Is RELIGION Detrimental To The Whole of Society?
So many people insist that Atheism is detrimental to society while religion enhanced society. Hmmm, now let us see this objectively instead of subjectively. Religions have been the source of wars and other types of divisions among humankind. Religions have also been the source of prejudice and discrimination against those deemed to be so-called religious outsiders throughout history. Religions have been responsible particularly for the oppression of women and those in the LBGT community. Not to mention that religion has been primarily responsible for scientific illiteracy, especially in the United States. Let's discuss this, shall we.I don't see religion as fundamentally detrimental to society. Religion can, and has been, used to fuel human arrogance and greed, and it is often the crutch of the intolerant mind. To say, however, that religion is the stem from which all evils sprouts is in itself a crutch. It is the same as saying atheism is to blame for the Bolsheviks that murdered my grandmother's family. As simplistic as this may be, I can't do it. Those people had a choice, just as religious-minded people have the choice. This is not to say the institutionalization of religion isn't a compelling factor in examples of bad human behavior. Any institutionalized ideal has the natural tendency to have a sway over general social conduct. We have seen the unfortunate consequences of this time and again throughout human history. Yet, we have also seen that the most shining examples of wisdom and the call for tolerance arises out of the most depraved of conditions. If not for the intrinsic human capacity to make tolerant choices we would have had no Martin Luther King, no Gandhi, no Jeshua of Nazareth. I feel peace and tolerance is possible among any peoples. But as it is, too many want to give themselves over to institutionalized doctrine -whether it be religion, atheism or cultural mindset, ect.- simply because it is easier than assuming individual responsibility.
Can we STOP with the nonsense that Darwin's theories of evolution as posited in his writings---any of them, informed the National Socialist (Nazi) Movement that dominated Germany politics?
If you had a shred of knowledge about "Nazi policy" you would know that it was neither derived from nor informed by Darwin.
STOP reading the first 2 or 3 webpage articles you find when you type in the keywords "Darwin" and "Hitler" and presuming that they are the alpha and omega of knowledge and information!
Historians have NEVER made this preposterous connection, because it does not exist.
It is so-called advocates of "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" that make this bogus claim.
If you knew anything about Nazism that you did not read at Creationist webpages, then you would know the following: (a) Hitler was repulsed by the concept of evolution; (b) Hitler never read anything written by Darwin; (c) Hitler and those around him were uninformed and unschooled in anything even remotely related to what Darwin actually wrote AND had no more than the typical pedestrian knowledge of evolutionary biology---most of it wrong, that permeates anti-evolution circles.I'm sure you feel comfortable believing that. Unfortunately, I doubt you would find many who would agree eugenics wasn't an integral part of the formation of Nazi policy.
I did not say that eugenics---as a popular cultural movement of the 1920s did not inform Nazism as it emerged in the 1930s.
What I said was that Darwin did not inform Nazism.
Darwin is not a synonym for eugenics. In fact, Darwin's biological evolution---his theory of evolution, is the antithesis of eugenics as Darwin believes that NATURAL SELECTION not selective breeding allow for the survival of the most "fit" of any species.
This is basic and simple stuff.
If you are a Darwinist, then you believe nature can and will do the job of producing fit species.
If you are a eugenicist, then you believe that nature cannot and will not do the job of producing a fit species, and therefore, human intervention is needed.
Simple. Basic. Factual.
But...in conflict with the agenda of Creationists who (a) have probably never read Darwin's extensive writings on evolutionary biology and who (b) need a bogey man to promote a Christian worldview that for some reason unknown to many requires adherence to the Creation myth offered in "Genesis".
And that bogey man for the unread, uninformed, and Creationist crowd: Charles Darwin and his (apparent) disciple, Adolf Hitler.Seriously. Are you saying that Darwin's writings didn't pave the way for eugenics?
Whether Darwin approved of this rising from his work, or not (although since his son and cousin were eugenicists i think we can surmise he wasn't entirely averse to it) you can't effectively argue that his work didn't set the ball rolling.A bit of history:
Eugenics---selective breeding, PREDATES Darwin, and in fact, can be traced to the Middle Ages.
Stop reading Creationist websites that seem to have some inexplicable need to discredit Darwin in order to make Jesus credible.
As a Catholic, I know that each (Darwin/ evolution) and (Jesus/Christianity) can, and do, coexist. They are not mutually-exclusive.I'm so tickled to know you think your Catholic faith and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps, though, you could set aside your religious prejudices long enough to learn something about history.
Whatever.
Let me say this: I forgot more history writing "Whatever" than most people will know in a lifetime.I honestly don't know what to make of you. You appear to believe you are an intelligent person; yet you are attempting to gloss over a very dark moment in human history by denying one of its primary sources. For your benefit, I've done something that you can easily repeat and garner similar results since, unlike you, I don't simply expect you to take my word for something.
Go to the search engine Bing. Type in Nazi Eugenics. On the first page, you can find the following links that do not appear to be as you claim 'creationist' sources. You can use this as either a learning experience or another exercise in denial of documented history. It is, of course, your choice. You can certainly continue to believe that 'whatever' is valid evidence presented to support a foolish assertion.
the Clinic (a clinic within Nazi Germany) was strongly associated with theories of eugenics and racial hygiene advocated by its leading theorists Fritz Lenz and Eugen Fischer – Wikepedia
The eugenics-based horrors of the Holocaust were influenced by political, economic, social, and military factors. But it was the added factor of the Nazis' total disregard for the rights and dignity of human beings that made the Holocaust possible. - https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown. … it4_5.html
There is no doubt that Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime is the one most associated by the general public with racial eugenics programs. The Nazi holocaust against the Jews has always been linked with racial eugenics and indeed the Nazi’s painted it as such by portraying the Jews as some kind of sub humans whose genes needed to be removed from the genome of the “Nordic German nation”. http://darkbiology.com/NaziEugenics.htm
On 14 July 1933, the Nazis implemented a compulsory sterilisation law. It was a step towards what they believed would be a more perfect human race, using the scientific theories of eugenics. But their use of eugenics to justify their actions, ended up undermining its credibility as a science. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/23183272
In 1927, the Rockefeller Foundation provided funds to construct the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics in Berlin, which came under the directorship of the appropriately named Eugen Fischer. Adolf Hitler read Fischer's textbook Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene while in prison at Landsberg and used eugenical notions to support the ideal of a pure "Aryan" society in his manifesto, Mein Kampf (My Struggle). - http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics … l?theme=41
The top men in the development of the Nazi racial ideology were Eugene Fisher and Fritz Lenz. Who were they?
Fischer didn't officially join the Nazi Party until 1940.[14] However, he was influential with National Socialists early on. A two-volume work,Foundations of Human Hereditary Teaching and Racial Hygiene published 1921 and 1932, and in 1936 published under Human Heredity Theory and Racial Hygiene, co-written by Erwin Baur and Fritz Lenz. The book served as the "scientific" basis for the Nazi's eugenic policies.[15] He also authored The Rehoboth Bastards and the Problem of Miscegenation among Humans (1913) (German: Die Rehobother Bastards und das Bastardierungsproblem beim Menschen), a field study which provided context for later racial debates, influenced German colonial legislation and provided "scientific" support for the Nuremberg laws.[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Fischer
Lenz took over the publication of the magazine "Archives for Racial and Social Biology" from 1913 to 1933 and received in 1923 the first chair in eugenics in Munich. In 1933 he came to Berlin where he established the first specific department devoted to eugenics, at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics.
Lenz specialised in the field of the transmission of hereditary human diseases and "racial health". The results of his research were published in 1921 and 1932 in collaboration with Erwin Baur and Eugen Fischer in two volumes that were later combined under the title Human Heredity Theory and Racial Hygiene (1936).
This work and his theory of "race as a value principle" placed Lenz and his two colleagues in the position of Germany's leading racial theorists. Their ideas provided scientific justification for Nazi ideology, in particular its emphasis on the superiority of the "Nordic race" and the desirability of eliminating allegedly inferior strains of humanity - or "life unworthy of life" (Lebensunwertes Leben). Lenz was a member of the "Committee of Experts for Population and Racial Policy". He joined the Nazi party in 1937 while serving as the head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology.[1]
After World War II, Lenz continued to work as a Professor of genetics at the University of Goettingen. When questioned Lenz said that the Holocaust would undermine the study of human genetics and racial theory. He continued to believe that eugenic theories of racial differences had been scientifically proven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_LenzLet me repeat myself, yet again:
Eugenics is selective breeding---requires a human intervention.
Evolutionary biology is not selective breeding---requires no human intervention.
To suggest that eugenis is a direct outcome of the work of Darwin or is any way an analog of evolutionary biology is to understand neither.
What you are speaking of---Hitler's eugenics (which I have not denied as it is a well-documented historical fact) is NOT a function of Darwin, but a function of Herbert Spencer's perversion of Darwin's theory of evolutionary biology called Social Darwinism.
Darwin was NOT responsible for Spencer's perversions of his work no more than Christians are responsible for others' perversions of our faith.
Spencer was popular globally in the early 20th century, and was at some level, appropriated by Hitler as part of his larger political rhetoric while he soundly rejected Darwin's evolutionary biology.
Darwin's was about species and the evolution of species through adaptation to their environments.
Spencer's thinking was about societies, politics, ethnicity, race, socio-economic class, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, religion, etc. and about the INABILITY of some people in terms of their politics, ethnicity, race, class, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, religion, etc. to adapt to their environments.
No doubt Hitler was a eugenicist. So was his American ally Charles Lindbergh. But, Hitler and Lindbergh were also both Creationists who denied the reality of Darwin's theory of evolution of species.
Hitler did not believe that Aryan people descended from primates (as Darwin suggested). Hitler believed that anyone who was not an Aryan was a sub-human primate. The distinction is clear.
Hilter did not believe that non-Aryans could naturally select to eventual Aryan qualities because such qualities enhanced species survival---has Darwinism could possibly suggest to some readers, but that Aryans through selective breeding could be made superior Aryans.
Does this help you to better understand what I am saying?Double poignancy.....The law was implemented 80 years ago today.... and the objects of their hatred were not just Jewish people, but homosexual, gypsies, anyone who was so different they supposedly threatened the pure Aryan race!
Here in HubPages we at least have the freedom to express ourselves honestly! Without being threatened with retribution, aside from the occasional ban.
That's funny (funny strange, not funny ha ha) because it's actually from PBS that I got the idea that Hitler was out to prove evolution and that Aryans were the most highly evolved race. I've never read or heard that he was repulsed by evolution before. That he knew little about it and got most of it wrong I would not find surprising.
Why would you find Hitler's lack of information surprising?
Let me repeat some simple facts:
1. Some Creationists wrongly posit that Adolf Hitler was inspired or motivated by a belief in evolutionary theory or that he subscribed to Darwin's basic evolutionary principles. It is obvious that the by working to conflate Hitler and the very idea of evolution that some Creationists think they've found THE ticket to discrediting evolutionary theory.
2. Hitler's belief in Darwinism is, at best, a supposition which cannot and has not been proven.
3. Insisting, as some Creationists do, that since Darwin's writing preceded Hitler's writing that therefore Darwin caused the Holocaust (or caused Hitler to embrace eugenics) is also an example of a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy---meaning that because Darwin's theory came into being before Hitler's racism and racist/Nazi theories, that the former necessarily caused the latter.
4. Even if Hitler read Darwin, any consequences of that readings are NOT the result of anything said in Darwin's work, but of Hitler's own PERVERSION of the work of another. Hitler also PERVERTED the Bible and German history to justify his actions. We have documentary proof of this, but we have no documentary proof of any direct perversion of Darwin.
5. The comments that Hitler makes in "Mein Kampf" are unrelated to Darwin, but can be clearly linked to Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism.
And to further cloud your issue (your attempt to discredit evolution) with facts, some of Hitler's own words about evolution as Darwin understood it:
"Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place."
I would not call Hitler's statement above an endorsement of Darwin.
BUT....Hitler was a Creationist and is documented to have said the following:
"Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise."
"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator."
Hitler also believed that Jesus himself was an Aryan and not a Jew AND that Germany had lost World War I because---and he was very specific on this, had turned its back on God and Christian morality.
And he is documented as having noted:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
You might want to read "Mein Kampf".All I said was that I saw it on PBS. I was unaware that PBS had become the mouthpiece for Creationists. I didn't even bother to reread all the stuff since you keep repeating over and over again. I just said one thing. Wow.
Bethperry, I also like you way of thinking here.... trying to look honestly at both sides of the argument.
As you rightly indicate, religion per see is not the problem. Let's face it, religion is man-made. It's a tool, a means to express something beyond our immediate finite experience. It's also a "crutch," to bolster our joys, our sorrows, our desires, our pathos; and to give us hope when there seems to be nothing but despair in sight.
It has given us a way expressing in art forms some of our deepest emotions. Millions of people travel world-wide each year to view at these expressions, whether they be in music, theatre, paintings, cultural ceremony. Even (especially) ancient art, as in East Asian, Australian, African, South American cultures, attracts enormous turnover of finances. So, you could say that religion or at least the use of it helps the world go around.
However, my main objection to the influence of the two most prominent religions is their concentration on the "afterlife." Their focus is upon evil, obsessively, unreasonably. When you can convince a person that the rewards of disobedience will be the worst you can imagine of punishment, for ever, unending, inescapably, then you have people "by the throat," Obey! Or Else!
It's manipulative, selfish, bullying. Very little time and thought is given over to positive, uplifting concepts and realities, that would help people to experience a wonderful and beautiful life.
The very belief in the existence of a life after death is what drives religious thought. It's all a concept of escapism, taking our minds off the responsibilities of the Here-and-Now. And in this respect I see the exploitation of religion as the big problem of our world and it this aspect to which I would say "Yes, the exploitation of religion is detrimental to society." And it's Us Humans that make it a problem.A good consistent reply. Religion in itself is not bad or detrimental to society or development. People who follow any religion, can be broadminded and more tolerable to accept anything that can do good and justice to mankind. All religions should work for universal good and peace. If there are wars and conflicts and prejudices towards women and any particular group of people, it is not a religion's fault. It is the fault of the followers who are narrow minded and weak in controlling themselves.
That's why those folks have religion, which teaches them to be closed minded and intolerant of others, hence the start of conflict and wars. Sure, we can say religions should work for universal good and peace, but they don't and most likely never will as these are not tenets of most religions.
There have been instances when people tried to reform the religious beliefs and practices to grant equal status to all religions and all classes of people. But very little changed. Take the case of Swami Vivekananda of India. He tried to establish one single universal religion and he tried much in his short span of life to achieve it. Many people were enthralled by his perception and mission. But the mission remained unachieved as his life span was too much short and nobody took forward his mission with true dedication like him.
Intolerence? Not really. Jesus spoke of a Good Samaritan. Someone of a different culture and beliefs who was a better person because he did NOT succumb to prejudice. Later, he healed the servant of a Pagan Roman soldier when he did not have too. BUT, Christ wanted to again sho by example what it is to help ALL others.
Faith practiced by deed is stronger than the faith of those who make buildings and rules to control others. That aside, just because some lay claim to righteousness is no reason to condemn the entire Church.
The idea that any one set system of beliefs could be detrimental or beneficial is, in my humble opinion, quite absurd. However, I do understand how the author could believe that religion may be suppressing society, as a whole, rather than allowing it to flourish. Here I must add, though, that there are two different uses for the word religion. One form of religion is the different groups and sub-groups that form or organizations, but another similar (yet entirely different) definition of religion is an individual's personal thoughts and beliefs.
Though the modern world has grown, in leaps and strides, at becoming more individualized, I believe that religion is one aspect of society in which we still maintain a 'pack' mentality. It is this pack mentality that is really causing the issues. It causes people to cave into peer-pressure. It forces 'the one' to conform their ideas to match 'the whole.' Instead of one person judging someone from the LGBT-community based on their own personal experiences (i.e. this guy has never said anything mean, been rude, or given me any cause to dislike him), that person will draw from what the 'pack' is telling him: that the LGBT-community is not to be tolerated.
As a gay man myself, I find it silly that people automatically assume that I am Atheist. Once again, I can understand where they can get that idea. However, I have walked with Christ since my days as a child, and I have a personal relationship with Him! The only difference between myself and most Christians is the fact that others are not willing to question the 'pack.' Personally, I will eagerly pull a pastor/reverend/priest aside to talk about the scriptures. More often than not, we come to an agreement that it is impossible to know everything. All the questions that religion leaves unanswered will remain unanswered, because we can only give our best guesses.
Oh dear, look at me blabbing on and on. I suppose that I should tie this off now. I hope that I made my point clear. Yes, organized religion can hurt society as a whole; no, spiritual religion is not necessarily a bad thing since it builds up a person's beliefs, including their morals, ethics, and perspective of the world. In short, let's all start being ourselves and leave any group-imposed ideas in the dust!Of course, if you are a Christian, you are automatically part of the pack and are a sub-group that forms that organization, whether you like it or not.
Sure, believers will say they are not part of the organization and don't support it, but if not, then where did they get their beliefs if not from the organization? If they aren't part of the pack, then they would have to make up their very own religion, they wouldn't be Christians.Where did they get their beliefs? I don't know. Could be this thing called a brain. With thoughts, ideas and stuff like that unique to an individual.
Are you saying all atheists are alike? All Democrats? All Republicans? All Independents? All black people? All white people? Because you know, even if you don't support them as a whole, you are at least a sub group or where did you get your race from? lol See how stupid that sounds?
I find it funny that your only mention is Christianity, ignoring all the other religions of the world. Are you saying that all Muslims are radical terrorists then?
All religions are made up of individual people. If their leadership is radical, then that is what people see and attribute to that religion. However, that doesn't make every member of that religion radical nor in support of the more radical fringes of their religion.People identify with religions---regardless of denomination, for a reason.
And you know one line I am REALLY (!) tired of:
"Well, my church believes in X [fill in the blank], but I don't."
Total crap. If you don't believe in X, Y, or Z beliefs or tenets of your church, then don't belong to the church.
So, if you belong to ANY church of ANY denomination and the leader is radical, then yes and despite protests to the contrary, you are radical or at least tolerant of the radical message.That speaks to a specific but the question is general. Certainly in a specific Church I understand what you're saying. The original comment though was a generalization.
If so and so is a Christian and this Christian did that then they support that. Again I ask - why are we only speaking of Christianity here?
There are a great many people who are Christian, believe in God but do not belong to a specific Church or denomination.I specifically said ANY. I am not focused on Christianity. ALL religions have the potential to cause, and do cause, harm---past and present (and sadly likely) future.
If you believe that all religions are potential in causing damages or conflicts, then do you assume that if there is no religion, there won't be any damage, any wars or conflicts, no disgraces and disrespect of women and everything will be better in life?
I do not feel like that. Religion is not responsible for any thing that goes bad. It is the people. Their mentality and thinking attitude and intolerance with others. This will be always there, whether religion exists or not. Unless men are learning to love each other as a human being and possess tolerance to treat everybody equally with no preferences as to wealth,knowledge or profession, there won't be any thing going to be better.There is no religion without people. Religion is a sociological institution created by people. There is no separation of people from the religions---as institutions, that they create and wield like weapons against so-called non-believers.
I am not stupid. I do not presume that the absence of religion would mark the presence of bliss.
But the total elimination of any institution that exists to divide and to control---and to exclude and manipulate OR to do anything other than facilitate a very Lockean (as in John Locke, Enlightenment, "Second Treatise on Government") natural law/social contract, regardless of the nature of that institution, would be a good thing.Sorry bro, if I offended. I agree that religions are created by people. But they are good for attaining some spiritual knowledge and moral behaviour. The problem arises when religions are used for discriminating among classes and castes and trying to exercise authority over weaker sections of people by strong and authoritative people. The mentality of those heads and priests and even followers of religions should change. They should know that all religions lead to same goal. And all people are equal in the eyes of God. God has not told that you are superior and the other are inferior. It is all we, that created these differences to establish our authority and rule. So this system and mentality should change.
Actually religion, the Bible and the Quran teach that men are superior to women and that slaves should behave for their masters.
Most modern societies try to fix that but it's a stretch.All these things are man made perceptions and beliefs. Men conceived themselves superior to women due to their physical construction and strength and accordingly crafted the religious rules and practices. But fact is there will be no man without a woman and he should treat her as equal to him.
Could you please explain how all religions have something common... I try, but ...
The world is not a place in which much good comes from sectarianism of any kind.
Religion hinges on the exclusivity of one set of beliefs---regardless of the set of beliefs.
This exclusivity results in exclusion, alienation, discrimination, bigotry---all forms of harm.
The sooner we---as a world, dispense with all religion, the better off we will be.I disagree and I believe the proof is out there right now to be found.
We've made every attempt to strip any mention of God & prayer and religion from our everyday - out of our schools, meetings and even our everyday lives because people are trying to make it taboo.
Are we a better society? Are our children better behaved? Are our schools safer? No on all counts.
Crime runs rampant, our schools are battlegrounds and our government becomes more corrupt every day. If you take the time, you can trace this back to when all the hoopla began about a simple school prayer or prayer before a public meeting the atheists war on religion and their deadset design to destroy any trace of it.
Certainly there are aspects of religion that need to be more flexible and not so rigid as to not accept change in any form. But your proof of how much better off we'll be without it does not exist and in fact, an argument can be made to the opposite based on the decline in morals, values, safety and simple respect of another person.But, we also no longer burn witches, go to war or torture people into believing in God & prayer.
I am to understand from Muslims, though, that Islam is the religion of peace, so would it be perhaps a good idea to introduce it into our schools and teach our children? Kids would have to pray 5 times a day, so we would have to change the school scheduling somewhat, but just think how peaceful our children would be.
Sorry, but are you actually saying things would be peaches and cream if we had our kids pray in school? Do you actually know anything about our history prior to 1962?Exactly...
The whole "in God we trust" slogan---and it WAS and IS nothing more than a slogan (image the logic of putting such a statement on money) added to currency as a direct "jab" at the USSR.
And the whole "under God" thing in the Pledge of Allegiance---added in 1952 as another "jab" at the USSR.
I started school in the late 1950s. We had NO PRAYERS in school. It was public school. If you wanted praying, you sent your kids to parochial schools.
Not only was there NO PRAYER in public schools in the 1950s and 1960s, but there was NO TEACHING CREATIONISM. We learned about evolution. If you wanted creationism, you sent your kids to parochial schools.
End of story.
And guess what---everything was just fine in public schools then, because of one thing---the only thing lacking today: Discipline (from the school principal, from teachers, and from parents---parents who not only disciplined their kids at home but who also supported discipline at school from the principal and teachers.)That is incorrect. "In God We Trust" was put on our coins and then money back during the Civil War. It was only officially adopted as a motto in the 1950s. So no, it wasn't a "jab" at the USSR. It already existed long before it became official.
School prayer has existed as far back as the late 1800s. You should really check your history. In fact, in NY an actual law advancing a school prayer was on the books in 1955, the decade you claim there was no school prayer. I am not an advocate of school sponsored prayer - I am an advocate of students being allowed to pray at schools without being singled out, sued or admonished. That activity began after 1962.
I see you don't address at all the moral decay of our society since the war on religion began though.
Why are you so scared of Creationism? It is not meant to replace the teaching of evolution, only to provide another theory because you do realize that evolution is still just that right? a theory?
I guess it is that very attitude that I find most distasteful. I don't believe in it so it should not be allowed to be studied or presented. There is this great fear among atheists apparently about anyone hearing anything other than their own secular view. I believe our children and our future are best served by presenting alternate views on everything. It makes their minds think instead of being sheep led around by the nose.I think you've got 90% of this absolutely backwards. I think you should be checking your history and a basic understanding of science (which is nor what creationism is, btw)
It is easy to say someone is wrong. What proof do you offer? Anything?
Even Darwin questioned his theory later in life, citing discrepancies that could not exist if it was correct.
No one said anything about teaching it as fact - most classes offered do not even mention God at all but are based more on Intelligent Design. Again, -what is it you're afraid of if such a theory is presented?
I mean, why are atheists so afraid of anyone hearing about creationism, God, Jesus, religion at all (any)? If you don't believe in anything - why does the Ten Commandments posted somewhere bother you? An art project that is a picture of Jesus in a school? Students meeting prior to school to pray together? No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to pray or follow the commandments or bow down to Jesus. What is the problem? What is the fear?
It is the same fear based annihilate it reaction that some religions have towards gay and lesbians. It is no different. We don't believe in it - so it should not be experienced or talked about at all to our children. No difference at all.I'm not sure why you're being so condescending. It's a question.
Whether or not darwin questioned his theory has nothing to do with its scientific veracity. Science had grown in a hundred years. New discoveries and refinements were made. None of which disprove the theory, which grows with new information.
Why do you think that opposition to teaching creationism in school equates to fear? Any proof to offer? Nothing? Creationism is an unproven, unprovable hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is not demonstrated with evidence. It is not testable or repeatable. Given those facts, what qualifies it for being taught in a natural science classroom, when it is neither natural or a science? The problem is not one of offense. It's one of equality and the separation of church and state. It's about upholding the law, not finding ways around it. I'm not afraid at all. I think if more Christians read and studied the Bible, there would be more new atheists. That doesn't mean it belongs in public school. If you want your children to get a religious education, teach them at home or send them to a religious, private school. It's not the government's or the taxpayers job to teach religion to young people.
Do you know why the Bible was removed from schools? Because Catholics and protestants fought over which version should be used, and couldn't agree. If you want prayer back in school, so decides which prayer? Which religion? Which denomination? Who's interpretation, and will that not alienate students of other beliefs? Could it not lead to favoritism or discrimination? Would Christians want Muslim prayers in public schools? How about satanic, or Jewish? Realistically, they want special rights for Christian prayer, not equal rights.Sure, present it in theology as theology.
Sure and why not file the black boards with verses from the Quran?
You can do whatever you want with your own children, but a public school needs to be secular. Imagine if the children's teacher was a Muslim and she spouted on about the Quran and how Jesus was simply a prophet.
All Christians got their beliefs from Christianity and the Bible, where else would they get them?
Yes, I certainly can see that, it's because those are fallacies called "Strawmen".
If you can show me where I said that and what that has to do with anything other than the fact you present yet another fallacy.
You now appear to be talking about something completely different.
The overall message comes from the 'pack' as it were, but when you don't agree with something, like, say, the whole gays going to hell theory, you follow your conscience... Obviously, homosexuality is a sin... but then again, saying 'god dammit' is, too... do I believe I'm going to hell for saying it? no, I don't... I also don't believe gays are going to hell for being gay... so I do not believe everything the church says. The church was put together by man... man is imperfect... enough said. But as a Roman Catholic Christian, and knowing that God made man flawed gives me the sense that I must follow my own heart to God... not all the church's rules. If my church told us all that we must cleanse society by killing homosexuals, I'd notify the FBI... and I'm anti-government... but when torn, one follows the path he believes to be right... "What would Jesus do?"
Why is homosexuality obviously a sin? It seems to appear naturally in many walks of life. Just because some male slave owners a few thousand years ago said it was a sin doesn't mean we should think it is. These same guys said it's more unclean to give birth to girls than boys and that we should kill disobedient children.
When I said 'obviously' I meant according to 'church law' ... nothing more.
I don't know... I guess it was seen as "using something for a purpose for which it was not intended." maybe it was another reason. My point is, we are smarter now than we were then... we have a more exact quality of language now than we did then... and like I said, just because the church says something doesn't mean I believe it. I don't believe in Adam and Eve as it is written, I believe in it as a metaphor to describe the difference between the sexes. Its a wonderful story, but its a story and nothing more... any historical accuracy to events that actually happened are just the parts that made it through the oral telling of the story for the thousands of years before it was written down.
And here's something that's gonna ruffle some feathers, but I don't care... I do not believe in all the miracles Jesus did... I don't even believe he was God's actual son. I believe they called him the son of God because of his wisdom in his teachings. I think the miracles got added to the stories later to add on to a wonderful person to make him God-like.Okay, but there is a big difference between "obviously" and "according to church law".
Telling people what our intentions are rather controlling. It's like saying we shouldn't get in airplanes because we don't have wings.
Sure, that's reasonable for sure. It's also reasonable that all of the stories in the OT are complete fabrications in order give a tribe of people entitlement. People were inventing Gods are that time. This group invented a God that said they were a result fallen Gods and his chosen people. Wouldn't you say?
The difference is that in the bible it clearly states that a women was made for man, not the other way around, or that man was made for man, think about it. There's absolutely nothing a man can do for a man that a women can't. So the real problem lies in the person.
Sure that's what the bible says, but the bible says lots of stuff about all kinds of stuff we know to be wrong. For instance we know it's wrong to have slaves and beat them with clubs.
We also know from science that the first male didn't appear before the first female.
You are also completely wrong about homosexuality. One can't force someone to love someone they aren't attracted to. Could you be forced to love someone of the same sex? What do we find happens when people attempt to do just that? They wreak the lives of many.And of course you can produce example after example of Jesus saying to beat our slaves with clubs, right?
Did I say Jesus said that? I did say the bible says it and can provide the scripture and I can provide the scripture that says Jesus said he wasn't there to change the OT.
That's right, Jesus did say that. Therefor to be a Christian means that we keep and beat our slaves? Right? Because you've certainly intimated as much often enough.
He said nothing about Jesus, he said slavery and beating slaves was in the Bible. If you count the bible as the words of Jesus, then yes Jesus said to beat and own slaves.
I am looking at a few passages right now that okay the beating of slaves in fact.What passages? Tell me, so I can go look them up. I'm pretty sure Jesus never okayed owning slaves.
That's in the Old Testament. Jesus doesn't enter the picture until the New Testament, so how could you say that Jesus said it was okay to own slaves? He didn't say that.
Both Link and Rad made it very clear that the words are not from Jesus, only from the bible. Of course, Jesus himself said he was not there to change the OT law...
