The merits of religion

"The merits of religion"?

I couldn't tell you personally, but maybe we could ask the folks in Salem, or people during the crusades, or the Spanish inquistion, etc.

Seriously, I guess one "merit" would be that it gives the downtrodden in life the (false) belief that all of their suffering has been for a reason and they will be rewarded in an afterlife. Of course, this is just an attempt by the ruling class to maintain and subjugate the poor. The invisible man in the sky loves poor folks!

Pu-lease.

 

From Bubba in the other thread, in response to my above post:

But to answer your question, I don't think God is "beyond desire." Such a God would not only be unconcerned about love, but ALSO justice.

Yes. That is precisely my point.

Even though God desires love, He does not necessarily NEED our love, just as He did not necessarily have to create the universe.

We have a word to describe those who desire more of what they already have plenty of: greedy.

I don't see how God's omniscience changes any of this, and I don't see how divinely imputed free will is a tautology. And your conclusion that "creation is irrelevant" is based on the premises that the universe is everlasting and that God and the universe are the same. You yourself admit that these premises aren't self-evidently true: "it's possible to concieve" an everlasting universe, and "some accounts" equate God and the universe.

Yes, I do. The mere existence of these accounts and their concomitant divergence from Biblical scripture is evidence enough to me that something is either correct in all accounts, or something is amiss in all accounts... or both. Each has some of the truth, but not all of it can be contained in any one perspective.

EDIT: There's an inconsistency in your idea that God is above expecting our love: if God has no desires, He has no pride, so NOTHING is technically beneath Him.

No inconsistency. When I say "above" I do not mean in the humanistic sense of being on a "moral high ground" or having pride... I mean god transcends all these things... love, hate, good, evil, desire, pride, greed... etc. These are all constructs within the living world of human consciousness but we cannot say that they exist on god's level unless you believe that the anthropomorphization of god is literal and not simply a metaphor to help us relate to that which transcends all human comprehension.

And you (via Ingersoll's quote) seem to confuse two definitions of charity: alms-giving and general brotherly love.

No I do not... I quote Ingersoll because I do not believe the clergy are there to give as much as they say they are... I believe they take far more than they give. If they gave... then it should have taken the Church all of thirty seconds, rather than a huge "emergency conference", to, instead of deliberating and filibustering for days, simply stand up like the righteous men they claim themselves to be and say, "They should be jailed like everyone else who violates these laws." Some individuals may have good, wonderful intentions... but the institutions of organized religion lend themselves to corruption and greed as their very inception was conceived by men as a means of harnessing the power of myth to maintain power over the masses.

If god is so infinitely great, the clergy need not exist... save for their own selfish purposes. Even out of a desire to do good... they desire to do good, because they desire the reward of heaven. That in and of itself is a selfish end... rather than doing what is right simply because it is right. For that, one need not wear a collar, go to a church or temple, or bow down and grovel before the invisible one.

 

One thing, a responses to Scarlet:

So it comes down, in the end, to a decision: do you want that lifelong comfort that comes with ignorance, or doubt and freethought, which just might make you feel alone at times, which might just scare you when you think there is nothing else apart from this life, which might just mean that you're part of a minority?

Atheists choose the latter option, Christians the former.

You're incorrectly asserting that Christianity is an easier thing than atheism. It's not.

Sure, Christianity may offer the "security blanket" of knowing God's love while atheism may mean a life of solitary isolation. BUT, Christianity demands self-submission and self-sacrifice while the atheist can live in absolute pride.

Hence, the belief held by some people here that, "I wouldn't worship him even if he WAS real." Hence, the belief that it's better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

And ultimately, atheism is based on "ignorance" JUST AS MUCH as Christianity: you can't prove you're right any more than we can prove we're right.

But we'll see.

 

--- From the "Is pre- and extra-marital sex wrong?" thread ---

What followed WAS my explanation.

No, what it was was opinion, not fact, as it should have been.

But all our compasses point more-or-less in the same direction, indicating that there may actually be a true north.

But they really don't. Where are you getting this from? Apart from a few core morals (relating to murder, rape and theft, etc.), which are common to most cultures, and are attributable to human instinct, there is no universal moral law.

And we usually have to be taught that 2+2=4, but that doesn't mean that it's some subjective belief.

TOTALLY wrong analogy. 2+2=4 is the same in all cultures and all walks of life, no matter what your personal beliefs are. But morals and societal norms and values change and vary dramatically.

It IS a true statement. Just because we learn the moral law from our elders DOESN'T disqualify it, a point that C.S. Lewis also makes.

Ok, one point. C.S. Lewis was neither a sociologist or a philosopher. In fact, when he was around, sociology as a subject was unheard of. He wrote fiction, for the most part. He is NOT A QUOTABLE SOURCE IN THIS CONVERSATION. Whatever he says is PURE OPINION.

Lewis' quote

It's all balderdash. Mathematics is totally different to sociology. Mathematics is about pure and literal truth, and is objective - it is quantitative. Sociology and philosophy are opinion, and while there are some general underlying principles, as in all things, the VAST MJAORITY is pure opinion.

It's an error to use that mathematics example. There is NO PROOF that there is a universal moral law whatsoever, but there is masses of evidence that there isn't one. Morals vary from individual to indivdiual, from group to group, from subculture to subculture, from community to community and from culture to culture. It's that simple.

Having just had a look through a book I have, "Philosophy," by Nigel Warburton, and the section on morals and ethics in particular, the idea of a universal moral law only gets TINY mention towards the end.

The concept of an ethical law extending across all walks of life is one often put forward, for the most part, by those objecting to cultural relativism; particularly the religious. However, it should be considered that there is ample evidence to show that ethics vary in different parts of the world, and, indeed, within single communities. Accordingly, this theory is not given much credence in philosophical discourse.

Well, I'd say that clears that up.

There are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter [and in more detail in The Abolition of Man], that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great - not nearly so great as most people imagine - and you can recognise the same law running through them all:

PPOR. Apart from a few basic things attributable to human instinct, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of a universal moral law. You refuse to provide evidence that there is.

The point is that in sociological and philosophical circles, the idea of a universal moral law is given no thought whatsoever. Its just another strange belief emenating from Christians. In fact, the very concept DEMANDS the idea of the supernatural - how else would this universal moral law operate? Unless you claim that it is biologically hardwired, which would be plain wrong, given the evidence that behaviour is, for the most part, a thing into which we are socialised...

As long as I could have done otherwise, I'm not "simply obeying" human nature. Once again, I believe God created us free (as an act of love), and - being free - we NECESSARILY have the opportunity to rebel against God.

Wait, no, he didn't.

Genesis: 3:1-7

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He s

 

You're incorrectly asserting that Christianity is an easier thing than atheism. It's not.


It's not? Seems pretty easy to me "Go preach to all non-believers" pretty easy, I could do that, if I cared that is.

Sure, Christianity may offer the "security blanket" of knowing God's love while atheism may mean a life of solitary isolation. BUT, Christianity demands self-submission and self-sacrifice while the atheist can live in absolute pride.


Nothing wrong with pride, it's when you're too proud and start preaching to everyone about it is when it becomes a problem. *hint hint*


Hence, the belief held by some people here that, "I wouldn't worship him even if he WAS real." Hence, the belief that it's better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Yes, hell does sound more interesting. If it's the absence of god. Okay, so you don't have god, but you have a lot of people with you so in a sense you'd never be alone.



And ultimately, atheism is based on "ignorance" JUST AS MUCH as Christianity: you can't prove you're right any more than we can prove we're right.

But we'll see.


Actually you're still asserting that you're right with that last comment. Sounds pretty ignorant there to me.

 

But they really don't. Where are you getting this from? Apart from a few core morals (relating to murder, rape and theft, etc.), which are common to most cultures, and are attributable to human instinct, there is no universal moral law.

So apart from the evidence that there's a universal moral law, there's no evidence that there's a universal moral law.

Well, who can argue with that? What *I* wonder is why we throw out moral injunctions against murder, rape, and theft. Is it because of the so-called instinct to propagate the species? There's no such instinct - ONLY the instinct to propagate one's own genetic material.

At any rate, the moral law is not just another instinct: it orchestrates our instincts, dictating when an instinct (say, the sexual instinct) is good (when you're with your wife) or bad (when you're with someone else's wife).


TOTALLY wrong analogy. 2+2=4 is the same in all cultures and all walks of life, no matter what your personal beliefs are. But morals and societal norms and values change and vary dramatically.

Except for murder, rape, theft, etc.


Ok, one point. C.S. Lewis was neither a sociologist or a philosopher. In fact, when he was around, sociology as a subject was unheard of. He wrote fiction, for the most part. He is NOT A QUOTABLE SOURCE IN THIS CONVERSATION. Whatever he says is PURE OPINION...

