what religion?

[Jeremy]

You're entitled to your opinions. It's really an irrelevant point because we're now in the opportunity to create our own future. Even if our society was based entirely on direct teachings from the Bible, that wouldn't make it right. Actually Jared Diamond, in his Pulitzer Prize winning book; Guns, Germs and Steel gives a very good account of why our society is actually on top - and it's not because our God is any better.


I just wanted to share this article I stumbled upon, because I think it says more than I ever could.
----------------------

I Was an Atheist in a Foxhole
Philip K. Paulson

Belief in life after death was a dangerous indulgence in Vietnam

Watching the Vietnam War during the mid-1960s on the nightly news inspired me to perform my patriotic duty and join the Army. There, I was trained as a light weapons infantryman and a paratrooper. I was ordered to the front lines of battle in South Vietnam in September 1966 and fought until January 1968. I extended my tour of duty for the special privilege of an early honorable discharge.

My Vietnam War experiences began in the fall of 1966 fighting the South Vietnamese communists — the Viet Cong. After my first month in Vietnam, I became an atheist. My former religion was Lutheran, due to my Swedish ancestry which traditionally dictates that progeny be so baptized. I could understand only a primitive concept of God. I rebelled. No compassionate God, I thought, would permit all this killing to happen. After witnessing the dead and wounded during my first "firefight," I looked up and said, "You sadistic God! You're not worthy of my worship!"

Medical evacuation by helicopter "dust-off" was a comfort to many soldiers in the jungles. When soldiers incurred critical wounds, they could expect to be returned home to the United States. Otherwise, they could be assured of arriving at a hospital operating table and being treated with professional care, usually in about thirty minutes. However, when ambushed and outnumbered by an enemy force with superior firepower, the fear of dying strikes one's intellect and emotions to the point of crippling panic.

This happened to me near a hamlet northwest of Saigon. I, along with five other men, was assigned to night duty at an outpost about a half-mile from company perimeters. We carried only our M-16 rifles, grenades, Claymore mines, and a two-way radio to protect us. That night we were surprised by an assault group of Viet Cong guerrilla fighters. Three dead young American soldiers were silhouetted by the moon's reflections inside our outpost bunker. The radio man sputtered, "Oh, Lord! Lord! Help us!" My response to him was to stop praying. I exclaimed, "To hell with God! You help us! You radio back for mortar and artillery fire support!" Fortunately, he regained his composure and radioed the forward observers for fire support to be directed at our map coordinates. Common sense dictated that staying alive was more important than wasting precious time praying. Consequently, he saved our lives.

The next morning, I was thrilled to see the men from my company. Fortunately, I didn't sustain any personal injuries from the night assault. However, the assaults of the next morning struck me personally when a surviving soldier said to me, "See, Paulson, God answers prayers." I replied, "I'm damn glad that someone was an atheist in a foxhole!" He laughed because he thought I was joking, and I had to allow him to believe that I was — I had to keep my atheism to myself.

I knew that proclaiming to be an atheist while on duty in South Vietnam could likely prejudiced promotions and possibly cause harmful reprisals. An atheist was perceived as tantamount to being a communist. Our army chaplain was a fundamentalist Christian who saw the devil in virtually everything he didn't believe in. Army chaplains wielded a lot of power; their opinions could make the difference between whether or not you got promoted. So, I was quiet about my nonbelief in God.

I suffered through horrifying moments, expecting to be killed. I was convinced that no cosmic rescuer would save me. Besides, I believed life after death was merely wishful thinking. There were times when I expected to suffer a painful, agonizing death. My frustration and anger at being caught in a dilemma of life- and-death situations simply infuriated me. Hearing the sound of bullets whistling through the air and popping near my ears was damned scary. Fortunately, I was never physically wounded.

One day I heard the chaplain preach that we should be happy and willing to die so that we could be with Jesus. After hearing that, some people praised God. I cursed God. Cursing and swearing were very therapeutic and healthy for me; it game me the courage of Hercules. It gave me confidence in my ability and skill to stay alive. I was determined to live on this side of the grave. I could not believe that there was a better life than this one, so I rejected the foolish notion that my existence was based upon the extremes of God and the devil, heaven and hell, and life after death.