You went to seminary, I didn't. Do they teach in seminary that here Jesus is saying that His followers should keep and beat slaves? I'm unfamiliar with that one, I would appreciate references.
Did you not read it and the sections before and after?
Chris, I was not speaking to you, and I don't appreciate the sarcasm completely unprovoked.
You know as well as I that there is no direct order from Jesus to keep and beat slaves, but this lesson he taught specifically talks about beating people only lightly for not knowing they were doing anything won't. It is an appropriate reference to the question that she asked.I actually wasn't being sarcastic to you, although I completely understand how it sounded that way and I apologize. Still, it's a misleading passage. Jesus never said we should keep and beat slaves, but you seem to be saying He did by your usage of that passage. So if you know something I don't, and that's entirely possible, then I would like to be in on it.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
What is ambiguous about beating someone lightly who didn't know they were doing something wrong, as opposed to beating someone severely who knows better? Why not say, I don't know, don't own or beat people?The people to whom He was talking would have understood themselves to be, in essence, slaves of God. And they certainly understood what it meant to be slaves, living under occupation. He was comparing the position of the true servant of God to the position of the Pharisees, who acted as if they were above the common rabble and almost as if God owed them because they kept all the rules.
That's your interpretation of it, and while it may be the common apologist interpretation, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is the correct one. While I do not necessarily see these verses as a commandment from the lips of Jesus to beat people, it is an important distinction that is considered a continuation of the old laws of the OT. Jesus was a Jew. He (mostly) followed Jewish laws, as did the majority of his immediate followers even after his death. Paul stood at odds with Peter and James of the Jerusalem church when it came to new Christian converts and the Jewish law. Living under occupation and accepting the circumstances is not quite the same as what these verses are ACTUALLY saying. They can be viewed multiple ways, and there is no reason to suspect that any one way is superior, 2000 years removed from the cultural context and history of the passage.
Of course I believe (as I think you do, although if I'm wrong I apologize) that understanding cultural context is important but so is studying the text in relation to the wider text. The reason that the view I put forth is the most popular among apologists is because it is the one that makes the most sense in context of His time, His place and also what the rest of the Bible says. Since in no other place could Jesus be said to be advocating holding and physically abusing other humans as property, it makes no sense that He would be here.
It's easy to say that it makes the most sense when it agrees with what you want it to mean, isn't it?
Two words: cop-out.
Okay, two words hyphenated, so I guess you could call it one word if you were so inclined. But...in the absence of an argument for a different interpretation (and in the presence of the assumption that I forced the facts to fit the hypothesis) I'm not seeing a better alternative. Simply saying, "Well that's your opinion" is really the same as Sheldon's mother saying, "Well...that's YOUR opinion." It's a caricature of an argument. I'm open to reason and logic and I'm not going to dismiss something out of hand but all you haven't given me any of that.
Wow, thanks for that JM. He most certainly does say how and when to beat slaves.
Really? Jesus said that, did He? Was that while sitting around the table lecturing the Pharisees, or was that when he was before Pilate?
You and Lybrah. Both Link and Rad stated the statement was not from Jesus, but from the bible - the same OT that Jesus said He was not there to change. If it is not to be changed, He must support it, right?
I'm making a point here. Draw the line to where Jesus said we (Christians, followers of Christ) must not only keep slaves but also beat them.
No one here said Jesus directly ordered for Christians to beat and own slaves. We even clarified that it was stated in the bible and not directly spoken by Jesus, so I cannot understand how you and Lybrah still assume that is what we are saying. However, one would have to assume that if Jesus came after the OT and did not change it, he supports it. Otherwise, he would have changed it would he have not? Therefore, jesus was okay with beating and owning slaves. Or is my and anyone with logic missing the mark here?
But that assumes that everything in Roman-occupied Syria-Palestine was exactly the same as in ancient Israel anyway. Oh wait, it wasn't. So right there goes half the argument.
Yes, the explicit argument is that "the Bible" says that. The implicit argument (and not at all implicit for some people) is that Christians are totally good with God if they own and beat their fellow men, which would further implicitly state that Jesus said it was okay. Which I might see if things in Jesus' time were the same as they were in Moses'. But they weren't.Well...didn't Jesus say "love one another as I have loved you?" One could argue that that is a change to the OT. One could not be loving if one beat his or her slaves. Or even had a slave to begin with.
Well that doesn't make sense considering that the slave traders and slave owners of the south professed to be good Christian people who both owned and beat slaves - and used the Bible to justify it. Slavery was a fact of the ancient world and the not-so-ancient world, Like it or not. Christians of Spain justified killing and enslaving Indians because they said they weren't really humans, and a similar mentality went towards the enslavement of African Americans in the new world. Or were none of those people "real Christians" according to the judgements of Lybrah?
Is funny, people want to say that Christianity is one of the largest religions and use the argument from popularity to justify it, then turn around and disown the majority of people who call themselves Christian. It really is funny, when you look at it. If we take it to its conclusion and the only true Christians are ones that are exactly like you, that means you have a religion of one. Not that impressive in that context, is it?Hang on a minute. If Jesus is said to be the Word Become Flesh then we have to assume that he is the fulfilment of the OT and all the laws therein. Thus if the law condones and supports slavery then by definition Jesus did too irrespective of whether or not he spoke on the subject. If you believe God is the same today and forever and that he is the author of the law then by definition he still supports slavery today. You cannot say God remains the same and that he changes his mind. Further if God really opposes slavery then one would have thought he would have told Moses that slavery was to be outlawed by Israel.
That's an interesting statement. Do you not notice a change from the practices of Judaism to the practices of Christianity? Fairly quickly, upon the advance of the Jesus movement? And, progressively, over the years? I don't think your assumption is a logical one.
That to the side. He said 'Even the smallest detail of the law will remain until its purpose has been achieved. ' This statement implies, to me, that one was to attempt to understand the purpose of the laws in place in order to rise above the need for that particular law. Is it not possible that the purpose of the laws governing slavery was that slavery was a fixture of the ancient world and, possibly, the laws had to be there in order to help people think so that they could eventually reason through to a point of understanding that slavery was wrong?
There have been a lot of things, throughout human history, that (at the time) seemed logical and reasonable to do. When we look back, we wonder how our ancestors could have been such savages. How did they rise above the laws of those times? I think, they probably put a lot of thought into it. I'm sure that those who come behind us will look at our actions and think we were, at times, somewhat savage. Hopefully, they will be living in a better world we helped to create by thinking about how our actions affect others and slowly changing our world to correct that; just as our ancestors did.
What would Jesus do? He would promptly tear down to the ground the Roman Catholic Church and give all of it's wealth to the starving. At least, that is what I would expect Him to do.
You're probably right. The RCC has been too rich for too long, and has, in many ways, lost their path.
Sorry, it's not just the RRC. Religion has become a business. You can start a church in your house, have a few people over on the weekend, collect money and enjoy the tax free exemption on property tax and collections.
It's obviously not that easy or more people would do it. And the vast majority of these (basically) Bible-study coffee klatsches are exactly that, get-togethers. Not church services.
That's what I'd expect him to do as well. Sigh. I keep praying for the pope to do just that.
Seems that if he wants our praise and for us to worship him, he'd be all about our caring for each other.
What does this mean---really: "I have walked with Christ since my days as a child, and I have a personal relationship with Him."
What constitutes a "personal relationship" with someone that you have never met and is presumed to be a deity?Hello!
Simply put, it means that I am not following the edicts set forth by religious organizations, but I do follow Christ. While that might be a difficult concept to grasp, I would say to imagine Christ as the zenith of morality, the utmost standard for ethics, and a role-model for us during the most trying times.
As for a previous post, when you say that automatically claiming to be a Christian makes you a part of a pack, I would have to say that your point is obvious. However, you are taking it out of context. It would be like judging a person because they are American. So, because you can be categorized into a certain group, you are immediately judged based on flimsy stereotypes.
I am a Christian, but I am not like every other Christian. I am an American, but I am not like every other American. I am a human, but I am not like every other human.You only know Christ from secondary sources---which often conflict with each other as to the nature and deeds of this man.
You are placing trust and faith in secondary sources---texts written years after the man died.We know, basically, nothing of what he really said or did other than the few comments and events in the Roman historical records.
As such, how can you possible claim that Jesus is the alpha and omega of morality or ethics?Awesome!
Have you ever noticed a small kid looking up to his dad? That kid places his dad in the highest esteem. Everything that the dad does sets an example for the child. As a good parent, it is necessary to set the correct model for the kid to follow. A parent must show a great amount of higher morals and ethics, and they must teach the children that it is not right to harm other people. Yet, we all know that parents are not perfect. It is the idea of the perfect parent that sets the child on the right path. It is the standards that the parent projects to the child that leads them on a path that veers away from harming people.
In the same manner, it is the simple idea of a person so outstandingly perfect that gives us all a role-model to set as the standard. Perhaps our relationship with Christ, as a person, is indirect, but I am certain that the lessons that we can learn from the 'idea' of Christ is quite direct. It is for this very reason that I believe society is better off with Christ as a standard for morals and ethics. Even Atheist should understand and empathize with the 'idea' of Christ. If we put our understanding of Him on a pedestal, and we all try our best to set those ideals as our standards, then society can only benefit from an extraordinary amount of love, compassion, and willingness to help one another!But, since that particular ideology has failed miserably due to other issues of Christianity, do you think it's time we let go of it and moved on? It seems we humans have managed to figure out much better morals and ethics ourselves that work a whole lot better than anything Christianity has to offer.
That has been common for centuries. The world moves, growing and improving it's moral/ethical concepts, and religion is drug kicking and screaming into the future with it. It generally seems to take around 50 years or so before the gods recognize and accept the morality that secular society finds improved, but it DOES happen.
So the one and only source of those evils throughout the whole history of the world has been religion, and if we could somehow enter the Wayback Machine and kill everyone who started a religion so that no religion ever existed, the history of the planet would be one of peace, love, brotherhood and live and let live?
The world would definitely be a different place without religion and it's enslavement over mankind, we certainly could have done without the suppression of education and knowledge and the propagation of ignorance and hatred religions have offered these many past thousands of years. You could be very right about that.
Yes, the suppression of education which happened because of cultural, not religious, reasons (aka the Dark Ages) would definitely have never happened if there had been no religion. Once again, the sheer logic and knowledge of history overwhelms me.
Yes, the Christian and Islamic cultures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_ … ography%29
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/ … thers.htmlJust curious, did you read the whole Wikipedia article or just cherry-pick the parts that 'support' your point?
Uh, I had plenty of time to read it, did you?
Of course, if there are parts in there that do support my point, is that a problem? Is there anything there that supports your point that religion was not a part of it?Yes, of course I did. And although there may be parts in there that seem to support your point if taken all by their little lonesomes, as part of the greater whole they don't. In other words, no, it wasn't Christian and Muslim culture that suppressed education in the 'dark ages,' (which of course is your sneaky way of trying to re-assert that it was religion, even though it wasn't.) In fact, in many places it was religious institutions (usually monasteries) that preserved the Roman culture and Greek and Roman thought while the Germanic tribes were busy sacking and destroying it in Rome.
Clearly, religion is NOT the only source of the world's problems, but it should be very obvious that sectarianism---particularly in the 21st century, is at the core of much of the horror of the world in which we live.
It is time for human beings to take another evolutionary step and dispense with creation myths, gods, saints, demons, etc. as explanations of the hows and whys of our world and RETURN to reason and to science and to secularism.Return to secularism? At what point in human history was secularism so overwhelmingly dominant that if there were truly a major shift away from the living God, as well as other religions, that we would be 'returning' to secularism?
The Enlightenment; the movement in human history that informed the American Revolution and the subsequent founding (with the ratification of the US Constitution) of the United States of America.
But, of course, you will deny this and insist as Christians are apparently instructed to do, that America's founders were all deeply Christian men and that the US is a Christian nation.Wow. Don't assume much about people you clearly know little about, do you?
Just to be clear, the 'enlightenment' was not so widespread that religion of any kind was in any danger of going away. Even the number of leading thinkers who were truly secular was rather small. Deism (and whether the American Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly deist or not is up for debate) is still not the same as atheism or even secularism. And no, I'm not one who claims that America was founded specifically as a theocracy (which is what is often implied by both sides, those who think that the US was founded as a Christian nation and those who deride such claims.) But, that does not mean that the intention was for America to be religion-free. There are paths that go between those two extremes.
Read the First Amendment. Read the clause in the larger body of the Constitution that makes clear that there would be no "religious tests" for office-holding in the new republic.
Then, read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention.
You might understand after doing this that the founders---at least the one's who actually were present at the Constitutional Convention and who actually wrote the document, were focused on creating a secular republic; a "commercial republic" to quote exactly the words of Alexander Hamilton whose essays in "The Federalist Papers" laid out the argument for ratification of the constitution.
The intention was for the United States---the formal entity that is the republic and its government to be, THANKFULLY, religion free.
We have no state religion. We have no religious tests for office-holding. We have essential separation of church and state---this is why churches pay no taxes.You have some points which, if you and I had interacted more you would know I agree with. But don't make the mistake of thinking that because America was specifically designed to not have a STATE religion (as opposed to England, France and German, among others, which all did) that American was designed to have NO RELIGION AT ALL. Even if the Founding Fathers were all deists (and again, that's debatable,) such a thing would never have occurred to them. Even Franklin, no religionist he, favored a Christian understanding and Jefferson literally sent missionaries among the Native Americans at the expense of the federal government.
Do you know where the phrase "separation of Church and State" first appeared? Do you know what it actually meant? It certainly did not mean that there should be no religion in the country.
I'm an unbaptised, non-church-going, questioning atheist and the way I see it, in many ways, religion is a paralyzing factor in human and scientific progression. However, like every group, there will always
be the extremists but there will also be the ones promoting the love and acceptance that the bible talks about. It depends on your perspective, I guess. There are lot of people who grew up in hyper-religious homes who turn out to be the biggest NON-believers in society, and those like me, who grew up with no religious background at all and now I feel like I'll always be curious about the eons beyond our tiny speck of dust in the universe that we call Earth.I think some of us evolve---intellectually and cognitively, away from religion as we come to learn not only more and more about religion itself (particularly in terms of what religions believe), but about the cosmological and physical reality of the world in which we live.
In other words, some of us evolve out of religion just as we evolve out of believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny.
Hello Grace. How nice to run into you this evening. I hope all is well with you and with yours.
From my perspective, the OP statement claims to be aiming for objectivity but the claims about religion are not the least bit objective. To be objective, the first assertion in the thesis forces a comparison of death rates at the hands of both Atheists and religious.
During the last century, a handful of godless, mainly atheistic regimes have been far more lethal to humanity than the estimated 4,200 religions in the world {1}. Governments, not religions, are responsible for six times more deaths in the world than all the foreign and internal wars of the 20th century. Being objective, therefore, leads to numerical proof that Atheism and governments controlled by professed atheists get the gold medal for murdering mankind. China (PRC), China (KMT), and the USSR, murdered 148 million people in the 20th Century alone and they account for 57 % of the world’s total democide. {2}
In the end, a truly objective examination does NOT support the false impression that religions have been an extraordinary source of wars and other types of divisions among humankind.
If you have different numbers then I do, Grace, please share them.
Many thanks for starting this discussion. Enjoy tomorrow to the fullest.
{1} http://www.examiner.com/article/the-exa … is-unknown
{2} http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTMGood evening, Grace.
Q. Will the elimination of all religions actually end all prejudice and discrimination against “outsiders.”
A. Absolutely not!
Q. Is it is possible to eliminate 1) all religions or 2) all sources of prejudice and discrimination?
A. Absolutely not!
Q. Will the elimination of all religions have any noticeable impact on the levels of prejudice and discrimination in the world?
A. Absolutely not!
Q. Is prejudice and discrimination an important consideration when discussing the elimination of religion?
A. _______________!
The elimination of all religious intolerance would be far more productive than the elimination of all religions.I think we would have to look at a particular religion within a particular society to see if this is true or not. In some, we see absolute detriment, and here is where I make the distinction that I think matters. Does a given religion have teachings that support such a detrimental way of acting in a society? I can think of one that does support it. In that case, the people are in keeping with their religion to cause harm to societies.
Most of the time however, I find that the examples given where people are having issues with the religious people, it isn't the religion that is causing the problem but people that are ignoring it or abusing their religion to do so. In other words, they are having to go against their religion to cause any harm to others.
On another note, we see a lack of religion in some even recent world issues, where we see a lack of religion NOT being some answer for harming some society. In fact, in more recent history even we see examples shown where people are working out of a philosophy or mentality that gives no credence to any religion, and causes a TON of harm to a said society. So in that case also, fair is fair. There was nothing within that person's personal views that told them they OUGHT not to do anything wrong to others. The "oughtness" matters in these cases sometimes, forgive the word usage there, lol. If we ought not to harm anyone or any society, that is usually a belief held by most sane people. Not all views uphold that idea however, so that when we see people deviate from it to hurt others, there is sometimes nothing within their held views that tells them to do otherwise. You couldn't reason to that person that they ought not to do that, because why not? Says who?The counter charge would be that Atheism, under such totalitarian rule, as Stalin who, arguably slaughtered 80 million of his own people is not complimentary to the cause of Atheism. The counter-counter would be that such rule is no less than secular theism. When a government becomes omnipotent it is no longer Atheistic, but a Man centered theocracy. As I define Atheism it is an embrace of the human capacity to reason and that such an adherence shuns any assertion of a spiritual or Man centered omnipotence.
The quest to understand us began with the gods and it should not be demeaned. Without it we would not be here. Without those first questions and the groping for answers, which were our own, no foundation would have been laid for the science of today. Now, this theism, is archaic. Tomorrow, today will be antiquated. Hopefully they will not scoff at our understanding of what is.
Theism is dying, except for that which is being propped up to help to destroy the others. Atheism of itself says nothing, as does theism. They simply make statements. That we seek a freedom and peace is obvious and for some it is in the lap of a god and for others food stamps and an Obama phone, and Uncle Joe, both are wrong.I don't see religion so much as detrimental as the baser parts of our human nature tripping us up throughout history, perhaps twisting the idea of religion into opportunities to oppress others. I can only speak for myself here, but religion has been such an unbelievable force in my life. I wish I could more eloquently put how powerful spirituality can effect one's life and death when surrendered to. No matter what "religion" you are, trusting in a greater power seems a sublime mercy in so many ways.
I don't think religion is detrimental to society, spirituality is actually a natural thing. With that said those who have spiritually awoken, Jesus for instance, teach and some people create religions based on these people, but is what was written the same as what was said? I would consider myself an atheist, and though the almighty does not exist in my reality I feel no urge to rape and pillage. I feel that what is detrimental to society is poor parenting. Maybe we should try harder not to use sex to sell things that are largely targeted at young people.
I guess I just don't understand the purpose of this thread--unless it's to flawlessly demonstrate a "tu quoque" fallacy.
I'm a Christian. I have many Christian friends and several who aren't Christian. I can't think of a single one of them who categorically holds that atheism (by dint of being atheism) is a detriment to society (and that by extension, so are all atheists).
Granted, I'm sure there are specific atheists who, by their actions, could be considered detriments to society. But this has nothing to do with atheism itself--any more than a random Christian pulled over for doing 20 over the limit is "speeding for Jesus".
If what you're trying to establish is that all atheists have clean laundry, you're mistaken. People have done stupid things in the name of Atheism--just like people have done stupid things in the names of Christianity, Islam, saving Bambi, and getting laid. But pointing out others' dirty laundry doesn't make yours any cleaner.
That's why there's OxiClean.the who's more moral thing again? geeze. does this really prove/disprove anything. its incredibly easy to find bad behaviour in any race, religion, non- religion, culture, club, school, shoe company, or whatever. mainly because people as individuals do messed up crap. people always want to bring up how religion has created war and this and that and blah blah blah. do you honestly not see its people that start this. our culture always wants to blame this and blame that or blame this person. NOBODY wants to take personal responsibility for anything. youre probably the same person that would blame a video game for some violent act or blame a cartoon because some teen lit the house on fire. now i know religion has teaching that people abide by. but 1 you dont judge something on it misuse/abuse. 2 people tend to gravitate to what they find attractive. if a religion is teaching violence, the people who are against are most likely not going to become/stay in that religion. also, once again, lets start holding people/individuals accountable for their actions.
Right. All problems are caused by the mis-interpretation of religion. Such as: Church politics, dogmas, radical fanaticisms, injustices, tyrannies, gathering imaginary stars in imaginary buckets, witch hunts, proselytizing, psychological repressions or unusual punishments for nonconformists... NO religion advocates ANY thing on this list.
What are the positives? ( -well, what could be the positives, if applied rightly...)
A. Religion providing the foundation and basis of a church.
1. Sharing the good news as revealed in Scripture.
2. Providing a sense of the overall and true picture of life.
3. Providing boundaries of proper behavior for the sake of peace and happiness for all.
4. Inspiration and encouragement.
5. Positive thinking.
6. Support for the needy in society.
7. Support for families
8. Support for teens
9. Support/education for otherwise wondering people.
10. Providing hope when hope is lost.EnchephloiDead
I have reported what you did here. It was very wrong to edit what I wrote and misrepresent what I said. Maybe you were just being creative but it is a serious offense and you completely over-stepped the boundaries. I consider this dishonest.
KATHRYN L HILL WROTE:
"Right. All problems are caused by the mis-interpretation of religion. Such as: ( Complete explanation EDITED OUT !!!)
1. Sharing the good news as revealed in Scripture.
2. Providing a sense of the overall and true picture of life.
3. Providing boundaries of proper behavior for the sake of peace and happiness for all.
4. Inspiration and encouragement.
5. Positive thinking.
6. Support for the needy in society.
7. Support for families
8. Support for teens
9. Support/education for otherwise wondering people.
10. Providing hope when hope is lost."
(to which EnchaloiDead responded:
"Thanks for sharing that. Well said. smile")
KATHRYN L HILL ACTUALLY WROTE:
" All problems are caused by the mis-interpretation of religion. Such as: Church politics, dogmas, radical fanaticisms, injustices, tyrannies, gathering imaginary stars in imaginary buckets, witch hunts, proselytizing, psychological repressions or unusual punishments for nonconformists... NO religion advocates ANY thing on this list.
What are the positives? ( -well, what could be the positives, if applied rightly...)
A. Religion providing the foundation and basis of a church.
1. Sharing the good news as revealed in Scripture.
2. Providing a sense of the overall and true picture of life.
3. Providing boundaries of proper behavior for the sake of peace and happiness for all.
4. Inspiration and encouragement.
5. Positive thinking.
6. Support for the needy in society.
7. Support for families
8. Support for teens
9. Support/education for otherwise wondering people.
10. Providing hope when hope is lost."I dont see how that is grounds for reporting someone, provided EnchephloiDead actually did that on purpose. Not going to say I tried very hard looking, but I cannot see that comment in this forum.
Either way, quoting the entire or partial pieces of anything you say should not be ground for reporting. I would agree that it would be dishonest if EnchephloiDead's "edited" comment made any sense to begin with. Clearly that list is not filled with negatives, although I would have to wonder at the arrogance of 1-3 and 9, so what claim to did you actually file the report under?Well, if it happens to you, you'll know how it feels.
It was clearly an injustice to me and intentionally so. How you cannot comprehend that fact, is a little confusing.
Usually I say,
Each To Their Own…
But today I add:
As Long As it Doesn't Hurt Others
... which in this case, it did.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/122744?page=19
i dont know to which religions the majority of that lists come from. it doesnt matter anyway. a few things to say about them, is i doubt you completely understand the teaching in their full context. no offence, i just find it unlikely that you know the full scope of every religion. its very easy to take a statement or two and completely take it out of context. people do that with the bible constantly. so yes, for the most part it is misinterpretation. it is people using these things to justify their own hate and hateful actions. it is people using these things for selfish gains. like my whole comment was about, we need to hold people individually responsible for their actions. the positives of religion is equally as pointless to talk about. people will gravitate to a organization doing positive things. there are a lot of people who associate with a certain religion and dont abide my much of what it teaches. which is why i stated you dont judge something by its misuse/abuse. the whole whos more moral thing is so pointless.
How long does the "we're just misinterpreting religion" claim hold water?
How long before we own the fact that we are not "misinterpreting religion" at all, but seeing it for what it is?
Churches are not independent of the people who construct and populate them. Churches are, in fact, the people who construct and populate them AND people who adhere to what they've constructed and populated.
Back from my banishment for defending our constitutional right to freedom FROM religion in this forum, let me say this:
Religion is, always has been, and shall continue to be a detriment to civil society so long as it is privileged over reason.
Religion is a source not only of bigotry and institutionalized discrimination, but also a source of justification for such bigotry and discrimination---whether 19th century American Christians using the Bible to justify a continuation and expansion of slavery in the US or 21st century American Christians using that same Bible to justify continuation and expansion of violence against (now) all who are not subscribers to particular brands of religion.I would say to this that it was only Christianity in its more advanced form (from the Middle Ages) onward to the early 20th Century, and Islam in its tribal* stage that sought to oppress women.
In Judaic belief you're not Jewish unless your mother is. In eastern Asian beliefs their women are equal, in the pre-Christian European creeds women were equal as well. I don't know where the notion came from that women were a danger to the creed, but it might have been Saul/Paul who was a bit of a misogynist.
Among Scandinavian and Celtic tribes their women were entitled to own property, divorce husbands they thought had become effeminate. That emerges for example in the Icelandic 'Njal's Saga' where the eponymous Njal was divorced by his wife for wearing shirts that exposed his chest down to his nipples.
Britain is largely sectarian these days, aside from devout followers of Islam and other creeds, although this shows in very varied forms in their communities. Most of our Christian immigrants from the West Indies and Africa don't seem to have taken on board the idea that their women should be worth less than the males.
This counter thread took a lot longer to show up than I expected.
Religion IS detrimental to the entire society.
*There have been murders and wars for the sake of religion.
* Religion narrows a persons point of view about life and doesn't allow the individual to be a free thinker.
* Religion places power in others hands like the church pastor, preacher or priest etc. and takes away personal responsibility and power.
* Religion forces you to think within their box and not expand your awareness of self
* Religion Separates (where is the so called love of God in that)
* Religion Teaches you to point fingers and condemn others if their beliefs are different
* Religion is a CULT
* Religion slows mans evolutionary process on many levels
* Religion wants you to accept everything and question nothing
* Religion teaches o be blind to reality and "just have faith"
* Religion makes people bitter
* Religion makes people self righteous
* Religion contradicts itself countless times
* Religion allows murderers, rapist and child molesters get a free pass as long as they are religious.
* Religion Disconnect man from his spiritual self
The worst crimes and torture are done in the name of Religion, So YES Religion is Detrimental to Society.
.
- mbuggiehposted 9 years ago
0I strongly suspect that religion and religiosity will become such divisive issues in the 21st century that each will become THE global security problem to be solved.
Religion, I hope, will be replaced in the future by reason. Lets just ban religion and obtain freedom that way......
Oh hold on a minute that would be taking someone's freedom away wouldn't it?
Yes, but it would be for the good of all mankind....................
Then we could just fight over something else instead like FOOTBALL.............
Oh no that doesn't work either.....My hope is that as human mind/brain and its cognitive capacities continue to evolve, we will dispense with the superstitions that enable religion.
To ban religion would only fortify it.It was my attempt at sarcasm mbuggish but you are right to ban it would be to fortify it.
However I do think there are some humans who will never evolve to a level higher than their pets.Hello!
I find it extremely interesting to learn that you place 'religion' and 'evolution' in the same bucket. In essence, you are saying that a religious person is unrefined and barbaric, whereas the person without religious beliefs is sophisticated and evolved. I find this completely absurd.
First of all, I am not sure how you define evolution, but I believe it to be the gradual change in a species in an attempt at giving the said species a better chance at survival (i.e. the beaks on the birds of various islands evolved over time in order to better hunt). Of course, I realize that there are evolutionary changes occurring in the human race today. Personally, and I know this may sound radical to some, I subscribe to the philosophy that homosexuality increasing is nature's way at reducing our population
Religion, on the other hand, and I am sure you will disagree with this, is not something that repeatedly impacts our lives in negative ways. Yes, there were some extraordinary tragedies throughout history at the hands of religious organizations; yes, these same organizations are stuck in their archaic ways and refuse to change. However, we might need to ponder when the next holy crusade is going to take place. The answer is, more than likely never. What you are calling for is not evolution, but a change of mind. Religious people do not all have the same mindsets. That would be as absurd as assuming that I am an angry person because I wear red shirts, calm when I have something blue on, or envious when wearing green.
I am a Christina, but I am gay. I definitely do not hate people, nor do I attempt to judge them. I know that I do not have all the answers. Yet, my belief system is something that I thought about, quite logically, for a long time. My answer to why I should subscribe to a religious philosophy is quite simple: (1) it is only logical to assume that something created the universe, and I would say the organized chaos of it all point towards an intellectual being, (2) if there were no higher power, then what is our purpose... or were we simply an accident, and (3) the love and compassion shown throughout religion can outshine many of the events that were led by people that were spouting scriptures without following their meaning."I subscribe to the philosophy that homosexuality increasing is nature's way at reducing our population"
Then why do we see homosexuality in other animals that are threatened?
"Religion, on the other hand, and I am sure you will disagree with this, is not something that repeatedly impacts our lives in negative ways."
You may not be saying that if you were a gay person living in Iran.
"(1) it is only logical to assume that something created the universe, and I would say the organized chaos of it all point towards an intellectual being,"
Please show me the logic.
"(2) if there were no higher power, then what is our purpose... or were we simply an accident"
Why do you think you need a higher purpose especially if you don't know what it is?
"(3) the love and compassion shown throughout religion can outshine many of the events that were led by people that were spouting scriptures without following their meaning."
The love and compassion shown by the Taliban? Does the few who follow scripture outshine the 80,000,000 or so kill in the name of scripture?Hello Again!
