The big question...

Okay, I think we have enough members for us to start learning a bit about everyone in this group. So, it’s time for the big question: What, if any, religion(s) do you practice, follow, or otherwise associate yourself with?

For me, the short answer is that I am an agnostic; however, there seems to be some ambiguousness as to what an agnostic is. My favorite description was written by Bertrand Russell, in which he said, "An Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable."

My more detailed answer is that I’m an atheist-leaning agnostic who very much likes the teachings of the more philosophically based Eastern religions, (especially Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism).

I, too, consider myself agnostic although I tend to lean toward the atheistic side of things. I do sort of vaguely believe in a not quite serious way the existence of karma and I like the idea of soul reincarnation.

Born and raised a Catholic. I first started to doubt the whole existence of God and Catholicism in 4th grade during school mass. I happened to have a side view of the alter and saw the class bully -the alter boy for this mass - ringing chimes at a part of the mass that I had always assumed God had just made happen! Sounds silly I know, but I questioned everything after that - and didn't like any of the answers I recieved back.

I rarely have spoken out publically, but would own up to being agnostic if pushed. It always seems less shocking that way, like, my friends are thinking, 'Oh, she's just questioning things and that's ok.' Because to be an atheist is to be a Satanist to many people - even though if you really listen to what an atheist says, then they don't believe in the devil either but try explaining that to some christian snobs!

But, truthfully, I am an atheist. I come out more and more each day. And I feel more and more comfortable in my own skin as I do.

The more educated I become concerning Christianity and religion and ancient history and science the more I think the entire human race has been hoodwinked for the advancement of men (I use men there because any Roman Catholic knows that the Church gives very little credit to woman as a whole and refuses them any advancement within the church at every turn.)

A very easy to read book, Like Rolling UpHill: Realizing the Honesty of Atheism by Dianna Narciso helps to shed some light for those that would like to understand where an Atheist is coming from.

I have read others, that one just happens to be within reaching distance of me just now.

I hope for some lively discussion here - I certainly respect anyone with their chosen faith as I hope to be respected for my lack of the same.

Mendoza

I too hope for some lively discussions here; and I hope I don’t scare off that lively discussion with my warnings of not attacking one another; I realize that it is sometimes hard to debate something like personal beliefs without someone getting offended.

I suppose I too am more an atheist who leans toward the agnostic title when asked. For one, it seems fewer people know what an agnostic is, and they tend to ask you, giving you the chance to explain what it means to you. Most everyone knows what an atheist is, and as you pointed out Mendoza, the average opinion of an atheist is not a good one. For some people, you might as well tell them that you like to sacrifice little puppies to your satanic, pagan god, because many people look at you the same way.

Rarely speaking out publicly is probably a good idea; however, I live in what may be described as the Christian Fundamentalist capital of the world, so, the subject seems to come up often for me!

And peskymac, I like the idea of karma, and reincarnation. Specifically he view of reincarnation as a sort of hell, wherein one’s goal is to free oneself from this life—it would seem to explain a lot of the suffering and injustice in this world.

Please note: the above reference to “satanic, pagan god” is not meant to imply that pagans are Satanists; merely that in the eyes of many, atheists, pagans, and Satanists are all in the same category.

Nope. Didn't think that at all about pairing Satanic and pagan god. Unfortunately, I agree with you that a vast majority of people equate pagan gods (and the Wiccan religion) with Satan worship.

Yes, thanks, that is what I meant. After I wrote it, I realized that it was one of those sentences where I knew what I meant, but it could have been interrupted that I think pagans are Satanists.

Indeed Mendoza, I too feel that pagans and Wiccans are too often seen that way. I surmise that most people do not know much about them, and thus they fall prey to the "fear what you do not understand" mentality.

I was raised in two Protestant christian churches (splitting the difference between the Lutheran mother and Methodist father) and went to a Lutheran grade school. I was genuinely and seriously Christian as a young person, up through high school.

I took to studying comparitive religion, mostly recreationally, in high school and college and consequently became an atheist with a heavy interest in biblical scholarship, mythology, and world religion. It was a gradual process from christian to "nondenominational" to "agnostic" to "atheist" and it took awhile to accept that last label, since I don't eat babies or drink blood or anything. I do like the word "heathen" and I may take to using that one.

My heavily churchy upbringing brought me a healthy respect for the *healthily* spiritual person and their capability for generousity and community. It also gave me a *very low* tolerance for hypocracy and cruelty. (Hello, Sunday school teacher who beat his wife and kids! Hello, creepy redneck schoolmates who beat up me and my friends for not being the "right" kind of Christian! Hello, Pastor who advocated removing gays from the church and rounding up Muslims in the days after 9/11! You convinced me that there couldn't be a heaven if people like you make the entrance requirements.)

I guess I'd have to call myself an evolving agnostic. I think we probably have spiritual selves that continue to live in some form after the body dies. But given what goes on in the world, I can't believe in a god who is all-powerful, all-wise and totally benevolent. I refuse to believe that child abuse, for example, could ever be part of a greater good or a divine plan, or be allowed by an all-powerful deity.

The concept I'm currently playing with is that everyone in the world, living or dead, human or animal, is (or at least has the potential to be) part of a collective spirit that is evolving toward the divine. When people have psychic experiences, they may be tapping into this collective flow of spirit.

It's interesting that even when people are reject God(s) they find it harder to reject the idea of a spirit that lives on after death. It seems that even when we can rationally determine the non-existence of a higher being, the idea of mortality is still so frightening that many, like believers in god(s), cannot accept that death is the end.

One of the biggest differences between the US and Europe now is religion. Europe is essentially post-religious now - you are much more likely to get funny looks if you tell someone you believe in God, and/or go to church.

Jargoneer, that's very true; everyone I know is completely bemused by the rapid slide of the US into a science-rejecting theocracy. I imagine the Chinese authorities are secretly rather pleased about it though. For me the question of 'spirits living on beyond death', communication with the dead, and all of that is very simple: such things would be of such significance that they would be plainly visible in the World, and in history: but they are not. Quite the opposite in fact. If it didn't sound just a bit smug I would call myself a 'Bright', but I'll settle for atheistic materialist.

First, regarding the idea of it being harder for atheist/agnostics to reject the idea of life after death, I believe that it is human nature (atheist or not) to want something else after life; the hope for something else seems to be a leading reason why people seek out religion.

Secondly, let me say that I am very glad to see the European viewpoint represented here. Europe certainly seems to be prospering in their post-religion state; while conversely, America seems to be moving backwards. At the risk of sounding unpatriotic, which is the greatest sin one can commit here in America, I think that, in spite of our frenzied war spending and awkward foreign policy, religion could be what finally brings down “the empire.”

Religion is an increasingly important part of American life; and by religion, of course, I mean Evangelical Christianity. Especially where I live, (which is home to several major Evangelical groups, such as Focus on the Family, and an Evangelical mega-church, headed by theocratic pastor, Ted Haggard) there is even more religious fervor. As an intriguing side note, Haggard is a weekly advisor to President Bush.

Indeed, I surmise that if I lived in another country (or even another city for that matter) it probably would not have occurred to me to start a group like this. But, as I’ve said before, living where I live, the subject of religion comes up often.

I recommend reading The European Dream by Jeremy Rifkin. In it, Rifkin devotes a considerable amount of space to discussing religion in America compared to religion in the EU. He also points out how many Americans—starting with the original Pilgrims in 1620, and continuing to present day—truly believe that they are a “chosen people, and that America is the promised land.” He also draws many other analogies to American’s overt patriotism and their feelings that “the American way is God’s way.”

I suppose this view is yet another reason why so many people see Americans as hopelessly arrogant.

The increasing influence of evangelical christianity in the US strikes me as a big betrayal of the ideals of the founding fathers. They wanted a country where religion and the state were completely separate, and no religion was given preference. Many Europeans looked to this country, free of monarchy and church interference, as the future. Jefferson, Franklin, et al, must be spinning in their graves.

What is equally worrying is the affect it is having on free speech. Political candidates appear to be frightened to say they don't believe in God, or they in evolution, etc; while they feel obligated to talk about their belief in (evangelical) Christian values. This has happened before, following McCarthyism the concept of being leftwing or a socialist was effectively barred from American politics. The way it is going, the Presidential choices in the US will between two right-wing Christian candidates, which is no choice at all.

The changes happening in the last decade that I would attribute to right winged /Evangelical Christians in the US is something that my DH and I discuss alot lately. I see God (which is equated with morality. Like, Christians believe you can only be moral if you have faith in 'God') being touted about and used by higher and higher politicians.

It frankly scares me. The rights to abortion are disappearing, the rights of gays to marry are being beaten down. And these changes are happening based on Christian views, not state and constitutional breaches.

In my own small town city extreme Christians were successful in basically closing down a Diversity group at the local high school because this group welcomed and supported everyone, including gays. What messages are we instilling in your teenagers by this? What happened to the separation of church and state? The lines are getting greyer by the day.

Politicians are using their christian beliefs publically as reasons to oppose or support laws and Americans in the majority are ok with that. But you can plainly see that those that hold no belief in god (and it indeed would need to be 'THE' god) are loath to express themselves that way.

Sorry i seem to be ranting here. I am just vastly disappointed with where I see the US heading. I thought as we became more enlightened that tolerance would naturally follow. Yet I see more and more intolerance.

Reading the last few posts got me going. I agree with jargoneer, dodger (of course ;-)), and bric. It is good to see that there are others not exactly thrilled with the path the US is taking.

When someone asks what I BELIEVE I identify myself as an atheist. When someone asks what I THINK, I identify myself as an agnostic. When someone pisses me off, I let them in on the SHAMEFUL TRUTH - I am a Discordian.

"If organized religion is the opium of the masses, then disorganized religion is the marijuana of the lunatic fringe."

If you want in on the Discordian Society
then declare yourself what you wish
do what you like
and tell us about it
or
if you prefer
don't.

There are no rules anywhere.

Ran over to Wikipedia to read up on Discordianism. Still don't quite get it - and maybe that's the whole point of it - but I think I like it.

It takes a whole reading of the Principia Discordia before you really start to get it. Now that Eris is a planetoid, we are positioned to take over the world! *Insert evil laugh here*

It seems to me, agnostics, atheists and neopagans have been behaving in a far more "Christlike" manner lately than the most outspoken and political of the fundamentalist Christian crowd. Perhaps the people who are drawn to fundamentalism are those who are looking for a way to justify their mean-spiritedness. Anyone who reads the New Testament with an open mind can see that the self-identified Christians who are so intent on punishing people for various "misdeeds" bear a striking resemblance to the Pharisees Jesus railed against.

I just finished reading Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, which I found to be fantastic. I highly recommend it to everyone here.

Harris addresses many of the major issues regarding religion in the world today, and even devotes several pages to the topic (that is being discussed in this group) of religion in America opposed to religion in Europe. No doubt, it will appeal mostly to people like those of us who have posted in this group, and I doubt very seriously that any Christian who reads it will change his or her mind on any fundamental subject. It is also rather critical of Islam, and I doubt it will convert any from that side either. But it is a short, easy read and I suggest checking it out.

Take care all, and keep it up, I love the posts in this group!

Have any of you ever read anything by Edgar Cayce...Modern Prophet? Wild stuff...psychic who lived in the 30's/40's. I recommend Edgar Cayce on the Akashic Records...though he was Christian (called the "sleeping prophet"), his "readings" don't always fit neatly into Christianity (i.e. Reincarnation). I'd be curious to think what true atheists/agnostics think of it. I'm not out here to convert anyone...just want to know how firm non-believers see this stuff.

margad: I'm about halfway through The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Chapters 6 & 7 are all about morality and how it does not depend on religion.

Dawkins refers to the Christians who cannot imagine morality without a god, and asks if that sort of person is really a moral person. He argues that morality is genetic/memetic and as societies began to expand from small groups (extended families), kin and reputation altruism was necessary for survival.

If anything, religion short-circuits this internal sense of altruism by confusing altruistic morality with an absolute morality ("Don't eat pork", "Kill the blasphemer") that was developed by certain individuals at a certain time and place to further their own ends.

I'm so happy to find this group. I was just about to give up on the whole LT group thing. Intelligent discussion--wow!

I'm a lifelong atheist and materialist. I come from a family that was nominally Jewish, but religion was such a non-subject that I never even heard of Jesus until I was in elementary school. Not ever having been religious, I have a hard time understanding all the mind-stuff surrounding religion. Over the years, I've come to believe (through studying psychology, anthropology, etc.) that religion is just one of the side effects of how the brain is wired.

Until recently, I hadn't even read much of anything about atheism, but with fundamentalism becoming such a threatening presence in the US, I'm trying to get better educated. I recently read Harris's book, but didn't think it was really that great. His analysis didn't go very deep, and much of it devolved into ranting. At least that's how I remember it. I love Dawkin's work. Currently reading Unweaving the Rainbow and am looking forward to The God Delusion.

Welcome to the group Catana. Your point about religion’s relation to ones brain wiring reminds me of H. L. Mencken, when he wrote, “A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill.”

And I do agree with you about Harris’ book, its biggest problem is that it doesn’t go into much depth, but I still liked it a lot. I just started The God Delusion last night, and so far, it is fantastic! (I found it interesting that as early as the preface Dawkins--like our own European members in the posts above--notes America’s incessant religiosity.)

It is interesting how one’s environment has as much to do with their religious beliefs as their family life does. Most of us who have posted here were raised with religion as a part of our lives, but as your story illustrates, even if religion is a non issue in your childhood, once you venture into the rest of society, it starts to become a big issue--especially in America. Though I must say, at least ones religious beliefs (usually) do not get them killed in America, as they can in other parts of the world. Still, I find the overemphasized importance of religion in this country greatly alarming.

At the rate things are going, I anticipate that someone *will* get killed for being an atheist.

I wonder what Mencken would have to say these days. Maybe he'd just give up in sheer disgust.

princemuchao, thanks for recommending The God Delusion. I'll have to put it on my "to read" list. I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist, but I refuse to believe in any so-called God whose morals are inferior to my own! That is my big stumbling block with institutionalized religion in this country. My current hypothesis is that a spiritual collective of souls exists, which people can tap into from time to time in prayer or meditation. This could account for experiences of religious ecstasy and various psychic phenomena. But I can't see it as an all-powerful, all-knowing entity. Rather, I see it as something that has certain attributes of what some call "God," and may be evolving toward a higher level of benevolence and understanding as humans themselves collectively evolve. In my more optimistic moments, I am able to see us evolving positively.

jcoleicons, I'm not a firm atheist, but I've read some Edgar Cayce (actually more books about him than by him), and I find some of his ideas interesting. I was very interested in reincarnation at one time and experimented with past-life regressions. I can't say whether the "past lives" I connected with were real in an objective sense or whether they were more in the nature of symbolic stories created by my unconscious mind, but they had enough meaning for me that I found them helpful in navigating some relationship issues I was having at the time. If you're interested, you might check out my "Reincarnation" tags.

I think you would really enjoy it - Dawkins has stated in interviews that it is agnostics that he has actually written it for. He makes a strong argument using probability that clearly illustrates (to me) the untenability of agnosticism (at least as a 50%/50% I-don't-know).

Which is not to say that agnosticism is wrong. I'm sure 80% of the people here have identified themselves as agnostics at one point or another. Most have probably at one point come up with a supernatural worldview we could live with, as you have done. It seems to be a tentative step toward true heathenism. And even if it isn't for you, as long as The Ancestors don't start telling you to kill people, it doesn't bother me in the least :)

If you haven't yet, I would suggest checking out Carl Jung - not necessarily his work, but stuff that addresses his Universal Consciousness. You may be able to integrate some of his ideas into your worldview. And before any of you heathens attack me for spreading around mysticism and hoodoo, I have to beg forgiveness for my love of mythology and archetypes...

Penn Jillette has also reiterated on his radio show what is easily forgotten... that atheism is just that - "professing to no theistic belief". If you think about it, that could mean that someone could be agnostic and atheistic at the same time - agnostic about the "fact" of any sort of supernatural being existing, but atheistic in their "beliefs" about the supernatural.

Well, I am Dawkins' target audience, and it worked on me! Although I am not done reading it, The God Delusion has already made me rethink calling myself an agnostic.

I had always stuck with the term agnostic because I had held to the argument that we can never prove, incontrovertibly, whether there is a god or not. Dawkins rebutted my argument by pointing out that in 1835 Auguste Comte stated that we would never, “by any method,” be able to study the chemical composition of the stars. Yet at the same time, Joseph von Fraunhofer was using his spectroscope to analyze the sun’s chemical composition.

I think I have resisted using the term atheist because it is generally received so unfavorably. So, those who have read The God Delusion will know what I mean when I state that I am joining “the herd of cats.”

I consider myself a born-again Jew. My parents, both first-generation Americans born of Orthodox Jewish immigrants, rebelled and became raving atheists. My brothers and I were raised with no religion (and no knowledge of religion) but with a sharp appreciation for being Jewish in a time of much anti-semitism (the 50s), Jewish quotas for college, and fevered attempts at Jewish assimilation.

But after my father died ten years ago, I decided to explore my Jewish heritage and joined a reform synagogue where the female rabbi is both charismatic and irreverent (and the food is great). I studied Hebrew, the Torah, and even became a Bat Mitzvah. However, an important precept of Reform Judaism is to question and that I do -- copiously and exquisitely (and with much thanks to my legal education). Reconstructionist Judaism actually incorporates argument and doubt into its services and does not even require a belief in God but there are no Reconstructionist synagogues anywhere close to me.

All in all, I don't really believe in God, per se, but I do believe there is something larger than us, spirituality perhaps, that forms a moral grounding. perhaps that's closer to secular humanism (or Ethical Culture), which I also like a lot. I feel that this "higher power" (although I hate what AA does with that concept) emanates from us and through us if we're smart enough and reflective enough to recognize it.

I love some of the Jewish concepts about an afterlife. We are told not to dwell on what may or may not come "after" because no one really knows for certain but, instead, to concentrate on living a good life while we're here, doing good deeds (mitzvot), practicing lovingkindness, and repairing the world (tikkun olam). We do this not so we can get into heaven, if it exists, but because they are the right (moral) things human beings should do. Those reasons for being should actually be a part of every religion and the lives of every person of religion but, sadly, we know that is not true. The people who proclaim to be the most religious are, in my eyes, truly the least.

In a somewhat contradictory stance, I loved Alice Sebold's book The Lovely Bones and viscerally wish her depiction of heaven really exists. In the Jewish religion, however, a deceased person remains 'alive" only so long as that person is remembered by someone. That is the basis for commemorating Yahrzeit, the anniversary of the death of a loved one (usually parents, grandparents, and children) with the haunting Kaddish prayer (which has no mention of God or death -- it's a celebration of life and good living).

I started watching some of Dawkins’ Channel 4 documentary, Root of All Evil? (which is fantastic) on YouTube, and found it interesting (though not shocking) that some of it was filmed in my hometown of Colorado Springs.

It reminded me of a fascinating, if not right scary, article written for the May 2005 Harper’s Magazine by Jeff Sharlet, titled Soldiers of Christ. Sharlet visited my fine town (though had little nice to say about it in the article) and shadowed for a few days, Ted Haggard, pastor of the 11,000+ member evangelical New Life Church here. It’s a great article, and one I cite every time I am asked why I care so much about religion in America.

You can read it from Harper’s Web site, or if you prefer to download a PDF, this site has a full scan from the magazine; or this one has a printer friendly version.

Enjoy!

Just downloaded the Harper's article. Much thanks. I'd love to see the documentary, but I'm still on dialup. Frustration over the increase in material that exists in video format, but not in text, has almost built up to the point where I may switch to DSL. Just another hassle I've been avoiding.

The response to Dawkins 'Root of All Evil' series in the UK was quite muted. I had to agree with some of the reviewers that stated, rather than being the voice of reason, Dawkins appeared as mad as the people he is criticising. (Possibly because Dawkins pops up everywhere in the UK battering on about his favourite subject). While much of what he says is true but, as a scientist, he commits the cardinal sin of excluding evidence that shows the positive contributions that religion has made.

A much more balanced, and impressive, documentary series was Jonathan Miller's 'Brief History of Disbelief'. One of the things it taught me was that George Bush (snr) had once stated, "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens."

I'm very much an athiest.

"Faith" is such a serious cause of problems in the world today, that I'm well past giving people a pass on believing in fairy tales, simply because it makes them feel good.

I would like to point out to the very many people posting here that "agnostic" isn't different from "atheist". The term "athiest" means anyone who doesn't positively believe. "Agnostic" is an epistemological stance, not a theological one. Just because you can't know the answer doesn't mean you can't believe. An "agnostic" who believes anyway is a theist. An "agnostic" who thinks god unlikely is an atheist. An "agnostic" who simply withholds judgement is still an athiest. Agnosticism isn't some sort of "middle ground" between theism and atheism. It's just the weak form of atheism.

Jargoneer, I agree about the Dawkins TV series, he did seem to be going for the extreme positions, which would not convince the 'moderates', some of whom might just start to think about their positions. Jonathon Miller's series was much better, and the BBC broadcast alongside it the extended original interviews (eg with Daniel Dennett) that were used edited in the programmes. It's a pity there appear to be no plans to publish any of that material.
But then agnostic/atheist tends to be the default position in UK polite society; anybody vocally espousing any religion is a bit suspect . . .

Sbrickner, there are many definitions for atheism and agnoticism, and I've read enough discussions to say that a good number of people wouldn't agree with yours. And you've narrowed down the meaning of atheism in a way that excludes many people. I am not an atheist who "doesn't positively believe," I'm one who disbelieves quite emphatically. Knowing that there has never been any concrete proof of a god's existence, and that such beliefs are easily produced in people's minds, despite the lack of evidence, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that god does not exist.

This may be what irritates so many people about Dawkins, that he refuses to waffle or spare anyone's feelings. Agnosticism may be either a real uncertainty about the matter, an attempt to appease believers, or simply a way to sit safely on the fence.

I would be willing to change my mind in the presence of absolute, verifiable proof, but this doesn't make me an agnostic. It's the same stance scientists take about any proposal which has no basis in fact, and which resists all attempts at proof.

What annoys me about Dawkins (at times) is not his stance that there is no God, it is the stance that religion has only done harm to humanity. It is just disingenuous, we know that terrible things have been done in the name of religion, but so have many good things. Likewise, individuals such as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were anti-religious but that didn't stop them committing atrocities. If Dawkins wants to argue that God doesn't from a scientific point of view, I'm all for that, but if we wants to argue against religion using philosophy and history, then he has to get his facts right. By ignoring the truth, doesn't he become just like the people he is criticising?

On a different tack, I saw a documentary on 'End Time' beliefs, and that was disturbing. It is barely credible that individuals believe in concepts like 'the rapture', when all the chosen ones are taken to heaven leaving the rest of us to face hell on earth., and then actually spend their time on earth trying to bring about the conditions for armageddon to take place.

Dawkins does address your trio of horror in The God Delusion. Hitler was anti-religion at times, but also seemed very catholic at other times.The other two espoused socio-economic policies that resulted in their actions - they did not perform their atrocities in the name of atheism.

He also addresses the art and music that resulted from religious belief and asks: what great works would Michelangelo have done if not for the fact that he was painting religious pictures? I'm not sure what you mean by philosophy and history - I don't think most religious philosophy is very useful at all, and the only reason religion was the keeper of history for so long was because they kept everyone else illiterate. Do you think that the dark ages were an accident?

As I said in my review of the book here, The God Delusion has problems, but they are not the ones you lay out here - each of those points were addressed.

Jargoneer, I agree with you about Dawkins. I've just finished the God Delusion. The first half of the book where he examines the philosophical arguments for God, and the awful nature of Yahweh in the Bible, is terrific. It's when he goes on to effectively blame all the sins of the world on religion that I part company with him. We non-believers have to face up to the fact that may religious people are genuinely good because of their religious faith. And maybe, on balance, believers (decent ones anyway) undertake more good acts than atheists. The British ex-politician (well ex-elected anyway) Roy Hattersley wrote an interesting piece in the Guardian a year ago on this subject that is worth reading and thinking about.

www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1567612,00.html

As Dawkins keeps saying - look at the evidence. When it comes to religion I suggest, like you, that he sometimes avoids it himself.

Anyone know of any scientific evidence on this matter?

bric said, “agnostic/atheist tends to be the default position in UK polite society; anybody vocally espousing any religion is a bit suspect . . .” That is truly hard for me to imagine, it is, in fact, the complete antipode to life in America!

I am almost finished with the first half of the The God Delusion, and have really enjoyed it so far; as allsorts states though, perhaps the first half is the best part of the book--I shall know soon enough.

