an interesting quote

[turtle]

The Mongols were not Buddhist.

Even after the conquest of China, while they accepted the culture already in place and did not try to change it much, Mongol leaders were generally more likely to embrace Daoism than Buddhism, and the more superstitious, spiritous and alchemical brands of Daoism at that.

They did have clear codes of ethics and behavior, and are acknowledged to have adhered to them mostly quite faithfully. Their assessment of foreign thought was based mostly on any practical applications it would end up having, for better or worse. They saw the societies around them, quite unfairly but also quite honestly, as degenerate and corrupt.

They set a standard for seige warfare which was followed in Europe for centuries- Yield and be spared, resist and be killed.

Mongol armies were much more efficient and disciplined than most mediaeval armies, and carried out such killing thoroughly and methodically. Spoils were also distributed quite equitably.

But again, please, let us be quite clear that the Mongols were not Buddhist.

-D

 

[turtle]

I think with that literal definition you would exclude a ton of spiritual people and include a ton of non-spiritual people. Would you say I'm spiritual because I care about global warming or other long-term things/things that don't directly affect me?

Yes, exactly so.

To me, spirituality is basically the same as religion... having faith (ie. believing without evidence)

Spirituality is an aspect of human nature, while religion is an attempt to explain that aspect of life, and to use it.

I didn't say most scientists were atheists. I said there's an inverse corrolation between intelligence and religiousness.

OK, so I won't take offense at that, being highly intelligent, well educated, and deeply spiritual and religious myself.

There is also emotional intelligence. Had a dog once, Midnight, everybody thought he was kind of dumb. He followed every rule I gave him perfectly and never caused me a single problem or a moment's concern over the course of a whole decade. Hmmm.

-D

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

First off, Turtle: At no point did I say that the Mongols were Buddhists. The reference was admittedly a bit oblique, but in a number of discussions it's been noted that Buddhists have never been responsible for any atrocities; I was just trying to point out that whereas you remember the person's religion if he was Christian if he killed a lot of people, it's rare that the religion of non-Christian genociders is important. Just an observation...

2)

To me, spirituality is basically the same as religion... having faith (ie. believing without evidence) on something, except that religion is more than one people having the same general ideas. I think that definition is just broad enough to encompass all spiritual things, and narrow enough that people who don't think they're spiritual (me) aren't.

In other words, if you define yourself spiritually, then you are also religious. Keep that in mind...

[Strictly as a side note, a number of people differentiate between "religious" and "spiritual"; in essence, the former are more worried about dogma, and the latter are more interested in enlightenment. Consider the Buddhist that meditates and follows the proper forms as opposed to a Buddhist that ocasionally forgets those forms when he feels that they get in the way of The Path. Just as a sidenote...]

I didn't say most scientists were atheists. I said there's an inverse corrolation between intelligence and religiousness. I also specified I didn't mean "some sort of religion", but that I meant what we usually think of when we think of religion, like christianity or jeudaism, islam, hinduism, etc.

Unfortuantely, you continue to use scientists and those with some college as the basis for your "higher IQ"; just because you know what all the quarks are doesn't mean that you have a higher IQ. The same applies to GPA; Einstein would have been considered an idiot if you went by his GPA (Einstein was also quoted as saying things like

I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.

.
(Interesting quote for someone that was supposedly an atheist....)

The point here is that I couldn't find a consensus re: scientists and faith when I did some research; it ranged from just 5.5% to 84%, depending on the nature of the site (obviously, atheist sites were on the down side, religious on the other). There were even sites that quoted the same polls and yet had entirely different numbers. Interesting that...(The 62.5% figure I used, BTW, came from a Time poll).

Also, it exludes artists, strategists, and diplomats, all of whom also require a higher-than-normal IQ. In short, I'm not sure how valid your observation is if it's based on a relatively small number of those with high IQ's. Also, any idea if Marilyn vos Savant is religious?

You can't generalize like that. You're mostly talking about chimps. Gorillas, orangutans (which are solitary), and bonobos are generally more peaceful than humans.

As long as you ignore their relationships with other gorillas groups, yes, they are more peaceful. Silverbacks have notorious tempers, which seems to be downplayed in the Wikipedia entry; in fact, the behavior section seems to be rather noble compared to the actual ape. The orangutangs are noted as being fiercely territorial and very capable of rape. And the bonobos are your basic nymphos, but they don't fight much (then again, there is little competition from the same species as there in other primates).

So...one out of three of your examples are actually peaceful. Interesting that...

I didn't say "deaths". I said "atrocities". They may be related, but atrocities don't always fall under "deaths" and not all conquerors fall did things that fall into the category of atrocities (pointless deaths, tourture, starvation, genocide, doing it to defenceless people, opressing women/minorities, etc).

My point overall stands. You're focusing in on the Christians' sins, and ignoring those of others. The other problem is that these were only classified as "atrocities"; up until recently, these were considered normal behavior for the winner of the war. Also, "atrocities" allows you to be rather ambiguous, as there is almost no way to compare what happened in a war versus what happened after it (which is where most atrocities happen) from a historical perspective.

They did do it, but I think there are far more attrocities commited throughout history than deaths as a result of conquering. And most of those had something to do with religion.

Mongols weren't very religious. Romans weren't very religious. And yet their atrocities re legendary. Romans in particular were some of the nastiest conquerors ever, known for their very creative punishments.

And which "conquerors" did it for religious reasons? Conquering was usually done for resources, to unite lage groups, and even just to provide nobles and youths with something to do, but rarely did religion ever enter into it. Even The Crusades were more of a way to get rid of nobles and focus them on something else, rather than have them loaf around the castle...

I don't know about stalin but hitler was certainly spoke a lot about god and religion in general. Read Mein..kemph? however you spell it, and he talks about it there. In fact, he was opposed to state atheism. It's still in debate exactly how religious and in what religion he believed in though...

Depends: Are you talking Hitler The Public Figure (who was extremely Christian) or Hiter The Private Man (who mocked religion in all forms and didn't even receive his sacraments)? I think it's pretty obvious that Hitler was using religion merely to get what he wanted, rather than having some deep conviction...

Going along with what I had said earlier- You're talking about this idealized idea about what SHOULD happen, I'm talking about what DOES happen. More often than not you'd have hate and fighting instead of "working together".

One way of looking at it. You say that you are looking at it realistically, and say that I am looking at it idealistically. But that's merely convenient to your point, which appears to blaming religion for the ills in the world, rather than the people who use religion as convenience.

Also, I'm responding to the original poster's question as regards why religion is a good thing. I'm sorry that you find that viewpoint merely idealistic, but I think that a good religion, one that allows for individual enlightenment and group unity, makes a society stronger rather than weaker. At the same time, atheists provide a necessary check to when religious sentiments start become too strong.

But that's just me...

RG

 

[turtle]

When we make a decision, or any distinction, or any choice, we have to know why we are doing it, and we hope we know how everything involved will work.

We have to try to understand. We have to ask why.

Our official State Question here is: Red or Green? (chili sauces) Well, is that about enchiladas this time, or is it for chips? Which one is hotter here? For the most simple and ordinary things we need to know why we are asking, and we want to understand as much as we can of what is involved.

Leave God out of it for the moment.

You still have to believe all sorts of things all the time just to function.

Scientists work with half-proven theories all the time. If aspects of the theory prove out in practical application, we may well assume that we are at least in the right ball park with the overall theory, though we may also know there will be no way to prove it all. It is assumption, and belief, though hopefully it is tempered.

We believe things about the things and people around us, too, things which we do not actually know, at least in advance. The car will start. John will be at work now.

Belief is an integral and inescapable part of life.

Now, what do you choose to believe? How many beliefs did you just swallow up whole without any examination at all? Most of those are fine, but some of them may not be.

It isn’t necessary to understand everything. We can live with doubt and unresolved questions, especially if we acknowledge them honestly as incalculable variables. It helps a great deal to examine one’s assumptions regularly.

-D

 

[turtle]

Part of religion is a personal resolution to make a point of being good. I incorporate the best moral principles I can understand as thoroughly as I can into my conscience and my life. I develop habits of reflection, and may create little reminders.

Then I ask my friends what they do.

Thus the other, communal, parts of religion. My friends and I reinforce and adopt each other’s habits and reminders, and do some of it together, now. A whole region may thus come to share a common set of beliefs and a set of simple observances, with no official organization at all.


-D

 

[irish1]

I've never posted in this thread before. Too many of you guys are far more advanced and knowledgable about religion than I am. Quite intimidating it can be.
I thought about posting this in the general threads but decided it against it as there would most likely be a lot of religion bashing and that is not something I want to read.
I read a book review today in National Review magazine. The book reviewed is called 'The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West'. Authored by Niall Ferguson. The review was written by Paul Johnson.

It is quite a long review but I want to share the final paragraph, especially the quote at the end. So frends, here goes:

'The lessons of the 20th century, in my view, is that humanity, even with the religious restraints, is a force for horror as well as progress. Without them, its turpitude knows no bounds. I recal the somber words of the Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner:
"If ever belief in God disappears, and the image of God is eradicated from human minds, we will become nothing more than incredibly clever apes - and the ultimate fate of humanity will be too horrible to contemplate."


I would appreciate comments on the above from any jubbers. Am especially interested in reading what Andreus, Hard-up1, Tbonez, and JWest have to say.
But welcome comments from everyone.

Thanks my friends.
Tony.

I do not believe that a belief in God will ever completely disappear.

The image of God, I think, is so individual that we will continue to search for His image in our human intellect; I do not think that His image exists there, but rather in our souls.

There is hope in my mind that people will always commit themselves to some greater good, as has been mentioned in earlier posts.

The most important factor for me, is to remain hopeful, and to remain faithful to the tenents of my faith.

Yes, great harm has been to others in the name of religion--or, rather, an interpretation of religion. I believe that all great faiths inspire rather than intimidate with regard to worshipping.

Hope continues to exist. I truly hope that those among us who believe in the Lord will work in harmony with each other, and accept that not all of us are on the same path to a particular enlightenment. Likewise, it is not our responsibility to become hostile towards those whose belief structures vary from our own, including non-believers.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

RobinGoodfellow, you obviously didn't understand a word I said. You keep making straw men and completely misreading what I said. I don't feel like typing a bunch of stuff again just so you do it again, so I quit.

So I like poking holes in arguments and see if they hold up. Yours just didn't. The thing about the apes didn't hold; apes, regardless of species, aren't necessarily noble animals. Pointing out that Hitler was religious definitely didn't hold, and brings into question how many supposedly religious men weren't.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here. Honest. It's just that when you approach an argument with religious overtones, you need to appreciate that there are no such things as facts; only convictions. For every "fact' you prevent as to religion, there is another contradictory "fact", and so it eventually comes down to individual conviction as to which ones are real and which ones aren't.

A case in point is how many scientists have religion, believe in a higher power, however you wish to define it. It's easy to say, as an atheist, that as intelligence increases, belief in relief decreases. However, it's harder to say that when you realize that the number ranges from 5.5% to 84%, depending on which poll you go by. Worse, it gets even more interesting when you start defining what defines a belief in a higher power and if a particular person was religious or not.

Most of your numbers came from groups with an agenda; that alone should make their numbers suspect. When they limit those polls to specific groups, the numbers becomes more suspect, especially if those groups were obviously chosen to skew the numbers. Most young scientists are atheists and agnostics; your numbers merely support that. That's why I went with the Time poll of 62%; it was as neutral as I could find, albeit generic (religiousness wasn't important, just the belief in a higher power). I could have gone with the stats from religious groups (which some believe that 84% of scientists believe in God based on their own polling).

It's interesting to note that most scientists do have some belief in a higher power, however generic, that their belief systems mirrors that of most religious systems, and that they have a need to seek enlightenment through knowledge. That is, their beliefs are the same as religious people; is a mere group of pages necessary to be religious?

Also, I'm sort of curious how that poll would have done if doctors had been involved in the poll, or artists, or even judges, all of whom are definitely intelligent people, but that's just me...

********************************************

All that said, I think that religion, practiced for enlightenment rather than political ends, is something that we as humans need. It provides necessary limits on what we do, allowing us to work better as a team. We just need to realize when those limits are artificial and can be expanded, and expand them, rather than being limited by them...

RG

 

[Andreus]

this discussion is getting derailed over and over again because people are unwilling to acnowledge that there is a big difference between spirituality and religion.

Spirituality is an individual process that can be applied IMHO to any belief system or thought process that inspires men to become better people. Islam has a place for this theory as well. It allows for people who, while may have never heard of Islam and/or studied it to find a place in a paradise, even if it is not the same paradise that a true believer would have.

Religion is a process of defining a belief system so that a group of like minded people can share their ideas.

i think that the modern world has used religion to separate people, not bring them together, and if we as individuals don't use some sort of personal process to find a way to better themselves then we will continue to digress from our true state as enlightened, intelligent creatures.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

1) Religion vs. Spirituality: The reason this line keeps being blurred is that too many want a reason to ignore that enlightenment is possible via the major religions. It's easier to dislike a group if you see them as straightjackets only, and not a way out of the straightjacket.

2) Religion as a seperator: It's been pretty much that way since the establishment of religions. However, there are people that are beginning to recognize that any path to enlightenment is acceptable, and that there is a benefit in comparing paths, especially as people note that there is a lot of commonality between religions.

RG