Do we need a religion to believe in God?

[Ashikaga]

....Organized religions are fundamentally flawed because they are organizations of men, who are imperfect. This imperfection is hard to reconcile with the personal perfection which is the aim of most religions. Human/animal desires corrupt the perfection which religion aspires to, making most churches little different than ordinary businesses or governments.
Many people blame religion for much of the trouble which occurs or has occurred in the world. This blame is misplaced. Fundamentally, religion is supposed to lead us to peace and understanding. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, religions are organizations of men, and religious principles have been bent or outright broken when men use them as a tool to further their own personal ambitions or desires.
The perfection which religion aspires to transcends the natural class system, which is the most unique thing about it. Most people do not understand the true nature and aim of religion, they only hear the man-made dogma. Religion is not something which discriminates, restricts, or restrains, it is something which sets you free.

Whose definition of "religion" are we going with? Is "the true nature and aim of religion" something that had existed BEFORE "religions as organizations of men"? I thought religion itself was a man-made dogma. If it were not, where would one go to learn the true nature and aim of religion?

When the very meaning of the word RELIGION can be interpreted at least several different ways, I find it very hard to follow some of the posts here unless we first define what we mean exactly with the terms we are using here.

 

[Frontman]

Whose definition of "religion" are we going with? Is "the true nature and aim of religion" something that had existed BEFORE "religions as organizations of men"? I thought religion itself was a man-made dogma. If it were not, where would one go to learn the true nature and aim of religion?
When the very meaning of the word RELIGION can be interpreted at least several different ways, I find it very hard to follow some of the posts here unless we first define what we mean exactly with the terms we are using here.

Religion could best be described as a belief system based upon certain principles and virtues. Regardless of their outward appearances, most religions do share the same basic principles.

I once read a Buddhist quote which said that followers should try to "find the fundamental" source. This source is the undiluted principle upon which religions are based.

This source is the "perfection" which I wrote of in my previous posts. It exists in everything. It is the reason behind the madness, it is both the cause and the effect. The world is not evil or flawed, it is exactly the way it is supposed to be.

The world is how we see it, and what we make of it. The true exercise of "religion" is the practice of virtue. We should strive to improve ourselves, to seek the perfection upon which all life has as it's foundation. Improving ourselves, by extension, improves our surroundings, and makes the world a better place.

Organized religions "sell" salvation. Churches profit upon fear and superstition, calling their congregations "flocks" (an ironic term if there ever was one). The parishioners are sheep, the priest is the shepherd. The shepherd protects his flock, but for a fee. He uses the parishioner's fear and superstition to keep them within the flock, and to keep them putting money into the collection plate.

I can't find fault with much of the work which churches do. I've been to the third world and seen the schools, hospitals, and public works projects which are financed by the money which people donate to their churches.

But the parishioners should not remain as sheep. By exercising virtue, and seeking to improve themselves, they would eventually become like shepherds themselves. But then what would become of the priests? If people lived virtuous lives, what need would there be for priests and religion?

What is "salvation"? The saving of a soul? A guarantee to eternal life in heaven? And, if so, what is the alternative? Eternity in hell?

Heaven and hell are not places which exist in any kind of afterlife. They exist here and now. Your life can be heaven or hell, depending upon the choices you make. Everyone is given the ability to choose, and it is this ability which makes man unique in the world.

Eternal life exists, but each of us is dealt only a small part of it. Some of us will get a bigger piece, some will get a smaller one, but all pieces are equally significant. An entire life can be summed up in a single action, it's not how much life we have, but what we do with the amount of it we are given.

 

[Ashikaga]

Religion could best be described as a belief system based upon certain principles and virtues. Regardless of their outward appearances, most religions do share the same basic principles.

I see.

I once read a Buddhist quote which said that followers should try to "find the fundamental" source.

OK. I see that you've read that somewhere. Good. Now, you follow that with

This source is the undiluted principle upon which religions are based.

Whose words are THESE?