On one hand Dawkins could be admired for the strength of his convictions, on the other though, he runs the risk of being every bit as dogmatic as those he is speaking out against. I agree with others here that at times in his documentary he comes off as a little mad (whatever definition of the word you use!). I will have to locate and watch the Jonathan Miller documentary.

As jargoneer states, I can imagine that Dawkins does pop up everywhere in the U.K., however, here in the States, we rarely hear from him or those like him (you know...being a good “Christian Nation” and all). In fact, I cannot remember the last time I have head the atheist viewpoint expressed in any major media here (with the exception that guys like Bill Maher have tried to speak on television programs, but are generally interrupted so often that they never get a chance to state anything significant). Therefore, reading books by writers such as Dawkins and Harris are welcomed changes to the Christian rhetoric that is so ubiquitous in the U.S.

Finally, I don’t know that I agree with allsorts’ statement that many “religious people are genuinely good because of their religious faith.” People base their ethical conduct on a verity of things, and yes, if one truly believes that they will burn in hell if they do not treat others nicely, then I can see how that could make them want to be a “good” person. No doubt, there are many good religious people on this Earth, and there are many good non-religious people too. Conversely, there are plenty of bad people in both categories as well; I cannot say that I see enough evidence to suggest that being religious has anything to do with someone behaving in a “good” manner.

Although Hitler is frequently cited in America as 'what happens if you let the atheists have their way' (recently by Supreme Court Judge Anthony Paglia) the record is quite clear that he believed himself to be doing God's work:
("I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," - Mein Kampf)

For a discussion of Hitler's Christianity see eg:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

It's pretty sad and somewhat disingenuous for a person to be good and charitable just because he believes he will burn in hell if he isn't. That's one thing that's wrong with religious faith. People should be good people because it's the right way to be, not because someone tells them to be.

"We non-believers have to face up to the fact that may religious people are genuinely good because of their religious faith. And maybe, on balance, believers (decent ones anyway) undertake more good acts than atheists. " - Allsorts
This strikes me as a highly contentious statement; even if it were shown to be true that believers perform more good works per capita, it could well be that, given the social structures our societies have developed, people predisposed to perform humane works would find it easier to do so in a religious context.
The only scientific work I have come across is 'Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies' by Gregory S. Paul in the Journal of Religion and Society:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

(From a review at Institute of Humanist Studies - http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=219&article=7 )

Drawing on a wide range of studies to cross-match faith – measured by belief in God and acceptance of evolution – with homicide and sexual behavior, Paul found that secular societies have lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many people profess belief in God.

Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation.

(Teenage pregnancy has less tragic consequences than violence but it is usually unwanted, and it is frequently associated with deprivation among both mothers and children. In general, it is a Bad Thing.)

Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans and Dutch. At least sixty percent accept evolution as a fact and fewer than one in three are convinced that there is a deity. There is little teenage pregnancy , although the Brits, with over 40 pregnancies per 1,000 girls a year, do twice as badly as the others. Homicide rates are also low -- around 1-2 victims per 100,000 people a year.

At the other end of the scale comes America. Over 50 percent of Americans believe in God, and only 40 percent accept some form of evolution (many believe it had a helping hand from the Deity). The U.S. has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Japan.

All this information points to a strong correlation between faith and antisocial behavior -- a correlation so strong that there is good reason to suppose that religious belief does more harm than good.

There is a “church” in Topeka, Kansas by the name of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose Web address, by the way, is “ God hates fags dot com ” (pretty highbrow, no?). The group is known for standing on street corners throughout the U.S. waving signs that read (among other things), “God Hates Fags,” and “Thank God for AIDS.” They are also known for protesting at U.S. soldiers funerals, stating that the soldier’s death is merely God’s punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality (again waving sings replete with more intellectual slogans such as “Thank God for IEDs”).

Now, this is obviously an extreme example, of an extreme group, that I present here; and I have yet to meet anyone--Christian or otherwise--who thinks these people are anything but nuts. My point is, I have no doubt that the people who attend this church, and who protest waving these signs, believe that they themselves are “good” people, and that they are performing a “good” act.

Alluding to bric’s statement regarding antisocial behavior, I would say that the actions of the members of this church (and its pastor and his family for that matter) fall into the category of antisocial behavior. Yet they feel perfectly justified in behaving this way, not in spite of, but because of their religious faith.

I read the articles on the Hitler website. Interesting but there still is a debate on the matter, the alternative argument that has a lot of academic supporters is that the Nazis saw Christianity as a bastard son of Judaism, and looked further back to pagan earth-mother/animist religions.

With regard to the survey on atheism and bad behaviour what struck me was the education is probably the deciding factor. In the countries that do well, there is virtually no religious interference in the education system. I can't speak for the other countries but in the UK there are religious schools but they have to follow national guidelines and so evolution, sex education, etc is taught to everyone.

Furthermore there is virtually no religious television anymore (except for a US evangelical channel on cable). The religious lobbies have no power either, so people get very few religious messages bombarded at them. If it wasn't for stories about Islam weeks could go by without a religious story being on the news.

Jargoneer: I think we live in different countries.

It is amazing to me how two countries (the U.S. and U.K.) that love to tout how united they are on the world stage, are moving so drastically in opposite directions socially. I must say, during my visits to the U.K., I cannot remember seeing or hearing much of anything about religion--and if not for the growing popularity of Islam there, I daresay it is starting to sound like a utopia to me.

It seems Americans love religion, and a god, though a recent survey by the Gallup Organization and Baylor University found that Americans do not share a single concept of that God. While 92% of the Americans surveyed stated that they believe in God, a higher power, or a cosmic force, 31% believe in an “authoritarian” God, who oversees his creation, and rewards the faithful while punishing the sinful (with tsunamis and the like).

24% see God as a supernatural being who engineered the Big Bang, guided evolution, and then sat back to watch the show. 23% see God as a “benevolent,” loving spirit who will help and guide those who ask him. While 16% believe God presides over the universe but does not interfere, while tallying up sins so he may render a verdict upon humans deaths.

Only 11% said they had no religious ties at all.

What I found most interesting was the respondents’ semantics. There seems to be a dislike of the term “evangelical.” Only 2.2% of those polled said that they would use that term to describe themselves. “Bible-believing” Christians won 21% of the votes and “born-again” is still popular with 19% of the respondents.

Perhaps the most telling facts are that 32% of those surveyed said that God favors the U.S. in world affairs (jingoism in action!), and 46% say that the government “should advocate Christian values.”

Here are some links to the survey.
Baylor University, USA Today, and the LA Times.

Just as a footnote, for those that may be unaware, Baylor is a Christian university.

I thought you might be interested in a survey the BBC organised on Worldwide beliefs. It can be found here...

BBC Survey

Thanks jargoneer, that is interesting; I’ll have to view some of the video later as well.

I agree with Jargoneer and Dodger on the striking differences between the UK and US. I'm a Brit and can confirm Jargonner's summary on the influence of religion in UK. As a mirror image of Dodger, I'm always struck by the prevalence of religion in my trips to the States.

A good example of the contrast is British politics. Dawkins argues that there is no chance that an atheist could be elected President of the US. That may be so. In contrast atheist Neil Kinnock contested two general elections as Leader of the Labour Party 15-20 years ago. Although he lost both times there was never any issue about his lack of religious belief. Tony Blair is a Christian but he doesn't refer to it. Indeed his powerful ex-Communications Director Alistair Campbell once said "We don't do God". He saw that pushing a religious line could have lost Labour votes. Blair was very uncomfortable during a TV interview when asked if he prayed with George Bush. He denied it of course. Any hint that he had would have led many voters either to think he was a dangerous religious maniac or to reach for their sick-bags.

I'm not convinced by Bric's response to my claim that religious people may do more good acts than atheists. I haven't read the study yet so I can't comment explicitly. But there could be many causes such as as inequality, differences in cultural norms, social stability etc. How many teenage pregnancies are there in Muslim countries for example? I suspect not many. A correlation is not the same as causation. But I will read it.

Of course I believe that a good life doesn't need God. Indeed, I agree with Kageeh that there is something dodgy about a morality based on orders from on high. My aim though was to challenge Dawkins' claim that religions were the main cause of strife in the world. My own experience fits with Roy Hattersley's perception (referred to in my previous posting). On balance, my religious - though admittedly pretty liberal - acquaintances are more active in going out deliberately to do "good works" than my agnostic/atheistic acquintances. And these good works are ones that any decent person would see as good.

Still happy though to be convinced otherwise.

It will be interesting to see what the future relationship of our two countries will be like when Blair leaves; most likely though, by the time you have a new prime minister, Bush will be leaving office soon thereafter (many Americans can be head saying, “Is it 2008 yet?”).

I listened to John Reid’s speech to the Labour conference last week, and quite enjoyed it when he said, “We should tell George Bush when he's wrong...” if only more people would do that! Early on in this discussion, both jargoneer and Mendoza mentioned the separation of church and state. I used to think that perhaps President Bush was merely unaware of the concept until I ran across a statement issued by The Family Research Council, (a Christian lobbying group founded by James Dobson of Focus on the Family) which reads:

"While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage....Our Founders expected that Christianity--and no other religion--would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."

After reading that, it is quite clear to me that many in the evangelical movement are unaware of (or choose to ignore) Jefferson’s statement about “building a wall of separation between church and State.” I have read statements by other prominent Christians in America that believe that the whole idea of separation of church and state is a lie straight from Satan.

Similar to nomenclature in Northern Ireland--where Catholic is generally synonymous with the term Nationalist, and Protestant with Unionist--in America the term Christian is almost inescapably linked with Republican. Anymore, a vote for the Republican Party is a vote for the “Christian Party,” and our Democratic candidates must be seen publicly attending church with their family; if they were not touted as being at least a little religious, they would be viciously attacked by their Republican (Christian) opponents, and their campaign would be dead before it began.

Okay, sorry everyone, I needed to vent, but I’ve taken up enough space now. Just one last thing. There is a great documentary on PBS’s Web site (Sorry Catana, more video for your dial-up!), titled The Jesus Factor, which chronicles Bush’s faith and how it helped win him the White House. You can view it here.

Take care all.

Hello,
I would classify myself as agnostic/humanist/skeptic. I am much more interested in helping out mankind (womankind) than if a god that seems very removed from everyday world wants to send me to hell for what I say, do or read. I am also an Unitarian Universalist which is about the only organization that is looking for a few good hertics/heathens. If you haven't heard of them check out a congregation in your area. I would recommend Dawkins and am currently on the waiting list for the God Delusion. I also just finished Sam Harris book End of Faith

Thanks
Amylphil

I was surprised to see The God Delusion is no. 1 on the UK Amazon best-sellers list; perhaps even more surprising it is no. 9 on the US list

*wavewave*

Raised Roman Catholic, then at the age of 17 discovered various neopagan religions and finally started walking that path at the age of 19. These days I tend more towards the fringes of that particular community. My idea of Deity is relatively panentheistic--imminent and manifest in all things. I also take a multi-dimensional approach to reality, accepting that there's more to it than just what I sense with my five physical senses, but feeling no need to prove it to anyone beside myself, or to force it on anyone who doesn't agree.

I really don't have anything against any religion, per se, just some of the people in it. I'm not into trying to disprove others' beliefs, though I'll admit when I first got into neopaganism I went through the typical "OMG Christians are evil and here's how the Bible contradicts itself and it's all a load of B.S.!" I'll speak out against ways that people misuse religion in my opinion, such as homophobia based on Biblical texts, or abuse of women/children/men/people in general as supposedly "justified" by a number of religions.

As far as influential books....hmm....Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson has done a lot to help me detangle my understanding of my version of reality.

If none of you have seen the documentary Jesus Camp www.jesuscampthemovie.com, I would recommend it. The film is a very interesting look at what is happening in the Evangical churches to train the youth. It is an eye opening film. For Dodger, it might be very interesting as they show one of the megachurches from Colorado Springs.

Thanks amylphil, it has been on my ‘to do’ list for weeks, but I have yet to get around to it. I have heard good things about it though; I’ll have to see if I can work it in this week.

I'm an atheist/humanist. As several people have mentioned this is not unusual in the UK, except that probably relatively few people would use those terms. In the school I attended which was a typical south coast state school, anyone who had said they were religious would have been regarded as not much more credible than someone who said that they still believed in Father Christmas. It was only when i went to university that i really met people who were religious: Catholics who liked the rituals etc, some hard core Jews and assorted social misfits attracted tby the easy and uncritical friends networks provided by the church. Living in London I'm now aware of the large ethnic minorities who are also often religious, the Islamists, the black Christians, the Hindu's etc. Among the non imigrant population post religious new age spiituality is now probably more important for many younger people than traditional religions.

Among educated Brits, there is surprise and bewilderment that religion is so strong in te US, many put it down to simple minded naivity, though of course this is tricky to reconcile with the US 's undoubted technological and economic succcess.

"The force that through the green fuse drives the flower
Drives my green age; that blasts the roots of trees
Is my destroyer.
And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose
My youth is bent by the same wintry fever..."

I think I'm a pantheist/buddhist/taoist/mystic/humanist, or none of those things.

All I know is, when I stand in the midst of a eucalypt forest or a stand of Californian red gum, or when I look at the perfect symmetry of a sea urchin, I get a hit beyond my senses. I feel akin to that which the life force flows through. When I read the Tao, or a poem by Rumi, I feel akin to all those two legged species I call my own. I'm not an intellectual, I'm no good at debating this shit. I just really love this planet we call home, and grieve when I dwell too hard on the paradoxes of my own, and our, humanity. Yet underpining my belief system is the bedrock of hope.

If you did not hear then news, the aforementioned Ted Haggard (Messages 12 & 29)—pastor of the 11,000 plus member evangelical New Life Church (here in my fine hometown) and head of the National Association of Evangelicals—may be the latest to fall from religious and republican “grace.”

It is alleged, and only alleged at this point, that he has been, shall we say, “kneeling at the altar” of a male prostitute from Denver for the past three years. You can read more about it from the BBC or from some local media .

It may be nothing more than a well timed stratagem, since we here in Colorado vote on two “same sex marriage” ballot initiatives in six days, which Haggard has been openly and vehemently apposed to. We shall see...

Americans come from all over the planet. Maybe there's something about the scariness of taking your hopeful self to a distant, foreign place where you know no one, that makes us reach for a personal God who will keep us safe and protect our neuroses from culture shock. We are a lazy electorate who decide who we want to trust, and then we let them make the decisions for us (if we vote at all). What characteristics of these many millions from every corner of our planet combined to create the American?

I thought Ken Wilber did a near-perfect job of reconciling science and God (or religion or spirituality or whatever). I have been atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddhist, and/or Confused through much of my life, mainly because I was trying to fit into someone else's definition of those labels. Having felt altogether reconciled by Wilber (Sex, Ecology, Spirituality). I moved on to the more difficult task of finding a community of seekers. I now attend a Quaker meeting where I was promised my questions would not be answered and my answers would be questioned. Finding a community of seekers is such a relief after sixty years of traveling from place to place that claimed to have all the answers.

It is still hard to use words like God and Christ and Jesus. They have been so abused by those who need to feel certainty where I believe there simply is none. Ghandi stated that the names for God are countless and that there are as many religions as there are individuals. None of us will ever know even a small percentage of the Truth, because the more we know, the bigger it gets. Nonetheless, we must pursue it.

If you don't believe in God, that means you have defined God. I've read these posts for the first time today, and I see a great many different definitions of God. Maybe that's why (like most people I know) I am more comfortable using terms like Spirit, Universe, and on and on. I'm groping for a term that hasn't been tainted, that can adequately describe an Experience. There is no term to describe the spiritual Experience.

Christopher Reeve said that he didn't believe in God but that he believed in a kind of spirituality. He did not believe that things happened for a reason but that it is up to us to find meaning in what happens. That may be a chicken/egg statement. It reminds me of the hypothesis and null hypothesis, two statements of the same thing. Keep talking and asking and one morning you will wake up with the answer in neon lights above your head. And the morning after that you will wake up with a thousand more questions. Buddha invented his philosophy because he was pissed off at the Hindu establishment. He wanted to create a God who wasn't God. These are NOT new issues!

I read about the Haggard accusations. As much as I would like to believe that my fellow left leaners would not stoop to such tactics, there are too many bottom-line politicians on both sides for dirty tricks to be a one-way street. I would not be surprised to discover that the Haggard story is a ploy to influence election outcome.

Well bookcrazed, I too would not have been surprised to learn that the allegations made against Ted Haggard were nothing more than election-time tactics; however, it would seem that they are not.

I assume that everyone here has heard, since it has been a top news story worldwide, but if not, Haggard admitted publicly to buying drugs from Mike Jones, the male escort from Denver, and apparently admitted privately to some sort of “sexually immoral conduct.” We may never know exactly what that sexually immoral conduct was, but in a letter read to his congregation today he said, “There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life.” For a full account of events and his career, you may want to read his Wikipedia page, as they have done a great job of updating it as the events unfolded.

For those interested, here is the sequence of events:

On 2 November, a former male escort, Mike Jones, alleged on a Denver radio program that Haggard had been a regular monthly client of his for about three years. He stated that Haggard paid him for sex, and that he had seen Haggard use methamphetamine (meth); he also stated that Haggard expressed that it was his fantasy to have an orgy with several young men (in their 20s and 30s). Jones was upfront about his reasons for “outing” Haggard, stating that “I had to expose the hypocrisy. He is in the position of influence of millions of followers, and he’s preaching against gay marriage. But behind everybody's back (he’s) doing what he’s preached against.”

After the allegations were made, Haggard denied Jones’ claims, and further stated that he did not know Mike Jones. He voluntarily removed himself from his position as pastor of his church, and as president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).

Jones volunteered to take a polygraph test, but failed the portion of the test about whether he and Haggard had had sex; the test administrator expressed doubt about the accuracy of the test because Jones had slept very little in days, and had not eaten much.

By Thursday night, senior church officials told a Colorado Springs television station that Haggard had admitted that “some of the accusations against him are true.”

By then, voicemail recordings that appeared to be Haggard requesting drugs from Jones were aired on national news networks; later Haggard admitted, on camera, to a Denver television reporter that he did, in fact, know Mr. Jones, and that he had went to Jones for a massage, and had purchased meth from him, stating that he was “tempted” by the drug, but that he did not use it; he still denied ever having sex with Jones.

By this point the Bush administration was already in damage control mode, and was quick to deny Haggard’s previous claims that he regularly conversed with President Bush, stating that he was but one of many evangelicals that took part in conference calls.

On Saturday 4 November, the so called Overseer Board of New Life Church released a statement saying, “Our investigation and Pastor Haggard's public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.” Haggard was officially, and permanently, removed from his job at the church; and the NAE appointed an interim president as well.

In a letter from Haggard read during today’s services, Haggard was contrite, and took full responsibility for his actions, stating, “The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality, and I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar.”

It will be interesting to see how, if at all, this affects politics here in America and how the “religious right” will treat one of their own--previously (?) one of the most respected members of the evangelical movement who has apparently been “warring against” his homosexual feeling for all of his adult life.

Is there any chance that some in that camp will stop clinging to the tired argument that being gay is a “choice”? Surly if it were a choice, Haggard would have chosen to not be gay or bisexual. Choosing to be straight surly would have made his life and career much easier.

I am waiting to see how James Dobson of Focus on the Family treats the issue. In the past he has been relentlessly unforgiving to homosexuals, as he has contended that they choose to be gay, and that their choice is a slap in the face of God and of “traditional family values.” Haggard is/was a close friend of Dobson’s, and one of his closet allies in the fight for all things Christian. More amusing things to come, I am sure...

Yeah, this is about what I expected:

Monday 6 November: “Focus on the Family founder James Dobson will be one of the people overseeing counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard, the evangelical pastor who was fired amid allegations of gay sex and drug use, a senior official of Dobson’s organization said Monday.” —The AP

Tuesday 7 November: “Citing a lack of time, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson withdrew Tuesday from the team overseeing counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard…” —The AP

“Emotionally and spiritually, I wanted to be of help - but the reality is I don't have the time to devote to such a critical responsibility.” — James Dobson, as quoted in The Denver Post

After reading a newspaper article about two gay penguins at the Bronx Zoo, I asked a homophobic co-worker if he thought the penguins chose to be gay. I didn't get an answer.

Message 62 ...one of his closet allies in the fight for all things Christian

LOL

I am a Wiccan Priestess and am shocked, appaled and hurt by some peoples views on "wiccans". Like 'Wiccans are Satanists'. How many times have people been under this misconception???!!! it is bad for the Wiccan image. The "burning Times" comes to mind, and it happened because of the same type of people that we as Wiccans have to deal with on a daily basis.

from someone else who knows:

There are probably as many definitions of Wicca (also known as "the Craft", Witchcraft, or the Old Religion) as there are practitioners --one of the joys of this path is that there is no "one, true way"; intuition is as valuable as teaching. This then is my personal definition of what Wicca is to me.

First, because there are so many misconceptions about Wicca, let me define that what Wicca is not is Satanism or devil-worship. Wiccans don't believe in an all-evil entity.

Wicca is a religion based on experience of Deity as male and female. It is panentheistic--seeing all things as part of God/dess, and seeing the Earth Herself as a living organism of whom we are part. It is also a religion of immanence--seeing God/dess present here and now, within all things, not "out there somewhere" but part of daily life.

Wiccans reverence Nature in all her forms, and often are active environmentalists. Wiccans celebrate eight major holidays, the beginning and midpoint of each season. Wiccans also celebrate the phases of the moon. Each of these rituals or observances helps us attune with the ever-changing cycles of Nature.

Wicca is also a Craft. We practice magic using meditation, chants, visualization and spells to help focus our will on what we want to happen. Wiccans believe that everything we do, good or ill, comes back to us tripled, which is why we don't hex or curse anyone. We also believe that many psychic talents are real and simply haven't been studied enough by science to be catalogued as such.

Wiccans for the most part accept reincarnation, not as dogma to be believed, but as fact based on personal experience. Many of us remember past lives. As one who has studied science, I know that every atom of my body once was part of something else, and I am continually losing atoms that become part of others. Knowing this, it makes sense that my soul also is "recycled".

Wicca is a positive philosophy. The only law is "An it harm none, do as ye will": Enjoy life to the fullest, and remember to help everyone else enjoy it as well. Wiccans don't preach; Wiccans don't evangelize. Everyone has to find his or her own path, and we welcome the diversity this brings.

So the next time you hear someone called a "wicked witch", think instead of Wiccans all over the world, celebrating the cycles of Nature through the dance of the Lord and the Lady, trying to brighten the world we all share through our cauldron fires in the darkness. Know we are not out to convert you; know we mean you no harm. All we ask for is tolerance, understanding, and the freedom to practice as we choose.

©1998 Cecylyna Dewr
Distribution is welcome; please include this notice

For more information contact
Pagan Pride Project – www.paganpride.org - (317) 916-9115.
PO Box 441422 Indianapolis, IN 46244

I don't any happy heathen has anything against Wicca other than it is as equally as ridiculous stance as Christianity, Islam, etc, etc. As soon as god(s) and/or goddess(es) come into the picture I think most rational people are struggling to take a belief system seriously.

Religions only become a problem when they start demanding things - you must do this, you must live your life this way, etc. I'm all for people believing what they want to believe as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, or want to impose their beliefs on others.

Found this interesting quote:
God is not God’s name but an opinion about God.
Encheiridion of Pope Xystus, second century

I am an atheist as far as my personal beliefs are concerned, an agnostic when it comes to the question of proof. In other words, I don't believe that god (any god) exists but I don't believe that such a thing can truly be proven unquestionably. However, when it comes to proof, I feel that the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, not those who disagree with that claim. Beyond this I am also a skeptic of most supernatural/paranormal claims. When I was younger I believed in ghosts, the Bermuda Triangle, UFOs, etc. While I am not certain that there is not some basis in fact for these types of reports, I don't believe that we have enough evidence to support the theories explaining such reports.

Be excellent to each other ;)

Hey, gang! I'm an atheist. I simply don't believe in God or anything supernatural, for that matter. I find it more useful to think in terms of the physical universe(s) being all their is. When I'm feeling more confrontive, I say I prefer facts over superstition.

I was raised as a secular Jew, although my mother is Christian...so technically, by the laws of the religions as I understand them, I am neither! The Reform and Reconstructionist Temples are welcoming, though, so it doesn't really matter.

I am atheist. I do not believe in god(s) or anything like it (them).

My whole family is atheist, actually, my parents, my sister, and me. However, we (including my mother, actually) are culturally Jewish, celebrate the holidays (as well as a few Christian holidays, secularly), and occasionally go to Temple (well, I used to). Passover is my favorite, hands down. Jewish holidays are all about food, but I just love the sedar, the food, the readings, being with my family...

