we in the West cannot help feeling a fury towards the perceived damage done by religion as a practice. Considering the wickedest things have been perpetrated by atheistic forces, why is the anger still towards those who believe in God?
I think there are equal amounts of misguided wrath on each side.
I don't have a problem with those who believe or don't believe. I do, however, have a problem when their beliefs are attempted to be pushed on me.
How is your statement any different from what you don't like? You're pushing the idea that 'truth is relative' onto me and pressuring me to not do what I think I should do.
I am not pressuring you to do anything one way or another. Just beacause you feel that you need to "spread the message" or whatever, Does not mean that I have to like it. Nor do I have to put up with it. You are free to do as you wish...Just as I am free to not to pay attention to your rants. I wasn't aware of me pushing anything...Anything that is "My Opinion" I state it being as such. I do not claim or "push" anything as fact or truth that cannot be proven as such. Anything that I post that is speculation on my part...I clearly state that it is such.
DoubleScorpion, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. I wanted to make the following point about relativistic truth, but I can't say whether it applies to you personally.
When you wrote, "I don't have a problem with those who believe or don't believe," I assumed that this statement was coming from the idea that truth/morality is relative so it doesn't matter what someone believes or doesn't believe. Absolute truth/morality, on the other hand, would be binding on everyone so it does matter what someone else believes or doesn't believe.
So when you wrote that you 'have a problem when their beliefs are attempted to be pushed on me,' I again made an assumption that you don't mind when someone agrees with you that truth is relative, but if they disagree and believe that truth is absolute (and binding on everybody), then you have a problem.
So that is where I was coming from. Sorry if I made false assumptions about you.
the ignoranc and hipocrisy within religion is not neccessarily greater than that without.....
It is just that religion are far more identifiable because they have been established specifically to speak for god.
That's just flat-out wrong (never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion, right?). The worst atrocities in the history of the world have been done by various religions in the name of one god or another, always for some religious ideal. Show me one atrocity done - not merely BY an atheist - but specifically IN PURSUIT of atheistic values, and I'll show you 20 in the name of religion. Like Christopher Hitchens famously quipped: "Left to their own devices, good people will do good things and wicked people will do wicked things. But to get a good person to do a wicked thing, well, that requires religion."
Nazis used this kind of propaganda to rally the masses against religious people.
Nazi's were (and still are) religious.
As there are so many religious movement and groups, so will their antecedent be...religion is an integral part of human existence. Religion does not necessarily or willingly make a good man to become wicked.
it's more toward the concept that the prticular religion makes absolute claim to God as the only way. It is more like afrontation, not anger at the Believer, unless that beliver is condeming those who do not think like the believer. Then it becomes direct abuse in both directions. not good at all, no one wins either way.
I have no problem with people who believe in God. I have a problem when someone tries to convince me that I'm wrong and they're right.
I believe it is because in America, religion is not taught in schools and so it is highly misunderstood. If all religions where taught, not as an indoctrination but from its historical role in forming society, there will be less judgement or suspicion.
It is very naive to think you can pretend the forces that shape our civilization such as religions is not important when looking at the news, all of our struggles seem to directly come from our confusion of it.
I would wholeheartedly agree with our esteemed colleague, pay2cEM, who most astutely points out one of the most common traits instilled in humans as a result of religious indoctrination, that being the practice of believing overwhelming extinguishing the capacity to think and reason, thus causing massive failure to communicate effectively due to the extensive and ongoing deployment of fallacious and irrational claims such as those made in the OP.
The author answered their own question.
It is exactly this kind of attitude which causes bloodshed. From Emperor Nero throwing Christians to the Lions to Chairman Mao justifying the ravaging of Tibet because he thought 'Religion is poison', to Hitler's hatred of the Jews. Nothing you are saying is new. When Hitler wanted to gather the masses onto his side, it was with just this irrational, fist-waving fury against those who recognised an authority above and outside his own. It is a dangerous and vindictive attitude you have.
What? How is pointing out your fallacious and irrational claims have anything to do with bloodshed? YOU are the one making the irrational claims.
What? You're comparing my recognition of your irrational claims to that of mass murdering despots?
See, you keep making more fallacious and irrational claims based on your misinformed opinions.
So, you are free to say anything you want no matter how ridiculous and irrational, yet my attitude is "dangerous and vindictive" simply because I point out just how ridiculous and irrational your claims. Hilarious.
Terrible, childish behavior.
There's no reason to post such things unless you're void of the capacity to debate in an intelligent manner and must resort to childish kindergarten acts.
I can't think of any crimes committed in the name of atheism. I can think of terrible things done BY atheists, but not specifically done to further the cause of atheism.
On the other hand I can think of a lot of terrible things done to further the cause of religion.
Crimes in the name of atheism?
They go by other names.
1.Mao ze dong 78,000 dead
2.Stalin 23,000,000 dead
3.Pol Pot 1,700,000 dead
4. Kim II Sung 1,600,000 dead
5. Mossolini 300,000 dead
Leopold 11 20,000 million dead for 200 million euros worth of rubber
Fidel Castro 30,000
Adolf Hitler - 12,000,000 (Jews) dead (to acquire their vast wealth)
actually its a longer list but I just got lazy...
point is, nobody kills in the name of atheism. they commit atrocities because they're atheists and they don't have accountability. Killing in the NAME of something or someone means you are trying to account for something like
for instance, killing in the NAME of Islam, they have some ideological reason for doing that. they want to preserve something they value. (twisted yes, but nonetheless not the same)Killing in the NAME of the Holy SEE, the soldiers who carry out these crimes perceive themselves to be preserving something they want to preserve like for instance the church. there's also killing BIN LADEN in the name of Justice. You can kill for all sorts of names because it really is about wanting a reason to do something horrible and necessary to maintain a certain kind of existence. It is also about "don't assimilate me basterds" sort of reasoning. They're fighting for identity.
But the folks I listed above, man...they kill because they don't think they can with no consequences. They want to be big daddies of a new world where they are king and not...say jesus or justice or mohammed. they want to be the sovereign...and that is what is ultimately disturbing about atheism, it doesn't seem to know what it is or what it stands for other than, a negation of any ideological standard or authority.
"they commit atrocities because they're atheists and they don't have accountability. "
It terrifies me to hear you say this. As an atheist, I don't kill people because I respect other people's right to life, and because I feel no desire to hurt them.
You are saying the reason you and other religious people don't kill people is only because you are scared your God will punish you.
You sound like very scary people indeed.
(P.S: Hitler was a Christian.)
Well, I am a Catholic, my father was a muslim and we certainly don't want to kill people too.
That the people I listed were atheists, preached no-godness is true. Now are you them? NO. You are not the people who did this. So are the religious people you're talking to right now. We are NOT the Inquisition nor do we ever want to be.
My point is atheism has different reasons for killing. But people DO kill because they're atheists. People kill IN THE NAME of their religion in order to preserve their way of life. But atheists kill in order to IMPOSE their way of life. Big big difference, but same effect. Lots of people dead.
Why don't you just own up. Humanity has a long history of stupidity and that is not exclusive to atheists or religionists. We all suck at some point... so please let's stop pretending to be any better than anyone else.
P.S. Hitler WAS an atheist.
"14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52) " Sounds like you? yes. Now take yourself to the extreme and get lots of guns.
That was not your point. Your point was that atheists "have no accountability" and will apparently just run around murdering people because we don't fear punishment from God. Not only is that obviously wrong, it is a very sad and quite disturbing way to view your fellow humans and I can only assume some projection is going on - because it is not a view rooted in any kind of fact.
So what was your point in no one ever kills in the name of Atheism? It is just not true.
Atheism is not an ideology. It is anti-ideology. It graduates to ideology at some point like communism, an ideology based on destruction, the cutting of roots, the uprooting of tradition.
why not evolve, evolve instead. evolve your understanding of the cultural influences that brought us to this point where we can discuss this and not actually shoot each other.
If you've been here long enough, you'll know that calling me a religionist is not exactly accurate...and yes that is my point. that has been my point all this time.
do not judge. you are only judging your own shadows.
You're sad and disturbed?
If you want puppy dog atheism, just stick to the science forums. There we can talk about Dawkins and his bitching against pastors.
Humanity is responsible for all the evils you complain about. Remove religion and it will be something else. There will be a reason to be horrible if you do not begi understanding.
I understand atheism. It is a shedding. But with a shedding comes an acquisition of a new skin that you are just about to acquire. A "Not-I' is not an "I" and once you find out what "I" is, you will call yourself by another name...I don't know maybe communist? Or maybe something so much better.
(I know it's so easy to just make me out as a horrible person when you are actually proven to be ultimately WRONG)
Luke 1:17 ASV
And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient [to walk] in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a people prepared [for him]
Ben Sira 48:12 NRSA
When Elijah was enveloped in the whirlwind, Elisha was filled with his spirit. He performed twice as many signs, and marvels with every utterance of his mouth. Never in his lifetime did he tremble before any ruler, nor could anyone intimidate him at all.
Here's a good example of how people misunderstand those sent by God-
1 Kings 17:18And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?
(Notice she didn't want to hear about sin and she thought Elijah came to kill her.)
19And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed.
20And he cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?
21And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again.
22And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.
23And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth.
24And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth.
(The lady's first impression was wrong)
His people perish for the lack of knowledge.
Sin and confusion is what causes murder not people that have accepted Jesus and follow God. If they do commit murder and say they are christians than that makes them a lier. No different than any other lie- it's not true. God's word tells us how to find His people, those that follow him- you will know them by there love, fruits/actions.
Mark 16:17--And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Can you spot a wolf in lamb's clothing? Hmm. I can!
Atheism does not equal communism or greed.
Secularist10's post does a fine job of explaining.
Neither does going to church and praying.
Don't play stupid. The claim was, nobody was ever killed in the name of atheism. and I said because they come by other names...namely communism, profiteering and power.
the don't say in the name of not believing in G-d, I will kill all of you.
no, they don't say that. they actually say:
and I quote marx:
“The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property”
"Today in Marxist Russia no Jewish magazine or newspaper may be published, no Jewish cultural center may function, no Jewish rituals may be publicly observed. No Jew may hold major public office or be a member of the Soviet parliament, and even harboring any expression of Zionist character is dealt with as a capital offense."
or (Pol Pot)
"This is Year Zero," and that society was about to be "purified." Capitalism, Western culture, city life, religion, and all foreign influences were to be extinguished in favor of an extreme form of peasant Communism.
yes, atheism has long and very recent history of atrocities. millions compared to bin laden's thousands.
hate springs from all sides of the fence. let go of hate and even atheism will blossom into something quite beautiful, something that has its own name and that defines itself for itself and is not defined by what it is not.
all are stages of becoming one's own.
It isn't mrpopo who is playing stupid here.
But, in your world, communism and atheism are one and the same, so atheism is all about abolishing all private property?
You have not demonstrated that in the least and have only shown your lack of understanding of both communism and atheism.
Utter nonsense. A lack of belief in your particular god will not blossom into anything more than a lack of belief in your particular god.
I don't think I said "going to church and praying" equals communism, now did I?
Anyway, as Beelzedad explained, you've defined atheism as abolishing private property, which is not the case.
I did not define at all, I said that they would say things like that and the result is human atrocities. They give themselves an ideological excuse to steal and to kill.
and also, that was in response to the comment that atheism does not equal killing. neither is churchgoing and praying. that was the point.
you blame on religion what is really a human failing, religious or not.
That ideological excuse has nothing to do with atheism.
It's not religion in itself that is dangerous. It's the specific ideologies in those religions. For example, Jainism is a completely harmless religion (arguably more a philosophy or way of living than a religion). Their ideology is of peace - they are vegetarian and will go out of their way to avoid stepping on an ant. Islam and Christianity, on the other hand, have done more than their fair share of damage.
You do bring on a good point though that greed and lust for power can occur in both atheists and religious people, as a human failing. People are prone to dogmatic teachings and following ideologies blindly. The difference is religious people do this all the time, whereas atheists/agnostics have looked at the evidence and found it insufficient.
For instance, your examples of going to church and praying. Is there evidence of them doing anything of use? Studies have shown prayer is ineffective (except maybe as a placebo, but even homeopathy can be used as a placebo), so why are resources wasted on building churches if prayers aren't answered?
While that can boil down as a minor waste, there are bigger issues both historically and presently. Burning witches, the Crusades, even recent events like 9/11 and the Catholic church preventing the use of contraceptives in AIDS infested African countries are all done based on an ideology. And people believe it and run through these acts without question because it's easy to think you're following a higher purpose, even if it goes against fundamental ethical behaviour.
Atheists, have questioned those ideologies and found them to be a lie, a method of control. We're still prone to flawed ideologies, but at the very least we have identified a few that do more harm than good.
Err, really. It is an equal opportunity. Marx resented religion so much that he said that he will act in the same kind of violent aggression from his own will that which religious claim to be from a Divine one.
Meaning, he is owning up to his own malevolent intent instead of hiding behind the church.
I guess for you being an atheist is better or saner. But the truth is, for many people who do go to church, the activity is relaxing. It's like going to the movies and just letting their cares go.
Church going is a very calming exercise. You see your friends there. You hear a priest talk about how to deal with day to day challenges, you give some money to charity. Then you go home. It serves its psychological (and if you're really something, spiritual) purpose.
Religious conservatism is just a way that society holds on to old ways and that's not exactly bad. The tension between the old and the new is a good way for us to think about the direction that we evolve. We can't just adopt the next big thing as it comes. Conservatism in general serves a purpose. It is the way we collectively deliberate on what to hold to and what to let go. Like Liberals and Conservatives are both needed to run a balanced senate.
My thing is, why do we have to vilify groups of people in particular? Evil is evil. It assumes many ideologies and is acted out by many different people from different backgrounds. Why not stick to the root? Why do you burn garments of evil instead of evil itself?
In truth, the real culprit is fear. People will do things for fear of changing the way they live, for fear of being assimilated, for fear of losing food supply or property.
The whole business of israeli-palestinian conflict is NOT about religion, it is about land. the religion became an excuse to grab land. the holocaust happened to persecute particularly a people with so much wealth, to assimilate this wealth with the excuse that the Jews and their religion is the source of the ills of the world.
That is the problem. So you could go finger pointing all you want and burning each other at the stake but still even if you killed all the Christians and theists or all the atheists were eradicated from the earth, there will still be that problem of fear. Do not burn the garments, get to the soul of the problem.
I think atheism is a stage of development, one that recognizes that you have your own authority in determining what is right for you. But, it is not a fixed psychic state. You can grow into something that does define you for what you stand for and not for what you don't believe in. The idea is to open your mind/heart to where the search takes you and not to fester in anti-ism. Consciousness is vast and the ocean of understanding you can sail within your lifetime is vast too.
Oh my, there's a serious breach of logic.
If you say that atheism is just another name for communism, then you also equate all of the other doctrines that effect a countries economical and political landscape, not to mention the many, many other varying aspects of that society that are controlled by the soviet state?
A doctor and a trolley bus driver make around the same amount of money because of atheism.
No one shall own land and all rents paid to the state will be an equivalent deduction from ones salary because of atheism.
No one shall be allowed to leave the country or have access to other countries goods and services because of atheism.
Nice logic there.
Lazy? Or, just forgetful? Have you read Mein Kampf? Have you not read Hitlers quotes posted here many times already?
An atheist is accountable to himself, and further to his family, friends and in many cases, all mankind. These are real tangible things in which an atheist must live with every day of his life.
Considering that many atheists acknowledge that humans possess compassion and altruism and need to work together in order to benefit their own existence would not suggest any reason for them to commit atrocities simple because they don't share your particular belief in your particular god.
You could instead of just listing a bunch of statistics showing how many deaths a particular despot achieves make a concerted effort to back up your claims by linking those deaths directly to atheism.
Essentially, all you're claiming here is that atheists love to commit mass murder for no reason whatsoever other than maybe for fun or to pass the time away.
I see no valid conclusions drawn from your statement. Are you saying those who kill in the name of Islam are exonerated or can be defended compared to atheists who just kill for no reason at all?
So, if I have a lack of belief in unicorns, I must know what exactly that disbelief is and know what it stands for other than a negation of a unicorn ideology or authority. Or else, that would be ultimately disturbing.
you know what, you are a little boring. so mosey along and create another name and hubpages account, maybe I'll talk to you. if not lets just go back to talking about aliens and hunger on earth, k...what was your last name? right Q.
Amazing! This is how you debate? You post one fallacious sentence after another and when called on it, you have no defense whatsoever other than making personal attacks?
nye nye nye nye...beelzie is a phony...nye nye (that better?)
How can it be well said when it's flat out wrong?
It's well-attempted maybe
Somebody said that one ruler left "20,000 million dead," which would be 20 billion dead!
That would be a neat trick, since there are only 7 billion people in this world. So someone killed the entire human race several times over, I guess. In a time in the past when there were less than 7 billion people in existence.
Whoever was editing my history book in high school must have left out that detail.
"Considering the wickedest things have been perpetrated by atheistic forces, why is the anger still towards those who believe in God?"
A very common misconception among religious people is that atheism has killed people, or that many people have "killed in the name of atheism" or something to that effect.
In reality, almost no major episodes of violence have been done in the name of atheism or strictly because of atheism. Certainly none of the major episodes in history.
Religious people often cite the communist regimes of the 20th century--Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and others. These regimes killed for their revolutionary statist ideology, not for atheism. Yes, they all happened to be atheist. They also all happened to not speak English as a first language--yet nobody argues they killed "in the name of non-English."
Given that these regimes were explicitly communist, Stalinist, Marxist or Maoist--given that these were their principal ideological beliefs--why would we not just assume they were killing for the sake of that ideological and revolutionary worldview, which they spend 90% of their time talking and writing about?
So it was not atheism that caused these "wicked things," but the various revolutionary radicalisms of these regimes. The same could be said of the Nazis and Fascists, although in that case there was a strong element of religiosity.
By contrast, there have been countless people killed "in the name of" various religions (primarily Christianity and Islam), or in the name of God. So religion was the motivating factor there. Moreover, comparisons of the killings of 1000 years ago to the killings of the 20th century must account for vastly different population levels (affecting the total toll on humanity of the time), and vastly different levels of technology (AK-47s versus swords; gas chambers versus stake burnings, etc).
The opposite, per se, of atheism is not religion, but rather theism (hence the term "a-theism"). Both atheism and theism are simply intellectual ideas, they do not in and of themselves say anything about what should or should not be done, or who should/ should not be killed. Just as no one significant in history has killed in the name of theism, no one has killed in the name of atheism.
Religion is a loaded gun, the problem is who happens to have their finger on the trigger, and whether they are prepared to use it for their own gain. I think Neitszche comes into this equation somewhere, it's all about power not God, and anyone with half a brain is likely to find this abuse of power as offensive, and very, very dangerous. If someone truly believes in (a) God they don't need religion anyway.
I don't think religion is hated. This is a place for writers who are trying to improve their skills and maybe make some money. It's not a place where people want to hear about your religious beliefs. We can go to church or do whatever we wish to worship as we please. Most of the religious hubs I've seen here are not even original thoughts on scripture, they are chapter and verse just taken straight from the Bible. This is Hubpages, not religion class. Not the right place to preach.
The difference between atheists who commit atrocities and theists who commit atrocities is that no atheist who does such things does so on account of their atheism while nearly every theist who does those things does so because of their beliefs.
With that out of the way the answer is easy, religion holds back society. Gays are being denied their rights, being bullied and driven to suicide and in some countries actually being executed all because of specific religious beliefs about homosexuality. Every year a certain number of babies actually drown during water baptism and hundreds if not thousands of children die because rather than get medical care their parents rely on prayer. I could go on but you hopefully get the idea.
I would not dislike religion as much as I do if it wasn't hurting people.
Who hates the religion most and why?
I think because of doubt, frustration and ignorance they hate religion.
May be their anger is against the persons who misunderstand a religion or act wrongly; in that case they should try to understand religion correctly. It is possible.
There is nothing bad in the Truthful Religion or the truthful Word revealed. Truthful Word of Revelation enlightens the reason manifolds; without its enlightenment reason is blindfolded and is just like a blind person.
"Considering the wickedest things have been perpetrated by atheistic forces"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo- … r_embedded
I think you're a little misinformed. Atheists have contributed more to humanity and continue to do so than anyone else. I think you'll be surprised to discover just how many of the people you admire are atheists. The above youtube video might give you another perspective on this!
your Polls, and Percentages do not represent the World ... but a Boxed up Thinking ... I suggest you get out of the Box, and do some real research and thinking ... specifically, whenever it occurs to you that you are talking on behalf of all Humankind.
Remember ... A fool is one ... who knows the Truth ... for all Humans Know The Truth; Intrinsically ... but most cannot get around, explaining it, within their Reasoning- limited Knowledge ... and instead of accepting, that he or she does not understand ... and Try understanding ... they Deny The Truth of Existential Reality.
A fool's Known is limited to Mathematics, Hubble and other Telescopes, the Test Tubes, and Microscopes, the Scientific and other Fictions, Philosophies, and Theories...
For these are the Tools, available to their Nobility, and other Prizes Awarding Fools... Rewarding their "Peers" ... composed of another bunch of Fools.
So they go around telling people ... who trust their abilities and judgment, as Philosophers, Writers, Scientists, or Actors, etc., [of course without telling ... that since their "almighty intellects" cannot comprehend, The Truth, or Grasp the Reality ... Therefore ... there is no, Truth, no Reality ... Thus, there is no Creator ] that there is no God ... !
These Egocentric fools do so, by placing their very limited understanding, above the Truth, of The Reality of God ...
I suggest, you try get out of this Illusions created Box ... and stop promoting the fools.
You're somewhat lost. You incapacity to express yourself in English does you no favors..
Please learn to read and write in English.before you attempt to respond. If English isn't your mother tongue, that is no excuse. It isn't my mother tongue either.