When facing death, my thought was to stay alive. I was just infuriated by all the people praying and wasting my precious time and theirs. When the chips are down and there's no one to turn to for help, and you've found out that it's just you who has been helping all along, that's the big difference. I discovered in combat that there is no one to turn to — it's just you who has been saving your own ass all along. My answer to death was simply, "Oh well, I'll be pushing daisies." If I survived and looked at another person's death, I'd think it's not my body that's being counted." I was fighting to stay alive — not praying for life after death.

I told my company clerk to issue me new dogtags with "none" stamped on them for my religious preference. The excuse I gave was that I didn't have any religion. Although I didn't know it at the time, I was a humanist.

Later when I was getting short (a term used in Vietnam for guys who were nearing discharge and would be returning home), I felt freer to proclaim my atheism and started spouting off. I figured, what could they do then — kill me?

When I had first arrived in South Vietnam and reported to my assigned military unit, I told my platoon sergeant that I could not kill anyone. He told me that there are no pacifists or atheists in foxholes. He was wrong. One of my army buddies was a very bright and articulate medic. I asked him why he wasn't carrying a rifle or even a pistol, and he replied that he was a pacifist. His pacifism was unpopular with some soldiers in the company, and he received some verbal ridicule and scorn. However, this didn't seem to bother him.

Being under fire didn't seem to bother him either or keep him from performing his duty. I recall seeing my buddy risk his life many times during very frightening battles, fearlessly running about various terrain and attending to the wounded. Then, one dreadful day, I saw his lifeless body riddled with bullet holes, struck dead by Viet Cong small-arms fire. They wrapped him in a body bag for dust-off. I recall my platoon sergeant's remark, "That pacifist might have lived if he had had a weapon to defend himself."

I remember that when I first thought about enlisting, I wondered if I might be a conscientious objector. I really wrestled with that thought at the beginning, wondering, "Could I really kill somebody?" But when ultimately faced with the choice in a combat situation — to kill or be killed — I opted for life. However, my buddy did find himself in that situation: he couldn't kill, yet he chose to go into the service. And they sent him to Vietnam. They should have kept him in the States. He ended up getting killed.

The small bands of Viet Cong soldiers practiced guerrilla warfare: strike and ambush and retreat into the jungle. We searched and destroyed the Viet Cong's sanctuaries with our small platoon and squad-sized patrols. My company was ordered to demolish their tunnels, destroy their food supplies, confiscate their munitions, and take into custody all surviving prisoners of war.

The heavy foliage in South Vietnam's jungles was treacherous. I recall sneaking up death-laden trails and through heavy under- brush where shattered, razor-sharp bamboo booby traps could cut a finger clean off. I recall with disgust the monsoon rains, blood-sucking leaches crawling everywhere, and the merciless malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Every stroke of the noisy machete cutting a jungle trail brought fear of the Viet Cong; they could hear us and planned their ambushes accordingly. Aircraft would sometimes fly overhead spraying orange clouds of chemicals to defoliate the jungle below. This chemical, known as Agent Orange, was sometimes sprayed directly on top of us. Severe skin rashes would result day later.

During one search-and-destroy mission of tunnel complexes, we came upon hundred-pound sacks of rice. My company commander summoned by radio a demolition team to burn up this cache of rice with white phosphorous explosives. I pleaded with the commander to stop the demolition group from burning the sacks. I challenged his sense of moral responsibility, reminding him of the villages and hamlets we had travelled through were we had witnessed thousands of starving refugees crying for something to eat. I threatened to write to my congressman. Frustrated and angry, I climbed atop the pile with my rifle and threatened to remain there and die if necessary, rather than permit them to burn it up. My commander ordered a squad of soldiers to force me down from the pile, but no one could grab me without getting a swift kick off the pile. The commander then threatened, "Come down or you'll be court marshalled." Finally, after much futile prodding, he gave in and said, "Okay, come on down, we'll transport the rice out." He radioed for armored transport carriers to transport the sacks of rice to the local communities for distribution.

My defiant act of insubordination could have resulted in severe disciplinary action. Fortunately, I only received a verbal reprimand by the company commander. But I'll never forget what he told me: "You should know that that rice is going into the hands of the Viet Cong. When we leave, the Viet Cong will come and steal it from the people."

During mid-1967, the North Vietnamese Army marched out of southern Laos along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Our military tactics changed from guerrilla warfare to full company-size combat movement. We confronted full regiments of North Vietnamese combat units in the northern highlands of South Vietnam. I can still vividly remember the carnage, my buddies screaming for help, and my terror at the sight of the dead and dying. I fought in one of the bloodiest battles of Vietnam: the battle for Dak To in November 1967. I deeply missed my army buddies who died in those mountains. In my rage and sorrow, I openly expressed my atheistic philosophy to anyone — whether they wanted to hear it or not.

I was surprised to meet the chaplain again prior to departing Vietnam. He rhetorically inquired if I was ever "saved" and if I had ever felt the presence of the Holy Spirit. he had heard through the grapevine that I didn't believe in God, and he expressed fearful concern that if I died I would go to hell. I told him not to bother worrying about me. I was happy to live a long and happy life. Before saying good bye, I left him with one inspirational thought: "If you think the Holy Spirit is great, try thinking freely — unfettered by superstitions and ritualistic creeds."

In 1973, I decided that I agreed with the philosophy of the American Humanist Association. I needed to belong to a group of nontheists who share my vision of hope and who inculcate rational methods of reasoning, social sympathy, and cooperative skills.

Today, I have redefined my sense of patriotism. To be a patriotic American is to recognize that I am also a citizen of a world community; after all, a peaceful earth has no hostile boundaries. The AHA's Humanist Manifesto II was most appealing to me. It offers constructive alternatives to resolve conflicts without future wars and bloodshed. The thirteenth point of Humanist Manifesto II proclaims:

The world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. We believe in the peaceful adjudication of differences by international courts and by the development of the arts of negotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and people- oriented uses.

Philip K. Paulson has a bachelor's degree in Journalism, a master's degree in Public Administration, and a master's degree in Management of Information Systems. He is an active member of the Humanist Association of San Diego and a Plaintiff in a federal court suit against the city of San Diego to challenge the constitutionality of a latin cross placed on Mount Soledad Public Park.

(This article appeared in the September/October 1989 issue of The Humanist magazine.)

----

Philip K. Paulson died in 2006, having won every single hearing about the Mt Soledad cross. The issue is still before the US Supreme Court.

[slapdash21]

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.

um how about when, in your signature, you PARAPHRASED a quote from the bible, out of context? it was a paraphrase of a quote, from a parable, from a rarely-used edition of the bible, which in YOUR opinion stated clearly that if you dont support the NWO of jesus you will immediately be killed. now IM paraphrasing, because i dont have exactly what it said, but you cant deny that is pretty much the gist of your paraphrasing.

[full nelson]

Sam Harris

[Jeremy]

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.

um how about when, in your signature, you PARAPHRASED a quote from the bible, out of context? it was a paraphrase of a quote, from a parable, from a rarely-used edition of the bible, which in YOUR opinion stated clearly that if you dont support the NWO of jesus you will immediately be killed. now IM paraphrasing, because i dont have exactly what it said, but you cant deny that is pretty much the gist of your paraphrasing.

Actually all I did was write out a direct quote from the King James bible.

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Luke 19 - 26.

At no stage did I say what I think it means, although I'd be curious to know what you think.

[james_dean]

Come on Jeremy, it's pretty obvious the point your making with these quotes and statistics so stop pretending your not doing it.

My point wasn't that christianity is the reason our societies are 'on top'. Nor that it's right (Although obviously I believe it is, but that wasn't the point I was making). My point was simply that I believe to call western societies athiest is incorrect. Nor do I think it's irrelevant. Yes we do have the opportunity to create our own future, but a lot don't choose that option. Our history and our societies values impact upon us greatly, despite the fact that we have the option of completely rejecting them.

Also I wouldn't call it my opinion, rather my current understanding of our values/history. If I'm wrong, let me know.


I'd like to think I'm being objective, but I guess that's not possible.

[Jeremy]

Oh that's ridiculous. I have never called Western societies atheist and that's clearly not the case at all. If Western societies were atheist I wouldn't care.

There is nothing atheist about Western society. Western society is largely secular - and it is that secularity that has played probably the most significant role in allowing us to live in the largely tolerant society that we live in today.

You could well claim that that secularism comes from the bible, certainly there are a number of quotes from Jesus that do essentially support a secular society (I'll have to look them up though). In fact the Christian idea that we have free will, should lead to a secular society where people are free to make their own moral choices. Instead we constantly have religious people trying to tell us what is ok and what isn't. Homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the bible. Fine, don't be a homosexual - there is no way in which gay marriage has any effect on other people's lives and the bible tells you that God will judge them anyway. The message of tolerance in the bible is lost. We have stem cell debates and abortion debates and homosexuality debates - all led by Christian groups trying to enforce their moral beliefs onto the rest of us. You could easily argue that the Bible puts forward a view of secular government and that that's a corner stone of our society, but these days many Christians don't see it that way. Why should we tolerate the beliefs of some people to say that their morals come from what God says, and not the beliefs of other people, who claim that their morals come from the exact same place, but have different morals?

I do not ask that you change your beliefs and become an atheist. I simply ask to live in a world where I am entitled to make my own moral decisions, especially in cases where I do not believe that anybody is harmed. If it turns out you're right, and I go to hell - didn't God give me that choice? If it turns out I'm right, and God doesn't exist - isn't religion forcing incorrect values onto me?

Now obviously all religious people do not have the same views at all. However there is no logic in accepting some people's views and not accepting others. I oppose all religious dogma because otherwise I could only rationalise accepting it. And I know I say this a million times and people still misunderstand, unlike religion, I only oppose things by stating my own opinion. I don't try want the laws changed to force my views on people, I don't want to kill people, I just want to live in a rational world, where choices are made on what we actually know, not on what we hope is true.

[slapdash21]

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.

um how about when, in your signature, you PARAPHRASED a quote from the bible, out of context? it was a paraphrase of a quote, from a parable, from a rarely-used edition of the bible, which in YOUR opinion stated clearly that if you dont support the NWO of jesus you will immediately be killed. now IM paraphrasing, because i dont have exactly what it said, but you cant deny that is pretty much the gist of your paraphrasing.

Actually all I did was write out a direct quote from the King James bible.

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Luke 19 - 26.

At no stage did I say what I think it means, although I'd be curious to know what you think.

no, sorry, im done here. i refuse to continue in any discussion where the person im discussing with refuses to admit any wrong at all. i said your quoting of a parable was intended to convince people of something that isnt clearly stated in the actual quote, and you refuse to assent that did in fact, take place at all. so i refuse to offer my opinion on this parable other than to remind you that it is such (a parable) and not a direct quote from Jesus at all. apparently you would have me believe you had them in your signature for any reason OTHER than trying to convince people of SOMETHING? and unless im retarded (go ahead, imply that i am), i have a distinct hunch of exactly what you are trying to convince people of. it would be immature and a sign of poor debating skills if you continue to, as jamie said, pretend that you had some mysterious other motive behind ambiguously quoting the bible in the way that you did. since you refuse to admit that you are wrong or hypocritical in any area of this discussion, as i've already proven, i will no longer patronize you with what i have to say.

[Jeremy]

Anybody who read a one word quote in a persons signature and decided, based on that quote, to give up their religious beliefs, would be an idiot.

I have never converted, or even come close to converting, a single person from religious belief to non religious belief. I have managed to convert two people from agnosticism to atheism, and that's as good as I think I can hope to achieve.

Let's have a sense of realism here. When I put forward quotes or statistics, obviously they lead to particular conclusions, conclusions that I'm well aware of, but obviously they're not anywhere near convincing enough to make people throw out their religious beliefs.

All I can hope is that people read these things and think about them for themselves.

Jesus said in his parable, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

What does that mean? It's a parable, that means he's obviously talking about something beyond the literal meaning of that story. I believe, and I've had much discussion with very strong evangelists who believe the same thing, that he's essentially saying that those who do not take God into their heart - that don't accept Jesus as their saviour etc. will be brought before God/Jesus when they die and will be condemned to Hell. What he's saying is even worse than the literal interpretation of that story - he's saying if you don't accept Jesus as your saviour, your spirit will be killed (or at least sent to hell to suffer for all eternity).

Now I know that literalist Christians would have no problem with this, and non-literalist Christians don't actually believe in the supernatural side of the bible, so such a quote will not achieve anything amongst those people.

So the aim of such a quote was to make agnostics and people who are unsure of their beliefs to think about what kind of morality Christianity actually teaches. I believe, personally, that saying something along the lines of "those who don't agree with me will die" is an immoral thing to believe, and that we should aim to live in a society without such intolerance. I would hope that people would read the quote, go find a copy of the bible and read the whole chapter, and see that despite the claims, Christianity doesn't have the same sense of morality that today's society has.

I definitely do not want people to take my word for it - that's the same kind of dogmatic thinking that I oppose. People should learn to think for themselves.

"If you think the Holy Spirit is great, try thinking freely — unfettered by superstitions and ritualistic creeds." - Philip K Paulson


Of course everything I say, I say for a reason. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise and I have never done so.

What I claim, and you can believe this as much as you like, is that I do not utilise misleading quotes, or quotes that are taken out of context, and I'm certainly not doing it to convince people of my own beliefs, but trying to get them to think for themselves so they can make their own conclusion.

Atheism is not like religion at all. Religion relies on people believing things on faith. Atheism does not require any faith at all, it is the reasoned and logical belief of looking at the universe and making decisions, based not on what we'd like to believe, or what people tell us to believe, but on what we actually can see and know. People don't become atheists because somebody tells them to, they become atheists because they start thinking for themselves.

What we see here, from Splashdash, is the final step in a religious debate. First things are over rational issues. Then the religious people realise they can't win on rationality and they resort to personal attacks, as we have seen. Finally, because you don't play their game, they state that it's impossible for the debate to continue because of the way you're debating, and they give up.

Instead of worrying about my motives, why don't you worry about my arguments. If I say something you think is misleading, say so.

"Jeremy that argument is false and misleading, because..."

In all serious debates, you address what the person says, not why they're saying it or what kind of person they are.

[james_dean]

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I see what you were saying now And I definately understand how the gay rights/abortion etc issues would anger you.

re: the parable...

I guess it's a completely different viewpoint. if christianity is true, we are all sinners and all actually deserve to go to hell. As a human this is a bit hard to fathom, of course. The point is not that the non-believers are punished, rather that believers are saved beyond what the deserve.

I'm sure you know this all already though. If it's hard for me to take as a christian, I can only imagine how hard it must be to take for an athiest. As I've said before... it's definately something I think about.

[fatbagger]

Slapdash, you are not retarded you are dead.

Jeremy, how the hell did you win an argument with a religeous person.

I'm a dick, so what.

[BainbridgeShred]

Jeremy, a few days ago I was going to reply to your thread, but when I clicked submit, I wasn't logged in and I lost the post. The basis was this though: You are a big vagina with no intellectual integrity, and instead of debating with your own ideas (In the spirit of the internet), you prefer to tell me what Richard Dawkin's thinks. I don't know if this is all because you were raised in some funny post-modern Australian commune, where confidence in ones own personal beliefs aren't focused on. So Jeremy, I come onto modified not to figure out second hand what Richard fucking Dawkins thinks, I want to know what Jeremy O'Wheel thinks, otherwise I'd just wikipedia Richard Dawkins name. So have some fortitude, and realize that it is only an internet forum, no one is trying to pass a law, and grow some balls.

[Jeremy]

Have you read any Richard Dawkins? I have never seen my last argument in a Richard Dawkins book, and I would love it if you could point out to me which book he says what I wrote, so I can read it.

Incidentally, I know, for a fact, that he hasn't used it in a book, and that your statement is false. What I think is exactly what I write. You could as easily claim that everything I say is the opinion of Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett or Bertrand Russell or Isaac Asimov. Certainly, I believe in rationalism and logic, and like those people, what I argue is based around those ideals. I choose knowledge over making things up every time.

[Jeremy]

This almost deserves it's own topic:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_1.html

Sam Harris vs Andrew Sullivan on the question of religion.

I challenge all religious people to read the entire article.

[fatbagger]

I second the dare.

great article, this really grinds my gears.

"I have seen fundamentalists do amazing work for the poor and forgotten - driven entirely by their fundamentalist fervor. Try and think of how many souls and bodies the Salvation Army has saved, for example, how many sick people have been treated by doctors and volunteers motivated solely by religious conviction, how many homeless people have been taken in and loved by those seized by the fundamentalist delusion." Andrew Sullivan

"religion gets people to do good things for bad reasons, when good reasons are actually available" Sam Harris

You should not do certian things because you are afraid of going to hell.


Oh, I better not molest children because I might go to hell.
How about because it is wrong and can scar the child for life.

Religion is so selfish, everything they do is for themselves.

[james_dean]

Do you know anything about religion? That's not what it's about at all.

I'm sure some people do good things purely because they're scared of going to hell, but that's not religions fault, it's not what it preaches. In my experience, one of the major reasons christians do good is because they want to help people.

I'll probably read that article this arvo.

[Jeremy]

Awaiting your response eagerly Jamie. I'm interested to note that you know more about religion than somebody who has been studying religion at Stanford University for the last 20 years, and am sure you'll offer some good insights.

[Jeremy]

Sorry for the double post, I'd be interested to see your essay on why Christians do good things, Jamie. Go into some depth. If you can write it in Gonzo journalism style you get bonus points

Of course Marc Hauser explains it, from a scientific point of view, very well in his book; Moral Minds; How Nature designed Our Sense Of Right And Wronggw, but his answer, formulated by surveying cultures on every continent, is probably not the answer you want to give (because he would show, through his evidence, that 95% of people want to do good things, regardless of religious belief and culture. Religion just changes the definition of good).

[Scott]

Jeremy,
can you explain to me what you mean when you said

Religion just changes the definition of good

How does religion change the definition of good? What was the definition of good before religion?
I would have thought the definition was subjective anyway.

Also, i'm sure Jamie doesn't need my defence and I may be wrong, but I don't think he was actually rejecting Sam Harris's assertion but merely the previous post by Fatbagger when he said

Religion is so selfish, everything they do is for themselves.

Jamie said that one of the major reasons Christians do good things is because they want to help people, not because they are afraid of going to hell. This point is obviously supported by Marc Hauser's study indicating that 95% of people want to do good things without any need for motivation by fear of going to hell.

[gMoney]

i'm falling away from christianity because of stuff like that. in these last couple of years i believed in god because i didn't want to go to hell. it shouldn't be like that. i still wouldn't want to go to hell if there is one, but i don't want to believe in a religion where i feel forced to believe. but i do think that some religious people do good things just to do good, not just to get a possible one way ticket to heaven (maybe just the smart ones, but they're still ones out there). i think that christians that do good deeds to get into heaven are total hippocrites. it's like doing homework just to impress your teacher, when you should just be doing your work anyways. but you can't just make statements that direct towards a big group of people when not all people believe the same way. it's like saying america sucks. america does suck, but there are still some sane people living in it.

(was gunna post this earlier, but scott beat me to it so it's kind of out of context, but whatever, you get the point)

[gMoney]

aw dude this was sad.. found this on youtube, just watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PXrBQlN ... ed&search=