ) was the son of God/was God and was the most perfect representation of Gods principles and the way a man should conduct his life. I believe in the principles and aphorisms he left us with. The only point I'm weird about is the forgiveness thing...that humans couldnt reach salvation (be forgiven) before jesus died on the cross. I have philosophical concerns.

I believe the bible is a guidebook, not a rulebook as no man can say that his actions perfectly correspond with any doctrine and therefore human understanding and reason, Gods greatest gifts, should take precedence over the bible in any affair.

Any person deciding on a religion based on the "ease of following it" is missing the point of it all. The practice of spiritual and emotional refinement is not in any way, shape, or form through selfishness or selfish motivation. Its love, virtue, and reason. Those three things correspond with all the major religions. If you have all that you will see the truths in all religions, despite your personal beliefs. You have to be tolerant of others and nonjudgemental.

All human beings possess the potential for these qualities and their opposites, thats how I see it. Im kinda messed up right now so sorry if my post makes no sense.

Its love, virtue, and reason. Those three things correspond with all the major religions. If you have all that you will see the truths in all religions, despite your personal beliefs. You have to be tolerant of others and nonjudgemental.


Pfah. Reason is not encouraged at all. You are asked to take things on faith and not look behind the secret curtain. If reason was really encouraged, every single jew/christian would reject a book that says there used to be talking snakes, 100 million species could be piled onto one single boat, it is okay to stone unruly children, etc etc. Furthermore, they would accept the inherent contradictions in their conception of god and reject such conceptions.

I would be more convinced if you would actually find the study on brain waves that you mentioned.

It wasn't a study if I can remember right. But I can't find jack-shit now either.

Pfah. Reason is not encouraged at all. You are asked to take things on faith and not look behind the secret curtain. If reason was really encouraged, every single jew/christian would reject a book that says there used to be talking snakes, 100 million species could be piled onto one single boat, it is okay to stone unruly children, etc etc. Furthermore, they would accept the inherent contradictions in their conception of god and reject such conceptions.

A great man called socrates once said that the only true wisdom comes from coming to the realization that you are utterly ignorant.

From that standpoint I would say that I absolutely accept the inherent inconsistencies and somewhat hard to take literally stories in the bible. However, if thats all you take out of reading the bible you are personally denying yourself much culture and wisdom and well as the essential points of Christianity which are inherent in the words of Jesus Christ.

The major philosophers (some then marked heretical) during the middle ages were priests or men of the cloth. So then I now make the argument that since a religious person is capable of open-mindedness then they are also capable of reason and emphasizing reason as it corresponds with love and virtue.

Remember that reason is not synonymous with cynicism.

Pfah. Reason is not encouraged at all. You are asked to take things on faith and not look behind the secret curtain. If reason was really encouraged, every single jew/christian would reject a book that says there used to be talking snakes, 100 million species could be piled onto one single boat, it is okay to stone unruly children, etc etc. Furthermore, they would accept the inherent contradictions in their conception of god and reject such conceptions.

150 years ago, space voyages were ridiculous; man was limited to this rock and this rock alone, was the mentallity and rationality held then. Who the fuck would think twice about throwing man into space, to reach the moon and back again?

Contemporaries of Columbus thought it ridiculous that the world was round.

Galileo was ostracized for saying the oh-so ridiculous thought that the Earth revolved around the sun.

People thought Jesus walking on water was whack, but then Leonardo DaVinci did it too.

So what's your point?

150 years ago, space voyages were ridiculous; man was limited to this rock and this rock alone, was the mentallity and rationality held then. Who the fuck would think twice about throwing man into space, to reach the moon and back again?

Contemporaries of Columbus thought it ridiculous that the world was round.

Galileo was ostracized for saying the oh-so ridiculous thought that the Earth revolved around the sun.

People thought Jesus walking on water was whack, but then Leonardo DaVinci did it too.

So what's your point?

I guess you're being sarcastic, because those contemporaries of Columbus and those that ostracized Galileo and banned his books were religious and did such because of their religion. Hell, Descartes even pushed back the publication of his first book a decade because he saw what Galileo had went through and was scared shitless of what the church might do. It has largely been the church that supresses free thought and reason for dogmatic beliefs. Luckily mankind has slowly but surely overcome such processes.

...People thought Jesus walking on water was whack, but then Leonardo DaVinci did it too.

