Zone1 Dangerous Illusions

[Foxfyre]

"The Christian Church?" You do know there are thousands, tens of thousands different denominations. Here's a good article: HOW MANY CHURCHES AND DENOMINATIONS ARE THERE IN AMERICA AND THE WORLD? (continued) - The Complete Pilgrim - Religious Travel Sites

33,000 in America. However, "For true denominations involving multiple churches under common leadership, the number is almost certainly less than two thousand. Major ones, with over a million members, probably less than five hundred."

No doubt Satan is looking to stir and move to the dark side those who have faith in Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean the Churches are influenced by Satan or his demons. They are led by and full of imperfect human beings and will make errors in judgment and administration. But, that doesn't make them demonic in any way. They are all mostly false in their doctrines but that doesn't make the people and the churches evil.

Atheists have pushed so hard that they now are a religion with their own ideology, prophets (Darwin as an example), institutions such as colleges and universities, Priests (Educators at colleges and universities and so on. their moral doctrines change with the wind based on society's ills and elusions.

Gentle correction: Darwin was not an Atheist in that he denied the existence of God. He did describe himself as agnostic regarding some Christian doctrines--I would have to describe myself in the same way as I don't KNOW if some are true or not--but he and his wife were very active in their church in England and good friends with the Vicar.

I haven't read the book and probably won't. I do suspect that like many Atheists, the author attempts to justify Atheism as the rational choice and portrays religion, especially that which comes from JudeoChristian beliefs, as irrational, unverifiable, even harmful and never beneficial to the individual or community or society as a whole.

I could write my own book on how the reverse is much more true.

 

[Woodznutz]

Labeling people is just another way to discriminate against people you don't agree with. He is a human being just like you or I . One worthy of listening to.

Not if he's trying to butcher my sacred cow.

What does he think of true believers?

 

[Stann]

Gentle correction: Darwin was not an Atheist in that he denied the existence of God. He did describe himself as agnostic regarding some Christian doctrines--I would have to describe myself in the same way as I don't KNOW if some are true or not--but he and his wife were very active in their church in England and good friends with the Vicar.

I haven't read the book and probably won't. I do suspect that like many Atheists, the author justifies Atheism as the rational choice and portrays religion, especially that which comes from JudeoChristian beliefs, as irrational, unverifiable, even harmful and never beneficial to the individual or community or society as a whole.

I could write my own book on how the reverse is much more true.

Actually he stated that the bad outweighed the good in religion and it's held the natural progression of the human race back in this world.

 

[Woodznutz]

Actually he stated that the bad outweighed the good in religion and it's held the natural progression of the human race back in this world.

Progress has brought us to the brink of destruction.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually he stated that the bad outweighed the good in religion and it's held the natural progression of the human race back in this world.

Bingo. What you expect from an Atheist trying to justify his/her Atheism. Thanks for confirming my guess as accurate.

 

[BackAgain]

Just finished reading the book " Dangerous Illusions " by Vitally Malkin. It is sure to become the definitive book on how religion has lead the human race on this planet to such a dismal place. Religious or not , it's an excellent and informative read.

Haven’t read it. I just looked up a synopsis.

Religion and social utopias are attacking our freedom of expression and thought. They impose on us the absolutist criteria of Good and Evil, faith in the beyond, and the prospect of an unclouded horizon. Such dangerous illusions remain the worst curse of they have always prevented us from self-fulfilment and everyday contentment.

We're living in a time of contradictions. Thanks to the incredible scientific and technological progress of recent decades, we've experienced changes more radical than any seen in previous centuries. At the same time, we risk making a U-turn which threatens to eradicate our secular values and reduce us to savagery.

Man or God? Reason or faith? Pleasure or abstinence? Live in the here and now or wait for life after death?

In this committed and passionate book, Malkin – a philanthropist, business man and investor – argues for a radical shift in humanity's thinking about religion; that reason and religion cannot co-exist, and that mankind will only be truly happy if we are able to shake off the illusions given us by religion in order to live a life more rooted in the present.

Dangerous Illusions sets out to explore the irrational demands that religion makes of man and asks the reader to question what benefit religious practices offer human beings in this life. Scrutinising topics such as suffering and evil, pleasure and asceticism, sex and celibacy, and circumcision and excision, through the lens of the three major world monotheistic religions, this book fearlessly refutes our most careless beliefs. It encourages us to be more aware of the dangers religions pose to our society and to change our intellectual practices altogether.

Dangerous Illusions: How Religion Deprives Us of Happin…

Religion and social utopias are attacking our freedom o…

www.goodreads.com

Appears to be a bit of an anti religious screed.

I don’t give a rat’s ass if you are (or anyone else is) an atheist; just as I don’t care if you’re an agnostic or a Hindu or a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or a fuckin’ Satanist.

But it never seems to occur to the more radical atheists that nobody else is required to adhere to their views about religion.

 

[Stann]

Progress has brought us to the brink of destruction.

It is at the brink of disaster when we shine our best.

 

[Stann]

Bingo. What you expect from an Atheist trying to justify his/her Atheism. Thanks for confirming my guess as accurate.

More labels , incorrectly used. I am a theist , I see GOD as it is not as s religious animated object.

 

[Stann]

Not if he's trying to butcher my sacred cow.

What does he think of true believers?

You mean true fools.

 

[Foxfyre]

More labels , incorrectly used. I am a theist , I see GOD as it is not as s religious animated object.

I was referring to the author of the book in the post you referred to and was still referring to the author of the book in my response that you're objecting to here. It isn't incorrectly using a label of Atheist when the author himself apparently repeatedly referred to himself as an Atheist.

 

[Cougarbear]

The tares work in and out of the church. Satan wants everything destroyed. Secular society is circling the drain, can the church be far behind? Also, when church lets out most of the 'faithful' go back into the 'the world' and live as if they've heard nothing from the pulpit (and indeed maybe they haven't).

Not so much out of the church where there is hate and destruction going on. They work on those who seek the Lord and throw mists of darkness to distract them until they fall into a filthy river of evil. The key is to hold onto the Iron Rod which is the Word of God. Our job is to help those who do not want to fall into the filthy water, or those who are in but want out. There is a large and spacious building full of naysayers trying to make the good people feel embarrassed about seeking and following God. That is the secular society and those who hate the Church and God.

 

[Cougarbear]

The Bible codified all those terrible things.

How can the Bible codified anything when the Bible is made up of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jesus Christ? Like I said, think McFly, Think!

 

[Cougarbear]

Gentle correction: Darwin was not an Atheist in that he denied the existence of God. He did describe himself as agnostic regarding some Christian doctrines--I would have to describe myself in the same way as I don't KNOW if some are true or not--but he and his wife were very active in their church in England and good friends with the Vicar.

I haven't read the book and probably won't. I do suspect that like many Atheists, the author attempts to justify Atheism as the rational choice and portrays religion, especially that which comes from JudeoChristian beliefs, as irrational, unverifiable, even harmful and never beneficial to the individual or community or society as a whole.

I could write my own book on how the reverse is much more true.

You are being honest and are correct on much. Darwin is seen as the father of Atheistism. The belief that there is no God because the story of creation in the Bible simply can't be true according to those with little or no faith. I agree that we simply don't know how it was all done (the creation). We only have a few words about it. There's endless arguments over what a "day" means. Or, even if the original word meant a day like we think of a day. The concept of a "thousand years" is just to give example to a long period of time. But, to know if God exists, ask Him. James 3:5-10-12.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Labeling people is just another way to discriminate against people you don't agree with. He is a human being just like you or I . One worthy of listening to.

Do you even see that you're guilty of the very thing you're accusing others of in this thread/post?

Of course you dont

 

[luiza]

Book Review?

Why not .
Bloody sight more interesting than endless bleating about dear Mr Trump , and Jews beating up Palestinians

 

[Foxfyre]

You are being honest and are correct on much. Darwin is seen as the father of Atheistism. The belief that there is no God because the story of creation in the Bible simply can't be true according to those with little or no faith. I agree that we simply don't know how it was all done (the creation). We only have a few words about it. There's endless arguments over what a "day" means. Or, even if the original word meant a day like we think of a day. The concept of a "thousand years" is just to give example to a long period of time. But, to know if God exists, ask Him. James 3:5-10-12.

All I am saying is that it is incorrect to think of Darwin as the father of Atheism for he was no Atheist. Did his theories challenge literal interpretations of creationism as we read in Genesis? Certainly. And to the Bible literalists that was not just heresy but blasphemy. To people like me, and probably you, it was reasonable to explore different interpretations of Genesis other than the ones the literalists demand be the ONLY interpretation.

Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee who coauthored Inherit the Wind eloquently laid out the arguments for and against teaching Darwin in the public schools in the Scopes ('monkey) trial in 1925. Henry Drummond, the Atheist representing Scopes who was not an Atheist, won the argument but lost the case because Tennessee law at that time banned Darwin's theory as curriculum. And, right or wrong, Scopes was violating the law.

Ultimately Darwin was associated with Drummond's admitted Atheism and has been misused in that way ever since. Maybe before that trial. I don't know for sure.

I personally go with both Darwin's theory and Einstein's acknowledgment of some sort of intelligent design to it all and think both fair game to discuss in public education.

It also would be appropriate to say that science has not yet devised a way to scientifically test the intelligent design theory which does not mean it has no validity. It is also appropriate to say that much of Darwin's theory has held up to scientific scrutiny but that it falls short of answering all the questions about the origin of the universe, of Planet Earth, or all the flora and fauna on it.

But back to the thread topic, Atheism too often strains at gnats to justify itself and to discredit or demonize religious or spiritual beliefs and the OP confirmed that the author of the book featured in the OP does just that.

 

[Stann]

I was referring to the author of the book in the post you referred to and was still referring to the author of the book in my response that you're objecting to here. It isn't incorrectly using a label of Atheist when the author himself apparently repeatedly referred to himself as an Atheist.

Most atheists are former religious - indoctrinated people. One article suggested that by today's standards, most were former " true believers " who really got into it in depth and found out it was all bullshit

 

[Foxfyre]

Most atheists are former religious - indoctrinated people. One article suggested that by today's standards, most were former " true believers " who really got into it in depth and found out it was all bullshit

I am in a small minority of people who got into it, am still in it, at a depth most people are not. I have studied, still study, have written curriculum for and taught JudeoChristian history, development of Jewish and Christian thought, as well as how all the different sects and denominations came to be about and comparative religions. This has been an important avocation for decades.

And I am 100% certain it is not all bullsh*t.

 

[Cougarbear]

Most atheists are former religious - indoctrinated people. One article suggested that by today's standards, most were former " true believers " who really got into it in depth and found out it was all bullshit

Then, they’re all those atheists who converted to Christ. What’s your point?

 

[Stann]

I am in a small minority of people who got into it, am still in it, at a depth most people are not. I have studied, still study, have written curriculum for and taught JudeoChristian history, development of Jewish and Christian thought, as well as how all the different sects and denominations came to be about and comparative religions. This has been an important avocation for decades.

And I am 100% certain it is not all bullsh*t.

That is unfortunate.