You know that if you'd been born in a country that has another religion you would probably not believe in Jesus at all. If you think about it, its not hard to understand why they invented religions. They did it to explain things like evolution and astronomy, lightning and thunder, death etc I say we don't need religion anymore, it kills more people then it saves
I'll agree with Reid that if you were born in a country that doesnt believe in Jesus, then you probably wouldn't, too. This is to say that you just wouldn't be reared at all to do so. Parent's are supposed to teach their kids values and ethics. Some choose to do this through religion, like Christianity. If you'd think about it, athiesm is a religion, as well. Nobodies' free from religion, and thats because EVERYONE has beliefs. From that reasoning I think it's safe to say that religion doesn't kill people, obsession does. The more extremist you become, the further you stray from religion. Most, if not all of the religions there are, have similar values and place humanity above all else. And reid, although you might not be a practicing, traditional, religionists, you still have a religion (athiesm) and you still have values, and as a human, those are things you can't escape. In my opinion, religion wasn't invented to explain the unknown, but more to accept it. Hell, it wasn't even invented, it's always been around.
Yes invented is the wrong word, but someone started them so they could slowly evolve into new religions
And dont forget all the people in other countries who dont belive in Jesus are Damned to eternal hell. The one and only purpose of religion is to keep a supply of stupid people to entertain me.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
well......... Atheism is not a religion. A beleif (or lack of one) doesn't necessarily mean it's a religion.
I concur, and it at least looks like from my standpoint that since science is advancing through leaps and bounds and proving new things while religion just stays the same way that more and more people will migrate to our 'religion of science (anyone ever read 'Foundation?').' I think before religion really disapears all of these hardcore fascists at the heads of the generally big religions will have to die out to be replaced by more liberal people. Hopefully it won't be outside of my lifespan!
Actually ... While I think humanity only stands to gain from the end of Christianity, a couple of points for the discussion. What actually makes me laugh like mad is this absurd assumption of a noble human spirit corrupted by Christianity: • Reid leaping from Christianity to all religion in the space of seconds. • Reid's notion of deliberation in religion: someone started them so they could slowly evolve into new religions. • Neutrino's leap to all religions. • Supernova's apologism. • Pollux's direct leap to all religion. In the topic post (Reid), I see a couple of valid points: - One's religion determined by cultural factors. - Reasons for religious suppositions. But the broader attack is utterly pointless. We know, for instance, that Christianity does an enormous amount of human damage, but there are two vital errors. First, that it kills more people than it saves. In terms of the "going to heaven" saving, I agree entirely. But everybody is so damn obsessed with things like rape and murder and war that they don't notice what the religious psychology does, in fact, contribute. Adam, for instance, recently stood on the point that atheism is the natural state by birth. We had a row about the transitory nature of the natural state, but that aside, as the analogy goes, we see that in the natural state after birth, all is instinctive at best, and largely incapable. And this is whence rises the misplaced fear by religionists that a lack of religion equals a lack of morality. Atheism is, by and large, a reaction to the Judeo-Christian ethic which makes God nonsensical. As I believe it was Diderot who put it, God is the most sublime and useless of mysteries. Anyone delving into Hinduism or Buddhism, for instance, eventually comes upon parts of the religious model so representative of the larger mysteries of being alive that one cannot apply such grand, temporal cycles to the living experience but merely work within them. As one steps into "American Hindu", for instance, everything religious becomes even more vague, and in the California interpretation it seems that religion becomes psychology. But prior to the atheism of Diderot, Spinoza, and others, largely reactive to the Newtonian God of the Christians, atheism was a particularly odd insult bandied about. The nonsense of the Christian trinity even moved some in its foundling days to refer to the religion as atheist, that is, that Christians were without a god. I don't object to the central philosophy of atheism, for there is none to object to. But, as we see, such an aggressive and personalized philosophy as modern atheism does nothing to reduce the human tendency toward division, artificial classification, or personal supremacy. Religions make people laugh? Well, they ought to. But sexuality makes me laugh, too. Relationships make me laugh morbidly. Commerce is a joke at best. As we see in the United States, thousands of Christians-by-label have dropped their ethics and morals in order to play "keeping up with the Joneses", both politically and materially. Take the number of pro-life (abortion) advocates who are also pro-death (capital punishment). Even more stunning, in the face of the new concept of "lifestyle sins" (e.g. homosexuality) is the number of divorced and remarried Christians, who are technically living in adultery. One might say that the collapse of Christian morality is a desperate attempt of undereducated people to keep up with the Joneses. Sadly, though, if we compare the Christian experience to the Islamic one, the tragedy is that Christian "progress" comes from the process of lowering God among Christian priorities. That is, it appears that Muslims take what God says more seriously, to the point of lethal extremism. The failure of Christianity comes in an examination of its results. Redemptionism is dangerous, especially when presented within a paradigm that prefers eternal truths to observable reality. I, for instance, resent Christianity on these grounds. After all that's promised, that flock can't even begin to deliver. Thus, we can look at, say, the results of Christianity: on the one hand, sexual mores can be beneficial to society; to the other, we see what such obsession brings in the recent Catholic scandal. Now, is that a "Christian" issue of pedophilia, or is pedophilia a greater issue of human nature? It seems that adults having sex with children happens quite frequently, across the spectrum. Is the Christian failure, then, the pedophilia itself or that God is not strong enough to prevent (or, by some interpretations, even advocates) the act? One cannot resolve the issue of "Christian" pedophilia within the Christian paradigm. Functional results are a good measure. When you vote, what is the primary consideration: What does this get me? or Who gets hurt? It depends entirely on what is important. The former, being the most common consideration, only reflects the benefit of one person in the act of voting, and that benefit is dubious. The latter reflects considerations of a larger number of people. Tax issues are about the government taking your money or my money; moral issues are about "me" or "mine" (e.g. My kid shouldn't have to have a faggot teacher; it's a violation of my rights my kid cannot be raised in a heterosexual-only environment according to family values the way God (?!) intended.) On that count, collectively, atheists are as guilty as Christians. It's not actually about God or no God. It's more about the self. It's a me, me, me! situation. And the paranoia is almost mythical: • Yes invented is the wrong word, but someone started them so they could slowly evolve into new religions (Reid) If religion was invented, started, or otherwise, in the latter 20th century, yeah, I would agree with that. But that nexus occurred somewhere around the Christian experience, at least, when laws of the Judeo-Christian endeavor became arbitrary. Incidentally, the idea of salvation through grace is largely responsible for this decline, as well, as what one does in life became less and less important to God, an acknowledgment of human nature. Cris once made the important and, imho proper point that in a redemptive scheme, life becomes less valuable because there is something more valuable to be sought. This reflection is somewhat idyllic; in an atheistic world, it would seem, the sacredness of life should take a step up since there is no longer a mythical "more important" factor to be considered. Thus, one would not be so ready to rush headlong into death (Origen, the Song of Roland, &c). This is a bit profound in terms of Sciforums debates, except that it has one functional problem to overcome. It seems that, functionally speaking, that elevation of human life has, in fact, taken place. But only, so to speak, my life or your life. That is, while it is admirable that nobody's going to be dashing off to martyr themselves among our atheist crews, the result is that those other people do not seem to matter as much. Like I said, when you vote ...? But religion most likely arose from superstition--they are, after all, vitally intertwined. One did not conceive of the fire god for instance, with the idea that he could possess the fire god and control people. The exploitation of religion for political purposes came about as a largely-atheistic notion; obviously, one does not respect the "reality" of a god if one intends to own and control it. And the notion of allowing religions to evolve did not truly come about until either Christ himself or well into the Christian endeavor. History tells us how broadly Christ's words are received. Torture is mercy, hate is love, darkness is light; they are the original mona lisas and mad hatters of the god-set: And from that Christian chaos we see a resolution between politics and religion that we are still trying to break today. But it seems that people are focused largely on the labels. It's unaccpetable because it's Christian or atheist or whatever. Rather, it should be unacceptable because it doesn't work. It seems atheists are even caught up in the stupid either/or duality of modern life. I must admit, though, that in a topic directed at Christians, the leap to criticizing all religious thought--even those one is unaware of--is