Religion (Again)

[Doubt]

Hello all, I was looking through some of the discussions you were
having in the religion topic, and while I didn't quite get through all
of them, I felt like it might be helpful to start a new topic with a
slightly different perspective.

Essentially, while you guys were diving into a deep conversation about
"ideal" religions (which then branched off into god knows what) I
think you were ignoring a vital question: what IS a religion, exactly?
Perhaps once we break down the elements that make up a religion,
consider our prejudices (for example, coming from a western
perspective, has my view of a legitimate religion been warped by my
upbringing?), and investigate the historical aspects that go into the
creation of religions, we can set ourselves up for a more fruitful
discussion of why humans seem to gravitate toward religion, and why
religion is (or is not) important for society.

I'll start things off with some generalizations, which will hopefully
become more specific once we get a conversation going. Of course, my
original question (what is a religion) should become more nuanced as
we talk about the following:

I believe that religions are attractive to so many people because they
address a few particular flaws inherent in human society. The first of
which, of course, is the unknown. There is so much stuff out there
that simply cannot be explained. Today, luckily, we can explain a lot
more than we used to be able to. But the unknown still scares people.
Simple as that. When the sun suddenly goes dark in the middle of the
day, or an enormous wave wipes out an entire civilization, people have
a hard time accepting that nature is just cruel and unpredictable,
especially when no one knows exactly HOW it happened. Consequentially,
they accept the first plausible, easy to understand explanation they
hear. But more important is the WHY, which leads to my next point.

Religion gives human beings significance; it provides their lives,
actions, and very existence with a greater meaning. It's not easy
being a little bit of stardust that has no bearing on the universe
around it. I think the core problem here is that people are
egotistical by nature. They have a difficult time living with the fact
that they are not the least bit important, and that if they were to
have never existed at all, the universe wouldn't be any different for
it. So when something big happens, they want to feel like it happened
for a reason. And not only that, but they want to feel like it
happened to them in particular for a reason. So with the incredible
danger of oversimplifying all human emotions and motivations, I
propose that humans like religion because they are 1) Afraid, and 2)
Arrogant.

So maybe people will respond to those arguments first, but I have many
more issues I would like to bring up through the course of the
discussion:

--Are religions primarily utilized as tools of the powerful to control
the weak, and to keep a working class of people ignorant or at least
placated?
--Is religion a necessary component for the formation of human
civilization? In other words, without religion, would humans have ever
advanced from hunter/gatherers into farming societies? (due to the
organization, peace of mind, and class structure religion creates)
--If the former is true, then has religion become obsolete, or at
least so twisted in purpose that it is doing more damage to the world
than good? (obviously a very heated point, but consider Scientology
using religion for profit, or the bloody fanaticism that it can
inspire when invoked in the name of war)
--Obviously, I am beginning my arguments with the assumption that all
religions are human inventions. While I would normally welcome any and
all dissent, I don't really think this point can be debated
constructively, because there is no overlap in arguments from either
side. Trust me, I've beaten this dead horse many, many times.

So that's my topic. I apologize for being slightly unorganized, but I
think once we start from the angle I have offered, we can begin to
answer the questions of what a religion is, how it has been used in
the past, how it should be used, and why it is such a prevalent part
of nearly every human society on earth.

[Andrew Towle]

Hey Clayto. In my opinion, religion could be something that people want to do just to believe that there is something greater than humanity; that religion is something that may kind of feed their curiosity. But that's only some people. Some people, such as atheists (only a generalization here) may not want to believe in a greater being or a god out of their pride. that's just a thought. But some people, usch as hard core Christians and Muslims (not neccessarily radicals, just very true to their beliefs) may do it because they want osmething greater in life. Not just to feed their curiosity, but maybe to be a part of something greater? I'm kinda making this up as I go. Just some morsels from the bowl of Andrew's thoughts.....

--
Andy T.

[Doubt]

Clayto?

[Andrew Towle]

Is that your name?

--
Andy T.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Why would you think his name is Clayto?

[Andrew Towle]

Nevermind.

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <doomw...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why would you think his name is Clayto?

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Clayto sounds like a name for a robot-aru.

[Doubt]

I thought it was a play on words, combining the name Plato with
something else, but I couldn't figure out what.

On May 22, 2:04 pm, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> Clayto sounds like a name for a robot-aru.
>

[Andrew Towle]

Nevermind, sorry. My friend named Clayton said he joined the SSPC and i thought you were him. Sorry.

--
Andy T.

[David Reich]

Replying to your wall-of-text post, hoping we can get a focused discussion going here:


The big thing you seemed to say was that we should define religion, and then started talking about religion without defining it.  I'm going to do the same here, but we definitely should make an effort on this front.  Perhaps something like: 'Religion:  A scientifically unverified belief or belief system, offering explanations for phenomena and/or making claims or predictions"  That's a fairly inclusive definition, though, and it seems to me that some things we don't consider religions might fall under it.  I can't think of any examples right now though.  Does anyone have any suggestions to improve this definition?

The stuff about why humanity 'likes' religion is good - It's instinctual for people to want an explanation for things, an explanation that makes sense.  People don't have a very good idea of what makes sense in an absolute or scientific way though. Wild speculation is considered as likely to be true as a 'complex' (though in a logical, Occams-Razor, way, the religion is more complecated).  We do use a form of logic in considering these claims, and coming up with them, but it's not a very formal sort.  To your 3 points I would add, "3), tendency to heavily informal logic".  Another possible one: most, if not all, religions I can think of, have a human element to whatever supernatural thing they postulate. This would be tied to your idea of arrogance, humans tend to think of things in human terms.  The Abrahamic god speaking with humans is an obvious one, as is native American tribal religions, personifying animals and spirits.  I don't know much about Hinduism, but the I've always seen their gods depicted with some human features. Buddhism is the big exception to this, really.  Thuy - does your faith indicate that humans are at all special?