Anyway. If I don't feel like getting into the discussion, I say I'm Jewish - which causes its own problems, but atheist is "worse". But usually I don't bother.

It wasn't until I was in late middle or early high school that I realized that people actually still believed in that religion stuff, instead of just saying it because it was the thing to say. I thought it was all like Greek mythology and stuff (but not as interesting)...

I can't remember ever being religious. I rejected the notion of God from around the same time I stopped believing in the tooth fairy. In never made any sense to me and on the rare occasions that I sat in a church I would ask myself, "How can all these people believe in such palpable nonsense". I am still baffled why so many people still believe, over a hundred years after Darwin.

My conclusion is that religion survives because most people need a reason for their existance. They cannot accept that there is no purpose to their lives, other than to replicate their genes, and on death they pass into oblivion. I never had a problem with that. Even some atheists will say "I don't believe in God but I believe that there is a human spirit which lives on". Wishful thinking, my friends. Just accept that you are nothing more than a product of evolution.

I don't understand all this about needing a "reason for existence". Who cares why we are here? We're here and that's enough to know. I don't know anyone of any religion (and I know far too many fundamentalists) who say they believe in God because they need to know why they exist.

I think people believe in God 1) because they have been brainwashed from a very early age and believe just like they believe in breathing and can't even conceive of any other way, and/or 2) because they need an answer to "why" as in "why is he dead? why am I sick? Why am I so lucky? Why should be a good person? etc.

Oh, and a very important third reason -- they desperately need to know that they won't completely cease to exist when they die.

After reading through posts, I feel like I belong here.

Personally, I was raised Presbyterian and attended church functions into junior high school. At that point, I started to look at religion and questioning aspects of it. When the answers I received were vague, circulatory, or just completely insufficient, I took my issues to my father. He challenged me to read the Bible and I did-- cover to cover. When I finished, I presented my arguments to my dad ending with, something to the effect of "this is fictitious crap". He respected my disagreement and told me I was free to believe whatever I liked.

From there, I began studying religions-- from the five major religions, to ancient mythos, to obscure cults. What I have settled on is the fact that I am a "radical atheist". I chose to adopt this term after reading an essay in Douglas Adams' Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. There, he explained that the term 'atheist' brought on questions like, "You mean agnostic, right?" People wanted him to backpedal from the word atheist. After sticking 'radical' in front, people backed off. I found my experience very similar.

A couple of books which have gone unmentioned here are The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes and Joseph Campbell's works regarding the parallels inherent in all religions. Granted, those are heavy reading, but worth the effort, in my opinion.

>Finally, to kageeh, in message 40:
I agree with you about the disingenuity of following religious tenets to avoid punishment, but studies in psychology tell us that's how most people operate. The majority of people don't worry about the moral and ethical quandaries-- they simply adhere to the rules of a society. That's one of religion's main functions.

#74 (kageeh) I hear people say all the time, "I can't believe we are put on this earth for no reason". Yes, religion proliferates because of indoctrination from an early age but even if that was removed, I think many would want to believe in a God to provide a purpose to their lives.

God also provides answers to questions which science has not answered or, more commonly, religious people think have not been answered. It takes a lot of effort to learn how evolution works to the point where you reach a Eureka moment. Many have no interest in doing that and they are happy to just say : "Well it's only a theory."

I agree with the other points that you make.

Well, I still struggle with the meaning of it all, even if I am an unbeliever. Part of me just can't accept the fact that we're only here to reproduce. Because if we are, I lost a lot of years when I could have been practicing that skill due to my strict Irish Catholic upbringing. ;o)

kageeh #74: I agree with you somewhat, I definitely believe that religion is often used as an answer to questions; chiefly the “why” questions such as, “Why did she get sick,” or, “Why do people have to die.” But very often the answer to “Why are we here” is fed by religious beliefs. Every religious person I have spoken with has addressed their reason for existence, and at the center of it, they use their god and “His plan” for them. So, while they may not say directly that they believe in god for the sole reason of explaining why they exist, I think if you dissect their responses, you will hear that reasoning in there somewhere.

In addition to answering questions, I think a major reason that religious people embrace their religion is for a sense of belonging. It is human nature to want to “fit in” somewhere (take our group for instance). However, I find this to be particularly true for fundamentalists and evangelicals. I am sure you have all heard them use phrases such as “spiritual warfare,” “God’s army,” et cetera. I see this as an extension of, nay, the next, higher level of belonging. They want to be a part of something big. Once they have satisfied their need to belong, they can obtain something seemingly more important than simply being a secretary, or a construction worker, or even a doctor. By being part of God’s army in a spiritual battle, they feel more important; they feel that their life is about more than procreating and obsequiously serving an invisible god. It is the ultimate escape from the feeling that life has no meaning or purpose.

Finally, I see religion most often used to remove blame, worry, and doubt. It is used as a crutch so that people do not have to take responsibility for their actions and decisions. People use terms like, “If it is God’s will, I will get that promotion.” “I didn’t get into my first choice of schools; I guess it wasn’t God’s plan.” And my favorite: “I’ve been waiting for God to give me direction on what I should do.” That way, when he gives you direction on what to do, and it doesn’t work out, you can revert to the, “God has a plan, and I guess it wasn’t his will for me. He must have bigger plans for my life”

Don't be silly clam you are not here to reproduce. Your genes might think that but I have not seen any evidence that they think. You are Just here and being here why don't you enjoy yourself.

I used to think that God was responsible for all the world's ills but I've changed my mind. The people who are mainly are now television executives. Back in the old days when they made tv programs that we all wanted to watch the world was a brighter, happier, safer place. Since mindless reality shows have taken over the airwaves the world has gone to pot. Coincidence? I think not. People are being driven onto the streets due to a lack of decent tv to keep them at home, then they commit crimes because there are no "A-Team" or "MacGyver" to use up all their nervous energy.
If only these executives would wake up and realise that a new "Happy Days" could save the world.

Simon, I was responding to darrow's comment, "They cannot accept that there is no purpose to their lives, other than to replicate their genes, and on death they pass into oblivion."

;o)

and I was poition out that replicating genes is not a purpose any more than any other chemical reaction has a purpose people have purposes species just are.

Sorry, simon. I thought that you thought that I thought that...oh... never mind. ;o)

Well Simon, that depends how you define "purpose". I'm not refering to a deliberate conscious act on behalf of clam or her genes. The reason we exist is because we evolved by replicating our genes and we continue to exist because DNA does a very good job. This is the closest I can get to defining a purpose for our existence.

So do your duty for the human race, clam! Get out there and reproduce some more. ;o)

#84 - Well, I'm too old now, darrow! But I like to think I made up for "lost time" while I was in college. I tried to, anyway. ;o)

What was the purpose of the existence of dinosaurs -- other than to populate museums and drive the Fundamentalists nuts? Or were they were just another in the long and many-branched evolutionary scale.

Message 78: dodger -- I understand the basic human need to belong to something. The most important reason that I joined my local Reform Jewish temple was for the social aspects (and to be involved in giving to the community). I don't care about belonging to the religion, per se; I just find there a nice group of people. But what is this belonging to "God's army . . . in a spiritual battle". A spiritual battle for what? Since when is the purpose of life supposed to be a war?

I was born to be the devil's advocate -- that's why I love this group!

86 kageeh

Cosmic chicken bones!

LOL kageeh, driving fundamentalists nuts seems like a worthwhile existence to me!

In all seriousness though, I think you have hit it on the head: I see no evidence of any other animal on this planet trying to make sense of its existence, or its afterlife. Humans, as (over) thinking beings do not merely react to instinct, we try to solve every problem and answer every question. I am sure the first god in human existence was created by an ancient human somewhere who simply could not find a suitable answer for a “why” question. Why does the sun come and go? Well, it must be god, right? Of course as science progressed, the answer to that question became more logically clear, but by that time humans had assigned answers to other questions to their god(s).

For a good understanding of the spiritual warfare stuff, I highly recommend Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg. And Jesus Camp, as amylphil mentioned in message 54 (thanks for the recommendation, excellent movie!). Both offer terrific insight into the evangelical’s fetish with all things war-like. It is interesting how much of the war-related vernacular is present among them. The crux of it seems to be that by declaring war (on Satan, the secular culture, gays, the liberal media, or whatever) they create a cause to “fight for.” If they truly believe that Satan lurks around every invisible corner just waiting to attack (or that gay marriage will destroy the world), they have a cause to rally against, and thus, a purpose to live for.

they desperately need to know that they won't completely cease to exist when they die.

A guy I knew who had "seen the light" and was trying to convert me, finally cried: "How can you stand to believe that you are going to die, and that that will be the end of you?!" Of course, I asked him if he thought that whether one can or can't "stand" reality will alter the facts. And, of course, got no responsive answer.

It keeps amazing me that so many people who believe that they are going to heaven are so afraid of death. They seem to regard it as the worst thing that could happen --- anything is better, including non-stop agony or being brain dead & hooked up to tubes. Life is "sacred" and "a value" --- at any cost.

I'm not in any hurry to die (life is interesting, and there's so much I want to read, and see, and do!), but I'm not afraid of death. I am very afraid of being reduced to a mindless state, and/or being kept alive when death would be preferable!

#80
Good theory. The major drawback of not believing in god is not having any omnipotent entity to blame for all of the horrors seen on 24-hour news. :-) I don't know if we can hang all of it on tv executives, but it's a start.

Spiritual warfare, etc.:

It has been decades since I read it, but doesn't Eric Hoffer's The True Believer shed some light on the apparent need to enlist in crusades of one sort or another?

Can I just quickly say "thank you" to everyone for posting such a great discussion. I'm jumping in late, and don't have much time to type right now, but wow, this is fun to read!

Currently reading The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert Price. Good stuff!

And I did read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Jaynes just a couple of months ago. It's a head-scratcher, a really thought provoking book!

Oh, yeah. And "Jesus Camp" was my favorite horror movie of last year, right up there with "The Descent"

Message 90: myshelves -- I love Eric Hoffer's The True Believer and his The Ordeal of Change!! I don't know anyone else who has read them. I discovered them during my senior year of college when I took a 2-semester course called Psychology of Group Behavior, my favorite course of all time. The required reading was breathtaking and the professor's short-answer essay exams were so interesting that I still have my blue books. How's that for an obsession?

Sunt quae sunt.

(Those things which are are.)

88> but Why does the sun come up is question science resolutely refuses to ask.
How does the sun come up? or What happens when the sun comes up? these are the questions of science. Why is question about motivation.

Simon, fair point, and well said, however, by the very nature of answering questions like “how” and “what,” “why” is answered in the process. I don’t have to wonder why the sun is shining right now, because long ago (around the 3rd grade), I learned what science had to teach about the solar system, and Earth’s rotation around the sun. I now know how the sun “comes up,” and I know why it does as well.

"Why" is always interesting, when available.

As to what I believe - sorry, there is no "higher power that sits and watches over every atom in the universe and knows what it is doing." I don't need to go further than that, or justify it. People answer "I am a Christian" with no need to justify it.

As to Clamairy's points... there is more to life than reproduction... because we can make there be more to life. That's what is remarkable about the human species. Carl Sagan had it right... look at how we can marvel at our good fortune to have evolved imagination, evolved to the point we can struggle to understand the world around us. Evolved to the point where we can take a long-term view. To the point where we can show altruism.

Isn't that remarkable? Isn't that something to celebrate? We should be creating a global culture around this amazing good fortune we have.

I have no trouble with celebrating traditions that honor our culture, or honor nature, etc. The most dear to me are the Celtic/Scandinavian/Germanic traditions, since they are from my own background.

I wanted to add a couple items to our posts about “spiritual warfare.”

First, Christians get the original idea of spiritual warfare, and the war weaponry vernacular
from--where else--the Bible! Ephesians 6:11-17.

“Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God ....”

Second, I have been reading God is Red: A Native View of Religion by Native American theologian/philosopher/historian Vine Deloria Jr. and ran across a rather apt quote. In writing about certain Indian medicine men cashing in on the non-Indians newfound love of Indian culture and religion, he wrote of Sun Bear, who created his own tribe that catered to brining non-Indians into Indian ceremonial life. Sun Bear ran an ad, which stated, “Sun Bear needs spiritual warriors.” Deloria notes, “This ad exemplified the motivation of non-Indians--they wanted some kind of power so they could deal with their own culture and be successful.”

Take care all.

Spiritual warfare:

My mom used to watch O'Reilly (her name for him was "Big Mouth"), and usually spend the hour shouting at the tv. :-)

I caught one show on which a guest pointed out that Christ had said: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword."

"He did NOT!" screamed O'R, "That's NOT in the bible!" LOL.

I grew up in a relgious (Christian) household. Ours used the Bible a bit more than 'normal' though. As a kid I had concordences, commentaries, plus a boat load of translations. I would research words in Hebrew and Greek to get a 'balanced' view of what the various authors meant.

My dad wanted me to be spiritually educated - guess it worked. After reading the Bible at least 30 times front to back - commentaries, lexicons, etc in hand, there was no where else to turn but atheism.

Very, very happy with it too - strictly I guess I would consider myself more of a humanist than a plain old atheist. My children are growing up without a god and are the most well-adjusted kids among their peers. Real love is the key - not some love for an imaginary friend.

To think of the mental turmoil my parents put me through - pray that god will take away your physical pain (rather than go to hospital), pray that god will correct your attitude, imagine living forever with god - that really did it. It's hard enough living one life. Imagine living FOREVER gazing at a god's face. That ain't livin. Plus the amount of money the preachers scrape and claw out of parishioners to buy themselves the best cars, clothes, etc. It's all about power.

I encourage everyone to read the whole bible at least once - seriously read it. Everytime you find something weird or objectionable, mark it down. Reference everything and you'll be a very happy heathen! Don't go for sarcasm. Read it as any work of fiction. Your mind will be blown!

When I was a preacher, my parishioners would insist on "biblical preaching" but when I really did it, it really pissed them off.

DOn't know how I missed this thread before.... so joining very late.

Raised by devoutly atheist parents who insisted, rather unfairly I thought, that I went to church .... didn't last long. I've been atheist ever since, though I wandered through an agnostic patch late teen/early 20s - I was appreciating the calm and peace of the church but nothing more.

RE the sun coming up. It is an evocative phrase, which contrasts with the pure science expression "A ball of flaming gas illuminating the marshes"
From Hogfather and Terry pratchett's twisted take on the power of belief.
There is a very important though subtle difference in the two.

I missed it too, r_f.

I stopped believing in a deity at the same time that I stopped believing in Santa and the tooth fairy. My parents never discussed religion with me. We attended church only for baptisms, weddings and funerals.

As I knelt in prayer, I would think: "This is all nonsense". I still do and I cannot understand why intelligent, educated, rational people think differently.

That's why I contribute to discussions like this one. I am trying hard to understand.

re.#103:
"I stopped believing in a deity at the same time that I stopped believing in Santa and the tooth fairy. My parents never discussed religion with me. We attended church only for baptisms, weddings and funerals."

That sounds about how we're bringing up The Girls (who are currently 11 and 7) ... I have had personal "issues" with the whole Santa and the Tooth Fairy (and the Easter Bunny) thing, but The Wife insists we play out those charades.

I just hope that they, too, will come to the "This is all nonsense." place when dealing with religion and its assorted fanatical followers.

#103 - My short answer to your question would be one word: habit. That's not going to be a 100% foolproof answer, since there are people who were raised without any religious upbringing, who come to find solace in such beliefs. In general, though, if you start children down that path early enough, it's a safe bet that the majority of them won't stray off it.

I am the only one of nine siblings who doesn't attend some church services. Seven of them still call themselves Roman Catholic, although one of those seven also practices his own form of Buddhism, and he's the one who used to be a priest.

My husband and his three siblings were raised in a very strict Slovenian/Italian Roman Catholic family. None of them are "religious" in any sense of the word - don't attend mass regularly, etc. I happen to think they are all wonderful human beings. They are all married, hard-working, raising families, and much more loving and respectful to their crazy and tyrannical father than he has ever deserved.

In spite of all that, my mother-in-law once told one of her daughters that it is the greatest disappointment of her life that none of her children is religious. Now, that is just messed up to me. Is that what her religion has taught her?

#106 - Sounds familiar. My mother once told me that my 'secular education' ruined me. :o/

My answer was that she had taught me to think for myself, and that I was doing it.

I think your mother-in-law is confusing her faith with the culture associated with her religion.

I think your mother-in-law is confusing her faith with the culture associated with her religion.

Hm-m-m-m... that's much too subtle a distinction for her to make, so you make be right on that, clamairy.

I think it's an easy mistake to make. Rejection is difficult to deal with, for any parent. It's only since I had children of my own that my mom tells me how proud she is of me, and what a good person I have turned out to be. I believe all she felt before that was that I had turned away from something she had offered me. (Foisted upon me is more accurate.)

I was not raised with regular church-going, although my parents supported attempts to figure it out for myself and would drop me off at whatever church if I wanted to go. Yet, as an adult I am very involved with the local pagan community, which functions very similarly to a church. We don't have a building, but we have rituals (services, complete with coffee hour), do community service work, offer one another support and care and all the other things people come to church for.

For me, I don't consider paganism a "faith" and I don't "believe" in it. I practice it because I enjoy the community and the theatre aspect of preparing ritual. My spiritual practice involves many other things I do to enhance my life, many of which have nothing to do with paganism or wicca.

I think lots of people go to church solely for the social aspects and I am certainly one of them, even though my "church" would be considered blasphemous to many.

#110 That's it, littlegeek!

Social aspects! I always enjoyed getting together with other like-minded people to drink our god's blood and eat his bones.

But a Pagan? That's so blasphemous! You should come back to 'regular' worship where everything is good and proper.

;)

(Of course, I'm the one who asked his dad if adultery/fornication is wrong how come god could knock up Mary without breaking his own rules.)

Not bones, scaryguy. Flesh.

That brings up something I've wondered about. Does the idea of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a slain god have any place in Judaic tradition, or was it introduced from some of the other ancient religions?

Just found this thread, so allow me to pitch in if it's not too late. It's interesting reading through the thread to see how many people argue about the 'reason' for our existence. IMO this is the wrong argument. There is no reason for our existence in the same way that there is no reason for the sun rising. We are all biological accidents, cosmic bacteria blown by chance onto this planet where the conditions of life happened to be right for our evolution. So called spiritual experiences are simply things which happen beyond the realm of our senses as they have currently evolved. Dogs do not see colours, but that doesn't mean they are not there. What we call ghosts are probably other life forms which are not apparent to our senses in the way that colours are not apparent to the senses of a dog.
Our consciousness has evolved to the point where we have become pattern making animals. This is evidenced by our innate drive to create language: the ultimate pattern system. Concepts such as fate, destiny, luck, or God are all manifestations of our desire to seek patterns or meanings in what we see around us or in what happens to us. Our solitude in the universe is unbearable to our evolved consciousness, so we look for a father/mother figure to console us.
Man created God, not the other way round. We invented him in order that in his name we can justify all kinds of atrocities to ourselves.

and #122 the answer to your question is yes. Most mesopotamaic religions involve canabalism of one form or another, as well as resurrection myths. Christianity is a very clever hotchpotch of stuff stolen from other more ancient religions. That is the reason for its initial success, as well as the way it plays upon two of our darkest fears: that of death and that of the extinction of the world, the end of days, or Paroussia, in Greek...

Don't get me started.....

Whilst I agree with your basic premise

"There is no reason for our existence "

The next line "there is no reason for the sun rising" doesn't follow. There is a specific reason why the sun rises. Orbital mechanics could be the shortest summary.

The rest is simply your belief - no "better" than any one elses
You have shown no evidence for:

"Comsic bacteria"
"simply things which happen beyond the realm of our senses as they have currently evolved"
"ghosts are probably other life forms"
"language: the ultimate pattern system"
"Our solitude in the universe "

Don't get me started indeed!

Many questions don't yet have full answers!

#114 actually the sun does not rise. The earth merely revolves around it. It only appears to us that it rises because of our position relative to it.

As for the rest of your paltry comments, I do not need to prove anything. It is all self evident. On the contrary it is those with religious faith who should prove with evidence (and are of course always unable to) their assertions.

It has always struck me as qrotesque that in religious matters when religious people indulge in the certainty of their convictions it is called 'having faith', but when atheists do the same, it is called 'being opinionated'.

And what's more, many questions do indeed have full answers. It's just that religious people refuse to accept hard science.

#115 - Umm, tomcat, this is supposed to be a forum for polite debate. Keep it in mind.

Hi Myshelves:

#112

Sorry for the semantics thing. The Greek word that is translated into 'flesh' in English is "sarx" - and strictly means the meat of an animal (Aside: I find that interesting - animal flesh and not man or god flesh. Could it be the first reference to evolution?)

But is can also mean the whole body: e.g. bones, liver, heart, genitalia, etc.

The really wild thing is that it could also be translated to mean that Jesus was ticked off at someone and said, 'Eat me!' ;)

In Judaism there are no - as overtly - references to canabalism being a 'good' thing. In fact, even the idea of a Jewish kid being god is considered blasphemous. I can't comment on the early development of Judaism.

I don't remember too much about the genetic cousins of the Israelites and their customs either - Hittites, Philistines, on down to the Perizzites (no kidding). I never realized what a problem termites were in the biblical days.

"And the Lord saith, Kill them all! Stompeth them with thy sandals until none shall be left alive."

That's somewhere near the reference to the Holy Hand Grenade.

#116 - "hard science" requires evidence. Mostly repeatable evidence, testable hypothesis, falsification etc etc. .

"self evident" doesn't count as hard science.

Most scientists know that the more you study a field the more you realise is yet to be discovered. Very few areas have answers that are in anyway "full". Sufficient, maybe.

You can of course have faith in an atheistic position. but that puts you on the same level as those with theistic views. I do not mean to challenge in any way your personal beliefs based on your life experiances. I just don't share most of them, and without evidence I am unlikely to.

I do not need to prove anything. It is all self evident.

Evidently not, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It has always struck me as qrotesque that in religious matters when religious people indulge in the certainty of their convictions it is called 'having faith', but when atheists do the same, it is called 'being opinionated'.

Actually I call both of them Too-Cocksure-For-Their-Own-Good. I am an equal opportunity disdainer of religious and secular fundamentalisms.

118

I may be wrong here, because I dont have access to a Greek text, but I think Paul uses the word Sarx in the sense of the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

I am not an expert in the area, but I am not aware of cannibalism in other mesopotanian religions. Child sacrifice was fairly common (although we really dont know how common) and Christians and Jews were different from other some cultures in that they steadfastly refused to kill their children. (See the story of Abraham and the binding of Isaac. It horrifies us to read it, but if child sacrifice was as common as believed, the "scandal" of the story ends up being Abraham NOT sacrificing Isaac. What respectable god would settle for a Ram when he could have a teenage boy.

The early practice of communion is an inhouse mystery even among Christian theologians. Odds are good that it started off as a "Love Feast" (somewhat similar to the current Moravian practice), the feast being to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus. Somewhere along the way, and very early in the practice, it became a reenactment of the paschal mystery, and by the time the Early Church Fathers and medieval scholasticism gets to the practice, we get crazy stuff like accidental and essential natures, and voila, transubstantiation.

Theories abound, but in this area, real knowledge is scarce.

#114 and 115. I agree with reading_fox. The suggestions you make are just as fanciful as religious beliefs. There is little or no evidence to support any of them.

#121

Hi arctic:

It wasn't Paul's words but from the gospels where Jesus said, "Take, eat . . ." this is a Big Mac. Eat it only once a week or God's vengeance will be upon thine arteries.

Sorry, I added the last bit. ;)

added: of course it was supposed to orginally be in Aramaic, so maybe Jesus was talking about a Big Mac and it got lost in the translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English. I think Klingon might be in there somewhere too.

Judging from a quick bit of research (I'd have to do some digging to get out The Golden Bough and some other books), theophagy was practised in a number of ancient religions. It being a bit difficult to get one's hands on a deity to kill and eat him, a substitute was used. This could be a human, who took on the attributes of the deity for the occasion, or an animal associated with the deity or into which the deity was known to transform. Sometimes it was even bread and wine, or water.

I haven't been able to find out if theophagy (as opposed to human sacrifice, or cannibalism) appears in Jewish history.

Name that god department: Who said "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

I'll take "Name that god" for $200. Mr. Trebek...

Who said "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

Who is, Jesus of Nazareth?

#125

dodger, I'm afraid your score is at minus $200.

Anyone else want to ring in?

Ahh, I now know the answer, but as I have already, well, “buzzed in” and answered (and cheated by doing a Web search) I’ll let others guess.

Who is William Jefferson Clinton?

;o)

Oh, so sorry. Wrong kind of... never mind.

