A challenge to all "anti-religion" DUers

I know that religion is a touch subject around here. I know that, despite the fact that most atheists are good and tolerant folks of those who DO believe in a higher power, there is also a core who express what could only be described as a visceral hatred toward anything religious.

I have a challenge to all of you, not toward conversion in any way, shape or form -- but to see how religion can play a vital part for many of us on the liberal/progressive side in affirming our moral and political beliefs. I am currently reading the biography of Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Jr., A Holy Impatience by Warren Goldstein. For those of you not familiar with Rev. Coffin, he was the chaplain at Yale during the 1960's, at which time he was heavily involved in the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement, and went on to be the head minister at Riverside Church in NYC from 1977-1987.

His story is one that demonstrates how religion can be a guiding force in a person's life to make the world a better place, without being dogmatic or caught up in prostelytizing. I challenge you to seek this book out and read it, mostly in hopes of bridging the senseless divide that so often develops between us.

religion without fangs, science without certainty.

It's the road I walk, and I find great balance there.

Essentially believing that "God" is a force, a "divine spark" if you will, that is within every living thing. The idea of Christ as "Son of God" wasn't about him somehow being vastly different from everyone else outside of the fact that he realized this "divine spark" much more than most of us and sought to live his life accordingly.

Some of the "lost gospels" -- especially that of St. Thomas -- are from a much more gnostic point of view. At the Roman council following Emperor Constantine's embrace of Christianity, however, such ideas were discarded in favor of the more authoritarian and heirarchal gospels.

But my attitude is that if Deism is what works for you personally, and inspires you to try and live a better life by your fellow man (in the gender-neutral, not masculine sense), then by all means do it!

I agree that everyone must find their own path. Having a path forced upon them does a great disservice to the spirit of any individual, and creates many of the root problems befuddling us to this day.

I think walking alone, and learning to do so without fear, allows one to see things from another's perspective, which is the great failure of modern humanity (the extreme being fundamentalist viewpoints), and probably why so many people to this day do not understand the spiritual significance of Einstein's relativity, as well as Quantum Physics.

What is the spiritual significance of Einstein's relativity and Quantum Physics? Thanks.

--IMM

The one thing obvious to any sentient human being is that the universe is laden with intelligence. The intelligence is built in to things, as for instance the cycles of nature that eternally replentish the earth and its inhabitants. I will not use the term "Intelligent Design" because that term has been misappropriated by the fundie creationists. But intelligent design is essentially what I'm talking about.

If you look about you, you see abundant evidence of teleological genius everywhere. From the smallest cell, to the most insignificant leaf, to the extraordinary complexity of the human body, to the wonderous interaction and beauty of all of nature, to the capacity of humans for joyful appreciation, to the spectacle of the celestial bodies and the incredible vastness of space and time.

It is obvious that order does not spontaneously create itself. It must be overtly created. When we see such magnificent order all around us, we can not help but be awestruck by the fact that some unseen, unknown, unknowable force exists that caused this reality to come into being. That force assigned the laws to the universe, including the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and on and on.

Little by little we unlock pieces of creation's plan and nature's laws through scientific inquiry. Einstein--who was a Deist--was able to fathom the brilliant manner in which much of this can be expressed as a singular, interrelated whole, in the form of Relativity. Quantum physics still wrestles with the unknown mysteries of what we see as randomness of movement within a profoundly ordered construct of physical matter.

It is the appreciation of all of this, the enormous gratitude I for one feel to have the privilege of apprehending it, that constitutes their spiritual significance. Forget about religion. Reason and awareness are all one needs to appreciate the Force behind the universe. Whether you call that Force God or something else, it is unspeakably majestic!

understanding that you can have a completely different perspective of the Universe around you that is just as valid as someone else's.

Merlin summed up the rest of my feelings very well.

Many of the Founding Fathers (especially the "higher" thinkers) were Deists.

It sums up my feelings as well as anything. Matthew Tindal's essay makes a lot of sense. It scares churches, so it got a bad rep.

If people did good just to do good, not because they believe it's what god wants them to do.

heaven or the threat of hell; and not for the reward of high esteem among your peers or the threat of "they won't like me anymore".

Sincerity in religion, in my opinion, is rare.

was "a gift is only a gift if you expect nothing in return".

Isn't the "good" the same in either case?

people should not be intimidated by some manavolent being into "being good".

Be it fact or fiction or a combination thereof.

There is no doubt that religion can be a guiding force for good, just as there is no doubt that it can be, and has been, an excuse for intolerance and evil.

I respect each person's system of beliefs, as long as they respect, and don't try to change, my choice not to believe.

Peace.

Sid

I am religious, so perhaps that colors my opinion.

But it strikes me that the balance of good and evil in people is relitively random. FOr every evil person who kills in the name of God is another evil person who kills in the name of something else. For every good person who works to better the lives of those around him or her in the name of God, there's someone who does the same thing for some other reason.

For every society twisted by religion theres socities twisted by capitalism or communism or kleptocracy or something else.

But of course I could be wrong.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

We are all children of Mother earth. When believers & non believers learn to live in harmony...

I don't knock non believers for not believing & I would hope that they would not knock me for believing.

Thanks for posting. Even people who don't consider themselves religious can gain some knowledge from a little browsing of stuff like that. Very pithy statements, and very humanitarian. What a courageous man - he's about 90 now, and won't be around much longer.

A good answer to RW religion.

He's probably got another year left, at most. He suffered a stroke in 1999, and had to re-learn how to talk. Now, he can't leave his home except in a wheelchair.

I'm looking forward to reading Credo in the near future. One of the great things about his biography is that it shows him as a person with a lot of personal flaws, but who still accomplished great things.

If everyone followed that simple "Golden rule" the world would be a better place.

on this speck of a planet yelling out "God is great" into the overwhelming void of space.

Your characterization is quite stereotypical and inaccurate. However, it does represent a certain unattractive closedmindedness.

I was just free-associating. Don't mind me. I'm a speck.

the Sufi's have a saying: "God is closer to you than your jugular vein."

It's not about our size: As small as we are relative to the vastness of space (which is by no means an empty 'void'--it is FILLED with energies and life) our bodies are equally vast compared to atomic and subatomic (so called) 'particles' (actually quantum packets of energy).

But what is "closer" to us than our own physical bodies? What is being referred to here is something more ESSENTIAL. "Life," "consciousness," "love," "understanding," -- these and other qualities like them are where 'God' is to be found.

"Fantastic doctrines (like Christianity or Islam or Marxism) require unanimity of belief. One dissenter casts doubt on the creed of millions. Thus the fear and the hate; thus the torture chamber, the iron stake, the gallows, the labor camp, the psychiatric ward."

For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.

From another for whom life is not cut and dried:
Charles Bukowski, I salute you! And, if I ever have a
son, I will name him Charles, after you.

Unfortunately a posting board like this may not be the best place to go into such subtle things. You (and Abby) are right so far as it goes. Whenever a mind clings to a form--whether the form of a religion or a politic or an economic system--what have you--that mind ceases to grow. But this is equally true of an attitude one can take. For example, one can see that some people--perhaps even the majority of people--take religion (or whatever) and use it to solidify their beliefs into a set form that is unchangable, unquestionable. From that one concludes it is the religion that is the problem.

But what is it that turned what may have been a genuine REVELATION about the nature of higher (but nevertheless humanly possible) consciousness into an immutable form? It wasn't the revelation--it was the inevitable habits of human thought and feeling and the genuine limitations of language.

All living (genuine) spiritual teachings have (at least) two sides: The exoteric--the outer form--and the essoteric--the inner energy. This is very difficult to discuss because all one can come into contact with socially is the outer form--but what matters is the inner energy. It is this "inner energy" that holds the potential for transformation and real spiritual (conscious) growth. But note, this "inner energy" is not 'contained' in the outer form of a teaching--any more than "meaning" is contained in the words that express it. The energy of transformation can only exist inside of a human being. Ultimately every living teaching is pointing the way toward this discovery.

From the esoteric point of view, the real purpose of the outer form is to call into awareness this inner energy. However, those who do not know of or suspect this, all they have is the outer form--their beliefs--their fantasies--which they may cling to and defend because they 'identify' with them. Or (worse) they may have experienced something of this inner energy but misapprehend their relationship to it, leading inevitably to some form of inner (psychological) or outer (physical) violence.

Many spiritual teachers have addressed these issues at length. Ones of particular interest include:
Krishnamurti http://www.kfa.org/
Aurobindo http://www.sriaurobindosociety.org.in/
and Gurdjieff http://www.gurdjieff.org/foundation.htm

...not just call things what they are? Making them part of "god" serves narcissistic needs.

--IMM

Making them part of "god" serves narcissistic needs

I can see your point. Partly it depends what mental and emotional associations we have with the word "god."

What is being referred to is a higher state of consciousness, a more profound awareness of one's own being, a feeling of connection with a transcendental force, etc.

The trouble comes from a combination of effects. Most important is the claim of dogmatic moral authority. As soon as a group lays claim to such a position all other groups are in trouble. It doesn't even have to a theistic religion. Soviet Communism demonstrated that effectively.

A further problem specific to the Abrahamic religions is the combined notion of the soul and life after death. By seperating the identity of the person from their body you create an ethical dilema. Doing things to the body in an effort to save the soul becomes morally possible. Further instigated by the belief that what happens after you die is potentially superior to what took place during your life if you followed the rules. This creates a tremendous impetus to place pressure on others to abide by the dogmatic rules established by the doctrine.

Many other religions and philosophies merely posit the process of life as one you can choose your path through. They offer suggestions as to how to make the progress more enjoyable. They may even suggest an ultimate goal in it. But they do not raise the stakes to the level the Abrahamic religions do.

Even with this "issue" the various religions pick up aspects and concepts that are very beneificial to society. If they did not address day to day life in some manner they simply put would not have survived. The efficacy of a belief system propogating to others is highly dependent on the quality of life in the initiating society. Thus those beliefs which are not productive in creating a strong and supportive society will be selected against in any viable belief system.

Thus from these observations we can see that religions offer both benefits and problems. Like fire it can be useful or disasterous. It is when it is left to its own devices and unwatched that it becomes most dangerous. But limited and controled it can be vital to society.

The Hindus don't have such a good track record for tolerance in India. Nor do the Buddhists in Sri Lanka or Tibet. I think the main things that cause most religions to be reactionary are their preference for myth and faith over history and reason, and their hierarchical structures and worldviews.

They just enter in through various ways. Hinduism runs afoul in its stratification of society. This is going to be true anytime you try to fix a system in place.

Society is a flexible changing thing. What may be accepted as common sense one day may become monsterous to even contiplate much later. When religious doctrines try to press their systems on people they by their nature try to fix the system in place. The less doctrinal systems out there may be better at promoting tolerance. But they lose the edge in the propogation territory. Simply put the more aggressive belief systems will gain more followers. Not necissarily the most supportive of society or even the most truthful.

...and how they're seriously dropping the ball this time, by not pointing out to their congregations the difference between what Jesus taught and what is being practiced by the "godly" men at the top.

Churches have always been organizing points for various movements, most notably the civil rights movement. Mainstream churches were also in the forefront of overturning the horrible antiabortion laws that killed so many of their young female memebers. Churches have supported strikers, and provided soup kitchens for the unemployed.

If you belong to a mainstream church which has not confronted the evil manifested by the Bush gang, you need to ask them why they have abdicated their responsibility to Jesus and to their members by failing to do this.

Being loath to offend Rethuglican members is not an adequate answer.

reactionary movements then they have been for progressive movements. Their reliance on faith over reason and their hierarchical structures (pastor and flock, God and his children) make them more prone to reaction than progress.

Fundy churches are always backwards, superstitious and reactionary.

Please learn the difference.

I just have a dislike for religion and don't want anything to do with it. My life is going along just fine and I don't think that book will make it any better.

I'm with Prine: Move out to the country-- Raise a bunch of peaches--Find god on my own.

The Fundies are trying to destroy freedom of religion (and indeed the Constitution) in this country, and that's why many of us speak out against them.

I want to protect religious freedom in America, and preserve the separation of church and state.

So there's a lot of peaches here.

I believe religion needs to be smashed for the good of society. Now, I don't argue this point with everyone I meet, as it would just be pointless and very frustrating. In fact, I have religious friends and I pretty much respect their faith (only because I respect them), but I will disagree with them. I even bow my head in prayer at union meetings out of respect for my brothers and and sisters who choose to pray.

I don't need to read your book to know that sometimes religion can be a positive influence-- there are many historical examples I know of and I've seen it first hand. BUT IT'S THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE! For every good act of religion you give me as an example, I could give you 20 more of religion being negative and downright destructive. For every Martin Luther King, Jr, there are 20 Pat Robertsons. And I believe there would be people like MLK whether we had religion or not. But the Pat Robertsons of the world NEED religion and the blind faith and irrationality that constitutes religious thought, to lead the hateful, ignorant masses.

Would you approve of a pill that cured herpes for 10% of those who took it, but killed the other 90%? Of course not, and that, in a nutshell, is how I view "positive" examples of religion-- the negative examples so outweight the positive ones as to make us better off without religion entirely.

Can you show me evidence of better performance by non-believing individuals?

My own practice doesn't require deity, but does just fine in environments that do, so I can personally go either way on the topic. I just don't see any evidence that smashing religion, as a general plan carried to completion, is likely to create a better world.

Religion is an obstacle to progress because it requires more value be placed on faith than reason-- this is inherently conservative, and it helps explain why the institutional power of churches is more often use to aid reactionary political movements than progressive ones. I'm not saying if we remove the obstacle, it will be smooth sailing from then on, but the obstacle does need to be removed for society to progress.

Reason and rationality are weak reeds in my experience and research. They are _necessary_ to a successful passage through life, but they are not, in my current experience, _sufficient_.

Not expecting you to agree, just stating my perspective.

There are limits to reason. These limits need to be respected.

There are very good uses for reason. We should use it.


But from my religious standpoint (Buddhist), the important thing- which is always what anyone of sincerity must do, is stand for him/herself, sign on the dotted line, and take ownership of one's life.

This is not something acquired by reason alone. Nor can it ever, ever, ever be imposed by a "religious authority" outside of one's self. "Introjecting" (falsely incorporating or espousing in Sartrian "bad faith") someone else's belief as one's own is a inherently lie, and must be opposed.

But all religious positions do not require that.

9 bastards to 1 decent person? That hasn't been my experience, nor do I think history bears that out.

And if the masses are so hateful and ignorent, what makes you think getting rid of religion is going to make them any less hateful and ignorant. A lot of people have succeeded at being bastards without any help from religion at all.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

90% of the time the institutional power of the churches are used towards conservative or reactionary ends, and only 10% of the time are they used for progressive ends. Now, of course, I have no way to quantify these percentages, but I think history demonstrates quite clearly that organized religion more frequently skews towards the reactionary than towards the conservative. Religion is based on faith, not reason, and tends to have hierarchical structures-- I think these things lend themselves more towards reaction than progress.

I think the masses are hateful and ignorant partly because of religion. Smashing religion will not solve everything, but it's a good starting point to building a society based on reason.

So whats your point?

There in lies the problem. When one person proclaims to speak the absolute truth and has the reigns of power to enforce their position disaster follows. It matters not whether the claim of authority comes from god or society. If it is beyond questioning then its going to harm someone.

No matter how you try to justify it.

"Stalin was an atheist" is not an argument in support of religion, or against atheism, it's merely a pedestrian statement of fact.

Thats all.

And I would like you to directly quote me, and give me a logical analysis of how "Stalin was an atheist" refutes my statement.

"90% of the time the institutional power of the churches are used towards conservative or reactionary ends, and only 10% of the time are they used for progressive ends. Now, of course, I have no way to quantify these percentages, but I think history demonstrates quite clearly that organized religion more frequently skews towards the reactionary than towards the conservative. Religion is based on faith, not reason, and tends to have hierarchical structures-- I think these things lend themselves more towards reaction than progress.

I think the masses are hateful and ignorant partly because of religion. Smashing religion will not solve everything, but it's a good starting point to building a society based on reason."

90%? give me a break! Now again Stalin was an athiest. WHat don't you understand?

is used in a reactionary manner? Citing one bad atheist does not prove that religion is not mostly bad. This is what is known as a logical fallacy.

WOuld love to see you try to prove your numbers. But we know that won't happen anytime soon.

billhaywood stated that his numbers were not proven, so you can hardly demand he prove them.

Try to click on a period of time without a religious conflict.
http://www.warscholar.com/Timeline.html

shows that religion has been overwhelmingly reactionary. And even if you named a hundred evil atheists, it would not prove religion is good. Your statement would still be logically fallacious.

Yeah but you completely made up the 90% thing! This whole conversation is stupid because people on Democratic Underground tend not to use religion for reactionary purposes anyways.

perhaps factually untrue. And I already admitted I cannot quantify this figure. I was using it as a tool to express the fact that history shows that religion has overwhelmingly been reactionary.

...go around and offend people in strong terms? It just makes no sense.

offensive too bad. I welcome folks to debate me on it, but I'm not gonna be nice and say "Oh, religion is fine" when I don't believe that. I didn't start this thread. The post was directed at anti-religion DUers. I responded, and now you want to say I'm intentionally being offensive.

Say this often?

future of our society, I think this discussion does. That is why I'm not gonna keep quiet about it. If I believe society would be better off without religion, aren't I obligated to argue that point? Besides, I didn't start this thread. A better example would be if someone started a thread that said: "Do you think I have nice tits or not?" and I said "Yes, nice tits."

by examining the nature of religion and attempting to discern what makes it dangerous. People are going to believe things in this world. Some people are going to believe similar things. They are going to get together and make conncetions between what they believe. They are going to make organizations to promote the realizations they have about their shared beliefs.

Religion is part of society. Like fire it can be both useful and dangerous. Killing it off entirely may leave us safer but colder.

Can't you just let me be happy with my dogmatic extremism?!

You made me laugh out loud on that one.

But what Az said kind of gets to the heart of the point I'm trying to make. I believe in a higher power because it works for me, it helps me to be a better person. I also know that what works for me will not necessarily work for everyone else in the same way.

The main purpose of my thread is not to try and get others to think like me, but rather to help those who have radically different beliefs on this subject perhaps understand WHY people like me (religious/spiritual leftists) believe in a higher power, in hopes that we might better UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER.

Look I know a lot of spiritual leftists. Some people in my union could be classified as that. A dear friend of mine is a religious Jewish leftist. One of my best friends, from back in the day when all we cared about was getting high and earning a fast buck, is a Catholic who believes in liberation theology. And as I said before, I know history is full of these people. And if someone arrives at progrsseive ideas through their faith-- more power to them.

But this doesn't change certain things in my mind:

1. Historically speaking, religion, on balance, has done more to impede progress than usher it forward.

2. There is no evidence that God exists

3. Believing in something for which ther is no evidence is irrational

4. Irrationality is the bedrock of conservatism and reaction (though by no means the only contibuting factor)

5. Churches tend to have hierarchical structures (the pastor and his flock), and religions hierarchical systems of thought (God and his children)

6. For the reasons listed above, there is a natural tendency for religious institutions to be conservative at best, reactionary at worst, and, in general, impediments to social progress. The instances where organized religion aides in social progress do not make up for those in which it impedes social progress.

7. I am right and you are wrong.

By the way, in 1912 I gave a speech to striking Lawrence, MA textile workers after the National Guard was called in to break the strike-- a strike we ulimately won. At this strike, the multiethnic throngs of strikers carried banners which read "No Gods, No Masters". Now that's what I call the good old days.

Irrationality is the bedrock of conservatism and reaction

We're not purely rational creatures, much as we'd often like to be, otherwise there would be no poetry. Irrationality is as much a part of simply being human as is reason. I don't see how it's a reactionary force, per se.

If you ask me, humanism itself demands at least a tolerant stance toward the religious impulse, if not toward the dogma that often (usually) accompanies it.

appear deep"-- Friedrich Nitzche.

I'm all for art as entertainment, because, well, I liked to be entertained, but as a materialist, I don't have much use for art or poetry otherwise. But I do get your point, and I think it's a good one, but I disagree all the same. Irrational systems of thought should be eliminated for the good of society.

LOL!

"It is difficult to get the news from poems, yet men die miserably everyday for lack of what is found there."

- William Carlos Williams

but that doesn't make him right. :)

I'd beware of signing on to any hard isms that require the denial of allegory in the human experience, though.

2. There is no evidence that God exists

A personal experience with any sort of divinity is enough evidence for that particular person. Obviously, it isn't evidence enough for a third party, but that's not the point. Therefore, people who believe that they have had a personal divine experience are not irrational in their belief in a deity.

3. Believing in something for which ther is no evidence is irrational

So is claiming that something does not exist - it is impossible to prove such a claim, and hence making it is irrational.

5. Churches tend to have hierarchical structures (the pastor and his flock), and religions hierarchical systems of thought (God and his children)

True, but this is not a necessary condition for all religion. Disorganized faiths such as Deism, Buddhism, and many forms of Earth-based spirituality suffer from no such issues.

I have to say, though, kudos on the logical argument. It's not often I see someone who argues the same way I do.

... If you gave a speech in 1912, wouldn't you be at 92+x, where x is how hold you were when you gave the speech?

"2. There is no evidence that God exists

A personal experience with any sort of divinity is enough evidence for that particular person. Obviously, it isn't evidence enough for a third party, but that's not the point. Therefore, people who believe that they have had a personal divine experience are not irrational in their belief in a deity."

--Phenomena easliy explained by modern psychology/psychiatry

"3. Believing in something for which ther is no evidence is irrational

So is claiming that something does not exist - it is impossible to prove such a claim, and hence making it is irrational."

a. Never said God did not exist, only that there is no evidence God exists

b. Even if I did say God does not exist, even though I cannot prove this statement does not make that statement as equally irrational as saying God does exist in absence of any evidence.

(1) It is almost always impossible to logically prove non-existence, but scientifically it is assumed that if there is no evidence of existence it probably does not exist. A logical proof? No. But it is certainly not irrational simply because it doesn't meet the rather high standards of logical proof.

(2) However proving existence, scientifically (empirically) or logically, is much easier. Religious people can't do it, yet they continue to believe in God anyways-- this is fundamentally irrational.

"5. Churches tend to have hierarchical structures (the pastor and his flock), and religions hierarchical systems of thought (God and his children)

True, but this is not a necessary condition for all religion. Disorganized faiths such as Deism, Buddhism, and many forms of Earth-based spirituality suffer from no such issues."

-- Partially true. Many sects of Buddhism do indeed have hierarchical organization. Tibet is a good example. They have a highly stratified feudal society with priests/monks on the very top (or at least they did before the Reds invaded and smashed it-- good riddance I say). But you are correct that there are some religions that don't have the hierarchical structural baggage-- but unfortunately, they are not in the majority.

"I have to say, though, kudos on the logical argument. It's not often I see someone who argues the same way I do."

Thanks.

"... If you gave a speech in 1912, wouldn't you be at 92+x, where x is how hold you were when you gave the speech?"

I'm referring to my handle, bigbillhaywood. Big Bill Haywood was a leader of the IWW (American anarcho-syndicalist union formed in 1905).

"2. There is no evidence that God exists

A personal experience with any sort of divinity is enough evidence for that particular person. Obviously, it isn't evidence enough for a third party, but that's not the point. Therefore, people who believe that they have had a personal divine experience are not irrational in their belief in a deity."

--Phenomena easliy explained by modern psychology/psychiatry

Only if you commit the logical fallacy of presupposing that a person's apparent direct experience with divinity is not in fact a direct experience with the divine - a logical fallacy because you are presupposing that which you are trying to demonstrate.

(1) It is almost always impossible to logically prove non-existence, but scientifically it is assumed that if there is no evidence of existence it probably does not exist. A logical proof? No. But it is certainly not irrational simply because it doesn't meet the rather high standards of logical proof.

(2) However proving existence, scientifically (empirically) or logically, is much easier. Religious people can't do it, yet they continue to believe in God anyways-- this is fundamentally irrational.

Not at all - any theory about the nature of divinity is fundamentally unfalsifiable, and therefore it is impossible to use science to try and prove or disprove one. Sorry, but you're stuck with philosophy if you want to talk about metaphysics.

(or at least they did before the Reds invaded and smashed it-- good riddance I say)

Um... the Communist oppression of religion is hardly something to be glorified. I hope that's not what you meant to do.

"Not at all - any theory about the nature of divinity is fundamentally unfalsifiable, and therefore it is impossible to use science to try and prove or disprove one. Sorry, but you're stuck with philosophy if you want to talk about metaphysics."

Science means empirical knowledge through scientific method. In science, if something remains unsubstantiated by physical evidence, then it is unscientific to posit its existence in absence of such evidence.

"Only if you commit the logical fallacy of presupposing that a person's apparent direct experience with divinity is not in fact a direct experience with the divine - a logical fallacy because you are presupposing that which you are trying to demonstrate."

Nope, I presuppose nothing. I only believe that which is scientifically demonstrable. Their personal vision is not. However, I can explain why they had the vision through scientific (psychiatric) means.

"Um... the Communist oppression of religion is hardly something to be glorified. I hope that's not what you meant to do."

If by oppression you mean tearing down the institutional power of the priestly classes and the church, I most certainly do glorify it (of course, I call that liberation, not oppression). And nobody is telling the Tibetan they can't worship, the Reds are just putting limits on the powers of the priests and the church. I'm not a Commie, but I'll give credit where credit is due. I don't support the occupation of Tibet, but I think the oppressive feudal system that existed before the occupation is even more reprhensible. I don't think the Dalai Lama is a good guy, I think he's part of the problem.

i'd tell her.

- even people who aren't normally reactionary.

...Maybe offense to a discussion founded on logic is reactionary...

Stalin being an atheists has nothing to do with anything, and 90% was admittedly an unscientific number - the point being made was that organize Church does more harm than good. I agree with that.

However, I think there is a massive difference between personal faith/piety and organized religion. I don't believe you can ever take that experience away from some people or ever "get rid of" it... organized religion is another matter all together.

Atheism justifies nothing. Stalin did not do what he did in the name of Atheism. He did it in the name of a dogmatic claim about society that he supported and defined. Any that questioned his definitions found themself in a very bad way.

You will find in examining history that whenever a system proclaiming to have the truth combines with the power of state disaster follows for any that differ with the defined truth. It is only when doubt and an attempt to determine the truth are embraced that the power of state is brought under the control of the people.

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it. -Andre Gide

"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." - Andre Gide

Very insightful.

Sorry that statement is baseless.

Are you saying that theists cannot be horrible people and only atheists can? Are you suggesting that only by believing in a god can you be good?

There is no suggestion being made that believing in god or not believing in god creates a good or a bad person. The argument being put forward is that in systems of people (societies) when a claim is put forward of claiming to have an absolute moral authority to control other people it is going to end badly for many of the people, and particualary for those that do not agree with that moral authority.

You can put whatever claim you want in for the source of that moral authority. Many people have in all honesty believed they had that right to make the claim. And every time it has lead to death and destruction.

Being an atheist does not make you a good person or a bad person.

Being a theist does not make you a good person or a bad person.

Are bolstering their's and destroying any credibility you may wish to have with them.

Use the reason and logical thinking you champion. Consider the nature of the human mind. The very medium we are discussing. If I told you that you could walk straight through a wall and that I could provide logical ratoinal explanations for why you could, would you not blink just before you crashed your head into the wall?

No matter the amount of logic and reason you put behind an argument if you "know" their case to be wrong you will not believe it. In the case of the wall its easy to demonstrate the erronious nature of the argument. So even if I could put the argument to you in such as way as to convince you that you could walk through a wall, the moment you tried it you would have your refutation to my argument. Its not that easy in the case of god.

We can destroy every single argument ever created for god and there will still be people believing in him. There is simply no way for them to experience the nonexistance of god. There are a host of biological and neurological avenues for them to experience what they believe is god. Direct confrontation and arguments based on reason will have little to no effect on their position. And its not that they are irrational. Its simply that they know they are right. They know they cannot walk through walls.

explain it to you now, but I'll try. Religion is an obstacle to social progress for the reasons I stated above (please read my other posts on this subject). I never said all atheists are good people, or if you get rid of religion, automatically everything will be better. You still have to navigate the path of social progress, but the obstacle of religion which blocks our path must be removed. Just because it's removed, doesn't necessarily mean you move further down the path, but it will certainly make the trip easier.

Being Religious myself, I guess you would have to figure that.

I can agree that insofar as religion tries to enforce it's doctrine on people through political means, well, that's an evil, and should be stopped.

On the other hand I don't think you can really argue religion out of people. I am assuming you wouldn't be in favor of any sort of coercion to get rid of religion? Because that would negate your whole point.

Bryant.

it is an obstacle for society as a whole. As far as how to get rid of religion, I think that's a good question. I think first of all an atheistic poltical counterculture needs to be created. The communists and anarchists did this with varying degrees of success in different countries. I think the main problem the communists had is they did not bother to construct an alternate, rationally-based moral system. Without this, almost anything is justifiable acording to material needs and conditions. Also, communism took up much of the idolatry and dogmatism of religion. Talk with some commies about Marx or Lenin and you'd think they were talking about Jesus Christ. But despite the problems I have with communism, it is proof that creation of a mass movement that rejects religion is possible.

The second thing that needs to be done is to break the institutional power of the churches. I wouldn't have a moral problem with coercion in this matter, but I do think heavy-handedness would be counterproductive. I think a good start would be to repeal the tax-exempt status of churches and other religious organizations. They are able to raise too much money tax-free, and that makes them too powerful.

Don't we already have that? Isn't the difference between a Commandment and a Law is that one is a code of conduct created by "God" and punishable by "God" and the other is a code of conduct created by man and punishable by man?

Maybe that's why fundies are so eager to pervert common law with religious commandments: rational laws are "atheistic" to them.

I mean if you managed to make Democrats into a an athiestic party; I'd leave it, and I suspect I wouldn't be alone (fortunately I'd rate this as a very low probability). If you created a third party that was atheistic; or, say turned the greens atheistic, well, that wouldn't affect me much so I'd wish you good luck.

So you wouldn't have a moral problem using coercian to destroy the institutional power of churches? I don't really understand what you mean by that, I guess. You'd force churches to be alone and independent eliminating, say, the catholic Bishops control over individual parishes? Or the Mormon Churches control over individual wards?

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but i'm not sure how you plan to accomplish that (getting rid of tax exempt status wouldn't accomplish it, I don't think).

Maybe you could set up a church tax. Any money you pay to a church you also have to pay to the government; an equal amount. So if you drop 10 bucks into the collection basket, not only do you not get to write it off, you then have to pay an additional 10 bucks to the government.

Of course, you could also use the schools; as I'm sure you would. Introduce atheism or at least agnosticism into the cirriculum, particularly in science classes. You might also use humor in this context to encourage kids to think that there's something ridiculous in believing in God, in the same sense that there's something ridiculous in believing in Santa Clause.

I don't know--but given the religiousity of America as a whole, I don't think you are going to have much success. So I'm not that worried.

win, but it is certainly worth fighting.

Well, I won't wish you good luck. While we would agree on many issues, I would assume, we are on different sides of this one.

That's life.

ate with a fork.......:eyes:

So what's your point?

too. Religion is a sham.

But that list is endless.

Would you approve of a pill that cured herpes for 10% of those who took it, but killed the other 90%? Of course not, and that, in a nutshell, is how I view "positive" examples of religion-- the negative examples so outweight the positive ones as to make us better off without religion entirely.


I have no quarrel with the moral teachings of Christ and much of Christianity; it is all the phony Christians who don't abide those teachings, the ones that seem to dominate the culture and want to turn the US into a theocracy, that get me.

I'd like to know if those sick bastids that tortured and humiliated the Iraqi prisoners were Sunday go to meetin' Christians.

those people who don't believe are "Religion Haters"? Is that kind of like a "Freedom Hater"? It's kind of like Amw*y. The first few times I hear the sales pitch, I listen politely, then "thanks but no thanks", but after being approached a zillion times in the parking lot, once while reading in B&N even, I tend to throw out a Go F y'self, and have a nice day.

I guess you'd have to call me an Amw*y hater.

But I don't set out to belittle anyone, or hassle them, or mock them or provoke them. Some of my friends and most of my relatives are very seriously involved in religion, so I have to ask: I am curious about your motives, are you really experiencing that much hatred and division, or are you seeing things where someone like a President is invoking religion and getting called on their hypocrisy?

Re-read my post, and you'll see that is exactly NOT what I am saying. Attempts to portray it as saying something else are disingenuous.

As you say, Religion is a touchy subject. Speaking of disingenuous, I am always a bit suspicious when someone challenges me to do something but brackets it with an "I'm not trying to convert anyone." I also trouble with the whole "hatred" thing, too.

Your suspicion is noted, and I wish there was something I could do to allay your fears besides just saying, "Trust me."

Are you really experiencing that much hatred and division here, or are you seeing things like where someone is posting an artice about, say, a President is invoking religion and others are calling him on his hypocrisy? I only ask becase I'm having trouble understanding the "visceral hatred" you are talking about, and I sure haven't seen evidence of it here on DU (but I'm relatively new here).

And regularly will express their visceral dislike of anything religious, including religious people. They're the ones who will proudly declare over and over "Christianity is a bunch of bullshit, anyone who believes in it is retarted" and similar sentiments, without provocation.

They are certainly not the majority of atheists, most of whom are "live and let live" types. But, as a believer who attends a UU Fellowship that includes a fair share of atheists and agnostics, the sword cuts both ways. It's wrong for those of us who believe to personally attack those who do not simply on the basis of their beliefs. Likewise, it's wrong for those who do not believe to personally attack those who do.

You know, the Golden Rule. Surely even if you're an atheist, you can believe in the Golden Rule? ;-)

Live & let live is my motto. I guess I haven't seen the hatred, not here anyway.

embrace religion, and attack religion itself. Although sometimes religious people piss me off, and I do attack them, but I try to avoid it (except for the funadmentalists: Christian, Muslim, Jewsih or otherwise-- they're fair game as far as I'm concerned)

That's my name for them... :) It's sad two because my best friend is an agnostic and I have many good friends who are atheists and we have great and insightful discussions rather than hate each other. In fact, I would go as far as to say that my friends even respect my spiritual beliefs without sharing them, and I feel the same about them.

It's so much better to be that way, I feel.

Religion can be a very positive influence in they way we formulate our politics views... religious faith has in the past been a big part in many progressive endeavors, look at trades unionism, civil rights and a vast number of other movements all have been propelled by people who through their religious faith new that something was right and worth fighting for...

Yes some religious people can be intolerant but they are a minority the same could be said for a vast number of non-religious people who dogmatically adhere to a specific doctrine or view piont... be it of the left or right...

I think religion has a place in society and in politics, but not in a direct way, as an influence on individuals rather than a "power" in its own right and i think that generally that is a positive thing...

...stop trying to oppress people, and stop abusing people, then all religions will be looked at a lot differently.

I am not anti religious in any way, in fact I have been exploring that part of my life in recent years, but I most certainly am anti religious right.

- A guy who helps others because he thinks he'll get in good with God or a guy who helps others simply because he enjoys putting a smile on someone's face.

- Someone who doesn't go around robbing and killing people because he doesn't want to burn in hell for eternity, or someone who doesn't go around robbing and killing people because he or she feels that it is disruptive to society and causing others pain and suffering is simply wrong.

Who's really more ethical? Isn't it much more honorable for someone to be good simply because it breeds a happy productive society and it actually feels good to do good as opposed to being told to, or to appease some sort of superior?

In all honesty, I think religion can be a very helpful and a very good thing because it helps create community and social ties which is always a good thing, but the dogma that comes with it and inevitably causes conflicts basically ruins it.

Universalist Unitarians, Deists and Buddhists notwithstanding.

Most of us have formed a belief system. But some of us insist that they have the truth and the rest do not. And to make matters worse, they try and convert others or try to impose their beliefs onto others through law etc.

I have no trouble with anyone religious just so long as you keep it out of my life! And don't go around fighting wars because some other group disagrees with your faith.

Here is what I believe:

#1 - We don't know shit.

#2 - Beyond that, we *really* don't know shit.

#3 - All humans do seem to share a vague intimation that there is something larger than we are and that we are part of that larger something. This intimation is very valuable. It is the basis of all morality, all creativity, all progress. However, we don't know shit about what it really means.

#4 - Despite our basic ignorance, we humans love to make up stories about a larger world and what it would be like to encounter it. Some of those stories are clearly allegorical -- they might be about people living underground who have never seen the sun, or people like those in Asimov's "Nightfall" who have never seen the stars. But some of the stories try to be more realistic, and describe worlds and beings beyond our own that we might potentially encounter -- gods, spirits, aliens, and so forth.

#5 - Stories of that sort can be enormously inspiring. They can help us get through difficult times by reminding us that there really is is something larger and that what we do out of love is in tune with that mysterious greater whole. But believing literally in such stories is fatal, because they are *always false.* Even the loftiest religion is just something that some guy made up sitting around a campfire three thousand years ago -- and he didn't know shit any more than you do.

So enjoy your religion all you want -- but remember that the most basic truth is that you still don't know shit. (This attitude is sometimes known as "humility," and most religions recommend it.)

Your point is spot-on, starroute. A big part of my personal religious belief is the fact that I don't know jack shit.

And since so much of what the left-wing platform is consists of moral arguments then yes, of course it plays a part.

Religion, or lack of religion is a big influence for most people's concience, and yes that does include the political side of our concience too. Of course that does not imply that church and state should be joined at the hip but it does mean that the moral values imparted by religion cannot be disregarded.

that give moral values. I am an atheist, but they are good rules to live by.

of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, but there is a lot more to it than that. Both Judaism and Islam are very much religions of the law, with lots of rules, laws and and the like besides that. Christianity is not so much a religion of the law but it is very much a religion that encourages you to live in the spirit of morality. It also has the extra commandment of love thy neighbour.

I'll post some relevant Bible text for illustration here but even then beyond this all three of these religions have plenty of moral stories in their books, be it the Torah, the Bible or the Koran.

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

In other words, love a fantasy before you love yourself or your neighbor.

Ummm... we can throw Number 1 right out the window. That one Commandment is probably the core of COUNTLESS numbers of animosity and sectarian wars.

No 2. - "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Another load of crap. The Christians themselves break this rule over and over again. Hell people will flock to a suburb if someone happens to spill ice cream that miraculously congeals into a shape that somewhat resembles the profile of the Virgin Mary. Also notice how just downright threatening and scary God sounds in that passage. Children unto the 3rd and 4th generations? I mean come on, let the punishment fit the crime please... leave the kids out of it. :wow:

No. 3 - "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

Screw that! In this country we have freedom of speech. If I want to say "God-damn" or "God sucks lemons" or "Jesus throws like a girl" (and I have said those things before and many much worse), I am perfectly in my right to. Bye bye number 3!

No. 4 - "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Sorry unfortunately I am not filthy rich, so I kind of have to work on Sundays to supplement my income. Number 4 is KAPOOT!

No. 5 - "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

I like this one. But I don't expect the children of child molestors or abusive drunks to follow this one. So this one is up in the air depending on ones environment.

No. 6 - "Thou shalt not kill."

I will interpret this as "Don't murder". In which case I fully agree with it!

No. 7 - "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

This can be interpreted in many ways. If it is interpreted in terms of not cheating on your spouse, then I'd say its kind of a useful and generally good idea not to. If it is interpreted as not having sex out of marriage, then it is pure and utter bullshit. This one is teetering on the edge of usefulness.

No. 8 - "Thou shalt not steal."

Like this one!

No. 9 - "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

In other words: Don't Lie! I agree!

No. 10 - "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

I guess this means don't be envious of what others have. Well, I dunno about this one. It kind of fuels the "American Dream" doesn't it? Up in the air, although definitely a non-essential commandment.


So the final count as far as I can tell is that there are only three, yes three really useful, good rules to live by: Numbers 6, 8 and 9. I'll give 5 an honorable mention.

The first four have nothing to do with reality, and give priority to fantasy worship. Therefore its fair to say, morality is low on the "Gods to do list"

No. 3 - "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

Screw that! In this country we have freedom of speech. If I want to say "God-damn" or "God sucks lemons" or "Jesus throws like a girl" (and I have said those things before and many much worse), I am perfectly in my right to. Bye bye number 3!


"Taking the Lord's name in vain" is one of the most misunderstood Commandments. It means that you shouldn't take an oath in the name of the Lord, and then go back on that oath.

For instance, if I swore by God to vote for Bush in 2004, but did not, I would be "taking the Lord's name in vain.

This was from the Old Testament. Jesus spoke of remembering the Old Testament and keeping those values true to our hearts BUT he came and taught new ways of thinking---thus, the New Testament was formed. The New Testament is what Christians go by. The NT God is not vengful but compassionate and full of love.

I'm sure people conveniently leave this fact out.

I consider myself a Gnostic Christian. I don't have enough time to back up why I feel this way.

But I completely agree with what another poster said about the man who has more/less ethics. People shouldn't do good just because they will reap reward from a God.

--IMM

Religion gets people to the first or second stage of moral reasoning. People do things to avoid punishment - from society or god.

The higher levels of moral reasoning don't require religion to get to - in fact, religion may hinder the attainment of level 6.

Just a thought.

Religion can get you up to the conventional level of morality, and in fact most people are at that level (hence why it is "conventional").

http://facultyweb.cortland.edu/andersmd/KOHL/kidmoral.HTML

Religion doesn't necessarily get you there, IMHO.

Religion doesn't get you near 6. You have to do that on your own.

Very little important, and a lot of evil has come from Religion.

My current best counter anecdote, for a book by a guy people have mostly not heard of is Rush Limbaugh himself. He says "God wouldnt allow for Mankind to damage the environment." Which is the basis for current conservative thought on enviromental policy.

And then you, evangelize on his works, at the same time you say you are not evangelizing.

The only gap between you an me is your senseless beleif in fairy tails and how that stirrs you to innaction and argument.

No Thanks.

The only gap between you an me is your senseless beleif in fairy tails and how that stirrs you to innaction and argument.

Lemme guess -- you're one of those atheists who chafes at "believers" who personally attack your perspective -- yet, you somehow feel justified in doing the reverse?

Thanks for playing.

Only after you evangalize by saying you are not evangalizing.

AND

After you called me a hater, now twice!

This is what gets me, you KNOW FOR A FACT they are fairy tails, you know most of the guiding principals that guy learned in that book are FANTASY, yet you bristle for me having the temerity to point it out.

Un-fuckin real.

As a member of a UU congregation with several atheists, I have nothing against those atheists who are interested in sincere, respectful dialogue. One thing I have never found in my congregation is an atheist who calls a belief in a higher power "fairy tales" (it's TALES, not TAILS), nor a believer who criticizes atheists for their lack of belief.

I have to come to DU in order to experience that spiteful dynamic personally.

Only after you evangalize by saying you are not evangalizing.

Explain to me how, by suggesting the biography of a minister who just happened to be one of the most prominent figures in social justice for the past 40 years, I am evangelizing. I guess if I were to suggest a biography of MLK I would also be evangelizing, since he was a minister.

After you called me a hater, now twice!

Please point out to me where I called YOU a hater in my initial post -- unless you assumed that the label fit you, personally.

This is what gets me, you KNOW FOR A FACT they are fairy tails, you know most of the guiding principals that guy learned in that book are FANTASY, yet you bristle for me having the temerity to point it out.

Please point out to me where I have suggested a literalist interpretation of the Bible, or any other religious texts. Also, while you're at it, point out where Rev. Coffin has ever done the same.

Your argument is a complete strawman. The only context I replied to you in was the spiteful one you provided yourself.

I am saying while a prominent member of the clergy, may have played a huge role in the social justice movement. In fact, IIRC, many did. However that was 40 years ago. When we step out of fantasy land, we find its more like, What have you done lately? Social justice, and civil rights dont exist anymore. So all their effort 40 years ago was for naught. They treated the symptoms, but the disease remains.

In the time since the 60's, the leadership of all the worlds religions has been co-opted, like it has been every time before. The liberal clergy that remains preaches "remain above the fray" and "dont act too rashly", in the face of previously unimaginable horrors. Even worse the co-opted clergy preach "Bush is our Lord, the King of Kings!"

Further more, Afghanistan was an example of religion played out to the letter of the dogma. It didnt matter what religion it was, because all religions have that in their tradition. Its just one example of the damage the fantasy addled mind can unleash. When was the last time you heard about a compound of athiests holing them selves in a compound and buring it down?

The only difference between them and you is the degree. So yah, Im angry about it. You have called me a hater three times now, but we have never met. There you go again, indulging in a fantasy, that you can tell what a person is like by a few hundred words.

Trying to debate DoktorGreg is a bit of a case of tossing pearls before swine sadly as DoktorGreg is not here to debate, only to insult anyone who is not militantly atheist.

religous people are so tolerant towards those who do not believe in a "higher power".

We're all here because we tend to agree with the principles of government put forth by the Democratic party whether we're religious or not - so why would people come in here and needlessly divide people (who broadly agree with you on political issues) further and possibly chase people away that could break the hegemony the Republican party tends to have on the members of their church? I see no reason for it other than masturbatory two-minutes-hate reasons plus it's tactically dumbass as far as getting things done.

I don't consider myself a christian, or religious, but I do consider myself spiritual. I believe that Jesus lived on this earth, taught us that religion was more than just an agreement to follow hundreds of rules, and that by dying and resurrecting, he taught us that we are more than just physical bodies. I don't buy all the god's punishment, sin and redemption aspects of christianity. I attend a liberal, new-age church and also practice wicca on occasion.

God is spirit, whatever name we use to call upon it. All the rest of the dogma is someone else's idea about God, whether it's the Bible, the Koran or the Book of Shadows. It is the individual experience of God that brings understanding and light. This has little to do with church, superstitions about women and homosexuality, and a rigid code of conduct that no one can possibly live up to.

never mind.

problems for itself. People here are very spiritual, but not necessarily Judeo Christian. The Judeo Christian religions, esp. the fungalists, may cause, or increase some of the "anti-religious" feelings that erupt here from time to time.

"The Power of Now," Eckhart Tolle.

Bravely challenge your notion of God and self...

Contrary to what the fundies preach, being a person of faith (although not sure in WHAT) doesn't mean that you should no longer challenge and develop yourself and your beliefs.

Like I've said before in this thread, I'm a UU, and I belong to a fellowship in which I'm probably a distinct minority by retaining a decent portion of the Christian identity with which I was raised -- even if my old church wouldn't accept my Gnosticism now. ;-)

"What the Fuck Do We Know?"

http://www.whatthebleep.com/home/

Don't let the idea of Quantum Physics scare you away...

... so quantum mechanics already scares the hell out of me! ;-)

Damn that Werner Schrodinger and his time-independent equation! Damn him to hell!

be certain of the speed he is travelling in hell if we know for certain he is there?

I suppose we should ask Heisenburg. ;)

them, are quite open to many points of view. You make it sound as though they are close minded. I do not have any religious beliefs and yet I have probably read and studied more religious philosophies and documents than most religious people have. The more you learn, the less likely you are to remain rigid in a single belief system.

Here's the first paragraph from my initial post. I'm posting it again, because you obviously didn't bother to read it.

I know that religion is a touch subject around here. I know that, despite the fact that most atheists are good and tolerant folks of those who DO believe in a higher power, there is also a core who express what could only be described as a visceral hatred toward anything religious.

Allow me to translate.

MOST atheists are people who are perfectly respectful of believers, as most believers on the left are perfectly respectful of atheists. However, there is a VOCAL MINORITY of atheists who express a visceral hatred, evidenced by personal attacks on the beliefs of those who happen to believe in a higher power.

the second and third paragraph frost my nuts:

I have a challenge to all of you, not toward conversion in any way, shape or form -- but to see how religion can play a vital part for many of us on the liberal/progressive side in affirming our moral and political beliefs. I am currently reading the biography of Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Jr., A Holy Impatience by Warren Goldstein. For those of you not familiar with Rev. Coffin, he was the chaplain at Yale during the 1960's, at which time he was heavily involved in the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement, and went on to be the head minister at Riverside Church in NYC from 1977-1987.

His story is one that demonstrates how religion can be a guiding force in a person's life to make the world a better place, without being dogmatic or caught up in prostelytizing. I challenge you to seek this book out and read it, mostly in hopes of bridging the senseless divide that so often develops between us.

Should one give headspace to religion just on pragmatic grounds? If being religious could make it likely that my economic prospects were better should I start believing?

Sorry, I'm no Bokononist. I will not believe in a bunch of foma in order to make life more pleasant.

What I meant to say was that for many of us on the left/liberal/progressive side of the political spectrum, our religious beliefs provide the basis for our moral/political beliefs. The biography of Rev. Coffin is a good book to help those who aren't religious/spiritual to understand how some of us are.

Rereading it, I realize that I did a poor job of phrasing what I was really trying to say. By no means am I saying that people need to embrace religion in order to embrace progressive values. What I was trying to say is that, for some of us, our religion provides a foundation for our progressive values -- and for those for whom religion does not provide that foundation, it can be helpful to at least understand how it DOES provide a foundation for some of us, even if you don't believe yourself.

started studying about islam

I have studied a bit, and could never get past the feeling that Christians, in particular, think that we ALL should believe what THEY believe. It's incredibly short-sighted and silly.. I find the studies of the real Jesus to be fascinating. The scholarly writings on who the man really was, not the myths and supersticions. I just could never get into any organization where the major premise is being dictated to by some imaginary figure... telling me I can't worship anything else, etc. I believe in spirituality and human kindess... much of which is missing in modern-day, white-bread relgions.

One thing I spend a great deal of time with is trying to actually understand the mechanics of spacetime. I try very hard to understand motion from it's very smallest string(?), to the greatest of cosmological constructs (galactic clusters). In doing so I have educated myself on things I never thought I could understand, nor could any teacher effectively teach me. My view of the Universe today is profoundly different than it was as a child, when it still held the same wonder for me. The only difference today, is that it is MUCH more beautiful than I ever thought it was, and it is much LARGER than I ever could imagine as a child.

Our Universe is astounding in scope. We have touched the tip of the tip of the iceburg in understanding it - and when we try to pretend we know what is going on, we get into trouble. Be it those who are "religious", "scientific", "political", or none of the above, we all have a unique perspective on the Universe around us, and holding that view as "law" is what breaks down the relationships we could be using to better understand each other and the world around us. The only common ground we have is the ground we are standing on... the Earth. And even that is spinning round and round and moving through space at insane speeds.

In that rhythm you find your time
where all that's you and not entwine
a motion perceived
a reality conceived
an immaculate perception
both yours and mine

Religious or not, we can all benefit from the act of the collective good. I know there are some wonderful people out there that do not believe in the same religion as me, or have none, and are very positive humanitarian people. I believe that we all should have the common goal of doing what is good and right for the people as a whole. That makes us strong and our country can only benefit.

this has been a bad year with THE WAR and THE PASSION. Thanks but NO F***ING THANKS.

I reduced IrateCitizen's words to the following:

"Read this book so you can be more enlightened".

Perhaps that is not fair, but really, it does come across as prothelizing. Perhaps that is not what IrateCitizen meant.

to advise someone HERE, READ THIS BOOK ON ATHEISM SO YOU'LL BE ENLIGHTENED.

I *was* agreeing with you.

Which is all the original poster asked.

WHAT IS SO FUCKING COMPLICATED ABOUT THAT?

I JUST SAID THANKS BUT NO F***ING THANKS. HOW ABOUT MY RIGHT TO NOT HAVE RELIGION CONSTANTLY SHOVED IN MY FACE?

It's like asking someone who is a foam-at-the-mouth anti-Communist to read a biography of Salvador Allende to find out WHY he became a Marxist and how his Marxism shaped his politics and policies.

The idea is not to turn the reader into a Marxist but to say, "Hey, it's not all Stalin."

But I should have known better, anyways. Any attempts to reasonably discuss religion in any form on these boards ends up in disaster.

I believe it was Einstein who defined insanity as repeating the same action over and over again while expecting a different result....

"how religion can be a guiding force in a person's life to make the world a better place";

there's no doubt in my mind that religion can do such a thing.

Actually i think that is not in question at all.


But i also think it is not in question that a person without religion can make the world a better place.

I could argue this is evidence that the guiding force you speak of is IN every person; that it is not an external force.

I'm only anti-religious in that i think religion is one of the things without which the world would be a better place. By this i'm not saying that all the good people who happen to be religious make the world a worse place.
I do not want to force religion out. I think people are and should be free to think (and believe) what they want; if there's such a thig as freedom of speech then there certainly is such a thing as freedom of thought, including any kind of belief, or lack thereof.
If there's anything i'd do to negate religion, then it's this kind of debate, where i get to propose these arguments.

"If there's anything i'd do to negate religion, then it's this kind of debate, where i get to propose these arguments."

What arguments? I didn't see an argument.

"But i also think it is not in question that a person without religion can make the world a better place.

I could argue this is evidence that the guiding force you speak of is IN every person; that it is not an external force."

...and don't believe that undermines the religious experience one bit.

I'm not "anti-religion." I get angry at the abuses. I'm anti-ORGANIZED religion. The organizations pervert the message of the faith, and then we have problems.

Doesn't sound like you're saying anything different?

where the priest said to "know my enemy." This was the class
where I got the "I/Thou" lecture that Janeane is always talking
about. The original poster is not my enemy, and is trying to
do a good thing.

If I wanted to be converted, I would be converted already. I want
to bridge the divide as much as anyone, but I don't see how it's
possible. Believers don't take too kindly when it's pointed out
how 'evil' organized religion can be, and it's not fair to them
to put them on the defensive.

ranks can be. What's the difference?

religon is the opiate for the masses. Religion is a tool the ruling class uses to keep all of us barefoot and ignorant. But i think there are very cool christian orgs like the catholic worker just like there are bad ones like the KKK

I know that religion is a touch subject around here. I know that, despite the fact that most Jews are good and tolerant folks of those who DO believe in Jesus Christ, there is also a core who express what could only be described as a visceral hatred toward anything Christian.

I have a challenge to all of you, not toward conversion in any way, shape or form -- but to see how Christianity can play a vital part for many of us on the liberal/progressive side in affirming our moral and political beliefs...

Not so nice, is it?

Non-belief in America is a daily struggle to have your worldview recognized as legitimate.

I knew it was alright to hate Arabs, Muslims, and women on DU; and to disparage the concerns of non-whites. It seems non-theists are fair game, too.

IC is hardly making non-theists "fair game", and replacing any noun in any argument with "Jews" doesn't automatically make for a convincing argument.

First of all, I there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with challenging people to attitudes of tolerance, even asking that people try to appreciate how Christianity can play a vital part for many of us on the liberal progressive side in affirming our moral or political beliefs. That isn't hating anyone. That isn't illegitimating the non-belief of anyone else. It's just asking for non-believers here please not bash believers.

In your cockeyed analogy, it is only accurate if your talking about Jews of the same group, asking fellow Jews of the same group for tolerance for their differing opinions on one issue. That would be fair.

I fail to see what is so "not nice" about that.

Second of all, your changing the words of the original post to make some kind of point I guess, but it certainly doesn't reflect the original post at all. A plea for tolerance of liberals and progressives who have religious beliefs is a far cry different.

Finally, please point me to specific examples of "Arab" hating on DU. You're post is grossly inflammatory and basically indefensible.

IrateCitizen was simply explaining his beliefs, and challenging us anti-religous DUers to respond. Myself and others did, and I think, for the most part, it has been a productive discussion. I'm glad IC put this up.

take a trip through the archives and see that both sides can be nasty. What IC was trying to express was that contrary to many posters on this thread have said there is some worth to religion.

Non-belief in America is a daily struggle to have your worldview recognized as legitimate.

And many of us who do worship god, both inside and outside of America find it a daily struggle to have our worldview accepted as legitimate too. Works both ways I'm afraid.

Such a law is unconstitutional according to your 1st ammendment in the Bill of Rights. I think that one can be challenged.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

My grandfather was a Protestant minister and pushed religion down the throats of his children. As a result, they all rejected "religion" for all of their adult lives. Something tells me this book wouldn't be able to penetrate their hatred of "religion".

It just furthers the lie and the ignorance that a cloud guy waved his mighty hand and made earth 1 boy no girls then since he was infallible and knows all didnt care enough to make him a woman so instead of just waving his mighty hand he ripped a rib out of adams side so that a woman knows she is equivalent to a slab of ribs.
And where the hell did the sons woman come from what did imaginary cloud diety do order another slab of ribs.
Religon is a philosophy not a fact when ya die guess what you are dead.
you dont go to heaven you dont go to hell you decompose

have a nice day

Who ever told you God was some guy in the clouds? That is a child's picture.

you know our fictional creator
.
If you wish to believe in fairy tells more power to you.
Koolaide comes in all forms

LOL.

Next time come armed to the debate.

uh uh I am rubber yer glue

Hey kettle this is the pot you are black

Ignorance
When did god create the dinosaurs??
Where are these in the Bible Did god forget

I dont care if you choose to believe in a mighty creater that loves Us so much that he created cancer and aids and stole my mother less then a year ago..And My friend sue Last month of cancer. God didnt "NEED" them
They arent in "A BETTER PLACE"..they are fucking dead
peace out

You don't happen to be one of the non religious people here who can have an intelligent discussion on this topic.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=1908

"Although Thomas and his brother Evan did not formally resign from the Presbyterian Church until their mother died in 1931, both referred to themselves as agnostics after their church failed to support their pacifism during World War I. But in the 1950s Thomas still said, "I am no atheist. Indeed, I am almost haunted by religion and often wish that I could regain the comfortable Christian theology of earlier years" (Swanberg, p. 367). In the end he asked for a Christian burial rather than a socialist funeral. "I am not an orthodox Christian," he said, "but the Christian tradition is so much a part of our life, of my life, and Christ is to me so commanding a figure who so released all that I care most for that I feel justified in asserting a Christian service which should not play up personal immortality" (Swanberg, p. 407)"

Personally I see raw/base Christianity as a very collectivist/cooperative tinged ideology, I'm an Atheist but I can dig that.

And, of course, who on earth can forget Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his comments about Capitalism?

"You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism."

* Source: Frogmore, S.C. November, 14, 1966. Speech in front of his staff.

and religion is the man-made construct designed to create spirituality. Sometimes it works,and the two things coexist in a person and it's all good. Spirituality without the religious aspect is all good too. Religion with no spirituality is bad news.

..is that for every decent, crusading person it produces, it produces the same amount of sadists, bigots and fanatics. Ultimately, the problem with using religious thought as a basis for moral action is that if one grants religion is an acceptable motivator for moral behavior, then both altruistic and sadistic behavior can be justified. There is no provable way of determining which religion should have more sway in moral matters than another, as most derive their authority from supernatural powers or entities whose existences are not empirically provable. The same person who claims their god commands them to feed the homeless has no more or less moral justification for belief than the person who claims their god commands them to boil people alive. The only way of getting a developed, educated society to consistently make good moral choices is to wean them off of religion and get them to base their morals on secular philosophical principles.

I posted a simplified version of your argument further (didn't see your post initially).

it does make sense for religious liberals to quote and promote all that is good in their religion to counterbalance the fundamentalist interpretations.

http://tcpc.org/

Discussion boards

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/

Scripture means nothing to me. It would not hold up in a court of law. We are a nation of laws governed by the constitution, NOT the Bible.