Also, go get an education. I have one. I have read and studied the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu scriptures, have lived and worked in six countries on three continents and speak more than a few languages.
I think, when I write something, it is fairly well researched. Your entire rant indicates that you are anything, but educated.
Thanks for the curt advice ... hallmark of all Universal Mentors ... I will see if I can learn to write English, to be able write Truth ... matching your exalted linguistic standards.
By the way ... to write ... "You incapacity to express" ... is atrociously wrong English, but thats OK with me ... I read it as "your capacity"
Madam, I do not seek favors from a language, which is yet to learn to define the smell of a Rose ... where Shakespeare has to Rely on similes and Metaphors to define the intended ... Does he not say ...
"Smells, as Sweet as a Rose" or something along the lines ... That a Rose would always smell "as Sweet" called by any other name ... ! "
PS: the missing reply has since returned.
Hey, I resent that!
Good to see you in here Shahid Bhukari. I always enjoy gaining the benefit of seeing things from other rather intriguing perspectives when you contribute to an earnest discussion.
And, for the record (in reference to Sophia Angelique's reply), I think you express yourself quite clearly - if in a little bit unorthodox way. I've never really had any difficulty following the path of your phrasing, it does take a little getting used to though.
You are more than a free lance writer ... you are a magician. Because my fairly extensive reply to your post ... just vanished ... !
Though, I cannot say, if it will, as suddenly reappear ... or not ...
I will see if I feel like rewriting it ... for what you say is quite incorrect. and I do not have the spare time to indulge in these luxuries. I just ask you ... Try getting out of the Boxed thinking ... Because, what you promote ... is neither Truth, nor Belief ... of the 95% people, of the world.
There is a saying in Persia ...
"Mon Tura Haji ba Gyem tu mara Haji Bago " ... Meaning ... I will call you Haji, and you call me a Haji in return ... just as is promoted by Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau' in promoting the unilateral surrender of ones rights, in favor of another ... stated in their "Social Contract" Theory ...
Anyway, the story goes ... That two men, left their village [being fed up with their bickering wives] ... saying, they were proceeding on a Pilgrimage ... to Mecca. And the Pilgrimage in those days meant being away from all for at least a year or two ... depending on where you lived.
But since such a journey in days bygone, involved traversing barren deserts, mountains and verdant vales ... and the travelling was mostly on foot ... they decided to stay on in a beautiful oasis, en route ... for a year or two,and then return home ... as Hajis.
So they agreed, that when back home, and since no one would know their little "Secret" ... one would address the other with the Title of "Haji" ... the title being of the ones, who have undertaken the arduous Journey and Performed the Hadjj Rituals at Mecca ... and returned Alive !
Thus, they got to be called Hajis ... by the simple, Village bound villagers for as long as they lived ... without ever having performed the pilgrimage.
I leave it to you, to draw your own moral from the story.
I do indeed admire a number of atheists. Of course it is simply wishful thinking, however, that atheists have contributed more to the world than anyone else. A cursory glance at the concrete plains under which the bulldozed remains of buildings representing beautiful human creativity in places such as China, Russia and Poland, will tell you that it has been all too often under the influence of atheistic authority that the human spirit is crushed and made cruel.
contributed 'per capita' is probaly more accurate.
Not so either I'm afraid. People that have established or now work for charities, hospices, hospitals, schools etc. are invariably of a religious sensibility at the very least.
I said "contributed to mankind' not 'volunteered their time for noble causes.' They're completely different things. Did you watch this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo- … r_embedded
I'm talking about discovering DNA, inventing vaccines for diseases like smallpox, inventing the telephone and electricity. These inventions changed mankind. Virtually all these people are atheists. Watch the video.
Sophia. I watched the video. There are many atheists responsible for good works. Here are a few religious people who have done their bit:
William Wilberforce - anti-slavery campaigner
Charles Dickens - social reformer
Isaac Newton -Scientist
Samuel Johnson - Wrote the first dictionary
Johnathon Swift -campaigner for the Irish cause
Florence Nightingale -established nursing in victorian England
Winston Churchill -helped win war against Hitler
Oscar Schindler - saviour of Jews from concentration camps
Christopher Wren - Major architect
John Everett Millais - Pre-Raphaelite painter
Gandhi - peace campaigner
Graham Greene - Novelist
Evelyn Waugh - novelist
Oscar Wilde - Author and social Critique
William Wordsworth - major poet
A L Tennyson -major poet
Judy Dench - Actor
Alec Guinness - Actor
Nelson Mandela - anti-aparthied campaigner
James McMillan - contemporary composer
Matthew Mark Luke and John - wrote the Gospels
Galileo - scientist
Blaise Pascal - Scientist
Temple Chevallier - Astronomer
Louis Pasteur -microbiologist
The list is endless.
I think you need to go check some of these names. Many of them were either agnostics or atheists, and some of them, like Jesus Christ never even existed. Let’s just agree to disagree on this.
For the life of me, I can’t see how actresses, poets, writers, nuns, etc redirect the path of humanity. Edison introduced the electricity. Einstein split the atom. I’m talking hard science.
Novelists, composers, actors, politicians, etc. don't invent technology that changes the world and they don't discover scientific information that brings healing to the masses. Nurses, like Florence Nightingale, might use the information provided them by scientists, but without they science, they are dead in the water.
From what I have personally seen in those countries as being the cause of devastation was a result of the Nazis. The cities of Kiev and Warsaw, for example, were almost leveled as they marched towards Moscow.
What atheism had to do with that is a mystery.
Your Media ... 'Reports.'
What the Media does not Report ... is about the world, most humans live in ... it Reports ... what it wants the world to be, or how, it wants the world, to be seen ... by those, who make up the Real world !
95% people of the world, follow Religion ... they Believe, in a Creator ... and Belief, is the Greatest Love, the Created can shower upon their Creator ... its called, Worship.
And though Religions may differ, about the Name ... in that we may call Him differently ... True Belief, in a Creator, is what counts at the end of the day.
What you see or read on the Media, Is, the beginnings, of
The Ordained ... End.
What you see on the Media Is a False ILLUSION, a last ditch effort, by Fallacy, before it Is consigned to where it belongs ... where all Hatred belongs ... Hell !
I am a Muslim ... I respect, all other Beliefs, their Prophets, their Scriptures ... and their Concepts, of God ... The Creator ... For there Is only One Creator, in all Beliefs, and Religions
So at the end of the day, it matters little, by what name, the Believers call Him !
The Believers are now uniting, finally, for the Second Coming ... for the day, when Christ, is to Slay ... Fallacy.
It has been my experience that most atheists do what they feel is right out of personal moral obligation.
Most theists do what they feel is right out of obligation to a higher power.
We have seen many instances where people from either view do awful things, do we really want to open this can of worms and blame one or the other?
Of course, the broad list of awful rude statements back and forth says we not only want to open this can of worms but relish in attacking each other for it, does it not?
There is no such thing as an atheist government. Atheism is not a political stance. It is not an organization. Communism may have killed more than religion did at any one time but there were less people to kill too, and that claim is dubious if you consider the time line.
Democracy has killed thousands as well. So has nationalism of all sorts.
The point is political ideologies, nationalism, and religion are organizations or created by organizations which can be dangerous because they rally the mob and mob mentality.
Atheism means only one thing: a lack of belief in gods.It is not an organization. How many people has a lack of belief in big foot killed? How many people have been killed by people who don't watch baseball? How many people have the superstitious killed? To ask how many have been killed by atheists is the same kind of dumb question, though theists have a really hard time understanding that.
People who lack belief in big foot are not a political organization. People who are superstitious are not an organization. People who do not like baseball are not an organization. Atheists are not an organization or the name of a political ideology.
The other point is that religion is hated mostly by the religious. If you find that religion is hated, then you have to take that into consideration. Atheists are still a minority. People with superstitious and exclusionary beliefs who do not believe in major religions are probably still far more prevalent.
And yes, most Nazis were religious and still are. The KKK is a religious organization. Hitler was religious in that he believed there is a god. He was a mystic who was also after relics of power like the spear that killed Jesus. But he wasn't fond of organized religion. Why? Because it is competition for most political ideologies, which is the same reason Communism doesn't support religion.
what I loathe about religion (particularly cults) is time and time again people are conned into handing over their money & their brains so they are ready to reject their own families. They believe their leaders so intently that even when if their leader says kill themselves, they do it. Many, many incidents of sexual & mental abuse.
When I was researching my alchemy hub, I was disgusted to read how the church decided that people that used herbs as medicines were burned at the stake, and how cats were considered demons and were burnt alive. And how the last librarian at the alchemy library was murdered by christian zealots by having her flesh scraped off with abalone shells.
Suppression and abuse at the hands of religious do-good'ers
I would like to propose the idea (I don't believe I saw it suggested anywhere previously in this forum) that many atheists are terrified of being literally "put down" by those in the religious majority. It's always been interesting to me how many religious persons in America like to murmur about how there is a movement to destroy religion and that atheists are going to overwhelm the government and begin forcing atheism on the populace. These people are maybe not aware that atheism is still greatly outweighed by religious sentiment in America, at least.
Add to that the fact that people who identify as Christian are statistically more likely to support the death penalty (ie, are ok with executing those whom they feel have committed heinous enough acts) and it becomes somewhat easier to see why the idea of powerful religious feeling on a national level scares those on the other side of the belief spectrum.
Now, I think that religionists are equally as fearful of similar treatment at the hands of atheists as well, so it turns into almost like a Cold War-like scenario where both sides see the other as a threat and so stay in a kind of hostile stand-off instead of just letting each other be.
Believe me, the world is large and almost MOST people don't care. That's the truth. Economics is the concern today as well as health. G-d is a hobby and that is including all topics of atheism. For real nonbelievers, it's not even something they would spend time talking about.
In the olden days, the tallest edifices are churches, now they pay homage to finance.
This is symbolic of our priorities.
The fundamentalists mostly congregate in boring zones where there is not much alternative source of social functions and they kind of feed off each other.
The scientific community, the real nonbelievers are just busy, busy, busy... they mostly would not even come to a forum and battle their demons there. If my work does not involve mythology, I would not even waste my time here. It's excellent research this place.
Because so many religious people can't seem to get the idea that what they believe is not the only thing to believe.
Evil hates that which is good,and it is more evil in this world than it is good,so what you get is what is here.The good speak against the world and the corruption,self-righteousness,falsehood and the evil herein.That is why Christians are hated.
Christians often display all the values that the good speak against, so do many Muslims. Most people do not hate Christians, just resist the hate, corruption and evil they spread.
If all you see is evil,then your whole life is fill to the brim with nothing but that.
You must have a terrible life.
You deliberately misread and misrepresent what I said - which is a typical Christian response to valid criticism of your aberrant behaviour.
I have a fantastic life that is filled with happiness and reason - and far away from your deseased christian minds.
I cannot tell.Seem to me you are very confused.
No - it is just your reading ability that is confused along with your thinking.
If you like I can re-phrase it in simple words with a few thee and thou thrown in if it would help ?
Maybe if you stop praising yourself long enough to so ,it might help.Your ego is getting in the way of your words.