:-O

*gulps*

#124

The God of Light . . .

Added: Sorry, Who is the God of Light? (The Big M)

#130 - Yah, M would have been my guess, too. (If I hadn't been in such a joking mood. )

ahhh the big M.....Thanks for the info.

I doubt you will be able to find anything on Jewish cannibalism or human sacrifice. If it ever were practiced, I am fairly certain it would have been erased from history, given their later stances on these subjects.

On an other note, my daughter said the other day, "I was in paris and saw a Buddhist monk smoking on the streets."

The other person in the room with me (who was my age) and I burst into laughter, leaving my daughter very confused.

We went online and found the famous picture.

To get more specific, the quote is an inscription in a Mithraeum.

Arctic,
I'd understood (and I may well be wrong --- been a long time since religion classes) that letting Abraham off the hook about sacrificing Isaac was a great leap forward in morals for G_d, and that human sacrifice had been pleasing unto him up until then. There are a few other mentions of human sacrifice (Jephthah's daughter is a named victim) in the Bible. Not completely erased; more interpreted away.

As for cannibalism, there are instances of survival cannibalism in the bible. Seems to be more a punishment from God (you will eat the flesh of your sons and daughters because you've been BAD) than something in and of itself "pleasing unto him."

#134 Looks like the Strength Tarot card. Probably not a coincidence.

#135

Huh? Is there a Tarot deck in which she is stabbing the animal?
Seems to me to convey a different idea.

#136 D'oh. Didn't see the knife.....

Message 112: myshelves -- Does the idea of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a slain god have any place in Judaic tradition,

The Torah forbids the drinking of blood but the flesh, if properly drained and cooked beyond all recognition, could be considered kosher -- if the god was not cloven-hoofed :). Generally, if it has no taste, it's kosher..

Unless the god or man "chews the cud," his flesh is treif. ;)

#139

Oy vey! I hadn't thought of that. So why would a nice Jewish boy have introduced such a practice?

I doubt that the nice Jewish boy would have come up with that one. I believe it was his christian followers that did it. Unless I missed something in the New Testament.

And Christ said, "Eat me!"

"Take, eat, this is my body." Take, drink, this is my blood." "Do this in remembrance of me." Isn't that in the NT?

And "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." (John)

Yucky notion, isn't it?

#142 - It is to me. I wouldn't want to be remembering the ones I love by pretending to eat their flesh and drink their blood. And I most certainly wouldn't want anyone to be showing their fondness for me by 'reenacting' the consumption of my parts as a show of faith.

Transubstantiation - according to RC and EO dogma, it's the miraculous change by which the eucharistic elements (bread and wine) become the body and blood of Christ while retaining the appearances of bread and wine when they are consecrated.

It's one of those "faith" things....

I guess it's kind of like light -- it's a particle; No! it's a wave.

#144

Sure. But why is eating Jesus & drinking his blood, literally (for Catholics and some others) or figuratively, the major rite in Christianity? Why would anyone think that this is a neat idea? How do people in the 21st century reconcile practicing such a primitive rite?

I wonder about this every time I read a book such as Alive, or a history of the Donner Party, or The Custom of the Sea, which reflects popular horror with regard to survival cannibalism.

I forgot that part....jeeze, that is creepy. I think JC was probably using metaphor, but xtians never seem to get that concept. I will never understand why.

The thing is you have to remember that Jesus was a jew, i.e. he followed Jewish law, Jewish holy days, etc. When you look at what are supposed to be his teachings, he encourages everyone to be a good jew (my word).

Now, the reason I put supposed is because there is no writing from the times of Jesus. In fact the closest to his timeframe was written by Paul - a guy that miraculously met Jesus after he was dead. The real apostles never accepted Paul (sent him as far away as possible) - according to the New Testament - RC have their own history.

So we have a majority of the NT written by a guy that never knew Jesus (alive) and the rest that was written up to forty years after the crucifixion - none of it proven to be written by people who knew Jesus personally.

Think about that for a minute.

Now imagine that we never wrote down anything about WWII. We wait unitil now to start writing what's been passed down orally. Think what you'd get.

Not only that, some guy who never served in the military comes in saying that he met FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, (pick one) personally after the said person was dead and came to pass down what they said after death.

Does that not reek of crazy homeless dude in the alley?

That's why the canabalistic flavours of Christianity get by - the rest is just as weird and creepy.

"Does that not reek of crazy homeless dude in the alley?"

Bwaa haa haa! Okay, I see your point. But, I though John was one of the apostles. And wasn't Matthew was one of the crew, too?

Yeah, but they were written after those guys were dead.

It's like me writing Jim Morrison's autobiography. Today.

And then there are all of the other gospels that were deemed not authentic by the RC church in the 300's. The NT even mentions some of them that no one has read since then. Those were written by apostles too - even by Mary Magdalene!

I can't remember it's name right now. Song of Mary or something like that. Maybe Gospel according to Mary. Interesting that a bunch of old farts got together (Council of Nicea) and decided which books were real and which weren't.

They kept the ones that reinforced their hold on the people - and went on to covert by the sword for over a thousand years.

I'm Elvis. No, really.

*starts writing*

I watched the first half of the PBS special last night about the Mormons. Talk about crazy! This guy claims God and Jesus came to see him and told him where this special book is buried and from that he creates an entire religion? And modern people with brains and educations follow it? And wear funny underwear? And think they can run the country? And people think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is fiction?

*wants to hear more about the funny underwear*

;o)

They wear some sort of sacred undergarments.

Article on Mormon Undies

UUUUHHHH?

Okay, I am speechless.

Endowment ceremony!

ahem

#155 - Ah, that explains the extra roomy attachment in the men's version of those drawers...

#151

Not any crazier than virgin births, people rising from the dead, etc. It just seems crazier because it happened in 19th century NY instead of a couple of thousand years ago, or in a galaxy far, far away. And what about the modern people with brains and education who hand over big bucks to get the facts about the evil lord Xenu?

As for underwear, god has strange notions about clothing. For some reason it is holier to dress as people did in the middle ages (nuns, monks), in the 19th century ghettos of eastern Europe (orthodox Jews), whatever. At least the Mormons wear this stuff where it isn't seen. And aren't into hair shirts, or whatever some Opus Dei people do by way of self-torture.

If you can tell me why there would be any more reason to trust the anonymous divinely-inspired authors (and editors) of the bible than to trust Joseph Smith, I'm all ears.

I was a bit puzzled that they kept emphasizing what an "American" religion it is. So why were shiploads of converts sailing over from England?

If it wasn't goofy, it wouldn't require faith. My favorite is still the Scientologists, especially since the whole thing was started as a bet/joke between science fiction authors.

I prefer being pagan, wherein the idea is to embrace metaphor for its ability to free the mind for better absorption of weirdness. You don't have to literally believe wacky sh*t in order for it to have the desired effect.

#151 and on

Oh, come now all of you. Don't berate the underwear!

We've all had holy underwear at some point in our lives. Some people can't afford to replace it like others can!

;)

Let's all wear our holy drawers in solidarity! Do I hear Pomp and Circumstance wailing somewhere in the background?

This thread is just pants.

All of this talk about goofy old Biblical law reminds me of something funny from way back. Several years ago, “Dr. Laura” took a Biblical stance against homosexuality citing Leviticus 18:22. Some crafty person out in the world penned a very funny letter titled, “An open letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger” asking her opinions on various aspects of other Levitical laws, such as:

"When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

“I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

“I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

“Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

“Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

“Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?”

Ahh, good stuff. If you’d like to read the whole thing, do a Web search (it’s easy to find) or visit: http://www.thehumorarchives.com/joke/Dr_Laura for a good copy of it.

#161 Ah, the classics never die.

Why can't I own a Canadian? bwahaha

#161

There was a scene in a West Wing episode (damn, I miss that show!) in which the President asked similar questions of a Dr. Laura type. Wonder which came first.

Edit: Found it on the web. Needs a bit of background --- she is attending some White House function. Remains seated when Bartlett comes into the room.

http:// www.skeptictank.org/gen1/gen00569. htm

(Close up the spaces I left.)

Message 157: myshelves --
The tzitzit is the fringed garment orthodox Jewish men wear under their shirts. From Wikipedia:

From the Torah Numbers 15:38: "Speak to the children of Israel and you shall say to them that they shall make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments, throughout their generations, and they shall affix a thread of blue" (Hebrew: תכלת - tekhelet) "on the fringe of each corner."

The fringes are made of specially-tied knots and wrappings of thread. In the numerology many Jews strongly believe in, the word tzitzit has the value 600. Each tassel has eight threads (when doubled over) and five sets of knots, totalling 13. The sum of all numbers is 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. This reflects the concept that donning a garment with tzitzit reminds its wearer of all Torah commandments.

There will thus be no more whining from the Christians who have only 10 comandments!

#165 You might be a Pastafarian. In their heaven there's a strippper factory.

#165 - Spammer!

:oP~~~~~

I curse you.

Hey clam, a slightly more Biblical approach would be:

I cures thee

or

thou art cursed

hmm, oh well...

Than again, we could just smite him, and those like him!

#168 & 169

Curing a spammer would be a miracle :-))

Smiting sounds more like it. Or maybe "I shall bring down upon thee a plague of flags, and thou shalt be banished to the void."

Did anyone mention the post to Abby? A more permanent banishment might be in order.

There's an interesting little quiz on beliefnet.com that ranks your affinity for various religions by percentage based on your personal beliefs. They are fairly all inclusive and certainly nailed me 100%.

Oh, I think I took that one about 7 years ago, or so, varielle. I'm afraid I have no recollection of the results. I should go back and retake it when I have time, especially since some of my beliefs have evolved since then.

I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage, all hail him, ramen.

Short version: I am a non-religious, agnostic atheist. I have no belief in god, but I cannot claim my lack of belief is the same thing as proof of fact. I try my best to live a decent, loving, constructive, honorable life.

The long version of explanation:

I think the term agnostic is often misunderstood as a mid range point between atheism and theism. In fact agnosticism addresses a different matter from the
epistemlogical issue of how do we KNOW what we know for a fact and CAN we possibly KNOW for a fact that a supernatural god does or does not exist. From the poiont of view of logic and science, an honest and grounded answer would seem to be that regardless of whether or not we BELIEVE in the existance god(s)----(ie atheism-theism), agnosticism is the only intelligent, honest perspective answer in terms of KNOWING for a fact.

Thus it makes sense to label myself an "agnostic atheist" because while I have no belief in any gods, I cannot with integrity, honestly, intelligence, and a basically educated mind well versed in solid critical thinking skills claim for a fact that "no gods exist". I do not have that power of absolute knowledge.

Another misconception is the idea that someone has to be a theist to be religious. Agnostics exist on both sides of the atheism/theism line because you either have some belief in gods or you have no belief in gods. Religious though/behavior/philosophy patterns (and "religion") can exist on either side of the atheism-theism line since religion is basically founded in structure and ritual, often with an object or god (theism), but the latter is not neccessary in religion. Religious atheism is possible, but usually do not occur in noticable numbers in terms of recognized, organized religions (and certainly don't include supernatural gods). And that last note brings me to the point that we tend to forget that the word god(s) can mean many different things...in terms of atheism/theism it tends to refer to supernatural beings that have power over man and his reality......as opposed to say the worship of objects and ideas...and the religious patterns of thinking and behaving that can accompany such a mindset.

Personally, I am not a religious person in terms of organizations nor in terms of ritualized thinking patterns. Religious thinking patterns (and "religion") can exist on either side of the atheism-theism line since religion is basically founded in structure and ritual, often with an object or god (theism), but the latter is not neccessary in religion.

The atheist lacks the kind of built-in community that religious theists have all over the world. Wherever they go, the latter are sure to find inviduals and groups that they gain access to due to their club membership. Athesists in general share only 1 minute thing in the whole scheme of things that identifies them as a group, but doesn't make the make them a community: they lack belief in gods. However the growth of the internet and communication technology in general has made it increasingly possible for atheists to seek out and enjoy others of compatible interests and philosophies.

MK

According to that beliefnet quiz, I'm Buddhist. I wasn't aware. In reality, although I do agree with much of the Buddhist philosophy, I'm an Agnostic, and I'm fairly certain that I always will be, due to the fact that blind faith does not come easily to me. Actually, let's just say that I worship Bacchus and be done with it.

#174 MK: Wow, what a bucket full of ideas in one post. I'm pondering the atheist religion idea. Would (does?) that still require belief in something? Or, it atheist religion essentially culture (minus of the God bits)? Taking that further, could that mean our secular life is our atheist religion? (I hope not!) Maybe everything in life is religious to some extent, or at least ritual. Is ritual religion, or is religion a type of ritual? Is this all just a useless exercise in semantics (the "littlegeek theory"... I can't remember where it was mentioned)?

Atheism is like driving a car. We're not necessarily enthusiasts; the car is just something that gets us around in life.

#174 I agree that we cannot claim for a fact that no gods exist but if you are an atheist then you accept that the likelyhood of gods existing is extremely remote. There is little point in adding "agnostic" just because it is not possible to prove absence of a deity. That just seems to me to be unnecessarily pedantic (and confusing).

Is an agnostic atheist someone who doubts the existence of atheists?

I am not sure I would say that "atheist lacks the kind of built-in community that religious theists have all over the world." True, there are no atheist "churches" but given the lack of belief in God, it would be interesting to see what, in fact, serves as community for atheists. Since I am not a practicing atheist, I don't know what that would be, but, like religious folk where you can find a wide variety of ways to "worship" perhaps there are ways atheists don't "worship" together. I am thinking of academic conferences perhaps, or book clubs, or something like that. (I am resisting the urge to add, tongue in cheek, something like bars--because we KNOW all atheists are pitiful alcholics....)

Seriously though, I would be interested in seeing if there is some kind of atheist community.

There are cultural differences. In the UK pubs, do serve as community centres with some now integrating the servies of PostOffice and even I believe shops. Atheists are certainly to be found in them, although some theists do also appear. Atheists in my experiance don't need to gather specifically to reassure each other that god doesn't exist. Communities are established thorugh normal social intercourse, sports, pubs, hobbies, et al.

In another thread, I think in the christianity group, I thought it wasteful that theistists went to church significantly because ofthe community feeling there, irrespective of their or others actual strength of belief. However I appeared to be in the minority.

You mean like an atheist place of worship? I'm thinking university buildings. I certainly don't mean to imply that only nonreligious people go to universities, but that is the root of much atheist thought. I can't think of anything secular we "worship" more than education and sports. And there is a lot of prayer involved in sports.

Where I live (Colorado), there are a few atheist and freethinker groups, and I have been invited to a couple of their gatherings. However, when I ask questions about what they do at their meetings, I am told that they have discussions, and on occasion have guest speakers. To me, this sounds like a church. I envisage it as sitting for long periods of time in an uncomfortable chair, in an uncomfortably hot room, while I listen to some guy drone on about spiritual matters, and then, afterwards, we file into the lobby to chat with others over burnt coffee. Sounds a lot like church to me...

Humanist organizations abound, but I have not been interested. I agree whole-heartedly with their tenets, but I find the idea of going to a monthly group to discuss belief/understanding to be a bore.

As a horror writer I get my intellect stimulated by a local biology professor - I've even graded exams. Otherwise I just have to watch what I say, because many of the indigenous sort still can't comprehend someone who doesn't care to be ruled by a god.

Ironically, I am going to a 40th wedding anniversary in July where I will be in a, more than usual, minority. In fact, I will be the only one there who doesn't go to their church.

Most of the people I know believe in god. I give an interesting perspective on their day to day problems, so they come to me for advice. Go figure . . .

Shit - I'm an atheist priest!

Heina says I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage, all hail him, ramen.

Just be sure that it's really him and not the Anti-Pasta.

I grew up spending a lot of time in Church. I've studied the world's major religions and some minor ones. I take what I agree with and leave what I don't. I'm a good and caring person. I don't knowingly hurt anyone. That work's for me.

I have trouble seeing scaryguy as a priest. Maybe a witchdoctor...

Scaryguy, you could try being an atheist missionary. You are required to convert (unconvert?) at least one church-goer at the party. Get them to joing Happy Heathens.

I'd probably just end up flashing them. Have to work on my presentation though. Upon opening the trench coat should I scream "Boing!" or "Mwaaa!"? Maybe "Happy Anniversary!" in a nice falsetto is more apropos.

They'd scream: "There is no god!" and run away. Easy enough.

Hmm. That would mean more BBQ chicken for Scary, plus a cooler full of beer. I will give it some serious thought . . .

So, I took a look at this thread to see what you guys had going on here... and I still don't know if I've wasted 2 good hours or if it was time well spent...

I started out thinking that "so, this is where we all get to state our 'beliefs' before we go arguing", but then it evolved to some religious seminar-like state discussing semantics and various... writings.
The first thing was mildly interesting; the second was way beyond me - I've never had any religious beliefs to renounce and accordingly I don't know any specifics about any religion.

I had to admit that I laughed out loud when I read r_f's post #180 saying "Atheists in my experiance don't need to gather specifically to reassure each other that god doesn't exist", though.

Anyway, in form with the start of this thread I'll now announce that I'm strictly unreligious - I do not belive in any religion, church or secular; I normally include liberalism, communism, fascism, capitalism (that's a tough one as it's more of a ecomonic theory than anything else but there are lots of mindless adherents so I'd say it qualify as a religion...) and any other -ism you'd care to name.

I think that the more we think we know the lesser we actually know. A famous swedish poet (Ferlin) once said (in a poem) that "when I was young I had all the answers - now all I've got is question after question". We found out about atoms, and then about what atoms are made of... etc. Every new answer makes for a new view of what "reality" "is", and a new reality poses new questions...
I have no problem with this. I can accept that I don't personally know how the difference beween a petrol vs a diesel engine. I can accept that I don't know how big space is.

Some people can't, and I think they end up either religious or scientists?
;-)

What I am, though, is interested in religion and belief as concept; the role of religion in the evolution of society and culture, how religion originally tried to explain the same things that we now (at least in some parts outside the US, hehe, winky winky) have science to do for us - the eternal and fundamental need of humankind to have answers, to understand, to find patterns... etc.

So. I won't ever participate in debates over which one said what and what that possibly could mean. Because I don't know ("remember" would be the right world - I went to school when bible studies where obligatory in Swedish schools, but that ended in the mid-70's...) what who did to whom ;-)

Hope you'll understand. And sorry for the meandering post...

/Holy whatever, I have to learn to write shorter sentences!!!/

I just finished reading this whole thread and wow I guess I am a little surprised how open everyone is about what they do and don't believe. Thank you!

I was attending a christian church most of my life until recently. I have been become disgusted with what being preached from the pulpits. I guess I hate thinking its 2007 and still I don't think men (church going men) would be happy until women were set back in their civil rights to ancient times.
Honestly I don't know what or if I believe in anything anymore. I just know I don't believe in the god of the bible any longer.
I have been reading, just finished actually, The Humanist Manifesto. Not sure I agree with everything thats said but it is interesting.
I always had my faith that when I died I would go to a better place. Now all I got to look forward to is dying and being no more. I grew up poor and as an adult I barely live above the poverty level. I used to have this perverse fantasy of all the rich people being in hell and just us people who struggled hard to survive all our lives would be in heaven. Kinda sick huh? =P Now we will all just rot in the ground side by side. No I am not depressed or suicidal just not happy. I am normally a very happy person. I do admit you all do make me smile with your easy banter.
Kathy

Long rambling posts are the best, because it usually means the writer was thinking things out as it was written, which I love doing.

My problem with religion and most "isms" is that people who follow them have the audacity to claim absolute certainty about something in such a large, complex universe. I might be reasonably certain about a lot of things, but the main thing that I'm really certain of is that the amount of stuff that I don't know outnumbers the stuff that I do know by a huge margin.

As for science, I lost a lot of respect for that when it occurred to me that if I REALLY wanted to prove something that wasn't blatantly wrong, I could probably "prove" it well enough too fool most people, including myself. This has little to do with truth or fact, and a lot to do with how much I want it to be true. Most people seem form a set of beliefs without any semblance of logic, and then use some iffy logic to prove it to themselves until they can no longer have any doubt about its truth.

While I'm ranting on largely unrelated topics, I might as well mention that more religious people need to consider the fact that if they were born in a different country or to different parents, they would probably be just as certain that another religion was True.

>180 reading_fox: "Atheists in my experience don't need to gather specifically to reassure each other that god doesn't exist." Ha! That's exactly right!

Your second comment is also dead-on - I know people who attend megachurches, and based on their descriptions, you would think the place was one giant social club. Maybe it is.

I recently noticed a book at Barnes & Noble titled "The Atheist's Bible" - what on earth is that all about??? Will have to check it out next time I am there. I wouldn't think atheists would want or need a bible, and theists are probably not interested in reading this.

I was raised in a mixed home - my Mom is a devout Roman Catholic, and my Dad was an atheist (from a family of non-church-going Lutherans). He agreed we would all be raised RC, and although he did poke fun at some of the foibles of the church, he never criticized my Mom's religious beliefs or objected to the time and money she gave to the church. I decided I was not religious after a heated confrontation with my third grade Catechism teacher - I'll write about that sometime on a slow day.

Right now I believe in mountains. Just about any problem I might have in this life can be put into perspective by getting to a high enough elevation. Doesn't matter how I get there - hiking, climbing, cross country skiing, mountain bike, or even driving in the case of a few roads that get high enough. I don't have any expectation of an afterlife, but I would like to be cremated and have my ashes scattered in a favorite alpine valley. I like the idea that I might show up as a little bit of grit in a climber's boot, or on the floor of a backpacker's tent.

“I like the idea that I might show up as a little bit of grit in a climber's boot, or on the floor of a backpacker's tent.”

oregonobsessionz, I must say, there is something very beautiful and calming about that notion!

#192 - I'll certainly join you in a church of Mountains. They are good for the soul, and teach you about life: The hard bit about climbing them is realising how more is yet to climb!

Church of Mountains....can I join? Oh wait, i think I did.

#195 you're not on the list of members, so maybe you only thoght you did.

OK, I really really like mountains... and cliffs, and heights, and sitting by the airpalne window looking at the world, and... but I don't even have to try not to get religious about it, because I'm not.
Anyway, the correct link should be http://www.librarything.com/groups/outdoorreaders

Oops. My bad html. I've edited it so that it works now.

Thanks Busifer.

oregonobsessionz,

I'll go for the mountains! But I prefer looking up at them to looking down from them.

Little story: In Scotland, while roaming around looking up at some gorgeous mountains and down at a beautiful loch, we met a woman whose son had died the year before. She had some of the "cremains" with her; she was scattering small amounts in places he'd loved.

Edit: decided to start a new topic

Even my Mom (the devout Roman Catholic) gets it. When she visited, of course I took her up to Mount Hood, and we walked a short distance above Timberline Lodge. She told me that now she understood why I didn't need to go to church.
http://www.summitpost.org/object_list.php?parent_id=150189&object_type=3

>199 myshelves: Looking up at mountains is great too. If I am having an aggravating day at work, all I have to do is look out the window - we can see Mount Hood, Mount St. Helens, and on a clear day Mount Adams - and all is right with the world.

(edited to fix the link)

I looove mountains, but I unfortunately have to drive for about eight hours to get to any, and those aren't particularly large/pretty ones.

wow. i didn't want to post to this thread until i'd read it all, but it's taken me rather a while to get through it. i saw other posts coming out of this group, and it seemed like an appropriate place to plop myself.

as far as my beliefs, i tend to think of myself as somewhere in between agnosticism and atheism, although i find that as i get older, i seem to be moving more towards atheism. maybe the most honest title for myself would just be "heathen," and leave it at that?

i was raised catholic, and attended catholic high school, which is easily the time in my life i can point to and say, "that's why i'm not religious." high school for me was the discovery of the hypocrisy of religion, something which now that i'm older i see all around me, especially in the hatred i see expressed by fanatical christians in this country - didn't christ preach love? my break from catholocism is most difficult where some of my family is concerned. my mom "claims" to understand that i don't believe in her god, but she still asks me to pray for people when they are sick, or makes little comments which are clearly designed to... "bring me back to the fold"? with my aunt, whom i am very close to, it's even a bit more than that. i sometimes get the feeling that it would break her heart if i told her straightforwardly what i think of her beliefs, and i never want to offend her. at the same time, i was very offended *by* her when, for my college graduation, she gave me a diamond-studded cross necklace. i get that you have faith, but have try to be a bit more thoughtful in your dealings with those who don't, you know? (also, doesn't christianity preach modesty? diamonds in a cross? c'mon...)

high school was also, for me, the time when i was first exposed to several other ways of thinking, and grew especially interested in eastern philosophies - buddhism mostly. this interest in world religions eventually determined the course of my whole life, since it's what got me into philosophy - which turned out to be my great love. buddhism is not something that i've devoted a lot of time or interest to in the last 5-10 years, though, which made it a bit surprising that my results from that belief.net quiz still gave me pretty high "buddhism marks." i guess some ways of thinking get into your mind and stay there, whether you're aware of them or not?

ok, i've rambled enough :)

I'm definitely and Atheist, but I like to describe myself as a naturalist. I am happiest when communing with creatures of all kinds. Even sitting in the grass and talking to a beetle makes me happy. Seeing a happy dog or cat is the high point of any day.

