Whether God exists or not is completely irrelevant. I am not going to live my life different whether God exists or not. I believe in helping the world in the best way that I can. I don't need to believe in God to do that. If I become discouraged and frightened in life, I can endure it and I can persevere. I do not need God to survive tough times. This is not pride. This is just the truth. If I die, I die. There is nothing cold about that. I don't remember not existing before I was conceived. No one is frightened about the time before they existed. So, why be afraid of the time when you don't exist anymore? I love life and enjoy being alive always nowadays. However, whether there is an after-life is irrelevant. It isn't going to make me a better person. It isn't going to change how I live my life.
It pains me to lose a loved one, but I notice that the majority of people who are "religious" are just as traumatized, if not more so, by death, which is ironic to me. They are usually more afraid of death than most people who don't believe in an after-life.
If there is nothing after death, then I will never experience death, because I won't exist exactly when it happens. If there is something after death, I have nothing to worry about, because I did my all to live the best life possible. A God that punishes people who are good people but because they didn't get baptised, eat a weekly sacrement, or "ask" for repentence every day, is not a God I would want to exist with anyway.
"Ultimate" justice that religion promises me is irrelevant. To me, living a life that hurts other and exploits others is its own punishment. To me, living a life that is just selfish and greedy is its own punishment. I am not talking about any existence of a "karma". I am saying that the best way to live life is to do the best good you can. Being "good" itself is its own reward. Being "bad" itself is its own punishment.
The only reason I can see people needing religion is either they afraid of life, afraid of death, don't want to take full responsibility and guilt for their own actions, or don't realize that life itself on its own is plenty full and plenty meaningful. I have personally experienced in my own life, having left behind the religion which my family is devout in, how religion can act as an inhibitor between humanity becoming close to each other. In the thousands of years that Christianity has existed among the white men, what good can really be said that it brought? How is humanity any better in its behavior when it didn't have Christianity compared to after it "practiced" Christianity? When has Christianity brought the brotherhood, peace, and love that it always espouses? What does it say about a religion whose followers in general don't act by the religion's own accords? It has been used to discriminate, hate, kill, torture, conquer, and exterminate people. When we no longer have a clean water system, cannot afford to eat every day, and political system becomes less and less democratic, will the legailization of abortion and same sex marriages still be the main issue to decide our future? Will people still vote people who are Anti-Abortion and Anti-Same-Sex-Marriages but who will make the poor poorer, the rich richer, lead us into more and more wars, and take away our freedoms?
On a global and historical perspective, I can see only the horrors in the name of religion and driven by religion.
You might yourself feel that religion helps you in your own life, but being once devoutly religious myself, I can tell you that you can live life and approach life with equal, if not more, compassion and love for your fellow humans and yourself, and doing it without religion. Religion is irrelevant to being a moral person. There are moral people who are religious, but they would likely be moral if they were raised morally without religion too. The real crime about religion is that it has fooled mankind into believing mankind needs religion and that morals cannot exist without it. When you look at the evidence though, mankind will be immoral and cruel, good and amazing, with or without religion. Religion's existence is irrelevant and is usually used for the worse when you look at the big picture here. And, yes, there are people who have an "epiphany" and become religious and moral, but there are people who have life-changing epiphanies without religion too.
I "pray" for the day when we have moral philosophies instead of religions. I "pray" for the day when mankind realizes that religion has no monopoly of morality and for mankind to create its own morality in the spirit of univeral and true brotherhood. Mankind is addicted to these one right way religions for its ideas of morality. It needs to breaks its addiction. These religions wouldn't be so destructive if they simply gave up their core belief that their religion is the one way right for all. And when mankind does, mankind will realize it never needed to believe in a religion which thinks itself as the one right way. I "pray" for the day when people rid themselves of the dangerous and inevitable collusion when people believe that they alone have the one right way, they have some higher good approval for their actions against others, seperate themselves from others that prevents true and full brotherhood, and they must force or persuade their one right way and life on others.
God, the after-life, and "ultimate" justice is irrelevant to me. I have my own moral system. I have no need for any religion. And I do not see the true need of religion in humanity. There are Protestant scholars who speak about our modern days as "Post-Christian". And I hope they are right. White man and Western civilization has had Christianity for thousands of years. And who has done many of the worst crimes in history of tyranny, domination, and oppression? It is written that by their fruits, ye shall know them. These are the fruits of Christianity and many other religions too for that matter. This is not fruit that will ensure the survival and spiritual and moral growth of humanity. This is the fruit which will destroy mankind.
You always have the most meaningful posts. Good job. :)
Thanks. :-) I always try to make my posts meaningful. So, it is good to know that someone recognizes that. :-)
Citizen Press Revolution
I always enjoy reading your thoughts.
Nice, I dont agree with the God part, but for the most part right on.
Religion has started most wars.
Humans have used it to become rapists, murdurers ect.
Your choice not to believe in God is fine, and like you I do not believe in organized religions, since they are greedy, manipulative ect.
I do however Know God exists. The science that once tried to prove that they (God) did not exist will sometime soon prove itself wrong. (String theory).
You have really good points, and your not likely to change your mind.
Keep in mind I have been harassed by a christian minister at work, my mother in law is a wack job christian, but there ARE good people that are christians, please keep in mind (something you will learn when your older), a religion, race ect does not make a person bad. People make people bad. And people that believe are statistically happier than people that do not.
Just so you understand, since your obviously young. People dont cry at funerals MORE when they believe in God. People cry at funerals because they are grieving their OWN loss, when you loose someone close to you, then you will understand.
Sorry to your scholars, Christianity is not going anywhere soon.
The fruits I see are from the greedy rich (For you democrats that means people who make 400k a year+) not from "Christianity".
If you should, remember this gift.
ASK (for something possible)
Know (that it will happen, be fixed, whatever)
Forget (Forget that you asked, forget the question)
A day, a week later, be amazed. I do it all the time.
Be sure to ask for specifics, and for a fix o the problem not just help to get through.
Steven, I did write that I know there a moral people who are religious. I came from such a family as I mentioned. I think that they could be moral without religion and be the better for it. And I disagree that I am wrong about the funerals thing. I know they are grieving over loss. The thing is that when I have talked about death with people, it is the people who are religious who tend to be more afraid of death and wrecked by it than people who don't believe in an after-life.
And they are not my scholars. They are actually Christian scholars. America is the last major "Christian" nation. And that is changing too. We might not live long enough to see who is right, but all the signs I see are pointing to a decline in Christianity.
Please see this entry to understand my actual political beliefs. I am not a Democrat. I am not even liberal.
As for ask, know, forget, I believe instead in ask, know, act/persist. Here is the thing, people do the ask, know, forget and they don't always get what they want. The fact that it happens sometimes doesn't necessarily prove anything as such.
I am planning to create my own independent publication. I am poor. I do not have rich parents. I work and pay bills. But, I keep my mind focused and thinking about what I need in order to make it happen. In one week, I turned two chance encounters into a possibile business venture involving another idea I had (to help make funds to print the publication) and also one of my other major needs: a printer that prints for cheap. When you take direct action for any undertaking, keep alert for possibilities, you are ready to recognize the possibilities in chance encounters. I still have a lot of factors to cover and a lot of work to do, but it is getting nearer and nearer because I believe in living in each moment as consciously as possible. I am driven by purpose. And when are you driven by purpose, you are ready to recognize opportunities and possibilities that are always walking right by you. The only difference is that before you weren't looking for them.
Citizen Press Revolution
In the thousands of years that Christianity has existed among the white men, what good can really be said that it brought?
Preserving some form of order and scholarship during medieval times. There were wars in religion's name, but at least it kept people rallied and prevented a slip into anarchy and a decay of society into true primeval anarchy. But that's not the biggest issue here.
You may not see any need for religion now, but *ever*? It's true that you can justify morals without religion, but I gather that you also have above-average brainpower. When smart peope don't believe in God, they see the bigger picture of society and what they can do for it, and why it's bad that they do things that are bad when they won't be caught or seen by anyone. However, when stupid people don't believe in God, they don't have anything to force them to think morally. They may say, "well I'll go to jail If I get caught so I'd better not risk it," but they will not necessarily say "I shouldn't pick that man's pocket because he probably has a family to feed and a life to recover if I start using his cards and ruining his credit blah blah blah..."
I'm guessing that the people on this site are mostly in the top quartile of the population intelligencewise, if not higher. They probably mostly know people who fit into that category. I know some pretty stupid people. And I'll tell you that their lives tend to be immensely improved by religion.
Also, when did "Christianity" and "religion" become synonymous? Probably at about age six.
There is more than one religion out there, and I've never heard of a war over Buddhism or Taoism or Confucianism.
Paganism has been violently imposed on people even though many modern pagans count themselves among the crowd who criticize Christianity as causing most of the world's problems.
The Mongols had a vague belief in some kind of God, but they didn't really care because that God didn't give a damn what they did, so they did as they thought best just like an agnostic or atheist would do.
Except they happened to think that what was best was destroying and exploiting most of the population of the continent of Asia.
They did that not for their faith but for earthly assets--and they were far more successful with that motivation than any religious group has ever been in killing and enslaving others.
Violence and murder have been used to get rid of religion as well. In China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, the former Soviet satellite states--the government has at one point in history or another deemed religion dangerous and proceeded to endanger anyone who held to it.
Wars have been fought over religion, but more often religion is just another one of the cultural differences mentioned to create division between two sides so that they will be willing to fight. Other differences could be used. Cultural tension and hate can exist without religion. A war can be fought for any cause.
The problem is people who impose their religon on others. Kind of like governments who have imposed their atheism on their citizens, only it's legal to criticize the private individuals. And do we honestly need to alienate the large percentage of the population who wishes to believe in religion? It seems that the easiest peace to create should be a peace within our own nation, which can't be achieved by an "us and them" attitude toward religion.
-----------------------
"The selection shows that manipulation is more important than genuine communication in this culture because honestly, who would want to go to a party for a bitch like Berkshire if they knew what she really thought about them?"
--This is how I ace the AP Lit Exam.
Preserving scholarship and order during the Dark Ages it help create and sustain? The Dark Ages lasted as long as they did because of the power and influence of Christianity. When people began, like Galileo, to take a stand against the oppression and tyranny of Christianity, then the Age of Enlightenment would begin to happen.
As for the myth of stupid people needing religion, the matter of fact is that there is actually a higher percentage of "religious" people in prison than there is outside of prison. You are expressing also what I considered another myth: that religion has monopoly on morality. You can follow a moral system and communicate it to your children just as easily as you can raise your children in one or another religion. If religion was a deterrent to criminal records, you would have a point, but the truth is, people raised in a religion will still commit crimes. People can always justify their actions, and often they will use a twisted perspective of their religious beliefs to reinforce their justification even further.
I respect Buddhist and Taoist beliefs, but I would not call myself a Buddhist or a Taoist or believe that either set of beliefs is the one right way for everyone. I only referred to Christianity in my entry because its my closest point of reference, but it is a religion and like many of the world's major religions, it shares the same fatal flaws.
If the Mongols were Christians, they would still have plundered, killed, and raped. Look at Christian invaders, conquerers, and pillagers in the New World (the Crusades are another prime example). Look at the Christian nations enslaving Africans. Look at the burning and torturing of thousands upon thousands of so-called witches during the Dark Ages. Christianity has done nothing on a grand scale to deter the crimes committed by humanity, and the fact that it is the primary cause for many of the crimes suggests it might even have the opposite effect.
The only Catch-22 with your last proposal is that your wish for peace and respect for different belief systems is that because of religion, this will not happen. The campaign against same-sex-marriages and abortion is primarily driven by religious forces. Religion by its nature because each religion believes it holds the one right way will always brisk when people live differently than their one right way. As long as religions hold to this belief that their way is the one right way which is explicit often in their very own scriptures, the very center and heart of all of their beliefs, there will always exist an "us and them" attitude in society.
Citizen Press Revolution
If the Mongols were Christians, they would still have plundered, killed, and raped.
And if the crusdaers were deists or agnostics or atheists like the Mongols, they also would have killed and raped. That was the whole point of my comment.
I never claimed that religion had a "monopoly" on morality, but that not everyone can do advanced Toulmin analysis on their decisions. You haven't the right to suggest that EVERYONE can live a fulfilled life as an Atheist. Some just can't. Are you suggesting they go curl up in a corner and die?
Galileo was a Christian, he only opposed the rules of the organized church at the time. The gospels or the teachings of Mohammed do not have to be interpreted in one stone-set way, and in fact when read through a historical lens are very difficult to interpret for our culture today in the same way that they were a thousand years ago. I almost have the urge to say "I don't call myself a Christian, I just believe in what Jesus taught and that he's--not God but--a personal supernatural force that created the universe," but frankly I don't think I should have to pervert the English language and wreck the homes that words have made with their proper definitions to avoid being attacked.
Buddhists and Taoists don't claim that they are the "one right way" for everyone, that is why I find Buddhism and Tao to be good examples.
There are a few reasons that more people describing themselves as "religious" are inmates in prison. A few are:
-They converted after they entered the jail through the efforts of one of the many pastors and priests who go to counsel prisoners
-They described themselves as devoutly religious to gain the goodwill of the parole board
-They are part of the large proportion of prisoners who are in jail for stealing or dealing drugs entirely out of necessity, and were choosing the lesser of two evils from a election of breaking laws and letting themselves or their families starve.
-Crimes like murder and assault have little to do with morality. Most people who commit real crimes repeatedly may well describe themselves as "religious," but these types of crimes are committed in mental states dissociated from their theoretical moral beliefs. Even premeditated crimes may be dissociated, with excuses like "this situation is different" when it really isn't. They aren't necessarily immoral people, just crazy.
The problem is that the Mongols invaded for conquering sake alone. The Crusaders, witch burners, and torturers were doing it for religious purposes. Religion seems to have that quality which it will provoke violence, cruelty against others, and wars where war would not have happened like they did or when they did.
Cruelty especially such as burning hundreds of thousands of women as witches would not have a reason to have happened.
Sure enough, there would be wars, cruelty, and violence, but you would have an absence of the addition of religious wars, curelty, and violence that would not have existed as they did if religion was removed from it.
I know Galileo was a Christian. You aren't reading my words, my friend. I know that their are moral people who are religious, but there are also plenty of moral atheists too. Religion has no monopoly over morality.
I actually think that many Christians don't really believe the teachings of Jesus Christ. Would Jesus Christ support pre-emptively hitting an enemy on the other cheek? Would Jesus Christ support cutting programs to the poor and afflicted? Would Jesus Christ encourage the wealthy to bloat themselves with more and more wealth at the cost of others?
When it comes to religion, people pick and choose want to believe and argue about in religion. Religion makes these things like cruelty, violence, and oppresion become more extreme, less merciful, and more likely to be ruthless.
Even Christian KKK burning crosses and hanging blacks believe that they are doing it in the name of God and that this is what God wants them to do.
Human cruelty may always exist, but religion gives it a sense of "higher" condoning that is more likely to lead to extremism and to zealots like terrorists.
There are a huge range of Buddhist sects in the same way that there exists in Christianity. They have an assortment of wide beliefs. Some are even against homosexuality. Some are not.
