Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion

A little, a very small part of a big picture. The man's religious belief, the way it is for him, affects his behavior. Since religion overwhelmingly appears to be man-made, the additive behavior's of all the apparent practicioners is the representation that there is.

However, if it were known that religion is of divine origin, one could always figure that the practicioner was straying from what the religion actually called for.

I don't think it is either, but I think it should be, however.

I'm not sure I see why you say that. One person's hasty thought might be another's well-figured one.

True, yet here the context of the story matters a lot.

I don't understand people's arguing. Somehow if someone says that religious faith boosts an individual's motivation to do things they might not do without it, that somehow says that there aren't other factors involved too, when all the person is saying that religious faith is a motivating factor.

I know as a fact that religious faith can add impetus to doing something that one wouldn't otherwise do because I used to practice faith much more when I was young. I can't have any more irrefutable evidence and and so I have no doubt that it is true. There's a saying that there is nothing like experience as a teacher.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I agree, this is of key importance.

As long as we don't know what exactly it is that God wants or doesn't want from us, we're stuck in speculation and have to accept numerous options as possible.


But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that religion is man-made. That wouldn't automatically mean that the things it is about (notably, God), are man-made too; they may be, or not.
I often note how some theists are promoting what to me seems like a merely mundane image of religiousness. But perhaps they have a good point after all. Namely, my - and some other people's - quest for the "right religion" is based on what is essentially bad faith. And this quest is considered to be of central importance. But one can be concerned, to the point of paralyzing anxiety, over "which religion is the right one" only if one already firmly holds the belief that if one doesn't get it right in this one lifetime, one will be doomed forever.

People who don't have this bad faith (typically, this is people who were not raised in a culture strongly influenced by the Abrahamic religions) seem to have a categorically different approach to religion, one that I haven't quite figured out yet. But generally, they do seem to come from the position of good faith - that whatever they do that they consider worship (or something related) of God is a step in the right direction. In comparison to the tyranny of "get it right in this one lifetime or be doomed forever," such good-faithed effort indeed seems mundane and man-made - and in fact, in many ways, it is precisely that.

So keeping in mind this distinction between bad faith and good faith and their respective consequences, can put the whole debate on religion in a different perspective.

Why?
Wouldn't this make religious adherents unnecessarily vulnerable to anyone who wanted to take advantage of them in any way?

Well, sure.

When you look at some of the critics of religion, you see that as soon as there is some violent act, and the perpetrator is a member of a religious organization or has quoted a religious text, those critics conclude, with absolute certainty, that this means the behavior was religiously motivated and is representative of religion. And those critics insist in their conclusion even as other people from nominally the same religion as the perpetrator, publicly condemn their violent act and declare it contrary to their religious principles.

People tend to look for the culprit, and they tend to think that there is only one culprit.
Acknowledging the complexity of a situation isn't particularly popular.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mankind will always have religions, as the ptb will always use religions and there own for power.

They will not through away there power source, or there control.

They may bring religions closer together, but all religions will just turn into a form of the freemasonry religion.

Freemasonry is modern day witchcraft.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with that.

That reminds me of Hinduism alright. I used to hear a preacher give sermons on the radio. He was originally from India and he used to say how the tradition of there being many possible good religious paths couldn't be right. He did that after converting to Christianity. Before he embraced Christianity, he went through extreme mental turmoil which you and I can seem to relate to, at least somewhat.

Because if God is good and we want to be good, too, regardless of the risk, then we should love, which is also good. Yet, even from a secular point of view, i think everyone should be completely lovey-dovey, too. So if it is a directive for the non-religious, then it fits religion even more.
I say love all people because they are in this life struggle and doing the best they can with what they have and know. The love is based on the kinship of personhood. Hate is good still, though, so long as it is for circumstances, situations, or any other harmful nonperson thing. This view can look pretty syrupy unless one understands, in my opinion, the main ethical principle of humanism--to have the attitude of fighting against nonperson harmful things rather than against a person or people.

Since we can't seem to count on God for what religion should be, the majority view of the adherents is about the best we have to go by. And some religions' overall images are better than others'. Religion tends to follow culture and eventually tends to incorporate the practices of a culture. Some cultures have been pretty harsh, even appalling in many ways.

I think it goes like that a lot.

