what religion?

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 26 Dec 2006 00:56

and merry christmas

NoGuilt · Post by **NoGuilt** » 26 Dec 2006 02:50

I don't think a religion can have a monopoly on truth or God. Anyone who says they know the entire truth and only there interpretation of God is correct is much too arrogant. Why could any one of us have an all encompassing understanding of God? God is not for a select group, he is out to get everyone to know him. Looking at what we believe separates us, looking at why we believe brings us together.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » 26 Dec 2006 16:47

Jamie, this is the thing that really bothers me about Christianity.

A rapist, child killer and peodaphile can all go to heaven if they see the error of their ways and convert to Christianity and it happens alot because there aren't many options for someone in prision.

On the other hand a child living in a remote village in North Korea, China or Africa who spends their entire life simply fighting for survival and never has the opportunity to know about Christianity is sentenced to eternity in hell.

Even if I were to accept that everything in the Bible were true I could not possibly support a religion that offers such injustice.

Jeremy wrote:

Religious people have done a very good job in confusing people and trying to make it appear that evolution and intelligent design are equally plausible theories but the fact is that if you if you study biology and evolution at university you have above a 90% chance of accepting evolution as fact. The fact that you're not convinced is almost certainly only because you haven't studied it. Your claim that you would believe in evolution if the arguments were compelling is ludicrous. Do you understand quantum physics at all? Do you accept that quantum physics exists? Because I can guarantee that if you go to university and get a b.sci majoring in quantum physics you'll see undeniable evidence that quantum physics do exist and I also think that if you've never studied quantum physics, you'd have no idea what they even are. Likewise, the evidence for evolution is compelling and overwhelming. I have never seen an argument against it that is based on science and there are so many different pieces of evidence that support it. Study evolution and I am sure you'll see how believable it is.

The existence of a god/higher power and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The higher power provides the why and science provides the how.

Einstein wrote:

For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

and

science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Basically what I was trying to explain is that the problem is not with the existence of but with the definition of God.

In fact Marc Hauser demonstrates very powerfully by studying societies on every inhabited continent on the world that we have the same core moral beliefs regardless of religion.

I have not doubt you're right, the other common feature of all societies is their belief in a god or higher power which guides their moral behaviour.

Which societies have tried to set moral behaviour based on scientific evaluation? Communism tried and we all know how that turned out.
Western democracies are heading down a similar path with market fundamentalism and geopolitics with a corresponding decline in moral values and ethics.

There are hundreds and hundreds of famous atheists who also stood up for human rights, justice and morality. There is no evidence that being atheist leads to a lack of morals.

Again you are right, being an atheist does not lead to a lack of morals, but it doesn't provide a basis for moral decisions either. All the athiests you mentioned were raised in a society whose morals were derived from religious beliefs. Their morals could not have been derived simply from reason or scientific discovery without any religious basis.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 27 Dec 2006 01:02

The existence of a god/higher power and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The higher power provides the why and science provides the how.

So true.

And Scott... yes, it's something I struggle with. I'm not an unthinking believer.

ObArA'BaRs · Post by **ObArA'BaRs** » 27 Dec 2006 12:58

idk how to spell it but athiest

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 27 Dec 2006 18:12

A rapist, child killer and peodaphile can all go to heaven if they see the error of their ways and convert to Christianity and it happens alot because there aren't many options for someone in prision.

On the other hand a child living in a remote village in North Korea, China or Africa who spends their entire life simply fighting for survival and never has the opportunity to know about Christianity is sentenced to eternity in hell.

Even if I were to accept that everything in the Bible were true I could not possibly support a religion that offers such injustice.

Man's sins were forgiven the moment Jesus breathed his last breath on the cross. Jesus was the light of the world, and absolved us of our sins. We're all going to heaven whethere you're a pedophile a childkiller or a North Korean; the Bible supports this claim again and again and again.
What was Adam and Eve's punishment for sin? The Old Testmament speaks nothing on hell, because they didn't believe in one. God's punishment for mankind was that the fields would be hard to sow, that women would bear pain in childbirth, and that we now be "removed" from God's awesomeness. The introduction of Hell came centuries after Jesus's death, first through a man named Tertullian, and then continued until Augstine, who fused his earlier fire worshipping Paganism with his newfound Christianity. Augstine did more to corrupt Christ's message than probably anyone in the history of the church. And of course, he was made a saint for it.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 27 Dec 2006 18:18

Of course, counter to Tertullian, is a man named Origen, the most respected theologian of his time. Men like him and Polycarp and Clement and Justin and Athenagoras and Theophilus all preached the doctrine of universal redemption. In fact, of the five major Christian schools of the first few centuries, only the "Orthodox" church that was centered in Rome preached on the idea of Hell, which is of course one of the things that got muddled over with the fusion of Christianity and Roman empire.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Jan 2007 06:30

A couple of interesting things I've read recently.

