The Thin Skins Of Religions

This is NOT about Christianity or any other particular religion.

Just "Believers" in general and their belief in an omnipotent power and their belief that this power is unable to protect itself on its own.

Me? I was raised Presbyterian. Predestination. So, it was meant by god for me to type this.

The rant/question is that many religions behave like five year olds. "Mommy! He said something ugly about me! Can we kill him?" Most of the religious texts I have read preach acceptance, turn the other cheek, kindness and humility. The only one I really see doing that much is the Buddhists and even they have had transgressions, but they really aren't a religion anyway. Just a way of life (which I embrace).

It is this behaviour that has caused more war and strife than I could mention in this post without going into a thesis on the subject. I guess this leads to the inevitable question:

Is Religion good or bad for the continued existence of mankind on this planet?

I don't think it is. There are too many stupid people out there willing to be led by the people who would bastardize religious teachings to their own wants. History seems to prove it.

:evilgrin:

and you are welcome to it. But kindly realize that not all believers see God as someone seperate from themselves, a superbeing that rewards or punishes. Some see God as everything, an evolving consciousness which we all share-no judgement by God, but only by ourselves as we go from one concept to another.

Cause you ain't talking bout the Old/New Testament god.

which can be found in Kaballah, Christian mysticism, Sufis (mystical sect of Islam), Buddhists, etc.

Which brings me to what His Holiness the Dalai Lama said to a group of visiting Sufis about the difference between Buddhism and Sufism:

"In Buddhism, nothing is. In Sufism, everything is. Same thing, no difference."

I know that Unity, Church of Religious Science, and many people in Uniterian/Universalist churches, Episcopalians, Methodists, other Protestants, as well as all Sufi orders, Church of Man, Kaballah, mystic sects of Hindu gurus, many practitioners of Native American religions, and others live here and feel this way. But does it matter? My point in my original answer to your post was that not everyone who believes in God believes in the concept of God you describe, and that within this group are definately Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

How is that different from someone who believes in no god?

--IMM

I think s/he has a point that you diminish with your feaux rebuttal, 2%? Got a link for that one?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm a Christian and that pretty much summarizes my concept of God.

and to most Christians that I know well that aren't fundies

in various places, perhaps now this is the best. Please know the comes from a sincere desire for knowledge and not assholeness.

How does this concept of God distinguish those that believe it from atheists? It seems to be the discription is almost transcendentalism-lite with greater emphasis on the collective consciousness.

I personally have a hybrid belief. God is a separate being from the energy of the Universe, but He and His consciousness are the spark which created the Universe. We are all touched by God, and community is collective in many ways. But, though we are all one, we are all separate beings, as well.

I also don't believe that God makes the judgement about Heaven or Hell. I believe that our path in life is to determine whether we embrace God, which leads to Heaven (which I believe is being in the presence of God) or turn our backs on Him, which leads to Hell (or Nothingness, or an absence of God). I don't believe that God arbitrarity points His fingers at a person and condemns them to a fiery pit. I do believe, however, that a rejection of God leads to Nothing. It's not necessarily bad, it's just empty of God. A sort of metaphysical answer to the purpose of life. And I'm sharing my beliefs here. I'm not up for a debate on them. :)

(Just letting people know!)

Goblinmonger, I don't know if what I've written here answers your question to your satisfaction, but it does explain my beliefs a little bit more. The other posters who may believe more in the "collective consciousness" will have to answer how their version differs. I'm fascinated by that, and Aye... thanks for sharing your beliefs with us.

My view on Heaven and Hell are very similar. As bad a place as Earth can be, and as much suffering as some people endure here, I don't believe the God would continue their pain for eternity because they never had the "faith" to believe.

Goblinmonger, the way I understand the nature of God, is based on this scripture; "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" (Gen. 1:26). If we assume God to be essentially spirit, (I don't believe God is some old grey haired, long bearded dude in a white robe) then for man to be made in God's image would essentially be on a spiritual level. So through the "spirit", we are connected to God, and through extension, we are all connected to each other. I don't necessarily think this equates to transcendentalism or a "collective consciousness", but I think this reasoning squares with ayeshahaqqiqa's view "that not all believers see God as someone separate from themselves". This view answers a lot of questions for me, and I hope it is in some way beneficial for you.

n/t

You can have extremist liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Libertarians, Communists, etc.

It's all in the eye of the 'preacher' and just how captive and willing the 'audience' is.

sort of God or Gods. And looking at history...

It can be good or bad, depending on who is leading the society/nation and how closely they adhere to the true tenets of their faith or if they have twisted them for political purposes.

right from the get-go.

is the correct word. I think it is a natural impulse. Now, whether this is because we instinctively know (or our brains are hard wired to acknowledge) that there is a higher power, or because of universal psychological needs, I am not certain. As a Christian, I like to think the former, but I understand the arguments for the latter. Whichever way you look at it, humans appear to believe in large numbers.

I think where "twisted ones" come into play is when individuals exploit people's beliefs in order to get them to behave a certain way.

Not to be snarky but there are many atheists/agnostics.

Personally, I believe the need for religion is mostly a conditioned response, and isn't natural at all.

I also think it's a natural impulse, and I often debate (with myself!) whether it is instinctive knowledge or a psychological need that we are fufilling. Depending on the state of my faith (it is stronger at some times more than others), my answer varies.

Everybody has hair (or once had it.) It lends itself to styling. In fact, every culture styles hair. Religion is the style you follow. The one "true" hairstyle varies by time and place. (Remember the shag?) It's sort of inevitable, given the properties of hair. But only the hair itself has physical existence.

The hair is analogous to our mental makeup, which allows for belief systems, as hair lends itself to styling. And so it goes.

--IMM

...is because their main belief is that if they pray to the appropriate, often-invisible sky wizard that they won't have to die. You challenge that and they have to confront their own mortality which most humans find very, very disturbing.

"Hey, I can't die! I'm meeeeee! I'm special!"

Suprisingly, I believe that religion is good for people individually. Not having to confront otherwise-hideous concepts like mortality or the horrors that happen in the world places one in a much more serene state. Collectively, however, religion has been the cause of more violence, opression, repression, shame and secrecy than chocolate.

PB

:(

...horrific as the things I mentioned in my message. Looking at this from the standpoint a biologist might consider that an organism is likely to be more successful if it is untroubled by its own eventual demise or the horrors that it witnesses as it progresses through life.

I believe religion is as functionally-useful as a thumb but for the opposite reason. Religion is not about grasping reality but eschewing it. Organisms untroubled by reality are more likely to have more offspring and take more risks if they believe that it (their existence) is, in fact, a poetic expression of the battle between good and evil for a diety who will protect them in a castle of gold when they die.

PB

Narcissistic isn't a word I would have chosen so I'm interested in understanding your point of view.

chocolate is pretty bad.

:)

PB

into something other than what you describe. In my experience, which, after all, is the only thing I can really comment upon, people are looking to change their concepts of God and to work upon their relationship to That. Granted, I hang out mostly with mystics of various kinds, but even my family, which is mainstream Protestant, has recently embraced certain mystical concepts that they previously scoffed at.

As far as stupid people, I think they tend to follow whatever authority figure they feel will keep them strong and safe. For many, it may be a religious figure; but for others, it may be a scientist or political leader. The key is that the person views the leader as someone who is reinforcing their own prejudices and does not require them to think and change.

in an "alternative religion" which IMHO has no less validity than any other religion or belief system. We all have the fear of a personal end. The majority of religions address this with a promise of an afterlife in which there has yet to be any proof of.

Midieval Europe and Catholics bankrolled this idea into institutions that exist to this day. Papal Bulls was a heck of an industry there for a while.

Maybe I was harsh in the nomer "stupid people" and should have used frightened people?

Even intelligent people who are searching for answers sometimes get frightened. Lazy perhaps would be apt. Lazy or stupid people tend to be those without curiosity, who don't want to take the time to explore and find out things, or to look at a situation from another's viewpoint-and it is these very actions that make them lazy or stupid.

ones which survive and proliferate are merely fittest for survival.

They are not necessarily reflective of reality or useful for the survival of the host species.

You said: "There are too many stupid people out there willing to be led by the people who would bastardize religious teachings to their own wants."

Exactly. That's the problem.

If God and Christianity were half as weak as his fundamentalist followers make Him and it (respectively) to be, they would not have survived more than 2,000 years on this planet, despite persecution and silencing.

I agree that there is a disconnect between the teachings of the Bible and the teachings of fundies. Jesus would have never advocated discrimination of gays, the death penalty, or many of the other things that have been suggested or done in His name. Jesus may be one of the most misquoted and misused figures in human history.

Nobody ever said that fundies were smart.
Ringo

against odds. there are many. Zoroaster?

Zoroaster was famous in classical antiquity as the founder of the religion of the Magi. His name is cited by Xanthus, and in the Alcibiades of Plato as well as by Plutarch, Pliny the Elder and Diogenes Laertius. Ancient Greek estimates are dependent upon Persian mythology, and give dates as early as the 7th millennium BC. These are the dates to which Parsis subscribe.

Persian mythology, mainly the Shahnama of Ferdowsi, and oral tradition place Zoroaster quite early. Manly Palmer Hall in his book, Twelve World Teachers, arrives at a rough estimate ranging from 10000 BCE to 1000 BCE.