I am comfortable with the fact that there is no heaven or hell, nor any supernatural events. The natural world has enough wonder to fulfill any life.

#204 - ;-)
I thought a naturalist was a person who enjoyed bathing in public places without having any clothes on, hehe, but I understand this is a swedish language thing - nice mix up/possiblity for confusion!

Bus:

That's a Naturist! It can be confusing.

I had a misundertanding in French years ago. My throat wasn't feeling so great, so I used the English: "I have a frog in my throat." I translated it directly and everyone laughed until they cried.

It turns out in French you should say: "I have a cat in my throat."

Of course, Monica Lewinsky said . . . oh, nevermind.

/start thread-jack/

Hehe, idioma can be confusing, sometimes ;-)

Also, weak language skills can also have funny results...

I've actually heard a friend ask for "water from the crane" at an restaurant in Berlin, and when she realized what she'd said she blushed. The funny thing is she thought she had ordered "water from the skull" and that's why she blushed - another misunderstandig!
What she REALLY wanted was tap water/still water. Tap = kran in swedish; and she thought crane = cranium/skull ;-)

And my husband once labelled the Swedish chef from the Muppet Show "the swedish cock" to an LA acquintance (chef = kock in swedish). It took him some time to realize what the laugh was about ;-)

/end thread-jack/

Until a French lady gently set me straight, I travelled around France asking people for directions to the war. :-) (It had been a long time since high school French.) And every one of them sent me to the train station without batting an eye! Who says the French aren't kind to Americans?

Odering tap water in Germany was an ordeal, as I remember it. Everytime we ordered water, we got mineral water. I tried "trinkwasser" (and got mineral water) "normalewasser" (and got mineral water) and about five other things.

"Leitungswasser" was not intuitively obvious!

We finally settled on beer when we went out to eat, and were much happier!

#209 - Yes, I've had a similar experience. I went to Berlin once or twice a year during the mid/end of the 80's, and I normally ordered either milchcaffee or beer depending on the time of day.
I could not bring myself around to have sparkling wine (plus croissant & jam) for breakfast, which was one of the four standard breakfast menues at the café where I used to start my days; coffee, juice, and some breadrolls for me please ;-)

Oh, this bring back memories... my favourite café/bar (Cafe M) had this milchcaffee served in soupbowls, a very gay district, so me and my friend (also female) could sit and talk totally undisturbed because the men weren't interested and the girls thought we where taken.
I loved that place.
The we went to Weissesrössl and played pinball, drinking Flensburg from the bottle, also fun :-)

*HAVE to top this ramble NOW!*

You know, if I'm religious about something it'd be my nostalghia ;-)

As an American, I'm finding myself with a distinct case of Europe envy!

One of the best years of my life was the year I spent as a student in Germany. I have been able to go back to Europe (mostly Russia) a few times since, and enjoyed every visit.

Although, once I was in Paris, and I was looking for a bank. I was not quite sure how to say it French, so I asked a passing man, "Parlez-vous anglais?" to which he said a curt "non."

"Ou est de bank d'national" i asked, which I am sure came out as "ooooo ay day bank dinational?"

The man said, in perfect English, "Around the corner to the left, and please, NEVER speak French again."

Europe envy.... German beer does it for me. And then there's Italian food, and Florence and ...

#209 "Leitungswasser" - thanks Arctic. I'll remember that. I had given up trying to get tap water in Germany.

> 214 Or your could settle for "Radlerbier". This is something cyclists drink, so they can enjoy their beer, and yet not worry about falling off the bike on the way home. I guess you could mix in various things, but the version I have seen is 50% lemon juice (sweetened, but not sticky sweet like lemonade) and 50% of the local beer.

#215 - Sometimes you just want water, OK?
;-)

#212 - You now, in Europe we don't normally view Russia as part of Europe, even if it is.

#215 When I ask for a "radler", I get shandy (beer and lemonade).

Yeah i know, but I was in St Petersburg and Murmansk though, so that is the "european part" of Russia.

#218 - ;-) Y'know, it's europe all the way to the Ural mountains, so either way it's just peckishness from us oldworlders who've had to think of the Soviet union as something off another planet for part of our lives.
The mind has strange ways to deal with insolveable puzzles...

Murmansk, that's almost Scandinavia, hehe!

Atheist. I do not believe in God, although I am open to proof. I love studying religions, however. I just get twitchy when people try to convert me.

I was raised Catholic, but I just never bought into it, even as a very young child.

Blame it on reading too much Albert Camus at too young an age.

You know, I've been practicing paganism for at least 15 years without really "believing" it, and just the other night one of the other women in my coven said she thinks she may be an atheist. I thought I was having a mid-life existential crisis, but maye it's just going around.

Too many fundamentalists in the pot will do that, methinks.

Hi there! I'm an Atheist raised Roman Catholic (and being Polish, currently enjoying the post-Ash Wednesday pączki sales!!), then passed through Wicca, and a sort of quantum mechanical Discordianism before finally saying the heck with it and throwing in with the Godless Heathens.

I admit to the possibility that there is a god, but only in the same way Brian Greene would say it's a possibility for me to quantum tunnel my way through a wall by walking into it. I have not seen concrete, repeatable, reliable and independent evidence for the existence of a divine entity, so I call myself Atheist rather than Agnostic.

I consider myself "spiritually" aligned with Discordians, SubGenii, Pastafarians and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. My circle of friends ranges from the devout to the debauched, all of whom respect each other's right to believe what they will--which has led to some very lively and fun conversations on the nature of existence.

The short answer for me is that I'm a devout agnostic pantheist.

The long answer is that I was raised as a devout intellectual Catholic, came close to being a nun, turned Wiccan and attended a Methodist seminary as an out of the closet pagan (got the sheepskin and everything), and have moved away from ritual paganism to something more organically pervasive.

In addition, I'm of a scientific turn of mind, and hesitate to claim the truth of anything that can't be verified experimentally, with consistent results.

I'm a devout something, I just don't know what. I'm devout because I've had a number of transcendent experiences, and find it as rational to accept those experiences as I find it rational to accept my experiences that hot things hurt if I touch them.

I don't know anything, though. Some people have transcendent experiences, but it's not something that can be reliably reproduced. Hot things hurt when anyone (except those few who have damaged sensory systems) touch them, but transcendent experiences don't happen to everyone.

So, I compromise. I don't know anything for sure, but my experience tells me that there is something that could be called goddess; something that could be called a soul. Reincarnation makes sense to me, based on the cycles of nature, but a pause between lifetimes to hang out with the goddess makes sense to me based on my own experience of and sense of compassion.

My sense of goddess is one of general benevolence (no active force for evil), but not responsive to individual requests. So my morality ends up being pretty much on the order of rejoice in the wonders of the world, do no harm, love those you love and have compassion for those you don't. When bad stuff happens, it just happens, no one's out to get you, it's just part of being a material creature.

edited to add: I don't have any problem with the possibility that there's no afterlife either. Life itself is such a gift, that to ask for more seems a little greedy.

I am an atheist, through and through.

Religion wasn't/isn't a big part of my family. My father's an ex-Catholic and my mother is a non-practicing Methodist. I was baptized Catholic because I was to go to a Catholic grade school (public schools in my town had gone down the tubes).

I began questioning my faith sometime between the 8th and 9th grades. By the time I was sophomore, I was a full-blown atheist.

I really don't affiliate with any other religion. I see too much danger in worship and view religion as a means of losing all faculties of individual thought. The greatest minds, after all, thought outside of the box.

Aside from being a Humanist, I do feel a strong connection towards nature. Though I am a strong proponent of human ingenuity, I do not think we shoud seek to distance ourselves farther from nature than we already are. Too many times do we forget that we are derived from the natural world too, and that is the realm in which we belong.

I do belive in karma, though not in a sense that the gods are keeping a tally of our good and bad deeds. Karma is just something that happens—something WE make happen by our choices.

I also really like meditation. It's quite relaxing.

My friends largly consist of Christians, mostly because I attend a Catholic school (still). There are a few closet-atheists, but only one other self-professed atheist like myself that I know.

My parents are the only ones in my family that know of my atheist, at this point. Mercifully, they don't care.

Finally, I've decided, that once I graduate college, I will try my absolute hardest to get a job in the U.K. They seem to share my views and they get Bank Holidays. Sounds like a good deal to me.

:-)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. I'm a Thelemite, an adherent of the system of Aleister Crowley. In fact, I'm a bishop of the Gnostic Catholic Church for which he was a Patriarch. Crowley is a curious figure as religious leaders go. He wrote:

"All the best Popes have been Atheists, but perhaps the greatest of them once remarked, 'Quantum nobis prodest haec fabula Christi'."

(He was referring to Leo X, who is supposed to have said, "What to us is the worth of this myth of Christ?") Also:

"The mystic attainment may be defined as the Union of the Soul with God, or as the realization of itself, or--there are fifty phrases for the same experience. The same, for whether you are a Christian or a Buddhist, a Theist or (as I am myself, thank God!) an Atheist, the attainment of this one state is as open to you as is nightmare, or madness, or intoxication."

And yet I aver:
I am not an Atheist in your sense of the word: your doctrine is too coarse for any known blasphemy to shame it.
I am not an Atheist in your sense of the word: fancy a Priest let loose on Society!
As long as men and women shall bury their own perfect natures in fear, guilt, and shame--I am against Atheism, and for the Mysteries.
Every "rational enlightenment" has engendered new superstitions.
Love is the law, love under will.

I was roped into one of those fundamentalist evangelical Christian movements (the one I was in was identified as a cult by the Federal government). I was in it for 7 years! There came a point when I realized that it was all about power and control and I started asking some serious questions. The answers I got? "You are just critical." "You are proud." "You need to pray and have faith." I kind of got sick of being pushed around by people who wouldn't entertain my questions.

Now?
I am an agnostic.
I am humanist.
If I were to go to any church, I would go to the Unitarian Universalist church:

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

-The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
-Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
-Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
-A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
-The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
-The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
-Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part

Each person figuring things out for themselves. I like that.

E#dites fir fat fngrs :-)

We Unitarian Universalists are responsible for the search, but the congregations covenant to affirm and promote a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. My congregation is offering a reading and discussion of the Old Testament this spring led by the minister. I expect to be in it and reading How to Read the Bible as we progress. Most of us are proud, but we don't do it entirely alone.

Robert

I suppose I'm agnostic. It is more accurate to say that I don't believe in any religion. The more organized a religion is, the further away it is from everything it espouses (truth, freedom, intellectualism). I don't dispute particular beliefs, I question why individuals choose to believe at all. Answering that question gives me more insight into a person than the particulars of their opinions on god, the soul, or the afterlife.

I think the thread is kind of "what do you call your belief system?" when the really big question is, "what do you believe?" Kind of like Kevin Costner's rant in Bull Durham.

>230 jmcgarve:

I'll play: I believe the human race is far too limited to ever fully perceive what might or might not be out there. To make up a belief system out of whatever bits of the puzzle we might have is just that: make-up. If people need to do that to feel safe or good about themselves, hey, let them at it, as long as they leave everyone else alone to make up their own (or not....)

>231 auntmarge64:

You said it. The thing that bothers me most about organized religions is the fact that one is told what to believe and that certain ideas or ways of thinking are wrong.

>231 auntmarge64: Your condescension is amusing, but not unusual. Religious beliefs often make people feel imperilled and/or bad about themselves; it's hardly as simple as you make out. Certainly, there's no religious doctrine that can ever exhaust the weirdness of actual existence. But the exercises of myth and ritual are positive contributions to that weirdness.

>233 paradoxosalpha:
Inappropriate response.

>234 auntmarge64: LOL. I do so crave your approval!

Its lovely to hear everyones stories, thank you.
I am very clear about being an Atheist. I was bought up in the UK as a Methodist and my sisters continue with their faith and are not really interested in my lack of it.
I started to doubt at the age of 13, when I got fed up of being told how to behave by adults who clearly did not do as they said and were lying and cheating their way through life, despite appearing to be good Chapel goers. I have since met some very good people who are devoted to their religion, as well as exceptional atheists and try not to judge people either way.

I consider myself a general pagan. Honestly, I am still working on the specifics of what I believe. I used to tell people I am monotheistic. A left over annoyance from my Christian days. But truly, I am not sure. I do not question there is a divine presence (nor attempt to shove said belief down anyone's throat.) I have found Celtic beliefs attractive, but no one to discuss what little I know of them. I chose Pagan, rather then agnostic, because it is what keeps my attention. I will say on the monotheist issue that I have found myself concerned for a friend for converting from Bast after being able to have children when the doctors told her she could not. I tend to be wary of pressing one's luck.

Reply to MorganKeller #174
Spot on.
May I ask what have been your sources?
Another category might be the atheist agnostic who whilst not personally religious has nothing seriously against those who are theists/religious (provided that they don't try and convert me, teach it to my children, or receive public money) i.e. who believe in belief as a human good.

I too am an atheist agnostic. However, there is also ignostic and apatheist. I am both of those also.

Interesting. Thanks for that.
And where does that leave you on the humble, moderate, law-abiding beliefs or religious practices of others?
Does religion poison everything?
I noted that even Hitchens, when pressed on the point, admitted that he would not really like to see the end of religion because this would close down one of his most enjoyable intellectual pursuits.

I think one could quote Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris out of context and, depending on your agenda and which quotes you cherry-picked, one could "prove" that each is

1. As unreasonable as Joseph Stalin

or

2. As reasonable as Einstein, Russell or T. Huxely.

(e.g., Hitchens has said nice things about the "numinous", Harris is fascinated by Buddhist-type meditation and Dawkins admits he is only a 6 on a scale of 7, with 7 being an absolutist atheist.)

When they denounce religion in no uncertain terms they are focusing on the evil that comes from religion and their convictions that belief without evidence or wish-thinking is just a bad idea in general.

If it is possible to understand exactly "where they are coming from" I think no reasonable person, atheist or not, should have any fears of their respective ideologies. None of them strike me as authoritarians or something similarly nasty.

Of course one can always argue about their methodologies of communication being less than perfect.

I really appreciate your taking the time to reply.

Yes, I think you're right. It's often a question, when discussing with evangelicals, fundamentalists and assorted god-botherers, of how best to make a rationally and evidentially strong case even stronger.

I believe I know enough about the work of the Big Four to think that Hitchens is a candidate for best communicator. And I share very many of his political positions in which he is, very definitely, anti-authoritarian, and pro-human rights. I therefore have no fears, as you put it. What has always frustrated me, however, is the somewhat extreme position he takes on the effects of religion.

In logical terms the statement "religion poisons everything" is a scientific statement because it is falsifiable, right? What, everything? Even my cup of tea in the morning? And I don't think I can be accused of taking this statement out of context as it is the subtitle of the whole book.

I was particularly unconvinced by his attempt in the book to deny the religious affiliations of Martin Luther King in the context of the civil rights movement, (though I'd be very happy to hear other American perspectives on this).

Other examples that I can think of in which religious organisations have proved to be effective in organising or coordinating civil resistance to totalitarian regimes are the South African Council of Churches against the apartheid regime and even the dear old Catholic Church in pre-1989 eastern Europe. Why should this be? I don't know for sure, but maybe authoritarian regimes are somewhat more reluctant to violently suppress manifestations which have started their marches from religious places. It looks bad, if you know what I mean!

Therefore, I do not share this, what seems to me, somewhat exagerated position to make the point that very many vicious acts have been and indeed still are being committed in the name of religion, usually by the mad mullahs of all religions. On balance, my hunch is that the consoling religious beliefs of the moderate majority provided they are kept within the private sphere are no poison, but simply "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world ... the spirit of a spiritless situation", as someone once said.

But I'm guessing I'm not going to get you to agree.

In what way would you categorise this latter type of moderate belief without evidence or wish-thinking as just a bad idea in general?

Let's not be silly. I do think it reasonable to assume Hitchens was using poetic license when he said "religion poisons everything". I doubt he is insane and thinks religion poisons your morning tea.

Religious "faith" is a bad idea in the sense that it flies in the face of the reality we all experience, if one has a sufficient scientific educated understanding of our experiential reality, which is the way the "Four Horsemen" and I and millions of other atheists do see things. I can't see such as a bad thing, or necessarily leading to bad things. And of course millions hate and fear "atheism". That is also the reality of our experience.

The fear of many if not all atheists is that the animism, anthropomorphism and anthropocentricism that constitutes religious belief MAY very well lead to very bad things, so then why take the chance would be our argument.

As to atheism leading to similar bad things, Hitchens et. al., including myself, think that one can surely have a very bad philosophy of life, even if an atheist. Certainly it is far from "game over" at the point of being an atheist. Certainly a lot of work remains to be done.

Now, I can't speak for others but I would surely concede that being religious is preferable to being a sociopath, psychopath, absolutist hedonist, clinically diagnosed narcissist, or any kind of fanatical secular (generally political) ideologue such as a communist, objectivist, anarchist, etc. Or I would concede that being religious is better than being clinically depressed and suicidal.

But is that our only choices - religious belief based in wish-thinking - be it harmless or not - or some secular mental state so nasty that it would make religion seems anything but poison?

I think not.

message 243

Being religion is not mutually exclusive to being sociopath, psychopoth etc. As religious person hold their own belief, no matter how strange it is, above the welfare of other people, religious persons are more likely to act out as sociopath or psychopath. So, it is not a valid point to prefer a person you meet being religious rather than being a sociopath, as this person could be both.

I would discourage anyone I know to be religious as religion poisons everything. It poison the mind, which is more dangerous sometimes, than poisoned tea.

"Religious "faith" is a bad idea in the sense that it flies in the face of the reality we all experience, if one has a sufficient scientific educated understanding of our experiential reality, which is the way the "Four Horsemen" and I and millions of other atheists do see things. I can't see such as a bad thing, or necessarily leading to bad things."

Of course, we are in agreement.

And the consequence of this is that we would not teach religious faith to others and would take each opportunity to argue those who have such faith out of this position whilst seeking to explain why a scientific world view is preferable.

My question remains, however. In what sense is religious faith per se poisonous in the case of those very many religious or believing people who, if pressed, would probably agree that they are agnostics but who regard their faith as a personal good - whatever gets you through the night, right? These people are not going to be torturing or oppressing others. This seems okay to me, as I said, provided they don't try to indoctrinate me or my kids or take my tax contributions.

Also, very many scientists who live both publicly and, one suspects privately, by this rational method, nevertheless profess faith and observe religious rituals. They may be religious and (even theistic (see #174)) but agnostic but still see some personal and subjective value in holding a belief. Why? Who knows? Loyalty to Mummy? Fear of death? But this is, in my view, a fundamental right enshrined by law.

And, of course, we are the privileged few who have been able to benefit from a decent rational scientific education. Very many people, even in the west, have not. Are we to dismiss them all as sociopaths or psycopaths? This does not seem to be our strongest point!

I think the question remains.

Another question is what do we want to achieve? Do you want to see the end of all religion? Dawkins says yes. Hitchens says no, though possibly for ironic and/or poetic reasons.

If the answer is yes, how would you set about acheiving this? By somehow overturning the Virginia Statute on Religious Tolerance, and Art. 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, all of which in their own way gurantee a legal right to personal and even public faith.

Or by argument? In which case, I think we should think more about what we argue and how.

I don't think rationalist atheists would want to see an end to religion by overturning laws, rules, statutes, etc, or by introducing laws, rules, statutes, etc. Rather they would want to see an end to religion by having everybody well-enough educated in critical thinking, and free from cultural indoctrinations/dogmas, that it would personally dawn on each individual that gods are in the same category as tooth fairies and Father Christmases: comforting but not actually part of actual actuality.

246> The flaw in your argument is expressed in #245: "Also, very many scientists who live both publicly and, one suspects privately, by this rational method, nevertheless profess faith and observe religious rituals. They may be religious and (even theistic (see #174)) but agnostic but still see some personal and subjective value in holding a belief. "

I find it a very Mr. Spock-ish "belief" that if everyone was properly educated, religion would disappear. Religious adherence is subjective. However well-educated I may be, I subjectively find value in my spiritual and religious life. Human history suggests that it has been considered of value by the majority of the human species. That's a rational conclusion.

You might also consider that your own cultural indoctrinations/dogmas include the idea that religion and spirituality looks a lot like Christianity and Islam, and the worst of those worldviews at that. Christianity is 2000 years old, Islam 1500. Human history contains many other versions of religious worldviews and spiritual practices, many which were not even theist.

Painting with too broad a brush merely weakens the argument.

> 247

Yes, it is not just education, but it helps.

If as a society, we moved away from religion, changing holidays and calling it something else. Don't be so nice on people who impose their religious views, then in a few generations, we would see a reduction of religious link riduals. Eventually, it would kind of disappear, and only the forms remains. These shadow practices would then be transformed and change until it lost all the link to religion and become cultural practice.

I know this, as it has already happened in my culture.

I don't believe that religion has disappeared from your culture, and I have no idea what your culture is. Furthermore there are empty forms in all cultures, and I don't believe that because there are empty forms in your culture that there is no deep commitment to a personal relationship, say, to the universe in other members of your society.

Robert

You don't believe that religion could disappear in cultures?

Come on!

Egyptians no longer believe in their ancient Egyptian gods? The greeks no longer believe in Zeus. Religions disappear in history is very common.

There is no need for replacement for religion. It is only when religion tied with politics that it could stay in power.

And so there is no religion in Egypt? There is no religion in Greece? Both of those countries through reason have eliminated religious holidays and were not nice to people who impose their religious views? "Come on!"

Robert

> 251

Well, but they did out grown their own local religion. They adopt religion import for some unknown reasons.

I have no objection to cancelling christmas and called it winter/summar celebration. The resistance is not that great if it is not of the two most blood thirty religions.

Greeks should have gotten rid of religion long ago. Don't know what when wrong.

Yes, but there is a huge difference between religions disappearing - which happens "all the time" - and religion disappearing - which hasn't happened yet, and I don't foresee anytime soon.

>253 Nicole_VanK:

In my culture, religion is never a big part of life, and as people learn more about the nature and their world, religious beliefs change and diminishes gradually of its importance in life.

I forgot that christian based cultures are usually arrogant and don't really consider the existence of other cultures.

Religion has never been a big part of my culture, and most people in my culture don't really care that much on religious imports like christianity or islamic religion.

The diminishing of religious importance help by a govt that doesn't like religion in the first place. As religious people don't get the advantage they might have in other religous infested countries, religions really don't have the same change to spread among population as it did in other religously infested countries/cultures.

I go and check your profile. Thank you for at least trying to get to know us. We are one of the biggest population/ culture in the world and get ignored quite a bit.

As a culture, we were never religious. And the people claimed to be linked to any religion don't usually get to over 15% (hard to do survey with population this size).

Anyway, no existing imported religions work well with our culture. And as we grow as a culture, we out grown any god or goddess that we believe to be real before. For the ancient, deity is only link directly to the one who claim power, but that is no longer the case for a very long time.

I truly believe we would be the first culture to out grow religion all together. And the more Muslims and chrsitians got it wrong in other religious infested countries, the more we learned not to touch those bad religions.

It would only take a few generations more to go back to our former state of non religion for my culture. And it is very real.

I absolutely agree about the cultural component to all this. Any society / political system can encourage or discourage religious belief in general, or even certain specific beliefs.

Where I live the influence of religion has been on the decline for a long time. But I also still see people who abandon traditional religion (mostly christianity here) exchanging it for other beliefs (like neo-paganism, or "there-must-be-something-ism").

I merely think you underestimate the influence of the irrational in our species.

> 255

No. There is no underestimation of irrationality of people. I just know for sure that because my culture was never religious in the first place, cultural preference for being non religion would take place as a natural occurrance.

Maybe we should distinguish religion from organized religion.

Is it possible for a culture to outgrow organized religion?

OK, I give XOX - what is your culture?

There will always be religion. People will always want to believe. I would love to believe -- but I don't! I never felt an antipathy towards religion until recently, when religion has become such a huge force in politics in the US and, concomitantly, we have had to deal with the unmasking of the Roman Catholic Church as an unapolgetic institutional haven for pedophiles supported by billions of tax exempt income.

> 259

There will always be religion? I hope not.

