converting back unto theism - yes it's true.

[Edwardo Piet]

People suppose religion = delusion = harmful to society.

That's certainly the way I see it. But some of it is more harmful than others.

Religion does not exlcude rational thought, it's simply a different belief and should be respected as much a belief in science and psychology and abiogenesis is.

It may not exclude rational thought, but the belief(s) itself I consider delusional.

Every moment is a stange in our journey of understanding.

Yes... I'd just think things were better if people went by probability and evidence more often because I am of that position and I am of the position that religion is delusional.

Implying religion is a step backwards is preposterous.

The way I see it, religion is preposterous. Believing in religion isn't taking a step backwards because unfortunately religion is very much in the present and present. I wish we could move forwards.

So would a saint who's views are set in stone and on faith.. but one is far more productive than the other. I think we already have those festivals though.

The illusion of production and production are two different things.

If I change my belief all the time I'm not getting anywhere unless I'm on the right track. Yes, I can learn from those experiences but I can also learn from being of the same position for longer. You can learn from anything.

Going off topic slightly, I've always wondered if the ability to see others thoughts would lead to world peace or world destruction. That is, if everyone knew and could understand how everyone else felt, would it cause a greater understanding of humanity, or cause people to flip out and start killing each other.

Perhaps a bit of both!!

EvF

[chatpilot]

tackattack wrote: "Religion does not exlcude rational thought, it's simply a different belief and should be respected as much a belief in science and psychology and abiogenesis is."

I tend to disagree, religions idea of rationalistic thought is akin to junk or pseudoscience it's is invalid and unprovable from an empirical and objective point of view. Where do the three religions of the book get their information from? The supposed revelations of people long gone and for the most part anonymous and unknown. In my view divine inspirations or revelation is not a valid source of information because it is subject to so many factors that can detract from its authenticity. Not to mention how those same revelations become oral traditions that tend to lose their original state through the passage of time between when they were first spoken and later written down.

tackattack Wrote: "People suppose religion = delusion = harmful to society."

I wholeheartedly agree with EVF on this one. At least it is my opinion that in the realms of scientific learning and some other disciplines religious beliefs have set us back a few hundred years or so. Basing themselves on their gods idea of morals and divine authority they have stunted the growth of knowledge in the name of religion. Everything that goes against their gods ideals as set forth in their scriptures is immoral or of the devil etc. etc. Not all of Christianity thinks this way of course, but in my view when they were forced to think this way it was an impediment to learning and growth.

Finally, as far as converting back to theism goes at least in my case I find that an utter impossibility. Nothing short of God or Jesus himself speaking to me and appearing to me as he supposedly did to his disciples after his resurrection will make me accept Christianity or any religious beliefs system for that matter. I feel that with all the knowledge I have gained as an atheist I could never go back to "serving god" or bowing down to fictitious characters whose own character if we were to take some of the tales of the bible as fact remain in question. The biblical god in my view is nothing more than a bully and an intolerable tyrant, that is if he existed at all.

[TruthWorthy]

So would a saint who's views are set in stone and on faith.. but one is far more productive than the other. I think we already have those festivals though.

A saint is seen as more of an extension of God. They are believed to be guides and model characters.

[Darwinian]

So would a saint who's views are set in stone and on faith.. but one is far more productive than the other. I think we already have those festivals though.

A saint is seen as more of an extension of God. They are believed to be guides and model characters.

And what about (Saint) Thomas Moore who actually burnt people at the stake for owning a bible in English? Is he a model character and an extension of God?

[chatpilot]

Alot of these so called saints were of questionable character just like their tyrant of a god.

[Violet]

Alot of these so called saints were of questionable character just like their tyrant of a god.

I don't think his character (or the character of these saints) is particularly in question... but it's certainly not what I'd call loving or good

[Dotard]

A saint is seen as more of an extension of God. They are believed to be guides and model characters.

Saint Josaphat. Just like this God he is an extention of, his existance is highly questionable.

Saint Augustine. By his own admission lead a life of debauchery. Quote attributed to this model character --> ""Lord, make me chaste--but not yet.""

Pope Pius IX. Ok, not declared a saint, but was proposed for sainthood. For an indictment see John Cornwell's 1999 book Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII. If he was proposed for sainthood by his peers then he must have been a wonderful guide and model character.

That was just off the top of my head. I'm sure with a bit of reasearch you could come up with a few more shining examples of model characters, extentions of God and guides of the christian religion.

[fr0d0]

All Christians are saints. I'm a saint. Saint Fr0d0.

[tackattack]

Sorry about the saint festival derailment, that was simply a comparison to a schizophrenic festival and really beside the point all together. As far as atheists seeing all religion as bad or less bad in everyway.. I think I'm done with this thread.

[TruthWorthy]

I think it's because the church has changed over the centuries that what is now considered unacceptable was accepted before. The methods of granting sainthood are taken seriously enough, it's only that humanity is imperfect.