This source is the "perfection" which I wrote of in my previous posts. It exists in everything. It is the reason behind the madness, it is both the cause and the effect. The world is not evil or flawed, it is exactly the way it is supposed to be.

..and THESE?

The world is how we see it, and what we make of it. The true exercise of "religion" is the practice of virtue. We should strive to improve ourselves, to seek the perfection upon which all life has as it's foundation. Improving ourselves, by extension, improves our surroundings, and makes the world a better place.

...and THESE?

Heaven and hell are not places which exist in any kind of afterlife. They exist here and now. Your life can be heaven or hell, depending upon the choices you make. Everyone is given the ability to choose, and it is this ability which makes man unique in the world.

Eternal life exists, but each of us is dealt only a small part of it. Some of us will get a bigger piece, some will get a smaller one, but all pieces are equally significant. An entire life can be summed up in a single action, it's not how much life we have, but what we do with the amount of it we are given.

It is a beautiful sentiment and all... but how does that relate to the question of "Do we need religions to believe in God"? I don't think we are to discuss if we can live virtuous lives without religions, or are we? I don't know... I am still confused myself as to what that question really mean. Does it mean if we need to to belong to some organized religion in order to believe in God?

I just wanted to have certain terms that appear over and over in the posts clearly defined so everyone participating would be on the same page.

I really don't know what we should do as the OP is nowehere to be found to answer any questions.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Apologies that this post is somewhat offtopic...

Everyone is given the ability to choose, and it is this ability which makes man unique in the world.

I would rather say "everyone has some ability to choose". Don't forget that our ability to choose, assuming we have it at all, is limited. There are obvious physical restrictions; neither of us can fly to the Moon tomorrow. But I think there are more subtle limitations, that nevertheless restrict us in much the same way. I'm thinking of things like genes, brain chemistry and circumstances. Daniel Dennett explains it well:

You can't choose who your parents are, you can't choose what culture you belong to, and you can't even choose your kindergarten teacher.

Also, I'd rather leave out the word "given", as it implies some intention, like some higher being meant for us to have free will.

Dennett agrees with you that only humans have the ability to choose. I'm not convinced of his reasoning there; guess I will have to read his book Freedom Evolves. Anyone read it?

Eternal life exists, but each of us is dealt only a small part of it. Some of us will get a bigger piece, some will get a smaller one, but all pieces are equally significant.

I'm not sure of the sense in which you mean eternal life here. I guess when you're talking about bigger pieces and smaller pieces you're talking about lifespans. I'm not sure why an individual's lifespan should be considered part of any "eternal life".

An entire life can be summed up in a single action,

I certainly hope not! I dread to think which action can be used to sum up my life so far! :?

 

[Frontman]

It is a beautiful sentiment and all... but how does that relate to the question of "Do we need religions to believe in God"? I don't think we are to discuss if we can live virtuous lives without religions, or are we? I don't know... I am still confused myself as to what that question really mean. Does it mean if we need to to belong to some organized religion in order to believe in God?
I just wanted to have certain terms that appear over and over in the posts clearly defined so everyone participating would be on the same page.
I really don't know what we should do as the OP is nowehere to be found to answer any questions.

The best kind of conversation is one that is able to grow on it's own, even if it was begun by one who has long since died.

I realize that my previous posts tend to go off the point, but I'm using this thread as a method of evolving and consolidating my thoughts on the matter. My points are my own, they are the result of my own personal thoughts and reflections, combined with my own life's experiences.

Before we can determine if we need religion to believe in God, we must come to some understanding of what God is. Einstein was not a fundamentally religious man, but he never questioned the existence of God.

I got a taste of many religions while growing up. I was raised as a Baptist, and then at the age of 12 I began attending Jehovah's witnesses meetings. I wasn't a believer of any type, but I enjoyed having conversations about religion with members of the congregation.

My family then moved to California, and I became a Boy Scout. The only Boy Scout chapter in the area was located in a Catholic church. Each meeting began with the Lord's Prayer and taking communion; I was fascinated by these rituals. I had many long talks with the old priest, who was thankfully a good and wise man.

After awhile, my interest in the scouts waned. I began studying martial arts while in high school, first karate, and then kendo. It was while studying kendo that I got my first taste of Buddhism and Eastern philosophy. I read the usual books about Bushido, Zen Buddhism, The Art of War, and anything else that I could find which was printed in English. I was more fascinated by the philosophy behind the martial arts than I was in the practice of them. Nevertheless, I earned the level of Sho-dan in my senior year in high school.

After finishing high school, I spent a year working on a cattle farm in the San Joaquin Valley in central California. Then I entered the University of New Mexico and began studying journalism.

Unfortunately for me, I had to pay for my own tuition, and before long I ran out of money. I enlisted in the Army for 4 years, and was stationed in North Carolina. I was trained as a medic, and was assigned to an airborne unit. While in the Army, I traveled to the Caribbean, Africa, and the middle-east.

Also while in the Army, I resumed college, this time at the University of North Carolina, majoring in literature. I earned my bachelors degree the same year my enlistment ended. I then moved to South Florida, and became a police officer.

Though my active duty enlistment had ended, I had a 2 year commitment to complete in the reserves. During the second year I was deployed to the middle-east once again. During this time I made a good friend named Nassar. He was one of the many thousands of Saudi princes who live around the world, but he had, for some reason, enlisted in the American Army. We would spend time on watch discussing world events and religion, particularly Islam. Nassar was a genuinely compassionate person, and if there were more Muslims like him, I might have been tempted to convert.

My deployment ended, and I returned to working in South Florida. Honestly, I preferred military life in the middle east than working law enforcement in the ghettos of Miami. I began to dislike my job, and I had never liked living in South Florida. Those reasons, combined with a few personal ones somehow led me to living and working in Japan now.

I've had an interesting life, but one not without regrets. I've often asked myself (and others) what it is all about. I often questioned the existence of God, when everything I saw seemed to contradict His existence. I've seen the dead and dying up close, and, with the scent of death lingering in my nostrils, I wondered why it was that God allowed them to die.

But then I realized that it wasn't God's hand that killed them, but man's. A man who had surrendered to his animal-like nature, one who had denied God's existence in himself.

I don't see God as a fearsome, white-haired and bearded man carrying a thunderbolt in his hand. I see him as the light of reason, the origin and the destination of life.

I remember the last paragraph from Musashi's book, which said something like this: "in the void there is virtue, and no evil. Principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness".

 

[Frontman]

Apologies that this post is somewhat offtopic...
I would rather say "everyone has some ability to choose". Don't forget that our ability to choose, assuming we have it at all, is limited. There are obvious physical restrictions; neither of us can fly to the Moon tomorrow. But I think there are more subtle limitations, that nevertheless restrict us in much the same way. I'm thinking of things like genes, brain chemistry and circumstances. Daniel Dennett explains it well:
Also, I'd rather leave out the word "given", as it implies some intention, like some higher being meant for us to have free will.
Dennett agrees with you that only humans have the ability to choose. I'm not convinced of his reasoning there; guess I will have to read his book Freedom Evolves. Anyone read it?
I'm not sure of the sense in which you mean eternal life here. I guess when you're talking about bigger pieces and smaller pieces you're talking about lifespans. I'm not sure why an individual's lifespan should be considered part of any "eternal life".
I certainly hope not! I dread to think which action can be used to sum up my life so far! :?

Of course we can't choose our parents or our kindergarten teachers. Those choices aren't given to us to make. But at a certain point in time our lives we begin to make our choices independently.

There is nothing genetic or chemical about making choices. Look where you are in life right now. Your current situation in life is the sum result of the choices you (and your parents) have made up until that point. Is this not so?

I use the word "given" because I believe that it was something that we were, in fact, given. Who gave it to us? I don't know yet.

As for Dennet, I've never heard of him. To me the notion is common sense. Too much thinking about something is as much a fault as not thinking about it enough.