Taoism is the closest non-religion that exists which I know of. Taoism doesn't espouse any sort of discrimination, prejudice, hate, us versus them mentality, etc. At the same time, I believe in many of their ideas, I don't see the benefit of considering or calling myself a Taoist. A world of Taoists would be a world much more peaceful than it is now. I don't know if I would even call Taoism a religion in the traditional sense that evokes in most people's minds.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, however, all have central core beliefs that their way is the "one right way". All are guilty of killing and brutality in the name of their one right way. And religion pushes these things to higher extremes. The Old Testament itself is soaked with examples of Judaism upsurges killing "pagan" and "heathan" followers and looting their temples, hell, even slaughtering entire peoples so that they wouldn't "corrupt" the Children of God.
You have no actual studies to back your hypothesises why there is a higher percentage of religious people in jail. Theories look great on paper, but sometimes the real world workings may be different than you might have first think.
I cannot find any correlation between religion and morality of the masses. Look at the dominantly unreligious Europe's crime rates. Look at United States crime rates while having significantly higher "church attendence" and people who consider themselves religious. Look at all the violent deaths (especially by guns) in our country compared to other unreligious Western nations. The greater presence of religion has not deterred it.
"Stupid" people don't need religion. They need to be taught and raised with a system of morality (like all of us), but there is no need for that moral system to be religious.
Citizen Press Revolution
These crimes that are caused by Christianity are actually because of ambitious figures in history that have used the religion to further their own ambitions, not by the religion itself. If you seek evidence of Christianity as a deterrent to crimes then consider the founding fathers and the creation of the constitution. Our founding fathers were mainly Protestants and used their protestant ideals in the creation of our country. Take for instance, murder, murder is a sin in the Bible, had we been founded on the principals of a religion like Islam for example justice would be found in the murder of anyone who did not believe the way we do. The basic principals of Christianity have proven good for society, it is the misuse of religion that causes the crimes you refer to.
And since you say that it has no effect on people who commit crimes even now, then ask yourself what other deterrent is there without God. No one claimed that religion is an antidote to crime, but it provide a source of fear and regret in such cases. You might say that people can be taught morals without the necessity of a God, but why would they bother to abide by those principals when they have no fear of reprocussions. Afterall, if life ends at death then what do our accomplishments in life matter, and if accomplishments don't matter then what's so bad about spending our lives in prison?
Burning hundreds of thousands of women as witches? Your theory doesn't fit the entire mold of crimes committed in the name of Christianity. The very fact that religion is used by ambitious men such as George W. Bush, for example, to further their own power is yet another reason against these one-right-way religions. When a figure uses a one-right-way religion, especially when that religion is dominant, people are more likely to dupe themselves blindly in supporting that ambitious figure because, after all, they share that one-right-way belief system.
Christianity has a routine record of murdering people who believed otherwise. Look at the bloodbath of the religious wars of Christians against Christians in Europe. Murder is condoned against people who believe otherwise in the Bible. Just look at the Old Testament. Unremorseless descriptions and slaughters against pagans and heathans for their beliefs in different Gods is frequently described.
I do not see how the basic principals of Christianity has proven any better than the pagan belief systems that existed before it. It is not a superior religion than any of the pagan belief systems which it routinely persecuted and killed its leaders and priests as worshippers of Satan. One-right-way Religions, Christianity included, has not proven to be an antidote for anything in any society which has taken it up. Its presence has no strong evidence (if not evidence in the other direction) that has encouraged the existence of peaceful and benevolent nations or societies.
I do not believe in a moral system that uses fear and regret as its primary tool. I do not believe that Western World has yet achieved civililization. We are stuck in barbarism. Arguing for using fear to hold society is to hold a barbaric society. People are stuck in a Catch-22 illusion. They are afraid to not use fear. If you want people to become better people, you teach them and have them practice compassion, love, and empathy by your own examples and words. Using fear as a primary tool for an adult's moral system keeps them in an infantile state of morality. You can "punish" children for being "bad" when they are young, but you need to teach the good of being good too and fade out the threat of punishment.
You wonder why mankind is acting so infantile, selfish, greedy, cruel, and violent? Fear is being used not just in religion but in society as the glue. You cannot really ever attain true peace and brotherhood and better human beings by using fear.
Did Jesus Christ teach fear and regret? Or did he teach love? The religion that most Christians actually believe in resembles more of the Old Testament religion than the namesake of their religion. Was Jesus Christ's message filled with fire and brimstone? Or compassion, mercy, and forgiveness?
Citizen Press Revolution
Again all of your examples are the products of men and not of religion. If you read the Bible and take in its elemental principals and practice them for what they truly are society would well-off. And Christians have no greater a record of murder and barbarism than any other group of people. People, no matter what ideologies they claim, are equally likely to do someting immoral whether they believe in God or not. The difference is whether there are consequences for that action or not.
Jesus Christ taught both fear of God and love for your fellow man, but he knew that love for our brothers and sisters had little value unless there were no consequences for obedience.
In order to have a true theological debate you have to quit using the actions of those who claim religion as testament to the teachings of that religion. The Bible never taught to kill those who believe differently. I'm afraid we'll never be able to reach a common ground at any point if you can separate the principals of a belief from the acts of the self-promoting hypocrites that twist them to suit their own purposes.
They are products of men with a one-right-way mentality frequently provided to them by their one-right-way religion. The only problem with your "elemenal" principles is that what you considered to be elemental is not someone else's understanding of elemental. I am sorry but the consistent, prevalent, and God-inspired actions of wholesale slaughter of "heathans" and entire peoples by the Hebrews is common enough (to me) to be considered an elemental principle of the Old Testament. The existence of things like condoning genocide and burning witches in the Bible cannot be escaped and will always kindle zealousness in certain men. One-right-way religions have all of these qualities condoning and even encouraging things like genocide inside of them. This is a fact that cannot be escaped or ignored by downplaying it. No, Jesus taught that the greatest commandment was to love God and that the second greatest is similar in that to love thy fellow men. Show me where Christ taught fear? Really?
You also are not understanding my point: the basic nature of one-right-way religions will inevitably lead to extremism and abuse of it because of the basic core belief that all of the, for instance, Bible's teachings contain one-right-way thinking and examples. As long as any religion purports to contain the one-right-way, this elemental principle will be used for the worse of mankind.
Until that religion gives up this core elemental belief, the same religion will be used to justify, encourage, and further inspire cruelty and inequality (i.e. women's rights and burning witches).
Citizen Press Revolution
I've read statistic that most people in prison are religious, and I've wondered if part of this could have to do with religious people having the ability to back up their actions with poor reasoning OR if it could have to do with the whole "god will save me" idea.
Of course, there are much more religious than non-religious in the US, so it only makes sense that the majority of the imprisoned would be religious as well.
http://progressiveu.org/blog/leslieq
Check it out...it's a work in progress.
Are you saying that religion is reserved for the stupid lower-class or "plebiate" society if you will? Your post sounds rather arrogant in saying that smart people don't need religion, as though smart people are above anyone else. And who's to say that intelligence corresponds to morality. Intelligence means only that one would see the big picture in the way a their actions affect everyone around them, but we are all only human and subject to desires like greed. A good read on this is The Republic by Plato. In his book he forms the perfect society much in the way you seem to see it, that the intelligent people or "philosopher kings" as I believe he called them were the leaders of the city and the dumber ones were seen as ignorant and were controlled by the philosopher kings for their own good. He leads you down this path as though it all makes sense but then crushes his own theory and dreams of utopia with the fatal flaw that all philosophers run into in one theory or another: that all men, even the enlightened philosopher kings, are imperfect and subject to human error and so the system therefore is too.
I do agree with the last part of your comment about the imposition of religion and "us and them" attitude. This applies in many other scenarios like gender and race. Society can never progress when we divide ourselves against each other. Unfortunately these are only ideals and (I know I sound a little pessimistic) such a state of existence could never be achieved.
Just take notice that it was Bob Delphi's statement that "stupid" people need religion... I disagree with him. Intelligence and morality are seperate, but intelligence can be used in morality and morality can be used in intelligence. There are very moral people who are not that intelligent at all, as well as highly intelligent people who are very cruel and sadistic.
I do, however, believe and have firm hope that mankind CAN attain a society of universal brotherhood and sisterhood. Mankind has proven itself to be incredibly inventive and creative, making things that never existed before and changing patterns of its own behavior. Feminism, for example, is changing the repreated patterns of thousands and thousands of years. And if that can be done, I think mankind can realize and stop doing certain mistakes it has done in the past for thousands of years as well.
Change begins small. Look at the women rights' movement. Who would have thought that when it started getting very noisy in the 19th century that they would have been successful at all? After all, men literally held all of the legal power, all of the economic power, and much of the social power too!
Society CAN progress to a point where we are not dividing ourselves against each other (on massive, highly destructive scales).
And these one-right-way religions, however, are a big inhibitor from this happening. Either people need to forsake these religions or the religious belief in them that their way is the one right way needs to go.
Citizen Press Revolution
First, that entire comment was directed toward Bob Delphi's post not yours. I agree completely intelligence has nothing to do with morality. However, your argument of mankind as a self-correcting entity is completely wrong, and I'd like to point out it's just too optimistic to be applicable in a real-world scenario, I prefer realism. The reality is that mankind on an individual level and consequently in the whole can never achieve this "universal brotherhood and sisterhood" that is just another way of saying utopia and it can never happen. And while it is arguable that man's negative behavior has improved or remain static over time, you can hardly argue that it's improved. Men are born to natural tendencies of greed, lust, revenge, jealousy, arrogance, and outright selfishness. There are few but rather powerful deterrents for these natural inclinations such as fear; fear of the consequences of our actions whether they be worldy consequences or supernatural and my favorite conscience; that natural inclination of regret and remorse for what we have done. But both of these emotions can be weakend to have little or almost no effect on a person. So what then can we turn to to revitalise these self-improving emotions. The answer is not from ourselves or any "universal brotherhood" but from religion, whether ultimately God and hell is real or not is of little consequence, but religion is necessary to the integrity of everyone's morals whether they have and IQ of 93 or 143.
Mankind is a self-correcting entity. Religions are created by men. This undeniable reality proves that mankind can create systems to correct itself. Mankind needs now to evolve from the infantile morality system of religions and take further responsibility for itself. Our Western Culture of pills and addictions for everything is also evidence of our infantile society where we first blame the parents before we blame the adult him or herself or blame it on bad childhoods. These things are influences, but they do not absolve responsibility.
I don't imagine a universal brotherhood and sisterhood to be without conflict, but it will be without the massive grand-scale conflict, hatred, and cruelty explicitly connected to religion and hardened by religion. It will take also away the primary encourager of one-right-way mentalities in our society as well. The less one-right-way thinking we have, the better we will all be.
Religion was created by men. Men create their own self-correction systems all the time. And many people have self-correcting systems without any religion and without even needing any legal system to do so either. We once depended on monarchies to create order and the idea of democracy and representation was criticized in the similar way you are criticizing the possibility of a world that has morality without religion. Many people are infantile now because of how our culture tells them to be, not because they cannot become adults. Many voices also predicted that the American experiment would fail. And while it isn't not the best government possible, it is certainly better than a monarchy.
Monarchies have more or less fallen throughout the Western World, these one-right-way religions need to also fade away for mankind to become less infantile and more adult.
Mankind is growing up.
And one-right-way religions and the thinking from it that is a direct product that will only delay the maturity of mankind.
Citizen Press Revolution
PS: Again, the IQ argument for religion is not my argument, so your last point is irrelevant to me (just so you know why I didn't touch upon it.)
You have reallu intersting point. I agree with you. I chose atheism too.
Interesting read but when you say "If there is something after death, I have nothing to worry about, because I did my all to live the best life possible. A God that punishes people who are good people but because they didn't get baptised, eat a weekly sacrement, or "ask" for repentence every day, is not a God I would want to exist with anyway."...what exactly do you mean? This is called salvation by good works. The falling point of this is that the guy that does 51% good 49% bad goes to heaven, the guy that does 49% good, 51% bad doesnt. Christianity teaches that anyone can go to heaven no matter how bad they have been but they have to accept their previous sins, accept Jesus as their Saviour and begin a new life, a changed life as a Christian, et "saved". Most Christians are nothing of the sortbut only nominally so. In fact only God knows because it is perfectly possible to look and act like a Christian but not really be one in their hearts.
Thats the thing. To me, "accepting" Jesus as my Savior is as arbitrary as needing to be baptised. I have been "born again" in my own life, and I don't see why, because I don't recognize Jesus as my Savior, that this should act as something would would bar me from paradise of the here-after.
I am leading now a changed life.
And a God who would not recognize this fact and penalize me because I didn't believe in his divine existance (and yet while I lead a good life), is not a kind of God that I would want to exist with.
I don't see how doing any of those things will make me personally a better person. I understand the idea, but as you suggested, most "Christians" only nominally change their lives. Wouldn't a God recognize more the sincerity of my change in life over a person who experienced a nominal change but who recognized him as their "Savior"?
If God had two people, both sincerely changed their lives for good, but only one accepted Jesus as their "Savior" while alive on Earth, why would one be held up higher while the one is pushed down lower? What difference would it make to God?
Citizen Press Revolution
Your comments are very thought out and thought provoking but I do have to disagree. True Christianity is about accepting Jesus as your savior and then trying to be like him. This means loving all people and accepting them as they are. Christians may share their faith but true Christians do not push people to the point where they hate God and everything to do with him. Christians, like other people of all faiths, are not perfect and do not always do as they should nor does every Christian interpret the Bible in the same way. It is a shame that you are turned off to God because of the acts of other people and the ideas of "religion". Christianity is about a relationship with God and that should have nothing to do with the rash acts of people who claim to be Christian or other religions.
I understand that Christians are not perfect. The thing is, I am a spiritual person, but I don't need to believe in Jesus Christ or "accept him" in order to love and accept others. Yes, I am a spiritual atheist.
And, personally, I don't see how accepting Christianity as my religion will make me a better person. When I contrast with the negative tendencies which religion, regardless of its ideals, does bring out because of a "one-right-way" mentality, I just don't see what good religion would do for me personally. It gets in the way of accepting people even when it encourages it. It gets in the way of loving people even when it encourages to love thy neighbour (even if they are homosexual).
It simply creates more obstacles to truly loving and truly accepting people.
Citizen Press Revolution
"If God had two people, both sincerely changed their lives for good, but only one accepted Jesus as their "Savior" while alive on Earth, why would one be held up higher while the one is pushed down lower? What difference would it make to God?"
Well you are still thinking that God will judge us by our "goodness" wheras salvation by grace would even save Hitler if he changed at the last moment. Salvation by works means that there must be a "pass mark" and everyone under that mark doesnt get in yes? Whereas salvation by grace, born again, changed life is open to all.
The bible, infact Jesus does say the greatest commandments of all are "Love God and love thy neighbour".
Well put. You obviously know what you are talking about. Being a Christian or Jew is about servig God. It is because we serve him that we serve others. That is his mandate.
You believe in grace over works, that is fine, but my question back to you is that this belief, to me, is counter-productive. As a spiritual atheist who wants to do good for humanity, this belief, if it did anything at all, would inhibit or excuse not putting as much effort as I would if I believed that my works now mean more in the so-called after-life.
You can say that, well, Christians shouldn't use grace as an excuse of not being and doing good now, but to me, a belief in works over grace is much a better motivator for actual direct action for people to take and bring to the world.
In fact, I even suspect that the belief in an after-life, that even if things are horrible now, its okay because things will be great once you die, inhibits people taking direct action to change the world for the better now and more likely to be passive and accept the injustives happening in the world now.
I know of several Christians, for instance, who are complacent about the health of our environement, because, after all, Jesus will be coming soon and make everything better. In ways such as these, religion takes away responsibility for the damages and injustices happening now.
Citizen Press Revolution
You believe in grace over works, that is fine, but my question back to you is that this belief, to me, is counter-productive. As a spiritual atheist who wants to do good for humanity, this belief, if it did anything at all, would inhibit or excuse not putting as much effort as I would if I believed that my works now mean more in the so-called after-life.
You can say that, well, Christians shouldn't use grace as an excuse of not being and doing good now, but to me, a belief in works over grace is much a better motivator for actual direct action for people to take and bring to the world.
In fact, I even suspect that the belief in an after-life, that even if things are horrible now, its okay because things will be great once you die, inhibits people taking direct action to change the world for the better now and more likely to be passive and accept the injustices happening in the world now.
I know of several Christians, for instance, who are complacent about the health of our environement, because, after all, Jesus will be coming soon and make everything better. In ways such as these, religion takes away responsibility for the damages and injustices happening now. A hundred years ago, many Christians thought the end of the world was nigh. A hundred years ago, they thought so as well. And on and on and on. With a mentality like this, we are absolving ourselves for the injustices and damage we are doing to more and more future generations. This isn't right. This isn't good.
Citizen Press Revolution
A changed life brings a desire to do good works and serve Christ, a changed life is a case of "the world behind me" and "christ before me", shunning "worldy materialism" and "greed", instead becoming a "fisher of men" with a desire to save souls. Coming from loving to live in sin, to being aware and burdened with sin, to being saved and relieved of the burden (ever read Pilgrims Progress by John Bunyan? If not I highly recommend it. It was written in the mid 1600`s whilst he was in jail for preaching the gospel and reads like Lord of the Rings) leaves a person with a "burden for saving souls" like none other.
Awesome Blog. Well written, and I couldn't agree more.
God please help the long-winded too make it brief.
Your comment is condescending. Please reply with something meaningful.
Citizen Press Revolution
There is a lot I could respond to in that post, but I'll just say one thing.
A God that punishes people who are good people but because they didn't get baptised, eat a weekly sacrement, or "ask" for repentence every day, is not a God I would want to exist with anyway.
The Bible dosn't say you have to get baptised, eat a weekly sacrement, or ask for repentance every day. It's obvious you've had contact with Catholics and their works intensive system, I'm sorry you had to hear that. If you want to know about God then read the Bible, don't go to a Catholic church. I can guarntee you that a Bible based church is not like what you described, but much better.
akboy, I was a Christian. I have read the entire Bible, ergo my extensive knowledge in regards to it in many of the replies to comments I have made here. I actually didn't have a lot of contact from Catholics either.
I would be interested what your reply would be after reading all of my replies and I know that they are many, to understand the fuller depth of my objections.
Citizen Press Revolution
You've made a lot of comments about what Jesus didn't teach, but the bulk of the knowledge in your posts has been about how people have abused religion over the centuries. For instance, you said: "When I contrast with the negative tendencies which religion, regardless of its ideals, does bring out because of a "one-right-way" mentality, I just don't see what good religion would do for me personally."
There is a very important concept that must be looked at for this kind of discussion to make any sense. No ones thoughts, opinions, actions or anything else will change reality. The world can think what it wants to think about the existence or non-existence of God, but none of it changes the way things are. To use the ever popular example of early science, most people were convinced the sun revolved around the earth. In time, there were many debates about it. There were probably many different theories, but none of them determined or changed the way things are.
I'm not saying this proves anything. I'm just saying what people think about "one-right-way" religions, hell, the afterlife, ect. are opinions and nothing more than opinions. When a bunch of people say they don't believe hell exists, it means they don't believe hell exists. That has nothing to do with whether or not hell exists.
It doesn't matter how much people misuse religion, yell at each other that they have it right, or you or anyone else present logical arguments for what they believe. Reality is the way it is, regardless what we think about it.
It seems like your protest against a "one right way" is contradicting in the sense that everyone elses "one right way" is wrong, but you're idea of the right way (a way without religion) is okay because you came up with it on your own, without religion, etc. You seem to believe that it would cause fewer problems - however this is just your belief, just as a religious person holds their own beliefs.
Even without religion, the moral systems of people would never agree. For example, some moralistic athiests might say abortion is okay while some moralistic athiests might say abortion is wrong. There would still be an us vs. them, even without religion. Disputes concerning morals could cause just as much trouble as disputes between religion. Moral systems, just like religion, are simply beliefs held by a person, and can cause just as much damage as religion. After all, the guidelines of all religions are moral systems - the ten commandments, etc.
It's just hard for any person to claim he doesn't believe in a "one right way." If you believed there was no one right way, you wouldn't be arguing that other peoples' ways of life were wrong and then present your own way of life as the most progressive or effective way to live.
Writing is a dog's life, but the only life worth living.
— Gustave Flaubert
You are making many assumptions:
I don't believe that my lifestyle is the one right way for everyone to follow. I do believe that this attitude is detrimental to humanity regardless of any virtues of the belief system itself. Most religions, however, typically holds as a core value in itself that it has the one right way for everyone.
You are seeing things from your box of thinking and arguing at points that I never suggested.
I never said that abandoning the one right way of thinking in religions would lead to some unity in agreeing among people. It is not needed that everyone agrees with each other's beliefs. It does need to be understood, however, that one's own system of beliefs is NOT the one and only divine right way to exist for everyone.
I believe in my own right way for my own life, but I don't believe that it is the one right way for everyone else, nor assume that anyone who doesn't follow my own right way is inferior and wrong.
People often quip about the Ten Commandmentrs, but the fact is that code systems similar and more in depth than the Ten Commandments (I.E. The Code of Hammurabi) were devised. This code devised by a king was strictly adhered by many people for quite some time.
You are missing the point. All belief systems, all religions which believe they have the divine one-right-way will inevitably lead to harm the progress of humanity. This belief that anyone has the one-right-way, especially divinely condoned one-right-way, is dangerous in itself, regardless of the moral system it is presented with. It is a poison that inevitably contaminates any virtues the belief system suggests.
If all religions instead believed that no one has a monopoly of the one-right-way, the world would be a much better place for it. I am not talking about the world being better in a utopian sense of nothing goes wrong again, but the progress of mankind would be a lot less impeded, and a better future more likely.
Citizen Press Revolution
Sometimes when you are raising a child, there are events that have only one right solution. You don't have to take that solution, you can let the child decide what he/she feels is the right thing to do, or you can insist there is one way to make this event turn out right. The child will probably kick and scream but it doesn't matter, the parent knows there is only one solution that will turn out good. Simply put you have two choices: 1) anything but the right way which will cause peace for a short while, but a lot of misery in the long run. 2) the right way which will cause a short time of unrest, but results in peace in the long run.
The point is that just because something causes strife doesn't mean it's wrong. My baby sister needs her teeth brushed. I could take the easy way out and not do it. Both of us will be happier. But in reality, there is only one way for her to not have serious problmes down the road.
Like I said in my last post, it doesn't matter how much people misuse religion, yell at each other that they have it right, or you or anyone else present logical arguments for what they believe. Reality is the way it is, regardless what we think about it. Just because we don't like "one-right-way", and even if we feel very strongly that there must be other ways, that has nothing to do with whether or not there is one right way.
This is where I came up with my previous 'assumptions':
"I am saying that the best way to live life is to do the best good you can." - Some people might not agree with that. Some people might think the best way to live their life is strictly for themselves without ever trying to do good at all. Just as in you're "one right way" of doing good, they have their one right way of doing good only for themselves, or never trying to do good at all.
All I'm saying is, no man can honestly say that there is no one right way to live and mean it because somewhere deep down, we all think we have the right way to live...otherwise, why would we be living the way we are? Your right way consists of many people abandoning their religions - "Mankind is addicted to these one right way religions for its ideas of morality. It needs to breaks its addiction." - and inventing their own moral systems from scratch. You also said, "If all religions instead believed that no one has a monopoly of the one-right-way, the world would be a much better place for it." But people can't truly believe in most religions and not believe it's the one right way. If a religion that you truly trust says, "This is the right way to live life," you cannot believe everything else about the religion without believing it really is the one right way. Otherwise, what's the point in believing that religion in all? So you are saying many people should abandon and forget the beliefs that they hold so dear to themselves.
And people do abuse their beliefs, so I can see where you get the belief that religion causes strife. But what's that cliche quote..."If you want to see change in the world, you must be that change." Something like that I think? So if you want people to lose the mentality of having the one right way, you must first drop the habit of trying to correct those who believe in a one right way. Because in a sense, you're just doing what they're doing.
"When we no longer have a clean water system, cannot afford to eat every day, and political system becomes less and less democratic, will the legailization of abortion and same sex marriages still be the main issue to decide our future?" Many people vote that way because they are following their moral systems like your suggest, and trying to hold their morals above all else. I have an athiest family member who does not like homosexuality for his own reasons. Morals against homosexuality, abortion, etc. could easily arise without religion, so don't blame religion for the direction that our country is heading. People are passionate about their beliefs as you seem to be passionate about your way of life.
And I agree with akboy. What's right is right, and our failure to see that or believe it doesn't change anything.
Writing is a dog's life, but the only life worth living.
— Gustave Flaubert
As an atheist, and simply as a person, I thank you for posting this. I just wish more agnostics and more atheists would voice their opinions instead of being scared of being ostracized and thought of differently just because they believe in one less God than the majority of people do. People like you do really give me inspiration to be vocal and always stand up for what you believe in. You're right- you don't need religion to have morals.
`lacey
There are no beautiful surfaces without terrible depth...
In our times, we could all be nihilists and believe in nothing. I am bombarded with all sort of information against god from one side and pro god from another. I have no idea what to believe anymore.
---
Term Life Insurance Quote
"In the thousands of years that Christianity has existed among the white men, what good can really be said that it brought?"
Christianity is (and has ever been) responsible for countless organizations that benefit the needy. What do they do? Food drives, shelters, thrift shops, health education, community development programs, etc. etc. etc. Look at the hospitals around you. Who do you think the majority of them were founded by?
In my opinion, no institution in the history of mankind has brought about as much "good" as Christianity has.