Is atheism a religion?

Remove all ads!

Still I do not understand you Chandos and I am reasonably familiar with the new testament. What I am wondering is how you decided that it was divinely inspired (or at least the parts you like)? What makes you believe that Jesus was god and not just a philosopher with, except for his delusions of grandeur, some pretty nice thougths and to this day quite revolutionary ideas?

This is what believers always do, they drag the discussion to a completely wrong level, discussing various parts of the bible or whether Sodom was once an actual place. That is irrelevent, how do you decide that the words of the Bible are divine? What makes you decide that Jesus was the son of god and that Mohammed was not a divinely inspired prophet? What is your reasoning for believing that the parts of the bible you agree with are divinely inspired while the koran, the book of mormon or scientology writings are not?

By judging by your post Chandos you believe that the son of Mary who was married to a carpenter named Josef who was not the child's father was conceived through a divine act and was thus the son of god? That he spread the word of this almighty being in a very limited way in the Roman province of Judea until he was executed for disturbing the peace and that he thus died to absolve us of our sins (what sins?)? Is this what you believe in? I mean, I thought you were different Chandos but you are not, you are more evasive and you still refuse to answer a direct question. Why is that? Do you yourself know what you believe in? I am not going to read up on Jung, was he divinely inspired? You write a lot of condenscending baloney but you refuse to answer the questions, what do you believe in? Why do you believe in that?

@pplr I prefer the fundamentalists for their honesty. They are generally a lot more unpleasant but at least they are honest in their believes. They do not just pick and choose what divine truth to believe in based on what feels good. If something is divine it must by definition be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To then not stand up for it shows a lack of backbone and yes, faith in your chosen religion. How can you think and rethink what is divine? Or wasn't it divine? If it was divine why would it need to be rethought?

 

I did not say they were. I said they were "inspired." Or if you would prefer they were moved by God, or the Holy Spirit, to write down the events they witnessed. The Four Gospels are very similar in that regard.

Good morning, pplr. They are indifferent to the history anyway.

Maybe you refuse to listen.

 

It appears you are using "honesty" and simplicity as the same when they shouldn't be. I gave you a simple foundation. However that foundation can lead people into an large range of complex situations and can involve people disagreeing. So there is a simple basis, but it may not stay simple.

And are you implying complex is somehow dishonest? If so that strikes me as writing off the potential for individual analysis when there isn't even agreement on where the Bible should taken literally (and even many Fundamentalists would say that at least a few parts shouldn't be).

 

I'm a Christian but I have to say I found this on Gods take on religion hilarious!

God is wondering where to go on holiday and asks St Peter for ideas 'What about Mercury?'
'Nah, too hot'
'Pluto?'
'Too cold'
'How about Earth?'
'You must be kidding! I went there about 2000 years ago, knocked up some woman and they're STILL talking about it!'

 

Joac - Since you refuse to do any reasearch on this, (I can see why you and fundamentalists have much in common), I will answer this question the best I can for you. I would say, yes, more than likely. Let me qualify this carefully: I think his research and intellectual curiosity into certain aspects of psychology and its link to spirituality, took him into some odd places. It is documented that he experienced dreams and visions that could be interpreted as "prophetic." He claimed to experience certain psychic phenomenon that is not easy explained, unless you just want to brush him off as a phony, or a charlatan. In that case, our discussion would be pointless. Church leaders often accuse Jung of being of the "occult" and that his reseach was dangerous and also that he founded the "New Age" movement. But that's just nonsense, IMO.

What is meant by the term "collective unconscious?"

I am not trying to upset you, but as pplr pointed out, these ideas are very complicated and not easy to write about. They fall outside the box of typical religious thinking, until their totality is understood, and only then do they make any real sense. But it is a process of understanding that can't be rattled off in a few lines with quotes from the Bible. It's not that simple. It touches on many areas of history, psychology, mythology, art and literature, and yes, religion (in both the conventional and unconventional sense of the word).

 

Well what I see is a man who has constructed an elaborate and extremely complicated thought construct to manage to convince himself to keep the religious beliefs of his childhood. When your rational brain tells you things do not make sense you build and you build on that construct until you are incapable of putting it in words at all.

Or I am just as you hinted at too stupid to understand the brilliant and profound truth you have discovered through your studies and meditation. Why should I read Jung? I am talking to you not him.

 

Where did I hint at that? The failure to put into words so easily is mine, not yours. Of course, you can go back to the evangelicals who believe that there are earthquakes in San Francisco to punish all the gay people.

 

I (and I think most educated Christians) do not 'pick and choose' which parts of the Bible to believe. What you probably think of as that is either considering the whole over individual parts of the whole, or various people disagreeing with interpretations of symbology and implications. It's easy to think and re-think this stuff, and the more we learn, the more we should think, but I don't ever discard any of it, or any of the evidence, just re-interpret it and the evidence in light of each other.

I find it odd how people (I don't know that you do this) can criticize both the tendency to blindly accept the Bible without questioning it, and the tendency to question and interpret it according to evidence. It's like telling someone they can't move, but they can't stand still, either.

Given that much of the Bible does not deal with scientific reality, and that much of the parts that do do so on a largely symbolic or metaphorical level, how can you expect people to do anything but analyze the evidence and the statements and try to match them up? How can you criticize this activity or complain when people do it? So long as nothing in either evidence or the Bible is discarded as inaccurate or the like, that is. Of course, the evidence is maleable under situations admitted by science (i.e. evidence of fraud or a radically new understanding of the principle).

 

I do not find it odd at all to criticize both kinds of faith. The fundamentalist way in obvious ways but to some extent even more so the moderate and more critical faith. When it comes to religion it is black and white, every one claims to be the divine truth of everything and either it is or it isn't. There can be no degrees of truth in religion, you either buy into it or you don't. What the "moderates" (I am going with that term) are doing is to try to both eat the cake and keep it at the same time. You can't do that. Either Allah is the god almighty and Muhammed his prophet or he isn't. Either Jesus was the embodiment of God or he wasn't. How can you question and still have faith? You either believe or you don't. Trying to create wriggle room is for me a cop out and shows a lack of dedication. Sure you can pick and choose what you like and design your own personal faith nothing inherently wrong in that but is it then Christianity? Who gets to interpret? This is just one of the many ways that illustrates how completely and utterly irrational religious faith is and you do not even need scientific evidence to show that it is damn hard to turn water into wine without a lot of sugar and a bunch of other stuff. The details are irrelevent for the argument, religion fails on a much more basic level.

You have a book, that is claimed to be divinely inspired that describes how the world and universe works on all levels. It makes a lot of claims and you are expected to believe in them at face value. Why would you not believe me if I claimed that I was the son of god and would lead you to paradise? If you believe that the Bible was divinely inspired when written, even if only in parts how can you decide what parts are and which are not.

 

Joacqin, the problem is you see us creating things that we aren't. Jesus IS God, and His word is the word of God, but how exactly do you interpret: "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was formless and void"? If you do it from our modern language and cultural perspective (creating something means actually making that thing, and not setting up preparations for it), you're missing a lot, I mean a lot. If you look at it from the ancient Hebrew perspective, you can see about a dozen different possibilities. I don't deny one word of the Bible, not one bit of it, but questioning what it means isn't denying it, just seeking clarification.

Basically, belief is black and white, but the Bible isn't. It's a beautiful tableau full of vibrant colors and subtle shades, and you can study it for a lifetime and still not notice everything there is to see in it.

 

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Yet, there are individuals who do not see the world in those black and white terms. Instead, they see a rich, diverse world filled with an enormous amount of content. They want to learn as much as they can from the collected wisdom of the ages, and at the same time, experience the knowledge and events of their own lives. (knowledge of one's self).

And you are right that some people don't need to contemplate such matters. They can just learn everything from a single book that is placed in front of them, like an instruction manual, and learn what they need to know and follow it exactly as it is written. That's religion for them. It works perfectly fine for them.

It's not my place to judge how they want to experience religion, and quite frankly, I don't much care. I'm not concerned with how people wish to develop themselves as individuals. It's only important that they do develop as individuals with as much freedom as they can reasonably have to become accomplished at whatever set of tasks they set themselves to doing. I'm not the Self-Appointed Great Nanny of the World.

Nevertheless, you made a point about what is the "real" religion. What you suggest is a very dangerous proposition, because when people believe they have the "absolute" truth in religion, they have a tendency to want to force everyone else to believe the same thing. Sorry, but in the end you are on the side of freedom and the individual, or you are not. Freedom is a necessary state for the development of the individual. Does God wish us to be clones, or individuals? Your turn to answer a question, Joac.

Edit: See, Joac, even NOG and I do not agree. I believe that Jesus is a diety "The Son of God," but not God Himself. But I have no problem with that, if that's what he believes.

 

Ah, now we get there Chandos! Isn't the very essence of religion and divinity that it is absolutely true? How can it be divine if it isn't? Now this is my biggest beef with religion as well, anyone who is convinced that they have divine justice on their side is capable of doing anything because it would be right, the last authority god says so. How can god be anything but absolute? If he he is not how can he be god? Again you are trying to have it both ways Chandos if there is a god there can be no freedom becaus he is the truth and everything if he was not he would not be a god but just a meddling very powerful entity. Now we might get down to semantics and the definition of what a god is.

A short answer to your question is if god exists we can never be anything but slaves.

 

Joac - You are trying to box me into believing that man can have the absolute knowledge of God. But we cannot accomplish that. God does not wish us to be slaves, and that is why we must spend our lives questioning and being creatures of reason. God may have the absolute knowledge of which you speak, but we don't.

 

I've been following this thread religiously (pun intended), and think I may have experienced some self-discovery. While I belong to a Catholic Church and make regular donations, even though I consider myself an agnostic, I think it may even be worse. I may be a Church-donating atheist. There cannot be many of us around.

 

Why do you donate then? Or is it the on the ground track record of Catholic charities? (Around here, said charities are quite well regarded by all and sundry)

As for the other points, particularily the cartoons Nataraja posted, well, it's all about context. I'm sure the cartoons are funny and grounded in both Biblical passages and other historical accounts and events, but the entirety of the Old and New Testaments can only be understood by someone who understand the overarching concepts involved in the story of God's covenants and dealings with mankind. That understanding can only be achieved if one studies the material both in context and with an open mind, not one merely seeking to criticize small elements before a full understanding is reached.

It is easy with any system of thought to take pieces out of context and mock them. I'm not sure how useful it is, mind you, but it is fun. But to me it borders on straw man argument, as what is being criticized as a silly belief does not accurately reflect what the true belief is.

 

Again, you're trying to imply clarity where there is only complexity. Nothing I have seen from Chandos implies that he rejects anything in the Bible, or that there is any comprimising on it's absolute authority, yet he and I disagree with interpretation on several points (and I would bet many more on top of that).

Joacqin, it may be better if you tried to give specifics, or examples. Where do you see Chandos not challenging or ignoring the absolute perfection of the Word of God?

Actually, this is a deep truth of Christianity. The only choice mankind has is who to be slaves to: Satan and our sins, or God and our perfection? God is a much kinder master, I assure you.

 

Well, we will have to disagree on this: Choosing the path of Virtue, The Path of Christ, or, as followers of "Christian Virtue," is to take a path which is of your own free will; it is a conscious and deliberate choice that is the source of excellence of character; choosing the path of sin is to be a slave to your own basic instincs, which leads to poorer character. Yet, freedom always has a price, and in this sense, it is the personal responsibilty we take for building our characters by embacing the virtues which Christ taught us.

 

Hah! Chandos, we agree completely, we just put a different spin on it. Even the apostles were divided on what analogy to apply. Paul, a legal expert, made several references to being a slave to Christ, in that it is no longer his will that lives through him, but rather His will. As he put it, "To live is Christ and to die is gain." Luke, a doctor, emphasises Christ's analogies to life and living things, with vines and branches, and parts of a body. At other times (and I'm not sure who wrote this, maybe Peter?) the analogy is made of building a structure. Still other times, it is Life and Freedom in Christ, where Christ is the one who sets captives free.

To live for Christ means to die to your old self, but that then lets a new self, a pure self, a self that is truely you without the restrictions and addictions of sin, grow free. That self, by it's nature, however, is wholely dedicated to Christ and His law. Is a vine a slave to the tressle it grows on? Yes, in that it can only go where the tressle lets it, but that tressle is the only way it can grow to it's true glory, and so the tressle frees it from life on the ground.

I still feel like I haven't put it well enough, and perhaps others who have put it far better than I felt the same way, but there it is and that's all I can do for now.

 

An athiest can also choose the path of virtue and strive to build an excellent character. The athiest just does so without the belief in the need to subjugate themselves to a greater being.

I would agree that if one is looking to better their character that the set of guidelines set down by Christ is a great resource, but why the need to follow a god - why not just follow the good advice? If you become a person of great character by following virtuous tenets while squashing your baser instincts with your own will power because those instincts are hurtful to others and yourself then why add a god to the mix when you can reach the same end on your own?

I'd be interested to hear what the two of you think, NOG and Chandos, if you would indulge me.

Atheism is not a religion, by the way. Who do they worship? Themselves? The pleasure of their vices? They don't need a good or evil force to follow.

 

Truth be told, I don't know what missions my money is used to support, nor do I particularly care. The reason I continue to donate is because I may need to use this church in the future.

You see, the home my wife and I own is not in a particularly wealthy area (it's quite poor in fact), and the public school system my son would attend is similarly quite poor. In fact, saying that it is poor may be giving it too much credit. It's rated as one of the worst in the county. The only way my son would go to a worse school in my general area is if we lived in a ghetto in center city Baltimore. (Note: I'm not suggesting my neighborhood is as dangerous to live in as a ghetto in center city Baltimore. We don't have gang violence or anything like that. It's just a very blue collar area with few people who make an above average salary.)

Now, while I fully understand that when rating the schools in an area from best to worst, that some schools are going to have to fall near the bottom of said list. That does not mean I have to send my son to one of them. The solution to this state of affairs lies in the fact that the church I belong to has an excellent parochial school associated with it. The problem is that there are usually more applicants to that school than the school can accomodate. When compiling the list of who gets in to the school and who does not, the children of parishoners in good standing with the church are taken first, and the people who belong to other churches (or do not belong to any church) are sent to the back of the line.

My wife and I hope to move before my son is old enough to go to school, and you can be certain that the quality of the school system is going to play a significant role in where we decide to move. Once my son is a bit older and my wife can return to work, we will be able to afford to live in a more affluent area. If all goes as planned, the quality (or lack thereof) of the public school system where I currently live will be moot, because I won't still be living there when my son starts school. However, if things don't go as planned, I want my son in the church's school. Donating several hundred dollars per year to remain in good standing and assure there will be spot for my son if the need arises is a worthy investment, IMO.