|
|
|
|
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/29/2008 7:24:14 PM |
...I like this...and of course-- I'll go with the latter.
of course you do...its a false dichotomy that caters to the naive. Lets look at it again.
Maybe it’s all about where a person sees themselves in the universe… an insignificant collection of atoms or a being with a god-breathed soul.
In other words, if you believe in 'X' religion then your life means something, if you don't believe in 'X' religion then you are insignificant. 'X' is, of course, whatever religion the speaker happens to believe in. Its the typical arrogance we see constantly from cults all over the world - putting themselves on pedestals and belittling those who believe differently.
Belief in a creator doesn't make you significant. It is who we are that make us significant to others and it is our actions that echo across eternity.
IMO. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/29/2008 7:46:27 PM | | Please read it again… it’s the collection of atoms that’s insignificant, not the person. (See msgs 128 & 129.) On the other hand, if that’s how one chooses to interpret my words, then me thinks that they might be just a tad insecure. Of course, the Bible tells us that Jesus had some doubts too… but in the end, he chose the right course. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/29/2008 8:56:32 PM | The discussion of Galileo is very relevant to the OP here.
Galileo, predating Newton by many years, also came up with the notion later adopted as Newton's first law of motion - that a body in motion remained in motion unless acted upon by a force. This, as much as the heliocentric universe upset the church. Before Galileo's recognition of relativity of motion it was generally assumed that forces were needed to keep bodies in motion - as everyday experience dictated. The motion of heavenly bodies therefore required a legion of angels to keep them going across the sky. It didn't sit well with church elders that a major cadre of God's little helpers would be dismissed by Galileo's ideas.
Galileo knew that his ideas didn't sit well with the church and so chose not to teach all he knew to students at Padua University. One of Galileo's students, the Benedictine priest, Benedetto Castelli was instructed not to discuss the motion of the earth in his lectures at the University in Pisa.
One action by the church was the Censure of the Holy Office, 19 and 25 February 1616: ibid., vol. 19, pp. 320-321 which described a heliocentric universe as "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of the Holy Scripture in many passages".
Galileo was a religious man, as was Castelli and many, many other great men who have contributed to science. The problem isn't religion so much as the misplaced authority that some religious factions abuse to advance their own beliefs and discredit those who may disagree with them or provide alternative opinions. Atheists probably see themselves as more aligned with a scientific basis for the universe and hold in deep suspicion those who choose to disagree with them from a position of faith alone. Unfortunately, misinformation is easily absorbed into popular culture, especially when reflecting disagreement with incomplete scientific ideas leading to the supression of truth and further ventures to broaden knowledge. I'm sure many people see strong parallels between the theological opposition to Galileo and the current religious opposition to a scientific basis for the origins and evolution of life. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/29/2008 10:21:19 PM | While I understand and somewhat agree with your statements, quietjohn, I’m left pondering what this has to do with the subject. Is your point that an atheist can justify their viewpoint based on “misplaced authority”? …of the Roman Catholic Church?? Hell, we can all see misplaced (and abused) authority in any organization – past and present, large and small, secular and religious, profit and charitable. And “misinformation”? Please, don’t get me started on governments!
Now regarding what should be taught about the origin of life, I’m sad to say that I’m at loggerheads with many of my Christian friends. “Intelligent Design”? Oooooo-weeeee, what a load of bollocks! Quite frankly, I’d rather give children both stories – one “Biblical”, the other scientific – and let them use their own powers of reason to decide. And for those who would laugh at my suggestion, because how can a child make that determination? Well, it seems that many adults can’t either. We’re right back where we started: either you choose to believe on faith or require some scientific evidence. Of course, I also find it pertinent that Jesus said, “…you [God] have hidden these things [the knowledge of/about heaven] from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.” (Luke 10:21) | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/30/2008 10:22:35 AM | While I understand and somewhat agree with your statements, quietjohn, I’m left pondering what this has to do with the subject.
The OP states:
And something else. Atheists also base their beliefs in some theories. You well know what those theories are, and "theory" is not my choice of word. They are mentioned as such.
Therefore, the discussion of theory, and science, would both be valid. I am afraid the Forum Moderator missed this as well...
[Not quite, the OP is not about the burning of heretic scientists, and from the context; "theory" is likely a malapropism./late™]
| |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/30/2008 12:56:46 PM | Always be wary of anyone who starts a debunk with
In other words or
So, what you're saying is I find that they are either too lazy to read what was actually written or need to rewrite the words in order to create a Straw Man for the debunk. In other words, they're intellectually dishonest.
As for the discussion about Science, I think it's appropriate because so many who espouse Atheism say they do so because "science" has the answers and "religion" doesn't, and they most often do so in order to proclaim the superiority of Atheism over religion. it seems to me that if a person is stating that their "Truth" is truer, and offering "science" in support, "science' should be discussed. Of course most are rather poor "sicentists" no matter what they think themselves to be. That's what I really enjoyed about scorpionmover's posts. And look at the Peanut Gallery responses -- it's too long. But not, It's non-fact or illogical. What's that about? :roll: | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/30/2008 4:15:20 PM | | Claiming that atheists pick on Christians is just another way for Christians to pick on atheists. Because technically atheism rejects all gods of all religions. So why Christians claim to be victims of "anti-Christian atheists" is laughable and typical. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/30/2008 6:36:48 PM |
As for the discussion about Science, I think it's appropriate because so many who espouse Atheism say they do so because "science" has the answers and "religion" doesn't, and they most often do so in order to proclaim the superiority of Atheism over religion. it seems to me that if a person is stating that their "Truth" is truer, and offering "science" in support, "science' should be discussed. Of course most are rather poor "sicentists" no matter what they think themselves to be. That's what I really enjoyed about scorpionmover's posts. And look at the Peanut Gallery responses -- it's too long. But not, It's non-fact or illogical. What's that about?
There may be no "answers"......or there may be answers...but that can't be understood by us (humans) at this level of our development.
That's religion's greatest weakness:it's need to "answer" all the "questions" presented to it.In religion, everything has a solution and those solutions are always drawn from interpretations of religious compilations (the Bible,Torah,Koran,etc) that were written over 1000 years ago by groups of people who merely documented oral tales.
No controlled testing.
No falsifiability.
No visual evidence.
No theory.
Nothing that would show that those "answers" are anything more than interpretations of the readers understanding of the texts.
Basically,opinions.
Again...there may be no "answers" for the "questions" concerning life.
Science will admit that.
Religion won't.
It can't.
It would defeat its purpose. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/30/2008 9:09:33 PM | Rock:
Belief in a creator doesn't make you significant. It is who we are that make us significant to others and it is our actions that echo across eternity. That was awesome!!! I love how you cut through the usual dualism with that statement, snazzy :) | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/30/2008 9:29:30 PM | Just in case that there is one other person somewhere out there in the entire world who is a little bit like me, I just want say that for me, my atheism is not, and has never been based on any scientific facts and figures and numbers. I personally couldn't care less about any of that.
The most science I have ever read in my entire life is right here in these forums. I'm just a dumb high-school drop-out with a grade 10 education, that's it that's all. Am I embarrassed to admit that? No. It is what it is. Everything I know I learned on my own. And it isn't much I can assure you. Like I've always said, I know nothing and I claim nothing, except for what is true for ME.
So all that crap that's being thrown around about atheists trying to show off and how they like to feel superior....hmm...you can all keep it, I don't want any of it. I don't "belong" to the atheists anymore than I belong to the christians or the jews or the muslims or the pagans....or to anyone. I belong to me only.
And what I do know I didn't learn in any books. All that books ever did for me is they gave me words to put behind what I already knew or "felt" in my heart ever since I was a little girl. And I suppose books also helped in making me feel a little less alone.
Yet I've come to realize that no matter what, we are in fact alone...each one of us is alone in his or her journey through this life since I don't believe that there are two people on earth who can ever think the same or experience the same "feelings" as we do.
So to answer the OP, I know that for me at least, my atheism is not based on any "theories" or scientific "facts", nor do I feel the need to spread my "truth" as I know for a fact that my truth can only be true for me as there is only one me. So how could it be true for anyone else but me?
And as far as atheists picking on christians, I believe that this question doesn't even warrant an answer since the question already implies that they do, so why ask?
JMHO | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/31/2008 1:26:20 AM | Two Hawks takes the Talking Stick
I think Atheists pick on Christians because Christians pick on Atheists. It's a "return fire" situation. One fires a shot at another and the other returns fire. What this all boils down to is.....people of one religion aren't tolerant of those of another religion. they don't respect the other for what he, or she believes in.
This reminds me of the old story about a young Indian boy was having trouble understanding life. He went to the wise, old Medicine Chief and asked him why life was so much trouble. The old chief said: "Inside each of us are two wolves...a good wolf and a bad one. They are constantly fighting each other. There isn't a day that goes by that the two wolves aren't fighting!" Confused, the young boy asked: "Which wolf wins?" The wise old chief said: "The one that you feed!"
So we have to learn to respect each other and our choice of religion. Be respectful and tolerant of others and be sure to feed the right wolf.
Two Hawks passes the Talking Stick | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/31/2008 9:43:50 AM | We have dualism to open up our conscious minds that we need to observe that from this. If we did not have that and only this there would be nothing else to learn from.
“What is wrong is the contradiction that the word dualism suggests to the universal constant that is the anchoring principle behind all wisdom, ‘all is One’ - all is one & never two? All includes everything, nothing is left out.”
http://www.onepositive.com/dualism.htm | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/31/2008 9:53:23 AM | wow I just have to say I love the posts I'm reading here.
sassyaquarius
That was awesome!!! I love how you cut through the usual dualism with that statement, snazzy :) and I love every post that your heart graces this forum with as well.
oldsoul
Great story. Beautiful. Your humility and honesty is very admirable, and your integrity is beyond refute. Props to you.
Two Hawks
He went to the wise, old Medicine Chief and asked him why life was so much trouble. The old chief said: "Inside each of us are two wolves...a good wolf and a bad one. They are constantly fighting each other. There isn't a day that goes by that the two wolves aren't fighting!" Confused, the young boy asked: "Which wolf wins?" The wise old chief said: "The one that you feed!" What a fantastic story! Thanks for posting it.
And you're right about the other part of well - its silly to ask why other people attack you....when all they're doing is retaliating.
rockondon passes the talking stick | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/31/2008 6:01:49 PM | Regarding the idea that men are nothing but an insignificant collection of atoms, I thought this paragraph was amusing:
"I have never heard this expressed more clearly than when I was lecturing in Acapulco, Mexico. George Wald (1906-), a chemistry professor from Harvard University, was also there lecturing to the same group. He expressed with great force the modern concept that all things, including man, are merely the product of chance. After he had stressed over and over again that all things, beginning from the molecule and ending with man, are only a product of chance, he said, 'Four hundred years ago there was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare which produced Hamlet.' According to these theories, that is ALL that man can be. Man beginning with his proud, proud humanism, tried to make himself autonomous, but rather than becoming great, he had found himself ending up as only a collection of molecules--and nothing more" (How Then Should We Live, Francis A. Schaeffer, Crossway Books, 1976, p. 164, emphasis in original). | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/31/2008 6:14:52 PM |
This reminds me of the old story about a young Indian boy was having trouble understanding life. He went to the wise, old Medicine Chief and asked him why life was so much trouble. The old chief said: "Inside each of us are two wolves...a good wolf and a bad one. They are constantly fighting each other. There isn't a day that goes by that the two wolves aren't fighting!" Confused, the young boy asked: "Which wolf wins?" The wise old chief said: "The one that you feed!" That is exactly how my religion teaches the idea of the battle between good and evil, except that we call them "inclinations" and not "wolves".
So we have to learn to respect each other and our choice of religion. Be respectful and tolerant of others and be sure to feed the right wolf. That is what has always confused me about many atheists on POF saying they don't like religion. Judaism says "Love one another". Jesus says "turn the other cheek. It seems to me that most religions seem to be about love, respect and tolerance. So surely most atheists should love religion, even if they don't want it for themselves? | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 191 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 1/31/2008 6:24:01 PM | That is what has always confused me about many atheists on POF saying they don't like religion. Judaism says "Love one another". Jesus says "turn the other cheek. It seems to me that most religions seem to be about love, respect and tolerance. So surely most atheists should love religion, even if they don't want it for themselves?
Because what something "says" it's supposed to be is often not the case in practise:
http://www.sea-monkeys.com/
George Wald (1906-), a chemistry professor from Harvard University
James Warren "Jim" Jones (May 13, 1931 – November 18, 1978) the American founder of the Peoples Temple.
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one can come to the father but through me."
| |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/31/2008 6:49:30 PM |
That is what has always confused me about many atheists on POF saying they don't like religion. Judaism says "Love one another". Jesus says "turn the other cheek. It seems to me that most religions seem to be about love, respect and tolerance. So surely most atheists should love religion, even if they don't want it for themselves?
If people treated religion as the philosophy that it is...and didn't try to force its views upon others...then most atheists would likely ignore it.
But it adherents won't allow it to be just a "philosophy" and try to force (proselytize) others into their "philosophy"
Some accept this...some don't.
However,since the religious see no "middle ground" between their philosophical beliefs and immoral or "evil" behavior...they are angered or made fearful by those who don't believe as they do.
Hence the conflict.
I don't "love" religion.
To me ..it's a philosophical concept that seems to be groundless and dogmatic.
Unless it were brought to my attention...I'd probably...ignore it.
Why can't the religious give others the same consideration? | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/31/2008 7:51:27 PM | RE Msg: 191:
Because what something "says" it's supposed to be is often not the case in practise: Democratic governments are FULL of people who say one thing and do another. But that doesn't mean we give up on government, or democracy. Why should religion be different?
RE Msg: 192 by cocytus:
But it adherents won't allow it to be just a "philosophy" and try to force (proselytize) others into their "philosophy" Not ALL religions do "proselytize". I feel that religion as a whole gets a bad repuation because of a few bad "apples".
However,since the religious see no "middle ground" between their philosophical beliefs and immoral or "evil" behavior...they are angered or made fearful by those who don't believe as they do. There are a lot of religious in the "middle ground". I was brought up that way, and was told that my religion espoused "moderation in ALL things, except anger and humility (knowing who you REALLY are). But it seems that the people in the "middle ground" were fast disappearing. It was first brought to my attention at 15. When I was 20, a religious leader said out that it was a reaction to the excesses of hedonistic behaviour that has been increasing since the 1950s. From what I understand, a LOT of religious people want there to be a "middle ground", but as long as the goalposts keep on being changed by the non-religious, to bring life more and more sexual. So religious people are having to be more and more involved in religion, to balance out the greater push in society to be more sexual. Sex is good in my religion, but not as an addiction, and my review of documentaries on sexual psychology seems to be full of psychologists who say that our society is full of sex addicts, and that sex additction is really a barrier to intimacy, that isn't removed until the addiction is broken.
Why can't the religious give others the same consideration? I keep meeting people like this. A pair of Mormons came to my best friend's 40th birthday bash, and they were really great, and they didn't try to convert anyone whatsoever, despite that many of the people there were Jews. But these sort of tolerant, religious people seem to be ignored. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 194 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 1/31/2008 8:19:01 PM |
Democratic governments are FULL of people who say one thing and do another. But that doesn't mean we give up on government, or democracy. Why should religion be different?
Aside from being a false analogy?
Religion = doubt is not welcome, skepicism is not a player, democracy is not an option, adjustment isn't part of the process, and the religion does not leave the scene when it's followers fail to live up to its "promises". Those in governance are accountable to the people, those in religion don't have to answer to any but their personal deity. At election time, governments fail or succeed based on achievement, in religion you find out if you're right or wrong IF there is an afterlife (that's a big if), and IF you picked the right religion (What if you die and it's Zeus?).
In the mean time if you've been true to a religion, you may have done so for the reasons of fear (punishment), or self concern (reward). And in that, there may be a similarity, ...if only more politicians were in jail.
 | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 1/31/2008 9:05:18 PM |
Religion = doubt is not welcome, skepicism is not a player, democracy is not an option, adjustment isn't part of the process, and the religion does not leave the scene when it's followers fail to live up to its "promises". As I said before, you are tarring ALL religions and all religious people with the same brush, and as I have posted before, I have met many people who are not like that. How is this fair to them?
Those in governance are accountable to the people, those in religion don't have to answer to any but their personal deity. At election time, governments fail or succeed based on achievement, in religion you find out if you're right or wrong IF there is an afterlife (that's a big if), and IF you picked the right religion (What if you die and it's Zeus?). Maybe you have a system of democracy that is different than in the UK. But in the UK, we have a party system that is voted into power every 4 years. It is accepted that no politician will ever keep their promises. At election time, those parties get elected based on the success of their campaigns, not their achievements.
In addition, from my knowledge, it appears that former members of the Cabinet and former Prime Ministers are all put on the board of directors of many large companies and all earn a huge salary. One example is Tony Blair:
Blair's earnings set to rocket
Tony Blair's retirement as prime minister will leave him out of power, but in the money.
His departure from 10 Downing Street will open up earning opportunities on a scale which he was denied as long as he held political office.
Although his salary of £187,611 - including his MP's wage of £60,277, which he will keep - would be a fortune to most, it is a mere fraction of the sums he will now be able to command. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2070487,00.html
From what I understand, this is commonplace for former highly-ranking politicians.
If politicians were accountable to the people, then they could be called into question for every major debacle, just like the presidents of corporations as accountable to their shareholders for anything that damages the value or reputation of the company. If politicians were accountable to the people, then Tony Blair would have been put on trial for sending UK troops into Iraq on the basis of a report that was written by a university student for his degree, and was never supported by any other reports by the UK Intelligence Services. If politicians were accountable, then the Conservative parts would have been held accountable for doing nothing about the use of cows with BSE in edible food, when government scientists announced that CJD was caused by eating meat from cows with BSE, until AFTER the whole of Europe banned British meat. If politicians were accountable, then governments would be held accountable for allowing Thalidomide to be allowed to be used before full testing can been completed.
Personally, I believe that ALL people in public office ought to be financially responsible from their successes, and from their failures which are the result of gross negligence, as it seems that the best way to hurt these people, is in their "pockets".
But from what I can see of the way government is run, politicians and governments are NOT accountable to the people, and elections are only popularity contests, at least in the UK. So I see no reason to expect religion to be a paragon of virtue, and still allow government to be a paragon of vice. But maybe your country is different?
However, I believe that G-d is fair. If I try to do the best by my fellow man, and do what I think is right, then G-d will get on with me. Frankly, if Heaven was decided by arbitrary things like which religion you happen to keep, that would make the ruler of Heaven a tyrant, and I would expect Hell to be a Heaven by comparison, and if that was so, I would request to go "downstairs".
In the mean time if you've been true to a religion, you may have done so for the reasons of fear (punishment), or self concern (reward). I, and many other people I know, only keep their religion because they believe it is the right thing to do.
...if only more politicians were in jail. Finally, we are in agreement on something. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 196 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 1/31/2008 9:52:17 PM | As I said before, you are tarring ALL religions and all religious people with the same brush, and as I have posted before, I have met many people who are not like that. How is this fair to them?
You were the one comparing religion with systems of governance vis a vis*:
It seems to me that most religions seem to be about love, respect and tolerance. So surely most atheists should love religion, even if they don't want it for themselves?
*Because what something "says" it's supposed to be is often not the case in practise:
I stated it was a false analogy, and I'll leave you with it and stick to the one I originally went with:
http://www.sea-monkeys.com/
As for "fair", I'll bite, what religion:
Invites investigation into claims (doubt/skepticism)?
Changes its goals according to popular vote (democratic)?
Disbands and is replaced when called upon by popular vote by those who may or may not even subscribe to its ideologies?
????
Remember, it's you that drew the comparison, not I.
I'll stick with the sea-monkey analogy....
It seems to me that most religions seem to be about love, respect and tolerance. So surely most atheists should love religion, even if they don't want it for themselves?
Looks good in the comics, ...not what it sells itself as in the long run.
http://www.sea-monkeys.com/
| |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 2/1/2008 12:20:44 AM | RE msg 196:
As I said before, you are tarring ALL religions and all religious people with the same brush, and as I have posted before, I have met many people who are not like that. How is this fair to them? You were the one comparing religion with systems of governance vis a vis*: It seems to me that most religions seem to be about love, respect and tolerance. So surely most atheists should love religion, even if they don't want it for themselves? *Because what something "says" it's supposed to be is often not the case in practise:
Scorpiomover: That is what has always confused me about many atheists on POF saying they don't like religion. Judaism says "Love one another". Jesus says "turn the other cheek. It seems to me that most religions seem to be about love, respect and tolerance. So surely most atheists should love religion, even if they don't want it for themselves? Late: Because what something "says" it's supposed to be is often not the case in practise: Scorpiomover: Democratic governments are FULL of people who say one thing and do another. But that doesn't mean we give up on government, or democracy. Why should religion be different? Late: Aside from being a false analogy? Religion = doubt is not welcome, skepicism is not a player, democracy is not an option, adjustment isn't part of the process, and the religion does not leave the scene when it's followers fail to live up to its "promises". Scorpiomover: As I said before, you are tarring ALL religions and all religious people with the same brush, and as I have posted before, I have met many people who are not like that. How is this fair to them? Late: You were the one comparing religion with systems of governance vis a vis*: It seems to me that most religions seem to be about love, respect and tolerance. So surely most atheists should love religion, even if they don't want it for themselves? *Because what something "says" it's supposed to be is often not the case in practise: Correct me if I am wrong, but I am stating that the religion promotes love, respect and tolerance, and you seem to have a problem with some of the people running the religion. If you are talking about Christianity past 50AD, let me remind you that the majority of Christians were from the Roman Empire, and were therefore people brought up under Roman Culture, and that our society is a chronologically historical outgrowth of that Roman Culture. So if there is any difference at all between the claims of the New Testament and the behaviour of people, it is only reasonable to look at Roman Culture, and see if Roman Culture encouraged violence, rape, slavery, invasion, conquering new lands and amassing territories. Guess what? It did. So again, I cannot understand your problem with religion, unless it is the Roman religion.
I stated it was a false analogy, and I'll leave you with it and stick to the one I originally went with:
http://www.sea-monkeys.com/ Correct me if I am wrong. But the sea-monkeys that were not Brine Shrimp, that were depicted as looking like humans, carried a disclaimer that stated, "Caricatures shown not intended to depict Artemia." So if you ignore that, and you decide to buy that product, it is not the company's fault. This is no different than astrology and tarot lines. All of the adverts state that such lines are "for entertainment purposes only". But people choose to ignore that. If every Bible came with a disclaimer at the bottom that said: "Please note these events are fictional and are in no way meant to be representative of real events", then you might have a case to compare religions based on the Bible to sea-monkeys. But then, I doubt that you'd have a problem with that. But if that was true, then millions of people would be fleeced, the same way as millions of people are fleeced for fortune-telling and for sea-monkeys and neither you, nor I, nor anyone else could do something about it. But you stick with your analogy.
As for "fair", I'll bite, what religion:
Invites investigation into claims (doubt/skepticism)? It is interesting that you say this, because as far as I know, there are NO free press meetings or interviews anymore with members of the government, where members of the press get to ask any questions that they want, and that the politicians and government officials HAVE to answer the questions directly. As far as I know, all members of the press have to submit questions well in advance of interviews, so that the interviewees can pass these questions to their PR people who can prepare clever answers in advance, and that the standard policy for government when addressing any questions that have not been previously submitted to them, is to ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS say "No Comment". On top, UK governments tend to only allow investigations under their own volition, and their own timelines, and only by the people they appoint, like the Hutton Report and the investigation into the death of Dr David Kelley, and mysteriously enough, keep finding the government innocent. But when people ask for an independent investigation, they are refused point blank. So I don't see how government allows investigation into claims, or doubts or scepticism. As to science, I know plenty of scientists who are quite willing to allow questions when they think they know the answer. But they seem to get very very personally insulting when some person asks a really pertinent question, that cannot be easily dismissed.
However it strikes me that most religious leaders are expected to answer almost any question, and most religious leaders I have met, did address every question, and sometimes they said they don't know.
So you have proved to me that religion allows for investigation, doubts and scepticism, but governments generally do not.
Changes its goals according to popular vote (democratic)?
Disbands and is replaced when called upon by popular vote by those who may or may not even subscribe to its ideologies? Well, it would only be appropriate to change the goals of any structure, or the structure itself, according to popular vote, if the purpose of that structure was to follow the wishes of the populace. To my understanding, no religion claims to be the servant of the people, but an educator of the people. However, it would make sense that governments, which are there to serve the people, change its goals according to the wishes of the people. Which reminds me, how is an invasion into Iraq beneficial to any country in the West? The price of oil is $90 a barrel, but how much of that revenue goes to the Iraqis? Do we really believe that if the Iraqis got the $90 a barrel that they are owed, and that money was distributed into the public sector, such as hospitals, plumbing, electricity and education, that they would keep terrorising the West? So whose wishes is that invasion serving?
Also, there is another big issue: How can anyone vote for things they don't understand? So now, there is a massive drive in the UK for all schools to have citizenship classes for all people, including native people, and there is a reasonable POV that failing to pass a citizenship class could render one ineligible to vote, as one doesn't have the understanding to vote on the issues involved, or even who would be a good or bad candidate as MP. To set up the same in a religion would mean that only someone who really knows about the religion in all of its depth and complexity would be capable of making such decisions. So in order to do that, one would have to force everyone eligible to vote on a religion, to learn everything about that religion. As many religions seem to have the opinion that one has to practise things in order to fully understand them, like the benefits of celibacy outside of marriage, that would mean that one would have to enforce the study and practise of that religion on all members of that society, even those who do not subscribe to its ideologies. Somehow, I can see that you might have a problem with that. So would I. So I couldn't in all conscience support such a vote, unless it only involved the members who both studied and practised the religion, and knew what it was talking about, in its full depth, because it wouldn't be fair.
Also, I notice that most countries have a constitution or a Bill of Rights, that cannot be disbanded, even upon the vote of every member of that country. I would therefore have to conclude that most countries with such an inflexible constitution and/or similar Bills of Rights, would be undemocratic, according to your logic. Care to disagree?
Remember, it's you that drew the comparison, not I. I did. I pointed out that religion is being held to a standard that the government is not, yet observance of the laws of that religion is considered personal and optional, but observance of the laws of that government is considered required and bound by all, in public and private life.
I'll stick with the sea-monkey analogy.... Please keep to what you want. It makes no difference if it makes no sense to me.
It seems to me that most religions seem to be about love, respect and tolerance. So surely most atheists should love religion, even if they don't want it for themselves? Looks good in the comics, ...not what it sells itself as in the long run. http://www.sea-monkeys.com/
Therefore, I cannot understand the problems that atheists have with accepting religions and religious people with love, respect and tolerance. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 198 | |
| Atheists
Posted: 2/1/2008 1:34:30 AM | cannot understand your problem with religion, unless it is the Roman religion.
Ha! ...that's rich, ...it's okay to not accept some religion.
The problem was with the concept that a non-religious person "should" love religion because most are about love, respect, tolerance, yadda yadda....
re: The sea monky reference, which hasn't sunk in at all:
I don't buy the premise of your question, I don't know of any of the major religions that are "about" those things exclusively ...many say they are, but beneath the soft-sell, isn't just love, respect, or tolerance. There are other things both explicit and implied that are those things opposites. There is also fear, insularity, and HUGE amounts of intolerance. That goes for any of the Abrahamic flavours, Hinduism and its variants, etc.
The entire wording of your query is a loaded question as much as asking somebody, ..."do you enjoy beating your wife"?
It's intellectually dishonest, ...another one of those things beneath the love, respect, blah blah blah
I never bought into any of it, not even as a small child, the contradictions were too blatant. I never "lost" any organized religion, I never needed it to love, respect, and tolerate others. I never needed the Damoclean sword of the prospect of "hell" to guide my morality or ethics, nor do I need the promise of a fuzzy set of wings and a halo and a mansion in the clouds to motivate me to be a decent human being.
The suggestion that I do need these things, or that I am somehow averse to "love, respect, tolerance", is something I find insulting, and I'm not even an Atheist by my own definition, but probably to any who believe in a "personal God" re: Abrahamic.
The statement below is intolerant, fallacious, and above all, as ridiculous as the fanciful rendering of the friendly king of the sea monkeys.Therefore, I cannot understand the problems that atheists have with accepting religions and religious people with love, respect and tolerance. ...or their distant cousin the Red Herring.
Perhaps they already do with the latter and you don't even see it, with Atheists, the only difference is that they believe in one less "God" than any Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. As far as respecting any religion, there would have to be reciprocity, and with the nature of religion, faith, and the unquestioning nature of accepting the premise of any theological boundries, ....this is impossible. How can any with faith respect and act on the idea that their faith itself is false?
Ultimately the faithful are only accountable to that which they believe; made them.
As to science, I know plenty of scientists who are quite willing to allow questions when they think they know the answer. But they seem to get very very personally insulting when some person asks a really pertinent question, that cannot be easily dismissed.
Science without questions, isn't science... The main idea behind science is that it's falsefiable. And science has nothing to do with Atheism or Theism at all, those things are views of the "supernatural" and not at all in the purview of science.
Please keep to what you want. It makes no difference if it makes no sense to me.
I can see that, so much for love, respect, and tolerance......
As goes understanding, so goes love, respect, and tolerance. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 2/1/2008 3:06:54 AM | Correct me if I am wrong, but I am stating that the religion promotes love, respect and tolerance I don't see this at all in religion. Some religious people are loving, respectful and tolerant and some are not. The same applies to non-religious people. Jesus's message was one of love, but religion itself does not seem to be about following Jesus's message (or any similar) but about identifying oneself with a group which includes some people and excludes others.
For a time I was good friends with an Islamic Kashmiri man. He was instinctively loving and kind towards people. An example is that he loved to hear children shouting and playing even if they disturbed his work because he could hear the happiness in their voices; he was happy too when people laughed at him because he believed that laughter was good and brought them closer together even if he was the butt of the joke. When he discovered I was vegan he felt so sure that it was the right thing to do to live in a way that did not hurt animals, that he went vegan overnight, without telling anyone and suffered nutritional deficiencies because of his lack of knowledge about diet. His instincts as a human were, without a doubt, good.
The other people of his culture saw him walking with me and told him he should shun me because I was white, a westerner and therefore evil (they had chosen to live in the K themselves). His religious leader lectured him and told him repeatedly that his behaviour was "un-Islamic" and that he should neither abstain from eating meat and nor should he make friends with any of the white people he worked with. He was told that his behaviour was making him "dirty" and that he was betraying his religion and was "more like a Hindu" -- by his religious leader. He was given a lot of pressure from them over these issues. One could argue that the religious leader was simply a bad apple and that he was not teaching the actual word of the religion, but then you look at what all the leaders teach and if their teachings are not the definition of the religion as it is experienced in real life, then what is?
Christians are exhorted that it is their duty to convert others and to regard those who do not follow their religion as being "sinners".
"Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." --James 5:19, 20.
One aspect of *some* branches of Christianity is the emphasis on intolerance for other beliefs to the extent of it being a "duty" to try to convert others. This is their religion. This is not respect or tolerance.
Jesus may have taught love and tolerance but the religious leaders certainly do not and so, religion as it exists in our society (as opposed to on paper) is not something that promotes love and tolerance. It seems to promote war by giving people reasons to hate and to justify hating each other. Maybe they'd find other reasons if religion were not there but that doesn't make it any better.
The assumption that people need religion in order to know right from wrong is one that is very frightening, in my opinion. It also explains how easily people are brainwashed into committing horrific acts -- they are eager to suspend their own judgement and feeling and abdicate their own responsibility and freedom of choice and act as a puppet -- religion encourages this way of being and so through the voices of religious leaders, religion tells people not to love but to fight, to defend their faith, their deity, to not tolerate the filthy sinners who do not believe but to seek to eliminate them... Religion is a deeply scary and powerful meme set that is being exploited in ways that are really not good. If you love humanity, surely you'd trust it to be loving and good without the brainwashing of threats and rewards that religion involve. Feeling that we need religion seems to me to indicate a deep mistrust of humanity, which is quite shocking. | |
|
| Atheists
Posted: 2/1/2008 9:13:39 AM |
I feel that religion as a whole gets a bad repuation because of a few bad "apples". Kinda funny how that very thing happens to atheists too, no.. ??
Would it not be time and energy better spent in deciding to not be one of those bad apples as opposed to railing against others reactions to the reality that they do in fact exist in freakishly large numbers.. ??
Personally, I think it best to focus on that which you consider important without attempting to project that sentiment out onto an entire planet of people as though what you think is the only way...
But hey, that is... after all, just my opinion ;) | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
