What I find is interesting is that it feels far more like the majority of athiests are so because of poor religious experiences rather actual searching or figuring it out for themselves. Basically they were turned off from God and didn't like the "God" they saw rather than determined that there wasn't a God.
Not sure I'd say "the majority." Most definitely, there's a lot of what you describe. In my personal experience, though, most of the atheists I know are that way because they've thought through all the alternatives and considered that one to be the most likely possibility. Then again, I know a lot of scientists, who tend to be very analytical people.
I'm interested to know if you also feel that most Christians are that way because of upbringing, rather than because of "actual searching or figuring it out for themselves." I've definitely known a few that fit in that latter category... but I know even more of them in the former.
...What would you have liked? I am asking honestly as I really don't think that you are alone in that.
Let's not forget that one doesn't investigate religion based on what one "likes". Rather, a sincere investigation of religion involves searching for what is real and true, regardless of whether one likes it or not. A religion that one holds merely for the sake of comfort is mere self delusion. Only a religion that one holds because it has proven true and reliable is of any use at all. I don't want a religion that makes me feel better; I want a religion that I can count on for eternity.
Then again, it's a bit of a misdirection to say that any religion at all is of use. Religions are manmade, after all. Rather, I want to find God and get to know Him better. It is only incidental that doing so tends to lead me into a religion.
Science isn't all that interested in religiosity.
Very true. Most religious proclomations are supernatural, so there's nothing for scientists to test. They'd just sit around twiddling their thumbs until some sort of physical question came up.
I'm interested to know if you also feel that most Christians are that way because of upbringing, rather than because of "actual searching or figuring it out for themselves." I've definitely known a few that fit in that latter category... but I know even more of them in the former.
In over a decade of ministry I have never met a single Christian who came to faith through upbringing - though several have had an upbringing that encouraged them to find faith. By definition one cannot BE a Christian through upbringing, citizenship, culture, or other affiliation. To quote the Master: "You must be born again."
And yes, I know full well that there are going to be tons and tons of people who are offended by this. Many are going to be from other "faiths" and will insist that my view is only one way to look at it. Others are going to think how bigoted/closed-minded/intolerant/etc I am for saying such things. Others may be offended that I would even dare to suggest I know "the" truth of the matter. I don't care - fact is fact, truth is truth, and God is who He has revealed Himself to be.
Science isn't all that interested in religiosity.Very true. Most religious proclomations are supernatural, so there's nothing for scientists to test. They'd just sit around twiddling their thumbs until some sort of physical question came up.
What's also true is that many scientific proclamations are also based on personal opinion, flawed human interpretation, emotional preference, worldview, and political agenda as well.
|
Not sure I'd say "the majority." Most definitely, there's a lot of what you describe. In my personal experience, though, most of the atheists I know are that way because they've thought through all the alternatives and considered that one to be the most likely possibility. Then again, I know a lot of scientists, who tend to be very analytical people.
Yeah, it may not be "majority". It could also be along the same lines as above where the loudest people are the most heard.
I'm interested to know if you also feel that most Christians are that way because of upbringing, rather than because of "actual searching or figuring it out for themselves." I've definitely known a few that fit in that latter category... but I know even more of them in the former.
Good question. I really don't know. I think that there are a lot of people that turn to the church in times of trouble and then leave when the trouble is gone.
Truthfully I really think that there are fewer in the camp of "figuring it out for themselves". However I also don't think that the only other option is "upbringing". There are a lot of reasons that people turn to Christianity (or other religions for that matter). Probably primary among those reasons is because they were "hurt" somewhere along the way of life.
Also, I think that part of the reason for the lack of people in the "figuring it out" camp is because -- as Sebastian kind of hinted at long ago (or was it more than a hint) -- that intelligent people don't "need" God. They can solve their own problems themselves (or something along those lines). They see how the world operates and works and don't need some outdated antiquity to tell them how it works. They seem to feel that "God" fulfills an area of their life that they don't feel needs to be filled.
Just some (somewhat) random thoughts.
What's also true is that many scientific proclamations are also based on personal opinion, flawed human interpretation, emotional preference, worldview, and political agenda as well.
In which case they are, by definition, not "scientific" proclamations, but rather opinions, or political proclamations, etc.
And yes, I know full well that there are going to be tons and tons of people who are offended by this. Many are going to be from other "faiths" and will insist that my view is only one way to look at it. Others are going to think how bigoted/closed-minded/intolerant/etc I am for saying such things. Others may be offended that I would even dare to suggest I know "the" truth of the matter. I don't care - fact is fact, truth is truth, and God is who He has revealed Himself to be.
Pardon me, but it almost sounds as if you want to offend people, that you're spoiling for some kind of argument. Or am I mistaken? Your first paragraph wasn't offensive at all, but then you started in with all that stuff in the second -- especially putting other "faiths" in quotes the way you did, knowing full well from reading the thread (if you have been) that there are people from other faiths here.
Hopefully I am misinterpreting the gist of your post. After all, this is the "Civil Religious Discussion" thread, not the "Pick A Religious Argument" thread.
Well, in the interest of not feeding trolls, I will just state that I am hereby deciding to ignore Bubbagump, until such a time as he can prove himself not to be a troll.
What I would have liked to see, Moff, was a reasoning on how to live a good, fulfilling life, in terms that did not read like "controlling the masses 101". One of the things I don't do is use people's ignorance to exploit them. Just using the catholic church, there are tons of examples of this thinking, sadly. First off, the council at Nicea was ordered by emperor Constantin, and the big people of the early christian churches were there on pain of death. Inconvenient books like the gnostic texts that were considered part of christianity were stricken from the records. Oddly enough, many of those texts focused on the divinity within each and every human, and of an individual faith. With time, various strange practices grew, such as confessing one's sins (gives priests and above all the church TONS of dirt on everyone), indulgences (gave the church a majority of the land in Europe at one time), suppression of nonbelievers' views (and burnings of those who dared question dogma), populistic practices (every society can easily find people they like to burn, such as witches), and, all in all, an EXTREMELY wealthy and powerful church.
You know... how to live a good, fulfilling life needn't be riddled with stuff you should do so that the church can more easily control you.
Another thing: I would have liked not having to do all these bizarre practices. Christianity isn't the worst at this. Orthodox judaism is much worse, with every ounce of time regulated with things to do that you have to really believe to appreciate. From what I've heard, buddhism is also riddled with this.
Living a good, fulfilling life shouldn't mean you have to jump backwards on one foot every time you enter a room, or sacrifice doves with every menstruation.
And finally, I would have liked not having all those taboos, viciously exploited by all sorts of religious movements. Some examples are not mixing milk and meat, or not eating shellfish, or not taking insurances, or not THINKING in various ways. Most studies on this subject show that taboos survive for far longer than proscriptions, because they are a tool for discerning who is in-group and who is out-group. All in all, this seems to me to be pandering to mankind's lowest instincts.
Living a good, fulfilling life shouldn't require people to give up everything that's good about this life, only to give them a not-provable Heaven after they're dead and can no longer tell about whether it was true or not.
So... there is a lot I don't like about the religious systems we have so far. And to nobody's surprise, I am not a believer. When I see a message that can convince me that living this way would be a good, fulfilling life, then I'll think about it again.
Another thing: I would have liked not having to do all these bizarre practices. From what I've heard, buddhism is also riddled with this.
Well, if by "bizarre practices" you mean actually paying attention to what you're doing (the focus of the practice of midfulness), then you've heard correctly. There are no strange rituals (at least, not in the Buddha's teachings), no human sacrifices, nor anything else that gaudy, though. Occasionally we like to meditate; some people definitely consider spending time just sitting and breathing to be "bizarre." If you have any questions about Buddhism, just feel free to ask them, by the way. (No need to go on vague hearsay when there's a Zen Buddhist contibuting to the thread.)
|
|
You know... how to live a good, fulfilling life ...
Are you actually looking for this or are you just using this to show how organized religion is lacking? I don't think I've ever known anyone who was looking to the church for how to live a good and fulfilling life. That almost seems contradictory -- I'm looking for someone to tell me how to live my life without telling me how to live my life.
You bring up a lot of good points as to a lot of the issues that "Christianity" and organized religion have faced -- especially in the past. A lot of your examples of "Christianity", however, are more specifically Catholic rather than what I am used to as "Christian". I just want you to understand that I really feel that there is a fairly significant difference between the two.
Basic "beliefs" (as I see it) on what I believe that Christianity teaches about "living a good and fulfilling life" --
"Love the Lord your God"
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
"If you know what you should do and don't do it, it is wrong"
That's pretty much it as I see it as far as "living a good and fulfilling life". There is more, of course, but it doesn't really help answer the question of how to live a "good life".
And yes, I know full well that there are going to be tons and tons of people who are offended by this. Many are going to be from other "faiths" and will insist that my view is only one way to look at it. Others are going to think how bigoted/closed-minded/intolerant/etc I am for saying such things. Others may be offended that I would even dare to suggest I know "the" truth of the matter. I don't care - fact is fact, truth is truth, and God is who He has revealed Himself to be.Pardon me, but it almost sounds as if you want to offend people, that you're spoiling for some kind of argument. Or am I mistaken? Your first paragraph wasn't offensive at all, but then you started in with all that stuff in the second -- especially putting other "faiths" in quotes the way you did, knowing full well from reading the thread (if you have been) that there are people from other faiths here.
Hopefully I am misinterpreting the gist of your post. After all, this is the "Civil Religious Discussion" thread, not the "Pick A Religious Argument" thread.
You are absolutely right - that did sound a bit trollish, and I apologize for the tone.
By way of explanation - and please note that I am NOT trying to justify my trollish tone; I am merely trying to explain why I sometimes feel trollish about it - I was reacting to the angry and hateful comments that often come my way when I make such statements. I have spent years contesting with many so-called "Christian" groups, and I am tired of the idea/belief that there are "many" Christian faiths. In simple fact, there is only one - I am not saying that my faith is the only true faith, by the way; I am saying that there is only one true form of Christianity and that it is practiced by a whole slew of churches/organizations/faith communities. And while these groups do not necessarily agree on every detail, we do agree on the vast majority of them.
And then there are lots and lots of other groups who follow a Christian-like tradition or draw from so-called Christian culture without truly being Christian. There are also tons and tons of individuals who mistakenly consider themselves Christians because they belong to a particular church, organization, culture, or other group. For example, there are people out there who assume that they are Christian because they were born in America. (I know this seems silly, but they're out there - I've met several in my time.) It is to these that I was reacting.
You may be wondering how I can claim that these other groups and individuals are not truly Christian. After all, postmodern thought (which is the school to which most people currently belong) suggests that each individual is able to formulate a personal truth and that this truth need not be the same as another's. In other words, it is commonly believed that these others are well within their rights to believe that they are Christians and there's nothing anyone can say against it because they can define Christianity however they like. It is also commonly believed among non-Christians that what makes a group or individual "Christian" is simply a belief in God, a general following of Jesus' teachings (regardless of how they are interpreted), or adherence to a particular moral code (again, regardless of how such is interpreted).
Nothing can be further from the truth. True Christianity can only be defined by its founder, Jesus Christ, and those to whom he delivered the message of the Gospel. According to His definition, in order to become a Christian one must be converted by having a "born again" experience as described in the Bible. By this definition, it is impossible to be physically born into the faith, to belong to it by belonging to an organization, or to become a Christian by undergoing a particular ritual or set of rituals. Becoming a Christian requires that one enters into a real, personal, one-on-one relationship with Jesus.
That is to say, I know I am a Christian because I met Jesus, submitted to His authority, allowed him to change my nature and character at a fundamental level, and became His discible just as did His disciples in the biblical account. Nothing less than or other than this is capable of making one a true Christian. Moral beliefs, certain cultural standards, some religious practices, and various philosophical concepts tend to grow from this relationship, but they are not the definition of it, nor are they the most important part of being Christian. Or, to put it another way, learning to live a good and fulfilling life may result from true Christianity, but it is not the focus of or reason for it.
My anger arose because I strongly object to those who have not had such an experience claiming to speak as a Christian. It is these who have given the rest of us a bad name, for the most part, and it is these who confuse the issue for so many. In my experience, honest religious debates and discussions often devolve into pointless arguments over doctrine, empty philosophical conversations, and mere gripe sessions precisely because these deluded and mistaken individuals step in to confound the real issue.
Again, I apologize for the trollish tone of my previous post and humbly beg your forgiveness.
What's also true is that many scientific proclamations are also based on personal opinion, flawed human interpretation, emotional preference, worldview, and political agenda as well.In which case they are, by definition, not "scientific" proclamations, but rather opinions, or political proclamations, etc.
Granted, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming they are valid scientific theories or from teaching them to our children.
That is to say, I know I am a Christian because I met Jesus, submitted to His authority, allowed him to change my nature and character at a fundamental level, and became His discible just as did His disciples in the biblical account.Have you considered anti-psychotics? Ask your physician for details.
This is precisely the kind of comment I was reacting to.
And yes, I do insist on the fact that I met a real and living Jesus and I am not insane, nor was I hallucinating. I've also introduced many others to Him.
Granted, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming they are valid scientific theories or from teaching them to our children.What's also true is that many scientific proclamations are also based on personal opinion, flawed human interpretation, emotional preference, worldview, and political agenda as well.In which case they are, by definition, not "scientific" proclamations, but rather opinions, or political proclamations, etc.
I think you'll understand when I say saying its science doesn't make it science, anymore than saying you're a Christian makes you a Christian.
However, no one here can honestly say their life hasn't been enriched by the application of the scientific method.
What I find is interesting is that it feels far more like the majority of athiests are so because of poor religious experiences rather actual searching or figuring it out for themselves.
They seem to be the most vocal, but as I think we've established here, that doesn't make them the majority.
Personally, I attributed my atheism in part to good experiences with religion. I was raised Conservative Jew, but it was never about the supernatural, it was about the important things: community, morality, and tradition.