I'd like to reply to some of those questions, but I think we have enough to talk about with this and I don't want the discussion getting all chaotic again.

[Doubt]

David: I'm slightly confused about what you mean by "informal logic."
Could you elaborate on that?

I guess I was hoping that through the course of a focused discussion
on religions, we would naturally stumble across a few elements that
might help us define them more succinctly. Forcing one this early
might lead us to an uninformed, simplistic definition that isn't
really that useful. So then I would first direct us to the questions I
mentioned before: what are religions used for? Why are they such a
common part of human society? David and Andrew have already responded
to the latter question.

I will refrain from posting another wall of text right now (apologies
for before). But considering how I want to go about this conversation,
I think it might be good to examine a particular religion as a case
study instead of throwing around generalizations, which can only get
us so far. I am relatively familiar with how Islam was utilized in the
Ottoman Empire, but if anyone prefers to delve into a more modern
example, that would be fine too. Obviously this discussion will
require some outside research if we want to make any real headway.

[Paul Gully]

well, to play the part of the cynic, one may say that religion enforces morality on those who cant figure it out themselves. the average person doesn't spend their time thinking about morality and ethics,  but everyone needs to know them for society to work. religion offers a way to give morality to people who dont have time to reason it out (at the expense of critical thinking...). same thing for the 'arrogance' thing. i am hesitant to make the differentiation between 'intellectuals' and 'religious people', but in the case of morality and other things covered in religious text, this really isn't an exaggeration. religion provides rigorous interpretations of things people need to know but dont have the time to think about/come up with themselves. you will find that alot of unreligious cosmologists are perfectly happy to accept the possibility of meaninglessness. some take it as given, but they all struggle with the implications. religion shuts people up so they can support society. 

anyway, im going to not be a cynic anymore.

[David Reich]

Doubt:  By "informal logic", I mean normal, inductive as opposed to deductive, human reasoning.  The sort that, when you see mail in the mailbox, you use to think, "oh, the mailman probably put it there like he always does.  In fact, I bet that one's a letter from a friend, I'm expecting one." Rather than formal, deductive reasoning, which is the sort used in math and science.  A way you could use informal reasoning for God, I suppose, is:  "Most things I know of were made by someone human, so maybe the world was made by someone human-ish."  It's not at all rigorous, but it is a sort of fallacious logic and 'makes sense'.  The distinction is well-made (with, in my opinion, a bit too much of a bias against formal logic), here, in lecture 3 of the series I posted torrents to on our site.

As for what religions are used for - I would say that religions arn't exactly 'used' for anything.  they developed for the reasons we discussed earlier, and since then have been utilized by various leaders - the medieval pope comes to mind, as do various monarchs and, more recently, Iran's ayatollahs.  The religions weren't 'made' for that though.  Paul, I would say that that's a good point, but it seems kind of dangerous.  Either you're talking theoretically, like our discussion on the perfect government, or you're talking realistically.  If the former, there's no reason to not just make each citizen intelligent, and teach them secular humanist ethics (or if there are, those reasons are on grounds that are irrelevant to what we're discussing here).  If the latter, you have to be careful about the religious leaders being corrupt themselves, historical religion has taught us that much.

Something just occurred to me though - in that argument, I was thinking of religion in the common sense, theologies like christianity, islam, buddhism.  What about similar things, things that might fall under a definition we wind up making, like the 'personality cults' of Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong Il of the last century?  They were created to be used in controlling people. Do they count as religion?  Just a thought.

Oh, by the way, Doubt, if you don't mind me asking - how did you find the SSPC?

[Andrew Towle]

David, how did you make the thing where it said 'here' and if you clicked on it then it brought you to a link?

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

in gmail there should be a button above the text-inputy thing that looks like a chain link. its blue. click it.

[Mvpeh]

Andrew - It's really easy. Click the blue chain link right next to the smiley button, and bind it to a word. For example:
I have a cat. See? :D

--
-Marton

[Andrew Towle]

Obama is such a smoko.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

I've seen better-aru. Not sure but I think this one's real.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

The one I linked is in bad taste, though-aru.

[Paul Gully]

What on earth are you all doing? This is not a place to smash politicians. we may be going for informality, but this kinda crosses the line. just stop. make meaningful contribution or get out. 

[Andrew Towle]

Sorry I didn't mean to start something.

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Paul Gully <nano...@gmail.com> wrote:

What on earth are you all doing? This is not a place to smash politicians. we may be going for informality, but this kinda crosses the line. just stop. make meaningful contribution or get out. 

--
Andy T.

[Andrew Towle]

I can't see the one that you linked Thuy because i dont have a Lv5 account.

--
Andy T.

[Mvpeh]

Owned?
--
-Marton

[Mvpeh]

http://thenovapulse.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/obama-smoking1.jpg
--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

I'm not gonna show you guys the one I attached unless requested. Now back to the topic of...religion? How did we get from religion to bashing obama?

Well for religion, if God created all of the people on Earth, why are there other religions?

Cheers

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Mvpeh <marton....@gmail.com> wrote:

http://thenovapulse.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/obama-smoking1.jpg
--
-Marton

[David Reich]

I belive there were some topics, proposed by Doubt, and agreed upon, mainly the question of:  What causes religions (or: what causes religions other than yours), and what are they used for?

[Andrew Towle]

God doesn't force us to follow him. He gives us free will.