hasty, extreme, and more than a little ridiculous. • I say we don't need religion anymore, it kills more people then it saves (Reid) • The one and only purpose of religion is to keep a supply of stupid people to entertain me. (Neutrino Albatross) • I think before religion really disapears all of these hardcore fascists at the heads of the generally big religions will have to die out to be replaced by more liberal people. (Pollux V) Clarity? Anyone? It's just that while I can definitely apply such statements to Christianity (and yes, there is a Christian breeding ground for stupidity, it's called American fundamentalism), and I can extend them to a good number of faiths, but I can also exclude Buddhism, Sufism, and a number of localized tribal religions; I exclude the Christian "Society of Friends" (Quakers) because of observable results, but neither do they speak for the general trend among Christians. (George Fox was an interesting dude.) We can, from Pollux's quote, draw some restriction, but it seems this restriction is incidental, an accident of syntax. That instantaneous leap, though, is just as silly and presumptive as the Christians who would brand you as evil for your lack of faith. But it is nice to know that people have so much in common. And even the art of apologism: • Atheism is not a religion. A beleif (or lack of one) doesn't necessarily mean it's a religion. (Supernova Smash) You are correct that atheism is not a religion. Its protection as a religion is, of course, necessitated in the United States by the Christian presumption of the favor of the law. But the lack of a god due to lack of exposure is natural. To actively choose to have no god is to take a religious stance. In one's own life, it is hardly consequential. But since we all realize--don't we?--that life isn't just about the self, the relationship of what atheism is to what other people think of it becomes quite important. Take recent discussions in other topics, where in the name of atheistic objectivity, people are expected to accept on faith the nobility of the atheist stance and to ignore the observable result. Quite frankly, it sounds religious to me. Religions (and atheism) are merely accretions to disguise the inevitable human nature. Beneath the religions, people are still largely the same in certain ways. Greed, ignorance, politics. Our idea of a "good guy" these days is "someone who doesn't hurt me". Personally, I carry an intentionally-vague religion. But I must confess that it has, of late, occurred to me that the goddess does, indeed, have a name: Caprice. For, after all, caprice is a trait most common to humans, and since humans create gods .... thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A superb post Tiassa. One of my many complaints against Christianity in particular is its insistence that this life is merely a test for, or a precursor to the real show. Other critics have further objected that this idea serves to placate the peasant class from demanding their fair cut of the wealth of this world. In either case I agree with the last statement from your above quote Tiassa; Christianity is centered on a personal relationship between the individual and his God. Others exist primarily as temptations to sin. This brings to mind the film, The Truman Show, where others exist merely as props. A Christian’s world is an elaborate illusion concocted by his God to judge the true nature of his soul. The earthly life of even the happiest Christian pales in comparison to his expected eternity of heavenly bliss. Similarly, I’m not the first to observe that Christian moral behavior is motivated from pure self-interest rather than from altruism. On one level I don’t care what motivates another man not to murder me, as long as he doesn’t murder me. However, we can do much better! Kant’s “categorical imperative”, to use one example, relies upon an understanding that in this world it isn’t “each and every man for himself”. We are instead allied with a common interest and a duty towards each other. It’s my belief that everything we shall become is contained within the span of our birth and death. In the words of Vladimir Nabokov, “The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.” This belief elevates my respect for the precious nature of not only my own life, but also of life in general. As religion is born of fear and ignorance, I’ve been cautiously optimistic that man’s advancement in rational understanding might continue to undermine his superstitions. Imagine my disappointment to read an article in the February 2002 edition of The Atlantic Monthly titled, “Oh Gods!” in which Toby Lester writes: “ The assumption is that advances in the rational understanding of the world will inevitably diminish the influence of that last, vexing sphere of irrationality in human culture: religion. Inconveniently, however, the world is today as awash in religious novelty, flux, and dynamism as it has ever been, and religious change is, if anything, likely to intensify in the coming decades.” (You can read the entire depressing article at, www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/02/lester.htm) My first inclination is to shrug my shoulders and remark about the stupidity of peasants. However, to paraphrase Trotsky’s famous remark