Ye Religion Thread

[reaper]

I honestly don't know why you guys bother with reaper, he doesn't understand elementary science and has no concept of logic and reasoning.

You guys attack the belief in god all the time, but I state the present circumstance of atheism, and you're not happy with it.  At least i'm sure you and Dahang think it's totally ridiculous to believe in god, and quadz is against faith based type charities involved with the government in any form.  I think that's fair to say

What is wrong with discussing the implications of people having no fear of god, and its affects  on civiliazation throughout time?
What's with saying "why" type questions might matter, and it's the prevailing thought, despite Stephen Hawking, and Richard Dawkin's believing it? 

As for science, not all things are testable.  I think you should pick a side, 50/50 is okay, but I don't like the idea that god is totaly ridiculous, yet you're not gonna say I don't believe in god.

Personally science is interesting to me. I've read quiet a lot of physics books that explain things in lamens terms, and i've listened to Einstein's audio book of him explaining the theories of relativity.  From Einstein explaining relativity so well, since he specifically tried to convey his theories to the lamen.  Looking at the mathametics behind the Lorentz Transformation, and listening to the audio book probably 20 times. I feel confident with a little effort and learning I could use these equations to measure space/time for observers from relative frames of reference.  While the scope of the properties of the universe is hard to grasp, I'd say that's more than an elemantary understanding of science.

[quadz]

but I state the present circumstance of atheism, and you're not happy with it.

  Reaper, the 'present circumstance' you state consists of what you apparently imagine to be true about atheism.

But your statements can be shown to be contrary to observed data.

After awhile, shouldn't it start to sink in that maybe your personal intuition about the implications of athiesm just might be wildly inaccurate?

For example:

You say: "if people were athiests it would be devastating for civilization."

Observations indicate you have it backward: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009/


You say: "Who said the majority of people still don't believe god created everything?"

Well, look at the numbers country-by-country.  http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

We have athiest/nonbeliever majorities in many of the least-troubled countries, matching up with the previous list above.


Reaper, how can it be reasonable to keep repeating claims about the consequence of atheism based on personal intuition, without providing supporting evidence?  (And apparently ignoring contradictory evidence?)

What is wrong with discussing the implications of people having no fear of god, and its affects  on civiliazation throughout time?

Maybe it depends on what you mean by "discussing".  Does "discussing" merely mean repeatedly making claims based on personal intuition, without providing any supporting evidence?


As an aside, I stumbled upon this youtube video while looking for something else, but I thought it was pretty good overall.  And relevant to this general topic:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaOVPaYf780


Regards,

[quadz]

P.S. reaper: http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

[haunted]

Not surprising at all. I'd like to see numbers comparing religions / crime rates when taking into consideration how many of that certain religion are in the area and other. I know some of the figures do this, but a better representation is what I mean. Something tells me that the more fanatical sects of religion will be higher.. 

[haunted]

Some nations may have higher percentages of Christians, but I do not think that there are ANY Christian nations. Muslim nations, yes; atheist nations, yes; Christian nations, no.

America is a Christian nation. Christianity wins presidential elections here and obviously has a huge influence. Our founding fathers started this country under the Christian god.

Christianity is a very hypocritical religion though, including a HUGE portion of it's followers. Denying that America is a Christian nation demonstrates this hypocrisy. The Christians have spilt more blood and have done more dirty deeds than anyone on the face of this planet, yet they have coined the term "Good Christian" as if being a good person actually correlated with religion. Christians go on "missionary trips" to far away countries that just so happen to be exotic beach destinations when there are COUNTLESS people that they could help near their own home....but they would rather spend peoples' hard earned money so they can go enjoy themselves in the tropics for weeks. Self-proclaimed ministers (self-proclaimed as in, not a minute of religious schooling aka DIRTY CROOKS) are all over the nation and receiving 10% of their congregation's income. I have witnessed these crooked bastard's with my own eyes blatantly try to recruit richer folks for their own benefit and $$.

As to your idea that secular nations have the best ranking, I noticed that they almost all follow Judeo-Christian morals. By the way, where did these morals come from if not from God--I mean, why not steal somebody's car if you can get away with it if there is no God to punish you? Survival of the fittest dictates that we struggle tooth-and-claw with each other to raise ourselves above everybody else in order to produce offspring of higher caliber than everybody else and ensure survival of the fittest.

The idea of God did not invent morality. Which correlates with my aforementioned statement about being a "Good Christian". Ideas of morality came with the rise of civilization (being civilized). There is absolutely no denying this. Of course, organized religion is a part of civilization, but, human beings did not start adopting morals primarily due to religion.

And you have the wrong idea about the 'survival of the fittest' concept. You're right in comparing it to a contest, because it is in a way.... but how is the winner determined? The winner of evolution = the person who produces the most offspring. Coincidentally, individuals who are the healthiest and most fit of their kind also have heightened capabilities for reproducing, which makes sense. After this happens for a few 100,000 years(varies), the end result is an "evolved" species that has changed for the better. More drastic forms of evolution happen the same way, except with genetic mutations / deformities involved. So it's not some urge to produce higher caliber offspring... It's actually just a game of chance.

The very idea of the Judeo-Christian God is evidence of His existence. Therefore, SOMETHING, at least, has to have existed that could give man an idea of an all-powerful being.

This is a totally disingenuous statement, it lacks evidence and reason. The very idea of the Judeo-Christian God is NOT evidence of his existence. An idea of any sort is not proof. In fact, the "idea" of God only confirms mankind's tendency and desire to solve the unknown. Back in the biblical days, the idea of God was man's best attempt to explain many unknown things about our planet. Currently science is the best contemporary explanation for mankind's curiosity with the unknown.

[|iR|Focalor]

I looked at your article, and I noticed that the ultra-religious nations that have the highest score tend to be African animist (animal/earth-worshiping) or fanatical Muslim nations. "Christian" nations don't really exist, as Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, the world would accept you. But as it is, they hate you because they hated me." Some nations may have higher percentages of Christians, but I do not think that there are ANY Christian nations. Muslim nations, yes; atheist nations, yes; Christian nations, no.

Using whatever kind of twisted logic THAT is, I could also claim that there are no atheist nations. The leaders of the US occasionally refer to "God" to get voters and citizens on board with their plans, but the US is not to be considered a "Christian nation"? The head-honcho's in the USSR would often exclaim their beliefs against any God (particularly concerning the Space Race), but since there were still a few Christians living there, they could not have been an atheist nation.

I didn't really read the stats, but if it's talking about crime rates and NOT "morals", then NO, most of the radical muslim ruled nations don't have the largest scores because their dictatorships use fear and torture as a means of keeping people in line. Steal a 75 cent pack of gum at the market and they lop your fucking hand off, no shit. Children disobeying certain instructions from their parents are put to death. The crime rate is low... because anyone who otherwise would commit a more serious crime is probably already dead from a lesser one.

As to your idea that secular nations have the best ranking, I noticed that they almost all follow Judeo-Christian morals. By the way, where did these morals come from if not from God--I mean, why not steal somebody's car if you can get away with it if there is no God to punish you? Survival of the fittest dictates that we struggle tooth-and-claw with each other to raise ourselves above everybody else in order to produce offspring of higher caliber than everybody else and ensure survival of the fittest.

They do not follow Christian morals, they follow LAWS which are modeled after the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi from around 1800 b.c. If it only took morals alone to keep the masses in line, no one would need governments. The ethical standards of any organized society are rooted in the codes of law.

Finally, are you willing to take Christopher Hitchens' challenge?

Here it is, in two parts:

"If it is to be argued that our morality or ethics can be derived from the supernatural, then (1) NAME me an action -- MORAL action taken by a believer or moral statement uttered by one that could not have been made or uttered by an infidel."

"But If I were to ask you, (2) can you think of a WICKED action that could ONLY have been performed by someone who believe they were on an errand from God, there isn't one of you who would take 10 seconds to give me an example. So what does that tell us? I would say it tells us a lot..."


Ready? Set? Go.

tick...tick...tick...tick...tick...tick...tick...BING!

The very idea of the Judeo-Christian God is evidence of His existence.

The very idea of the Easter Bunny is evidence of his existence. No one would ever think up a rabbit that lays chocolate eggs in a basket rather than squeezing out some bloody disgusting afterbirth covered little squirming larvae looking bunny baby for children to find the next morning. You have a Bible to give you evidence of God, I have scrumptiously delicious Reese's eggs in a basket with a barcode sticker on the bottom.

Buddha went from being a man (Siddhart Gautama) to being a "god",

But it's totally conceivable that someone could be a god/spirit, then a man, then dead, then alive again, then a god/spirit again.

God, however, would have been impossible for man to conceive totally in his own mind because there were no precedents. Nobody would ever think up someone who is totally omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; spirit, God-in-the-flesh, and three-in-one; and lord, master, and king. Therefore, SOMETHING, at least, has to have existed that could give man an idea of an all-powerful being.

Really? So you're basically saying that the Egyptians religious beliefs were true. Osiris was an omnipotent deity who judged the actions of the dead during their lifetime. His earliest recorded appearance was on the Palermo stone from around 2500 b.c. The ruling pharaoh was always considered an all-powerful god in the flesh, a living incarnation and son from the lineage of the gods themselves, kind of like Jesus Christ was the son of Jehovah.

[|iR|Focalor]

Furthermore...

I have never asked this question to any Christian before, so I'd be interested to hear the response. Have you ever considered that life did exist outside of the influence of the biblical portions of the earth at that same time? While the Egyptians were building pyramids and obelisks, and while the Romans were perfecting architecture, there were still "savage" tribes on other continents with their own polytheistic beliefs and cultures. The Mayans, for example. They did not immigrate to the "New World", they were always there. It just so happens that when people from the "Old World" (Spain, France, and Britain) found a way to travel here and bring their gospel of a monotheistic belief system based on Jehovah to rudely replace the Mayans "false gods", the Mayans all disappeared. If you can't convert it, kill it.

[Whirlingdervish]

Don't forget the many different tribes of people in northern europe who were "godless barbarians" and thus needed to be slaughtered and have their ancestral lands taken from them.

Or the Native American populations who were crushed under the heel of christianization, which was supposedly for their own good. (or for the express purpose of levying a 10% tax on people that they could not avoid without being evil, and dehumanizing them so it was fine to rape their women, enslave their children and rob them of their resources and land)

Christianity has been a giant land grab for centuries, and a convenient tool of those in power to keep those not in power down, by lending a regime legitimacy that comes from an all-knowing and all-powerful source which can't be argued with or questioned.

It was used in the same way that Islam is used in modern day Iran:
To prop up dictators and keep people subservient to the government, even when that government does not represent the ideals of it's people.

The italians used it for years to control the politics of the european continent, the spanish used it as justification to rape the shit out of the americas, the british used it to keep their own people down and to enforce taxation on them.

There are tons of examples of this which, when weighed against the supposed positive aspects of religion, compell me to deny that there is any reason for religions like christianity to be considered good or beneficial to mankind or civilization.

[deft]

My comment wasn't even directed at eternity and reaper, you need to re-read your Wikipedia definition of ad hominem.  My comment was directed at everyone trying to explain this stuff to you.  What is being discussed has nothing to do with science, it's all basic logic and you can't grasp it.  I have no need to quote examples, it's literally been done dozens of times on each page of this thread.  Being an atheist has nothing to do with science, understand?  Being "angry" at god is quite the assumption, how can you be angry at something you don't believe in?  It's like you both have convinced yourselves  that your opinions/assumptions are facts, and nothing is going to change it because it doesn't support what you thought.  This notion that the world would be crime infested anarchy without religion is absolutely ridiculous, have you even read the bible?  I don't have a problem with people who believe in god, I have a problem with religion interfering with facts, and corrupting children.  I know plenty of intelligent people who believe in a god, these same people dont believe in intelligent design or that the earth is 6,000 years old.  To me it's perfectly rational to think that there's something bigger than us outside of Earth, but to tie yourself down with a religion and all its specific details doesn't make any sense to me.  There is literally no evidence for a god, please quit pretending there is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sq-aMXHeCg  

Top 10 Non-religious countries, and their peace rating.  Hopefully this is more visual for you.

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic) - 6th
2. Vietnam - 39th
3. Denmark - 2nd
4. Norway - 2nd
5. Japan - 7th
6. Czech Republic - 11th
7. Finland - 9th
8. France - 30th
9. South Korea - 33rd
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic) - 28th

USA (9% non-believer, atheist, agnostic) - 83rd

Out of 121 countries.

[|iR|Focalor]

Don't forget the many different tribes of people in northern europe who were "godless barbarians" and thus needed to be slaughtered and have their ancestral lands taken from them.

Or the Native American populations who were crushed under the heel of christianization, which was supposedly for their own good. (or for the express purpose of levying a 10% tax on people that they could not avoid without being evil, and dehumanizing them so it was fine to rape their women, enslave their children and rob them of their resources and land)

Christianity has been a giant land grab for centuries, and a convenient tool of those in power to keep those not in power down, by lending a regime legitimacy that comes from an all-knowing and all-powerful source which can't be argued with or questioned.

It was used in the same way that Islam is used in modern day Iran:
To prop up dictators and keep people subservient to the government, even when that government does not represent the ideals of it's people.

The italians used it for years to control the politics of the european continent, the spanish used it as justification to rape the shit out of the americas, the british used it to keep their own people down and to enforce taxation on them.

There are tons of examples of this which, when weighed against the supposed positive aspects of religion, compell me to deny that there is any reason for religions like christianity to be considered good or beneficial to mankind or civilization.

As I stated before, from my objective observation, it appears as though the purpose of written religious dogma throughout history has always been an aid in governing a people. I had my facts wrong before, I stated that the Venerable Bede was commissioned by King James I to re-translate and compile what is currently known as the KJV Holy Bible. That isn't true.

If you do some studying about the history and creation of the different versions of the Holy Bible,... first of all, you'll be studying for a long long time, because there are so many different divisions of Christianty that considered various different parts of scriptures to be canonized and vital, insignificant yet included, and some parts just plain heretical. But getting back to the KJV... you'll find that King James I himself along with several members of the Church of England representing the episcopy of the main church itself and the Puritanical faction within the church debated over a 3 day period what portions were satisfactory to be included in a new English translation of the Holy Bible to be used in churches throughout the Church of England. Supposing for the sake argument that the Holy Bible really is the true word of God, as you can see, mortal men were allowed to pick and choose what portions of different works were to be considered the true word of God. Not only that, but the King himself was always an integral part of the selection process in both the KJV and several previous incarnations of the Bible. Some of the excluded books have been included in other denominations versions of the Holy Bible which are still used presently. How can any one branch of the vast Judeo-Christian tree be completely certain that their version is the correct way to honor God?

Compare it to the history of the Egyptian rule. Different Pharaohs had different points of view on how to honor the gods. When some took power, they emphasized the importance of certain gods, sometimes they even augmented their names and attributes to reflect their points of view. Why should anyone consider what has happened in the history of Christianity to be any different?

[quadz]

As to your idea that secular nations have the best ranking, I noticed that they almost all follow Judeo-Christian morals. By the way, where did these morals come from if not from God--I mean, why not steal somebody's car if you can get away with it if there is no God to punish you? Survival of the fittest dictates that we struggle tooth-and-claw with each other to raise ourselves above everybody else in order to produce offspring of higher caliber than everybody else and ensure survival of the fittest.

Are you seriously telling me you personally feel that you yourself would run out and start stealing cars if you lost your fear of Hell?

God, however, would have been impossible for man to conceive totally in his own mind because there were no precedents. Nobody would ever think up someone who is totally omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; spirit, God-in-the-flesh, and three-in-one; and lord, master, and king. Therefore, SOMETHING, at least, has to have existed that could give man an idea of an all-powerful being.

Focalor already cited the easter bunny, but if you'll pardon my redundancy I can't resist adding:

Santa, however, would have been impossible for man to conceive totally in his own mind because there were no precedents. Nobody would ever think up someone who is distributionally omnipotent, judgementally omniscient, and nocturnally omnipresent; elves; flying reindeer; and lord, master, and king of the most advanced north polar magic/industrial gift fabrication workshop imaginable. Therefore, SOMETHING, at least, has to have existed that could give man an idea of an all-jolly being.

 . . . .

But really, it's strange to me this idea of "one" god is seen as somehow special in terms of a leap of imagination.  As I've mentioned in previous conversations on this thread I was raised in a very Christian household.  And this is indeed one of the claims I recall my mom making to me as a kid: that somehow the idea of a single omni-god was somehow so advanced compared to polytheistic concepts, that there was something intrinsically special about it.

It doesn't seem like a difficult leap to me.  We all (well, most of us) can identify with the concept or feeling of a single sense of self.  I'm told it takes a lot of training and dedication and meditation to quiet one's thoughts and begin to experience a flow of consciousness detached from this default sense of self.  (Well, I mean, the training helps people learn to enter this state of mind at will, rather than it being something that is experienced only fleetingly.)

There really seems to be very little precedent-defying imagination required to arrive at "someone just like me who can create universes and knows everything! And who created me in his image!"  Uh huh.  Seems pretty straightforward.

And the extra embellishments like the Trinity and what-have-you seem no more complex, in their essence, than any number of stories from polytheistic religions; or, indeed, the santa-elves-reindeer trinity.

In any case, books such as the following, The Origins Of Biblical Monotheism: Isreal's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts
The Origins Of Biblical Monotheism: Isreal's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts -- which I have not read but only briefly skimmed online so far, appear to make the case based on socio-archaeological research, that Isrealite monotheism developed rather incrementally over time.


Regards,

quadz

[quadz]

Wow.... I really got under your skin.

Wait... whose skin?  Mine?

Not at all... I'd say my disposition has tended toward wry amusement punctuated by incredulity.

Are you seriously telling me you personally feel that you yourself would run out and start stealing cars if you lost your fear of Hell?

No. I try to obey God and follow the law. I'm trying to ask why somebody wouldn't commit heinous crimes if nobody (like God) was there to stop it?

You have phrased that in a most interesting way.  (In practice, God doesn't seem to be doing a great job of stopping crimes, heinous or otherwise.)

But again, I was interested in whether you personally feel the only thing holding you back from performing evil deeds is a fear of supernatural consequences.

Adolf Hitler, an atheist, murdered 6 million Jews and more people from other groups. Joseph Stalin, another atheist, murdered 32+ million Jews and untold millions of other people. Mao Zedong, still another atheist, murdered and crushed many people in Tiamenan Square, and he also killed many other people. The godless dictators of North Korea have allowed 2 million of their own people to starve and even now are ready to allow millions more to starve. Thus, according to your own reasoning, atheism, not Christianity, has killed more people.

Does it matter that Hitler claimed to be Catholic, and claimed to be doing the Lord's work by doing "battle" with the Jews
claimed to be Catholic, and claimed to be doing the Lord's work by doing "battle" with the Jews? 

Born and bred a Catholic, he grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work."

You will find it in Mein Kampf.- "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work. "

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

In any case...  There have always been people who have done evil things, and sometimes they have done so from a position of great power.  Some of these evil people may claim to be religious, some may claim to be nonbelievers.  But there remains an interesting distinction.  It's easy to find evidence of people doing evil things in the name of religion.  I can't think of examples of someone doing evil in the name of atheism.

(...As an aside, North Korea doesn't seem to be a godless state exactly.  In practice, their official religion appears to be worship of the Dear Leader and Great Leader.)

I know many nice atheists, so don't think that I hate atheists because they are atheists and that atheists are all these evil, immoral, treacherous individuals. I don't think that at all.

Nice atheists?  Why aren't they all thieves and murderers? 


Regards,

quadz

[deft]

This is why it's pointless to have a discussion, this will be my last post - this guy is either trolling or one of the dumbest people I've ever talked to (has nothing to do with your faith, buddy!)

Do you honestly have a problem with parents training their children to be Christians?

You have a problem with children learning about God? - Which one? LoL

I don't mind atheists who believe in atheism quietly

I even don't have a problem with atheists who try to convince me I'm wrong

you believe that that parent ought to be arrested and the child reconditioned and placed in "protective custody" to believe in atheism?


Since he can't remember what he's said and needs to be shown, there it is - 5 completely idiotic sentences out of the 7 that were addressed to me. 

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

I wasn't addressing any argument reaper made, I wasn't even addressing him.  I was addressing quadz/dahang/etc.  Not sure how much more clear this can be.

God Bless You,

deft

[Whirlingdervish]

the reason for almost every war that was not fought openly for money or territory, ever. > one guy in finland who was a nutjob.

that's my $.02

 

[|iR|Focalor]

No. I try to obey God and follow the law. I'm trying to ask why somebody wouldn't commit heinous crimes if nobody (like God) was there to stop it? Adolf Hitler, an atheist, murdered 6 million Jews and more people from other groups. Joseph Stalin, another atheist, murdered 32+ million Jews and untold millions of other people. Mao Zedong, still another atheist, murdered and crushed many people in Tiamenan Square, and he also killed many other people. The godless dictators of North Korea have allowed 2 million of their own people to starve and even now are ready to allow millions more to starve. Thus, according to your own reasoning, atheism, not Christianity, has killed more people.

To clarify the point I think Quadz is making here:

You have phrased that in a most interesting way.  (In practice, God doesn't seem to be doing a great job of stopping crimes, heinous or otherwise.)

Apparently you believe that the omnipotence of God is the reason why atrocities do not happen, and yet you have also listed several cases of atrocities which God was unwilling or unable to stop. I'd like to know where you learned that 32 million was an accurate approximation of how many jews were killed under the Nazi regime. As far as I know, it was around 15 million. Not only that, but Hitler FAILED to completely eradicate the jews as was his ultimate goal. The Holocaust is obviously what you would personally consider a "heinous crime committed by an atheist nation", but consider this...

I mentioned the Mayan Empire in an earlier post. During the Spanish colonization of the Americas, the Spanish conquistadors acting on the premise of their divine authority to subdue the savage and heretical Mayans, fought tooth and nail with the Mayans over some 200 years before they finally annihilated them completely. Obviously the REAL purpose of their conquest of the Yucatan Peninsula was to seek the reported riches of gold and silver. The Mayans were obliterated wholly in the name of God... and for a bunch of metal that didn't even exist. Whoops.

You act as though ONLY a handful of madmen have ever committed vast atrocities in the name of Jehovah. In reality, as Dervish mentioned, the overwhelming majority of wars fought throughout recorded history were fought in the name of God. As far as I can tell, violence must be a God-given instinct to ALL men.