Question for Athiests and church bashers

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Downlinz wrote: »

If you believe the church is corrupt + power hungry and that god isn't real.

What does that say about your judgment on the intelligence of your parents, grandparents and other relatives who more than likely devoted so much of their lives to these causes? As a huge part of our society wouldn't it imply you believed they were gullible and naive people to live the way they did? Perhaps weak-willed to stand out from the crowd and question accepted truths?


(p.s. I am an athiest and pondering this question myself. Not looking to start some sort of shame parade or anything)

Firstly, I believe the church is corrupt and power hungry, but i also believe in a higher form of existance, call it God if you want. In no way is the Catholic Chruch connected with God.

I come from a very conservative family - even this generation, where I have cousins who baptise their kids dispite hating the chruch. Ignorant and hypocrtical as well as weak willed. As regards the past, anyone who didn't stand up and try and think for themselves by they my relatives or not, I would see as gullible and naive. theer's a lot of it in this generation too, only we have replced the chucrch with tabloids.

Freddie59

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm an atheist. I don't pass judgments on someone's intelligence based on their beliefs. The most intelligent man I personally know is also the most religious man I personally know.

+1 to that. Equally, some atheists I know are the nicest people you could meet. And never a bad word spoken between us. There's always a bit of slagging though.:)

It was my decision - when old enough - and mine alone; to maintain my faith. It is an extremely personal matter.

I have, however, believed for a long time that the Upper echelons of the Church are corrupt. I take my hat off to people like Diarmuid Martin.

marty1985

Helix wrote: »

it took religion to cause the only real problem scandanavians have faced for a while. theyre an athiest society and they do pretty bloody well

Most people in Norway belong to The Church Of Norway, and in Sweden, The Church of Sweden, since they are initiated at birth through baptism etc, much like Irish people. Most people don't go to church regularly, but interestingly most people reject the term Atheist there - they strongly dislike it and even though most don't attend church, very few identify themselves as atheist, instead saying they do actually believe in God, or a God.

And it's a separate topic, but I don't think you can say religion caused the atrocity there. I would say a madman caused it.

marty1985

goat2 wrote: »

i am a catholic, i beleive in my god, i dont have to beleive in a bunch of men and women,

Somewhere in the Vatican someone just read your post and said "Women?"

Mickeroo

marty1985 wrote: »

And it's a separate topic, but I don't think you can say religion caused the atrocity there. I would say a madman caused it.

He was a right wing christian fundamentalist, but his motives seemed to be political rather than religious.

mcmoustache

Any chance we could turn this into a church-bashing thread. I love a good church-bashing and I don't think we've had one in ages.

housetypeb

goat2 wrote: »

i am a catholic, i beleive in my god, i dont have to beleive in a bunch of men and women,

And yet you believe in your god from a book written by men.....the gospel according to Luke,Mark... etc.

Freddie59

Helix wrote: »

it took religion to cause the only real problem scandanavians have faced for a while. theyre an athiest society and they do pretty bloody well

No. It took a crackpot with an agenda using religion as a front (a la Al Qaeda). Big difference.

hatrickpatrick

Downlinz wrote: »

If you believe the church is corrupt + power hungry and that god isn't real.

What does that say about your judgment on the intelligence of your parents, grandparents and other relatives who more than likely devoted so much of their lives to these causes? As a huge part of our society wouldn't it imply you believed they were gullible and naive people to live the way they did? Perhaps weak-willed to stand out from the crowd and question accepted truths?


(p.s. I am an athiest and pondering this question myself. Not looking to start some sort of shame parade or anything)

I'm Catholic, but I reject not only the current institution of the church but the vast majority of conservative BS.
What do I think of my ancestors? A great many of them were judgemental, prejudiced, prudish, bigoted busybodies. Live and let live I say. Anyone arrogant enough to believe they have the right to tell others how to live (assuming their lifestyle isn't hurting anyone without their permission) has serious ego issues.

Freddie59

housetypeb wrote: »

And yet you believe in your god from a book written by men.....the gospel according to Luke,Mark... etc.

From the mouth of God. And from a deep personal faith. Unless you experience it you're in no position to knock it.

goat2

marty1985 wrote: »

Somewhere in the Vatican someone just read your post and said "Women?"

they all wear frocks

pragmatic1

marty1985 wrote: »

Religion has been important ever since we moved from hunter gatherer societies to settled societies. Religion held societies, tribes, together and helped eliminate freeloaders by having a strong price to pay, whether it's genital mutilation to adhering to strict dress codes - these are ways to show allegiance and forced people to work for the good of the group. God, whether it is Yahweh or the Sun God of the Aztecs, also served as an important invisible government.

It's a part of evolution, survival of the fittest. The fittest societies were ones united in religion. So, that's why I believe it's more or less in our genes.

No I dont agree with you. Ritual and customs are important aspects of culture. This coupled with ignorance relating to the natural world led to the formation of organised religion. Its not innate.

marty1985

Freddie59 wrote: »

No. It took a crackpot with an agenda using religion as a front (a la Al Qaeda). Big difference.

Exactly. Similarly, you can say religion causes war etc. But in history there are very few actually "religious wars". Most of the time religion is used as a weapon of warfare, to galvanise people and armies for a common purpose.

Helix

Freddie59 wrote: »

No. It took a crackpot with an agenda using religion as a front (a la Al Qaeda). Big difference.

that's not how it works. these guys do really believe the religious stuff they spout. just like hitler really believed jews were lesser humans no religion equals no holocausr

marty1985

pragmatic1 wrote: »

No I dont agree with you. Ritual and customs are important aspects of culture. This coupled with ignorance relating to the natural world led to the formation of organised religion. Its not innate.

Rituals are the basis of religion.

We had rituals before we had language.

I'm talking about all religion, not just organised religion. It can be seen in studies of aborigines and tribes that have existed without outside influences.

housetypeb

Freddie59 wrote: »

From the mouth of God. And from a deep personal faith. Unless you experience it you're in no position to knock it.

Can i knock serial killers ? I have no experience of that either.

pragmatic1

marty1985 wrote: »

Rituals are the basis of religion.

We had rituals before we had language.

I'm talking about all religion, not just organised religion. It can be seen in studies of aborigines and tribes that have existed without outside influences.

Exactly. It comes from ignorance relating to the natural world. (e.g If I kill this animal, we'll have a good harvest). The more advanced a society, the more religion becomes marginalised.

marty1985

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Exactly. It comes from ignorance relating to the natural world. (e.g If I kill this animal, we'll have a good harvest). The more advanced a society, the more religion becomes marginalised.

Of course less actual knowledge about science and nature will increase superstition and speculation about divine powers.

My point is that religion has existed for thousands of years, and with reasons. It's not as simple as saying it's because there was no internet or something like that. Societies with religion had increased success in warfare, and more success at trade with other co-religious societies. Therefore, the tendency to be religious is in fact wired into us, if you ask me, because:

Non-religious societies didn't survive.

If anything, organised religion has worked hard to hold it down and just try to control it. It's as innate as the desire to dance, which in fact goes back to the earliest of religious rituals. And as an aside that's also the reason why churches introduced pews - to stop people dancing.

marty1985

pragmatic1 wrote: »

The more advanced a society, the more religion becomes marginalised.

I can see your point here, as this would seem to be very logical, however - only the religious societies advanced.

Mickeroo

marty1985 wrote: »

I can see your point here, as this would seem to be very logical, however - only the religious societies advanced.

Thats because they were all religious.....

pragmatic1

marty1985 wrote: »

Of course less actual knowledge about science and nature will increase superstition and speculation about divine powers.

My point is that religion has existed for thousands of years, and with reasons. It's not as simple as saying it's because there was no internet or something like that. Societies with religion had increased success in warfare, and more success at trade with other co-religious societies. Therefore, the tendency to be religious is in fact wired into us, if you ask me, because:

Non-religious societies didn't survive.

If anything, organised religion has worked hard to hold it down and just try to control it. It's as innate as the desire to dance, which in fact goes back to the earliest of religious rituals. And as an aside that's also the reason why churches introduced pews - to stop people dancing.

What non-religious societies are you talking about. All societies were religious at one point because they couldnt explain natural phenomena. Religion isnt innate, what is innate is the human thurst for knowledge. At one point religion quenched this thirst and tried to explain what we didnt understand.

On your second point that religion keeps society in place. If thats true then why did we draft any laws other than whats written in religous books.

pragmatic1

marty1985 wrote: »

I can see your point here, as this would seem to be very logical, however - only the religious societies advanced.

Afghanistan (religious). Sweden (secular). I think its fairly obvious which society is the most advanced.

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

He was a right wing christian fundamentalist, but his motives seemed to be political rather than religious.

There is no evidence of Christianity other than in a cultural sense in any of the writings I've looked at on document.no or in his manifesto. There is no specific mention to Christian theology, the Biblical text or anything else. That's what I find so perplexing. The media jumped to conclusions. I couldn't draw that he is a "fundamentalist Christian" at all from what evidence we have so far. I could draw that he used Christian identity as a fearmongering tool mostly in the context of demographics. That "Christian" Europe was being overrun by social Marxists and Muslims via immigration.

marty1985

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Afghanistan (religious). Sweden (secular). I think its fairly obvious which society is the most advanced.

I mean advanced in the past tense of the verb. I'm talking from about 15,000 years ago, when we settled down.

Afghanistan and Sweden are not where they are solely because of their religious beliefs.

Maybe I didn't present my argument clear enough, but I stand by it. It hasn't really been countered either, since you agree that all societies in the past have been religious. Whether you agree with what I said or not, my belief is that it's wired into us because of human behaviour over the last 15,000 years of our ancestry.

If you say it's only because of lack of knowledge, that doesn't affect my point. My other point is that even with all the knowledge we have now, religion is not going anywhere. Don't you find that strange?

I really think it's an interesting topic.

philologos

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Afghanistan (religious). Sweden (secular). I think its fairly obvious which society is the most advanced.

LOL. Depends on how you pick your examples.

North Korea (state atheism), Italy (majority Catholic) :pac:

Run_to_da_hills

Both my parents were devout Catholics right up until the late 1970's.

They began to smell a spiritual rat after taking up Bible studies. Both now attend a local independent church and would never go back.

You will notice the Catholic Church will not read out any scripture passages at Mass that would expose itself.

marty1985

pragmatic1 wrote: »

On your second point that religion keeps society in place. If thats true then why did we draft any laws other than whats written in religous books.

Again, I wasn't referring to society nowadays, I was saying that religion was a form of invisible government, or a threat of punishment for bad behavior, in societies where there was no government.

pragmatic1

marty1985 wrote: »

I mean advanced in the past tense of the verb. I'm talking from about 15,000 years ago, when we settled down.

Afghanistan and Sweden are not where they are solely because of their religious beliefs.

Maybe I didn't present my argument clear enough, but I stand by it. It hasn't really been countered either, since you agree that all societies in the past have been religious. Whether you agree with what I said or not, my belief is that it's wired into us because of human behaviour over the last 15,000 years of our ancestry.

If you say it's only because of lack of knowledge, that doesn't affect my point. My other point is that even with all the knowledge we have now, religion is not going anywhere. Don't you find that strange?

I really think it's an interesting topic.

1. Thats your belief. You dont actually have any basis for it.

2. Not in the western world. Its been in sharp decline for decades now, which is to be expected as western countries are generally more advanced.

pragmatic1

marty1985 wrote: »

Again, I wasn't referring to society nowadays, I was saying that religion was a form of invisible government, or a threat of punishment for bad behavior, in societies where there was no government.

That still doesnt explain why any laws other than those written in religious texts were needed if religion has such a calming influence on society.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

North Korea (state atheism)

LOL only because everyone outside NK know's Kim Jong Il isn't a deity :pac: