the question of religion

It’s man-made. There is no observable evidence and no testable statements made in religion to consider it a part of the natural world. I think if God exists and intervenes in our world then we should be able to prove a presence because physical entities would be changed based on his will. If he does not intervene, then there is no proof for his existence beyond what our minds can conjure up and claim as proof. If it’s a ‘matter of faith’ then there are an infinite number of things that we can have a ‘matter of faith’ in – each one as probable as god. I can faithfully believe in unicorns, elephants that determine my destiny and the sentience of pencils – none of these can be disproved. The fact that people born in Christian societies are likely to become Christians and those born in Hindu societies likely to become Hindu, etc. show that your belief is a function not of free-thought or divine intervention; rather, your belief is a function of what adults in your society agree to make believe in. Why is Santa different than a Christian God? It’s a fairy-tale told to make people feel better about themselves. To claim that anyone has knowledge of what happens after death is ridiculous – that doesn’t mean that you err on the side of there being God because there is more evidence that sentience is a result of brain structure and that brain structure (proteins, enzymatic activities) stop at death and the atoms that make up our body decay back into the universe (which to me is WAY more beautiful and intriguing than religion/god).

Religion, the organization of systems of belief, definitely is man-made. I always wonder if, in modern society, if religious influences were removed then would people still come to the conclusion that there is god? Or would they follow a more humanistic way of living still following moral codes? Organization of people around a God is a good and easy way to manipulate the masses (See: Karl Marx, rhetoric used against US and against terrorists in the “War on Terror”) and to otherize whole groups of people.

I would check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZgT1SRcrKE
If you do end up looking at the rebuttals against this piece (which there are some) then please read the answer to the rebuttals.

Religion has been built on the observances and theories of philosophers. Those observances are of NATURE and human behaviour, which is natural in itself. The fundamental principle of religion is to inspire us to kindness toward each other because people have decided that kindness is a good thing, while hurting each other is a bad thing, and they came to this conclusion by way of another aspect of human nature, empathy.
So religion at its most basic principle is to inspire kindness toward each other, even when a religion does not have a diety, it is indentifiable by such a mark. Now when you get into the metaphysical aspects of religion, this was an attempt to merge conclusions drawn from observances of NATURE into this principle for motivating people toward kindness to each other.
All you can say really is that mataphysics is theories about what is going on here. Religion is simply empathy, knowing what pleasure and pain is and recognizing it in others, then prefering the pleasure as an ideal so you seek to give it to others as you would like them to reciprocate. But the threat of punishment and promise of reward was another way for those without empathy to be compelled to kindness, an appeal to greed and fear.
Then you have theocracy which is taking metaphysical beliefs and trying to use them to motivate kindness between people. One tool of that is as I said, the threat of punishment and the promise of reward but because constantly rewarding people was expensive and difficult, and punishing people was not always an option, the rewards and punishments catch up to you naturally by Karma or when you die the metaphysical being does it.
But then of course you always have authorities manipulating the definitions of what is right and wrong, for their own advantage, and this pisses people off so they hate the word “Religion” in general when it actually means to express the ideal of being kind to each other, even if it is to the point of coercion, but that coercion was only ever meant to be aimed at those who do not see the empathic logic of kindness.

@birdie, This has been talked about hundreds of times on here. Gets tiring.

I’m in a perfectionist mood, I said Theocracy when I should have said Theology, Theocracy is when you governmentize Theology, this is where you get the “Authorities” manipulating the definitions of morality.

@birdie, ?

@nicktett, absolutely!

obviously man made.

@flightfacilities has a point, me and my friends were discussing this recently and we came to the conclusion that at one point in are history there was a place for religion. However, in this day and age there is no longer a need for it. I came to the conclusion that only you can find what you truly believe, life is about constently growing and changing your views or staying in the same place its up to you.