I will try to make this one short and sweet. First, I believe it is logical to assume there is a creator, because I cannot fathom something as enormous, grand-scale, and fairly perfect in design was created from chance. Of course, it would take just as much faith to believe that there was anything before 'the Big Bang,' but there obviously had to be something here to cause the 'BANG' to begin with.
As for your statement about religion not being about love and compassion, I would counter by saying that you are looking at the extreme negatives. The Taliban are quite misguided. However, let's take Buddhists on the other hand. They truly believe that you shouldn't even harm a fly! Then again, Christianity not only speaks of love, but it nearly screams for us to show compassion, love, and mercy to everyone. There are so many people out there that show that type of love; they build houses for the needy; they man the food kitchens for the homeless; they go overseas to share their wealth with those less fortunate. Yes, religion can have it's bad eggs, take the Westboro Baptist Church as one example. Their message of hate is completely outside of their religious texts!But your first point is nothing but the argument from ignorance fallacy. I might as well say that I can't imagine this world without universe creating pixies - does that mean they must have done it? Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not possible. In the middle ages, people couldn't imagine flying. Now it is commonplace. Do you see the problem with that kind of thinking?
I suppose that the style of my wording could have been taken out of context. In matters of probability, it would be safest to assume that there was something 'then' that created the 'now.' Whether it was two eternal masses of chemicals colliding, which takes just as much faith to believe in the idea of matter that is eternal, or the idea that there was a higher power directing the show, it is obvious that something had to start the process that led to our universe.
Do you know how precise the universe is when it comes to humanity? The placement of the planets in our solar system gives us the perfect 'tug-o-war' between the Sun and the planets. This means that the gravity of the Sun won't pull us so close that we would burn, but the planets could not tug us far enough away to freeze us. Then there is the moon to guide our tides, and the very axis of the earth to dictate weather patterns. We are all on a planet that is spinning at breakneck speeds, which is inside of a solar system that is spinning, and that solar system is within a galaxy that is spinning, and that galaxy is within a constantly expanding universe.
In essence, things have happened too precisely for us to logically assume that it was all by chance. Even the smallest ecosystems, that of the ants of aphids, display an astonishing level of perfection that creates a balance in the 'circle of life.' Is it possible that this all happened by chance? Well, of course it is possible, but I daresay that it is not plausible.How do you calculate that? What statistics do you use? What equation? We don't know how often life began and then stopped. It only had to succeed once. It's still the argument from ignorance to say that is more statistically probable that a god did it, let alone decide on a specific one.
The fine tuning argument is no more convincing or conclusive in the several centuries it's been used by apologists, and there are certainly a number of sites refuting it. It doesn't work, and appealing to accusing others of faith just because they don't draw the same conclusions doesn't work either.Of course, it's plausible. Why wouldn't it be? By simply stating you believe there is " an astonishing level of perfection" is not an explanation as to why you say it isn't plausible.
Of course, you also need to first define what it is you mean by "perfection"? Why do you believe the universe is perfect and by what standards do you make that comparison? Another universe?
The origins of a solar system are understood by observations of stellar nurseries, where massive clouds of hydrogen gas form stars and their surrounding planets, moons, asteroids, etc. The solar systems were in motion when the they were still clouds of hydrogen gas and simply retained that motion (Newtons, Keplers Laws) over billions of years as they formed into planets, moons, asteroids, etc.
And of course, their orbits around the sun are not perfect, they vary all the time. Our moon, for example, used to be a lot closer to earth when it was forming, but over billions of years, it is moved further away and will continue to do so until some other large gravitational object randomly alters it's path or the earths gravity can no longer sustain the orbit. Is this perfection?
These are all just physical properties of the universe, there's no intent on perfection or anything else, it's just the laws of the universe in action over long periods of time. No big deal.Can we - human beings - create even an atom from scratch?
Sometimes, you can't get the 'perfection' of something unless you reverse-engineer it.
Can we - human beings - reverse engineer the universe (including the emptiness that we call 'space')? That would include self awareness too - that is 'thinking' all this.Yes, there is a high probability that we could create and atom from scratch. All we have to do is provide the very same environment from which atoms originated. What's so hard about that?
Fair enough, by what standards then, is that 'perfection' rated?
Sure, it's been termed the Big Bang, and the resulting universe being formed afterwards much a result of the predictions from General Relativity.Who/what decides what a 'a high probability' is?
And again - can we - human beings - reverse engineer the universe (including the emptiness that we call 'space')? That would include self awareness too - that is 'thinking' all this.Statistics. There is no arbitrary who. It is data based on facts and evidence.
I answered that question.That's not the 'whole' answer. You need to answer who/what understands, then evaluates and then forms the relevant conclusion that there is a 'a high probability'?
You still haven't answered this question: Can we - human beings - reverse engineer the universe (including the emptiness that we call 'space')? That would include self awareness too - that is 'thinking' all this.Everyone who understands the data. Simple really.
Exactly what 'element' in a person understands the data?
And please answer the second question.
Wow... I been saying that for years... "Increase in homosexuals is nature's way of reducing the population... we're reproducing like a virus... and unfortunately, its the people who need gov't assistance who are reproducing at such a rate, and straining our economy." my exact words... I'm glad to see someone else believes in both God and Darwin... "The bible is not a history book, its a metaphorical book of God's wisdom inspired in man... Its a book of parables... While God made the Universe, I'm sure it took a lot longer than the Bible gave him credit for. Besides, if we can see the evidence of evolution and still believe the children's stories, God would be shaking his head in his palm and ask himself, 'why do my special education team represent me so staunchly?' "
You can't lump all religions together because they aren't all the same. It's just like lumping all people of color together, or all females together. It's not an accurate presentation of religion.
Faithless societies like communist societies, and societies like North Korea show horrible oppression. They destroyed churches and this enabled them to create horrible societies. Hitler was a Christian by name. His society didn;t encourage free religion and we ended up with the holocaust. A society without faith gives permission for the worst type of evil to be committed with no retribution.
Nothing is more detrimental to society than a society with no faith, or where the government takes control of the churches. It gives them a free ticket to determine on their own ideas of right from wrong, and history has proven what happens when that happens.Hi Grand old lady,
I do see your point but spirituality and religion are separate. Faith in self and the Universe to make good decisions and not harm anyone can also be achieved without religion, it's called self responsibility. I grew up in many religious settings and everyone felt that as long as they believed in God and asked for forgiveness for their bad deeds they will be forgiven and find a resting place in heaven. So religion or not people still make bad choices but it's worse when they say they are committing horrendous acts in the name of religion that supposed to promote Love..
The biggest fall of man is thinking that someone else is responsible for their fate. Why not just be kind to others and keep your mind focused on positiveness and have faith in Love? We don't need religion to learn that.
Actually Christianity teaches you that everyone else is going to hell unless they believe in Jesus, that is an example of separateness and hate for anyone who is not a Christian and Christianity is not the only religion that teaches that absurd message.
If mankind wants to evolve then they have to make a personal choice to do so and find a positive path within themselves, not fall under a religious doctrine that teaches enslavement of the mind and lack of responsibility for the decisions they make in life. (the devil made me do it)
Religion promotes fear not Love, rarely you find those who teaches that Love is the unifying antidote in life.Why not? If we ask a Christian why their religion has over 40K registered denominations, they'll tell you the details they disagree are not important, because the core principles are still agreed upon by all Christians. So it goes with religions in general, they all have the same core principles, just different details.
Btw, lumping all females together is a very accurate presentation of gender.
Societies governed by faith show much more than horrible oppression, Christians and Muslims are killing each other over their faiths, far worse than just destroying places of worship.
You might want to actually make yourself aware of what really happened in Nazi Germany.
The opposite is true, a society with faith gives permission for the worst type of evil to be committed against others who don't share the faith, with no retribution.
Except a society with faith.Grand Old Lady:
The problems in the old Soviet Union or present-day North Korea have ZERO connection to any absence of religion.
There was plenty of religion in the USSR and I suspect plenty of religion in North Korea.
The problem was/is the incapacity of the public to overcome the defined and ingrained totalitarian state.
I honestly think religion is harmless and it's none of my business who believes in it.
A lot of people do unspeakable things "in the name of" religion, yes. However, that is their own personal choice. Interpretation of foundational documents such as the Quaran, Bible, etc. will vary, and each person will behave accordingly. It is the fault of the person, not the religion itself.- SassySue1963posted 9 years ago0
Where to begin:
1. Plenty of wars have been started and fought that did not have their foundation in religion.
2. There is plenty of discrimination outside of religion. Atheists practice it all the time when speaking of anyone who dares to believe in a higher power.
3. Your entire "scientific illiteracy" is a derogatory dig in itself.
4. What scientific illiteracy are you speaking of? Are you aware that a recent scientific study states we shouldn't even be here? The entire universe should have blinked out of existence (according to all known science at this time) as soon as it was created. Hmm...isn't that interesting. Wonder why that didn't happen.
5. I don't pretend to know everything about the universe or a higher power. The very designation of "higher power" means beyond our understanding. Who is to say that "7 days" was OUR 7 days?
6. Climate change perhaps? Are you aware that science has already established that there was a major ice melt (just like now) 14000 years ago? And that it was never really "stable"? Or that core samples taken from both poles show that the Earth cools & heats in cycles throughout its existence? It is beyond arrogant to assume we are the be all & end all on this planet and control or cause everything.
7. Atheists are more condescending, arrogant and degrading of anyone who disagrees with them (proven by the OPs post) than any other group of people I've come across.
8. How arrogant and high & mighty is it to believe you are more knowledgeable and more right than 95% of the world's population? All of whom believe in a higher power.
9. So we've had religion of some sort as far back as we can determine (when records that can be deciphered were kept) and we've managed to survive, advance and prosper. How detrimental can it be really. If it was so horrible as you are attempting to infer, we wouldn't be here today would we?
Just my 9 cents.True. Does that mean that the wars started over religion didn't hurt society?
Don't know about you, but I've never seen an atheist tell a believer they can't get married because of their religion. Or hold any job they want (such as priest). Or discriminate in any other way for that matter.
Yet nearly all the far right ARE scientifically illiterate.
If true (and I'd have to see that) I wonder too. But don't make an assumption it was a god that did it - that's part of that "scientific illiteracy" you mentioned. Ignorance is not a reason to believe in a god.
The writers of the Christian bible. The ones, in other words, that postulated a god, Jesus and all the rest of the Christian trappings.
Can't speak to your personal experience, except to not the karma often comes full circle.
First, it's probably correct. Second, not even half of the population believes in a real, live god out there that made the universe and the number drops significantly if only the more educated and knowledgeable first world is counted.
Of course we would. Unless we had already migrated to another planet around another star. Something can be detrimental and harmful without causing total destruction, you know.Does that mean the wars started by other than religion didn't hurt society? The only thing that proves is that war is detrimental to society.
I've seen atheists call those who believe in a higher power stupid, childish, ignorant and a lot worse. What they tell them is worse than you can't get married. What they tell them is they have no right to believe what they believe. They tell them they can't pray. Anywhere. Ever. In public. They tell them they have no right to express their belief outside of their own private home. Isn't that the same as saying you can't get married? You can't express your love outside your own home? Yes it is.
Now you are talking far right. The majority of those who believe in God are not the far right. Just because a certain type gets the press, does not make them the norm.
Here is the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridainepar … snt-exist/
Now your own bias & prejudice shines through. Just because someone chooses to say it was a God or a higher power, you call it "scientific illiteracy". That is your opinion. You have no proof there isn't a God so to make the assumption that someone else who believes differently is scientifically illiterate is very bigoted.
Bear in mind when I speak about 95% of the world's population, that isn't specific to any type of religion. Some believe it was a higher intelligence, some aliens even. Either way - they don't think it just went poof! and existed.
Considering the importance that religion has played in nearly every aspect of all ancient civilizations, if it was so detrimental, no, we wouldn't be here nor have advanced, since, you know, everyone would be scientifically illiterate and all.
Lastly - you've bought into the atheists great lie. That religion precludes any scientific knowledge or belief in science. Science is not the end all be all either. It is constantly changing and rearranging. What held true, what you would have called fact, a decade ago, has been disproved, proven again, and disproved again ten times over.
Here is the truth no one likes: science is flawed because it is people who conduct experiments and people are flawed. Just as any religion will be flawed because it is people who are translating the meanings and such.You pointed me to your response to wilderness, so I will respond in kind:
"Does that mean the wars started by other than religion didn't hurt society? The only thing that proves is that war is detrimental to society."
Hmmm...I think we already discussed this one.
"I've seen atheists call those who believe in a higher power stupid, childish, ignorant and a lot worse. What they tell them is worse than you can't get married. What they tell them is they have no right to believe what they believe. They tell them they can't pray. Anywhere. Ever. In public. They tell them they have no right to express their belief outside of their own private home. Isn't that the same as saying you can't get married? You can't express your love outside your own home? Yes it is."
I think I already addressed this, but Christians do the same thing, so...I'm not sure how we'd go about using this as a legit source of info. It's all relative to each person. It may seem worse than saying you can't get married, to you, but it may not be the case for someone else. Once again, it's subjective. I've never heard of an atheist not wanting a Christian to pray in public or express their belief outside of home, but you obviously have, so it will make an impression on you.
I feel somewhat that the argument of how awful you claim atheists are isn't really proving anything at this point, concerning religion and its contributions or damage to society..it's just proving that you feel that atheism fosters more hate than Christianity does. It's all relative information...
"Now you are talking far right. The majority of those who believe in God are not the far right. Just because a certain type gets the press, does not make them the norm.
Here is the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridainepar … ist/"
I have absolutely no knowledge of this stuff so I won't even dare try to answer.
"Considering the importance that religion has played in nearly every aspect of all ancient civilizations, if it was so detrimental, no, we wouldn't be here nor have advanced, since, you know, everyone would be scientifically illiterate and all."
Again, I think this is somewhat of a fallacious causality argument. The fact that humanity has advanced does not mean that religion is detrimental or not to it. It could mean that religion WAS detrimental, but people succeeded at a much slower rate than they should have. OR it could mean that religion was not detrimental at all or even fosters intelligence and advancement. How you perceive this will depend on how you feel about religion in the first place. This argument also assumes that we all feel society has advanced, but that's somewhat of a tangent...
"Lastly - you've bought into the atheists great lie. That religion precludes any scientific knowledge or belief in science. Science is not the end all be all either. It is constantly changing and rearranging. What held true, what you would have called fact, a decade ago, has been disproved, proven again, and disproved again ten times over."
I think in determining truths, scientific research apart from any religious influence has proven to be the most helpful in understanding our world. I feel religion is only detrimental if it attempts to override or replace scientific observations and findings which have been based on legitimate research, with scripture or statements which may be interpreted completely different. (Such as when the Church claimed that the earth was the center of the universe based on a Scripture.) Religious interpretation of texts change as well, too. Sure, what science has to say about our world changes a lot, but is this not a better approach than staunchly believing something for the sake of it, instead of keeping an open mind to truth? That's the beauty of science. Until we find answers, we can only do the best we can do. Science never conflicts with religion until religion attempts to distort scientific findings by laying out Scripture. I honestly think that, if certain religious texts were interpreted correctly, we would find there's really no conflict whatsoever. It all depends on the person doing the reading and whether or not they think it conflicts. (For example, one may take the "7 day creation" literally. Others do not. Both theories are hotly debated in the church and not universally accepted.)
"Here is the truth no one likes: science is flawed because it is people who conduct experiments and people are flawed. Just as any religion will be flawed because it is people who are translating the meanings and such."
I can't think of a single scientist who would disagree with you. that's why scientific findings always change: because scientists know that it is flawed and do their best to find the truth about the world around us. Hell no they're not perfect and half the stuff we've discovered is wrong; but the point is, we've come a LONG way towards truth about the world around us. I think the point being made here is that religion typically calls for solid, unchanging faith. Science, however, is always changing and adapting to a perceived truth. Now granted, not all religions are completely inflexible in their interpretation of the world, but alot are, thus giving religion as a whole a bad rap. Science seeks truth. There's really no other motive. I don't think any scientist becomes a scientist simply to debunk religion. If they do, they don't need to be a scientist, because that's not science is about. It's about using logic, reason, and experimentation to come to better knowledge of our world.The entire answer about atheists being derogatory and discriminatory was in response to Wilderness' statement that he never knew an atheist to discriminate like religion did to the LGBT community.
Your link gave me a 404 error.
I believe that was your link. It was among the ones you provided. It happened to be at the end of your statement so when I put quotation marks around it, the computer thought that was part of the hyperlink.
ohh I thought you were giving me a link to something different - now I see what happened.
I understand now - getting on my sleepy time.
Of course, being slightly OCD I have to fix the link first.
Alright - hey Wilderness! New link to fix broken one! Sorry!
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-sc … st-n138911
Hi SassySue, and good morning. If you don't mind, I'd like to discuss some of the points you brought up...
1. Plenty of wars have been started and fought that did not have their foundation in religion.
True. However, I believe the point is that religion has been the cause of more wars than there would have been, had religion not existed. But who knows? Perhaps if religion had not existed, then there would have been other wars which would have been stifled by people adhering to a particular faith.
2. There is plenty of discrimination outside of religion. Atheists practice it all the time when speaking of anyone who dares to believe in a higher power.
There is. Religion does and can cause people to discriminate based on faith or beliefs alone--a discrimination which would not exist, should religion not exist. However, one may also argue that had it not been for religion, then people would be MORE discriminatory in other respects. (It depends on if you believe that religion helps or hinders discrimination.)
3. Your entire "scientific illiteracy" is a derogatory dig in itself.
Albeit I feel that was somewhat inappropriate to say in such a way, I think the intended meaning was that certain aspects of religion spread discouragement of trusting in scientific research and instead replacing it with a Biblical account which may or may not be backed up by science. Scientists may find this to be an obstacle to spreading scientific information to the masses. However, religion is not SOLELY responsible for this, in my opinion; it can and sometimes does hinder the spread of scientific information, but that does depend on what thinks about science in general, and whether or not it is trustworthy. I feel that religious circles in general are becoming more receptive to scientific research and adapting their own view of the world accordingly.
4. What scientific illiteracy are you speaking of? Are you aware that a recent scientific study states we shouldn't even be here? The entire universe should have blinked out of existence (according to all known science at this time) as soon as it was created. Hmm...isn't that interesting. Wonder why that didn't happen.
That is interesting research. However, it seems that lack of evidence for something, or a lack of information on how exactly it's possible we are here, does not necessarily suggest a deity. I could easily say, "oh. We shouldn't be here? I guess my theory that a large unicorn alien made us and then left us be, must be correct!" If one is inclined to believe in a deity, then one will definitely see this as evidence for their beliefs. However, it is "evidence" only in that case.
5. I don't pretend to know everything about the universe or a higher power. The very designation of "higher power" means beyond our understanding. Who is to say that "7 days" was OUR 7 days?
And that's the proper way to see things. Not all think that there must necessarily be a higher power, however. Or that higher power may mean something different to them, and not a deity.
6. Climate change perhaps? Are you aware that science has already established that there was a major ice melt (just like now) 14000 years ago? And that it was never really "stable"? Or that core samples taken from both poles show that the Earth cools & heats in cycles throughout its existence? It is beyond arrogant to assume we are the be all & end all on this planet and control or cause everything.
I think it is wise to not assume we are the end all be all and control or cause everything. This, however, does not necessarily indicate the presence of a deity. It simply means we don't have all the answers, and most of us are ok with that.
7. Atheists are more condescending, arrogant and degrading of anyone who disagrees with them (proven by the OPs post) than any other group of people I've come across.
Hmmm. I think this is simply a matter of perspective. This is based on your own experience. Mine tells me that religious people, in my personal life, fit those criteria more than atheists. Since this is strictly a very relative observation, it seems a little unstable to use it as a way to suggest that atheism is somehow more detrimental than religion. And again, pointing out that atheism is detrimental does not necessarily prove or suggest that religion is helpful.
8. How arrogant and high & mighty is it to believe you are more knowledgeable and more right than 95% of the world's population? All of whom believe in a higher power.
I'm not sure where this number comes from. I apologize. I...find it highly improbable that the number is this high, but do you mind if I ask what this percentile is based on?
9. So we've had religion of some sort as far back as we can determine (when records that can be deciphered were kept) and we've managed to survive, advance and prosper. How detrimental can it be really. If it was so horrible as you are attempting to infer, we wouldn't be here today would we?
Whether or not our society has survived thus far does not seem to be a very strong argument for its helpfulness or lack of being detrimental. This is a very tricky situation to describe because the religious person is given the burden of proving it is NOT detrimental. This is somewhat invalid and not really a fair proposition, to me. It's like asking someone to prove that God isn't real. The burden of proof lies not on the one denying something/someone's existence, but on the one proclaiming that something is true (e.g. that religion is detrimental.)The fact that we have survived and prospered is not necessarily an argument for religion's helpfulness or even its lack of being detrimental. It is simply a statement of what it has NOT done: killed the species or thwarted our progress. I can see where you're coming from: if it were so bad, wouldn't our society be a wreck? But that's just the point. Many people see some aspects of our society as a wreck (perhaps not in the areas of success and prosperity that you described) which can be attributed to religion chiefly or mostly.So it really depends on if you really see society as being prosperous, and what parts of society, exactly, one perceives as prosperous.
Just my thoughts.I think I've answered most of your questions in my answer to Wilderness post, if not, I'd be happy to address them again.
The 95%, as I stated up above, is not about one religion. I believe an example of the UK & Australia were used as examples of countries who did not believe. However, that isn't accurate. One has to look at the questions and how they were asked. Actually there are even conflicting polls with conflicting results, which often happens in polls. The 95% is very generic and I did try to find the link for you (I had found it doing some research a while back) but google is not cooperating. It merely asked if they believed in any higher power or deity or supreme being. That could be God, Allah, Bhudda, etc.
I'm pretty open minded about my beliefs but it is the approach that somehow believing in a higher power is illogical that I mostly take an issue with. To me, atheism is the more illogical approach. After all, if the atheists are correct, what have I lost? How am I hurt? I've chosen to follow guidelines designed for the greater good for the most part and perhaps given up an hour or two of my Sunday. Maybe I've volunteered somewhere to help someone. If there is no God, it does me no harm.
But what if there IS a God? A Heaven & a Hell? The atheist then risks a lot - for eternity. So I guess to me, there is nothing illogical about choosing to believe in God, by whatever name you choose to call Him or Her.
As for the wars, I think we have plenty of examples that show that even without religion, we'd find a reason to fight. Then we could even discuss if all wars are bad or are some necessary but that would be another forum topic
Edit: I forgot. What I see from atheists is a desire to destroy religion. It isn't about not believing in a God. That is a personal decision. But so is faith. Someone even mentioned a hope that in the future we would not have religion. That is an outright warlike attitude towards something they proclaim not to believe in. To me that is far more detrimental.I think I've answered most of your questions in my answer to Wilderness post, if not, I'd be happy to address them again."
Sorry! didn't see it. (drh lol)
The 95%, as I stated up above, is not about one religion. I believe an example of the UK & Australia were used as examples of countries who did not believe. However, that isn't accurate. One has to look at the questions and how they were asked. Actually there are even conflicting polls with conflicting results, which often happens in polls. The 95% is very generic and I did try to find the link for you (I had found it doing some research a while back) but google is not cooperating. It merely asked if they believed in any higher power or deity or supreme being. That could be God, Allah, Bhudda, etc."
No worries, I'll look it up. It just seemed a little odd, or high, of a number, even for religion in general.
"I'm pretty open minded about my beliefs but it is the approach that somehow believing in a higher power is illogical that I mostly take an issue with. To me, atheism is the more illogical approach. After all, if the atheists are correct, what have I lost? How am I hurt? I've chosen to follow guidelines designed for the greater good for the most part and perhaps given up an hour or two of my Sunday. Maybe I've volunteered somewhere to help someone. If there is no God, it does me no harm. "
Understandable. Nobody wants someone else telling them they're stupid. I think we all are going to find different ways of thinking to be logical, because we're going to have different criteria for what will cause us to think one way and not another.
"But what if there IS a God? A Heaven & a Hell? The atheist then risks a lot - for eternity. So I guess to me, there is nothing illogical about choosing to believe in God, by whatever name you choose to call Him or Her. "
True. But remember, atheists feel bombarded by threats of hellish demise from all religions and it can get a little overbearing.Religion has kind of a bad rap when it comes to science, and unfortunately the less open-minded individuals in religion make it very difficult (it seems) on the open-minded, logical religious folks to be respected by their peers. However, is that not the atheist's choice whether or not he/she wants to take a supposed "risk"? Also, to the atheist, there is no more risk in choosing to not believe in a God or deity, than it is TO believe in a deity, because only if one actually BELIEVES it, will there be any notion of risk.
"As for the wars, I think we have plenty of examples that show that even without religion, we'd find a reason to fight. Then we could even discuss if all wars are bad or are some necessary but that would be another forum topic"
Yes definitely, we're all human. I think the wars being discussed were ones which had religious roots or undertones. However, who's to say what WOULD have happened?
I'll check out your answers to wilderness.Hi AshtonFirefly,
Okay I did find it but I remembered the numbers incorrectly. Sorry about that!
It is 95% of Americans, 51% of the entire population. Only 18% don't believe and 17% are unsure. It doesn't mention about the missing 14% though.Ok great, Thanks!
This number (51%) for the entire population seems much more accurate.I suspect that only 18% are brave enough to safe the truth: They do not believe.
And just a few more (17%) brave enough to hedge around the truth: They do not believe.
If you add the 18% and the 17% and let's say at least half of the "not sure" group (7%), then we come to 42% are non-believers. I strongly suspect this is much closer to some truth.
I have NO idea (and I am understanding less and less everyday) how anyone in the 21st century could retain any belief in any god as described in Judeo-Christianity or Islam or any other world religion---particularly any belief system that requires acceptance of a Creationist worldview.
When religion ruled and before scientific learning became accepted as valid, very little advancement and progress was made. Scientists had to confront religious dogma, often at great risk to themselves, before advancement could begin and allow us to prosper.
How exactly is a philosophy based on reason a "philosophy of death" as claimed in this article?
The most absurd comment in the article:
"This is why atheism is a zero-sum game, a philosophy of death that can offer nothing but death. This is why the rising tide of secularism in the Western world is fostering an indefatigable culture of death. Forged in a crucible of nothingness, we wander as cosmic orphans back to the yawning void from which we were so tragically ejected. In such a stark context, anything more than death, or on the side of life, or even minimally optimistic must be regarded with either pity or callous derision because it is obviously deluded, naïve, or dishonest."
If atheism is a philosophy of death, then what is Christianity?
Is not its promise of some "eternal life" AFTER death just a clever philosophy of death? Isn't the nonsensical claim that all that really matters is life AFTER death in and of itself contributing to a perverse focus on death?
A thousand applauses mbuggieh. So many people belong to a religion although they do not believe in its tenets. That is the ultimate definition of hypocritical, don't you think, mbuggieh. Why don't they just leave their religion? Oh no, people want to believe in a religion for appearances sake, societal approval, and part of an afterlife insurance policy.
- Rad Manposted 9 years ago0
80,000,000 people were killed during the Muslim Conquest of the Indian Subcontinent.
Between 4,000,000 and 17,000,000 killed by the Holocaust.
3,000,000 died as a result of the Crusades.The Holocaust was not religious in nature. Some of the people who acted within it did so for religious reasons, but at heart it was a racial extermination attempt, not a religious one.
Seriously, with all of the secular reasons to exterminate hundreds of millions over the last hundred years; blaming that moment on religion creates a nice comfort zone.
The Jewish Holocaust was an ethnic war. According to Hitler and other National Socialists, the Jews were an ethnic/racial group, not a religious group. Even Jews who were converted ended up in concentration camps. One of them was Edith Stein, a German Jew, who converted to Catholicism and became a nun. Sr. Stein ended up in Auschwitz where she died in the gas chambers.
And what about the Muslim Conquest of the Indian Subcontinent? What about the Crusades?
Hitler wanted to punish the Jews for killing Jesus, But lets say that's debatable, what about the other 83,000,000?
To put that number in perspective the population of Canada is around 35,000,000.What about them? I have been on record about Islamic conquests in the past.
Try reading more history. Hitler used Christian language when it suited him, i.e. never ever in private and only when he was using it to sway other people. His own stated bias was against the Jewish race, as in ethnic Jews.
I was correcting one point in your argument. If you want to say that the entire thing stands or falls based on every point being correct, I'm sorry.In a forum entitled "Is RELIGION detrimental to the whole of society" I bring up the murder of about 100,000,000 people and all you do is say I can't count between 4 and 14 million of those people? That's all you've got?
I don't know, did you bother to read any of my other postings or put my response to you in context, or are you simply going to force one posting to fit into your particular desire for it, whether or not it actually does? Is that all YOU'VE got?
The murder of over 80,000,000 is not much to you?
It's estimated that 67,000,000 died under Mao. Yet, we don't blame all atheists for one man's crimes. How is Chris responsible for defending atrocities committed by Mahmud Ghazni?
Ahhhh, you may want to have a look at the title of this forum. It uses the word Religion, not Christianity.
What does that have to do with the question?
Again, I ask. Why would he feel obliged to defend the actions of another? How does his claim to being religious make him somehow tied? Does your claim to atheism tie you to anyone else who claims to be an atheist. If not, why?And if an event was not religious in nature, it should not be cited as being so. That's my point, and totally apropos of the title of this forum.
Why are you so stuck on that point? Of course it is. My point is that if you're going to cite history, cite it correctly. If you're going to say the Holocaust was caused by religion, I'm going to say that either you don't know what you're talking about or you just really dislike religion so much that you will take any opportunity to run it down. I never said the Holocaust was nothing, and if you ever attempt to make out like I have then shame on you and please get a life. If you don't, then we're cool.
