Support NeoGAF

[Socreges]

This idea that the "educated" are atheists is insanely retarded.

Are you referring at all to me?

-edit-

And I'd argue that if education came before religion, people wouldn't be religious. Instead, people have faith embedded into them at a young age before they can even consider the alternatives. Their religion is then so intrinsic in who they are that any arguments to the contrary won't have much effect.

 

[Boogie]

This idea that the "educated" are atheists is insanely retarded.

And yeah, the WHOLE of the ancient world got together and created religion to control people. @_@ Why, the idea of someone thinking for themselves and choosing to follow the tenets of a religion is absurd. They are all uneducated zombies. :| Controlled by... pastors. :|

Bah, pay no attention to Pimpwerx, that's all he ever brings to threads on these subjects.

 

[DarienA]

This idea that the "educated" are atheists is insanely retarded.

And yeah, the WHOLE of the ancient world got together and created religion to control people. @_@ Why, the idea of someone thinking for themselves and choosing to follow the tenets of a religion is absurd. They are all uneducated zombies. :| Controlled by... pastors. :|

Inflated egos are running wild in this thread.

Many of them are intelligent zombies controlled by their pastors.... <I'm not going to bring up the election and various exit polls of what people used to judge as important as an example>

Oh wait I just did.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

This idea that the "educated" are atheists is insanely retarded.

Retarded, yes. Insanely... *shrugs* Statistics show the more education a person has the less chance they believe in a god, but it's still a majority. At least with the US numbers I quickly found with Google.

And yeah, the WHOLE of the ancient world got together and created religion to control people. @_@ Why, the idea of someone thinking for themselves and choosing to follow the tenets of a religion is absurd. They are all uneducated zombies. :| Controlled by... pastors. :|

Well, it would only take a few really convincing people to create a religion, get some power, and spread it. I'd also say that while someone independently choosing to follow a religion isn't absurd, I can't believe anything but that the majority of religious people now and throughout history got that way because they were born into a religious family/society.

 

[geogaddi]

I call strawman.

Most of us "unbelievers" simply feel that religion should not become public law, and that religion has no place being taught in the classroom as fact, and that folks of differing beliefs should never be held to the laws and creeds of one particular religion.

We don't hate you; we just don't CARE that you think abortion is bad and should be legislated against in all cases; we don't CARE that you think homos are evil and should never have the opportunity to enter into formal marriage; we don't CARE that you think the world was created by an omniscient being and that all laws made on Earth should acknowledge that belief; we don't CARE that your rigid sense of morality is offended by naked boobies during the Super Bowl.

We're for a minimum set of restrictions on human behavior in those cases when the harm to another is not clearly delineated, preferring to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Rather than endorse one religion in codified, federally sanctioned form, we prefer to endorse NO religion, and instead let religions endorse themselves on their own time and dollar. We prefer the observable, empirical, and scientific because they are the most common of all to our shared perspective.

It's a society of TOLERANCE, and we accept those of you with religious beliefs as a big part of it, but we don't intend to let you expand the rules at the expense of even a minority. Your faith should be strong enough to survive such a notion, and your common sense should be strong enough to realize that this is the best compromise for a democratic society as a whole.

Are you suggesting that the "ideology VS ideology conflict" has to stop for the benefit of our democratic society as a whole?

I mean, Drinky, you make good points but how can it apply to reality? For instance, if you are a clear believer in tolerance then you preach "tolerance, tolerance, tolerance", you work under the system that "tolerance ought to be" for society. But what would be the purpose of preaching tolerence?

With my utmost respect...this presents a very contradictory scenario;

Tolerance = Comprimising

So, here's an example;

unBeliever needs to tolerate the Believer's position that abortion is wrong
Believer needs to tolerate the unBeliever's position that abortion is okay

another example;

unBeliever says he doesn't care that Believers _____ as long as they don't impose it on unBelievers

Believer says he doesn't care that unBelievers _____ as long as they don't impose it on Believers

What you ask for is an unachievable utopia. One might say to "balance" it but who is to say anything on how it ought to be?

If you agree that "ideology vs ideology" conflict probably will never stop, then what is the point of saying anything about YOUR ideology?

 

[Socreges]

Well, it would only take a few really convincing people to create a religion, get some power, and spread it. I'd also say that while someone independently choosing to follow a religion isn't absurd, I can't believe anything but that the majority of religious people now and throughout history got that way because they were born into a religious family/society.

And the exceptions tend to be people who went through traumatic periods in their lives. They then "find God".

 

[yoshifumi]

I'LL FIGHT YOU RIGHT NOW BABY JESUS!!!

 

[6.8]

GAF doesn't hate religious-type. It doesn't hate liberals. It hates everyone. I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[Mumbles]

Being an extremist atheist should classify you as an extremist. If you think that's not the case and atheism in any form causes you to be classed as an extremist, then I'll happily file you in the same box as the thread starter and the people who periodically whine about how GA is overflowing with Nintendo zealots, XBox fanatics, or PS2 lovers, depending on their own personal preferences.

Funny thing is, I'm *not* an extremist atheist. I don't see religion as necessarily dangerous to society, and I don't think that it's an evil tool to control the minds of the ignorant masses. And I certainly don't think it should be outlawed or actively destroyed. But religions are still full of, IMO, absurd ideas, and that's rather hard to respect.

And as I said before, I find it hard to respect the nonexistent sanctity (ie. holiness, godliness) of religion, because it doesn't have anything of the sort.

OTOH, considering that fewer than 1% of americans consider themselves to be atheists, the position is obviously an extreme in and of itself. It's got nothing to do with whining, it's simply a fact.

 

[The Prime Director]

So you are saying that Christ never existed and that he did not die a martyr? I would say that's pretty difficult to prove.

You still think Jesus was a real person? Ouch.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
http://orcinus.iwarp.com/Against2.htm
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/7748/106446

You really should read more. You might find something interesting. I am a freethinker and rationalist, it's always a relief to know my worldview is based on logic and not emotion.

OTOH, considering that fewer than 1% of americans consider themselves to be atheists,

Uh, no. At least 10% of people identify themselves as non-religious, and the majority of people don't go to church regularly like their religion commands them too. People claim to be a believer without actually doing anything about it. So don't pay much attention of those kind of statistics.

 

[DarienA]

GAF doesn't hate religious-type. It doesn't hate liberals. It hates everyone. I thought that was pretty clear.

I would just like to point out that I hate all of you with equal amounts of venom. Thank you and good day sir.... I said GOOD DAY SIR.

 

[Boogie]

You still think Jesus was a real person? Ouch.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
http://orcinus.iwarp.com/Against2.htm
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/7748/106446

You really should read more. You might find something interesting. I am a freethinker and rationalist, it's always a relief to know my worldview is based on logic and not emotion.



Uh, no. At least 10% of people identify themselves as non-religious, and the majority of people don't go to church regularly like their religion commands them too. People claim to be a believer without actually doing anything about it. So don't pay much attention of those kind of statistics.

Aww, and this thread was going so well, too.

 

[6.8]

I would just like to point out that I hate all of you with equal amounts of venom. Thank you and good day sir.... I said GOOD DAY SIR.

Thanks. Perhaps it's because this is OT that some have not realized this. This fact becomes quite clear after reading 2 threads in the gaming forum.

 

[Gorey]

+1 to the "drinky speaks for me on this issue far more effectively than I could myself" bandwagon.

I have to be honest, though, and state that I do, essentially, despise evangelical christians. It's not the god-fearin', church goin' part that I can't stand; do what you will with your personal beliefs. But when you try and force your religion onto me, and to legislate it, blurring the line between church and state....yes. I hate you.

 

[Hitokage]

Are you suggesting that the "ideology VS ideology conflict" has to stop for the benefit of our democratic society as a whole?

I mean, Drinky, you make good points but how can it apply to reality? For instance, if you are a clear believer in tolerance then you preach "tolerance, tolerance, tolerance", you work under the system that "tolerance ought to be" for society. But what would be the purpose of preaching tolerence?

With my utmost respect...this presents a very contradictory scenario;

Tolerance = Comprimising

So, here's an example;

unBeliever needs to tolerate the Believer's position that abortion is wrong
Believer needs to tolerate the unBeliever's position that abortion is okay

another example;

unBeliever says he doesn't care that Believers _____ as long as they don't impose it on unBelievers

Believer says he doesn't care that unBelievers _____ as long as they don't impose it on Believers

What you ask for is an unachievable utopia. One might say to "balance" it but who is to say anything on how it ought to be?

If you agree that "ideology vs ideology" conflict probably will never stop, then what is the point of saying anything about YOUR ideology?

So many words, so few thoughts.

 

[Mumbles]

Uh, no. At least 10% of people identify themselves as non-religious, and the majority of people don't go to church regularly like their religion commands them too. People claim to be a believer without actually doing anything about it. So don't pay much attention of those kind of statistics.

Non-religious doesn't mean "atheist" you know. But yes, fine, I was discussing self-described atheists, as opposed to "spiritual but not religious", "agnostic", and so forth.

And yes, I'm ignoring the vague at best boundary between "agnostic" and "atheist".

 

[Socreges]

TPD, I've never seen any arguments like those before. This is particularly interesting:

One problem of these claims is that they are far from original. All of Jesus' attributes and miracles were already present in earlier myths. Mithraism, a religion that co-existed with Christianity but began much earlier, is the best example of this. Mithra was born of a virgin, his birth was celebrated on December 25th, performed miracles with 12 disciples, held a last supper, resurrected after three days on the spring equinox, and ascended to Heaven.

Also, Zoroaster, Horus, Krishna (member of the Hindu trinity), Bacchus, Prometheus, Indra, and a great deal of other deities or legendary characters were born by virgin birth and shared many other attributes with Jesus. Empedocles was reported as preaching, curing illnesses, controlling the storms, and raising the dead. Dionysus had a last supper. Bacchus turned water into wine. Osiris died and was resurrected. And so on and so forth. In fact, some early Christians condemned the idea of the crucifixion because it was considered pagan !

Among other very good points.

I'd like to see a counter-argument to the effect of the 50 Deceits of Fahrenheit 9/11 just to consolidate an opinion, for we're only hearing one side. Maybe Loki could tackle that.

 

[Drinky Crow]

It's easy to implement it in reality. Don't provide a legal framework for prosecuting folks who don't share your beliefs.

I'm not arguing about legislating tolerance in some codified form as you so mistakenly assume; that wouldn't serve the idea of tolerance at all. The idea behind tolerance is not contradictory; you just don't provide any legal means to prosecute or persecute those folks of differing beliefs. You're still free to think what you will of others.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

I was forced to go to church from the age of 8 until 17. Nothing i saw there was anything other than mass self hypnosis. Everyone goes up to get touched by the hand of God after service right, nothing happens, then one person falls over and another falls down seconds after, pretty soon it looks like a bomb site.

what did 90% of these people have in common? They were all silly women. Seriously. The only dude I saw up there was a child molester that god was in the process of "forgiving"

Fuck church.

 

[geogaddi]

You still think Jesus was a real person? Ouch.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
http://orcinus.iwarp.com/Against2.htm
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/7748/106446

You really should read more. You might find something interesting. I am a freethinker and rationalist, it's always a relief to know my worldview is based on logic and not emotion.



Uh, no. At least 10% of people identify themselves as non-religious, and the majority of people don't go to church regularly like their religion commands them too. People claim to be a believer without actually doing anything about it. So don't pay much attention of those kind of statistics.

Think of it this way. For every article that says "Jesus never existed" there are articles saying "Jesus—through archealogical findings, intra and extra-biblical evidences—did in fact exist". For example;

Articles: Historical Jesus

The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus,The Founder Of Christianity

Ancient Evidence For Jesus From ‘Non-Christian’ Sources

I was watching PBS the other day and they concluded that yes, a man named Jesus did exist (that claimed to be the Son of God, performed miracles and that died on a cross) but it was a matter of believing if what Jesus claimed and did (as it was documented by people in those times) to be true. He was either a Liar, Lunatic or Lord. Magician or Miracle Worker. Forgiver of sins or a phony.

 

[Boogie]

TPD, I've never seen any arguments like those before. This is particularly interesting:


Among other very good points.

I'd like to see a counter-argument to the effect of the 50 Deceits of Fahrenheit 9/11 just to consolidate an opinion, for we're only hearing one side. Maybe Loki could tackle that.

I only glanced at his links, so I can't say I had a thorough look, but I have seen most of those arguments before, and can't say I'm particularly impressed.

I know it sounds cheap to say that and then duck and run, but I really don't want to try and hunt down stuff to refute all of what was said, and I'm sure others would do a better job than I.

 

[Socreges]

I only glanced at his links, so I can't say I had a thorough look, but I have seen most of those arguments before, and can't say I'm particularly impressed.

You're Christian, are you not? I don't expect you to be.

At any rate, after reading some of geogaddi's links, it seems like there is a fair amount of testimony that Jesus existed. Though whether he did anything spectacular remains a significant question. And considering some of the similarities to other, preceding religions, I'd say... probably not.

 

[luxsol]

You still think Jesus was a real person? Ouch.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
http://orcinus.iwarp.com/Against2.htm
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/7748/106446

You really should read more. You might find something interesting. I am a freethinker and rationalist, it's always a relief to know my worldview is based on logic and not emotion.