Think of it this way. When the Egyptians gave up their local gods and there wasn't any invadors brought in new religion and force it on them, would Egyptians be religious today?

Of course not. Now, the new game is not to invade a land and force the people to worship the same god. The game has changed, and if the locals resist on taking new religion, while giving up the old religion, there would not be any religion left in that place.

> 257

Yes. It is possible to out grow religion or need for religion.

In my culture, worshipping god is part of cultural practices. But you don't follow god, you use god to get ahead or get rich. These gods in my culture is as important as wishing wells.

I agree with Garp. The big problem is the blurring of the private with the public. We need to be very clear that religious thinking is only acceptable if at all in the private domain and can have no part to play in the public or political sphere. France is good on this aspect of the secular state.

#260 "When the Egyptians gave up their local gods and there wasn't any invadors brought in new religion and force it on them, would Egyptians be religious today? "

XOX - OK, so apparently you won't tell us about your Utopian culture, but could you point out one culture somewhere, anywhere, that isn't religious in some important way? I think we need an example. Egypt is a terrible example, as there has been a prominent religion of one kind of another for 5000 continuous years of recorded history. Maybe you could go for countries with significant non-practicing populations, like Denmark or maybe Iceland...but even there Christianity looms large.

You're arguing by proclamation - and your argument reads to me as just so...obviously...wrong. If you have a real argument, something that we can discuss, try presenting it.

from #248
"If as a society, we moved away from religion, changing holidays and calling it something else. Don't be so nice on people who impose their religious views, then in a few generations, we would see a reduction of religious link riduals. Eventually, it would kind of disappear, and only the forms remains. These shadow practices would then be transformed and change until it lost all the link to religion and become cultural practice.

I know this, as it has already happened in my culture. "

from #261
"In my culture, worshipping god is part of cultural practices. But you don't follow god, you use god to get ahead or get rich. These gods in my culture is as important as wishing wells."

How do you reason that post #261 is consistent with post #248? If you "use god", that seems like a pretty major "link to religion."

The combination of these factors makes me think that XOX possibly has a Chinese background. Am I right, did I win anything? ;-)

China was always religious wasn't it, Confucianism, Buddhism, and the Emperor somewhere between a man and a god. And aren't the authorities regularly having to crack down on outbreaks of religion, cults, underground Falun Gong and christianity and the like. Seems optimistic to say religion is on way out, but if so, very interesting.

I wouldn't call Confucianism a religion. But indeed, Taoism and Buddhism certainly played huge roles in Chinese history. However, as I see it, religion was always a bit marginal in Chinese society - as compared to its role in Europe and/or the middle east, for example.

And yes, Chinese authorities have often cracked down on "cults". Even a small percentage of Chinese population can still be a lot of people.

#263

I believe that someone offered an example in the "Is religion evolutionary advantageous" recently, though I would guess that this example would be labeled statistically irrelevant.

#264-265 BarkingMatt & IfIhadwordsto It's a good point, and a big miss by me. You can argue China doesn't seem to have a religion at the moment. But, you can also argue Buddhism (and related stuff like Falun Gong), Confucianism and Taoism are really integral parts of the culture.

#266 BarkingMatt - I think Confucianism can essentially be regarded as a religion for the debate here. You might take a look at "Debate over classification" on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism (~ 2/3 of way down)

#267 Jesse - where?

More a brief mention.

#1

I was a Quaker by attendance, but I increasingly feel that God is redundant and unnecessary, religion less so (it fills a need for many, and who am I to begrudge them that?). Of course, that begs that question, "what is a religion?" : I believe as a species we are culturally evolving beyond the need for organised religion, but will never evolve away from spiritual needs as this is part of our nature.

I am against fundamentalists : religious and atheist. I'm against dogma. I'm against violence, war, and the ravages of patriarchal societies.

It's all up for grabs (metaphorically speaking).

Being one of the biggest population, I was just waiting for someone to come up with the answer.

Chinese, historically and culturally, don't have religion, period. You would not call it religion as it is not in any way or form interfer with everyday life, or guide people in any way or form. Pagan worship is more like you would throw coin at wishing well. You don't really expect your wish to come true, but you throw the coin anyway. Chinese do the same with any form of pagan worship in history and it has been an intergrated part of cultural practice. So we do it without really think much about it. You could not call Chinese religious.

All other religions are imports from different period of time. We like the Buddhsim but it is a form of philosophy more than it is a religion. We are forced to deal with chrsitianity and Islamic religion, but only a low percentage of Chinese would really get into it. A lot of Chinese resent Christianity if it contradict with our cultural practice.

Confucianism is not a religion, is a philosophy again. Neither is Taoism, although it has its mytical elements.

The Chinese govt discourage religious practice, and consider a waste of time. With religious people not getting any advantage for following religion, religious population is on the decline, and eventually, I hope, we would live with a very small population of dumb people who are still religious.

Feng shui is not religious, but if you really ask, more Chinese believe in Feng Shui than any pagan or deity combined.

#270 TID I define myself as a "dogmatic skeptic"

You could not call Chinese religious.

Of course you could, depending on how you define "religious." Religion does not require the supernatural or theism, it can easily be defined as having faith in something, anything, that you believe expresses the truth (if there is truth, at all). This could be nature, knowledge, science, people, etc. Unless the Chinese walk around believing nothing.

We like the Buddhsim but it is a form of philosophy more than it is a religion.

Buddhism is, like most religions, like most schools of thought, both a religion and a philosophy. There are many Buddhists who claim you cannot be Buddhist without the deities, while others believe you need only believe in the Four Noble Truths.

A lot of Chinese resent Christianity if it contradict with our cultural practice.

Makes sense, given that Western and Eastern thoughts commonly come into conflict. But if the Chinese are so adherent to their culture that they are not willing to learn from Christian thought (which is largely helpful to appreciate Western thought), that sounds very close-minded.

The Chinese govt discourage religious practice, and consider a waste of time.

How wonderful of the Chinese government to assume it knows what is and is not a waste of time.

With religious people not getting any advantage for following religion, religious population is on the decline, and eventually, I hope, we would live with a very small population of dumb people who are still religious.

You make the fallacy of believing religion and education are incompatible and even opposite of one another. Intelligence is entirely subjective. You make fun of people who believe in what cannot be seen and what cannot be proven, but I would be willing to bet you cannot go a day without using math; prove to me the number one exists and is not just our mind's way of describing what we see around us. It's hardly different than the person who sees a God through existence.

#271 XOX - You raise a point of interest, I'm thinking. But, a few corrections:

"You would not call it religion as it is not in any way or form interfer with everyday life, or guide people in any way or form."

Confucianism and Buddhism historically had huge influences on Chinese culture that absolutely guided everyday life. How long were essentially ALL Chinese scholars Confucian? 2000 years? Regarding Confucianism, there may not have been a deity at the center, but there is a book (compiled over time like the western bibles) and there was a philosophy of life the affected everyone from the Emperor down.

"The Chinese govt discourage religious practice, and consider a waste of time."

Only since Mao. (And for Mao the religion was Communism - which absolutely and completely "interfered" with everyday life.)

> 274

If you redefine religion to a common share philosophy, then it might works. If not, Chinese are not religious, in history or in modern time.

Why would Chinese want to learn about christianity if we don't think it is a good thing?

Christianity survived because of its attachment to political power. I just don't see it happen to China, so, christianity would not be popular here.

Another thing that is important to spread the christianity is early indoctination of children, poisoning their minds at early age. That would not be allowed to happen in China. So, I really don't see how christainity would get big here.

> 275Confucianism or Buddhism are philosophy. Just as you have Looke to guide your constitution, we have other form of philosophy to guide our laws and regulation. But you would not call it religion as it is not being practice as a religion.

Chinese just don't have religion, not even ancient one. We would not worshp anything but "Tin", as a form of cosmic justice.

Just so you know, this is distracting, but what you understand confusiciansim was an education movenment in China. Making education available for the common people was the goal of the founder of Confucianism, and he succeeded in spreading education to common people. Nothing religious about that.

yes, it's distracting. It doesn't make a difference whether you define Confucianism as a religion or not. But, then you must be careful how you fling your conclusion around. Confucianism guided life in China - it was a big influence - as big as Christianity was in Europe - as big as Islam was and is though out the Middle East. You can't separate medieval China from Confucianism - they were intimately woven together at the deepest and most profound levels. That's the parallel with western religion.

Keep in mind Islam and Christianity are also philosophies - they are just based on something different.

>276 dchaikin:

Christainity is not philosophy, it is religion. It is not reasonable, and it has a lot of hang-up based on anicent tribal practice or misunderstanding. It is a mix bag with a lot of horrible stuff.

The different between religion and philosophy is its way to reform, redefine and its flexibilty to accommadate new knowledge.

Confuscianism could change with time and new knowledge, it would not go against any new finding like evolution. Religion on the other hand, would insist on its ancient understanding of the world and interfer with knowledge findings.

Christianity and Islam are not philosophies,they are consider religions. Religions by nature resist changes, that why women still cover their faces in Islamic religious countries, and christians are still not accepting gays and lesbians as their equals.

from wikipedia - my italics.

Confucianism is a Chinese ethical and philosophical system developed from the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius (Kǒng Fūzǐ, or K'ung-fu-tzu, lit. "Master Kong", 551–478 BC). It is a complex system of moral, social, political, philosophical, and quasi-religious thought that has had tremendous influence on the culture and history of East Asia. It might be considered a state religion of some East Asian countries, because of governmental promotion of Confucian philosophies.

Cultures and countries strongly influenced by Confucianism include mainland China, Taiwan, Korea, and Vietnam, as well as various territories settled predominantly by Chinese people, such as Singapore. Japan was influenced by Confucianism in a different way.

> 278

Confucianism has a strong influence in cultures, but it is philosophy, not religion.

#274: Religion does not require the supernatural or theism, it can easily be defined as having faith in something, anything, that you believe expresses the truth (if there is truth, at all). This could be nature, knowledge, science, people, etc.

Except that negates the meaning of religious. Your definition seems to be one that only comes up in arguments like this; outside it, religiosity is something to lord over your neighbors or use to forcibly claim special rights.

Buddhism is, like most religions, like most schools of thought, both a religion and a philosophy.

Bull. Again, you don't get to claim that most schools of thought are religion except by massively changing the rules of the game.

But if the Chinese are so adherent to their culture that they are not willing to learn from Christian thought (which is largely helpful to appreciate Western thought), that sounds very close-minded.

Which is not what he said. Frankly, it seems that a lot of the works in Max Mueller's 50 volume Victorian translation of Asian religious texts have never been retranslated--I'd personally like to see a new translation of the Avesta, but that seems to be the only one--so one might fairly discuss the close-mindedness of the West.

How wonderful of the Chinese government to assume it knows what is and is not a waste of time.

All governments do--how much is the UK spending on the Pope's visit, again?--but yeah, the Chinese government is definitely pretty nasty.

prove to me the number one exists and is not just our mind's way of describing what we see around us.

It is of course our way of describing what we see around us.

It's hardly different than the person who sees a God through existence.

This always seems like such a bait and switch; you always offer a vague god, and then switch it out for a male omnipotent omniscient, triune God who was incarnate a couple thousand years ago.

One thing at a time...

"Confuscianism could change with time and new knowledge, it would not go against any new finding like evolution."

Confucianism has some breakdowns with modern life that are fundamental, and not really correctable.

Notably:
1. It's absolutely against loaning money and charging interest. There is not compromise here.
2. It is based on the existence of an autocratic ruler - and of support and loyalty to that ruler

posts are coming fast...

>280 prosfilaes:

I find it tiresome to try to say simple fact, like Chinese were/are not religious, if we were, we would have developed our own religion long time ago. We do have thouands of years to do it.

It is hard for me to explain religions, like christianity and Islam are foreign and don't really go well with our culture. Why do we have to learned from things we see as negative?

We don't like Chirstianity for its hang-up, and we don't like Islam for its hang up. We could easily see its fault and would not want to go near it. Isn't it that difficult to understand? I thought I have made it pretty clear.

If you redefine religion to a common share philosophy, then it might works. If not, Chinese are not religious, in history or in modern time.

Let us first know how you define religion and philosophy, as that seems to be creating a barrier between us. I think you are mistaken believing China has never been religious, but let's define to make certain.

Why would Chinese want to learn about christianity if we don't think it is a good thing?

Because that stops the flow of ideas, which most educated people believe is a bad thing. You do not believe Christianity is one idea, do you, that it flows all from a single brush? That would be as irrational as one not wanting to have anything to do with China because of the country's current treatment of Tibet.

It is not reasonable

Some of it is actually very reasonable. It correctly figured out that all people come from the same ancestor - now called the Mitochondrial Eve. The Fall of Man is almost identical to humankind's development of conscious (the reality of death, development of morality) that forever separated us from the rest of nature.

it has a lot of hang-up based on anicent tribal practice or misunderstanding

What cultures do not have "hang-ups" that are now considered hindrances? If China is, and was never, religious, what are its justifications for killing newborn daughters following the One-Child policy?

Confuscianism could change with time and new knowledge, it would not go against any new finding like evolution

Many Christians (and Jews and Muslims) believe in evolution.

Because that stops the flow of ideas, which most educated people believe is a bad thing.

Huh?

#277 - OK, I'm not interested in defending Christianity, but...

It is a philosophy based a concept. That concept requires some faith, but once you have that faith, the rest is reasoned out - and hence reasonable. (if you don't have that faith, then there's a bit of a problem...)

It has dramatically changed over time. Yes, it can be resistant to new knowledge, but so is Confucianism.

I think you can argue that Confucianism has some benefits over Christianity - especially in terms of tolerance and the size of the leap of faith. But, you can't draw a clean line between them and say they are completely different in every way...at some fundamental level I think they served (and serve) the same purpose.

oops, ETA an important "not"

> 284

Religion, set in its way and refused to change with time. When new evidence comes, killed the messengers. That is true to christainity and Islamic religions.

Philosophy is just thoughts, usually influence a lot of peole by ideas. It could survive time and would not resist on new knowledge and would not kill people for disagreeing.

Christainity is just bad religion with lot of bad ideas. I know it is difficult to see if you are living right in the middle of it. But as this bad religion is not popular in Asia countries (except for Filipine), it has limited influence and we could see how bad it is.

Many Christians (and Jews and Muslims) believe in evolution.

The problem is, many of them don't. Evolution is a known fact that many religious people deny because of religous hang-up.

China, for its very long history, has never criminalize homosexuality. That's a christian religious influence impact on innocent lives.

"We don't like Chirstianity for its hang-up, and we don't like Islam for its hang up. "

oye - fine, but what does that have to do with...

oh, it's clicking... it's not religion per se that you're concerned with, it's just that you think Christianity and Islam are bad religions...right?

> 288

if you don't consider Buddhism as religion like I do, there isn't one religon in the world that is not bad.

#287 - I didn't see this when I posted, but it agrees with my post #288. Especially "Christainity is just bad religion with lot of bad ideas. "

These aren't points I'm arguing against. My point is different, and that is that historically China was religious...in its own non-western way. And one can argue this religious background deeply affects Chinese thought and culture today...one could make a very good argument, as a matter of fact.

#289 - just semantics. If you don't like and it doesn't make sense to you, then you call it religion. If you like it, then you call it philosophy. By that definition you are guaranteed to be right. :)

> 289

For the last time, China were never religious. We don't have religion as you would understand it as religion of today. We have cultural practice, like every other cultures in the world, but we never have religion, period.

That's why I'm quite confident we would be the first one who would continue to be non religious and liking it. And religious important would be on the decline just because it is not popular.

Religion, set in its way and refused to change with time.

Actually, just the opposite. The faiths and beliefs that do not change with time are no longer around. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (along with Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism) are very adaptive. See how Protestantism broke off from Catholicism, and how different Protestant sects break from one another, for evidence.

China, for its very long history, has never criminalize homosexuality. That's a christian religious influence impact on innocent lives.

I hope you are not inferring that banning homosexuality is worse than killing newborn daughters. I'm not saying Christianity does not have a nasty history; my point it, what culture does not? Religion does not kill people; people kill people.

Buddhism is absolutely, unquestionably a religion...

>294 dchaikin:

No it is not.

#292 - semantics, see post #291

#295 XOX - with all due respect.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

> 293

I hope you are not inferring that banning homosexuality is worse than killing newborn daughters. I'm not saying Christianity does not have a nasty history; my point it, what culture does not? Religion does not kill people; people kill people.

What are you on about?

Religions kill people. Period. Christainity is just as bloody as Islam.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

I know what's the problem here.

Buddhism, as it is no straight rules, or god, or goddess. Is being learn by people as a philosophy.

But I do see the problem. People born with strong religous influence would by default see religion not as neutral, but as a positive thing.

People, like us, who are born without religious influence would see it as neutural, it could be good or bad by evidence found.

Therefore, all deity base religions are consider bad by those with non religious upbringing.

I would see how anyone would try to make Chinese religious when they were not, and are not. Or failed to see christianity and Islam as bad religions, if they are from a religious dominated country.

#303 - yes, there's a cultural gap that were not doing a great job of bridging...still, it has been interesting and entertaining trying.

>304 dchaikin:

I'm trying.

See here. The really big block thing on the map. That's China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

We are not religious.

See this table, the top one with 93% non religious people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_by_country

That's China too.

We are the biggest population in the world that are non religious. And it take me more than 10 posts just to try to state that very simple fact.

Cannot say I have not tried, for I really did.

Buddhism, as it is no straight rules, or god, or goddess.

There is a long list of Buddhist deities, bodhisattvas, and demons. Not all Buddhists believe in deities, but there are still some who do. One could also count the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path as "rules," but that boarders on nitpicking.

But I do see the problem. People born with strong religous influence would by default see religion not as neutral, but as a positive thing.

I'm not traditionally religious and I see religion as neutral ("Religion doesn't kill people; people kill people"), something that can be used for good or bad. I'm agnostic.

I have a question: given that China is a communist government, and communist governments have a history of persecuting and executing religious people, how honest are statistics regarding personal religious belief in China?

#286: Confucianism seems different from Christianity in the sense that Christianity has a lot more metaphysics then Confucianism. The Confucian Canon starts "The Master said, 'Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?", whereas the Bible starts "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." and those seem to be not inappropriate representative verses for the various belief systems.

Not saying anything about the rigidity or accuracy of the beliefs, nor anything about the greater system that that's grown up around them, but the body of works Confucius left bears more in common with, say, the Stoics, then the works of Moses or Luke; that is, philosophy, not religion.

> 306

You could not say all communist countries did that. Only this one who has strong objection to religion.

Strongly disagree with the govt on the persecution. It is irrationational fear that lead to bad actions, there were a lot of those in this govt. And in other govt, they did a lot of stupid things for different reasons. Religion just being one of them.

What's the point again?

Oh, how accurate is the statistics. Quite accurate, as it is more a cultural thing than fear from govt's action.

>307 prosfilaes:

Thank you for explaining how Confucianism is not religion way better than I do.

XOX - if I understand correctly, you have been positively influenced by Confucian philosophy & Buddhism, and you are OK with the existence of various ritualistic superstitions. Also, you don't consider yourself religious. Is this all correct?

#308: You could not say all communist countries did that.

No, opposition to religion is a standard part of Marxism, and certainly the Soviet Union and the western Communist nations, as well as North Korea and I believe Vietnam showed a lot of opposition to religion.

>311 dchaikin:

No. I'm more influence by books. Don't subscribe to Buddhism or Confucian personally.

It is cultural practce, it is ritualistic but not superstituous. And most Chinese are non religious.

>312 prosfilaes:

Well, from my limited understanding of former communist Soviet Union, it impacted on a lot of cultures, and people are still influence by relgions if religions were part of their history.

Chinese govt is a bit different, it opposed religious imports, which is not that disagreeable with the population.

OK - but say there was someone who seriously and deeply studied Confucian philosophy & Buddhism, and devoutly followed these philosophies as they understood them...would you say this person was not religious?

Chinese govt is a bit different, it opposed religious imports, which is not that disagreeable with the population.

That is fair. I suppose the wall between us is that in my country, keeping people away because of their religion, while it has happened and still happens, is generally frowned on.

>315 dchaikin:

Yes. Still non religious.

> 316

If you are from US, UK, you have the revise problem.

Being atheists or non religious give you disadvantage. And it automatically disqualified you from being President or PM is very strange to us.

318: Without a doubt, to the point where in history textbooks one of our Deist Founders was written out, despite that his political philosophy was aligned closely with the people who wrote him out. It is a problem that most people do not trust Atheists as political leaders, a problem that needs to be fixed. However, I would still rather we be a secular melting pot than turn away nonviolent people because of their religion or philosophy.

XOX - ok, continuing for thoroughness.

And someone who seriously and deeply studied some for of Christianity and devoutly followed it as they understood it...would you say this person was religious?

Your answer is obviously a "Yes"

OK, the difference between these two people is the thing (philosophy or religion) they follow. See, this is where I see a relationship - that people followed each faithfully...and they did so on a cultural scale.

Yes, China is irreligious today, uniquely. Because Mao's communism forced out anything religious (or uncomfortably philosophical). Then the Communist part of that Communism has essentially been discarded. Which leaves... ??

Let me know if you agree. I need to think about this.

>319 Phocion:

I have read the news. Texas Christians influencing textbooks. That is bad religion.

Question remains if more people seeing the bad stuff, are willing to reform religion, or to give it up all together.

Atheist is just a term in population dominated by religions. If you are from here, the default position is non religious, and you really don't need to declare yourself as atheist as it is assume that you are either atheist or agnostic.

>320 dchaikin:

And someone who seriously and deeply studied some for of Christianity and devoutly followed it as they understood it...would you say this person was religious?

Your answer is obviously a "Yes"


The answer is still no. I have studied christianity, studied it enough to be accepted to seminary (I declined for personal reason). And no, I'm not religious.

China is non religious because we Chinese were non religious to start with. And detaching religions from political power helps its decline.

OK - but say there was someone who seriously and deeply studied Confucian philosophy & Buddhism, and devoutly followed these philosophies as they understood them...would you say this person was not religious?

Would someone who seriously and deeply studied Kantian philosophy, and devoutly followed this philosophy as they understood it...would you say this person was religious?

Trying not to be a completely boring person.

This came in the news yesterday, of a new product.

http://www.skea.com.tw/IT390024.htm

This is a S Pad, a paper form iPad for the dead. Do we really believe the dead would use it, not really. As cultural practice, we still do it to make us feel better about our dearly departed.

is this from a religious practice? No. It is a cutural practice. is it a definite form of belief on an afterlife? Again no.

The wishing well analogy still stands, we don't really believe it, but if it make us feel better, and it is cultural, we will still do it.

And detaching religions from political power helps its decline.

Judging from the rise of religious beliefs following the "opening" of China, instead of the atheist communism it was, this may not be true.

It seems to me that Confucianism in China is equivalent in some ways to Feudalism in Europe. They are both ways of ordering society that deeply influenced the way that people thought and acted. Yet I don't see anyone calling Feudalism a religion.

#323 - well, that isn't done on a cultural level. I mean what if everyone was indoctrinated by Kantian philosophy and was expected to followed it devoutly...then it becomes something more than a philosophy.

>325 Phocion:

It enjoyed its peak for a short period, and it is on the decline afterward.

So, I'm still hopeful we would be free from religion soon.

Come to think of it, if the new Atheists movenemnt succeed in the West, then more people would come to think of things in non religious manner, which is closer to our way of thinking. it is a good thing.

#322 - that's fascinating XOX.

So, I'm still hopeful we would be free from religion soon.

I think you underestimate religion, mostly because it is not simply defined by belief in a deity/deities. If religion can also be defined as a belief in the order and purpose of the universe (or even megauniverse), then it serves a purpose. For instance, I can believe that you, I, and the world exist, although I have no proof, and that could be considered its own religion if I stick to that belief. But this is getting into a semantics argument, again.

If you think that freeing humankind from religion will make it better, I believe you may be disappointed. We've killed each other for more pointless reasons in history; see: Chinese killing newborn daughters because of the One-Child policy.

> 330

Chinese in China had lived for a long time without religion. Religion to be successful had to have a few things, like history or political advantage, or early indoctination of children. That's what religions don't get in modern China.

So, I really have my reasons to be very hopeful that we would get rid of religion all together in the near future.

If you think that freeing humankind from religion will make it better, I believe you may be disappointed.

I don't think so. I believe we as humans, could get rid of religion and make the whole world better.

We've killed each other for more pointless reasons in history; see: Chinese killing newborn daughters because of the One-Child policy.

The one child policy changed recently to allow two only child to get married to have more than one children. You would also see the decline of baby killing.

Sexism, cultural sexism, is very difficult to get rid of. And that lead to the baby killing you've mentioned. Religion or lack of it has nothing to do with this one.