 

Moreover, I think that the bad faith that is fostered by mainstream Christianity and some other Abrahamic traditions is in effect pushing people into dependent personality disorder. Especially outsiders may feel this push intensely; for those on the inside, it may manifest as scrupulosity.
Once this disorder develops, it can take over, almost as if to develop a life of its own, defining one's life completely (as people suffering from "spiritual addiction" can tell you).

I think that some religions do not foster a healthy balance between dependence and independence - and this because they simply cannot, as their doctrines don't allow for it.

I wonder what LG has to say to this!

I don't think ill will, in any form, for anyone or anything, is ever wholesome. Ill will is a manifestation of bad faith.

To say that a particular person, thing or circumstance deserves to be hated or to be angry with, is to say that God or the Powers of the Universe have done a poor job in the way they let things be and in the way they let them come and go out of existence. I think this is a very disempowering outlook.

Sure, but this doesn't mean that we should throw critical thinking out of the window and conclude that religion is whatever anyone says that it is and that God wants whatever anyone says that God wants.

 

I was somewhat acquainted with someone who appeared to have the scrupulosity problem. i agree with your sentiment in these regards.

From a religious perspective with regard to God, I can go along with that. From a secular point of view i don't see that except like how you mentioned that ill will toward people isn't productive, especially in the long run. Losing productivity would be losing effective power or empowerment.

Maybe instead think of the reality as being that there are 7+ billion religions in the world since no two minds and thoughts are the same. If religion could be boiled down to a magic thought like a spell, then the existence of sufficient uniformity in religion between people might not be too hard to support, but still I don't think that would be sufficient enough.

 

From elte

What you have missed though is that we are ALL Humans

This my point here made again but in different way, that we don't think of Humanity as whole and that we all belong to

 

I have been thinking that for a while, and kinship ought to be thought of as to all people, including some mammals like cetaceans and apes. I would like to include some other varieties of animals, too.

 

If your talking about the planet being important, absolutely

 

Indeed, especially our mammalian cousins and other self-aware animals.

 

Not only them but our whole ecology of this planet

Sure we have groups that fight for ecology and that's great, but not many are in these groups, at least not enough

But if we looked at it from a purely Human perspective , the place where we live, we have nowhere else to go to survive

Humanity needs to understand and then discuss amongst ourselves what direction we actually want to pursue

What form of the future do we want , notice I said " What form of the future do we want "

That's important. , very important

 

Getting back to the subject

You know by now that I want a more Humanity based society, not some metaphysical based society

It is the only way to stop the violence between ourselves

We should not be killing ourselves nor provoking violence between ourselves

We have been in this metaphysical mindset for to long

 

The metaphysical mindset is a crutch that humans create because of a myriad of prior problems, including ecological shortfalls and poor treatment of other self-aware animals.

Humans harming other humans predates metaphysical thinking as indicated by apes likely always having carried out the killing of each other.

I have observed where I live that religion has, overall, made people behave better than they otherwise would.

I think we agree, though, that a metaphysical mindset tends to hinder human progress because it consumes mental and physical resources.

 

Arguably, this cannot be done without metaphyiscs.

How do you know?
Do you have any evidence that you could present for your case?
Or are you just espousing yet another metaphysics?

What is your reasoning that we shouldn't?

 

On the contrary, a metaphysical moral framework is required to pacify a violent tendency.

After all, if I am stronger, richer or otherwise more powerful than you, what non-metaphysical precept can you plea for to prevent me from damaging you or otherwise treading on your toes?

IOW even something as elementary as "all humans are equal" requires a strong metaphysical foundation.

 

It's not working though

In the framework of what is considered metaphysical, which is religion based

Be Humane towards your fellow Humans, it's as simple as that, really

We have to stop this ego and power and control over others mentality

It doesn't though

It does take thought upon the common Human experience , worldwide

 

We have to, we need to , advance our mind set into a totality of Humanity and this planet, as all important, above all else

Above all religions

 

Only then, when we have reached this understanding worldwide can we then SEE the direction of which religions take us , lucidly, therefore objectively and whether, Holistically we find any benefits to their philosophy , for us

 

You seem to still be working with an unduly limited notion of what metaphysics is.

And most people have vastly different ideas about what "being humane" actually is.

And yet you right here are acting on your ego and are trying to seize power over others.

Even something as elementary as "all humans are equal" most certainly does require a strong metaphysical foundation.
The common human experience is that people are all different, not that they are equal.

 

In what way?