When you break up the party it is not a welcome thing so rebellion and hatred lead the way and cause negative occurrences from negative thoughts.
Why is religion hated so much? (a)it makes irresponsible people, (b) it makes ignorant people, (c) it allows certain people to usurp positions of power, based on nothing, (d) it creates distortion about understanding one's own life and (e) it was originally developed to control the masses, because the masses have shown that they cannot do for themselves.
It is interesting that you say IT was originally developed to control the masses, as if one person came up with the idea and we stuck with it. Your list of reasons certainly points to the bad/wrong practice of religion ie: when religion is forced on people, but it could very easily be applied to any oppressive regime, as in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, to name but a few. Early Christians were certainly not conforming to any system when they preferred to die under the Romans rather than renounce their love of Jesus. Elizabethan Catholics were not conforming when they were stretched on the rack for their beliefs. Religion has produced great universities, sublime music and great scientists, play- writes, scholars, philanthropists and humanitarians and is the basis of law in our free-thinking country. Any system in the hands of the corrupt will be bad.
I think things go wrong when any system is forced onto people.
I thought this was interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBP … ideo_title
I notice they didn't put China and Russia in their equation(Not suprised). they also counted three countries as athiest that only half of the population is athiest. By the way Germany, peaceful? Remember the holocaust?
I think it's a yearly study. It would make no sense to go back to WWII to evaluate a nation's present standing (out of curiousity, were there any "peaceful" nations during WWII?).
If China and Russia are exceptions, it might be due to the government's stance on religion. Like psycheskinner said, things go wrong when any system is forced on people.
According to the video, those countries have the highest percentages of atheists/agnostics/non-religious, so I think they're still worth noting.
I think Denmark, or Switzerland was a neutral country.
So they might have the highest percentage of people who have not formally declared a religious affiliation, but it is still a clasic example of manipulating statistics.
in Russia, only 42% of people fully trust religious organizations and just 8% regularly (at least once a month) attend the service.
And in China 59% of the people are nonreligious. Depending on a persons definition of religious beliefs the number could actually be in upwards of 80%.
It is obcious that these two countries were purposfully left out of the equation in order to fufill the persons antireligious agenda.
Common, two countries out of how many involved? (referring to both of your points)
It's clear that religion is not the only factor in determining how peaceful a country is. It might not even be the cause but rather an outcome. In China and Russia's instance, it might have to do with other factors like the type of government.
But even with 2 exceptions, how do you explain the other radical Muslim countries that are on the low scale of peace and the highly atheist countries that are on the high end?
I'm talking about the highly athiest countries that are on the low end, which is clearly why they left out china and Russia.
Ofcourse religion is not the only factor that determins weather or not a country is violent. That's why statistical reports such as the one which you have presented are not an accurate representation of the truth.
I've noticed you yourself are being a bit misleading.
You've taken that previous statistic from Wikipedia I presume? While the number of irreligious people in China could be up to 80%, it also could be down to 30% simply based on the definition of "religious" in China. It's in the same article. You (conveniently) left that part out.
As for Russia, the situation is "complex". Yes, only 42% trust religious organizations but 66% classify themselves as Orthodox. The number of atheists varies from as low as 4% to upwards of 36% based on self-identifying surveys.
Both instances could be due to cultural reasons, but unless you can establish a similar phenomenon in the other countries, your point isn't very valid. How many of those other countries have complex relationships with religion? How many define being religious as simply having customs?
I'm not saying religion is the cause of all conflict. There's more to it than that. All I'm saying is there's a bit of a pattern contrary to what the OP thinks.
yes, my point was to manipulate the satatistic in favor of religion, so you can see that it can easily be swayed to either side, it just depends on what your cause is devoted to.
For example in a previous thread, somone said that if all the athiests were to leave America only 1% of the prison population would decline. What he failed to mention is that only 6% of Americans are athiest. My question would then be why are such a large percentage of athiests commiting crimes? Again that statistic can be manipulated as well. That's why I think statistics are bunk.
6% of Americans are atheist = 18,524,732 Atheists in America.
1% of the Prison pop is Atheist = 24,243 inmates.
Proportion of Atheists in jail = 0.131%
94% of Americans are Christian (or religious) = 290,220,806
99% of the Prison pop is Christian (or religious) = 2,400,036
Proportion of Christian (or religious) Americans in jail = 0.827%
That's about 7-8 times more than the atheist American.
# of inmates = 2,424,279
US Population = 308,745,538
I understand your concern; correlation doesn't imply causation. But that doesn't somehow disprove statistics.
I think I'm the one who mentioned that statistic, so I'll defend it here. First, I didn't "fail to mention" the statistic in order to confuse the issue; I didn't mention it because (1) it's definitionally ambiguous: 6% claim to be absolutely atheist, while about 17% claim atheism/agnosticism/no religious belief at all, meaning 17% of the population admit to not being bound by any religiously-imposed moral code; and (2) none of that matters anyway. Let's just roll with the 6% for now. The point of that thread was to argue that religious belief yields an increase in morality, whereas my point was to show how the statistics don't bear out that claim. If religious and non-religious people were equally moral/criminal then the prison population demographic % should be identical to the regular population demographic %: 6% of inmates should be atheists, and 17% of inmates should lack religious belief. Instead, we find American prisons to be about 90-93% Christian, about 5% Muslim, 1-3% other religions, and 1% atheist.
Your question, "Why is such a large % of atheists committing crimes?" reflects a basic misunderstanding of ratios and statistical analysis. The short answer is: They're NOT. They have one of the the lowest (if not THE lowest) crime rates of ANY demographic, putting religious folk in general - and Christians in particular - to shame.
There might be only a few atheistic criminals but when atheists get into power, by God! can they do some damage!
That is entirely false. But, I can understand why you would say such things in light of your beliefs that atheists are evil because they do not believe in YOUR god.
yes, and you are very very open-minded and clear-headed hating ALL people with a religion.
Funny how when you attack me personally, you have to make up lies to support your attacks. Terrible behavior.
Oh I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? You know that is not my intention. My intention is to drive a point home. You know, like take the log out of your own eye before you something something that Jesus said.
Yes. Jesus. G-d. The Holy Ghost. and so on. Did that hurt your feelings? Did that offend you so much? Pardon me.
I don't believe atheists are evil because they don't believe in a god. I've never suggested anything of the sort.
Have been many great and good leaders who were atheists?
Many atheists here have been labeled evil by believers, being called the devil and satan on many occassions.
I know that is true, I have been told I am dooming my children to a life in hell, that I will rot in hell, that I am like satan....... the list goes on.
Blimey I know! I was going to ask the same question. Salem or somewhere? Where Puritans in black are still burning people at the stake for smiling.
Here's the thing about correlations: outliers are expected! I would be very interested in calculating the true correlation coefficient between the variables pertaining to Atheism and Peacefulness in countries just to see if there is anything behind it. You are right that selection bias can skew the interpretation of data, so it would be important to look at all the countries involved rather than just the 10 or so cases that prove whatever point.
However, it is my suspicion that there is some degree of correlation as suggested. But, in order to be fair, I will look up the data and provide a more rigorous analysis for anyone interested.
Has anybody here actually taken the time to read the report from which those data were presented? If not, then I would greatly advise doing so, as having a first-hand familiarity with the subject of debate will usually allow the debate to actually definitively end instead of just going back and forth in stalemate.
Taken directly from the GPI report, there is a r = 0.5 correlation between a country's GPI score and the importance its citizens place on religion in their society and governmental affairs. Note that this means that the more emphasis put on religion in a country, the more likely it is to have scored poorly since a higher score on the GPI is actually a LESS peaceful country. However, the correlation is not extremely strong.
Good point mathsciguy - thanks for pointing that out. There are probably other variables to consider, but the presence of a correlation seems to be hinting at something.
I just try to be fair. I realize that as a person who was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to receive formal training in mathematics, I have the responsibility to present the facts as reliably and truthfully as I can. In the famous words of Stan Lee, "With great power comes great responsibility."
Sometimes, the facts show differently than I had previously thought, and I am forced to change my opinion based upon those facts. Regardless, it is truth that must win in the end.
For this reason, I say that the correlation exists but is somewhat weak, and should not be deemed to imply a causative relationship between the two variables. You seem to have a fair handle on it yourself, though, so you know what I mean.
How about when other things are forced on people like everyone has to have High Digital or get one of those converter boxes?
You have to get the latest cell phone because the one you have doesn't have the chip the new one does?
Upgrade to a newer computer because the one you have doesn't work anymore?
Typewriters are obsolete computers are in?
Every year new clothes for your kids because what they have is not in and they will be laughed it?
THOSE are the MASSES you're talking about NOT religion. Things are being spoon fed to people in a very subtle way but they cop out blaming religion. Yeah okay, so what else is new.
Quite agree; the tyranny of the consumerist present.
For no special reason. Just to let you know that there's a human being behind this computer and because religion is so hated it doesn't hurt to be kind to one another. Take care.
It's like Justin Bieber.
Is he hated because he "makes" crap "music"? No, there are countless singers who are worst, but they're not hugely overrated. So he's hated because he is bad and popular.
The reason they hate it is because it states they are in "sin." They can't stand someone saying they're in the wrong, or that they have to make the decision to obey someone when they don't want to obey anyone at all. It's a rebellion. Just like in Genesis when Eve ate of the Tree of Good and Evil, she wasn't just deceived- she rebelled. They hate it because it is a restriction and calls attention to the sin in their lives, which they want to either justify or ignore altogether.
I don't think it's religion that is hated as much as the religious. It seems to me that every third person that owns a Bible or a Quran has decided to turn a blind eye to reality and spout nonsense. Plus the fact that they want to make you understand that not embracing their belief will send you straight to eternal punishment.
I don't think anyone would have any problem with our collective history if the zealots would learn something other than the words in one book. I assume those who use the violence of history as an argument against Christianity are simply responding to the violent nature of the posts of Bible literalists and their insane take on religion.
Let me see if I get this straight. You hate the religious and every person that owns a Bible? I own many Bibles, I consider myself a religious person yet you know my words not my person and you hate me? OOOOOkayyy, I hope you keep smiling.
Lighten up. it's going to be o-tay. I didn't say I hated the religious. I own a Bible too. I was talking about fundamental zealots.Bible thumpers who bash others with their beliefs. That's why I said every third person.
Everyone has an opinion. But those who try to shove it down everyone's throats and claim their take on it is God's word are wrong. Religion is just opinion on a question that can't be answered.
I don't think it's religion that is hated as much as the religious.
That's what you said. Look at your post again. I don't have to lighten up because you're the one that wrote the sermon. If you say it I'm going to call you on it. Have a nice day.
Wow. Had you made it to the second sentence in my original post we might never have met.
It's nice to meet you. You misunderstood my intent, but that's ok with me. I honestly hope your day gets better.
There is no freedom of choice in any religion. Only fear and faith required. People do not hate religion per se, they hate the result of it. The end product does not smell good.
Human ignorance might have started that but now in many countries it's still a huge political and social force that dominates everything.
well, the higher the level of education the less these factors come into play...religion doesn't necessarily diminish it's role does.
ignorance is the problem, so educate people about religion and that problem will go away.
The higher the level of education? That's why so many people go and study Theology and wind up being perverts. Educating a person doesn't even make sense. That problem will NEVER go away. You can't educate perverts and people will always think their intellectual answers will make a person deem them, as oooh ahhhh oooh ahhh they're soooo smart; yeah right.
I could educate you that crime drops when education increases. While education does not help insane people, it certainly helps sane people make better choices.
The paradigm that it will never go away is actually the very reason why ignorance persists and is also because of ignorance that you have this paradigm.
The Czech Republic loves education. My nanny there spoke 10 languages and low and behold the crime rate and religious delusions are way low. If not for drug addicts and a few crimes of passion the crime rate will be zero. The czech republic has all sorts of religious presence. Somehow they're all disinterested in having that "conversation" with each other.
YOU will never be able to educate me. The fact that you come on a forum and start shooting things left and right with your verbage doesn't make you the expert okay. I think you're sadly misktaken. You may be able to impress others but you CAN'T impress me.
Even though a lot of us don't start putting down statistics and facts doesn't mean we don't know our history. The silent majority sometimes counts more than those who think everyone is actually taking in what they say. lol
I am not trying to impress you, I'm trying to challenge what you said. Because it is blindsided to favor whatever you choose to be your stance with no understanding of that which you persecute so vehemently. The fact is, crimes against humanity are made for various reasons. religion, power, money, revenge.
You're wrong. Crimes against humanity is an equal opportunity. If that is not something you can't even acknowledge then my dear you are howling in the wind, talking to your own shadows.
You don't have to challenge me because I haven't done anything to you. Since you seem to be so intelligent, how many languages do you speak where you can give to others your gift of wisdom?
I am not challenging you per se, I'm challenging your argument that said that no one ever killed in the name of atheism. it is not in the name of "i don't believe in goddism" no. its in the name of communism, which is atheist and counter-religious. It is also in the name of say rubber or oil or whatever excuse they want to use.
why are taking it personally? you are not atheism. You're an atheist yes, but what atheism is is not who you are. You are so much more than an atheist.
I think atheism, ability to see nuance is a worthy study to be made. It seems consistent that when you're an atheist (at least in hubpages forums), most of the time nuance is not a strong suit.
Such a terrible understanding of communism.
In order for that system to work, every aspect of society must be taken into account, including religion. For communism to work, religions can't exist. Of course, capitalism can't exist, either, along with a host of other aspects of society. Religion is just one of them, but it has nothing to do with atheism.
In the soviet state, the black market thrives and most everyone has access and takes advantage of it, despite the fact capitalism is forbidden.
And, just like the black market, religious belief also thrives in the communist state. People there follow their belief systems in private, they celebrate religious holidays, in private. Then, the don their soviet attitudes and tow the party line, in public.
you really are a broken record. you don't ever evolve your arguments that is why you are a waste of time to talk to. we've had this conversation before okay. you are already proven wrong.
Altruism cannot come from atheistic expression, no more than it can come from theist. You should be careful not to confuse humanism (and its ever constant modus operandi [survival at all costs]) with what altruism actually is...
I should be careful? I love all of your words, altruism, atheistic, theist, humanism, modus operandi. Huh?
Don't you think I know where you're going with that? You don't know me to be judge and jury over a person you've never even met.
well, it is very obvious that you are not altruistic because you are condemning a group people in favor of another and are blindsided by the faults of your own camp. I mean, why even bother to have a camp. Every person has a unique reason for choosing what he chooses.
If it bothers you so, perhaps it is you judging yourself.
It was not a judgment. My statement was based on information presented and years of both witnessing and being victimized by humanistic indoctrination -because I like billions have been forced to live in it. Forced to live in & appreciate your theologies or else; forced to live in & appreciate your sciences or else. Neither is worthy to even glance in altruism's direction, let alone have it drivel from white washed tongues. Your theologies kill, maim, rape, plunder, enslave in the name of humanism; likewise your sciences kill, maim, rape, enslave in the name of humanism. It is a matter-of-fact. And -thanks to your own ego, showcased on shelves, in temples made of stone and glass called churches, museums, laboratories, and more -we have thousands of years worth of evidence to prove it. An atheist can never be an altruist, neither can a theist. Why? both serve the same G/god -themselves.
So what is your suggestion? World is bad let's go and kill them all? How many atomic blasts do we need to accomplish the end of the world?
Actually, quite to the contrary, Home Girl. As I have stated many times: humanism has failed and failed miserably. My suggestion? Well, let's just say in short-short version: abandon it, once and for all. Yes, I admit, it has often brought itself to the brink, but somehow calmed the war and remembered it was about to destroy itself. This time, it cannot stop itself from dieing. Humanism has nothing to fall back on. It has worn out its sensationalism, worn out its equation, worn out its welcome in the universe. And good riddance to it.
Some are waking up, as the saying goes, to why and what they were created for and to be. It is inevitable! Humans are going to be restored to their original stasis, whether humanism likes it or not. No gods or gadgets can stop it.
We must listent to you and abandon everything because humanism has failed and altruism and theism and we must run to this forum because we will be saved by the knowledge that we pick up by these individuals who are teaching us about sensationalish and we must humble ourselves to them because they are the universe letting us know humans will be restored to their own stasis where humanism doesn't exist nor does altruism, nor atheism nor theism only ceciliabeltran and 21 days.
We are awake yes yes teach us teach us we are awake and have abandoned everything.
Enjoying your hissing fit, aren't you.
The poor, poor dear. Seems something I said struck quite an already aggravated nerve...
well, it seems he is experiencing the atheist equivalent of "NO, Jesus didn't marry Mary Magdalene. You're the devil making me doubt my faith"...sort.
Bingo. you hit the nail on he head.
I really find it amazing, how equally disturbing atheists become in comparison to theists, when others, who do not share either sides view, place them in a position to question their new~old fashioned ways.
I find that for some people duality is like a safe place from I suppose blame. Like, it is almost painful to admit that he or she can possess both extremes. That the good and the bad are intertwined and the experience of both is the contraction that births evolution.
again, I couldn't have said it better myself.
the thing is atheism and theism seems to be crutches to some personal perceived deficiency that is not embraced.
when you see that you are complete as you are and you are not broken, there is no need to cling to external definitions of who you are. you gain access to transcendence and then you see that really all people are headed the same way.
Forgive him he does not know what he's saying. Give him his soul-mate back or a soul-mate even when he's past 40 and hasn't really read the Torah. Give him shelter and food to eat when he's hungry. When the aliens come, please Jesus, may he see them that his heart may be filled with joy.
I believe in you, fairies, unicorns and whatever they stand for.
Please give him 1,000,000 dollars so that he can get busy being productive with things that actually move his life forward, so he doesn't have to waste other people's experience of the fourth dimension, particularly mine.
I think I just wet my shorts laughing....
edit: nope, but damn near close to it.
Do you speak any other languages where you can pour your gift of wisdom to others because it seems like you are so mighty and it is an honor for us to be in your presence.
You seem to be taking Pol Pot and Stalin to heart. Don't worry I am not judging you on the basis of the people you share ideologies with. Clearly you have your reasons for being an atheist. Nonetheless, it is simply not true that all atheists are moral. that they have never killed and all religious people are horrible people who would kill, kill, kill. Not true.
why are you avoiding the obvious argument that I'm making and making it all about you?
Seems that person isn't trying to make an case for their argument, only to say yours or mine is invalid. Typical "Knowles Borg" spew, else the recently emerged and nearly all together forgotten Sexton character...
Yes, absolutely cut from the same cloth if not the actual piece of weave and I believe you are invoking hell as we speak.
Hub Pages ou Akbar!
ps, I 2nd that motion of : that the duality, intertwined, is in fact the bastard child called humanism --and its ever constant necessity to 'evolve'. Could not have said that better. As a friend once said, "these facing precipices, the illusion, that is the human condition, continues to mystify even itself. Just a trickle now, but once a raging river, carving these walls, damp and wet. Over time, the water runs out as mites and tites are left in a silent catacomb for all eternity. Petrified Redwoods would have a better fate than these two!" Sir Morse, Professor 2x PhD history, Berkley U, California.
Because hate groups often use religion as a platform to get other's to join them by using the bible to spread whatever type of hate they are pushing. Like the assholes at the westboro church using the bible to punish the families of dead soldiers over something as stupid as gays in the military. Or, other groups that piss and whine and moan about abortion.
The church to me, is nothing but a bunch of people who can't mind their own business, and they are so afraid of the wrath of god, that they think what other people are doing might in some way affect their own chances with getting into heaven. So, in their twisted minds, they think that they have to stop the evil doers so they can get some imaginary key to heaven, wether the people they are fighting are actually evil or not. They don't care.
It's all about me me me. Selfishness abounds.
Sorry, I've only just seen this post. It's hard to keep up. I just wanted to reply that westboro church is not THE Church. I don't believe it's even a church, but rather a cult, and an absurd one at that. Cults are inherently bad things. The Taliban could also be described as a cult, misusing the Quoran in the same way as some people misuse the Bible. There is beauty in most religions, and a desire for peace, tolerance, knowledge and good -will too.
I don't hate religion, I just hate when a fanatical person is trying to shove their religion down my throat. I believe in what I want and thats that.
It gets me angry, and you don't want to see me when I'm angry!
Do you turn green and all your clothes fall off? ;D
I know man, it's like really? Can't you see I WONT listen? I won't! Many people don't get that you can't sell to someone who isn't already sold to begin with.
Maybe some can call it hate but in each different religion there are variations in their beliefs and practices especially with the Muslims because of Osama’s acts the interpretation of their religion nowadays are harmful, that’s the same thing here in our country, Philippines the controversial RH BILL (this is a law that others want to place that includes family planning) is being condemned by the Catholic church as anti-life and there are a lot of debate regarding with this issue.
Religion is caused by indoctrination.
You would not be able to get a smart 5 year old to believe it otherwise.
once again this is where we disagree. as a matter of fact, it is the only way to make them listen. children cannot retain information in this stage of development unless it is in the form of a fantastic symbolism rich story.
like for instance, little red riding hood is really about pedophilia. They like the story because something about it is interesting, it serves to instruct without the glaring disturbing facts. A wolf and a grandmother who changes on you... but proceed to tell them about what it really means and they will refuse the information.
Many biblical stories have such nature. Some lessons are so difficult to understand, like the story of the fall of Adam but because of the format, it is transferred to the psyche and the unconscious assimilates the information in the pure language of dreams.
I don't know which 5 year olds you deal with daily, my little ones are smart enough to see it for what it is. Not only do they form opinions, but I was asked by one of them about god.
She wanted to know, if god made everything, who made god?
I get questions like this daily. Maybe children who are not indoctrinated are better thinkers?
They also remember older information such as what is to happen in the future and monitor it.
There are many things in stories that instruct you and you are not even aware of it. We are not talking about things that can be memorized. The instruction is happening at another level. Children love stories and they retain stories better than they do facts.
G-d is particularly useful for children, but you have to guide them. I for instance asked my daughter who is G-d and she said,
G-d is not a person. G-d is everything because everything is connected.
7 years old. It was the way I described the concept that made her see it that way.
Seems you are well on your way to indoctrinating your daughter. Too bad.
she has no parental abandonment issues so I don't think atheism is going to attract her.
Hi again CCBT ! - You may be right about the assimilation of the information, especially the 5 year old knowing it is a story.
The issue of earnest's post is that kids get the idea fine the first time around, except that the message is then carried on and on as indoctrination leading to the type of christian we commonly see in these threads who think the wooden models of the ark animals are of the real things, not of the characters in an informative warning story.
Well, even if you explain it plainly to these people they will really have a very limited understanding of it too. So they like these stories because they glimmer something about it. YOu know, you can't really retain something that does not resonate, that is not meaningful at some level. We remember facts through emotional associations. If something is boring we don't retain it.
I recommend Peter Pan to atheists. Particularly this version because it is very rich in instruction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7bA6lo3 … re=related
you will probably not understand exactly what it means but a part of you will.
In a nutshell, myths convey relationships of things that will take years to describe but takes a very short time to impart through stories of magic realism because the brain encodes information this way.
"Fairies" have come to represent ego extensions that give us access to states that enable us to jump several levels without really going through the muddy road, hence fairies "fly". For example, in this story, a fairy, (or in biblical stories angels ) enables peter pan to transcend gravity--be brought down by the weight of our own helpless ignorance. Without really knowing how to do it consciously, "a belief" becomes a bridge to what is otherwise inaccessible.
If you believe that there is a solution to a problem, you will be able to find it more than if you look at the facts and base your actions from there. If the current information says it is impossible, the belief in the impossible creates that the possibility simply because you will be forced to create new possibilities.
It is long winded if I explain it, but a disney movie will be able to explain it better.
Who do you define as atheist? Not believing that a ridiculous fantasy is truth requires nothing more than common sense. As I have said before, the word is a religious construct.
Peter Pan has many interesting concepts for anyone to learn from, providing they understand it's meaning.
That would require some psyche learning for most people
An atheist is someone who is not a theist. not a god believer.
I always say for as long as you are calling yourself an atheist, you are defining yourself as a negation. A negation is always dependent of on the opposite. So when you know what you stand for, you will call yourself by another name.
Actually, in theory, the archetypes instruct even without conscious learning.
I have never referred to myself as an atheist and as I said, the word itself is a religious construct.
then I am not referring to you but to the atheist but also telling you that the stories are products of the psyche and they serve a physiological and even an evolutionary purpose...they are not "just" fantasies.
They are when people take them as a way to live their lives.
that will happen without the bible, earnest. In Russia, UFO mythology replaced biblical mythology. We really have a tendency to codify what we cannot express but we sense. The thing is, the human language is inadequate in labeling what the unconscious knows.
I suspect you just have zero respect for the feeble-minded. and a majority choose to be feeble-minded.
I'm ok with the feeble minded, I am one of them. I have difficulty understanding ignorance by choice, which seems to be the plot with religions.
isn't that the same as feeble-minded?
people don't know that they don't know. How can you blame them? They really don't know what they don't know. But some people get it. Sometimes, they come face to face with a life event that forces them to make sense of it. And then they do. But that time doesn't come at a predictable time in a person's life.
We cannot judge people because they don't understand. It's not that they refuse to understand, they really don't see it. It only comes to those who already understand to begin with.
There is no point judging. What helps is clarifying where to put the blame and that is right smack at no.1--ourselves.
Religions are not plotting, people plot not religions.
Yes, just like an aunicornist is not a unicorn believer.
Well put. Not believing in any myth as "truth" requires no more than the ability to separate myth from reality.
I agree, Earnest, atheism is a splinter idea/premise based on a religious construct. It is only from that construct that such an opposite can occur. ( no concept of deities, no concept of atheism). I believe that is called interdependency.
I don't agree. There are many here who one can see clearly lie to support their beliefs.
That is a choice they make. I remain unconvinced that any religionist actually believe what they present as truth. The funniest part of which is watching bible based religionists arguing with muslims about the horrors in the quoran, which are so similar to the ones in the bible and vice-versa
They know deep within themselves that the myths are nothing more (or less) than myths, but have decided to ignore it. Thus ignorant by choice.
People generally balk at self knowledge as it involves acceptance of their own evil as a part of "self"
but religion is part of that process. If it's not for you, it's not for you. But clearly it is for many people. What I find perplexing is the mission to put down people who have differing beliefs. Clearly, it is a more personal aversion and it is specific to some kind of traumatic experience because it is obviously very varied in expression, religiousity I mean. Sometimes it can be downright tweet tweet and at other times, it can be quite zen, transcendental, transformative. It really depends on the person. Religious preoccupation is a mental disorder ofcourse but then to blame all the ills on religion is suspect.
I would say it is very similar to people who hate rich people. I mean, there's got to be something psychological going on there if you generalize ALL religions as bad. I mean, really.
While I find some atheists are actually in some kind of shedding stage, some are really outright a little unhinged in perhaps the same kind of bin laden atheist version. And if you can't see that, man you're on a personal mission or its some kind of catharsis expressing itself through the nose.
Yes, believers often come to that fallacious conclusion, usually a result of not being able to think about it, first. A result of indoctrination.
Unfortunately, the indoctrinated are unable to give up their preoccupation until they acknowledge their indoctrination.
That makes no sense at all.
Yes, the indoctrinated are unable to "see" reasoning and rationale hence come to those false conclusions.
Despite all your apparent knowledge you need to get back to the basics of thinking.
There is no good reason or justification for the megalomania associated with religious belief that I can see.
Being indoctrinated in to a belief where one's belief in myths are used to tell lies about people, and threaten them is what it is.
I am well past feeling threatened by religions myself, but I do object to this crud being sold to innocents as "truth" thus ruining their lives by no longer permitting them to live with reality.
Psychoanalysis is better left to those who are experts at it and are in possession of all the tools required.
So what do you think should be the remedy for ending this form of child abuse?
I have no good solution onusonus.
I'd like to think that a broad education base will sort it out in time.
My children went to school without becoming indoctrinated which is not unusual in Australia, and my grandchildren go to an International Baccalaureate school with tolerance for all beliefs.
Letting children be children then being able to leave them to sort out what is important to them, requires a certain confidence in one's children.
Children need love to become confident. Not conditional love. Love.
Well, if you object to the crudeness of the way anything is taught, object to the crudeness. I am thinking basics. I am not doing global judgements. I am merely pointing out the yin yang of all things. The basic thing is, what is the root evil you are battling? Megalomania, then megalomania. But destroying ancient literature, devaluating community centers and invalidating age-old traditions is another kind of insanity.
When slavery was abolished constitutionally, it wasn't destroyed it just moved and changed names. It is important to understand why there is slavery before you can battle the root cause.
Psychoanalysis began by people who did not have tools. Most schools of thought were began by people who could penetrate the current droning of pseudo understanding.
If you strive to understand something, you would. But if you leave it to "them" then you choose to relegate your decisions, opinions in the same way that you resent relegating your views of morality to a church.
There is value in the teachings of religion if you would bother to understand them as there is value in pulling back from it and applying critical thinking. Finger pointing at groups of people, ideologies without getting to the root cause is a symptomatic treatment to a societal cancer.
I find that people who attack groups of people consistently and without allowance for individuality is fighting a personal demon, a shadow self.
If you are invested in destroying or discrediting institutions instead of getting to bottom of the cause then you will be fighting all your life, never realizing that the very evil you are trying to ward off, is your own.
There is far more value in coming to your own moral and ethical decisions rather than have some medieval book tell you what to you believe.
If you just follow some book, you'll never develop the capacity to think things through, you'll always need to be told what to do, which really isn't value at all.
the problem with dignifying this seemingly reasonable argument is I know (for sure) that it will not progress.
Where do you think morality and ethics began? It began from religion and now it is taken out of religion and has become the standard.
Remember Code of Hammurabi?
This is the beginning:
"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind."
“The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men.- It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter.- It is all pure.”
Locke is one of the founders of modern conceptions of civilization:
"Locke's monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to God, the self, natural kinds and artifacts, as well as a variety of different kinds of ideas. It thus tells us in some detail what one can legitimately claim to know and what one cannot. Locke also wrote a variety of important political, religious and educational works including the Two Treatises of Government, the Letters Concerning Toleration, The Reasonableness of Christianity and Some Thoughts Concerning Education."
Hobbes, The nature of Man
"NATURE, the art whereby God hath made and governs the world, is by the art of man so imitated that he can make an artificial animal. For by art is created that great leviathan called a commonwealth or state, which is but an artificial man; in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion; the magistrates and other officers the joints; reward and punishment the nerves; concord, health; discord, sickness; lastly, the pacts or covenants by which the parts were first set together resemble the fiat' of God at the Creation.
To describe this artificial man, I will consider: First, the matter and the artificer, both which is man; secondly, how it is made; thirdly, what is a Christian commonwealth; lastly, what is the kingdom of darkness."
These are the foundations of morality and ethics of modern society. So run mosey along and be moral and ethical knowing you got it from your religious forefathers (or as some would say, from the Annunaki Aliens)
Hilarious. No wonder there is so much confusion in your posts.
If that were indeed the case, animals got religion. Again --->
Sorry, that's your evidence? As usual, you pull stuff out of thin air in some vain attempt to support your empty claims.
You were right, you were unable to progress the argument.
See, why you even bother is beyond me. You apparently did not take any political science courses where the above is well known to be the foundations of modern society. So once again, it is wasted on you.
That's true, I have never taken a political science course, you got me on that one.
However, that still doesn't explain why we see moral and ethical behavior in other animals when you claim, "Where do you think morality and ethics began? It began from religion..."
So, animals got religion, too? Eelslam? Crocodilianity?
Altruism is not morality.
Ethics and Morality as standards of conduct is a human construct. Religion evolved with the growth of the pre-frontal cortex. It is part of our adaptive mechanisms. If it is not, it will not be around. Nothing in biology is an accident. Even scratching your head, has an evolutionary function. Prostitution, gambling, sports and arts evolved as a response to the need of the species. If religion is not needed, it will die on its own. There is no need to actively kill it. Like the pager, it will be replaced by something else.
Then, why do we see that behavior in animals? You keep trying to divert away from answering this question.
Dog down the road has no morals!! bloody mongrel.
Case in point of you not getting what I said.
let me spell it out.
1. the instances of "morality" that you observe in animals is NOT morality.
2. these are products of the prefrontal cortex which is undeveloped but present,and the prefrontal cortex among mammals is apparently for group survival--we call it altruism.
3. sibling cooperation and protection is a product of the paleomammalian brain which evolved with birds.
4. but the standards of "morality" and "ethics" as a social standard that is imposed upon others is a human societal construct. It is deliberate and is the foundations of our legal system
5.meaning by definition, morality is CODE that is imposed
6. whereas altruism and filial cooperation is instinct from within, without understanding, born out of a neural capacity that evolved as the species progresses.
you get it when it spelled out like that? Because I already told you that altruism is NOT morality. The thing is, you seem to have inadequate grasp of the definitions of the terms you dispense that is why you keep on missing the point. I wish it were true that you were sincere in trying to understand but I seriously doubt it.
Yes, I get what you said, let me repost it here for you:
You're claiming morals and ethics come from religion, yet you've done nothing to show that and have now gone off track diverting the attention away from your claim.
because they have as established by history.
why don't you define morals and ethics.
You have not shown that in the least. Try again.
Are you looking for dictionary definitions or do you want me to make up my own definitions like you do?
Yes, that would be a waste of time indeed. Just get yourself a copy of a textbook on the history of political thought so that you're not so dependent on me on your intellectual growth. Do I have to spoon-feed you everyday? Intellectual hunger must be unbearable for you. Go to a library or google. I've given you enough names.
As for definitions, take them from whatever google site you can muster. I'm just curious what you come up with. Right, you don't google. I'm sure you'll find something.
Yes, a waste of time because the claim is pure baloney and you'll not likely every support it, like so many other claims you make.
Please tell me this is in your upcoming book or at least you are planning on post it, on the biggest billboard anywhere!
Just beautifully presented.
Thanks James, but no. I am afraid the market for sanity is very small.
"But destroying ancient literature, devaluating community centers and invalidating age-old traditions is another kind of insanity."
you addressed nothing. ... and you lied about my position in an attempt to discredit what I said.
If this is the best you can do you should give up.
"I find that people who attack groups of people consistently and without allowance for individuality is fighting a personal demon, a shadow self.:
I find that your personal demon is a reflection of your own indoctrination observable in your posts.
What is being "attacked" here is the hate and loathing expressed in the myths that support religion. There are no allowances made for individuality in religion.
Challenging lies, myths sold as "truth" and half baked psychobabble is driven by decency and morals that have far more depth than projection alone.
Well Earnest, you clearly missed the point. The evils you assign to religion, is not because of religion. It is because of ignorance. I sincerely think that if you strive to understand what Jung and Campbell are saying, you would understand what religion is all about and why it happens. It is not a deliberate tool to fool but the only means to understand for some people who are only at that level of understanding. You cannot force it on them. It will just come in its own time and readiness.
I always say, you can't teach a person something he doesn't already know. In the same way, even if you seem willing, for as long as you insist on duality you will not see what I mean. Ever heard of embracing your shadow? I'm sure you have. But I don't think you fully understand what it means.
And ...also I have no idea about what you're saying that I'm discrediting you or lying about your words. I don't know what you're referring to. I spoke from a position, stating what I don't agree with in general. That was not specific to you.
Isn't it high time that humanity finally worked out that religion, all of them, is based upon the notion that dead people can't ask for a refund and that no one has ever come back to say it's all one big con !
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/05/18/p … -boy-case/
Based on news reports (and what the "fill-in" father figure said), this little boy's mother and her boyfriend (or whoever the "fill-in father" is) went to church every Sunday; and the mother had her Bible in her possession before she was brought for questioning.
The fill-in father figure said something about how it's good that the little boy is now with God and no longer suffering here on Earth.
(Oh - I forgot a couple of prostitution charges, among other charges, the mother faced over the last several years.)
Anyway, maybe some of the people on here who think a little more of people who go to church every week, and keep their Bibles with them, can say some prayers for this one more little guy whose body was abandoned at the side of the road by the individual who brought him into this world. Apparently, people heard her screaming at him the day he was killed. Her Bible sure didn't do this little boy any good.
(Kind of puts all the foolishness that goes on on HubPages, and in the forums, in a little perspective, doesn't it..... I've been seeing the picture of the unidentified, dead, little boy for a couple of days now on the local news - and today they know who he is, and have posted lots of pictures of him. I just thought I'd post something that MATTERS on the forums here before I sign off for a few days, weeks, whatever. )
I guess this is my only way of paying some kind of tribute to a little boy who is no longer here.
That has to be the most ridiculous post I have seen in over 2 years!
What a pile of garbage.
You consider yourself to be better than the rest of the world I see.
That's fine, but I notice you made no comment on the bible passages that calls the atheists in the video fools.
Which religion are you referring to? All religions in general? Or just your usual whipping boys, the christians. Do you hate them? I don't hate them. Who are these haters you are suggesting hate religion? Let us weed them out from within our midst, for , truly, among logical compassionate people, who's logic is it that supports a hateful agenda, but those who do not belong in a peaceful society. Tell us who they are, that we may banish them to some other hate filled place. They are no friends of mine, and time is short before they will set their gaze upon you, for you also have beliefs they find spiteful, and an abomination in their eyes. Everybody is different. One man's palace is another man's hovel. One man's truth is another man's myth.
Oh I see. The video showed some great people who were atheists. I never said atheists were fools. I won't count Richard Dawkins because as a scientist he's rubbish. Plus he did a series in which he stood in front of numerous terrific feats of architecture and declared 'what has religion ever done for us?' He's the biggest, smuggest snob I've ever seen. He's basically just another 'intellectual' who looks down on the working classes for their simple beliefs.
You are still not confronting what your only source of belief had to say in the video about these "fools".
Why is that?
How interesting that you would think the Bible was my only source of belief. I am a Catholic not a Protestant. The Bible is a reference book to my Catholicism. I don't think that atheists are fools. I think that atheists who think that religion is poison are fools, however.
Catholics didn't get their beliefs from the bible? Did you use the quoran then?
I was bought up with a Catholic mother who was educated by nuns who used bibles, especially to hit the kids with.
Religion in the hands of fools like those nuns is a terrible thing. No wonder you hate it so much.
We use the Bible, like I say, but Christianity was being practiced before the book was written don't forget. The basis of my religion is in the Apostolic tradition which has been handed down, hand to hand since the resurrection. The Holy book confirmed these beliefs and so it carried on.
No that has nothing to do with my beliefs.
I became a christian many years later as a young man by the only method that would convince an otherwise intelligent person. Indoctrination.
I would recommend Michael Korda's book, "power, how to get it how to use it" for an insight to how religion works.
Threats are never made by the individual, it is much better to invoke the name of a fearful entity and accept no responsibility for having said it.... just passing on the "word"
Then we have the saved, the forgiven and those on the right path who have decided they are better than others who don't follow their chosen religion even though if they had been born elsewhere their religion would have been entirely different.
Holes you could put a semitrailer through and psychologically unsound.
You talk of threats, of vile doctrine, indoctrination, abuse, that we are all being manipulated like puppets by corrupt men... ....it just goes on and on. The only people I know with the same kind of serious paranoia, were friends of mine with big Weed habits. They held onto and waved their disbelief like a flag.
In the end I just have to say, it is truth to me. We are all a slaves to our beliefs. Our consciences bully us every day. Sometimes I have days when I look out to sea, or gaze down a leafy path and say to myself, what is this shit? It's just stuff. We're all just stuff. And then there is suffering. If none of it means anything, why do I bother. Then I feel pressure to be happy. I like what C S Lewis said; "I don't think God wants us to be happy. I think He wants us to learn to love and to be loved". We can spend a lifetime in a fury about who's got it wrong. Mother Theresa said "None of us can do great things. We can only do things with great love." St. Paul said " If I have faith to move mountains but have not love, I am nothing." These are the things I live by. There is violence and retribution in the Bible, but even Christ said that more important than any other commandment, "love your neighbour as yourself and love your God with all your heart and soul". I have never spent any time thinking about how wrong atheists are, except in their intolerance of religious practice.
The Bible is misused by people wanting to point the finger and say who is saved and not. Who knows who is saved? Who knows what it even means to be saved? We can only examine our own conscience.
I'm sure you will tell me that MY god teaches me hatred and intolerance, to which I might reply, where did you learn these things?
No, you may be a slave to your beliefs but others are not.
You answered your own question.
I found that post quite honest and inspiring -thanks:)
when I was researching for my hub on dragons, I read that the catholic bible has a section missing from the protestant bible about Daniel feeding a dragon a mixture of pitch & hair which made it explode
I didn't know that one. Sounds like a good story. I don't find it interferes with or diminishes my understanding of the Bible as a whole. It's a bit like choosing Tabloids or Broadsheets for your news. Some things entertain people more than others, but there can be no doubt which news is to be taken seriously and not.
And yet, religion causes people to do and say the most ridiculous things, usually a result of not being able to think for themselves and instead relying on a fallacious belief system, here are some good examples:
Humanity is ridiculous. We do so many things that are silly. I love it!
I think you just need to lighten up a bit and stop pillorying religious people as if they're the only ones who've done anything wrong.
It's all in the "good book" which I studied my way through many years ago.
Read the bible.
To it's credit, it has a few thousand less abusive passages invoking fear and hatred than the quoran, which has over 40,000.
There's some pretty wild stuff in the Bible, it's true. That's because it's a history, rather than a manual like the Quoran. The Quoran was written by one person, with one aim. The Bible was firstly a history of the Jews: full of violence, full of things like, 'Samson beat 1000 Philistines to death with the jaw-bone of an Ass. God was well pleased'. 5000 years later come the Gospels, then the Letters and Revelations and so on. It's a compilation of accounts of the life of Christ, followed by thoughts and letters on the subject. The bits we take most seriously are the Gospels. Some of the other stuff doesn't work out of context.
Not much point me saying any of this is there? Not like you're going to have a change of heart.
Time for you to read the quoran.
If you can follow the book, which is all over the place with many processes out of order you will see it has the same source as the bible.
I am willing to change my beliefs in a heartbeat, and am well practiced at moving on in my learning.
Most non believers are the same. Show them a modicum of proof and they will look at it.
That is how they became non believers in the first place despite living amongst a majority of believers, who are instructed by their beliefs to look at life through the wrong end of a funnel.
Islam has its beginnings in the Old Testament yes, descendants of Abraham who branched in a different direction. I should read the Quoran it's true, I've never been adverse to it. It's too easy to spout about Islam these days when we are at war with people who are Muslim. I think most Muslims are as horrified by the Taliban as we are. However, I do think that Muslims in general are most peaceful in Christian countries under Christian based law. You yourself might call this the lesser of two evils.
I'm so glad you've said this. Being open to the truth is the best we can do really. It isn't so much about choosing what to believe, but that in being open to possibilities, truth chooses us.
Thank you. I know many peaceful Muslims and christians in my country.
I do not like much about either religion myself, but it remains a subject we don't discuss further than necessary.
I have made my position clear, then we have remained friends.
They know not to call me to prayer, and I know not to say more than I needed to in defense of my personal space.
That has worked well enough for trust to have developed.
Shows respect for one another Earnest. That's how Ive always treated friends and aquaintances too.
I dont have the need to 'be right' or 'express my faith' at the drop of a hat either.
I think most mature people can get along ,be in for specific reasons -work ,relations,neighbours, formal /informal situations etc.
I still remember a time I picked blueberries alongside a family where 'father' was the head of this Walton type family of 7,Father said jump and they said how high, none of the kids questioned his authority, wifey was a little timid etc.