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

thats besides the point, andrew. I dont think anyone is arguing determinism. (although i have never heard a good argument in favor of free will that isn't a cop out, I'd like to hear one)

anyway, what causes religion? i think we still need a workable definition. going off of the one david proposed earlier ("A scientifically unverified belief or belief system, offering explanations for phenomena and/or making claims or predictions") it could be laziness on the part of curious people or enterprising individuals with a lust for power. perhaps there is just something in the way that the human mind works where it 'fills in the gaps' in its knowledge with whatever it can come up with. 'i know the sun to be important, so it also is responsible for these things i dont understand' kinda thing. the same way it fills in the gaps in like vision and hearing (how often do you know that you blink? hardly ever. but your blinking constantly. your vision is 'filled in' with what is expected to be there, based on experience). these things combined with societal influence conglomerate into these organized groups, with the 'gaps' being fed to them in different ways. etc. 

[robert burdick]

I'm of the same opinion of paul earlier that a religion is more of a system of enforcing morality and ethics as opposed to a belief system of scientifically unverifiable material, because (and although this is an isolated example but still an important one) Buddhism in it's true form, that is Buddha not being god, would have to be excluded as well as confucianism seeing as these do not includ official greater beliefs of scientifically unverifiable material.

--
just because

[robert burdick]

oh and you are now blinking manually

--
just because

[Andrew Towle]

Just a question Robert(and marton and dmccoy96, you 2 will get this), do you have a daughter names adah?

--
Andy T.

[David Reich]

Robert, I would say that Buddhism does contain unscientific claims (souls), and I would be inclined not to call confucianism a religion.  Don't know much about it, but from what I do, it seems closer to a social code - something like European chivalry.  Is this incorrect?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Why, yes. It is very incorrect. First of all, Confucianism is Asian so it has no relation to European chivalry. Other than that, it's also teachings on the flow of energy throughout the body (the idea of ki), ethics, and other things like that. In a way, it is like Buddhism where it is a way of life. Now for Buddhism, riencarnation is a form of the transfer of energy such as how we become nutrients for the earth and plants and other animals. That's the scientific side to it but souls are actually energy and how we use that energy transfers what we do and how we act.

Cheers-aru (see what I did there?)

[Doubt]

David: I was invited by Michael, who is my cousin.

Everyone else: No wonder you guys don't get anything done around here.
I'll be back to post an actual response soon.

On May 24, 3:28 pm, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> I'm not gonna show you guys the one I attached unless requested. Now back to
> the topic of...religion? How did we get from religion to bashing obama?
>
> Well for religion, if God created all of the people on Earth, why are there
> other religions?
>
> Cheers
>

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Are we supposed to get anything done? How are we to come to a tacit decision in religion? In truth, this is our worse topic for there is so much disagreement and so much contraversy and so many tangents that we go off on. You actually chose a horrible topic to start off on. There were others such as the multiverse theory, the start of the universe and the most optimal government. If I'm not mistaken, I think I asked everyone to stop responding to this topic. It went on too long and nothing really got done. I think it's time we start new topic.

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

We need more poeple and to become more organized and focused.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

I don't think it's the people anymore. I think it's the topics. We need more of those-aru.

[Doubt]

Quoc-Thuy: I was reacting to the tangent involving the image of Obama
smoking a joint. Since then, I believe people are making some real
contributions, and I don't think it's fair or useful to dismiss an
entire discussion topic because some of us are having trouble
focusing; it's not the topic, it's the responses that seem to cause a
problem. Additionally, when I mentioned "getting things done" it was
partially in jest, but also, I don't think any of these topics' goals
should be coming to some narrow conclusion. Especially for this
conversation we are having, it would be far more enlightening to
merely dig through the material in order to show everyone a new
perspective on something they may not have thought about before. I
think that's all we can really expect from this, anyway, and it's
probably good enough.

On May 26, 7:49 am, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> I don't think it's the people anymore. I think it's the topics. We need more
> of those-aru.
>

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

I guess you don't know since you are new. This topic of religion started way back. It spurred many arguments, caused lots of unrest
and it was even suspended from response after a while. This topic created lots of turmoil and I tried once to divert everyone's attention to other topics instead of this one where we usually argue over the Bible's contradictions.

Cheers

[AmazingChicken]

...Wow, I am 'replying to Doubt.' Interesting.

Hi, I am new here and a real lightweight in this topic. Which, is why
I'm here. So I'm gonna shut up and lurk mostly until I can feel a
little more comfortable with the conversation and flow.

I was prompted to choose this topic to say 'hello' in by something I
read in the first post, which was
. . There is so much stuff out there
. . that simply cannot be explained.
It seemed immediately to me that 'religion' as formal gatherings of
rituals, beliefs and values is a kind of metaphysical bonfire that was
sparked by an early, terrified man who could not reconcile the things
in his reality, and fed by his descendants. His vision exceeded his
understanding, so he made stuff up to soothe himself.

Anyway, beyond that, I got nuttin'.

On May 21, 1:36 am, Doubt <eltop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all, I was looking through some of the discussions you were
> having in the religion topic, and while I didn't quite get through all
> of them, I felt like it might be helpful to start a new topic with a
> slightly different perspective.
>
[snip]
> think you were ignoring a vital question: what IS a religion, exactly?
[snip]

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Maybe you can contribute starting with what your faith is. Maybe you're an atheist. Either way, contribute to what you know. Regardless, I'd like it if you contribute to other topics since religion is very controversial. Thanks for joining and enjoy your stay at SSPC: The Super Secret Philosopher's Club...or was it the Society of Scientists, Philosophers and Crazies?