That's right. That proves my point. If these religions were half as brittle as their extremist followers claim, they'd have dissolved centuries ago.

The non-extremist religionists among us (I myself am a Christian liberal) ought to speak up.
Ringo

changing validities.

In the OP you said: "This is NOT about Christianity or any other particular religion.

Just "Believers" in general and their belief in an omnipotent power and their belief that this power is unable to protect itself on its own."

What specific lie or untruth are you referring to?

BTW, I think that anyone who feels that their "omnipotent power" is unable to protect itself on it's own ought to seriously consider another choice in "omnipotent powers".

I agree with your view of religion, but I don't think it's the whole story.

Humans have a deep need for certainty in their lives; they distrust change and long for stability and predictability. In the social context, they want a clear understanding of 'right' and 'wrong' that is as free from ambiguity as possible. They need to know what behavior is acceptable and what is not. In short, humans desire nothing more than to be told what to do. Of course, in order to be able to command the obedience of large groups of humans, any leader or creed has to have 'authority.'

Strongmen throughout history have used various means to build their authority, but religion is the best and most reliable. If a man tells you to do something, you may very well tell him to get lost. If God tells you to do it, your soul is at stake if you disobey. This is a powerful tool of control. Throughout history, leaders and influencers have allied themselves with God (or, in some cases, actually declared themselves to be a god, or perhaps the son of one), thereby commanding unwavering obedience. Disobedience to the king, priest, mullah or president is equated with disobedience to God and, inevitably, some form of particularly nasty eternal punishment.

What's important here is that the relationship is one of power, not spirituality. If we remove religion from the equation, people will still crave leadership, leaders will still find ways to manufacture authority for themselves, wars will still be fought over abstract beliefs (albeit secular ones), we will still be competing with eachother for the dwindling resources of the Earth; in short, I don't think much will change.

While I would be the first to celebrate if religion suddenly went away, I'm not particularly optimistic that humanity's next pacifier would be any more palatable.

Just call me a pessimistic curmudgeon.

because you can't experience the needs of others, and so you should just back off. Obviously I don't mean you should cower and give up your rights. We must continue to fight for separation of Church and State.

... can make you commit atrocities."
Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)

to

"Those who promise you treasure

can ALSO make you commit atrocities."

who believe what others consider absurdities?

other communist, atheist societies? They weren't exactly peaceful and their successors, while a bit less hardline (some religious practices are allowed), are continuing to suppress dissidents and threaten or attack enemies such as Chechnya and Taiwan.

then why do humans even attempt to coat their brutishness in the veneer of religiosity?

I can't believe God loves brutish hypocrites more than just plain old brutes.

NT!

and even fears, Tom. But I have a theory that religion is a nice cover-up for bad behavior. If you want your neighbor's goodies, it is much more socially acceptable to smite him in the name of Thor or whomever.

Territorialism, greed, paranoia, lust (not the good kind!), all of these exist separate and apart from religion. There will always be sheep ready to follow, whether the cry is "get the black guys!" or "kill one for Jesus!"

I firmly believe if tomorrow you completely eliminated faith from the human mind there would still be genocide, rape, murder, conspiracy, child abuse...you name it.

I fear you are right... It's that damned old human nature.

BUT, if things were brought down to reprehensible acts were caused by human nature, maybe fewer excuses would be made?

Any structure can and probably will be misused by some to their advantage. I think that's the human condition. I don't think that means the structure is necessarily at fault.

We human beings are genius at making excuses for our behavior. Whether it be religion or some other higher ideal, we've tossed them all out there. If religion were no longer in the equation, we'd find some other justification for our bad behavior.

if you don't believe it has any impact on behavior.

:shrug:

"I firmly believe if tomorrow you completely eliminated faith from the human mind there would still be genocide, rape, murder, conspiracy, child abuse...you name it."

that religion has no effect on behavior.

Her statement seems pretty straightforward to me.

:shrug:

that these things exist apart from religion and would continue to do so whether religion existed or not. That's a very different thing than saying that religion has no effect on human behavior. Some violence happens in the presence of alcohol, but violence would still exist if alcohol didn't.

I guess TG can clear it up if she wants but I did not get that she believes religion alters behavior for the better overall.

In fact, I would posit that being religious can spawn some pretty nasty behavioral side-effects.

to say that being human can spawn same.

I do believe great things have been done in the name of religion. (literacy, hospitals, many liberal movements) But I think they would probably have been done without religion, as well, because there was a need. I guess I just don't see religion as being anywhere near the importance of basic human needs. Indeed, we have created religions in order to help us deal with these needs.

in which human beings use religion as an excuse to commit those atrocities... it is not the religion teaching them to commit the atrocities, it is their own nature. Religion may make some people better people, but there are still rude asshats that falsely wrap themselves up in religious shrouds to hide their greed. If religion didn't exist, they would find some other "higher ideal" to wrap themselves in to mask their evils.

religion.

It has impact on behavior. It is a convenient pretty facade to hide behind.

Religion is the organization of faith. Sometimes good, sometimes not.

Faith is internal.

you start out saying "religion is a nice cover-up for bad behavior".

And then seque into your "faith" statement "I firmly believe if tomorrow you completely eliminated faith from the human mind there would still be genocide, rape, murder, conspiracy, child abuse...you name it..".

Since the post was all on the same topic, I interpreted your comments as indicating faith and religion were being utilized in the same way.

I didn't see any clarification in the post and read it as the same definition.

:hi:

and I meant it double-pronged. Religion is a cover-up, but not faith. I am not at all certain that many or most religious folks have faith. But even without faith, we are still human beings with all that entails.

are often used interchangably. "Faith" based initiatives for example usually mean church-based, or religious organization-based initiatives.

Thanks for the clarification. Hope you had a great mother's day!

My husband and children are cooking me a mother's day feast and I'm being summoned.

Happy Mother's Day to you (if it applies!)

Peace!

I have two grown children and two baby grandkids.

Religion enables many of the atrocities that occur such as Abhu Ghraib and Wal-Mart.

True spirituality, the spirituality of Henry David Thoreau, rejects much of the things in our modern world. Thoreau gets enjoyment out of chopping weeds. While our modern world would have another person with him to make it a race and the enjoyment is gone.

It is a major mistake for Progressives to reject spirituality.

Check out Harpers Magazine April 2006 p. 31 "The Spirit of Disobedience" by Curtis White which is an important essay.

but it is also essential that it be founded on rational basis. Thoreau is a wonderful example who derived his spirituality from nature. Whatever god he refers to is not a knowable god in the Christian sense. Most naturalists probably feel the same way as he did, but don't require thinking of a god as having anything to do with nature. Nature provides a source of spirituality without need for a god. But if one is happier in thinking that nature is their god, or that the two are the same, then I don't see a problem with that either. Nature is real after all and we have evolved to sense it in profound ways.

Yes, I think religion as we know it will eventually fall by the wayside. The all knowing personal God that listens to our prayers will be replaced by spirituality that is compatible with the real world and an advancing civilization. Spirituality that allows barriers to be dropped, world peace, a sustainable future. Spirituality derived from nature as Thoreau's was, is compatible with a sustainable world.

I don't think we'll see the end of organized groups who meet, worship together and follow some kind of doctrine, because as long as the big questions remain about the nature of the Cosmos and the purpose of our lives, there will be the need for an irrational realm. These questions simply can't be answered rationally. Additionally, most people aren't Thoreau, and aren't thoughtful enough to develop their own spirituality without concrete teachings and examples.

I hope you are right in that spirituality more compatible with the advance of civilization will replace the fear-based systems of control that we've seen throughout history. I would like to see "liberal" churches flourish and fear-based churches fail, but unfortunately in religion as in politics, fear outsells reflection every time.

about the cosmos, but we don't have to make up the answers. Unknowns and mysteries in life are a source for inspiration and wonder, but we no longer have to make up gods to explain phenomena that cannot yet be explained.

I agree that liberal churches are much preferable over intolerant ones. But doctrines established over a thousand years ago, doctrines based on a knowable god, based on fear and bigotry, need to be reformed. Since no two religions agree on what their god has to say, what is the correct way to believe, they are perpetual sources of division in the world. Liberalizing them is a good thing, but eventually they should be replaced by spirituality not based on knowable gods. I think Buddhism is an example of spirituality compatible with the future. And the spirituality of Thoreau is another. Too much of religion tries to interpret what a god wants. We have to advance beyond the concept of a knowable god. But for many, there is no need for a god at all, yet we still achieve spirituality by other means, whether it is from nature, love, meditation, writing, reading, music. Lots of ways.

I know better than to go into threads that unnecessarily insult large numbers of folks here. :banghead:

I would be happy to slap you. thanks for the invite.

:hi: I wrote this before the thread was moved.

My dad is in agreement with you regarding the danger of religion. I take a different view - take this with the requisite barrel of salt, of course. :)

Religion is a human construct and fills a need that is very human. (Not that those who don't feel the need aren't human - here comes the disclaimer just in time.) As a human construct, placed as a kind of template over The Unknowable*, it also changes according to interpretation and the maturity of the user. It's like any tool, essentially.

There are certainly those who use religion for destructive or exclusionist purposes, but I don't think that that renders the tool without positive use. I had a couple of close calls as a little uly - born with the cord around my neck and a bright shade of blue, Hodgkin's lymphoma when I was eleven - and I know that my mother's faith helped her through both of those experiences. I'm not in the same place as her theologically, but humanistically I'm not going to try to deny her that comfort.

As I posted a while back in the religion forum, plenty of progressive heroes have been people of no faith and plenty have been people of faith. The same is true the opposite end of the spectrum from those heroes. I have no need to argue with the legacy of, say, MLK because he was a man of faith. I'll take my allies where I find them, no matter their motive.

(* re: I don't know if what I call The Unknowable exists, but as an inquisitive species, I think we need for it to exist.)

You brought up one thing... "There are certainly those who use religion for destructive or exclusionist purposes, but I don't think that that renders the tool without positive use.

Tool.

IMHO, I think that that is what it is for those of superior intellect and power.

that it's exclusively so for those of superior intellect, although it occurs to me that you might mean "tool" in an "opiate of the masses" sense, which is not how I mean it.

my faith AND my religion are tools in my life. I use them to help me live.

:)

and see the real person, for what they are.

"discernment." I wasn't gifted with a lot of it. I am unfortunately very trusting.

or most of them, are just idle speculation about an afterlife that may or may not exist. And I believe that religion discourages people from taking an interest in the here and now. Why worry about human suffering, or global warming, or aids, or over population, when we know that Jaysus will be back at any moment to bring us all into ga-ga and in the sky, and make everything all right? Why have any qualms about mass murder or suicide, when such actions will usher you into a paradise of virgins and ecstasy? The world will be a better place when and if, mankind evolves beyond the primitive god worshiping phase.

My partner just recently died of AIDS, I have AIDS. It's my faith that keeps me going. It's the non believers for lack of a better term that seem to try to make my life on earth a living hell.

My ex is HIV+. We're still very close. He's well now, but I know that one day I'll face his death. He wisely points out that this is true of everyone, but with him I know the likely cause.


Sorry for your loss.

and an active Christian. Who gets tired of other people telling me what I believe.

I have no more right to tell christians what they believe than they have to do the same to me.

You'll find that's a bone of contention around here.

I believe everyone should have the right to define themselves.

Welcome to DU.:)

for the thread. It's been boring around here lately! Waiting for Fitzmas and all..

Cheers!

I actually agree with you here, in general terms, but for me I don't understand it, my Gods are real to me, you may think me delusional, I don't care, I don't even know if I'm 100% right, or if you are 100% right. At the same time, there is nothing I'm obligated to do, in my religion, to try to convert you to my religion, that's forbidden, not out of thinking I'm special, but out of respect. Every person on the planet has the absolute right to figure out thier own spirtuality or lack thereof without interference from others. There is no objective right or wrong in this, its just the way we Wiccans believe, live and let live, there is no punishment for not believing, not even that much of an award for believing, so why fight over it at all?

The only thing we DO get defensive about are misconceptions, either purposeful or ignorant assumptions that we worship Satan, sacrifice children, that type of slander. But its slander and lies about practices or beliefs that aren't true, so I guess that would be different. I just don't get this need to be right, and try to convince others you are right, regardless of WHAT your beliefs are.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/pdf/wtwtogod.pdf

so it's a fairly common view in my country. It's an interesting international survey - comparing the USA, UK, Israel, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Mexico and Lebanon. The UK and South Korea turn out surprisingly close about a lot of things. You do have to wonder if a few meanings got changed in translation, though - eg in Indonesia, 68% regularly attend an organised religious service, but 64% think "religion is a crutch for the weak minded".

Here's a factoid: "I would die for my God/beliefs" - USA 71% agree, UK 19% agree.

"God told me to invade Iraq" - Bush

My first thought was that '71%' was a reference to the remainder from the 29% of Brits who think we'd be better off without religion. Now I realise it's the 71% of Americans who'd die for their religion. Sorry I was a bit dense.

I suppose at least they're not saying "I'd kill for my religion" - which is directly what the Crusades were. But the only countries where more would die for their religion than the USA are Nigeria and Indonesia. Even Lebanon, where they've had religion-based civil wars for decades, has the same percentage as the USA. The amazing thing is that only 54% of the Americans surveyed said they go to services regularly. So 17% of Americans would die for something they can't be bothered to make time for in normal life.

since the 71 was the complement of 29. It was the 71% who would die for their beliefs in God that I was refering to. But you make an important distinction between that and the Crusades. Perhaps they should have been asked whether they would kill in the name of their God. With a straight face of course. ;)

that the U.S., or at least the earliest settlements on which the U.S. was ultimately founded, were largely established by Puritans and other religious fanatics, whom the English had the good sense to run out of their own country. They were the "Elite of God", "the chosen", (in their own fantasy world) with a God given right to swallow up the North American Continent (later concept of Manifest Destiny). And a lot of the Puritan mentality still exists in America today. The so called "work ethic", the belief that America is Gods Own country, the concept that the wonderful US of A can do no wrong. You'd be surprised how many ass clowns still buy into this bull shit, despite all evidence to the contrary - but I'm an American, and I'll be damned if I'll give up my life for some imaginary Booger Man in the Sky. But the way things are going this side of the pond, it will be much more likely that non believers such as myself will be persecuted by the good Christians, than the other way around.

Religion is not only good for this planet, it is inherent.

History only proves that anything can be used for wrongdoing, religion included. That however, does nothing to make religion guilty of anything. You only see the bad because that is what you see. One could likewise see only the bad with art or the bad with science or the bad with knives. Your perception of religion is skewed, and that blinds you from what really happens in such a situation.

I could go on and on, but this has been covered about a scrillion times (yes, I meant to write it that way). I'll just see if someone wants to discuss this further.

And I would posit that if religion can be used for wrongdoing "anything can be used for wrongdoing, religion included", then religion is guilty of wrongdoing utilizing your own logic and your own words.

Religion is another facet of society, of civilization. Look at the development of every culture, and you will see that some form of religion exists. Since before the first cave paintings, humans have looked for deeper truths, as well as ways to express them. No matter what, humans will always try to search for these ideas, and that is why it is inherent.

Something can be USED for wrongdoing, but that does not make the thing that was manipulated guilty. Without science, how could entire cities be liquidated with one bomb? However, does that make science guilty of anything? Of course not. It is the exact same thing with religion.

That doesn't mean religion is good or better than non-belief. And this human doesn't look for "deeper truths", why do you assume everyone does?

Science IS guilty of creating the bomb. Science can be manipulated for evil. It absolutely means that science can and should be utilized with care and concern. It should be scrutinized and those parts that are flawed should be discarded. Personally, I am commmited to, and work hard for a nuclear-free planet. Do you? I put my energy, time, and money working towards that goal.

Quoting you, "It is the exact same thing with religion" - are you willing to be as vigilant with religion as I am with science?

I read you as being enamored of "religion". I find religion to be seriously flawed. This discussion won't end well unless we either 1. agree to disagree, or 2. work out some viable discussion terms.

Peace!

The fact remains that societies do look for these truths, regardless of how many choose not to. YOU may not look for them, but that does nothing to change the reality that all cultures and societies have virtually always done so, as a matter of convergent behavior, in fact (meaning they did it independent of one another).

Science created the bomb, but it didn't drop it.

"I put my energy, time, and money working towards that goal."

So you obviously put your energy, time and money in full opposition to science, correct? I mean, you say that science is itself guilty, and is there a better thing to fight than the guilty party? That would mean that you would fight any research in medicine, physics, alternative energy and otherwise.... Right?

I oppose fundamentalism and intolerance. However, that doesn't equal opposition to religion at all, and most of the time, it means the exact opposite.

How is "religion" seriously flawed in your view? Let's just strictly treat this as a tangent.

It does nothing to change the reality that there are people in all cultures and societies who have always done so, as a matter of convergent behavior, in fact (meaning they did it independent of one another). That doesn't make those who have sought religion, or a religious framework for their lives, any more superior or darwinianly selected than us.

You oppose fundamentalism and intolerance, I oppose the violent usage of scientific progress. I am not opposed to science at all. I oppose it's violent usage.

And science did drop the bomb. Twice.

"How is "religion" seriously flawed in your view? Let's just strictly treat this as a tangent."

Prove that God exists.

but it still does not change how societies inevitably have religion as an important part of the community. It does not change the FACT that religion has been a part of the human experience since the first evidence of human existence, and that these same sentiments and interests will continue to be present. The exceptions that you point out are exceptions, nothing more. Societies, as a whole, as reflections of the individual members, have demonstrated the interest and behaviors I have outlined. That is so very clearly inherent.

I never asserted genetic superiority or any such idea. Don't put words in my mouth.

Oh, and I can point to evidence of religion from the first civilizations. However, can you point to "those who don't believe" during those same time periods? I mean, I'm just asking for "proof", right?

"...I oppose the violent usage of scientific progress."

And that is exactly my point. "Usage" is the key word.

"And science did drop the bomb. Twice."

That's interesting. I was under the impression that Harry Truman (and the US government, and the people who flew the plane and pressed the button) decided to use the bomb, not science. Actually, many scientists expressed grave concerns and objections to the use of it before it was utilized.

Keep in mind that I cannot prove divinity to anyone just as much as you cannot prove negative numbers. However, you should also keep in mind that it is a completely logical conclusion to say that if there is smoke, there is fire. This means that something does not have to be manifest in physical evidence for its existence to be correctly verified.

On to your request. Look around you. Anywhere you observe, you see different patterns. First, it is a given that all things are created, exist and then end. Next, we see that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Further, there are commonalities to everything. For this, we can look at simple math: 2, 3, 4 and all numbers have one thing in common: 2/1, 3/1, 4/1 and so on. We can look at the fact that all things are made up of the same basic things: electrons, neutrons and protons (if you focus up, you'll find other commonalities, perhaps more specific, such as cellular structure). Another thing is that objects can exist in different forms without actually changing; water can exist as a solid, liquid or gas. We can also see that there is a perpetual nature to everything; winter melts into spring, spring goes to summer, summer drifts to fall, fall leads to winder and the cycle continues. Cycles are central to existence in any form. Lastly, there is an ultimate truth to everything; this is shown by the theory of relativity (as well as math: 2 is 2, no matter what).

Would you agree that these are truths? Say yes or no right now.

Now, it is certainly true that truth is not confined at all. If we apply these truths, we can find other truths. First, we can know that entities continue to exist after death, for it not only agrees with the law of conservation of energy/mass, but it agrees with what we have priorly established. Just as all things are eternal, so too are individual beings, as they continue in new forms (new lives, if you will), like anything else. However, exactly what continues? Well, we know that there is both commonality and ultimate truth to all things, so we must conclude that it is this which is eternal. Moving on, the fact that all things are connected and share commonalities (remember the numbers and atoms) shows that these eternal bodies are similar, shared and equal. What could this be? Well, using our vernacular, you could reasonably call it "divinity".

I could continue, but that is the general premise.

I have no problem with disagreement, but I would just ask you to not be rude about it, if you please.

Case closed.

(That's not being rude, by the way.)

And we can argue the "people kill people, guns don't kill people" for all time, but that doesn't change the fact that when humanity creates a weapon for evil, and uses it for evil, that needs to be examined (and excised in my opinion).

I don't give a shit about proving that atheists have existed since the first fish crawled out of the ocean (not trying to be rude here, I just swear a lot). I just know it's a fact. But basically it all comes down to you to prove God exists. You can't.

You failed to address my points in any significant manner, and instead made a statement that had nothing to do with any of the arguments I put forth. If you do not address my arguments, there is every reason to conclude that you are incorrect.

I'll make it real simple: deal with what I said.

Religion is not created for evil. Science is not created for evil. Art is not created for evil. They all can be USED for evil, but that does not make them guilty. Water is what life as we know it is based off of, but it can still be used to humiliate someone or hurt someone or break up protests or other acts of wrongdoing. Think about that.

"I just know it's a fact."

I do believe you are relying on "blind faith". Try reason.

What it basically comes down to is your refusal to engage my points. So really, if you don't disprove my statements or even attempt to provide another viewpoint, that simply shows your inability to prove your side of the argument, not mine.

I don't understand what you want me to do. I asked you to prove God exists - first by the way (#94). You can't, other than point to nature (which isn't "proof").

I answered your questions and all of your points. Deal with that. You may not like them, or possibly even understand my answers, but I addressed them. And I even made it simple!

See, in my book, religion is created for evil. Science CAN be created for evil. Art can be created for evil. And they can be guilty.

I don't give a shit if you don't want to acknowledge that as long as there has been humankind, there have been atheists. You try reason, other than blind faith, and perhaps you will understand that not all humans are/were "inherently" believers.

You haven't proven anything.

Regardless, I'm off for the night. Peace!

because your provided no support for your claims.

You did ask me to prove that god exists. You got that much right, at least. However, I did provide an extensive outline of how I can prove, to a very strong degree, the existence of divinity. You chose NOT to respond to them.

You answered not one of my arguments pertaining to that topic. That is something you need to deal with, lest you end this discussion without showing a single counterargument.

Oh, so when was art formally created? What evil intentions did the inventor of art have? Art was never really created, it is something that people apply to different things, it is something that is used by many individuals for many aims. Is the same work of Monet, Delacroix, Phidias, Vermeer, David or any other notable artist guilty because the Nazis used "art" as propaganda? There can be no other answer than a completely negative response.

What you fail to understand is that you are willfully believing something without the slightest bit of justification for it. Anyone can "just know" anything, but that doesn't make them right, you have to have some sort of reason for thinking it. You have displayed no such reason.

More to the point, however, is the fact that religion's undeniable role in society and presence in the human experience is not undone or lessened by non-believers. Again, they were and are exceptions (and that is ignoring the lack of any reason to think they were substantially around).

Go back and read what I wrote, come back and let's discuss if I proved something or not. Until then, the only thing you are proving is your incapacity to amount an argument.

Could you do that please, so I know what page you're on?

Then we can talk about the relative ages of humanity and civilization.

arguments like this are always based on this narrative that basically demeans not just billions of living humans, but thousands of years of human civilization...Its this sort of idea that this generation is sooo much smarter than anybody who lived before, we can finally recover from the "repression" that comes from religious ideas. But this narrative fails to take into account that religious type beliefs have risen spontaneously all over the world, of people's free will. The ability to disbelieve in the existence of God(s) is NOT some new thing that was just discovered, people have always had that choice. However, history has shown that religious ideas have been favored in a darwinian sense: They perpeuate themselves because they offer something positive to those who believe in them.

And it is definitely NOT good for mankind. I would stipulate that just because a practice or idea has perpetuated itself doesn't mean it is "good".

On that same vein, one could say that atheism/agnosticism is favored in a darwinian sense as well since it has perpetuated itself... why do you think religion is somehow "positive" therefore disbelief is some kind of negative when both have "survived" (speaking darwinianly of course).

takes the eyes off what going on in politics.

I'm speaking totally scientifically with morality thrown aside for the sake of argument, but there are instances where murder is good for the individual, in a Darwinian sense. Take Alfred Packard situations where the sole survivor is the one that ate his friends to stay alive.

But you and I know this isn't moral, and isn't good. Why is that? Well, we know that its bad because murder is bad for the collective, for the group, and this too is a survival mechanism: The group that doesn't all murder each other will be selected over the group that does. So in other words, our morals exist because they represent the benifit of the collective group of which we are a part.

And where does this trend come from, from a cultural perspective? "Thou Shall Not Kill" written on a stone tablet, or a million other versions from other faiths. What I'm saying here is that religion serves a real purpose, or it wouldn't be around...Just like our spines and eyes serve a purpose. And if you look at history you will see this model backed up. All these people posting here saying that Jesus didn't exist because you can find the virgin birth and resurection in a million previous faiths are missing the bigger picture, which is how Christianity evolved from these previous things and was selected. (I'll bet many christian ideas are 20,000 years old or more.) Religion is part of the genome of our culture, and it shouldn't be tinkered with.

And you atheists are just a mututation! ;)

And I've seen more than my fair share of folks who have elsewhere been devastated by their religion.

Religion in this mutant's opinion, does far more harm than good.

And yes, I think societal norms are a cultural perspective, not religious.

I have nothing but regret for those who have had their lives fucked up by religion. I guess what makes us different is that I always thought of God as the reality, and religion as man's bumbling attempt to talk about the reality. As such, my personal religion is always being enlightened by new information from science, atheists and other faiths, my dogmas smashed. But my belief in God simply never dies, and my bumbling attempts to talk about it keep perpetuating religion, so what to do?

and btw, to me religion *is* culture, just a work of mankind.

I view religion as kind of an outmoded means of providing certain psychological benefits to people. But like most outmoded means, it has disadvantages with respect to more modern ways of achieving the same end (e.g. Jihad, honor killing, superiority, out-group hostility, theologically based discrimination and prejudice, and the general hostility to reproductive autonomy - to name just a few).

As a side note, the lengths that certain individuals go to show that the negative aspects of religion are due to other causes besides theocracy amazes me. They come up with these complex stories regarding politics, morality, psychology, sociology, and so on when the simplest explanation and rationale is right there in the text.

There are many different kinds of religion on the planet and they deserve wildly varying degrees of blame.
The most horrible effects come from the salvationist religions which include the destructive beliefs that there is one right way to live, and that the earth was made for humans to conquer and rule.
Less bad are those religions whose tenets aren't provisional on the progress of rational knowledge and scientific discovery.
That covers at least 99% of them...

I think you touched on a key point here greyl. As with any human interaction, it's difficult to get large numbers of people to agree totally on complex issues, even scientific fact. Throw in allegory, parables and poetry and you get the vast differing viewpoints on religion. It always amazes me that what I understand from a spiritual teaching, can be so drastically different from someone else's. But as long as neither of our views infringe upon someone else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it's really not a problem. Where it gets dangerous though, is when people cherry pick , pull out of context, and twist spiritual teaching to advance a personal, (ex. Hitler) or corporate (ex. Ku Klux Klan) agenda that is designed to deprive others of their life, rights, or terrorize them into submission.

But my point is that the root of these perversions of spiritual teaching lays with people, and not with the teaching itself. I think if you examine any "religious" doctrine that seeks to deprive others of their rights or freedom, and drill down to the basis for that doctrine, you will find that it has been falsely interpreted, pulled ot of context or disingenuously applied.