Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Tina wrote: "I don't know if I agree with that 100%, if you are a believer, as you claim you are, (and I'm not doubting that) wouldn't you want to share this belief with everyone? If you believe you are saved, and have the Holy Spirit living within you, wouldn't you want to tell the world of this miracle, this light? "
I believe in God, Tina, but I absolutely do not fit into the Christian mold. For lots of reasons. You're absolutely right in that. Now, given a lot of factors, including my American Indian ancestry, I have huge issues with this tenet of the Christian faith ... that's it's important to convert people to Christianity. I understand why people feel led to do this. But, it's absolutely not something that I can do. No. That is one of the reasons I'm not a member of a Christian church. Even the United Methodist church, which is quite liberal, asks that members ... I can't remember the scripture ... but it makes an absolute statement about faith ... and, I believe, the need to bring people to this faith. Apart from that, outreach is huge ... not just to do good works ... but for the hopes of boosting membership. That's just not something I can get behind, so ... I'm not going to be a member of a church. I definitely do not fit in, 100%, with any religion or religious mold. I'm the first to say that. But, I do believe in God, I find strength in prayer, and I find guidance in the parables Jesus is credited for having told.
I believe in God, Tina, but I absolutely do not fit into the Christian mold. For lots of reasons. You're absolutely right in that. Now, given a lot of factors, including my American Indian ancestry, I have huge issues with this tenet of the Christian faith ... that's it's important to convert people to Christianity. I understand why people feel led to do this. But, it's absolutely not something that I can do. No. That is one of the reasons I'm not a member of a Christian church. Even the United Methodist church, which is quite liberal, asks that members ... I can't remember the scripture ... but it makes an absolute statement about faith ... and, I believe, the need to bring people to this faith. Apart from that, outreach is huge ... not just to do good works ... but for the hopes of boosting membership. That's just not something I can get behind, so ... I'm not going to be a member of a church. I definitely do not fit in, 100%, with any religion or religious mold. I'm the first to say that. But, I do believe in God, I find strength in prayer, and I find guidance in the parables Jesus is credited for having told.
Shanna wrote: "Hazel wrote: "and bang, the respect has gone."I'm with you Hazel why should we respect beliefs and religion.
Believers,
Please explain to me just what I should respect about your beliefs or rel..."
I completely agree that many religions are basically instruments of oppression and do not deserve any respect. However, there are so many religions and some religions like Christianity have so many denominations so maybe condemning them all would be a bit overgeneralized. And there are Muslims who are feminist and Catholics who are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.
Tina wrote: "Agree completely. As I said before, it takes more faith to believe all of this came from absolutely nothing than that something always existed, the uncaused cause, God. "No Tina, I disagree, it takes more blind faith to attribute all that there is to a supernatural explanation for which there is no evidence than it takes to learn and listen to the explanations as provided by the people who dedicate their lives to research, and who have actual evidence to back up what they say. That said, there are still things that are unknown, and it is irrational and unreasonable to apply a supernatural reason rather than to simply admit that we don't know, but that we are working on knowing it.
All that sentence of yours shows is a level of ignorance about all the many different scientific fields that have spent many many years researching and investigating and providing evidence on how the world words, evidence that persistently removes the need for a god as part of the explanation , and also an inability to allow yourself to be ignorant about something and be comfortable in that ignorance. You (general you, not specific you, as I'm referring to the vast majority of people here, myself included at times) want an answer to why everything is, and so you take the easy one that requires no evidence or further investigation. "God did it", what a cop out.
There a a plethora of books that you can read to further your understanding of the scientific explanations of the world, if you wish, I can put together a list for you, and you could take a look?
Xdyj wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Hazel wrote: "and bang, the respect has gone."I'm with you Hazel why should we respect beliefs and religion.
Believers,
Please explain to me just what I should respect about your..."
Xdyj, the problems with religions aside, as I admit, there;s plenty of good stuff in holy books, its a shame its stuck in among all the bad stuff too. However, when it comes down to it, all versions of christianity include the bad stuff as well as the good, they all use basically the same book, the same with the other religions, both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims use basically the same book as each other etc etc. And the big kicker to why I find I can't respect faith is that it is belief in something for which there is no evidence, people are wilfully ignoring the evidence of hundreds of years of enlightenment, and are making themselves credulous to a claim that has no validity. Put aside all the teachings, whether they be good or bad or indifferent, put aside the different denominations, the different religions, its about being wilfully credulous to a claim that has no intrinsic worth because it has no evidence to back itself up.