So what's your point?

Did DaVinci become a zombie after he died many centuries ago, to prevent a person's ghost from burning in a lake of fire, b/c they jerk off and think naughty thoughts?

This would be the point...DaVinci never said "I am magical and that is how I can do the shit I do".

Strawman.

I guess you're being sarcastic, because those contemporaries of Columbus and those that ostracized Galileo and banned his books were religious and did such because of their religion. Hell, Descartes even pushed back the publication of his first book a decade because he saw what Galileo had went through and was scared shitless of what the church might do. It has largely been the church that supresses free thought and reason for dogmatic beliefs. Luckily mankind has slowly but surely overcome such processes.

You portrayed religion as depicting these wild ideas that defy reason such as a talking snake and 100 million species piled onto a single boat.

Then you say religion has limited reason and rationality in such names as Columbus and Descartes, saying "[the church] suppresses free thought and reason for dogmatic beliefs.”

Maybe there’s a misunderstanding amidst. What I meant to say in my first post was that things such as talking snakes and a multitude of animals being herded onto a single boat can’t be categorized as irrational and reason-defying because things such as Columbus circumnavigating the earth was considered ridiculous, as was Galileo’s studies that portrayed the Earth as secondary to the Sun instead of vice versa.

Those two are good examples of seemingly-crazed ideas that held no place in rationality as man knew it to be then, but they came to pass. Why then can it be considered ignorant and short-sighted to say [in example] talking snakes were plausible as was packing a zoo into an arc?

Why then can it be considered ignorant and short-sighted to say [in example] talking snakes were plausible as was packing a zoo into an arc?

The only reason people doubted Gallileo or the hundreds before and after him was b/c the church did not like to be proven wrong. They killed people for proving them wrong. The church actively suppressed everything they deemed a threat. The church was the one who said "That is ridiculous, Gallileo. You are excommunicated now. You will be forgiven in the the fucking 1960's".

The church was wrong before and is wrong again. It is physically impossible to cram that many species onto a boat. Just is not gonna happen. Until someone PROVES otherwise, you are a fucking ignorant, short-sighted fool for believing it is true or is possible. Snakes do not talk. If you think they do or can it is up to you to prove that. Until then we have to assume snakes cannot talk.

We have to assume things that have NO BASIS IN REALITY and have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for it are false. If we do not we will halt scientific progress and knowledge. We will halt human progress. Gallilieo had to prove his claims. So did Columbus. They proved it and that is why you know their fucking names today.

The only other way you could know there names without them proving it is if they murdered all the people who called them on their lack of proof. Call it an inquisition.

It is ignorant and foolish to believe in ANYTHING that completely lacks proof such as me shitting strawberry icecream or the bible.

150 years ago, space voyages were ridiculous; man was limited to this rock and this rock alone, was the mentallity and rationality held then. Who the fuck would think twice about throwing man into space, to reach the moon and back again?
Did they have reason to believe this, or was it as superstitious as religion? The way you put it makes it seem just another arbitrary limit. With what they knew of reality, I don't think it was rational to claim that man would never leave the Earth. With what we know of snakes, it's not rational to think they ever talked.

Contemporaries of Columbus thought it ridiculous that the world was round.
Not so (http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm). And again. (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/10-11-04.asp) More (http://www.textbookleague.org/26flat.htm). And this is only the first page! (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm)

Galileo was ostracized for saying the oh-so ridiculous thought that the Earth revolved around the sun.
By Christians who were too attached to Aristotle. The idea wasn't ridiculous; that it conflicted with accepted theology was. Look it up. A Christian source, no less. (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html)

People thought Jesus walking on water was whack, but then Leonardo DaVinci did it too.
It's the difference between flying and flying with an airplane. If DaVinci did it, he provided a mechanism. Jesus' feat is claimed as supernatural... and we have no evidence of the supernatural.

I can find no evidence he ever did anything but draw plans for water-walking shoes, btw. Shoes that wouldn't have worked. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DEEDA1F3DF931A3575BC0A9629C8B 63)

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

The only reason people doubted Gallileo or the hundreds before and after him was b/c the church did not like to be proven wrong. They killed people for proving them wrong. The church actively suppressed everything they deemed a threat. The church was the one who said "That is ridiculous, Gallileo. You are excommunicated now. You will be forgiven in the the fucking 1960's".

That's why I'm not a Catholic, and I take anything a MAN says about God with a grain of salt. People fuck up and do things in God's name when in reality they're serving their own purpose. Don't misunderstand it. You have issue with those that claim they are carrying out God's will, when in reality they are carrying out their own. If you truly believe, you understand that only God can be The Judge. Judgement and condemnation are not our place.

The church was wrong before and is wrong again. It is physically impossible to cram that many species onto a boat. Just is not gonna happen. Until someone PROVES otherwise, you are a fucking ignorant, short-sighted fool for believing it is true or is possible. Snakes do not talk. If you think they do or can it is up to you to prove that. Until then we have to assume snakes cannot talk.

Your logic is very...cold. If you have no proof, it doesn't exist. In reality, the universe is infinitely more complex than anyone can ever understand, and you look at it like a puzzle that can be solved with time. Given all time we could never understand a fraction of the mysteries of the universe. Keep on trucking, though. That fraction must be a pretty worthy goal to devote your life to it. One could say you are almost religious in your belief.

We have to assume things that have NO BASIS IN REALITY and have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for it are false. If we do not we will halt scientific progress and knowledge. We will halt human progress. Gallilieo had to prove his claims. So did Columbus. They proved it and that is why you know their fucking names today.

There is evidence. It's just not good enough for you.

The only other way you could know there names without them proving it is if they murdered all the people who called them on their lack of proof. Call it an inquisition.

Has it fallen on your shoulders to avenge the persecuted scientific community? Persecutions a funny thing. Some people understand it truly. Some think as children and believe they are persecuted if they don't get what they want.

It is ignorant and foolish to believe in ANYTHING that completely lacks proof such as me shitting strawberry icecream or the bible.

Why does someone finding happiness in their own beliefs threaten you so much?

If you truly believe, you understand that only God can be The Judge. Judgement and condemnation are not our place.

Majority of Christians in America support the death penalty. It is only God's place to judge. They must truly not believe.

Our society would NOT get very far at all if we waited on God to hang thieves and jail criminals would it?

Your logic is very...cold. If you have no proof, it doesn't exist. In reality, the universe is infinitely more complex than anyone can ever understand, and you look at it like a puzzle that can be solved with time.

In REALITY, if you have no proof, you must ASSUME it does not exist IF you are trying to find the truth. Does not mean it is not true. Just means until there is ANY evidence you have to assume humans cannot fly by thinking happy thoughts (thanks Peter Pan). Otherwise the wright brothers may have just been comedians instead of the first to build a fixed wing aircraft.

It is VERY detremental to scientific progress to give merit and value to things that have NO BASIS IN REALITY due to a COMPLETE lack of evidence.

One could say you are almost religious in your belief.

One could. One would then need to look up the term religion and look up the term science. One would then need to think critically on the meanings of both terms and use the resulting conclusion on determing who is possessed of scientific thought and who is possessed of religious thought. One would be wrong if one were to say I am religious in my belief.

There is evidence. It's just not good enough for you.

Evidence for talking snakes and evil fruit is seriously LACKING. When I say lacking I mean NO EMPIRICAL (this word the chruch hates) EVIDENCE for it. The only evidence for evil fruit and talking snakes is in a very old book.

The only evidence we have for Never Never Land is in a book. The only evidence we have for Hogwart's is in a book. Wait both of those are also in movies. Shit by your standards of evidence we have MORE evidence for Hogwart's than we do Eden. This book/movie evidence should be more than enough for YOU. Go find Hogwart's and learn magic.

What's that? The "evidence" for Hogwart's is "just not good enough for you"? Welcome to critical thinking.

Luckily the intelligent fact finding WORLD cannot use your standard of evidence, and make any real progress. Now we have electricity, machines and robots thanks to the scientific standard of evidence and not a religious person's standard.

Why does someone finding happiness in their own beliefs threaten you so much?

It does not end at their own happiness. There mission is to save my soul. These Xtains KNOW what is best for me. They KNOW that strip clubs should not be in my community b/c the naked body is a shameful thing. They KNOW that alcohol should not be sold on Sunday. They KNOW that evolution should not be taught in school, they KNOW that the world would be better if THEY taught children the Bible instead.

This is how and what the majority of these sheep who are "just tying to find there own personal happiness" believe. You can be fooled by that statement but I will not be.

What makes your religion better than others?

The fact that i have none.