Cheers

[Doubt]

Well, I think we can all agree that pointing out the Bible's
contradictions is redundant and entirely useless to the purpose of
this topic. As I explained in my original post, arguing over whether
or not religion is a human invention will get us nowhere, and forcing
someone to "defend" their religion is bordering on nasty. Personally,
I am an atheist, but I don't use my non-beliefs to belittle others.
All I asked us to do, which should be acceptable to even the most
religious among us, is to contemplate how religion has been used by
humans with the hope of eventually figuring out what a religion is.
There's no point in arguing over the legitimacy or divinity of those
religions, and avoiding that level of discussion shouldn't affect this
topic.

In terms of a workable definition, I will restate what I said earlier.
Because we are still dealing with generalizations, I'm not sure we are
ready to come to any conclusions yet. Religions seem to include
elements of scientifically unverified claims, but then again so does
everything; philosophical theories of a perfect government (what the
hell is human nature, anyway?) spring to mind. And religions also seem
to be about social codes, acting as a means to create order and give
people motivation to treat each other decently. But then again, every
philosophical system of ethics (I'm looking at you, Kant) tries to do
exactly the same thing. So what makes our concept of religion unique?

I guess I fall within the camp of nominalism, in that I believe every
abstract concept is a human construction and only exists as long as we
decide it does. The idea of a nation-state, for example, is
"imaginary" because it only physically exists as a collection of
people who all agree that they live in such an institution. So
religion seems like it might be another constructed category, which
isn't especially unique from other types of things that try to bring
comfort or order on a massive scale. I'm not confident about this,
however, and I'd like to delve into a case study of a religion to make
sure. I suggested this before, and while we've already touched on
Buddhism, there seems to be some disagreement over whether or not
Buddhism is actually a religion. I'm horribly uneducated on this
particular belief system, so I would suggest that we move onto a
religion which is universally considered to be a "religion," which
none of us here are members of, and which at least some of us are
familiar with (and everyone else who wants to contribute can do some
research). I would recommend any of the following, but please feel
free to suggest others:

Islam
Branch-Davidians
Pentecostal Church of God
Scientology

Some questions we might want to start with regarding the religion we
choose: Where did it originate? How, under what conditions, and by
whom was it propagated? How was it used by different people, how did
it evolve over time, and what is its current situation?

On May 27, 9:31 am, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> Maybe you can contribute starting with what your faith is. Maybe you're an
> atheist. Either way, contribute to what you know. Regardless, I'd like it if

> you contribute to other topics since religion is *very* controversial.

> Thanks for joining and enjoy your stay at SSPC: The Super Secret
> Philosopher's Club...or was it the Society of Scientists, Philosophers and
> Crazies?
>
> Cheers
>

[Andrew Towle]

stands for 'Shutup, Sitdown, Out away your crap, Cry' ?

--
Andy T.

[David Reich]

Doubt:  I agree with most of what you've said - I have a few problems with a few things, namely the stuff about social codes, but I'll disregard those for now because of how much I agree with your idea of doing a case study of one religion.  I do think a different thread should be made for it, after we decide on a religion.  We shouldn't use Islam - I know we do have a Muslim here, Safath, although he hasn't been here that much lately.  I'd rather not use a 'branch' of another religion - I think that would lead us to a discussion of the parent religion, which we don't really want - we need something isolated.  but with a full development and a fair amount of memetic success.  I'd like to propose Hinduism for this - there's a lot to talk about, but (while I don't know all that much about it myself, I'll certainly do some research) it seems to be fairly clearly-defined.  I don't think we have any Hindus here, so we're good in that regard.  Another good option might be Shinto.  I'm hesitant to use Scientology, because, as far as religions go, it's fairly young and hasn't had very long to develop 'naturally'.  I'm not dead-set against it though.

As for the questions you proposed to ask of whatever religion we pick, I'd like to add: How and when did it split into sects?  How did it interact with other religions?

AmazingChicken, nice to have you here.  Don't feel like you don't have anything to contribute here, I think a lot of us don't know as much as it seems like and are pretty much making it up as we go along.  Also, this topic really isn't the best to give you an impression of what discussion should be like.  Hopefully it'll improve, but the combination of this being a very wide topic and the ease of going on tangents (both relevant and completely irrelevant) makes it a bit hard to discuss.

as for what SSPC stands for, it Surely Shouldn't Present Content/meaning

[Ahmed]

Well i dont see a point in studying a religion that believes in many
gods cus that doesn't make any logical sence. The religion you study
should also have a book, guidelines, i mean if there is a God and he
did send down guidence, there should be something atleast-so there
should be a 'holy book'. The book should also be the original, not the
one thats been changed over time. That leaves...some of the old
testimates of the Bible, idk about Judiasm, and of course the Qur'an.
Out of the three, the Qur'an is still a complete book, while the Bible
old testimates, well not all of it is the original to my knowledge as
you guys have agreed that it has been changed and they have found
'some' of the old testmates. The Qur'an has not been changed, it still
remains a complete book-yes Islam has sects but so do all religions,
but the book is not devided, nor is it contradictory.

[David Reich]

You say that you don't see any point studying a polytheistic religion because it, 'makes no logical sense'.  To me, and I would venture to say at least half the people here (Atheists or Buddhists (which is a religion with no God)) see it making as much sense for there to be many gods as one.  I'll let you try to defend religion with logic, if you do so properly, but I strongly doubt you'll succeed.  And by properly, I mean the burden of proof is on you, proving that there is a single god.

