Is this a fact or not?

You have probably observed, organized religions whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism have utterly failed. They have become a mass of superstition, rituals, utterly meaningless.

Though religions, established religions, the Christian world, the Hindu world and perhaps there is slightly modified in Buddhism and Islam, this idea, this concept, this belief that you are an individual separate from all the rest of mankind.

The Christian, the Buddhist, the Hindu, Islam. And they all talk about god. Right? So these and perhaps others are the causes of war. And you, as a Hindu or a Christian or whatever it is, are responsible for the wars. Right? Because in yourself you are divided. Agree? Do you see this fact? As long as I am a Hindu, committed to certain tradition and following some, if you will excuse me, some silly gods, playing with toys called gods. I, as a Hindu, am responsible for creating conflict amongst human beings. Right? Is this a fact or not?

Re: Is this a fact or not?

right. it was Islam or Christianity who told America to drop bomb on Japan. Religions might have their share in wars but dumping everything on religion is not fair at all.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

u rather say the people FAILED their religions...the other way around is not fair, is not true and it shows the lack of understanding on part of the followers of that particular religion.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

Peace rajey

You have claimed:

a) Organised religion has utterly failed
b) They have become meaningless (and you infer that rituals are meaningless and some ideas you say are superstitions)
c) All religious people talk about God
d) These and others are the causes of war (others? who are others?)
e) Religious are responsible for wars because religious people separate themselves from members of other religions

So you are claiming contradictory beliefs cause conflict ...

You are not entirely correct here ...

If you study all religions you will see that there is a common intent to preserve the interest of oneself and help others preserve theirs too. Some religions have problematic beliefs but it is wrong to say all religions are like this.

For example ... the authentic Jewish religion required the chosen race - i.e. the Jews to be representatives and show mankind how to behave and worship God. They abused this duty and turned it into a right to abuse others and treat them in a subhuman manner.

However some religions which are not based on true scripture such as Satanism or movements like Hedonism are based problematic principles which will cause conflict. For example if a religion says that when a follower becomes 16 years old the male must sacrifice a virgin. Then according to most laws this would be murder.

On the other side of the coin if Islam says that alcohol is prohibited then all the alcohol consuming people will shun this religion on the grounds that it makes forbidden that what is harmful and poisonous. - Where is the fun in that? Hey? Religious law can create conflict in those people who do not wish to follow it. Some religions that have laws against the society but favour the individuals are ethically problematic and will cause conflict.

But you see the secular laws can also cause conflict for the same reasons. People have started wars for reasons of resisting higher taxation. On the other hand if a religion states that it is a great virtue to respect other people who have different faiths and to look after them if they are you neighbours then how can we blame religion for all conflict?

Islam teaches us to love creation - that includes Hindus, Christians, animals and even the objects that don't have life like we do. I'm sure the pure scriptures will always be for the benefit of mankind.

Then we ask the question - according to Mahabarata - the great dialogue in the Baghwad Gita - between the cheiftain Arjun and his blessed advisor Krshn. That war is sometimes necessary when it means stopping an evil from spreading.

Would you rather have no conflict no war and have people oppressed or consumed or would you require people to stand up for their rights?

Re: Is this a fact or not?

To simplify my response:

1) Contradictory beliefs should not have to cause conflict, but where it can be encouraged, tolerance, understanding and acceptance should prevail.

2) Is the basis for all evil ... war? Does this mean that where there is no war there is no evil?

Re: Is this a fact or not?

At least credit the actual speaker/author for their text before you start Copy/Pasting mate.

http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1981/1981-01-24-jiddu-krishnamurti-1st-public-talk

Re: Is this a fact or not?

Even not having a religion is in itself a religion. Any thought , idea , ideology , philosophy, paradox, theory , scientific fact, axiom , assumption which binds people together and act in unison is a religion.
Now one can believe in any of the above or disagree and disagreement creates resentment , hatred , argument and in turn it can result in a civilized debate , heated discussion or war.
Hence religion is not be blamed but it is humans who should take the blame for any misgivings at the part of humans against other humans. Right ?
If you disagree then you are starting and argument which can lead to a war.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

No, believing in any thing like that is not a religion. Your argument is highly flawed. A religion is inherently defined while atheism is not and nor are any of those words you have mentioned.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

That is what you believe in , I believe in that atheism , or any ism is a religion. Any belief system is religion.
The beliefs of atheists and agnostics are that there is or is not a God and ethics do not necessarily matter. So they are a religion.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

You're allowed to think that and I still think you've got your philosophy all wrong.

Atheism is not a belief system. There are no defined rules, no rewards or punishments, no clergy, no texts, etc. And if you say there is a religion that does not have those, than it is no longer defined as a religion and in that case we can all stop discussing this issue because its pointless. About the only thing two atheists have with one another is their belief that there does not exist a single supreme being.

Okay I don't want to derail the thread because we're going down an entirely different course. If you do wish to post such views, you can do so in another thread.

AlhamdliAllah I am a Muslim (A very imperfect one) but I don't lump words together just because they make me feel comfortable.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

Rajey: a minor correction, Hinduism or Buddhism are not organized religions at all. There are no hierarchies , there is no central body or an authorized group that gives a final decree in case of confusion. Like it is popularly believed that Hinduism is not a religion at all.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

I think your understanding of organised religion is flawed.

An organised religion is one with a semblance of structure and a set of rules and dogmas. Yeah, sure enough as we move on in time a lot of religions are moulded and altered to better fit thoughts and philosophies people want in their lives. So I'm afraid any religion these days is an organised religion.

Are there one of more Gods? Yes
Is there a set of rules that determines an eventuality? Yes
Are there customs, rituals and traditions? Yes
Are there rights and wrongs or moral codes? Yes
Is there a clergy or preachers? Yes
Will doing or not doing something cause you to leave the fold? Yes

Anything that falls under the above is an organised religion.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

Just to clarify, most agnostics do believe in God, they just don't follow any organised religion.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

you are confusing atheists and agnostics with anarchists. atheists and agnostics don't think ethics do not matter. they don't believe in it being something unquestionable or inexplicable.

as for whether atheism is a religion, semantics aside, it is hardly a religion, there is no codified dogma, there is no mutually agreed idea of lifestyle.. the only thing that is common among atheists is disbelief in a supernatural being.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

My understanding of an organized religion is the one like a govt. there is hierarchy, it is centralized and there are guidelines to follow. and a common men cannot add anything to it because it is not in its rights.
Plus in an organized religion there is a set of beliefs that you must follow or atleast accept to be true in order to be a part of that religion.
In fact i think every religion is organized if you consider religion as a western civilization concept. In dharmic sense we dont have concept of religion similar to what they have in abhramic religions.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

there are a lot of wars caused by religion but there are a lots of wards caused by other factors as well such as material benefits, women, ego, territorial expansion etc.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

Religion has not failed. In my humble opinion it is people that keep failing the religion.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

Well good man, your understand is erroneous. Hinduism has all that on a micro-level so its all well to say you believe in Hinduism being X Y and Z but its another to ignore how everyone else follows it.

Re: Is this a fact or not?

Hey don't get into a war about whether atheism is a religion or not ...

Re: Is this a fact or not?

Since you're so obsessed with hierarchies, how would you illustrate an Islamic organisational chart?