The things you mentioned, like Muslim feminists, and pro-choice christians means that these people have the basis for earning respect despite their religion, as they have developed beyond what their religion teaches, and don't base their morality on the archaic teachings o.f bronze age men
That being said Hazel the good stuff (as you already know) is by no means exclusive to the holy book. Almost all cultures have come up with "golden rule" and know murder, rape, theft, are issues that cause communities to break down, and did not need the holy books to tell them. In fact it could be argued for a society to get to the point of co-operatively forming a religion, and writing down of texts, that some form of the morals, that religion claims it owns, must have been in effect. So morals in a co-operative society must be intrinsic and not the extrinsic domain of god/religion.
Shannon, you wrote this, and I quote: I have huge issues with this tenet of the Christian faith ... that's it's important to convert people to Christianity. I understand why people feel led to do this. But, it's absolutely not something that I can do. No. That is one of the reasons I'm not a member of a Christian church. Even the United Methodist church, which is quite liberal, asks that members ... I can't remember the scripture ... but it makes an absolute statement about faith ... and, I believe, the need to bring people to this faith.In my experience as a Canadian girl growing up in a fairly open-minded family I never, never saw any of this prosthelytizing in my church. I have not been a steady church-goer since my mid-teens and still never saw it after that, the few times that I've gone to church as an adult. (I'm not a believer in the Christian church doctrine and I'm not interested in any other.)
The only prosthelytizing I have ever, ever seen was done by the Jehovah Witnesses and the Evangelical Baptists.
I grew up in the United Church, different from your United Methodist, which I know little to nothing about. Mine was a very elegant, formal and, I will add, a rather wealthy church in the center of the city I now live in again, having returned to my home town in 1997. No one in that church was fanatical or forceful about religion. These were very genteel people who in fact, really didn't discuss their faith with others outside of church. Why, I am not sure, but I think it has something to do with NOT shoving your beliefs down the throats of others, quite the contrary to what you say your Christian Protestant United Methodist church did/does.
I think the difference has a lot to do with many things--geographical location, cultural traditions in your region, the collective ethnicity of the congregation, the minister him-or-herself, the desires of congregation, the community at large, the influence of and by the other faiths in your region, and many more factors, such as which churches are available to you. But in my city in those days, the only ones who tried to "hit on me" with their religion were the Baptists and of course...the J.W.'s.
In my social group to this day, this is looked on as quite obnoxious, and no one that I know would think of doing such a thing. Now, most people I know these days aren't very religious--also for many various reasons I suppose, not the least of which is that religion as it stands is losing its hold--but even the ones I know who practice, keep it to themselves pretty much.
I'm sure that if you wanted to find a church in your area that didn't prosthelytize, you could find one. So I don't think you can use that as a reason for not attending if you really wanted to. In any case, it doesn't matter; lots of people like you believe in A god, and don't go to worship in a formal way.
I say A god, because there are so many to choose from, but convention dictates that you pick from the god of Christianity, Islam, Judaism or one of the many Hindu gods or goddesses. And there are others that are so numerous that there isn't time enough to mention.
You've actually designed your own way of believing, which tells me that we believe what we want to believe and it's always personal and unique. So...what's religion for, anyway, if we can believe in A god all on our own, be good and moral without it, live ethically, wisely, and productively, and serving others. What does religion do other than act as just another business? Do people really need that intermediary to get to their god?
I completely agree that many religions are basically instruments of oppressions and does not deserve any respect. However, there are so many religions and some religions like Christianity have so many denominations so maybe condemning them all would be a bit overgeneralized.They all subscribe to texts that oppress, villify and marginalize sections of our society.
Feminist muslims and pro-choice/gay christians are so, despite their religion. They are already more moral than the god of the holy books.
And herein lies my problem with religious folk who claim the bible is the word of god. They are quick to accuse the atheist in the debate of cherry picking the bible to support their arguments.
All of them cherry pick the bible in real life quoting and "living" by the passages that sound good. Conveniently ignoring the absurdities, cruelties and reprehensible passages or dismissing them as allegories, parables or as "appropriate" for the time the bible was written but not for now.
How do they know that the injunction against eating shellfish in Leviticus 11:9-12,Deuteronomy 14:9-10 is not the most important law to god, seeing as so many things are open to interpretation?
Why don't they stone their smart mouth children it is after all a commandment and Jesus reaffirmed it? Matthew 15:4.
But then Jesus smart-mouthed his own mother, Matthew 12.48 (and there was something at a wedding feast where he basically said "bugger off you think my powers should be used to turn water to wine how petty" to his mother), and then failed to present himself for stoning.
Very interesting piece on CBC Radio this afternoon. Host Mary Hynes interviews people of all walks of life and discusses such topics as faith, myth, spirituality, and mysticism. http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/
Go to the above link and then click on "Listen to this episode" for A Few Good Words - Wisdom For the Ages for Living Life Today, Part 1.
@ Hazel, you might like this, I'd like to hear your feedback. (LOL, how is it you've become so popular on this discussion, Hazel? You sure have stirred up the pot!) :D
Cheers,
CJB, Canada (aka Whirlwind)
Shanna wrote: "I completely agree that many religions are basically instruments of oppressions and does not deserve any respect. However, there are so many religions and some religions like Christianity have so m..."Oh, wow. Please go back and do some editing, I can't see through your thought processes with all that bad grammar, poor sentence structure, use of inappropriate words where they don't fit, and misspellings.
Whirlwind, picking on grammar and spelling is not nice. I'm sure you can understand what Shanna's saying without being nasty about grammar. Sorry, I can be a complete grammar nazi, but I try to avoid doing it, because I'm as likely to make a grammatical error as the next person.
Whirlwind wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I completely agree that many religions are basically instruments of oppressions and does not deserve any respect. However, there are so many religions and some religions like Christi..."Yeah I know, You try writing with toddler and preschooler hanging off you :-)) Literally
Better?
Shanna wrote: "Yeah I know, You try writing with toddler and preschooler hanging off you :-))"I know that one, its amazing that we can manage to type at all when we're also cuddling a child. But I suppose that's nothing compared to women I've seen who do all their housework one handed while carrying their child around with them.
Hazel wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Yeah I know, You try writing with toddler and preschooler hanging off you :-))"I know that one, its amazing that we can manage to type at all when we're also cuddling a child. But ..."
Some women are so good at this it's scary. I mostly feel total love in one breath, anger in the next and overwhelmed..... a lot! And fear that my brain is melting I have degree for christsakes, I got it with honours and sometimes I can't string a coherent sentence together.
Lorenzo wrote: "Tina said: "I agree with you and I thank you very much for saying that. You are completely correct. I admit I do get carried away in trying to constantly defend myself.But it is important to shar..."
I am not being attacked, I do not feel offended. On the contrary you do seem a big uptight from just one word I used, "defend".
How could I be persecuted by this thread? I chose to comment on it.
Shanna wrote: "Why don't they stone their smart mouth children it is after all a commandment and Jesus reaffirmed it? Matthew 15:4.
But then Jesus smart mouthed his own mother Matthew 12.48"
Hey, there. I'm the first to admit that some truly horrid stories exist in the Bible. I'm not sure, though, that the above scriptures read quite as described above. I don't want to "push" or "peddle" ... so I'm not going to write the text. But, if people are interested, they can look for themselves.
If one reads the text before or after the first cite, I think s/he would see it's a bit more complex.
I don't know. Obviously, it's open to interpretation. However, I don't think it's as easy as ... Jesus encouraged people to kill their children.
Regarding the second scripture, again, I just don't know about it. I pulled my Bible and looked in up. I think we'd need to know more about what happened in order to know if that was an example of "smart-mouthed" behavior ... or if it was used to show all who "do God's will" are one's family. Again, I don't know ... maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. I just don't know that it's that easy.
I just searched around and about for the wedding cite. It's John 2:4. I'm not sure if this is a smart and disrespectful statement. (My version ... NIV ... doesn't read in that way. Perhaps others read differently.) I think, if He said those words, we'd have to have been present in order to hear the tone used when it was said. Perhaps, but a cursory reading doesn't make me think ... wow, what a
smart-mouthed comment.
Again, I know there are really awful things in there. I admit that. I'm not sure that the above passages are in-line with those horrifying stories.
But then Jesus smart mouthed his own mother Matthew 12.48"
Hey, there. I'm the first to admit that some truly horrid stories exist in the Bible. I'm not sure, though, that the above scriptures read quite as described above. I don't want to "push" or "peddle" ... so I'm not going to write the text. But, if people are interested, they can look for themselves.
If one reads the text before or after the first cite, I think s/he would see it's a bit more complex.
I don't know. Obviously, it's open to interpretation. However, I don't think it's as easy as ... Jesus encouraged people to kill their children.
Regarding the second scripture, again, I just don't know about it. I pulled my Bible and looked in up. I think we'd need to know more about what happened in order to know if that was an example of "smart-mouthed" behavior ... or if it was used to show all who "do God's will" are one's family. Again, I don't know ... maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. I just don't know that it's that easy.
I just searched around and about for the wedding cite. It's John 2:4. I'm not sure if this is a smart and disrespectful statement. (My version ... NIV ... doesn't read in that way. Perhaps others read differently.) I think, if He said those words, we'd have to have been present in order to hear the tone used when it was said. Perhaps, but a cursory reading doesn't make me think ... wow, what a
smart-mouthed comment.
Again, I know there are really awful things in there. I admit that. I'm not sure that the above passages are in-line with those horrifying stories.
Hazel wrote: "Whirlwind, picking on grammar and spelling is not nice. I'm sure you can understand what Shanna's saying without being nasty about grammar. Sorry, I can be a complete grammar nazi, but I try to a..."
Grammar nazi, now that's rich. Is that new age political incorrectness to defend the downward spiral that language is seeing these days? I'm not worried about being nice because I doubt if Santa Claus is coming to me this year anyway, I don't have a chimney any more. But you have judged me so thanks for replacing the god that I lack in my life. :-)
No, I actually don't understand her thought line. It's senseless! Can you decipher it?
Do you want "NICE" or do you want "HONEST"?
This is what I said: Oh, wow. Please go back and do some editing, I can't see through your thought processes with all that bad grammar, poor sentence structure, use of inappropriate words where they don't fit, and misspellings.
I said please, and I explained my reason. Can a person be more clear and precise? I seek clarity, not babble. In fact there was everything that I said there was. Now, what are we getting into? I've said all I'm going to say about this, and I want to ask, would you go back and tell your English teacher that truth isn't "NICE". I hate the word--nieessse. It hisses with contempt. hehehehehe
The keyboard is mightier than the sword. :P
Whirlwind wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Whirlwind, picking on grammar and spelling is not nice. I'm sure you can understand what Shanna's saying without being nasty about grammar.
Sorry, I can be a complete grammar nazi, ..."
I completely agree that many religions are basically instruments of oppressions and does not deserve any respect.
I completely agree that many religions are basically instruments of oppression and do not deserve any respect.
Sorry, I can be a complete grammar nazi, ..."
I completely agree that many religions are basically instruments of oppressions and does not deserve any respect.
I completely agree that many religions are basically instruments of oppression and do not deserve any respect.
Shanna wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Yeah I know, You try writing with toddler and preschooler hanging off you :-))"I know that one, its amazing that we can manage to type at all when we're also cuddli..."
Are you ladies getting your priorities straight? Don't the kids come first, then when you get some down time, fool around with the computer? Do you really need to be here when the kids are hanging off you?
Whirlwind wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Whirlwind, picking on grammar and spelling is not nice. I'm sure you can understand what Shanna's saying without being nasty about grammar. Sorry, I can be a complete grammar nazi, ..."
ok, point taken, I would prefer honest to nice. As for "grammar nazi" is just a term used in the UK, sorry if it offended you. I did say I could be that way out, it was me I was referring to when I said it, and wasn't being judgemental.
And yes, I did decipher what Shanna had written. This may have something to do with me having regular text based conversations with a guy who is so dyslexic that you have to read what he says out loud and phonetically to understand it, so anything else is a doddle :P
not the least of which is that religion as it stands is losing its holdMaybe in rich, socially progressive countries like Canada. In China evangelical Christianity & Buddhism seem to be growing pretty fast these days. When I was in college people tried to convert me numerous of times. They were all quite friendly and I even went to their meetings out of curiosity (which were nice) and read the stuff they gave me (which drove me away with their conservative agenda) :) p.s. I know religious prosecution still happens a lot in less developed areas in mainland China and I'm against any attack on religious freedom.
Hazel, Shanna: I completely agree.
Shannon: Thanks for pointing out my mistake :)
Oh, good grief, hardly anything offends me. I have developed a pretty thick skin. :-) I'm not offended, not intimidated, not insulted very easily. Just making a point without judgement, just being matter of fact. If we all have to pussy-foot around with others, then the others should grow a thicker skin too. Life's not all cherries and roses but I'm not mean, just have high expectations.
yay, and no offence was taken that day :D
Whirlwind wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Yeah I know, You try writing with toddler and preschooler hanging off you :-))"I know that one, its amazing that we can manage to type at all when we'r..."
What down time?? Oh you mean when I'm asleep? all four hours of it!
Gheeshe, whad'ya have kids for then? :)
Yeah sometimes I wonder. Until you have your own, people can tell you what it's like, but you can't possibly understand the total drain. And the little pirahna's they can be on your sense of self. That being said I love them and would do anything for them except subsume myself because thats not good for either them or me, and believe it or not, this helps.
I've never asked that question of a woman and received anything but the same answer you just gave me. I wonder what on earth the big draw is.
I don't know, now? I don't remember? Plus before kids I don't think you can really have a clue :-P. You're sucked in, biological imperative perhaps, then it's done and you love the little blighters, and you're trapped rather neatly. You'll see, if you choose to have one of your ownOk yeah, I'm whinging, I know, but there are moments that take your breath away and then they do something impossibly stupid for the tenth time, AGAIN. (and yeah I know the AGAIN is redundant)
Zakaria wrote: "Tina wrote: "Zakaria wrote: "R.C. wrote: "Zakaria wrote: "No, it is not Ok to call me Zak. Zakaria is fine. God is the supreme being who is the first cause of all that there is. He is the God recognized by jews..."Bertrand Russell : "There must be something which originates motion, and this something must itself be unmoved, and must be eternal, substance and actuality"
This goes with what you ve just said. "
Bertrand Russell would have been saying those words from the viewpoint of a man who had dismissed religion by his late teens. I think he was referring to something akin to Aristotle's idea of "First Cause", or prime mover, which caused other things to move, but which was not moved itself. Of course, then religious doctrine claims that this is "God", because they have to name it and anthropomorphize this energy.
Russell rejected religion because it taught what is not true. He didn't see the value of spending time on pursuits that aren't true or provable.
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our [human] intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
-- Bertrand Russell (attributed: source unknown)
Brilliant man.
My only issue about religious people is that some of them base their beliefs in emotions and not in rational thinking.
I think agnostic/atheist's are trying (because many of them don't want to see) to show people that there are other ways to look at the world. When we say "Look at the theory of evolution" or "See the evidences of embryology, palaeontology, (micro)biology, et cetera" is to provide you tools to rethink your belief, challenge yourself. Not to convert you. Because it might turn your belief even stronger. But now you can say that you CHOSE to believe and that it wasn't imposed to you.
Another point, we, agnostics/atheists, really want to find out why a believer is a believer because how can someone believe in god in front of such irrefutable evidences? For us, it's odd. It's like presenting you a sphere, giving you all the proofs that it is a sphere and you continually saying that you feel that it's a square. We want to understand why you feel it's a square. Maybe we can start to feel it too.
A really good experiment to practice our logical thinking and not fall into fallacies is this one: How do you personally know that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere? Prove it based on your own observations, not what you have read in books, seen on TV, or been told by teachers or others.
Is your "proof" really a proof or just an argument? Are you really proving that it is a sphere or just not flat? What experiments could be done to really prove it? What are the most practical experiments?
Extrapolating this to god: How do you know there is a god? Don't go to books, or TV or what people have told you but in what you've seen. And now tell me how can that be a proof an not your argument or belief. Remember that proof is tangible and it needs evidence.
I think Hazel talked about him (The Thinking Atheist) before, but I really want that you, believers and non belivers, listen to this 5 speeches of the Oklahoma Freethought Convention 2011: http://youtu.be/qNviRGXfwQ8
I think agnostic/atheist's are trying (because many of them don't want to see) to show people that there are other ways to look at the world. When we say "Look at the theory of evolution" or "See the evidences of embryology, palaeontology, (micro)biology, et cetera" is to provide you tools to rethink your belief, challenge yourself. Not to convert you. Because it might turn your belief even stronger. But now you can say that you CHOSE to believe and that it wasn't imposed to you.
Another point, we, agnostics/atheists, really want to find out why a believer is a believer because how can someone believe in god in front of such irrefutable evidences? For us, it's odd. It's like presenting you a sphere, giving you all the proofs that it is a sphere and you continually saying that you feel that it's a square. We want to understand why you feel it's a square. Maybe we can start to feel it too.
A really good experiment to practice our logical thinking and not fall into fallacies is this one: How do you personally know that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere? Prove it based on your own observations, not what you have read in books, seen on TV, or been told by teachers or others.
Is your "proof" really a proof or just an argument? Are you really proving that it is a sphere or just not flat? What experiments could be done to really prove it? What are the most practical experiments?
Extrapolating this to god: How do you know there is a god? Don't go to books, or TV or what people have told you but in what you've seen. And now tell me how can that be a proof an not your argument or belief. Remember that proof is tangible and it needs evidence.
I think Hazel talked about him (The Thinking Atheist) before, but I really want that you, believers and non belivers, listen to this 5 speeches of the Oklahoma Freethought Convention 2011: http://youtu.be/qNviRGXfwQ8
Whirlwind wrote: "Gheeshe, whad'ya have kids for then? :)"because the condom split. And I choose to keep the child.
And I don't regret that decision, because as much as my daughter drives me crazy at times, she is amazing. She's just turned 3, so she's starting to understand explanations I give her, she's inquisitive and intelligent, and I get to tell her about the world, to show her nature and technology, and explain it to her. She's almost always smiling, and always gives me a hug when I'm down. Children are hard work, but they're worth it.
Oh, whirlwind, that radio link you posted and asked for my thoughts, still haven't managed to listen to it, my connection at home is being funny, and most of the time isn't strong enough for videos and such things to work, and I'm currently using a library computer, meaning that theres no sound. Will get round to it though :)
Thanks for letting me know, Hazel. :-)
Here is everything which can lay hold of the eye, ear and imagination -- everything which can charm and bewitch the simple and ignorant. I wonder how Luther ever broke the spell.-John Adams
I was reading a thread about religion from another group, this one was headed by Muslims.
The fun part was that as long as I was reading it I found that religious people are very similar in their arguments, either are they Christians or Muslims or whatever. Anyone know why this happens?
The fun part was that as long as I was reading it I found that religious people are very similar in their arguments, either are they Christians or Muslims or whatever. Anyone know why this happens?
Nícia wrote: "I was reading a thread about religion from another group, this one was headed by Muslims.The fun part was that as long as I was reading it I found that religious people are very similar in their ..."
What were the similarities?
Maybe it's because they are both Abrahamic religion with more or less the same world view so an argument for one can easily be applied to the other. I'm not quite sure but I would expect believers of religions from other traditions (e.g. Buddhism, which doesn't support or care about the existence of God, and has an immense canon largely unknown to many believers) would use quite different approaches to support their belief.
Nícia wrote: "I found that religious people are very similar in their arguments, either are they Christians or Muslims or whatever. Anyone know why this happens? "Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all branches of the same tree. There are a lot similarities between them - the same God for example.
Tina, things like: "It's in the holy book, do has it says or believe in what it says", "My religion is the right one, yours is wrong", "My reading of the holy book is the right one, you're misunderstood", "You don't understand", "No matter how much evidences you'll show me to state otherwise, I will always believe in god because I feel him", "You're getting the verses out of context", "God, or the holy book, is too complicated for us to understand him fully", "Science is the way god shows to us", "The Theory of Evolution is not a fact", "God answers all my questions, I don't need science to provide them to me", "It's easier to believe that the creator has always existed than the world had begun with a big bang", "We didn't create our god, he created us", "The holy book is the same now as it was when it was written".
Xdyj: I would like to see that and compare the arguments of one and another, it would be an interesting discussion. Too bad we don't have here any of those.
Xdyj: I would like to see that and compare the arguments of one and another, it would be an interesting discussion. Too bad we don't have here any of those.
Giansar: That's true, but they claim otherwise: that their religion is unique, very different from the other ones. And always say that their holy book and their god are the right ones and the others are wrong and they're going to hell. It's a very funny thing to watch.
I don't think it has anything to do with belonging to one of the three "main" religions. Nor do I think that it has to do with the notion that they believe in the same 'god'. The fact is that their faith is just that: FAITH. A belief that cannot be tested for its reliability, other than the fact that the religion itself exists. But the focus OF that religion is, in the end, a god, which cannot be proven.
Also, faith is not knowledge. It's just "faith", which means that even though you don't have reliable proof that such-and-such is true, you believe it anyway, based on--faith!
And since the object of this faith is unprovable, and those who follow believe in the supernatural, and since strong faith in this thing is ultimately irrational, they are exceedingly defensive whenever their irrational belief is challenged. Some of them get downright violent, some begin calling names, insulting, threatening, cursing, and so on. Their foundation for really GOOD argument is so weak that they have to fight loud, long, and hard to defend their religion.
And you're right Nicia, it is a very funny thing to watch! :D
Whirlwind wrote: "...since strong faith in this thing is ultimately irrational, they are exceedingly defensive whenever their irrational belief is challenged."Belief system can be effectively challenged only if the people who profess if allow it to be challenged. That is exactly what I was writing about some time ago: rational and irrational don't mix. You can have a legitimate belief system that suits you and guide you through your life and the fact that it is improvable is irrelevant (in fact if objectives of a belief system can be proved, it is not a belief system any more). At the same time you can live a perfectly rational life. You can be a scientist and your faith will in no way interfere with your scientific work.
Unless of course you mix the two. Then you will start to come up with stuff like hydroplate theory and focus your life effort on proving that Earth is flat and supported by a giant turtle.
Well Giansar, there are lots of beliefs if you get down to that. For example, the idea that skinny is beautiful, or that tattoos are ugly and therefore undesirable, or that you should be able to protest on public land. But we're talking about religious belief, which isn't as tangible, and can't be judged by personal taste, aesthetic appreciation, or public interests. (There are of course more criteria than these, but you get my point.) But belief systems are challenged all of the time regardless of whether the believers allow it or not!
In some cases, rational and irrational sometimes do mix, because an otherwise perfectly rational adult who makes their living say, as an accountant, might still believe in 'god', much like you said above.
Yes one can have a belief system (of ethics, morality, law, family life, etc., all of which for argument's sake, lie outside of religious faith) but it's religion that is the big boogey-man, purporting to be incorruptible, pure, fair, loving, humane, upright, righteous . . . and, of course . . . right! But it's not. Religion is as human as you can get, and if there is a divinity then why hasn't it saved religion from itself? If that 'god' is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, why doesn't it destroy all of the priests who have raped and sodomized children, and kill off all the families who burn their daughters over dowry disputes? Hmmm . . . isn't this 'god' a little bit incompetent? That's what I would ask of the religious out there. I'd ask them if it isn't just a little bit futile to believe in a 'god' that would expose their offspring to such hideous abuses. Isn't this 'great god' supposed to protect us all from harm?
PS, have you been reading Terry Pratchett? LOL :D
Whirlwind wrote: "If that 'god' is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, why doesn't it destroy all of the priests who have raped and sodomized children, and kill off all the families who burn their daughters over dowry disputes? Hmmm . . . isn't this 'god' a little bit incompetent? That's what I would ask of the religious out there. I'd ask them if it isn't just a little bit futile to believe in a 'god' that would expose their offspring to such hideous abuses. Isn't this 'great god' supposed to protect us all from harm? "Well...
I can see how some would take up this challenge.
Others though would just answer you with Romans 11:33
And what would you say to that?
Right. So here's the thing. "God" is the name with which they have labeled this unknowable source of all things. This universe is without doubt, truly wonderful. I don't know anyone who isn't fascinated by the universe in some way or another. We all are. How we got here and why, nobody knows and I'm sure we will never know. BUT! At source, is it a 'god'? Is there really a 'being' out there somewhere, with human-like attributes? That is worthy of worship? That is a male essence? Is there really a superhuman, supernatural being with a 'mind' who set out to created the world, and all human beings from nothing? Why do they insist on calling it 'him', and why didn't people seem to know anything about this 'god' until just a couple of thousand years ago, because human beings have been on this earth for 2 million years. Would 'he' not have made 'himself' known to humans long, long before Islam, Christianity and Judaism? Before civilization? What was 'he' waiting for all that time?
I'd still say that they have no real way of explaining or proving, only anecdotal stories of experiences, or repetitions of what they've been told of their tradition. If there's a 'god' then how can there still be so many gods and goddess, and how can there have been so many in the past two millennia?
And then I'd remind them to recall that their holy book was penned by humans, claiming to have been 'inspired by god'; how can we trust the veracity of those claims---by men? 'Cause we all know that men can lie!
Furthermore, we KNOW that the bible has been re-written so many countless times that it's become so watered-down as to have become a bit of a joke. What was the original story? How can it be reliable when we don't know if the translations were any good in the first place? None of us were here back then so we have no real way of knowing. Besides, all religions came into being, and the 'god' they talk about just happened to come into being at precisely the same time! Funny, huh?
This is just a beginning. I have to get ready for work.
Ah, you still trying to rationalize.You don't ask why, you don't seek proof, you don't question, you don't doubt. And if you feel like it, you go to your priest or rabbi or imam or whatever your minister is and he (or maybe even she nowadays) will explain to you why you are wrong.
The thing about religion is that it isn't rational, but emotional. That's why it's so difficult to argue with believers, we are talking in different frequencies.
I actually agree with you, to an extent...
Tina wrote: "I actually agree with you, to an extent..."
Which is...
Which is...
Giansar wrote: "go to your priest or rabbi or imam or whatever your minister is and he (or maybe even she nowadays) will explain to you why you are wrong. ..."I couldn't help noticing this comment: even SHE nowadays .
I just want to take that one little phrase of yours for now if I may, and point out to you that for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, women were priestesses, healers, medicine women, prophets, writers, prophesiers, philosophers, poets, teachers, preachers and deacons. And in fact, they still are.
The problem with the world of organized religion (the disgraceful after-effects of which we witness to this day) took place when the male got hold of too much power (tyranny) and the patriarchy took hold. It systematically destroyed the statues of the ancient goddesses and attempted to erase all trace of Her existence, so neurotically jealous and intimidated by Her life-giving powers were the males of ancient times.
The oppressive and tyrannical attitudes towards the Feminine began, and religion was their main instrument with which they managed to achieve their goal of destroying the power of the Feminine.
So be careful how you say, "even she nowadays", as if any achievement by a woman is something noteworthy. It is what it is--very natural, self-generated and spontaneous. Achievement by the female gender has been in existence since the beginning of time and there's nothing newsworthy or surprising about it. The only thing standing in her way is NOT her ability or intelligence, it is OPPRESSION! When we put emphasis on her success like you just did, ("even SHE"), what you're saying is, "Gosh--a WOMAN actually got THAT job! Wow! Imagine! A woman!" It's unwritten and unspoken, but it's there if one reads between the lines.
This is one of the reasons why I happen to deplore religion...not spirituality, not even god if one wants to believe in one or a hundred gods or goddesses. But SHE has been vilified for many centuries by men with nothing less than massive brainwashing. The state of women especially in the middle east and in third world countries is a direct result of thinking, training and conditioning--it is NOT a naturally occurring, divinely caused "fact". It was created by THE MALE. The result? The women of the world were controlled in every way possible.
They systematically repressed and opposed the feminine principle with the new religions, and The Sacred Feminine was almost destroyed. With propaganda of sexual "immorality" and all sorts of ridiculous accusations about her gender, her power, authority and status were gradually overturned. And then came the rise of phallicism, domination and control. Lies have been the greatest weapons of Patriarchy from the very beginning.
Was that enough? No. Here is a quote:
"Donimation was not absolute [...] there had to be more--an idea of immanent, eternal maleness that was not physical, visible, or fallible [...] one God, God the Father, who man now invented in his own image."
Christopher Hitchens wrote, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I recommend it to everyone here. I'm not saying it's a great book and I'm not saying that it's going to persuade anyone, but it will do one thing: open up many eyes. Maybe it will "even" make one think.
And then read Natural Superiority of Women, by Ashley Montagu. The truth is not that there is a "God", but that this "God" was created in "Man's" image, for his convenience, and in order for men to dominate. When religions were established, humanity was much younger, less wise, more isolated, naive, superstitious, fearful of the universe and nature, and still in the dark as to the workings of biology, to name but one of the several Sciences.
There is no reason to believe old lies in these times. It will eventually, all be overturned and religion will gradually lose its hold on the minds of the people it seeks to control. But that might take another 2,000 years to undo.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Share and share alike, but please remember the difference between sharing and pushing (or peddling).