Religion question

and dolphins (from what I hear)

 

Sure My cat, shown in the picture to the left, has a well-developed ability to understand the consequences of his actions, and can use a limited set of logic rules that he's developed to manipulate situations in his favor. I'd put his mental processes up against certain homo sapiens any day of the week. I firmly believe he could easily out-reason Dan Dogshit, for example.

 

no, dan is not human, and the cat up against him is not fair. your cat, if not swatted 100 times for it's actions. (programmed behavior is not admissable) you cat doesn't know why you hit him for pissing on the rug, it just knows you will.

 

Don't know. There are some easily perceivable reasons why cats kill other cats (territorial disputes, feeling threatened, etc.), but since we don't speak cat, we can't always be fully cognizant of all the reasons why cats kill other cats. Could be color - could be smell. Could be that calico cat wants gray tabby's squeaky-mouse.

 

OK, Zeb then.

 

you do agree that MOST times, calicos, (or any color cat) do not give a shit what color a cat is, and will f$ck it with enthusiasm, and not kill it.

humans, OTOH do care. sorry, no DIRECT conection to animals/humans.

ever see an all cat football league?

 

Brad, do you have a point, or are you just trying to waste my time?

 

of course. as much as you try to draw comparisons to "animal like" behavior of humans, we are not animals.

that's what makes us disgusting. acting like animals when we posses the synapse to know better.

animals should be granted their "animal like" behavior, we should not.

 

OK, then. If you don't think we are animals, then what exactly are we? Trees? Rocks?

 

yeah.


get over yourself, you know EXACTLY what i mean. unless of course, you are a stupid "animal" and can't understand me.

 

that's pretty interesting...

 

I guess I must be a stupid animal, because you're making even less sense than usual today.

Thanks for wasting my time, but I gotta go do something useful. Bye!

 

yeah, that's what i thought you would say.

go ahead and knock out an old lady today. it's okay (you're an animal, and we don't expect you to know any better)

 

My suggestion, Taoism (based on the Tao-Te-Ching by Lao Tze)...
Some would debate its not a religion, but a philosophy. That point aside, I would say Taoism meets your criteria. All things spring from the Tao (good and bad), it is the mother of all things, and views good and evil as necessary parts of a continuous spectrum, favoring neither over the other.

Mike Tiberio

 

Re: Re: Religion question

Thanks for information. By the way, I am not looking for a group to join. I am merely curious about whether such a religion exists.

 

Another is the ancient Greek and Roman religions. They believed in gods, but not that they were good or evil. I don't even think they would use the word evil the way we would. Everyone went to the same place when they died.

 

Since the difference between animal and man has been tossed in to the discussion, let me throw this out there:

Man is the only animal who anticipates death. All animals have a will to live and the desire to not die, but it is doubtful that any beside man understand that someday they will die and cease to exist. Man attempts to change this fact through the belief in an afterlife. Not even the drive to procreate is as strong as the will to remain alive. This may explain why men defend so vociferously the existence of their gods. It is unthinkable for most that death is an end. Of course, if it is an end to everything (which many do believe) it involves no suffering or loss, as those may only exist in relation to a consciousness. If you merely cease to exist then you not only feel nothing, you have no awareness that you feel nothing.
Animals have no need for good or bad in relation to others, they have only a need for the consequences they desire. They fear pain but not death as they have no realisation that life must end.

The tenets of most religions tie them to the reward of existence after death. Live according to the morals espoused by that religion and death becomes less threatening.

Wouldn't that make religious morality inherently more selfish and less spiritual than morality for it's own sake, that is, doing right with no expectation of reward?

 

I don't know of any modern religion that fits this description, but it is probably a fair analysis of the thinking of societies such as native americans or any number of primitive cultures. They attempt to curry personal favor from their god or gods, but don't believe them inherently good.
The Greeks and Romans ascribed the same moral and emotional make-up to their gods that they possessed themselves, neither all good nor all evil, merely driven by their desires.

 

Re: Re: Religion question

I had thought of those before I asked the question, but I was more curious about "modern" monotheistic religions.

 

I have felt that way since I drifted away from organized religion in my early teens.