I love religion!

[Retorth]

I think aspects of religion detract from pure belief, but I won't just dismiss a whole aspect of society so large, and allow personal responsibility to be shelved.

How do you figure dismissing religion altogether is to "allow personal responsibility to be shelved"? Unless, I am misreading it, religion being removed from the big picture, I would've thought, would put people directly responsible for their own actions instead of blaming it on something else like religion, for example.

Re

[Rhage]

I think aspects of religion detract from pure belief, but I won't just dismiss a whole aspect of society so large, and allow personal responsibility to be shelved.

How do you figure dismissing religion altogether is to "allow personal responsibility to be shelved"? Unless, I am misreading it, religion being removed from the big picture, I would've thought, would put people directly responsible for their own actions instead of blaming it on something else like religion, for example.

Re

Exactly. Furthermore, there would be no more of this, "It must be God's will" bullshit. If something great happens in life, well, good old God must be looking out for me, praise him.However, if some tragedy strikes, it must be God testing me or I must have done something terrible to deserve his "wrath."

Religion, no matter the branch, gives people an excuse to not take personal responsibility for themselves and their actions. Most, I would imagine, don't want it for themselves because it's easier to say that God has a "plan" for them, versus saying "I don't know."

[Purple Rabbit]

My point is that many atheists just dismiss religion, and I think it's an interesting subject. You said it made you laugh, well why? I'm arguing that atheists shouldn't just dismiss religious people's ideas as silly superstitions.

You were the one who brought up fundamentalists, not me. Maybe we should just avoid discussing fundamentalist ideas here, as we seem to be both agreeing that there is no beardy man in he sky. I am saying there is more to religion than that, and that's why I find it fascinating.

You are mixing up religious stances with the cultural phenomenon. The latter indeed is very interesting and this whole site testifies of that. What makes you think that atheists just dismiss religion? The former constitutes no one coherent idea but a plethora of ever shifting ideas ranging from the extreme naive to the multi-layered multi-colored oecumenal variant of religious humanism. Since I value free thought I value the right to belief. I will never attack that right. What I do attack is religious claims being made here out in the open.

I do think it's critical to understand what particular stance the religious bring forward and to merit each position on it's own. Please correct me on this whenever you feel I am not doing justice to the position put forward but please don't generalize that into a "many atheists just dismiss religion". Also I dislike the idea that this is pictured as an us and them thing. I have disagreed here with atheists and theists alike no matter how much I appreciate other aspects of there presentation here on AF. Just like there is no one standard set of religious claims, there is no one standard set of atheist argument. It seems to me that when you make that suggestion you are generalizing atheists for generalization of religious claims.

I have catholic background and grew up in a time when some emancipation in church took place. I am all aware of the range of stances that can be taken on this matter. There is a difference between belief in god(s) and belief in belief. There is a difference between religion as a moral container and religion as a unique origin of absolute moral. There is a difference between Vatican condom prohibition and the personal stance of a catholic believer. Between missionary help and fundamentalist bombing. There is a difference between religion as a cultural phenomenon and personal beliefs. And because of this range in configurations of religious claim I choose to counter each religious claim separately in debate. If you ever longed for devotion to religious content from a non-believers perspective, you can find that here.

I highly value Richard Dawkins' opinion about the epistemolological aspects of religion and I think the accusation that his critique is shallow and without indepth knowledge of theological grounds is a shallow attempt to dismiss his critique by avoiding the content of the matter. It is a reference to some still deeper grounds, it's the mystical card being played. If there are any straight answers they should be given, if there are non they shouldn't been feigned.

I also have frequented theist fora. I found that 98% is about bible interpretation preferably in one specific tradition, it is not about critical examination of historicity and it certainly is not a cross denomination comparitive approach. Instead I found that there is an utter lack of willingness to compare across religions. I wonder if there are really groups of enlightened christians disagreeing with the fundamentalists. Indeed where is their hideout and why not join us here in debate against the variants of religion that are indeed detrimental to our society?

[Zagreus]

Zagreus,

That is exactly my point, that religion is used for personal greed and other personal gains. Religion has been an excuse for countless generations of evil-doing. I am not against the few religious individuals who are good people but they should be able to do good without religion anyway. If you need religion to do good then that is insincere.

To sum it up, I am not against theists in general (minus the fundies of course) but I am against the concept of religion. Personally, I feel the world would do far better without it.

Re

No, the people are greedy and want personal gains, and then use religion as a justification. It’s the people that are to blame, not their excuses. The theory of natural selection itself is not responsible for the use of eugenics by the Americans, and then more tragically by the Nazis. Another example, Blair didn’t agree to invade Iraq because of his blossoming Catholicism and a desire to do moral good in helping the people of that country, he did it for oil.

If I said a religion was responsible for my robbing an old lady, would that stand up in court? No, it wouldn’t. I’m sure if we looked at some examples there would always be other motives for the ‘evil’ actions.

Also, you say the ‘few religious people who do good’. Do you seriously think the number of people who do wrong in the name of religion outnumbers those who do good? The number of Muslims who help others and give to the poor vastly outweighs the fanatics. Plus, if these people are inclined to do good, then of course they would do it regardless of religion. Your inference that they only do good due to faith is not far off saying they would be immoral without faith; many atheists prove that wrong.

I’m arguing against the idea that all religious people are just sheep with no thoughts for themselves, which is what the inference is from the idea that religion causes evil actions, and other people only do good if they are scared of being punished by God. Don’t get me wrong, I do think many people go along with religious ideas like sheep without question, but that is not to tar a belief system or theory with that brush.

Religion gives many people hope, a structure in which to live their life, and an explanation for the way that things are. It has been the reason for centuries of art, medicine, philosophy, and so on, and is the basis of our species’ history. The concept of religion is not a thing in itself that can cause good or evil, it is simply a set of beliefs upon which people act. Saying religion is bad, justifying it by some examples of religious people who have done wrong, and ignoring all the good things it brings about, is like saying communism is bad, giving the example of Stalin, and ignoring all the theoretically great ideas in communism.

Basically I’m saying I don’t think you can write off religion just because some people use it to justify immoral actions. There’s much more to the subject than that, but I do see where you’re coming from and have heard those ideas before. Maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree, unless you want to talk more?

---

We are talking about people who literally believe that

a great big santa claus figure in the sky created the universe six thousand

years ago(despite ALL evidence to the contrary).

Is going to put the people of the world through months of torture(revelations)

And is prepared to condemm you to everlasting torment in hell

if you have a wank.

What exactly is there NOT to laugh at?????????

Again, that’s just fundamentalists. You can dress up any ideas and make them sound silly if you use language like that; it’s hardly a reasoned response against their beliefs. I’m not saying you can’t make jokes about it, but you are displaying a very one dimensional view of religion, and one that’s not accurate.

You are just missing the point of what I’m saying, which is that there is more to religion than many atheists necessarily consider. Many Hindu and Buddhist activities have measurable results, and the former’s theology is very developed and complex, partly because of the faith’s age. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the foundation of our western culture, and if people want to believe these ideas, then fair play to them.

Do you mock aborigines for their beliefs about the origins of the world too? You aren’t better than other people, so don’t delude yourself you are. Some people of the Abrahamic faith believe in creationism; however, many don’t, so don’t patronise them with your stereotyping. I’m not meaning to come across as having a go, but your blinkered view of religion is not much better than the blinkered view of fundamentalist religious people. Hopefully I’ll get to know you better on here and we’ll find some common ground, but your view on the subject so far seems a bit ill informed, if you’ll excuse me in saying so.

---

"On Earth as it is in Heaven" Check the book section out on this forum.

I spotted that in your sig after I posted the question, then googled your book and it sounds intriguing! I will certainly pick up a copy soon when I can. The description of you sounds interesting too, in that it described you as a Biblical scholar (which is why I’ve perked up interest in your ideas). I saw that you have presented seminars at atheist events, and you seem well respected. It also said you don’t work in religious academia, but in more science based roles, so do you mind me asking what your credentials are that makes you a Biblical scholar? I presume other stuff published. I’m not questioning whether you are or not, I am genuinely interested.

If you want to watch Christians beat each other up, just ask them "What is the true nature or substance of God, or ask them to explain the trinity." It gets to be a hoot.

I claim religion started out as something that was logical and pre-scientific.

I’m very interested to read your claim. You are right on the questions for Christians also. When I was training to be a teacher I did a week training course on Christian beliefs, and half the class were Catholics. They were impossible to pin down on ideas, and seemed very wishy washy in my opinion. There was a Muslim chap in my group, and he was astounded by the way they dodged questions and couldn’t justify things.

I used to try to explain the trinity to students too. Past St Patrick’s explanation, I was a bit lost. I can just about get my head around it, but trying to explain it is impossible!

Religion teaches that it is not only okay to believe in things that there is no evidence for, it even presents that as a virtue, sometimes even as a prerequisite. I do not agree that religion is a lovely thing. As for your assertion that religion can't be separated from our species, I certainly contend that, as millions of people get along great without it.

No, many religious people teach that the followers should not question, and should believe in things that there is little evidence for. (A Muslim would argue the Qur’an is proof of God’s existence. I know that’s a circular argument, but I’ve seen it used. Therefore you can’t say there is NO evidence, but there is certainly no ‘scientific’ evidence.) Other religious people teach very differently, and it is more the western faiths that have this idea of unquestioning obedience. Don’t paint the teachings of Buddha, Guru Nanak or Sri Ramakrishna with the same negative view. Religion itself, fundamentally, is an attempt to understand and explain the world, and many aspects of it encourage personal development and expression of beauty, and has resulted in much amazing art, literature, architecture, actions and so on; so I still maintain it’s fascinating and ‘a lovely thing’ (I like that phrase).

Also, I still maintain religion cannot be separated. It is integral to our history, culture and belief systems. Even reading a religion section of an atheist forum shows it is having an influence. More importantly, it is the basis for many things that govern our lives. Look at the laws on euthanasia and abortion in your country. They are probably based on the idea of the sanctity of life, which is an idea stemming from religious ideas. Religion is everywhere, and is a fascinating subject; this I still insist is true, even if it’s only from my perspective.

[Violet]

Yes... nonesense can have that effect The rest of the time it just confuses me

No offence, but these are the types of comment I’m complaining about. Yes, silly people believing in religion. What idiots Socrates, Plato, Isaac Newton, William Blake, Martin Luther King, for example, were.

You seem to have taken my statement of A to mean B I'm hardly referring to the people believing in religion (although i do find those who do to be silly in their stance ), but rather to the religious material itself Hence how nonsense can have that effect... and the rest of the time it just confuses me

However, when it comes to people believing in religion (IE your list), i do find them silly (though not idiotic) for their belief in religions That otherwise smart people were/are silly enough to believe in religion doesn't speak for their intelligence... only that they believe something without proof or with a great deal of personal evidence

It does not mean that their beliefs should even be truly considered by anyone else... because then we would have people accepting what lunatics have faith in as true (which already seems to happen to an extent).

---

"On Earth as it is in Heaven" Check the book section out on this forum.

Righto, it will soon join my pile of other unread books waiting until the day i finally can't get on the internet, my electronics, be with my friends, or find anything else in the world to do ^_^

[LukeMC]

Hey! I hope this is a nice introduction for you.

In what sense are you religious?

I’m not religious at all, I just find religious history and theology interesting. I used to be a religious studies teacher, and just like chatting to people about the subject.

You said in your original post on this thread that religion cannot be separated from our species from any perspective, hence my question: "in what sense are you religious?", as your question seems to be implying that humanity cannot rid itself of religious convictions, when clearly you and I have both freed ourselves from the shackles. If we can do it, so can others, and a world free of religion could be possible. It's only connection with humanity would be in history.

As for the bulk of your discussions with others, I'm on the fence. I acknowledge that religions at their core try to provide hope, warmth, security, comradary, altruism and community. The main medium by which this is achieved tends to be through tales and anecdotes written in old scriptures to pass on a message. I personally like to read stories and tales from many of the eastern religions, yet I don't actually believe those stories. I think that this is how stories in scriptures were meant to be taken when they were written, however there has been a shift in thinking that has got people under the impression that those stories actually reflect reality as opposed to fiction, fable and cultural entertainment. This leads to a kind of anti-evolutionist fundamentalism which is dangerous. Also, many of the moral stories in these scriptures are vile and wicked (obviously, as they were written by more primitive peoples). It's these twisted and vindictive tendencies which pose the biggest threat to people worldwide. The stories are clearly outdated and likely fictional, but when taken as literal acounts with an absolute moral message, society has a problem.

I think at it's heart, religion could be a very fulfilling set of cultural and anecdotal traditions and hand-me-downs. When taken as metaphor and fable, it can give rise to very soul-soothing spiritual canvas upon which you can paint your life. Being wary not to accept every story as infallible gives you the opportunity to decide when some passages are misguided or false. Many religious people operate in such a way, and I agree that being wholly dismissive of religion is perhaps slightly narrow.

Fundamentalism costs lives, it stands in the way of progress and education, it poisons morality. The Dalai Lama's religious stance has never bothered me though- he accepts that homosexuals should be accepted in society and that abortion can be accepted in certain circumstances DESPITE what his religion says, because he also believes in a secular society where people are free to practise their own brands of religion without oppression from others. Religion is not the problem. Fundamentalism, even in it's weakest forms, is the problem we need to be tackling- theists and atheists alike.

Perhaps when you take the fundamentalism out of religion, all you're left with is philosophy and fable though, huh?

[Zagreus]

My point is that many atheists just dismiss religion, and I think it's an interesting subject. You said it made you laugh, well why? I'm arguing that atheists shouldn't just dismiss religious people's ideas as silly superstitions.

You were the one who brought up fundamentalists, not me. Maybe we should just avoid discussing fundamentalist ideas here, as we seem to be both agreeing that there is no beardy man in he sky. I am saying there is more to religion than that, and that's why I find it fascinating.

You are mixing up religious stances with the cultural phenomenon. The latter indeed is very interesting and this whole site testifies of that. What makes you think that atheists just dismiss religion?

Thanks for such a detailed response. I’m replying bit by bit to not miss anything!

I don’t think I am mixing these two things, but I will admit I have a not particularly orthodox view on religion, which seems confusing at first as it takes a while for me to get the ideas across. As a cultural phenomenon, we agree religion is interesting, but I also think religious stances are fascinating, even if I don't agree with the viewpoint. Half the interest is trying to see ideas from others’ perspectives.

Some atheist writing I have read simply dismisses religion as silly ideas, and that’s where I get that view of other atheists from. I can quote examples from this very forum if you want, where comments are made that religious ideas are simply bull shit, or some such. There is a patronising tone in some atheists’ language towards believers’ ideas, like people with faith are childish and they should grow out of their ideas. That is what I object to. I’m not saying it’s necessarily people here, but it’s something I have seen.

The former constitutes no one coherent idea but a plethora of ever shifting ideas ranging from the extreme naive to the multi-layered multi-colored oecumenal variant of religious humanism. Since I value free thought I value the right to belief. I will never attack that right. What I do attack is religious claims being made here out in the open.

When you say it like that, how can you not find it interesting?!? By ‘here’ do you mean this forum? If so, that’s fair enough. I’m not saying people should tread on egg shells around the religious, just don’t be rude and assume they are stupid. Depending on the conversation, I’m eager to challenge religious thought; this conversation is my defending my interest in it though.

I do think it's critical to understand what particular stance the religious bring forward and to merit each position on it's own. Please correct me on this whenever you feel I am not doing justice to the position put forward but please don't generalize that into a "many atheists just dismiss religion". Also I dislike the idea that this is pictured as an us and them thing. I have disagreed here with atheists and theists alike no matter how much I appreciate other aspects of there presentation here on AF. Just like there is no one standard set of religious claims, there is no one standard set of atheist argument. It seems to me that when you make that suggestion you are generalizing atheists for generalization of religious claims.

---

You have made an excellent point that I am guilty of, and was waiting for it to be pointed out! I’m telling people not to generalise about religious views, but then saying ‘most / many atheists’; you are right and I should not do this, but it’s a demonstration of similar language. Maybe people criticising the ideas of others should be aware of this too. You can stereotype, but it always has flaws.

You are also right it is no ‘us and them’ scenario. After all, I am an atheist arguing the religious corner at the minute. I was aware I was doing this, but it needed pointing out. Again, I’m not having a go at this forum; it’s simply a general comment.

I have catholic background and grew up in a time when some emancipation in church took place. I am all aware of the range of stances that can be taken on this matter. There is a difference between belief in god(s) and belief in belief. There is a difference between religion as a moral container and religion as a unique origin of absolute moral. There is a difference between Vatican condom prohibition and the personal stance of a catholic believer. Between missionary help and fundamentalist bombing. There is a difference between religion as a cultural phenomenon and personal beliefs. And because of this range in configurations of religious claim I choose to counter each religious claim separately in debate. If you ever longed for devotion to religious content from a non-believers perspective, you can find that here.

Ok, here’s a major difference between us, and something perhaps I should explain. I was raised pretty much an atheist; my parents left me to choose what I was interested in, and I chose dinosaurs! Evolution was what I was raised with, not religious doctrine. Therefore I see, from my perspective, religion as both a cultural phenomenon and a set of personal beliefs for the believer. It wasn’t drummed into me, so I guess maybe I’m not so hostile towards it as a viewpoint. Noah’s ark was always a story to me. I was 20 before I twigged that Christians actually thought Jesus was God himself. I’d just never really considered it.

Again, I just like finding out other people’s views, and find religious history interesting. I still maintain that religious belief is interesting, especially the stance of the faithful, but then I’ve not had to break away from it as you have. I find the atheists who are most confrontational towards religion tend to be the ones who were raised religiously. That speaks volumes I would say.

I highly value Richard Dawkins' opinion about the epistemolological aspects of religion and I think the accusation that his critique is shallow and without indepth knowledge of theological grounds is a shallow attempt to dismiss his critique by avoiding the content of the matter. It is a reference to some still deeper grounds, it's the mystical card being played. If there are any straight answers they should be given, if there are non they shouldn't been feigned.

From what I’ve seen Dawkins is a very good biologist, and I won’t argue with him there. However, he attacks literalist religion, nothing more, and is very rude in basically saying religious people are superstitious and should grow up. I will go into more detail if you wish (indeed I’d enjoy it, as I’ve been trying to run these ides past people for a while.) Some of Dawkins’ ideas on the formulation of religion as a social construct I think are not too far off, but there’s a lot he misses. His dismissal of polytheism in The God Delusion just got to me, as he didn’t even deal with it in the way psychology does. He just assumes if there’s no God in the Abrahamic sense then the polytheistic religions are wrong. Hinduism is vastly more complex than that, seeing as it looks like a polytheistic faith, but is actually monotheistic. That’s where I’m coming from saying he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Brahman is not the same theological concept that Yahweh or Allah is.

I also have frequented theist fora. I found that 98% is about bible interpretation preferably in one specific tradition, it is not about critical examination of historicity and it certainly is not a cross denomination comparitive approach. Instead I found that there is an utter lack of willingness to compare across religions. I wonder if there are really groups of enlightened christians disagreeing with the fundamentalists. Indeed where is their hideout and why not join us here in debate against the variants of religion that are indeed detrimental to our society?

This is not like the religion forum I found. I think I might have struck gold there, especially considering the stuff I’ve learnt from a couple of the members.

Thanks for your reply Purple; hope that might be food for thought.

[LEDO]

I spotted that in your sig after I posted the question, then googled your book and it sounds intriguing! I will certainly pick up a copy soon when I can. The description of you sounds interesting too, in that it described you as a Biblical scholar (which is why I’ve perked up interest in your ideas). I saw that you have presented seminars at atheist events, and you seem well respected. It also said you don’t work in religious academia, but in more science based roles, so do you mind me asking what your credentials are that makes you a Biblical scholar? I presume other stuff published. I’m not questioning whether you are or not, I am genuinely interested.

Yes, it does say I am a "scholar" which is true by defintion "3" which is "any student or pupil." I almost had that word removed from the back cover as it is misleading even if barely factual. If you ask if I have a piece of paper from any university saying I am smart about the Bible, I do not. I have been instructed by Bible scholars James Tabor, Gary Rendsburg, and DSS scholar Peter Flint and have talked to them at length about different aspects of my ideas. I have a previous published book under the same name. I have been a member of the Atlanta Freethought Society and have represented them on talk shows (Hannity when he was in Atlanta) and in debates. Ed Buckner picked me to lead a seminar discussion at the World Atheist Conferance in Atlanta back in 1998.

I believe my book speaks for itself. It is heavily sourced. Due to the heresy which I present, I also quote the source as many will not have access to those books. That way when I use definition 3, you will know it. I am attempting to take a thoroughly discredited New Age viewpoint and show that it should be mainstream once one is able to cut out the BS.

Once I uncovered the truth, it became so plain to see. It was like that math problem you could never solve, then once someone showed you the trick, it became so easy, you wondered you you didn't see it before.

[Zen Badger]

[quote='Retorth' pid='49491' dateline='1263120380']
Zagreus,


Re

Again, that’s just fundamentalists. You can dress up any ideas and make them sound silly if you use language like that; it’s hardly a reasoned response against their beliefs. I’m not saying you can’t make jokes about it, but you are displaying a very one dimensional view of religion, and one that’s not accurate.


I'm sure I made it quite clear that it was fundamentalists that I was referring to.

And how would you express these ideas to make them sound rational???

You seem to hold the position that religion is separate from people,

in this you are mistaken, religion IS people, and people will use the name of God to

excuse every evil under the sun.

Cos everything is justifiable when done in the name of God.

[leo-rcc]

No, many religious people teach that the followers should not question, and should believe in things that there is little evidence for. (A Muslim would argue the Qur’an is proof of God’s existence. I know that’s a circular argument, but I’ve seen it used. Therefore you can’t say there is NO evidence, but there is certainly no ‘scientific’ evidence.)

That is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard an atheist claim. Circular arguments are not evidence but flaws in reasoning.

Other religious people teach very differently, and it is more the western faiths that have this idea of unquestioning obedience. Don’t paint the teachings of Buddha, Guru Nanak or Sri Ramakrishna with the same negative view.

Why not? When some religion claims re-incarnation I consider that just as void of evidence as I do of an afterlife. I do not hold any regard to religions worshiping an Elephant god any more than I do an invisible cosmos controller. The doctrine of Castes is no more humane to me than the idea of slavery.

Don't tell me what to think or "paint" any other religion. I do not share your views on this topic and that is fine, but I am not telling you how you must feel on any subject, don't impose your views on mine.