Religion vs. Philosophy

What's the difference between religion and philosophy? Aren't they both the search for fundemental truths?

There isn't really a difference at all. Religion is a primative form of philosophy. The main difference is that religion is based on mysticism. If Philosophy is done correctly, it is based on reason, rational, logical thought processes based on actual reality. Not on whim.

If done correctly, they both can go together!

There isn't really a difference at all. Religion is a primative form of philosophy. The main difference is that religion is based on mysticism. If Philosophy is done correctly, it is based on reason, rational, logical thought processes based on actual reality. Not on whim.

What about new age religions? Are they primitive?

Oh, no. They're very complex!

There isn't really a difference at all. Religion is a primative form of philosophy. The main difference is that religion is based on mysticism. If Philosophy is done correctly, it is based on reason, rational, logical thought processes based on actual reality. Not on whim.

What about new age religions? Are they primitive?

Their basis...are extremely primative. Watch anything about new age religions and they almost revert back to the years of Roman, Greek, and Pagan times. It's almost a new age form of neutralism where they physical is obsolute to their new age spirituality (if you wish to call it spirituality at all. I don't.) The main difference I've seen in new age religions is that they do not even approach anything that could be called morality, or ethical, or philosophical...but almost mindless in my opinion.

New Age religions also seem to be self-promotation for money, rather than anything else worthy of use.

Religion, in general, should not be so big as it is becoming. It's just constant pushing from the religion side and constant stepping back from the other side that is bringing religion back into the front of everything. The Age of Reason should've long helped discard religion, but people have been so terrified of themselves and of life that they don't seem to understand or wish to understand anything...only that they think every human is evil and that we should all beg for forgiveness.

There isn't really a difference at all. Religion is a primative form of philosophy. The main difference is that religion is based on mysticism. If Philosophy is done correctly, it is based on reason, rational, logical thought processes based on actual reality. Not on whim.

What about new age religions? Are they primitive?

Their basis...are extremely primative. Watch anything about new age religions and they almost revert back to the years of Roman, Greek, and Pagan times. It's almost a new age form of neutralism where they physical is obsolute to their new age spirituality (if you wish to call it spirituality at all. I don't.) The main difference I've seen in new age religions is that they do not even approach anything that could be called morality, or ethical, or philosophical...but almost mindless in my opinion.

New Age religions also seem to be self-promotation for money, rather than anything else worthy of use.

Religion, in general, should not be so big as it is becoming. It's just constant pushing from the religion side and constant stepping back from the other side that is bringing religion back into the front of everything. The Age of Reason should've long helped discard religion, but people have been so terrified of themselves and of life that they don't seem to understand or wish to understand anything...only that they think every human is evil and that we should all beg for forgiveness.

I find that religion is at best destructive to human life by simply promoting ignorance. Now don't get me wrong, some people need to find religion to say, quite drinking, or become a "good person", but it comes at the cost of intelligence. Humans are generally sheep who don't take responsibility for anything (thanks to Christianity) and need to be hearded.

Remember the "Dark Ages"?

Philosophy on the other hand promotes intelligence and self awareness. For the most part philosophy doesn't pose any absolutes, only ideas derived from previous knowledge. Occasionally you'll find a Philosopher like that Cunning Christian "Kant" who tries to pose an absolute like his "catagorical imparative, but generally most pose possible ideas. Also, Philosophy has only been damaging when corrupted by someone else, as was the case of Nietzsche and "The Will to Power" and it's connection with the Riech. (Thank you Nietzsche's sister for damaging the reputation of the greatest philosopher to date!)

Might I suggest some reading material for you all:

Shattering the Ancient Myths

Google it. Trust me, You'll appreciate it.

This book opened my eyes.

In response to Foreverrain:

I think that religion can be studied in a manner that does not promote ignorance. The main problem with most religions is that the layity have no desire to actually study the literature of their chosen religion. I believe that when studied along with metaphysics, religion can promote many positive aspects in an individual, both ethical and intellectual. My point is that religion is not what is to blame for the many foolish people that practice it, but it's name is tarnished by them when they represent it badly.

I agree that many "Christians" seem to think that they do not need to be held accountable for their actions, and it is possible that they are even being taught this at their churches. But, again, I think that those who truly follow the doctrines of Christianity do not commit this arrogance.

As for philosophy, I think that it is only fair that you must admit an error when you say "philosophy doesn't pose any absolutes." What else could the study of metaphysics be other than the study of exactly that? Not only this, but the study of other a priori concepts like mathematics or the law of noncontradiction seem to imply that philosophy is more than a strictly empirical study. I do not think it is necessary to refer to any previous knowledge when one makes the statement "a thing cannot be and not be something at the same time and place in the same respect." I believe that we can come to know this without any previous knowledge.

I agree that it is a shame the picture most paint of Nietzsche.

Philosophy is based on rational investigation, but religion is based on faith. That is the main difference, in my opinion.

Religion is a pseudo-philosophy, just like creationism is a pseudo-science.

What's the difference between religion and philosophy? Aren't they both the search for fundemental truths?

What's the difference between A spell and a prayer?
they are both formulated attempts (incantations) to get what you wish from the divine.

Religion and philosophy are the same thing, a formulated attempt to get what you want - A responce, a new mind set, mass followings, your point across...ect ect

Formulated attempts.

[quote="Foreverrain"]I find that religion is at best destructive to human life by simply promoting ignorance. Now don't get me wrong, some people need to find religion to say, quite drinking, or become a "good person", but it comes at the cost of intelligence. Humans are generally sheep who don't take responsibility for anything (thanks to Christianity) and need to be hearded.

Remember the "Dark Ages"?

Philosophy on the other hand promotes intelligence and self awareness. For the most part philosophy doesn't pose any absolutes, only ideas derived from previous knowledge. Occasionally you'll find a Philosopher like that Cunning Christian "Kant" who tries to pose an absolute like his "catagorical imparative, but generally most pose possible ideas. Also, Philosophy has only been damaging when corrupted by someone else, as was the case of Nietzsche and "The Will to Power" and it's connection with the Riech
Forgive me forever if it seems like i am chasing you around the forum room, but i am not you just provide a well thought out opposing veiw to my own and i thank you for being your own agent.
In opposition to this view I must say that had christianity not been avalialible to the true authors of the dark ages they would have found some other vehicle to use and manipulate such as philosophy their problem was not a matter of a system of beliefs but rather a matter of ethics.
as for promoting ignorance it would be just as effective to base your religion on ignorance or lack of thought as it would to base a philosophy on ignorance or lack of thought.
in response to it being a primitive form so are the laws of gravity but it still applies to our everyday life.
religion like phiosophy should not be soley based on faith but rather rational thought and study, should lead us to a faith in that we are choosing the right.

[quote="woot"][quote="Foreverrain"]I find that religion is at best destructive to human life by simply promoting ignorance. Now don't get me wrong, some people need to find religion to say, quite drinking, or become a "good person", but it comes at the cost of intelligence. Humans are generally sheep who don't take responsibility for anything (thanks to Christianity) and need to be hearded.

Remember the "Dark Ages"?

Philosophy on the other hand promotes intelligence and self awareness. For the most part philosophy doesn't pose any absolutes, only ideas derived from previous knowledge. Occasionally you'll find a Philosopher like that Cunning Christian "Kant" who tries to pose an absolute like his "catagorical imparative, but generally most pose possible ideas. Also, Philosophy has only been damaging when corrupted by someone else, as was the case of Nietzsche and "The Will to Power" and it's connection with the Riech
sorry foreverrain i messed up the quote

What's the difference between religion and philosophy? Aren't they both the search for fundemental truths?

but what is the meaning of this word relgion? what i know it is a latin word means relgi+on some thing u can rely on. if i am wrong please correct me. but nowadays relgion has become like opium peoples from around the globe addicted to so called relgions. no body ever try to connect with universal relgion