It's all balderdash. Mathematics is totally different to sociology. Mathematics is about pure and literal truth, and is objective - it is quantitative. Sociology and philosophy are opinion, and while there are some general underlying principles, as in all things, the VAST MJAORITY is pure opinion...

Having just had a look through a book I have, "Philosophy," by Nigel Warburton, and the section on morals and ethics in particular, the idea of a universal moral law only gets TINY mention towards the end...

Well, I'd say that clears that up.

[emphasis mine]

No it doesn't. By your own admission, Warburton isn't admissible, either.


PPOR. Apart from a few basic things attributable to human instinct, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of a universal moral law. You refuse to provide evidence that there is.

From what instinct do we derive those few basic moral injunctions?


The point is that in sociological and philosophical circles, the idea of a universal moral law is given no thought whatsoever. Its just another strange belief emenating from Christians. In fact, the very concept DEMANDS the idea of the supernatural - how else would this universal moral law operate? Unless you claim that it is biologically hardwired, which would be plain wrong, given the evidence that behaviour is, for the most part, a thing into which we are socialised...

Yeah, a universal moral law necessitates the supernatural. So what? So does human reason.

Are you (again) assuming the supernatural doesn't exist?


This is CLEARLY the point in which we gain knowledge and free will. God even told us we'd DIE if we tried to gain it - a lie, of course. He didn't give it to us, or create us with it - we took it from him. This flies in the face of your assertion that he gave it to us as 'an act of love.'

First, Adam and Eve DID die. Genesis 5:3 records that Adam died when he was 130.

Second, your assertion is nonsensical: you're asserting we gained our freedom by eating of the fruit. But then, how did we choose to pick the fruit from the tree?

Implicit in God's command to not eat of the tree is the possibility man could break that command of his own free will. (You don't tell your child, "Don't levitate," because he CAN'T levitate; you DO tell your child, "Don't hit your brother" because he CAN choose to hit his brother.)

We had free will before we fell. If this explanation eludes you, then I don't know what else to do.


You honestly believe that you should love God more than your son? Christians who hold this should be prevented from having children. Children should, as a parent, be the one

 

"EDIT: Take this for an example: when I asked what else explains the Resurrection story as presented in the Bible, I was given two possibilities, mass hallucination or a hoax on the part of the Apostles. I then SCRUTINIZED both possibilities, pointing out that the Biblical account of the Resurrection is MUCH more difficult than some magician's parlor tricks, and that there was NO MOTIVE for the Apostles to lie about the Resurrection and condemn themselves to a life of persecution."

Then why is it that the accounts of the life of jesus are so varied and even conflicting in the different gospels? Why is it that there are some gospels that were banned from the bible? Why do most biblical scholars believe that the gospels were written many years after the life of christ? Why is it that his story has so much in common with older pagan myths?
Perhaps because the whole story is meant to be an allegory and not meant to be taken literally. There were many sects of Christianity before the Catholic church wiped them out through murders and propoganda. Most of these other sects had different ideas as to what the story of Jesus meant and didnt consider it a fact. In order to rule, the story must be fact, that is why the literalist form of christianity was the only one to survive. You cant have total opbedience with an allegorical story meant to convey higher meanings. Only through the literal interpretation pushing fear on its believers can you have it.

 

So apart from the evidence that there's a universal moral law, there's no evidence that there's a universal moral law.

There is no evidence. I've asked you to provide it several times, and you keep dodging.

Well, who can argue with that? What *I* wonder is why we throw out moral injunctions against murder, rape, and theft. Is it because of the so-called instinct to propagate the species? There's no such instinct - ONLY the instinct to propagate one's own genetic material.

The instinct to propagate ones own genetic material implies the instinct to protect ones own society, who are made up of similar genetic material. It's a pretty well-documented fact that people form social structures and strive - to the point of death - to protect them. In fact, there is no case I know of instances where, after birth occurs and the child is raised to a certain age, they're tossed out and from then on live a nomadic existence by themselves. Animals do that, humans don't. We are, by nature, social animals.

At any rate, the moral law is not just another instinct: it orchestrates our instincts, dictating when an instinct (say, the sexual instinct) is good (when you're with your wife) or bad (when you're with someone else's wife).

Poppycock. If there was such a moral law, people wouldn't have affairs, yet they PLAINLY do. There's absolutely NO EVIDENCE for this moral law, and only religious fundamentalists such as yourself give it any credence.

Except for murder, rape, theft, etc.

