Successful Religion

Originally posted by stellspalfie
where did i say it was defective?

thus proving that gods designs are not perfect - your words

if its not perfect then it must be defective, how is it defective, fourth time asking.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thus proving that gods designs are not perfect - your words

if its not perfect then it must be defective, how is it defective, fourth time asking.

really? do you really believe what you have written? does it make sense to you? something is either perfect or defective? are there only two states for things to be in perfect of defective? come on robbie.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
really? do you really believe what you have written? does it make sense to you? something is either perfect or defective? are there only two states for things to be in perfect of defective? come on robbie.

defective

Adjective: Imperfect or faulty

lets ask you a fifth time, how is it defective.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
defective

Adjective: Imperfect or faulty

lets ask you a fifth time, how is it defective.

yes i know what it means. but for your argument to work i would have to accept that things in nature can be perfect in the first place. as i dont, then your black and white view that things are either perfect of defective do not apply.

now, have you finished inventing an argument to deflect from the issue?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
really.

Yes. I was leaving open the possibility that religion may serve the function of preventing an otherwise inevitable collapse into cultural materialism. But not your moldy, old Christianity, which is a dead end that has exhausted any usefulness it may have once had. What is needed for the new millennium is a new religion. Yes, my brethren, we need to embrace a new (wait for it) GAIAN PANTHEISM. Hah! Yes, brothers, that is what will bring us back from the precipice of self-annihilation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
defective

Adjective: Imperfect or faulty

lets ask you a fifth time, how is it defective.

okay to avoid things getting dragged into semantics, ill pretend i said it was defective and that i accept defective as way of describing nature.


it is defective because it has a set of eyes that cannot be used. other than being pointless. the eyes increase the amount of food and water the blind creature needs to survive. if god removed the eyes the animals life would be slightly easier.
if the skin covering the eyes was removed and sight restored. the animal would be able to use its eyes in the same way other mole rats do, mainly in securing their holes.

2 improvements on gods imperfect/defective design.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes. I was leaving open the possibility that religion may serve the function of preventing an otherwise inevitable collapse into cultural materialism. But not your moldy, old Christianity, which is a dead end that has exhausted any usefulness it may have once had. What is needed for the new millennium is a new religion. Yes, my brethren, we need to embrace ...[text shortened]... SM. Hah! Yes, brothers, that is what will bring us back from the precipice of self-annihilation.

meh you could be on to something, but I have every confidence that my God will bring
to ruin those tuining the earth, Rev:11:18

Originally posted by stellspalfie
okay to avoid things getting dragged into semantics, ill pretend i said it was defective and that i accept defective as way of describing nature.


it is defective because it has a set of eyes that cannot be used. other than being pointless. the eyes increase the amount of food and water the blind creature needs to survive. if god removed the eyes th ...[text shortened]... e rats do, mainly in securing their holes.

2 improvements on gods imperfect/defective design.

that's not a defect, its a modification and completely removing them would leave it
without the ability to utilise them if they need arose, you lose fatboy, admit it, God is
awesome and you suck.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have no need to question my beliefs, I have proven to myself time and again that Christianity is superior to every other mode of thought....

And yet you are not a "Christian" you are a Jehovah's Witness, despite the attempts at association by name.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that's not a defect, its a modification and completely removing them would leave it
without the ability to utilise them if they need arose, you lose fatboy, admit it, God is
awesome and you suck.

sorry, youve strayed to far into rj/dasa side of the crazy, fanatical side of the venn diagram.

adios.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have no need to question my beliefs, I have proven to myself time and again that
Christianity is superior to every other mode of thought and indeed when one asks the
materialist, with what will you replace it they have no answer. If you think that you can
improve upon Gods work, when in fact you cannot synthesise even a single blade of
gra ...[text shortened]... ional nature of the materialists stance and I
thank you for having proven it to me once again.

This is more or less on topic and so I would like to comment. The awe and respect for the coolness of nature that you describe is rather consistent with rwingett's Gaian Pantheism. He just does not see the need to posit an anthropomorphized guy in charge. Being in proper relation to Nature can be done and perhaps Christianity will eventually come to accept that this relationship is the one that matters. This would be a way for it to remain relevant in a world where theology is losing its battles for people's respect when its tenets deny such obvious things as the geological record and biological evolution.

To rwingett I would ask whether the comparison of gaian pantheism to religion offers any clues for how it should be promoted and made successful.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your best bet is to demonstrate how scientific materialism, by knocking the props out from under religion, necessarily devolves into cultural materialism. Although it is extremely important not to conflate the two uses of the word 'materialism', a case could be made that the one necessarily leads toward the other. Technicism, being the default lens through ...[text shortened]... gibberish ladled up from your moldy theological barrel (which is long past its sell by date).

A claim that you have not demonstrated, and is not true.

You keep waffling on about how 'a case could be made' and yet never actually make it.

And you keep creating straw men about science and scientists.

I defy you to come up with someone who cares more about the natural world and preserving
it than the scientist David Attenborough.

The only reason anyone knows about the damage we are doing to the environment and how
we could stop it is because of science and scientists.

The people calling loudest for fixing this are scientists.

The people with actual workable solutions for this are scientists.

The people who give a damn are scientists.

Your claim that science leads inexorably towards cultural materialism and destroying the environment
is not just wrong it's idiotic.

As is your suggestion that we need some bat guano crazy religion to prevent it.


Rationality, science and empathy are what's needed.

Irrational belief in anything is counter-productive, immoral, and dangerous.

Originally posted by googlefudge
A claim that you have not demonstrated, and is not true.

You keep waffling on about how 'a case could be made' and yet never actually make it.

And you keep creating straw men about science and scientists.

I defy you to come up with someone who cares more about the natural world and preserving
it than the scientist David Attenborough.

The on ...[text shortened]... at's needed.

Irrational belief in anything is counter-productive, immoral, and dangerous.

What irrational beliefs does pantheism advocate? Would you care to name a few?

Originally posted by JS357
This is more or less on topic and so I would like to comment. The awe and respect for the coolness of nature that you describe is rather consistent with rwingett's Gaian Pantheism. He just does not see the need to posit an anthropomorphized guy in charge. Being in proper relation to Nature can be done and perhaps Christianity will eventually come to accept tha aian pantheism to religion offers any clues for how it should be promoted and made successful.

Ringey's aspirations are fine.

I always relate this story, I was buying petroleum at what you guys call a gas
station, there was a group of students demonstrating against this particular oil
company's policy with regard to exploitation of areas of geographic interest, the
Antarctica I think it was. I asked a young lady what it was all about and she
explained and asked that I sign a petition. I asked her what the solution was and
she claimed political agitation. I asked her if she thought that God would allow it to
culminate to the point of no return and she stated that she was not going to sit
around and wait for God to do something, that was fifteen odd years ago. Has her
protests stopped the rapine of the earth's natural resources by greedy multinational
corporations? Why not? because there are greater forces at work than the
immediate. Economics is a monster, there is no country willing to sacrifice its
economy for the sake of the environment, none. Until we have solved problems
which are essentially spiritual in nature, greed, corruption, inequality, its futile to talk
of reason and rationality while the tree we are sitting under is on fire.

If you apply Christianity, as it was intended, there is no room for greed and
corruption, the problem is solved, but people don't want it. We are living in a
system which prises being the biggest and the most powerful, the greediest and the
richest as goals worthy of emulation. Hedonism is a virtue, amorality a freedom???
Its sick.

Christianity is relevant to people who apply its tenets, it does not need to appeal to
people on any other basis and scientific data is open to interpretation, one may also
cite the fossil record as proof or creationism and biological evolution explains
nothing about how life has arisen, it merely attempts to explain adaptation,
transmutation never having been proven and a whole host of other difficulties which
are insurmountable, the discontinuity of species by way of example, but its cited as
some kind of refutation of religion, when in fact, its nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by JS357
Karoly just posted something that raises these questions in my mind:

What are the characteristics that lead to a religion being successful?

What does "successful religion" mean?

Is it related to and does it depend on the goals of a religion?

If so, who decides the goals of a religion?

Can the success of a religion be determined my examination of ...[text shortened]... sess in the here and now)? IOW, how and when do we come to know that a religion is successful?

Other than what rwingett and Hand have said, I would add that I think violence is a big factor.
You cant teach people about the finer points of meditation while they are living in conditions where they always have to watch their backs and make sure they and their their families aren't killed.
If the world becomes peaceful the sutras can come to life.