Life is eternal, hence the term "eternal life". Our own lives, short as they are, are part of life in general. One's life can be summed up in a single event, the saving of another life, or in the accomplishment of something great. Is it better to have a long and uneventful life than to have one which was short and meaningful?

 

[Bellevance]

Frontman writes:
Life is eternal, hence the term "eternal life". Our own lives, short as they are, are part of life in general. One's life can be summed up in a single event, the saving of another life, or in the accomplishment of something great. Is it better to have a long and uneventful life than to have one which was short and meaningful?

To the extent that anyone's life has meaning, everyone's life has meaning. The usefulness, or value, of one's life is another matter.

Whether life is eternal is another question--and a huge one. (The term "eternal life" refers to the mythical notion of an "afterlife," wherein the natural, biological limits to any being's individual life may be magically overcome.) By all the existing evidence, it would seem that life is not eternal, but the answer is unknowable. Life on this planet began at a certain distant point many millions of years ago. Whether life exists or has existed elsewhere is not yet known, but recent discoveries on nearby Mars suggest that extraterrestrial life may be a common phenomenon. Did life exist before the big bang? There is no way for us to know.

As to the question of whether people need an organized religion to believe in a god, the answer is that people do not. Many people who do not belong to any faith group find comfort in the notion of a creator or a god-spirit that may be thought of as the essence of existence, or the essential cause of existence.

Religion, however, does promulgate and inculcate belief in the supernatural. Everyone is born an atheist. That is, everyone is born without theistic belief. Depending almost entirely on where and when a person is born, he or she is likely to be indoctrinated into one of the currently dominant belief systems. That's how most people today acquire a belief in a god.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Sorry, I'm taking this thread even further off topic...

There is nothing genetic or chemical about making choices. Look where you are in life right now. Your current situation in life is the sum result of the choices you (and your parents) have made up until that point. Is this not so?

Making a choice is a mental process, so it has a lot to do with genetics and brain chemicals. My current situation in life is not just the sum of the choices I have made or had made for me, but is also dependent on my initial state, which of course was largely genetically determined. In addition, I think that the content of all those choices has some genetic and chemical component, not just in the mental process of decision making itself, but also in the restrictions that genetics and brain chemicals place upon me each time I make a choice.

Here's an example. It seems to me that one of the most free choices I ever made was to study Mathematics and Philosophy at university. In fact, that choice was contingent on so much that had gone before. In part, it was contingent on previous choices I had made, such as studying A level Maths in sixth form. But it was also contingent on factors that had nothing to do with choice, such as the fact that I'm naturally good at Maths; there is strong evidence of a genetic component to mathematical ability.

 

[Pachipro]

Frontman, welcome to JREF and looking forward to your viewpoints especially since you are living in Japan.

First off, Frontman, and this goes for any and all newcomers, and is not a flame at anyone, if you knew anything about me or any long-term posters or have read any of my/their posts you would understand that my own thinking is not that far from yours. I just enjoy questioning religion as we are taught and led to believe based on the man-made bible and such and my post was based on a certain post and not a personal viewpoint/dogma. It is based on what someone else brought up and is NOT indicative of my thinking and viewpoint in that I only believe what I have posted in a particular thread. I enjoy tweaking people and inciting further debate and I know where Mars Man is coming from. I just enjoy debate and taking the devils advocate position now and then. It is one of the many ways I think, especially when it comes to religion as you will come to know if you stick around.

Of course I know we are not that far removed from earthworms et al, and that "god" resides within all of us and that "'god' helps those that help themselves" blah, blah, blah. Therefore, please refrain from making generalizations or opinions based on one post. If the poster you are commenting on has many posts and has been around a while, please do a little research into where he/she is coming from before commenting on one particular post only.

Your viewpoint, along with the other "short-termers" is most welcome and I appreciate/look forward to it. Just understand the person you are commenting on first and it will make for a much more fruitful debate without the flaming and condecending attitude as you will find there are many who think along your lines, but enjoy a good debate and enjoy questioning "firm" beliefs and attitudes when it comes to the mainstream way of thinking. Thanks.