It's true that Saint Paul (Jewish/Roman "lawyer" who organized the Christian/Catholic church into what it mostly is today) incorporated a lot of those "Mystery religions" of that time into his organization, along with Jewish law (was already being used by early Christians), and Greek philosophy.
Though, to think that Jesus was not a real person would be ignoring a lot of facts. There are records, etc of him through many different sources (The Three Kings and Harod's searching, Jesus's death through Pilate) not just the say so of a book written by many people who weren't alive when Jesus was teaching (the bible!). In fact, there is more historical data of him actually existing than there is of Alexander the Great.

Though, because Alexander was in charge of huge armies and ruler of many lands but it happened so long ago, there will be monuments for him (some not even done during his own time) but few of them that survived. Jesus was an ordinary man so few things would be made about him that have prestige except for the fact he had a huge following but were prosecuted by Romans. So they wouldn't actually admit to being Jesus' followers or carry records of it.

I find it hard to believe that many of my history books through high school (i went to a Catholic high school but it doesn't mean we used substandard "creationism" fluff books some Christian people push for) and college would write about Jesus as if he were a real historical figure if there WAS a lot of hard evidence saying he wasn't real. Hell, at my HS we were taught not to take the bible to be literal, even in my OT/NT classes. We were taught to question and think for ourselves about the real reason certain things were written the way they were.

 

[Boogie]

You're Christian, are you not? I don't expect you to be.

Does being a Christian make my opinion worthless? ;P

 

[Chony]

There is a little thing called faith, some have it, some don't.

You can't take everything the bible says literally (Humans are only 6008 years old etc.) Nor does science explain everything. Just as Newtonian physics were later disproved by Einstein, science will further come up with new theories on how the way the world works. Not saying that that science will prove or disprove god, just that science has a long way to go. Religion and Science can be mutually inclusive, you just can't be be blinded by the other (By religion I mean Christianity here).

What pisses me off are the things added and removed from the bible. Like hell, which never was in the bible, rather Gehena, outside of Jerusalum where they burned the criminals etc. The bible doesn't contradict itself, it ages and changes it's outlook depending on society eye for an eye ---> turn the other cheek, etc.

I for one hate organized religion, always interpreting the bible their own way, for their own gain, and make all other sects worthless. I just read the bible for myself, and take out of it what I can. I am not going to force my beliefs on anyone else, I can say what my belief is and why I a believe it, but that is it.

 

[geogaddi]

It's easy to implement it in reality. Don't provide a legal framework for prosecuting folks who don't share your beliefs.

I'm not arguing about legislating tolerance in some codified form as you so mistakenly assume; that wouldn't serve the idea of tolerance at all. The idea behind tolerance is not contradictory; you just don't provide any legal means to prosecute or persecute those folks of differing beliefs. You're still free to think what you will of others.

Legal Frameworks or ANY framework for that matter, don't exist independantly, they exist once someone establishes it / creates it. It goes back to what I posted earlier;

If "Folk A" says abortion is okay => Will make framework that abortion is "legal"
If "Folk B" says abortion is wrong => Will make framework that abortion is "illegal"

"Folk A" will impose his views on "Folk B" if HE makes a framework
"Folk B" will impose his views on "Folk A" if HE makes a framework

You are suggesting for both to happen at the same time for the sake of tolerance! or
You are suggesting no framework at all, which means, no justice, no rules, just day-to-day instincts to survive.

Like I said, this doesn't work. It's just not practical. If it not "codified form" it is "uncodified form", therefore, theres no true code to interpret it as—almost like justice being up for grabs.

 

[luxsol]

I was forced to go to church from the age of 8 until 17. Nothing i saw there was anything other than mass self hypnosis. Everyone goes up to get touched by the hand of God after service right, nothing happens, then one person falls over and another falls down seconds after, pretty soon it looks like a bomb site.

what did 90% of these people have in common? They were all silly women. Seriously. The only dude I saw up there was a child molester that god was in the process of "forgiving"

Fuck church.

That's hilarious. It's like the "screaming girl" syndrome. If one person acts as if something is happening, others will follow. Why? Because if you don't then you'll be left looking stupid, so you eventually believe it to be true.

 

[Socreges]

Does being a Christian make my opinion worthless? ;P

No, but your constitution invariably makes you a particular type of arbiter.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

That's hilarious. It's like the "screaming girl" syndrome. If one person acts as if something is happening, others will follow. Why? Because if you don't then you'll be left looking stupid, so you eventually believe it to be true.

It was bizarre, I've been hypnotised after the unpleasant church business was behind me, but looking back, the process was eerily similar.

Pastor: "Jesus is with you, can you feel him? CAN YOU? HE'S RIGHT HERE, HERE HE COMES *Push, fall down*

My friend went on one those youth group go up the front and get prayed for things, the pastor pulled this on him and he fell down because he didn't know what to do. So he faked it.....

 

[Boogie]

No, but your constitution invariably makes you a particular type of arbiter.

Oi, who do you think you are, Loki? Fair enough, though I also would have accepted "No, your opinion is worthless because you didn't actually contribute anything to back it up"

 

[DarthWoo]

Legal Frameworks or ANY framework for that matter, don't exist independantly, they exist once someone establishes it / creates it. It goes back to what I posted earlier;

If "Folk A" says abortion is okay => Will make framework that abortion is "legal"
If "Folk B" says abortion is wrong => Will make framework that abortion is "illegal"

"Folk A" will impose his views on "Folk B" if HE makes a framework
"Folk B" will impose his views on "Folk A" if HE makes a framework

You are suggesting for both to happen at the same time for the sake of tolerance! or
You are suggesting no framework at all, which means, no justice, no rules, just day-to-day instincts to survive.

Like I said, this doesn't work. It's just not practical. If it not "codified form" it is "uncodified form", therefore, theres no true code to interpret it as—almost like justice being up for grabs.

You seem to think that both of these frameworks of yours force either of the opposing party to actually do or not do something. Taking the abortion example, however, we find that if abortion is legal, then while the As may legally have their abortions, we are not forcing the Bs to have abortions. They are just as free to believe it is wrong, and perhaps make fools of themselves protesting it, so long as they're not bombing doctors and doing other such malicious acts. However, let's say B gets his way. This has a definite effect on A, as he (well, she) can no longer have an abortion. A is being denied a right in the latter, while B is not in the former.

 

[karasu]

Are you referring at all to me?

-edit-

And I'd argue that if education came before religion, people wouldn't be religious. Instead, people have faith embedded into them at a young age before they can even consider the alternatives. Their religion is then so intrinsic in who they are that any arguments to the contrary won't have much effect.

That's so presumptious though. People have 'discovered' religion at so many different points in life. It isn't always a matter of 'getting them while they're young'. The same goes for political affiliations. My family (on my dads side) run churches, and so many of my Uncles have chosen to walk a different path. Not neccesarily because they're so well educated, but because they just don't believe. Which in alot of ways is no more of a choice than whether you enjoy the taste of Hot Wings or not. Some view Religion as a necessary expression of something inate in human beings, something crucial in the process of individuation.. Sure there have been atrocities commited in it's name, but there have been atrocities commited in all names. That won't change until humanity wises the fuck up. Religious or otherwise.

Many of them are intelligent zombies controlled by their pastors.... <I'm not going to bring up the election and various exit polls of what people used to judge as important as an example>

Oh wait I just did.

Yeah, but there are morons in every group you can name. Not everyone who voted against Bush did so because they were well informed free thinkers. Some simply thought he was... "gay". :/

 

[Hitokage]

He was either a Liar, Lunatic or Lord. Magician or Miracle Worker. Forgiver of sins or a phony.

The trillema is logically broken, sorry.

 

[Socreges]

Oi, who do you think you are, Loki?

That was the most appropriate language, I feel. Not to mention that I've been writing essays constantly for the past couple weeks, so I'm not always myself when I type.

And if I was Loki, I couldn't have explained myself in so few words.

 

[Drinky Crow]

On top of that, he's assuming that a tolerance of all beliefs INCLUDES a tolerance of those behaviors that are demonstrably socially destructive (murder, theft, et al), and I sure as hell didn't suggest THAT. My definition of tolerance strictly includes only those beliefs that are NOT easily demonstrated as socially destructive -- for all of the hand-wringing and hyperbole, there's nothing that pegs abortion or homosexual marriage as immediately detrimental to society and individual rights in the same way the murder, rape, theft, or pedophilia are.

 

[Socreges]

That's so presumptious though. People have 'discovered' religion at so many different points in life. It isn't always a matter of 'getting them while they're young'.

I addressed that above, actually:

And the exceptions tend to be people who went through traumatic periods in their lives. They then "find God".

I've spoken to so many people. I even made a thread here. There are so, so few people that become religious on their accord without any significant influence, such as being distraught or being in an impressionable relationship.

 

[Boogie]

That was the most appropriate language, I feel. Not to mention that I've been writing essays constantly for the past couple weeks, so I'm not always myself when I type.

And if I was Loki, I couldn't have explained myself in so few words.

heh, this is true.

 

[karasu]

I've spoken to so many people. I even made a thread here. There are so, so few people that become religious on their accord without any significant influence, such as being distraught or being in an impressionable relationship.

Well, you wouldn't necessarily stick with a way of life just because you heard about it when Aunt Jemma died. If you go that route later in life it must be because something about it speaks to something inside of you. I mean, I'd probably speak to a therapist if something traumatic was going on in my life. but that doesn't mean I'm weak minded, or dead to reason. Would a trauma cause me to be more open to new ideas that may help? Naturally - but that doesn't equate with gullibility. It's true that people seek out things like that when they have a need, but that doesn't make the need wrong. Jung understood that perfectly.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

And yes, I'm ignoring the vague at best boundary between "agnostic" and "atheist".

Ehh, I don't think it's so vague. Atheism denies a deity. Agnosticism denies taking a stance on the issue.

for all of the hand-wringing and hyperbole, there's nothing that pegs abortion or homosexual murder as immediately detrimental to society and individual rights in the same way the murder, rape, theft, or pedophilia are.

Unintentional wording about halfway through there?

 

[xsarien]

Like I said, this doesn't work. It's just not practical. If it not "codified form" it is "uncodified form", therefore, theres no true code to interpret it as—almost like justice being up for grabs.

Justice is not up for grabs, although the way some hyper-religious talking heads in this country act, you'd think they'd just saved the American people from the Devil himself. The fact of the matter is that the ideal language of law is neutral to any kind of spirituality. It's the only *fair* thing to do, especially in countries where there's such a mix of non-religious people, and religious people of myriad faiths.

There's a lot of talk about people being "anti-religious," which simply isn't the case. Now while my stance on organized religion isn't too hot these days, if people want to take their life lessons out of a sketchy translation of a book written thousands of years ago, fine, whatever. If you want to take them out of a 30-year-old McCall's cookbook, that's cool too. The problems arise when people start to interpret society's actions as some kind of undertow that's eating away at their religion.

That's wrong; that's paranoid; that's the very core of the Christian persecution complex in this country. That what other people do offends people at such a deep, personal level because of their own religions convictions, that it's interpreted as society telling them to just put the Bibles down. But that's simply not the case.

Let's take this "Sanctity of marriage" - pardon my French - bullshit. The divorce rate in the United States is pretty high, and, oddly enough, highest in the Bible Belt. We all tune in to watch people get married on TV; we can get married by Elvis in Vegas; convince enough government officials, and your marriage designed to get someone a green card is legit too. The "sanctity" was lost long ago. But it was propped up to halt the alleged "gay agenda," where a segment of our population wanted little more than the same rights as everyone else. But in about 11 states a few weeks ago, intolerance using religion as nothing more than a crutch won the fight, and I think as an American, that should upset you greatly; as a religious person, that should inflame you. That something you hold dear was used, for all intents and purposes, to segregate.

In the United States people are welcome to practice any religion they like (as long as said religion doesn't require obvious breaches of civil law.) Booting prayer out of public schools isn't a loss for religion; having gays marry isn't a loss for religion; pornography? Same deal. You're still free to practice it in your Church and in your home. Where it belongs. Religion of any stripe doesn't belong in law; what's appropriate to a Christian may not be appropriate to an athiest. Things like the ban on gay marriage that President Bush wants to put into the constitution is obviously favoring religious dogma over the rights people have as American citizens to, ironically enough, practice their religion freely. That's unacceptable.

During this past election, the people in the red states often complained that they felt that the intellectual elite were "talking down to them." Okay, fine. But that swings both ways. The people in the blue states don't like being preached to, literally. Respect the progressives in this country, and they'll respect you. As a nation, we need to move *forward*, and that's not going to happen unless deeply religious people - and by that, I'm talking evangelical, born-again levels - start putting less faith in the pages of their book, and start putting more faith into humanity.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Haha, my brain ran ahead of my typing "skills".

 

[Loki]

TPD, I've never seen any arguments like those before. This is particularly interesting:


Among other very good points.

I'd like to see a counter-argument to the effect of the 50 Deceits of Fahrenheit 9/11 just to consolidate an opinion, for we're only hearing one side. Maybe Loki could tackle that.

Well I'm not about to tackle that (I'm enjoying the one evening that I have to myself to relax ), but I can point you to a two-part analysis of such claims (regarding whether the character of Jesus was merely a composite myth-- a conflation of antecedent and contemporaneous savior myths), the first part of which is seen here, and the continuation seen here.


Be warned that these analyses are incredibly long (they make my posts look like haiku by comparison ), and the parlance that of historical/textual scholars, so it may be difficult to follow at times due to a lack of background knowledge (as it was for myself). But if you're interested, I guess you could read it at your leisure.



There are another couple of essays from the same site regarding the historical existence of Jesus (as "proven" by extrabiblical writings and other lines of evidence), seen here and here. The first is more of a synopsis than anything else and the second is more substantive, critically, but focuses on only a couple of specific writings/references; in my opinion, however, it is quite illuminating and informative, if you can make heads or tails of it.


Obviously these analyses come from a Christian site, so you're free to take them with a grain of salt; you did ask for something of a rebuttal, however, so I hope these will suffice (and no, I don't expect you to read all-- or any-- of them ). I will note, however, that many of the historical, textual and linguistic scholars whose arguments and works he references are not themselves Christians; I recall researching one of the essays on that site many years ago, searching for other writings by one of the historical commentators mentioned, and found that he was an entirely secular scholar who was incredibly well-regarded in the academic community-- this turned out to be the case for the few scholars referenced whom I investigated, one of whom I ended up having a brief email exchange with on some critical detail he was cited for in one of the analyses on that site (not the particular ones posted above, however). This was at least 5-6 years ago, so forgive me if I can't recall the specifics.


You're free to do your own digging, obviously, though given the sheer enormity of the claims being made (in both volume and grandeur) as well as the specificity of the knowledge/research required to verify many of the textual/historiographical claims being made, it's understandable if you choose not to pursue it. As you can tell, I had a lot of time on my hands back then (or at least thought I did); I guess that's why I'm still in college at 26 years of age. The main site (seen here) features a wealth of high-level commentary and critical analysis of biblical (check out the "topic index" up top) and related events and ideas (epistemology, linguistics, hermeneutics etc.), and is the most thorough and intelligent Christian site that I've encountered on the internet. Just the sheer breadth of content is astounding, especially when one considers that the author does it in his spare time. Crazy...


In other news, my life is flying by me....on the internet. Somebody please kill me.

 

[FightyF]

I can't answer the original question...but people who are anti-religious have some reasoning behind it, but I find it to be an ignorant way of thinking.

There is religion, and there are people. People do a lot of nasty stuff, and it is believed that religion is what encourages this nasty stuff. If you study most religion's teachings, they don't condone that behaviour. It is just used as a political tool, like anything else (ie. Nationalism).

On the concept of organized religion...I don't understand how becoming more religiously secluded can help things. In every group of people you'll have a few wackos. Organized religion can help keep these wackos at bay and put a foot down on them. Perhaps religion should be more organized?

 

[luxsol]

In every group of people you'll have a few wackos. Organized religion can help keep these wackos at bay and put a foot down on them. Perhaps religion should be more organized?

Didn't the Pope excommunicate Madonna? What more can you ask for??

 

[Socreges]

Well, you wouldn't necessarily stick with a way of life just because you heard about it when Aunt Jemma died. If you go that route later in life it must be because something about it speaks to something inside of you. I mean, I'd probably speak to a therapist if something traumatic was going on in my life. but that doesn't mean I'm weak minded, or dead to reason. Would a trauma cause me to be more open to new ideas that may help? Naturally - but that doesn't equate with gullibility. It's true that people seek out things like that when they have a need, but that doesn't make the need wrong. Jung understood that perfectly.

I've said as much as:

"And the exceptions tend to be people who went through traumatic periods in their lives. They then 'find God'."

"There are so, so few people that become religious on their accord without any significant influence, such as being distraught or being in an impressionable relationship."

...without any explanation. In arguing against my point, you've more or less said that I've suggested a whole lot that I haven't. Such as faith needing people to be "unreasonable" or "gullible" or "wrong". It's so very complicated, though, as you were sort of arguing.

Faith requires you to embrace the absurd. We are capable of believing this absurdity. It is of our nature, I think. That there could be us, the wise beings, but then something above that gives meaning to our existence and imposes particular goods and evils. For people that are content and stable (w/o religion), this isn't necessary. You live your life and the notion of something existing that you can't touch or see or ever truly know is seen as ridiculous. But some people may need guidance. We are completely alone in the world. We have our individual selves and that is all. You relate and love people, but that isn't the same. We exist in our minds and, in that respect, we are utterly alone. That can be a terrifying idea. We may need something more. Something above, something 'higher', to lead or comfort us.

[aside - those raised with religion are conditioned with this already in mind. therefore any absence of this God in their lives is peculiar, even unnerving, and can keep them faithful]

Do you see what I've been saying now? Not that faith is a bad thing. In fact, I said yesterday in another thread:

"I'd also like to mention that religion has provided positive guidance for people in need."

Just that faith is almost always a result of two things: ignorance/conditioning (as in, young people) and desparation (as you and I both argued)

 

[Pimpwerx]

Bah, pay no attention to Pimpwerx, that's all he ever brings to threads on these subjects.

