Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 7,801-7,850 of 12,463

[Hazel]

aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "Colleen wrote: "aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "How do the Mayans fit in?"

Besides being a rather violent and particularly viscious people, they were marvels with scientific knowledge we..."

There are still 7 million Mayas alive in Guatamala, Belize, that general area, so its technically possible to find out if you have their genes.

On a separate yet related note, most humans have approximately 2% Neanderthal DNA.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Hazel wrote: "aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "Colleen wrote: "aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "How do the Mayans fit in?"

Besides being a rather violent and particularly viscious people, they..."

Do we know if they (Neanderthals) were violent, vicious folks? I know they admired pregnant women.

[Hazel]

Neanderthals were cultured and sophisticated. They were better at tool making than Homo Sapiens. They were the first to bury their dead. They were a clever species.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Soooooooo, we got it backwards! When we are calm and intelligent, we're being a Neanderthal, and when we're being animals, we are being human!

[Hp]

Hazel wrote: "Colleen wrote: "I have no logical explanation" And thats where you stop, if you don't know what caused something, it is irrational to then go on and make a statement of abject certainty on the cau..."

Could breast cancer remission be common anyway:
http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/spring09...

But what about all the people who die of Breast Cancer? Do they not have enough faith? If only they'd prayed (as if they didn't)! Ridiculous.

I agree we should just admit we don't know why and leave it at that. Remember even Jesus (if he existed) thought disease and dumbness and deafness were caused by little demons fiddling with you. Luckily we have moved on but we still don't know it all.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I wonder which part of what I posted made you curious as to whether or not I hailed my recovery as a miracle. I thought I said I, for one, credited modern medicine, the nurses and the doctor."

No offence meant, it was based on a conversation I had with a friend who is a medical professional. You did indeed say who you credited, but then you specifically mentioned thanking god. I was just interested whether you'd actually thanked them too, I wasn't implying that you hadn't, I was just curious if you had.

Basically the conversation I had was with a medical professional talking about a patients family hailing their child's recovery as "a miracle" and wryly commenting that she doesn't come into their place of work and thank god for their efforts :-).

Then we had a more in depth conversation about people's attitudes to miracles in comparison to their attitude about economics. i.e. the "Profit is privatised, loss is socialised." concepts of bailouts etc. In the same way god is thanked for medical fortune, but not blamed for medical misfortune.

So I asked and I commend your answer.

Shannon wrote: "Perhaps your initial point was unclear. It seemed you were saying a general war, one regarding trade, etc..., could become a religious war if the people believed "God" was on their side."

I was more saying a religious difference tends to compound existing differences, and also religious difference often helps get a population behind a war more reliably and enthusiastically than more selfish reasons.

Shannon wrote: "Either the argument was unclear, I misunderstood, or the dynamic involved in your argument is now changing."

My point was that religious difference can lead to wars whether directly or indirectly. Chris claimed that religion "rarely if ever" was a cause of war, which is definitely untrue. I have not said that religion is the only or main cause of all wars, just that it has certainly been a factor in many.

Shannon wrote: "It became an issue of my analogy being silly."

I just could not see the relevance of your analogy.

Shannon wrote: "So, now, it's about whether or not the people thought "God" was prompting them to go to war over trade, etc...? Is that what you meant? Versus just feeling "God" was with them and wished them well?"

No now its about religion being a factor in wars. Sometimes it is attacking the infidel who are morally corrupt, sometimes its about economic or political issues where one side can be conveniently demonised because they are not of the 'true' religion and therefore are morally corrupt. Sometimes two groups are separated by their religious affiliation and who they fear has influence over their neighbours (e.g. the Protestants that feared papist domination.)

Shannon wrote: "A "general" war does not become a religious war simply due to the fact that the warriors are believers and believe "God" is with them."

If that religious belief is used as a motivating factor to get the population behind the war. Obviously there are differing degrees. For example, Iraq was a war which certainly used the Islamophobia generated by 9/11 to get the population behind the war, (GWB used several direct religious references in his speeches to the US and even made the mistake of describing it as a Crusade) meanwhile a lot of the resulting insurgency in Iraq was motivated by Islamic fighters who wanted the morally bankcrupt US off Muslim lands. Is it a religious war? Not principally, the US did seem to have its motives, plus its claims of WMDs etc. Meanwhile Saddam made a cynical appeal to Muslim sensibilities despite him being a hated secular ruler in a religious land. Saddam even tried to provoke Israel because he knew other neutral Muslim countries would be provoked if Israel attacked. So though not a "religious war" primarily, the war was certainly prolonged and made easier to justify to the population using religious difference.

Shannon wrote: "That was my point and the point of my analogy. Similarly, my healing was due to the medical treatment I received; it did not become spiritual or religious treatment simply because I happen to believe and happened to pray while in the ER."

But did you have to persuade your doctors to set aside certain ethics in order to combat the condition you had? Did you have to encourage anger at the condition in your population while silencing dissent? Did you feel a need to establish your disease as immoral or undeserving of being present in you to persuade people to help you attack it?

This is why the analogy didn't work for me. The analogy ignored the simple fact that going to war, particular in a democracy, requires general public support. Treating an illness is not the same as going to war as their is generally a clear ethic involved when treating someone.

Shannon wrote: "Do you think my leaving the church in which I was raised and my refusal to belong to a church or to attend church is an example of my refusal to abide in the conversion of children or anyone?

It is."

Yet you continue to condone and defend the teachings?

I just find it strange that you are so opposed to "conversion" yet seem to be happy with the results of whoever got their first. It seems like a paradox to me, and I'd like to understand your point of view.

Would you, for example, support the idea that (if possible) children should not be exposed to religious doctrine until they are at least old enough to make an informed decision about it? Would you support the idea that religion should not be taught in schools except as a comparative study, and that such things as "faith schools" are sources of continued self-imposed divisions in society?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Do you think my leaving the church in which I was raised and my refusal to belong to a church or to attend church is an example of my refusal to abide in the conversion of children or anyone?

It is."

Yet you continue to condone and defend the teachings?

I just find it strange that you are so opposed to "conversion" yet seem to be happy with the results of whoever got their first. It seems like a paradox to me, and I'd like to understand your point of view.

Would you, for example, support the idea that (if possible) children should not be exposed to religious doctrine until they are at least old enough to make an informed decision about it? Would you support the idea that religion should not be taught in schools except as a comparative study, and that such things as "faith schools" are sources of continued self-imposed divisions in society? "

Hmmmm....

I'll take this part.

Last question first. What have I already said about religion in schools? I've actually said a lot. If you don't remember what I've said, let me know. I'll repeat myself, though will not appreciate it if people say I'm saying the same thing but in a different way.

Regarding exposing children to religious doctrine when they are old enough to make an informed decision, .... Well, first, we'd have to agree as to what age we'd pick. "We" would mean society. I don't foresee that. I can say, within my own family, that I've been vocal about baptism. I've shared that I think it totally and completely inappropriate, in my opinion, to baptize infants in a certain faith; baptism into a religion should be the decision of the individual involved as it should be the individual's right to choose what path to follow.

Ultimately, there is not paradox.

What is the one thing I've said, over and over, for over a year? What is the thing I continue to say, ... and mean? What have you questioned me on over and over? What have we gone round and round on?

Freedom. Choice.

What paradox?

While I oppose conversion and live my life accordingly, leaving my church, I'm not going to tell every other human in existence how to live. Do you truly foresee me saying something like, "Oh, I know! In order to show how much I dislike and distrust using all sorts of tactics in order to "force" someone to choose a certain path, I'll tell people what to do and what not to do! That's the ticket!" Is that the thing? Me. Me telling people what to choose and what not to choose. You accused me of arrogance once. This, this idea of my being the author and finisher of people's choices, would be true arrogance. While I have strong views, who in the world am I to tell people they can't believe in "God" and can't belong to a church?!

You said, "I just find it strange that you are so opposed to "conversion" yet seem to be happy with the results of whoever got their first."

Really?

That statement leads me to question how much of my posts you've actually read. Or, perhaps you've read them but through the lenses with which you've looked at all of the other "ists" you've ever had the pleasure or displeasure of speaking with.

I'm happy with the results of whoever got there first. How so, Gary?

I stand for people's right, under the rules and ideals of my country, to choose any religion or no religion. That doesn't mean I'm "happy" with the results of whoever gets there first. It means I stand for choice. Choice that, for example, was denied my people when they were forced to cut their hair and speak only English and .... (Choice that was denied all non-believers for a very long time.)

Perhaps the only "paradox" is the idea that I, unlike many groups of people, am not willing to visit upon others what was visited upon my ancestors (and upon me, in part).

Yes, bad things can come from freedom of choice. Not just at the hands of religion. That does not mean that I'd willingly throw away freedom in order to design the "perfect" life for others and a "safe" life for myself.

In my opinion, such a life would not be perfect or safe.

If you think it would be and if you advocate taking away people's freedom of choice, please feel free to expound upon which freedoms you'd steal, yes ... steal, why you'd choose those freedoms, and why you think you have the right to make such decisions for others. If, of course, that's what you think and what is on your heart to do.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "That sounds like control."

Religion controls as it "says do this and get rewarded", "do that and you will be punished". This says nothing about the ethics of what you are doing, just that you are obeying the edict.

A science of ethics would instead teach why something is ethical. So a person can make a moral choice, instead of just obeying. Hence it is the opposite of control.

cHriS wrote: "Ethics as in specific moral choices. As I said before we have the law to tell us what we should and should not do, so in a way we don’t need science for that. But even the law and politicians who pass the law will never agree on a set of morals. We can’t even agree on the most obvious one about not killing."

Which is why religion has failed as a moral guide, and something better is needed.

Law is written from our ethics, not the other way around. We agree generally that killing is wrong. Why? Is it because the law says so? Is it a commandment? Or is it fairly obvious why ending someone else's life is wrong?

Now there is obviously more complexities to this than a simple rule, which is part of the reason the bible immediately contradicts itself.

For example, if killing someone is wrong, is it the action of killing them, or just the result? Is allowing someone to die through inaction as wrong as choosing to kill them?

What if you are in a situation where killing one person saves another? or if killing one person saves one hundred?

Ethical conundrums like this are difficult, but not impossible to resolve, but we need to understand the ethics involved before we can make a moral decision. Religion tends to circumvent this by giving us rules, but those rules are not ethics - as can easily be seen when they are adhered to strictly. For example the Ugandan "Christmas present" of the criminalisation of homosexuality and potential death penalty for its practice. What is the religious reason behind that, and what does ethics tell us?

cHriS wrote: "And the majority of ‘us’ have a religion."

Yet strangely enough we have all but abandoned religion in law in modern western society. How many times has the defence "god told me to do it" or "I was possessed by the devil" turn up? Most of our Law directly derives from pre-Christian Roman tradition and the rest from modern democratic ideals of personal freedom. There are a few remaining things regarding such things as gay marriage, but fortunately for us the religious hold over Law and rulership was broken in the West, partly because of religious schisms such as the Protestant reformation. Here we have (in theory) the separation of Church and state. Islamic nations have not been so fortunate.

In any case, if the majority of us believed the Earth was flat, but it was discovered to be wrong by a few, would you prefer a society where truth came to be accepted easily, or where errors were maintained for the comfort of the majority?

cHriS wrote: "But so did shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics endure, until they were no longer ignored."