I'm just trying to stay on topic here. I understand you don't think religion had anything to do with the Holocaust and that you think it was simply sold that way. Either was Religion was used as a weapon to kill all those people.
On topic, if more than 80,000,000 people in the wars and Holocaust are an indication if religion is good for society I'd have to say no.And on topic, if you insist on using the Holocaust as a religious event or a symbol of religion, then you don't know what you're talking about or are just too proud or have too petty a need to be right to admit it.
Also on topic, I don't think the slaughters done in the name of religion are right, and have said so. And I've never exempted Christianity from that. Ever.
I've said so often and I'm baffled by your attempts to make it sound like I don't have a problem with them.IMO The Holocaust had nothing to do with religion!!
The entire Globe was in a depression. A little man named Hitler thought he saw an opportunity to conquer it. All he had to do was build a small army, steal the money from one particular race of people.
Hitler just wanted the wealth of the Jewish people to finance his dream of being the King of the World.
So he killed them and stole their money.
Two things brought an end to Hitlers dream; religious indignation AND the necessity of self defense from the Allied nations.
If Religion was involved in the Holocaust; it was seen as being the victim of persecution.
Greed has always been the cause of all wars, regardless of the flag being waved.
Especially the crusades.
Do we blame a war on the man who orchestrated it or do we blame the flag the soldiers carry.To Rad Man: The religious element behind the Holocaust was that Hitler, a Catholic by name but a faithless man, in essence, an atheist, wanted to kill all Jews. The religious people, the Jews, were his victims. So the crime was committed by an atheist. Hitler wanted to create an ideal generation of human beings, blue eyed, blond and all that.
The others who were punished were people who helped the Jews out of a conviction that the Holocause is wrong. They were Germans who hid Jews in their homes, who brought food regularly to Jews who went into hiding, or were thought to be a Jewish sympathizer.
You know, your anger at religion is so strange. Let me say, "The natural man receives not the things of the spirit of God; For they are foolishness to him." I think that describes you rather well. It goes on to say, "Neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." The verse is I Cor. 2:14.
Science shows we aren't all a brain. Some people like to work with their hands. Some are artists, which is a craft that is heavy on emotion and spirit. Some like math. But all appreciate art whether through music, paintings or whatever. It's because art is a component of the spirit. The ability to spiritually discern lies in all of us, but we have to ask Jesus to show us the way. It's that easy.
I have antagonized you by preaching to you. But I think you will survive the irritation, indignation and dismay. After all, people have survived wars and tidal waves and natural disasters. This can't hurt much.Sorry, you may not like it but Hitler was a Christian. He whoever wasn't a good Christian. A good Christian should be an honest Christian.
I'd be curious how many other words exists, which a person can use to describe themselves, that can be applied with no accompanying evidence.
Would you consider a person who describes themselves as an atheist, who prays before meals, an atheist? If that person killed a large number of people, after issuing a large manifesto as to the reasons for the action, one that did not reference religion or atheism; where would the blame lie...in your opinion?
Would you consider a person who describes themselves as a horseman, truly a rider, if they can't maintain a seat in the saddle? Would their claim to be a horseman be part of the blame for an action where they purposely ran over a dog?
I think the evidence (and we have ample) that Hitler's actions were not compelled by religious belief is overwhelming. It is clearly obvious that specific ideas on eugenics was the compelling force behind Nazi policy.So, GRAND OLD LADY can claim that someone was an atheist when that someone claims to be a Christian and your okay with that, but when I claim that that someone claimed to be a Christian, that you have a problem with?
I have a problem with anyone attempting to use a label which conveniently fits their argument when the evidence clearly shows they don't have a valid point. The question of God or no God had nothing to do with Nazi policies. Attempting to use the horror that was Hitler as reasoning behind a conversation in a thread titled 'Is RELIGION Detrimental To The Whole of Society' ignores the obvious.
Implying that Hitler's actions or policies was driven by either religion or atheism is an insult to both philosophies. Unless, there is a specific sect within a specific religion, or atheistic belief, that says blond hair and blue eyes are more cosmically approved. Since there is none, we have to determine where those beliefs originated. I don't think anyone disagrees that Darwin's theories were perverted and those perversions were used to justify the implementation of Nazi policy against the Jews, gypsies, mentally challenged and quite a few other groups.Nazi propaganda was clearly anti-Semitic. No?
I have a problem with anyone attempting to claim that someone couldn't have been of a particular religion (ignoring the person claims) because they don't like what the person did. Then turns around and claims the person was an atheist and that was the cause of the horrors.I know you weren't talking to me specifically but in general we've had this conversation before so I feel it's my place to jump in here.
I have NEVER said that Hitler was an atheist. In fact, I have said the EXACT OPPOSITE. But the opposite of 'atheist' is NOT 'Christian', at least not per se. Hitler had a complex set of beliefs, some of which were pseudo-Christian and used Christian language, but he hated Christianity and expressed that hatred on many occasions. As I've said before, and maintain because it's the only logical position I can find, the only way you can say 'Hitler was a Christian' (especially if you actually know what Jesus said and told His followers to do) is if you firmly believe that self-identifying as a Christian, for any reason at any time even if you go back later and admit you were lying and really hate Christianity somehow actually makes you a 'Christian.'You're right, I wasn't talking about you at all, it was someone else who said Hitler was an atheist. I've read that he had big plans to overhaul the Catholic Church from the top down. Propaganda was what he was all about and I don't think he liked the Catholic Church being able to change peoples thinking. That said I simply don't think it's honest to ones self to simple say he was an atheist because you don't agree with his politics. He he had won the war history would have shown that he was right. (he wasn't) but the propaganda machine would have convinced people they were right. He was dehumanizing Jews just as we were dehumanizing the Japanese.
Although I don't claim to be expert in history, I don't think you are correct in the assumption that Darwin's theories were paramount in driving the Hitler/Nazi agenda. The infighting of the in-bred royal families of Europe, the pseudo-science of eugenics, the religious theories of people like Rudolf Steiner, and the treatment of the German people following the 1st World Ward, all had their influence on the anti-Jewish propaganda.
Surely Hitler and his cronies had a lot of psychological imbalances between them? Not religious ones?I think most agree that Darwin paved the way for eugenics. It would also be difficult to argue that ideas within the book Descent of Man didn't show prominently in Nazi policy.
There is no one smoking gun which led to the Holocaust. I simply think attempting to paint religion or atheism as the primary bullet is foolish.I'm not sure what you mean by 'the in-fighting of the inbred royal families' but the rest of it is pretty good. Although it must be said that anti-Semitism was a historical fact that would occasionally flare up in different ways, it was even considered a bit of an intellectual fashion in certain circles.
You also have to remember that everywhere the Jews went they considered themselves persecuted... Egypt, other places in the Middle East, all the Inquisitions... because wherever they went, they took over the economy and started screwing the people out of their finances. I'm not being antisemetic by the way, I'm pointing out what history has shown.
Well, yes. You are being anti-Semitic, and don't even bother arguing that you're not. But as long as we're discussing history...
Historically speaking, Christians did not engage in lending practices because of Jesus' admonitions about giving to the one who has none. This was interpreted as "you are not allowed to charge interest on money you lend." The Jews, who for many reasons were often frozen out of economies wherever they went, did not have any such religious restrictions and therefor often were the only money lenders in any given community. Following basic economic models, if you're the only one lending money then any amount of interest you get back is going to allow you to slowly rise from extreme poverty to middle-class to rich. "Rich", of course, is a relative term. Rich to us usually means fabulous wealth but back in the Middle Ages rich might mean you have enough food to eat and an extra goat. In many places (like Medieval England) the land belonged to the lord of the land (the baron or the duke or whoever) and therefor all food was considered to be his as well. What we call today "food security" was rare among the lower classes. But I digress, the fact is that Jews were often frozen out of many sectors of the economy but they could and did lend money, and just like banks today are often seen as the bad guy (I'm talking the local bank, not the big Wall $treet mega-firms) by people who owe them money, so too were the Jews, who already had religious and ethnic strikes against them in many people's eyes, held as unscrupulous and money-grubbing. But they lent, they collected interest, and eventually they gathered wealth. Sometimes. I doubt that the Jews who suffered pogrom after pogrom in czarist Russia saw themselves as particularly influential, let alone conquering, in their local communities.
This is where I have to give JOHN LENNON credit for his song "Imagine."
He sang... "Imagine NO religion"...etc. Religion HAS indeed destroyed humanity. The god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the glorious gospel (messege) of Jesus Christ should shine unto them. Deception is the greatest tool your enemy can use to defeat and eliminate you. From the very beginning after Jesus death, ANOTHER gospel took root in Judea, and since then, all mankind has invented their own Christianity. Don't believe this invention of man, but search the Scriptures daily to see if those things are true.So we simply disassociate ourselves from religion and claim those atrocities had nothing to do with our religion.
That's right. Disassociate your self from RELIGION. Look for yourself what God has for mankind, NOT religion.
Which version of God are you speaking about? The Christian version?
Since you believe that the only reason we are here on earth is "TO HAVE A GOOD TIME", and that's it, I don't think we could have reasonable conversation on this topic.
That's why we can't have a reasonable conversation?
Perhaps you just don't like being questioned?
I have to give you credit however for at least admitting the atrocities rather than defending them as so many do. Some will even defend slavery, can you imagine?A person can go to God without the Church... the Church is a business, however, and if they don't have more followers, they're shrinking, etc. etc. etc... yu do not need a church to be of faith. I only go to church for confession.
I am a Scripturalist - not a "traditional" Christian.
Huh, yet you made mention to scripture and Christ?
Do you rely on only one religions Scripture, or do you accept all of them?
Man ought not to believe in ANY Religions scripture or accept any, in place of God REVEALED knowledge which is given directly to YOU only. Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but on what your conscience accepts as truth. Your conscience can only receive conviction from a HIGHER source than yourself. An amoeba cannot contribute to your intelligence, nor impart you with love, the highest form of GIVING that there is. Traditional Christianity does not accept God’s REVEALED knowledge, but trust in men’s wisdom to establish “religion.”
How can you be a scripturalist if you accept divine revelation and not Scripture? That doesn't make any sense.
I do not accept the "INTERPRETATION" men give Scripture.
So how do you get your Scripture? Direct revelation? From which god?
I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers Julie.
I'm not the least bit ruffled, just trying to understand your position.
Actually I'm also interested in your answer because I'm confused. I accept the Christian Bible because of experiences I've had but I sometimes struggle to understand it. Nevertheless, I do accept it as Scripture and look to what other people say to help me interpret. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't, sometimes I need time to think about it. But your response has confused me. It sounds like you are either relying solely on yourself or on direct revelation from God. I'm curious as to just what you meant.
Is the IDEA of religion detrimental to society? I dont necessarily think so. But when you introduce a god that would be pleased if you blew people up or silenced non believers, then obviously that is when religion becomes a plague on society.
I cant really think of any terrible atrocities off the top of my head that were purely caused because of atheism. It does not make sense to say "Hitler/Stalin/Blue monkey was an atheist and ordered genocide because of that" when atheism is a state of non belief. There is no higher deity to kill for if you are an atheist, so it does not make sense to blame atheism for anything.
With that in mind, I do not and will probably never see how atheism could ever be detrimental to society. I would think a good chunk of scientists are atheists and look at what they have done for the betterment of mankind over the years.I know these two posts were just the sharing of facts, but I found them to be very touching and powerful. Thank you for taking the time to share them, Quilligrapher.
The topic of elimination of all religion I see in this thread (beginning on page one even) is an alarming idea to me, and very dangerous. We have seen this in history and how detrimental it is. Played out, it is horrifying, and not just offensive to anyone sensibilities, it has actually extinguished life and is an anti freedom type of mentality completely. I wish people cared more about all people, and not just about the people with views that match their own. I think a view that thinks its ok to talk about the elimination of religion by any force, is to be found lacking in at least the morality department, if not logically. It is very anti freedom, and very anti American and probably a lot of other things. I think it mocks our veterans and heroes that died to ensure we don't have such repeats in history. So I guess I am encouraging more deep thinking on the subject, and possible reassessing of each of our views. The idea of forcing another view to not be allowed, is most often chosen by those that don't like their views to be not allowed. The irony seen there is the answer to if its a good view or not. The inconsistent and illogical view there, shows its not the best way, in my opinion.
You make some good points. However, we have to look at the reasons why the elimination of religion in any given country or situation occurred. Was it a primary reason or one of many reasons.
For example, prior to the 1917 Revolution, Russia was ruled by czar and church that held all the power and much of the wealth, living extravagant lifestyles while the people starved in abject poverty. The people had enough and they had to eliminate both king and church, which they did. Of course, each individual Christian or Muslim never gave up their beliefs, some died for it while most others saw it more practical to lie about it. Religion was never eliminated, it remained within the minds of most everyone and was passed down from generation to generation, and after some 70 years of being oppressed and persecuted, the churches reopened after communism disappeared and religions flourished once again.
Jump to Cuba. Although, the reason for the revolution and communist platform was because of the dictator Batista abusing wealth while people starved, and that Castro happened to be a communist, it was mostly all political. And, although religious practices in public were restricted after Castro took power, Cuba is now just considered a secular state and people practice their religions openly once again.So you find religion acceptable - but not while it is used as a tool to gain fortunes? Ha! What a waste it has been!
I find freedom to be acceptable. If the practice of ones religion is eliminated, so are their freedoms. But, if that freedom is abused at the expense of others, it's no longer acceptable. Is that a waste?
Perhaps it took a lot longer to reach that conclusion, than expected.
But, things are changing, faith based mindsets and decisions are being over-ruled by the rights and freedoms we all share, and that's why it's taking so long.
No! Ego is detrimental to society. Ego perverts religion, science, government, business and more.
The original aim of religion was that of bringing people together in a spiritual quest. This is an activity of altruistic Love. Ego doesn't like Love; but hungers for lust.
Everything you and others cite as problems with sources in religion are actually sourced back to Ego.
Get the target right. Ego is the problem; not religion.
Illiteracy in Cambodia a few decades ago was a function of political ideology -- not religion. But if you look closely at that tragedy, it too was fueled by Ego.
Yes, atheism is a problem, just as is someone who ignores gravity. Or just as is someone who ignores the true source of the problem -- Ego.
The solution is Love and God is Love. If we receive the bounty of this world for selfishness sake, then we feed Ego, but if we receive these things for the benefit of others, then we correct Ego's selfishness to altruistic Love.The problem doesn't lie with religion... however, the ORGANIZATION of it. I'm considered Roman Catholic... and when the Cardinals and Popes start covering for priests didling with little boys, its time to bring the CHURCH down... not the believers.
You are so right, there trying to make a ww3 and it's based off religion. It's scary only because they leave the world bias to what isn't suppose to be. I like your hub
Atheism and religion are two necessary components of the balancing pole.
Remove either one and man falls of the tight rope.Sorry, but there is nothing needed to balance atheism, faith based myths and superstitions do little more than hinder man.
Free from what? Religion only serves to enslave.
No, that's not true. He certainly freed me.
From what? You're still alive. Still struggling. What did he free you from?
From fear of what would happen after I die. From the idea that what I've always done is the only thing I can always do. And honestly, in a way that I can't explain to your satisfaction, knowing He's there is a freeing thing, even though it does indeed put new rules and restrictions on my behaviors. Being of a more intellectual and artistic bent anyway, He certainly has given me a lot to chew over, so to speak. And yes, I'm still alive and still struggling. Death is not freedom per se. To coin a phrase, it ain't over when it's over. But He is there and it's not just knowing that if I do right (which I frequently don't) that I will be rewarded. It's the knowing that He's there and cares for me and helps me (which He certainly does) on a daily basis that frees me.
There is no life after death---the claim is a lie. There is no proof and no evidence, just words written and edited by men seeking to create and sustain power and to pacify and control---depending on which is more expedient at any given moment, those needy enough to grasp onto this lie as some divine truth.
When you die, you cease to exit...period and end of story.
Want freedom?
Do good things now because doing good things is the right and moral thing to do. Love. Enjoy this life.There is indeed life after death, to claim otherwise is a lie. Fear is not something I live by, but you seem to be fixated upon it. Free your mind and claim a real life.
As is to claim there is life after death.
Wow, your inventiveness never ceases to astound me.
Not really, just a minor addition to what appeared to be a biased view.
My friend...find real people to love you and care for you; find real people to free you from fear of death.
I feel very sorry for you. I really do. Your comments, though, have given me insight into the need that some people have to believe in myths and illusions.Mbuggieh, many religionists lead a FEAR-based life. To them, life is just one penance to endure before they die. They also use religion as some sort of afterlife insurance policy. This is a sad life really. They don't see life as a joy to be fully lived and embraced. They are walking a psychological tightrope.
It fascinates me, the judgment here. Most religionists would probably say that they don't live a fear based life. Yet, the two of you have decided.....what? They don't know themselves? You know better?
If believing what they believe would cause you to fear, that is you. You can't simply judge large swaths of humanity without the benefit of knowing what each individual thinks. Well, you can...but, isn't that the primary problem we have with religionists? Thinking everyone is just like them?Deuteronomy 10:20 "Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name."
Plus, perhaps the most common phrase Christians speak is "God fearing".Ask them. If they say they don't live in fear, all the Bible thumping you do won't change that.
It's hilarious how some attempt to refute their text then attempt to use their text. When it is to that individual's advantage.
I just googled God fearing. It appears it doesn't mean what you think it means. Have no fear, though. I honestly don't care what you think, so I won't be arguing about it. I would suggest, though, that you respect those who use the term enough to attempt to understand what they mean when they use it. Unless, it's more fun to ignore their personal thoughts on the matter.What you're telling me seems to be that the believers ignore the instructions given in the bible and that I should learn the jargon they use in place of dictionary English.
Neither seems particularly reasonable, although I WILL say that observation pretty clearly shows that few of the biblical instructions are followed, or even much honest effort expended to follow them.
I'm sure you do feel sorry for me. Your small mind and large arrogance are something that I probably should fear. But since I do have real people who care for me, I choose to concentrate on them. Good luck.
It sure doesn't look like it from where I stand, but if enslavement of the mind is freedom for you, who am I to say what floats your boat.
Truth?
Religion is the space of myth, allegory, superstition. Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with truth.Passion is commendable, but conviction and truth are not always the same thing.
You say that's true, but in order to decide that something is true convincingly you actually have to demonstrate that it's actually true. You can't. You can't even begin to. So why should I just accept what you say for no reason?
You don't need to. From the horses mouth, so to speak:
"Passion is commendable, but conviction and truth are not always the same thing." There is little doubt of the conviction and passion, but the truth is not necessarily there, at least according to the author.Nice try but I actually did answer the question. Admittedly, Julie may not be satisfied with the answer and I can understand that, but it's still an answer.
You did answer, and with great conviction. Just little to no verifiable truth.
That is up for debate. In point of fact the way that most believers demonstrate the truth of their beliefs is by their life, and I don't just mean following Jesus' commands (although that is certainly paramount as you can't call yourself a Christian if you don't do as Christ commanded.) That I can't point at the Northern Lights or the Big Dipper or the Singularity and say, "See! Ultimate proof!" does not mean that I can't 'prove' it, although some wouldn't believe no matter what.
Wow, I think the embodiment of caps certainly does make your claim far more valid.
I assume that you hold as much for the person who I was responding to, who used caps in a similar fashion. I don't normally.
You don't? Oh dear, your slip is showing...Look, ED. Caps! But I doubt that you would hold buggie to the same standard you hold me, eh?
I would if the statement looked more like yours, for example:
"There IS no Satan; there ARE no demons and there ARE no angels."
The bible is a thick book of plagiarized Egyptian stories and folklore. A thousand years from now, mankind will look back on religion and think "what the hell we're we thinking"?! Religion is the blind leading the blind.
Perhaps a thousand years from now mankind will look back as they run for their lives while the angels come to defeat Satan and think, "What the hell were we thinking?"
Might be sooner, might not be that soon.After two thousand years, it still looks exactly like any other given myth, so why should it not look like that in another thousand years?
There is NO Satan; there are NO demons and there are NO angels.
Satan, demons, angels are myths and fantasies with zero connection to reality.
In a 1000 years (or hopefully many fewer) human beings will evolve---cognitively and intellectually, and will finally and for once and for all let go out primitive thoughts; primitive thoughts that conjure up gods and angels and demons to explain that which they do not understand.
Perhaps in 1000 years---and many fewer, we will all have evolved sufficiently to embrace science and reason as ways of knowing and discard myth and superstition.Well, as long as you're passionate about it...
I usually find you to be such a sane sort. I'm curious why this bothers you so much. I also find it disconcerting that you have decided YOU are right, only YOU are right and you must shout it from the mountain tops until everyone else shuts up and agrees.
Why can you not say "I don't believe in this" and accept that others DO believe? Why do you feel the need to play the internet version of a shout down?
I'm only curious about these things because it has been my experience (and I can only speak from my own experiences) that atheists act out of a fear of religion, more than a disbelief. This need to destroy it and banish it from humanity while at the same time condemning as inhumane and horrible the very same thing when religion acts that way towards homosexuals. ironic huh?If religion was kept behind closed doors and on private property, like it was intended to be, no one would be having any problems with it at all now would they?
Who says that was what was "intended"? Or are you dragging out the old "separation of Church & State" thing that is nowhere within the Constitution? Only 5 words written one time in a letter by one Founding Father.
You should check out quotes from other Founding Fathers to really see what was "intended" and not intended.
"Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." George Washington
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God - John Adams
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell - John Adams
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be! - John Adams
In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity - John Quincy Adams
The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - Congress, 1854
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. - House Judiciary Committee, 1854Have you ever read the treaty of Tripoli?
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.Exactly...but don't let us cloud the issue with facts.
Picking & choosing. Just like that one letter Thomas Jefferson wrote and ignoring everything else he ever said.
It was a routine diplomatic document. The religion clause necessary because of dissent between the two religions. Period.
In any case, that was 1796 - in 1854 Congress ruled otherwise.So you can pick and choose quotes that support your position, but quotes that refute them aren't allowed somehow? Interesting.
No I told the facts - look it up. It even states about the religion clause and how it is just recently that the atheist crowd has jumped on it.
All the while ignoring that the majority of quotes from our Founding Fathers disproves the intent was to limit religion to behind closed doors and private property.
I am well aware that Benjamin Franklin was no fan of organized religion. Neither am I.
Thomas Jefferson liked to study all religions (though he claimed Christianity and was not quiet about it - or only did so on his own property) and took an intellectual perspective on many things.
But they did not hide their religion - did not ban it from the boardroom so to speak in manners of government. Their only intent was to prevent a national religion like the Church of England and the prosecution of religious expression. Just like it states within the First Amendment.
Again - there is nothing there - nor in the entire Constitution itself - that supports your argument.And everything that you pick and choose out of all of the sources (completely without any bias whatsoever, of course) supports yours. I see. Funny that.
SassySue
You state that this country was founded upon the principles of Christianity. The Founding Principles are contained within the Bill of Rights. The principles of Christianity are the Ten Commandments. If you compare the two documents you will find that they are in contradiction to each other. One commands, under threat of hell, that you believe in a particular god. The other says 'no', you can believe or not. One says that you have free speech, the other says, 'no'. One says command, the other says, Rights.
Europe lived under the Ten Commandments from 500CE and was thrust into we we now call the Dark Ages and I would recommend a reading here. The Council of Nicaea (324CE) would be a good place to start.
Theism if allowed to go unchecked will, as a socialist mindset, invariably and inextricably evolve quite rapidly into a theocracy or totalitarian state, as did Europe under Catholic/Christian rule, as did Germany, Russia and others.
The Bill of Rights are more to Atheist thinking then Christian, but then Atheism of itself offers no real promise, only The Bill of Rights, a tenuous balance of freedom.
Arguably the Ten commandment were, supposedly, given at around 1200 BCE in writing, but the Jews did not have a written language until 1000 or 800 BCE.
Do you honestly believe that? Or are you making it up as you go?
Either way, that's some funny stuff.If not made up entirely from nothing, then the words of men (and women) long dead and unable to respond are twisted and perverted and edited to make absurd points counter to anything that they believed or expressed.
Words out of context are powerful tools with which to brainwash the masses....I'm not 100% sure what that wink means. He said 'If religion was kept behind closed doors and on private property, like it was intended to be, no one would be having any problems with it at all now would they?'
I don't know that anyone ever assumed that America was built on the assumption that people were supposed to keep religion behind closed doors and on private property. To wish that is fine; but don't present it as if it was what was intended to be.
Were our government to attempt to force people to keep their opinions about religion behind closed doors and on private property I would assume we had lost a very basic freedom.I agree with you 100%. No one ever said anything about religion being made to be behind closed doors--Jesus sent his disciples to preach to the world about Him--that's not keeping religion on the down low.
Jesus said???
Your Jesus was a mortal man---albeit a deeply spiritual man, with radical ideas and no different from any other radical spiritual leader. He would recoil from the abuses committed in his name.My point is that religion, or Christianity for that matter, was NEVER intended to be practiced and kept behind closed doors. It was mean to be spread. I can't speak for other religions, but in the case of Christianity, it was NOT meant to be kept behind closed doors.
That is only your opinion. Why do you keep on stating it like some proven fact? Which it is not.
I was concerned about law, not religion. I, personally, think people should not evangelize.But, they should also be free to follow their conscience on the matter.
Separation of church and state IS a founding American principle. Read the First Amendment.
Ever wonder why churches DO NOT pay taxes? Why clergy are tax-exempt?
It is one thing to express one's personal opinions about religion---and that is protected speech, but quite another for a church or minister to express opinions in the public sphere with the intent of influencing politics and reshaping the public and secular sphere.I am fully aware of the first amendment. I disagree on what constitutes free speech. I have a broader interpretation. In line with what the Supreme Court has protected consistently. I trust their judgment. I'm raising an eyebrow at yours.
You should read it. It says absolutely zero about any public display of religion. Nowhere within the Constitution do the words Separation of Church & State appear. Nowhere.
It says they can't establish a religion (like the Church of England) and cannot infringe on the freedom of religion. That's it. All it says. Nope. Nothing there about no prayers at meetings etc. Sorry.
Why has gay marriage not been legalized throughout the United States yet? And yes this does pertain to what I said before you say I am going off topic and decline to answer, which I feel you might do anyway.
No hate, no fear. Just very tired of lies and deceptions in the name of religion---everything from homophobia to sexism to science denialism to climate change denialism; very tired of anti-intellectualism and anti-knowledge posturing in the name of religion; very tired of efforts by "religious" people to impose their "values" on the public and political sphere.
There is no evidence to indicated that Man is a significant factor in the climate of the planet. That to reject such an assertion is to be called a , 'denier' speaks to the religiosity and lack of foundation by government. Not to believe in a god and you are evil, a sinner. For the climate religion you are a denier. We can discuss this if you like.
Your very words say otherwise.
There is no evidence we are the major cause of any climate change. Studies show the climate of the planet has gone through such cycles for its entire existence. There is evidence of the climate changing - none that it is man made. It is very arrogant to believe we have that sort of effect and control on a planet this size and billions of years old.
Yet - you denounce them. You can't accept that someone holds any belief outside your own personal circle. They must be something to you - a denier - a religious nut job - stupid - you see how that works? You are what you proclaim to hate - just from the other side.Climate change falls along the lines of harming the earth as a whole. Assuming that humans do not have an impact on the atmosphere, which I find arrogant to assume that we have no impact at all, do you disagree that humans are harming this planet almost beyond repair? Species of animals that were once bountiful are completely gone or near total extinction and environments are being devastated for industrial growth every day. If its plausible to believe we have such an obvious impact on our immediate environment, how is it so beyond consideration that mankind as a whole has an impact on the earth itself?
You really would have to be a denier, a nut job, or stupid to believe that we dont in some way shape or form.If that is your primary reason for refuting man-induced climate change, it is very naive.
When you see huge traffic snarl-ups around your major cities, being repeated everyday of the week, churning out the products of combustion into the atmosphere. When you see the huge piles of garbage being created that emit enormous amounts of methane and carbon monoxide. When you see the huge number of planes and ships traversing the world to carry huge cargoes of human and merchandise, in order to feed our needs and our greed...... do you really, honestly think that our human domination does not effect our world?
I suggest your anti-climate change stance has been influenced by people you listen to, those you choose to listen to. There is not much difference between the propaganda put out by mega churches and that put out by right-wing politics. They are both driven by the love of money.
To those whom this bugs, I am sorry, but some of my friends are on these forums and I can't contact them other ways. I put together an "album" of my demos (6 of them) and if you're interested here's where you can get a little more info:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Shank3/2 … e=bookmarkI can and would like to help with the logo. Send me an email describing your thoughts, like, dislikes and what you have in mind. Please include an explanation of the name.
Thank you Emile R for pointing out the proper meaning of "fear" in that context. As a Christian, I find this very refreshing.
All you atheists should move to the atheist country of North Korea to see how your ideology works!
And if you want a theocracy, you should move to Iran.
Why should they? And I do mean that as a legitimate question to you.
No thanks, I already live in a secular society. But if you don't like secularism perhaps consider a move to the middle east.
My atheist way of thinking and my perceptions of the world around me, looking for the logical answers, is not a ideology.
Anywhere in the world that you see some kind of ideology being promoted, pushing to the back seat any ideas that oppose the ideology, you find someone exploiting that to feather their own nest.
In North Korea it seems there are a few elite individuals using ideals and politics to support their own power base. The ordinary person is trodden underfoot and oppressed.
In North America you will find other elite individuals using the masses of "believers" to build economic and financial empires. The ordinary person is controlled by the Mighty Dollar, and his/her natural desire for comfort, to be inspired and cared for, is exploited to the nth degree.
Don't imagine that the politico-religious climate of the USA is any better than the political and irreligious climate of North Korea. Each is used for ulterior motive.That comment is more than a bit uncalled for--and it's based on a false premise.