about war, “You might not be interested in religion, but religion is interested in you.” As many heretics discovered on the rack, it often does matter what others believe. In our own quasi-democracy, public policy is at least indirectly shaped by what the masses think. Despite our laudable constitutional separation of church and state, it’s nearly impossible to prevent one’s religion from influencing one’s politics. As a heretic myself, the polls that indicate over 90% of Americans believe in a god make me a bit nervous. In the long run I do have reason for optimism. Rationality and science have never been held in higher esteem than they are held at the present. Though men are remarkably adaptable creatures, their beliefs change slowly. Man acquired religion shortly after he came down from the trees. An overwhelming evidence suggests that men should revise their beliefs, yet men might well hang on to their old superstitions for several centuries to come. (How many of us still cling to the old-wives-tale that “colds” result from one's getting "a chill", as if we’d never heard of a Rhinovirus?) It’s naïve to expect social change to maintain the breakneck pace of our scientific discoveries. Men cling to their old superstitions much as they prefer their old and comfortable sweatshirts. Man might well have further “dark ages” ahead of him, but in the words of C.P. Snow, “…the refusal to believe on the basis of hope alone,” is too compelling and successful a notion to be locked away forever. Michael
Great point--Atlantic Monthly Orthogonal That's a great point, from the Atlantic monthly: This is one of the reasons why I say religion amounts to a representation of our ignorance. That is, religion attempts to summarize what we don't know in the Universe. From the first gods (I always use the "fire gods" example), the deification and eventual anthropomorphization of fire, and its diversification into various aspects, arises from an inability to quantify all data relevant about fire to the human experience. In this sense, consider the elements: earth, water, air, fire, and spirit. Spirit has always been ineffable and intangible, but that fire retains any of its mystic properties in the modern day speaks to a lack of textbook knowledge about fire. At a base level, then, it would seem that the religious imagery people subject themselves to comes from a compression of all that we do not know versus what hints we have toward the nature of that body of ignorance. But modern religion plays a more significant role, compelling the believer to maintain that ignorance in the face of knowledge. This is tragic. But the coming proliferation of religious ideas is easy to spot. The internet generation has put at our fingertips more information than we can possibly manage. Much of it gets compressed. In fact, it seems our modern news-media agencies live by this compression. Rather, has anyone been paying attention to our noble military actions around the world? Our struggle for the freedom of the oppressed Afghani people, our call to unity (you're either with us or against us? How about our admirable intentions, raising well-meaning officers like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban to power? How simplified is the Afghani-Bush War to the American mind receiving its information from CNN and USA Today? Yet, how complex is the problem, actually? (What of that complexity is unnecessary, accreted a priori is a subject for another topic and another day.) Likewise, take a look at, for instance, the Creationism battle. Even the so-called "scientists" of the Creationist echelon rely more on people's ignorance than their actual knowledge. One of our Christian-advocate posters once directed our attention to a group called Institute for Creation Research, a group of "scientists" whose mission statement includes a Christ focused Creation ministry where science and the Bible are fully integrated. To point back some 18 months, or so, What we see in the religious version of science presented by such organizations is a compression of our ignorance into the affirmative notion that God exists. All of ICR's science leads first back to this affirmation of ignorance, and secondly calls it knowledge. What, though, of any one person's "knowledge" is actually knowledge? I mean, really ... I can spend an hour in front of my computer reading through CNN, USA Today, AIM News, and My Yahoo! and come up emptyhanded. That is, to compare the vitally necessary accuracy of the news to what we see in the world does not always match up. But as a social scientist, as with many things, I'm of the "Armchair" order. But the day I can lay out the whole of what I see in expressible terms will be a fine day both for me individually and for humanity at large. In the meantime, each part of that vision contains much compressed data which must first be reinflated, verified, and then re-fit back into the structure. How many people ever learned the definition that gravity is what holds you on the ground? You know, the "child's" explanation? It's a compression, as we all see, and a functional one--yes, gravity is what will make the ground hurt so damn much when you jump off the roof. But it's hardly accurate--that is, gravity does not hold you "down" or bind you to the planet