As for why we shouldn't use Islam as the case study - I think your post is argument enough there, you'd be biased and unable to contribute from an objective perspective.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

To support the polytheistic-side, I will look to the Greek Gods. These Gods represent balance and unity as these powers are divided between many rather than one God having to carry the burden of many. If there were such a God to hold this much power, wouldn't that God be troubled by action and consequence? In the polytheistic religions, rather than have hypocrites, there are conflicting Gods and their beliefs.

And if you want something to support the monotheists, look to Pompeii.

Cheers

[David Reich]

NONONONONO!!!!! I don't actually want to have this debate! not at all!  I mean, I'm saying I'm willing to stand my ground that Safath has no real ground to say that hinduism is less logical than islam, but all we should be doing right now is thinking about what do with the idea of a case study.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Well, many of the earlier religions were used to explain the weather and other natural events that were angering or saddening.  As Doubt already said, it was used to explain the unexplainable.  But these days it seems like religion is only used so that (as in the Christian (?) religion) people can do bad things but the tell a priest about it and be fine.  It seems like they are used as an escape from reality.  Such as when people go to church, temple, mosque, etc. they pray to whatever they feel like for whatever they feel like.  Where else can they say whatever they want and not be judged?  Well, they are "judged", but not by people per se.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Too late! MWAHAHAHA! Now we wait for the offending side, Mvpeh, for whether he will respond or accept our conclusion. In other words, fight or defeat-aru.

[David Reich]

ANYWAY!!! Do we have any other suggestions for a case study, of a particular religion?

[Mvpeh]

Before I own you guise, a quote I heard came to my mind - "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish."

What do you guys think of this quote?

What is religion:

Well, Christianity is already been discussed, so I shall go to my native religion - Muslimisim-ism..?

The religion and philosophy of Islam, is based upon the belief that God (Allah) transmitted knowledge to Muhammad (c. 570–632) and other prophets (Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus). The followers of Islamic religion, muslims, believe that this revelation to humanity was written down in the Quran, which is the flawless word of God.
The theology of the Islamic scriptures informs most aspects of muslim life and culture. The Five Pillars of Islam is expressed in the Quran (Koran), which is a practical doctrine that encourages Muslims to pray 5 times a day, fast during Ramadan, pilgrimage to Mecca, declare 'There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet' and pay money to the poor.

Anyways, the purpose of being a Muslim.
Dear brother in Islam, we'd like, first of all, to voice our appreciation for the great confidence you repose in us. We implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake.

Responding to your question, we'd like to cite for you the following:

“Have you ever asked yourself the questions:
“What is the purpose of L I F E?” “My life?” “Your Life?”

Many thinking people frequently ponder these questions. But each person may try to answer these questions in diverse ways.

Worshipping Allah, the One True Almighty God of the Universe, as a primary goal or aim in life provides a believer with everything he needs to succeed both in this life and the Hereafter.

The word for total surrender, submission, obedience, purity of heart and peace in the Arabic language is Islam. Those who try to perform these actions are called Muslims.

To a Muslim the whole purpose of life is to worship Allah, the One True Almighty God on His Terms and under His Conditions.

The term “worship” to a Muslim includes any and all acts of obedience to Almighty Allah. So his purpose of life is a standing purpose; worshipping Allah by accepting Allah’s Will over his own.

This act of `ibadah (worshipping, thanking and extolling the Greatness of Almighty Allah on His Terms and Conditions) is for the Muslim, something throughout his whole life regardless of the stage. Whether he is a child, adolescent, adult or aged person, he is seeking after the Will of the Almighty in all these stages.

His life here on earth although short, is full of purpose and is totally meaningful within the complete framework of total submission (Islam).

Similarly, in the Next Life, his faith, intentions, attitudes and good deeds will all be weighed into his account as favorable putting him in high esteem with his Creator and Sustainer.

Because Islam teaches that this life is only a test for the individual to show him his true nature, it is only natural that he will accept death as a beginning of the final and lasting life in the Hereafter rather than just an end.

Before entering into either of the final lodging places i.e.; Heaven or Hell, there must be a Day of Judgment or showing of one's true self to and thereby understand the implications of one’s life on the earth.

Every person will be rewarded (or punished) according to their attitude, appreciation and efforts during this stay on earth. No one will be asked about the actions and beliefs of others, nor will anyone be asked about what he was unaware of or incapable of doing.

As the life here is considered as an examination or test for the individual, the death stage is considered as a resting period after the test. It could be easy for those who were faithful and dedicated or it could be grueling and horrible for the wicked.

Reward and punishment will be in direct proportion to each person and it is only Allah alone who will be the Final Judge over us all.

The line of life and its purpose is logical, clear and simple:

1- The first life is a test.

2- The life in the grave is a resting or waiting place before the Day of Judgment.

3- The Day of Judgment brings about the clear understanding of what will happen to the individual based on his own desires and actions.

4- The Permanent or Afterlife will either be spent in luxurious splendor or miserable punishment.

Following this clear understanding of life, the Muslim’s purpose is clear.

First of all, he has no doubt in his mind that:

- He is only created by Allah.

- He is going to spend a period of time in this material world.

- He knows he will die.

- He knows he will spend time in the grave, either pleasant or difficult, depending on his own choice of attitude and actions.

- He knows he will be resurrected on the Day of Judgment.

- He knows he will be judged according to the most fair of standards by Allah the Almighty.

- He knows his attitudes and actions are going to come under very close scrutiny.

- He knows that this short life compared to the Eternal Life in fact, only for a test.

This life is very meaningful and purposeful to the Muslim, as he realizes that it will determine his outcome and permanent position in the Next Life.

The purpose of life, as understood by the Muslim, can be simply stated in only two words:
Obey God.

The purpose of religion:

It is believe that the exposure to religion is important for fundamental spiritual education. Religion exhorts and develops a moral sense.

Encourages a spirit of goodwill and cooperation.

Promotes charity and acts of kindness towards the oppresses, needy and infirm.

Develops a rudimentary communion with God through faith, invocation, worship rituals, singing, and prayer.

The form of the Divine people learn to love, worship and invoke through prayer and meditation is learned through religion. Since the religions of the world are anchored on different bands of the Great Continuum of Consciousness, what their adherents experience within depends on where they tap into this great inner sea of Spirit.

When adherents of religion begin to have inner spiritual experiences, they pass beyond the boundaries of conventional religion into the realm of mysticism.

 

Sorry this was so long, hahahahaha.

 


--
-Marton

[Paul Gully]

well, perhaps an ancient religion. problem would be finding its history. 

also perhaps some 'tribal' religion? again, need history

hmm, i cant really think of any- you've kinda 'outlawed' most of the big six.

[Mvpeh]

I forgot to quote it, but I took the middle section from here:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544380


--
-Marton

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

I've actually thought about Satanism. Not in the sense of joining it, but how in the world does it function? What are it's ideals? And how can people start believing in it after about 2000 years of hating it?

Cheers

[Mvpeh]

Actually, in most countries, they can't.
For being a Satanist you will be shot to death in many countries..Or, at the least, be a social outcast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism


--
-Marton

[Paul Gully]

Marton, firstly this is the second time we've had preaching about islam. i say avoid it. especially if its not your own preaching. also, just to debate the point in that speech, here it goes:

the purpose, according to the speaker, of religion is to 'exhort and develop a moral sense', 'Encourages a spirit of goodwill and cooperation' etc. then it says the last purpose is to 'Develop a rudimentary communion with God through faith, invocation, worship rituals, singing, and prayer'. so what is the purpose of this last thing? to make you religious. its circular. if you could impose morality and 'goodwill'

 without god, then religion has no purpose. 

[Paul Gully]

(also, clarification, im not against preaching islam especially, just preaching in general. dont do it)

[AmazingChicken]

Greetings, Quoc-Thuy.
Go ahead, ask me an easy question B-))

My comment about the bonfire was a general agreement to Doubt's
proposal about where the concept sprang from, out of the fear of the
primitive. I kind of see the constructs of the different religions as
pieces of fuel in the same fire pit. As the fuel begins to burn the
beholders around the fire see the construct they desire (U/U, Islam,
Zoro, Sufism, etc) but it's the same flame. It is the beholder whose
perception is different, but what we're all looking at (exception: the
person who believes there is no fire) is the same in nature.

Something I read on the Vedanta Society of Southern CA makes better
sense of this: "The world's religions offer varying approaches to
God, each one true and valid, each religion offering the world a
unique and irreplaceable path to God-realization. The conflicting
messages we find among religions are due more to doctrine and dogma
than to the reality of spiritual experience. While dissimilarities
exist in the external observances of the world religions, the
internals bear remarkable similarities."

So having said all of that I would reply to the question of my faith
that I believe there is a higher power, whom I call God. The dogma of
the church I was raised in, or the church I was married in, or the
mosques and temples I have visited over time, are far less important
to me than maintaining a loving relationship with that God, and with
my brothers and sisters.

Previous disclaimer still applies; I'm new, reason for visiting,
mileage may vary. Did this help answer your question about faith,
Quoc-Thuy?
_____________________________

> "Maybe you can contribute starting with what your faith is."
>
>

> [ more snippage]

[Doubt]

I won't be around to respond to this fully for a while, but I thought
I would weigh in on the choice of a case study one last time.

David: I'm not entirely sure Hinduism would work for our purposes.
While I, too, know very little about it, what I do know is that
Hinduism is a very decentralized religion. In other words, believers
in Hindu all identify with each other (although they only started
doing this when an Islamic empire established itself in India, because
suddenly there was another set of beliefs to compare their own
against), but there is no set of universal guidelines that makes one a
Hindu. I'm pretty sure that each household can worship its own
separate gods however it pleases. Because the links between the actual
religion and the motives of rulers, social structures, and historical
events will be difficult to ascertain, I am hesitant to choose
Hinduism. Although I would like to know the relationship between
Hinduism and the Caste system, which is essentially a social ladder
that defines specific roles for people in society (which they are born
into) that they move up or down in their next life depending on their
success in their given role. If there is a direct link here, perhaps
this would be an interesting topic to discuss, as it would open up a
bunch of questions regarding the abuse of belief systems and they way
they shape entire cultures.

Shinto seems intriguing, but I know absolutely nothing about it beyond
the application of gods to geographical features in Japan. It might
even be interesting to talk about the interaction between two
religions once we thoroughly discuss one in particular; this comes to
mind because I am suddenly reminded of studying the effect of
Buddhism's adoption in Japan on traditional Shinto (I think it made
its religious artwork darker and more violent, or something).

I wouldn't write off Branch Davidians quite yet, because while they
were certainly a "branch" of Protestantism, they bear almost no
similarity with it, and there is quite enough to talk about without
delving into the details of its parent religion. We would probably
only go back as far as the split between the Davidians and the
Adventists. This case is interesting mostly because the religion has a
clearly defined start and end date, and has had exactly one prolific
leader, so it's kind of a miniaturized, simpler way to study the
evolution of a religion. Perhaps talking about it here will prove to
be too controversial, but it might also allow us to figure out what
exactly a religion "is" by studying something that many regard to be a
cult (follow-up question: what's the difference between a religion and
a cult?). The (effective) end of the Branch Davidians is a sad and
terrible story, so if we're not willing to go into it for that reason,
I understand.

I agree that Scientology would not be ideal for our discussion, mostly
because of its unique (and frightening) mode of organization and
expansion. It's technically a religion under US law, so it gets tax
exempt status, but it seems to me that it functions more like a
business.

It is a shame you don't think we can use Islam, because I actually
know quite a bit about it (historically speaking). Even though Ahmed
seems to be a member of this faith, maybe it would be valuable to get
insight from a practitioner, even if he is a little too biased to
contribute to the philosophical part of the discussion. For Islam, I
would propose choosing a time period and a region to study, since it
is such a large undertaking. As I said before, I know a bit about it
pre-1922 (i.e. the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire) and discussing a
religion as it was utilized by a particular nation or empire helps us
focus on some of my original questions (how it was used by humans, how
it evolved over time). Particularly intriguing for the modern case of
Turkey is the clash between Ataturk's westernization and previous
ruler's conservative implementations of Islam. There's so much rich
material here to cover, from the Tanzimat reforms to the role of
nationalism and its interplay with religion (this second topic would
be relevant for any case study in the modern period, really).

Another suggestion would be Mormonism, as long as we don't dwell on
polygamy too much, because 1) Mormons don't do it anymore, save for a
few isolated cases, and 2) we may be discussing religions, but we're
not judging them or ascertaining the validity of their moral systems.
This would be beneficial to remember for whatever religion we end up
choosing. And dear god, please do not begin a debate between
polytheism and monotheism. Or for that matter, no one should be
defending or attacking a particular religion or religions in general.
As I've stated many times, I think it is useless for the purposes of
this topic. And if you do want to challenge someone to defend their
religion logically, please do it in a different topic, if you must do
it at all. But we all know how it will end, so what is the point of
having that argument? You're starting with different assumptions, so
you will come to different conclusions, simple as that.

My last candidate for a case study: Pastafarianism.
Just kidding. But everyone should check out the Gospel of the Flying
Spaghetti Monster. It's quite clever.

On May 27, 6:49 pm, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ahmed]

Err idk what you mean by biast, I mean i will give you the facts of
Islam if you ask for it-i am certainly not trying to convert anyone.
if i am the reason you don't want to study Islam, by all means i can
just leave the group, i really dont mind. If u guys have questions
about Islam, please feel free to ask, jsut dont overload me all at
once. Also, if you are worried about me not giving 'philosophical'
info ( i mean what does that mean, lol, i will not give you info about
the religion of islam?, idk exactly what you mean). Again, i will give
you facts, not try to convert as it is not my intension. well if we do
study a religion, doesn't it make sense to have someone who knows
about it to confirm and as doubt said 'get insight'.

[Andrew Towle]

Ok, ehre's a question. What are the basic principle beliefs and vales of Muslims?

--
Andy T.

[Mvpeh]

Sigh, again with the criticizing. You ask for my opinion, then trash it.

--
-Marton

[Robert Burdick]

I think we should study Hinduism for the case study I've got a webpage with all the hindu holy texts translated into english

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm

Sent from my iPod

[AmazingChicken]

[SSPC] Really confused now. Looking at attributes of different
religions will
identify if religion has meaning? Help??

[Robert Burdick]

Hindu is actually a fairly unified religion while maybe not that
centralized in that there isn't a patriarch or really any sort of
hierarchy but everyone in it follows one set of beliefs and practices
and the gods they worship though many in number are all very much part
of the religion as a whole and in fact most hindu actually worship
just a few of these those being Vishnu Krishna shiva and indra but the
main concepts of the religion of reincanation the flow of energy
dharma and kharma are all very universally practiced even more
strictly followed than many concepts in Christianity. Although it is
constantly evolving it is most certainly one unified religion.(I
apologize for the lack of punctuation but iPods are hard to type on)

Sent from my iPod

On May 29, 2010, at 11:52, AmazingChicken <j04n.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>

[Robert Burdick]

Also hindui is the caste system they are not only directly linked they
are the same thing

Sent from my iPod

On May 29, 2010, at 11:52, AmazingChicken <j04n.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> [SSPC] Really confused now. Looking at attributes of different

[Robert Burdick]

You should read about those holy texts I posted the Vedas Upanishads
puranas and what not very similar to the bible although more
universally accepted in the religion.

Sent from my iPod

On May 29, 2010, at 11:52, AmazingChicken <j04n.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> [SSPC] Really confused now. Looking at attributes of different

[Andrew Towle]

Are they Christian Holy texts? What do they talk about?

certainly do some research) it seems to be fairly clearly-defined.  I don't

think we have any Hindus here, so we're good in that regard.  Another good
option might be Shinto.  I'm hesitant to use Scientology, because, as far as
religions go, it's fairly young and hasn't had very long to develop
'naturally'.  I'm not dead-set against it though.

As for the questions you proposed to ask of whatever religion we pick, I'd
like to add: How and when did it split into sects?  How did it interact with
other religions?

AmazingChicken, nice to have you here.  Don't feel like you don't have
anything to contribute here, I think a lot of us don't know as much as it
seems like and are pretty much making it up as we go along.  Also, this
topic really isn't the best to give you an impression of what discussion
should be like.  Hopefully it'll improve, but the combination of this being
a very wide topic and the ease of going on tangents (both relevant and
completely irrelevant) makes it a bit hard to discuss.

as for what SSPC stands for, it Surely Shouldn't Present Content/meaning

--
Andy T.

[Robert Burdick]

No Hindu they talk about everything in hindu although primarily use mythology to express religious ideas. Many are epics composed based off of oral tradition either during the Maurya or Gupta periods

Sent from my iPod

[Robert Burdick]

No they're the hindu sacred texts 

Sent from my iPod

On May 29, 2010, at 12:42, Andrew Towle <andyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ahmed]

"Give a man a fish
and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a
lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish."

