Would you like to see the death of religion.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't the best thing that can happen to any believer is that they die and go to heaven?

I would envisage in the ecological climate that some Christians now see a responsibly toward the planet as a requirement for entrance to heaven.

Zillah

Yes - through natural causes

1huge1 wrote: »

While I don't believe this sure why would I want to take away something from people that makes them happy even if some of them might be acting a bit naive

If only it meant they were being a little naive! Actions are a direct result of beliefs. If someone has crazy beliefs, they will have crazy actions. Islamic holy war, Christian homophobia, Jehovah's anti-blood-tranfusions...the list goes on and on. While many religious people have a harmlessly naive opiate to dull the fear of death, there are many also who act in a fashion that could only be viewed as entirely insane were such fantastical beliefs not so unfortunately common.

The harmless naive ones contribute to a world where we must tolerate the crazy evil ones.

Furthermore, the all present spectre of faith renders rational dialogue between factions in an ever increasingly balkanised world next to impossible.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Zillah wrote: »

If only it meant they were being a little naive! Actions are a direct result of beliefs. If someone has crazy beliefs, they will have crazy actions. Islamic holy war, Christian homophobia, Jehovah's anti-blood-tranfusions...the list goes on and on. While many religious people have a harmlessly naive opiate to dull the fear of death, there are many also who act in a fashion that could only be viewed as entirely insane were such fantastical beliefs not so unfortunately common.

The harmless naive ones contribute to a world where we must tolerate the crazy evil ones.

Furthermore, the all present spectre of faith renders rational dialogue between factions in an ever increasingly balkanised world next to impossible.

Agreed +1

/goes back to keeping his mouth shut.

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

womoma wrote: »

John Wine - Are you Tim ?

Are you Scofflaw?

Zillah

Yes - through natural causes

Are you avoiding the question?

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Zillah wrote: »

Are you avoiding the question?

I have answered that question. Are you Hivemind187?

Zillah

Yes - through natural causes

Yes. Hivemind. Duh. We are legion.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Enough! Next one to post about usernames in this handbag-fest gets an infraction.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

I would envisage in the ecological climate that some Christians now see a responsibly toward the planet as a requirement for entrance to heaven.

Well my understand from the Christian forum that the only requirement for the entrance to heaven is a belief that Jesus Christ is God. You don't actually have to do anything, though a lot of them seem to claim that once the "spirit of the Lord" fills your body you will automatically want to do great things ...

... man even as I was writing that I had a hard time ... seriously, religions are f**ked up

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

John Wine wrote: »

I have answered that question. Are you Hivemind187?

Bugger off! I have stayed out of this and I fully intend to.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well my understand from the Christian forum that the only requirement for the entrance to heaven is a belief that Jesus Christ is God. You don't actually have to do anything, though a lot of them seem to claim that once the "spirit of the Lord" fills your body you will automatically want to do great things ...

... man even as I was writing that I had a hard time ... seriously, religions are f**ked up

So all I would have to do is believe JC is god then I can go around acting like a bloody savage until I snuff it?

... that explains an awful lot to be honest.

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote: »

So all I would have to do is believe JC is god then I can go around acting like a bloody savage until I snuff it?

Pretty much ... I imagine that the Christians will explain that if you truly believed in JC you wouldn't want to go around acting like a bloody savage in the first place thought.

That is normally the part where I start rolling my eyes and thinking of other more important things, like Jessica Alba naked in a bath of Jelly ....

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is normally the part where I start rolling my eyes and thinking of other more important things, like Jessica Alba naked in a bath of Jelly ....

... can I start worshiping that?

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Hmmm. How many Christians do you think really live their life on the basis that belief only is enough to get them into heaven? Maybe the same number that don't care what happens the planet because they are going to heaven anyway.

I think what we are really talking about are 'bad Christians'.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm. How many Christians do you think really live their life on the basis that belief only is enough to get them into heaven? Maybe the same number that don't care what happens the planet because they are going to heaven anyway.

I think what we are really talking about are 'bad Christians'.

Not really. I think it is more complex an issue than that

The reasons a religion would have to promote an idea such as saying that belief alone is the only thing required to get the rewards of the religion is because the religion doesn't want to exclude members who have already done bad things, because that would probably be most of them. If a religion has too strict a cut of point in terms of actions it risks alienating its members.

This does go against the very human instinct to do "good" (ie actions that evolution have evolved us to feel are good things to carry out).

stevejazzx

Jeez..it's like after hours around here!


Anyways I think Zillahs Post was excellent, belief>action>outcomes...it's quite simple really. I think the idea 'death of religon' is a bit flawed if it is trying to eracdicate religous practice. There's nothing wrong with the practice, for me it's all about those organisation having power and trying to attach credibility to their claims of origin. Their power gives them too much of a place amoung society as a control. People are in a sense enslaved by their fear. Most people are religous with a vengeful God in mind. Dawkins is spot with his (I'm sure many other people have said it also) observation that 'only being a good person becasue you're afraid of gods wrath' is a terrible reason to be good person - can't you just act moral. I'm not going to even get into the 'where do our morals come from' debate because for me, there is no argument.

The earliset sceptics of mainstream religons all pointed that the power the church had over the people was all too convenient. That the idea of making people behave moral is flawed at inception in the same as hitting childern who behave badly is. It is the reason why people beahve badly that needs examination and addressing. The idea of force control is anti democratic and ultimately counter productive. A lot of what the church does is counter productive in the long term as we can see from the enlightenment, or what's left of it anyway but the church still holds great power over people. This is becasue of the latest trend of fundamentalism across all religons. I think this is due to the fact that this is the only way left for them to consolidate support. The half hearted approach simply does not work anymore. They are now actively dissuading people from all other practices so that they may focus entirely upon supporting their fatih. They are actively recruiting members now like the armed forces and preparing for 'religous wars'. It's seems that in the States this new found easygoing fundamentalism is flying under the danger radar becasue ultimately they don't see themsleves as suicide bomber or terrorists but in my opinion they are poisioning society from the core. I just finished watching that documentary last night 'Jesus Camp' and it's quite remarkable that they are managing to get away with this and in some cases even recieve funding for their tax exempt practices. While other fundamentalists continue with their million dollar projects of re-educating their 'flock' as to the origins of the universe as they escort them around creationist museums sporting dinosaur fossils that they say are proven!!! to be just thousands of years old.

But even with all that going on I still don't mind the practice of religon, excluding belief in something is quite simply just more opression, with religous belief in an enlightened society the idea should prevail that it is so obscure and ancient that any reasonable person would dismiss it instantly like say tarot card readings and the ilk. Anyone who pays a tarot card reader to tell them the future is an idiot but a free one to do what he/she pleases as long as it does harm anyone else.
Religon therefore should be 'demoted' - it should have no power and it's claims of origin should be treated with the same examination as any other claim from any other organisation. It is very hard to see that happening though. People seem to need it now. I will never forget my dinner in Moscow last christmas where I experienced the brainwashing fear enveloping ideology of religon engross someone of great intellectual stature and the only explanation I could come up with was fear. You often see people close to death praying at just about every chance they get. I feel very sad for them in that situation. They must be remembering the vengeful God they were thought at school and the endless warnings of being sent to hell.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

The reasons a religion would have to promote an idea such as saying that belief alone is the only thing required to get the rewards of the religion is because the religion doesn't want to exclude members who have already done bad things, because that would probably be most of them. If a religion has too strict a cut of point in terms of actions it risks alienating its members.

Yeah but surely most people's perception of the way it works is that you can be born again, but that you need to mend your ways or it doesn't count.

What's been said in the Christianity forum sounds like bible interpretation gone wrong. I mean, outside of there I don't think you'd have too many Christians thinking you can do what you like and get away with it.

stevejazzx - I'm to hungry to read your post yet!

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Yeah but surely most people's perception of the way it works is that you can be born again, but that you need to mend your ways or it doesn't count.

Well thats the thing.

That might be mosts people's perception of the way it works. But according to the fundamentalists on the Christian forum (and I use the word fundamentalist as it originally means, someone who is goes to the fundamentals of the detail), that isn't how it works.

So you get this peculiar set up where people shape their perception of the religion around what they expect the religion to do.

Dades wrote: »

What's been said in the Christianity forum sounds like bible interpretation gone wrong.

"Wrong" according to whom?

Ultimately religion ends up being what people want it to be.

If someone believes that it is right that people are rewarded in heaven for being good people, and punished for being bad, they will find that the religion amazingly appears to supports that position.

If they believe that what a person does is not as important as what they believe, again amazingly they will find the religion appears to support that position.

And then person A goes to war with person B

stevejazzx

Dades wrote: »

stevejazzx - I'm to hungry to read your post yet!

yeah sorry I got on my high horse and kept typing way past the limit...I won't do it again officer..promise

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

Dades wrote:

Yeah but surely most people's perception of the way it works is that you can be born again, but that you need to mend your ways or it doesn't count.

Well thats the thing.

That might be mosts people's perception of the way it works. But according to the fundamentalists on the Christian forum (and I use the word fundamentalist as it originally means, someone who is goes to the fundamentals of the detail), that isn't how it works.

So you get this peculiar set up where people shape their perception of the religion around what they expect the religion to do.

Although I don't want to fall into stereotyping Christians by the fundies, I have to agree with Wicknight here. The Christians Dades is referring to are actually 'bad' Christians, in the sense that they certainly don't follow through on Christ's teachings.

If you really take it seriously, then you come out acting not like an ordinary Joe who just tries to turn the other cheek, love his neighbour, and go to church on Sundays, but like one of the Apostles - and that's the point, that's right, that's what you're supposed to be doing to 'follow Christ'. You're not supposed to not take it seriously - and the people who we as atheists find really weird (born-agains, evangelists, Opus Dei) are simply those people who do take it seriously.

99% of Christians certainly don't - and we think of them as 'good' Christians, but that's only because they follow the bits of Christian teaching we think make sense, leave off all the weirdness, and don't have a problem bending or breaking the 'rules' when it seems reasonable to do so. However, they're not the good Christians - the fundies are, at least when they follow the spirit as well as the letter. The others are simply good people who happen to be Christians - which is how we atheists define 'good Christian'.

Dades wrote:

Enough! Next one to post about usernames in this handbag-fest gets an infraction.

Handbag-fest!

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Although I don't want to fall into stereotyping Christians by the fundies, I have to agree with Wicknight here. The Christians Dades is referring to are actually 'bad' Christians, in the sense that they certainly don't follow through on Christ's teachings.

If you really take it seriously, then you come out acting not like an ordinary Joe who just tries to turn the other cheek, love his neighbour, and go to church on Sundays, but like one of the Apostles - and that's the point, that's right, that's what you're supposed to be doing to 'follow Christ'. You're not supposed to not take it seriously - and the people who we as atheists find really weird (born-agains, evangelists, Opus Dei) are simply those people who do take it seriously.

99% of Christians certainly don't - and we think of them as 'good' Christians, but that's only because they follow the bits of Christian teaching we think make sense, leave off all the weirdness, and don't have a problem bending or breaking the 'rules' when it seems reasonable to do so. However, they're not the good Christians - the fundies are, at least when they follow the spirit as well as the letter. The others are simply good people who happen to be Christians - which is how we atheists define 'good Christian'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

99% in the nice moderate land of Eire perhaps but I think in the states the fundies as you call them are really eating into your 99%....
Even still these 'Good Chrsitians' you describe who don't take it all too seriously, aren't they even bigger fools and in Dawkins argument the fools or the moderates accomodate fundies? The implication is after all that they know in their hearts that it's just hogwash but follow it out of sheepishness and an overwhelming sense of compliance.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

stevejazzx wrote: »

99% in the nice moderate land of Eire perhaps but I think in the states the fundies as you call them are really eating into your 99%....

Almost certainly true.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Even still these 'Good Chrsitians' you describe who don't take it all too seriously, aren't they even bigger fools and in Dawkins argument the fools or the moderates accomodate fundies? The implication is after all that they know in their hearts that it's just hogwash but follow it out of sheepishness and an overwhelming sense of compliance.

Usually, the one thing you can get Dawkins and a fundamentalist to agree on is exactly that.

Yes, I'd say the majority of those follow along partly out of social compliance, without thinking about it too much, partly out of the comfort of thinking there's something out there looking out for them, something after death. These are the Christians that people like wolfsbane (and indeed PDN) often refer to as 'atheists', because from the point of view of a committed Christian, they might as well be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

I think the original point is somewhat lost. I think we've all come to terms with the idea that "real" Christians have a much stricter interpretation of the bible than those a la carte ones that prefer the love thy neighbour style.

In the context of this thread, I thought it was reasonable to say that okay, there are hard-core beliefs within Christianity (and many other faiths) but that most believers don't subscribe to them. Whether they do it 'rightly' or 'wrongly' is irrelevant - esp from our POV I would have thought.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

The idea that all a Christian has to do is to believe a certain set of facts, irrespective of behaviour, is so rare that I doubt very much if anyone seriously argued such a thing on the Christianity forum. This sounds like Wicknight playing his usual games.

The Christian doctrine of justification by faith is that good works result from true faith. If there is no evidence of good works and moral improvement then faith is not genuine.

You are, of course, free to disagree with this teaching, that is your free choice (assuming you believe in free will). However, to deliberately misrepresent the teaching is, IMHO, intellectually dishonest.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Dades wrote: »

I think the original point is somewhat lost. I think we've all come to terms with the idea that "real" Christians have a much stricter interpretation of the bible than those a la carte ones that prefer the love thy neighbour style.

In the context of this thread, I thought it was reasonable to say that okay, there are hard-core beliefs within Christianity (and many other faiths) but that most believers don't subscribe to them. Whether they do it 'rightly' or 'wrongly' is irrelevant - esp from our POV I would have thought.

So we'd welcome the death of real faith, but would be quite happy to see religion remain as a shell?

PDN wrote:

You are, of course, free to disagree with this teaching, that is your free choice (assuming you believe in free will). However, to deliberately misrepresent the teaching is, IMHO, intellectually dishonest.

IMHO? IMO?

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

PDN wrote: »

The Christian doctrine of justification by faith is that good works result from true faith. If there is no evidence of good works and moral improvement then faith is not genuine.

What happens if there is evidence of good works but no evidence of faith?

robindch

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote:

The idea that all a Christian has to do is to believe a certain set of facts, irrespective of behaviour, is so rare that I doubt very much if anyone seriously argued such a thing on the Christianity forum.

I believe that JC and wolfsbane have seriously argued this point.

And I'm sure there are more. That recent OSAS thread -- possibly the greatest intellectual wasteland I've seen -- should suggest a few other candidates.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

What happens if there is evidence of good works but no evidence of faith?

Interesting question - for a rather extremely put view, see here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

So we'd welcome the death of real faith, but would be quite happy to see religion remain as a shell?



IMHO? IMO?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The 'H' stands for haughty.

robindch

Yes - through natural causes

Dades wrote:

I think we've all come to terms with the idea that "real" Christians have a much stricter interpretation of the bible than those a la carte ones that prefer the love thy neighbour style.

Around here, that's certainly true. But I do know a few catholics at the other end of the spectrum, where the ideas and people in the catholic church are considered much more important than any specific interpretation of the bible. Need hardly be said that they refer to themselves as the "true" christians, and the protestants as the a-la-cartes.

Reminds me of a march I saw in Munich years ago. Grim looking lads in bowler hats, banners, big drums, sashes and the rest of it, but weirdly, they were the local catholics. What about that for convergent evolution?