specifically. But this relevant effect of the attractive force that is gravity is the first and most important, and therefore the most predominating. When we speak of the "gravity" of a situation, we speak of grave circumstances, and in our common lexicon, such conditions are referred to as "low times" or otherwise not "high". The positive--bull--market is upward on the graph; the negative--bear--market is downward on the graph. Stocks plummet or soar in metaphorical relation to gravity. As I grew and learned more about gravity, though, it became more and more important to the philosophical--not definite--considerations dervied (compressed) from the big picture. Thus arises the question: Who has time? That is, in terms of our Sciforums debates, we'll often catch ourselves, essentially, asking each other to go out and get PhD's in whatever subject in order to have credibility in the topics we're discussing. A more practical matter: I think of SDA friends of mine, and their parents' absolute freak-outs about everything from food production to vaccines to Sabbath Law. I don't know entirely what to think about vaccination, except for the fact that humans die of stupid diseases much less when vaccinated. I've heard the conspiracy theories, ad nauseam, and so all I can do is continually compress the amount of information I don't understand; I'm not going to pay thousands to get a degree in virology or microbiology just to make the decision of whether or not to vaccinate a child. Personally, I have a political standard--science is science as long as it's there in the name of science. I need not understand it right off the bat, but chances are that I'll understand it much better if we leave science as science and work with what's there; to attempt to tie in any result to an overarching paradigm that says "God exists and ... (A), (B), (C)," becomes to exacting and demanding to be proper science. But it is only in science that scientific validity is demanded. In more subjective issues--e.g. morality--people tend to compress even more data, the result being that the information most directly affecting their decisions is, in fact, the most distorted. Thus generalizations against homosexuals, against theological dissent, against artistic expression. Religious reactions against data often come from vague compressions of other data. The whole of what we do not know or understand about the Universe (e.g. the mysteries of God) suddenly become the guiding force regarding how we deal with what we do know. It is, literally, flying blind. I find it quite interesting that our ignorance prompts our actions in response to our knowledge. Thus, in terms of the Atlantic Monthly article you've provided, and the section you (and now I) have cited, Orthogonal, it seems that the proliferation of religious sentiment that the coming decades will bring will result from an overwhelming amount of data poured into structures not prepared to accommodate it. There will be more and greater representations that people do not understand, and therefore will react to. Think of it: • Old Days: TV News, local paper, weekly magazine, textbooks, encyclopedia, &c. • New Days: Internet, TV news, local paper, weekly magazine, textbooks, encyclopedia, &c. How much more data are you processing these days than, say, ten years ago? (The question is rhetorical and recognizes age limitations for all reading it; but five years doesn't quite work anymore.) I mean, I well understand the problems of "mainstream media", for instance. But when someone tells me to read Gordon Liddy's site and sends me Rush newsletters and Drudge reports, calling those "credible", I'm not prone to care. In the end, though, how many people getting how much of what kind of information from where? In the coming times of uncertainty, people will compress or economize data even more than they do. And given that the structures of distinction seem too complex for more people, it seems that they will be more prone to accepting the first relevant data off the superhighway. And, in light of other demands in the world (e.g. job, family, community), the amount of time they can spend on such distinctions will be less. Think of it this way: how many families are in bad shape because Mom and Dad are chasing after subsistence? An artist friend of mine puts the tragedy thus: It sucks that everybody is resigned to doing what they have to do instead of what they want to do. (In fact, this principle is exactly why I'm avoiding the working world as hard as I can; it's becoming a full-time undertaking, see?!) But to draw the parallel, as the necessary and the desired become farther apart, as the priorities of the human being become more and more contradictory, people will generalize against the dissatisfaction of life, leading to much speculation, and eventually institutionalization. In this sense, the new religions will be a communal expression of unhappiness, and we can expect certain new myths of apocalypse--e.g. aliens, comets, and all sorts of subjective mythology making nature deliberate. Oh, and in addition to The Truman Show, it also brings to mind Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions, a superb book which contains felt-pen drawings by the author, including a woman's underpants and an asshole. But the