God a figment of an evil imagination?

StormWarrior

Nerin wrote: »

i wouldnt say all religious countries vs secular ones are better/worse. you cannot generalise.

True, that was just one part of the point I'm trying to get across but couldn't be arsed to type so much earlier. I mean, take the whole Christian theory of hell. Surely only humans (the ones with slightly unpleasant minds) could come up with the theory that some will be tortured for all eternity for the mildest of transgressions. If that's not a figment of an evil imagination I don't know what is!

Nerin

StormWarrior wrote: »

True, that was just one part of the point I'm trying to get across but couldn't be arsed to type so much earlier. I mean, take the whole Christian theory of hell. Surely only humans (the ones with slightly unpleasant minds) could come up with the theory that some will be tortured for all eternity for the mildest of transgressions. If that's not a figment of an evil imagination I don't know what is!

if it is wrong,as in only an imaginary place, then i'd see it as a very logical theory to scare simple folk into joining their religion

StormWarrior

Nerin wrote: »

if it is wrong,as in only an imaginary place, then i'd see it as a very logical theory to scare simple folk into joining their religion

Yes but it's still a figment of an evil imagination!

Nerin

StormWarrior wrote: »

Yes but it's still a figment of an evil imagination!

evil is bit of a stong word.
i wouldnt call an organisation using slightly false advertising to be evil...

StormWarrior

Nerin wrote: »

evil is bit of a stong word.
i wouldnt call an organisation using slightly false advertising to be evil...

Even when they strike the fear of hell into the minds of the simple folk? Anyway, they must be at least a bit mean and twisted to come up with such a concept.

Nerin

StormWarrior wrote: »

Even when they strike the fear of hell into the minds of the simple folk? Anyway, they must be at least a bit mean and twisted to come up with such a concept.

if as i suggested it was marketing, yeah, thats pretty mean and messed up. Preying on anyone is messed up. ive more of an issue however with going into a place, taking their traditions and corrupting it so the transition over to their religion is easier.
grinds my gears
as far as im concerned,if a religion wants to threaten eternal damnation on its followers, its their business to believe it.

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote: »

Mods, isn't this verging on the personal?

JimiTime, the old axe-to-grind argument. Give me a break. Try engaging with the facts rather than resorting to personalizing the discussion.

You know, it was this sort of thing that made me swear off this forum before. You make a reasoned, reasonable, culturally informed argument, you back it up with evidence and everything, and for your trouble you get called a lazy idiot by someone who admits to believing in an all-powerful invisible man on a cloud who can create a universe but can't even get it together to write a book that says what he means in an unambiguous fashion.

i suppose I'll just wait for the mods so. If you call yourself an idiot with an axe to grind, then i supose it was personal to you. i didn't define you as that though. i certainly think your thinking was lazy. And i do think that any idiot with an axe to grind can assert what you did. As for entering into a debate with you, well, no. I would assess such a debate as an exercise in time wasting, for both of us. you seem a bit too all guns blazin.

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

i certainly think your thinking was lazy.

That's three times you've said that now, but you still haven't explained how.

Galvasean

Three times, now whose being lazy?

Húrin

StormWarrior wrote: »

Have you ever noticed that the more religious a society is, the more cruel and punishing the justice system is towards even minor "crimes"? For example, Saudi Arabia is going to give a university professor 150 lashes for sitting in a cafe with a woman he was not related to.

On the other hand, the more secular a country, the more humanitarian they are, and the more the justice system focuses on rehabilitation rather than sheer punishment. For example, Sweden. Swedes try to remould the criminals to make them fit to enter society again, without abusing them unnecessarily.

It often seems that religious people are more cruel-minded and punishing than atheists. So perhaps this is why the God of the bible is so "fire and brimstone" and torment forever without hope of redemption, just for punishment's own sake. Maybe the people who wrote it were just cruel and enjoyed thinking of others being tortured?

I think it is incredibly naive to say this after the 20th century. The most secular states were those which wrought the worst violence: The USSR, China, and Nazi Germany. They had pretty punishing justice systems.

Also, eternal punishment is not the true teaching of the Bible.