Sorry I don't follow.

cHriS wrote: "I know, I was suggesting if we could go back to the dawn of man and start again. But my point was that if we could, it would not be long before religion of some kind was on the agenda again."

It might happen, but if you went back and started with a developed scientific method there may be no reason to resort to religion for explanations. Maybe not, it's hard to say. What is almost certain (judging by history) is that science will be discovered, sometimes lost and re-discovered, but it will always lead to the same science independent of us. Any religion that develops is likely to different from what we have now.

cHriS wrote: "No more inevitable that the sun has to rise each morning, but it its ’people’ that ‘cause’ wars by upsetting other people, ie taking their land. Little to do with religion; but we have been down that road already. "

yes we've been down that road and you've tried to walk both sides. Religion apparently never has anything to do with the moral choice of going to war, yet religion is apparently also the main influence of our morals? You can't have it both ways.

cHriS wrote: "Are there no evil atheists?"

Have I ever claimed there aren't. However, I would trust an atheist to make a moral decision based on their own choices rather than a theist who may override their conscience via their beliefs. For example "Love the Sinner, hate the Sin".

People are good and bad, there is no sign that religion makes people more good, and there are certainly religious teachings that I find morally bad.

cHriS wrote: "Maybe science would be god or god, science."

Maybe, but I covered that before. If you found god with science, you wouldn't have to rely on belief. Then you could have your god without religion.

cHriS wrote: "To dig a bit deeper I googled to find out how ‘many branches of science are there’. I got answers from just 3 to a very long list of over a hundred. And various amounts in between."

The difference being that hundreds of religions have hundreds of different explanations for the world and what's in it, most mutually exclusive. Meanwhile hundreds of sciences not only agree in general principles but most use each other to advance. I was watching a program on palaeontology last night that ended up using particle physics and electromagnetics along with nuclear physics to get information pertaining to biology.

cHriS wrote: "I know some branches of science are intertwined, but to keep this discussing at a basic level for a minute, the branches that are looking for answers are no where near finding them and I mean thousands of years away from any real answers, if at all."

Then you need to read some modern science. What answers are you talking about?

cHriS wrote: "Forget religion and keep things basic, as with science, and just to a belief in god; that belief is good enough for most people, it is more than science can offer in our life time."

So it doesn't matter if an answer is true, just as long as its comforting? And it doesn't matter if two people hold two different answers which makes them unable to come to an agreement with each other?

cHriS wrote: "It would be good if we could watch a horse race and then place a bet on the winner, but we can’t. Nor can we hang around until science works it out for us."

So instead you pick a religion to be "truth" and ignore all the other explanations?

cHriS wrote: "The only difference between me and an atheist is that the atheist believes in one god less than me."

Exactly the point. So if you don't believe in all of these other gods, religions, faeries, magick etc. then why not go the last step?

cHriS wrote: "To me it does not matter who made god, the buck stops there. I don’t have to try and wonder further than that. I don’t think the human brain is capable of that anyway and that is why I really don’t think mankind has enough time to figure it out."

So you advocate just giving up on truth and knowledge? Surely we should at least try?

cHriS wrote: "I know what you mean and that is why I separate religion and the belief in a god."

But if you are using "belief" then it is a religion, even if the belief isn't in a god. If you "believe" in aliens then that is a religion.

Actually that might be a good analogy, if you accept that aliens are possible (even likely) but do not "believe" in them until you have clear evidence that they exist then you actually have a chance of finding out who they are, where they are and what their nature is. Due to the distances involved we may never find out, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look, because sometimes we get surprised. Meanwhile the religious
equivalent would be picking an entity like "ET" or Scientology's "Thetans" and believing in them. Not only do we have no evidence to support this version of aliens, but it may also blind us to evidence of real alien life or even convince us to not bother looking at all.

[Gary]

Colleen wrote: "It's a form of meditation sometimes, or even self-hypnosis. It has been proven in studies that a positive outlook has been central to recovery from serious illness or disease."

Indeed I attribute my own unusual fortitude and rapid healing and recovery partially due to the fact I now expect to be better in days or hours and do not expect to get the illnesses flying about the office.

This effect is indeed well known, but not that well understood, just like the placebo effect. It is known that a placebo sugar pill isn't as effective as a placebo saline injection, which isn't as effective as a placebo operation. In each case the increasing appearance of medical intervention seems to convince the patient that they will get well, more.

Colleen wrote: "Who denies that he or she asks for help from someone or being?"

A habit we get into when we are children, completely dependent on a very real 'higher power'. Small wonder that religions tend to take the parental model frequently.


Colleen wrote: "Do any of you atheists ever say Oh My God…?"

Out of cultural linguistics, yes, out of appeal to a higher power, no. Of course I may "hope" that my daughter is ok, but I do not appeal to gods to justify that hope.

Colleen wrote: "Gary: I feel you are the worst offender, it’s disorganized and misleading. For understanding where your logic stems, one must backtrack a lot and it’s tedious. And that's a shame, because you have a plethora of knowledge."

Well I'm sorry that I don't live up to your standards. I do try to keep answers concise, but I to am usually responding to lengthy posts that often make a variety of different points. I am also used to people jumping on one little comment or concept and then presenting that out of context or using a badly worded phrase or difficult to explain concept as a "wedge" issue to try to say "because you said 'x' then everything you say is suspect". Chris recently tried to say that once again.

You have now done this in general and you wonder why I try to cover myself? And as for "Mislead" well I think that is a nasty thing to accuse someone of without even having the common courtesy to qualify when have attempted to "mislead" people.

Colleen wrote: "It seems like there is an attack on whether god actually exists, rather than choosing religion as a whole."

Actually I have rarely commented on god's 'existence', my comments are primarily based on whether religion or science has the most positives compared to their negatives. In fact I have even commented that if god exists then science would serve him better than religion, because science would find the actual existence of that particular god rather than just believing in any of the alternatives.

Colleen wrote: "The topic isn’t whether there is or isn’t a god or gods. You know what it is."

But religion is belief, belief not necessarily in a god, but still belief rather than evidence or reason. You are right this isn't about whether a god exists otherwise you'd also have to specify which god exists.

On that basis alone religion is a problem by sheer numbers. Lets assume that a god exists. This means that either one religion is right, or none of them has got it yet, but it means that thousands of religions are indeed wrong and misleading.

So you are right, whether or not god exists, that isn't the question. Religion is still a problem even if he does.

Colleen wrote: "Science and religion have both evolved to this date, as pretty equal in their positive and negative on the balance scales."

I strongly disagree. Religion has no proven positive that cannot be gained without religion. By the simple fact there is more than one religion means that religion as a whole does not have the answer for morals, ethics or truth.

Meanwhile science has provably saved billions of lives and doubled the life expectancy and quality of life for billions more.

Colleen wrote: "Someone recently expressed curiosty that WWII hasn’t come up. Hmmmm a lot of science began there, eh? Nukes have created terror and religious fanatics want them."

It has come up but fortunately it has been corrected quite quickly. WW2 was caused primarily by ideology and ideology is a form of belief in a secular power. Again it is not "god" but "belief" that is the issue.

In the meantime science started their, but then science from then has also led to many more people being saved, from medical discoveries to material science to radar that makes the skies safer.

Colleen wrote: "If these religious fanatics had them : who would be most likely to use them? "

Therein lies the point. Religious fanatics are a problem because they believe that their is things more important than people's lives, and because it is a belief it cannot be reasoned with. Religious fanatics are people of "perfect" faith because they truly practice what they preach. The fact that they can abuse science to cause atrocity does not then excuse the religious teachings that tells them that dogma and souls are more important than lives and freedom.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Religion has no proven positive that cannot be gained without religion. By the simple fact there is more than one religion means that religion as a whole does not have the answer for morals, ethics or truth."

In your opinion.

Others might have been touched by their faith in ways that you don't understand. Touched by faith when all else failed.

I've offered examples.

I worry at how definitively you speak. Your opinion is not necessarily the beginning and ending of fact and reality for all others.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "What have I already said about religion in schools? I've actually said a lot."

I do recall in general, which is the main reason I find it paradoxical. ("I" find it paradoxical, I am not stating it as an absolute). From a lot of what you've said I feel we should be in general agreement on most things and yet this is not the case.

Shannon wrote: "I can say, within my own family, that I've been vocal about baptism."

Shannon wrote: "Freedom. Choice."

Exactly. This is the paradox I don't understand. For example, speaking for myself I wasn't baptised. This wasn't because I was an atheist or my parents were but they were from two different Christian sects. One Catholic the other Anglican. Within a sectarian city where this could cause issues.

My parents therefore resolved not to baptise me into either sect (which was considered quite bad for any Catholic to agree to) and I was brought up so I could choose when I got older. Fairly good, yes? Freedom and choice.

Except that isn't true. In my state school we were presented with assemblies on a daily basis where the existence of god was presented as fact, the existence of Jesus and his miracles presented as historical certainty and the general Christian ethos presented as undeniable truth. Certainly we had Catholic speakers, Anglican, Methodists etc. but no non-Christian choices were even addressed.

Funnily enough it worked well without baptism. I was so indoctrinated that my innate curiosity would not allow me to pay lip service and instead I studied the bible and talked to priests. I could not imagine treating something evidently so important with the casual attitudes of my friends. I even imagined trying to become a priest myself. I just could not be anything other than the best Christian I could be.

This then led to my huge crisis of faith as the bible proved to be nothing like what I'd been told. The mistake obviously being allowing me unfettered, unguided bible study. By the time I'd finished I was no longer a Christian, but I did not know what I was. The choice to be anything other had never been presented. Finally after a long trip I became an atheist before I knew what the term even was.

Of course the worst part was then years later "coming out" to my parents. I imagined that they would understand why I could not choose either sect, and that they would practice their "Christian" values of love and acceptance which was the only part I still respected. It didn't work out quite that way.

So I was not baptised, but from an early age I was taught that the Christian religion was truth, and that was continually reinforced throughout my childhood. I was not "converted" to atheism but instead had to endure the complete traumatic process of realising everything I had been told was true was at best a matter of opinion, an opinion not shared by the world or even consistently within the religion.

So if you have been brought up within a specific religion and it has been taught to you as truth, or even just being generally accepted as truth by authority figures during your formative years, then how can you possibly have freedom of choice when it comes to religion?

Shannon wrote: "While I have strong views, who in the world am I to tell people they can't believe in "God" and can't belong to a church?! "

I have never said you should, nor have I said it. That's not what I am talking about though. You repeatedly come down on the pro-religious argument even though religion by necessity starts with an act of conversion. This is the paradox. Supporting the product of conversion while abhorring conversion.

Shannon wrote: "Perhaps the only "paradox" is the idea that I, unlike many groups of people, am not willing to visit upon others what was visited upon my ancestors (and upon me, in part)."

I agree, but then you continually seem to defend religion and its establishment in these conversations. You have talked about how your predominantly religious area has predominantly religious charities and presented this (unless I am mistaken) as a positive consequence of religion, instead of an expected consequence of a religious population choosing a religious solution to a problem (while elsewhere non-religious solutions are also present). You have spoke out in support of the idea that religion has practically nothing to do with warfare, despite it being commonly accepted as historical fact.

Again the paradox. I find myself agreeing with all your principals and disagreeing with a lot of what you support with those principles. I feel if I could understand that difference I could at least understand you better, even if I could not make you understand me.

Shannon wrote: "Yes, bad things can come from freedom of choice. Not just at the hands of religion. That does not mean that I'd willingly throw away freedom in order to design the "perfect" life for others and a "safe" life for myself."

Again agreed. Which is why I would not advocate the active suppression of religion, but I would advocate that religion not be allowed to actively suppress other ideas.

Take for example the US "War on Christmas". I have watched certain media types get all up in arms about atheists trying to "undermine Christmas" by protesting about public nativity displays and the like, yet this isn't trying to suppress religion, it's trying to stop one religion having preferential treatment over other religions or the lack of religion.

Yet in the US and the UK we are constantly subject to the prevailing pressure of one particular religion to be treated as truth. In the US you at least have a constitutional amendment to fight back with, in the UK we have nothing but our intrinsic cynicism. However, in both cases certain religions have the advantage.

Shannon wrote: "In my opinion, such a life would not be perfect or safe."

Again, agreed.

Shannon wrote: "If you think it would be and if you advocate taking away people's freedom of choice, please feel free to expound upon which freedoms you'd steal, yes ... steal, why you'd choose those freedoms, and why you think you have the right to make such decisions for others. If, of course, that's what you think and what is on your heart to do. "

This is my point. Your freedoms have already been taken if they have gone so far away you don't even see the bars of the cage.

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man", is attributed to the Jesuit order, and is a known form of indoctrination throughout history. "Get them while they're young." During that period human children are predisposed to credulity because those children that did not trust their parents warnings in the past rarely grew up to pass on their genes. Unfortunately this credulity has its own consequences which comes into the "imperfect world" you describe.

In the end if their was a "Freedom I would steal" it would be the freedom to steal someone else's freedom, physically or intellectually. Especially the freedom of a child. Unfortunately then you get into the sticky problem of the difference between the freedom of the child and the freedom and responsibility of their parent.

So this is why I asked, not because I don't read your words but because I do. I admire your views on freedom, rights and respect your perspective. Yet you sometimes advocate, support or condone things that seem to be in direct opposition to those ideals....

From my perspective at least.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "So if you have been brought up within a specific religion and it has been taught to you as truth, or even just being generally accepted as truth by authority figures during your formative years, then how can you possibly have freedom of choice when it comes to religion? "

And, yet ... people make that choice all the time.

I don't know what you've heard about public schools in America. I'm guessing, if you think it falls in line with what you described, you've been sold some swampland. However, at this point, I suppose I should limit myself to my general area. New England.

We do not have prayer in schools. We do not pass out Bibles. We do not entertain religious speakers. We do not teach religion, except in terms of history, etc.... We teach evolution. We follow the division between church and state and don't preach to children.

When schools in other areas of the country do things like say they're taking children to the play about Charlie Brown and Christmas, various groups threaten lawsuits and the plays are canceled. Further, I recently read about a high school graduate who began praying during her speech. There was a big thing over whether or not the school would give her a diploma. Hmmmm.... So, while other schools in other parts of the country and while some students bring religion/faith into the school, they usually face a pretty high and very public consequence.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "You repeatedly come down on the pro-religious argument even though religion by necessity starts with an act of conversion. "

I also repeatedly come down on the side of non-believers having the right to choose for themselves and stand for their not facing consequences as a result.

Are you purposely ignoring that?

I come down on the side of freedom of choice.

[Mohamed]

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Albert Einstein.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "You have spoke out in support of the idea that religion has practically nothing to do with warfare, despite it being commonly accepted as historical fact."

When have I spoken out in support of the idea that religion has practically nothing to do with warfare?

Given the fact that I've stated the opposite, I find this statement to be quite troubling.

I've said, as anyone who reads these posts is aware, that ....

Religion has been the cause of some wars. Definitely.

Religion has likely been the cause of many wars. Most probably.

However, I've said, it has not been the cause of all or most wars. To say such is to mislead.

Why in the world, given my statements, would you say something like this? It totally and completely flies in the face of my words.

Was it your intent to misrepresent me? Or, is there another reason for such a mistake?

[Mohamed]

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
― Albert Einstein

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "Colleen wrote: "aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "How do the Mayans fit in?"

Besides being a rather violent and particularly viscious people, they..."

Didn't know there were still Mayans around.
I wonder if anyone has asked them how they feel about this end of the world stuff?

They probably hang out together and chuckle over those knuckleheads that believe the whole 'Mayan Calendar' thing.

Be better yet if on the 22nd a mayan shows up with the rest of the calendar and goes 'Hey, I found it. Sorry about that. It fell behind the couch,"

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Yet you sometimes advocate, support or condone things that seem to be in direct opposition to those ideals.... "

I advocate for choice. The choice of believers and non-believers. I choose to live my life in accordance with my ideals. I choose not to dictate the path others walk, even if it leads to things I, personally, do not support and would not do myself.

I will not, now or ever, say people should not have religious choice and freedom.

I will not, now or ever, say non-believers should be forced to believe.

I will always say each group has the right to choose as they will. Further, I will endeavor to always respect their right to choose, even if I don't respect their individual choices.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Didn't know there were still Mayans around.
I wonder if anyone has asked them how they feel about this end of the world stuff?"

I've seen various news broadcasts. Some have stated they don't even know what we're talking about. Some say they disagree and don't think the world will end on Friday. I've heard one person, who claims to be Mayan, who says the world will end.

As with all things, it appears there's a spectrum of ideas regarding 12/21, though most seem to be against the idea.

[Colleen]

Shannon wrote: "derision

noun

contemptuous ridicule or mockery"

I tend to ignore that if directed at me :) I have finally learned what is meant by, "playing dumb!" LOL

[Travis]

aPriL MEOWS often with scratching wrote: "Soooooooo, we got it backwards! When we are calm and intelligent, we're being a Neanderthal, and when we're being animals, we are being human!"

basically 'survival of the fittest', has nothing to do with being 'the best and brightest', it's just about surviving.

[Colleen]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Yet you sometimes advocate, support or condone things that seem to be in direct opposition to those ideals.... "

I advocate for choice. The choice of believers and non-believers. I ..."

Too bad there isn't a thumbs up choice. One of the few features on Facebook they havn't messed up

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Didn't know there were still Mayans around.
I wonder if anyone has asked them how they feel about this end of the world stuff?"

I've seen various news broadcasts. Some have stated ..."

Well, this is my seventh announced 'end of the world', and I was pretty much letdown by the other six, so I'm not to worried about this one.

I just like the idea of there being a bunch of mayans sitting around, chuckling to themselves and saying 'Can you believe they thought we were serious about the calendar thing?'

[Colleen]

Hazel wrote: "Colleen wrote: "I have no logical explanation"

And thats where you stop, if you don't know what caused something, it is irrational to then go on and make a statement of abject certainty on the cau..."

Not sure what you refer to. No logical explanation about what? That's actually part of my beef. Instead of a direct question i.e., "If you have no logical explanation,then why do you say _______?" Instead made a choice to instruct me on how to think, process and respond to "_______." Let's see, I believe that is called ...out of context. I was quoted, seemingly on a partial comment.

[Maria]

Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to answer) friends on this thread - just for my own info.

How many of you have Christmas trees set up and take part in the celebration? I know some are in the UK and I'm not sure if the celebration is the same - but since you don't believe in God or Christ, do you go through the motions just for the fun of the season, or do you not participate?

Thanks!

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "You have talked about how your predominantly religious area has predominantly religious charities and presented this (unless I am mistaken) as a positive consequence of religion, instead of an expected consequence of a religious population choosing a religious solution to a problem (while elsewhere non-religious solutions are also present)."

Again, this is inaccurate information. The last time you mentioned such, I gave even more identifying information in order to clarify. Why do you continue to say I live in a predominately religious area despite my telling you otherwise?

Phrased differently, why would you believe something that has no basis in actual fact or in the evidence I've presented?

I live in New England. New England is notorious for being less than religious.

Further, to narrow things a bit, why not focus on Vermont and New Hampshire? Raised in one state, worked in one for years, live in and work in the other now.

Feel free to Google information on Vermont and New Hampshire. We're the two least religious states in the United States.

So, again, I pointed this out the last time you told everyone I lived in a predominantly religious area. Why continue when you can access information on the Internet to verify what I'm saying?

It is true that the local churches handle much of the charity that happens here. Specifically, it's the churches who run our homeless shelters and who prepare, serve, and clean after the suppers for the needy that happen several times a week. At the time, months ago, when I was asked for more information on charities in my area, I posted that one big deal "charity" here was a house for unwed teens, run by the government and grants. It was just in our papers a week or two ago that it's closing. As an aside....

[Drew]

Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to answer) friends on this thread - just for my own info.

H..."

Christmas is not a Christian holiday, its origins are Pagan. Everyone is really celebrating Saturnalia, but hey, it's fun right?

[Drew]

R.C. wrote: "Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to answer) friends on this thread - just for m..."

*applause*

It is a beautiful holiday and I see no reason to stop celebrating it.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to answer) friends on this thread - just for my own info.

H..."

Sure I celebrate Christmas. Fun time with the family and my wife bakes.

Are the christians 'going through the motions' about Santa?
Odd phrasing.

[Colleen]

Gary wrote: "Colleen wrote: "It's a form of meditation sometimes, or even self-hypnosis. It has been proven in studies that a positive outlook has been central to recovery from serious illness or disease."

Ind..."

Colleen wrote: "Gary: I feel you are the worst offender, it’s disorganized and misleading. For understanding where your logic stems, one must backtrack a lot and it’s tedious. And that's a shame, because you have a plethora of knowledge."

Well I'm sorry that I don't live up to your standards. I do try to keep answers concise, but I to am usually responding to lengthy posts that often make a variety of different points. I am also used to people jumping on one little comment or concept and then presenting that out of context or using a badly worded phrase or difficult to explain concept as a "wedge" issue to try to say "because you said 'x' then everything you say is suspect". Chris recently tried to say that once again.

You have now done this in general and you wonder why I try to cover myself? And as for "Mislead" well I think that is a nasty thing to accuse someone of without even having the common courtesy to qualify when have attempted to "mislead" people.
My response:
Ah, and there is the difficulty. Punctuation can clearly derail an entire statement. This little box we write in does effect how things come out. I did have many more paragraphs to separate; somehow on my end, they became more run on than I intended.
The part where I address you is misleading in itself, while I did the exact same thing I was complaining about. My only issue with you (and some others) is that when several different people are quoted and responded to, the whole post can be misleading in content. If you, per se, counter what shannon said, even with a quote, it is natural to read the whole post as one piece. Where did that come from, is what I am thinking. So I try to go back to read the original post, and it's not always easy to find. If all the quotes from other people are removed, then the entire monologue becomes disorganized. Misleading because of lack of context.
I do see where you addressed my statements in a long post, but damn, I could read it, you addressed each point separately and did a great job!
I think Chris did the same thing on a long post, too.
When I say, "I feel..." it is just MY take on something. Nasty? Accusation? Words that have some different connotations, as well as meanings.
Sorry you feel picked on Gary.
I could go back and totally restructure my offendingpost, and it would be a different flavor.
My frustration got the best of me and I tend to dish out what I think or feel I have been served! I imagine that if this thread had a moderator, I may have been booted!

[Colleen]

Drew wrote: "Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to answer) friends on this thread - just for m..."

Yeah and blown totally out of the "fun" zone by the merchants and advertising. The timing is of a pagan clelebration, and I don't have time to research it. It has become one of those things that causes so many problems, financially, for instance. The stress can be horrendous, and the social dynamics in a culture full of divorce, multi extended families, long distance relations, the abandonment of accepted social norms causing resentment...goes on and on.
Oh and the freaking gift cards and lists of what everybody wants? I say, just buy your own gift, everyone get together for their appointed celebration...act utterly in awe of such an appropriate gift, then thank everyone for their thoughtfulness!

[Travis]

Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to answer) friends on this thread..."

You're not going to crack under the stress, put some antlers on your dog and sneak into town in a home-made Santy Cluas coat and a hat, to steal every bit of christmas, down to the last can of 'Who-hash', are you?

[Colleen]

R.C. wrote: "Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to answer) friends on this thread - just for m..."

Sounds heavenly! Enclose pictures, please :)

[Drew]

Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to answer) friends on this thread..."

I'm sorry that you let those things get to you, I ignore all of that and so it is nothing but pure fun for me.

[Colleen]

Travis wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to answer) friend..."

SHHHH, don't tell anyone, it would spoil the surprise! And i wouldn't be caught dead in a home-made suit, we , er sledders, have standards!
(and can't you tell, I have already cracked...it's getting so hard to...keep up the....appear...ances)

[Colleen]

Drew wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to answer) friend..."

Ah yes, Drew, those things used to get to me- over 20 yrs ago. Now I feel sad that some family members are zombie-like followers of the commercialism instead of enjoying the season. I liked a certain family member's practice of going out and buying herbs, then trotting out to the woods the do the solstice ritual de jour. Now, it's, well she's the one I told to buy your own gift, etc. I was trying to get her to see the absurdity of that whole "buy everything on the list." I'm the only one who thought it was funny.

Thankfully, I now have distanced myself enough that if I see something that I know a family member would adore, I buy it, no matter what time of year. I decorate, just not as lavishly, or bake as much. Dinner is simple, but great. I ignore lists, buy cool things like rock tumblers instead of light-up Jedi swords. And my kids finally get it! My grandkids love it :) Individuality has been lost in so may ways. I keep plugging at it, and now at least with my holiday, that's what "is." Best part is : they get it, and, more each year.

[Maria]

RC said: "A better question would have been one asking modern monotheists why they partake in a celebration of ancient pagan traditions"

Thank you! I've asked it over and over again on this thread and others and never get a straight answer. Or I get a big rationalization as to why God doesn't mind, since the pagan stuff has been turned around so that it honors his son (which I personally think would be an insult - i.e. let me honor you with the traditions and practices of a group of people who don't worship you and who worship other gods and let me do it on one of their holy days to add insult to injury!)

Travis said: "Are the christians 'going through the motions' about Santa? Odd phrasing."

Not all of them probably - some are very sincere and actually think they are honoring God and celebrating Jesus's birthday - all the while partaking in pagan traditions.

But to a non-theist, or athiest as the case may be - I used the phrase "going through the motions" because they don't believe in the entities that Christmas, no matter how misguided or pagan, claims to honor. That's why I used that terminology. They don't hypocritcally claim to be doing it in the name of God, they admit they are just having fun!

[Colleen]

Of course, that is a valid question. And a good one.

[Travis]

Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to a..."


Let's not be dissing light up Jedi swords...!

Nobody ever defeated an evil Emperor using a rock tumbler.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "RC said: "A better question would have been one asking modern monotheists why they partake in a celebration of ancient pagan traditions"

Thank you! I've asked it over and over again on this thre..."

It is an odd phrase, as Christmas time is such a hodge-podge of myths and traditions ( not to mention the two or three other holidays that happen around the same time) that to ask if non-christians are 'going through the motions' seemed at best, a clunky way to phrase it, at worst, a loaded question.

That's why I wondered if it was considered 'going through the motions' for the christians when it comes to Santa, as christmas has become a 50/50 split between the guy in red and the carpenter's son.

[Colleen]

Yeah, in some cases, tho, the swords are inappropriate! Actually rocks, too. I wonder if that little guy isn't smarter than us all. We banned the swords after he went to town with my bokken. But the rock tumbler may be an excuse and they can be launched like missles! Thanks for the heads up!

[Drew]

Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever else wants to a..."

That's great, I'm glad you have found your own personal way of celebrating that eliminates all of the b.s. commercialism. As a child I grew up in a religion that forbade us from celebrating Christmas because of its Pagan origins. I resented my parents for many years for this and I'd hate to see another person's children feel the same way about their parents. I don't resent them anymore but I also don't follow their religion either, not just because of Christmas mind you but for thousands of other reasons, #1 being that I just don't believe in a god.

[Colleen]

Drew wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist (and whoever..."

I relate, although my family was quasi-Christians, and our Christmas was a decent balance of ritual and wonder. My dad, who passed a few years ago, was a truck driver. He was the oddball in his group of truckers; they stayed home on vacations, time off, because they drove for a living. My dad wanted to share with us things he saw and his wonder became mine. Nothing was ever forced on us. We just accepted the core values of good old-fashioned mid-western society.
I studied anthropology because culture and religions facinate me. I am a lapsed Lutheran and even now, have fallen away from my central Native American practices, many elders and leaders also believe in a Christian God, but also embrace Grandfather and the lore. In them I found two worlds that could peacefully coexist with both pagan and Christian. The sweat lodge was my Church. And, no God, as a depiction in a biblical sense is just alien to me and always has been. But I do try to celebrate all kinds of seasons, even if it's a wreath for the time of year.
So, Drew, do you have any celebrations that mark the seasons?

[Maria]

Drew said: "As a child I grew up in a religion that forbade us from celebrating Christmas because of its Pagan origins."

I bet I know which one- and that explains a lot of your other comments - which I thought were pretty strongly put.

I don't resent my parents' raising me with their beliefs at all. In fact, adhering to such a strict religion as a child, teen and young adult, I think kept me out of a lot of the serious trouble that some of my peers found themselves in.

Although I don't agree with all of the teachings, I have carried some with me - like the hypocrisy of Christendom, the rejection of a Trinity, and the celebrating of pagan holidays in the name of a Christian god.

One of the main things I still believe is that you should always "walk the walk", that is, practice what you preach. And if you don't want to do that, and don't agree with ALL of the teachings, then take your leave. That takes courage, but at least it is being true to yourself.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "RC said: "A better question would have been one asking modern monotheists why they partake in a celebration of ancient pagan traditions"

Thank you! I've asked it over and over again on this thread and others and never get a straight answer.

...

Travis said: "Are the christians 'going through the motions' about Santa? Odd phrasing." "

First, by modern monotheist, I'm going to assume we're talking about Christians. I'm not sure why those who are Jewish or Muslim, for example, would celebrate Christmas unless it's for the fun and celebratory aspect.

If I had to guess, I'd say many of today's Christians aren't aware that the date, tree, etc... of Christmas are based in Paganism. If and when they become aware of that, I'd say they likely ignore it as it has become their tradition. (Personally, given the fact that I was raised to honor all faiths and think all faiths held certain truths, Pagan roots don't concern me much.)

I'm not sure whether or not Christians who celebrate Christmas on the 25th with a tree, lights, and food are hypocrites. I'm sure some would say so, just as some would say non-believers who celebrate Christmas are hypocrites. I don't intend to go there. I'd say, at this point, hundreds and hundreds of years later, that it has something to do with intent and what is in the heart of the people who are practicing the holiday.

Are Christians going through the motions? It would depend. Yes? It would depend on each individual person.

Personally? Charity has been a big part of the Christmas season for me and for my family since I was in middle school. My parents and I would "adopt" a needy family and shop for them. Some of my favorite memories from high school involve my parents and I shopping for the family we adopted. We'd get all sorts of things, important things. The toothpaste and toothbrush and floss sorts of things. Underwear and clothing. Winter boots and coats. A toy from their list. There was a feeling of doing something to care for another family that was truly amazing ... knowing we were doing something to care for their needs for a few months.

I, as an adult, will go through my clothes at this time, making donations. In the past, I've organized food drives at school or have donated food to other collections. I usually find other charities at this time to donate to ... in the name of family members. One year it was a drive to provide books for needy children. I bought the books and wrote about it in my Christmas cards, telling each person or couple which book I bought and donated in their name. This year, I adopted a family myself.

I'd say, given this, that my family and I aren't just going through the motions. Good works. December is a time for good works, in my opinion. I remember talking about this with my mother when I was young. She thought it was important to be an "instrument" for good; God put us here to do good works and help one another. Her opinion and teaching at this time of year.

Yes, we also give gifts. I suppose one could say that's buying in to commercialism. We've always tended to give more homemade gifts rather than electronics, etc.... Scarves, sweaters, quilts, scrapbooks, handmade furniture, etc.... I made Christmas cookies this weekend for the first time and gave them away today with cards that expressed why I'm thankful for the people in my life. That's one thing that's always been there, since I was very young, and still continues. Making things. Giving presents that truly come from us, that we spent time on and that offer a little bit of ourselves, in order to show how much we care about those in our lives.

So, .... That's my answer.

[Maria]

Shannon said: "If I had to guess, I'd say many of today's Christians aren't aware that the date, tree, etc... of Christmas are based in Paganism."

I don't agree - I think most do - and as you said, really don't care.

I guess it's just up to the individual or the family whether their traditions are more important to them than possibly offending the god they claim to worship. He's pretty adamant about not mixing with the "unbelievers and idolators" in most passages I've read, no matter how fun it is or what your intent.

I still think, as I said before that it would be insulting to god for someone to say "let me honor you with the traditions and practices of a group of people who don't worship you and who worship other gods and let me do it on one of their holy days to add insult to injury."

But that's just me. And there's NEVER anything wrong with any of the good works you've described. Good for you.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "I don't agree - I think most do - and as you said, really don't care. "

I've known several people, more than several, who haven't known about the Pagan aspects.

Regarding the possibility of offending God, in my mind, there are far worse things than celebrating with a tree in the room. Things like adultery, telling lies, stealing, etc... would be, in my opinion, more offensive. But, the thing is ... I don't claim to know God's mind. I tend to get nervous when people claim to know, for sure and for certain, what "God" might think.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote:I am also used to people jumping on one little comment or concept and then presenting that out of context or using a badly worded phrase or difficult to explain concept as a "wedge" issue to try to say "because you said 'x' then everything you say is suspect". Chris recently tried to say that once again.

Ind..."

Tried? Show me....

[Drew]

Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Drew wrote: "Maria wrote: "Totally off the current subject - and not meant with any sarcasm or malice - I have a question for my non-theist..."

Nothing traditional, I usually leave this time of year open to any new experiences or others Christmas traditions.

[Maria]

Shannon, I don't claim to know for certain what god thinks. I don't even know for certain that there is a god. I just know what I've read personally in the bible and using that to come to my conclusion that god is offended by anything that smacks of paganism.

The Israelites got in trouble for making the golden calf - and using it in their worship to god. It smacked of idolatry and was rejected.

There are lots of other examples - so it's not me claiming to know the mind of god - it's me drawing my own conclusions based on what I've read.

And lying, stealing, adultery - all that I'm sure offends god - just like celebrating pagan holidays. And I'm sure that some people say, "but it's fun, it's a tradition, I don't mean anything by it, how do we really know god doesn't like it" - anything to justify what they want to do.