Meh, I believe what I believe. I don't get religion anymore, and the message just gets dumber and dumber for me. I teach at a Catholic school. I see the kids doing the same things I did when I was at that age. Joining a religion seems like choosing a political party these days. You sign on to a whole bunch of principles and ideas, and end up adopting lots of them, not so much b/c they're good, but b/c it's pushed on you and guilted into you on a regular basis. There are a lot of good principles promoted by the church, but they're just plain common sense. I'd like to think good living existed before religion.

Basically, I don't like that it's all based on faith. If you can convince people to buy half the stuff they sell you in church (and evangelicals in particular seem to eat this stuff up), then there's a lot more you can get them to do. It's too much control, and the major religions are all politically active, which is completely wrong. Religion served a great purpose in the old days before the age of communication and information. We're more informed now. People are more aware of the way they should act and behave. We don't need to reference ancient text and gods to know how to live. That and it's giving people false hope and causing some people to blow large chunks of their money in pursuit of a dream. It's not all educated vs. stupid, I generalize too much, but with all the holes in religious doctrine and history, I have to at least question the awareness of people who are really religious. My dad's an evangelical who gave a lot of our money to that douchebag Oral Roberts back in the 80's. It's wierd b/c he's the person I respect most in the world, but I can't take his faith seriously. PEACE.

 

[Gregory]

I can`t wait for humanity to be wiped out so that in the future perhaps more sensible apes will evolve.

 

[Hitokage]

BTW, I will not have people confusing "spirituality", "religious belief", and "fundamentalism", and the various christian versions of each as if they were all the same thing.

Education makes you less likely to be fundamentalist, but education in and of itself isn't everything. After all, smart people believe weird things because smart people are better at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons.

 

[DSN2K]

yeah I hate religion, I will show no respect towards their stupid beliefs.

 

[OmniGamer]

This is going to take a disjointed form...as usual

I agree with Drinky, xsarien, and Pimpwerx.

I also agree that there's a difference between respecting something, and respecting someone's right to believe in something. Take for instance some pro sports athelete says something like "I think God carried the ball out of the field"(or something similar)...I can laugh my ass off at that all I want to....however if that what he/she wishes to believe, that is their business. I don't go around trying to ban them or deny them rights.

Are there any religious people here who can take a "Devil's Advocate" look at the bible and at organized religion and see how others might find it contradictory, hypocritical, fantastical, based on primal human exploits(guilt/fear..."If you do this, or if you don't do that, this bad thing will happen to you". Hope/Reward..."Life after death in heaven", etc), and conceived at a time when education was limited to an extremely small percentage of the population and used as a method for control?

Beliefs are a dangerous thing....they are personal, yet many people use them outwardly against others. I have a problem when people are brainwashed...completely unable to analyze anything without cross-referencing it with "The Bible"(quoted because it's always a pick&chose version of the bible anyway). They can't state any rational reason why they are against something other than "The Bible says...."

I just find it so lazy sometimes....something good happens, OH IT'S A BLESSING...something bad happens, OH IT'S GOD'S WILL. Like Bill Maher once said on Real Time, if you're praying to win and I pray to win, can I out-pray you?

Oh, and sorry if certain sensative types feel if non-religious people are "elitist". I can think of nothing more elitist than someone thinking that someone else is damned until the end of time while they themselves are on a rosey road to a wonderous place for all of eterntiy because they don't believe the same things they do. Sorry if i think using one's "God given common-sense", if i may be so smug, is far more appealing than referencing a book with more plot holes than one can count.

Why are certain things laughable or borderline certifiably insane worthy....yet the same things just with a religious overcoat, aren't? If someone says they hear their dead grandfather, they're crazy...if someone says they hear Jesus, they're a devout christian? Not so long ago(relatively speaking), people believed comments were fiery portents of death....now we know they are icy balls from the outer edges of the solar system with outstretched "tails" of ice and dust particles caused by the solar wind. Not so long ago people believed in witches. In general, UFO stories and alien abduction stories are laughed at, yet they hold about as much factual weight as many of the fantastical feats mentioned in the bible.


And what's with the need to dress up on Sunday's while going to church? I thought God didn't care about material possessions....I thought what mattered was what's in your heart. Why does God need your money? How many so-called religious people have spent more on their church clothes than they ever have spent to help their fellow man? Is God really concerned with the minute details of certain ceremonies? I mean, the Earth isn't even perfectly spherical, and no 2 snowflakes are the same...he's God not Martha Stewart ;-)

I wouldn't be surprised if this thread was locked from the time i clicked reply, to the time i'm finished....here's hoping it isn't.