Given that religion (or spirituality, faith, belief, call-it-what-you-will etc.) was family oriented in China, and many Chinese still have cultural practices that came from those family faiths, and later from Taoism/Confucianism/Buddhism, I would argue that religion is so far adapted into Chinese culture that it cannot be separated from culture. Much like how Christian philosophy is ingrained into Western thought (such as with the original sin: you are in some way responsible for what your ancestors did), that you can barely tell where religion starts and culture ends.

#327: Even if it does become "something more than a philosophy", is that something a religion? A belief system that's all about right living and not about the supernatural is not a religion no matter how strongly indoctrinated it is.

I would disagree that something cannot be a religion if it does not have supernatural elements; mostly because it depends on how one defines natural and supernatural. How would you, personally, define both, prosfilaes?

#334: I would roughly define the natural as the things that science pokes and prods, things made of quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons, etc. I would roughly define the supernatural as gods, spirits, the afterlife, etc.

Would you argue that language, and by extension math, history, time, etc. are supernatural? They are not made of quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons.

Take a guess.

language

Actually, one can argue that language has a basis in the material world.

Ha ha, just wanted to be sure. I still have not rid myself of Socratic behavior. Nevertheless, when people criticize the religious for believing in the supernatural, typically, as you said, defined as "gods, spirits, etc.," because there is no proof, they are engaging in hypocritical behavior. We believe what we label as quarks are indeed quarks. We use math, despite there being no such thing as numbers in nature. We think the future is ahead of us instead of we being someone's past. We believe we exist; for all we know, we really could just be the dream of a greater being. So when people see God/s through existence (not too many religious people I've met actually believe there is a physical bearded man in the sky), I do not see how that is somehow less logical than how we function from day to day.

If that makes any sense.

338: I'd be interested in hearing more about that.

It's at least more honestly stated than what others who argue the same points elsewhere would say.

Do you believe that there's any belief at all which would not be called religion?

340: I'm still trying to figure that one out, actually.

If not, is there an effective meta(physic/religion) for sorting through them all?

After sitting and thinking through this question for about twenty-minutes, I still do not know. I'll need to look more into epistemology and skepticism.

#339

Information coding and trasnmission. You're looking at light projected on a screen or hearing sound waves manipulated to transmit sound waves through space.

Edit - saw the late edit just now.

>339 Phocion:

Nevertheless, when people criticize the religious for believing in the supernatural, typically, as you said, defined as "gods, spirits, etc.," because there is no proof, they are engaging in hypocritical behavior.

I see nothing hypocritical for criticizing cliams that could not be backed up by facts and evidence. That is rational, not hypocritical.

Overly religious persons should be considered having mental problem and be treated as such. Talking to themselves (pray) and saying they talk to god (unseen supernatural being that doesn't really exist) etc. are all behaviors of deluded persons.

Delusion for being connect to an entity that could not be proved exist, should not be regard as normal behavior. It is illogical, irrational, and people should realize this simple fact.

344: I could see language being natural insofar as it allows us to communicate to one another (and to a far lesser extent other animals), but using language to define is where I think it becomes "supernatural." If I handed you a shell, calling it a shell, that helps both of us communicate and so is natural; but calling it a shell when I have no proof it in-and-of-itself is a shell is where it becomes unnatural.

Again, if that makes sense.

345: Do you use math? Math is man-made, does not actually exist, but has proved to be of use so we believe in it. Hardly different from God/s. And do not forget that most (though probably not all, since we'd get into absolute truth territory) facts are subjective.

> 346

Please don't waste my time.

Using math as an example reflect a lack of rational thinking on your part.

You still haven't shown me any rational reason to think of the two big religions (Christianity and Islam) as anything good. And to compare something as bad as religion to something we all know as math, is just plain dumb.

As I really consider Phocion to be insincere, I don't feel obligated to answer anymore dumb posts.

I don't know if there is a translation for this. 詞窮理屈, meaning when a person run out of rational argument, he would use whatever nonsense to try (but failed as it is too obvious) to continue instead of admit there is no more rational argument.

As for math, math is our universal language. The one thing we all have in common cross cultures. To compare something like math to ridiculous religions is just an insult to those who like math.

I like Numb3ers and I like the way it respect math, not just a tool but intergret part of our lives.

>333 prosfilaes:

Right said.

I do not mean to disrespect math, and in the context of this conversation I am not being insincere in saying it is man-made and does not exist in nature, am I? That is how 2+2 can equal 4, 10, 11, and 100. There is nothing rational about zero being a number, and it's even less rational to subtract from it (it exists or it does not exist, right?).

But there is still no such thing as one, is there? I can't see it, taste it, feel it, or anything. Since our basis for denying the existence of God/s relies on our senses, then we should admit that math is hardly different. We saw a rock and decided that rock was one. We found another and thought they were two, but there's nothing wrong in saying that one plus one equals ten. So math is not universal, not absolute; especially if we decide we can divide by zero, allowing one to equal two.

How is that so much different than a person believing in God/s due to his/her own existence?

As far as religions offering good, they offer their own moralities. One does not need to be traditionally religious to be good of course, but what I've read about Jesus indicates he was a person, among others (including Socrates and Buddha), I believe people should act more like.

>350 Phocion:

Well, morality should always be independent from any religion.

Christian religion had once considered burning scientists alive as moral, it also consider persecution of homosexuals as moral. Clearly, these are immoral acts by non-religious rational persons standard.

Islam consider killing infidels as moral, also killing those who leave Islamic religion as moral. Clearly, these are immoral acts by non religious rational persons standard.

Persons could take on philosophy and even religious elements as part of their moral standards. But religious beliefs should never dominate morality, or has the power to define moral for a whole society. Religions are mixed bags, that have a lot of immoral elements that we should reject. And on the safe side, religions should never be allowed to dominate the very standard of morality of any society.

I found conversing with persons who assume religions are good (they are bad) or assume god exist (it does not) or god not only exists but also is good (god is no good as a character in Christian/Islamic religion) quite difficult, just because we have very different understanding of the very nature of major religions in the world.

Very few Christians and Muslims are violent, especially in secular environments. If every Christian was killing scientists and Muslim "infidels," I think there would be less peace than there is. Keep in mind that atheist communists have been responsible for the murder of religious people (see Stalin's targeting the Orthodox), but it would be silly to assume all atheists want to kill religious people. We should not consider that behavior standard.

Saying that all Muslims want to kill non-Muslims is as wrong as saying all Chinese want to kill their newborn daughters. While there is history, you cannot paint millions or billions of people with the same brush.

I would agree that a country should not use a particular scripture as the basis for all morality, but for the very religious their beliefs affirm their moralities because they are God-made. For everyone else (or everyone period, if you want), there is man-made morality. And man-made morality has committed just as many atrocities as God-made. Or all if you honestly believe there is no God-made morality, going back to the belief that religion doesn't kill people; people kill people.

>352 Phocion:

What you said didn't really invalid my point, that religions (Christian and Islam) are themselves immoral, as christians and Muslims did murdered people and considered themselves moral based on their religious influence. Religious people kill people based on their religious belief and consider it moral. That is why religion should not be trusted to set moral standard.

As on the safe side, rational persons should not allow religions to dominate morality or moral standards. It is better to have morality independent /divorce from religions.

No, I agreed with you there. Despite what others here may think, there's a reason we have the First Amendment in my country. Religions are partially immoral because humans are sometimes immoral.

> 354

Good rational persons could come up with that one too quite independent from religion. It just so happened that the law makers at that time were dominated by christians who believe in freedom despite of their unfortuante religious upbringing.

This is sincere, I hope you reconsider of the reason why you still think of religion is good when you also know that religion murdered so many people and called it moral and right. Religions are scary stuff, like drugs that make you feel good but is really bad for you.

Rational people could also come up with plenty of reasons why morality is irrational: all other animals and small children appear to be amoral, so why should humans be different; morality is subjective and ultimately derived from nothing but the individual; etc. One of the few rational arguments I could see being made is that certain immoral behavior is disruptive to society, but that only applies at the macro level and not the micro. But given that morality seems to come from emotions and empathy, I don't expect a good person to be rational as to why he/she is good.

> 356

From a very non religious culture, good for goodness sake in itself is good enough reason to be moral.

That, or it could be a difference between Eastern culture (where you respect authority) and Western culture (where authority is questioned), with religion being the red herring.

>358 Phocion:

Not really.

It just feel good to be good, and we all want to be good.

What consider to be good is closer to the golden rule (I guess that what you call it) and for us, we all know what is moral as distill from history.

I honestly feel bad for Sam Harris when he has to explain what is good and moral independent from bad relgion. For us, it is a given.

I don't doubt that most humans in the world want to be good, but if it was simply a case of feeling good, then why are there so many people who are seemingly without well-developed empathy (psychopaths)?

If I handed you a shell, calling it a shell, that helps both of us communicate and so is natural; but calling it a shell when I have no proof it in-and-of-itself is a shell is where it becomes unnatural.

Ummm, not really.

How can anything be a "shell" if the signifier "shell" is nothing more than a convenient lie we tell each other? You have just defined language itself as unnatural.

362: Because what we call a shell existed prior to our finding and naming it.

For the posts that I've missed asking me about using the term god and being non religious at the same time.

Offering for gods that are part of our cultural practice is not religous in itself. I have used the wishing well analogy, and you don't consider wishing at wishing well as a religous practice. And whoever grant the wishes at the wishing well could be called gods but don't hold the same meaning or important as those who use the same word in religion.

Because what we call a shell existed prior to our finding and naming it.

No, a "shell" is merely a human language-construct. The thing we call a "shell" is what it is. Its existence precedes our naming and knowledge of it. It's existence is independent of what we choose to call it (so you are telling me). The "shell" is nothing more than a convienent fiction we tell each other. That existence of the object we refer to as a "shell" and the existence of our fiction of referring to it as a "shell" both exist. The existence of the object and our fiction both exist. Both are "natural".

May I note that this world does not contain enough quotation marks.

#339: when people criticize the religious for believing in the supernatural, typically, as you said, defined as "gods, spirits, etc.," because there is no proof

There is no proof in anything.

We believe what we label as quarks are indeed quarks.

That's meaningless, for anything, but quarks in particular. Wolves are wolves even if they come from Altair and are fluent in 12,000 forms of communication. Quarks, though, are defined basically as exactly what they are. We have plenty of evidence that they do exist.

We use math, despite there being no such thing as numbers in nature.

Math is an abstract concept, not anything that's natural or supernatural.

We think the future is ahead of us instead of we being someone's past.

Only people too slow to understand both concepts are true.

So when people see God/s through existence {...} I do not see how that is somehow less logical than how we function from day to day.

First place, I said it was religious, not illogical. Second place, virtually everyone who has looked at the evidence accepts that it points to quarks. There is a huge amount of disagreement over the evidence for the existence of god or gods and even more for the nature of such things, putting it in a different category.

There is hope for Britian. Non religious people are standing up against the horrible religion that find offensive. Good for them.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pope-benedict-britain-controversy/2010/09/15/id/...

Great Britain has a history of anti-Catholic sentiment. I'm not surprised, nor do I think it's very hopeful (though I can sympathize their not wanting tax-payers' money going to this) about their ability to contribute to future peace. Discussion between religious leaders and the nonreligious can be a good thing.

Xox, you mentioned you derive morals from what feels good. Does it feel good to label Christianity and Islam (I see you have nothing to say about Judaism, the other big Western faith) as having contributed nothing worthwhile throughout history? Does it feel good to see Catholics (UK) and Muslims (Europe, US) being oppressed?

> 367

Christianity and Islam are just bad religions.

I don't usually sympathize with those who were immoral like christians and Muslims by our standards.

Christians spread message of hatred, so do Muslims. So, it is only natural people react negatively toward them.

What's your opinion on Judaism, from which Christianity and Islam are derived?

>369 XOX:

My view on Juadism is very limited. I know the practice is more cultural than religion. So, the cultural part I respect. I also know that you could be atheist and still participate in Juadism, so I have no real objection to it, as I see it as Jewish culture rather than a religion. Like the way we treated Kuan Yin.

You would have no trouble, then, with someone treating the holy scriptures (Bible, Qu'ran, Torah) as, say, philosophical cultural guidance than literal translations of history? One could study Christianity, Islam, and Judaism through their texts, without necessarily believing a word of divinity, and still be a good person?

> 371

if you read some religious nonsense like bible or koran knowing it is nonsense, it would do you no harm. If you want to learn from it, or think it is more important than treating other people with resepct to their rights, then these books are poisons to your mind. Depend on the damage done, persons could turn from good to bad in no time.

Here is another example. Christian woman flow acid on herself so that she could talk about her bad religion - christainity - on national tv.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39221785/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001

That is immoral for her to blame someone else, a person of different race, when it never happened. That is religion poisoning the mind.

Depend on the damage done, persons could turn from good to bad in no time.

And only the Sith deal in absolutes, right?

> 373

You are talking my language. But it is not sith we are talking about here.

It is more like death-eaters.

Given that, book-wise, the Death Eaters were based on Nazis (apologies to Godwin's Law), who were part of a secular nation, and practicing eugenics, or Social Darwinism, I do not believe the comparison holds.

Come on, now. At least the Sith/Jedi comparison was a clear analogy to religion.

> 376

Didn't know it based on Nazi.

Sith is political institutional evil.
Death eater is private insitutional evil.

For me, it works.

The Empire and Republic were separate from the Sith and Jedi; the Sith and Jedi were components of their respective governments, but were not political institutions themselves. Sith and Jedi followed the Force, the metaphysical power that bound all living things (sound familiar?). And despite that the Jedi believed in using compassion, they still viewed the world in Jedi:good, Sith:bad. Hence the irony in "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

Again, in the context of this conversation, sound familiar?

i beg to differ

>378 Phocion:

To me, jedi model after monks in China. Do they act when there are political take over, or do they sit or do nothing. Or do they joined up with the one who are more likely to be in power.

That's part of history. And there were monks who are like Sith and Jedi. In the end, it really doesn't matter, empire raise and empire falls, Jedi remains an indepedent institution agree not to interfer with the change of dynasty.

the metaphysical power that bound all living things

Ummm, the people arguing for the unity of existence aren't always "religious."

In fact, religion often functions as a model of exclusion.

"The Force" can be likened to the Tao, a concept with which XOX is surely familiar.

I think what makes these argument fatiguing is the logic train that runs thus: anything vaguely metaphysical +/- anything vaguely spiritual = superstition = religion = extreme religious views = evil.

I would propose that most people (more than than are not) are, as XOX describes the Chinese, culturally bound to religion rather than "believers" per se. Christianity is so interwoven with the cultural assumptions of the West for the last millenium (or two) that Christian viewpoints--as well as monotheist viewpoints from other sources--feel "normal" and commonsensical. Christian assumptions are the water in which us Westerners swim.

It is profoundly unsettling to have one of your core assumptions about reality challenged, so people who are culturally religious can act as threatened as a believer when pushed. "We're a Christian country" can come out of the mouth of someone who's never belonged to a church in his or her life.

Are any of you familiar with my late husband's Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (ABCDEF)? (Yes, he had that kind of sense of humor :-). It's a way of evaluating how dangerous or harmful a group or movement is likely to be, not by using doctrinal criteria but by psychological impact. Plus, you get to decide for yourself which end of the scale is "dangerous."

#305

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_china

Still seems optimistic to say religion is on the way out in China - those small percentages of a big population add up to a lot of adherents! And it seems to me that the number of people who will profess religion in reply to any census (see the Statistics section) will be in direct relation to the totalitarian regime's current attitude to religion. Organised religions, particularly those imported from abroad, can pose a threat to the state's control, right? But if China were ever to guarantee a right to freedom of public and private religion, as most rights based societies do, my guess is we would see China off the chart as the most religious place on earth.

# 371 Judaism is not a religion? It's the grandaddy of all the Abrahamic religions. And if your test is that it doesn't cause or justify people to do bad things then take a look at the recent history of Israel, illegal occupation of territory/colonialism and widespread abuse of human rights.

#272

Fascinating! In what way is your scepticism dogmatic? Is it that you are determined upon scepticism first until something is proven one way or another? I'd be interested to know more.

>383 IfIhadwordsto:

Not a chance. As from observation, culturally, we are not that religious to start with.

Second of all, when religious is not giving a person some political advantage, it really wouldn't grow in a society when it is culturally non religious.

Religion is on its way out. Even with given freedom of religion to people, it would not grow that much. I would see a low percentage of religious population, and it would plateau and stablized.

What give me this optistic view? Well, look at Hong Kong, the christian population didn't grow over 10% when given the freedom and the advantage with govt, and it is on the decline after the change of govt. The Christian population is around 5% in 2009 and it is on its way out.

That would be an interesting theory to test. If China were to guarantee religious freedom and completely open its borders to nonviolent people of all worldly types, would China still be, in your terms, irreligious? Given that Islam seems to be the fastest growing religion, I would be interested in seeing what would happen if people emigrated from the Arabic nations to China.

I still do not believe religion is on its way out, given that I do not think China is irreligious. Like other forms of thought and belief, I think it will redefine itself to survive.

>386 Phocion:

You don't have to believe in, just wait and see.

Reality and fact does not need any faith or "you personally believe in it".

I lived here, and I know how culturally offensive christian practice could be, especially to traditional families. Islamic religious practice is too foreign and strange that people don't really care for it here.

Problem with statistics, is that churches do not have an easy "way out" deregistration. That's why the church "increase" in number didn't show up in census as a increase because there are many people leaving church without a way to remove themselves from registry.

I also know that beliefs adapt with time (or die), like just about anything else that can evolve. Today we debate over the existence or nonexistence of God; tomorrow we could debate over free will versus determinism, with both sides using physics as their common source. The point is that, ultimately, we will still be debating about the same core questions in the future; we'll just change how we debate. Whether we call it God or free will, it's all the same, trying to explain those nagging questions from our conscious that fact (however you define that) has not.

I respect that you live in China and as such know more about Chinese culture than I could ever hope to, but an outsider's perspective can shine light on what may be hiding in plain sight. For example, plenty of Chinese people deny the Tiananmen Square protests ever happened.

>388 Phocion:

Debating or discussing philosophy is all good and well.

It is not necessary to debate existing of god as there is no way of finding an evidence base god unless it make an appearance. Before that happens, debating god is a waste of time, like debating the existence of tooth fairy. (It does not exist btw.)

So far, you have shined no light on the matter as an outsider, just shown you have a lot of misconception on a culture you don't really know, and refuse to accept an insider point of view based on whatever arrogant view you have before. It is good that big bad religions were discouraged in China. If not, there would be more people like you.

You do not believe it's arrogant to label two of the biggest religions, both containing millions of followers, evil? Do you believe Mother Teresa was evil? I do not mean imperfect, as all humans are, I mean do you believe she was evil?

That case has certainly been argued: The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice

From what I understand, even Hitchens does not think Mother Teresa was evil - just that she was not the perfect saint that some thought her to be; he pointed out her imperfections, perhaps increasing the antagonistic language as he does whenever discussing religion, but I do not remember him calling her evil.

> 390

We don't share the same definition of evil. I would say causing harm would be a better term in decribing the two big bad religions existing in the world.

> 391

Yes.

I find the assumption of good or bad is very different in different cultures. From Islamic infested areas, Islam is the assume to be good while in christian infested areas, christianity is assume to be good.

In non religious cultures. we assume the two big bad religions as bad as it caused harm still in some places infested by these two religions.

It's probable we do not share the same definition of evil (I'm still deconstructing the word, myself). But, I still believe that religion is a tool, and like all tools it is amoral in and of itself. Like science. The tools of science have been used for the industrialization that led to global warming. However, we would not say science is evil. Like all tools, it depends on the person holding them as to how they are used. Religion is no different.

Your equating Christianity and Islam with evil is still as unreasonable as someone calling all Chinese evil because of the ones that killed their daughters. Killing heretics and killing daughters both caused harm, after all.

> 395

Religion is a tool to control the mass. Deity base religions are bad for human, that is quite evidenced in history.

You still failed to get this simple point.

The two big bad religions. Christians would regard Islam not as a good religion, or they would have switch religion already. Muslims would not consider christianity as good religion, or they would have switched to Christianity already. The two religious are divided, and most people have only one religion because they don't think other religions as good as theirs.

As for non religious people, they could see both big religions as bad, but not as bad as christian think of Islam or Muslim think of christianity.

I gather you didn't get the simple point because you belong to one of the big bad religions.

Being chinese is of race and culture, not religion. You comparing apple with noodle, that does not work. I know you meant to insult chinese, but as you are from one of the big bad religions, it is as expected, as religious people from the two big bad are usually arrogant and insulting.

This give me some hope that British people are getting over the big bad religious influence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZdNdXDP7HM

Religion is a tool to control the mass.

What isn't? Governments will use whatever is effective, be that religion, nationalism, etc.

Deity base religions are bad for human, that is quite evidenced in history.

Religion has also done good, though mostly at the micro level. There are the charities, the education, or just plain giving people a purpose in life to help them avoid nihilism or suicide.

I gather you didn't get the simple point because you belong to one of the big bad religions.

As mentioned above, I'm agnostic. I have no idea what a god even looks like, much less how to recognize one. But I also believe that my not having seen and named one does not necessarily negate its existence.

I know you meant to insult chinese, but as you are from one of the big bad religions, it is as expected, as religious people from the two big bad are usually arrogant and insulting.

I've tried to be as respectful as I can, and I've never intentionally insulted the Chinese (unless pointing out China's problems is an insult), though if I've offended you, I'm sorry. But if one wants to play the culture card, bear in mind that I am from a melting pot country. I am surrounded by Christians and Muslims, as well as Jews, Wiccans, Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, etc. I know that not all Christians and Muslims are evil, because I've met people who practice those religions that are very respectable people. Most of the Christians and Muslims I've met severely disagree with the fundamentalists.

For those who are not from the two big bad religions, or is really interested in what Chinese really believe in, and the different that we see between beliefs and religions.

Believing without Identifying : The Sociological Interpretation of Spiritual Beliefs in Contemporary China by Li Xiangping could really shine some light on the subject.

It is way from complicated that just political usage of religion by the US govt. As many arrogant religious people assume that Chinese would take up their religion just because the policy has changed and there is more religious freedom, is quite wrong in that estimation.

I don't play culture card, or however you call it. But when it comes to religion, culture prference is the major reason why most Chinese are non religious.

Religions had not done any good. Religions took credit from people charity, and willingness to help. But that is not religions that are doing this.

Relgions teach a concept of distorted morality, discrimination, and over attachment to power. The two big bad are obviously bad. If you are agnostic, then you should have a better position to critic the deity from the two big bad.

As from personal experience, haven't met a good person from the two big bad yet.

I can criticize Christian and Muslim ideologies very well, but I never forget that sometimes atheists and anti-theists have as many unreasonable, and sometimes illogical, assumptions and commit many fallacies of their own. We've seen through the communist atheists that they are just as prone to violence and discrimination when given the opportunity and political authority, so I do not see what makes Christianity and Islam so special other than they have longer histories.

Calling either side evil just drives its members to fundamentalism, and I do not see any benefits to that.

Clearly there is a wall between us, and I do not know how to break it or make myself any clearer than I have been.

Although, I would enjoy seeing China grant religious freedom. If you are certain that religion will not grow, then I see no reason why China should not establish the freedom of religion.

>401 Phocion:

Another wrong way of thinking.

Agnostic or atheist do not share much in common. Compare them to religious people is a bit off because religious people are organized by religion, and shared a lot of unreasonable values based on their religion.

Agnostic or atheist is individual having individualistic values, rule, moral and ideal.

How could you even compare?

Saying bad religions as bad is just pointing out simple fact. If a religious person, by following the big bad religion to do bad thing, it has more to do with his or her religious upbringing, then being criticize by non religious person on a forum.

Again no. Saying bad religions as bad, would not make more fundamentalists.

Relgions are bad stuff. The govt is correct to not allow indoctrination of children by bad religions, disallow it to be taught in schools, or spreading in any public places. Religions are bad and should be regulated, and under control.

I've tried, but as a person who like philosophy, your thinking is quite limited. You mixed things up when things should be deal with separately. You automatically come to the defense when it is not necessary. Religions and religious people are two very separate matter. Religion, especially the big bad, is seen as the cause of problem. Religious people could be seen as victims.

Anyway, read more books. I hope you would at least try to let go of your assumption, or at least think of your preassumption before entering discussion with someone who come from a different direction.

Mostly because theist and atheist are derived from the same center: "god" and "without god". Then there are the anti-theists (anti-god), which is where you seem to fit, because even most atheists recognize that religion is not inherently evil. Given my definition of religion being a set of beliefs one uses to make sense of the world, I group atheists, as well as agnostics, in with theists.