In the name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

In Islam you are not allowed to do this. The teachings of Islam say
(and this is in the Hadith, sayings and life of Muhammad PBUH) that
you must pray for things but then you have to do your part. There were
men who used to just stay in the Musque and pray there all the time.
Muhammad PBUH saw these people in the middle of the day in the Mosque
and he came and asked what they were doing there, they replied that
they had given up their lives to worship god all the time and that
people came and sometims gave them food. He replied "you know that
gold and silver does not fall from the sky" and he told them to spend
half their day for God and the other half for this world. ALso in the
story of Moses AS in the Qur'an, ALlah tells Moses AS to hit the water
with the stick but Moses AS is not the one who is spliting the water,
it is God. God wants him to do his part, even if it is small. WE are
supposed to do what we can and leave the rest to God. That's why we
dont have like bishops and stuff (or atleast we are not supposed to)
and all we have are Imams, who lead the prayer and scholars. There was
also this guy who said, i am going to go fight a tiger and God will
protect me, but then he got eaten, you shouldn't just disreguard
common sense and go all religious, Islam is about balance, half for
this world, half for the next, do everything you can and leave the
rest to God.

[Andrew Towle]

Ok. I see what you are saying. The Bible does say much of the same thing. Yes, we should pray and worship to God, but we need to proactive in our faith. But the way you stated it was to spend half your day for God, the other for the world. In Christainity, the Bible says to live in the world, not of the world. This means we can live on earth, but don't take part in the sins of earthly nature. For half of the day 'doing things for the world', did you mean go out into the world and practicwe your faith in the world and not just sit and worship, or did you mean give yourself to sin.

 

 I hope you understood that, might be kinda vague.

--
Andy T.

[Ahmed]

"half your time for this world" means like do work (jobs), help your
family, pretty much have a life in the rules that God has set (like
you have to follow God's rules but you should still enjoy your life in
this world, enjoying your life is not a sin, disobeying God is a sin
like stealing, adultery, worshipping others except God etc.) The other
half is for the afterlife. What the Sahaba (the companions of Muhammad
PBUH and the prophets AS (Moses, Jesus, Solomon etc.)) as written in
the Qur'an and Hadith was that they would work during the day (food,
taking care of family, as well as deal with the community and its
problems) and pray during the night.

> Andy T.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[AmazingChicken]

Funny you should have brought these up Robert, I've been reading one
text lately: "The Sermon on the Mount, According to Vedanta" by S.
Prabhavananda. It's really quite beautiful.

On May 29, 12:24 pm, Robert Burdick <music...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You should read about those holy texts I posted the Vedas Upanishads  
> puranas and what not very similar to the bible although more  
> universally accepted in the religion.
>
> Sent from my iPod
>

> On May 29, 2010, at 11:52, AmazingChicken <j04n.m.8a...@gmail.com>  

[Doubt]

I apologize, Ahmed. I didn't mean to sound insulting, I was only
addressing the concerns we talked about earlier with studying a
religion that one of us is affiliated with. I guess what I meant was
that it would be harder for someone who is involved in a particular
religion on a daily basis to deconstruct it in a way that would allow
for informed analysis. Additionally, this analysis might come across
as critical of your religion, and the last thing I want is to sound
like a bigot. By separating ourselves from the topic of study, we
ensure that no feelings are hurt and that nothing personal gets in the
way of discussion, at the expense of losing an expert. In my last post
I was trying to weigh the costs and benefits of these two approaches.
I believe now that having someone who really knows the religion from
the inside would be helpful, but not necessary as long as the rest of
us do our research. Also, I recommended that we study a particular
time period or culture and how the religion was utilized there, due to
the incredible scope of many larger religions. Assuming you are most
familiar with the modern version of Islam, as you have experienced it
in America, a discussion of a more historical version of Islam might
require even you to do some research. Therefore, depending on the
topic of choice, my initial worry about people being too involved to
see their religion from other perspectives might be entirely
unfounded. Again, I apologize for my comments.

[Ahmed]

Don't worry about it, and i know what you are saying, but since i feel
that Islam is the true religion, i can pretty much take all criticism
and i can usually see where others are coming from and if i dont i
will drop out of the subject. Dont worry about what you said, i
actually didnt think anything of it until u started apologizing lol.
We are all friends here :)

> > about it to confirm and as  doubt said 'get insight'.- Hide quoted text -

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Well that's nice how everyone's getting along. David, take an example and not from forums and chats.

Now to religion, we have quite a few religions that need insight. I propose that each of us do research on some of these in order to fulfill our knowledges. It doesn't have to be extensive, just a google search link or a read-up on wikipedia. This can strengthen our knowledge. All in favor, say "aye". If there are five "aye"s, I'll make a list of different religions we can research on.

Remember, this is just an idea instead of our back-and-forth. This is kinda like Robert's helpful suggestion for studying Hinduism.

Cheers

[David Reich]

AYE, but make the list short, so we can go in detail

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

ok, but I'm willing to take suggestions, also-aru.

[Robert Burdick]

I'd sat Hindu Buddhist Shinto possibly Islam although I think most people already know a lot about that mayb Confucianism and Taoism and just for kicks qaballah and any others that can be thought of oh and this is an aye

Sent from my iPod

[Robert Burdick]

Also one of these days possibly tomorrow i was gonna make my full "wall of text" proposal for Hindu but I suppose if this passes I'll hold off for a little

Sent from my iPod

On Jun 1, 2010, at 22:25, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote: