Religion itself is the fount of most evil.

Posted by Bachalon on Sunday, July 24, 2005 at 09:19 PM. Read 3461 times. Tags:
{name} pic

Found this in today’s Sunday Herald, and thought I’d share some of it with you guys.

For the government of a secular country such as ours to treat religion as if it had real merit instead of regarding it as a ridiculous anachronism, which education, wisdom and experience can hopefully overcome in time, is one of the most depressing developments of the 21st century. Religious people must be treated with the same respect as non-religious people, but their religions should quite properly be regarded with the weary contempt they deserve. Instead we have debates on TV news shows between hardline Muslim scholars and moderate Muslim politicians without any intervening voice of scepticism suggesting that the whole darned thing might be just as invented as virgin births and Mormon tablets.

We have bishops arguing with Christian women about ordination as if this is an important issue, again without the obvious interjection that it is unlikely in the extreme that there exists any god at all, never mind a peculiar one who cares what sex wears the cassock. And there goes old nutty Ruth Kelly using taxpayers’ money to introduce a whole new clutch of assorted religious schools that will abuse the innocence of trusting children by teaching them superstition alongside facts to ensure they cannot separate the two.

The defence of any attacked faith is always to say: “You don’t understand our religion.” It’s considerably more likely that those defenders of their rrational beliefs have failed to understand Montesquieu, Hume, Rousseau and Diderot. The tattooed drunken morons attending an Orange walk are hardly theologians.

Since these are dark days, it’s time to stop all this polite tiptoeing around religion and harden up accordingly. Our elected leaders constantly bleating their respect for religion is not political correctness but a public declaration that intellect, tolerance, democracy, reason and enlightenment are of less value than dogma and delusion. Now’s the moment for a clear, definite, distinct line to be drawn between state and religion, one that defends the individual’s right to follow whatever ideology he or she wishes within the law, but also firmly declares and vigorously defends our collective ideals of gender equality, respect for differing sexual orientations and reinforces the message that there is no room whatsoever for the supernatural and the irrational. No bishops, mullahs, Presbyterian ministers, rabbis, or Scientologists should be gifted special hearings at Downing Street, but should confine themselves to wielding their power and freedom as the rest of us do, namely as ordinary voters, and the state-funded faith schools that shame us all with their manipulation of young minds must cease. We have all been mugged, but the shock must take us back to reason and as far away from religion as we can get.

What do you think?

Comments:

Page 2 of 8 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 07/26/2005 at 08:24 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Theo, you are right that the term ‘drought’ can include some rain.  Here in Illinois we are in a severe drought even though it is raining right now.

So forget “drought” and consider: is “not precipitating” a form of precipitation?  No water vapor condensing around nuclei and becoming water - that is what condensation is.  If ‘x’ is not happening, then ‘not-x’ is not a form of ‘x’.  It is the absence of ‘x’.

BunBun United States Posted on 07/26/2005 at 08:46 PM

BunBun pic

The biggest thing that a gevernment can give is choice. People should have the right to choose there own beliefs. If people understand that then all this debate over religion would be moot.

From this seperatation of church and state logically follows because there are so many different religions that to have any single one being more important than another would go against the freedom of beliefs. This is due to the fact that people would be pressed to conform to it by the others of the state sanctioned religion. However, if only Aetheists were allowed into the government that would be just as problematic. Atheism is just another way of looking at our universe and is similiar to religion in respect to freedom of belief in that to choose it above others would be the same as choosing a specific religion above others. So anyone must be allowed the chance at government. Yet if people are ignorant and elect religious leaders of one specific denomination and end up creating a religious state then all the talk of freedom of belief is undermined. So the real way to solve the problems - at least the way I think - is to educate. If everyone were able to think for themselves and make decisions independent of what is written in some peice of “holy” scripture then maybe we could all coexist. The way I see it is this: we could live happily with the same inteligence as monkeys or as much smarter and more intelligent beings who use rational thought which I think we are capable of.

Thus we should strive to educate. The reason I dont like religion is that they do not promote education and rational thought(it tends to show that the religion is based on control). Yet one can believe in god and think rationally. So religion itself is the problem NOT the beliefe in god. If religion(the ceremonies, the writings, and the preaching) were done away with and left only with the concept of god then this new form of religion(s) would be perfectly acceptable. I see nothing wrong with believing in god; however, I think the acts that follow are useless and often promote blind faith in people who claim to be closer to god (ie: a dictator).

Cheers BunBun

 Signature 

Cheers BunBun[color=red]

OB United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 10:11 AM

OB pic

Justice:  For me, a statement that religious people are delusional and deserve to be laughed at raises the same neck hair as does a statement that Atheists are immoral and without the Bible or religious beliefs as reference, the moral fiber of the world would unravel. Just an observation.

I think it’s worth noting that my statement raises hackles (not just yours, but many people’s) when applied to those who believe in God, yet the same applied to people who really and truly believe in the existence of Santa, leprechauns or the Easter Bunny wouldn’t raise an eyebrow.  It’s a testament to the pervasiveness of our cultural indoctrination that a belief in God is supposed to be treated differently, i.e. given more respect or more credibility, than a belief in any other invisible and/or mythical being.

Theo:

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

So where’s their proof nature holds more salvation than the supernatural?

I’m pretty sure their point is that there’s no NEED for salvation.  Christians believe all people are sinners, hence are in need of salvation (and if that’s not a denigration of human intelligence I don’t know what is). Humanists have no such beliefs.

Theo:

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

Apparently not open to metaphysical ideas though.

I’d say metaphysical ideas fall into the category of those “untested claims” of which Humanists are skeptical.  Rightly so, IMO.

BunBun: The reason I dont like religion is that they do not promote education and rational thought(it tends to show that the religion is based on control). Yet one can believe in god and think rationally. So religion itself is the problem NOT the beliefe in god. If religion(the ceremonies, the writings, and the preaching) were done away with and left only with the concept of god then this new form of religion(s) would be perfectly acceptable. I see nothing wrong with believing in god; however, I think the acts that follow are useless and often promote blind faith in people who claim to be closer to god (ie: a dictator).

Indeed.  People can believe whatever they want to in private.  It’s the beliefs of some people (and a minority, no less) driving public policy that I have a serious problem with.  Because some Christians believe homosexuality to be a sin, our nation is supposed to adopt a policy that denies gays their constitutional right to choose their legal next of kin through marriage?  Because some Christians believe that a frozen embryo is somehow as much a person as a living, breathing human being, as a matter of public policy we’re supposed to give up embryonic stem cell research that has the potential to save lives?  Because some Christians believe that the Earth was created 6000 years ago by God, exactly as it is now, and that dinosaurs and humans walked side by side, it should be the law of the land that school children be taught in school that that particular bit of mythology is equally as valid as a scientific theory that’s backed up by over a century’s worth of empirical evidence?  Fuck no!  Not on my watch.  As long as I have a breath in my body, I will loudly oppose allowing myth to be presented as fact (especially to children) and allowing the government of ALL Americans to make laws based upon those myths, or laws that support the notion that those myths are somehow relevant to anyone other than those who believe them to be true.

 Signature 

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.

warbi United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 10:58 AM

warbi pic

People can believe whatever they want to in private.  It’s the beliefs of some people (and a minority, no less) driving public policy that I have a serious problem with.

That is it in a nutshell, OB.

Les United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 11:17 AM

Les pic

I was going to say all of the stuff that OB said, but she beat me to it.

 Signature 

All I know is the wine lasts longer when you don’t gotta share it with someone
All I know is my steak tastes better when I take my steak tastes better pill
-- I Feel Fantastic, Jonathan Coulton

Justice United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 06:11 PM

Justice pic

OB, let me start by making clear I am not defending my own beliefs, and I have also cracked many jokes about religious people - Christians, particularly. So this is more a pause for thought because for some reason, put the way you put it, your statement bothered me. I wasn’t really sure why at the moment, which is why I wrote it was just an observation.

I have given it thought. I don’t think a belief in Santa Claus is a fair comparison to a belief in a god. When children discover Santa Claus is not real, they can immediately replace Santa Claus with (usually) mom and dad. In other words, there is no mystery left behind when Santa is suddenly plucked out of existence because everything they attributed to Santa is explained as a covert operation executed by their parents. You have to admit there is a mountain of information to sort through when comparing religion to science, and there is also a need for a lot of research to understand scientific studies and terms. Everybody is arguing over what is valid and what is not, and you can find those arguments occurring among scientists themselves. It can be confusing; so substantially more so than trying to figure out who stuffs the stockings on Christmas Eve.

Furthermore, finding out there is no Santa can be a bummer, but realizing there is no god can be devastating. I don’t know if you have directly or indirectly experienced that transition, but it can and often does completely fuck a person up for a while. So no, I don’t think the comparison is fair because a belief in god carries far more weight - not in validity, but in the potential mental and emotional impact from its destruction, and also because it takes far more patience, determination, education, and reason to denounce. For those two reasons, I would argue that a belief in god does deserve - at the least more patience, if not - more respect than a belief in something as relatively trivial as Santa Claus or fairies.

Now, having said that, I don’t mind chasing off bible thumpers with 100+ lbs. of bone crushing teeth and muscle (my dog cool grin ) because they almost invariably cross a line around here, and religious people who are trying to take my rights need to be stopped. But unfortunately, a statement that says religious people are delusional and deserve to be laughed at sweeps across the people I know who believe in some form of god to which they attribute no human-like qualities and professed reign (those I think cannot be said to be delusional because they cannot yet be proven wrong, but rather can be said, at best, to be drawing an unlikely conclusion) and those who believe in a biblical version of “God,” but would join you brick by brick in building that eight mile thick line between church and state (delusional, maybe, but deserving of some measure of respect as they understand you don’t believe as they do, that they have no right to impose their beliefs on you, and otherwise, are not bothering you but supporting you - and me.)

serge Canada Posted on 07/27/2005 at 08:29 PM

serge pic

I’m reading “believe, believe, believe” everywhere.... I’ll be nice and say that for most people that I know, They’re thinking “believe, believe, believe”. But what they are really doing is wishing, wishing, wishing for that book to reflect truth, for that pardon coming from above. For Jesus to hold their hands telling them “you did good”. They are wishing so hard that they are willing to protect a set of ideas that would give a meaning to their lives. In my opinon this whole religious philosophy is there to fii in a hole in some people’s education...The need to believe.

An other image that comes to mind is the situation where I would be accused or accusing… it doesn’t really matter....I would then tell the judge a story. Any story. And he would be asking me to show proof....

warbi United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 08:39 PM

warbi pic

You have to admit there is a mountain of information to sort through when comparing religion to science,

Justice, I think that might be the big sticking point.  You really can’t compare religion and science.  Religion is based on faith/belief with no bearing on whether or not there is proof.  Science tries to make cohesive sense of observable phenomona (including “extended” senses like telescopes, microscopes, infrared, etc...).  What makes something a “science” is the ability to accurately make predictions based upon hypotheses formulated from past observations.  These predictions have to be able to be independently verified through experiments by other scientists.  Science is based upon empiricism and religion is based upon faith.  Science (in general) attempts to answer the “hows” while religion attempts to answer the “whys”.  Scientific knowledge is ethically null while religion is steeped in mores and ethos.  There is no real common ground other than what some people who feel threatened by empirical facts have attempted to make (e.g., creation vs evolution).  Even the creation versus evolution “debate” is flawed because evolutionary theory deals with what happened to life after it began on earth while creation is about the origins of life.  Scientific theories dealing with the origins of life are divided into two camps- abiogenesis and biogenesis, ebolutionary theory is a separate branch of study.
As for Santa Claus, OB’s point migth be a little more valid than you think.  Parents never take the place of Santa.  Once the child’s belief in Santa is gone, Santa ceases to exist.  The child who believes in Santa believes in an omnipotent being who knows if you are good or bad.  This being is able to magically create toys for all of the children in the world and then somehow manage to deliver these toys to every household in the world in one night.  This is not coincidence since Santa is merely a demoted Danish god, just as Satan is a demoted paleolithic god.  (Hmmm… Satan and Santa are anagrams!:vampire:).  Other pagan dieties were cannonized (St Brigit comes to mind) to help assimilation of the conquered cultures.

THEOCRAT United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 08:40 PM

THEOCRAT pic

Well said Justice.  I was about to point out something similar.  By the claims of the myth of Santa he visits every Christmas morning with presents.  This is easily testable and easily dismissed.  Religions are much harder to do so with.  You can’t so easily disprove everything in the Bible.  Their may be some things that grant reasonable doubt, but, as I was reminded sometime ago in another thread, piltdown man’s fraudulent nature does not grant the whole theory of evolution thrown out the window.  No one can prove every claim in the Bible to be false.  They may be logically unreasonable, but that does not equate myth.

Originally posted by decrepitoldfool:
So forget “droughtâ€? and consider: is “not precipitatingâ€? a form of precipitation?  No water vapor condensing around nuclei and becoming water - that is what condensation is.  If ‘x’ is not happening, then ‘not-x’ is not a form of ‘x’.  It is the absence of ‘x’.

This train of thought does not work with belief systems.  You have a belief about the supernatural and it is called atheism which is characterized in the belief of the nonexistance of anything outside of the perceivable world.  I, being a Christian, do not believe in Islam or Hinduism, so I could call myself aMuslim or aHindu.  Atheism is the title of your belief, the fact that it means not a theist, does not change anything.  A belief that a chair will hold you or not hold you will determine whether or not you sit in it.  A belief in or not in god(s) is going to affect how we live.  Atheism is a religion.

Originally posted by OB:
I’d say metaphysical ideas fall into the category of those “untested claimsâ€? of which Humanists are skeptical.  Rightly so, IMO.

Metaphysical ideas are beliefs.  They are untestable.  Only knowledge is testable.  If I say metal is great music and you say it sucks, those are our beliefs.  It can not be tested one way or another the value of metal.  When people claim that invisble beings speak to them it is a belief.  If they knew that then we could test it, but since we can’t it must be a belief, in which case ignore them if you don’t follow their belief.

warbi United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 08:42 PM

warbi pic

Damn, I put the close parenthesis to close to the vampire face and got a smile instead!  lol

Beau Tochs United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 08:55 PM

Beau Tochs pic

THEOCRAT states: . . . Atheism is a religion.

Why does every single christian feel that by calling atheism a “religion” it thereby makes it so?  What does it accomplish? 

If it makes christians feel better, FINE . . . atheism is a religion.  Now what?

THEOCRAT: When people claim that invisble beings speak to them it is a belief.  If they knew that then we could test it, but since we can’t it must be a belief, in which case ignore them if you don’t follow their belief.

Ignoring ‘em worked just fine for many years . . . the problem is that there are now those who are no longer content to “live and let live” - they believe that their special little imaginary friend wants them to force everyone else in the US to accept *their* beliefs as the Truth of Truths, and they’ll bring us all to heel one way or another!

Over the past few years, I’ve realized that ignoring them is no longer an option.

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 09:06 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Theo, everything you believe, either testable or not, is a belief.  That’s a tautology.

As for atheism being a religion, as Beau Tochs said, fine if it makes you feel better.

Well, I guess I’ll go work on my hobby, “not collecting stamps.”

THEOCRAT United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 09:51 PM

THEOCRAT pic

Originally posted by Beau Tochs:
Why does every single christian feel that by calling atheism a “religion� it thereby makes it so?

Come up with a more logical definition of religion than a ‘belief system regarding the supernatural’ that gets atheism out of the umbrella of religion, if it bothers you so much.

Originally posted by Beau Tochs:
Ignoring ‘em worked just fine for many years . . . the problem is that there are now those who are no longer content to “live and let live� - they believe that their special little imaginary friend wants them to force everyone else in the US to accept *their* beliefs as the Truth of Truths, and they’ll bring us all to heel one way or another!

Over the past few years, I’ve realized that ignoring them is no longer an option.

Just so you know, I’m already on the record as a supporter of the separation between church and state.

Originally posted by decrepitoldfool:
Theo, everything you believe, either testable or not, is a belief.  That’s a tautology.

I know.  What’s your point?

Originally posted by decrepitoldfool:
Well, I guess I’ll go work on my hobby, “not collecting stamps.�

grin Your hobby does not tell me much about what you do do.  As I’ve already stated, what we believe has a daily impact on how we live our lives.  Because I beleive in Chrisitianity there are certain things you can generally infer about how I live my life and what I consider important.  If I meet a Muslim or a Hindu there are things I may infer about their lifestyles based on their beliefs about the supernatural.

Atheism, like the others, tells me a little about how you may live.  By not beleiving in a life after death or any being having control over the universe, you will likely do your best to make your time on Earth count as you think may be worthwhile.  You will live your life according to a philosophy rather than allow a holy text to govern it.  You may differ from other atheists what the philosophy is, be it humanism, postmodernism, nihilism, etc.  This is similar to how you still can’t quite pigeonhole the specifics of what it means to be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. because their are generally many denominations and interpretations that will do things somewhat differently that still fit under the overarching form of .  Do we agree to this?  Or is my logic poor?

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 10:20 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

My point about the belief tautology was that earlier you used “belief” to indicate only untestable things.  You went on at some length about it.

Metaphysical ideas are beliefs.  They are untestable.  Only knowledge is testable…

I believe there is no god, and I can’t test that belief.  I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, and I can test that belief. 

A religion is more than a belief.  Theism is not a religion; Catholicism is.  Religions, as I understand them, really are a “belief system” combined with a set of rituals, practices, an ethical framework, a social structure, a comprehensive doctrine, and an identity.

I think it is arguable that a belief in a higher power is what distinguishes a religion from a philosophy.  The counterexample of nontheistic strands of Buddhism would serve to make the argument longer but in the end I’d have to say those strands are philosophies, not religions.

Atheism might be a component of a philosophy, like the atheistic strand of Humanism.

Because I beleive in Chrisitianity there are certain things you can generally infer about how I live my life and what I consider important.  If I meet a Muslim or a Hindu there are things I may infer about their lifestyles based on their beliefs about the supernatural.

Nope.  Your belief in Christianity tells me very little about how you live your life or what you consider important.  Think for a moment about the tremendous diversity of lifestyles among those who follow the carpenter from Nazareth. 

The Pope in all his riches, preaching about compassion for the poor.  The preacher in East St. Louis doing street-basketball clinics at night and substitute teaching math in inner-city schools by day.  The used-car dealer, the Mexican villager, the gay Episcopalian Rector, the Marxist priest in Guatamala, the evangelical preacher of my acquaintance who lied about getting a girl pregnant, another evangelical preacher, friend of mine, whose life is devoted to compassion on Earth as well as spreading the eternal Gospel ...  all Christians.

Same true of atheists.  One might profess nihlism but be a lousy nihlist, rescuing kittens and volunteering to help clean old refrigerators and tires out of polluted creeks.

Jesus said in Matthew 7: you’ll know them by their fruits.  He didn’t infer a lot from people’s professed beliefs.

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 10:52 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

Come up with a more logical definition of religion than a ‘belief system regarding the supernatural’ that gets atheism out of the umbrella of religion, if it bothers you so much.

How about this:

A series of mythical tales designed to explain that which people (at the time of the myths creation) did not understand.

Atheism doesn’t fall under that umbrella.

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

Justice United States Posted on 07/27/2005 at 11:52 PM

Justice pic

warbi: Justice, I think that might be the big sticking point.

I’m not really sure what “the big sticking point” actually means; I do think your point is valid but misses mine. Give me some room; it was not an entirely formed idea and based on a new perspective. Perhaps I should have written religious claims to scientific claims or religious explanations to scientific explanations. . .

Parents never take the place of Santa.  Once the child’s belief in Santa is gone, Santa ceases to exist.

Warbi, when I said the children immediately replace Santa with their parents, I think I actually further demonstrated what I meant by that by saying everything they attributed to Santa they can then attribute to their parents.

Parent: “There is no Santa.”

Child: “How did the presents get under the tree?”

Parent: “I put them there.”

The absence of Santa leaves no mystery behind on how the presents got there because the parents put them there.

Atheist: “There is no god.”

Believer in god: “How did we come to be?”

Atheist: “I cannot say with absolute certainty, but here are the theories...”

Really, bring me down a notch because the more I think about it, the more I think comparing religious beliefs to beliefs in Santa Claus is to reduce a good number of intelligent people (among others) to absolute idiocy, and I am finding the same arrogance there as I did with the man who shouted at me that not only was I going to hell, but I was taking my “innocent children” with me.

THEOCRAT: Well said Justice.  I was about to point out something similar.  By the claims of the myth of Santa he visits every Christmas morning with presents.  This is easily testable and easily dismissed.  Religions are much harder to do so with.

Thanks. We clearly agree that far.

THEOCRAT United States Posted on 07/28/2005 at 12:04 AM

THEOCRAT pic

Good argument DOF.  I concede.  Glad we agree Justice.  It’s nice to have some help.

Originally posted by KPatrickGlover:
A series of mythical tales designed to explain that which people (at the time of the myths creation) did not understand.

Myths are fictional.  Unless you can prove that each of the world’s religions are fictional I can not accept this inferior definition.

warbi United States Posted on 07/28/2005 at 12:32 AM

warbi pic

Actually, you are still missing my point, viz, religious beliefs are neither provable nor disprovable whereas scientific theories are either supported by empirical evidence or not.  If the theory is not supported by the evidence, then it is discredited.  What I mean by sticking point is that there is no useful way of comparing religion and science, they are two totally different systems.  One relies on faith and the other on empiricism.
While religious beliefs are not provable per se, one can still use probablilities, sociohistoric knowledge, etc… and come to the conclusion that even if there were a Supreme Being, the likelihood of it being the Christian diety is no more probable than it being Danu, Zeus or any other of the myriad pantheons that have existed throughout human history.  The hubris of someone thinking that his religion is more “right” than another religion is somewhat ludicrous especially when viewed against the whole of human history.  For example, shinto started at least 500 years before Christianity.  The worship of Cernunnos probably stretches back thousands of years.  Which is “more” right?
As for the Santa analogy, while one can explain how presents are under the tree, loss of the belief in Santa still means losing the belief in an omniscient (originally meant that in my previous post and used omnipotent instead- d’oh!) being who is magical and creates a wonderous sense about the holiday.  I didn’t mean that Santa couldn’t be disproved, merely that loss of faith in Santa is more analogous to losing faith in whatever the religion du jour is than you were acknowledging.

Bachalon United States Posted on 07/28/2005 at 12:38 AM

Bachalon pic

I believe there is no god, and I can’t test that belief.  I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, and I can test that belief.

Actually I believe that’s the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning.

Just an aside.

Justice United States Posted on 07/28/2005 at 02:45 AM

Justice pic

Warbi, I am derailing myself by using the word “compare” because I am actually thinking of science, that which discredits religious claims. Given that clarity, I still say my point is valid.

As for Santa, “more analogous” I will give you, but I still think the glaring differences make that analogy unfair to the point it is insulting.

OB United States Posted on 07/28/2005 at 06:31 AM

OB pic

Furthermore, finding out there is no Santa can be a bummer, but realizing there is no god can be devastating. I don’t know if you have directly or indirectly experienced that transition, but it can and often does completely fuck a person up for a while.

Being born & raised Catholic, and now an atheist, I’d say I experienced it directly… and it didn’t fuck me up at all.  However, I understand what you’re saying and that it DOES totally blow some people’s mind when they realize they’ve been believing in fairy tales - and worse still that some of the people they trusted most worked the hardest to keep them ignorant of reality.

In fact, if you think that realizing that God and Jesus are every bit as mythical as Odin, Ganesha or Santa Claus has the potential to be SO devastating to a person’s psyche, I’d say it’s downright CRUEL to desire that the default position, especially that of the GOVERNMENT, be in support of perpetuating the myth as reality.

Again I’ll state that it’s not the adherence to religion of individuals I have a problem with, but the pervasiveness in this country of ONE religion’s views, including the indoctrination of our children (which I cannot abide) and the Christians’ employing the force of law to hold up their particular myths as beyond reproach.

If a person sincerely believes Jesus is coming back, more power to ‘em.  I won’t laugh in their face or anything like that (in spite of how ludicrous I think that belief is) as long as they avoid going zealot on me.  However, if that person is actively seeking to change public policy in order to bring ABOUT the return of Jesus, I’ll only stop laughing at their beliefs long enough to fight tooth and nail to keep THEIR fantasies out of laws that apply to ME.

 Signature 

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.

OB United States Posted on 07/28/2005 at 06:38 AM

OB pic

Basically my position is exactly the same as Muriel Gray’s:

For the government of a secular country such as ours to treat religion as if it had real merit instead of regarding it as a ridiculous anachronism, which education, wisdom and experience can hopefully overcome in time, is one of the most depressing developments of the 21st century. Religious people must be treated with the same respect as non-religious people, but their religions should quite properly be regarded with the weary contempt they deserve. Instead we have debates on TV news shows between hardline Muslim scholars and moderate Muslim politicians without any intervening voice of scepticism suggesting that the whole darned thing might be just as invented as virgin births and Mormon tablets.

There simply aren’t enough “intervening voice[s] of scepticism” in the US.  And those that TRY to be are subject to ever-increasing attempts to gag them through legislation.  We shouldn’t stand for it, and many of us WON’T.

 Signature 

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 07/28/2005 at 07:16 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

Furthermore, finding out there is no Santa can be a bummer, but realizing there is no god can be devastating. I don’t know if you have directly or indirectly experienced that transition, but it can and often does completely fuck a person up for a while. (Justice)

Yep.  That was exactly my experience.  The final realization that there is probably not a god was devastating to me some years back and for several years running.  That is because I had so. much. invested. in it.

Children have less invested in the Santa myth, so there’s usually less trauma connected with its loss.  Christianity is a much bigger, more all-inclusive myth that is more deeply engrained in our culture and in the individual’s psyche.  The Christianity myth and the Santa myth are more different in size than in kind.

OB United States Posted on 07/28/2005 at 08:54 AM

OB pic

Children have less invested in the Santa myth, so there’s usually less trauma connected with its loss.  Christianity is a much bigger, more all-inclusive myth that is more deeply engrained in our culture and in the individual’s psyche.  The Christianity myth and the Santa myth are more different in size than in kind.

Well said.  It’s bound to be less traumatic to have a myth dispelled after 8 years of believing it to be true than it is after THIRTY-eight years (or whatever) of doing so, especially when you’re surrounded by people who refuse to call a spade a spade - or more correctly, a myth a myth.

It is precisely for that reason that I find it appalling to see our government being used to help indoctrinate children into Christianity (or any other religion for that matter… but Christianity’s the one that’s propped up by the US government).

 Signature 

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.

warbi United States Posted on 07/28/2005 at 10:17 AM

warbi pic

Warbi, I am derailing myself by using the word “compare� because I am actually thinking of science, that which discredits religious claims.

While this occurs, it is a bastardization of the scientific process.  Hopefully most scientists aren’t running around trying to disprove religion because that is not the way the scientific method works.  A scientist sees certain phenomona and tries to develop a parsimonious hypothesis that explains these observations and can accurately predict future related phenomona.  In these days of politically funded science, there are certainly those who are less than “ethical” (I really hate using that word regarding this, but it is somewhat apt) or rigorous in their pursuitof hypotheses and theories.  Just as there are Christians who give other Christians a bad name and do not necessarily act in a very Christ-like manner.  If I missed your point (yet again), please elaborate.
As for the Santa analogy, I will definitely agree with DOF that the two are vastly different in scale especially regarding the spiritual/emotional investment.

Page 2 of 8 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main