relevant portion of that is the Hoover experience, when a man comes to the conclusion that everybody around him is a robot designed to test his behavioral responses in a sick, cosmic experiment. Interestingly, though, some religions--including interpretations of Christianity--have set about a perspective that includes "discovering God's Universe", an idea tantamount to deifying our ignorance and then setting out to know that deity, e.g. discover what we don't know. Unfortunately, this idea proved too broadminded for the Christian experience, and both too abstract and not profitable enough for the objective experience. my two cents ... thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well said Tiassa. Very good points, and interesting things to think about. I hope to read more of your thoughts on other topics! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Reid, Only ignorance kills... Religion doesn't... The twisted ideas people have of it is what makes it "almost" dangerous... Love, Nelson
Know This Religion does not kill people, the killing is applied when man rejects the true path of God in which there is a commandment, "thou shalt not kill". Anyone who is killing is in a movement against religion in which we wrestle with as Christians to begin with. For the children of this world do not hear the children of God. And know this also, that any man claiming to be a Christian and walks in darkness is a liar. If this killing is done by "so-called" Christians, they are not Christians, but false professing Christians (false brethren). Know this, that the servant is not greater than his master; if the world hated Jesus they will also hate His servants. Only through pride comes contention, if the world would only submit unto the truth it would set them free from the yoke of bondage. But as they submit unto the lusts of their flesh they become more and more in the influence of satan. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in high places. Do you not know that the children of this world (children of satan), if they are not converted unto God will be influenced by satan and will hate God, and therefore hate His servants, this is a spiritual truth I speak of from the Word of God. Truth, Jonathan
But .... I find this point curiously unsatisfying. Call it ego, I suppose, given the amount of words I just apparently wasted reflecting on the connections 'twixt ignorance and religion. I realize I addressed the post largely to Orthogonal, but still .... What, really, is known of God? Very little, actually. The best definitions of God render it ineffable. Holy books are incomplete and suffer cultural limitations. As I'm sure you're aware, though, certain undercurrents seem to affect the ebb and flow of larger religious expressions, and I don't think those better schooled than I in the Jungian school would be wrong to stick their noses in here. The mystery that is God represents what we don't know. For reasons quite obvious in light of my prior posts, I find this distinction ... shall we say, inappropriate? I'll ignore the word almost for the sake of good taste. The twisted ideas people have of religion equals the result you get when one lets the sum of their igornance (e.g. deified ignorance) represent their actions. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, you're too kind Tinker Thank you kindly ... I can only hope to be remotely interesting. thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jonathan: Actually, Exodus 20:13 better translates as "Thou shalt not murder". This is the only way God's later instructions to slaughter the Amalkalites, the Philestines, the Caananites, gays, women who are not virgins when they marry, those who 'go a whoring' after other Gods, athiests, witches, people who kindle fires on the Sabbath, 'heathens'...shall I go on? And did not Jesus say, in Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." So it would seem that killing certain classes of people is not only tolerated by the Bible, but commanded. Your thoughts?
Jesus Fuggin Christ, Xev, bringing up the christian bible is hardly fair when discussing that religion...
Oh yeah, Adamski? Well I say: He's YOUR God. They're YOUR rules. You fucking explain them! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hell, I ought to get some use out of my knowledge of the Bible...I mean it is boring! "Blah blah blah Isreal has played the harlot with her lovers, on every mountaintop she has gone a whoring, blah blah blah smite the Whoever-ites blah blah Jacob begat Malachi who begat Samuel who begat Esau blah blah" I mean, if I want to read about all this 'playing the harlot' and 'going a whoring', I'll read De Sade. At least he does not have interminable geneologies.... *Mutters to herself and wanders around aimlessly* Now where did I put 'Justine'? *Wanders away muttering* I mean look at this! LOOK AT THIS! This is supposedly the inspired word of GAWD?! It's not even graphic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Inspired word of God? More like insipid word of God.
I brought up a bunch of my books to uni on sunday, including the De Sade collection. Haven't read much of it yet. Oh, also the Lovecraft anthologies, haven't read them either. I just brought up the stuff I haven't read yet. LOTS to work through.
