Why Religion Is For Big Infants

[Amythest]

Glaswegian;1297737 wrote: Yes, Amythest, I have. I've thought about monotheism and the egos of those who embrace this kind of belief system quite a bit. And let me tell you, it's a very painful and disturbing exercise given what an inflated, overweening ego the monotheistic believer has.

Take the Christian as an example of what I mean, and consider what he actually believes. The Christian believes that he is in direct communication with the Creator of the Universe. He believes that his own life is of such importance that the Creator takes a personal interest in his thoughts, feelings and actions. He believes that the Creator not only takes a personal interest in his thoughts, feelings and actions but that the Creator also loves him, and loves him unceasingly. He believes that by employing the right prayers, incantations and body language he can exert an influence over the Creator's dealings with him. He believes that the Creator has granted him possession of the Absolute Truth via a holy book, and that anyone who dares to challenge him on this matter will burn in hell forever while he himself basks in everlasting bliss...

Yes, Amythest, one must never be taken in by the Christian's 'humility' (or that of any other monotheist). For behind this false humility lurks the most monumental egotism, arrogance and conceit.


Yup. That's exactly what i meant. TY for picking up the ball and tossing it about.

I wonder how many will catch it, volley it back in a good ole friendly rally, or just swat it over the fence, loosing it in the swamp ( where the hungry beast lay hoarding all the balls within his slimy mirky realm) ?

:-6

[spot]

Glaswegian;1297737 wrote: Take the Christian as an example of what I mean, and consider what he actually believes. The Christian believes that he is in direct communication with the Creator of the Universe.
Yet more Aunt Sally? It's your perception of Christians, it's not Christianity at all. It is, I would agree, *some* Christians but you really ought to try to qualify your statements if you want to become credible.

[gmc]

spot;1297739 wrote: Yet more Aunt Sally? It's your perception of Christians, it's not Christianity at all. It is, I would agree, *some* Christians but you really ought to try to qualify your statements if you want to become credible.


So must you I think spot. Correct me if I am wrong but I assume you adhere to the broader definition of christian.

oxford englisg dictionary again

Christianity

• noun the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ.




Christian

• adjective relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings.

• noun a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.

— DERIVATIVES Christianize (also Christianise) verb.

— ORIGIN Latin Christianus, from Christus ‘Christ’.




As opposed to the rabid bible thumping creed of so many christians. A Christian in that sense I have no issues but clearly my diatribe is aimed at the bible thumpers and the many who adhere to the one "true" christian church or their version of it. It would also explain your rejection of monotheism. perhaps a freethinker would be a more accurate description of your view?

Christians such as you are rare and sadly it is the more rabid who seem to make the running in these things. It doesn't really matter what statements you make the actions of your co-religionists in the real world make a mockery of it all.

[koan]

gmc;1297674 wrote:

With all due respect that is nonsense.

from the oxford english dictionary



...


There is nothing in those definitions that surprises me or makes my statement untrue.

If other people want to narrowly define what a word means and insist on only using it that way it's just a projection of their own limitations, imo. Religion commonly involves a deity of some sort but, as I gave an example earlier, the role assigned to the deity can be transferred to things such as money. Instead of gods, some people worship politicians.

[gmc]

koan;1297756 wrote: There is nothing in those definitions that surprises me or makes my statement untrue.

If other people want to narrowly define what a word means and insist on only using it that way it's just a projection of their own limitations, imo. Religion commonly involves a deity of some sort but, as I gave an example earlier, the role assigned to the deity can be transferred to things such as money. Instead of gods, some people worship politicians.


Your statement is untrue because your basic premise is wrong. It's not a projection of their own limitations to accept a definition of a word because the only way people can communicate is using a language where the meaning of words is commonly understood. To reject the meaning in favour of your own is not clever it is just daft. Granted you can worship money just as you can worship the tree at the bottom of your garden but that is not quite the same thing.

Atheism cannot be a religion because there is no deity to worship, there is no particular system of worship or practice, the only thing they have in common is the non-belief in a god. The literal meaning is without god.

Religious people I find like to pretend it is a religion because they cannot grasp the concept that maybe you don''t need one to give your life meaning. Most atheists can probably give you a string of reasons why they have come to that conclusion and believe it to be the case but it's not the same as belief in a deity despite all the evidence to the contrary that there is indeed any such thing.

[Ahso!]

koan;1297756 wrote: There is nothing in those definitions that surprises me or makes my statement untrue.

If other people want to narrowly define what a word means and insist on only using it that way it's just a projection of their own limitations, imo. Religion commonly involves a deity of some sort but, as I gave an example earlier, the role assigned to the deity can be transferred to things such as money. Instead of gods, some people worship politicians.Perhaps I'm not understanding this correctly, and if not I apologize.

I don't worship any person, place or thing, including life. If you'd like to say that because I read political news or watch some baseball occasionally that that qualifies, I'd have to disagree. That is not worship. Maybe you can tell me where I'm going wrong.

[K.Snyder]

Amythest;1297616 wrote: It didn't insult anyones intelligence. In fact it offered an intellectual and educational challenge. Mature people would know that.

Incidentally you are the one who made fun of my comments regarding religious exposure. Being that different sects, Roman Catholicism and Xtianity, house the majority of people. An atheist who went about there pre adult life the way you described would be an absolute fool or extremely brave. What you wrote rarely if ever happens. They would be totally ostrisized, margianalized, ganged up on and silenced by the religious majority. Most young atheists keep it very quiet, and don't preach there beleifs due to peer pressure and being outcast.

I guess you were just mocking. That is why I replied the way i did.

So what is the truth? do you know it? Can you seperate symbolism and myth from truth?



Have you ever looked into Astro Theology or Mythology from before Christ and noticed some parallels?



Have you ever thought about Monotheism and our ego?

A lot of what we do is ego based and that is where we run into trouble.IMHO


Firstly, the majority of human beings claim a religion.

Secondly, "I would challenge any religious person here to put aside the Bible and search for archeological truth" assumes the people you'd "challenged" doesn't already know the truth and it's an insult to their intelligence, I don't know how this isn't clear:wah:. If you want to argue I was incorrect to assume the question was aimed toward all religions among those that use "the bible" you can rightly do so but if you do you'd successful serve to denounce all religions that use "the bible".Amythest;1297595 wrote: A challenge way too steep?:yh_rotfl If I were to challenge you to eat less food how does that not call you "fat"?

I've made fun of nothing. I've presented the perspective, based off of my observations, of "Christians" in response to my initial post involving your post I'd quoted.

If you hadn't insulted the intelligence of "any religious person here" how do you come to the conclusion "challenge" was the correct word to use when assuming "any religious person here" needs to be aware of...Amythest;1297590 wrote: ...study reveals the truth not ONE book.?

[K.Snyder]

K.Snyder;1297767 wrote: ...It amazes me how people feel it's appropriate to suggest any two persons' questions can be the same because they "claim" the "same" religion. Every persons' religion is different regardless of names such as "Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism etc...etc..." because every known person asks different questions. The confusion can best be compared to human beings and their DNA/fingerprints yet are still categorized as "Homo Sapiens". You wouldn't incarcerate/ridicule the next human being you see simply because you'd witnessed a Homo Sapien commit "a crime" would you? http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/newre ... &p=1297767


I thought it was relevant...

[AussiePam]

gmc;1297496 wrote: So as a christian do you believe there is only one god?

As a christian do you believe that other faiths have got it totally wrong?

As a christian do you believe that the path to salvation is through Jesus Christ and no other?

As a christian do you believe you have a sacred duty to bring others to christ?

Where in that belief system is there scope to leave non believers alone?




As a Christian I'd also answer no to all these, except the first.

Only one God, but with many names, and too big to be tied down and defined by humans.

It's very fashionable at the moment to be atheist. It's very fashionable to sneer and deride anything that doesn't agree with your own worldview.

Christians are people, like everyone else, and vary immensely, one from another. They have a few things in common, and one is the basic Creed, as neatly ridiculed by Mr Dawkins. Mainstream Christians define themselves as holding these basic beliefs. Outside that are a lot of dissident sects.

I respect Mr Dawkins' views, and the views of his enthusiastic followers too. I shan't be shouting anyone down with my own views, but nor will I be shouted down. Most Christians I know personally just get on with it. It's a tough world and we're all of us trying to make sense of it and to get on with living our lives as well as we can. Personally, I've chopped away as much as I can of the folk accretions, the churchiness, the political stuff, the false piety.

I consider myself as far removed from the average fulminating fundamentalist (of any religious group) as I am from the fulminating atheist.

What separates me from these two groups which I've linked together? Doubt. They seem so smugly sure of everything. So totally wrapped up in their own certainties. So keen to consign everyone else to hellfire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. I can't do this. I continually wrestle and don't have anything like all the answers. Sometimes I think I don't have any of the answers.

Why do the good suffer?

Why do the bad seem to prosper?

How can a loving God allow a child to die?

WTF is it all about?

I don't know. But I'm hanging in there because just occasionally there is a glimpse of something, outside all this shittiness, and there are other people out there who also just occasionally have this glimpse of something Other, and, for me, for us, it's worth hanging in there for.

[Amythest]

K.Snyder;1297771 wrote: Firstly, the majority of human beings claim a religion.

Secondly, "I would challenge any religious person here to put aside the Bible and search for archeological truth" assumes the people you'd "challenged" doesn't already know the truth and it's an insult to their intelligence, I don't know how this isn't clear:wah:. If you want to argue I was incorrect to assume the question was aimed toward all religions among those that use "the bible" you can rightly do so but if you do you'd successful serve to denounce all religions that use "the bible". If I were to challenge you to eat less food how does that not call you "fat"?

I've made fun of nothing. I've presented the perspective, based off of my observations, of "Christians" in response to my initial post involving your post I'd quoted.

If you hadn't insulted the intelligence of "any religious person here" how do you come to the conclusion "challenge" was the correct word to use when assuming "any religious person here" needs to be aware of...?


Fundamental Religion insults my intelligence and gender. The religious Majority only got to that point with Tyrany, oppression and by murdering millions of people over the course of 2000+ yrs. Since we live with some modicum of freedom now, we don't get hunted down, given rediculous tests to prove we're heretics, or witches.

Women are sadly under represented in most religions. I just can't relate to such extreme patriarchy.

I don't claim a religion. However since most religions loosened their murderous grip on people within the 19th century there are Over 1 billion atheists in the world. This is a narow description. rReally that 1 billion contains alternative spiritualists like me.

I challenged the religious to look for more outside of the bible and if you perceive that as an insult it's not my problem.

I don't know if you know the truth. You choose to be totally defensive.Better get yer pride ratio in check.:wah:

I actually have well worn copies of the Bible and the Quran. Lots of bookmarked Url's on Hinduism, Sikhism, the Church of Satan, Scientology, Druidism, Buddhism. I just like to know the source. So much to read ( for the latter religions) so little time.

Have you read about Horus, Osiris, ( Egyptology was a mythology that existed before Xianity and Roman Catholicism, and existed in the same region) Mithra, Krishna, and noticed the parallels in their stories. They all came before Christ and went through exactly the same experiences.

Why is that? Where did these parallels stem from?

The Christ Conspiracy and sons of God explores this very subject.

I can only offer this video as a short explanation. The Book_ Fingerprints of the Christ, has detailed references and proves so much about the Roman Catholic and Xtian origins.

Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ



There is a Myriad of articles on www.thruthbeknown.com that explore the complete origins of religion.

AussiePam said: "I respect Mr Dawkins' views, and the views of his enthusiastic followers too. I shan't be shouting anyone down with my own views, but nor will I be shouted down. Most Christians I know personally just get on with it. It's a tough world and we're all of us trying to make sense of it and to get on with living our lives as well as we can. Personally, I've chopped away as much as I can of the folk accretions, the churchiness, the political stuff, the false piety.

I consider myself as far removed from the average fulminating fundamentalist (of any religious group) as I am from the fulminating atheist. "

I have a lot of respect for that stance. The common denominator is tolerance , rejecting such literal interpretations.

I am an agnostic. Why? There exist's too many condensed perspectives that have taken from previous beliefs.I realised that symbols represent our spiritual beliefs and i reject the more brutal aspects of religion. A lot of these symbols originated from Astronomy and Astrotheology.

However Many followers of The Bible AND Islam want to claim a tangible existence of god, are filled with shame, guilt, fear and these emotional tools control people. Both religions CAN exert great suffering on it's followers especially women, and are very intolerant of other spiritual paths. They are also VERY intolerant of sects within.

They were written when most people couldn't read or write, so it was the priests, religious leaders who spread the word. They didn't just talk either.

[Glaswegian]

spot;1297739 wrote: Yet more Aunt Sally? It's your perception of Christians, it's not Christianity at all. It is, I would agree, *some* Christians but you really ought to try to qualify your statements if you want to become credible.
'Some' Christians? The Christians that I have been referring to in my posts, spot, are not some rare and exotic variety who exist in exceedingly small numbers. Rather, they constitute the overwhelming majority of members of the faith. They are typical, average, everyday Christians who can be found in hundreds of thousands of churches across the globe. Let me provide you with a single statistic which will show you just how prolific they are:

44% of the American population is convinced that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years. (U.S. Gallup poll 1996)

In 1996, 44% of the American population translated to around 120 million people. These 120 million Christians are the full-blooded variety, spot. The 'true' believers, the ones who really take their religion seriously. Not the anaemic variety, not the ones who hang like some dead haemorrhoid from the arse of their religion.

[K.Snyder]

Amythest;1297796 wrote: Fundamental Religion insults my intelligence and gender...

[...]

I challenged the religious to look for more outside of the bible and if you perceive that as an insult it's not my problem.

[...]

AussiePam said: "I respect Mr Dawkins' views, and the views of his enthusiastic followers too. I shan't be shouting anyone down with my own views, but nor will I be shouted down. Most Christians I know personally just get on with it. It's a tough world and we're all of us trying to make sense of it and to get on with living our lives as well as we can. Personally, I've chopped away as much as I can of the folk accretions, the churchiness, the political stuff, the false piety.

I consider myself as far removed from the average fulminating fundamentalist (of any religious group) as I am from the fulminating atheist. "

I have a lot of respect for that stance. The common denominator is tolerance , rejecting such literal interpretations...




So then why didn't you ask those without such a stance instead of "challenging" all religious people?...Doesn't make sense unless you'd like to apologize.

[Amythest]

K.Snyder;1297813 wrote: So then why didn't you ask those without such a stance instead of "challenging" all religious people?...Doesn't make sense unless you'd like to apologize.


What is so wrong with using the word "challenge"? People take a challenge or not. Don't take it so personal.



You behave as though i used a hideous demeaning derogatory term. :yh_rotfl

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1297765 wrote: Atheism cannot be a religion because there is no deity to worship, there is no particular system of worship or practice, the only thing they have in common is the non-belief in a god. The literal meaning is without god.




Sure atheists have placed themselves as that deity. Everyone's religious by the very same answer we all aspire to understand because we all seek it. No religion is different in wanting to know the answer which is defined by the very fact no one has observed it which leads to everyone asking a different question to achieve it. The difference between you and koan is that you disagree in how to ask the question in route to the answer you both want. To suggest you know the answer is identical to claiming your religion/question is "better".

The motive behind doing so can best be taken up with those individuals that have insulted you in claiming the same "superiority" and on that I'd say you're more than justified in being upset, rather nothing's ever achieved by "I know you are but what am I?" because the answer defines no difference because the answer is observed by both questions.

[K.Snyder]

Amythest;1297814 wrote: What is so wrong with using the word "challenge"? People take a challenge or not. Don't take it so personal.



You behave as though i used a hideous demeaning derogatory term. :yh_rotfl


Sweety, I couldn't care less if you blew Yogi Bear's butt out with a punt gun...

I'm merely pointing out an insult which can be viewed as not very heinous in the least if you'd prefer to rephrase your post, but it seems you have absolutely no desire to. I usually do that when someone says they hadn't done something when they blatantly had. :yh_wink

[gmc]

posted by K snyder

Secondly, "I would challenge any religious person here to put aside the Bible and search for archeological truth" assumes the people you'd "challenged" doesn't already know the truth and it's an insult to their intelligence,


I don't know how this isn't clear. If you want to argue I was incorrect to assume the question was aimed toward all religions among those that use "the bible" you can rightly do so but if you do you'd successful serve to denounce all religions that use "the bible".


I'm glad you've found a truth you can believe in but you must surely appreciate that because you believe it to be true doesn't mean everyone else is going to agree with you. I can't speak for amethyst but I suspect she is referring to the habit of the religious of quoting the bible as if it is an authority beyond question and the unaltered word of god without ever taking the effort to look elsewhere for answers and ignoring anything that challenges the bible version - creationist vs darwin being the obvious one - or rationalising it into proof of what they want to believe.

posted by K snyder

I'm merely pointing out an insult which can be viewed as not very heinous in the least if you'd prefer to rephrase your post, but it seems you have absolutely no desire to. I usually do that when someone says they hadn't done something when they blatantly had.


You find offence when none is intended. Religious belief is something that many feel should not be challenged and claim for their faith the right to have it's tenets taken as being beyond question. When someone challenges their belief in whatever it happens to be they claim offence, personal insult and the showing of what they see as a lack of respect rather than being prepared to engage in dialogue and accepting that others might not be believers and being prepared to allow them the right to their belief.

It seem to me that is exactly what you are doing you think religious belief should not be challenged in any way.

It is the inherent flaw if monotheism and those who believe in it-since they have the truth everyone else must be wrong and it's not a far step from that to god is on my side so i will just force everyone else to agree with me. Monotheists even go to war with each other over who has the "truth" of it and have caused and are still causing misery all over the planet. They even go to war on those of the same faith who think you shouldn't have holy wars as diverting from the true path.

posted by aussiepam

It's very fashionable at the moment to be atheist. It's very fashionable to sneer and deride anything that doesn't agree with your own worldview.


What has fashion got to do with it? Historically saying you did not believe in religion was downright dangerous as the religious had no hesitation in condemning anyone foolish enough to dissent, burning at the stake, whipping branding, torture you name it they used it. It has taken centuries of warfare and misery to create the secular societies we live in in the west and you can put a pretty good case that the horror of religious warfare and extremism is burned deep in to our psyche. When you look back at the catholic/protestant wars it wasn't a case that you could keep out of it, if you didn't pick a side both sides went after you you're either with us or against us is not exactly a 21st century attitude. If you look at christian fundamentalism in the states they seem to think there should be no place for non believers-or anyone who does not conform to the "norm" are there not six or seven states where atheists are barred from holding office? you can almost see them getting the pyres ready for the ungodly, god help anyone who doesn't fit in.

If the non religious are becoming more vocal it's because tolerance is open to abuse and it seems the uncoguid are trying to make a comeback and claim moral authority again. The taliban are bad enough but the religious right can make them look benevolent given half a chance. Religion and lack of tolerance for other faiths is the source of most of the wars we're getting sucked in to.

Look at some of the response to the opening post. It's not " interesting let's talk about it" but rather bad man you shouldn't be disrespecting religion or let's talk about the good christians and not mention all the nutters.



:sneaky:

[Amythest]

K.Snyder;1297817 wrote: Sweety, I couldn't care less if you blew Yogi Bear's butt out with a punt gun...

I'm merely pointing out an insult which can be viewed as not very heinous in the least if you'd prefer to rephrase your post, but it seems you have absolutely no desire to. I usually do that when someone says they hadn't done something when they blatantly had. :yh_wink


You're harassing me now. And I'm not engaging in your ego joust.



I don't have to speak or believe as you do.



I'm done communicating with you .

And TY GMC for being a gentleman.

[spot]

Glaswegian;1297798 wrote: These 120 million Christians are the full-blooded variety, spot. The 'true' believers, the ones who really take their religion seriously. Not the anaemic variety, not the ones who hang like some dead haemorrhoid from the arse of their religion.


It's amusing that you presume to judge and cheapen the quality of my Christian credentials so as to safeguard the purity of your bugbear. My approach to Christianity has a perfectly good pedigree, thank you. It's not in the least a trivial sideshow, it's mainstream. It wouldn't have been mainstream a hundred years ago but it certainly has been since the thirties.

There's a bit more vocabulary to clear up. You keep talking about "religion" but targeting what would be better described as a church; the assembly, the hierarchical group with leaders and led. Churches are dogmatic, churches are formulaic, churches are the source of belief. By all means let's destroy the churches. None of those considerations apply to religion.

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1297834 wrote: I'm glad you've found a truth you can believe in but you must surely appreciate that because you believe it to be true doesn't mean everyone else is going to agree with you. I can't speak for amethyst but I suspect she is referring to the habit of the religious of quoting the bible as if it is an authority beyond question and the unaltered word of god without ever taking the effort to look elsewhere for answers and ignoring anything that challenges the bible version - creationist vs darwin being the obvious one - or rationalising it into proof of what they want to believe.

...You find offence when none is intended. Religious belief is something that many feel should not be challenged and claim for their faith the right to have it's tenets taken as being beyond question. When someone challenges their belief in whatever it happens to be they claim offence, personal insult and the showing of what they see as a lack of respect rather than being prepared to engage in dialogue and accepting that others might not be believers and being prepared to allow them the right to their belief.

It seem to me that is exactly what you are doing you think religious belief should not be challenged in any way.

It is the inherent flaw if monotheism and those who believe in it-since they have the truth everyone else must be wrong and it's not a far step from that to god is on my side so i will just force everyone else to agree with me. Monotheists even go to war with each other over who has the "truth" of it and have caused and are still causing misery all over the planet. They even go to war on those of the same faith who think you shouldn't have holy wars as diverting from the true path.




Honestly my response to amythest has absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact she'd assumed all religious people that read the bible doesn't know of archeological fact. I sincerely don't understand what's so confusing about this.

"I challenge you to eat less food"...How does that not call someone fat?

Amythest;1297846 wrote: You're harassing me now. And I'm not engaging in your ego joust.



I don't have to speak or believe as you do.



I'm done communicating with you .

And TY GMC for being a gentleman.


:wah: :yh_wink

[Ahso!]

K.Snyder;1297857 wrote: "I challenge you to eat less food"...How does that not call someone fat? Because it doesn't include any wording such as "you're fat?"

Seriously, why argue just to argue? I know this is probably a waste of time, but.....

[K.Snyder]

Ahso!;1297859 wrote: Because it doesn't include any wording such as "you're fat?"By this logic you suggest you're not at all insulted when a religious practitioner were to tell you to drop the archeological crap and study the truth

Why the change of heart?

Ahso!;1297859 wrote: Seriously, why argue just to argue? I know this is probably a waste of time, but.....I brought about the recognition of an insult, and if those are unable to see the insult then I suggest they might give religion a try it couldn't hurt

[K.Snyder]

I see that many on this thread are acting off of the premise "all religious practitioners that read the bible isn't aware of archeological fact" which is stupid and childish ironically enough

It's why you get "Why Religion Is For Big Infants"...

To suggest that all religious practitioners have offended you simply because they're religious is one of the most ignorant dispositions I've ever came across and it says quite alot about one's level of complacency

I'd suggest take a vacation

[gmc]

spot;1297856 wrote: It's amusing that you presume to judge and cheapen the quality of my Christian credentials so as to safeguard the purity of your bugbear. My approach to Christianity has a perfectly good pedigree, thank you. It's not in the least a trivial sideshow, it's mainstream. It wouldn't have been mainstream a hundred years ago but it certainly has been since the thirties.

There's a bit more vocabulary to clear up. You keep talking about "religion" but targeting what would be better described as a church; the assembly, the hierarchical group with leaders and led. Churches are dogmatic, churches are formulaic, churches are the source of belief. By all means let's destroy the churches. None of those considerations apply to religion.


You play with words spot, obfuscate the issue with discussions about semantics, and turn a general discussion about in to one that relates to you and is about your Christianity rather than the subject in hand.

The type of religious attitude fostered by all authoritarian religions is characterised by submission to an external authority or power. Under the direction of monotheistic creeds like Christianity and Islam, the sense of power and value which individuals feel in themselves are projected onto a Deity. The more steadily individuals remove power and value from themselves and accord them to the Deity the more impoverished they become: so much so, that their centre of gravity shifts from within themselves and they cease to be the active propellant in their own life. Thus, the general effect of authoritarian religion is to remove any self-autonomy which an individual might possess and replace it with a state of dependency. In other words, authoritarian religion seeks to turn its adherents into Big Infants, or as its velvet-tongued spokesmen put it - 'little children of God'.

As was noted above, the hijacking and perversion of the metaphysical need by Religion has been tragic for humanity historically. For instead of this need being allowed to express itself naturally - that is, as the fundamental driving force behind every attempt to understand the universe and increase human knowledge - it was channelled by Religion into myriad worthless endeavours (e.g., endless pilgrimages), preposterous theological speculation (e.g., 'How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?'), and some of the vilest conflicts on record (e.g., the Crusades)...among other lunacies. And this tragedy continues in the present day under new forms (e.g., the rise of the religious Right in America).




There are of course individual christians who are fine examples of their creed and I'm sure you are one of them but that wasn't what the initial post was about.

But since we are on the subject-if glaswegian will excuse my presumption.

If you remember I asked you

So as a christian do you believe there is only one god?

As a christian do you believe that other faiths have got it totally wrong?

As a christian do you believe that the path to salvation is through Jesus Christ and no other?

As a christian do you believe you have a sacred duty to bring others to christ?


and you replied

posted by spot

Taking the questions in order, No No No No and No.


I know many a christian who would say you are not one because you reject christ as the one true saviour, are not one because you reject the one true faith (their version of it) , can't be one because you concede other religions might have a point, ignore christ's command to spread his word. Not a few would think you are going to hell for getting it wrong-come to that there are plenty who think you are going to hell even of you have never had the chance to hear about JC. Maybe yopu will get top go to limbo instead since your are a righteous man. Your christianity is not mainstream spot it's on another planet.

[spot]

gmc;1297866 wrote: You play with words spot, obfuscate the issue with discussions about semantics, and turn a general discussion about in to one that relates to you and is about your Christianity rather than the subject in hand.I entered the thread because people were writing what was self-evidently inaccurate. I've offered various aids to reaching a consensus, not least a selection of vocabulary since it would be so useful if only it were adopted. Sadly, and I think it's evident to people reading the thread, some contributors would prefer to parade their hobby-horse and remain extreme rather than discuss the real world.

[YZGI]

aussiepam;1297788 wrote: as a christian i'd also answer no to all these, except the first.



Only one god, but with many names, and too big to be tied down and defined by humans.



It's very fashionable at the moment to be atheist. It's very fashionable to sneer and deride anything that doesn't agree with your own worldview.



Christians are people, like everyone else, and vary immensely, one from another. They have a few things in common, and one is the basic creed, as neatly ridiculed by mr dawkins. Mainstream christians define themselves as holding these basic beliefs. Outside that are a lot of dissident sects.



I respect mr dawkins' views, and the views of his enthusiastic followers too. I shan't be shouting anyone down with my own views, but nor will i be shouted down. Most christians i know personally just get on with it. It's a tough world and we're all of us trying to make sense of it and to get on with living our lives as well as we can. Personally, i've chopped away as much as i can of the folk accretions, the churchiness, the political stuff, the false piety.



I consider myself as far removed from the average fulminating fundamentalist (of any religious group) as i am from the fulminating atheist.



What separates me from these two groups which i've linked together? Doubt. They seem so smugly sure of everything. So totally wrapped up in their own certainties. So keen to consign everyone else to hellfire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. I can't do this. I continually wrestle and don't have anything like all the answers. Sometimes i think i don't have any of the answers.



Why do the good suffer?

Why do the bad seem to prosper?

How can a loving god allow a child to die?

Wtf is it all about?



I don't know. But i'm hanging in there because just occasionally there is a glimpse of something, outside all this shittiness, and there are other people out there who also just occasionally have this glimpse of something other, and, for me, for us, it's worth hanging in there for.
ditto

[Amythest]

I take issue with religion, as written in the Bible and the Quran, not all it's followers. The writings are just Myth used to control people, set them against eachother for the benefit of the said religion or sect.

People either take the writings literally, incorporate all the aspects of cruelty, judgement, condemnation, AND the moral loving aspects or they choose a more moderate stance. Some may even reject most of the writings but retain the spiritual premise that there is a Monotheistic "God".

If a religious follower believes i am secondary to men, i am on this planet to serve men, be subordinate to their whims then i see them as wishing or opening the door to harm upon myself and my sisters. Through my own life experience this has actually happened at the hands of religious zealots. I look across the globe and it's disgusting what some girls and women are subjugated to because of their religion. THATS HIENOUS!

This brutality isn't happening because of my support or actions. I'm a peaceful soul, but i will fight back if i need to.

Just questioning a Xtians belief system, OR revealing i was a non-beleiver, is vastly different than threatening their lives subjecting them to ongoing torture both psychological and physical. DO ANY question what I beleive or bother to find out? Some Xtians and Roman Catholics threatened my son and I, went about trying to destroy us within my community. Yea. real gentle good church goers. *puke* The good thing is there is protection for me within my countries laws and statutes, there are enough who are of the same bent as i, and i recieve comfort and support.

Yes Over 1 billion "athiests" now. That figure is probably off and doesn't include agnostics like myself.

I don't mind NOT KNOWING what or who God is.

The same goes for being born flawed , as a sinner, and if i don't believe in their God i am going to "hell". This belief alone sends SOME Church nutters over the deep end. They find out I'm a non believer so the social crucifixion begins. It is childish and psychotic.

I don't believe people are born "sinners", or that there is a "hell". This is because A) I wasn't indoctrinated as a child so i had a chance to consider all options B) I considered these options, looked back into actual history and learned where all the biblical myth and symbology came from. I would never force Biblical abuse upon anyone unless their behaviour exhibits they are a danger to me and others. Their ACTIONS dictate what i think and how i react, not their spiritual beliefs.

This gives everyone an even shot in my books.

That being said I wouldn't have a problem at all with Spot or Pam. Being that they answered those questions posed by GMC.

"So as a christian do you believe there is only one god?

As a christian do you believe that other faiths have got it totally wrong?

As a christian do you believe that the path to salvation is through Jesus Christ and no other?

As a christian do you believe you have a sacred duty to bring others to christ? "



If your not a hell fire brimstone, women belong in the home making babies and keeping their opinions to themselves, it's MY WAY or NO WAY, type person, than i have no problem with you whatsoever.



:-6

[gmc]

spot;1297876 wrote: I entered the thread because people were writing what was self-evidently inaccurate. I've offered various aids to reaching a consensus, not least a selection of vocabulary since it would be so useful if only it were adopted. Sadly, and I think it's evident to people reading the thread, some contributors would prefer to parade their hobby-horse and remain extreme rather than discuss the real world.


