Religiões, Crenças e Afins

For we know that the man always sought answers to their origin and purpose, using a variety of ways and methods for this, since concepts, theories and scientific ideas, abstract and subjective, and that none of them proved the existence of a supernatural force, nor its absence. Among all these options or would attempt to highlight the nature of abstract and religions, faiths, sects, doctrines, worship etc.. Because these are what generate discussions, disputes, disagreements, disputes and wars between nations.
But what is it a religion? In common sense usually refers to a religious institution (physical or not) working spiritual issues (sometimes also physical and mental), where each one has its own laws, codes, customs, behaviors, rituals and traditions, and taught the doctrine that the practitioner can achieve certain goals and truths. The design which is today in contemporary society is that religion is only one physical location, "the four walls" as churches, centers, synagogues, temples or any religious building such, it has established and consolidated itself as such, but the word religion in its origin called another sense, it comes from the Latin Religare, which means religion is the man with the divine or their God. Also a reason for the emergence of religions is exactly that, the religação the man with the creator / her God, thus it is a point in history where there was this divide between creator and creature, for this reason the human being ( most of them) lives in pursuit of a rapprochement with his God.
In the five continents can find thousands of religions and beliefs stating that its doctrine and precepts are the answer to life, the truth. But the truth cancels the other, so how can we define what religion tells the truth or is true, the supreme? We can not be social because each is free to believe what it pleases. If a guy talk to me that the God it is a brick or a bag of popcorn, who am I to say the opposite? For most ridiculous, absurd, strange and freak that may be the belief of others, we have no obligation to accept, but we must respect the choice of each person, at least that religious choice is evil and harmful to others, an example is fanatical religious groups that use violence to impose their doctrines. There are religions which impose their beliefs in indirect way, by putting the social and cultural values more accepted by society as a center point and the trial of each subject, so that is not in accordance with these values and standards of practice or not practice are labeled in sin, wrong, wasteful, etc. rebels.
Some thinkers consider religion as a disguise or more efficient to induce people to behave ethically desirable, the fact remains, however the goal of several of them in its essence is to fix or a sort of purity of conduct, but what is there to research the history of religions in the world is the huge interest of dominant classes and groups to maintain social control by using the religious doctrines of distorted and tendentious way to achieve that goal, sometimes using death as punishment for not add to the principles of these religions.
The world today is involved in conflicts of religious nature, but most of the wars for these reasons do not correspond to the principles of the religions involved in these battles, with that we see a great contradiction. As a religion preaches peace and love, while leading and supporting wars? With this paradox posed can check the real reasons and those interested in religious conflicts. Many innocent people are manipulated and used in wars because of the alienation and brainwashing (psychological manipulation through the use of distorted religious doctrine) causing the fanaticism, these are acts of persuasion by those that use in bad faith the belief of the most vulnerable and ignorant to conquer and achieve ambitious goals individuals (territory, oil, wealth, area of people etc)..
For these reasons commented above, I can not agree with the speeches and words of order of extermination or destruction of religion, given by the militant movements such counterculture / libertarian or not, has to be libertarian and for freedom is not prohibit, punish or criticize in any way that will limit the process of selection of pipes of life, it would be a great contradiction to the principles of freedom, but it is valid to use the "tools" peaceful as the intellect, to demystify many of the dogmas religious, with many religions that over time has lost its claim to FIES, as many were charlatãs, fraudulent, false, Galileo could cite as an example (with the movement of the earth) as fought by the Catholics, but he was right in their statements; Gennes with its smallpox vaccine, said that he wants to inoculate the bestiality in humans, the spiritualists who claim to have contact and communication with the dead, however when scientists put in check these links of the supernatural religion, found major fraud, it was given by scientists to the practitioners of this doctrine names and stories of people with the bogus claim of being mediumistic contact with them, to the surprise of all, there was this contact with subjects who never existed! Must have been embarrassing for the fraudsters know that people who say they have talked and psychographic words have caused them never existed. The function of science to be a sort of "get-keep" and "destructive of dogmas" of certain religious rites is wonderful, because it just goes to the most absurd beliefs dissolving and reducing the margin to create fraudulent doctrines, but who knows is that science can not evaluate the existence of God, and also the scientists find it hard to believe in a God different for each religion. The Catholic God is a God other than a Muslim. One of the two must be wrong. For this reason above commented that a true cancels the other, to the point that over time the science itself can reduce the number of religions in the world to a few or even one, without requiring the use of violence and imposition to this . If one day is able to reach this point of selection of religions, the famous phrase "Faith in God lives on the edge where science comes to" make any sense to the skeptical, because it supposedly the end of science. The distinguished German physical scientist Albert Einstein once admitted: "The great scientific minds in general is a religion itself ... The religion took the form of fascination for the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence so superior that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and actions of human beings become insignificant. " There is no dispute that the genius of great men like Einstein. To believe in God it is not ignorance, irrationality or escape from reality, but humility to understand the limitations of man.
The philosophy plays this role of "demystifying" and "bleaching of minds" with great skill, ability and speed are not necessary the use of violence, laws, rules and taxes in general to achieve this. The main target of such an attack would be the elite hungry for power and ambition to handle skilfully and distort the religions convenient for them. I think It is the philosophical reason trying to prove the veracity of religious ideas, if it all can be proven. Where, however, find such evidence? Historically, they have been searched in abstract reasoning, analysis and comparison of ideas, sensory experience, on common sense, the scientific explanations, in the moral sense among others more.
Even accepting that this is the task of philosophy, this does not mean that the philosopher believes that this is how people accept or reject a religion, ie, based on arguments. Religions that follow their path independent, and the concern with justifying arguments is, at best, secondary. But the arguments show if people are rational in their beliefs. Currently, some philosophers, in view of the historical development of philosophical explanations, I think the philosophy can help to better understand the religious ideas and religions to help get rid of some elements added to unduly superstitious faith base, especially those related to conceptual confusion , derived from an inappropriate use of language, or a mistaken understanding of scientific theories and hypotheses, or the prejudices of non-religious.
An interesting point in religious discussions is the case of people who deny the existence of any form of supernatural force, such as atheists, but the fact of the denial of such power by them, since the forms of indirect way on the issue of credulity abstract / supernatural, because who denies something, predicts that there is something to be denied, since it does not negate the non-existent. There is also the agnostics and the Gnostics, two lines of thought and peculiar, and admits that the first is impossible to have objective knowledge about the issue - so agnostic, ie agnosticism is the doctrine or attitude that accepts an order of reality that Unseen is the roughly agnostics would say that are those who have doubts about the existence of God. The second is a doctrinal eclecticism (with influences that combined elements of astrology and mystery religions of Greece, Mysteries of Eleusis, and the hermetism with the doctrines of Christianity and is based on pagan philosophies) that seeks to reconcile all religions by Gnosis. The USA Gnosticism of mythological and metaphysical explanations to speak of the creation of the universe and the spiritual planes, but never ceases to relate the external world and the mythological processes that occur in humans. Recommends that salvation is only through the knowledge (Gnosis).
Due to the diversity of thoughts they are metaphysical, religious, spiritual, transcendental, abstract, subjective, mythological and supernatural that we see the eternal battle between those who believe, have doubts and those who do not believe in certain non-physical forces never cease, however to have peace, harmony and good living in the world is that human beings need to develop greater tolerance and respect for others beliefs, since it is intrinsic to man these issues even if some deny facts of nature abstract. The science can explain so many things that happen in the physical, but still there are gaps in these explanations, there are simply many questions without answers, spaces not filled and that can never be. It is at this time to recall that a God who meets these empty, empty that no physical or chemical is able to fill. I can not believe that man is only a pile of atoms, is born only to die and become fertilizer for plants. Without speaking of the human feelings that do not derive from chemical processes, and they appear only after the manifestations of sentiments, it is as if suddenly you find on the street a person who has never seen before and instantly by which a sudden feeling of true love flourish in his heart (though I think it is almost impossible nowadays), this would be done not derived from a combination chemical-hormonal, but a transcendental force, which then would the physical, if a scientist to ask questions about this! The figures, calculations and theories can not reply to all, and the religion does not prove the existence of God. The proof of the existence of a God in my humble opinion is at the heart of what the search. When religion tries to explain rationally it loses its sense, since there is no way to explain specifically the existence or non-existence of supernatural forces.
Respect for religious or any of its absence, at least that this will harm others. But everyone has some belief as well as I should be careful not to become a puppet in the hands of bad people, we can not let our lives be led by interpretations of scripture made so erroneous or biased by religious leaders, we must have a sense determined not to let us take charlatans aiming only raise money, goods and power. I would like to emphasize that everything that was said in the text reflects my libertarian views on the subject, does not diminish other visions or placing them as false. My goal with this very sensitive and controversial issue was to show a non-biased on religion in general (with the exception of religions who do bad to others as already mentioned), even though most of them hit the front with my principles and ideas. I hope I have managed to express clearly to the proper understanding of you. Abraços gross for men and women sensitive to, and until the next bunch.

PEIDADO POR: Márcio “Pigmeu”