I love religion!

[Zagreus]

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

Religious material is just nonsense? What about the Illiad? Or The Epic of Gilgamesh? Are all the ancient myths just nonsense to be ignored? I'm sure you will say no. ALL I have said is that I find religion interesting and I love studying the subject. If you had said you thought the works of Shakespeare were nonsense I would have commented too. It's not confusing if you sit down and try to understand it. Rather than dismissing the Christian idea of the trinity, I find it interesting to try to get my head around it. I don’t agree with Aristotle either, but it was necessary to understand his ideas whilst I was at uni.

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

I still wouldn’t say silly, as it’s fairly patronising, and I like to have a degree of respect for other people regardless of their views, but I somewhat agree with you here regarding to people now. I think more open minded religious people are not silly, as there still is no definite proof that there is no God, it’s just most likely the case that there isn’t. However, the type of people such as the God Hates Fags lot I totally agree. Blind inability to even have a conversation on the matter is just idiotic, but if someone can hold a well informed argument on the existence of God, then I’m not going to say they are silly.

People in the past, however, you can somewhat see it wasn’t silly, as the world is an incredibly complex thing, let alone the universe, so a deity would have been a more plausible explanation than it is considered to be today.

It’s important to remember now how big the leaps in science have been for the last 100 years or so. I mean, in the west, before Darwin, the creation myth of the Bible was the only one taught, so it’s not silly to only believe that. I’m sure people of our time will also look pretty silly in their beliefs in 1,000 years time. (Especially if there is a God! D’oh! What were we doing not facing Mecca at set times every day!!!)

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).

---

No, but it does mean that someone like me can find their beliefs interesting! That is all I’m saying. I also find the ravings of lunatics interesting too. If someone wants to rant at me about how there’s a world conspiracy and the twin towers were brought down by the US government, who is run by the freemasons, I’ll listen to them too. Doesn’t mean I have to agree.

[fr0d0]

If someone wants to rant at me about how there’s a world conspiracy and the twin towers were brought down by the US government, who is run by the freemasons, I’ll listen to them too. Doesn’t mean I have to agree.

Step inside little spider....

[Zagreus]

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.

No, I didn’t mean religious convictions, I meant just generally. I might have not been clear here, so I apologise. However, I will say that neither of us are clear of these shackles, and to give you a personal example, I am in England, which is technically a Christian country. I was educated in a state school, which all used to be run by the church. I had to do RE at school, 60% of which had to be Christian. Many people that I studied at school, and after, were religious, so their views have indirectly affected my learning. Some of the laws in my country are based on religious ideas; sanctity of life is the basis of our laws on euthanasia and abortion, for example. Tony Blair was a Christian, who after resigning became a Catholic, so someone who was religious was deciding laws and governing my country. Do you see? It’s inescapable, and I find it interesting.

There’s also recent research that I need to look into that suggests that religious belief and experience could also be biological (certain centres in the brain are more active in the very religious). I can’t comment on this yet, but it will be a new thing for me to get into soon. If it is biological, then it’s a bit inescapable.

Having said that, it is mostly religious history that interests me, as I think it has had an overwhelming impact on the development of our species. How can you not love something like that?!?

I’m also saying there is more to religion than is necessarily apparent to someone who dismisses the ideas as superstitions. I don’t want to escape it, I want to understand it. Tibetan Buddhist monks who spend years battling demons on the astral plane are not just idiots, they are, I think, exploring parts of the mind that western science does not know about yet. If they stopped doing this, we would lose that information. If you’re interested in this line of conversation I can go on, but that’s enough to illustrate my point for now.

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.

This I totally agree with.

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.

I’d say that the creation of the stories was more complex than that, but I don’t necessarily disagree with what you are saying. Each story is different, and some may be simply stories, others may reflect some basis in truth. Flood myths are common in many cultures, so why is that? Coincidence or common occurrence (I am not saying the world was flooded, far from it.)

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.

Complicated issue this one. Two issues here, both of which I’ll have to simplify for space.

1) Primitive people were not necessarily less moral, or less intelligent than we are today; far from it. Morals are, in my opinion, subjective, and also reflections of thought at the time. They just had varying standards, and this is evident throughout history. Actions are simply actions, and whilst we may disagree with some ancient moral actions, it does not make them intrinsically wrong. Was it right to marry a 13 year old girl then, is it wrong now? Is sodomy ok now, but not then? I’m sure you know this too, but primitive people are/were not less intelligent too; brain size, etc, is the same – there is just more accumulation of information generation by generation.

2) People on the whole are not of the same intellectual capacity, but this does not lead to fundamentalism. I don’t think this is what you are saying, but I wanted to clarify anyway – people of less intelligence are not necessarily to be more fundamentalist in their beliefs. There are some very intelligent fundamentalists, and no doubt some very thick atheists.

Why people take on fundamentalist view is a complex issue, and one that I’m developing an interest in. On the other forum I participate on I have read whole threads where people are belligerently ignoring what is being said and persisting in saying that there is no evidence for evolution. Why do people do this? Is it psychological? It’s not the religious ideas that are to blame, as they are simply ideas, it is the people involved. Why do some people illogically (in my opinion) also act in a racist or homophobic manner?

Taking religious ideas literally is one thing, but some of the things people do because of them is beyond me. I think here I’m agreeing with you, in a round-a-bout way!

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.

Agreed. This is my personal opinion too, hence partly why I consider myself an atheist. However, I started the conversation merely saying I think religion is interesting and that I like it as a subject.

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.

Totally agree. However, we’re discussing fundamentalists again, and I’ve said I don’t agree with them (and I’m not that interested in them, other than a amusing phenomena). I love religious ideas and theory, not blind dogma. I’m interested in the religious ideas of worth, such as those of Blake and so on, not Dave the Dickhead who thinks fags are bad ‘cos God says so.

I would like to repeat your last point as it’s very, very good: Fundamentalism, even in it's weakest forms, is the problem we need to be tackling- theists and atheists alike.

Too true. What better way to break fundamentalist attitudes than to show respect and knowledge about their ideas, but to show them they are wrong and that their views are not those within their faith?

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

No, they can be left with their faith, as long as it doesn’t affect other people.

Thanks for your reply, Luke, I enjoyed reading it.

---

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.

Thanks for the info. I'll do some research on the people you say and look into their work. I came to this forum partly for leads like this, so I can read people I'd not heard of's ideas. Nice one, cheers.

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.

You've totally sold me on reading it. I'll get a copy as soon as I have the money. Heavily sourcing is a great idea, and is something I think gives weight to people's views. You've got me very interested now. It's been a while since I read books in the genre you've done, but it's something I always find interesting, especially if you're right.

[Zagreus]

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

Yes, and in my opening post I said:

by this I don't mean the herd mentality of simple dogmatic religion

I also said:

(I) think that many (maybe most) atheists don't know what they are talking about when criticising the ideas.

You basically immediately said ‘religious ideas = fundamentalism, which are dumb and I laugh at it.’ Which is exactly what I was saying I have seen many atheists do, and what I wanted to avoid in this discussion; hence my comment ‘by this I don't mean the herd mentality of simple dogmatic religion.’

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

Each ejaculation as a result of masturbation ends a potential 1,000,000 lives. All life is precious and should be valued, hence why abortion is a controversial issue. Deliberate masturbation, as opposed to a wet dream which cannot be helped, is denying those potential lives of a chance to live. When does life begin? When does a cell turn into a human, and when does it have the right to life? Would you kill a 6 month old foetus?

Look, I’m not interested in debating the ideas of fundamentalists. They are wrong, we are both agreed on this, but I have the manners to listen to another human and not presume they are an idiot because they hold views that are not based on exact science. Simplifying religious ideas to ‘you can’t have a wank ‘cos you go to hell’ is just childish.

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

in this you are mistaken, religion IS people,

First thing you’ve said that is interesting. You’re also wrong. Religion is an idea, a set of beliefs, a philosophy; it is not a thing that can do wrong in itself. People do bad things because they choose to do so – if they justify this due to religion, or their upbringing (religious or not), or anything else, it is them that is to blame, not the idea. Again, natural selection, via eugenics, did not cause the holocaust, regardless of whether someone claimed this to justify it.

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.

No, humans will use any excuse they can to excuse their behaviour if they know it’s wrong, but they still do it.

Your stereotyping of religious people is sadly (and ironically) supporting my stereotype of ill informed atheists.

[Zagreus]

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.

No, it was a comment containing both a theist view and an atheist view in one. The trick in understanding ideas is to see things from another point of view in order to examine your own. My post contains two ideas:

Theist: God exists, and He shows Himself to humanity via prophets and so on, therefore the Qur’an is evidence that God exists.

Atheist: There is no scientific, empirical evidence that God exists.

You have gone from the assumption that God doesn’t exist to the conclusion that the Qur’an is wrong. If the Qur’an is right, it’s not circular, as God caused the Holy text, and therefore it is evidence. Only from a non-believer’s view is that incorrect. I don’t necessarily agree with Descartes either on things, but I still try to see his view when reading his works.

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.

My point was that these religious people did not teach unquestioning obedience, which was your point; I hadn’t even mentioned the afterlife.

Worshiping an elephant god? Yes, what silly backward Indian people they are! Remember I mentioned atheists just dismissing things they don’t understand? Hinduism is a very complex monotheistic theological system; and yes, I said monotheistic. You’d rather just dismiss it than examine the fact that the Hindu system is an intricate coordination of philosophical ideas. All I’m saying is I find it an interesting subject. If you don’t, then fine. The caste system is more complex than slavery too. Again, not necessarily something I agree with, but it still exists and is an interesting social construct. Hinduism is one of the oldest belief systems in the world, and the Rig Veda one of our species’ oldest documents, but it’s a load of old bollocks, right?

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.

I’m not telling you anything. If you’re dismissive of the subject, don’t comment in a thread about it, and don’t get the arse when someone says something you disagree with. It’s only an internet conversation. I’m not imposing any views on anyone. I said I like the subject, not ‘I think you should all agree with me.’ You can think what you like.

---

If someone wants to rant at me about how there’s a world conspiracy and the twin towers were brought down by the US government, who is run by the freemasons, I’ll listen to them too. Doesn’t mean I have to agree.

Step inside little spider....

Is there a specific thread on this, per chance? I am interested in this stuff, but it's not something I'm that into or know that much on. I'm very sceptical.

[fr0d0]

Yes there are specific threads Zagreus

Try these:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-2480.htm...conspiracy
http://atheistforums.org/thread-1469.htm...conspiracy

Not that it interests me much myself, just we've had discussions on AF.

Welcome aboard by the way. Very much enjoying your posts!

[KichigaiNeko]

Hello Zag,

While I applaud your decision on taking a more "fair" approach towards your stance on religion, I believe most of us, if not all here, have seen way too much violence involving religion to be bothered to give it's possible "good" a second thought.

It's human nature to be violent, it's not a part of religion. People may use religion to justify their actions, but the heart of most (all?) religions that I'm aware of is peace. War is largely about personal greed and politics. The good religion can do can be weighed up too. Yes, war may kill millions of people, but religious people such as Sri Ramakrishna are the cause of foundations that help millions of people. Gandhi could be another example. Remove religion you remove most of our species' history, be it culture, art, thought, etc.

I'm not saying the non-religious have never contributed to violence, but religion further divides a race already divided by so many other factors that its doing much more damage then good, in my opinion.

No, it's people's mentality that divides our species. The idea that I'm right, and you're wrong. Some religious people can be guilty of this, but so are some atheists. A Rabbi a few years ago said to me when I asked him about his views on the other Abhamaic faiths: "I think that if you are a Jew, you should be the best Jew that you can, if you are a Christian you should be the best Christian you can, and if you are a Muslim you should be the best Muslim that you can. We are all worshipping the same G-d after all" (or something like that).

If everyone thought like that, regardless of their faith or lack of it, humanity would get on better. It's the delusion that one idea is right above others is the problem, in my opinion. It's also the necessity to force this belief on others. Dawkins is as guilty of this as any religious person. (Are you getting it yet that I'm not that keen on Dawkins? Sorry, I'll stop mentioning him...)

---

Well, Religion makes me laugh.....

If nothing else.

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.

But Zagreus,

Most fundementalists Christians DO believe in an adult version

of Father Christmas living up in the sky.

They even take the Creation myth seriously.

If you want proof go to answersingenesis.com(which I am ashamed to say was

started by an Australian) where they perform the most amazing mental gymnastics

in order to "prove" Creation true.

I know. I’ve already said I don’t agree AT ALL (emphasis, not shouting) with literalist religious views. Not all religious people think like that though; it’s the fundamentalists!

Trust me, I have spent time on the religion forum I mentioned arguing against people who are trying to prove evolution a fallacy and creationism correct. They just demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the ideas. This doesn’t mean they are stupid, they may have just been raised in a culture where this wasn’t taught.

My point is that not all religious people think like that, and should not be treated as such. I should mention, as I’ve found this has bearing on conversations, I’m from the UK, where religion isn’t quite such an issue as it is in, say, the US.

To give an example, a friend of mine is a lesbian Christian who doesn’t believe in salvation. She also has a master’s degree in theology. Doesn’t really fit into your fundamentalist box does she?

I would say grasshopper...you have much to unlearn and even MORE to understand.

[LukeMC]

I'm very annoyed. Accidentally hit refresh and lost my response.

No, I didn’t mean religious convictions, I meant just generally. I might have not been clear here, so I apologise. However, I will say that neither of us are clear of these shackles, and to give you a personal example, I am in England, which is technically a Christian country. I was educated in a state school, which all used to be run by the church. I had to do RE at school, 60% of which had to be Christian. Many people that I studied at school, and after, were religious, so their views have indirectly affected my learning. Some of the laws in my country are based on religious ideas; sanctity of life is the basis of our laws on euthanasia and abortion, for example. Tony Blair was a Christian, who after resigning became a Catholic, so someone who was religious was deciding laws and governing my country. Do you see? It’s inescapable, and I find it interesting.

Thanks for the elaboration on your point, I see exactly where you're coming from now. I too am in England and grew up singing hymns in primary school. My contention is that we could potentially as a society break from these influences as we become more secular as a whole. To make such a claim would be bold of me, but given sufficient time I'm sure it is in some way achievable. You seem only to be concered with our present day ties though, in which case I'm in full agreement with you.

There’s also recent research that I need to look into that suggests that religious belief and experience could also be biological (certain centres in the brain are more active in the very religious). I can’t comment on this yet, but it will be a new thing for me to get into soon. If it is biological, then it’s a bit inescapable.

Such findings would be very profound. I'd be interested in the reactions of the religious. "We has better brains than u stupid atheists =p"

Having said that, it is mostly religious history that interests me, as I think it has had an overwhelming impact on the development of our species. How can you not love something like that?!?

Ah, how the Dark Ages fill me with glee...

I’m also saying there is more to religion than is necessarily apparent to someone who dismisses the ideas as superstitions. I don’t want to escape it, I want to understand it. Tibetan Buddhist monks who spend years battling demons on the astral plane are not just idiots, they are, I think, exploring parts of the mind that western science does not know about yet. If they stopped doing this, we would lose that information. If you’re interested in this line of conversation I can go on, but that’s enough to illustrate my point for now.

You'll receive a PM shortly.

1) Primitive people were not necessarily less moral, or less intelligent than we are today; far from it. Morals are, in my opinion, subjective, and also reflections of thought at the time. They just had varying standards, and this is evident throughout history. Actions are simply actions, and whilst we may disagree with some ancient moral actions, it does not make them intrinsically wrong. Was it right to marry a 13 year old girl then, is it wrong now? Is sodomy ok now, but not then? I’m sure you know this too, but primitive people are/were not less intelligent too; brain size, etc, is the same – there is just more accumulation of information generation by generation.

In retrospect, I probably should have written "by todays standards" somewhere in my comment. I'm with you on this one.

2) People on the whole are not of the same intellectual capacity, but this does not lead to fundamentalism. I don’t think this is what you are saying, but I wanted to clarify anyway – people of less intelligence are not necessarily to be more fundamentalist in their beliefs. There are some very intelligent fundamentalists, and no doubt some very thick atheists.

I don't think I implied such. There are, however, a number of correlation studies regarding religiousity and IQ, religiosity and acceptance of science, etc. Of course, the findings wouldn't imply an absolute link between the two factors, and I agree that intellect and fundamentalism don't necessarily share a causal link.

Why people take on fundamentalist view is a complex issue, and one that I’m developing an interest in. On the other forum I participate on I have read whole threads where people are belligerently ignoring what is being said and persisting in saying that there is no evidence for evolution. Why do people do this? Is it psychological? It’s not the religious ideas that are to blame, as they are simply ideas, it is the people involved. Why do some people illogically (in my opinion) also act in a racist or homophobic manner?

If you haven't taken a degree in psychology yet, please do so immediately. We need you on the team

I find it interesting too, but only so much as to invoke speculation. It would be interesting to see more research findings and personal testimonies regarding these situations.

Too true. What better way to break fundamentalist attitudes than to show respect and knowledge about their ideas, but to show them they are wrong and that their views are not those within their faith?

Fundamentalists can be quite stubborn. Perhaps this characteristic is how they got where they are. I recently made a new friend who turned out to be a Mormon fundamentalist. After much debate, she openly admitted that if she was presented all of the available evidence right in front of her eyes she still wouldn't accept it. To her "it doesn't make sense" that "we came from apes" and she can't come to grips with it. She also believes that homosexuality is "unnatural" and cannot cognitively process the fact that it occurs in nature and comes about by natural causes and hence is natural. The very concept of what is "natural" doesn't seem to click in her mind. She just regurgitates what her family and church friends have told her. As a case-study, I'd say she shows a huge lack of cognitive ability and a great deal of stubborn-ness. She literally cannot wrap her head around anything that doesn't confirm her worldview. She cannot "enterain an idea without accepting it", so to speak.

There's also the "I still believe it, even though you've proven it ridiculous and I have no argument to back up my assertion" wall that fundamentalists such as my friend put up.

No, they can be left with their faith, as long as it doesn’t affect other people.

Fair point, I overlooked this.

Thanks for your reply, Luke, I enjoyed reading it.

Thank you too. I'm enjoying this also.

[LEDO]

Zag, why don't you rewrite history as it pertains to religion and religious conflict. It would be more interesting than Marx who claimed economics was the driving force.

[Zen Badger]

Your stereotyping of religious people is sadly (and ironically) supporting my stereotype of ill informed atheists.

You presume much when you accuse me of being ill informed.

But I'll let it pass.

Suffice to say that people of all religions believe in a great big Santa Claus in the sky.

Despite no supporting evidence at all.

A large majority take the Bible literally, except for the bits that are metaphorical(how this

distinction is arrived at is a mystery).

And BTW Buddhisam is not a religion as it does not subscribe to the idea of a supreme being.