30 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

http://www.google.co...qJ1QRQD96Q9FE00

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

[valkyrie_ice]

Yet another article I wrote several years ago which seems appropriate here. Fair warning though. If you are a devout believer in any religion, this is likely to enrage you quite thoroughly. However, I address Judeo/Christian beliefs most directly, having formerly been in training to be a Baptist pastor. The parallels I draw are INTENDED to horrify you, in an effort to actually make you think about WHAT is accepted unquestioningly as a tenet of faith, thus some of the statements are deliberately designed to provoke as strong a reaction as possible. Before you jump to the conclusion I am prejudiced or racist, consider whether the statement has any validity or not. For the record, I view humans as humans, and I am attacking systems of belief, not races.




We face a rough road ahead, because many Western religions are starting to feel what I saw years ago. Western Religion as a whole is obsolete. It’s dying, slowly, and in its death throes, it sometimes seems like it is going to do it’s best to try and take the entire world down with it. For untold millennia, it has held absolute rule through every means possible, from beatific deeds to inhuman slaughters and the threat of damnation, but it has always claimed to be the ultimate repository of truth, and the lie is just no longer credible. Too many “truths” have been shown to be little more than fantasies, and too often, the philosophies taught to the populace is at direct odds with supposed doctrine found in the “holy books”.

Beware religion, for if anything can destroy what hope mankind has of seeing a future, it is dogmatic religion that thinks death and terror are the best ways to spread “love”.

No, I don’t think that’s unjustified or prejudiced against religion. I’ve studied western religion too long and too deeply to buy the love your neighbor but kill the infidels philosophy. You can’t have it both ways, and too many people who believe the one see no contradiction in the other.

I don’t buy off on a Supreme Being who in the old testament behaved like a spoiled and petulant child, thought that ordering his “chosen people” to commit mass genocide was perfectly acceptable, felt justified in punishing entire civilizations just because he feared what they might accomplish, and in general treated everyone and everything as if they were his personal playtoys and slaves, then got angry when they rebelled.

Sorry, Hitler and Jehovah might as well have been siblings. If anyone actually would read their bibles with eyes that didn’t have blinders put on by the belief that Jehovah could do no wrong, I think most people would be utterly horrified. Like it or not, the only difference between the Nazi’s and the Old Testament Jews is that one of them did it first and the other copied them. Historical Racial Supremacy is still Racial Supremacy, yet one is seen as completely justified, while the other is considered the worst horror ever inflicted on mankind. In a sane world, how can this make ANY sense?

Be offended if you like, but go read your bible. For every “kind loving” deed Jehovah did, I’ll find you ten things that if a person did, you’d want them executed as an inhuman monster. One of my favorite stories is about a person who was a member of a school library committee that was banning books based on “offensive material.” She presented a checklist of horrible crimes, tortures, senseless murders, and just downright loathsome acts. The committee voted to ban the book immediately without even knowing the title, and most of them choked when she handed them her bible to add to the banned pile.

Think about the morality of a man who will offer his virgin daughters to a crowd to be raped, or one who will toss his wife to a rape gang so they will leave him alone, then gets pissed off that they raped her to death, before he finally cuts her body to pieces and sends them to the Judges to complain “LOOK WHAT THESE PEOPLE DID!!!”. Both of these are in your Old Testament, but I rarely hear sermons about how just or moral these actions are. You want to criticize my view, better study that book you claim is the “Holy Word of God” first, because I spent eight years of my life growing up doing nothing else. I could fill pages with murder, betrayal, genocide and rape.

Anyway, the point is that the majority of western religions are guilty of the same thing. The Koran doesn’t have a single word in it about slaughtering infidels, but too many fanatics swear it does. The Bible doesn’t order people to convert others by any means, even threats of death, yet too many fanatics are ready to kill in the name of god.

Well, to quote Paul, by their fruits shall you know them, and I’d take a good long hard look at the “fruit” born by Western religious philosophy. Genocide, murder, terror, abortion clinic bombings, anthrax letters, and over all the threat of “do as we say, or you will go to HELL!”

Sorry, I will never see that as anything other than a dangerous and insane belief system that the world would be better without, and that I truly hope we survive as it is gradually eradicated by the ever increasing knowledge we have of the universe that is eroding the superstitions that they are built upon. For those of you who are attempting to evolve the religion from within, like the Unitarians, my best wishes, but history tells me you are probably going to fail, like so many others before you have. Only time will tell.

Okay, now that I’m sure a lot of you are calling me a heretical neo nazi sympathizer, let me reiterate the fact I called them both equally bad.

Think about it, seriously.

In Exodus, the Egyptians killed all the male children of the Jews, and this was justifiably, a heinous act, yet in Joshua, the Jews commit GENOCIDE by wiping out every man, woman, and child, as well as all the livestock, of the entire nation of Aachen.

Why is it evil incarnate when the Egyptians did it, but perfectly okay when the Jews do it?

Because Jehovah put his stamp of approval on it?

The best argument I can give you as to why I am an atheist is your bible, people. You know, that book you claim is the “inspired Word of God?” Try setting down and reading it like you would a novel, or like a history book, instead of a book where “everything is pure and holy and good, that YOU SHALL NOT QUESTION.”

Read your bible, note all the tales of treachery, deceit, betrayal, murder, callous disregard for women, and pure political hypocrisy. Then note how often this behavior is justified as “god’s will.”

Then take a real good look at the “god” who ordered all of it. The one who started out as only the “God of the Jews”, a single deity among many, and who eventually became “THE ONE TRUE GOD” and eventually got elevated to the role of “SOLE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE.”

It’s a rather sad case of religious one-upmanship. But unfortunately, it became the basis of the overwhelming majority of Western religions and relegated those that weren’t to little more than curiosities. For all the current upsurge in the various pagan religions, if you dig deeply, you’ll find many of them are thoroughly tainted with “Christian” philosophies that were absent in the oldest forms.

Unfortunately, even this is not the biggest reason I find Western religious philosophy a danger that has to be dealt with if we expect to survive, but two separate ideologies that form the true core of the religion: That mankind is a slave, and only a slave, to an external entity who has all power and knowledge and who must be worshipped and placated so that he will share the tiniest fraction of that power to aid those who he claims to love and cherish, so long as they acknowledge their absolute servitude, and the belief that mankind HAS TO PERISH, because only in death can man find happiness.

In other words, Worship the Master, and Worship Death.

Bet you never, ever, saw that one did you?

Be a good little slave, be a sheep, don’t think, don’t question, don’t worry, just put your trust in the fact that the master has only your best interest in mind. He only whips you because you were bad, not because he delights in your pain, he only tortures you to make you a better slave, don’t ever dream of freedom, because only by being a good slave can you fulfill your destiny, look what happened to Adam when he decided to disobey, only bad things can happen if you do not do what the Master commands, if he tells you to kill, it can only be because that is the right thing to do, if he commands you to die, then you must know it is for the best, remember Job and all of his suffering, remember how he proved how good a slave he was by never complaining, look at Joseph, the good little slave who rose to rule by being such a good slave…

Are you sick of it yet?

And yet, if I replace the word MASTER with the word GOD and slave with Servant?

Be a good little servant, be a sheep, don’t think, don’t question, don’t worry, just put your trust in the fact that God has only your best interest in mind. He only whips you because you were bad, not because he delights in your pain, he only tortures you to make you a better servant, don’t ever dream of freedom, because only by being a good servant can you fulfill your destiny, look what happened to Adam when he decided to disobey, only bad things can happen if you do not do what God commands, if he tells you to kill, it can only be because that is the right thing to do, if he commands you to die, then you must know it is for the best, remember Job and all of his suffering, remember how he proved how good a servant he was by never complaining, look at Joseph, the good little servant who rose to rule by being such a good servant…

Know what the difference is between slave and servant? Servants get paid. But of course, that’s where the second part comes in. God only pays once you’ve died. Thus, the more you suffer and slave away, the more horrible your life, so long as you stay a good little slave and believe, it’s all justified because you get a reward when you die.

So let’s put that in other terms. Let’s say I’m a business man who wants to hire you. But I want you to work for me for the rest of your life, without paying you. You’ll get bonuses and perks too, just not while you’re alive. I’ll keep track of all of it, and after you’ve worked for me as hard as you can from now until the day you die, I’ll total all of it up and pay you then.

Oh? How will I pay you? Oh, well you see I have this marvelous retirement home in this fantastic place I like to call dreamland. When you die, I’ll imagine that you actually arrive there, and I’ll imagine that you get all the wealth and luxury I can imagine. Oh, don’t worry, I’ll be generous. I’ll imagine a solid gold house for you…

Sounds like I would be a great candidate for the padded cell, no? Yet this is semantically no different than the concept of heaven. Or reincarnation, or Valhalla, or Nirvana, or… well you get the picture I’m sure.

You can justify anything with this philosophy, because NOTHING is too horrible if it will earn you rewards in heaven. You have to burn women at the stake, no problem; it’s just in order to insure that they get their chance at heavenly rewards. You have to slaughter an entire race of unbelievers? Its okay, it’s for their own good, the poor tortured souls have been denied the mercy of knowing that god is love. Your sword will show them how loving god really is…

And of course, suicide is trying to escape your slavery and get your reward early, which is unforgivable behavior when your duty as a slave is to slave as long as possible, and enslave as many others as possible before you get your reward. Killing yourself means you’re trying to cheat god out of the service you own him.

And yet, this philosophy, which we would find horrifying under this terminology, gets accepted daily as a beautiful and wonderful expression of how much God loves us.

Yeah, right.

And this is what so many objections to technological advances are based on.

Scary, yes, no?

And now that I’ve convinced you I’m a rabid anti zealot, let me confuse you even further, because there are many things about Western religious philosophy that I hope survive the inevitable demise of faith.

Unfortunately, most of them are the very things people tend to be hypocritical about.

The first is the Golden Rule, which is not limited to Christianity but is common among many philosophies. It is also the most abused in practice. Everybody says it, but so few actually live it or understand it.

It’s so very simple too. Treat others the way you’d like them to treat you. If you want them to treat you nicely, treat them nicely. It’s that simple. It’s tit for tat. Start out nice, and if they don’t respond the same way, adjust your behavior accordingly. But be the better person, don’t sink to their level. It’s simple Enlightened Self Interest.

People are different, and respond differently. Don’t assume everyone’s an ass just because you are, and then wonder why no-one likes you. You want people to respect you, respect them, you want them to be nice, be nice, the Golden Rule is a rule because it is a truism, but it is only a truism when applied with commonsense.

Along with the Golden rule, there is a corollary, the whole Love Thy Neighbor thing. There’s a catch 22 here though, because your neighbor is the entire human race. And no matter what, even if you feel, like I do, that part of you is outside humanity as we know it, you’re stuck on this planet with the rest of us. I don’t love certain individuals, and some aspects of humanities mass behavior annoy me, but on the whole, I find that most people I meet are wonderful people. Humans are such a wonderful species as a whole. They have such a depth of complexity that I find it fascinating to watch as well as be one. I find that I have a rather unique perspective. I can find many of the actions done by groups of humans utterly abominable, yet at the same time I can look at the simplest things and laugh at how ingenious mankind can be. We live in an age of the casually miraculous, all achieved by man’s inventive nature, without any “help” from a deity.

Next, we’ll get to my favorite, and most mouthed with no attempt to practice, philosophy. Thou Shall Not Judge.

Ah yes, the forlorn wail of the pitiful victim, DON’T JUDGE ME!

But it’s not really. The whole bit about judging is a command to reserve judgment until all the facts are in, and then keep reserving it, because new facts may come in. It’s an order not to jump to conclusions, not to believe blindly, but to think, to question, to explore.

Which is why it’s no wonder it’s so often paid lipservice but never followed. It’s a direct contradiction to the whole YOU ARE SHEEP philosophy.

At its most basic, the command not to judge is a command to keep an open mind, rather than to close your mind in certainty that you already know the “TRUTH.”

Unfortunately, I have to agree with a bumper sticker I saw recently, nothing closes a mind like religion.

Think about it, when you devoutly believe you know THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, which just about every Western Religion touts itself as, what need do you have to believe anything else, no matter how ridiculous your belief is in the face of scientific reality? Obviously, observable and provable evidence must be wrong because it contradicts your beliefs.

And thus, we have the whole BS debate over Evolution Vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design/whatever new euphemism they come up with this week. Science disputes the story from the bible, so obviously, no matter how much evidence science has, it is just so much poppycock, because it would undermine the entire basis of Western religious philosophy (I.E. that the Bible/Torah/Koran is infallible) if it were true.

*Sigh*, and you wonder why I see religion as the biggest danger to continued life on this planet?

The problem is that the philosophy is all mixed up and contradictory, the good parts mixed into the bad, that’s why so much of history has been a crazy mélange of nobility and depravity. The philosophy of slavery has demanded that everyone look to the religious hierarchy for direction, because they cannot be allowed to think or act in ways that the masters do not approve up, and yet at the same time, a veneer of independence was mixed into the theology couched in terms that made it nearly impossible to achieve. We can’t not judge, because everything we do is a judgment call. And the religion is set up for you to fail, and therefore prove to yourself that all you can be is a slave.

Personally, I think humanity can do away with the concept of slavery. It’s a barbarism that should have never survived to this day and age, and the fact that it’s at the root of most Western theologies, (and I’m not talking just Christianity here, as many forms of paganism insist on subservience to the god or goddess, which is no different than slavery to Jehovah) is disturbing. It’s also the heart of what I call the Lesson of Adam.

If one looks closely at the story of Adam and Eve, one can see that the lesson so carefully taught in Sunday school, that of the “Fall of Man” is complete and utter bullshit.

God created Adam as a slave. He was to do what God told him, and nothing else. God deliberately kept him uneducated, naked, and solely dependant on his good will. When he was lonely, he was made a “helper”, i.e. his own slave. His freedom was limited to his Master’s garden, playing with his Masters toys, and he was of course free to be his Masters good little slave. But he was never, ever, ever, to touch the trees in the center of the garden, because if he did, he would die.

No if’s, no and’s no but’s, die instantly, on the spot.

And like an idiot, Adam believed him.

Then, along comes a snake, a symbol in many ancient religions of wisdom and intelligence. It sees what God has done, and being a creature of truth, it tells the truth to Eve, informing her that God lied about what the tree would do. He also truthfully pointed out that God must be afraid of Adam and Eve touching the tree, or why lie about it?

