Here we go again

[communistworkethic]

why does no religion = anarchy? Is China anarchy? Was USSR anarchy? Take the flawed economics out of the equation, both are non-religion based societies neither was anarchy.

Bhuddism, Russian Orthodox, Chritianity, Judasim and Islam in both? How are they non-religion based?

the societies and their laws are not based on the teachings of those religions, societies don't need religions to function

[TANGODANCER]

So you are making the argument for religion, any religion, as an instrument of social control now Tango?

Not at all, belive in what you will, or nothing at all, but without the contexts of a supreme being and right and wrong, the world would be bedlam. All in my opinion of course.

[TANGODANCER]

why does no religion = anarchy? Is China anarchy? Was USSR anarchy? Take the flawed economics out of the equation, both are non-religion based societies neither was anarchy.

Bhuddism, Russian Orthodox, Chritianity, Judasim and Islam in both? How are they non-religion based?

the societies and their laws are not based on the teachings of those religions, societies don't need religions to function

Nevertheless, China has more than 1500 Taoist temples, 13,000 Buddhist temples,30,000 mosques, 4,600 Catholic Churches, 12,000 protestant Churches and 25,000 places of other Protestant places of worship. Someone obviously thinks a bit of religion helps.

And as for Russia:

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/45.html

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Oooooh how great!!!!

I'd love to be able to lick my own stamp!!!!!!

Well that would be a spectacle.

Good work Bish, how did you make those?

I didn't - you can generate them here

http://www.stampitout.wildjelly.com/do.html

- a whole morning of awesome time-wasting fun... it even made me put my bone down - (but I think Tango has picked it up!!)

That page won't open for me at all.

[thebish]

So you are making the argument for religion, any religion, as an instrument of social control now Tango?

Not at all, belive in what you will, or nothing at all, but without the contexts of a supreme being and right and wrong, the world would be bedlam. All in my opinion of course.

I'm not sure that's a good description - and I am sure the use of the word "anarchy" was ill-advised..

however..

It is often said that "if only we could get rid of religion, the world would be a better place.."

The problem is that "religion" is replaced with another "ism" - it might be a political theory or a socio-economic theory, whatever -

it does seem that humankind is basically a "societal" species - we feel the need to group together. Nations, creeds, religions... you name it - we find countless ways to define ourselves as groups.

if we lost religions - some problems would be sorted out - that's for sure - (aside: losing religions isn't the same as losing God, before anyone gets carried away!!) but I digress..

if we lost religions - we would still have the urge to group ourselves and define ourselves. I don't think political isms are any more or less prone to corruption than religions are - all of them are essentially human-made constructs - and so they are prone to the fundamental weakness which is that they involve humans...

communism, stalinism, socialism, thatcherism, sciencism, christianity, secularism, buddhism, americanism, nationalism...

whichever you pick - even if you pick more than one - because of the involvement of humans - they'll stuff it up...

(spot the essentially pessimistic view of humanity - I guess that's the post-modern side of me coming out. The "modern" side would have still been so excited by the prospect of science and technology solving all the world's ills - another false God that turned out to be....)

religions are flawed and they get stuffed up because they have humans in them - so is communism (not that they are pure alternatives) and secularism..

if you ever find the perfect "ism" don't join it - you'll only ruin it...

[TANGODANCER]

The world revolves around but two "isms": goodism and baddism and the eternal struggle between them. Back to the Yin and the Yang.

Anarchy is defined as "Lawlessness and confusion" both fall under the baddism for me, ill-defined or no.

[communistworkethic]

why does no religion = anarchy? Is China anarchy? Was USSR anarchy? Take the flawed economics out of the equation, both are non-religion based societies neither was anarchy.

Bhuddism, Russian Orthodox, Chritianity, Judasim and Islam in both? How are they non-religion based?

the societies and their laws are not based on the teachings of those religions, societies don't need religions to function

Nevertheless, China has more than 1500 Taoist temples, 13,000 Buddhist temples,30,000 mosques, 4,600 Catholic Churches, 12,000 protestant Churches and 25,000 places of other Protestant places of worship. Someone obviously thinks a bit of religion helps.

And as for Russia:

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/45.html

it's all irrelevant. right and wrong need not be set by religion and the laws of those countries are not linked to any of those religions, as societies they could function without them

[thebish]

if that floats your boat - then fine - but it wouldn't float mine..

I know way too many good people* who profess no religion to be so bold....

*(some of them on this Forum!)

[InsaneApache]

Well I don't believe in a Supreme Being and it hasn't skewed my moral compass. It's not necessary to 'get' god in order to know the right from wrong. Thats just a whole heap of hubris in my opinion.

[mofgimmers]

This is still bloody interesting reading after 7 pages... that's astonishing in itself! It is great to see a Bolton Wanderers forum trying to work out some kind of solution to a question that has had many scholars scratching their heads for millions of years.

Bloomin' marvellous!

Who says Wanderers' fans aren't ambitious?

Anyway...

... I believe in no God and no religion. Sometimes I wished I did so I could understand the devotion... but you can't fake that sort of thing can you? I don't follow any kind of group of thought... I just go with what I believe is right. There are those who would say that it's God who gave me that 'knowing', whereas I'd like to give myself credit for working it out for myself...

... it's back to the nature or nurture thing again!

