ETc|A^DARKNESS) wrote:religion was man's first attempt to make Law.and as goldenboy says it was created in the dark ages and maybe helped back then, but now ...its 2013..
.. not the dark ages.and like most traditions<< even though tradition isn't religion, its the same principle.
its "Dated" its "harmfull" and "helpfull" controversial<< and if it is So good then why so much controversy after all these years?
its senseless,like many traditions its performed because " It Was performed many times before in the past ,wash and repeat every year, or week? to give weak humans sense of balance or familiarity. A state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another.<<Relativity
as all of the same religion unite to say hey, we are right!!, or depending which country your from.. Hey we are right!,,oh shut up.
If your gonna argue about religion, Attack or defend, your both wrong, because as you all can see, its out of our control, and we all have our own ways to find a positive measure on life, & not all of us need a book called the bible to help us, or whatever else book ,
ive pointed out before, in a paragraph in the bible it says, "You can Never Fully Trust Man"... Yet the bible was written by man no?
Many things confuse me on religion and stories of the old, Adam and Eve? ok if they was the first man and woman, then who was the witness to the eating of the apple? there was some guy with a pen and paper taking photo,s and writing it down as she eats the apple or,someone told jesus and he told others ,idk ...and how can a man and woman just pop onto earth while everything else is evolution of species... maybe another topic ,but its all the same to me.
The basic principle of Religion is that it is a collection of traditions, which are designed to guide the social development of a particular group of people within the respective society. The most significant aspect of religion is that it symbolizes the ultimate hope that when someone dies, the universe will provide a spiritual accommodation for their soul (failed Law attempt)
religions motive is nice but its after effects are bad, like cocaine it has its good side,& bad side, you decide if you wanna take it(personally i wouldn't, cocoaine or religion)
Set yourself a standard and perform your own religion/belief in 2013, and make someone happy,!! share your love,!!help a stranger!! respect your own life & everyone elses before you or they die!! , Set aside your differences!! appreciated the value of the earth! .,look into the sky!!!.. see how insignificent you are!!
you are small!! ,your making not much difference in this world, Whatever you do!!! ...Enjoy Your LIFE Everyday,and breath in the oxygen that comes through your window in the morning,and listen to the song of the birds!!..Look out into space,and see the graveyard of cold rock..and Know that Birds songs are not heard for Millions of years Far and are Really special, as is the song of human communication!!!, we evolved to this!
To appreciate heaven you need to go through hell.
Pressure creates diamonds.
Peace & love to all.
I agree with most things you say, so consider the following not as a critique but more like a footnote. In concerns mainly two things: (a) the science-as-progress idea and (b) the social problem.
(a) Firstly, I have my doubts about the idea that religion (and tradition) is something of the dark ages and
thus obsolete, old-fashioned, outdated. I don't know whether you really think this is true or not, so correct me if I'm wrong. But, if you endorse it, I would say that I do not agree with that idea. Because I think it is a rather oversimplified reading of history. You have this french philosopher (sorry about the name dropping) Auguste Comte who stated history had a 'law of three stages': first you had a theological stage (where people believed in gods), then you had a metaphysical stage (where people explained the things around them by abstract principles like (natural law or 'because it is reasonable')) and finaly you have the positivistic-scientific stage (where people stopped using abstract theories, and went to the facts and used empirical sciences). This reading of history might be attractive, but this implies that, briefly, people used to be stupid and went smart. However, there is no particular reason why this change suddenly occured. What happened? Was there a mastermind who 'discovered' that one can actually look at the world to prove stuff and not just invent some farfetched theory? This seems rather implausible (Aristotle already did that). Rather what seemed to have happened was a radical change of perspective: our ideas about truth, knowledge and life changed and so made modern science possible (but why did they?).
Traditional religions, seen from this new way of looking at the world, look rather stupid, mostly because this is, in their own terms, a strange way of looking at it. Questions like 'what is the empirical proof for God or miracle X or Y' is in a way a nonintelligible question (in religious terms). Of course religion is not without some claims about what is true or what isn't, but it is not about whether they can and are empirically proven. Think about this: one doesn't have to know the bible by heart to be a christian, neither one who does is by definition a good christian. Religion is not an empirical hypothesis, and to threat it like that, is in a way mistreating it. Or to put it by some words of Paul Feyerabend (name dropping, once again):
"If Aphrodite exists, and if she has the properties and idiosyncrasies ascribed to her, then she certainly will not sit still for something as silly and demeaning as a test of reproducible effects." Sorry if this is a little detour, but I think this is an important point.
(once more, this whole talk is not about what is true and what is not, but is about what that means, to be true)(b) Since, once again, I'm making too long posts. I'll be brief on the second one. It is a noble idea that one has to focus on family, friends and to make them happy, create your own religion, think for yourselves. But isn't this a bit too individualistic? I mean, this seem to leave open the possibility that all care for themselves (and their relatives) and not about the society as a whole. How to solve economic or environmental crisis (collective problems) when following this idea(l)? Isn't religion or tradition a need if you want to have a real community? (a real question, not rhetorical)
You don't have to answer this (but reading it seems like a good idea), you can also say: Tau shutup, and I will. 
)