Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 3,851-3,900 of 12,463

[Old-Barbarossa]

cs wrote: "Are you not able to read back on the previous posts yourself, I have twice before answered your question and 'cut and pasted' once. You are becoming monotonous now..."

But I also posted something ages ago that disproves your whole arguement...but can't be arsed cutting and pasting it here.
Therefore I win the arguement.
Jeebus...the thread is 3986 posts long...who can be bothered reading them all to find a point or two?
I (maybe rather naively) assume we have better things to do with our time.
I have a coffee to drink at the minute, and some Van Morrison to listen to.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Lila wrote: "Here are a couple of definitions of 'religion', so you'll know I didn't just make up my own (although there's nothing wrong with it):..."

I think you missed the definition of religion that is generally agreed upon and relevant to this discussion:

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

or

Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

etc, etc, etc

The term is generally used in relation to a belief in a deity and any other meaning tends to be secondary.

[Gary]

Lila wrote: " I think that when it comes right down to it, science is religion. Just like anything else a person strongly believes in, dedicates her/his life to it. "

I'm afraid not. Science done properly is the opposite of religion. In religion belief comes first and people interpret what they experience by that belief. The model they use to describe the universe is unquestionable.

In science the first thing you question is the model you use. If you believe in Science, you are doing it wrong. If you accept say "gravity" as a good model that tells you how far and fast something will fall, that's fine. But if you believe its the absolute correct answer, you're wrong.

(E.g. modern GPS and navigation has to take into account that Newton wasn't precisely correct and in fact had used the wrong model. Einstein worked out a more complete model, but it is still incomplete.)

Lila wrote: "Even atheists have a strong belief in non-existence of God.

Nope. Not really. No more a strong belief in the non-existence of god than a strong belief in the non-existence of the Easter Bunny, or Hat the vulture-headed god of unexpected guests.

Think how much you firmly believe the goddess "Pax" doesn't exist.

Theists like to think that atheists "believe with all their heart", probably because they cannot imagine themselves not believing in something and having an open mind.

"If atheism is a religion then abstinence is a sexual position."

The whole problem with religion is that it requires adherence and belief even when it becomes outdated. Around the world people are still oppressed for their gender or their sexuality because even kind and compassionate theists are not allowed to say "hey the Bible/Qu'ran is wrong on this point!"

Lila wrote: "And to also stray a little from the direct question, religion founded on spirituality is not the only one that should be subject to scrutiny, especially when used for.asinine purposes."

Agreed. Soviet communism for example is often proclaimed an "atheist" ideology, but in fact it deifies the ideology itself. The state saw religion as a competing ideology, not something that was obsolete.

How dirty would most US creationists feel when they realise that the communists also attacked evolution and genetics believing that they were a "capitalist" world view and "a bourgeois pseudo-science". The soviet alternative "Lysenkoism" invented by a non-scientifically trained farmer resulted in crop failures and famine.

Lila wrote: "There's been plenty if evil done in the name if science inadvertently or on purpose. It's us, human beings that make a conscious choice to do good or evil. "

I think you will find that science was used to do evil, rather than doing it in "science's name". Far more evil has been done and is still being done because of religion. From 9/11 to stoning of women, to abuse of women and homosexuals. A lot of this is being done by people who are being actively told that what they are doing is good because it is "God's Will".

Lila wrote: "Those who believe in God know or at lst should that first and foremost,.God.gave us free will."

Actually that isn't a Christian belief, it's a pagan one. Read Genesis. God didn't "give" Adam & Eve free will, they stole it on urging from the Serpent. It wasn't even their fault they stole it because they didn't know stealing was wrong until they stole the knowledge of Good and Evil. Then they were punished by God for a crime the committed when they couldn't understand what crimes were because God had forbid them the knowledge! What a git!

[Hazel]

Lila, I was going to reply personally to your post, but Gary's covered what I was going to say remarkably well.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "I agree. God gave us free will but maybe atrocity is the people's choise."

Yet again "god" and "religion" is absolved and actually obeying the religion and commiting atrocities is somehow the fault of the person who truly believed what they told.

At least terrorists and extremists are intellectually honest! Yet it is the moderates who blame the extremists and yet condone the words they were convinced by that continue the travesty.

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Numbers 31
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

That would be Moses under God's instruction, prosecuting a war, a massacre, and then the rape of the female prisoners who are too young to be married.

If a person acts on these words in the bible (or on similar in the Qu'ran) because they truly believe, are they at fault for not putting their own intuitive morality above god's will?

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "I understand what you're saying. I'm well aware of current position of atheist on religion."

I'm afraid your original post didn't relate that fact and stated several things which are completely false and common misconceptions held by the religious.

Lila wrote: "However, we are talking if two different things. Your opinion on religion as a belief in a deity/ deities and my opinion that religion doesn't have to be a belief in a god/gods only."

Actually I agree with you here, religion does not have to be a belief in a deity, it can also be believe in an ideology or a paradigm. However, the difference is "belief".

A true scientist doesn't "believe" in science, they accept current understanding with a critical mind and should be willing to discard ideas for better ones with suitable truth.

A true atheist doesn't "believe" in the absence of gods, they simply discount all gods equally, and should be open minded to the idea that if a deity was proved to them they would accept the existence. However, this would still not belief, it would be accepting evidence. Just like you don't need to "believe" you are looking at a display now.

Lila wrote: " Besides, it would be just arguing for the sake if argument. Let's be honest, neither you are going to convert me to atheism, nor am I going to be converting you to theism."

And there is the problem with "belief". Personally I once was a Christian, perhaps I could be converted to a religion again, I do try to keep an open mind. However, it's faith that closes minds and turns debates into arguments.

So if you don't want to take part in a debate, stating your opinion and the rationale and evidence behind that opinion, and then listening and considering the counter point then you should probably just register your answer to the original question without corroboration and then move on like so many others.

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "How can it be a religion if you don't have to believe in a god? What are you believing in?
Can you have a religion without a god figure of some kind?

I'm confused on that point.."

Religion is the point that "Faith" gets involved rather than the supernatural.

Scientology is a religion, though I believe it doesn't have "gods" in the manner usually envisioned, communism is a religion which postulates certain ideologies to be fundamentally true in spite of evidence to the contrary.

You could also start a religion based around "the Matrix" movies that would be as hard to conclusively disprove as any other idea. (Ironic concerning the metaphysical content of those films.) The "new age/Bill Hicks/Minbari/we are all god" concept that we are the awareness of the universe made manifest is also a religion.

There is no doubt even stranger examples out there.

Religion is when people put faith in a concept.

[Hazel]

The interesting thing though, is that buddhism is often labelled as atheist, because they don't worship a deity.

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "Here are a couple of definitions of 'religion', so you'll know I didn't just make up my own (although there's nothing wrong with it):

1. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

2. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

As soon as you place faith before reason, you are placing your ego over your rationality.

If you think it isn't ego and that faith equates to humility, try questioning people's faith and see the anger that rises as its viewed as a personal attack on them.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I agree. God gave us free will but maybe atrocity is the people's choise."

Yet again "god" and "religion" is absolved and actually obeying the religion and commiting atrocities is someh..."
God and Religion. It seems, here at goodreads at least, that the atheist is not able to separate God and religion, and the only way to attack, criticise or argue against a god is through religion.

Because many atheists use the philosophical approach to their argument, this hinders their way of thinking because the philosophical approach is not able to separate god from religion.

[Hazel]

woah, de javu.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Anyone like to answer this please...
What is god without religion then?

[[deleted user]]

Like I said already, whatever makes you happy guys. :-) I may have been interested in what you had to say at the beginning of that post, but after you have effectively bullied out if the discussion anyone who doesn't subscribe to your to cause (belief is apparently not PC), your responses are self-gratifying and no longer carry any meaning. You certainly are defending your stance with religious effort. Despite your probable wishes Goodreads is not a polemical website and you don't have all the answers you think you do.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "God and Religion. It seems, here at goodreads at least, that the atheist is not able to separate God and religion.
It is not a lack of atheists being able to separate god and religion. You assume that god exists because you believe he does. Therefore that belief is religion because there is no definitive evidence to support this claim and you obviously are not presenting the idea of god as a hypothetical model which may or may not be true.

(Just one qualifier, religion usually refers to a "public" quality to this belief, but since you have previously pointed out that you belong to a society that has been unavoidably influenced by religion, that qualifies as the public aspect. Especially as before the Aten there are no records of patriarchal male one gods.)

cs wrote: "Because many atheists use the philosophical approach to their argument, this hinders their way of thinking because the philosophical approach is not able to separate god from religion. "
Again you don't seem to understand the term "philosophy". Please tell me what alternative you are talking about?

Philosophy is the rational discussion of general or major questions of existence. The only alternative is the irrational approach which would either be stating opinions as fact without reason or evidence. That is in essence what faith is, and thereby religion. (Though religion still likes to use rational debate and 'evidence' within the context of a pre-determined idea.

cs wrote: "and the only way to attack, criticise or argue against a god is through religion."

Perhaps it is because you assume the existence of a god you cannot see that the assumption is itself a religion? I.e. based on belief and faith?

Actually the original question of this discussion was about a preference between "religion and science". So if you think god is separate from religion then he is also irrelevant to this discussion. By your argument.

Alternatively I am happy to discuss god through other means than religion. Which means would you prefer?

I am also happy to discuss god within the context of a religion, as how else can you get information about the god to which you refer?

Summary (Just in case you miss what questions I would like you to answer.)

1. What methodology of discussion do you prefer or propose to use instead of "philosophy"?

2. What basis for the existence of a god are you basing your distinction of other than religion?

Hope that helps, this way you will not give the (perhaps mistaken) impression of missing questions. Feel free to summarise questions you would like me to respond to in a similar manner.

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "but after you have effectively bullied out if the discussion anyone who doesn't subscribe to your to cause (belief is apparently not PC), your responses are self-gratifying and no longer carry any meaning."

May I ask who this was meant to be a response to? Personally I think the whole point of a discussion is to engage people who don't subscribe to the same ideas. Otherwise it is not a discussion. I would prefer that an open mind be kept on both sides, unfortunately as you have implied the whole point of faith is to not have an open mind to other ideas.

That isn't an insult, it is just what was said about not changing peoples minds.

Lila wrote: "You certainly are defending your stance with religious effort."

Indeed. However, the difference is that I have changed my mind once already, I am open to the idea it may be changed again, with new data.

Passion and fervour is not exclusive to religion, and neither is knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Lila wrote: "Despite your probable wishes Goodreads is not a polemical website and you don't have all the answers you think you do. ."

Are you arguing that we shouldn't be arguing here? That seems ... redundant. Personally I am intrigued by the question as posted and the strange mindsets of some of the responders who would choose religion above the thing that allows them to even make the comment.

Lila wrote: "you don't have all the answers you think you do. ."

Maybe not. In fact the point of science itself is that sometimes we don't know the answer, yet, but that doesn't mean we should make up the answer. We used to think that lightening was gods wrath, but now you are communicating via a tamed form of it.

But still I would honestly like to hear the questions that I may not have answers to. I will try to answer them as clearly and honestly as I can.

[Travis]

Lila wrote: "Like I said already, whatever makes you happy guys. :-) I may have been interested in what you had to say at the beginning of that post, but after you have effectively bullied out if the discussio..."


I wouldn't take it too personally. Every couple pages the conversation gets cantankerous, but then it settles down and we drift into conversations about Sean Bean, head transplant surgery or ice cream.
(Oh, if only I was making that list up!)

Nobody is here to be mean, but at the same time no one on this thread is likely to take 'because I say so' as an answer.
Being a book site that means we are readers and unfortunately, reading leads to thinking and, as you can see here, that causes all sorts of trouble and then you realize why the romans tended to kill philosophers.

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "I may have been interested in what you had to say at the beginning of that post, but after you have effectively bullied out if the discussion anyone who doesn't subscribe to your to cause (belief is apparently not PC)."

Sorry, missed a bit.

In my opinion the idea that we should not question faith is an anathema to civilised discourse.

If a person is a racist and advances the belief that people of certain ethnicities are inferior, I don't think the response "well everyone is entitled to believe what they want" is an ethical response.

If a person advances the belief that they have been told by god to rid the world of whores I would be greatly concerned and would hope to have the courage to tell them to seek help before they become the next ripper.

So when a person tells you that they believe in an incredibly powerful being with miraculous powers that has rules for us to live by and a list of things that are good and bad, I feel it is actually immoral not to challenge that just as I would challenge a racist, a sexist, an activist or a scientist who professes an idea that if acted on could have severe consequences.

We challenge other peoples beliefs and opinions all the time. With the nature of reality and the harshest of punishments in question, why shouldn't religious convictions also be questioned?

[Xdyj]

cs wrote: "Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I agree. God gave us free will but maybe atrocity is the people's choise."

Yet again "god" and "religion" is absolved and actually obeying the religion and commiting atroci..."

But what is your definition of God? To define something you have to come up with a list of essential properties, usually (unless you are a deist) coming from texts like bible or Quran, otherwise I can call my teacup "God" and claim that God exists.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Travis wrote: "...and then you realize why the romans tended to kill philosophers..."

Philosopher feckers with their big brains and literacy...bastards, throw them to the lions!

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Lila wrote: "I may have been interested in what you had to say at the beginning of that post, but after you have effectively bullied out if the discussion anyone who doesn't subscribe to your to ca..."

You are entitled to your beliefs, but that's it. People have to accept that is what you believe, but that doesn't get you a magic shield from questioning, skepticism or the occasional bit of snark.

[Hazel]

Xdyj wrote: "cs wrote: "Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I agree. God gave us free will but maybe atrocity is the people's choise."

Yet again "god" and "religion" is absolved and actually obeying the religion and commi..."

ah, xdyj, there you've hit on another doozy, as you see, cs has said multiple times that you cannot understand or define god, it is beyond comprehension or definition... of course he then goes on to do just that, but we've come to expect him to be hypocritical.

[Travis]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Travis wrote: "...and then you realize why the romans tended to kill philosophers..."

Philosopher feckers with their big brains and literacy...bastards, throw them to the lions!"

Believe me, you take a college philosophy course and by the end of the semester you'll be sympathizing with the romans.
Bunch of know it alls in togas...!

[Old-Barbarossa]

Travis wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Travis wrote: "...and then you realize why the romans tended to kill philosophers..."

Philosopher feckers with their big brains and literacy...bastards, throw them to the li..."

Hemlock tea is too good for them!

Who was the chap that lived in a barrel? Maniacs the lot of them...

[cerebus]

Lila wrote: "...but after you have effectively bullied out if the discussion anyone who doesn't subscribe to your to cause..."
I am interested in who you feel has been bullied, and by whom?

[Hazel]

Travis wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Travis wrote: "...and then you realize why the romans tended to kill philosophers..."

Philosopher feckers with their big brains and literacy...bastards, throw them to the li..."

when you live with a theology and philosophy student who manages to come out with a 1st degree without going to most lectures, you can sympathise with the romans too, how dare someone be that intelligent...(an it was intelligence, not an easy course, I looked at the course materials)

[Hazel]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Who was the chap that lived in a barrel? Maniacs the lot of them..."

Didactylos...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Cerebus wrote: "I am interested in who you feel has been bullied, and by whom?"

How dare you ask a question and expect an answer! I am offended that you are not just accepting statements but have the gall to challenge them!
Sorry...
I am turning into Bakrauf...

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Gary wrote: "Lila wrote: "I may have been interested in what you had to say at the beginning of that post, but after you have effectively bullied out if the discussion anyone who doesn't subscribe ..."

No, it doesn't, you're right. I have questioned myself and my actions numerous times and I'll undoubtedly do it many times more. I've never claimed to have a right to a magic shield and I would never presume to force what I believe on another person. Occasional snark is fine with me too, this thread however is not tinted with occasional snark, it's filled with condescension towards those who do not agree. Being well-versed in scientific facts doesn't make a person superior to others who are not.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Lila wrote: "Being well-versed in scientific facts doesn't make a person superior to others who are not..."

No...but it does tend to make their arguement more robust.
Whereas someone well versed in scripture (of whatever kind) may put forward arguements that are open to dispute even by those using the same texts...see the 30 years war for a classic example.

[Hazel]

what does being versed in scientific facts have to do with the understanding that the tool of science is not a religion? A completely scientifically illiterate person can come to that conclusion, as long as they understand that science is an evidence based process of learning, whereas religion, and belief in a god, any god, is a faith based statement of absolute "truth", which does not waver despite evidence to the contrary.

As mr minchin puts it "science adjusts its views according to observation, whereas faith is the denial of observation in order to maintain belief". Science, by any definition, is in no way a religion,it requires no faith.

[cerebus]

Lila wrote: "Occasional snark is fine with me too, this thread however is not tinted with occasional snark, it's filled with condescension towards those who do not agree."
Again, can you please highlight instances where responses are 'filled with condescension'?

Lila wrote: "Being well-versed in scientific facts doesn't make a person superior to others who are not. "
It doesn't make someone superior, you are correct, but it does make their points more relevant in issues of science. Similarly if you are well-versed in issues of translation, then your points in that area are more relevant than mine whose entire experience with the subject is Google Translate. It's the nature of expertise.

[Maria]

Shannon - you said that your students "think it's wrong to celebrate something that's based in a lie" - referring to Thanksgiving. How do they feel about celebrating Christmas, which is also based on a lie? It claims to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ - but everyone knows he really wasn't born on December 25th - that's the date of the pagan feast of Saturnalia - we've discussed that here before as well.

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "No, it doesn't, you're right. I have questioned myself and my actions numerous times and I'll undoubtedly do it many times more."

That is the beginning of wisdom. (In my opinion :-D)

Lila wrote: "Occasional snark is fine with me too, this thread however is not tinted with occasional snark, it's filled with condescension towards those who do not agree.

Have you seen the condescension and scorn from the theist side? Statements have been made that atheists "have difficulty thinking" "don't understand" or are "just wrong". All without any sort of rationale or evidence other than the theist's belief that they are right.

Lila wrote: "Being well-versed in scientific facts doesn't make a person superior to others who are not."

Of course not, but then again not many 'scientific facts' have come up in the discussion. Unfortunately, I find people who believe but do not have the knowledge or articulation to support their beliefs and claims often respond as if they are being condescended to. This is not the case.

If I make a statement (whether based on what is traditionally scientific grounds or not) I am perfectly ready to explain why this is my opinion and make reference to the facts and rationale that led me to that opinion. If a person responds in kind then I will either accept their points, or point out where and why I disagree. That is the core of civil discourse.

However, statements that are "I believe this and if you say I am wrong then you are being nasty to me" are at best not constructive to a discussion. Repeating opinions without giving reasons mean that the only options are to either respond honestly and risk being labelled 'condescending' or degenerate into an endless "are too", "am not" childishness.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Maria wrote: " How do they feel about celebrating Christmas, which is also based on a lie? It claims to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ - but everyone knows he really wasn't born on December 25th - that's the date of the pagan feast of Saturnalia - we've discussed that here before as well"

Sure you can celebrate "christmas" without any religion the same way you can use the word Wednesday to describe a day without getting into a longship and plundering in the name of Odin/Wotan.
As to the "lie" of the birth of Jesus and the thanksgiving thing, truth becomes subservient to tradition...few that burn things in the UK on Nov 5th are rabid anti-catholic royalists (though I'm sure some are).

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Science, by any definition, is in no way a religion,it requires no faith.
"
Actually, if you look up in any dictionary, that of requiring faith is not the only definition of religion. And why is it such a point of contention, anyway?

Anyway, you guys are obviously devoted to science and know it well. I respect that. It's just that world ruled by science only (in reference to the original question) would not give humanity the utopia we wish we had.

[Maria]

Sure, you can celebrate anything you want without regard for what it originally stood for. Most people do. But since the students were obviously taking a moral stand against celebrating something based on fallacies, then that would pretty much eliminate all "christian" holidays - halloween, easter, mother's day - all can trace their roots back to pagan celebrations.

[cerebus]

Lila wrote: "It's just that world ruled by science only (in reference to the original question) would not give humanity the utopia we wish we had. "
Do you think this utopia is attainable, and if so, and if it is not with science that we will attain it, how can it be achieved?

Lila wrote: "Actually, if you look up in any dictionary, that of requiring faith is not the only definition of religion. And why is it such a point of contention, anyway? "
because it is a common comment made by those of faith in an attempt to place religion and science on an equal footing, to imply there is some equivalence. They are not equivalent.

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "all can trace their roots back to pagan celebrations."
So are you saying christians should stop celebrating these?

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "Actually, if you look up in any dictionary, that of requiring faith is not the only definition of religion...."

Well looking it up in www.dictionary.com (google's dictionary of choice) out of 5 definitions 4 had the term "belief" in it, and the one that didn't was "4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc."

Lila wrote: "And why is it such a point of contention, anyway?

Because belief denies questions and clings to ideas even after they are shown to be false.

"Ideas are better. People can change an idea, changing a belief is trickier, people die for beliefs, people kill for beliefs" - Rufus (Dogma)

Lila wrote: "Anyway, you guys are obviously devoted to science and know it well. I respect that. It's just that world ruled by science only (in reference to the original question) would not give humanity the utopia we wish we had.

Some maybe, but that's beside the point. Science in its purest form is just the search for knowledge. When the existence of god was a good idea to explain the world around us, that was for all intents and purposes science. However, it became a religion which meant that idea, became a belief, and the belief became unquestionable.

You can't really have a world "ruled by science" that is like saying a world "ruled by reading". Science is a mental tool and methodology that incorporates the best ways we can formulate of discovering truths without our own beliefs and ego misguiding us.

Without 'science' we would not have any of our inventions or comforts that we enjoy today, from medicine and computers to shelters and fire. Without religion we may indeed have postulated the existence of god or gods, but without belief and faith to propagate it, it would have probably fell into disuse as more reliable explanations and ideas were discovered.

Before you think that science leads to arrogance, please consider two things. First the scientific mindset means it's ok not to know all the answers, and yet still hope to find them one day, and when people say that God made man in his image they are also in a roundabout way that god is in ours. Considering the scale and splendour of the universe, I can't think of anything more arrogant than saying "a person created all this who was just like me!"

[Old-Barbarossa]

Cerebus wrote: "Maria wrote: "all can trace their roots back to pagan celebrations."
So are you saying christians should stop celebrating these?"

I suppose it would depend on the style of christianity being practiced, I note above that "truth becomes subservient to tradition" in many rituals. By this I mean that the pagan origin becomes irrelevant in many cases and will not taint the christianity of the ritual as far as the faithful are concerned.

[Callie]

As a Christian, I would have to say a world with out religion. Shocking I know! There is a difference between religion and a faith or belief in a God, or Gods. People seem to forget that. I don't believe in organised religion, a church is just a building. I do believe in God. I am glad that others believe differently then I do! How boring would this world be if we were all the same?

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Sure, you can celebrate anything you want without regard for what it originally stood for. Most people do. But since the students were obviously taking a moral stand against celebrating something based on fallacies, then that would pretty much eliminate all "christian" holidays - halloween, easter, mother's day - all can trace their roots back to pagan celebrations."

A lot of those celebrations are based on Solar festivals which actually make logical sense to celebrate.

Christmas - It's cold and dark, but from now on its getting lighter.
Easter - It's Spring and hey, everyone is feeling a bit frisky.
Halloween - Its the end of the year and the harvest is (hopefully) gathered to see us through the winter.

I've omitted the summer celebration as this one people are generally happy about anyway. :-)

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "Being well-versed in scientific facts doesn't make a person superior to others who are not.."
I am reasonably well versed in Christian scripture and history too (at least compared to the average Christian) and have debated Christian apologists using said scripture.

I am more than happy to use scripture to illustrate why religion is a bad thing. I am frequently very grateful that despite the best efforts of evangelists, a lot of scripture is quietly ignored. A pity that they still use the bits that conveniently support their own misogyny and homophobia.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Gary wrote: "Easter - It's Spring and hey, everyone is feeling a bit frisky...I've omitted the summer celebration as this one people are generally happy about anyway"

Please someone...tell the weather elves to sort the actual weather out to match the seasons the gods have promised us!
Again, sorry...I am Bakrauf...

[Maria]

Cerebus wrote: "So are you saying christians should stop celebrating these?"

If they claim to be true Christians, which means that they imitate Christ, then yes. I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus or any of the other apostles celebrated Christ's birthday. The only birthday celebration I can recall being mentioned is that of Herod - and that's when John the Baptist was beheaded.

If they believe in following what is set out in the Bible, then yes. If God wanted his followers to celebrate something as important as the birth of Christ, don't you think he would have at least mentioned it in the Bible? The Bible is usually so horribly detailed in it's instructions - don't you think that the whole schlemeel of trees, lights, presents, etc would have been described in sort of a how-to manner? Like I said before, people just want a reason to have family over, be kind to their fellows, eat, drink, be merry, etc. They don't care that it is NOT a Christian holiday. So really, whatever someone's conscience allows I suppose.

"By this I mean that the pagan origin becomes irrelevant in many cases and will not taint the christianity of the ritual as far as the faithful are concerned."


The pagan origin cannot help but taint the ritual. At least as far as the Bible says - do not mix light with darkness...

[Callie]

What is wrong with celebrating to or three different things on the same day?! lol! I love the comment about everyone feeling a little frisky in the spring by the way! The rabbit is a pagan symbol for fertility. Or so I have heard.

[cerebus]

Callie wrote: "People seem to forget that."
Actually, read back a bit and you will see that it is a commonly expressed idea here, one that not all of us agree with.

[Callie]

Cerebus wrote: "Callie wrote: "People seem to forget that."
Actually, read back a bit and you will see that it is a commonly expressed idea here, one that not all of us agree with."

Oh, yes! I see it now. Thanks for pointing that out. :)

[Old-Barbarossa]

Maria wrote: "The pagan origin cannot help but taint the ritual. At least as far as the Bible says - do not mix light with darkness..."

If this is the case then you could probably throw out most of christianity due to pagan origins/influences.
Also, your definition of "true Christians" seems to rule out many christians on the planet. For many christianity is more than just the text of the bible...you seem to view the majority of christians as heretics.

[Gary]

Callie wrote: "As a Christian, I would have to say a world with out religion. Shocking I know!

Not so much shocking as interesting, unfortunately the rest of your statement seems to undermine your point.

Callie wrote: "There is a difference between religion and a faith or belief in a God, or Gods. People seem to forget that.

Unfortunately they haven't forgotten. If you are a Christian then you are part of that religion. Whether you go to a church, or a JW meeting hall, or just pray in private, you are still believing in a religion.

Religion is a system of beliefs. If you believe in Christ you are following the Christian system of beliefs, or "religion" for short.

Where did you get your knowledge of Christ? Was it parents, school, evangelists, TV? Just because it wasn't Church or sunday school doesn't mean its not a religion.

Callie wrote: "I don't believe in organised religion, a church is just a building. I do believe in God. I am glad that others believe differently then I do! How boring would this world be if we were all the same?"

Diversity is indeed good, unfortunately it is directly opposed by the faith in which you profess to believe. If you believe in Christ, do you follow the bible which states that everyone who fails to believe will be cast into the lake of fire? If you don't follow the teachings of Christ as related by the Church, by the Bible or by some other authority, how do you then say you are a Christian?