[TANGODANCER]

it's all irrelevant. right and wrong need not be set by religion and the laws of those countries are not linked to any of those religions, as societies they could function without them

But right and wrong in the accepted sense 'were' defined by the Bible, the Torrah and the Koran. Up to then, who defined what? Okay, its only been 1700 years or so, but right and wrong as we now know them are the foundations of modern society and set out by religion.

[thebish]

it's all irrelevant. right and wrong need not be set by religion and the laws of those countries are not linked to any of those religions, as societies they could function without them

But right and wrong in the accepted sense 'were' defined by the Bible, the Torrah and the Koran. Up to then, who defined what? Okay, its only been 1700 years or so, but right and wrong as we now know them are the foundations of modern society and set out by religion.

no they aren't... much of the Old Testament was copied (and that's not to disparage it - why reinvent the wheel?) from other codes.. the Assyrian Hamurabai(sp?) code f'rinstance...

[communistworkethic]

it's all irrelevant. right and wrong need not be set by religion and the laws of those countries are not linked to any of those religions, as societies they could function without them

But right and wrong in the accepted sense 'were' defined by the Bible, the Torrah and the Koran. Up to then, who defined what? Okay, its only been 1700 years or so, but right and wrong as we now know them are the foundations of modern society and set out by religion.

No they weren't. and it is possibly one of the most arrogant statements on behalf of Christianity I think I've heard in a long time. Firstly it presupposes that Abrahamic religions are responsible for what everyone now thinks of as right and wrong. In that first instance I'd suggest anyone in the far east might wish to point out that their religions and philosphies pre-date Abrhamic doctines by several thousand years yet they seemed to do ok on their own.

Secondly, it suggest you believe the world to have been archy before these religions came about. Which is nonsense.

And thirdly, it supposes that nobody had ever had the same concepts of right and wrong before Moses pops up with a couple of stone tablets he knocked up and passed off as the word of God.

[enfieldwhite]

The thing is, our God is a just and loving God.

He allows this debate, as we have free will. To deter us from this path of seeking awareness and truth would cause the collapse of the world he created.

Carry on.

[communistworkethic]

The thing is, our God is a just and loving God.

He allows this debate, as we have free will. To deter us from this path of seeking awareness and truth would cause the collapse of the world he created.

Carry on.

But surely he doesn't allow it what with those commandments?? Aren't we, who don't believe, going straight to hell? That is of course unless we're Catholic non-believers whereby we can admit it to a priest, say 3 Hail Marys and 7 Our Fathers and we're forgiven.

[enfieldwhite]

The thing is, our God is a just and loving God.

He allows this debate, as we have free will. To deter us from this path of seeking awareness and truth would cause the collapse of the world he created.

Carry on.

But surely he doesn't allow it what with those commandments?? Aren't we, who don't believe, going straight to hell? That is of course unless we're Catholic non-believers whereby we can admit it to a priest, say 3 Hail Marys and 7 Our Fathers and we're forgiven.

I was being sarcastic, but I will take up your point.

The Commandments are not firewalls, they are guides as to what you should and shouldn't do. We have the choice as to whether we adhere to them or not.

The issue of Heaven and Hell has long intrigued me. I have been taught from a very long time that if I sin and truly repent, I will enter the kingdom of heaven. Those who knowingly sin and do not repent will be cast into hell. Yet my God is an all benevolent being and full of forgiveness. My God is a vengeful God who will smite the unbeliever.

Confused? You should be.

My solace is that I am a good person.

I do unto others as I would have done unto me. This is my creed and if someone IS watching and decides to reward me for it, then bring it on. If no-one is watching and I turn to worm food, then at least I would have made the world a better place to be in my small way.

[TANGODANCER]

And thirdly, it supposes that nobody had ever had the same concepts of right and wrong before Moses pops up with a couple of stone tablets he knocked up and passed off as the word of God.

So, the Ten Commandments were "knocked up by Moses and passed off as the word of God"? In such a statement to a Christian lies the futility of carrying this further. Go back as far as you like and show me all the good of the old so-called deities who demanded human sacrifice and stoned each other to death etc etc. The maybe you can explain to me about how apes evolved into what we are today. Tell me also how the more recent of these old deities all looked to the coming of a Saviour who only materialised in Jesus Christ. The sole purpose of Jesus's birth was to atone for the sins of the world. That is the creed Christians live by. I respect your right to believe what you will, but, not to believe it, not to be a Christian. I am one.

You see, what we now have here is a direct conflict of interest in whether there actually is a God or whether there isn't. The ability to prove that is way beyond anyone. That's why Christianity is based on faith. If we had proof there would be no doubt. Further argument seems as futile as telling a Blackburn fan he should support Bolton, or visa-versa.

[InsaneApache]

Well in debates such as the religion one, I find the use of Ockhams Razor to be of great benefit.

[Lennon]

Go back as far as you like and show me all the good of the old so-called deities who demanded human sacrifice and stoned each other to death etc etc.

Your 'god' also condones ethnic cleansing, rape, incest, and a whole host of other atrocities. Or have you conveniently dismissed these parts of the scriptures?

You're ONE small step away from reality! You've already discounted all the other "gods", why not go one further and competely free your mind of these nonsense myths?

[enfieldwhite]

Well in debates such as the religion one, I find the use of Ockhams Razor to be of great benefit.

In accordance with your lex parsimoniae, then:

In't God brilliant?!