All I can say is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Being close minded to religion is as bad as any form of ignorance. This site is supposed to be about a “High Existence” as in a “Higher Existence”. I’m not here to argue over life preferences. I have no disdain for religion, it inspires more good works than it does bad and the bad are usually extremist sects of any given religion anyways. Even atheism has extremist members.

@vivekhash345, Osho became corrupt in the latter part of his life. Despite it all he is one of only two individuals whose entire works have been committed to the Parliament in New Delhi.

you can read witness account of his controversial life here: http://meditation-handbook.50webs.com/osho2.html

“Enlightenment is not something you own; it is something you channel.

Whatever term you use for the phenomena of enlightenment, it is scientifically accurate to say that no human being has any power of their own. Even the chemical energy of our metabolism is borrowed from the sun, which beams light to the earth, which is then converted by plants through photosynthesis into the food we eat. You may get your bread from the supermarket, but the caloric energy it contains originated from thermonuclear reactions deep in the center of a nearby star. Our physical bodies run on star power. Any “spiritual” energy we channel also comes from far beyond, from all sides of the universe, from the complete TES (Time-Energy-Space), from beyond the oceans of galaxies, and onto infinity. No human being owns the Atman, and no one can speak for the TES.

The Void has no ambition or personality whatsoever, so Rajneesh could only speak for his own animal mind. The animal mind may want its disciples to “take over the whole world,” but the Void does not care because it is beyond any motivation. The phenomena we called Rajneesh, Bhagwan, and Osho, was only a temporary lens of cosmic energy, not the full cosmos itself.

Rajneesh, and the famous Greek-Armenian mystic George Gurdjieff, often used the power of the Atman for clearly personal gain. Both men used their cosmic consciousness to overwhelm and seduce women. Gurdjieff was ashamed of his behavior and vowed many times during his life to end this practice, which was a combination of ordinary male lust backed up by the potent advantage of oceanic super-mental power. Rajneesh went even further and used his channeled cosmic energy to manipulate masses of people to gain a kind of quasi-political status, and to aggrandize himself far beyond what was honest or helpful to his disciples. In Oregon, Rajneesh declared to the media that “My religion is the only religion!” Diplomacy and modesty were not his strong points.”

and yet still! “These brilliant insights will benefit all those who yearn for experiential
knowledge of the field of pure potentiality inherent in every human being.
This book belongs on the shelf of every library and in the home of all those
who seek knowledge of the higher self.”
- Deepak Chopra, author of Ageless Body, Timeless Mind; Quantum Healing and
Unconditional Life on Osho’s Book “From Medication to Meditation”

“Enlightened people like Osho are ahead of their times. It is good that more and more young people are now reading his works.”
- K. R. Narayanan, former president of India

“Through my friend Deepak Chopra I came across Osho’s books which gave me an
other deeper shift in my life. I regret I did not met him in person, and I feel sorry the US Government missed such an opportunity back in 86.”
- Madonna, Singer and Performer

We are taught from out very childhood to make a name in the world, to become famous, well-known, successful, a prime minister or a president, a Nobel prize winner – but somebody special, somebody. Every child is poisoned with the idea of being somebody, and the reality is we are all nobodies. And the reality is tremendously beautiful! Just being nobody brings such joy and ecstasy that one cannot even imagine it. Fame brings nothing. It is a very stupid game, very childish and immature.

My definition of real achievement is that which cannot be taken away by death. Anything that can be taken away by death is not a real achievement but only a pseudo achievement, toys to play with.

Become a nobody from this moment and enjoy the freedom that it brings. Become anonymous and see the joy! There is no worry, no anxiety. Because there is no ego you don’t feel hurt. Nothing can hurt you. Somebody can insult you and you can stand there watching and enjoying it because there is nobody inside you to feel hurt, there is nobody to be wounded. You can enjoy and laugh.

The day a man can enjoy and laugh while he is being insulted he has already attained something, he has become part of eternity. He has entered into the world of the immortals.

Osho

@birdie, its 100 percent fact! God told me.