Please tell me there are more Atheists out there...

Remove all ads!

I agree that religion has not made the world a better place, h...
/me dodges Chev's coffee mug and Gnarf's pitchfork
HOWEVER, religion can have a beneficial effect on some who otherwise would not be as kind. It is the people themselves, though, who should be credited for their good deeds. There is still the issue of those who use its 'power' for their own uses, but overall I think it balances quite nicely. Neither a good thing nor a bad thing (unless you count the diversity it brings; which is a good thing, IMHO).

EDIT:

Damn squiggly, I am.

[ October 16, 2005, 21:09: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

You have a point, Fel. If worshipping some so-called "holy force" has a beneficial effect on people who do... then good for them, but I will never agree with that. But then again, everyone is free to make their own choice. I believe in free will and free choice. (Big cat, you're CN too, right?)

If someone decides to be religious, by all means, go ahead. I, personally, will never have a positive outlook on religion.

 

To just stay entirely on-topic: Please tell me there are more Atheists out there...

can't say I can tell you that, dutch(!) theist here (Cristian that is )

 

DMC, i apologize, I will re-adjust myself:

I don't believe in a god, or a religion. I am in agreement with The New Order (in all respects, so far). I don't like religion, or the idea of one. However, I do not hate religious people, as long as they do not impose their beliefs on me, or try to condemn me for not believing in their religion.

In my point of view:
Christianity teaches hate (against homosexuals in particular).
Christianity is didactoral: It tells people how to live, and how not to live, and punishes (or promises punishments) those who don't follow it.
Christianity takes rights away from people: Freedom of speech is taken away. If you say something against your religion, even in desperation or a burst of anger, they (the church) tell you you are commiting blasphemy and punish you.

Thats it, I've said what I need to say. I am not bashing anyone, and if I did in the past, I apologize profusely.

 

Saber: valid points, and I agree. Also, you kept it civil. Thumbs up all around, I say.

As an added bonus, you kept it short. Something I so far haven't been able to do...

To all: I also extend apologies if my words have offended someone. I only wish to exchange thoughts in a peaceful manner.

EDIT: Please keep posting counterpoints.

[ October 17, 2005, 01:09: Message edited by: Susipaisti ]

 

I have pretty much said it all in my former posts. If I have somewhat offended someone, that wasn't my goal at all. Religion is a red hot topic, and it creates a lot of controversy.

SO! Let's sum this up:
1- I do not believe in the existance of any "God" or whatever "Holy Force"
2-I do not hate believers. What they choose to believe in is their own damn choice. As long as they don't preach it to me, or throw their "god" in my face.
3-I do not and never will have a positive opinion of religion.
4-I prefer to be the master of my own life rather than placing my faith in something that doesen't exist.
5-You do not have to agree with me. Just respect my point of view and I will respect yours.

[ October 17, 2005, 01:29: Message edited by: The New Order ]

 

Is this not an invitation to abandon that way of life? Not only is that doing precicely what he complained that we do, but doing so rather rudely.

It is not a statement of hatred towards Gay people directly, but rather a strongly worded prohibition of homosexual behaviour. We are (under Christian Theology) sons and daughters of God, and as such He loves us, no matter what. However, just as a parent loves their child, they do not like it when the child disobeys them or misbehaves. By having homosexual relations, we are disobeying God...

I disagree. The laws given about sexual purity are just as relevent today. Adultery causes hurt feelings for the betrayed spouse. Sexual promiscuity leads to the transmission of disease amongst those who engage in it. Science has shown that Incest is very dangerous to any prosepctive offspring. Animal rights activists would not approve of beastiality. My own religion teaches that the greatest joys are to be found within the family. Homosexuality does not promote the family...

Actually, I look at this as holding ourselves to higher standards than seem natural. To consider the greater good over selfish pleasures. That, rather than simply self denial, is what leads to greatest blessings, both here and in the worlds to come.

Why do you think Religion forbids the practice of adultery in the first place? It is these commandments that show the way to love and respect others.

That problem was rampant in the times of the old testament. When Christ came, he taught the higher law, which clarifies the older laws. The great commandments are to love God and your fellow men. The original commandments throughout the Old Testament were primarily given to train you in how to behave. Christ came to explain why we are to behave that way, and how to go the extra mile. Some of the criticism that Saber pointed out stems from people that took the prohibition on Homosexuality so seriously that they forgot about the emotions of those that struggle with that temptation. When thoise people face that condemnation, they do not feel the love and support from the faithful, and thus do not gain the strength to resist that temptation...

We ARE the masters of our own life, but according to my religion (I realize that you don't believe that, but I do), we are asked to seek to do the will of God. I still must CHOOSE to do it. I am no puppet, but do what I do because I believe it to be right.

Note to self: He dodges quickly. Maybe throwing a split second after Chev will hit him next time...

Had I not returned to the faith I was baptized into as a teenager, I would still be and some more, and seeking apathy wherever I could find it, even into drugs. It is feeling the Love of God that gave me something beyond my own selfish desires to think about. I wouldn't have come to that on my own...

No, it doesn't. It just teaches that certain things are sins. Just because your parents told you that you can't watch that 'R' rated movie when you were 5 doesn't mean that they hate you. They were only looking after your best interests. Religion takes a similar view. God is portrayed as a spiritual father, and His rules are, ultimately, for our best interests.

Do you mean Dictatorial? The Bible contains the laws of God, and sets out punishment for the violation of those laws, but it also sets out the conditions of Mercy. The core teaching is that Jesus Christ, who was perfect, came to this earth, ministered unto the people, and was put to death in a gruesome, painful manner. This death, for no crime at all, paid the price for all sin of those that will be forgiven. This mercy is granted unto all who will confess and forsake their sins and seek to live as Christ counselled them.

We still retain the right to decide for ourselves, but they lay out the expectations and consequences. We are expected to (but not forced) obey the commandments. But while we are free to choose out actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of those actions. We will be able to rejoice in the blessings that stem from right choices, and suffer under the yoke of afflictions brought upon us by bad choices. But ultimately, we make our choices...

When these thoughts are on things so deeply personal and on a topic that seems so adversarial for differing points, this may seem impossible, and likely to fail when due care is not taken. I assume that I've left numerous trampled toes in my wake here on SP. I cannot condemn you for anywhere where you've come up short in your desires...

One area of conflict between you and I is that I believe that I am commanded of God to speak on these matters, to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with my fellow men. By preaching, I fulfill that requirement. You are still free to reject this, but then that's not my fault. I don't go out and wrestle someone onto a Baptismal font, hold them under the water, recite the prayer and then bind them to a chair to confirm them. They concent to these ordinances of their own free will...

That is the hardest of all to do. Especially when some of these views seem to directly conflict with mine. When some spoke that Religion ought be outlawed or never have existed int he first place, that is seen as an attack on what I hold mose personal...

I don't seek to piss people off, but speaking my piece on these matters is bound to leave a trail of trampled toes behind me as I go...

 

Gnarfflinger, you are now making more sense to me than ever before, but I'm afraid I still disagree in many points.

By the purity laws I mentioned I didn't mean incest, animalism or things like that. I mean the "spend 7 days outside the camp and you're pure" type of parts. And if a woman gets raped in an inhabited place but no one hears her crying out for help, according to the Bible she must be killed. On some instances of rape the book offers that the rapist marries the victim as some kind of a solution.

I've read the Bible enough to know what I'm talking about, but can't remember the chapters. There's also a "ritual" to investigate whether a woman has commited adultery, that basically involves making her drink dirty water. There are laws that plainly state a woman's word has no weight or merit if her husband says otherwise. If a woman assists her husband in a fight by grabbing his opponents private parts, the law states her hand must be hacked off.

Also while the commandment says "though shalt not kill", the Old Testament orders a death sentence via stoning for quite numerous crimes, such as speaking ill of or repeatedly disobeying your parents. If you read the Books of Moses more thoroughly, you'll find a lot of interesting things.

Jesus indeed redifines some things said in the Old Testament, but leaves a large number of things well enough alone. He says nothing of gay people. The Old Testament offers a death sentence for that.

You seemed to suggest that I've been offensive when stating my views. I don't see how much more polite I can be without agreeing with you - my posts are filled with "I think", "it seems to me" etc, whenever I'm not simply repeating what I've read in encyclopedias, history books or indeed the Bible.

It should also be noted that I'm not against christianity exclusively. I've made points about major religions clashing and those clashes causing great harm. No one has disputed that so far - I was expecting people to offer some arguments. Nobody's said a word about the medieval church putting a halt to scientific research or burning heretics.

I've stated these things as arguments why I myself don't believe. I'm not trying to convert, merely wish people would think more independently. Fortunately you seem to have done so. Yet there are many Christians, such as some of my family members, who only go to the chruch for weddings and funerals, express a faith in a god only when it's convenient, never seem to think about things thoroughly, yet they pay taxes to the church they belong to.

On a final note, if your faith helped you with your drinking problem, I'm genuinely glad.

 

Good points there on the religious side - however then I have to think after the 'there must be choice' thing - well, Gnarf opposed gay marriage. Isn't this (by legally restricting someone) screwing with their freedom to choose sin?

Religion, like pretty much everything, is a tool for experiencing life. The biggest problem I have there is that after that part of life is thoroughly experienced, the wonder achieved, etc. - the rest of life remains unexperienced because the religion restrains them. If I could make myself genuinely believe in some spiritual force for a bit - I think I would to experience the wonder, beauty, and so such of it: but after that, more fuel for the fire of life is needed.

Though maybe for some people religion is a continuous fuel - from what I've seen people seem to continue with it long after it's burnt up and close their mind to new ideas/fuel.
... Is that what true belief is?


Edit: Oh, and something that annoys me is people who pick and choose the parts of the Bible to believe in saying 'Oh yeah, it's influenced by the culture of the time' - is it or is it not the Word of God?

 

@Aik: IMO, no, the Bible is not the direct word of God. It was recorded by humans and therefore subject to all sorts of editing and interpreting along the way. It's history and allegory - you have to interpret the messages it leaves in the context of both the time when it was written, and the time in which it is being read. Trust me, if people still behaved in accordance with the Bibilcal stuff that Susipaisti cites, I wouldn't be a believer, either. Even the most Orthodox of Jews don't act in strict accordance with every literal word of the Torah, it's the meaning behind the words that matters. If those words don't have meaning for you, fine, but to expect a "Yes" or "No" answer to your question while palnning to pounce on that answer is nothing but trickery. It's a cop-out of the highest order, similar to the question of "Since all religions conflict, how can any one of them be right?" BOth of those are STARTING POINTS for debate and thought, not endpoints in and of themselves.

@LNT: Forgive me for trying to live up to my own philosophy of inclusiveness by using language that doesn't limit my description to any one set of beliefs. If that's what you call "voodoo" so be it. But I have to wonder, who do you think I'm trying to manipulate or convince when I say that there's accomodation for all types of belief and religious practice? I thought you'd know me better than that by now.

 

I posed it as a question, didn't I? I *was* expecting debate and thought. But most counter-arguments were pretty much "I just know."

I agree on most things on your post though, Rallymama. Whether others feel this way or not, I think it fits the "an independent faith on a personal level can be a good thing"-kind of thinking pretty well.

I've been dissecting the Bible so much because the organized (the key word here again) version of Christianity is based on it, yet it has so many contradictions. Many things that are wrong with the world today are based on people interpreting the words in different ways - such as over-population in catholic countries in South America. If the pope had interpreted those words a little differently, those people would be using birth control.

To Gnarf I'd like to say that sure, some, maybe even most of, those commandments might have been made for very good and noble reasons. But ordering a death sentence or promising eternal damnation for breaking them defeats the point.

There are people who follow those rules not because they feel it's the right thing to do, but because they're scared of the punishment. That's why I said I don't need to read a holy book to learn morals. I'll rather use common sense and trust my own conscience, which may or may not be in agreement with the tenets of a particular faith.

All in all this discussion is starting to seem pretty fruitless. Some comments made by some people have actually made me a bit more tolerant towards faith - applied sensibly and without preaching and passing judgement - so I guess it hasn't been a total waste.

 

Nay. I feel much the same thing on the very rare occasions when I go to church as a favor to my father. (Father's Day, usually; he refuses to give up on returning me to the flock. ) But I am secure in my own beliefs, and choose not to rejoin. You are the one who chose to embrace it; you are the one who chose your kinder path. And for that, you deserve the credit.

 

Once the scribes and Pharisees of ancient Israel took hold of the commandments, they went beyond the commandments and were thus subject to error. I was thinking more along the line of forbidding adultery, homosexuality, fornication and the other perversions. I believe that the Law of Chastity is for our own good.

What I took offense to was the idea that religion was a plague or something that should never have been.

By opposing the legalization of gay marriage, I am stating that the Government ought not show any form of approval of such greivous sins.

When you look at it, there is so much to learn with religion that you cannot learn it all in one lifetime. Further, the Love of God is eternal, and you, by continuing to partake and worship, continue in feeling it.

Damnation is only for those that will not repent and seek to do the right. If at the last day they still feel no remorse for the sins that they commit, then they will only face damnation. The concept of a death sentence denies an opportunity to repent, and ought only be used in the most extreme circumstances. Back in Ancient Israel, they still had the stories of the sins of Sodom and Gamorah, and they didn't want to invite that destruction upon themselves, and thus may have sought to kill the more extreme sinners in hopes that the Lord wouldn't destroy them too.

Those that only obey out of fear only do so because htey have not been taught well enough. If taught from the example of Jesus Christ, they ought to learn why they are to do as they do. They know the way to avoid sin, but have not learned to go that extra mile that is required of true Christianity...

But until I actually felt that divine love, and couldn't deny its truthfullness, there was no reason to choose that path. It is not the words of man that convert people from one faith to another, but the Spirit of God. John 14:15 states that "if ye love me, keep my commandments." Until you feel that love, there is no reason to obey...

 

So the government should support *your* morals, and not those of someone else? Isn't there supposed to be something called freedom of religion, in the constitution? By restricting people's rights to do something that *isn't harming anyone else*, based on *your* faith, you're in effect forcefully imposing your own ideas on someone else.

Something that struck me as odd about this whole thread, and this occured to me just now: At first I said organized religion is harmful, accepting personal, non-preaching faith. Others wanted proof and examples of said harm. When I presented examples such as Constantinople, Galilei, terrorism, overpopulation, forcing one's own view on others etc.(maybe I was lucky not bringing up the child-molesting priests), people did not address those points at all - instead they started telling about their own personal faith, how it helped them get through etc., which I already stated several times I don't have a problem with even though I don't have one myself.

Can it be that the people here really just do not see the difference between organized and personal faith that I see plainly? No one's really stood up in defense of *organized religion* which I argued against. Everybody defended their personal faith and (at least somewhat) tolerant views, which I didn't really attack in the first place. A moderator said that "saying organized religion has done no good at all is bonk", but offered no examples either.

Would it be so hard to admit that organized religion has caused harm? Or harm *as well as good*, and then state some examples of that good?

Gnarfflinger, about those death sentences in the Old Testament: you seem to suggest yourself that those laws were made my man, instead of coming to Moses directly from God. Again, I don't think you don't need to read the book at all to have some kind of a faith of your own. But using that book, with all its contradictions, to widely tutor people on how to "live right", doesn't seem right to me.

So when I say the medieval church burned heretics, I'd expect arguments about the good things the church of today does in Africa, for instance. Convince me the good outweighs the bad (sure I might come up with counter points again, but that's discussion). Let's try to be constructive here.

 

I really, really don't get this 'not the direct word of God stuff' - how do you tell what is the direct word of God then and what is it? Or is it you who are letting the culture of our time change the meaning of God, rather than theirs? (and let's face it: People back when the Bible was written seemed to have a lot more direct contact with God than we go if scripture can be believed).

So if you can't trust what's written to be true, how do you know if any of it is? Aren't you twisting the 'Word of God' to suit your own lifestyle and culture?

 

Okay, so it's all fine and good for Mormons - but for everyone else - how do you decide what's a 'kernel of truth' and what's BS that someone came up with for whatever reason?

 

(Myself)

I don't know if this was a response to me, but was very shortly after my post and I believe I'm the only one to use "dictate" previously.

(Gnarf)

And more recently.

(Also Gnarf)

By opposing the legalisation of Gay marriage and wishing homosexual behavious to be classed as "grevious sin" you are dictating your views onto the rest of the population.

 

Having been a person whom has substituted chemically induced exhilaration with spiritual exultation, and then having found nothing but a different variety of insanity, I have instead decided to try to accept reality, even if it is uncomfortable and disappointing. I believe that one day science will show "spiritual" thinking is actually "spiritual" feeling of a sort very similar to that as caused by drugs and alcohol: stimulation of the reward centers of the brain; although I imagine the effect will most likely be triggered from a different area, perhaps by the instinctual portion responsible for infants enjoying the love of their parents. As animals, we tend towards reward-seeking behavior, and is it not coincidental that those whom avoid sexual rewards are the very same whom seem to substitute with a ravenous indulgence in the "spiritual"?

Have you ever watched a room full of nuns worship a picture of Mary hanging on the wall? Looking at their faces, looking at their eyes, with all honestly, wasn't the addiction plainly obvious?