Again, I used the catholic church because its practices were a good example of what I meant. It's also an organization with a fairly massive number of members. And, finally, it's the original form of christianity, and thus rather important to the tenets of other christian movments, like it or not. All in all, I think it's fair to question their practices, but they are by no means alone in having weird practices.
To another question of yours, Moff: Most people turn to religion to find the question of "how to live a good, fulfilling life". If religion can't provide that, it's doing a whole lot of false marketing. And I don't see that we need all those "you must" and "you cannot". Is there anything fundamentally wrong with providing guidelines and suggestions to how to deal with difficult situations where we all need guidance? Perhaps the role of the church shouldn't be to order its members around, but to guide them?
Bubbagump: It's trolling to put in such a comment, I agree. However, there is a related question there, and it's quite relevant to this discussion. By its very nature, a religious experience is deeply personal. This makes it impossible for someone else to relate to it. Even two religious persons, who have both had such experiences, can't know they had the same experience, because there aren't words enough to describe it. Would you say that's a fair description? We also know that our brains are vulnerable to suggestion, for example if you really want something, your brain has a tendency to see everything that happens in the light of what you want. We know that religious experiences happen in the right temporal lobe of the brain, and that many who have for example epileptic symtoms in that area get various strongly religious experiences. Note that I am not saying that this proves anything about God not existing; I see it as entirely possible that if God exists, he put a hotline into our brains. The main question becomes: can those of us who have no religious experiences find any guidance in what religious people tell us about their experiences, given that such experiences are so deeply personal?
Again, I used the catholic church because its practices were a good example of what I meant. It's also an organization with a fairly massive number of members. And, finally, it's the original form of christianity...
One little nitpick: Catholicism wasn't the original form of Christianity - it didn't start until the 4th century and didn't reach its current form until much later.
By its very nature, a religious experience is deeply personal. This makes it impossible for someone else to relate to it. Even two religious persons, who have both had such experiences, can't know they had the same experience, because there aren't words enough to describe it. Would you say that's a fair description?
Actually, no, I wouldn't. I've met many who've had the same experience I've had, and helped many others to share it. While the experience itself does tend to defy verbal description, it is no less quite understandable and relatable to those who've experienced it.
We also know that our brains are vulnerable to suggestion, for example if you really want something, your brain has a tendency to see everything that happens in the light of what you want. We know that religious experiences happen in the right temporal lobe of the brain, and that many who have for example epileptic symtoms in that area get various strongly religious experiences. Note that I am not saying that this proves anything about God not existing; I see it as entirely possible that if God exists, he put a hotline into our brains. The main question becomes: can those of us who have no religious experiences find any guidance in what...
This is a difficulty for many, I must admit. It's hard to understand such an experience if one hasn't had such an experience, and it's sometimes hard to differentiate such an experience from other psychological phenomena. There are differences, however. For example, one must examine other aspects of the subject's mental health. Even in those rare (for example) epileptic or trauma-induced experiences that produce a relatively positive and lasting outcome, there are various signs - either physical, psychological, or both - to suggest whether such an event was real, imagined, or induced by physiological causes.
A true conversion experience as I've described, however, invariably results in a lasting increase in mental and sometimes physical health, eventual injury or illness notwithstanding. In biblical terms, one becomes a "new person". This "newness" can be observed as a change in behavior and thought that transcends what would be expected as the result of a more mundane "life changing experience". One's fundamental nature changes instantaneously and pervasively, and continues to change as God continues to make further alterations.
It may help to use the analogy of falling in love: If you've ever fallen in love (and I'm not talking about mere infatuation or attraction here, I'm talking about the real thing) it is exceedingly difficult to explain the feeling to one who hasn't fallen in love. Nonetheless, something very real has happened that results in a change in behavior and thought patterns. On the other hand, if you've never truly fallen in love it's practically impossible to understand what it's really like.
Or perhaps it may help if I personalize the concept: As a Christian, at every moment I am aware that I'm not alone - I am constantly aware that God is with me. Obviously you couldn't see Him if you looked at me, but it is clear to me that He is there. When He speaks to me I hear His voice (if I'm listening, but that's another subject) - but you wouldn't hear a thing. Nonetheless, He speaks to me. I can also see God's influence in events and persons around me. Again, you might not detect His presence but it's quite clear to me. I've often used a simple test for new converts who have been misled into questioning what they've experienced - I simply challenge them to say "there is no God" and truly mean it. None has ever been able to pronounce the words. In a few cases I've even seen them burst into tears from the effort to mouth those syllables. To one who has truly met Jesus, it is impossible to deny Him.
If that doesn't help, maybe a D&D analogy will help: Imagine you're in a maze filled with traps and monsters. It's completely dark, and you can't hear anything other than what's nearby. Some things sound pleasant, and other things sound dangerous, but you can't see so you can never be absolutely sure. Now imagine you have a companion who is equipped with goggles of darkvision and who is receiving directions via a sending spell. While you may be able to make it through the maze intact, you'll undoubtedly fall into several traps, and you'll likely encounter several monsters along the way. Your companion, however, will be able to avoid the worst of the traps and monsters. You still can't see your companion, and you have no idea how he knows which way to turn, but you can't deny that he seems to know where he's going. That's similar to what it's like for a non-believer to understand the Christian experience - it's not clear what's happening, but the effects are obvious.
God explains why understanding the Christian experience is so difficult for non-believers in the Bible. In biblical terms He says that it's because these things are "spiritually discerned", meaning that they defy easy explanation through mundane terms. That is to say, a mortal person can never "find God". Rather, it is God who reveals Himself through His own supernatural methods and only when and if He deems it the right time.
This explanation indirectly addresses your mention of such things occurring when the desire for them is strong enough. God does not reveal Himself because one wants Him to; He reveals Himself when HE wants to. I can understand this because, in my case, I was dragged kicking and screaming into Christianity. I didn't want to accept Christian morality, Christian dogma, or anything else to do with Christianity. Nonetheless, God called me, revealing Himself in various ways until I could not deny Him. I did what I could to resist His call (and still do at times), but He eventually wore me down. When my conversion experience finally came it was a matter of submission, not desire.
Granted, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming they are valid scientific theories or from teaching them to our children.What's also true is that many scientific proclamations are also based on personal opinion, flawed human interpretation, emotional preference, worldview, and political agenda as well.In which case they are, by definition, not "scientific" proclamations, but rather opinions, or political proclamations, etc.I think you'll understand when I say saying its science doesn't make it science, anymore than saying you're a Christian makes you a Christian.
However, no one here can honestly say their life hasn't been enriched by the application of the scientific method.
No disagreement from me.
Speaking as someone who has quite a bit of experience with people suffering from psychosis, I'd say you raise an interesting question. We are agreed that some religious experiences are due to mental or neurological illness. However, you say that when considering these things, the general mental health of the person must also be taken into account. I understand that view, at least partly, but it also seems that the other side of that coin is problematic. If we accept the existence of "real" religious experiences, i.e. ones truly caused by God, what says that a person currently psychotic can't have a real religious experience? What are your thoughts on this?
Granted, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming they are valid scientific theories or from teaching them to our children.
I could say the same of well-meaning efforts to introduce "intelligent design" into the curriculum... But I see where you're coming from, and a lot of the problem is with the quality of high school educators, not the hubris of scientists. As a former high school earth sciences teacher, I was careful to explain which theories were well-established, and what the evidence was, and which topics were hypotherical -- and present the evidence for and against. Unfortunately, almost anyone with a pulse can become a high school teacher -- the standards are quite low becuase it's hard to find people can handle 36+ kids at a time for a salary comparable to that of a gas station attendant. So a lot of my so-called "colleagues" didn't understand enough of the science to distinguish.
Granted, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming they are valid scientific theories or from teaching them to our children.I could say the same of well-meaning efforts to introduce "intelligent design" into the curriculum... But I see where you're coming from, and a lot of the problem is with the quality of high school educators, not the hubris of scientists. As a former high school earth sciences teacher, I was careful to explain which theories were well-established, and what the evidence was, and which topics were hypotherical -- and present the evidence for and against. Unfortunately, almost anyone with a pulse can become a high school teacher -- the standards are quite low becuase it's hard to find people can handle 36+ kids at a time for a salary comparable to that of a gas station attendant. So a lot of my so-called "colleagues" didn't understand enough of the science to distinguish.
Sad, isn't it?
Sad, isn't it?
The state of science education in the U.S. today is quite sad. But people for the most part don't want to learn things that are difficult (science, math), and if they have cultural stimuli telling them they don't have to learn it, they won't. Climate science, for example, is too complex to fit in a sound byte -- despite what Al Gore and ExxonMobile would both have you believe -- yet people happily argue it all day long, for and against anthropogenic changes, from a position of almost total ignorance, as if "common sense" trumps study and research. It's easy to forget that "common sense" tells us the earth is flat.
Speaking as someone who has quite a bit of experience with people suffering from psychosis, I'd say you raise an interesting question. We are agreed that some religious experiences are due to mental or neurological illness. However, you say that when considering these things, the general mental health of the person must also be taken into account. I understand that view, at least partly, but it also seems that the other side of that coin is problematic. If we accept the existence of "real" religious experiences, i.e. ones truly caused by God, what says that a person currently psychotic can't have a real religious experience? What are your thoughts on this?
It has been my experience that certain psychotic or neurotic individuals can have true experiences with God in spite of their illness. As mentioned before, though, such an experience tends to result in a greater degree of mental health (note that meeting Jesus doesn't necessarily cure mental illness completely - though such is possible). My earlier comment regarding examining a subject's mental health was intended as a broad guideline, meant to suggest that a true experience with God is far more profound than a mere hallucination or similar event.
The conversion of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer may be one such case. Please note that I haven't studied his case history, so my facts may be off a bit on this one. I have a colleague who is much more familiar with Dahmer's case and who studied it extensively prior to Dahmer's death, and I'm forced by circumstances to rely on my memory of the conversations we had on the subject. Apparently, after conversion Dahmer's personality changed radically and he reputedly exhibited few, if any, signs of psychosis. I recall that when his death was investigated, one prison guard suggested Dahmer was a sitting duck for his murderer because of his new-found outlook on life.
All this, of course, is what prompted one Christian commentator to define the Christian experience as a kind of "divine madness". The Bible even predicts the inability of non-believers to understand the experience when it says that "it is foolishness to those who are perishing, while to those who believe it is the salvation of God" (paraphrase mine). My own father reacted to me this way after my conversion and wanted to have me committed, and I've known others who've suffered similar treatment. Even Jesus and His disciples were thought to be mad by some of their detractors. Simply put, the Christian conversion experience defies logical explanation, but it's effects are nonetheless real. Unbelievers may not be able to understand it, but they must note that something has occurred.
Sad, isn't it?The state of science education in the U.S. today is quite sad. But people for the most part don't want to learn things that are difficult (science, math), and if they have cultural stimuli telling them they don't have to learn it, they won't. Climate science, for example, is too complex to fit in a sound byte -- despite what Al Gore and ExxonMobile would both have you believe -- yet people happily argue it all day long, for and against anthropogenic changes, from a position of almost total ignorance, as if "common sense" trumps study and research. It's easy to forget that "common sense" tells us the earth is flat.
Again, agreed.
I have found this to be true as well. What I find is interesting is that it feels far more like the majority of athiests are so because of poor religious experiences rather actual searching or figuring it out for themselves. Basically they were turned off from God and didn't like the "God" they saw rather than determined that there wasn't a God.
Wouldn't most people that have bad religious experiences then simply beome irreligious or agnostic? Once one its stating their an Atheist they are making a pretty strong statement about their personal beliefs regarding the universe. I'd think usually you'd have put some thought into it before deciding to plant your flag on this ideology.
Stating that one is an atheist doesn't mean you claim to have any sort of proof that there isn't a God. It merely means that you see organized religion as a very serious problem facing every human society. Generally speaking, atheists don't have anything against people being religious, as long as those religious people don't try to force their religion upon the atheist, or force them to comply with religious tenets through lawmaking or other methods.
Generally speaking, atheists don't have anything against people being religious, as long as those religious people don't try to force their religion upon the atheist, or force them to comply with religious tenets through lawmaking or other methods.
Unfortunately for those of us here in the U.S., that struggle has been going on since before the nation was founded (with Jefferson and Madison on one side, and John Jay and Patrick Henry on the other), and doesn't look like it will ever be resolved.
Generally speaking, atheists don't have anything against people being religious, as long as those religious people don't try to force their religion upon the atheist, or force them to comply with religious tenets through lawmaking or other methods.
Generally speaking perhaps that is true, but lets not forget those atheists who are every bit as intolerant as the worst of the religious. This has come up in the "Homosexuality in Golarion" thread, and it really sticks in my craw how some atheists feel the need to attack and generalize with every bit of viciousness and prejudice as I see from some of the faithful.
As has been said again and again on this thread and others, the tendency toward extreme bias seems a human problem, not one inherent in any particular religion itself. Yes, of course I concede that this religious indoctrination seems particular susceptible to this ugliness.
To be perfectly honest, I think the problem does exist, and it's not just the same with all viewpoints. In society today, religion has a taboo about it, that basically says "you aren't allowed to question people's religious acts, policies or tenets". The sensible taboo would be "you aren't allowed to question people's religious feelings", but it's grown so far beyond that today. There are massive amounts of religious people who press this taboo further, and want to use it to stifle discussion about their religious practices, law-changing campaigns, and so on. At this point, the religious people who do this (and a good number of others) say that "hey, look at Hitchens and Dawkins, they're doing the same thing to us!!1!!"
However, the proportions are nowhere near the situation where that could be relevant. The religious people are everywhere, and campaign wildly for their viewpoints. Atheists are very, very few in comparison. And laws keep getting changed every day in America, laws that more or less directly strive to give the religious viewpoint complete dominance. Atheists fear, and quite rightly so, that this process will turn America into a theocracy. Some areas of concern are: prohibition of abortion, children being forced to learn intelligent design in school, and limited freedom of speech due to various suggested blasphemy laws. Each of these areas have serious and wide-ranging consequences that are generally ignored by religious campaigners.
As I have previously stated, being forced into paying lip service to some God is, for an atheist, exactly as bad as for a christian to be forced into obeying another religion. However, very few religious campaigners see this as a problem. Can you religious people understand that some atheists become very vocal about this?
Having been thrown out of several churches for not conceding the authority of leaders in said churches, I've gotta say yup, yah, and damn right.
On the other hand, as I'm not an American, I find there are a hell of a lot of atheists out there and they have no problem promoting their attitudes and policies.
It relieves me that I don't generally see the ranting biased liberal humanists that I know as being dangerous to society or my way of life. Some of them are dangerous sure, but there are not as many of them (as far as I can see) endangering civil rights as there are zealots in some of the churches I've been to.
|
|
Generally speaking, atheists don't have anything against people being religious, as long as those religious people don't try to force their religion upon the atheist, or force them to comply with religious tenets through lawmaking or other methods.
I have seen a lot more atheists become much more vocal and insistent on their beliefs as much or more than what you are referring to with "organized religion". I see them as "evangelical atheists". Pretty much as I understand it, they blame religion for all the problems in the world and want everyone to believe that all religion is bad and that somehow that will solve all the problems in the world.
I have seen a lot more atheists become much more vocal and insistent on their beliefs as much or more than what you are referring to with "organized religion".
Action-reaction. Every time another community attempts to replace biology with creationism, Dawkins publishes another anti-religion book. Every time another state emulates SC, TX, AR, TN, MD, and how many others -- in direct contradiction of the U.S. Constitution, I might add -- and disqualifies non-Christians from public office, some vocal Atheist advocates outlawing religion.
Everyone needs to just leave everyone else the hell alone, in my opinion.
There's a great reggae song by Valton Craigie I heard in Jamaica: "By His Deeds Shall a Man Be Known." Unless he's a minister, a man's performance in his job doesn't hinge on whether or not he attends church on Sunday. Unless it somehow requires them to harm or oppress or attempt to coerce others, everyone should be allowed to hold whatever religious views (if any) they choose, and go to church if that's what they want to do. There's no difference that I can tell if someone reads novels at night, or chooses to read the Bible, or the Sutras for that matter. The next day, all I'll see is whether he's doing his job competently.
I didn't know that some states prohibit non-Christians from holding public office (I'm not American). Can't these laws be challenged? And if so why have they not been overturned?
I didn't know that some states prohibit non-Christians from holding public office (I'm not American). Can't these laws be challenged? And if so why have they not been overturned?
They have been challenged; in some cases successfully (Torcaso v. Watkins). In response, some have been overturned; other states, like Texas, have toned them down quite a bit (you now have to "ackowledge a Supreme Being," instead of "acknowledging our one true savior and sole source of all our opinions, the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen!" or whatever it said before).
However, Article 19, § 1 of Arkansas's constitution provides: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
"In 1961, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a similar provision of Maryland's constitution. That action was brought by a man appointed as notary public who was refused his commission when he refused to declare his belief in God. Decades later, two citizens of Arkansas, not elected or appointed to public office, challenged their state's provision. But the 8th Circuit ruled (Flora v. White, 692 F. 2d 53 [1982]) that they didn't have standing."
If the law requires holders of public office to be Christians, then the existing justices are, by law, Christians (or at least convincingly claim to be). Challenging that law in states like that is going to be somewhat difficult. And even if the challenge is successful on legal grounds, there are always ways for a committed majority to make their will stick (as at the military academies: "Legally, I am not permitted to order you to attend church. But hear me well: you WILL go to church!")
I have seen a lot more atheists become much more vocal and insistent on their beliefs as much or more than what you are referring to with "organized religion". I see them as "evangelical atheists". Pretty much as I understand it, they blame religion for all the problems in the world and want everyone to believe that all religion is bad and that somehow that will solve all the problems in the world.
Well... you Christians did give us Jim Baker, which in effect led to Jessica Hahn becoming a household name, which led to her goon-smiling cross-eyed Playboy spreads of the late 80's early 90's.
I will never forgive you people for cross-eyed Playboy spreads.
Evangelical atheists really make it quite hard for those of us who are go-about-our-business atheists. It causes religious folk to often batch us all together the same way religious folk are often batched together.
|
I didn't know that some states prohibit non-Christians from holding public office (I'm not American). Can't these laws be challenged? And if so why have they not been overturned?
Um they don't, in point of fact we have several leaders who are not Christians in this country. It may be harder to get elected if you are not it is by no means a restriction on public service. I speak as someone from Kansas where we have in many ways ultra conservative views that are so extreme in some cases that it goes all the way around and becomes liberal again. Thankfully even though a small group keeps trying to press Intelligent design on us as science, calmer minds prevail and most around here are able to tell the difference between science and thinly veiled attempts to promote a religious theory as such. Maybe in the future we can all tell the difference between Fact and Truth and that the two do not necessarily coincide at every juncture.
I didn't know that some states prohibit non-Christians from holding public office (I'm not American). Can't these laws be challenged? And if so why have they not been overturned?Um they don't, in point of fact we have several leaders who are not Christians in this country. It may be harder to get elected if you are not it is by no means a restriction on public service.
Nationally, that's right on the nose. Some states still hold on to those laws, however.
|
Nationally, that's true; some states still hold on to those laws, however.I'm sorry where are you getting this info from? It's not the 1950's
No, but it is true. At least in Texas.
That seems contradictory.
lol.
Texas.
|
|
Nationally, that's true; some states still hold on to those laws, however.I'm sorry where are you getting this info from? It's not the 1950'sNo, but it is true. At least in Texas.
Yeah but it still wouldn't hold water, if an atheist were to run for office and get elected he would still hold office even in Texas and if someone were to try to get him to step down and removed from office it would go to the supreme court and be shot down so fast your head would spin. A persons religious beliefs should not and does not matter as to weather or not he would do good in office.
Check out article 1, sec 4 of Pennsylvania. I also mentioned Arkansas above.
|
|
Check out article 1, sec 4 of Pennsylvania. I also mentioned Arkansas above.
No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.
A God so say I decide that I worship Spaghedeity I acknowledge the being of a God and as such I qualify to run for and hold office.
as such your opinion does not hold water.
|
|
I also mentioned Arkansas above.And Arkansas, well yeah they are just Arkansas and it wouldnt go past the courts even if it is in the constitution or not.
|
|
Check out article 1, sec 4 of Pennsylvania. I also mentioned Arkansas above.No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.
A God so say I decide that I worship Spaghedeity I acknowledge the being of a God and as such I qualify to run for and hold office.
as such your opinion does not hold water.
So your solution is to commit perjury? That doesn't sound like a good plan to me. I don't believe in a God. If the only way to hold office is to lie, well, can y ou see why this might annoy atheists a tad? Even if it is unconstitutional, doesn't exactly say "Welcome non-believers", does it?
A God so say I decide that I worship Spaghedeity I acknowledge the being of a God and as such I qualify to run for and hold office. as such your opinion does not hold water.
One way to find out -- try it. Until then, we don't know whose opinion "holds water." I'm merely reporting that there are indeed laws, on the books, that have not been overturned.
I've also given firsthand examples of situations I've been in, in which religious discrimination was illegal, but was enforced nonetheless. If you haven't been hit by it, you've been fortunate, but I'm not clear why you would argue that it doesn't exist anywhere else.
|
|
Wouldn't most people that have bad religious experiences then simply beome irreligious or agnostic? Once one its stating their an Atheist they are making a pretty strong statement about their personal beliefs regarding the universe. I'd think usually you'd have put some thought into it before deciding to plant your flag on this ideology.
All I can do is talk about my experience. And for some reason most atheists that I have come in contact with and talked to have had a bad experience with organized religion and have then made it their duty to tell everyone just how wrong and bad "God" is (or at least the concept). At least that has been my experience.
Please understand that I am in no way saying that this is the "norm" for atheists. It's just based a few of my experiences.
Well, according to the discussion we've had above, it's pretty clear to me that organized religion more or less ALWAYS gives non-religious people a bad time, so I'd consider your question well answered to why it's so common that people become atheists due to bad-time-giving organized religion.
And: Again, very few atheists have a problem with God and people's personal feelings about such a being. What atheists do have a problem with is organized religion shoving their faith down the throats of the atheists in all kinds of ways ("you WILL go to church").
It's also interesting to note that there is, in several studies, an inverse proportionality between percentage of religious people in a country and measured quality of life in that country. Data on this shouldn't be hard to find. There are two possible interpretations of this finding:
1) People become religious because they are unhappy. This is extremely bad if true, because it makes it absolutely vital for churches to make sure people STAY unhappy. Otherwise they lose members. Many of the things we see done by religious people, such as working actively to limit free speech, seems to support this theory fully.
2) People become unhappy because they live in a religious country. This is the one I consider most likely. In a very religious country, people can't live as they prefer, but have to adapt to someone else's interpretation of some religion or other. Religious people make the policy decisions, and base these on what would make their religion stronger rather than on what would make the people in the country happy.
Oh, I should probably add that it's possible that it's BOTH 1) and 2).
And again, as I have stated before: If some atheists become vocal, it's very much NOTHING compared to what atheists have to take from religious people. Saying it's just as bad may be true, but it doesn't acknowledge the vast disparity in scale between the two phenomena.