Few, if any, of our morals/values/ideals are more inherently right than the theists' god-made ones, after all. One could even look at nature and see that morals are unreasonable, given that the greater majority of life on this planet seems to live just well by living amorally.

And, again, not all religious people are unreasonable. Force them to choose between science and religion (which is silly, given that they are usually not incompatible), and they'll become more fundamentalist (creating the monster you tried to avoid in the first place); it's as predictable as most people choosing family over their co-workers, because guess which plays a more important role in their lives? But, again, there's usually no reason they have to choose between either/or.

But, I see there is no way I can explain to you that religion is not the root of evil and that the religious are not always the evil people you have thought them to be.

Relgions are bad stuff. The govt is correct to not allow indoctrination of children by bad religions, disallow it to be taught in schools, or spreading in any public places. Religions are bad and should be regulated, and under control.

I'll just chalk up our problems to Values Dissonance at this point.

>403 Phocion:

No they are not.

Theists think about god and this god is the center of their lives.

Atheists or agnostics are not even bother to bring up the subject, as it really doesn't matter. It is not important.

This is boring. I have repeated so many times already. Cultural derive moral, not religion in non religious place.

Repeat this before posting anything else. Religion is not important to athiest and agnostic. Religion is not important to atheist or agnostic.

Imagine an agnostic who don't believe in tooth fairy. Wouldn't this agnostic value be compare to a tooth-fairy-centric religious person?

Religious people are unreasonable people that believe in all kinds of nonsense, and it is better to left them alone in their own little group. They are the one who choose to believe in nonsense rather than facts. As long as they don't become a public threat, it is okay.

Your logic is so faulty. Good religion (like Buddhism) would not make it believer choose between religion and science. That is the characteristics of bad religions. It is not fault of anyone else that a religious choose bad religion over science, it is their own faults. if they become fundamentalists, and become a threat to society, then we have to deal with them as a threat.

Religion is not important to athiest and agnostic. Religion is not important.

Religion is important to this agnostic; once one's key perceptions of reality are shattered, no philosophies are useless.

> 405

Every single culture I have encountered that has moral code in the society, come from somewhere. It could derive frin religion, or it could derive from culture.

So, as I'm from non religious culture, and find religion is just not important to agnostics in this region. I really don't see why discussing about non existing of tooth fairy is important to agnostic in this part of the world.

I say we should make relgion not important to anyone. Non religion is the way of the future.

Anything I could help to get you out of this mode?

Take a lesson in Buddhism. If you are not letting it goes, and it bother you, you are not closer to enlightment as you should have been.

Not a Buddhist, but Buddhism speaks against obsession a lot.

I only discuss the tooth fairy with my young nephew. I ponder greater questions: what is the self; can the self be stripped to a core; what is the lowest common denominator of morality; is the universe god; are there multiple worlds; is time linear or simultaneous; do we exist?

Since most of the major religions try to answer some of these problems, I cannot ignore them; all religions are philosophies, in my book.

No need to worry about me; I'm my own greatest enemy, and my willingness to not chalk up religion as evil is no threat to you.

>407 Phocion:

Huge cultural difference.

Religion is religion.

Philosophy is philosophy. They don't really overlap that much.

I don't consider you a threat. You could be culturally insenstive, and racially insulting. But that is transitional, as you are still learning about the world. For fellow passenger through time, I have to accept that this is the stage you are in now and try to accept that you as you are now, and hope you might able to become better in the future. Without bad influence like bad religion, you are able to come to similiar paths with other before you.

That is what philosophy is for, and to be good in philosophy, one has to study science.

That is what philosophy is for, and to be good in philosophy, one has to study science.

I would argue that to be good at philosophy, one needs to study anything. But the big three here are history, linguistics, and physics. But, again, the fields cross into each other so often that one needs to study anything.

>409 Phocion:

Without a basic understanding of modern science, philosophy is only flowerly words with no relevancy in the modern world.

One has to be at least open up to science and up to date, then think of the human side and develop what is the meaning for the human of this age.

I acknowledged physics was one of the big three.

Philosophy reads from science, but it's also never above criticizing it.

I haven't been on in a while and cannot remember if I posted to this thread or not, so I am going to do it again. I was a practicing Wiccan for nearly 20 years before I decided I did not believe in any of it anymore. I tried Hinduism and it just didn't fit. After some major 'soul' searching I have come to the conclusion that there is no god and I am a militant atheist. Sometimes I refer to myself as a secular Humanist, but it depends on what kind of mood I am in at the moment. As Humanists are supposed to be more gentle in their dealings with theists in general. At least that is my take on it. Personally, I have little tolerance for organized religion, however, I don't go out there screaming at theists for what they believe. I will however stand up for what I understand to be true for myself. I hope that sums it up. Cheers!

I think this discussion has got waylaid into a discussion about 'evil' or 'not evil' religions.

It is probably worth pointing out that the founders of most religions (certainly, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and to a lesser extent Buddhism and Judaism) would be horrified by the organised religion that now exists in their name. People like Jesus and Buddha were radical teachers who rebelled against the religion of their day - Judaism and Hinduism.

Where religion goes wrong is where human nature goes wrong - petty politics, power sstruggles, the pursuit of wealth and privilege, the establishment of dogma and structures, etc etc. Don't blame the messenger or the message - blame the receivers.

>413 Tid:

Well, it is all good and well in theory, but does not work in real life.

We might think it is the followers fault that religions are as bad as they are now today. But it is not possible to blame the followers without been taken as a form of discrimination.

It is best to blame its origins. If these messengers got the credits sometimes, they should get the balme too.

Xox, what is your opinion of the Philosopher King? Should we blame Plato for the rise in modern totalitarianism?

XOX -- while I think in many ways we are kindred souls (no pun intended) as to religion I have to take issue with your approach. Philosophy and religion are indeed very similar, but one adds a deity to enforce "truth." The mild schism in the 20th century's existentialists and Christian existentialists illustrates that point. I also find you naively optimistic in believing that the human race will ever leave religion behind. Not in this millennium my friend; nor the next one.

I don't believe and I am somewhat envious of those who do -- at least those who do for the right reasons -- because they have more confidence as to their place in the universe. But that doesn't send me on a trek to wrap my arms around something I just don't buy. And as much as I on the one hand have an incredibly difficult time understanding how anybody in their right mind could be a believer in something like Christianity or Islam or Judaism, I am not as quick as many atheists in condemning these proclivities. I have a lot of respect for a number of people who are believers and I respect them no less or no more for that belief or lack thereof. Also, I just can’t call myself an atheist, because I am too much of a dogmatic skeptic to be so certain there isn't a deity or deities or hundreds or thousands of deities, major and minor, like some kind Homeric pantheon. I doubt it but I just can't be sure one way or the other.

As to your last point in #414, I would have a hard time handing a lot of blame to Christ, for example, even if I am no Christian. I always think of Jesus as the character from the Jesus Christ Superstar rock opera, full of great motives and plagued by great angst. I don't think he is god but he seems to me from my reading of the New Testament to be a pretty good guy, someone I would have loved to have a glass of wine with. We can't blame Christ if some people took his message and twisted it so it scarcely resembled what believed in. The guy's dead, for Chrissakes ... (LOL) . . . you get my point?

On an unrelated note, I would like to thank you and TID and so many others on this board for a fascinating exchange of ideas, sometimes with great passion. It is what I absolutely love about many of the threads on LT. And I learn so much in the process, as well.

>416 Garp83:

It is not as naive as you think to say we could be rid of the two big bad, at least in countries that discouraged them.

China discourage religion, any religion. This policy has made it possible to regulate religion, and not letting bad ideas from religions to spread to the population. I would like a better approach to this same problem. European countries, many of them become less religions for different reasons, but the government being secular and discourage favorism of one big bad religion over other religions help with this case.

It is countries that has one dominated big bad religion, even when the governments are secular, they played favorism of one religion over all others that make it hard to get rid of religion all together. That I know already.

So for secular, less favorism from government, the religious population would continue to decline under religion would finally distinguish into history. That would be seen in the next 50 years. As for countries with religious strong hold, you are absolutely right in pretending that they would not get rid of big bad religion that easily.

As for Jesus, even when I don't believe he ever existed as a single real person, but only a make-up person from some good teachers at that time, I still blame him for every single thing that gone wrong because this big bad religion exist. Fair or not fair is beside the point. If I ever has to interact with this big bad religion follower, I have to make it clear that their Jesus get a lot of crap from the action of his followers. There should be consequence to the actions these followers take, as they don't really care for anyone opinions, they might care a bit if Jesus being called a cunt or worst for every single action of his followers take that affect equality in society or anyone else for that matter.

Xox, what is your opinion of the Philosopher King? Should we blame Plato for the rise in modern totalitarianism?

And for that matter, what is your opinion of Nietzsche? Is it his fault the Nazis perverted his philosophy?

Also, why do you blame Jesus for Christianity when he was trying to reform Judaism? If anyone, you should be blaming Paul/Saul. And if you insist on blaming Jesus, why not go further and attack the very Judaism he was trying to reform? You seem to be making a special place for the Jews, despite someone having pointed out that Judaism the grandfather of Abrahamic religions and have committed their own share of crimes (along with the good) throughout history. But the chip on your shoulder is reserved for Christianity and Islam alone.

> 418

The question has not improved the second time you asked it. It is just as stupid.

Didn't realize that there is a religion called Platoism.

Philosophy affect a person differently and could only be compared to, but could not really equate to, religious effect.

Go back and think more about it before asking more stupid question.

Didn't realize that there is a religion called Platoism.

Hmmmm.

There probably is not a religion (though I would not doubt if it existed), but there is a school of thought called Platonism; like Christianity, Platonism plays a huge role in Western thought. Like all forms of thought, it has been perverted. Your willingness to excuse philosophers where you hate on religious founders, though I have pointed out completely similar situations, proves that you have a chip on your shoulder that centers directly on religion.

You do not seem to be interested in what causes evil (assuming evil exists; who are you to tell me what is good and evil given that all moralities come from humankind and are therefore entirely subjective?). You seem interested in making religion the scapegoat of human imperfection.

For someone who claims to be above the perceived illogical and unreasonable behavior of the religious, you're behaving illogically and unreasonably. Put simply: you're wrong.

Hey guys!! Just posting to let you know that I am an awesome Itailian!!!

Yeah baby Yeah!!!!!!!!!

P.S. What are you guys talking about?

>420 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Yes. I know there is Platonism, just not as a religion.

>421 Phocion:

Insults again.

Not that useful on me.

Say something better, instead of just opinion, and I might response better to your posts.

For now, I really don't see the point.

>424 XOX: Nobody says you have to reply to anything, (unless you are being employed to stay on this thread :-))

>418 Phocion: If we are against religion then rationally we should be against all religions and not just those that closed societies feel the need to control. Would you agree, Phocion?

> 417 China discourage religion, any religion. This policy has made it possible to regulate religion, and not letting bad ideas from religions to spread to the population.

For me, this is a cultural/philosophical difference that has nothing to do with religion. In my worldview, you let out all ideas out in the marketplace, let the dicey ideas battle with the more sensible ones, then hope the better ideas win out. As the Freudians will tell us, that which is suppressed will find some way of making itself felt.

Yes. I believe in absolute freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion, as well. The state has no right to encourage or discourage religion.

425: If they acted rationally, I would expect anti-theists to hate all religions: Abrahamic, Indian, Persian, East Asian, African, Indigenous, New Age, Ancient, etc. But by then you've pretty much gutted culture, and that's rather irrational, is it not?

424: I've not only expressed opinion, I've expressed facts: religion, like all beliefs and tools, is amoral on its own; it's humans that kill humans; atheists are just as capable of violence when given the power and grudge to back it up; China's own history of violence has proven that the (perceived) absence of religion does not make societies Utopias.

>427 Garp83:

I agreed. But that is not the reality in our present world.

When they allow school to have any kind of religious ceremony, or teachers dictate what to be taught in schools base on what religion they belong to, that has to be done by government that encourage religion.

That is just one example.

For a state not to encourage or discourage religion, it has to complete disallow religion in schools, or indoctrinate children. Or prey on the mentally challenged. How religion is being regulate in ways that allow both religious freedom and freedom from religion. We don't have that yet.

I would think it is would good to designate a specific zone for religion, similar to red light district. Nothing religious could go out of that zone in public, yet people could do it in the privacy of motel or at home.

>426 PhaedraB:

The two big bad prey on children and rely on children indoctrination to survive. That's a form of abuse that most religious states allow. As long as it is disallow, that mean, no religion in school, no children book target on children, and no children Sunday school. We have to protect children from religion until they are closer to adulthood. So allow all kind of religions to prey on children should not be allowed and only the state has the power to stop them.

>425 IfIhadwordsto:

An assumed obligation on my part. Probably different internet forum behavior that I have learned elsewhere.

> 429 I would think it is would good to designate a specific zone for religion, similar to red light district. Nothing religious could go out of that zone in public, yet people could do it in the privacy of motel or at home.

This makes me smile, especially since I don't think sex should be confined to a red-light district ;-)

#428: "religion, like all beliefs and tools, is amoral on its own"

That's hardly a fact. I'm sure we can play a definitional game here, but the simple fact of the matter is that people believing certain things do evil; "having sex with virgins cures AIDS", "Jews are evil and should die", etc. There's a direct link between these beliefs and evil.

432: Thoughts and tools are amoral; actions are moral or immoral (for sake of argument, let's assume morals exist). I can sit here and think that frogs are terrible animals and should be wiped off the face of the earth; but it's only immoral when I act and kill the frogs.

For instance, I disagree with the Abrahamic faiths that believe that just because a married person looks at another besides his/her spouse, he/she has already committed adultery.

This is why we here have the Freedom of Speech. I can believe murder is perfectly fine, but when I commit murder (or cause others to commit murder), then I've crossed the moral event horizon.

> 431

That's why I added "at home". But yes, I believe sex and religion should be regulated, it is for adults only, and should only be practiced by consent adults.

> 432

Just reading a bit of Divine Evil by David Lewis.

God & Hell: Does Hell Make God-Worshippers Unworthy of Admiration, Respect? (http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/05/11/god-hell-does-hell-make-god-worshippers-unworthy-of-admiration-respect.htm)

I have no respect for any follower of the two big bad, for I found their target for worship disgusting and immoral. The assumption that religion is amoral is wrong but for a person who like to change definition just to continue an useless train of thought, it just bored me too much to respond to this crap.

Xox, I've told you my perception of reality is unstable at this point, and I've been using everything in my path (mostly history, philosophy, and physics) to glue it back together.

You want the government to regulate religion. On its face that's not terrible; I think the creationism stickers in science books and historical revisionism is, in general, silly, and the government can weed that out. However, how far should regulation go? Doesn't China want the sole power to declare the new Dalai Lama, which has upset Tibet and the current Dalai Lama so much that some do not want to even go looking for the reincarnation when that happens? Is that the Chinese government's place?

As far as God-Hell, do not many Buddhists and Hindus believe in a version of Hell, along with their deities? You have respect for these philosophies (as you should), but many of them still believe in a place of suffering for the unholy.

#433: Again, you assert things, you don't show them. There is a direct casual link between you thinking that frogs should be wiped off the face of the earth and you killing frogs. There's a large number of reasons why governments should not be in charge of dictating thoughts and beliefs, but that doesn't mean that some of them aren't quite pernicious and lead rather directly to a lot of bad stuff happening. When lots of people believe that frogs should be wiped off the face of the earth, frogs start getting killed.

The more I think about it, I better I like the idea of regulating religions in similar manner as how state regulate sex trade.

You should not allow selling sex in schools, so the state shouldn't allow selling of religion in schools either. That's to protect children that are not mature enough to give consent.

Sex trade and religions should be allow, and selling sex or religions in designated districts would allow the rest of the city to be free from religions and sex trade.

As I have no objection to selling sex to consent adults and have more respect to sex workers than I have for nuns, I have to say having a red light district that freely allow them to do business would reduce the risk for sex workers.

And selling sex or religion to minor should come with a penalty, and state should not allow that to happen even in private own areas.

That might work.

437: I know psychologists are trying, but how do you show there is a direct link between thought and action? If we suggest that certain beliefs are moral and immoral (who will be the judge, by the way?), then you surrender your independent thought.

I did not say certain beliefs were reasonable/unreasonable, but that they are amoral until action is taken.

#439: how do you show there is a direct link between thought and action?

Groups of people who think it's okay to kill more Jews kill more Jews.

If we suggest that certain beliefs are moral and immoral (who will be the judge, by the way?), then you surrender your independent thought.

Quite a few logical jumps there. Not having a final judge does mean that we can not suggest that certain actions are moral and immoral. And just because someone suggests that certain beliefs are immoral, doesn't mean you give up your right to think; you just have to deal with the fact that some lines of thought deeply concern some other people.

that they are amoral until action is taken.

One could argue that it's completely amoral to point a gun at someone and shoot up until the point it hits them. Things have known consequences, and many beliefs are in that field.

Groups of people who think it's okay to kill more Jews kill more Jews.

I believe I should commit suicide, and there are no morals or laws holding me back; yet I am still alive. My actions do not match my thoughts.

One could argue that it's completely amoral to point a gun at someone and shoot until it hits them. Things have known consequences, and many beliefs are in that field.

One could argue shooting someone is amoral, period. But given I gave in for sake of argument, buying the gun and pointing it at someone is an action, and therefore stops being merely a belief. Believing you should shoot someone is amoral; going through the trouble to try and do it is where morality comes in.

It's odd to me that someone coming out of the 20th-century massive death toll of (atheist) Chinese Communism policy would be obsessed with the idea that Christianity and Islam are evil, and we should set Chinese "irreligion" as our model.

Also, it's odd to me that this argument is mainly between one atheist and other atheists/agnostics etc.

>442 dchaikin:

Why is it odd?

At least the people survived the famine and the horrible years of bad political moves know that they were very costly mistaken by the government. Unlike religious people who try to make excuses for their religion, we face our past (as much as we could allow to express it) quite squarely. They didn't die because they were atheists or because the government were run by atheists, atheism is just the default position for not being fooled by religion. They died because of bad government decision.

The lack of sensitive or empathy to those who died make me think either you don't like Chinese, or you think atheists deserved to die if they have atheists run government. Both thoughts lead me to think that evil religion teaching much have done quite a lot of damage to the person's moral to lead to this type of thinking. I rather it is just straight forward racism.

Christianity and Islam, the two big bad religions are the one who didn't make much of an impact in this area. And the assumption that we see in the west wouldn't work the same way here.

443: Unlike religious people who try to make excuses for their religion, we face our past (as much as we could allow to express it) quite squarely

Did the Great Firewall of China finally stop blocking images of the protests at Tiananmen Square?

#443 - "The lack of sensitive or empathy to those who died make me think either you don't like Chinese, or you think atheists deserved to die if they have atheists run government. "

This is off topic. I am atheist (and Jewish), and I'm horrified by most of the 20th-century history of China - it was a tough century to be Chinese. OK, you can get back on topic now.

>445 dchaikin:

Atheist Jew, the only type of Jews I know.

Your people died during a period of dictatorship by another race. My people died and still dying because of dictatorship of the same race. Dictatorship kills. Glad you at least show some sensitivity in this post.

Back to topic. Still I still have hope that we would be the first country to get rid of religion all together. I would imagine things be much worst if the two big bad religions infested the country.

As we have to live with so much limitation on our freedom, we probably treasure it more. As religion is anti-freedom in nature, it is sometimes that I don't really want exist at all in any society, especially my own.

Slightly off, but interesting link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forwa...

Back on: I am fascinated by this idea of state control of religion.

I am not a big fan of religions but ultimately I am even less in favour of unwarranted invasion by the state into the private sphere of freedom of conscience, expression, association and, yes, religion, both private and public (provided that the exercise of these freedoms does not infringe my freedom not to be religious, seek to indoctrinate my children or spend my tax euros).

If the genocides of the 20th century teach us anything it is that in a secular society the protection of human rights by internationally recognised standards is the closest we get to an objective morality.

>447 IfIhadwordsto:

State do control religion. It give one religion favor over all others. Muslim states have Sharia Law that stone women to death for being raped, that is support by government. Christian states allow teaching of religious nonsense in science classes (creationism), and allow bad religious people to run schools (faith schools) with the state allowance. State give advantage to one religion over all other religions. I agreed that state should not state into the privacy of the person, but state do control what religion is going to be dominant one.

Religion should be regulated. And I wouldn't think of anyone but the state having such power.

Recent genocide was committed in Christianity infested Rwanda (56.5% of the Rwanda's population is Roman Catholic, 26% is Protestant, 11.1% is Seventh-day Adventist, 4.6% is Muslim, 1.7% non-religious). Having religions from the two big bad would not prevent genocide, as proved time and time again.

A secular international standard of human rights, with no religion claiming exception based on bullshit religious freedom (no claim of murders of women and called it honor killing or any other type of religious nonsense etc.) might help the present and future humans to live better life.

I thought the Rwandan genocide was cultural/ethnic, not religious...???

>448 XOX: Let me press on this a little if I may.

Of course, we would make no exception for human rights abuses such as genital mutilation, honour killings etc because done in the name of a religion.

But would you not then have to accept that, provided religious followers do not infringe any of my freedoms, then they should be allowed to do so because they are exercising a guaranteed right. I am talking about the vast majority of Christians, Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists etc, etc, who are content to live law-abiding lives and are not about to become suicide bombers or initiate the next genocide?

Message 436: Phocion

"As far as God-Hell, do not many Buddhists and Hindus believe in a version of Hell, along with their deities? You have respect for these philosophies (as you should), but many of them still believe in a place of suffering for the unholy."

Male bovine excrement.

Let me explain.

The 'hells' of Buddhism and Hinduism are all temporal.

The hell of Christianity is eternal.

See the difference - or do I need to explain this to you?

The idea of an eternal hell is the most disgusting idea created in the human mind in human history. Kudos to Christianity for being number one in evil.

>450 IfIhadwordsto:

The two big bad religions are not "peaceful" religions. And allowing them to dominate population is a dangerous thing, when majority could do a lot of harmful things to minority.

Look at California. Having one of the big bad religion made Prop 8 a reality. I wouldn't see this as anything but a form of bad religion acting out against an identifiable group. This is just one example. I just couldn't see how society could improve with the two big bad religions unregulated or at least keep in check by the government. The two big bad religions are arrogant, unreasonable, irrational and it would continue to spread in society if it is not regulated. I just don't see how followers of the two big bad practicing their religions without negatively impacting the society as a whole.

>452 XOX: "Keep in check"

There we might be on to something: freedom to associate, worship in private and indeed in public, because this is a sign of a free society, but no faith schools, secular education, especially the importance of the scientific method, no tax advantages for faith based organisations, no lobbying of legislatures by religious groups etc. But why only limited to the "two big bad" (now youve got me doing it). This is illogical.

" The two big bad religions are not "peaceful" religions. And allowing them to dominate population is a dangerous thing, when majority could do a lot of harmful things to minority." Thats what dictatorships do they harm minorities in their own states, regardless of whether they are athestic or theocratic.

>453 IfIhadwordsto:

Not limiting to just the two big bad, just using them as example. All religions should be regulated so that the schools will stay secular, no tax break would be a good start. Limiting political influence, like if religious group that try to influence politics, they would be considered as political parties and all political party regulation applies to them as well.

Thats what dictatorships do they harm minorities in their own states, regardless of whether they are athestic or theocratic.

That's true. Experiencing it first hand.

Tax exemptions are important to protect the separation of church and state. Plus, you cannot forget that the majority of our politicians here profess themselves to be from the Protestant denominations. I'm sure there are a good portion of them who would love nothing more than to tax the hell out of the religions that do not have vast political power (read: Muslims).

Religion is typically not taught in public schools, outside of those silly creationism stickers and some historical revisionism; although historical revisionism is far more politically motivated than religiously. Most public schools are becoming so afraid of being sued, some history teachers are afraid to ever bring it up. Can you imagine how difficult it is to teach the Crusades or the role the Quakers played in the Revolution without bringing up religion? And that becomes another form of historical revisionism.

Private schools can do what they want.

As for influencing politics, the religious are allowed to vote. They're (in theory) not allowed to pass laws that come into conflict with individual rights; that's why we have the Supreme Court. It's not perfect, but what government institution is?

451: The idea of an eternal hell is the most disgusting idea created in the human mind in human history. Kudos to Christianity for being number one in evil.

I would have said the death penalty was the most disgusting idea created in the human mind, but it's all subjective, no?

>455 Phocion:

China, with all its fault, has never criminalized homosexuality.

This horrible law exists because of the two big bad religions.

So don't go around telling people that the two big bad religions didn't affect laws. It is a lie.