Why do non-believers concern themselves with religion?

Dades

A bit more chastity would be good I suppose, now we don't have laundries to send single mothers to.

CerebralCortex

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

I'd miss it if they stopped doing that just before the 6:01 news. It's ****ing hilarious.

No it most certainly is not hilarious. Its extremely annoying and intrusive.

estebancambias

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Oh you mean Timothy McVeigh? Good for you. :rolleyes:

I meant ''i'' as in general, not related to me, but can you answer the question, is this independant thought?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. When someone loves God, it means changing their lives to do His will. If people did God's will, we wouldn't have so many social ills.

Can you give me any example where that is the case? Seriously!?!?!?

kelly1 wrote: »

Christianity is:

Pro modesty/anti exhisitionist....blah blah blah.

All these things would result in a better world for all concerned.

I would like to see a society which upholds and esteems Christian values but not all of these can or should be enforced.

I know what "Christianity" claims it stands for. But the reality can be quite different. There is nothing modest about the Sistine Chapel or claiming what you believe is true without any truth only faith.

Latchy

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

And what, pray tell is wrong (other than aesthetically) about being able to see women's breasts?

There's always an implied desire behind such moral outrage. I assume Kelly, that you, being a human being, love to see the soft round curves of a woman's breast just as much as I do. Why torture yourself with the beleif that there's something wrong with that?

Is there much difference between seeing bare breasted
women on the beachs of all the hot spots of europe than in ireland ?

Apart from one being more tanned than the other it's all the same flesh after all

kelly1

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

And what, pray tell is wrong (other than aesthetically) about being able to see women's breasts?

There's always an implied desire behind such moral outrage. I assume Kelly, that you, being a human being, love to see the soft round curves of a woman's breast just as much as I do. Why torture yourself with the beleif that there's something wrong with that?

Yes of course I find women's bodies very attractive but it can all too easily lead to lust which is a big no no in God's books.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Can you give me any example where that is the case? Seriously!?!?!?

C'mon, you're being facetious now! According to my faith it's wrong to get smashed drunk because it harms the body and spirit and leads to more sin. You know as well as I do how much damage alcohol abuse causes in society. So clearly not getting drunk in order to please God would be good for society.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

C'mon, you're being facetious now....

I think my question wasn't clear enough. I'm well aware of the effects of alcohol and I'm totaler myself thanks only to myself. I was looking for a you to give me an example of a society where fear of god makes it a better/perfect(depending on your expectations Noel) place???

Galvasean

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes of course I find women's bodies very attractive but it can all too easily lead to lust which is a big no no in God's books.

So, its YOUR fault for not having enough self restraint, not the nekkid sunbathers'.
Reminds me of the rapist who said, "She had it coming. Dressing like that."

pH

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I think my question wasn't clear enough. I'm well aware of the effects of alcohol and I'm totaler myself thanks only to myself. I was looking for a you to give me an example of a society where fear of god makes it a better/perfect(depending on your expectations Noel) place???

Is it not obvious to you how observing God's laws produces a more moral person? I notice you said "example of a society". I was talking about the individual person.

kelly1

Galvasean wrote: »

So, its YOUR fault for not having enough self restraint, not the nekkid sunbathers'.
Reminds me of the rapist who said, "She had it coming. Dressing like that."

Yes, if I lust after a woman, it's my fault. Of course it wouldn't happen if women were more modest so I think women are guilty of "incitement to lust". Just so we're really clear, I would never, ever condone rape!

Nerin

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, if I lust after a woman, it's my fault. Of course it wouldn't happen if women were more modest so I think women are guilty of "incitement to lust". Just so we're really clear, I would never, ever condone rape!

meh, if a mans spirit and mind are weak its totally his own fault.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so would you be in favour of burqhas kelly1?

adamd164

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, if I lust after a woman, it's my fault. Of course it wouldn't happen if women were more modest so I think women are guilty of "incitement to lust". Just so we're really clear, I would never, ever condone rape!

But you're saying you feel it's wrong just because it says so in the holy book, is it? What about murder?

Do you seriously expect us to believe that the people of Moses hadn't a notion about murder being wrong before it was written down for them in tablet?

If so, I think you and your ilk are wicked -- only prevented from raping, murder and theft by an inherent will to please your god.

Those of us who are "good" of our own accord can fell rightly superior.

adamd164

kelly1 wrote: »

Such as?

kelly1 wrote: »

People, I ask you, what is the point of the A&A forum?

- To pour scorn on and poke fun at those who believe in a loving Creator?
- A place where smug people gather to clap each other on the back and wonder at the stupidity of believers while they sit back and marvel at their own superior intelligence?
- A place to discuss lack of belief in God (why bother)?
- To blame all religions including the valid ones for all the ills of the world?
- To build up one's cynicism to ever increasing heights?
- To banish all traces of God from the world?

Or is there something positive that I've failed to notice?

Maybe before asking atheists why they are obsessed with religion, you should ask yourself why you are obsessed with atheism.

LaVidaLoca

to ask the obvious question.

But can anyone actually explain to me whats wrong with lust, without using terms like "God's Law"?

I mean anybody can see what's wrong with violence, murder, rape, torture and lying, but what's wrong with wanting to do the most natural thing in the world?

Everybody wants it. Just for some reason, religion seems to place a high premium on feeling bad about it.

This in my view is further proof if any were needed that religions are simply primitive engines of social control.

And by the way Kelly, if you want to know why Irish people drink as much as they do, it is precicely because of millenia of having guilt about sex thrust upon them by the religious. Most of them have to get hammered in order to do the most natural thing in the world, cause a bunch of male, unmarried virgins in dresses told 'em it was bad. This creates a kind of schizophrenic personality which is a major cause of unhappiness (if not the major cause.

pH

adamd164 wrote: »

Those of us who are "good" of our own accord can fell rightly superior.

Amen to that brother!

While I feel that often this line of argument is a not so subtle threat, "The only thing stopping me killing you and raping your kids is the fact that I believe in God", I do feel rightly superior.

I having neither murdered nor raped anyone have refrained from these actions without being told they're wrong by my God, nor am I barely holding myself back from committing these acts because of the great carrot and stick wielder in the stick.

However if any Christian wants to come forward and and admit that the only thing keeping him from mass murder and rape is his Christian God and fear of punishment, I may be forced to rethink my position on the benefits of religion for society.

Galvasean

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, if I lust after a woman, it's my fault. Of course it wouldn't happen if women were more modest so I think women are guilty of "incitement to lust".

I find some women sexier with their clothes on... What should they do?

I wouldn't stab people if they wore medieval armour. Damn weak flesh. Its their own fault. I think they should be charged with "incitement to be stabbed" (I jest, I jest!)

kelly1 wrote: »

Just so we're really clear, I would never, ever condone rape!

Wasn't tryin' to accuse you. In fact I probably should have spaced those two things more. We cool?

bnt

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

But can anyone actually explain to me whats wrong with lust, without using terms like "God's Law"?

I mean anybody can see what's wrong with violence, murder, rape, torture and lying, but what's wrong with wanting to do the most natural thing in the world?

Everybody wants it. Just for some reason, religion seems to place a high premium on feeling bad about it.

This in my view is further proof if any were needed that religions are simply primitive engines of social control.
...

I find it helpful to remember that at the time the "10 commandments" were formulated, the Israelites were a nomadic tribe. There was no government in the sense we know, only religious authorities - a precursor to the situation in Islamic countries today. So any attempts at government were naturally going to be in religious terms, backed by religious authority. They didn't have guns back then. :rolleyes:

In about 530BC, Confucius said: "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." (Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton). What more do you need? If you could do something to someone - whatever that something is - someone could do it to you.

estebancambias

adamd164 wrote: »

Those of us who are "good" of our own accord can fell rightly superior.

Agreed, however I hate the good being quoted....it should be an absolute.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Is it not obvious to you how observing God's laws produces a more moral person? I notice you said "example of a society". I was talking about the individual person.

Society is a collection of individuals. No?

Sangre

kelly1 wrote: »

Poor example. I'm talking about killings without a motive, stabbing with screwdrivers, beating with hammer for looking at someone the "wrong way" e.g. the Polish guys who were killed in Drimnagh. The gang wars between drug "Lords". We didn't have that 20 years ago. We live in a more and more violent society and you'd be blind not to see that. Actuall there is generational blindness i.e. we don't really have a view of how things have changed since the days when our parents were young. The older generation see that more clearly.

You don't see a problem with that???

Some things have got better but I think in general it's worse.

Murder rates are much, much lower than that of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Of course, a silly thing like facts shouldn't get in the way of opinions.

That being said there has been a slight increase from the beginning of the 20th century. Of course, this trend also correlates with rising population rates and density (more people living in close quarters).

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

Seems to me that self loathing (of both the man and mankind) is the beginning of religion ...

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Seems to me that self loathing (of both the man and mankind) is the beginning of religion ...

Well, you do have an unfortunate way of looking at spiritual matters. True religion is about doing God's will and that involves acknowledging that we sin (go against God's will) and that we need forgiveness. Unless we recognise our sinfulness, we see reason for changing do we? The more we love God, the more clearly we see our own sinfulness and this leads to a greater reliance on God's providence and mercy. The more we rely on God, the more He provides and in turn we grow in holiness and come closer to perfection. That's the plan anyway...

Gegerty

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

to ask the obvious question.

But can anyone actually explain to me whats wrong with lust, without using terms like "God's Law"?

I mean anybody can see what's wrong with violence, murder, rape, torture and lying, but what's wrong with wanting to do the most natural thing in the world?

Because to the people who preach this it means lusting after little boys.

Dades

That's not really a helpful generalisation, Gegerty.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Unless we recognise our sinfulness, we see reason for changing do we?

But that is the point. We aren't "sinful" That is a perverse way of viewing humanity.

That is a blanket that has been pulled over the real problems humans have and face. It is a make believe way of pretending to dealing with these issues, one that ultimately doesn't work, and simply gives people an excuse to revel in their own hang ups (such as your comment on women wearing less cloths being related to "lust" which you apparently relate to immorality and crime).

It is only by rising above the silliness of the religious view that we can actually look properly at the issues. Religion is ultimately (and rather ironically) simply a way to remain trapped in the worse sides of humanity, giving in to the irrationality of our emotional hangups and our basic instincts.

Rather than becoming "holy" you are in fact simply revelling in the darker sides of our nature.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is the point. We aren't "sinful" That is a perverse way of viewing humanity.

That is a blanket that has been pulled over the real problems humans have and face. It is a make believe way of pretending to dealing with these issues, one that ultimately doesn't work, and simply gives people an excuse to revel in their own hang ups (such as your comment on women wearing less cloths being related to "lust" which you apparently relate to immorality and crime).

It is only by rising above the silliness of the religious view that we can actually look properly at the issues. Religion is ultimately (and rather ironically) simply a way to remain trapped in the worse sides of humanity, giving in to the irrationality of our emotional hangups and our basic instincts.

Rather than becoming "holy" you are in fact simply revelling in the darker sides of our nature.

Of course you don't understand sin; you don't believe in God. Seeing sin in ourselves involves requires humilty, courage and honesty. Take a look at the world around you tell me you don't believe in sin! If it's not sin, what do you call it? Human nature?

Even on a humanistic level, are you perfect in every way with flaws? Of course not, nobody is. Seeing sin for what it is is vital to breaking free of it. Believe me I don't revel in the darker side of human nature. I makes me despair for the human race at times...

kelly1

adamd164 wrote: »

Maybe before asking atheists why they are obsessed with religion, you should ask yourself why you are obsessed with atheism.

I'm not obsessed with atheism. I don't find it interesting or inspirational, it doesn't provide answer of any sort. The thought of life without God makes me shudder.

I am honestly concerned for the fate of atheists. My response to this is to defend religion and to try to point on the flaws in atheism. It seems I do this very poorly.

stereoroid

kelly1 wrote: »

Of course you don't understand sin; you don't believe in God. Seeing sin in ourselves involves requires humilty, courage and honesty. Take a look at the world around you tell me you don't believe in sin! If it's not sin, what do you call it? Human nature?

Well, that depends on what you mean by "human", doesn't it? Have you gone back to the notion that there's some fundamental difference between humans and animals, some vitalist "spark of life" that elevates us to a whole different plane?
I don't see that, or any evidence for that.

I see pain and suffering in the animal world, and I see pain and suffering in the human world too. So what does it mean to be human, then? We can start throwing around ideas such as Ethics, Ideals, Consequences, Planning. An animal lives in the "now", follows its instincts and urges. Humans, according to my theory, don't just have Today: we also have Yesterday and Tomorrow to think of.

When I see e.g. the genocide in Rwanda, or the population explosion in the Gaza Strip, I see humans reverting to their baser animal instincts. From that I conclude that becoming human is not a "step change", or a one-way journey. It may be as natural as evolution, but it's not inevitable. So it helps to remember that we are still animals under the skin, and we have to work to discover what it means to be human, and fight to hang on to it. If you want a more detailed exposition of this idea, find a copy of Lord Of The Flies. So, to answer your question: yes, it is human nature, if you accept that human nature includes a major slice of animal nature :eek: