Should religion be eliminated

[ding]

Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.

How do you know there's only one god?

Or any "god" at all, for that matter.

All they have is stories from their ancestors that they couldn't imagine are made up. Impossible they say but the truth is, their religion was made up by some 11 dudes 2000 years ago. Or, the stories were turned into facts 1500 years ago. Whoever did it someone lied.

So we should be able to say hold on a minute. Who is this god creature you are referring to? And unless this creature can pass the 5 simple rules of science, it should be thrown out as bullshit.

(1) Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.

(2) Think for yourself. Question yourself. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so.

(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well-designed test, it's wrong. Get over it.

(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.

And perhaps the most important rule of all...

(5) Remember: you could be wrong. Even the best scientists have been wrong about some things. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history -- they all made mistakes. Of course they did. They were human.

Science is a way to keep from fooling ourselves, and each other.

If you believe science is so important, what have you done to further your understanding of science?

I don’t suggest the scientific community is making up global warming. You godly people are destroying this planet.

What do I do? I spread logic facts science and reasoning. I promote a secular society. I vote democratic. I don’t support churches.

Not the thread for this but we are in an interglacial cycle and our present temperature is still well below the peak temperatures of past interglacial cycles. We are well within the norm. We have been warming for about 22,000 years.

But if you really wish to debate this take it to the environmental forum and I will be glad to share the evidence I base my beliefs on there. Fair enough?

 

[ding]

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Why would one have to be accountable to god?

If God exists, then one would be accountable to Him because He made the universe and everything in it, including you.

Therefore, the post is saying that people choose not to believe in God because they do not wish to be accountable for their actions.

Where is the proof that we are accountable to an invisible being?

It is inside you. That's why you believe so strongly about justice.

I’m watching this old submarine movie destination Tokyo with Cary Grant. The kid asks if there really is a god. The older guy reassured him by saying yea sure some people don’t believe god is real but I know he’s real just like I know there’s salt in the water surrounding us.

That was enough to reassure the dope. Maybe if an atheist was there to set the kid straight or at least give him some logic facts science and reason. And the truth is none of us know. Even you have doubt. You don’t think you do because you want to believe so bad you do.

So then can I mark you down as someone who wishes to eliminate religion?

 

[ding]

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.

You know this how?

If someone is truly seeking guidance from above, do you think he would turn his back on them because they did not address him by the correct name. God goes by many names. He only cares that we seek him. He'll take care of the rest. It's not always a straight line.

He only cares that we seek him? You know this how?

Personal experience.

 

[well named]

don't believe they do punish people for violating morals.

As it happens, I'm a co-author of a sociological study of Christian deconversion which is forthcoming (it's in the review process). The study looks at "deconversion narratives" posted to an online discussion forum. This particular cohort of ex-Christians tend to come from very fundamentalist churches, so it may be that your experiences are quite different from theirs, but many of them spend a lot of time discussing the social pressure to conform which their churches placed on them, and the various ways in which non-conformists were punished. Speaking for myself, I've certainly witnessed plenty of it personally, including a recent drama involving a local church where the congregation was split over issues relating to openly gay members. So, regardless of what you believe, I know that these phenomena are real, and it's not hard to find people talking about their experiences.

Of course not all church communities are the same, and not everyone has the same experience, but it's incontrovertible in my view that social control is an important element of religion. I also happen to live right on the western edge of the Bible Belt, and I think I could demonstrate this fact merely by cataloguing the themes found on religious billboards in the region, many featuring eternal punishment in hell.

 

[ding]

don't believe they do punish people for violating morals.

As it happens, I'm a co-author of a sociological study of Christian deconversion which is forthcoming (it's in the review process). The study looks at "deconversion narratives" posted to an online discussion forum. This particular cohort of ex-Christians tend to come from very fundamentalist churches, so it may be that your experiences are quite different from theirs, but many of them spend a lot of time discussing the social pressure to conform which their churches placed on them, and the various ways in which non-conformists were punished. Speaking for myself, I've certainly witnessed plenty of it personally, including a recent drama involving a local church where the congregation was split over issues relating to openly gay members. So, regardless of what you believe, I know that these phenomena are real, and it's not hard to find people talking about their experiences.

Of course not all church communities are the same, and not everyone has the same experience, but it's incontrovertible in my view that social control is an important element of religion. I also happen to live right on the western edge of the Bible Belt, and I think I could demonstrate this fact merely by cataloguing the themes found on religious billboards in the region, many featuring eternal punishment in hell.

I never said they weren't real. I said they are exceptions to the rule. I know they exist.

I hear a lot of people say that religions use fear of hell as a motivation, but that hasn't been my experience. In fact, I think most would be hard pressed to prove that that is a central theme in the Bible. The Bible is effectively a how to book. How to live and how not to live. In other words it's about living and not the destination.

 

[Meriweather]

If religions teach morality, they also punish violations, e.g. by ostracizing adherents who fail to adhere to religious norms, or by excluding non-members or would-be members who violate those norms, e.g. churches which will not tolerate openly gay members.

I cannot speak for all religions or even all denominations in Christianity. The Catholic Church, at least in most places, is remarkably tolerant, but there are lines one cannot cross yet still call themselves Catholic. For example, while the Church does help those recover from the trauma of abortion and forgive them, one cannot teach that abortion is permissible because Church teaching is that all life--from conception to natural death--is to be highly valued as it is our greatest gift. The Church teaches a way of life and understands in attempting to live that Way, failures are going to occur. The Church is there to proclaim forgiveness and to encourage people to persist. Perfection is our goal, and perfection takes a lot of practice, a lot of do-overs. No one is shunned.

 

[Likkmee]

NO
Taxed ? Yup.
It's big fucking business

 

[ding]

NO
Taxed ? Yup.
It's big fucking business

You want to tax all gifts or just those to churches?

 

[well named]

never said they weren't real. I said they are exceptions to the rule. I know they exist.

The problem I have with calling them exceptions is that it suggests a rarity which I think is dubious, but of course it's difficult to make an educated guess about the extent of these things, and I'm not arguing that all religious people are especially controlling. Of course Christianity is also not the only religion, and I expect I'd get less push back if I commented on social control in Muslim communities, or even in Hindu communities in India. But really my point was not even to suggest that social control is inherently negative. It's just a feature of social institutions in general, it's part of their function. Obviously on some level it's absurd to think of religions as being the source of morality while also disclaiming that they play such a role. Morality is in large part about shaping society so that people do what they are supposed to do and not what they are not.

However, there's another element here which is probably relevant to the discussion we were just having. I think we will agree that the level of tolerance within Christian churches is at an historic high. That is, I think you'll agree that almost all Christians are more tolerant than they were in the middle ages, or in the Victorian era. Given the more general discussion about religion it's probably important to take the history into account. I would suggest that this trend towards tolerance is in large part a response to secularization within the wider society: churches are more tolerant because the broader society is more tolerant, and that is itself something that has mostly been brought about by secularization, especially with regard to something like tolerance of homosexuality.

 

[Meriweather]

I would suggest that this trend towards tolerance is in large part a response to secularization

It could be argued that the secular "Political Correctness" is much less tolerant than religion in the Middle Ages. What you are calling a "trend towards tolerance" may be more aptly called as a trend towards indifference, not brought on by secularization as much as it is a result of high density population. We don't know our community as well as they did back then.

 

[sealybobo]

don't believe they do punish people for violating morals.

As it happens, I'm a co-author of a sociological study of Christian deconversion which is forthcoming (it's in the review process). The study looks at "deconversion narratives" posted to an online discussion forum. This particular cohort of ex-Christians tend to come from very fundamentalist churches, so it may be that your experiences are quite different from theirs, but many of them spend a lot of time discussing the social pressure to conform which their churches placed on them, and the various ways in which non-conformists were punished. Speaking for myself, I've certainly witnessed plenty of it personally, including a recent drama involving a local church where the congregation was split over issues relating to openly gay members. So, regardless of what you believe, I know that these phenomena are real, and it's not hard to find people talking about their experiences.

Of course not all church communities are the same, and not everyone has the same experience, but it's incontrovertible in my view that social control is an important element of religion. I also happen to live right on the western edge of the Bible Belt, and I think I could demonstrate this fact merely by cataloguing the themes found on religious billboards in the region, many featuring eternal punishment in hell.

I never said they weren't real. I said they are exceptions to the rule. I know they exist.

I hear a lot of people say that religions use fear of hell as a motivation, but that hasn't been my experience. In fact, I think most would be hard pressed to prove that that is a central theme in the Bible. The Bible is effectively a how to book. How to live and how not to live. In other words it's about living and not the destination.

Take out the unbelievable parts and parts that pretend to know things they do not and the lie that god visited they are pretty good books. Better than the Koran but it too is a how to book right? Doesn’t mean it’s real or true.

A lie is a lie no matter how good it makes SOME of us feel.

 

[ding]

never said they weren't real. I said they are exceptions to the rule. I know they exist.

The problem I have with calling them exceptions is that it suggests a rarity which I think is dubious, but of course it's difficult to make an educated guess about the extent of these things, and I'm not arguing that all religious people are especially controlling. Of course Christianity is also not the only religion, and I expect I'd get less push back if I commented on social control in Muslim communities, or even in Hindu communities in India. But really my point was not even to suggest that social control is inherently negative. It's just a feature of social institutions in general, it's part of their function. Obviously on some level it's absurd to think of religions as being the source of morality while also disclaiming that they play such a role. Morality is in large part about shaping society so that people do what they are supposed to do and not what they are not.

However, there's another element here which is probably relevant to the discussion we were just having. I think we will agree that the level of tolerance within Christian churches is at an historic high. That is, I think you'll agree that almost all Christians are more tolerant than they were in the middle ages, or in the Victorian era. Given the more general discussion about religion it's probably important to take the history into account. I would suggest that this trend towards tolerance is in large part a response to secularization within the wider society: churches are more tolerant because the broader society is more tolerant, and that is itself something that has mostly been brought about by secularization, especially with regard to something like tolerance of homosexuality.

No, the word exception does not convey rarity. The word exceptions conveys not the rule. But putting that aside, yes, it probably is a rarity. It's just that in our quest for sensationalization, rarities are blown out of proportion and tried to be made to seem like the rule.

The problem with your perception that religions are controlling is that it is wrong. There is no enforcement. It is the honor system. Controlling would be secular institutions locking you up for violations.

I don't think we can say tolerance is at an all time high. I believe it is more cyclical in nature. All kinds of deviant (as in not the norm) behaviors were tolerated in the past. Maybe not openly, but certainly in secret. Take the "sex" scandal of the Church which peaked in the decades of the 50's, 60,s, 70's and 80's. If anything we are becoming more righteously indignant than we were in the past. You are looking at one specific issue and applying a broad brush stroke to everything. Are you familiar with the saeculum cycle?

 

[sealybobo]

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.

You know this how?

If someone is truly seeking guidance from above, do you think he would turn his back on them because they did not address him by the correct name. God goes by many names. He only cares that we seek him. He'll take care of the rest. It's not always a straight line.

He only cares that we seek him? You know this how?

Personal experience.

That not evidence.

And you are proving to be the kind of Christian I make fun of. It doesn’t matter how good you are. You believe so you think you’re in the club. That’s all Christians have to do is believe.

And be dunked. You’ve been baptized right?

 

[well named]

It could be argued that the secular "Political Correctness" is much less tolerant than religion in the Middle Ages. What you are calling a "trend towards tolerance" may be more aptly called as a trend towards indifference, not brought on by secularization as much as it is a result of high density population. We don't know our community as well as they did back then.

I agree that population size plays a role in the trends I mentioned, but re: political correctness the trends I have in mind go back much further than that term has existed. In any case, my argument is not that secular societies do not enforce social norms. My point is that enforcement of norms is something that's pretty fundamental to almost all important social institutions, religious and otherwise. A lot of people generally just use the term "political correctness" to refer to the enforcement of norms that they disagree with.

 

[well named]

The problem with your perception that religions are controlling is that it is wrong. There is no enforcement.

I'm not persuaded by your assertion. But as I said, I don't think it's easy to demonstrate either way, so I'm inclined to just move on from this aspect of our discussion.

 

[ding]

don't believe they do punish people for violating morals.

As it happens, I'm a co-author of a sociological study of Christian deconversion which is forthcoming (it's in the review process). The study looks at "deconversion narratives" posted to an online discussion forum. This particular cohort of ex-Christians tend to come from very fundamentalist churches, so it may be that your experiences are quite different from theirs, but many of them spend a lot of time discussing the social pressure to conform which their churches placed on them, and the various ways in which non-conformists were punished. Speaking for myself, I've certainly witnessed plenty of it personally, including a recent drama involving a local church where the congregation was split over issues relating to openly gay members. So, regardless of what you believe, I know that these phenomena are real, and it's not hard to find people talking about their experiences.

Of course not all church communities are the same, and not everyone has the same experience, but it's incontrovertible in my view that social control is an important element of religion. I also happen to live right on the western edge of the Bible Belt, and I think I could demonstrate this fact merely by cataloguing the themes found on religious billboards in the region, many featuring eternal punishment in hell.

I never said they weren't real. I said they are exceptions to the rule. I know they exist.

I hear a lot of people say that religions use fear of hell as a motivation, but that hasn't been my experience. In fact, I think most would be hard pressed to prove that that is a central theme in the Bible. The Bible is effectively a how to book. How to live and how not to live. In other words it's about living and not the destination.

Take out the unbelievable parts and parts that pretend to know things they do not and the lie that god visited they are pretty good books. Better than the Koran but it too is a how to book right? Doesn’t mean it’s real or true.

A lie is a lie no matter how good it makes SOME of us feel.

Do you know what the account of the Tower of Babel was about?

 

[ding]

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.

You know this how?

If someone is truly seeking guidance from above, do you think he would turn his back on them because they did not address him by the correct name. God goes by many names. He only cares that we seek him. He'll take care of the rest. It's not always a straight line.

He only cares that we seek him? You know this how?

Personal experience.

That not evidence.

And you are proving to be the kind of Christian I make fun of. It doesn’t matter how good you are. You believe so you think you’re in the club. That’s all Christians have to do is believe.

And be dunked. You’ve been baptized right?

Not for you because you didn't experience it. I did.

Do you mean the type of Christian who has witnessed a transformation in himself? Guilty as charged.

I see that you did agree that you believe religion should be eliminated. How far are you willing to go? Subversion? By force? What?

 

[ding]

It could be argued that the secular "Political Correctness" is much less tolerant than religion in the Middle Ages. What you are calling a "trend towards tolerance" may be more aptly called as a trend towards indifference, not brought on by secularization as much as it is a result of high density population. We don't know our community as well as they did back then.

I agree that population size plays a role in the trends I mentioned, but re: political correctness the trends I have in mind go back much further than that term has existed. In any case, my argument is not that secular societies do not enforce social norms. My point is that enforcement of norms is something that's pretty fundamental to almost all important social institutions, religious and otherwise. A lot of people generally just use the term "political correctness" to refer to the enforcement of norms that they disagree with.

And here I thought political correctness was more about being shamed because they didn't agree with the norms.

Do you know how evolution works? You know big picture? How it really works?

 

[ding]

The problem with your perception that religions are controlling is that it is wrong. There is no enforcement.

I'm not persuaded by your assertion. But as I said, I don't think it's easy to demonstrate either way, so I'm inclined to just move on from this aspect of our discussion.

I can live with that but it seems to me that religion teaches civility while secular governments enforce civility. Broadly speaking of course.

 

[well named]

And here I thought political correctness was more about being shamed because they didn't agree with the norms.

I think you're saying the same thing as I am. "Being shamed" is the enforcement mechanism.