North Korea isn't messed up purely because its leaders are atheists; it's messed up because of communism, mass-brainwashing via propaganda, the blind allegiance of North Korean citizens, the systematic oppression of anyone who doesn't offer blind allegiance, and their society's insistence that their leader be quasi-deified.Wow. That kind of defeats the idea of freedom of conscience. It sounds like North Korea might suit you better than them.
Thanks Emilie, Extremism happens. Let's not let it destroy good people.
I don't think anyone on this site has found more ways to spell my name than you have.
That to the side, if we can't live and and let live in peace...what's the point? The world would be a boring place if we all thought alike.I do apologies. I do struggle with your name. It's nothing personal, It's just my dyslexic brain. Words with many consonants or vowels confuse me. Please remember I do my best with what I've been given and no disrespect was intended. I've come a long way and this place has help me greatly with communicating with my clients and that is why I'm here, I like the topic and it helps me communicating my thoughts to my clients.
Please forgive me.
Did you know that the Constitution of North Korea provides for freedom of religious belief event though the state of North Korea is officially atheist? What they don't allow are those who engage in proselytizing and evangelism.
Ummm, just because that guy might be considered out of line doesn't warrant making North Korea sound as if it is open to any belief or religious tolerance.
Unless you are North Korean and simply want to spread some propaganda, this article might help enlighten. http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_nkor.htmI did not make anything "sound" as you imagined it did.
In 1988, for the first time since the Korean war, Christian communities were allowed to hold worship services in the open in churches. In this year three new churches, the Protestant Pongsu and Chilgol Churches and the Roman Catholic Changchung Cathedral, were opened in Pyongyang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_KoreaThe wikipedia link you offered also stated that people continue to be arrested and suffer either harsh penalties or are executed for practicing religion.
But, hey. Throwing up a few buildings appears to be a great smoke screen. You seem to be buying it.Buying what? Facts? Yes, I know you reject them.
Well, one fact you conveniently ignore is that North Korea does not allow religious liberties, or freedom of conscience. I have no idea why you are arguing this point. Not only does it not help in your zeal for atheism, it grossly hurts the cause. Anyone turning a blind eye to gross human rights violations in order to pretend that North Korea is, in any manner, supportive of freedom of conscience loses all credibility in the discussion.
Sorry, but I did not conveniently ignore anything.
As usual.
What cause? What do my comments have to do with zeal for atheism?
I have not turned a blind eye to anything, but most certainly, you sure love to make stuff up so you can argue with yourself.
You have nothing of value here ATM. Please continue to believe that there is freedom of conscience in North Korea, as long as they don't evangelize. It's a foolish belief, but par for the course where your beliefs are concerned.
Sure Emile, keep arguing with your own words, I'm sure you'll get a victory, one way or the other.
Hey there, Enceph. I am just popping in to say your claim is only half true and you left out the most important part.
The Constitution of North Korea provides for freedom of religious belief BUT not freedom of religion!
“Autonomous religious activities now almost nonexistent; government-sponsored religious groups exist to provide illusion of religious freedom”{1}
"In North Korea, the practice of Christianity is illegal, even though Article 68 of the North Korean Constitution guarantees the freedom of religious practice".{2}
It appears that your post AND the government of North Korea are out to create a false impression.
{1} https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/kn.html
{2}http://www.charismanews.com/world/41941-public-executions-highlight-religious-freedom-issues-in-north-koreaIn North Korea, the Constitution provides for "freedom of religious belief", but the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an atheist state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea
Religion is definitely not detrimental to society. History has shown that the most oppressive societies had no religion. Today, North Korea is a prime example of that. Their Constitution allows it for show, but Christians are oppressed -- not only Christians, but their families as well, including pregnant women and little children.
China is another example. They allow religion, but it falls under the government, in essence, making the government more powerful. Christian churches under the government deliberately distort the bible to suit government agenda. Access to bibles isn't allowed, not even pages of bibles. Genuine Christian cell groups are captured, tortured and jailed indefinitely.
Under Russian communism Stalin enforced famine in the Ukraine leading to some 7 million deaths. Churches were torn down and kind of inhumanity that reigned under the USSR is well known and documented.
Hitler, a Catholic by name, ruled faithlessly and we ended up with the holocaust. If you go to Auschwitz you will see the kind of evil man is capable of committing, and you will come to understand why we need God in our lives.Even if what you have said is true (I say if, without implying that I agree, but respect others that do), I feel you would need to search much more deeply into each case you have mentioned.
The entire history of those German states, going back at least 1000 years, influenced the lead up to Hitler's Holocaust. There was much human psychology involved. People were wanting a "saviour" for their country. Propaganda was used to the nth degree to convince the people of their best hopes for the future. You cannot blame it all onto a lack of religion.
We cannot blame anything onto "religions" without remembering that it is crowd-paranoia that often drives the consequences. This is true of our own time as well, of course. We even witnessed it here in Australia, in 2004, when crowds gathered to inflict horror upon Lebanese people and anyone with darker-than-pink skin. When people get it into their minds that certain others are their enemy, it takes a lot to change such minds. The same applies to anyone with a religious bias, which in itself can be the main problem.Totalitarian societies in general want to eliminate religion. They say that religion is the palliative of the people, but it is because religion gives people conviction and loyalty other than to the totalitarian government and this usurps the amount of power that they want. Religion is their biggest threat and when it's gone, it's a free ride for them.
There have been other cases of government rule which took away people's freedoms but allowed religion. One example is martial law in the Philippines under President Marcos. I dislike Marcos, but he was a practical man and he knew that the Catholic religion is powerful and he had to collaborate with it. However, he also allowed a lot of Christian evangelical groups into the country because he hoped this would help to lessen the power of the Catholic church. I am so amazed when I read of the horror of society under Hitler, North Korea and the like. For them, Marcos would have been a blessing in comparison. He could not be a total despot though he came VERY close, because religion was viewed as higher than the government.
What I'm saying is, you can usurp power and still allow religion, and in the end, especially if the society is not a closed society, there is a limit imposed on torture.
This is because of religion. Man isn't perfect, so there will be wars and there will be government takeovers and there will be terrorists and there will be religions that aren't perfect. But they are better than none. What is truly needed is something even more important than what religion is supposed to uphold, which is faith.
The most peaceful revolution in history was that of Jesus Christ, He wasn't a political leader that the Israelites expected. He was a spiritual leader. He saw that man tortures and harms man. By changing ourselves, we can do better. We will never be perfect as long as we are human, but a man of true faith, genuine faith, will not kick a dog, while a man like Nicolae Ceausescu will think nothing of bulldozing 40,000 homes which led today to a ratio of one feral dog for every three human beings.While you provide some skewed versions of what actually occurred, I find it rather surprising that you would think atheists prefer to live under those kind of regimes. Guess what? We don't. We also don't want to live under theocracies, where the religious make the decisions based on their beliefs. So, we have secular societies where everyone has the same rights.
The problem is that the religious abuse these rights or wish to take away the rights of others. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. This is where you'll usually find the origins of conflicts and wars.So --- how do we promote balance and harmony? How do we encourage acceptance of each other's point of view without wishing to dominate?
In the context of the Question, "Is RELIGION Detrimental To The Whole of Society?" We could say "Only when it is forced on everyone else, regardless of personal choice."
IMHOJohnny Come Lately, the answer to promoting balance and harmony has to come with time and more blood, sadly will be shed along the way, not only through religious intolerance but because man is by nature an imperfect creature. This would happen even if you try to eliminate faith completely. The idea here is to become more educated. The world is getting smaller, cultures have to mix together more, and over time there may be understanding if not acceptance. Acceptance and integration can come with younger generations. It's a matter of enlarging our decision to try our best to accept people for who they are and what they believe in, and it may take generations before it happens. But to suppress faith is promote a lie because there are so many people of faith. When you have to promote a lie, you open the door to non acceptance.
The saddest part of all is, the world may not last long enough for that day to come, because some faiths have not evolved as quickly with the changing world as others. But if people have genuine faith, they would be more willing to see the commonalities among their differences, at the same time accept and appreciate each other's differences. And that includes accepting atheists, too. for example, I'm sure Christians and Atheists both like good food and sports, etc. Focus on how you are similar, and appreciate how you are different. This is a dream, but I think this is the best way for it to happen.More faith is not the answer, logic and reason is the answer. Faith only leads to conflict and intolerance. Yes, getting educated is the right idea, but you must realize, the more education people acquire, the less likely they are to embrace religious faith.
I think you are a very wise woman, and I hope to see more of your comments coming in the forums!
"But to suppress faith is promote a lie because there are so many people of faith. "
You do understand that that is a logical fallacy? That no matter HOW many people believe that it is no indication of truth? After the entire world at one time believed the earth was flat and the sun went around it.
And beyond that, you will find more people in this world that do NOT believe the Christian myth (or any other specific belief system); they must all be false, then, by your reasoning.
We don't cram our religious faiths down other peoples throats, but instead, practice our faiths in the comfort and privacy of our homes. We don't refuse the rights of others just because our faith deems others not worthy of those rights. That would encourage balance and harmony in a secular society.
That's pretty good, Jonny.
Which is what happens in an atheistic society, as history has shown. The quasi deism of Kim is no evidence of religion, but of a totalitarian government that applies all ends to perpetuate itself, including twisting elements of faith for their own purposes when the leader himself is an atheist, knows he is not a god, but carries on with the lie to forward his agenda. All things are possible when there is no moral guidance provided by faith of the genuine sort.
My answer here is to the person who referred to Kim's government as an quasi-theist government. There is nothing theist about it at all.But, you are once again providing a skewed version of what's going on. You aren't talking about an atheistic society, you are talking about one person's control over an entire society, a dictator, who in most cases is insane. Many people within that society are indeed religious and haven't changed their minds or their faiths, even though they say the opposite in front of Kim.
Certainly, the vast majority of people in North Korea are probably as normal and decent as anyone else. Many of them most likely detest Kim and his dictatorship. Most atheists would never want to live under his rule, either.Encephalo, in your own argument you are pointing out that while Kim may be a madman, the people have faith despite the tremendous risks involved. This proves that faith is important to many people. And it isn't the Christians driving their faith down the people's throats, it's the atheist Kim driving his agenda down the people's throats with far greater consequence than mere irritation on the part of the Christians for being people of faith. That alone must tell you something.
We have to be more accepting of all faiths and people without faith rather than try to censor faith. It's part of freedom of speech, of belief, of things expressed in the US constitution.The point I think EncephaloiDead was trying to get across is that as it stands now, faith needs to be censored (at least in the States). Does it need to be completely rid of? There are times where I certainly wouldn't mind it, but to have it completely gone is unrealistic. If all faiths cannot be represented equally, then faith in general should belong behind closed doors. To accept/promote one but deny others is just asking for trouble. There are times and places in the public domain where faith can be practiced no problem, but to have people banging on your door at the crack of dawn trying to convert you to -this religion- or to have people in government trying to pass laws from a 2000 year old bible is insane.
I am all for people believing and doing whatever their faith tells them to, its their right, but once it starts to affect people of other/non faiths personally is when something needs to be done about it.I understand completely what you are saying here and can agree completely as well. I just don't think that the Ten Commandments posted outside or inside a public building affects someone personally. Or a prayer at a public meeting or a picture of Jesus (an art project where the student picked the subject matter) hanging in a school.
I would not take it personally if it were a picture of Bhudda, or if it was a Jewish prayer (or any other type) or a list of laws from the Quaran even as long as it did not promote violence towards another. It would not have any personal affect on me or my beliefs or lack thereof.
As for people knocking on your door, no one says you have to open it or talk to them and I've not known them to come calling at the break of dawn as you claim.That sounds fine on the face of it, SassySue. But surely it's the intent behind such a scenario that really matters.
If the intent is to say, "The Ten Commandments, Prayer and Jesus are top of the class as far as we are concerned, and if you don't agree with that you are not really welcomed," then that is not universally held as true and puts anyone of a different opinion on the outer.
For myself, any statement of a religious nature is respected in terms of the individual who aspires to the statement, but when I have it rubbed in my face, being a member of the general public, as being the only way to think, that sets my defenses working overtime. It's confronting.
Consider this scenario: I attend a funeral service in a christian church, to give my last respects to a dear friend, to celebrate his/her life. It comes to the point in the service when the minister gets up and begins to deliver a sermon. I expect this to happen and, being of an atheist mind, will not be discourteous by leaving immediately the sermon begins. I can cope with a short address and simply close my mind to it and sit peacefully, quietly, contemplating my friend's life.
After, say, 10 minutes of sermon, with no end in sight, I decide to get up and walk out of the church, while the minister is speaking, intending to rejoin the congregation when he has finished. Why should I sit there and be preached to? Why should I give any more courtesy when there is none being given my way? There is room in this world for all of us, theist and a-theist alike, provided mutual respect and courtesy is applied, don't you think?I would think the service was held in a manner and / or venue meaningful to your friend, his family, or both. If you know full well it is going to be a religious service, you need to determine if you can endure it respectfully or not and let that determine if you will be in attendance. Nobody is making you go. To show up only to decide half way through that you need to disrespect your friend and offend his family in some selfish protest against having an event that is in no way about you not properly accomodate your sensibilities would be childish. Don the big boy pants and commit to attending respectfully, or do everyone a favor and stay home.
You are really going to have to explain how leaving a sermon part way is disrespecting the friend and offending the whole family, especially if he planned on rejoining after all was said and done. Thats like saying he offended everyone in the room by leaving because he needed to go take a whiz and didn't want to soil himself. You would think he would have been friends with the family as well and that they knew his viewpoints, so the fact that he even showed up at a christian church let alone spent 10 minutes listening to a sermon goes a long way for them.
Even for a hypothetical scenario, I don't think you thought very much before commenting.Just a matter of common decency. I would do the same myself in determing if I should attend a function where my sensibilities would need to be set aside, out of respect. If I felt there was any chance I could not maintain proper decorum, I would defer attendance in favor of sending condolences. It's not about me, after all.
You reminded me of a funeral I attended a few years back. A friend of mine who committed suicide upon getting confirmation that he had Huntington's disease. He was a well respected doctor who's wife had recently kicked him out because of his odd behaviour, sad really. He had no choice but to move back home with his mom who recently became a Witness. She of course tried to convince him but he wanted no part of it and he told me as much. Anyhow, here we we at a funeral full of Italian Catholics who were given a 1 hour Witness story about how he was just beginning the conversion when he got the new of Huntington's. Many, many people got up and left or wouldn't even enter the room. Rather than showing the departed respect they used the captive grieving people as a means to attempt to convert a few more with lies.
Surely if you had read the whole of my post without getting offended, you would have seen that I did give respect to the religious service. I would be willing to sit there silently and patiently, because my sole purpose of being there was to respect the memory of my friend and to give support to his family. Please also realise that if a person in his or her lifetime had been intent upon evangelising me, it is most unlikely we would have been friends in the first place. I most certainly would "do everyone a favor and stay home." However, a person who was willing to accommodate my "sensibilities" in such a way that I could accept his equally, would easily be a good friend.
But you seem to ignore the minister's intention of using his/her sermon as a convenient moment to push the evangelism bit to a captive audience. That in my opinion would be a mark of disrespect to the deceased. It is putting the need to evangelise above the focus upon the deceased. Five minutes taken to declare the minister's and, perhaps, the majority of the congregation's beliefs, would be suffice. With that I would, as previously stated, be quite happy to sit and listen in silence.
Here we come to the crux of this thread. The presumption in the christian's eyes that his/her religion is superior to any other. That is arrogance, whatever you believe. IMO.Many ppl, when aware of their demise, will request that their pastor offer the msg. of salvation at their funerals. Being at the end of their life, there is little else more important to them then sharing that msg. It gives them encouragement that their death is not in vain.
I sang at the funeral for a 4 year old girl who died in a car crash. Her parents shared her life in pics and told stories of her love of Jesus. Many at her funeral ended up giving their lives to Christ b/c the were so profoundly impacted by this little grain of wheat that fell to the ground. I'm sure there were many there who didn't give their life to Christ, but simply, respectfully attended.
I think if you are among the living, it behooves you not to ask that the dead respect your personal beliefs, but that you understand the gravity of the moment of a person's passing. If they are a believer, this is a profound moment. Relax. If you receive anything from your friend, learn that life's too short to take things personally that don't necessarily have to concern you.You are being presumptuous here.... that the message you have is pertinent to everyone, whether we want it or not; whether we believe it or not. In this respect, religion has been detrimental to society. This has indeed been the fuel to ignite wars.
The simple solution is for each of us to back off, allow for the other's point of view and live in harmony instead of dissonance. 10 minutes listening in silence to a sermon is giving respect to the views of the pastor, the deceased and the family. Talking at length to me, in my face, is not giving respect to me, no matter how much you "believe in" your message.Knowing you as I do; from reading many many of your post; the first thing that came into my mind was to the preacher might have been ..."Talking at length to me, in my face".
If this were the case; seems to me, the pastor went outside the scope of his/her assignment.
I think any of the family members, that knew you, appreciated your attendance and your calm exit.
I've seen pastors do that with visitors coming to regular Sunday service.
These victims usually never return.
When my Dad died, we had to suffer through the obnoxious evangelical meanderings of the preacher. My Dad would never have approved of such. It was, I guess, his wife who thought it would be appropriate.
I think a funeral is one of the most inappropriate places I can imagine to evangelize.I wondered why you all had chosen that pastor if you did not want him to preach as he did, but then I got to the part about it being his wife's choice. Well that's one of those awful family situations that could be about anything. I'm sorry you didn't get to have a better experience saying goodbye.
I'm sure there are preachers out there who are without the skill and etiquette it may take to preside over a funeral, let alone share a msg of such importance, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done with grace and purpose. I personally shared a msg. of salvation at my own father's funeral and it gave it meaning to me. I hope that someone might hear the good news at my funeral and be touched.
Johnny, my point was simply that we don't all have to agree, but you should certainly do what you please at your funeral, and I would hope ppl could sit respectfully just as the reverse should be true.
Shoving their beliefs down others throats as their last message on earth is highly unlikely, most likely it is the Pastor using (abusing) the event to evangelize.
No you are being ridiculously self-centered and egotistically. To presume that the family or pastor should respect your sensibilities at the moment of their loved one's passing. Sometimes the request to share the message has been made by the deceased - sometimes their family - it is not for YOU to decide what is best for that person or persons. I'm sure the pastor didn't/wouldn't (not sure if this actually happened or not) come down from the pulpit and get up in your face (as someone clearly trying to defend your actions said in a post). It was a general message.
Yes, I can certainly understand that there would be pastors who would abuse that position - but then again, I'd have no way of knowing if they were abusing it would I? The request for the message could be from the deceased or his family.
In short, you don't have to listen. You are aware of what will be taking place - if it bothers you, pay your respects after the service, rather than creating a scene (no matter how quietly) of getting up and walking out during the actual service. That simply makes the day all about YOU and not the deceased. Or pay your respects prior but then go outside before the service begins and wait until after the service has ended.You seem to be missing a rather large portion of his scenario. It doesnt have much to do with him rather than the pastor. Yes, he expected there to be a sermon, regardless if the family wished it or not. Since it is his friend lying in the casket, the least he could do is listen quietly without complaint. But for a sermon to drag on and on and on in an attempt to glorify whatever religion it is and not have much to do with the actual person lying dead before everyone, that is an insult to the people who came to pay their respects and be with the family. If I go pay my last respects to a friend of mine only to sit there and be preached at for half an hour about how he is in gods hands now without much being actually said about his life, more than likely I am going to leave myself and join later regardless if I am of the same faith.
I am not sure what it is with your comments, but you come off as incredibly biased sometimes. You say he is self centered and egotistical for being offended that someones else's faith is being pushed upon him. Is it not arrogant and selfish to expect he should just sit quietly as someone else's faith is being pushed upon him? The RESPECTFUL thing to do in his case is in fact to leave and join up later rather than cause a scene and ruin the entire thing. If he expected there not to be a sermon at all just because he lacks faith, that would be a different story altogether. If leaving midway is disrespectful, then I guess anyone who has to take a whiz is going to have their bladder explode if they truly care that much.
It is only a perceived insult don't you see that? Do you know what the deceased or the family requested?
My grandmother was a very religious person. HER request was a complete sermon, preaching the saving grace of Jesus Christ. It lasted an hour, but that was HER request. I was family, so I was aware of that request. You would not be aware of that request and then turn it into some kind of insult to your friend and the family. That is your doing.
Yes it is not comfortable to have to sit through it when you don't believe - I do understand that part. But it is not about YOU. It is not some personal affront to YOU. Someone, either the deceased or their family, wanted that. Preachers do not turn funerals into Sunday services without a family's consent. Sure there might be that one or two who abuse it, I already said that - but sadly I've been to many funerals lately and I've yet to see more than 15 minutes spent by a preacher, outside of my grandmother's service.That's excellent, thank you Sassy Sue. You have described religion, in the context of this thread, precisely how I see it.
A person can have control over us even from the grave. He/she asked for such and such to be done, so those who are in attendance must sit quietly, patiently, obediently. Listen to propaganda that is designed to show us how basically evil we are and that we need a saviour to rescue us from hell.
Religion, used by believers to make laws that suit the believers, to inflict upon non-believers, whether they like it or not.
I can offer my sincere respect to the deceased, honouring his/her life and feel grateful for having known him/her. Any respect I give is not even felt by the deceased, but helps those surviving to work their through grief and sadness. This I am required to do in all decency, and give of it freely.
Yet then I can be submersed in disrespect by those whom I give respect to, simply because I don't agree with the religion they follow. (Oh, yes, I forgot.... they know my needs far better than I do!...) Very one-sided, in my view. And it is about me. Why not?
Very interesting. Thank you again, Sassy Sue.
I hope this winds up in the right place - I hate when thread lines get to the point I don't get a reply button.
I wonder - do last requests of people only become a burden to you if they are religious? I mean, if you were a vegetarian but they wanted steak served - would that somehow be infringing on your sensibilities as well?
Thank YOU for clarifying what you really want. Every individual that does not think like you, act like you, think of YOUR sensibilities at all times before they act - to lose their right to make any choices about a service held to honor THEM - without YOUR approval. Therein lies the issue. A very self-centric attitude.
Or - a very biased attitude. It's only burdensome and all that jazz if it is a religious request.Sue, when in a thread, just below the black HP bar, in the upper right hand corner, click on "chronological", (instead of "threaded").
You have built a very distorted picture of me in your mind, only because I disagree with your religious point of view.
I cannot be offensive to the person who is dead. They are dead! Any perceived offense can only be felt by the living. This perception will depend upon biased attitude, surely, as self-centered as you regard myself.
You have shown great intolerance to my points of view. Why is that? Is it because your own "faith" might be built on shaky foundations?
I wonder.How is it distorted? You are the one who likened the last request of a deceased person to controlling you from the grave. Would that still be your opinion if we were talking steak and a vegetarian? It isn't a difficult question but one you seem to have ignored in your response.
People have last requests all the time - they aren't necessarily religious. Do they all fall under the category of controlling you from the grave? Or just religious ones?
You have a lot to say in your post but ignored the basic question. I find that telling.
I don't know why you think I'm so "upset". There is nothing in any of my posts to suggest such a thing. If it makes you feel better or like you are "controlling" me to believe that, no skin off my nose.
I am merely pointing out that what is disrespectful, is disrespectful. I never said it was disrespectful to the dead only - they do have family you know.Bringing in a spurious argument like steak and vegetarianism does not advance our understanding one iota.
I am pointing to the presumption that anyone has the right to dictate a religious point of view to people who are attending that person's funeral. Do you suppose that deceased person is there lying in their coffin laughing? Why would you be in that church? Would you be there to give quiet, contemplative respect and recognition of your relative's life? Or would you be there to support the view that everyone in the church "needs" to become christian, just like you or your passed loved one? If your answer (your honest answer) to this is, "Yes," then you are also arrogantly presumptive. This would prove the point I have been making.
I am not for one moment asking you to relinquish your own faith or beliefs. They are yours, and they are no business of mine.
However, your beliefs are not superior to mine. They are equally valid for your self, as my non-beliefs are valid for me.
If you feel I should stay away from such a funeral service, then yes, I would do so because my respect for the person who has died should remain paramount. (It is most likely I would have maintained a friendship with one who is religiously biased anyway, so we are extending this argument into the irrelevant scenario.)
As one last thought, I wonder if you would attend the funeral of a person you know who is atheist. Would you sit quietly in that room, contemplating my life of non-belief, praying that my soul be "saved," when you know I would not have a bar of it?So it IS only religious last requests that you take issue with then.
I don't pray for dead souls to be honest - Heaven & Hell as portrayed are not part of my belief system but if I did hold that belief, wouldn't the fate of the soul already be decided once dead? I pray for strength and comfort for the living.
No we were discussing walking out in the middle of a funeral. Sorry, disrespectful. Period. Whatever you've added to that particular issue is completely on you.
I already stated in the beginning, if you'd actually been reading and comprehending - that walking out in the middle of a funeral would be like me praying aloud over your grave, knowing you held no such belief. I think that pretty much answers your question.If they are your friend, then you are well aware it will be a religious ceremony, as would the rest of the captive audience.
Arriving and expecting the family of the deceased to change their beliefs or not hold a ceremony that reflects their beliefs is self-centric. You'd know the ceremony was going to be a religious one - so if it is too much for your sensibilities to take - then you have choices. Pay your respects and leave before the ceremony and rejoin the family afterwards, don't attend, or attend only the graveside service where the comments will be brief.And the relatives of the deceased would understand people leaving if uncomfortable. The respect needs to work both ways.
Wrong. By attending what you already know will be a religious ceremony, and walking out in the midle of it - you've made it all about YOU.
Different from, let's say - you attend some function that you have no reasonable expectation for there to be any religious overtones - yet someone had invited a Pastor to speak and he sermonizes. Then, yes, walking out would be appropriate and not disrespectful. You would have had no reason to expect a sermon of any kind, brief or otherwise, at this function.
If you cannot see the difference between the two scenarios, then perhaps you need to be reminded that you are not the center of the universe.Sorry, I've attended funerals that I was unaware would be religious and it's irrelevant anyway. I may not be there to be confronted by religion, but to show respect to the dead.
"Then perhaps you need to be reminded that you are not the center of the universe."
I don't think you realize how hypocritical that line is in this funeral scenario.How is it hypocritical? Either the deceased themselves or their immediate family or both hold certain beliefs. In this particular scenario, you'd be well aware prior to attending of any religious nature of the ceremony so expecting them to defer to you, is you believing the world revolves around you. It is, after all, about the deceased and their family. The reverse would hold true as well - if the deceased were an atheist, and was holding a ceremony commemorating their life, without any religious bent, and a Christian got up and walked out because they were offended no one prayed. Just as disrespectful.
You would have to be incredibly self centered to think that an atheist getting up and leaving in the middle of a sermon is disrespectful, especially after already listening to a part of it. I mentioned it earlier, but thats like saying everyone in the room is offended if someone left to go to the bathroom in the middle of a sermon. I highly doubt they will announce "I have to take a dump" to well over a dozen people and as someone is in the middle of talking, so no one knows why this person is leaving. I guess their need to empty their bladder/bowels is somehow less important than attending the rest of the sermon according to you.
This same person will be rejoining everyone again after all is said and done...so where is the disrespect to be had? Was it the part where they decided not to cause a scene simply because they do not have the same beliefs? If this atheist is a friend of the family, they already know his viewpoints and would not mind that he walked out briefly if they even noticed at all. There is nothing he can do for the family in regards to faith, so what is the point of him remaining for the duration of the sermon that should not be any longer than 10-15 minutes normally? I could deal with a sermon, but if it gets to the point where it feels like I am being preached at simply because my friend is lying dead in a casket in front of me, then yes I would leave to and rejoin later.
The reason I found your line hypocritical is that you say, in this scenario, that this person should be reminded that they are not the center of the universe when YOU are the one that has an issue with someone of non belief walking out during a sermon (quietly and respectfully I might add). You seem to think that their beliefs or lack of are null and void due to the religious nature of the event. Its laughable really. I think you are the one that needs to be reminded that you are not the center of the universe either just because you have a different belief.You continually ignore the fact that in this hypothetical question the person knowingly and willingly placed themselves into that situation. You'll find in the previous posts I made a similar hypothetical I mentioned where that was not the case, and then it would not be disrespectful in that instance. To place yourself willingly into the situation and then believe you have some right to leave because the preacher, preached (which, you know, is what they do) is absurd.
I'm not a fan of organized religion nor sermonizing. However, if I attend a service at a church, I am well aware that a preacher is going to preach. It is a church, after all. I am adult enough to understand it is not a personal affront to me and to contain myself from being disrespectful and walking out. After all, I willingly entered the church.I havent ignored any part of the scenario while you on the other hand seem to pick parts that suit you. You talk about someone leaving is being selfish when you are the one who wants this person to disregard whatever their beliefs are in favor of the deceased. For what? The person is dead, they cannot be offended. If the family is "offended" by something as trivial as me walking out in the middle of a sermon that normally should not last anything more than 20 minutes, then so be it. If I feel I am being preached at because I wish to sit and celebrate the life of my now dead friend, I am going to leave and re join when all is said and done. Being a close friend to the family and not showing up at all would be disrespectful, causing a scene instead of standing up quietly and leaving would be disrespectful. But to quietly leave in the middle of a sermon that is exploiting someones death in an attempt to convert/preach to others is not disrespectful. That has been the whole point of this hypothetical, not using someone's death as an opportunity to preach to a somewhat captive audience endlessly, something you have continually missed. It has nothing to do with "Oh they started preaching gotta high tail it out of here". You would have realized had you actually understood the entire hypothetical.
And unless there is a law that states you cannot walk out in the middle of a sermon anyone has the right to do as they wish in that regard.
Again, you would have to be self centered to be offended for me obeying my own beliefs that are not the same as someone else's just to make them happy. You dont have to like it, but to be outright offended by it? Mighty arrogant of you. Not showing up to a friends funeral at all because you know there might be a sermon is beyond stupid since clearly there was already an understanding between the difference of beliefs to be friends int he first place. It seems that either way, you are either saying someone should not have gone at all or that they should sit down and shut up to make other people happy. Arrogance.And again - guess you didn't see all the other options that were outlined outside of not attending because you only want to focus on YOU when the hypothetical you describe is not about YOU. Nor the part about human nature being what it is, even though the family is not going to notice, someone is going to say "oh is everything alright?" or something along those lines later. That many people in a room and there is going to be that pain in the butt who judges everyone and tells everyone - and will be sure to tell the family that you got up and left.
But - go read Quill's post about the Founding Father's and then you can see that while no, we were not founded on Christianity, it was not meant to be behind closed doors in the least nor any open practice to be infringed upon in public, which is what began the hypothetical.
Or go read Johnny's post about how he was in such a situation and did not get up and leave because he would not do that - and other's in response about how he was too "classy" a person to do such a thing. Even those that agree with you on religion - don't agree it isn't disrespectful.I think I should stop talking to you at this point before I actually start to get annoyed and say some meano stuff that results in a ban. You talk about being selfish yet fail to realize the selfishness on your part as well. If we had at least gotten to that point, the conversation might have ended much earlier. The hypocrisy and overall ignoring of other viewpoints in this forum is surprising from so many people who I see as quite intelligent.
Also for the record, Jonny was the one who initially brought up this hypothetical to begin with, not me.
That's an interesting point which I had not considered, Link.
I am not averse to having a friendship with a person who has a deep and abiding Christian Faith. He knows my views, and visa versa. We have discussed the differences several times, both in private an in public. I have a lot of respect for him, despite those differences of opinion.
So, it's not as if I am totally against any person having his/her beliefs. Just as long as we can agree to differ, and neither of us tries to "convert" the other. Is this reasonable and "respectful?"Of course there was an understanding in the differences of beliefs between the friends. That knowledge would not necessarily transfer to their family however.
I know all my daughter's friends, one or two that have mentioned a church event I am aware are Christian. As to the others, I couldn't tell you. It isn't a question I ask - hey, do you believe in God or not? Maybe some people do ask that question - maybe most do - but it isn't something I consider to really be my business. I would have no way of knowing if one or more of her friends were atheists.
This I would basically agree with but also agree with RadMan. And Yes, it is the religious "push" that I confront.
Sassy, the assumption is that jonny's friend did in fact leave a final request that there be a "Come to Jesus" meeting at his funeral service. I may be entirely wrong, but there hasn't been anything put forth that shows that to be the case. Very often, funerals are planned and executed by the family with no consideration whatsoever for the deceased wishes.
Now, I'm not saying that is the case here, but from my interactions with jonny, it doesn't strike me that he would be close friends with someone with an evangelistic bent. So, was this service reflective of the deceased last wishes, or reflective of his family's hopes for him and others?
That said, it's hardly as though jonny cursed God and stormed out. He left quietly and respectfully. I see your point on one hand, but on the other, I would expect a funeral service to pay respects to the deceased. If that person's faith was an integral part of his/her life, those close enough to be present to celebrate his/her life will know that.
My first year in the convent saw me attending 20 funerals. Every service was the same, but every one different because each nun's personality and life had been special. There were no sermons, per se, but there were wonderful tributes to wonderful women, and the services spoke their own message without it ever needing to be hammered home.
Maybe that helps to bridge this gap a bit?No, not at all, I just wanted you to know without having to reread it all.
Not at all, Mo... I would not wish you to feel at all that way. It was partly hypothetical on my part, initially. However, I have sat in on a funeral service when I would dearly have liked to do as I suggest.... walk out after 10 minutes of being sermonized. But you know what? I didn't because I was too much of a gentleman!
Either that or I was too much of a coward.
However, I do keep to my opinion that pushing a religious message onto anyone who is not of that mindset is disrespectful. When people with a strong "faith" are able to rest upon that faith and not feel they have to be actively engaged in it all the time.....then we can all get along a bit better.
There have been several very rounded people here in the Hubs that have shown such a willingness... so we are getting somewhere.I knew there was a flaw in your hypothetical as I expected you would be too classy to walk out.
That makes more sense. I couldn't imagine you disrespectfully walking out from your friends funeral ....
.... unless the preacher did something similar to an event I witnessed a long time ago; The preacher came from behind the pulpit, stood ten feet in front of an individual who I had never seen before, and preached at that person, allowing the rest of the congregation watch.
THAT was WRONG. I don't think I was the only person who wondered why that person didn't get up and leave. I don't know if he ever came back ? cause I didn't!
I thought you might have been describing something like that. My mistake.
The situation was a hypothetical one where Link proposed he attended the funeral of a friend. It really matters little if the religious part of the ceremony is due to his friend's wishes or those of his family. Most funerals with a religious bent are held at a church, correct? Not the wake, or viewing, but the actual service, which would be a pretty big clue that there would be a preacher/pastor/rabbi speaking yes? So you either attend and respectfully remain, or you realize your own limitations and do not attend. You do not attend and then walk out in the middle. Which given human nature would lead to questions, even well intended, and then it becomes all about YOU and creates a scene.
I disagree, but I can do that peacefully. At the end of the day, I believe a lot of people plan funerals that the deceased themselves would not necessarily be comfortable with, leaving those who knew them best and loved them most at the least, perplexed, and at worst saddened even more deeply by the loss.
The intent you describe is put there by yourself. There is no intent behind a mere portrait of Jesus, painted by a student for an art class, nor a rendering of the Ten Commandments, nor a prayer given before a meeting because the majority request it. I'm sorry but others' rights don't end where your sensibilities begin.
As for the funeral scenario, that is completely disrespectful. Naturally courtesy won't be thrown your way because such a ceremony is not in the least about YOU. It is about your friend, as such I would assume you'd be aware this would be a religious ceremony and put your sensibilities aside as a matter of respect for your friends' wishes and those of his family. It would be akin to me attending the funeral of my friend, a known atheist, and praying over his grave aloud.
If your belief system (or system of non-belief) is quite so fragile that it cannot even tolerate in the slightest a mere mention or public practice of another religion, if it is so threatened by such, then you don't really have that belief system or non-belief system. You have no faith in it that it is correct or right.
No I wouldn't be uncomfortable. I honestly would not. I just don't find a picture of another one's chosen deity to be threatening or infringing, nor another's prayer or statement of the equivalent of their God's commandments. Nor do I find that to be favoring one religion over another. I would simply find it to be the majority choice - that is all, not a condemnation of my own beliefs.
Just because you are not offended by it does not mean other aren't. Imagine you are a christian in a society that is completed dominated by another religion. You can't go anywhere without seeing something relating to said religion. The society is all about freedom to practice any religion, yet for the life of you you dont see anything that actually points to that being true. You wouldnt feel uncomfortable in the slightest? You wouldn't feel somewhat cheated that this society has no problem glorifying one religion over the rest even though it supposedly supports all of them? If it started trying to pass laws from that one specific religion that not only go against modern times but your own religion as well possibly?
Your allowed whatever religion you choose. If you are the sole adherent to the order of the sacred sea slug or the god of scientism, don't bemoan your religion's lack of representation. Get busy and spread the good word or accept the reality. Allowing you to practice your belief system is not the same as guaranteeing it success. Nobody is owed that. I would not go to Rome and complain about all the Catholics.
Why don't you see that? If a prayer is the majority choice, then it is the majority choice. That does not force you to bow down or even pray, only be respectfully quiet. It does not in any way condemn your own belief or non-belief.
You can follow whatever religion you choose or none at all. A painting, or commandments on a plaque or a prayer before a meeting does not infringe upon that at all. If it shakes your chosen belief then you have no confidence in your chosen belief.That's exactly how religious conflicts and wars get started.
But, I am forced to be quiet while you conduct your religious beliefs, yes? Is there any reason why you can't conduct your religious beliefs in the privacy of your home instead of in a public meeting? Isn't the being disrespectful of others?
And, you would have no confidence your beliefs if you felt praying at a public meeting was necessary for you.It has nothing to do with shaking one's personal belief. If I were to walk in on a group of people praying to -whichever- god, that's all fine and dandy, wouldn't bother me. I decide that after they are done I myself will pray to -whichever- different god. My god is unknown or otherwise frowned upon and the people around me tell me to leave or do not show the same respect I showed them while they were praying. THAT is the problem with public displays of faith, people get sticks up their butt and cannot tolerate other peoples religions and they cry about it even though everyone has the same right to practice their faith. Couple that with one religion being promoted and the others denied and you start to feel somewhat oppressed, which according to you shouldnt bother anyone it seems.
If I have spent x amount of hours spreading the word about my faith and gathering new converts to the point where we are a decent sized group, why should our religion not be represented as equally as another by having our commandments/guidelines on a plaque outside a public building as well? Unless I have the money to back up the word "lawsuit", hell has a more likely chance of freezing over than us being allowed to display such things and not be called out about it.Did you offer a plaque and have it rejected? Then you have a valid argument unless it contained something calling for violence against another. If the Ten Commandments were to have something about stoning someone for something, then I'd say it should not be displayed either.
You are correct that some people have no tolerance for things outside their scope - they are the radicals and every human group on the planet has them - atheists too. You can't lump all and the same together though. You can't pick a radical and say - "oh they're all like that". That simply isn't true. If it were me and you were to begin your prayer after another prayer - I would remain respectfully quiet for you as well.
A large percentage of this argument is similar to the evangelicals complaining about no prayer in school. They want everyone to pray, so their kids don't feel uncomfortable doing it alone. Freedom of religion allows their children freedom to pray, if they so choose, to whatever deity they so choose, in whatever reasonable manner they so choose. But, apparently, that is considered unreasonable to expect kids to choose if the group isn't doing. I've always considered that to be a sure sign of weak belief in one's self.
As to your complaint about the laws. That's why we have courts. To determine if laws are constitutional, or not. If the law they seek to establish is supported by the constitution you really don't have a leg to stand on with that complaint. Yes, interpretation of the constitution does change over time, as the common spirit adjusts to new information and societal fluxes in understanding of the interplay of human relations expands, but you can't force your expectations onto the common good. If your understanding is considered to have merit it will spread and society will eventually change to incorporate it.
Thinking you have a better way does not equate to a better way. Society is not obligated to agree with you.
You don't seem to understand that it isn't just about one or two or even three faiths, that it is all faiths that are in question as to the separation of state and church. If the Ten Commandments are posted outside a public building, then there should also be some form of equivalent scriptural law or rule from every single other religion on the planet. If there is a prayer in a public meeting, then we must accommodate every other religious ceremony that equates to prayer. Obviously, you can see how this would simply not work.
That is why the separation of church and state means all religions share equally the acknowledgment they require or none of them are acknowledged.
Do you understand?do you understand that separation of church & state is not a Constitutional edict? It appears nowhere within the document. It is five words written in a letter, taken out of context, by Thomas Jefferson. The Constitution does not prohibit the practice of religion, any religion, at public meetings, or religious displays on public grounds, of any kind. It says quite clearly and simply that the government cannot establish a religion (like the Church of England) and can make no law infringing on freedom of religion. That's it.
Practicing religion is not establishing religion. The Founding Fathers were quite open with their religious beliefs, they did not keep them behind closed doors or in private so to claim their intent as one to do so is disingenuous.
Now if the government were to entertain the idea of establishing religious law, whatever it might be - take the Bible literally and begin stoning people for adultery for example - then you have a valid argument. That would be, IMO, establishing a religion over any other religion.So what? That does not preclude the fact that it is used for judicial and legal means all the way to the Supreme Court. The words, "right to fair trial and right to privacy" also don't appear in the Constitution.
Practicing religion in the privacy of ones home is respectful to others.
And, you know this how?
Agreed. But again, that is why we live in a secular state, where you and everyone else have the right practice your religions, comfortably in the privacy of your homes.They also have the right to practice their religion publicly. I wonder how you would feel if someone suggested you display your atheism in the privacy of your own home, thereby implying that you keep your opinion on the subject behind closed doors. Would you like that?
How does one actually display atheism? And I would assume that if an atheist was told to keep their "beliefs" behind closed doors, provided everyone was told the same thing regardless if they have faith or not there would be no problems for most rationally minded atheists.
Everyone does have the right to practice their religion publicly, and when people stop getting their pants twisted in a knot about different religions being publicly practiced with the mindset that theirs is the "right" one is when you will stop seeing people wanting religion behind closed doors. Out in the public = conflict if all are not represented equally. Behind closed doors = no one gives a damn.Well, let's take Hub Pages as an example. Which group has (as you say) 'their panties in a twist' over people attempting to talk about religion openly?
I don't see Muslims, Jews, Christians, Wiccans, Pantheists, most agnostics or any other belief whining about the others sharing. All we have with (as you say) 'their panties in a twist' at the moment is two atheists. I think that speaks volumes.If you cannot grasp that I was speaking in general terms, I cant really give you a proper response without sounding like a jackass.
And what two atheists are you talking about?The point is that your 'general terms' apply to you and the comment and when people stop getting their pants twisted in a knot about different religions being publicly practiced with the mindset that theirs is the "right" one is when you will stop seeing people wanting religion behind closed doors. Out in the public = conflict if all are not represented equally. Behind closed doors = no one gives a damn appears to be a complaint about self.
I realize atheists think they aren't religious. They aren't 'collecting stamps' and it is a 'lack of belief'. But, when in a public venue, complaining about religion, what you represent is simply another view on the subject. Just as does everyone else. The call to keep it behind closed doors is not representative of a lack of belief. It points out your belief that others opinions are detrimental to the common good.
Unfortunately the few atheists who vocally share this belief appear to think their opinion should hold precedent. That their beliefs (which they internally view as facts, just as do the religious) should be followed. I find these beliefs a little scary. Were society to be forced to acquiesce to what I consider to be unfairly delicate sensibilities we'd lose a freedom I consider to be the cornerstone of true liberty.Emile, I do not ask anyone, of any religion, to "follow" my attitude to the ideas of "god." I am never intent upon "converting" anyone to my way of thinking, although in response to a question or a statement, I will stand up and say "I don't agree with/don't believe that."
You might find that those who "belong" to an Atheist organisation are trying to convert others away from religion. I don't know. But if they are, they don't represent me and my understandings... I don't need to belong. I think for myself.
Turn the coin over..... You will find some christian people who are most concerned that I need to be converted to believing in Jesus Christ. I say that is insulting to me. They cannot know what is best for me, whatever their beliefs for themselves.
Those who have a strong christian conviction, yet respect that their point of view is not necessarily applicable to me, and can see that we do not have to agree.... these have my greatest respect.
Those of you who follow these discussions will know the individuals who get very little respect from me, and those who I admire, even if we occasionally disagree.It is important to keep in perspective why my comment was made. As long as we understand that every voice has a valid place at the table, the table is a permanent fixture and we have the right to disagree.
My primary complaint is there are those who seek to either remove the rules or seek to remove some from the table. I believe open discourse is the only manner in which to affect positive change. We can't force anyone to agree by dogging them into submission. Being politically correct is tantamount to saying I don't know why I hold this view. It does not embrace it. Expecting people to hold their opinions behind closed doors will only slow down the process of positive change.Emile
What is meant by "positive change" and who defines that change?Yes, the same "open discourse" we are forced to listen when Christians come banging at our doors telling us we're going to hell if we don't accept Jesus as our lord and savior, the same "open discourse" we are forced to listen when Christians attempt to take away the rights of others; homosexuals, the same 'open discourse' we are forced to listen when Christians demand they teach Creationism in schools.
There is a long list of "open discourse" topics, Emile. Which do you propose we start?You aren't forced. You choose. Does your inability to shut a door constitute being forced? I think not. I don't feel forced, or suffer guilt when I tell them what I think in response.
Yes, some Christians attempt to enact legislation which is unfair. They meet resistance and usually lose in court. They aren't the only groups who push legislation I abhor. Neither group, in my opinion, deserves to be pushed out of the dialogue. They can't understand why we believe they are wrong if we don't talk.
If we don't talk, we don't know what people think. If we don't know what people think, we don't know how our actions affect others. If we don't know how our actions affect others we continue to hurt each other. Now, it appears there are those on both sides of the aisle who don't care. They believe their beliefs take precedent. Those of you who believe others are automatically wrong will be offended by each other's opinions and wish the other side would hide behind closed doors so you don't have to deal with it.Uh no, Emile, they are forcing their beliefs on others by coming to our homes and telling us so.
More absurd nonsense, you're way off track.Unfortunately, obstinate belief in the validity of personal opinions of cosmic ramifications are absurd and cause conflict. Your belief that no God exists does not impact my life, in any way.Were you to knock on my door to share this belief it would not constitute forcing me. Neither would anyone with a particular belief knocking on my door force me, in any manner, to share that belief.
Now, stepping into a public venue and espousing personal belief in an arrogant manner, expressing derogatives toward those who hold opposing beliefs, and adamantly proclaiming personal belief equates to truth is more of an attempt to force one's opinion on the majority. In a public venue, one is somewhat bound to listen, or walk away. Thus being denied participation. Your beliefs and manner of sharing them fall into this category.
I don't advocate denying anyone participation, but one has more control over the door to their house than the general sign in screen of an internet site. So, if you begrudge others approaching your door with belief, it is somewhat hypocritical to push your belief publicly.
- How anyone practices atheism is quite the feat.
That's like practicing to not collect stamps. Hilarious.Not really. But, if you enjoy thinking it that's nice.
Emile, I do not "practise" atheism. There is nothing within my atheist understanding that needs to be "practised." Except, maybe, not following the sheep to church.
You are here. Espousing your opinions which, whether you choose to accept the fact or not; are your beliefs. That is practicing atheism, in my book. If you don't want to keep it in the privacy of your own home then don't expect others who think differently to do it. That was my point to ATM.
You can't have it both ways. Either everyone has freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, or no one should. Atheists have no more rights than anyone else. I suppose I could follow the sheep along the atheist mind set; but I don't need to do that either.Yes, that would be your book, but there are other books that don't agree with your book, dictionaries, for example, that define atheism as a lack of belief in gods. However, you've now defined atheism as "espousing opinions".
I somehow doubt your book will sell.If you would keep your opinion in the privacy of your own home and behind closed doors it would be OK.
But, to address your point. I can not believe in Zeus. However, if I seek out Zeus worshipers in order to espouse the fact that I don't believe in Zeus and argue with them in an attempt to convert them from Zeus belief then I am actively pushing my opinion. On cosmic issues opinions are beliefs. If I continuously actively seek out others to share my belief that is a ritual.
You can choose to not label your active participation a religious ritual, but you can't deny that you perform this ritual daily in a religious forum.It's funny how believers define words to suit their agendas.
I do no such thing, that is entirely absurd.Have you publicly (here on hub pages) shared that you were an atheist? Do you not daily, under various avatars, counter comments made by others with opposing beliefs with comments in support of your conclusions concerning them?
Yours is an act repeated in a precise manner...thus equating to ritual. A habit driven by conviction in your opinion. Your opinion on cosmic matters is belief. So, a ritual born of belief. Now, you will respond with an attempt to deny the accepted definition of the word ritual. Or, that yours is not a belief. You will claim I'm attempting to change the definition. But, all you will accomplish is to showcase a refusal to reasonably view the entire definition of the word. You will simply be blowing a smoke screen easily seen through.
I like your participation but one cannot turn a blind eye toward what drives it. Your courage of conviction on a cosmic issue which cannot be honestly supported is no less steadfast than the most ardent of theists.No, that is what believers are calling me, the term is redundant.
Nope.
Making up stuff again, Emile? Nice job.
re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or [b[belief[/b] that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
You also might find the following link interesting:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/11/h … cross-u-s/
The atheist's "megachurch". They even have a motto: Live Better. Help Often. Wonder More.
Atheist gatherings are routinely held. It fits the definition of religion, is treated like a religion, and its members gather together like any other religion.
You equate religion with God - but there are religions that worship multiple gods, nature, etc. It basically operates exactly like any religion on the planet.I would suppose that is in the United States, right? A group of people with strong feelings on a particular subject, gather together and establish some sort of formality, so they can declare themselves this, that or the other. What does it do? Whom does it benefit? Banding together is a common trait amongst gregarious species, and we as humans are no different. It makes one feel justified, safe amongst friends, supported in whatever is believed.
I am not in the United States. I have no need, no wish, to join a group who call themselves Atheists, Yet, I am a-theist in my understandings.
I doubt there is general agreement amongst all those in the Atheist "megachurch," if there is such a thing. You would find it hard to find anyone there who 100% agrees with anyone else on a "set of principles," apart from the non-acceptance of the existence of such an entity as "God." That is all.It actually began in the UK and what they are referring to as its founder is having the gatherings in the US now as well.
Hey, I agree with you. I believe in God but hold no store for organized religion, belong to no church and do not attend any church.
I was merely demonstrating a point to the previous poster. You'd be wrong though in the instance of this particular group on them not agreeing on anything other than a non-belief. That is of course, this particular group, which sounds like, acts like and pretty much IS a religion based on non-belief.
That doesn't extend to all atheists naturally. Just like any radical Christian or sermonizing one would not extend to everyone who believes.Haha, so it's a bit like the United Kingdom exporting another set of Founding Fathers across to America - in order to get away from the domination of a church.... History really does repeat itself!
If you want to learn about the atheist's religion, research "Scientism".
Not bad, although I doubt you would ever find many declaring that we have already found (in the scientific method) the only, or even the best, method of finding truth and knowledge. So, take out the last sentence or so and it's fairly reasonable.
I just presented the term for interested folks to research, as it is very revealing. What link did you find that you are referencing? I would like to read it. Other than desperately not wanting to be called a religion, I am not sure why there is so much resistance to admitting it, since as you've noticed, it probably aligns pretty closely with your views.
Here come the "not a religion rants". Incoming!religion
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism is the new religion.
Show me how Atheism is a religion again?First, atheism is a belief system. A faith. Nobody addressed the question I posed in the link below, which reveals that. A couple folks did give the normal canned responses against believers, but none answered the call to address their own positive assertion that our existence did not require a creator. Believing it possible that creation could exist without a creator is central to atheism and agnosticism, and is only taken on faith since there is no proof. I posed it here, but again, no serious responses were given:
http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2605444
That is the best place to start in showing it is a religion.Please read the definition of Religion. You may want to use another word.
I can't prove to you that no God exists just as you can't prove to me that unicorns do not exist. We've all gone over this many times. I can and have given my reasons for not believing in any Gods.re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially (not exclusively), when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Atheists have a set of beliefs (things they believe but can't prove), concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Note that "especially" does not mean "exclusively" regarding the supernatural portion, so we can table discussing the gods of atheism for now. I know that will be a big issue as well.
I addressed the second portion of your post in a response to Julie, above.
Does your disbelief in unicorns constitute a religious belief? Does your acceptance of scientific theories and principles like the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, the germ theory of disease or gravity make you a sciencism-ist? Or do you just disagree with science when it is directly in conflict with your religious beliefs?
Before editing you had something about how we have been over this before. I share your frustration in not seeing why this has been so difficult. Please clear your head for a moment of the assertions you attribute to believers and think just about atheists and agnostics. By definition, they must believe that a means for our existence is possible without a creator, designer, etc. So either everything was always here, or it came from nothing, but either way you take it on faith that it is all possible without a god. That is a positive affirmation and you can't defend it other than just believing it. Same is true once you have accounted for matter, regarding how life began, and same with sentience. As much as you don't want to be in a position to defend this, or admit it is a positive affirmation taken on faith, it still clearly is. A belief.
Again, my lack of a belief in God had nothing to do with anything that I may or may not think about the origins of life. I don't know how life began, nor do I claim to. Please stop asserting that I must believe something or something else. I don't know, nor do I particularly care - therefore I have no belief one way or another. Do I think there is evidence enough to posit a specific creator? No. Do I believe by default that no creator was necessary? Nope. I don't know, i don't claim to know, and i don't have a belief either way. The timeto believesomething is after evidence has demonstrated it to be true. Not knowing does not equate to belief of the opposite. Please stop telling other people what they do or don't believe. Things might be that absolute in your world, but they certainly aren't in mine.
Romans 1:19-20 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
I agree completely. Regardless of who someone thinks the creator was/is, the idea that creation came about without one is to me, profoundly ludicrous. To even entertain the possibility of that requires a belief that creation could exist without a creator. There is no escaping that. I don't possess that belief. I contend the thought to be absurd and consider creation itself an over abundance of proof. Atheism and agnosticism both, by definition, require a person posses a positive affirmation of there being a means possible, other than a god. How can you justify that?Firstly, you're not in a position to tell an atheist or agnostic (or an atheist agnostic) like me what they must or must not believe. It would be like me assuming that all Christians are young earth creationists that believe in a literal, six day creation about 6,000 years ago and then arguing with them when they tell me that they're an old earth creationists or Christians that accept evolution. It's absurd.
Secondly, that's the argument from ignorance. I don't know how this could happen without a creator, therefore god. Not only therefore god, but therefore a specific god that you already happen to believe in, while Discounting all of the other god and creation claims as obviously false.
I don't think you understand what I don't know means. It means I don't know. I don't just get to make something up to explain it because I don't know - that's what theists do. They claim a magical god being who interacts with the natural world but can't be detected or tested in the natural world, and use special pleading to say that everything needs a creator - except their deity who is obviously immune from the rules they dictated.
I know what Romans says. Why should I believe it or care? The Koran talks about creation glorifying allah, but you dismiss it just as easily add I dismiss your claims and see no problem in doing so.As equally ludicrous as believing that a "saviour" had to be born of a woman without the influence of the male sperm. Truly ludicrous !
Yeah Jonny, creating everything is one thing, but Jesus conception would have been tough.
Unless, of course, it's true.
But the fact is that people in Jesus' day said pretty much the same thing.If Jesus was born without the influence of a spermatozoa, then he would not have been of this world. But you as a christian would say that Jesus was indeed human. So - to regard it as "true" that Jesus was born without the influence of a spermatozoa puts it all in the realm of Belief, not Fact.
Then by definition Adam and Eve weren't of this world, and then neither were any of their offspring right down to the present day.
Hmmm...
I don't pretend to now how or when matter came to be. Was it simply compressed or came from nothing? I do think however it's illogical to invent a God that made everything from nothing just for us to worship him, but doesn't make himself known and can't be tested for. To invent something to explain something you don't understand without explaining how that inventor came to be is nonsensical. Claiming everything needs a creator except for this one thing is a logical fallacy.
In the absence of even a shred of proof that it would be possible without a designer, creator, etc. that becomes the most logical premise. If you can't prove either way, how could you defend nothing being behind it all as the most logical conclusion? You go with the most reasonable explanation until proof can be found either way to weight your view. It is all smoke and mirrors, implying there is proof of another explanation for our origin. There is not.
Again, you are using a logical fallacy to explain something you don't understand and don't even pretend to understand. You've made the hypothesis that a God created the universe so it's your job to prove your hypothesis which you haven't done. You'll first need to prove said God exists and then prove said God created the universe and then prove that said God was not created. I'm saying I don't know how the universe came to be, but I'm not going to make a logical fallacies in my explanation for the universe.
But there is not a shred of proof that it IS a creator/designer either. Don't you see that? Saying the Bible says it's true therefore is true is circular logic. Nature is not proof of anything other than nature, and since the last time we talked you confused the origin of life with evolution and could not define a theory, I'm not sure you're the person to be harping on a lack of scientific proof when all you have are assertions and an old book.
Oops - guess that WOULD help, wouldn't it?
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengl … -body.html
As far as being a religion, of course it isn't. Religions:
1. believe in superpowers and/or supernatural things/places they cannot prove or find evidence for.
2. provide a philosophy to live by and be "good".
3. provide all "knowledge" necessary or desirable; adherents are NOT encourage to search further and questioning the tenets or "knowledge" of the shamans is often prohibited.
4. Make up their own "knowledge" base, without requiring that it be verifiable by anyone else or even be true.
Neither the scientific method ("science") nor scientism do any of those.
But I DO recognize that religion is taking a hit nowadays in that so many of it's claims cannot be verified or can be verified as being untrue. This makes the believers uneasy and sometimes angry; the answer is to pretend that science or anything approaching it is ALSO a "religion".
Hello, ATM. It has been a long time between greetings.
To answer your question, I suspect SassySue knows this because she took the time to learn about it. Instead of researching to see if she was telling the truth, you challenged her as you do with so many believers who express their personal beliefs in these forums. In this case, your presumptions are not correct.
Like it or not, the Founding Fathers were indeed quite open with their religious beliefs and the non-believers among them were tolerant of all forms of public worship. At the web site of The Office of the Chaplain, U.S. House of Representative, you will find the “First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774.” {1}
Reverend Jacob Duché, Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, recited this prayer on September 7, 1774 at 9 o’clock a.m.. The prayer began with the words “O Lord our Heavenly Father” and ended with “Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen.” The sentiments expressed in between were overwhelmingly patriotic therefore atheistic discretion is advised.
A report prepared in 2011 for the members and committees of Congress by the Congressional Research Service begins as follows:
“Both the Senate and House of Representatives elect chaplains. The chaplains perform ceremonial, symbolic, and pastoral duties. Pursuant to Senate Rule IV and House Rule II, the Senate and House chaplains open the daily sessions in their respective chambers with a prayer.” {3}
The prayer offered in the House of Representatives on July 3, 2014 begins with “God” and ends with “Amen.” Those with delicate sensibilities should proceed with caution. {2}
Now, do not get the idea this post implies the USA is a “Christian nation” nor be encouraged to claim that it was founded upon “Christian ideals.” Neither is true. However, this country was founded on the fundamental principle that the government is not permitted to interfere with ANY religious expression nor allowed to foster one more than others. In addition, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects the rights of religious individuals to petition the government in order to express their views and to ask for change.