1. "No religious belief" is an opinion growing faster in the world than any single religious view. - According to Dr Daniel Dennett (Co-Director -Center for Cognitive Studies - Tufts University) and published at www.edge.org

2. The top 10 countries in the world ranked by their adherence to human rights law according to the United Nations are also the same top 10 countries with the highest rate of freely choosing atheists (as opposed to people in some communist states). - According to Pamela Bone and published in The Australian.

Also, late reply, but regarding Einstein - rather than quoting the article myself, I suggest you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, who dedicates a large amount of time into dispelling the lies that Einstein was religious and describes much of the quotes Scott gave, in their full context - where it is clear that Einstein's meaning was completely different to what they could mean if you pretend that those single lines were actually his entire opinion. Here are a few more specific quotes from Einstein:

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion."

"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. "

You can read more about Einstein's "belief" in God here:

http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 20 Jan 2007 09:58

jeremy wrote:...dispelling the lies that Einstein was religious and describes much of the quotes Scott gave, in their full context - where it is clear that Einstein's meaning was completely different to what they could mean if you pretend that those single lines were actually his entire opinion.

oh yes, because you've never utilized misleading quotes in support of your beliefs (or to justify your non-belief) that were taken out of context, in order to convince people of what you believe is true.
clearly its wrong in either instance, but its done far too often to be pointing fingers.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Jan 2007 16:22

Give me an example of where I have done that, and if you can't, don't make baseless accusations - another tactic of religious people when they feel threatened - to personally attack the threat, instead of attacking their opinions.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 20 Jan 2007 17:48

Lol Jeremy, people think you're really smart (And I'm not saying you aren't) because you try so hard to appear logical, by tying in unrelated things like the 10 countries with the most Atheists or whatever and best human rights records. Fact is, you have given no proof that the two are related, and I haven't seen the list, but I'll guarantee that the ten countries have a very deep religious history, and of course the amount of Atheist's there and the particuliar countries human rights records are the result of many different factors, including I would assume wealth. Post the list of countries and then we can talk, because until then, you're just talking about some idiot and his book and quoting Einstein.

Also, in regards to your first little stat, I'm sure the same thing would've been true approximately 76 years ago, but the fact is, religious belief is a generational thing, and goes on a cycle. Be ready to be surprised when our generation (A very secular one, like that of the GI's) gives birth to the new baby boomers and religious hot-bodies.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Jan 2007 19:09

At no point did I attempt to draw a conclusion from that statistic. Maybe there is a connection, maybe it's just coincidence. I was simply quoting something I read, in fact misread, not saying that there was a connection.

Actually the statistic should have been that:

"But the fact is that the most peaceful, prosperous and healthy countries in the world, as judged by the UN's annual Human Development Reports, are the least religious. These are countries - Australia is one of them - in which religion is not banned or suppressed, but it is also not promoted by the state."

Least religious and most atheist are obviously similar things, and I'm unsure where "top 10" came from - I suspect it was from the article on the same page of the newspaper by Phillip Adams.

In any event you can read the article in question and address any queries as to the legitimacy of the claims to the place where it was claimed.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 83,00.html

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Jan 2007 19:12

And in case you're wondering, The Australian would be regarded as in the top highest quality newspapers in Australia (along with the Financial Review). It is a highly respect source, especially for political comment.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Jan 2007 19:15

Australia definitely does not have a deep religious history at all.

The US was founded by atheists for that matter, and now apparently 44% of people believe that Jesus will come back to Earth within the next 50 years.

Again, not drawing conclusions, if I was doing that, I would state the conclusion I draw. Just stating a reported fact and letting people draw their own conclusions.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 20 Jan 2007 21:22

I think it's quite clear western society was founded on christianity.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Jan 2007 21:23

Explain what you mean. The founders of Western society were obviously largely Christians. That's obviously different to saying our society is actually founded on Christianity.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 21 Jan 2007 01:23

At no point did I attempt to draw a conclusion from that statistic. Maybe there is a connection, maybe it's just coincidence. I was simply quoting something I read, in fact misread, not saying that there was a connection.

Dude, whatever. If you're going to imply like that on a internet forum; where most people foreknow the nature of your posistion, atleast hold to it in knowing that people are going to take the fact of you posting a statistic like that as something supporting your posistion, and don't try to pussyfoot out of it like it was just some interesting fact you read. Here's a fact that supports my posistion as verifiably as it does yours, which I wouldn't post normally, because it doesn't really prove or disprove anything: The immideate era we are living in, assuming you're country was either an ally or occuipied by allies at the end of WW2 (Discluding China) has been run mainly by Christian-Liberals. With that in mind, assuming the majority of countries in the list you speak of are Western European (Or very North North American

) based on the information that Australia is in there, then the countries within this UN list probably owe their good record in Human Rights to the establishments created within the three years following the end of WW2, of course largely instituted by the American's and other religious politicians of Europe. I include that because your clear in your singling out of America as a country with more religious activity, and a least reputable human rights repuation (Your words), which I assume you tie in with being peaceful, prosperous and healthy. All principles expoused by, guess who, Jesus (Yes, prosperity in a very specific way).

Oh, and how is Australia peaceful? Are you talking like, crime, or in regards to supporting American in a lot of very bad decisions, which you seem to love doing and getting your hands all bloody in dark skinned blood. What's the point in being peaceful at home and to your own countrymen, if you don't mind engaging in a little blood letting far off away every once in awhile? Same probably goes for all those other countrie's who are so "peaceful, prosperous and healthy" and white. The whole peaceful, prosperous, and healthy era we are in is the direct result of post-colonialism that the West engages in, which economically exploits other countries in the exact same way (Except more shadowy) that colonialism did before Globalization made it easier to work. And the thing is, I'm pretty sure you agree with my whole assertion, based on earlier posts of yours. So I think we're watching you're whole point falling apart. Atheist's in this age are just as capable of allowing atrocities as religious people are.

Oh, and I don't know what kind of Paper "The Australian" is, and frankly, I don't care. The only reason the words are in my mouth is because they're letting partisan idiots fill their Opinion's page. I'm all for different stories from different sides, but Pamela Bone just sounds like a fucking inflamatory idiot, in the ilk of Ann Coulter.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 21 Jan 2007 02:02

It is a highly respect source, especially for political comment.

Is that how you speak English in Australia? I don't care what a fucking newspaper says about "political comment" (?). But as far as language goes, I guess I forgot that Australia is nation of criminals, which probably explains:

Australia definitely does not have a deep religious history at all.

Australia definitely does not have a deep religious history at all.

The US was founded by atheists for that matter, and now apparently 44% of people believe that Jesus will come back to Earth within the next 50 years.

Again, not drawing conclusions, if I was doing that, I would state the conclusion I draw. Just stating a reported fact and letting people draw their own conclusions.

There were a considerable amount of Atheist's or otherwise "heretics" in the Church's eyes that participated historically to the founding of America, but that doesn't necesarily mean Atheist in the type of your ilk. George Washington described himself as a man who "prayed seldom", but it was more a result of his generation than anything (Same for you). There were a very large number of Christian's who had extremely prominent roles in the founding of America, but you have to remember that America was began (Caucazoidadly) as a means to get away from the religious oppression of Europe to found their own spiritual society, and has shown that somewhat duel secular-religious stride at different points many times in history.

Oh, and thanks for the reminder that you're not drawing conclusions. I should say though, for typing so much, you really don't seem to be saying jack shit. Unfortunatly you believe what you want to believe, but America is the product of religiousness as much as it is secularness. You seem to think that it's so amazing or something that some American politician's in the 18th century had Atheistic, Agnostic or Deistic views, like these ideas are new or something and you're so revolutionary and modern in believing them, and looking on religion as a thing of history. Like I said earlier, George Washington didn't pray much, and that is because he was a Deist personally, which is a title in itself only slightly less diverse as "Christian". He was, however, a life long member of the Episcopal Church. In actuality though, your claim that the US was founded by Atheist's is at best a lack in intellect on your part, and at worst an outright lie. Deist's, Atheist's, and Agnostic's were indeed a minority (Though a somewhat prominent minority in terms of noticeable names) in comparison with Theist's when looking at the overall signers of the three major legislations (Declaration, Constitution, Articles of Confederation) of the early United States. AKA, stop bullshitting Jeremy. I understand you have your views, but don't lie, and if you aren't lying and are just misinformed, then you ought to look into your shit better, aka something other than the God Delusion or whatever books you and Pamela Bone both seem to be freaking out over like it was your very own New Testament or something.

I think it's quite clear western society was founded on christianity.

This really isn't true to much of an extent. Western society was founded on a ton of fucking things, you can't just say "Christianity" and there's Western society, shit just isn't that simple. There was the Greek philosophical influence (And to a lesser extent Roman), and Middle East influence, and Slavic influence and everything else before Christianity was even on the block. Yes though, Christianity of course has played a huge role in Western society, especially, of fucking course, anno domini.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 21 Jan 2007 03:32

BainbridgeShred wrote:
At no point did I attempt to draw a conclusion from that statistic. Maybe there is a connection, maybe it's just coincidence. I was simply quoting something I read, in fact misread, not saying that there was a connection.
Dude, whatever. If you're going to imply like that on a internet forum; where most people foreknow the nature of your posistion, atleast hold to it in knowing that people are going to take the fact of you posting a statistic like that as something supporting your posistion, and don't try to pussyfoot out of it like it was just some interesting fact you read. Here's a fact that supports my posistion as verifiably as it does yours, which I wouldn't post normally, because it doesn't really prove or disprove anything: The immideate era we are living in, assuming you're country was either an ally or occuipied by allies at the end of WW2 (Discluding China) has been run mainly by Christian-Liberals. With that in mind, assuming the majority of countries in the list you speak of are Western European (Or very North North American ) based on the information that Australia is in there, then the countries within this UN list probably owe their good record in Human Rights to the establishments created within the three years following the end of WW2, of course largely instituted by the American's and other religious politicians of Europe. I include that because your clear in your singling out of America as a country with more religious activity, and a least reputable human rights repuation (Your words), which I assume you tie in with being peaceful, prosperous and healthy. All principles expoused by, guess who, Jesus (Yes, prosperity in a very specific way).

Can you give a source for those claims, because I'm fairly sure that the US, the UK and indeed, most of the countries involved in WW2 were secular countries. Which is to say that they have a clear division between politics and religion. If that is the case, then what did the religious views have to do with the political views. You think that the Truman doctrine was inspired by Jesus? Do you have anything to back up that claim, or are you just making it up?

Oh, and how is Australia peaceful? Are you talking like, crime, or in regards to supporting American in a lot of very bad decisions, which you seem to love doing and getting your hands all bloody in dark skinned blood.

I didn't say Australia was peaceful - the UN report on Human Development said we were. I just quoted what they said. I'm sure you know a great deal more about world politics than the UN and I expect you'll be ruling the world soon.

Oh, and I don't know what kind of Paper "The Australian" is, and frankly, I don't care. The only reason the words are in my mouth is because they're letting partisan idiots fill their Opinion's page. I'm all for different stories from different sides, but Pamela Bone just sounds like a fucking inflamatory idiot, in the ilk of Ann Coulter.

Pamela Bone is nothing like Ann Coulter. You are entitled to your opinions and to make such a statement gives the rest of us as much of an idea of you as it does about anything else.

Australia definitely does not have a deep religious history at all.

I'm sorry, but what's wrong with that statement? It makes sense to me, and it's actually just a rephrase of what you said earlier:

but I'll guarantee that the ten countries have a very deep religious history

So I don't understand what point you're making. Maybe you'll have to be clearer.

"Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice."
-- Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572.

Here are a list of more quotes by and about George Washington. He may have been a deist, or he may have been an Atheist. It's a debatable issue I guess. What is certain is that he was a secularist.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quo ... ington.htm

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams may well have deists too although Christopher Hitchens, in his book "Thomas Jefferson: Author of America" puts forward a strong case that they were all atheists aware of the political climate they were in.

There are a great deal of books that I've read about religion, and The God Delusion is just one of many. If you think you can win an argument by putting words into people's mouth and using your famous strawmen defences then good luck to you.

Yes I know what conclusions other people may draw from statistics, and it's why I put them forward. For example did you know that a meta study by MENSA found that of 43 studies into the relationship between religion and intelligence, 39 found that the more intelligent you are the less likely you are to be religious and 4 found no relation. However I see little point in putting forward my opinions on these matters. People shouldn't make their minds up based on my opinion, they should make their mind up on the facts, and I'm much happier putting forward the views of other people, than the views of myself. That's how debating works, it's how law works, it's how the world of selling things works. You have as much authority on this issue as I do, but people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Pamela Bone, the United Nations and Christopher Hitchens have a great deal more experience and knowledge on the subject, so putting forward their opinions is much better than putting forward mine or yours. If you have counter arguments, back them up with sources, because I really don't care what people with your aspirations in life care.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 21 Jan 2007 04:09

Yes, well, I could have worded that better. I meant that christianity was a large influence. Obviously it wasn't christianity and that's all, that's ludicrous.

Just because there is a technical division between religion and politics in these countries doesn't mean there's a real division. Certainly our societies values are very much christian based and that would flow through to law and politics.

Anyway, I'm not informed enough to discuss this properly... I'm waiting for Jeremy to blast away my above comment