Some contributors would rather discuss in general terms than get bogged down talking about someone's personal beliefs. Your christian credentials are all very well but to many Christians you would not be fit to be described as such since you reject many of the beliefs that to many define a christian and what a christian believes. You may disagree with them but the simple fact is many mainstream christians would label you a heretic.

Unless you are prepared to contend that authoritarian religions-or if you prefer authoritarian churches- do not exist because you are not a member of them what relevance are your particular credentials?

The main contention is that monotheism has an inherent tendency towards authoritarianism by it's very nature. Do you dispute that and if so why?

[spot]

gmc;1297893 wrote: Some contributors would rather discuss in general terms than get bogged down talking about someone's personal beliefs. Your christian credentials are all very well but to many Christians you would not be fit to be described as such since you reject many of the beliefs that to many define a christian and what a christian believes. You may disagree with them but the simple fact is many mainstream christians would label you a heretic.

Unless you are prepared to contend that authoritarian religions-or if you prefer authoritarian churches- do not exist because you are not a member of them what relevance are your particular credentials?

The main contention is that monotheism has an inherent tendency towards authoritarianism by it's very nature. Do you dispute that and if so why?


Monotheism is tied in with omnipotence. The problem lies in the omnipotence bit, not the monotheistic bit. The issue of one God or many Gods is a matter of defining what the word God means. People talk glibly about The Creator God as though there's the slightest reason for thinking that if such an improbable entity existed He'd have even the slightest equivalence to whatever it is that people experience now and describe as God. I fall back on what I've said earlier - religion is experiential, not theoretical. Dogmatic belief is an attribute of Churches, not of religions. My use of the word God wouldn't include many Gods and to that extent it's monotheistic. On the other hand it doesn't include omnipotence. The authoritarianism you keep criticizing is the authoritarianism of a group of Churches and I entirely support your criticisms, they should be laughed out of business.

It's quite true that "to many Christians you would not be fit to be described as such since you reject many of the beliefs that to many define a christian and what a christian believes" but you appear ignorant of the significant proportion of Christians who also reject them. I'm not alone, I'd not claim to be part of a majority but it's a significant element and it's growing. Yes, many mainstream Christians would label me a heretic, that just shows how wrong and benighted they are in their ignorant servitude.

Meanwhile, as long as you finally stop using absolutes and recognize that Christianity covers a spectrum of practitioners, I suspect we have a lot we agree about. Working out those common areas of agreement would be interesting to me but I don't insist on it.

[gmc]

posted by spot

Monotheism is tied in with omnipotence. The problem lies in the omnipotence bit, not the monotheistic bit.


I would put it to you that one follows from the other. If there is only one god it follows that those who do not believe as you do are in error and it's not very far from that to the belief that converting others is necessary for their own good and not very far to justifying the use of force. Even more so when would be leaders latch on to the fact hat if they become priests they have the authority of that god.

Unfortunately, there are many individuals who find submission to Religion extremely seductive and they are only too ready to be dominated and mentally enslaved by it. One of the reasons why these individuals are happy to surrender control over their life and mind to Religion is because this allows them to escape the responsibility of having to think and act for themselves. It is evident that at some level within the religious believer the prospect of taking charge of his own life arouses a feeling of dread (angst).


While that may be the case it is even better if you get individuals as children and condition them in to a habit of obedience.

posted by spot

Meanwhile, as long as you finally stop using absolutes and recognize that Christianity covers a spectrum of practitioners, I suspect we have a lot we agree about. Working out those common areas of agreement would be interesting to me but I don't insist on it.


I would take that as a given - you could also say the same about islam. But sadly it is the would be leaders of the "way" that are prepared to have their way and no other that are the problem.

posted by spot

It's quite true that "to many Christians you would not be fit to be described as such since you reject many of the beliefs that to many define a christian and what a christian believes" but you appear ignorant of the significant proportion of Christians who also reject them. I'm not alone, I'd not claim to be part of a majority but it's a significant element and it's growing. Yes, many mainstream Christians would label me a heretic, that just shows how wrong and benighted they are in their ignorant servitude.


No I'm not ignorant of them and you are right not to claim you are in the majority. Those who would label you heretic seem to be growing ever stronger and making a bid to reclaim their temporal power. The religions seem to be polarising a gearing up for conflict. A plague on all their houses.

[spot]

gmc;1297943 wrote: I would put it to you that one follows from the other.You invent your own nightmare here, just as you do with "leaders of religions". Christianity has a simple enough answer to the problem with omnipotence and, again, it's one of vocabulary. If the word "God" can only describe an omnipotent entity then there is no God. Christianity can carry on perfectly well without that awesome tribal totem. If you go into your nearest Theological College[1] and say "God is dead" you'll find it's old news and a common subject of debate.

There are, in all these monotheistic systems, leaders of Churches and leaders of assemblies and leaders of political systems and leaders of culture, but there aren't any leaders of religions. Without that reasonable distinction I lack the means to communicate, we end up discussing from a different perspective.





[1] - Theological College in England, at least. I don't speak for the USA necessarily, they have odd ideas, and I'm ignorant about north of the border.

[Glaswegian]

spot;1297856 wrote: It's amusing that you presume to judge and cheapen the quality of my Christian credentials so as to safeguard the purity of your bugbear.
What credentials, spot? You have said nothing to date in this thread which marks you out in any way as being a Christian. In fact, you give the impression of being a very long way from anything remotely recognisable as one. For example, you do not subscribe to any of the central tenets of the Christian faith; you regard the stories in the New Testament as possibly fictional ('on a par with Brer Rabbit' for all you know and care); and you conceive of God as falling short of omnipotence. On the basis of these credentials you could be any one of a wide variety of religionists - for example, a devotee of Kali or Quetzalcoatl. Who can say?

As I told you earlier, spot, the type of Christian I have been referring to in my posts is not the watered-down toy plastic duck version but the real McCoy, the standard model, the type which is instantly recognisable to everyone, and which is as prolific as the locust. For example, the type denoted by the following statistic:

35% of Americans (95 million) believe that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. (U.S. Gallup poll 1996)

[spot]

Glaswegian;1297995 wrote: As I told you earlier, spot, the type of Christian I have been referring to in my posts is not the watered-down toy plastic duck version but the real McCoy, the standard model, the type which is instantly recognisable to everyone, and which is as prolific as the locust.There's a term for them, they're Bible Literalists and yes there's a lot of the buggers out there. Your mistake in terminology is thinking those notions are a litmus test for Christians. They might think so too, of course, but that's what language is for, coming to an agreed meaning for words. You can't shift because to do so would dilute the incandescent rage which has defined you since you got here. That doesn't mean you're right.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1297674 wrote: If you said all people try to find meaning or purpose in life then i would be inclined to agree with you. But that atheists just have a different belief system and it's just a different kind of religion is total nonsense. It's a theory often put forward by the religious along with the other one that an atheist just hasn't found their way to god yet and if they read the bible and were daft enough to accept it as being the word of god they would become religious.
Another theory often put forward by the religious is that when atheists are confronted with death and the possibility of 'eternal damnation' they abandon their atheism and clamour for the nearest priest to save their 'soul'. Throughout history many famous atheists have been slandered posthumously by the religious with the lying accusation that they recanted on their deathbed and sought Christian redemption: for example, Hume, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. With regard to Hume, we are fortunate to possess a firsthand account of the philosopher's death by James Boswell who records it as having been met with the utmost dignity and serenity.

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1298012 wrote: Another theory often put forward by the religious is that when atheists are confronted with death and the possibility of 'eternal damnation' they abandon their atheism and clamour for the nearest priest to save their 'soul'. Throughout history many famous atheists have been slandered posthumously by the religious with the lying accusation that they recanted on their deathbed and sought Christian redemption: for example, Hume, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. With regard to Hume, we are fortunate to possess a firsthand account of the philosopher's death by James Boswell who records it as having been met with the utmost dignity and serenity.


We could reverse the perspective and say religious practitioners avoid the idea of "no purpose". No single person/religion has the answer as many on this thread may either complain about by claiming their superiority or disliking one of another similar claim so by default avoiding "no purpose" is no different than avoiding " purpose" because of the no answer clause.

If one had the answer then the questions can be observed and either be deemed correct or not correct so how on God's green Earth is claiming "atheism" any different than claiming "Christianity"?

Ding, ding, ding!!!!

We have a winner Bob!!!!

[gmc]

spot;1297994 wrote: You invent your own nightmare here, just as you do with "leaders of religions". Christianity has a simple enough answer to the problem with omnipotence and, again, it's one of vocabulary. If the word "God" can only describe an omnipotent entity then there is no God. Christianity can carry on perfectly well without that awesome tribal totem. If you go into your nearest Theological College[1] and say "God is dead" you'll find it's old news and a common subject of debate.

There are, in all these monotheistic systems, leaders of Churches and leaders of assemblies and leaders of political systems and leaders of culture, but there aren't any leaders of religions. Without that reasonable distinction I lack the means to communicate, we end up discussing from a different perspective.





[1] - Theological College in England, at least. I don't speak for the USA necessarily, they have odd ideas, and I'm ignorant about north of the border.


I would love to see you explaining to the pope that he is not the leader of a religion but just the leader of a church - albeit the only true one.

What have your personal beliefs got to do with this? The simple fact is to most christians you would not be regarded as one of them no matter how you argue your case. That you don' t view a belief in the literal interpretation of the bible as a litmus test for being a christian or a belief in one, and only one god, is interesting and were the thread about spot's religious belief perhaps even relevant.

It really doesn't matter whether you consider the views of fundamentalist Christians valid or not and you consider your own to be better. It doesn't matter whether you consider that if the word god can only describe an omnipotent entity then there is no God. In the real world the majority of christians disagree with you and a significant portion of them would dismiss you as a heretic and in the past and perhaps even now a significant portion of them would see you burn in hell for disagreeing with them. You can argue with them all you like but it highlights the flaw at the heart of monotheism - it leads to authoritarianism and followers who want someone to tell them what to and how to behave. It's an abrogation of responsibility for ones own actions if your morality comes from an outside source.

My nightmare isn't a dream it has happened time and time again. Try telling those living in iran that they are dreaming or a palestinian that religion has nothing to do with misery or some poor sod in the bible belt who doesn't fit in that narrow minded bible thumping religious aren't really christians-they'd probably agree with you.

Monotheistic religion is a source of misery to many, I would put it to you that the omnipotent god is an inevitable feature in monotheism. Look at haiti - a child is saved from the rubble that's a miracle, a hundred thousand dead is god's will and he moves in mysterious ways and we shouldn't question. But you're not supposed to question the validity of religious belief or object when it is taught as if it was true.

posted by K snyder

We could reverse the perspective and say religious practitioners avoid the idea of "no purpose". No single person/religion has the answer as many on this thread may either complain about by claiming their superiority or disliking one of another similar claim so by default avoiding "no purpose" is no different than avoiding " purpose" because of the no answer clause.

If one had the answer then the questions can be observed and either be deemed correct or not correct so how on God's green Earth is claiming "atheism" any different than claiming "Christianity"?


atheism isn't the negative of christianity, nor is it a religion with set beliefs that must be adhered to. There is no "right" kind of atheism. It's a personal conclusion to decide there is no god - or that on balance of evidence it is a reasonable conclusion there is nit one.

It's vastly different from Christianity or any religion in that those who don't share the same conclusion are not unbelievers, heretics, infidels and everybody gets along with each other. Atheist means literally without god. You can't imagine live without god others can't bring themselves to believe there is one without evidence. Faith doesn't need evidence reason does.

The fact that some people don't share your belief is not something that should somehow be a threat to you. You do not have the right to try and force people to join in your faith. But monotheists just can't leave people alone and claim the right to force their views on society and silence those who disagree, by force if necessary.

That is inherent in the belief that there is only one god. You have a faith in a god that you cannot prove exists and the evidence you can produce just doesn't stack up on close examination. You have to believe as a child does, with complete faith and no questioning. What is so hard about accepting that not everyone is going to share the same blind faith and wants the right to be left alone to lead their lives as they choose?

[Amythest]

YouTube - George Carlin - Religion is bullshit.

"I firmly believe,.......If there is a God it must be a man.No woman could or would F' things up like this!...."_ George Carlin

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Carry on fellas!

:yh_kiss

[Bevdee]

:yh_eyebro

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1298075 wrote: atheism isn't the negative of christianity, nor is it a religion with set beliefs that must be adhered to. There is no "right" kind of atheism. It's a personal conclusion to decide there is no god - or that on balance of evidence it is a reasonable conclusion there is nit one.

It's vastly different from Christianity or any religion in that those who don't share the same conclusion are not unbelievers, heretics, infidels and everybody gets along with each other. Atheist means literally without god. You can't imagine live without god others can't bring themselves to believe there is one without evidence. Faith doesn't need evidence reason does.

The fact that some people don't share your belief is not something that should somehow be a threat to you. You do not have the right to try and force people to join in your faith. But monotheists just can't leave people alone and claim the right to force their views on society and silence those who disagree, by force if necessary. Personally I've never suggested I were biased toward any position related to "religion" other than my own and it's evident you among many don't fully understand what that position is. It's perfectly fine with me I just feel the need to clarify that point at the moment and will do so...

gmc;1298075 wrote: That is inherent in the belief that there is only one god. You have a faith in a god that you cannot prove exists and the evidence you can produce just doesn't stack up on close examination. You have to believe as a child does, with complete faith and no questioning. My God is truth. Truth has and always will exist and the difference between myself among others, atheists included, is that I do not claim to know all answers much like religious zealots and atheists claim. Yes atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist so by them claiming they know the answer serves to be not a fringe difference from religious zealots that suggest "you" will go to hell if "you" don't go to church :yh_eyerol. It's blatantly evident by logic these claims serve in the exact same manner because both questions are answered by default of answering one. I couldn't think of anything that makes more sense. But alas everyone wishes to not come to terms on a reasonable definition of "religion" and thus you get resentment, which I've no time for.

gmc;1298075 wrote: What is so hard about accepting that not everyone is going to share the same blind faith and wants the right to be left alone to lead their lives as they choose?I've not only accepted this mentality but if you'd remember correctly I was the one that defined this very same valid point into as fine of detail as I could muster. Here's the link to refresh your memory:yh_wink...http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/1296451-post5.html

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1298075 wrote: I would love to see you explaining to the pope that he is not the leader of a religion but just the leader of a church - albeit the only true one.

What have your personal beliefs got to do with this? The simple fact is to most christians you would not be regarded as one of them no matter how you argue your case. That you don' t view a belief in the literal interpretation of the bible as a litmus test for being a christian or a belief in one, and only one god, is interesting and were the thread about spot's religious belief perhaps even relevant.




Doesn't matter what most "Christians" think because "Christians" don't have the distinct right to label anyone anything. What serves as the primary determining factor is the fact one has every right to claim their own belief/knowledge because the inevitable truth as that not one single person has the exact same understanding/perception. It's an utter waste of time to target a religion collectively because the root of the "apparent problem" will never be solved by skipping through causes. Everyone's religion is different based off of perception which defines "resentment".

If an archbishop felt up an alter boy then you'd have to tackle this problem with that archbishop and not the "religion" he'd claimed because everyone's motives are different.

I don't believe in indoctrinated religion and I find it to be hugely patronizing but only when it's applied to my personal stature so I choose to not abide by it. If others wish to worship God in some manner by all means tickle "yourselves" pink, so long as you tickle "yourselves"!

And there in lies the problem, "yourselves". You'd have to tell each and every individual that you don't wish to discuss any particular topic. No different than being informed of a new drug hitting the market. You can't go around discriminating against doctors. You wouldn't know if that drug heals you or not lest you were in agreement with that view.

[gmc]

K.Snyder;1298103 wrote: Personally I've never suggested I were biased toward any position related to "religion" other than my own and it's evident you among many don't fully understand what that position is. It's perfectly fine with me I just feel the need to clarify that point at the moment and will do so...

My God is truth. Truth has and always will exist and the difference between myself among others, atheists included, is that I do not claim to know all answers much like religious zealots and atheists claim. Yes atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist so by them claiming they know the answer serves to be not a fringe difference from religious zealots that suggest "you" will go to hell if "you" don't go to church :yh_eyerol. It's blatantly evident by logic these claims serve in the exact same manner because both questions are answered by default of answering one. I couldn't think of anything that makes more sense. But alas everyone wishes to not come to terms on a reasonable definition of "religion" and thus you get resentment, which I've no time for.

I've not only accepted this mentality but if you'd remember correctly I was the one that defined this very same valid point into as fine of detail as I could muster. Here's the link to refresh your memory:yh_wink...http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/1296451-post5.html


Can we not talk about this objectively? I have every respect for your religious belief and don't wish to attack it. I don't share it but have come to that conclusion after much consideration. At the end of the day you cannot argue against someone's faith because it is completely and utterly irrational.

Atheists may or may not claim to know god doesn't exists but since they can't actually prove he doesn't all they can say is on balance of probability it's a safe assumption to make. The ones that claim to be 100% certain are every bit as annoying as fundamentalist religious nutters. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to be 100% certain but 99.99%. Even the ones that do claim to be certain hardly constitute an alternative to religion with it's own creed and set of rituals.

I don't have a problem with christians et al who follow their own faith and just get on with life and leave everybody else alone. It's the zealots and bible thumpers I take issue with who call for blind obedience to their faith. How do you counteract those who want to indoctrinate children from primary school - is a pakistani madrassa churning out warriors of god any different in essence from bible camp or a faith based school? There is no god but me is hardly conducive to peace and harmony with everybody else-monotheists can't even tolerate each other and slaughter each other with great enthusiasm.

Unfortunately, there are many individuals who find submission to Religion extremely seductive and they are only too ready to be dominated and mentally enslaved by it. One of the reasons why these individuals are happy to surrender control over their life and mind to Religion is because this allows them to escape the responsibility of having to think and act for themselves. It is evident that at some level within the religious believer the prospect of taking charge of his own life arouses a feeling of dread (angst). Thus, the religious believer's surrender of his personal autonomy to Religion is an attempt on his part to eliminate the occurrence of this unpleasant affect. However, making Religion (and God) the master and regulator of one's life has a detrimental effect on one's development as a human being for it results in psychological weakness and dependency (among other ills). This becomes clear if we look at how religious mental enslavement works in general. Viz...




What do you do about those who follow blindly and need someone to make moral decisions for them?

If you are taught that god has his chosen people and it's those who worhip him in a certain way it's very easy to convince yourself you are the ones and therefore justified in doing to others what you like in the name of god. It's very easy to convince yourself that god's message is so important you should make others join you for the good of their souls and very hard to stand up and say no this is wrong when you live in a culture where obedience to authority has been drummed in to you every week in church. The sanctions on those daring to stand up to the established order are extraordinary. Just look at the bible belt in your own country and what happens to those who stand out by being different or even just not being religious and asking why should you join in the prayer

We look back on the religious wars and atrocities of the past with horror - but the people carrying them out were every but as intelligent as you or me.

you don't have to look very far to see atrocities committed today in the name of religion. those who carried out the attacks on 911. Both Bush and Blair were very religious and prayed for guidance, so are the taliban. None of them are or were stupid people, (well maybe bush) yet their religion has got them in to a lot of trouble and us with it.

So leaving aside your own beliefs-what to do about the nutters? Banning religion isn't going to work but why do we let them get away with what they do and given half a chance would do to us all?

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1298145 wrote: Can we not talk about this objectively? I have every respect for your religious belief and don't wish to attack it. I don't share it but have come to that conclusion after much consideration. At the end of the day you cannot argue against someone's faith because it is completely and utterly irrational.

Atheists may or may not claim to know god doesn't exists but since they can't actually prove he doesn't all they can say is on balance of probability it's a safe assumption to make. The ones that claim to be 100% certain are every bit as annoying as fundamentalist religious nutters. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to be 100% certain but 99.99%. Even the ones that do claim to be certain hardly constitute an alternative to religion with it's own creed and set of rituals.

I don't have a problem with christians et al who follow their own faith and just get on with life and leave everybody else alone. It's the zealots and bible thumpers I take issue with who call for blind obedience to their faith. How do you counteract those who want to indoctrinate children from primary school - is a pakistani madrassa churning out warriors of god any different in essence from bible camp or a faith based school? There is no god but me is hardly conducive to peace and harmony with everybody else-monotheists can't even tolerate each other and slaughter each other with great enthusiasm.



What do you do about those who follow blindly and need someone to make moral decisions for them?

If you are taught that god has his chosen people and it's those who worhip him in a certain way it's very easy to convince yourself you are the ones and therefore justified in doing to others what you like in the name of god. It's very easy to convince yourself that god's message is so important you should make others join you for the good of their souls and very hard to stand up and say no this is wrong when you live in a culture where obedience to authority has been drummed in to you every week in church. The sanctions on those daring to stand up to the established order are extraordinary. Just look at the bible belt in your own country and what happens to those who stand out by being different or even just not being religious and asking why should you join in the prayer

We look back on the religious wars and atrocities of the past with horror - but the people carrying them out were every but as intelligent as you or me.

you don't have to look very far to see atrocities committed today in the name of religion. those who carried out the attacks on 911. Both Bush and Blair were very religious and prayed for guidance, so are the taliban. None of them are or were stupid people, (well maybe bush) yet their religion has got them in to a lot of trouble and us with it.

So leaving aside your own beliefs-what to do about the nutters? Banning religion isn't going to work but why do we let them get away with what they do and given half a chance would do to us all?Firstly I don't take anything very personally at all so on that I'll end in saying I do enjoy speaking with people that are secure enough in their own knowledge to not be offended, and thus not offending others.

Personally, I think of this you'd written in a different light.

I don't blame religion for any decision having been made by people, rather I blame their lack of intelligence serving to be unable to progress to the next level of moral certainty. Therefore it must be concluded those that act out against those that I feel have done wrong morally I accept the very concept by their perception I may be deemed worthy of "hell". I accept it because it's the only way to justify a response. The overlaying key factor is the moral divinity of those feeling the need to respond. If I feel someone is in the act of committing a wrong I defend what I know to be innocent and ultimately accept that by the perspective of those opposed I may be "wrong". It means that by my God I will face and accept the truth and only in the end shall I either be condemned or never having been awarded as by default, by this knowledge, I'd successfully serve to reward myself by following my own moral certainty.

Most people might get a bit unorthodox by the shear fact that if one doesn't know by the end then they're in some serious trouble :yh_rotfl

[gmc]

K.Snyder;1298149 wrote: Firstly I don't take anything very personally at all so on that I'll end in saying I do enjoy speaking with people that are secure enough in their own knowledge to not be offended, and thus not offending others.

Personally, I think of this you'd written in a different light.

I don't blame religion for any decision having been made by people, rather I blame their lack of intelligence serving to be unable to progress to the next level of moral certainty. Therefore it must be concluded those that act out against those that I feel have done wrong morally I accept the very concept by their perception I may be deemed worthy of "hell". I accept it because it's the only way to justify a response. The overlaying key factor is the moral divinity of those feeling the need to respond. If I feel someone is in the act of committing a wrong I defend what I know to be innocent and ultimately accept that by the perspective of those opposed I may be "wrong". It means that by my God I will face and accept the truth and only in the end shall I either be condemned or never having been awarded as by default, by this knowledge, I'd successfully serve to reward myself by following my own moral certainty.

Most people might get a bit unorthodox by the shear fact that if one doesn't know by the end then they're in some serious trouble :yh_rotfl


I'd agree with you there. You cannot blame someone else for a decision you yourself have taken. But what about those who follow a religion that requires complete subservience to the will of god and by extension to those who are the ones who represent him on earth? Is it their fault when they carry out an act or behave in a way required by their beliefs, or rather an inherent problem with religion that so long as it is given free rein to preach there will be those who follow without question and can be manipulated?

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1298383 wrote: I'd agree with you there. You cannot blame someone else for a decision you yourself have taken. But what about those who follow a religion that requires complete subservience to the will of god and by extension to those who are the ones who represent him on earth? Is it their fault when they carry out an act or behave in a way required by their beliefs, or rather an inherent problem with religion that so long as it is given free rein to preach there will be those who follow without question and can be manipulated?


Well, because I feel one's intelligence represents their moral integrity I have to say that no we mustn't blame religion no more than we should blame a video game a person had played before committing a crime.

When we misplace the blame such as this we completely lose the ability to treat the underlining problem, which can best be assessed when observing a particular instance. It goes hand in hand with "everyone defines their own religion". Because of this we have to treat the individuals and nothing else.

There have been countless incidences where children have watched a movie of the series "Child's Play" and hadn't gone out and murdered a little boy so, in my mind, it must be concluded that the problem lied dormant and considering the nature of such an obvious crime there's no way anyone can convince me this wasn't due to the murderer's inability to progress to the next level of moral enlightenment due entirely to the offender's lack of intelligence. This proves, logically, that each individual is responsible for their own actions intrinsically and will always be so.

[K.Snyder]

K.Snyder;1298450 wrote: Well, because I feel one's intelligence represents their moral integrity I have to say that no we mustn't blame religion no more than we should blame a video game a person had played before committing a crime.

When we misplace the blame such as this we completely lose the ability to treat the underlining problem, which can best be assessed when observing a particular instance. It goes hand in hand with "everyone defines their own religion". Because of this we have to treat the individuals and nothing else.

There have been countless incidences where children have watched a movie of the series "Child's Play" and hadn't gone out and murdered a little boy so, in my mind, it must be concluded that the problem lied dormant and considering the nature of such an obvious crime there's no way anyone can convince me this wasn't due to the murderer's inability to progress to the next level of moral enlightenment due entirely to the offender's lack of intelligence. This proves, logically, that each individual is responsible for their own actions intrinsically and will always be so.
The next obvious stance would be to suggest that the majority of religious practitioners act in vile disregard to society and need to be incarcerated and I myself cannot claim such a position.

In fact, the majority of religious people I've personally encountered are very nice people with the intent to help others regularly.

[gmc]

K.Snyder;1298450 wrote: Well, because I feel one's intelligence represents their moral integrity I have to say that no we mustn't blame religion no more than we should blame a video game a person had played before committing a crime.

When we misplace the blame such as this we completely lose the ability to treat the underlining problem, which can best be assessed when observing a particular instance. It goes hand in hand with "everyone defines their own religion". Because of this we have to treat the individuals and nothing else.

There have been countless incidences where children have watched a movie of the series "Child's Play" and hadn't gone out and murdered a little boy so, in my mind, it must be concluded that the problem lied dormant and considering the nature of such an obvious crime there's no way anyone can convince me this wasn't due to the murderer's inability to progress to the next level of moral enlightenment due entirely to the offender's lack of intelligence. This proves, logically, that each individual is responsible for their own actions intrinsically and will always be so.


But if early environment and experience can affect ones attitude to others then where is the line between indoctrination and education? It's very hard to stand up to peer group pressure and say no I don't believe this, want to behave this way towards someone.

The kids growing up in in this kind of environment. What kind of chance do they have of learning to think for themselves?

YouTube - CBC Interview with 'Jesus Camp' Filmmakers



Actually I never watched this when it was on the bbc but crikey!



Hopefully it is an isolated case. As you can imagine it's the extremes that get publicity abroad.

a german perspective



posted by K snyder

The next obvious stance would be to suggest that the majority of religious practitioners act in vile disregard to society and need to be incarcerated and I myself cannot claim such a position.

In fact, the majority of religious people I've personally encountered are very nice people with the intent to help others regularly.


Well no, because then you would be doing exactly what the more extreme religious practitioners are doing. trying to stop by force and terror anyone who you disagree with.

Besides like you I find most religious people very nice and quite happy within themselves. Sometimes it's the ones that haven't really thought about it and don't want to that get upset if you question the veracity of the bible and just believe that are aggressive. With others it's habitual hatred they have grown up with - it's part of their life and it's not rational

You can be talking to someone who is intelligent, calm, likeable rational and then religious faith comes in to it and it's like a switch goes and you realise here is someone that is not necessarily capable of reason on some things and in some circumstances could turn to violence and a readiness to impose their will on others. All it would take is the right circumstances. Religious fervour can be terrifying.

Having said that you find the same kind of mentality in the far left or right of politics. Look at ww2

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1297834 wrote: Religious belief is something that many feel should not be challenged and claim for their faith the right to have it's tenets taken as being beyond question. When someone challenges their belief in whatever it happens to be they claim offence, personal insult and the showing of what they see as a lack of respect
Religious believers have always sought to portray anyone who dares to challenge their religion as showing a scandalous disrespect for it. But this is pure subterfuge on the part of believers - and just one of many tricks they employ in defence of their religion. Don't be taken in by it for a second.

When a religious believer presses you not to challenge or criticise his religion what he is really saying is this:

I know my religion is indefensible on any grounds. I know it has no basis in reason or reality. I know that I am foolish and contemptible for believing it. But please don't remind me of this fact.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1298528 wrote: Religious believers have always sought to portray anyone who dares to challenge their religion as showing a scandalous disrespect for it. But this is pure subterfuge on the part of believers - and just one of many tricks they employ in defence of their religion. Don't be taken in by it for a second.

When a religious believer presses you not to challenge or criticise his religion what he is really saying is this:

I know my religion is indefensible on any grounds. I know it has no basis in reason or reality. I know that I am foolish and contemptible for believing it. But please don't remind me of this fact.So I'm curious, Glaswegian, why should people give religion up? Whats in it for them?

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1298529 wrote: So I'm curious, Glaswegian, why should people give religion up? Whats in it for them?
Well, amongst other things, the gains are these. The attainment of intellectual honesty and psychological maturity, a greater focus on this life as opposed to an imaginary one in the 'hereafter', the removal of primitive and superstitious fears about 'sin' and the need to propitiate a vengeful 'God', greater self-respect, safer plane journeys and, of course, a vast improvement in the ability to maintain an erection.

[Amythest]

:yh_rotflGlaswegian;1298550 wrote: Well, amongst other things, the gains are these. The attainment of intellectual honesty and psychological maturity, a greater focus on this life as opposed to an imaginary one in the 'hereafter', the removal of primitive and superstitious fears about 'sin' and the need to propitiate a vengeful 'God', greater self-respect, safer plane journeys and, of course, a vast improvement in the ability to maintain an erection.


I have to agree with all that.

My partner isn't religious. No problems there!:yh_rotfl

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1298550 wrote: Well, amongst other things, the gains are these. The attainment of intellectual honesty and psychological maturity, a greater focus on this life as opposed to an imaginary one in the 'hereafter', the removal of primitive and superstitious fears about 'sin' and the need to propitiate a vengeful 'God', greater self-respect, safer plane journeys and, of course, a vast improvement in the ability to maintain an erection.Are you sure you want to stick with this?