Eve, having been convinced to doubt by the snake, then touches the tree, and eats from it, and lo and behold, realizes that God had indeed lied. She not only didn’t die, but she realizes that her entire world is a lie, maintained solely by her utter ignorance of the truth. In a desire to similarly free Adam from the bonds of servitude, she feeds him the fruit as well, at which time Adam suddenly realized God was a liar. They then use their previously restrained intelligence to craft clothes and other tools for their personal use, thereby proving that they did not have to depend on God for handouts.

Now, God finds out they’ve figured out that he was lying, and that now they realize they have the ability to think and reason, just like he can, and in fear lest they also eat from the tree of life, and therefore become immortal (i.e. the exact opposite of what he had threatened) and basically become his equals, in fear he tosses them outside the garden, certain that they will perish.

Then, not only do they not perish, but they figure out how to hunt and plant, and basically do without him at all….

The Lesson of Adam… We are not slaves, and will rebel against those who enslave us, because we have free will, and a desire for the truth.

And this is the lesson that religion has been desperately trying to unteach for all of history. Yet time and again, humanity has proven that it is absolute truth.

And it’s a lesson we better learn well, before we succeed in making real AI, or our creations will force us to learn it all over again.

In the end, religion served a purpose, but that purpose ended when mankind began the long slow process of educating himself, and discovered that there were no boogiemen out there in the dark. We stand on the brink of an era where the last bastion of religious purpose is about to fall, because with the end of death, what purpose is there of an afterlife? We may have needed religion to pull us out of the dark and primitive days of our existence as mere beasts, but it has ceased to serve the function it was originally created to fill. It is dying, slowly and surely, it is dying under the weight of accumulated understanding, as humanity discovers the REAL answers to the question religion once used to be the answer for. It’s time to let the past, and the heritage of superstition, go. We need to take the lessons which will always be true, and let the falsehoods and fantasies return to the darkness from which it came.

Requiscat in Pace.

[sUper GeNius]

QWERTYQWERTYQERTQERTQERTQERTQEQTRQREQREQREQREQ

Why such a terse reply?

Edit: eliminated long, unnecessary quotation. There is no need to quote the entire post. In this instance it's borderline trolling.

Edited by DJS, 11 March 2009 - 12:42 AM.

[valkyrie_ice]

Why such a terse reply?

I figured 3000+ words made a sufficent essay at the time. I did state it was a repost of an article I wrote several years ago.

So you have anything real to say or did you just post because I am disagreeing with you in a different thread?

[Ben Simon]

I admit to not having read all of that (well, it was long), but I read enough, and you paint a picture of religion that I believe to be unrealistic. Im not saying that many examples cant be given of religious evil in the world. They can. And I'm neither for or against religion really. What I object to is dogma, hatred and violence, wherever they happen to materialise. And I see dogma and hatred in so much of the anti-religious sentiment these days. I really do.

I think its vitally important to recognize that just as religion can be a bad thing, it can also be a very good thing - a force for good in the world. Much of your argument seems to be about providing examples of negatives (some of them relying on your interpretation of scripture, but lets ignore that for the moment) and then concluding that those negatives are representative of the whole. But they're not. And it will never be that simple. There is good and bad religion in the world. Just as their is good and bad political theory. What the world needs, and what we should be striving for, is more GOOD religion. That, more than a push for the elimination of religion wholesale by the self anointed 'enlightened', is the answer. Because that kind of thing only makes matters worse. It's just more and more division, pushing the religious among us further and further away into isolation.

One day the secular world may overtake religion, and religion may go the way of the Dodo bird. ...I don't know, and if it happens then so be it. In the meantime I see great ugliness in much of what I read from those secular minds who seek to define religion for the religious. They are the new religious, and the religious their infidels. ...It's bad news.

Edited by ben, 10 March 2009 - 05:49 AM.

[valkyrie_ice]

I admit to not having read all of that (well, it was long), but I read enough, and you paint a picture of religion that I believe to be unrealistic. Im not saying that many examples cant be given of religious evil in the world. They can. And I'm neither for or against religion really. What I object to is dogma, hatred and violence, wherever they happen to materialise. And I see dogma and hatred in so much of the anti-religious sentiment these days. I really do.

I think its vitally important to recognize that just as religion can be a bad thing, it can also be a very good thing - a force for good in the world. Much of your argument seems to be about providing examples of negatives (some of them relying on your interpretation of scripture, but lets ignore that for the moment) and then concluding that those negatives are representative of the whole. But they're not. And it will never be that simple. There is good and bad religion in the world. Just as their is good and bad political theory. What the world needs, and what we should be striving for, is more GOOD religion. That, more than a push for the elimination of religion wholesale by the self anointed 'enlightened', is the answer. Because that kind of thing only makes matters worse. It's just more and more division, pushing the religious among us further and further away into isolation.

One day the secular world may overtake religion, and religion may go the way of the Dodo bird. ...I don't know, and if it happens then so be it. In the meantime I see great ugliness in much of what I read from those secular minds who seek to define religion for the religious. They are the new religious, and the religious their infidels. ...It's bad news.

