29% of Americans say religion ‘out of date’

[logical4u]

Where are the atheists when something bad happens? Whenever there's a natural disaster, a mass tragedy (i.e. the VT shooting rampage), and the perennial issues of the hungry, sick, needy, etc. where are the atheists? And no, I don't mean individuals who don't believe in God, I mean the burgeoning atheist establishment who can afford to buy two copies of the God Delusion and have enough time to pwn people on the Internets for believing in Jesus, but can't manage to grab a ladle and feed someone or donate old clothes or do anything other than bitch about Jesus-juicers.

Well look, I certainly commend acts of charity from whatever source. I make my own (very modest) acts of charity, and I certainly could do more. But whether or not one engages in charity is not testament to the truth of supernatural beliefs. Or - do you want to say that the only thing prompting you to acts of charity, is that your religion commands it?? If that is the case, I can certainly fault that as a motive for giving. And if it is not the case, then you don't need religion to appreciate the lessons of compassion. And if you don't, then what use are the gods?

Belief in the supernatural - anytime, anywhere - always comes down to politics. Supernatural beliefs entail a system of control - control by powers and principalities not answerable to you, but to whom you are always subject. There is a reason why human beings have an overwhelming tendency to claim divine sanction for their political arrangements - we are naturally inclined to dominate our fellows, and religion provides an instrument ready to hand for this purpose.

"God is Absolute," the religious are fond of saying. But absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Religion is politics. That is what makes the atheists angry - and that is why we are implacably opposed to faith.

Oh, that explains evolution and environmentalism, it IS politics.

 

[logical4u]

Isn't it funny that conservatives will believe in their mystics without any proof or evidence? They also believe in their political leaders, once again without any proof or evidence. How do liars and nutjobs get such a hold on conservatives? For once, can't they listen to someone who is telling the truth? Someone with facts, evidence or data?

facts, evidence, data - the triple threat to American Conservatism.

And yet you put your faith in the oracles of computer models and random chance. Who's got the most unlikely faith?

Soooo, computers are "magic"?

"Facts" can be twisted to say what the "leaders" want them to see: read about the fixing of the global temperatures and the destruction of the "real" evidence. Computers can only compute what is put in, people on the other hand, have "senses" beyond 1s & 0s. Unbelievers claim the believers don't use them, while believers claim the unbelievers don't use them. The OT is full of people that were not special, but overcame great challenges to be heros of old. Unbelievers will pretend it was just the man that did that, believers "sense" there is a lot more involved.

 

[Polaris]

Where are the atheists when something bad happens? Whenever there's a natural disaster, a mass tragedy (i.e. the VT shooting rampage), and the perennial issues of the hungry, sick, needy, etc. where are the atheists? And no, I don't mean individuals who don't believe in God, I mean the burgeoning atheist establishment who can afford to buy two copies of the God Delusion and have enough time to pwn people on the Internets for believing in Jesus, but can't manage to grab a ladle and feed someone or donate old clothes or do anything other than bitch about Jesus-juicers.

Well look, I certainly commend acts of charity from whatever source. I make my own (very modest) acts of charity, and I certainly could do more. But whether or not one engages in charity is not testament to the truth of supernatural beliefs. Or - do you want to say that the only thing prompting you to acts of charity, is that your religion commands it?? If that is the case, I can certainly fault that as a motive for giving. And if it is not the case, then you don't need religion to appreciate the lessons of compassion. And if you don't, then what use are the gods?

Belief in the supernatural - anytime, anywhere - always comes down to politics. Supernatural beliefs entail a system of control - control by powers and principalities not answerable to you, but to whom you are always subject. There is a reason why human beings have an overwhelming tendency to claim divine sanction for their political arrangements - we are naturally inclined to dominate our fellows, and religion provides an instrument ready to hand for this purpose.

"God is Absolute," the religious are fond of saying. But absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Religion is politics. That is what makes the atheists angry - and that is why we are implacably opposed to faith.

Oh, that explains evolution and environmentalism, it IS politics.

Hey - you're getting it! Any claim to truth is a normative claim - a claim about what you ought to believe. The difference between us, comes down to what the purposes of a belief are. For you, belief is nihilistic - it has no purpose. You believe for no other reason, than that you were commanded to believe (commanded to love, etc. etc.). You can have no purposes of your own, in other words. You are told what to think, how to feel. That is how cults work. Religion, again at its dark heart, is about someone else's control, and your obedience. That's nihilism.

The fact of evolution is politics, in this simple respect: our survival, as well as our individual and collective prosperity, requires certain conditions. Fail to meet these conditions - fail, in other words, to adapt to a changing environment, and you are wiped out - you are removed from the scene and any purposes you might value are extinguished along with you.

A key point that you monotheists/nihilists tend to miss here, is that evolution has an essentially cooperative logic pertinent to it. It is not adaption in the sense of blanket obedience to the power of another. Rather - power, in the evolutionary model, is the product of cooperative endeavor - life invariably proceeds, and thrives, by co-evolutionary dynamics.

So yes, evolution and environmentalism, like all truths, are about politics. They are about the rules that need to be followed, if we want to be happy. Monotheism in contrast, is in the end about the complete suppression of your being. It is the very opposite about the quest for well-being. Evolution, instead, acknowledges your real freedom and responsibility in the quest for well-being.

Ecrasez L'Infame - Deus Delenda Est!

 

[Big Fitz]

I sometimes wonder if being an Atheist makes people happy. They spend so much time talking about "the truth" and not believing in fairytales. How's that working for ya?

I've yet to meet a single Atheist who's comforted by the fact that this is it and even if their whole world turns to shit, they're relieved to know that THIS is IT and all that ever will be.

I know *I* feel more comforted believing that.

You know--a lie can comfort, the truth can kill.

"The truth will set you free... but first it will piss you off." Solomon Short from the "War Against the Chtorr" novels by David Gerrold.

 

[Avatar4321]

Thinking about it, many more people should realize their religion is out of date if they dont have actual revelation from God. I mean how are we supposed to know what God wants if the religious doctrine denies that God can actually speak. If we are out building an ark when the Flood is long past, is our religion really up to date?

 

[Smartt33]

You expect me to show respect for a book that calls me a fool and/or a sinner?

Yup, Unless you just like being a fool and a sinner.

 

[logical4u]

Well look, I certainly commend acts of charity from whatever source. I make my own (very modest) acts of charity, and I certainly could do more. But whether or not one engages in charity is not testament to the truth of supernatural beliefs. Or - do you want to say that the only thing prompting you to acts of charity, is that your religion commands it?? If that is the case, I can certainly fault that as a motive for giving. And if it is not the case, then you don't need religion to appreciate the lessons of compassion. And if you don't, then what use are the gods?

Belief in the supernatural - anytime, anywhere - always comes down to politics. Supernatural beliefs entail a system of control - control by powers and principalities not answerable to you, but to whom you are always subject. There is a reason why human beings have an overwhelming tendency to claim divine sanction for their political arrangements - we are naturally inclined to dominate our fellows, and religion provides an instrument ready to hand for this purpose.

"God is Absolute," the religious are fond of saying. But absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Religion is politics. That is what makes the atheists angry - and that is why we are implacably opposed to faith.

Oh, that explains evolution and environmentalism, it IS politics.

Hey - you're getting it! Any claim to truth is a normative claim - a claim about what you ought to believe. The difference between us, comes down to what the purposes of a belief are. For you, belief is nihilistic - it has no purpose. You believe for no other reason, than that you were commanded to believe (commanded to love, etc. etc.). You can have no purposes of your own, in other words. You are told what to think, how to feel. That is how cults work. Religion, again at its dark heart, is about someone else's control, and your obedience. That's nihilism.

The fact of evolution is politics, in this simple respect: our survival, as well as our individual and collective prosperity, requires certain conditions. Fail to meet these conditions - fail, in other words, to adapt to a changing environment, and you are wiped out - you are removed from the scene and any purposes you might value are extinguished along with you.

A key point that you monotheists/nihilists tend to miss here, is that evolution has an essentially cooperative logic pertinent to it. It is not adaption in the sense of blanket obedience to the power of another. Rather - power, in the evolutionary model, is the product of cooperative endeavor - life invariably proceeds, and thrives, by co-evolutionary dynamics.

So yes, evolution and environmentalism, like all truths, are about politics. They are about the rules that need to be followed, if we want to be happy. Monotheism in contrast, is in the end about the complete suppression of your being. It is the very opposite about the quest for well-being. Evolution, instead, acknowledges your real freedom and responsibility in the quest for well-being.

Ecrasez L'Infame - Deus Delenda Est!

Great opinion! Let me see if I understand?

Evolution/environmentalism require cult-like behavior to function (while those in the leadership wink and nod, because they do not have to follow the "cooperative" behavior), to pretend it is all about "the better good". The population, out of the necessity of enforcing the "rules" must be suppressed by other men. Those doing the suppressing tell them "it is for the common good", and use the power entrusted to them, to abuse and humiliate others (if the leaders do not hurt people publicly, or they control speech, they will be in power for a very long time). This will continue until another group, usurps the first group (in the name of change), and continues using the same methods, possibly with subtle differences.

If you want the strict truth of evolution, theorectically, the strongest survive and populate, the weak are killed and abused. It is similar to the theory of kingship: by the king's will, you are ALLOWED to live today. It is the king's will that you serve in ____ way.

Yeshua' teaching: love the Lord, your God before all else (something way bigger and more powerful than anything on earth can influence your life), and love your neighbor as yourself (the rub is: you have to know how to love yourself). There is no enforcement, it is strictly voluntary. You will be rewarded according to your actions when Yeshua comes again. If you are interested in pleasing the Lord, your reward can be great, if not, your reward may not be so good, it is your choice.

It is about being the best person that you can be. If you are the best person, those around you will be inspired to do better, and the people around those people will be inspired to do better, and so on, and so on. It is really quite simple.

The rest of the Book is to motivate, and demostrate the possibilities. The rules were given WHEN people begged for guidelines. If you read the Commandments (and actully comprehend them), you will see there is no fault there and that every gov since, has used bits and pieces to to keep an ordered society. It is only when people choose NOT to follow those Commandments that trouble occurs. Think about it.

Please don't waste my time by pointing out all the times evil has used religion to work its agenda (this is because if evil, like libs, uses honesty, no one will cooperate). Think about the people that actually try to live the faith, not those that twist it.

 

[Polaris]

Great opinion! Let me see if I understand?

Evolution/environmentalism require cult-like behavior to function (while those in the leadership wink and nod, because they do not have to follow the "cooperative" behavior), to pretend it is all about "the better good".

I doubt that you do understand. Evolution and environmentalism make claims to truth that are based on reason and empirical evidence. Massive amounts of evidence, in fact.

Again, the authority of the claims that they make, stems from the fact that they are rooted in evidence - that is, in independently verifiable/ publically verifiable, causes which are warrant for the claims. The authority of a cult, in contrast, is always and chiefly a matter of purely personal attestation. Such claim is taken as "true," ultimately, because "somebody that I do not wish to doubt, told me it was true."

The authority of those in the scientific community, is based on evidence. The authority of the prophets, if it does not convey insight that anyone else could (at least in principle) figure out for themselves, is rooted in a simple cult of personality.

It never ceases to amuse me, how doe-eyed believers will freely indulge in anti-intellectualism, sneering at actual expertise, while giving a total free pass to the untestable, unprovable prophetic ravings of men long dead.

It never ceases to amuse me, how you types will pour scorn on "the better good," if the attempts to reach it, do not include due deference to your cult of personality. As if the only ones who could actually be concerned about the greater good, were you and your co-religionists. The arrogance is breathtaking...! Though of course, I admit, it could be a lot worse. Four centuries ago and more, your type was roasting me and mine at the stake.

The population, out of the necessity of enforcing the "rules" must be suppressed by other men. Those doing the suppressing tell them "it is for the common good", and use the power entrusted to them, to abuse and humiliate others (if the leaders do not hurt people publicly, or they control speech, they will be in power for a very long time). This will continue until another group, usurps the first group (in the name of change), and continues using the same methods, possibly with subtle differences.

This paragraph neatly describes the transition from the Inquisitors to the Jacobins. Dogmatic intolerance is the cardinal political feature of religious authority - and that authority can appear also in secular religious movements like Nazism and Communism.

If you want the strict truth of evolution, theorectically, the strongest survive and populate, the weak are killed and abused.

No, that's inaccurate. In evolution, the most adaptive are the ones that survive and propogate. Adaption is only partially a function of individual fitness. It is also - more significantly - a product of efficiently coordinated action between the members of a given species, as well as between species. Cooperating species win the race against individuals in any other species, no matter how individually strong they might be.

It is similar to the theory of kingship: by the king's will, you are ALLOWED to live today. It is the king's will that you serve in ____ way.

You're so close, but you don't yet see it! The theory of kingship is, at its essence, a theory of nihilism; and the theory of kingship is at the heart of all monotheistic belief systems (but it is most egregiously evident, in Christianity).

Yeshua' teaching: love the Lord, your God before all else (something way bigger and more powerful than anything on earth can influence your life)

This is where Christianity goes wrong. It is a contradiction in terms, to command someone to love. Love must be given, can only be given, freely - in the absence of obligation.

Secondly: you presume that love is owed (again, a contradiction in terms) to a being, because that being is "big" and "powerful." This is to completely miss the point of real love. Love is given, because the object of love is understood, and appreciated for its beauty, not because it is incomprehensible or (especially) because it is "stronger" than us.

There is no enforcement, it is strictly voluntary.

Sure, someone can put a gun to my head and tell me, "Now, you know I love you - you just have to do exactly as I say, and I won't have to pull the trigger. The first thing you can do (voluntarily, of course!), is tell me that I am Number One. We'll get to the rest in due time." I always have to laugh when Christians - so sincerely! - offer me this kind of freedom.

You will be rewarded according to your actions when Yeshua comes again. If you are interested in pleasing the Lord, your reward can be great, if not, your reward may not be so good, it is your choice.

Again, this is the lynch-pin of Christianity as a nihilist worldview. A Christian's foremost obligation is to do what is "pleasing to the Lord" - taking it somehow just as assumed, that whatever "pleases God" is actually something worth doing. "The law is the pleasure of the Prince," said Machiavelli. As an atheist, I could not disagree more strongly. In the end, the difference between us, is that you believe that Might makes Right, (that God's justice is logically derived from God's power), and I do not.

What is the source of the authority for your claim to the knowledge of good and evil? On a matter so important, I think it is totally irresponsible, to just take someone's word for it. No, instead they must make an argument and give me reasons to believe that their criterion is adequate to our experience in this life.

 

[Father Time]

Great opinion! Let me see if I understand?

Evolution/environmentalism require cult-like behavior to function (while those in the leadership wink and nod, because they do not have to follow the "cooperative" behavior), to pretend it is all about "the better good".

I doubt that you do understand. Evolution and environmentalism make claims to truth that are based on reason and empirical evidence. Massive amounts of evidence, in fact.

Err not always. Evolution is, but environmentalism can give lip service to any number of theories not all of which are backed up by reams of evidence.

 

[logical4u]

Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
Great opinion! Let me see if I understand?

Evolution/environmentalism require cult-like behavior to function (while those in the leadership wink and nod, because they do not have to follow the "cooperative" behavior), to pretend it is all about "the better good".
I doubt that you do understand. Evolution and environmentalism make claims to truth that are based on reason and empirical evidence. Massive amounts of evidence, in fact.

Again, the authority of the claims that they make, stems from the fact that they are rooted in evidence - that is, in independently verifiable/ publically verifiable, causes which are warrant for the claims. The authority of a cult, in contrast, is always and chiefly a matter of purely personal attestation. Such claim is taken as "true," ultimately, because "somebody that I do not wish to doubt, told me it was true."

The authority of those in the scientific community, is based on evidence. The authority of the prophets, if it does not convey insight that anyone else could (at least in principle) figure out for themselves, is rooted in a simple cult of personality.

It never ceases to amuse me, how doe-eyed believers will freely indulge in anti-intellectualism, sneering at actual expertise, while giving a total free pass to the untestable, unprovable prophetic ravings of men long dead.

It never ceases to amuse me, how you types will pour scorn on "the better good," if the attempts to reach it, do not include due deference to your cult of personality. As if the only ones who could actually be concerned about the greater good, were you and your co-religionists. The arrogance is breathtaking...! Though of course, I admit, it could be a lot worse. Four centuries ago and more, your type was roasting me and mine at the stake.

The scientists do not have all the answers and can only speak with authority on what they know. The leaked emails of the environmentalists demonstrate how "science" can be used to push a political agenda. Because their ideals "are rooted" in fact does not mean, that the facts are still being used for judgement.

As far as 'anti-intellectuctism', I can discern trickery wrapped in an intellectual bow from the history of similar attempts of 'intellectual control'. If you would like to demonstrate where the greater good was used to contol a society and it ACTUALLY worked, I would be more likely to listen to the old ideas of evil with new polish. I can demonstrate where the 'greater good' was used to kill thousands and millions of people (Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, USSR, etc). Can you list successful experiments?

I specifically asked that evil that used religion to work, not be used. Since you wanted to bring it up, I agree with you, times have changed, today, it is the atheists that want to persecute those that disagree with 'their' beliefs (see the above countries listed). But if you still want to go down that path, I can point out the evil men, that used science as an excuse to torture, abuse and humiliate other people. Does that now make science evil? Does it make it less believeable? Great arguements.

Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
The population, out of the necessity of enforcing the "rules" must be suppressed by other men. Those doing the suppressing tell them "it is for the common good", and use the power entrusted to them, to abuse and humiliate others (if the leaders do not hurt people publicly, or they control speech, they will be in power for a very long time). This will continue until another group, usurps the first group (in the name of change), and continues using the same methods, possibly with subtle differences.
This paragraph neatly describes the transition from the Inquisitors to the Jacobins. Dogmatic intolerance is the cardinal political feature of religious authority - and that authority can appear also in secular religious movements like Nazism and Communism.

You are making my point; Christianity, if done individually, improves the world; if it is removed (made illegal), another, much more sinister religion will take its place. The religion that believes men can control other men and subjugate them for their own purposes. It is like 'peace on earth', the only way that would be possible is if one person gets their way and every other person works to make it happen. That is not a world that I would like to live.

Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
If you want the strict truth of evolution, theorectically, the strongest survive and populate, the weak are killed and abused.
No, that's inaccurate. In evolution, the most adaptive are the ones that survive and propogate. Adaption is only partially a function of individual fitness. It is also - more significantly - a product of efficiently coordinated action between the members of a given species, as well as between species. Cooperating species win the race against individuals in any other species, no matter how individually strong they might be.

There is more than one definition of strong. The point was that evolution, is used by evil to deceive intellectuals and it works.

Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
It is similar to the theory of kingship: by the king's will, you are ALLOWED to live today. It is the king's will that you serve in ____ way.
You're so close, but you don't yet see it! The theory of kingship is, at its essence, a theory of nihilism; and the theory of kingship is at the heart of all monotheistic belief systems (but it is most egregiously evident, in Christianity).

Yes, we look to Yeshua to be our future king, but it is not the kingship of men. Yeshua proved His ability to love us and forgive us. His teaching that the greatest serve the least: is what is 'said', by intellectuals, but seldom practiced.
It is not similar to men being in power, men are weak, spiritually, physically, and mentally, they can be manipulated by evil, intellectualism and emotions.

Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
Yeshua' teaching: love the Lord, your God before all else (something way bigger and more powerful than anything on earth can influence your life)
This is where Christianity goes wrong. It is a contradiction in terms, to command someone to love. Love must be given, can only be given, freely - in the absence of obligation.

Secondly: you presume that love is owed (again, a contradiction in terms) to a being, because that being is "big" and "powerful." This is to completely miss the point of real love. Love is given, because the object of love is understood, and appreciated for its beauty, not because it is incomprehensible or (especially) because it is "stronger" than us.

Again, you pretend to comprehend, but you lack wisdom and understanding. The 'commandments' were requested by the Hebrews for guidelines, they were not 'issued' as a requirement for the love given to us by the Lord. If you will, it is kind of like a parent setting boundaries for their children, if the child breaks the boundary, the parent does not stop loving the child. I do not 'presume' that my love is owed to the Lord. My heart and everyone of my senses tell me every day that the Lord is here and His works are all around us; I give my thanks willingly and love Him for the support He gives.


Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
There is no enforcement, it is strictly voluntary.
Sure, someone can put a gun to my head and tell me, "Now, you know I love you - you just have to do exactly as I say, and I won't have to pull the trigger. The first thing you can do (voluntarily, of course!), is tell me that I am Number One. We'll get to the rest in due time." I always have to laugh when Christians - so sincerely! - offer me this kind of freedom.

Have you read the book of proverbs, I think you are in it, as a warning of people that will try to lead you away from the Lord promising good. Where is your good? Where do you get the authority to provide for all men? You want to claim there is force, there is none. Science and intellectuals only offer misery, there is no evidence they can help any person, spiritually. Science is a tool, it is not a way of life. Intellect without understanding or wisdom is useless; it walks people in endless circles and prevents growth. Christian 'freedom' comes from 'knowing' how much we need the Lord and others. Serving the Lord and others is rewarded by blessings. Atheists have no comphension of that, they can not measure spirituality, or its rewards. I understand why you want people to join you in that pool of despair that offers no hope, but dust (you after death), no love, but bare 'survival', it is lonely there. Maybe if you started reading the Bible for understanding instead of looking at manipulated 'facts', you could grow in wisdom.

Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
You will be rewarded according to your actions when Yeshua comes again. If you are interested in pleasing the Lord, your reward can be great, if not, your reward may not be so good, it is your choice.
Again, this is the lynch-pin of Christianity as a nihilist worldview. A Christian's foremost obligation is to do what is "pleasing to the Lord" - taking it somehow just as assumed, that whatever "pleases God" is actually something worth doing. "The law is the pleasure of the Prince," said Machiavelli. As an atheist, I could not disagree more strongly. In the end, the difference between us, is that you believe that Might makes Right, (that God's justice is logically derived from God's power), and I do not.

What is the source of the authority for your claim to the knowledge of good and evil? On a matter so important, I think it is totally irresponsible, to just take someone's word for it. No, instead they must make an argument and give me reasons to believe that their criterion is adequate to our experience in this life.

It is simple: does it lead to goodness? If it does not, then it is evil. Intellectuals will use force (or use others as force) to keep their power over others. Where does their authority originate? Why would you trust men over a being that told us the earth and all life was created by Him? Why would He lie? He has shown His power, if He lived according to men, He could simply enslave us physically and demand we pay Him homage, hourly, daily... When you use reason, do you ever wonder where that ability started? If you search your heart when you are alone in the dark, is there no spark of light, that lets you know that you are not alone? The Lord is more than 'someone's word for it'; it is a basic sense and instinct. The fact that you choose to ignore that is a loss for you.

 

[Polaris]

As far as 'anti-intellectuctism', I can discern trickery wrapped in an intellectual bow from the history of similar attempts of 'intellectual control'. If you would like to demonstrate where the greater good was used to contol a society and it ACTUALLY worked, I would be more likely to listen to the old ideas of evil with new polish. I can demonstrate where the 'greater good' was used to kill thousands and millions of people (Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, USSR, etc). Can you list successful experiments?

Are you serious? When, throughout all the centuries of Christian domination in Europe, did Christians condemn slavery? For that matter, when did Jesus ever condemn slavery? C'mon! It was Enlightenment intellectuals who paved the way for representative democracy and the doctrine of universal human rights. Humanism began during the Renaissance; at that time, it was understood through the prism of Christianity - but after the great Wars of Religion in the 17th century, enlightened thinkers turned to a secular basis for human rights and human progress. This is evident, with the Framers of the Constitution, who disestablished religion in the very first Amendment.

One of the reasons why slavery lasted for so long in the U.S., is that Southerners could rely on no less an authority as St. Paul, for the defense of their "peculiar institution." Almost all the moral progress that the world has seen since the 18th century, has come from the rejection of religion! And now, the Islamists and the evangelicals are trying to drag the world back into Medieval times - !

You are making my point; Christianity, if done individually, improves the world; if it is removed (made illegal), another, much more sinister religion will take its place. The religion that believes men can control other men and subjugate them for their own purposes.

All religions give some men the warrant to dominate others. All organized religions, to one extent or another, are political movements which seek to control and dominate. No secularist is calling for making religion illegal - we happen to really believe in the freedom of conscience (which is why political religions like Communism are not secularist movements, but ersatz religions, with all of religion's dogmatism and violence).

Yes, we look to Yeshua to be our future king, but it is not the kingship of men.

Hah! Just who do you think you're fooling? This Yeshua is the man who must be obeyed, lest we all be cast into the pit... I'm sorry, but I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of a man - any man.

Again, you pretend to comprehend, but you lack wisdom and understanding. The 'commandments' were requested by the Hebrews for guidelines,

I see no textual evidence of that. Anyway, a commandment is a commandment. It is not law - for when the law rules, no one is above it. But God, as The Autocrat, is above all the laws. A tyrant, in other words.

they were not 'issued' as a requirement for the love given to us by the Lord. If you will, it is kind of like a parent setting boundaries for their children,

This is what religion does - it wants to make men infantile. No - men have the dignity of self-responsiblity. We are not children.

Have you read the book of proverbs, I think you are in it, as a warning of people that will try to lead you away from the Lord promising good.

Yes, I've read Proverbs. The simple fact is that Proverbs reveals, indirectly, the voice of many people in Biblical times who were like myself - who looked at the message of monotheism and thought - "No, that's all wrong!" People like the authors of Job and Ecclesiastes. People who weren't fooled into thinking that power connoted righteousness. We lost the argument back then; but not this time.

 

[logical4u]

As far as 'anti-intellectuctism', I can discern trickery wrapped in an intellectual bow from the history of similar attempts of 'intellectual control'. If you would like to demonstrate where the greater good was used to contol a society and it ACTUALLY worked, I would be more likely to listen to the old ideas of evil with new polish. I can demonstrate where the 'greater good' was used to kill thousands and millions of people (Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, USSR, etc). Can you list successful experiments?

Are you serious? When, throughout all the centuries of Christian domination in Europe, did Christians condemn slavery? For that matter, when did Jesus ever condemn slavery? C'mon! It was Enlightenment intellectuals who paved the way for representative democracy and the doctrine of universal human rights. Humanism began during the Renaissance; at that time, it was understood through the prism of Christianity - but after the great Wars of Religion in the 17th century, enlightened thinkers turned to a secular basis for human rights and human progress. This is evident, with the Framers of the Constitution, who disestablished religion in the very first Amendment.

One of the reasons why slavery lasted for so long in the U.S., is that Southerners could rely on no less an authority as St. Paul, for the defense of their "peculiar institution." Almost all the moral progress that the world has seen since the 18th century, has come from the rejection of religion! And now, the Islamists and the evangelicals are trying to drag the world back into Medieval times - !

You are making my point; Christianity, if done individually, improves the world; if it is removed (made illegal), another, much more sinister religion will take its place. The religion that believes men can control other men and subjugate them for their own purposes.

All religions give some men the warrant to dominate others. All organized religions, to one extent or another, are political movements which seek to control and dominate. No secularist is calling for making religion illegal - we happen to really believe in the freedom of conscience (which is why political religions like Communism are not secularist movements, but ersatz religions, with all of religion's dogmatism and violence).



Hah! Just who do you think you're fooling? This Yeshua is the man who must be obeyed, lest we all be cast into the pit... I'm sorry, but I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of a man - any man.



I see no textual evidence of that. Anyway, a commandment is a commandment. It is not law - for when the law rules, no one is above it. But God, as The Autocrat, is above all the laws. A tyrant, in other words.

they were not 'issued' as a requirement for the love given to us by the Lord. If you will, it is kind of like a parent setting boundaries for their children,

This is what religion does - it wants to make men infantile. No - men have the dignity of self-responsiblity. We are not children.

Have you read the book of proverbs, I think you are in it, as a warning of people that will try to lead you away from the Lord promising good.

Yes, I've read Proverbs. The simple fact is that Proverbs reveals, indirectly, the voice of many people in Biblical times who were like myself - who looked at the message of monotheism and thought - "No, that's all wrong!" People like the authors of Job and Ecclesiastes. People who weren't fooled into thinking that power connoted righteousness. We lost the argument back then; but not this time.

Where was that example you were showing of a seculaist gov that didn't abuse people worse than evil leaders that 'used' religion?

What do you think gives men the sense of 'dignity of self-responsibility' and freedom of conscienceness? Maybe you think those traits 'evolved' or are given to you by the 'all-benevolent godless govs'? Maybe it is comforting to know those govs only kill those that disagree with them (we won't mention the confiscation of wealth, skills or knowledge)

Religions have problems. I am pointing out that, historically, the absence of any 'higher' authority results in worse attrocities, than the terrible miseries that happen when evil uses religion alone.

 

[Father Time]

As far as 'anti-intellectuctism', I can discern trickery wrapped in an intellectual bow from the history of similar attempts of 'intellectual control'. If you would like to demonstrate where the greater good was used to contol a society and it ACTUALLY worked, I would be more likely to listen to the old ideas of evil with new polish. I can demonstrate where the 'greater good' was used to kill thousands and millions of people (Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, USSR, etc). Can you list successful experiments?

Are you serious? When, throughout all the centuries of Christian domination in Europe, did Christians condemn slavery? For that matter, when did Jesus ever condemn slavery? C'mon! It was Enlightenment intellectuals who paved the way for representative democracy and the doctrine of universal human rights. Humanism began during the Renaissance; at that time, it was understood through the prism of Christianity - but after the great Wars of Religion in the 17th century, enlightened thinkers turned to a secular basis for human rights and human progress. This is evident, with the Framers of the Constitution, who disestablished religion in the very first Amendment.

One of the reasons why slavery lasted for so long in the U.S., is that Southerners could rely on no less an authority as St. Paul, for the defense of their "peculiar institution." Almost all the moral progress that the world has seen since the 18th century, has come from the rejection of religion! And now, the Islamists and the evangelicals are trying to drag the world back into Medieval times - !



All religions give some men the warrant to dominate others. All organized religions, to one extent or another, are political movements which seek to control and dominate. No secularist is calling for making religion illegal - we happen to really believe in the freedom of conscience (which is why political religions like Communism are not secularist movements, but ersatz religions, with all of religion's dogmatism and violence).



Hah! Just who do you think you're fooling? This Yeshua is the man who must be obeyed, lest we all be cast into the pit... I'm sorry, but I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of a man - any man.



I see no textual evidence of that. Anyway, a commandment is a commandment. It is not law - for when the law rules, no one is above it. But God, as The Autocrat, is above all the laws. A tyrant, in other words.



This is what religion does - it wants to make men infantile. No - men have the dignity of self-responsiblity. We are not children.

Have you read the book of proverbs, I think you are in it, as a warning of people that will try to lead you away from the Lord promising good.

Yes, I've read Proverbs. The simple fact is that Proverbs reveals, indirectly, the voice of many people in Biblical times who were like myself - who looked at the message of monotheism and thought - "No, that's all wrong!" People like the authors of Job and Ecclesiastes. People who weren't fooled into thinking that power connoted righteousness. We lost the argument back then; but not this time.

Where was that example you were showing of a seculaist gov that didn't abuse people worse than evil leaders that 'used' religion?

What do you think gives men the sense of 'dignity of self-responsibility' and freedom of conscienceness? Maybe you think those traits 'evolved' or are given to you by the 'all-benevolent godless govs'? Maybe it is comforting to know those govs only kill those that disagree with them (we won't mention the confiscation of wealth, skills or knowledge)

Religions have problems. I am pointing out that, historically, the absence of any 'higher' authority results in worse attrocities, than the terrible miseries that happen when evil uses religion alone.

Ah but can you prove the absence of theism led to such atrocities or do you merely have correlation?

 

[Smartt33]

I find it very interesting that in a discussion about "religions," which demeans "religions" and makes them out to be evil and a cause for world problems, the only one that is named is Christianity.

That speaks volumes.

I personally don't believe we need religion of any sort. However, I do believe that we do need to have a real and personal relationship with the Creator God. We don't have to have religion when we have that relationship.

 

[Polaris]

What do you think gives men the sense of 'dignity of self-responsibility' and freedom of conscienceness? Maybe you think those traits 'evolved'

- Yes, that's right. For the last generation or so, evolutionary science has been piecing together an explanation of how morality in primate species has evolved. Turns out there's an intimate connection between doing good, and doing well. No God required.

 

[Polaris]

I find it very interesting that in a discussion about "religions," which demeans "religions" and makes them out to be evil and a cause for world problems, the only one that is named is Christianity.

That speaks volumes.

If you've read my posts you'll find that I have been inveighing against superstition - which covers, naturally enough, all belief in the supernatural, not just monotheism or Christianity; though I would say that monotheism is, on ethical grounds, the worst kind of superstition, and Christianity the most inimical variety of monotheism...

I personally don't believe we need religion of any sort. However, I do believe that we do need to have a real and personal relationship with the Creator God. We don't have to have religion when we have that relationship.

If such a God exists, the only thing we need do, is make certain that that God recognize our rights against him. Something like a theological Magna Carta.

 

[Smartt33]

I find it very interesting that in a discussion about "religions," which demeans "religions" and makes them out to be evil and a cause for world problems, the only one that is named is Christianity.

That speaks volumes.

If you've read my posts you'll find that I have been inveighing against superstition - which covers, naturally enough, all belief in the supernatural, not just monotheism or Christianity; though I would say that monotheism is, on ethical grounds, the worst kind of superstition, and Christianity the most inimical variety of monotheism...

I personally don't believe we need religion of any sort. However, I do believe that we do need to have a real and personal relationship with the Creator God. We don't have to have religion when we have that relationship.

If such a God exists, the only thing we need do, is make certain that that God recognize our rights against him. Something like a theological Magna Carta.

Sometimes when I teach a class in the schools I start out by telling the kids that they have a right to do whatever they want to do, I cannot physically stop them (unless it is physically dangeous to the person or others). they can sit there and not do anything, leave the room and the school, and even talk. However, I have the right to delve out the consequences for any behavior that warrants it.

God would say, you have all the freedom you want, but if you want His blessings, you have the freedom to honor Him as your Creator.

To the Devil, God might say, "Go ahead, make my day!"

 

[Polaris]

Sometimes when I teach a class in the schools I start out by telling the kids that they have a right to do whatever they want to do, I cannot physically stop them (unless it is physically dangeous to the person or others). they can sit there and not do anything, leave the room and the school, and even talk. However, I have the right to delve out the consequences for any behavior that warrants it.

God would say, you have all the freedom you want, but if you want His blessings, you have the freedom to honor Him as your Creator.

What does "honoring" this god, have to do with getting blessings? Or, more to the point, what does "honoring" that god have to do with deserving blessings? Is that god deserving of "honor" merely because it has the power to create? Why should I be in a debt-obligation that I never asked for, that came to me unbidden? What's ethical, or for that matter honorable, about a contract that is forced on me?

A being does not deserve respect, much less obedience, merely because it is powerful. And I obviously do not have "freedom," if I can only deviate from divine command on pain of unimaginably severe punishment.

An ethically evolved attitude would say that if I receive "blessings," it is on account of my own, righteous action (or, luck). It is a primitive, child-like ethics which says, "no matter what you do, please the Elder, the one who is bigger and stronger than you, so that he decides not to punish you!" A deity which dispenses reward and punishment simply on the basis of others' obsequious recognition "You're number One!" is not an honorable deity, but a mere tyrant. If I choose the right, it is something that is right, regardless of what any Creator thinks. And if I choose the right, I deserve reward, regardless of what any Creator thinks.

 

[Douger]

Jesus. A mythical figure from a primitive Middle Eastern desert people who didn't even speak English. Wore long hair, a beard, sandals and dirty wizards robes. Supposedly believed that a good slave would work at being a "good" slave.

If such a being ever showed up in America, not a single religious leader in this country would give him the time of day. Believe it.

I see you've been reading your Bible again. Good for you!!!! America will most likely be destroyed when Jesus returns.

Man's Government is the enemy. In the final battle it will be Satan and his man made Governments against Jesus and his Angels. Guess who wins?

So Sarge. What happens when your handlers call you up for help ?

 

[logical4u]

Are you serious? When, throughout all the centuries of Christian domination in Europe, did Christians condemn slavery? For that matter, when did Jesus ever condemn slavery? C'mon! It was Enlightenment intellectuals who paved the way for representative democracy and the doctrine of universal human rights. Humanism began during the Renaissance; at that time, it was understood through the prism of Christianity - but after the great Wars of Religion in the 17th century, enlightened thinkers turned to a secular basis for human rights and human progress. This is evident, with the Framers of the Constitution, who disestablished religion in the very first Amendment.

One of the reasons why slavery lasted for so long in the U.S., is that Southerners could rely on no less an authority as St. Paul, for the defense of their "peculiar institution." Almost all the moral progress that the world has seen since the 18th century, has come from the rejection of religion! And now, the Islamists and the evangelicals are trying to drag the world back into Medieval times - !



All religions give some men the warrant to dominate others. All organized religions, to one extent or another, are political movements which seek to control and dominate. No secularist is calling for making religion illegal - we happen to really believe in the freedom of conscience (which is why political religions like Communism are not secularist movements, but ersatz religions, with all of religion's dogmatism and violence).



Hah! Just who do you think you're fooling? This Yeshua is the man who must be obeyed, lest we all be cast into the pit... I'm sorry, but I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of a man - any man.



I see no textual evidence of that. Anyway, a commandment is a commandment. It is not law - for when the law rules, no one is above it. But God, as The Autocrat, is above all the laws. A tyrant, in other words.



This is what religion does - it wants to make men infantile. No - men have the dignity of self-responsiblity. We are not children.



Yes, I've read Proverbs. The simple fact is that Proverbs reveals, indirectly, the voice of many people in Biblical times who were like myself - who looked at the message of monotheism and thought - "No, that's all wrong!" People like the authors of Job and Ecclesiastes. People who weren't fooled into thinking that power connoted righteousness. We lost the argument back then; but not this time.

Where was that example you were showing of a seculaist gov that didn't abuse people worse than evil leaders that 'used' religion?

What do you think gives men the sense of 'dignity of self-responsibility' and freedom of conscienceness? Maybe you think those traits 'evolved' or are given to you by the 'all-benevolent godless govs'? Maybe it is comforting to know those govs only kill those that disagree with them (we won't mention the confiscation of wealth, skills or knowledge)

Religions have problems. I am pointing out that, historically, the absence of any 'higher' authority results in worse attrocities, than the terrible miseries that happen when evil uses religion alone.

Ah but can you prove the absence of theism led to such atrocities or do you merely have correlation?

In the 'Iron curtain" nations, there have been people imprisoned for being Christian. Their stories of being tortured and beaten, the guards doing it telling them that "they" (the guards) were the prisoners 'god' now. If the leader of a nation has no fear of a 'higher power', wouldn't that allow them to justify any behavior 'in the name of goodness'?

As far as 'proof' that 'you' would believe, no. That would take you reading the hundreds of stories and discounting them until eventually you came to realize the stories were so similar from so many different places in different times, that 'ruling' without a 'higher authority' over the leadership can only end in abuse.

As far as 'practical examples': look at people where most in a community share a faith and worship together. Compare it to a community where agnostics and atheists live. Which community would you want to raise a family in, which community would you go to 'get immoral'?

I get that you have a problem with 'God'. Do you have a problem with parents training their children? The parent tells the child: this is how you must behave or ..., if the parent states that punishment will be given, should the parent carry thru? Should the parent allow the child to use unacceptable behavior? Should the parent allow the child to do whatever action is chosen, regardless of the consequences? Does the child initially do things to 'please' the parent? Does punishment and thus 'fear' need to be applied to get the message across that some behavior is unacceptable? Once the child has learned the parent has the 'power' to inflict 'misery' (be it phycological, physical, seperation, etc), the child is 'taught' that pleasing the parent has 'rewards', displeasing the parent, causes 'problems'.

G*d is very much like a loving parent. The Bible is a book about peoples' 'spiritual' growth. It is a story that 'every' person must live. How it ends is entirely up to them. If they want to misbehave, there is punishment, if they want to behave, there are rewards. It is so simply and practical, that most 'intellectuals' cannot grasp it. They have sacrificed their spirituality for knowledge and proverbs says something about intellect without 'wisdom' is useless.

Religion is very much like a community: it is a place for people that believe alike to come together and improve themselves and thru the grace of G*d, their families and their towns.

Evil is always attracted to wealth and power (things that can come from moral behavior as well as immoral behavior). It will always seek to pull people away from the Lord. It will use, any arguement, any force, any law, any method. People (most) take awhile to uncover deceit, evil in their midst can operate for some time before discovery. If you are not seeking 'goodness' (the Lord) to begin with, how can you identify evil? If you are not willing to identify evil, how can you say that life without the belief in God lets you choose to be 'good'? What do you have for comparison? If every behavior is 'acceptable', what authority do you have to decalre 'any' behavior as 'bad'?