Does the world really need the religions?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Intellectual discussions
Forum Discription: Discuss political and philosophical theories, religious beliefs and other academic subjects
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7691
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 13:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Does the world really need the religions?
Posted By: LEGATVS LEGIONIS
Subject: Does the world really need the religions?
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 01:55
|
Honestly i'm not religious at all and if i believe in something, i
believe in the Science; all the religions were born on a ancient Earth
where people, mostly, couldn't go to school, couldn't learn anything
and could be influenced by strange and illogical beliefs. I think that
if someone, somewhere at the moment, starts saying that he's the God's
son, everyone would think he's insane. ------------- Hosti non solum dandam esse viam ad fugiendum, sed etiam muniendam! (Publius Cornelius Scipio 'Africanus') Si vis pacem para bellum! |
Replies:
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 02:28
|
i say Yes. religion doesnt mostly contraditct with science. many religions do encourage science too.
------------- 
|
Posted By: ok ge
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 03:09
|
I cannot speak precisely about other religions, but I can say that Im deeply satisfied with my religion and I have not encountered anything in its scripts that restrict my understanding of science or discourage me from believing in science (if it wasn't the opposite where it it carries scientific discussions and narrations that matches the latest proven theories) ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 04:59
same here... ------------- |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 05:20
|
moved to intellectual discussion -------------
|
Posted By: sedamoun
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 05:34
|
The problem with religion is not the religion in itself, it is men who - sometimes - use them in a wrong way. The root of all religions are based on basic good morals. When you look back on religions and the historical contexts they were created in, we notice a strong relationship between the social norms and the moral rules dictaded by the word of god : - the ten comandements can be regarded as basic rules for life in society, they are given more importance when God tells them rather then another human being. - the arabic peninsula was a mess before Islam came into force and installed rules and moral order. As long as religion stays a personal thing (which i believe it is most of the time) and not used as a political instrument or goes against peoples free-will. Anyway, to answer your question "does the world need religions?" - i would say that it doesn't but religions are a part of our heritage and have troughout history shaped the world in many ways. http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/James_Feibleman/ - James Feibleman Cheers. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 07:39
|
No. Mysticism and spirituality may be a need for some but organized religions are just dividing people and teaching them to believe in things that for the most part are false. ------------- 
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 08:32
|
no. Especially not organized religion, and somehow religion tends to get organized quickly. I have no problem with individual religious people though, as long as they don't try to force it on other people. ------------- |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 08:34
|
Yes. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: arsenka
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 08:50
|
Question to everybody: do you take into consideration the difference between religion and faith (la religion y la fe - para los hispanohablantes)? ------------- arsenka |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 09:08
I don't know what you mean: you have to be religious to have faith or have faith in order to be religious. 
-------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: AlbinoAlien
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 09:25
|
ID definatly say that orginised religon is where the corruption begins. if we were to keep religion into more small, community like orginizations, then there would be little corruption within. ------------- people are the emotions of other people (im not albino..or pale!) .....or an alien.. |
Posted By: sedamoun
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 09:45
|
arsenka, Faith (webster) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust. One can't go without the other. Cheers.
-------------
|
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 10:00
|
small community-like religious organizations tend to be very dogmatic, inflexible and retrograde. Besides, even there a pecking order would form, and corruption will eventually appear. I say that the world doesn't need any organized religions, although philosophy, mysticism and sprituality can play an important role in most people's lives. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 10:53
|
Assumption for the question of the topic: "the world"="mankind" and "religion"<>"faith"
Conclusions:
Finally:
|
Posted By: Infidel
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 11:04
|
Well, that's not what History has proven us. ------------- An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur? |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 11:07
I'm not religious. Does that mean I'm not a part of mankind? |
Posted By: arsenka
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 12:04
|
Sorry! But it seems to me incorrect to mix these terms - "religion" and "faith". Pues, faith is the inner state of human being while religion is comparatively logical system of beliefs that converts faith into some "digestable" form. Faith is almost the same in the base of all religions: that is - Love to the other human beings (or all living creatures - that point varies), self-perfection (with Divine help or by person's own humble forces), self-comprehension (the same),reconcilliation (it doesn't mean personal weakness but feeling of belonging to some big and notorious community - be it any religious brotherhood,country, humankind, Space etc. - that doesn't matter at all). In my humble opinion faith gives sence to one's life(Only In his own eyes - that's why faith is a personal matter). On the other hand religion gives some strict form to faith; it has its rules (faith doesn't have it) that in some cases can distort the very matter of faith and contradict its own sence. Please, do not misunderstand me: I don't mean any particular religion. Almost all of them have had some periods in their history that are not to be proud of. Thus I decidedly say "YES" for faith but I wouldn't oblige everybody to subdue any religious system. ------------- arsenka |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 13:12
|
I wouldn't talk in terms of faith but rather of spirituality. I think
that faith is a dead end and has more to do with the dogmatic approach
of religion than whith true search of spirituality and philosophy. Also faith is pretty childish: kids have faith in Santa Claus... you know. Faith in a god is just an evolution of that juvenile belief in magic, through the rigid prism of some specific religion/doctrine. What the world needs is more mature spirituality: a trascendence not based in ancient texts or modern doctrines but in reality. I think that in the social plane the concept of Humankind provides for such a trascendence, while in the cosmic plane only the Pantheos can provide for a successful explanation and a holistic integration beyond life and death. Btw, Arsenka are you Basque, "pues"? -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 13:16
That was in ancient times, when rulers needed religious structures to keep cohesion of their domains and make propaganda in the name of god. Nowadays TV (and school) does it all... in some countries it's full of religious blah-blah, like the USA, while in others there's almost no presence of religion in it and not for that is a less effective consensualist tool of mass brainwashing. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Curmudgeon
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 17:43
|
To me religion connotes an organized, codified structure and community; whereas faith is a state of mind. For example, religion may try to instill faith in the members of its community. Or again, maybe one must have faith in the precepts of particular religion in order to me one of its members. But does faith imply religion? |
Posted By: Hamoudeh
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 18:17
|
Religion is not exactly about what the world needs according to the world, but what the world needs according to God. As such, the question is only particularly relevant to those who are willing to take the former as something that outweighs the latter or important to begin with, which are generally not very religious people. Perhaps from humanist perspective there is a point to it that can be shared by both those of religion and those without. The bias here will still be prominent is my guess. ------------- http://www.forumforfree.com/forums/home.php?mforum=ahadunahad"> 
|
Posted By: jfmff
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 21:15
 http://home.att.net/%7EJerry-L-Duke/Book/chapter_1.html - |
Posted By: Infidel
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 21:30
|
First of all, religion is not a phenomenon limited to ancient times as you insist. There continues to be a lot of religious people out there who happen to be educated, to promote science and knowledge and still relate to God. Then, you state that it's a tool of mass brainwashing. I beg to differ. I am religious and I don't feel brainwashed or some sort of cave man. I became religious consciously and freely and like me there are millions of people. ------------- An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur? |
Posted By: jfmff
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 21:38
|
Well, I don't think this question makes sense. Mankind doesn't need religion.
But mankind doesn't need television, stereo, cars, internet, any kind
of technology escept maybe fire in orther to survive and basic tools to
eat and hunt; any kind of philosofy, social sciences, natural sciences,
mathematics, etc. . Mankind only needs to survive by eating and
reproducing. |
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2005 at 01:13
|
First: Faith has nothing to do with God. If you believe there is no God, that means you have faith that there is no God. Since you have no proof of your statement, it makes it a faith-based statement. So faith is not exclusive to religions which have a God-like figure; faith is universal to everyone, including anyone who claims to be an Athiest. But, faith is the main tool which makes all religions possible (whether they have a god-like figure or not). What we have to ask ourselves first is: What is religion? 1 a : the state of a http://m-w.com/dictionary/religious - religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to http://m-w.com/dictionary/religious - religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of http://m-w.com/dictionary/religious - religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : http://m-w.com/dictionary/conscientiousness - |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2005 at 05:35
I know you are a convert but most people isn't and are brainwashed in childhood by religious institutions. That's a fact. Cave men? Well, I don't know enough about the spirituality or religious practices of prehistoric people but some seem to have been practical atheists and in any case the phenomena of organized religion is not as old, it is more a product of imperial mentality. It is Ancient not Prehistoric. As you know religion and state originally were strongly associated. Only today we have been able for the most part to separate these two animals. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2005 at 05:45
That's not true, not even animals, at least superior animals need just food and sex (and confort and hygiene). At least our species need something more: an intimate satisfaction with life, call it happiness, call it love... something that makes life better than just mere survival. Else how would you explain suicides, depressions, etc. In most cases they are not caused by lack of basic needs but rather by lack of that "something more". Said that, I doubt religion provides that something more... it's just too dogmatic for the inteligent and sensible person, too rigid for the free one, too unquestionable, too mythological... Modern humans need and deserve something more, something better. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2005 at 15:56
|
Yes, I think religion is necessary to control the masses. (population) It works great in prisons, in addition to sedatives!
------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: jfmff
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2005 at 16:43
That's what I meant to say. I was using reductio ad absurdum.
1- you are calling all religious people stupid. That generalization is stupid. 2- not all religions are dogmatic in their nature: buddhism or scientology. 3- you comit the same error that a lot of religious people comit that is seeing the metaphorical stories as literal. 4- you can aproach the diferent religions with an healthy amount of sckepticism and learn a lot from them as long as you see trough mythology and experience for yourself what they teach that you think is beneficial for you, after having analised the teachings. For example: you could experience what is meditation. There's even nothing religious in the act of sitting cross-leged and totaly focusing one's atention on the breath. It's possible that you would discover that you like meditating and would like to do it every day. I say meditation but I could say prayer or other things. The point is that you can be non-dogmatic and very spiritual/religious. 5- Most importantly it's up to each individual to decide if religion is good for him or not. There are people who have no inclination towards religion, while others have. Those who don't have an inclination towards religion rarely understand the hapiness that religious people have when they are practicing their religion and their religious ideals. If you ask truly religious people if their religion gives them that something more you were talking about they will probably say yes. |
Posted By: LEGATVS LEGIONIS
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 03:21
i totally agree ------------- Hosti non solum dandam esse viam ad fugiendum, sed etiam muniendam! (Publius Cornelius Scipio 'Africanus') Si vis pacem para bellum! |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 06:10
|
i think not to have a religion is a religion too
-------------
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 06:14
|
Organised religion comes along with other sorts of organisation. Before society is organised, religion is also unorganised. But as soon as society becomes organised, so does religion. How you would distinguish an organised society from an unorganised one (is that an oxymoron?) or an 'organised religion' from an unorganised one I have no idea. ------------- |
Posted By: arsenka
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 06:37
|
[QUOTE=Maju]"I wouldn't talk in terms of faith but rather of spirituality. I think that faith is a dead end and has more to do with the dogmatic approach of religion than whith true search of spirituality and philosophy. Armenian Survival wrote: "Faith has nothing to do with God. If you believe there is no God, that means you have faith that there is no God. Since you have no proof of your statement, it makes it a faith-based statement. So faith is not exclusive to religions which have a God-like figure; faith is universal to everyone, including anyone who claims to be an Athiest. But, faith is the main tool which makes all religions possible (whether they have a god-like figure or not)." Maju wrote: "Faith in a god is just an evolution of that juvenile belief in magic, through the rigid prism of some specific religion/doctrine." Let's see: 1.The main points of christianity are: love to the other human beings and living creatures, reconciliation, self-perfection, self-comprehension, mercy and so on. 2. I'm sure at the moment that above mentioned points are true: I've learned it from my personal life experience. 1+2=I'm christian as far as I conciously accept christian morality. Christian morality doesn't depend on the fact whether Jesus Christ had ever existed in real life or not. >Thus, we should speak not about the belief or non-belief in physical existence of God, but about acceptance or non-acceptance of spiritual values he incarnates. What is God for you, by the way?(Question to all!) "Btw, Arsenka are you Basque, "pues"? "Also faith is pretty childish: kids have faith in Santa Claus... " Do you have anything against Santa Claus? Cezar wrote:
Are you sure? ------------- arsenka |
on my clumsy english! I must have used another word instead of "faith". BTW I have a small excuse
.
"
Posted By: jfmff
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 07:32
|
Arsenka: For me god is a misunderstanding of the transcendental reality some mystics percieved. |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 07:54
I never used the word stupid. I said that inteligence claims for more than just faith and dogma. I'm not insulting but complimenting. Though it may be that I'm not complmenting the ones you wished I do.
don't know enough about Buddhism but Scientology is a well known brainwashing cult.
I don't do that. But I know that mos religious people from all religions tend to do that and/or follow rigid dogmas. A few don't and I do respect those few (but mostly end abandon any form of organized religion, as their spirituality and inteligence is too big to fit inside the corsets of organized religions).
I do but I precisely for doing that, I don't consider myself a religious person but rather a heathen.
Meditation and yoga is fine to me. Unlike prayer, it works. You don't need to believe in Brahma for that.
I know personally many religious people and I find that they don't get 1% of the benefits of yoga, for instance. They are very nervous, alienated... they can't center, as they are always looking just outside. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 08:15
I don't know if in Russian it may have another meaning but spiritual
quest and faith seem rather opposite terms to me: if you have faith
(blind belief) you don't seem to need any spiritual search.
Not necessarily. For others the main points of Christianity could be
going to church all sundays and believing in the Bible word by word, or
in the dogma emanated from Rome or whatever patriarchy. For some
(Puritans) the main thing about Christianity is predestination, for
others it's free-will... True that Jesus stated his simplified commandments that seem like
common sense (assuming you believe in God), but then each one reads the
whole thing differently and hierarchies are all the time trying to
distort it in benefit of their mean interests.
Why would God encarnate any spiritual values more than, for instance
material values? Wether you are creationist or pantheist it doesn't
matter, as ALL is emanation from the Divinity, even evil (if such thing
exists) - else you're falling in Manicheism. Also how do you know that God is "he"?
A philosphical concept for the ultimate casue of existence. It
doesnt matter if it is spiritual or material, external (theism) or
total (pantheism). It's just the name that we humans give to our
unanswered question of "what is all about?"
That use of "pues" is almost exclussive of the Basque dialect of Spanish. The reason is that Basque itself has a common emphatic/conditional particle "ba" that is translated to Spanish as "pues". Other Spanish speakers rarely use it, at least that way. So I assume that you learned it from a Basque. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: arsenka
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 10:48
|
Maju wrote: "I don't know if in Russian it may have another meaning but spiritual quest and faith seem rather opposite terms to me: if you have faith (blind belief) you don't seem to need any spiritual search." Why so? In case you are religious person (=you have faith in God) you are supposed to search your own way to God, aren't you? Otherwise all your religiousness will deteriorate to a hollow and routine performing of number of senceless and useless actions. Quote: "For others the main points of Christianity could be going to church all sundays and believing in the Bible word by word, or in the dogma emanated from Rome or whatever patriarchy. " In my opinion these hardly can be called the MAIN points of any religion. Their abcense won't deprive the whole thing of its matter: on the other hand, all of them have no sence without any spiritual base.They are just the elements of exteriour form of RELIGIOUS SYSTEM. I'll dare to remind you that I've never insisted on the necessity of any strict system of your own personal spiritual quest (in my first messages I mistakenly called it "faith") particularly by the reason of its potencial ability to distort. Quote: "For some (Puritans) the main thing about Christianity is predestination, for others it's free-will..." I'll say nothing about it: everyone gets from religion what he wants and what he deserves. Every person is free here. Quote: Also how do you know that God is "he"? I do not claim to know it; I could write "she" or "it" or any other pronoun as well.
1. God is an Absolute Truth for majority of religious persons. Their life is to be the path towards its comprehension. They are searching the way to God(=to the Absolute Truth). Subsequently, they believe in its existence.(If they didn't believe, they wouldn't search anything > wouldn't call themselves religious persons.) 2. I'll dare to cite your own words here: "In general, the total truth, the total knowledge is rather a goal than any achievement. And will probably remain that way... though we will keep learning as well." Don't you think so?
------------- arsenka |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 14:35
|
Robert Aumann's Nobel prize this week gives an interesting example of how someone can combine both science and religion (in his case orthodox Judaism). I'm sure, after hearing him talk, he would feel he needs his religion. ------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 14:52
First, a stubborn preconception about the total truth is opposed to any possibility of approaching it. Science approaches truth precisely by not holding any preconception about it, at least in a pretentious doctrinary way. So having preconceptions about God (assuming God=absolute truth) is counter-producing to approach God/Truth, therefore religions, which are basically dogmatic constructs around the idea (their particular idea) of God, are clearly counter-productive for the spiritual quest. Second, guess you can say I have faith in Truth: I can't concieve that existence is just a lie... but that's mostly because I understand that illusory reality also holds some type of existence so, even if reality is an illusion, like some oriental religions suggest, it isn't less real because of that. Guess that someone could believe in the Absolute Lie as the ultimate answer... but wouldn't in that case the Absolute Lie be another form of the Absolute Truth. We are reaching the limits of the speakable at this point. Yet, returning to a couple of paragraphs above, maybe my belief (faith, as you said) in the existence of an Absolute Truth isn't anything positive but rather a limit of my own understanding. Maybe I should dare to question that possibility too. What do you think? Tricky, isn't it? -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 17:33
|
We don't need religion. Atheism has expanded in the last centuries and
nothing worse has happened to mankind that you could link with lack of
faith in God (religion). Religion has just happened to be a part of
mans twisted subconscious and there is nothing we can do about it. Now
it is dieing, and religion is mostly accepted due to tradition or a
moment of weakness. More and more people become religious due to
despair, just to have a "something" to talk to, relate to in this too
real world. Children who believe in Santa Clause are stronger believers than any modern Christian/muslim/Judaist who has seen modern ideals. More so Christians who live in a more materialistic and technical world. Do they what they may, but to say i believe there is a force/being of supreme power in this world has to be in denial (in a quiet one of course, nobody really sees it) and block reality out daily to keep his little "happy world" together for his illusions. I believe that bunny rabbits have a power to influence my mind and take mankind into eternal prosperity. ANY true religious person should be interested in a philosophical discussion with me right now, anyone?  I wish Tobodai would be here, really nice to read his posts on religion.  ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: jfmff
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 20:13
|
A true religious person doesn't care if someone is provoking him to discuss. |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2005 at 04:53
That can be for these reasons: (a) greed: he/she believes that his ideas are superior to those of others, (b) "bunker" defense strategy... A true knowledgeable person, normally will enjoy a discussion on what he/she knows about, either as pedagogical exercise or as interesting contrast of ideas. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2005 at 05:05
|
Yes, but he should have the same respect towards my bunny rabbit religion than he has towards Islam, etc. ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: jfmff
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2005 at 05:45
A true religious and knowledgeable person doesn't care if someone is provoking him to discuss. |
Posted By: Jhangora
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2005 at 06:25
|
I voted yes. I'm not very religious n don't follow the guidelines,rules n regulations of my religion.It is true that organized religion many times causes problems especially in a country like India where people of all faiths live. I believe society should grant each individual freedom to practise the religion of his choice/birth n should tolerate even those individuals who don't believe in a religion/God. I believe religion n God r two different things.Religion or organized religion has more to do with forms of worhip,different prophets or incarnations,different places of worship,different days of fasting,etc.What I mean is when I say that a person belongs to a certain religion what I actually mean is that the person concerned goes to a temple/mosque/church to pray.He considers friday/saturday/sunday to be a day fixed for special weekly prayers.He believes in a certain book as being holy.Do I really know what that person believes in.Do I know anything firsthand about the book/books he has faith in. I have read a little bit from scriptures of different faiths n I think if we scratch the surface truth is the same.All the religions try to better the society as a whole. I do not believe in a particular prophet or God.I am not even certain about existence of God.My view is that all the prophets/incarnations were good people who tried to improve humanity.Whether the inspiration was divine or human,I'm not sure. Until I'm sure i prefer to consider them human beings,good human beings As I said earlier organized religion does pose problems but my view is a society with relgion is much more likely to come out of adverse situations than a society where majority of individuals r atheists {or skeptics or whatever}.Religion gives us moral guidelines.Religion teaches us to be good to others,religion teaches us sacrifice.It might be true that poorer people/nations r more religious n with financial affluence people tend to be less religious but money is no substitute for religion. I want to say many more things but difficult to put them into words right now. -------------  Jai Badri Vishal
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2005 at 15:58
|
I'll go for another question as an answer: Does the Universe need Humans(mankind)? For if mankind needs religion then the Universe needs religion. Let's Hope the Sun, or Vega, or Regulus, or another star may register and post a reply on this topic. |
Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 00:41
|
Even if all religions are false, and theres no god, I'd still want something to look forward to when i die, even if i make it up myself. If there's no belief in an afterlife, then what will drive people to work hard or do good in their present life. Well, just think about how boring a world with no religion will be. a few hundred years from now, when everyone forgets about religion, people's life will be so pointless and full of despair that they'll wish they believed in a religion. and thats when they start worshipping the Internet as a god. I've already started on that. But my movement's a bit weak, so spread the word...any help would be appreciated. 
|
Posted By: arsenka
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2005 at 12:23
|
[QUOTE=Maju] "We are reaching the limits of the speakable at this point." (Even if I still can't agree with your mixing up objective and subjective things. as it's likely to fall into sophistry and clinging to words; it would be pity if it did. There are things that are not to be perceived in such way. (I'll cite one old soviet movie: "There are things person must do himself: he is born himself and dies - himself. Noone should help him here.") As for the Absolute Truth I'll quote M. Bulgakov; in his novel "Master and Margarita" there is a notorious dialoge (sorry for poor translation): "- Why did you speak about the Truth, the thing YOU can have no idea about?! What is Truth?! Do you know it?! - First of all the Truth is that you have a headache, igemon, and it's difficult for you not only to speak to me but even see me..." The first phrase belongs to Pontius Pilat; the second - to Jesus Christ (in the book he is called Jeshua Ga Notsri by the way). Curious, isn't it? Jhangora wrote: "I believe society should grant each individual freedom to practise the religion of his choice/birth n should tolerate even those individuals who don't believe in a religion/God. I believe religion n God r two different things.Religion or organized religion has more to do with forms of worhip,different prophets or incarnations,different places of worship,different days of fasting,etc.What I mean is when I say that a person belongs to a certain religion what I actually mean is that the person concerned goes to a temple/mosque/church to pray.He considers friday/saturday/sunday to be a day fixed for special weekly prayers.He believes in a certain book as being holy.Do I really know what that person believes in.Do I know anything firsthand about the book/books he has faith in. I have read a little bit from scriptures of different faiths n I think if we scratch the surface truth is the same.All the religions try to better the society as a whole. I do not believe in a particular prophet or God.I am not even certain about existence of God.My view is that all the prophets/incarnations were good people who tried to improve humanity.Whether the inspiration was divine or human,I'm not sure. Until I'm sure i prefer to consider them human beings,good human beings As I said earlier organized religion does pose problems but my view is a society with relgion is much more likely to come out of adverse situations than a society where majority of individuals r atheists {or skeptics or whatever}.Religion gives us moral guidelines.Religion teaches us to be good to others,religion teaches us sacrifice.It might be true that poorer people/nations r more religious n with financial affluence people tend to be less religious but money is no substitute for religion. I want to say many more things but difficult to put them into words right now." I agree with you 100% ------------- arsenka |
.Posted By: Hector Victorious
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2005 at 16:53
| The world Most definitly Needs religion, It tell us how to act and Gives us answer to or Bruning questions..... |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2005 at 17:50
But he keeps arguing in cricles? -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2005 at 17:54
If he/she is a truly knowledgeable person... then he/she will know that there's no difference. That's why I think that truly knowledgeable/wise people are non-partisan in this thing of religion. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2005 at 18:01
But what if the advice and answers are wrong?  -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Hector Victorious
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2005 at 22:05
| Well at least they belive something.......Every human has to belive SOMETHING! |
Posted By: Vamun Tianshu
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2005 at 00:00
|
Religion tells us how to act?Thats surely against our own free will,even though free will is an imaginative prospect created by the human psyche to act upon things that are against our opinions...Every human doesn't have to believe in something,I don't see Animals getting on their knees and begging in their tongue for a God to come and save them,and this is before a predator is going to make them dinner.I think a better question is does the world need Humans,surely identical to Cezar's question,but this narrrows it to Earth,because I'm sure this other life in the vast Universe that believe in a God of their own,or are too intelligient and open-minded to believe in such rubbish. Does God act and save those who call to him?I haven't seen it.But God and Religion are two different things,its just God is incorporated to any Religion to satisfy the weak needs of human beings.So does the world need Religion?The answer is there are those who need it and those who scorn it or don't need it,so its impossible to answer it. ------------- 
In Honor |
Posted By: Jhangora
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2005 at 08:51
|
These people keep dancing in circles ------------- Jai Badri Vishal
|
.Posted By: Infidel
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2005 at 11:53
|
Yes, they are sufi dervishes. It resembles the movement of the planets. ------------- An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur? |
Posted By: BMC21113
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2005 at 12:26
|
-I am a religious person, and though I was brought up in a Christian household, I never found true religion for myself until I was seventeen years old. I understand that many intellectuals dismiss religion as being nothing more than a myth for "dumb" people to follow. For me, religion does not affect my ability to learn and grow in my studies, but helps me learn and grow as a person. Religion offers many good things to a society, as religions are usually based on a way to live your life. Religions teach about kindness, sacrifice, compassion, love and many other attributes that help people co-exist peacefully. Now, I know that religion is not a necessity to develop these traits, but for many people, it holds them at a level of accountability for their actions. As a teenager, I had no direction in life. I was living a life that would get me nowhere, and once I found religion, I found something more to live for. Religion gives me more to life than the drudgery of work and school everyday. I would like to believe there is something more to life than what we experience everyday. Even if I am wrong, I do not want to believe that we are born, we live, we die, and that is it. I know that many will disagree with my views, but that is why faith is essential to religion. I have faith that there is something more, though I would never push my beliefs onto someone else. You can set a better example through action than preaching. Religions have extremists like every other group in society. They are the ones that make religious people appear as "crazy." The people I know who have accepted religion are just normal people and do not have to speak of "hell-fire and brimstone" to get their messages across. They are usually great role models who are very productive in society. Religion is not only for the ignorant, but for those who seek something more in their lives. Right or wrong, don't we all deserve something extra in life, especially if that something extra brings happiness and inner peace? I believe that is one of the great things about humanity, and those who completely discredit the value of religion, do not really understand what religion can do for an individual. ------------- "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace"-George Washington "The art of war is, in the last result, the art of keeping one's freedom of action."-Xenophon |
Posted By: Kian_the_great
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2005 at 13:36
|
Ok now, stop as we all see there are two groups of people in this thread Secular and Religious Religion is good as long as it is not the major part of a political entity Over Blow, thats it, simple.... ------------- Balian of Ibelin: What is Jerusalem worth? Saladin: Nothing. Saladin: Everything! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 07:31
|
Well, I'm secular... but I'm also spiritual. I eventually discovered
that not everything can be explained by science... luckily I already
knew that atheism and pantheism were the same thing... with diferent
emphasis... so I just had to put the emphasis in the spiritual thing. But I'm not religious in the sense of having blind faith in some specific godform, idol-book or religious organization or doctrine. I think that all them are truly imperfect and therefore can only bring you to deception and confusion (when not to fanaticism). The "perfect" religion can't exist, so it's always better to stay open, critic and non-partisan. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Jhangora
Date Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 07:53
|
Yes Infidel.Wanna see them live in Turkey one day ------------- Jai Badri Vishal
|
Posted By: dirtnap
Date Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 15:53
|
Yes.
What else would the majority of the people hide their justifications behind if not religion... |
Posted By: Herodotus
Date Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 17:09
|
Yes, like an alchoholic needs a shot ------------- "Dieu est un comdien jouant une assistance trop effraye de rire." "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Francois Marie Arouet, Voltaire |
Posted By: dirtnap
Date Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 17:13
I will have to take your word on that... |
Posted By: Jay.
Date Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 21:17
|
Yes. The world would be boring, wouldn't it? Everyone would be the same, no one would be unique. |
Posted By: Vamun Tianshu
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2005 at 06:56
No one would be unique?The world would be boring?I'd say the world would be more unique without religion because everyone's view of the world would be different,if not their are 2 billion Chrisians and 1 billion Muslims in the saying God is Infinite,Holy,and Good for you.The world would be boring?There would be less War over religious fanaticism and views.Speak for yourself. -------------
In Honor |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2005 at 09:08
|
You don't need religion to be unique. In fact what religion normally
does is the opposite: to fuse you with others of the same faith into a
sociological cathegory. Much as nationality does... but
nationality/ethnicity is much more natural after all.
-------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2005 at 10:21
|
Maju, you really think nationality/ethnicity is more "natural" than religion? I cannot agree with you this time. My argument is based on two premises: (1) human beings' quest for a "higher being" maybe more instinctual than one realizes; I think it's Voltaire (I may be totally wrong here) who said, "If God doesn't exist, man will create one." In other words, it actually takes more "guts" for someone to be an atheist than to follow a religion of any sort. (2) nationality/ethnicity may be much more artificial than one realizes; (a) Nationality - As argued by Benedict Anderson in his amazingly insightful book "Imagine Communities", nationality and hence nationalism are created rather than natural (I am his convert and therefore am totally against patriotism of any kind). Forces such as "the territorialization of religious faiths, the decline of antique kingship, the interaction between capitalism and print, the development of vernacular languages-of-state, and changing concepts of time" have all led to the rise and spread of the idea of "nationhood"; (b) Race/Ethnicity - The idea that race or ethnicity has some essentialist biological meanings has largely been refuted by geneticists. Rather, it is a concept, not unlike "nationality", that is constructed by anyone who wants to find justifications for their social and political agenda. What do you think?
------------- |
Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2005 at 10:29
| Religion is bad for you. |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2005 at 12:33
|
I think that people are born inside a nation/tribe/ethnicity and they
can hardly change that but you can change religion as much as you can
change political sympathies or philosophical ideas. In this sense,
ethnicity is much more natural than something as mutable as religion. Also, in a few occasions a religion has shaped nationality (Islam being maybe the most "succesful" in this: Arabization) but normally nationality survives religious change (almost any other case). Even when religion has played a role, it's been mostly a tool for ethnic cannibalism (invasion and assimilation or fagocitation of submitted nations into the dominant one). -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Kian_the_great
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2005 at 20:17
|
why is the world turning into a nerdy melting pot, where are the real all the real men and women??? What is wrong with you people and religion? Just cause we're begining to advance does't mean we know everything, or does it... damn ------------- Balian of Ibelin: What is Jerusalem worth? Saladin: Nothing. Saladin: Everything! |
Posted By: Infidel
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 05:53
|
There are good and bad people in and out of the religious spectrum. Atheism is a strong reaction against the Church, so it generally emphasizes bad aspects of religion and often patronizes religious people, viewing them as people who aren't enlightened by science and tied to beliefs who are no longer compatible with the 'modern Man'. Though religions can be criticized differently for different reasons, they provide a meaning and guidance to men and women. Monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, focus one the One Entity (God) and explain all this life, this world, this universe and the hereafter in light of His existence. Therefore, it provides answers to those timeless questions such as 'Who are we?', 'Why are we here?' and 'Where are we going to?' You may question its validity, but rest asure that neither atheism or agnosticism provide such answers. Stereotyping a bit, the 'modern Man' is mostly concerned about his/her will, the 'religious monotheistic Man' is mostly concerned about God's will first, knowing that His will benefits him/her more than he can grasp. One is mostly self-centered, the other isn't. Finally, science is a product of human reasoning, validated on the field. It's a great thing and I totally reject the notion that it is incompatible with religion. God wants us to pursue knowledge and so we must. Many religious scholars haven't done so and have resisted to progress, and to a certain extent they were wrong. As long as scientific progress doesn't compromise the essential religious values and doctrine, it shouldn't be avoided. On the contrary, it should be encouraged. The same applies to religious thought. The notion that should be always present to monotheistic religious men and women is that God's will is never-changing, only Man is.
------------- An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur? |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 08:12
Atheism provides answers:
But theists always forget to deal with Pantheism. It seems that the only alternative to major religions is mere skepticism. Yet Pantheism provides the perfect synthesis of Atheism and Theism, while at the same time being none of them. It also provides the correct answers:
-------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Infidel
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 09:40
|
I fail to see why pantheism provides correct answers, coherent with science and logic, as you state, and others don't. From what you've posted it's just belief. It's calling the Universe (of infinite dimensions), God. I don't see why this is more correct than believing in a God superior to all Universe and all things. ------------- An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur? |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 10:26
Because: 1) If you think it in depth there's no substantial diference between Pantheism and Theism/Creationism... because, assuming the Creationist paradigm, what's the diference between the artist and his/her/its art? Isn't there a piece of the artist's soul in each creation? 2) The more we know about the Universe, the less necessary there is an external God to explain anything. 3) Theism can't explain the diferences in religious doctrines: if there was a single external God with a defined doctrine, everything would fit in it... there would be no theological discussions because all people would illuminated to know the Truth. In Pantheism instead all "earthly" truths are partial by necessity because of the limitations implicit to the cut of the pandimensional Being and to plurality of souls (another type of "slice"). 4) Theism can't explain what they call evil, that is what breaks apart of their moral doctrines. Pantheism does explain it perfectly because God, being absolute implies both good and evil, as much as all other thinkable opposites (light and darkness, male and female, heat and cold, energy and matter, time and space, black and white... whatever) and anything else. There's no limit for the PanTheos, while your gods are limited by your doctrinary definitions: they arent but "cuts" of the true absolute Divinity. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 12:22
|
To me spiritiuality is something that a moderatly intelligent human being feels and tries to pursue in his time but religion is vague thoughts of many people combined into one and used to control. Quoting an unknown writer "Spirituality is the personal need of a human being for timeless questions, the dumb turn it into religion."
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 12:30
|
2) The more we know about the Universe, the less necessary there is an external God to explain anything.
Infact the more we know about universe, the more we aware that there are more more thing we should learn |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 12:33
I am not very sure if I understand Kian the Great's message because of the way it's written. If Kian the Great is accusing people who do not have any religious faith for being "arrogant", I would argue the otherwise. Atheists are people who actually say, "I don't know and, you know what, I don't care!" Religious people are people who say, "I know the answer to THE question and I know I am right." It's quite clear to me that between the two of them, who are the arrogant ones. Of course there are always questions: Where do we come from? Where do we go after we die? Am I on the "list"? But why is it so difficult for one to say, "Geez, I don't know!" Why do we have to rely on some book or some people to tell us what life is?
------------- |
Posted By: jfmff
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 15:39
|
It was never scientificaly proved that there are infinite dimensions in the universe; AFAIK There is no proof that in a infinite dimensional universe everything is possible; 2) Neither of an "internal" God 3) nonsense It seems to me that pantheism has exactly the same status as the major religions. It is based in theories that are not proven to be correct. Therefore these "correct" answers are answers just as the others. Since you believe in these answers you have no diferent status than me or any other religious people in this forum that accepts the scientific method. Therefore all that talk about religious people not being inteligent, etc. is just rubish since you are in no position to do it, unless you hate yourself. |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 20:10
|
While I can't demonstrate that there's a PanTheos, the only logical
alternative is Atheism. Exotheism just makes no sense. Reasoning: we
know that the Universe exists and that's all we know, so either the
Universe is God or there's no God at all. If what we know is product of
an external creation by a being we cannot percieve nor demonstrate,
then: "Mum, who created God?" And we enter in an absurd wheel of
infinite subrogative creation of imaginary god-like criatures whose
existence can't be experienced but in the imagination. Anyhow, old good Spinoza, had a nice demonstration of the existence of God and of its infinite attributes:
What Spinoza is saying (and he goes in more detail in his alternative demonstrations, that I have skipped), or at least what I understand, is that an for finite things to exist there must exist also the infinite and that what we call God must be the sumation of all infinites. Finite things can only be fractions of infinite, what we conventionally call God. It may not be a scientific demonstration but it is pretty close. Mathematics would fit perfectly and so would do Physics. We may not have demonstrated infinite dimensions yet but we are pretty close: at least 10 dimensions must exist to explain the already proven Strings Theory and, on the other hand, Chaos physics infinitizes dimensionality by the funny (but precise) introduction of fractal (fractional) dimensions. We are learning a lot: the small geocentric universe of the "7 heavens" has become inmense and is still growing. Pantheism is not comparable to western religions. It is closer to eastern ones, particularly Daoism, but unlike them, it is not an organized religion: it has no organizations, no rituals, no hierarchy, no dogma. It's a philosophy, a knowledge if you prefer. And it's perfectly criticable (no blasphemy is possible in Pantheism, because blasphemies are as divine as prayers or anything). Unlike conventional religions, Pantheism is totally open: it has no dogma to defend, because everything, even Theism and Creationism and Manicheism, with all their obvious flaws and limtations, are part of the Divinity. This is an unspeakable mistery, that can be also explored in any case. Anyhow, the closest thing to Pantheism is Atheism... but it lacks the refinement and the spirituality, the subtle meaning that this understanding gives. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Kian_the_great
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 23:24
|
if they dont care, why they try to convinve other people not to care, ignorance? athiests ARE ignorant? then what do they want? are they obsessed with religion?
------------- Balian of Ibelin: What is Jerusalem worth? Saladin: Nothing. Saladin: Everything! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 07:32
Atheist consider all forms of religious belief as superstitions and they despise them as forms of ignorance and human misery. Some Atheists are more tolerant (actually the vast majority) while others may be less respectful. Many Atheists have been raised in some religious doctrine and their rejection to religiousness can well be motivated by a honest reaction to what they consider brainwashing that themselves suffered in infancy. In this case, you can well say that they are "obsessed" with religion but it is normal, because religion interfered in their natural intelectual and emotional developement, often in a negative manner (or at least a manner that is subjectively percieved as negative). A good solution would be not to teach any children any religion, at least before their teens, when they can better choose in good judgement. But I admit this is unrealistic nowadays. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 11:32
Your question was answered befor:
Why am i an ignorant if i say i dislike your God, he is not my God? ------------- |
Posted By: Kian_the_great
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 12:45
------------- Balian of Ibelin: What is Jerusalem worth? Saladin: Nothing. Saladin: Everything! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 13:46
|
Did you read my reply, Kian?
-------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Kian_the_great
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 13:47
|
yea ------------- Balian of Ibelin: What is Jerusalem worth? Saladin: Nothing. Saladin: Everything! |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 14:17
|
If I don't "care" why am I almost forced to "care"? In my country, nowadays, if one declares to "not care" he is almost authomatically labeled as communist or neo-communist, whatever that means. I don't "care", I don't believe, I have no faith. What am I? |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 15:18
|
Atheists are ostracized and stigmatized in the United States because of the current social, political, and religious climate there. In fact I think they should be seen and treated as a "minority group" there. They satisfy almost all the criteria for being labelled a minority group (small in number, hugely underrepresented, facing immense discrimination, deprived of many rights - e.g. being subjected to the religious crap bombarded upon them incessantly etc.). Atheists talk about their beliefs mostly when they are being attacked or misunderstood, i.e. when they are defending their beliefs. I personally am not aware of any "evangelical atheists" whose mission is to spread atheism. Does the word "evangelical" sound familiar??? Hmm ...
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 15:52
I am an atheist and I have never tried to convince anybody elso to reject his religion. If people want to believe in (a) god(s) that's their own business, as long as they don't try to impose their view on others I, unlike most religious people, have absolutely no problem with that. ------------- |
Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 16:57
An ignorant You are an Atheist like me. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 17:35
|
btw atheists are not people who don't "care", but people who think god
doesn't exist. People who don't "care" are agnosts, and even most
agnosts do "care", but don't think one can find out if there is a god.
In Dutch there is the neologism 'ietsisme' ('somethingism') for people
who don't care about religion (mainly people who believe there is
"something" but are not interested in what that something is). It is
estimated that 40% of the Dutch population is 'ietsist'. ------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 18:42
|
Somethingism... I love it! -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 18:50
|
As outrageous as these names may seem, I think the difference among them is real. I will be more careful with my terminology next time
------------- |
. Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 19:04
That's really a misrepresentation, the only thing is people really hate atheists who go around bad mouthing all forms of religion and people who do believe in a religion get mad at them, it goes the same for religious fanatics. Most people don't want any help making up their mind about such matters. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 20:17
Maybe it's just my personal experience, but very often, when I simply mention that I don't believe in the existence of any higher being or creator, the reactions I get from people - not here in Canada but when I am in the United States - are usually extremely negative. And I almost never even use the "A" word. I think most atheists, like me, never "badmouth" any religion for its beliefs. I really can't care less what people do in the privacy of their own home. But quite a few religions people do get offended by the idea that I don't believe in any god, let alone "their" god. I only get agitated when some religious lunatics start trying to break the state/religion barrier, which to me is "sacred". And given the dangerous influence of the Religious Rights on the White House and American politics in general, I think one actually needs more the voice of religious people with a more moderate view AND, better still, that of atheists just to ensure the wonderful check-and-balance nature of the American political system still exists in good health. Maybe that's why one has the impression that atheists are "badmouthing" religions now - the apparent increasing "vocalness" of American atheists may simply be a reaction to what's happening in the political arena. (And honestly, I think they are NOT nearly vocal enough.)
------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 20:38
|
When I was in the US (rural Virginia), some 20 years ago, I also
experienced some strange reactions: for most I was the first Atheist
they had ever seen, and some even joked calling me heathen. But mostly
they were tolerant. Myself I was astonished to be the only Atheist around, used to be mostly among Atheists, Agnostics and non-practising Christians, I found truly strange that everyone there seemed to believe in God. Even when I was in a Jesuit school most students were nonbelievers! -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 21:12
|
Why were you even telling them that? This topic never comes up in conversation for me. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 21:21
|
I think there's a huge distinction between Atheism and anti-Religious.
I think the latter is despised but not much the former.
------------- |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 21:25
|
An example of when this topic does come up is when someone wishes me a "merry Christmas". Most of the time I just tell them - VERY politely - that I don't celebrate Christmas. (I think it's important to let people know, without any ill intention - that not everyone on earth celebrates Christmas. For instance, one knows it's inappropriate to wish a Jewish or Muslim person a "merry Christmas". By the same token, I think one also shouldn't make the assumption that I or any individual celebrates Christmas.) They would ask me why, and I would tell them I don't believe in the Christian god or any god, and so the conversation (and occasionally the negative reaction from people) would begin ... So you see, most of the time I don't even have the intention of bringing up this topic unless I feel I need to "explain something" (like why I don't celebrate Christmas). The topic of religious faith is very sensitive to me because my father is an Anglican minister. My mom especially still cannot accept that. She'd rather me be a "somethingist" or agnostic, not an atheist.
------------- |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 21:32
|
Usually and theoretically there is a distinction (but I doubt if the distinction is "huge" as Imperator Invictus suggests). However, again, given the current political climate in the United States, a lot of atheists have no choice but to "come out of the closet" to become anti-religion people. And I, a non-American, can understand why. Sometimes I feel so mad when I see the things happening south of the border that I want to scream. People there seem to be totally ignoring what the founding fathers of the United States of American - whose spirits and wisdom I admire - have fought so hard to achieve: the separation between State and Religion. I guess now you guys understand why I have this "signature" of mine.
------------- |