Húrin

iUseVi wrote: »

Oh yes, huge majorities of the population are neo-nazi. Hardly. Besides all neo-nazis are atheists? I think not, in fact I suspect they would tend to be religious, but I don't have any figures for that.

Besides your anti-Christian bias, what assumption do you base that on? Nazism is atheistic. Much of its ideology derives from Neitzche, and supreme moral authority rests with the white race, not God.

iUseVi wrote: »

Japan is interesting indeed. The main "religion", has no holy writings, no founders, no canon. Its more like a collection of interesting mythologies and folklore. Tolerant certainly. Atheist? Maybe. Religious? Sort of. As you said, interesting case.

The main religion of Japan is Buddhism.

iUseVi wrote: »

Ha ha, very funny. For your information countries that the census says are mostly irreligious (over 50%)

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

source? I find this hard to believe.

You might as well point out that the countries on that list are mostly western, and use that to demonstrate your point.

rockbeer wrote: »

And I can't believe you don't understand that by encouraging people not to think but to follow a philosophy founded in violence and bigotry, the christian religion provides a mechanism that is wide open to exploitation by bad people in the pursuit of bad ends.

Christianity is not founded on violence and bigotry. Christianity does not teach its adherents not to think, but to use Biblical teachings to inform their own consciences.

rockbeer wrote: »

Well of course that isn't really what the pope says, is it? What he actually says is "If you wear a condom you commit a sin for which you will burn in hell for all eternity", which you will agree would be a powerfully persuasive argument for people who believe in such nonsense. But as usual you prefer to skirt around the unacceptable face of christianity.

And usual you make stuff up outright. I expect you cannot provide a sourced quote.

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote: »

That's three times you've said that now, but you still haven't explained how.

Well you've brought the mods in. so lets just leave it there. I know who I think was closer to breaching charter rules. I also attacked the post, not the poster. I didn't say you were a lazy thinker did I? No, I said the assertion in the post was a result of lazy thinking. I didn't call 'you' an idiot neither did I? Rather, I said 'any idiot with an axe to grind could reason like you had in that particular post'. If the mods deem me in breach though, i'll accept the reprimand and hopefully you'll be able to move on.

rockbeer

Húrin wrote: »

Christianity is not founded on violence and bigotry.

I recommend you go and read your old testament.

Húrin wrote: »

Christianity does not teach its adherents not to think, but to use Biblical teachings to inform their own consciences.

All religion teaches people not to think by encouraging them to base their conclusions on things other than evidence.

Húrin wrote: »

And usual you make stuff up outright. I expect you cannot provide a sourced quote.

Like any politician the pope understands spin so the likelihood of a direct quote is slim. However I was under the impression that according to the catholic church the use of artificial birth control was a mortal sin and the consequence of a mortal sin was an eternity in hell. Far more importantly I would be surprised if the majority of catholics didn't share the same impression. If either of these is not the case please enlighten me.

iUseVi

Húrin wrote: »

Besides your anti-Christian bias, what assumption do you base that on? Nazism is atheistic. Much of its ideology derives from Neitzche, and supreme moral authority rests with the white race, not God.

Like I said, I didn't have any figures for that. But I don't suppose you do either? Because I would be interested in them.

Húrin wrote: »

The main religion of Japan is Buddhism.

Well no, it's a syncretism of both religions. (shinto and buddism)

I don't have figures for Norway either. Polls are inconclusive because as several people have said(including myself), people are enrolled into the Church of Norway at birth.

Galvasean

This argument has been done to death on this forum (and also A&A). I think its fairly obvious that people with sinister intentions can manipulate anything to suit their own means, whether it be religion or atheism. To say one or the other constitutes 'the bad guys' is to put it mildly, epic in naivety.

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

This argument has been done to death on this forum (and also A&A). I think its fairly obvious that people with sinister intentions can manipulate anything to suit their own means, whether it be religion or atheism. To say one or the other constitutes 'the bad guys' is to put it mildly, epic in naivety.

Amen to that!

StormWarrior

Húrin wrote: »

Besides your anti-Christian bias, what assumption do you base that on? Nazism is atheistic. Much of its ideology derives from Neitzche, and supreme moral authority rests with the white race, not God.

That's not true. I wrote a paper on this very topic last term, and most neo-nazis are not atheists. The BNP in the UK are a mixture of Christians and neo-pagans, the neo-nazis in Scandinavia are generally neo-pagans, and what about the KKK in America? Don't they make a point of being Protestant?

StormWarrior

Galvasean wrote: »

This argument has been done to death on this forum (and also A&A). I think its fairly obvious that people with sinister intentions can manipulate anything to suit their own means, whether it be religion or atheism. To say one or the other constitutes 'the bad guys' is to put it mildly, epic in naivety.

I don't think you understand the point I was making with this thread. I didn't say religion is the bad guy, I said anyone who writes that people will be tortured in hell forever and other such things, obviously made that up from their own sordid fantasies.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

This argument has been done to death on this forum (and also A&A). I think its fairly obvious that people with sinister intentions can manipulate anything to suit their own means, whether it be religion or atheism. To say one or the other constitutes 'the bad guys' is to put it mildly, epic in naivety.

Aren't they all the bad guys? Christianity, Islam, totalitarian states, cult of the leader, Communism, Scientology, Fascism etc etc.

Any system that claims authority higher above the judgment of the rest of us lowly mortals, particularly if it is to be taken as infallible, is dangerous.

Any system that in shires a belief of them and us, and the idea that those who question or object to the doctrine are some how deficient, wicked, dangerous, corrupt, not to be listened to, is dangerous.

Any system that claims to have found "the answer" and more importantly claims to offer this to those prepared to follow and obey the system, is dangerous.

Religion is of course the first thing a lot of people think of when they thing of the above, but it would be very stupid and naive to believe that all this is limited to religion alone. Everything from Communism to Feminism have had people, or periods where the above effected them.

Humans seem to have an in build desire to put faith in authority or doctrine that they hope can make things better for them. This desire for the better, for the correct, for the just, for the righteous, often blinds them.

DublinWriter

Húrin wrote: »

Nazism is atheistic. Much of its ideology derives from Neitzche, and supreme moral authority rests with the white race, not God.

Careful there...the Nazi's hijacked Nietzsche in much the same fashion they hijacked Darwin.

As for the Nazis, they has a kind of warped spiritual belief in a warrior 'Valhalla' evident mostly in the culture of the Waffen SS.

Regarding your comment about the Japanese being Buddhist, Japanese people at the time pledged their spiritual allegiance to the Emperor who was considered to be a living God.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Any system that claims authority higher above the judgment of the rest of us lowly mortals, particularly if it is to be taken as infallible, is dangerous..

So humans have the answer?

rockbeer

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So humans have the answer?

Humans must find the answer, since there's nothing else we can turn to.

The question is, do you prefer the answer favoured by primitive iron-age humans or are you willing to consider something more contemporary?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So humans have the answer?

Belief that there must be an "answer" is part of the problem.

People turn to religion, or to dogmas like Communism, because they claim to be the perfect solution to all the problems we face. This is quite attractive to some people who fear the uncertainty of life and the human condition.

I very much doubt there is a perfect solution, and if there is one we certainly haven't figured it out yet. But that "answer" is unacceptable to some people so they fall back to groups that claim to have already found the perfect solution.

BrianCalgary

rockbeer wrote: »

Humans must find the answer, since there's nothing else we can turn to.

The question is, do you prefer the answer favoured by primitive iron-age humans or are you willing to consider something more contemporary?

I will only consider that which is true.
When I see all the work that is done by Christians around the world in teh name of Christ. I see the transformed lives by the same. I see the ability of Jesus to raise Himself from the dead, it's pretty compeling.

Alos show me a better template for life than that taught by Jesus Christ and I'll look at it.

I'd rather follow a life that has been demonstarted by someone who walked the Earth in teh first century AD than one addvocated by a bunch of tweed suits, smoking cigars, drinking brandy who have never experienced the real pain that humanity suffers.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Alos show me a better template for life than that taught by Jesus Christ and I'll look at it.

Some of Jesus' stuff wasn't bad, but he was a product of his times and should be treated and understood as such.

Have you looked at humanism much? Here's one set of humanistic living rules (there are others) which are quite in excess of anything that Jesus said:

http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/coreprin.htm

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Some of Jesus' stuff wasn't bad, but he was a product of his times and should be treated and understood as such.

Have you looked at humanism much? Here's one set of humanistic living rules (there are others) which are quite in excess of anything that Jesus said:

http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/coreprin.htm

Not a very impressive set of guidelines. Made up by whom and where is their example of the life as led by someone who follows such principles?

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Not a very impressive set of guidelines.

What's wrong with them?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Made up by whom

Why does it matter who made them up? Doesn't the quality of the rules depend only on what they are, rather than who wrote them?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

where is their example of the life as led by someone who follows such principles?

Me and most of my humanist friends stick to these rules, or something close to them -- we don't need an "example" life. The rules stand by themselves and we can understand them ourselves and change them through consensual discussion if need be. It's quite similar to pure democracy in that sense.

Mark Hamill

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Not a very impressive set of guidelines. Made up by whom and where is their example of the life as led by someone who follows such principles?

So you're saying as long as someone else lived their life according to some set of guidelines, those guidelines become acceptable? What about Islam, Buddism or Mormonism then.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I'd rather follow a life that has been demonstarted by someone who walked the Earth in teh first century AD than one addvocated by a bunch of tweed suits, smoking cigars, drinking brandy who have never experienced the real pain that humanity suffers.

Fair enough, next time you are in hospital, get to doctors to treat you like its the first century AD and then see if you appreciate progress.

Galvasean

StormWarrior wrote: »

I don't think you understand the point I was making with this thread. I didn't say religion is the bad guy, I said anyone who writes that people will be tortured in hell forever and other such things, obviously made that up from their own sordid fantasies.

I probably should have stated that I was addressing the OP specifically. Moreso I was addressing that this thread descended into yet another "Youre worse than us!" arguments.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Not a very impressive set of guidelines. Made up by whom and where is their example of the life as led by someone who follows such principles?

Sweet holy Hubbard, are you being serious?

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fair enough, next time you are in hospital, get to doctors to treat you like its the first century AD and then see if you appreciate progress.

Nerin

the mind boggles, how can you have a problem with humanism? oh wait, yeah.

BrianCalgary

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fair enough, next time you are in hospital, get to doctors to treat you like its the first century AD and then see if you appreciate progress.

What has that comment have to with the topic of Christ's teachings?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

What's wrong with them?Why does it matter who made them up? .

Lets look at number 7.
H7. Children shall not be subjected to physical and mental abuse, nor to religious or political indoctrination by parents or others. The rights of children should be codified in a charter of children's' rights.

Do you live by this? In other words you are not going to teach your daughter anything about beief systems and politics? Because once you give your opinion to your daughter you are indoctrinating her.

robindch wrote: »

Me and most of my humanist friends stick to these rules, or something close to them -- we don't need an "example" life. The rules stand by themselves and we can understand them ourselves and change them through consensual discussion if need be. It's quite similar to pure democracy in that sense.

So if one doesn't adhere to these set of rules then are they humanist?

H8. Civil laws should be arrived at by a collective consensual process and should promote the common good, not the tenets of a particular religion or philosophy.

Now c'mon Robin, everyone has a philosophy, the fact that these guidelines exist shows that you have a philosophy so therefore if you and your bunch have the majority then you are imposing your tenets on everyone else.

Nerin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Lets look at number 7.
H7. Children shall not be subjected to physical and mental abuse, nor to religious or political indoctrination by parents or others. The rights of children should be codified in a charter of children's' rights.

Do you live by this? In other words you are not going to teach your daughter anything about beief systems and politics? Because once you give your opinion to your daughter you are indoctrinating her.

im going to inform my children (if any) that all sorts of people believe all sorts of things, and its up to you to decide.
non of this forcing them into a specified box over religious belief.

BrianCalgary

Nerin wrote: »

im going to inform my children (if any) that all sorts of people believe all sorts of things, and its up to you to decide..

That is the philosophy that you are indoctrinating them in.

Nerin wrote: »

non of this forcing them into a specified box over religious belief.

Interesting, the only parents that I know who force their kids into a box of belief are atheists who do not want their children to hear the claims of Christianity and do what they can to shut down any Chistian communication.

Yet Christians welcome the exchange and knowledge of other faiths and ideas.

Mark Hamill

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What has that comment have to with the topic of Christ's teachings?

Christs teachings, I don't know, probably nothing, but what it has to do with what you said:

I'd rather follow a life that has been demonstarted by someone who walked the Earth in the first century AD than one addvocated by a bunch of tweed suits, smoking cigars, drinking brandy who have never experienced the real pain that humanity suffers.

I think is fairly obvious.
The life demonstrated by someone who lived in any period includes the food they ate, the technology of the time and the medicine they had access to. Those "tweed suits, smoking cigars and drinking brandy" may not have experienced human suffering, but they've known enough about it to extend life expectancy from 20-30 years old in Jesus' time, to 70-80 now.

Nerin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

That is the philosophy that you are indoctrinating them in.


Interesting, the only parents that I know who force their kids into a box of belief are atheists who do not want their children to hear the claims of Christianity and do what they can to shut down any Chistian communication.

Yet Christians welcome the exchange and knowledge of other faiths and ideas.

im not indoctrinating them the whole point is giving them the right to choose. whether they follow shinto, hinduism, christianity or become atheists, its their business. unless you will admit that by giving the freedom, i am indoctrinating them with my freedom philosphy,and by giving them a religion,im indoctrinating them into that religion. shock horror even christian indoctrination.

and which is better, "hey tiny tim, you believe whatever you want, and if you want i'll help you research it"
or
"hey tiny tim, there is one god, the father almighty,maker of heaven and earth...."

i know which one is logically the best, but ive a feeling which one many religious people will make the mistake of doing.

ive known of atheists with born again christian kids. so your broad generalisation is quite flawed.

aggresso

PDN wrote: »

The Vatican's high theft rate is exactly what I would expect. A prime tourist attraction with crowds of Americans with big cameras, big mouths & big wallets will attract plenty of pickpockets etc. Of course you may choose to believe that it is the residents of the Vatican that carry out the crime if you wish. the thought of all those Cardinals dipping into tourists' pockets is certainly one to savour.

I would not be so silly as to suggest that cruel punishment is characteristic of religion or of atheism. Some forms of religion do indeed seem to specialise in cruelty, but then so do particular forms of atheism.

Well said.

Religion-based political systems don't seem on average any worse for imposing cruel punishments on wrongdoers than non-religious systems. But neither do they seem any better (the pope's recent blithely insulting and untrue comment that nazism was nasty because it was atheist notwithstanding).

This is what gets us to the point where you have to ask, what's the point of all this religious belief when it doesn't seem to make society (nor individuals) any better?

Why believe all that very unlikely stuff that religions require one to believe when you don't apparently get anything out of it in terms of improved behaviour (though it might appear that you do)?

Is it just a comfort blanket?

PDN

aggresso wrote: »

Well said.

Religion-based political systems don't seem on average any worse for imposing cruel punishments on wrongdoers than non-religious systems. But neither do they seem any better (the pope's recent blithely insulting and untrue comment that nazism was nasty because it was atheist notwithstanding).

This is what gets us to the point where you have to ask, what's the point of all this religious belief when it doesn't seem to make society (nor individuals) any better?

Why believe all that very unlikely stuff that religions require one to believe when you don't apparently get anything out of it in terms of improved behaviour (though it might appear that you do)?

Is it just a comfort blanket?

I don't believe that religion is supposed to set up a political system or to control a society. Such moral monopolies tend to produce corruption and hypocrisy.

I do believe that the Christian faith, when it is genuine, changes individuals for the better, and those individuals can in turn transform society. Examples of this would be Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Salvation Army, Oxfam etc.

Speaking from personal experience, my Christian faith has certainly made me a better person and therefore more beneficial to others.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I don't believe that religion is supposed to set up a political system or to control a society.

Historically, that's almost invariably what's happened. The structure is quite simple -- an administration needs two things: legitimation to convince the passive, and enforcement to pacify the active. Religion provides the legitimation, while the military provides the force, and the administration collects and distributes public resources to both, to maintain itself.

As Joyce put it:

James Joyce wrote:

O Ireland my first and only love
Where Christ and Caesar are hand and glove

PDN wrote: »

Speaking from personal experience, my Christian faith has certainly made me a better person and therefore more beneficial to others.

I don't believe that anybody has any problem with others believing what they want to, and attributing (or otherwise) personal improvement as they wish. If you've gained personally from believing one thing or another about Jesus, then few would pick a fault with you for doing so.

The issue comes when claims are made, and actions carried out, based upon these beliefs. Particularly the kind of unhappy and unthinking mass action that religion has an unfortunate habit of encouraging -- for example, that one that I mentioned earlier on today about AIDS orphans being prevented, on religious grounds, from learning about AIDS.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I don't believe that religion is supposed to set up a political system or to control a society. Such moral monopolies tend to produce corruption and hypocrisy.

Speaking from personal experience, my Christian faith has certainly made me a better person and therefore more beneficial to others.

Wise words! I have had many conversations with people who just put a barrier up when mentioning anything spiritual. In these people, its categorically due to the obvious hypocricy and abuse of power religion has and is guilty of through the ages. They can't seem to fathom Christianity being any different from the institutions that have held its name through the years. Always saddens and frustrates me.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Wise words! I have had many conversations with people who just put a barrier up when mentioning anything spiritual. In these people, its categorically due to the obvious hypocricy and abuse of power religion has and is guilty of through the ages. They can't seem to fathom Christianity being any different from the institutions that have held its name through the years. Always saddens and frustrates me.

Fools!

You should politely inform them that they are close minded idiots and that there is plenty in the Bible itself worthy of disdain and revulsion, without needing to even look at Christianity since the New Testament, if they are just willing to open their minds and accept the possibilities :pac:

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

What's wrong with them?

Prohitibion of any knowledge gained by means other than rationalism: "This principle in a strict sense rules out agnosticism. [and religion]"

"All beliefs must be founded on reason and human experience."

No justification for its claims
"All human beings are entitled to inalienable human rights such as those enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Silliness:
"H5. These rights inhere to humans from the time the human fetus becomes a viable biological entity capable of independent existence without physical or organic dependence on another human being."

I do not see how pro-abortion views can be a fundamental principle of an ethical system.

Contradiction:
"Humans do not have a right of dominion over animals and the environment, it being recognized that humans along with many other species of animals do change their environment by their very existence."

Rationalism is the cause of our ecological crises. Once divine authority is eradicated from nature, there is no discouragement from slashing and burning. To enthrone something as anthropocentric as rationalism is incompatible with harmonious living with the non-human world.

Arrogance:
"This rule does not mean that children should not be inculcated in ethical standards. But these should be a basic non-religious kind of ethical standards such as those that Humanists promote. "

Atheism claiming the objective high-seat at the table of philosophical discussion again.

"H10. There is no conclusive evidence that life exists after death so humans should exert themselves primarily in terms of their present life."
Demands materialism.

Mark Hamill

Now I'm not a humanist, but I'd wonder why you have a problem with some of these rules:

Húrin wrote: »

"All beliefs must be founded on reason and human experience."

Whats wrong with this? Imagine if everyone based their beliefs on what they experienced and on what they could reason from those experiences, as opposed to blindly following what others tell them?

Húrin wrote: »

No justification for its claims
"All human beings are entitled to inalienable human rights such as those enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Do you need a justification for this? Are there some people who, in your opinion, don't get these rights?

Húrin wrote: »

"H10. There is no conclusive evidence that life exists after death so humans should exert themselves primarily in terms of their present life."
Demands materialism.

Whats wrong with it "demanding materialism"? Spending your whole life living in terms of something that may or may not happen after you die seems like a waste of a life.