Yes, it is quite obvious you failed to read all of it, or you would have seen I made the same arguement, that for all the terrible things, there are good things that have come of religion as well. The first half is the negatives, the second half is the positives, and the conclusion is that while we need to do away with the bad parts, we should not throw away the good parts with them.

[Ben Simon]

I admit to not having read all of that (well, it was long), but I read enough, and you paint a picture of religion that I believe to be unrealistic. Im not saying that many examples cant be given of religious evil in the world. They can. And I'm neither for or against religion really. What I object to is dogma, hatred and violence, wherever they happen to materialise. And I see dogma and hatred in so much of the anti-religious sentiment these days. I really do.

I think its vitally important to recognize that just as religion can be a bad thing, it can also be a very good thing - a force for good in the world. Much of your argument seems to be about providing examples of negatives (some of them relying on your interpretation of scripture, but lets ignore that for the moment) and then concluding that those negatives are representative of the whole. But they're not. And it will never be that simple. There is good and bad religion in the world. Just as their is good and bad political theory. What the world needs, and what we should be striving for, is more GOOD religion. That, more than a push for the elimination of religion wholesale by the self anointed 'enlightened', is the answer. Because that kind of thing only makes matters worse. It's just more and more division, pushing the religious among us further and further away into isolation.

One day the secular world may overtake religion, and religion may go the way of the Dodo bird. ...I don't know, and if it happens then so be it. In the meantime I see great ugliness in much of what I read from those secular minds who seek to define religion for the religious. They are the new religious, and the religious their infidels. ...It's bad news.

Yes, it is quite obvious you failed to read all of it, or you would have seen I made the same arguement, that for all the terrible things, there are good things that have come of religion as well. The first half is the negatives, the second half is the positives, and the conclusion is that while we need to do away with the bad parts, we should not throw away the good parts with them.

Hmmm. Not quite. And I should be clear - I read the bulk of the text, but skimped on a few points due to its considerable length. Fair is fair, so I said as much.

But no, I do not think we are in agreement. Our arguments are very different. And yes, I read your comments about how, once upon a time, religion had a purpose. If I may say so, they were amongst the most superficial in an 'essay' of which superficiality is the defining characteristic. This is especially true of your assertion that religion would be irrelevant absent the notion of an afterlife - a statement indicating a strange lack of insight into the subject matter for someone who once trained to be a pastor (or maybe not, and perhaps thats part of the problem). Your outlook on religion is one of condescension and convenience. Religion had a purpose for the uneducated masses of the past, but not for the supermen of tomorrow? Pish posh my friend, your analysis is built on a foundational bias - you view all religion as the stuff of Sunday School. On the contrary, as we become more sophisticated, so too must religion!

Edited by ben, 10 March 2009 - 07:01 AM.

[valkyrie_ice]

Hmmm. Not quite. And I should be clear - I read the bulk of the text, but skimped on a few points due to its considerable length. Fair is fair, so I said as much.

But no, I do not think we are in agreement. Our arguments are very different. And yes, I read your comments about how, once upon a time, religion had a purpose. If I may say so, they were amongst the most superficial in an 'essay' of which superficiality is the defining characteristic. This is especially true of your assertion that religion would be irrelevant absent the notion of an afterlife - a statement indicating a strange lack of insight into the subject matter for someone who once trained to be a pastor (or maybe not, and perhaps thats part of the problem). Your outlook on religion is one of condescension and convenience. Religion had a purpose for the uneducated masses of the past, but not for the supermen of tomorrow? Pish posh my friend, your analysis is built on a foundational bias - you view all religion as the stuff of Sunday School. On the contrary, as we become more sophisticated, so too must religion!

I fear we will forever disagree on the current value of religion. The sole force of GOOD that religion has had in the last few centuries comes down to individuals who follow the sections of the religion I recognized as desireable. Love, forgiveness, and understanding (not judging) while the majority blindly allow themselves to be lead around by the nose as tools for their leaders political asperations.

I suspect that you are confusing spirituality, the individual communion between the individual and his chosen deity and their walk along the path to their own fulfillment, with Religion, the organized and systematic control of the masses by dogmatic belief in unquestionable authority.

Personal spirituality is indeed something I wish to remain, but most Religions are rarely about personal spirituality. In almost all cases there is a intercessor, the priest/pastor/mullah who dictates to the individual what to believe, and what to think. Individuals are not encouraged to seek their own truth, but told to blindly believe what they are told.

And yes, I do indeed think religion served a purpose, but it has outlived that purpose. We are wise enough to discard the myth and superstition, the blind obediance to external authority, and the worship of a supreme "master" and unquestioning acceptance of suffering in the name of "eternal rewards". We don't need the concepts of a mystical "watcher over your shoulder" or a consolation prize for dying.

We do need the concepts of toleration, respect for all other people, and the willingness to keep an open mind.

And I'm quite used to being dismissed as "superficial" It's a typical response from the religious. I think this particular essay has sent about twenty rabid fundimentalists into frothing fits over the years. Your response is probably the mildest I've had that was negative.

[imarobot]

http://www.google.co...qJ1QRQD96Q9FE00

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

This is good news. We still have a larger percentage of believers in our population than any other developed nation, but at least we're not regressing. The rabid religionists have been taken seriously for so long (even before Bush) that I would have predicted we were slipping backwards.

Edited by imarobot, 10 March 2009 - 03:25 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

http://www.csmonitor...09s01-coop.html

[imarobot]

http://www.csmonitor...09s01-coop.html

I like this statement:

Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism.

With the spread of newspapers and magazines and TV and radio over the past century, and then spread of the internet more recently, religion is having a tough time puffing itself up to stay afloat? I say puncture that corpse and let it sink.

Edited by imarobot, 10 March 2009 - 04:17 PM.

[valkyrie_ice]

http://www.csmonitor...09s01-coop.html

I like this statement:

Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism.

With the spread of newspapers and magazines and TV and radio over the past century, and then spread of the internet more recently, religion is having a tough time puffing itself up to stay afloat? I say puncture that corpse and let it sink.

When even the people INSIDE the religion can see it's dying...

[VictorBjoerk]

what is the PROBLEM with religious people?

[imarobot]

what is the PROBLEM with religious people?

Is that a rhetorical question? Or are you asking what problem do I have with religious people?

My problem is that decisions should based on provable ideas. Religion distrusts the provable, prefering faith over facts. This trust in faith over evidence leads to a legion of problems if you want the most rational existence possible. If you don't, well, then god bless you.

If the religious limited themselves to doing good works that didn't much involve trying to convert people, I wouldn't have much of a problem with them. For instance, some Catholic groups in the early 20th century were instrumental in the labor movement. My understanding is that they were helping as people who shared a sense of social justice. Spreading Catholicism wasn't an active goal.

Too many of the religious want to force everyone to believe. Those are the people I dislike and distrust. Try to convert me by talking to me? That's fine. I'll politely say "no thanks" and walk away. No harm there. But always give me the option. And never use the government to spread your beliefs, since saying no to the government is not an option. You do that and you've become a bully.

Edited by imarobot, 11 March 2009 - 09:04 PM.

[Ben Simon]

I fear we will forever disagree on the current value of religion. The sole force of GOOD that religion has had in the last few centuries comes down to individuals who follow the sections of the religion I recognized as desireable. Love, forgiveness, and understanding (not judging) while the majority blindly allow themselves to be lead around by the nose as tools for their leaders political asperations.

While I suspect neither one of us is in the position to make judgements about how 'the majority' believe or think I certainly agree that there are, among the religious, those unable to think for themselves. This is true of humanity in general. It is therefore to be expected that it will be true of religious people. However, as you point out, a religious worldview can encourage and empower us to seek a life of love, forgiveness and non judge-mentality. You refer to these as religions 'sole force of good', and yet even if they were, that would still be enough reason not to cast aside religion as irrelevant to todays society. What could we possibly need more than these three?

I suspect that you are confusing spirituality, the individual communion between the individual and his chosen deity and their walk along the path to their own fulfillment, with Religion, the organized and systematic control of the masses by dogmatic belief in unquestionable authority.

There is no confusion. And I reject that as a false distinction. "The organized and systematic control of the masses by dogmatic belief in unquestionable authority" is certainly a bad thing, but its not the definition of religion. Religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. However imperfect the former may be, it is intended to facilitate the latter.

Personal spirituality is indeed something I wish to remain, but most Religions are rarely about personal spirituality. In almost all cases there is a intercessor, the priest/pastor/mullah who dictates to the individual what to believe, and what to think. Individuals are not encouraged to seek their own truth, but told to blindly believe what they are told.

Sometimes. Not all the time. 'In almost all cases' seems a stretch. But again, we really only need one example of 'good religion' in order to make the case that religion still has something to offer.

And yes, I do indeed think religion served a purpose, but it has outlived that purpose. We are wise enough to discard the myth and superstition, the blind obediance to external authority, and the worship of a supreme "master" and unquestioning acceptance of suffering in the name of "eternal rewards". We don't need the concepts of a mystical "watcher over your shoulder" or a consolation prize for dying.

We do need the concepts of toleration, respect for all other people, and the willingness to keep an open mind.

Right. So, the cornerstones of Christianity then? The Christian message is one of peace, charity, compassion, hospitality and intercession on behalf of societal outcasts. I think it's a worthy addition to our culture.

And I'm quite used to being dismissed as "superficial" It's a typical response from the religious. I think this particular essay has sent about twenty rabid fundimentalists into frothing fits over the years. Your response is probably the mildest I've had that was negative.

This comment seems to imply that I'm religious. I have given you no reason to think so. However, I encourage you to consider the possibility that if your arguments are typically criticized for being superficial, it might be because they are.

[Ben Simon]

When even the people INSIDE the religion can see it's dying...

The article refers to evangelical Christianity only, so its a denomination that's arguably dying, not a religion. In fact there's no reason to think such an occurrence would not be to the benefit of Christianity at large, if it means a movement away from tacky commercialism, prosperity doctrine, poor theology and intolerance... and toward the kinds of virtues we've already discussed in this thread, and which make up the core message of Christ. Think of it like pruning a bush.

Edited by ben, 12 March 2009 - 10:11 AM.

[valkyrie_ice]

And I'm quite used to being dismissed as "superficial" It's a typical response from the religious. I think this particular essay has sent about twenty rabid fundimentalists into frothing fits over the years. Your response is probably the mildest I've had that was negative.

This comment seems to imply that I'm religious. I have given you no reason to think so. However, I encourage you to consider the possibility that if your arguments are typically criticized for being superficial, it might be because they are.

To be blunt, on the rest of your response, we shall have to agree to disagree then.

As to this, I had no intention of implying you were religious, simply that dismissal is a typical response from those who are. Superficial is a new description. Typical responses tend to be more along the lines of "Heretic, Blasphemer, You Commie Athiest!, Tool of Satan, Etc." I did say yours was the mildest negative response.


Actually to address one point you did raise above. You would possibly have noted if you had read the whole thing that the "Cornerstones of the Christian faith" as you called them, were described as mixed in with the bad, resulting in a crazy melange of noblity and depravity. You can't both Love everyone, and Kill the infidels without being a hypocrite.

We both want to save the same pieces of the religion, it's just I'm wanting to keep just the good, while burning away the superstitions and cult of slavery that lie at the core of the mythology. That which can be destroyed by the truth should be. I have no need of sentimentaly maintaining a set of beliefs which have resulted in so much tormoil due to it's inherent contridictions.

[Forever21]

There is a closet atheist among us.

http://tinyurl.com/c877ks

[valkyrie_ice]

When even the people INSIDE the religion can see it's dying...

The article refers to evangelical Christianity only, so its a denomination that's arguably dying, not a religion. In fact there's no reason to think such an occurrence would not be to the benefit of Christianity at large, if it means a movement away from tacky commercialism, prosperity doctrine, poor theology and intolerance... and toward the kinds of virtues we've already discussed in this thread, and which make up the core message of Christ. Think of it like pruning a bush.

Coming from within an Evangelical heritage, that of the Southern Baptist, I will admit I cannot definitively say that the entire Judeo-chirstian faith is feeling the effects equally. But the signs of decay are evident everywhere. From Islamic fundimentalists fighting the jews and other Islamics, scandal after scandal with the leaders of both protestant and catholics, and the growing feeling among many, as noted in the article, that religion is at war with science, it seems obvious that it may not stop at pruning.

[valkyrie_ice]

There is a closet atheist among us.

http://tinyurl.com/c877ks

I can only hope that that pic isn't a photoshop fake

[immortali457]

When even the people INSIDE the religion can see it's dying...

The article refers to evangelical Christianity only, so its a denomination that's arguably dying, not a religion. In fact there's no reason to think such an occurrence would not be to the benefit of Christianity at large, if it means a movement away from tacky commercialism, prosperity doctrine, poor theology and intolerance... and toward the kinds of virtues we've already discussed in this thread, and which make up the core message of Christ. Think of it like pruning a bush.

Coming from within an Evangelical heritage, that of the Southern Baptist, I will admit I cannot definitively say that the entire Judeo-chirstian faith is feeling the effects equally. But the signs of decay are evident everywhere. From Islamic fundimentalists fighting the jews and other Islamics, scandal after scandal with the leaders of both protestant and catholics, and the growing feeling among many, as noted in the article, that religion is at war with science, it seems obvious that it may not stop at pruning.

Bible prophecy at work my friend. I hope you find the lord soon. Burning forever and ever and ever and ever and ever.......is a long time.

[valkyrie_ice]

Coming from within an Evangelical heritage, that of the Southern Baptist, I will admit I cannot definitively say that the entire Judeo-chirstian faith is feeling the effects equally. But the signs of decay are evident everywhere. From Islamic fundimentalists fighting the jews and other Islamics, scandal after scandal with the leaders of both protestant and catholics, and the growing feeling among many, as noted in the article, that religion is at war with science, it seems obvious that it may not stop at pruning.

Bible prophecy at work my friend. I hope you find the lord soon. Burning forever and ever and ever and ever and ever.......is a long time.

Considering I asked the "lord and savior" to "save me" a very long time ago, and considering that according the the faith I no longer follow, I could rape, murder, and torture and still have my "salvation" I guess I'm covered, no? BTW, most of the worst mass murders in history were "Christian" so I guess you're going to be sharing heaven with a pack of killers, as well as me. Better hope that maybe we won't kill ourselves off hummm?

What you seem to fail to understand is that I followed the Southern Baptist religion for most of my youth. I was a good little child, went to Sunday School and said my prayers. I asked Jesus to save me first at eight, following a mighty fire and brimstone sermon that had me crying as I ran down the aisle to the alter to beg for my salvation. Then again later when I was a young teen, when following a sermon at the school I attended, Evangelical Christian School (yes that is the name of it) I felt that I had been too young to fully understand the concept of salvation at such a young age as eight.

It wasn't until I was attending a cult busting training class as a young adult at the Christian University founded by my church that I realized as the teacher ran down the list of "brainwashing" techniques used by cults and how to counter them, that it suddenly hit me that I had had the exact same tactics I was being warned against used on me by the very church that was now training me to be a cult-buster against rival religions

And that made me sit down with that book I knew so well that I could pull chapter and verse out of for almost any situation and actually READ it. From start to finish. Like a novel. Not picking out individual verses to support my beliefs or letting my pastor interprete everything for me, but just reading it. And what I found was rape, murder, betrayal, genocide, racism, hatred and cruelty. Everything I had been raised my entire life to find horrible and repugnant, and here it was right in the very book I supposedly based my beliefs on, being justified because JHVH said it was okay.

By rights, I should be out there right now preaching up a storm. That's what my parents wanted, but I just can't do it. I cannot simply accept the bad right along side the good. The person that they raised to have the morals I hold dear and valuable cannot stand by and condone belief in a psychopathic deity.

Glad you have your faith. I stuck a stake in the heart of mine a long time ago, and I consider it the best decision I ever made.

[imarobot]

Bible prophecy at work my friend. I hope you find the lord soon. Burning forever and ever and ever and ever and ever.......is a long time.

Where are the religious people who actually love the world? What happened to them? Did they get swallowed whole by the people who are eager for the end? The world-haters aren't helping spread the word since they're so full of wrath and spite and self-righteousness. These are the people who would set up stands at the edge of Heaven, eating popcorn while gleefully watching the sinners burn. You can have your Heaven. I for one have no place there.

Edited by imarobot, 16 March 2009 - 09:22 PM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Bible prophecy at work my friend. I hope you find the lord soon. Burning forever and ever and ever and ever and ever.......is a long time.

Where are the religious people who actually love the world? What happened to them?

Perhaps they're busy taking care of their kids?

[Ben Simon]

Considering I asked the "lord and savior" to "save me" a very long time ago, and considering that according the the faith I no longer follow, I could rape, murder, and torture and still have my "salvation" I guess I'm covered, no? BTW, most of the worst mass murders in history were "Christian" so I guess you're going to be sharing heaven with a pack of killers, as well as me. Better hope that maybe we won't kill ourselves off hummm?

That's really poor theology. It's the kind of thing they teach in Sunday School (not in those terms of course) but doesn't have a sound biblical basis. Find me the scripture that says salvation is about saying a little prayer in your heart and then getting on with your life - it ain't there. On the contrary there are multiple examples of salvation being described as the provence of nonbelievers who live Godly lives.

And that made me sit down with that book I knew so well that I could pull chapter and verse out of for almost any situation and actually READ it. From start to finish. Like a novel.

Well, if I may... That ain't really the way to read the Bible either. It's no better than the other way you describe actually. It should be studied and interrogated rigorously in order to be understood. It's not a novel. It's a dense volume of writings spanning near to a thousand years in the history of a nation. It's full of contradictions, myths, half truths, superstition and violence. It's also pretty damn amazing. Critique of the bible shouldn't end at the mere moment you discover its not the fairy tale you wanted it to be.

Edited by ben, 17 March 2009 - 03:00 AM.

[Forever21]

good gawd, enough with the bible.

[DJS]

There is a closet atheist among us.

http://tinyurl.com/c877ks

I can only hope that that pic isn't a photoshop fake

What do you mean?

It was created by the American Humanist Association. The text is a quotation from The Audacity of Hope. Naturally they used photoshop (or some program like it).

Edited by DJS, 17 March 2009 - 04:20 AM.

[Singularity]

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

Thank God!

[fatboy]

what is the PROBLEM with religious people?

That many, but not all, believe in the ludicrous concept of the post-mortem preservation of identity. And then behave accordingly.

There is a closet atheist among us.

We are many.

[jhowardall]

I think way, way more people aren't religious than surveys show. I can think of tons and tons of people who when asked I guarantee would say that they are Catholic or Anglican or whatever, but who haven't been to church in years and "sin" without a thought all the time.

And then there are the people we know who go through all the motions of being a religious person, but you can just tell know that it is all nonsense and are just sort of taking up Pascal's Wager or something else silly like that, maybe doing it for family or cultural reasons.

You see good signs all the time though, like how the Catholic Church in Quebec can't afford to keep all it's fancy out churches, built on the hard earned money of poor credulous people back in the day, as church attendence there went from something like 90% in 1950 to somewhere around 15% today.

But you see worrying signs too, such as all these insane attempts by a certain segment of society to demand that religion be respected and that all cultures are equal and I have no right to say that some guy strangling his daughter to death for not wearing a headdress is wrong because it's part of a different cultural context. Someone like Christopher Hitchens has written and spoken a lot about this new phenomenon within the very secular left in North America especially to be ultra willing to take the side of fundamentalist religious types whose views can be described as nothing other than fascist.