ATM, you may not agree with the religious sentiments embraced by some of the Founding Fathers but a least now you will NOT be going around thinking they did not publicly express them.
Have a good one, ATM. May you be blessed with the freedom to follow your bliss.
{1}
http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html
{2} http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/index.html
{3} http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/Ch … oryCRS.pdfQuilligrapher, that is very enlightening... thanks from an atheist non-countryman.
I promise to sit through any length of sermonizing without complaint.Sorry, but wasn't the House and Senate Chaplain hired to occasionally provide prayers "inside" Congress, behind their closed doors, which is not out in public? Yes, occasionally, even these doors swung open to the public, but of course history shows us the results of that, too, from one of the links you provided...
In the 1850s, numerous petitions were received requesting the abolishment of the chaplain
offices. Some of these petitioners objected to the employment of chaplains in Congress and the
military as a breach of the separation of church and state.
http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/Ch … oryCRS.pdfHello again, ATM. I am happy to read you followed the link I suggested. I think that is a good start.
Again, however, you challenge uncomfortable realities without first doing your own research. You seem to be struggling with the fact that the Founding Fathers accepted a variety of public religious expression in their midst.
I am sorry to inundate you with facts but they are by far the best way to reach the truth. Congressional chaplains are not meant to function “behind closed doors.” This is clearly apparent in US Senate Rule IV, Paragraph 1(a) which states “after the Presiding Officer has taken the chair, after the Chaplain's prayer, … etc. etc… the Senate Journal of the preceding day shall be read.” {1}
This is hardly “behind closed doors” particularly when you consider the Digital Media Law Project paper entitled “Access to Congress.” In it we learn, “The galleries of the House and the Senate are open to the public whenever either body is in session.” {2}
If I knew of even one fact to support your claim, I would gladly point it out to you. However, you are groping for a rationale that does not exist.
The Continental Congress convened on September 5, 1774 and the next day appointed a Chaplain.
A look at the Journal of the Continental Congress dated September 6, 1774 reveals:
“Resolved, That the Revd. Mr. Duché be desired to open the Congress tomorrow morning with prayers, at the Carpenter's Hall, at 9 o’clock.” {3}
A footnote to those proceedings tells us that Samuel Adams revealed in a letter to his wife Abigail “he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country; and nominated Duché.” {4}
A decade and a half later, the first US Senate under the US Constitution met on April 6, 1789 in New York City. The following day a committee was appointed to consider a system for appointing chaplains. A week later, this body recommended electing two chaplains to serve the House and the Senate. On April 30, 1789, the newly elected Rev. Samuel Provoost presided over George Washington’s very public oath of office ceremony. Sorry, ATM, no “behind closed doors” here either!
As you point out, “Yes, occasionally, even these doors swung open to the public, but of course history shows us the results of that, too, from one of the links you provided...
In the 1850s, numerous petitions were received requesting the abolishment of the chaplain offices. Some of these petitioners objected to the employment of chaplains in Congress and the military as a breach of the separation of church and state." {5}
I am sorry, ATM, but I find no source other than you that claims “these doors swung open to the public.” Did you stop reading at this point or did you read further to truly understand the facts?
The House Judiciary Committee denied the “numerous petitions” in March, 1854 and rightly so. To this day, all constitutional challenges to the legitimacy of Chaplains in the Congress have failed. As recently as March 25, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the Constitutional validity of 1) the congressional practice of paid chaplains and 2) the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer. {6}
The Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof.” " This clause does NOT demand that the government deny the existence of religions in our society. The Constitution simply demands that the government not show favoritism toward any particular religion. All the appointed Senate Chaplains and the scores of invited guest chaplains represent all of the world’s religious faiths. No favored treatment here either, ATM.
In conclusion, it is accurate to say that at no time in the history of this nation was an appointed chaplain confined to “behind closed doors.” Furthermore, legal challenges that claim this tradition is contrary to our Constitution have been denied primarily because of the practices and precedents set by the founding fathers.
Once more for the record, not a word of this post implies that this country was founded as a Christian nation based on Christian principles. However, every word of this post implies that our country was founded on religious tolerance and a willingness to acknowledge every citizen’s right to openly profess their religious beliefs with an emphasis on “openly.”
{1} http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleIV
{2} http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-congress
{3}
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html
p.26 of 143.
{4} Ibid.
{5} http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/Ch … oryCRS.pdf
{6} Newdow v. Eagen, 309 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2004).
Quilligrapher, thank you for enlightening all of us. I sincerely mean that.
Religion kept behind closed doors = Everyone is happy.
NOT.
If religion was to be kept behind closed doors, that would definitely be an infringement upon our freedom, it would just be in reverse. And since atheists make up a small percentage of the population, then that would mean that everyone was keeping their religious beliefs a secret so that a small percentage of the population would be happy. It doesn't make sense.
If religion was kept behind closed doors, then I guess we'd never see Christmas decorations in stores or along the streets, and we wouldn't hear Christmas Carols on the radio. I guess there would be no Halloween celebrations, either. I don't see too many people advocating that religion be kept behind closed doors, anyway. Would it be like a secret society? Saying that people want religion to be kept behind closed doors doesn't make sense, and it is isn't even a valid argument, since the majority of people don't think it should be that way.you do know that Christmas is not just for Christians, and that both Christmas and Halloween are revamped and renamed Pagan celebrations....right?
In addition, this democratic republic is for the purpose of protecting the minority from the will of the majority. If Christians were the minority in this country, I doubt that we would be hearing the same song and dance from you about "majority rights" when the majority oppose your particular religious beliefs.
It never ceases to amuse me that so many christians that claim the "majority" or the political "moral majority" are often the same ones that claim that their rights are being taken away or that they're being persecuted because of their religious beliefs. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Pick one.Why does that infringe on your freedom? Why do you believe your faith must be out in public? Doesn't God demand you worship and praise Him in private?
There are many other people with many different religions, they also are affected and involved, not just Christians.
As has already been explained to you by JM, Christmas and Halloween are not Christian celebrations. In fact, many people celebrate Christmas as it used to be celebrated prior to Christians stealing it and making it their own.
Why would you having to worship and praise God in the privacy of your home have anything to do with secret societies? That makes no sense.
You are free to provide reasons why you shouldn't worship and praise God in the privacy of your own home, so far, you've provided nothing to defend that.
It is not true that they are revamped holidays---there was a major pagan holiday that was celebrated on Dec. 25, and the Church pronounced that "Christmas Day," to deter others from celebrating the Pagan holiday. But Christmas is ONLY about Christians, as it is the celebration of the birth of Christ. Anyone who celebrates it without believing in Christ is simply taking the holiday and making it about themselves--kind of selfish. I wouldn't celebrate Hannukah since I am not Jewish, and I would not make it all about me and celebrate it just for the heck of celebrating. That would make so sense.
Yeah...when the Christian church takes a pre-existing holiday and names it something else - that's revamping a pagan holiday. I'm not sure why this is unclear to you. They didn't do it to deter people from celebrating the pagan holiday. They did it to help converts not feel isolated from their former holidays, and to incorporate them into their new faith. It is much easier to convince people to convert by assuring them that they can still celebrate the holidays that they were accustomed to.
Incidentally - Christmas is NOT only for Christians. Many people from many different cultures and faiths celebrate Christmas because it has become a cultural and commercialized celebration, which joins solstice and many other faiths into one celebration that is enjoyed cross-culturally. You would find it selfish, since you don't seem to know anything about its history - at all - and the truth of the matter is that taking the pre-existing solstice celebration, deciding that it was instead going to be used to celebrate the birth of christ (which was known in the church to NOT be in december at all) and taking it over is selfish. But a happy Solstice to you as well. I also know many people that are respectful of a multitude of holidays across many religions and cultures, and share in the celebration.Since I see these as somewhat personal questions, feel free to not answer/answer vaguely as you see fit. I have seen it mentioned here a few times that you are a teacher. What exactly do you teach, and where did you get your gloat worthy masters degree from?
I cant help but question your abilities as a teacher as well as the place you got your degree from if you do not know something so basic about your own faith and history in general. I was taught that in high school history class and I am pretty sure I saw it mentioned somewhat in one of my college history classes as well.A very expensive tribute to "Christ" when you think about it. All the money that changes hands on account of the celebrations. But ... there's no stopping us finding an excuse for having fun and making a bit on the side.
@Link,
I used to teach elementary school--grades 1,2,3 and 6. We didn't touch upon religion at all--you're not allowed to in a public school. I went to a Catholic university called Loyola--but did not major in theology (majored in English), and they don't teach the history of Christmas there, as an atheist would understand it. I got my masters in New York for Elementary Education, not that any of this should matter in regards to my discussions. I did learn about history in high school--which was 20 years ago, to be exact. 20 years from now you won't remember everything you were taught either.Sure, but a simple google search is at your finger tips.
I barely remember what I did a week ago half the time, mainly because I was not really interested in it. If you ask me about some game I played, an amazing book I read, or a great show I watched, I could probably tell you half the details of any of them even if I saw/read/played it years ago. Why? Because those are things I genuinely enjoy and am most likely to remember. I played a game when I was 8, replayed it again 10 years down the line and could practically tell you everything that was going to happen.
With that said, I could care less about history classes, yet I still remembered that tidbit of info. You have made it very clear that your faith is important to you, so I would assume you would remember important things about your own faith, or at the very least be willing to do a a simple google search before stating something blatantly wrong as fact.
"and they don't teach the history of Christmas there, as an atheist would understand it.".
What exactly does that mean? History is history, being an atheist, christian, muslim etc should not affect the way you understand facts provided they are taught the same way for each person.
Bit of a sidenote, whether its a bug or some issue on your end, which I find the latter more likely since I havent seen the problem for anyone else, you seem to be replying to the wrong comments on more than a few occasions.Lots of folks, particularly when new, don't know to change the setting from threaded to chronological, in the upper right hand corner of the thread. This works much better. Perhaps that is an issue. Always good to have the reminder for newbies.
If the chronological option hadnt been there, I probably would not have bothered keeping to the forums on this site when I initially joined. Threaded is a disaster for me, especially on my phone.
It can also prove religions and faith are indoctrinated into people.
Yes, and I have already explained that to you, Kim is an insane dictator.
We are, because we live in a secular society, in which you and everyone else have the same rights and freedoms, it is the society atheists prefer to live, as well.
Do you understand the differences yet? If so, you may want to also understand that your religion is not accepting of others. So, before you go off riding that high horse, there is a necessary backyard that requires a whole lot of tidying.
Some interesting points are made here and I would like to interject a different perspective. It would seem that theism is either blamed for the woes of humanity or that it is the answer to the human quandary.
Theism and theistic practice is a mandate to believe in a certain god and is usually accompanied by dogma to conduct ones life accordingly. These are called theocracies and as history demonstrates a formula for totalitarian rule. Such was Europe with the collapse of Rome, The Dark Ages and too, with the rise of Islam in the 5th century. And as history repeats itself, Islam again rises to enslave.
The belief in a god or gods will fade unless accompanied by a sword, especially in a world that is answering questions of the universe that have heretofore been privy only to the Creator.
Of Communist N. Korea, China or the old USSR they were and are no more or less than secular theism's. By this, I mean, a theocracy predicated upon the omnipotence of a government with dogma similar to that of a theistic belief, strict and absolute adherence under threat of punishment.
We all speak of those freedoms that are forbidden by secular totalitarian forms of government, but I would ask of the freedoms that were and are forbidden under theocratic totalitarianism. Freedom of religion was forbidden, as too, speech and most everything that we now have in the western world. Although here in America we are seeing an erosion of those freedoms. I digress.
Using the American Bill of Rights, as an example; it is a contradiction to theistic belief and practice, as one is free to believe in a god, any god or no god. One is free to blaspheme or not. The practice of these freedoms would have been punished by death when the Catholic Church and later Protestantism-Christianity-controlled Europe and the initial colonies in America. This is, of course, still the practice of Islam; barbaric, but no less than Christianity was and secular totalitarianism is today.
Theism was a very important factor in the maturing of Man and in many ways a positive factor. But, as we,"--put away childish things" we must learn to accept the responsibility of living, not of dying, not of dependence on a promised salvation, whether by some spiritual or secular entity. Freedom is ours, but I do not think that we are matured enough to understand it or achieve it and we will continue to look for the promised land.
Faith in what tho, Grand ol Lady?? Blind faith is something that can destroy the whole world, and is IMHO. Faith itself is never bad. Faith in you, in myself, in a higher power... but when we allow that faith to be fed to us by power hungry individuals, you get what we have today.
Mike, I agree with you that blind faith is bad. And, I agree with you that faith in itself is never bad.
Religion for a while has intrigued and frightened me. This happened cause of the underlying thought that if you do wrong you die. If you refuse to follow this book your life is doomed. The truth is your thoughts, feelings, choices, make co create your life . Rarely have I felt at home in church due to the threatening nature and the greed that seem to circulate in the church. I believe in what ever works. After all it's pretty much psychology. Stories told and retold to give guidelines about appropriate behavior or not.It is awful when anyone gives up their will for another.My feeling is if there is anything uplifting in any literature whether it be ancient or recent use it .Understand that these leaders are equal to you they are in search of answers as well . Quite honestly no one has it completely figured out!
Belief in itself is not harmful. It's when a belief is institutionalised and turned into a weapon of mass destruction that problems arise.
Christianity started off as a minority creed, and through its self-proclaimed 'innocence' acquired more adherents.
Eventually it became stronger, more powerful, and began to take on a new 'persona'. It became a threat through some of its senior members. First the Inquisition was formalised by Rome and sent out to 'correct the understood message'. The Church of Rome became so powerful it directed kings and emperors to pursue its dogma, through executions, burnings. Heretics were uncovered and wars against its many enemies prosecuted.
In the Far East Christianity was banned because of its reputation for war-mongering and pursuit of rival beliefs.
Then the Reformation weakened Rome's hold. In desperation it thrashed around like a shark in shallow water. The new Churches began to prosecute their own wars and clashed over the way the others read the scriptures. Now, because fewer parishioners visit churches, and some experiment with other, less aggressive belief systems, the Churches are finally 'toothless'. They have to rely on goodwill to get believers through their doors. They can't resort to force any more.
What do we do on Sundays now? Watch the football, the baseball in the park, cricket, go to the park.
Makes you almost sorry for them, doesn't it?Religion is never detrimental but the outlook of religious people is not correct. They take much more interest in preaching others than to follow the preachings.
One cannot separate people from religion as religion is a human construct.
One cannot argue that religion is good, but that its followers are bad.
Any religion is its followers; any religion is the people who comprise it.
Religion does not exist exclusive of its members.Good point. People make religion as they see fit, and really ARE the religion. Not the other way around.
I find it interesting that you can sit in judgement over other theists and demean their interpretation of their godly calling. What great insight or communication do you have with this god that other theists do not? Is this not the cause of religious war, and hatred. As there are more Muslims than Christians; do we defer to a majority rule, in terms, of the truth of a god?
That depends both on the person and the religion. I can only speak as a Christian and don't presume to speak for other religions or the followers of other religions, but Jesus did tell us to go and tell others about Him. Yes, it's very important to follow His teachings, and it's certainly not any good if you tell others how they should live without following your own advice.
I would disagree to the claim that you were instructed by Jesus to tell others about him. Not everyone is an apostle. He didn't make that mandate to the crowds he taught to, nor did he make any statement implying he thought he should have.
By that reasoning, He was basically saying that when the Apostles died, so would all knowledge of Him and whoever wasn't saved, oh well. Tough luck for them.
No. They elected apostles to replace apostles. I realize they couldn't simply keep electing, but not everyone was an apostle, or is one. Telling every person, however affiliated they are, that they are mandated to preach the good news does more harm than good. Most of everything shared couldn't remotely be classified as good news.
The Good News is that the Messiah came (which the Jews were expecting.) The Good News is that because He died to take away our sins, we are forgiven by God. I completely (completely!) understand that for people who don't think they need that, it isn't good news. Nevertheless, understanding that, whether you like it or not, God does exist and also that, whether you like it or not, He holds you to a certain standard does indeed make it good news when you lean that the impossible is within your grasp.
You forgot to add your concept of hell in that post. Please, do share that now so we can all understand what you think good news entails.
Ah, I understand now. It's not whether we can boil the message down to it's basic element, it's whether we can successfully inject or deflect the greatest amount of cynicism into it.
I consider Christian philosophy cynical. I think they interpret in a manner to be solely in their best interests. To hell with the rest of humanity.
I don't see that philosophy as good news. As long as that is the message, it doesn't qualify as good newsHonestly, I agree with you about most Christians but then that's true of most people in general. The majority of true philanthropists is very small, regardless of what philosophy or worldview you name.
However, that doesn't negate what I originally said. If God exists, then no matter how many people think Christianity it a joke, God exists and when we're all standing in front of Him He's not going to be too impressed with shouts of "It's not fair! All they cared about was themselves!" And Jesus has already pointed out that many will stand in front of Him and say, "Look at all this great stuff I did in Your name!" and He will reply, "Sorry, who are you again?"
Conversely, if God does not exist, then no matter what I, or you, or Pope Francis or Mother Theresa or Billy Graham or Joel Osteen say, nobody is being saved.
But the base question is still not "Are Christians basically selfish?" It's "Does God exist? And did Jesus come to Earth for us?"1. Possibly.
2. In your mind only.
3. No. If he existed he was of this earth, he did not "come to" it.Definitely.
In my mind only what? Specifics?
Part of the point of being God is that He was not 'from this earth" the same way we are. But again, the Jews of His day, as well as the pagans (i.e. very religious people) used the same logic to prove that He could not be who He claimed to be.
I believe it also said that to lead someone astray is unpardonable.
With all of the arguments, all of the splinter sects, all of the disagreement....not to mention no word from God to back up anything anyone attempts to push as truth. Anyone leading, or attempting to convert others, runs a high risk of leading others astray. Is it confidence, arrogance or foolishness pushing the adherent?Ask a Christian.
I, personally, think the story of Jesus makes no sense unless the act of redemption was for all of humanity, with no qualifiers attached. Humanity being saved, at that moment, for all time. I think viewing the stories in the OT it is easy to see that contracts with humanity couldn't work. Actively participating in a society couldn't work. Man's need to be 'special' didn't allow for a progressive inclusion of the whole.
Man intuitively knows there is more. A simple act to let humanity know that something more was aware of their existence, also. And that this something more had no expectations which might exclude some from a greater reality. The knowledge of an all encompassing love on a higher plane was meant to help us recreate that on this plane.
We can't help but wonder about that reality. But finding ways to hope to exclude some from it is a phenomenon of this reality only.The act of salvation IS for all people for all time. But we have to accept it. Those who turn away aren't saved.
That, in my opinion, would be ridiculous. The story would have a completely different meaning. You can't hinge salvation on acceptance of interpretation. Because that puts it into the hands of man. Sight unseen for over two thousand years seems like stacking the deck against acceptance. Would a god do that lovingly? Christians are simply people who can't accept the idea of a cosmic gift. They think it is ludicrous, so they seek to exclude in order to maintain belief. They don't understand the meaning of the word love, without boxing it in with conditions. Which, although I understand the problem they perceive I can't agree that a problem exists in the idea that whatever lies beyond will include all. There are myriad ways to resolve the problem of evil on earth. Hell is simply an ill conceived notion they conveniently use to not explore other ways to resolve their dilemma.
I agree. But the empty threat says a lot about the person making the statement. I'm surprised no one who makes the statement is willing to explore what it says about them.
Okay, so what did it say about Jesus that He made empty threats?
In fact, half your post is spent describing the very Christian doctrines you insist Christians can't understand or accept. The gift IS for all. But think about it, if you offer a gift to everyone and ten people turn away, then what? Yeah, the gift was still extended. Yeah, they can take it any time they want. But if they don't want it, if they see no use for it, if they resent and hate it, then what good does it do them? And if you force it on them anyway, is it still a gift?
It's true that many Christians practice very exclusionary theology. As opposed to who, exactly, who is sooooo loving and accepting? Yeah, that would be, like, no group ever. Including atheists.
It's also true that many Christians do NOT practice very exclusionary theology.
And it's also true that many (which is not synonymous with "most") think a good deal about what exactly a gift is and what a loving God did. We may not always get it right, but that doesn't mean we always get it wrong either.
Yes, it does say that. That does not mean the alternative is to do nothing.
Actually, yes. We do have word from God. It's called the Bible.
You run risk whether you attempt or don't. If you go back and read the post you were directly responding to, I actually covered what you said.I assume by covering it you meant this? "Look at all this great stuff I did in Your name!" and He will reply, "Sorry, who are you again?"
If so, that doesn't cover it. That is talking about their fate. It has nothing to do with countless others whose fate would be intertwined with theirs. I suppose you are implying that if someone is led astray it is their fault?No, I am making no such implication and please dial it down a bit here. The fact is that we do have the Bible and while there will always be people who look to someone else no matter what but most of us are capable of thinking for ourselves. And although there are certain things that are non-negotiable, in the real world there are all sorts of people who are followers of Jesus and will make it into Heaven who wouldn't if it were up to their fellow man.
Emile, where did you get the idea that they perpetually elected new apostles? Because they replaced Judas or ???
I didn't say they perpetually elected new apostles. I apologize if you understood it that way. My point was that not everyone was, or is, an apostle. Jesus didn't call the masses to be apostles. I have no idea why everyone wants to be an apostle.
Greetings, bBerean. It is a marvelous summer night here in the big apple.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Emile got the idea from the prominent early church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a deacon in the Church of England, who wrote the following about Apostolic Succession:
"[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? … The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation... Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it"{1}
Apostolic Succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. In the Catholic Church, all bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the original apostles. This continuity is not always found in Protestant denominations many of which do not have bishops.
However, more germane to your question, the first apostles did indeed elect their own successors. For a scriptural reference try 2 Tim. 2:2.
It is summer, keep cool, bBerean.
{1} Kelly, J. N. D.. Early Christian Doctrines. p.37 http://bookdirectory.net/?p=464844The Apostles replaced Judas but that was it. In reality, you could say Jesus replaced Judas (with Paul) and then there were no more Apostles.
If I read Quill correctly, the Catholic Church changed the name, so to speak, from "apostle" to "bishop" and are still producing both. The question then is which has a better handle on religious matters; the Pope or Chris Neal?
I don't know. Are you a practicing Catholic? Did you suddenly develop a belief system that includes the existence of God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Ghost? Are you now a devout Catholic, the kind who believes that all Protestants are automatically condemned to hell for disobeying the Vicar of Christ? Did Peter personally select which Apostle will replace him as the head of the church? Was Peter's immediate successor chosen by council?
The answer you will accept to your question depends on the answers to those questions.
Hello, Mr. Neal. I thank you for your comment.
However, your two sentence reply is not clear.
1) Are you trying to define “Apostle” as only those who where taught by Jesus, (“then there were no more Apostles”), or
2) Are you disputing Emile’s belief that the original Apostles designated their own specific replacement(s) according to 2 Tim 2:2?
Sorry, but I am confused by your statement and could use your help before I can not reply.Hello Quill.
I am aware there are a couple verses that some may consider as listing apostle as though it was just one of many offices in the church, however those same verses can also be read to be including the position held by the original apostles as simply the first office, established and assigned by Jesus directly. All were, except Matthias, which it is not clear was endorsed at all. Even Paul was appointed by Jesus.
I am not aware of any verses clearly establishing apostle as an office to be filled by the church, or any reference to apostles that could not be applying to Paul or the original 12.Apostles would be those specifically chosen by Jesus. There were many disciples who were taught directly by Jesus but not many Apostles.
Here are two definitions of apostle:
promoter of idea or cause: somebody who tries to persuade others to share an idea or cause.
prominent Christian missionary: a prominent Christian missionary, especially one who is responsible for first converting a people
That might be where the confusion lies. You are defining the word differently than some others might.Emile, I agree. I am speaking from a biblical perspective, meaning I am using the word as it was used in the bible. There we only find those Jesus selected personally, called apostles, (with the exception of Matthias noted earlier). I'll not be considering or referring to anyone else as an apostle, and considering that is not an uncommon perspective in Christianity, use of the term in conjunction with others will likely just lead to confusion.
Or are you opposed to other potential definitions of apostle because they would seemingly give credence to the Catholic tradition of apostolic succession, and you would rather not contribute to that tradition?
Hello Julie. I am not opposed to the Catholics, or anyone else, calling themselves whatever they like. I was just explaining a perspective many Christians share which could make other uses of the word confusing in a conversation. Emile's definition is valid, and I have even used it speaking of promoters of an idea or cause of a secular nature, because in that arena there is little danger of misunderstanding. I suppose you could say there is an apostle of the NHRA on another thread.
That was all very interesting. I looked up some things to attempt to see if your view is mainstream. I don't know that it is, or isn't. After sleeping on it, I remembered that the word apostle was never used by anyone in the church we went to as children. Disciple, disciple, disciple. That's the only word I remember anyone using.
So, I looked further. Apparently, there were quite a few disciples. To have been considered apostle, it appears you had to be in the inner circle around Jesus hearing the extended teachings. If you were a man, I guess. Mary ran in that circle with the rest of them and Christianity stripped her of that title.
But, then Judas. So. The 11 decided that the replacement had to have been a disciple for the entire time of Jesus' ministry. Not an unreasonable expectation considering that most of them had jockeyed for position wanting to be considered above others throughout Jesus' ministry. Two of them had even sent their mother in to lobby for more prestigious seats in heaven. So, we have to assume that it is possible these eleven were still of that mindset and might have chosen poorly. Not an unreasonable assumption since the appointment was made prior to the descent of the Holy Spirit and there is no more mention of him (that I am aware of) in the New Testament.
But, then comes Paul. His definition of apostle appears to be any who saw Christ after the resurrection and were compelled to preach the gospel, apparently, by Christ because they received the same powers of healing the original did. He named the original eleven (Maybe Matthias was included, not sure) at least five hundred others and then himself who witnessed an encounter with Christ. So, at least 513 could possibly be in a position to have been viewed as apostles by the populace as the word spread. I do believe the text alludes to many more acts than could be documented.
We do know that, by name, Paul listed other apostles. Barnabas, Andronicus, Julia among them. Several books of Acts were omitted as time went on, so there are others who were named, yet not recognized today.
It appears that the organized church, over time, forced the definition of Apostle to be limited to male members who toed the official church line. But, the text throughout the New Testament is a bit ambiguous and does not limit the term to twelve, thirteen fourteen or any number or to those who were companions of Jesus during his ministry on earth. The list of the members of the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians appears to imply that the term apostle was a title that would continue to be held until all were one in faith, along with the rest of the list.
If you look at the claim of Paul in Galatians, supporting his authority as an apostle, you can see that his claim is mirrored by many Christians attempting to preach to us today. His revelation came from Jesus Christ, no one else taught him.
So. I see where all of the confusion comes from, but I still firmly believe most of those among the Christian faith who are actively seeking to convert through their personal testimony do consider themselves to be apostles; by the expanded definition through Paul's writings. Apostles being the ones who first lead the unbelievers to Christ.
I'm curious. How do you define disciple? Would it be limited to the standard definition of follower, or would it include attempts at preaching to others?Mary also was not sent out to teach and heal by Jesus personally, while Paul was. I'm not sure what Catholics or 'mainline' Protestants consider an Apostle, but in Evangelical circles this tends to be applied pretty strictly to the original 12 and then also Paul.
Considering the Church's concerted effort to minimize the value of the contributions of the female members; I find the belief that Mary was not an apostle highly suspect. We can pinpoint in history when the Church began its slanderous attack on her good name. The question, of course, is why? Why would they feel the need to turn her into a whore? Whatever the reason, it is now fairly well shrouded in mystery.
However. In order to hold that belief you first have to ignore portions of the text most of you would claim were Divinely inspired.Um. You obviously know a lot more about this than I do. I can really only respond:
1) I think the assertion that Mary was 'turned into a whore' is a loaded phrase. Again, I can't speak for Catholic theology or Mainline Protestant theology, but in Evangelical circles in recent years there has been an effort to try to sort out whether Mary Magdalene was really a prostitute or not and just what exactly that would mean.
2) All the reading I've done on the role of women in Jewish society at that time would lead me to believe that Mary was probably a great many things but not a fully accredited, proselytizing Apostle. Nothing I've read about Jewish society indicates that she would have been widely accepted in such a role, and remember that it was the Jews and not the Romans to whom the Apostles were sent out before the crucifixion.Well, if the role of apostle only applied to those sent out to the Jews prior to the crucifixion; we wouldn't be having this discussion. Would we?
Out of curiosity, do you recognize Paul as an apostle?
And, so you know. No where in the text is Mary referred to as a whore. The two Marys in question were clearly separated enough for that mistake not to have been made. It was not a mistake. It was a planned attack.I completely agree with you about Mary. It was a deliberate, planned attack to turn her into a whore and thereby minimize her importance in the church.
And, the interesting thing is that one only need to read the text without preconceived notions to see this.
I decided one day, years ago, to read the whole Bible. From the very start I was amazed at the fact that the things they teach have nothing to do with the text. (I didn't read the prophets. Blech, I couldn't follow the visions)
Anyway. That is my primary problem with Christianity as an organized religion. People accept what they are told without taking the time to verify if it makes any sense. They refuse to compare it to new information, as if those who taught them are somehow God Incarnate. People make mistakes. The tragedy is when others repeat them willingly.And that's what I found when I began my journey away from the faith and the church. I was studying the Bible in college, and learning about it and its teachings from a historical perspective - not a theological one. And the history of the early church and how it began and the cultural dynamic is stuff that you NEVER learn in church. They don't teach you about the early fractures of the church and how it was NEVER a unified body until it gained political power - but from the beginning there were just as many fractures and disagreements and everything else. They want people to believe that from the moment that Jesus left (if he was there) it was all a happy family that faced unjust persecution and stood up to the powerful elite etc. That's not exactly what happened. That's not even close to what happened - and the later demonization of Mary Magdalene is only one small piece of a much larger puzzle.
Not to be contentious, but this is stuff I learned in church and from church sources.
Maybe your denonimation teaches early church history, but mine most certainly did not.
I actually answered your question about Paul. I'm pretty sure you read it because I think (although I could be wrong) you either responded to that or it was in response to one of your posts. But if you genuinely don't remember, ask me again and I will tell you without sarcasm my answer.
I'm no delicate flower, but I really don't like the word 'whore,' even though it appears in some translations of the Bible. It's among a handful of words that just carry certain connotations.
Emile, I'm impressed. Your going to make me write a hub on this, aren't you?
Per Strong's:
apostoloV apostolos ap-os'-tol-os
from 649; a delegate; specially, an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ ("apostle") (with miraculous powers):--apostle, messenger, he that is sent.
This is used 3 ways, and interpreted apostle or messenger.
Jesus is the first Apostle, in that He is sent as a messenger directly from God:
Hebrews 3:1-2 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
Second, we have many examples of apostle referring specifically to the twelve selected by Jesus, Matthais to replace Judas, and finally Paul, called directly by Christ after his resurrection. I won't cite them for space.
Third, we do have references to others but in each of these instances the word is interpreted Apostle when it clearly does, or could include one or more of the original twelve. If it clearly does not include one of the original Apostles, (or Paul), it is interpreted "messenger":
Philippians 2:25 Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants.
2 Corinthians 8:22-24 And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many things, but now much more diligent, upon the great confidence which I have in you. Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ. Wherefore shew ye to them, and before the churches, the proof of your love, and of our boasting on your behalf.
Also worth noting is the use of the word "the" in several instances, which infers exclusivity or specificity, of which I will cite three:
2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
Jude 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Also when Paul, made clear his calling:
Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles,
Jesus did appear to many, but did not call all those He appeared to apostles:
Acts 1:1-3 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
For the purpose of space I won't post it here, but please consider Acts 6 - 8 where we see the twelve gathering with many disciples, (not apostles), and sending out 7 of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom. They were set before the Apostles who prayed and laid their hands on them. Among them was Stephen, full of faith and power, who did great wonders and miracles among the people. None of these 7, including Stephen who was about to be martyred for standing up to the high priest and his council, was called an apostle.
In Revelation we see just how special the twelve apostles were:
Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Consider that while detailed instructions are given for how the church should be organized, including the roles and their duties, there is no NT passage instructing churches to select or appoint Apostles.
In closing it is also noteworthy that while it seems to me Apostle is unique to the 12, Matthais and Paul, calling yourself an apostle may not be an endorsement. We are warned of false apostles:
Revelation 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Regarding disciple, I think the distinction is important because a disciple is a follower, but also one who is taught by another which indicates the chain of believers teaching one another as opposed to those directly instructed and sent forth by Jesus in person.
Hope this helps.I'm not going to argue the point. I think the text is ambiguous enough to justify what I see as some disagreement as to who is encompassed by the term. Everyone will, of course, have their own opinion.
I do have a question about your post. You said Regarding disciple, I think the distinction is important because a disciple is a follower, but also one who is taught by another which indicates the chain of believers teaching one another as opposed to those directly instructed and sent forth by Jesus in person.
I would assume most Christians would throw themselves under the definition of disciple. But, if that refers to a chain of believers teaching one another as opposed to those directly instructed and sent forth by Jesus, in person....what are we to make of the evangelizers? Those compelled to continuously attempt to preach their divine revelations to the rest of us? Could you tell me what title we should use for them? There must be one that fits.
Emile, I think you have done a lot of research for defining the word Apostle. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.
I see the point. Sometimes words are used by a certain subset differently than by other groups. Still, for the questions I asked Wilderness, the definition of Apostle (capital "A") would be those specifically chosen by Jesus.
I think religion sometimes Is just another form of control.To make us beleive whatever it is the people with power beleive.Look at seven deadly sins.Give us fear to behave.Your right how many humans died for there religion.It causes war.Anything different is an enemy.Like SCIENCE
It has nothing to do with me or my beliefs, so don't bother going there. You know what they are and find them ridiculous. No problem.
Julie, Rad, do you believe it is possible for creation to have come about without a creator?If it has nothing to do with your beliefs, why is this conversation even happening then?
And I read multiple times between both JMC and Rad that they said they do not know in regards to your question since it cannot be proven...so why are you asking it?Because you can't have it both ways. Continually believers are hounded for proof when indeed I, in agreement with the bible, consider creation itself to be proof. Beyond that, proof is spiritual and personal so we can't show them that, even though for us personally it is proof. Yet they claim no accountability for their own positive affirmation, being that there is a means possible where no god would be required. I am not sure why that should be so difficult. If I said it is possible for lead to be turned into gold, but had no proof, would you accept it? Why then if I said it is possible for nothing to become something, an imagined "singularity" to defy all known laws and expand or explode depending on who you talk to, or for something to have always been here, all without an origin, without being able to prove it would you let me deny holding a belief? It appears to all be semantics to avoid accountability for that which they purport. Gold from lead is incredibly more plausible, and this doesn't even touch on what they must allow as possible once matter is accounted for, before we get to life and sentience.
There appears to be a bad misunderstanding.
"Why then if I said it is possible for nothing to become something, an imagined "singularity" to defy all known laws and expand or explode depending on who you talk to, or for something to have always been here, all without an origin, "
Exactly which physical laws do you think the big bang defied, and can you definitively state that they were "in effect" at the moment of the big bang? Myself, I am unaware of any physical law that states there must be a cause for everything, and I did study physics in college. Nor am I aware of any law that says something must have an origin; a good thing for believers as most state their god has always been there.
Are you trying to extrapolate or twist some of Newtonian physics into the world of quantum mechanics or Einsteinian conditions? As a rule that is not a good idea and seldom works. Newtonian physics do not apply to much of the universe, specifically the extremely small things (like singularities) or extreme conditions (like singularities).
I'm neither Julie nor Rad, but does this help?
"Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09 … .universe/
I would dare say that Hawking knows and understands more about our universe than Julie, Rad, you and I put together. There is no need for a god for creation, then, although there may have been one. We could have come about without a creator.Funny, I am familiar with Hawking and have even gone to see him lecture in person. Listen to him long enough, as pretty much with all atheists, and in his explaining he will apply sentient qualities to forces or laws. Does this betray a god of his own making? Solving the problem of needing design and purpose to explain it all, by slight of hand that you might at the same time deny it?
It sounds like you are twisting Hawking words to something they never were, simply because you demand a sentience behind the big bang. Hawking has never, to my knowledge, postulated an intelligent ET. If you're sure he is applying sentience to non-living things, can you give examples beyond your own demand for causes that weren't there?
I don't know how much more clearly I can say this.
I don't know. I DON'T KNOW. That does not equal a belief. I'm sorry that doesn't fit in to what you want to think about me, but it's the truth.
Also, I don't think you're beliefs are ridiculous. I think they're unproven. I think your outcries about science (only specific science that you disagree with without seeming to understand it) are humorous, especially since you're in the Internet using technology and probably receive treatments from modern medicine, both of which are scientific.
You have not demonstrated that it is, in fact, a creation which begs the question of a creator. It's nature, and it's proof of nothing but nature's existence. The Bible says it was created by god. Great. That's not proof, though. It's a claim that needs to be proven before it is accepted as true. If the only way you can do that is to use the argument from ignorance or to shift the burden of proof onto people who have repeatedly said they don't know and therefore have no belief in the origin of life is inherently fallacious and dishonest, and I'm relatively certain that you know it, which is why you keep stomping your foot and repeating the same question that we've both already answered multiple times.Sure it's possible. I feel it impossible that there is a creator as the creator would have needed time to create when there was no time. Again assuming that everything needs a creator except the creator is using special pleading which is a logical fallacy.
You see. You are perceiving the world full of creatures including human beings and with all its qualities as you see in the shape sun, moon, stars, oceans, earth, sky, forests, mountains, rivers and all those things. Now, if you say all these evolved scientifically, geologically and naturally. Even then, all these evolutions are gradual, timed and systematic or otherwise. But what makes them to be like them. There should be something that we can not understand or witness or explain which makes the universe to be like it as on this moment as we perceive. That something making them to be like them should be considered to be some guiding power or principle or technique behind all these happenings. That something is unexplainable but it controls everything. That can be regarded as some superior power or substance which can be deemed as God or anything that we may call. So there is something superior to us which controls are guides everything.
+1 and it's ok, no problem if we cannot define "it." Just live, gain full awareness, admire, join in the creation. We only have short time to do so, pity to waste it!
Yes, Mighty Tripple O.
Omnipresent, "Present everywhere at the same time."
Omniscient, "All-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing."
Omnipotent, "Having unlimited power; able to do anything." (on-line Wikipedia sources.)
(I don't think He minds this nick-name.)
(No wonder his favorite word is Om,
pronounced Aummmm…. maybe in the key of A or E.. not sure which.. clues?)Prove it. You've made a bold statement, you should be able to back it up. What makes you think the universe is supposed to be like this?
With great respect, Rad Man, does he really have to prove it? If it's simply a way of thinking, a way of contemplating the possibilities, we can leave it open-ended, surely? un-explained. un-fathomable. Our human minds love something to play with. Let this and similar ideas be the toys of our brains, to be batted backwards and forwards, to occasionally enter a goal, only to be kicked out again into the arena. Who would want to reach an absolute conclusion? That would be the end of the game.
I don't begrudge anyone's opinion on what precipitated the beginning. But, complaints about time do cause a problem. We are beginning to be able to manipulate this phenomenon. We can 'stop'time. We can make events 'disappear'.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … r-science/
Also, our perception of time could easily be at odds with how other entities perceive it. Our inability to understand outside of a 'time line' could simply be a momentary stumbling block in our search for answers. Of all of the arguments against a Creator, the time argument is currently one of the weakest.
I'll add a crazy thought here. What if time isn't a constant? What if our method of measurement we consistently use isn't representative of consistency? What if a second, minute, hour, day, etc has expanded over the millennia? Or, shortened. How would that effect human progression of knowledge? I think it could have drastic ramifications. From our understanding of the age of the universe, our understanding of the ancients, our understanding of life on earth....it would effect our ability to think through the questions...almost every assumption we have built on concerning reality would be suspect.Hi, Emile. You may be right in your perception. But what I say is 'Time' is "Time". Whether we perceive it right or wrong. We have the limited period to live. May be 60 or 80 or 100 years whatever we measure it. It will not widen or shorten if we use some other measurement. So it is the same within which we have to do all our duties and responsibilities. Nobody can get a bit more of it.
True. No one can get more of it. But, imagine a second. How many thoughts are processed in our minds in a single second. Imagine one second expanded. How much more can happen within your mind in that flash? The amount of information we can process directly equates to our ability to reason. To create. To discover. Eighty years, for intellectual growth purposes, expands exponentially. Or, conversely, if that flash is shortened we lose exponentially.
I agree with you, but if there is any scope for expansion of a moment in our life. Otherwise, no reason for arguing in that way. Anyway, I can understand your reasoning.
Considering our limited understanding of time at this juncture, I find the idea of how the expansion could affect our understanding of reality incredibly fascinating. Arguing about it (or anything) is futile, i agree. I was not attempting to argue, but simply point out how drastically we could be off. All current arguments would be moot with a change in information.
I just wanted to add that we do know we exist within the confines of a slight time variation, juxtaposed against our understanding of the effects of time on the greater portion of the universe. That, in my opinion, makes the question pertinent.
Ok then, is it the perception that is variable? The perception of time? Consider the tiny ant, which, being only a few millimeters long, has to travel many, many times its own length each day in order to carry out the functions it was born for. Its travels will, for the ant, seem to take an enormous amount of time, even though from our perspective the distance covered might be only 8 or 10 meters over all.
So, the ant's perceptions of time and ours are different. Is this logically true? Or is it just theoretical nonsense? I am not sure.Perception itself is a personal point. It differs from person to person. Each one will have his own perception of the same one and only thing or object. So it may vary according to ones own perception. Ant's perception is different and our perception is different. X's perception will vary from Y's perception. So there will be so many differences of perception as the number of human beings are. We will have to accept the perception of majority to avoid clashes and conflicts or otherwise, you may have to prove convincingly that your one is the correct one and get it approved by majority.
I would agree it is totally based on perception.
Time is something we have created based on the movement of the earth as it spins and orbits.
As Janis Joplin once proclaimed… Its all the same day, man!
But luckily, even the rhythms of our bodies have adjusted for day/light and night/dark Never underestimate how valuable it is for the body to shut down for eight hours (typically when our part of the earth is away from the sun…but in modern times, according to work schedules,) with every rotation of the earth! Time is an illusion and a very powerful one, as all material reality is.We didn't create time. We use various means to measure it. Time existed prior to our arrival and will exist when we've gone the way of the dinosaur.
I agree that it is an illusion, but I don't know that anything could exist on this plane without buying into it lock, stock and barrel.I would disagree here, Emile. If Time is a measurement, then it is Finite. Consequently, since Infinity has no measurement, it has no Time. Thus, before we became conscious, there was no Time. Nothing.
Cute. I just don't see us as all that. But, I may not be aware of all the factors. You honestly believe without humanity to invent ways to document and measure it that time didn't exist?
If there is no observer does anything exist? The age-old conundrum.
You do realize we don't represent all life in the universe? We are one species that hasn't been around that long. In the grand scheme of things.
Time exists with or without us. We have a pretty good idea of when it started.
You might want to share that with Johnny. I'm not the one who thinks we created time.
Sure, I just thought I'd let you know that I agree with you. When you are right, you're right.
I'm always right rad man. When you disagree you are wrong. Commit that to memory and it will expedite our exchanges.
I do not think Time is finite. It is there since creation started and might have been there prior to it also. It is we, human beings, who made time a measurement to suit our needs. We evolved measuring time in our own way by calculating it on the basis of earth revolving around sun and around its own axis. This measurement can be personal and finite but not the real Time.
Yesterday today and tomorrow are a reality. There ain't no such thing as was or going to be, or was "In reality" They all three are! Time is a thing which exist in our own minds. We invented it.
to separate or categorize events. Also, by definition, there is a thin line or foggy area between what is a HAPPY memories, and what will be HAPPY expectations.
In mentally divide stuff up in such a way as it makes any sense to us.
If we didn't do something to divide it up, we would never know when we might be getting scared over something that happened a year ago.
If it was real today ????? It's going to be real next week ? And it already was a while ago.
Mankind had to invent time in order to maintain a semblance of sanity at any given time according to about anybodies definition ; depending upon when you ask them?
Your feelings about reality and mine can be expressed only by where we are sitting (so to speak). Me in my back yard vs yoy sitting on a beach somewhere drinking Margaritas; (in 2014 or 1875 , it's going to be, the same = reality; different = equality in realityQ. If there were no humans on the face of the earth, would there be time?
Do animals keep tack of time? How about the highest life form after us, say a dolphin?
Do dolphins keep track of time?
Do children?
At what age does a human begin caring about and comprehending time?
What does this have to do with religion? I think it has something to do with Intelligent Design.
Religion is not so bad when you consider it explains unsolved mysteries! Just ignore all the stupid bad stuff.The animals (?) They got it going on better than we do. They do separate time like we do. But they are in tune with everything and have an unknown to them selves, an understanding with everything better than we do cause they are living in the moment without guilt. Guilt might be the comma between time ?
I don't know; I'm starting to get guilty cause I gotta get up in about four hours and do manual labor.
Kathryn, Sorry about the delay in responding; steaped out side for a minute. Now it's time to fall down in the bed.no, they do not keep track of time, therefore it does not exist for the animals. But you better. good night.
I suggest the "stupid bad stuff" is a value judgment, which each of us can make but which will not be universal.
On the question of Time:
We can only be aware, conscious of something when there is a change, a difference, a contrast. Without such difference, we can have no consciousness. No change, no thing, no consciousness.
To describe any happening within our consciousness, we need various reference points. One of those reference points is When? it happened. It could be Before Now, Now or After Now. Our expression of that relationship employs the gauge that we call Time. All this is a requirement of the Finite State, i.e., when we can be conscious of some Thing.
With the In-finite State, there is no consciousness, no-Thing, no measurement, no reference point. Therefore no Time.My Dear johnnycomelately,I hope you accept that there is something called soul. And what you regard it as? Infinite or finite? I think it is infinite. And it continually keeps travelling, leaving one body and entering another body. But it is systematized in such a way that enters a body at a particular moment and lives in it for some specified period and leaves it at particular moment and again finds another body at a particular moment. What is all this? Is it not based on time? Then how can there be a period or stage that has no time sense at all?
My Dear johnnycomelately, I hope you accept that there is something called soul. And what you regard it as? Infinite or finite? I think it is infinite. And it continually keeps travelling, leaving one body and entering another body. But it is systematized in such a way that enters a body at a particular moment and lives in it for some specified period and leaves it at particular moment and again finds another body at a particular moment. What is all this? Is it not based on time? Then how can there be a period or stage that has no time sense at all?
Venkatachari M, with great respect, would you like to look at that expression of your own, "I hope that...." What does this mean for you? Do you want me to? Would it make you feel better for some reason, if I did accept the existence of soul?
If you think the soul is "infinite," what does this really mean for you? The word Finite means limited, with boundary, determined. Anything with these attributes can be considered as an individual entity. If it has none of those entities, then it is Infinite.... unlimited, no boundaries, undetermined. So do you not see the contradiction? If the soul is, as you believe, infinite, there is no logic in referring "the" soul. Lets just refer to soul, without definite article
If Soul IS; if there are no boundaries to Soul, then Soul does not enter or leave. Soul is Now.
This is a very difficult concept for most of us to grasp. The most common way we deal with this difficulty is to then encapsulate the Infinite and see a part of it --- make it Finite. We have immediately given Form to the Infinite. Rather like the analogy I used previously, that of the Wave of the Sea. (Please note my using "...of the Sea" instead of in the Sea.) If you looked out upon a Sea when there was no wind, no clouds, no object upon the surface of the sea to give perspective, then you would not be able to determine where the sea ended and the sky began. The reflection would join with the sky, without boundary. Then, if you drop a pebble into the sea, cause a ripple, IMMEDIATELY you can discern the boundary, because the instant form of a wave gives you a change, a difference, a contrast. You have become aware. Finite has arisen upon the Infinite.
Returning to "Soul," I conceptualize Soul as infinite, as you suggest. But stop there. No need to now refer to IT. Soul is me, you, everything of our finite universe, manifest in every Thing that we perceive, yet..... remains Universe, ONE, Unity, not separate, not different. OM. Only Finite when we wish to make it so --- for convenience of our mind -- Na Mah Shi Va Ya
So, to give you my answer (not defined as an absolute for everyone, merely my own understanding) to your question of Time...
Infinite = no limit = no change = no time.
Finite = limited = inherently subject to change = measurable in time.
Which reminds me.... Time is now 2.00am = return-to-bed-time.
What unsolved mysteries does religion explain exactly? Taking into account that the definition of the word "explain" is this: make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas.
What facts about these unsolved mysteries does religion reveal to us? "God did it" or "Gods will" are not facts since they cannot be proven, and if its an unsolved mystery what details can be made clear to anyone? I cannot really comprehend how or why you made such a statement.
Also, ignoring all the stupid bad stuff of religion is what the majority of rational minded people call "cherry picking". In itself, its not a bad thing to do, but to sit there and attempt to spread your beliefs under the assumption that they are absolutely good, well thats insanity.Good questions, Kathrynn. We started at what and entered into where? We are concerned about religion being detrimental to society. But now we are talking about time. Whether it exists or not, whether other than humans are concerned about time or not, what if there was no such thing as time, etc. etc.
What relationship we are trying to establish with this nonsense with religion?
And why should there be any doubt regarding religion being hindering the progress?
Why can't you be religious and at the same time be contributing to society's progress?
Why should not you learn from religion and practice those lessons for developing society?More good questions, Venkatachari M
( I am so glad you have joined us.)
Here's some others :
If there was no "God," would anything exist?
As far as Religion explaining unsolved mysteries…
Does it?
If so, how?
The knowledge of Science is a modern phenomenon.
Does Science make God more clear?
Or less clear?
How come we do not remember our past lives?
I have even heard we do not remember our earth life once we have left the body. ( mysteries of reincarnation which Jesus touched upon ever so slightly... so slightly most people miss it / deny it.)
Do you believe in Jesus?
Do you believe in Krishna?
Cosmologists would disagree with you that time is a human construct based on "perception" or that time is an "illusion".
Here is just a tiny sampling of some of the current thinking (in the scientific community) about time:
http://www.wired.com/2010/02/what-is-time/
http://edge.org/conversation/a-possible … -cosmology
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl … d3dc850933"Cosmology, which came into its own as a science only about thirty years ago, is concerned in part with pinning down the parameters of the universe: its expansion rate, the amount of its mass, the nature of its "dark matter." Cosmologists today are also speculating on more far-reaching questions, such as how the universe was created and how its structure was determined. While some cosmologists are speculating that the laws of physics might explain the origin of the universe, the origin of the laws themselves is a problem so unfathomable that it is rarely discussed. Might the principles of adaptive complexity be at work? Is there a way in which the universe may have organized itself?Does the "anthropic principle"óthe notion that the existence of intelligent observers like us is in some sense a factor in the universe's existenceóhave any useful part to play in cosmology?"
From link # 2
Interesting questions:
1. "Is there a way in which the universe may have organized itself?"
2. Does the "anthropic principle" ó the notion that the existence of intelligent observers like us is in some sense a factor in the universe's existence ó have any useful part to play in cosmology?"
( My interpretation: Should OUR intelligent observations factor into the field cosmology?)
FYI " Anthropic principle:
In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life." WikipediaDictionary:
Anthropic principle:
"The cosmological principle that theories of the universe are constrained by the necessity to allow human existence."
"In its ‘weak’ form the principle affirms that a universe in which living observers cannot exist is inherently unobservable."
"‘Strong’ forms take this line of reasoning further, seeking to explain features of the universe as being so because they are necessary for human existence."
Sorry, but you'll have to take that up with Hawking's. It was he who said that before the universe time didn't exist, much like a black hole, and a God would have needed time to create the universe.
You're funny. If Hawking said something, that prohibits your ability to possess an opposing thought, or conduct a thought experiment along a different line? That almost mimics comments by believers who won't question the Bible.
No problem.Sure you can imagine anything as anything is possible. I like to start with what the experts in the field think and ponder that and see if it makes sense with what is know about time.
It seems the more we find out the more abilities a God that created the universe needs to have, and people simply apply those attributes rather than looking at what they have created without any evidence at all.Have you run that past Hawking? I'd hate to take you at your word until you've been told what your word is.
Hmm, you've got nothing to say but attempt to mock me for listening to the experts. What he says makes perfect sense. He did not invent an undetectable God that created the universe just for us and is the only thing we know of that has always lived and always will live, that is all powerful and all knowing and does stuff without the time to do it. Is there anything else, oh yea, he loves us and wants us to worship him but won't show himself, prayer can move mountains, but can't be tested.
Clearly mockery is THE tool of choice for science deniers.
Think about it.
They do not have access to the facts; they have not read the books that would afford them access to the facts; they are not educated as to the realities of the current state of scientific knowledge.
So...what else can they do, but mock?
They cannot engage us in informed debate about particular points.
They cannot engage us in informed debate about competing scientific theories.
Right?
So mockery it is.Hey, don't get me wrong, mockery isn't beneath me. I do avoid it as much as possible, however there is a time and place for it.
You do realize you are off base? There were no science scoffers in that exchange? But, if you enjoyed the scoffing I suppose the fact that you chose to not bother to have a clue was worth it. For you.
You are the one harping on God. My only comment on that subject was that using time as a disqualifier was premature, in that we can stop time, in a manner, and we exist. Reality continued to plug along, in spite of it.
We can stop time? If time stopped we wouldn't be able to restart it. It would take time to press the restart button.
Did you read the link? Can you follow an if-then scenario? Don't worry about it. The concept might be along lines you aren't willing to imagine.
Sorry, didn't get to read it as I don't want to make an account. Perhaps it can be found elsewhere. I'll have a look.
Make an account? I simply googled 'experiments to stop time'. I didn't have to start an account. Are you simply making excuses for not reading it? I'm hurt Rad Man.
Nope, I clicked the link and it told me I needed to make an account.
Out of curiosity I went back and clicked it. The article came straight up. Maybe the universe doesn't want you to see it? Interesting.
Or maybe it's because he's in another country? Just a thought.
I did the same google search as you and clicked the link and was again asked to sign up. Perhaps it's a country thing? I did find another site that explained what I think you're talking about. If it is, there is a different between stoping or slowing down light and stopping time. If time stopped for us, nothing would move as in a black hole.
So. Let me get this straight. You can see where we were able to 'stop time' within certain parameters. But, you don't think it is possible that time could 'stop' or not exist in one part of reality while existing or moving in a linear fashion within another? Very, very interesting.
You do know that the earth sits in a very slight time warp?
Good reply. One should not blindly believe something. He should understand and verify it as far as he can before holding to it.
Edit:
Mbuggieh:
I have great respect for you because you have great respect for and knowledge of the material realm of physical manifestation i.e. the field of Science.Venkatachari M
Do people in India still meditate? Do Hindus still read and learn from the Bhagavad Gita? In your opinion, does the Gita explain God and metaphysical realities more clearly than the Bible? Does the Bible and especially the New Testament help to explain the Gita?
Religion in the west, as far as I can see, makes some people feel they MUST believe in God. This pressure to believe in God is not tolerated well. I feel sorry for them, but that is how religion, itself affects them. They want a clear spotless mind. I tried it once.
(having no unprovable beliefs at all) I liked it, but I felt insecure.
Faith is believing in the unseen, unfelt, and unknown… Faith comes before knowing, I believe, so I keep having faith. Plus there are hints and evidence all the time.. so subtle, easy to ignore, forget and take for granted. So, I keep aware and observant.Kathryn,
I do not see why you got this doubt? Indians do meditate and believe in God like all Christians do. And do you differentiate between meditation and prayer? Do you say prayer is not meditation?
We perform puja or prayer daily morning. This is the first thing we do after bathing, wearing clean clothes and with peaceful mind. We light the oil light in front of God and offer our prayers with sincerity. Then we offer some food to Him and then only we eat anything. I suggest you visit our temples to see how they perform puja. The priests perform sixteen services to God while praying. All those are similar to things that we do daily in our daily routine. They bathe the idols, wear clothes, decorate them, welcome them and offer seat and fruits and flowers, give food, wash hands after eating, them put them to sleep and many more services in between. All these they perform with good faith in God. Do you think all this is not enough being a part of meditation?
I daily perform puja with utter belief in Him. even though, I may not perform all the sixteen services. And regarding Bhagavad Gita, I believe it to be the complete knowledge of God and source of attaining enlightenment. Even it helps you become strong enough to face all those daily problems and leads to peace and happiness.Venkatachari M
Thank you for such a rich and vivid answer. Thank you for sharing your customs. Thank you for inspiring.
KH
We have these strong discussions, or wars, all of the time.... Christians, (like me), trying to minister the life of God that we have found, to those who declare that there is no God.
One thing is for certain.... We will all find out in the end......And if someone says no to you trying to spread your beliefs, then you move on. Simple as that.
You are right in saying that we will find out at the end, but until then, keep your beliefs to yourself if people show that they are not interested.Of course, in a public forum, (particularly one on religion), where many people may be reading, although they may never speak up, it would be unreasonable for one to expect not to be exposed to people sharing their beliefs, even redundantly, correct?
I am so glad that you answered as you have... You have proven my point exactly... I should keep my beliefs to myself and, you should keep you unbelief to yourself....
It's difficult for me to comprehend... ppl saying they don't want to talk about God, that they want to be left alone, and that they are offended that they must be submitted to perspectives they have no interest in... b/c they are saying these things on a thread dedicated to the discussion of religion, in a forum heading dedicated to religion and philosophy. There are many Atheists (and believers alike) who are very solid in their beliefs, and have never once discussed them in public. It seems to me if you don't want to discuss differing opinions concerning religion, it would not be an impossible feat. The threads are clearly marked.
It's like going to a gay pride parade and complaining about the number of homosexuals in attendance.
Related Discussions
- 9
If atheists do not believe in a higher power, then what do they actually BELIEVE
by Monica 11 years ago
If atheists do not believe in a higher power, then what do they actually BELIEVE in?...I've always wondered about an atheist's way of getting through life. Do they actually believe in anything? Are they considered to be bias if they believe that there is no god?
- 169
Do Atheists Prove there is a God by saying they don't believe in One?
by James Q smith 14 years ago
Just a question, but it would seem if there really were no God, then Atheists couldn't exist. Is Atheism a religion? They definitely seem to be unified by a common belief.
- 13
Who is realistically the higher power, Government or God?
by Castlepaloma 16 months ago
If you created the higher power "government " which is imaginary and followed its orders ORYou created the higher power "god" and followed its orders,Are you any less delusional than those you criticize Religion?
- 251
Evolution and Atheism
by Sherlock221b 10 years ago
Since joining HubPages, I have read the many evolution versus creationism and atheism versus religion debates. As an atheistic evolutionist, I have read what I considered to be the strange views of a religious minority, including beliefs in intelligent design and other forms of...
- 21
Do you believe religion is needed for morality? Is the bible the only guide to m
by TahoeDoc 13 years ago
Do you believe religion is needed for morality? Is the bible the only guide to morality?If you believe these things, do you really think you would go around commiting crimes and immoral acts if the bible didn't tell you not to? I actually give (most) people more credit than that, don't you? If this...
- 163
Besides the belief in a higher power, what other differences separate non-believ
by capncrunch 8 years ago
Besides the belief in a higher power, what other differences separate non-believers and believers?What is the agenda of either side?