Well, no. Not even theft is a common crime to all societies. In primitive communistic societies, there was no theft because there was no private property. But murder and rape are pretty much 'no-go' in every culture because doing that will not only harm you, it will harm your society, which you have an instinct to protect.


No it doesn't. By your own admission, Warburton isn't admissible, either.

I said Lewis wasn't admissable because he was neither a sociologist or a philosopher, was incredibly biased and is not contemporary. None of these apply to Warburton, who, in his book, is completely unbiased, is a well-recognised philosopher and is still writing today.

Excellent dodging skills, Bubba. Done like a true fundamentalist. I'm surprised your not a Creationist - they argue exactly like this.

From what instinct do we derive those few basic moral injunctions?

The instinct to protect our society. Which springs from the instinct to create society. Which, as an instinct, you really can't argue with - all through history, humans have always, in every instance, created societies.

Yeah, a universal moral law necessitates the supernatural. So what? So does human reason.

So what? Well, I'm afraid the supernatural doesn't come into most sociological and philosophical debates and literature. Why not? Well, because it's superstition and stupidity. Besides, each kind of superstition varies, so each can provide only opinion. There is no PROOF of the supernatural.

Human reason doesn't necessitate the supernatural at all.

Are you (again) assuming the supernatural doesn't exist?

Yes. I'm not assuming anything: I'm stating fact. Until the existence of the supernatural is proven, it is fact that it doesn't.

First, Adam and Eve DID die. Genesis 5:3 records that Adam died when he was 130.

This isn't the sort of die one thinks about when someone says 'Eat that fruit and you'll die.'

Second, your assertion is nonsensical: you're asserting we gained our freedom by eating of the fruit. But then, how did we choose to pick the fruit from the tree?

Good point. I'll concede there.

Why should they?

Because if we don't protect our children, we DIE OUT. Called human instinct, bucko. Happens among humans and animals alike. Always has.

(Are you appealing to a moral law?)

Human instinct.

A reasonable one: the fact is, you SHOULD love your children a GREAT deal, but not ABSOLUTELY. The moment any earthly love becomes a god, it

 

I wonder: you say the moral law not to kill, etc., is instinctual. You've also said this:

And as the failure of the Christian Church to curb our natural instincts has shown, YOU CAN'T REPRESS OUR INSTINCT.

If that's true, why do murders ever occur? Shouldn't abstaining from murder be so natural that we can't help but abstain?


I said Lewis wasn't admissable because he was neither a sociologist or a philosopher, was incredibly biased and is not contemporary. None of these apply to Warburton, who, in his book, is completely unbiased, is a well-recognised philosopher and is still writing today.

Excellent dodging skills, Bubba. Done like a true fundie.

You also said that sociology and philosophy are opinion: "Mathematics is totally different to sociology. Mathematics is about pure and literal truth, and is objective - it is quantitative. Sociology and philosophy are opinion, and while there are some general underlying principles, as in all things, the VAST MJAORITY is pure opinion..."

So why does that writer have any authority?

Also, I've noticed this. You said your "Impression of a Christian fundie" wasn't directed at anybody on this board, but you've since called me a "semi-fundie" and now a full-fledged "fundie." Very nice.


Well, I'm afraid the supernatural doesn't come into most sociological and philosophical debates and literature. Why not? Well, because it's superstition and stupidity.

Again, the assumption that there is no God.


I'm not assuming anything: I'm stating fact. Until the existence of the supernatural is proven, it is fact that it doesn't.

That's crap.

Let's assume, for even a moment, that I COULD prove the existence of God on January 15th. Does that proof suddenly bring him into being? Did God NOT exist on January 14th?


So, if I start worshipping my child (and I will, don't worry, just like I worship my girlfriend), I'm committing a sin?

If you're being literal, yes. Something about having no other gods before Him...


So, tell me, Bubba, when your wife puts your naked child in your arms, covered in blood, and it wails, and you feel the heart-beat of a little life you know YOU created, you're going to run out of there and confess because you feel that you love it too much?

No, because with that love for the child will be gratitude for the God that gave him/her to me.


As for disproving Christianity, the mere fact that we emasculated the Church and have created secular or semi-secular societies around the world should speak for itself. We've disproven Creationism; we've thrown the entire Bible into doubt as a historical document; we've eliminated the Reconstructionists and the hardcore literalists; we've made it both legally and socially unacceptable to be a fundamentalist. [emphasis mine]

Whatever happened to the atheists' devotion to freedom of thought?


Church attendance has been dropping like a rock for a LONG TIME now. In Europe, barely anyone goes at all, and the number is falling also in America. Nowadays, if you go to a Church, you're more likely to see a woman or a homosexual in the pulpit than ever before. If you sit down and you hear him talking about creationism, you can expect groans and the rolling of eyes.

This is an age of secularism and reason. Religion is dead. God is dead. All that remains now is for us to drag out its corpse. The fact that I can say this and not have my head lopped off; the fact that more and more people saying this; the fact that it is FASHIONABLE to say this is testament to that fact.

So atheism's popular. Does that prove it's right? No, of course not.

I *believe* that if you look beyond America and Europe - there ARE other lands, after all - you'll see Christianity gaining ground in unexpected places.

And it may be the case that church attendence is down BECAUSE of who's in the pulpit and what's being taught. Why wake up early on Sunday morning to hear what you could find anywhere else?

And spirituality m

 

Hey, Bubba, about putting god first and family second. Remember, it's not god who buries you, it's your family.

 

Sorry, Bubba, I'm not willing to debate with you on this topic any more.

On another point:

What caused other atheists here to become atheists? What caused other Christians here to become Christians (if you weren't born one)? The same with other religions.

- Scarlet.

 

Darth_Dane:

"Give me empirical evidence that God does not exist."

Until you can give me empirical evidence that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Aquaman do not exist, that argument is meaningless.

To argue that a thing exists because it's theoretically impossible to disprove is to argue for the existence of Puff the Magic Dragon, if you take my meaning.

"What caused other atheists here to become atheists?"

Speaking for myself, as something of a deist rather than an atheist, I was raised Presbyterian (later Methodist; when the church my family attended crumbled under internal politics, we switched to another one). As a child, I was quite interested in the Bible, and believed in exactly the God I was taught to believe.

Unfortunately for my faith in Christianity, my interest in the Bible prompted me to sit down and read it. Amidst all the geneologies, taboos and interminable manuals on interior decorating (Exodus 26:2-14, if you don't believe me), I found innumerable acts of cruelty and death, a great many of them done with God's full endorsement.

Our hero Moses slaughters millions. God is often portrayed as a petty tyrant?little more than a tempremental child. Contradictions fly off the page like there's no tomorrow. Supposed prophecies are invented long after the fact, or taken well out of context (the author of Matthew is notorious for this). Pi equals 3.

So by the time I entered college, I was understandably skeptical, and that was before I observed firsthand how easily Christianity could be twisted into a whip, a means of control.

One group on campus proclaimed themselves Christians?the only true Christians, in fact?while practicing the tactics of a textbook cult to lure followers in and part them from their money. Their victims were smart, educated people, but the cult would prey on their loneliness by offering friendship, while at the same time subtly breaking down their self-esteem through circles of judgement masquerading as bible talks.

Another group went so far as to perform an impromptu exorcism on a good friend of mine; afterwards, they told her she needed time away from the material world, time they used to rob her blind.

Obviously, these groups don't represent all Christians; far from it. By the time I graduated, however, I had more than enough to convince me that the Bible was far from perfect, and that organized religion, however benign its forms may seem, has a tremendous capacity for wrongdoing.

Today, I enjoy one-on-one chats with God, plenty of good friendships with people from many faiths, and the occasional visit to whatever church might catch my eye.

 

Church attendance has been dropping like a rock for a LONG TIME now. In Europe, barely anyone goes at all, and the number is falling also in America.

Jesus Himself questioned if He would find any faith left on Earth when he returns.

Here is a quote:


"Now shall not God bring about justice for His elect, who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? I tell you that He will bring about justice for them speedily. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:7-8)

It's supposed to happen this way.

 

On another point:

What caused other atheists here to become atheists? What caused other Christians here to become Christians (if you weren't born one)? The same with other religions.

There are two threads on this topic already. One is the What made you choose your religion thread, and the other is [shameless_self_promotion]the Why I Believe thread[/shameless_self_promotion] (which I happened to have started long ago). Both cover a lot of interesting experiences that many people have had, on about every side of the issue.

Kimball Kinnison

 

"The merits of religion"?

I couldn't tell you personally, but maybe we could ask the folks in Salem, or people during the crusades, or the Spanish inquistion, etc.

Seriously, I guess one "merit" would be that it gives the downtrodden in life the (false) belief that all of their suffering has been for a reason and they will be rewarded in an afterlife. Of course, this is just an attempt by the ruling class to maintain and subjugate the poor. The invisible man in the sky loves poor folks!

Pu-lease.


that's is the main reason why i don't follow any religion, religion has (& still is) been used as an excuse for persecution, & IMHO, that's wrong. also, how can any believe in any religion w/out absolute proof? that's the 2nd reason why i don't follow any religion, the lack of any real proof. all that there is is what is written down in documents, w/ out any proof if what's written is real. i would have trouble devoting my life in worship of something that may not exist.


DarthTunick,
i California!

 

Church attendance has been dropping like a rock for a LONG TIME now. [...] This is an age of secularism and reason. Religion is dead. God is dead. All that remains now is for us to drag out its corpse.

I could attest to the fact that Europe has become very secular in comparison to the US, from my own experiences in Spain and Britain, but this is not the case in America. But for objective facts, just to throw out some numbers taken from the current issue of the Economist, it's true that while Europeans are much less religious, Americans remain strongly religious. Only 2% of Americans are atheists. In Western Europe, 20% of people go to church "regularly," while in America half go to church every week, half say grace before every meal (only 1 in 50 in Britain), over 60% are members of a church, and over 90% believe in God.

To most Europeans, it has seemed obvious for the past centruy and more that modernism is the foe of religion, and of Christianity in particular. But religion is flourishing both the developing world and America. [...] America differs starkly from Europe, where religion is often what Grace Davie of Britain's Exeter University describes as a "public utility". As she puts it, "In Europe, there is a concept of 'vicarious religion': of a small number worshipping on behalf of everyone else.' Americans find Europe's secularism bizarre. "My American friends' eyes stand out on stalks when I say that I don't have a single friend seriously interested in religion," says Karen Armstrong, the author of several books on religion.

Maybe it was wishful thinking on Nietzsche's part to claim "God is dead," or maybe he was just commenting on the fact of religion's decline in Western Europe, but regardless, it's clear that the European experience has not been repeated in this particular sense in the rest of the world.

 

Those statistics are meaningless unless you compare them with statistics from not so long ago - say, twenty years or so.

- Scarlet.

 

Here's what one person thinks. I happen to agree with them (big surprise).



Zee Article


The Decline of Religion

by Mikhail Bakunin



The politics of God are very much alive, but the policies of God are all but dead.

For 2000 years, the church defended and upheld the teachings of Aristotle and brought down its considerable wrath upon all who defied his completely erroneous thinking; see Joan of Arc, Giordano Bruno, and Galileo to name but three. Common sense, reason, and science have laid the ghosts of pre-scientific thought to rest for all but a few of the stubborn and superstitious such as the Flat Earth Society and the Fundamentalists.

Wise men of the pre-Christian era knew that the earth was a sphere and had measured it to within a few hundred miles of accuracy. The atomist theory of matter was advanced by several. And even after humanism had to go underground for several centuries, that body of thought survived and exploded on the scene with the Renaissance, thus dealing religion its severest blow. Even before Copernicus, da Vinci had written in his mirror reversed hand, "The sun does not move, it is the earth that moves."

In the face of this new enlightenment, the church was forced to go on a rampage of damage control to maintain its tenuous hold on the mind of man; it's been down-hill ever since. Virtually every position the church has maintained and defended has been either proven false or completely ignored by all but the ignorant, benighted, unwashed few. In no special order, the list of stands the church holds sacred, the institutions and theories it defends, are (in part) these;


Slavery: upheld, defended, and justified by the church, as were segregation, discrimination, and the doctrine of "separate but equal."
Women: regarded as less than chattle, and to this day still, admonished to be subservient to men. There is little need to amplify or enlarge further.

Manifest Destiny and the treatment of aboriginals in the New World: millions were slaugtered while the church turned a blind eye.

Prohibition: inspired and pushed through by the Christian Temperance Women, only to backfire and bring misery to millions, proving once and for all that you can't legislate morality.

Crime (in general): thought to be the work of Satan, proven to be the activity of the masses. Crime is this Nation's largest employer and the mover of more money through our economy than any other activity. To prove this point, simply try to envision how our society and its economy would be with the total absence of all crime: no police, no private security industry (rent-a-cops, etc.), no lawyers, no judges, no courts. no FBI, no ATF, no law makers (senators, representatives, county supervisors, city councilpersons, etc.), no criminal justice system of any kind, half as many firefighters (arson and criminal code violations account for most fires), half as many doctors, nurses, and hospitals (with all their supporting personnel) to take care of all the stabbings, beatings, shootings, poisonings, and a host of others injuries and ailments brought about as the result of crime, no more lock, key, and safe industry, few walls and fences would be needed, the media (TV, news- papers, etc. would have to lay off thousands without crime stories and dramas), the paper industry would all but collapse, two million inmates would have to be released, a million hookers would have to be cared for, and the number of industies, large and small, that supply all the cars, vans, buses, helicopters, uniforms, medical supplies, and thousands of other products and services that are needed as the result of crime, would simply disappear. Without all crime, tens of millions would be instantly unemployed, millions upon millions of square feet of real estate would lie vacant, and the domino effect from all this would bring ruin. And just who is committing all this crime? There aren't enough atheists and freethinkers around to hold accountable. Got any ideas? The ads

 

In that same article (Thanks, IJ, I hadn't gotten around to reading it fully
), there is an interesting chart, talking about church membership in the US. in 2000, it was 60%.

In 1980, it was 62%.

In 1952, it was 59%.

In 1906, it was 51%.


The article goes into more depth, talking about how traditional churches may be in throuble, but Christianity is flourishing in the US and the developing world. The Church has 2 Billionadherents in 2000, up from 1.2 Billion in 1970 (roughly in line with population growth).

I wouldn't have believed the stats, had I not read the article. It did also cover some of the political ramifications, most of which disturb me (and would give a left-of-centre European the willies).

Sorry, I've only seen the article in the print edition.

 

And a differing opinion. Though the last part is sickening. No wonder I hate the south, especially the bible belt.

Religion


Americans see religion on decline

By John Hall
Staff Writer


The United States is a "Christian" nation in the minds of two-thirds of American adults, but a majority believe religion is on the decline.
A new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds 55 percent of respondents believe religion is losing strength for the first time since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Despite the apparent waning influence of religion, 48 percent of Americans believe the nation has special protection from God, while 40 percent said it does not. Five percent believe the terrorist attacks signaled that God is no longer protecting the United States as strongly as in the past.
Just over half the nation (51 percent) agreed there is too little religion in the world, while 28 percent said there is too much religion. Four-fifths said the influence of religion in the world is a "good thing."
Americans largely view a religious faith positively, with 58 percent claiming the strength of the nation is based on religious faith. Religious leaders are viewed as having high ethical standards by 55 percent of the public, higher than journalists, federal officials and business executives, but lower than the 70 percent who believe military officials have high standards.
More than 60 percent of those surveyed said children exposed to religion would be more likely to become moral adults. The poll of 2,002 adults showed one-half the public think a belief in God is not necessary to be a moral person, however, and an overwhelming 84 percent believe a person does not have to embrace religious faith to be a good American.
While often differing politically, black Protestants and white evangelicals agreed on several religious issues. Only about a third of each group believe clergy should endorse political candidates, with at least 60 percent of each group believing clergy should not endorse candidates. Both groups strongly affirmed God's special protection of the United States, the faith base as the strength of the nation and the necessity of a belief in God to be moral.
Although religious, Americans are not exclusive in their theology, with only 18 percent claiming to have the "one true faith." Three-fourths of those polled, including 48 percent of evangelical Protestants, said many religions can lead to eternal life.
While many faiths are viewed positively, atheists are viewed unfavorably across the nation, especially in the South, where two-thirds rated them negatively. Americans see those who simply chose not to be religious more positively, however, as 51 percent said they feel favorably toward the non-religious, while 30 percent expressed a negative opinion.
For more information about the poll, visit www.people-press.org.


[image=http://people-press.org/reports/images/150-1.gif]
[image=http://people-press.org/reports/images/150-2.gif]
[image=http://people-press.org/reports/images/150-3.gif]
[image=http://people-press.org/reports/images/150-4.gif]

Here ya go

 

Why did the Christian God make us ignorant? I mean, it was not until we defied him and ate from the tree of knowledge before we had any brains, so why does/did God want to keep us ignorant? God was IMHO limiting us by saying we could not eat from the tree. At least the snake gave us a choice. And if we were not ignorant/stupid, then we could have made the right choice!

Also, do we really deserve to be redeemed? Also, how does one guy getting nailed to a cross redeem us? Do we all feel sorry, does it make us feel that we did something? According to the Bible, we killed God's son, which to most people would be a bad thing. Is God just showing how good He is/how much better He is, and how would that redeem us? First the Bible says how evil we all are, then God gives us a Get out of Hell (debatably) Free card; where is the justice in that?

If there is a God, then why the heck would be so offended by me not believing in him? How does it affect him? The way He takes offence to things to me makes him almost predictable. As predictable as any man. I could ask that about other ?morals? that don?t hurt anyone (well, does not hurt anyone if the people involved are careful), yet he seems to take offence to.

It's not hypocritical: when you find that you have done something wrong, don't you feel regret for the wrong committed AND hope that you'll not suffer too much for it?

No, you should feel that you should be punished for what you did. It is ok to hope that the punishment fits the crime (you know, like eternal damnation for thinking about God and believing the best conclusion is that he does not exist based on what you know), but to hope you don?t suffer too much?I just hope you don?t think people should get less than what they deserve.

But for the merits of religion, it has I think done much more good than harm. Yeah, there have been wars, murders, and a whole lot of atrocities committed in the name of any number of Gods. But think of the uncounted millions or billions of people who are able to sleep well at night knowing that everyone they know probably won?t kill them. Religion has given people morals, and although I personally believe it is MUCH better to figure out morals yourself, it is overall better to have them.

Religion also can give people hope. Let?s say you broke your leg on a hike in the woods. Do you want to panic with no hope, or do you want to say "God will give me strength," get up, and limp your way out? Again, I personally believe it is better to have faith in you, and say "I can do it!" but the end result is still the same.

Religion would be an outdated concept though if people would not stop clinging to things outside of have faith and have morals. Anything not about that or not helping explain that I believe is a perversion of religion.

 

Crime (in general): thought to be the work of Satan, proven to be the activity of the masses. Crime is this Nation's largest employer and the mover of more money through our economy than any other activity. To prove this point, simply try to envision how our society and its economy would be with the total absence of all crime: no police, no private security industry (rent-a-cops, etc.), no lawyers, no judges, no courts. no FBI, no ATF, no law makers (senators, representatives, county supervisors, city councilpersons, etc.), no criminal justice system of any kind, half as many firefighters (arson and criminal code violations account for most fires), half as many doctors, nurses, and hospitals (with all their supporting personnel) to take care of all the stabbings, beatings, shootings, poisonings, and a host of others injuries and ailments brought about as the result of crime, no more lock, key, and safe industry, few walls and fences would be needed, the media (TV, news- papers, etc. would have to lay off thousands without crime stories and dramas), the paper industry would all but collapse, two million inmates would have to be released, a million hookers would have to be cared for, and the number of industies, large and small, that supply all the cars, vans, buses, helicopters, uniforms, medical supplies, and thousands of other products and services that are needed as the result of crime, would simply disappear. Without all crime, tens of millions would be instantly unemployed, millions upon millions of square feet of real estate would lie vacant, and the domino effect from all this would bring ruin. And just who is committing all this crime? There aren't enough atheists and freethinkers around to hold accountable. Got any ideas? The ads say "Take a bite out of crime." (Don't take too big a bite, it just may cost you your job or business.)

Golly. I'd better go mug someone and help keep the economy strong. Good thing that SOB killed my sister Thanksgiving night, or the GNP might have taken a terrible dip.


(btw - it was the tree of the 'knowledge of good and evil', not just 'knowledge'. i.e. - innocence. Eating the fruit resulted in being able to commit crimes that help keep the economy strong.)

 

The economics of crime is something unique to the agro-industrial world. Tribal economies do not rely on such a moebius loop of an infrastructure.

In history, no religion other than Christianity has been used more by the powers that be to justify and spread agriculturalism, the excess production and consumption of goods and resources, and to annihilate those cultures which refused to adopt this wasteful lifestyle we are now inextricably and hopelessly dependent upon.

That is the legacy of the fundamentalists. The legacy which would disgust Christ himself to no end if he were alive today to see what B.S. the people have been sold with his name stamped upon it.

 

Ye shall have farms. One of the commandments from the broken tablet in History of the World Part I


Don't worry. I'm doing my part by trying to follow a high-protien diet.

 

I'm doing my part by not recycling. Maybe, just maybe, if this planet gets cluttered enough... humans clinging to their cell phones and PDAs will run out of space and resources until they are evolved out of existence and the planet can go on with its business as it has for 4.6 billion years.




That... and recycling plants release a toxic, carcinogenic byproduct into the atmosphere, known as TCDD (tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin). It has been described as the most toxic substance known to man... 150,000 times more potent than cyanide.

Maybe if we didn't make so many damned people we wouldn't have to recycle in the first place. But hey, god said be fruitful and multiply... too bad he didn't have the foresight to realize that doing this endlessly would cause us to consume everything else in our path. God should have known better.