A couple of nearby adults were overheard to say -Wierd family,which I thought was mean ,but typical of our society when some people just dont like different (than themselves)
But I got to know them a little bit ( we picked for about 3/4 weeks) and they were the nicest people.
Its too bad that people often write 'different people' off by appearances and or beliefs.
We are all a slaves to our beliefs.
No, you may be a slave to your beliefs but others are not.
===== --- ===
We are all prisoners of our own understanding .
That understanding itself is a living entity in its own right !
That thing we call "our understanding" determines who or what we think that we are.
So you might say that "our understanding" created us.
And where does that understanding come from ?
why is your opininions always skewd to those of beelzedad?
really? that is horrifying but no. you're mistaken. Mark is just always being annoying whatever his name is and my fault it, I always for his brand of annoying.
In my experience, Cecilia makes way more sense than beel. Beel is down on "religion", C.B. takes more logical stands because her knowledge seems to be more complete.
Thanks Druid, you are generous and sweet. (It's nice to feel appreciated)
I appreciate the flattery and take that as a compliment. Thanks.
I must tell you that your stamina on this forum is heroic! There are alot of people saying alot of stuff here, but I think it takes more energy to defend than to attack. Well done!
You should seen me in the "cell is conscious" thread. I just can't let the forum overlords take monopoly over opinion. Particularly in subject matters that has a lot of confusion. It is actually quite repetitive. These exchanges have had previous lives, believe me. And they all sound the same. But I appreciate the appreciation.
Yep! People who were here an hour ago would have thought I had a higher hubscore than 99 for example.... where did that 100 go?
Definatly that elusive 100 has not landed on my head
There you go. I saved you 1 second of googling.
[muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
moral quality or character.
virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
[eth-iks] Show IPA
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
[al-troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).
Animal Behavior . behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
MUST I POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCE, OR CAN YOU HANDLE IT FROM HERE?
Yes, I'm up for the entertainment. Go for it.
These are useful starting points, though it is always helpful to state the source of a reference. Helps to give it some kind of authority. Beel could still claim these to be made up.
With that as a caveat, neither of you is particularly helped by this. Morality is defined, but not it's origins. Where it springs from is not part of the definition you supplied, so that one was a non-starter for either of you.
Ethics are clearly a human construct, and as the definition points out can vary between different groups. Ethics are an agreement. Therefore, the source for ethics clearly can vary from group to group. No evidence of a supernatural influence regarding ethics.
Altruism seems to have, as it relates to humans, an element of choice that sets it apart from the animal manifestation of it. There is a consciousness to it that the animal kingdom does not bring to the equation. Same word with two dissimilar applications, really.
In the end, Macchiavelli had a moral standard that he based his ethics on. They are not yours, they do not include any altruistic element, but they are considered and clear. I doubt you would attribute his positions to the Almighty, yet they are clearly presented.
Don't know that your post has made much headway in solving the dilemma you two find yourselves in, but at least it gives a definitional baseline, and that can only help.
Well if you read from where the conversation began, it would help. The source is miriam-webster.
To further the topic of altruism as YOU are discussing it. Altruism developed with the protruding pre-frontal cortex. The larger the forehead, the more capable for altruism (as in the case of dolphins who have been known to save humans from drowning). It is part of a more advance survival mechanism...but from a gene level as Dawkins first proposed. We could philosophize what came first, the breakthrough or the machinery required. The point is, from a genetic level, altruism is beneficial for the progression of the genes. take away one in exchange for preserving many. As for where G-d falls in this. I always say G-d is not an intellectual exercise. The concept exists outside of logic.
There is no dilemma. I am merely pointing out to him that religion was where the standards of morality and ethics emerged from the human consciousness and became part of culture.
As to why, it evolved is another matter.
I would agree, but in this case, the presenting of those terms is a strawman on her part as it does little to support her claim of morals and ethics being imparted divinely.
I would agree with you. I'm still waiting to see how she will support her claim.
my claim? my claim that what? that morals and ethics began with religion? I have already supported it. the thing is I can copy paste the entire history of nations here and record one semester of political science but if you have no fundamental understanding it will be as it is now--pointless.
and please don't associate yourself with reasonable people to look reasonable.
Why is religion hated so much? Because it's more about control than about God and it drives people crazy!
I fully understand your position. I'm simply pointing out that these definitions don't advance your cause of supporting it. Nor do they undermine it. They are an argumentative wash.
I was also aware of your source. Just suggesting that providing that source is a big help when trying to make an argument. That's all.
I have supported that the first account of a standard of morals and ethics was the Code of Hammurabi...then in the modern era...i did not even mention the role of the Jews and the Christians which is also considerable in implementing a standard.
Whether they evolved in our culture to accompany our biological progress towards peace, or they followed it is unclear as of yet. But many scientist believe that these cultural developments including the presence of technology is part of an evolutionary progression towards increased chances of collective survival.
I can recommend further reading. But to you. not to the troll.
Aha! That is totally different. Now, you are claiming that religious folks were "implementing a standard" which is not the same as your original claim that morals and ethics "began from religion".
aha! really? could you please refer back to the definition of morals and ethics... it is a standard a code. while religion is the initial expression, the reason is the biological capacity. the standard began with religion. the instinct that formed morals and ethics in culture was individual anatomical capacity. when our brains evolved, so did our behaviors. it seems quite obvious, except that you really miss the obvious and have to constantly hand held.
So what? Where does it state anywhere in those definitions they originate from religion?
Stringing words together to make a salad?
So, now you've danced around but have changed your tune from religion to evolving brains.
Just can't seem to keep your story straight.
you really have comprehension problem so that's your problem. You wish I was wrong. Good luck and sorry you don't know history.
The Code of Hammurabi is the first written evidence of a law given to a people, but that doesn't speak to the origins of morality, which may predate written language. You have no way to make that case. If you do, however, then your case states that the origin of morality would be in faith of what I'm sure you would consider to be a false God. Something of a pickle.
which is why the definition of morality is a code. ethics is an expectation as imposed by a society. It may have existed before but if it is not a code, then it is a emergent behavior that accompanied an evolved pre-frontal cortex--the term is altruism. Morality is not altruism as I have asserted again and again.
the fact is, history credits these linear development of modern constructs of morality and ethics to the people I mentioned. Now if we are just going to philosophize and conjecture that it existed before without any kind of reference then it is mute. A matter of belief.
I always leave G-d out of the equation. G-d is another topic. the phenomenon of faith and the experience of faith do not belong in the same discussion.
It is perfectly possible to have a morality without the need to believe in a god. When I consider all of the wars over the centuries in the name of religion, I don't think any relgion can claim to take the moral high ground. And even today terrorism and wars are taking place in the name of God, whatever name he happens to be given by His followers.
In answer to the question, I don't think most people, even those with no religious belief actually hate religion, they just don't think that the believers have a right to tell them what they should think. Only people who believe their religion is under threat for whatever reason believe that people who do not share their beliefs are anti-religion. Just because there are many people with beliefs different to your should not make you feel under threat. Everyone is entitled in a democracy to believe in what they want to.
Ethics stems from within a man. It is from the God in man! Why don't you kill your child? Feer of punishment from God? From government? What are these things called mercy, love, emphaty etc? Were you tought in school? Church? Who tought God to be moral?
Beelzedad idea of animals having morals is very correct! I have seen a leopard sharing a prey with hyenas! I was shocked. Infact some animals are more moral than many people posting here. Shame on man!
they are not morals. they are termed altruistic behavior in biology. morals is a human construct. for instance, while a bonobo will risk its own life for another, it will engage in sexual acts considered immoral by a human such as have sex with mother.
wrong! It is moral to share what you have with another. Even some men are also motherf'ckers!
have you ever seen a bull climbing another bull? I am yet to see one. Do the experiment put two of them in the same den. I swear you will never find grass there! Why do catholic priests do that which bulls consider immoral?
No you don't know biology. In man, the 'staters' merely donnot switch when you see your mother! It is just automatic! Had it been switching, having sex with your mother could have been considerd moral!
have you watched discovery channel? Have you seen homosexuality among primates? bulls are not primates. homosexuality seems to be a primate thing. it seems to be a response to curtail population explosion. Reptiles respond differently, the become cannibal reptiles in a full tank, starting from their non-relatives for appetizers.
standard of morality have changed though. now it is immoral to judge gay people as we have reason to believe it is a genetic issue and therefore not their fault. While it was considered immoral particularly by Judeo-Christian religions, the ancient greeks didn't see it as anything to worry about. Morality measures change with cultural awareness.
while rape happens in the animal kingdom on a daily basis, no animal sanctions laws to prevent their fellow animal from doing it again.
that is the difference between morality, ethics and altruism.
This article shows the morality-religion-brain connection.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 123625.htm
"Some scholars claim that religion evolved as an adaptation to solve the problem of cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals, while others propose that religion emerged as a by-product of pre-existing cognitive capacities,"
what about when a chicken ran away from the cock, is it not a way of preventing rape? Donkeys kick, that is their court! The kicker is both the lawyer and punnisher!
I wonder how many here (assuming there are any) can differentiate between hating religion and hating religious people (or simply people who believe in some religion)?
we in the West cannot help feeling a fury towards the perceived damage done by religion as a practice. Considering the wickedest things have been perpetrated by atheistic forces, why is the anger still towards those who believe in God?
= = - -
I THINK that much of the world is disapointed in those christians who think that they are suposed to conquor the world for God in his name, as if God couldn't take it himself any time he wanted to.
And to be honest; i'm a bit disapointed in them other christians that do that myself
Religion is hated so much because it is confusing. It teaches peace but seems to be involved in every war.
It can be annoying, when people preach and you are not in the mood for a sermon......
Religion can be boring.......
Personally i like the bible, but different religions are confusing, i wish we could all agree
I love the one about the serpents.
Try handling an Australian tiger snake in high summer and you will get your wish to be with god very swiftly!
by Mikeydoes6 years ago
Seriously why? Don't get me wrong I am sure this is a waste of time. I really need a forum filter, because I get fed up seeing all these religious topics all saying the same thing. Both sides are to blame. Many people...
by Castlepaloma6 years ago
Most predominate religious countries are more war like, yet Religions claim they have the higher moral grounds. USA has 5% of the world population in which is 85% Religious and they have 50% of the world’s military...
by andycool3 months ago
I've heard so much in the forums about believing and not believing in Religion or God, being atheist or religious or agnostic and so forth, I've just got confused that is there anyone out there concerned about the role...
by Stump Parrish14 months ago
A reader of my local paper (The Spartanburg Herald-Journal www.goupstate.com) sent this comment to our opinion section "The Stroller": TAKE MY CHANCES': "A local reader" observes that as Christmas...
by Jenna Ditsch5 years ago
I am sincerely curious as to why those who do not believe in the existence of God would spend time and energy to convince others to believe the same? I am asking this respectfully and am seeking true, valid...
by Nicole Canfield6 weeks ago
Why is it that Christians believe that Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Native Americans, etc. are all wrong in their beliefs and that they'll all go somewhere horrible when they die? Why can't we just accept that other...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.