[mike777]

If THE question is remove religion any and all from world, ok how do we define and measure that?
In any event do we really want to remove competing ideas including religion or let them compete?
If we were to remove any and all ideas of religion and not allow them to compete then what other ideas shall we remove?


IMO the huge problem that the USSR and China show is when you don't let ideas compete in the marketplace you will always end up with some version of fascism. I will go further and say this is the danger when it comes to a more powerful central government. The danger is the limits placed on the free and open competition of ideas.


btw I fully grant that the free and open competition of ideas very often leads to failure the failure of most of these ideas. Which is why in other threads I have embraced a society that accepts failure as not being shameful. I embrace a society that does not try to shame and punish forever those who do fail. For example Japan is a society that does shame but hardly the only one.

[Scarabin]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-22, 02:01, said:

"If" is a strange word: It does not merely say what happens when the condition following "if" is true. It also gives credibility to the condition: It could be true. At the same time, it puts the condition on the agenda. It's up for discussion.

Suppose that I would write: "If Scarabin has committed fraud then he should go to jail." then there is more to this than the simple logical "if then" statement. It also opens up the possibility (or emphasizes) that the condition might be true: Scarabin may well have committed fraud. This potential fraud is on the agenda. Soon, we will be discussing whether Scarabin should go to jail... (if he committed fraud).

When the "if"s are not countered rightaway, they will start to lead their own life. After a while they will be perceived to be true. After all, if they wouldn't be true someone would have stood up and said: "Where did you get this nonsense?" (or "If my uncle had tits he would be my aunt."). To prevent the perception of truth, Mike and I stood up.

When you say "it was only a hypothetical condition in an if statement", you are underestimating the power of the word "if".

Rik

Disclaimer: I have no indication whether Scarabin has or has not committed fraud in the past. (Yet another way to put it on the agenda.)

Happy to give you points for humor but are you not avoiding admitting error by fantasizing? My Fowler was never like this.

[Winstonm]

Codo, on 2013-October-22, 01:25, said:

And there is another fact that it is impossible to live a blameless life. So even without the original sin, you need to be forgiven- at least if you believe that there is someone who awaits you....

The 10 commandments list only 4 actions that cannot be condoned: stealing, killing, lying, and adultery. It is certainly possible for someone to live a life without violating the ban on these 4 activities, and any other "sin" listed by those commandments could be classified as an imaginary slight to an imaginary being open to subjective interpretation. Any claim of "sin" other than these 4 listed activities must fall into the category of man's explanation of sin rather than actual banned actions.

When one then extends the action ban to exclude normal, human emotions (coveting, jealousy, etc.), and then to even thinking about such actions

Quote

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart

then I call BS.

In fact, the entire message of the bible is to paint humans as so inferior to the power-base, invisible triad hierarchy as to require humanity to wallow in remorse for being born human.

Sorry, but you can count me out. I have no shame for being human - and my humanity makes me equal in that respect to every other human on the planet. That allows me to accept the failures of others without blame, because I allow myself to be imperfect, too.

After all, I am only human.

[Codo]

gwnn, on 2013-October-22, 01:36, said:

So what are you disagreeing with? Can you or can you not be forgiven without accepting Christ's sacrifice? If indeed you can regret things earnestly and you will be forgiven, it seems that the sacrifice of Christ was in vain. Or if Christ's sacrifice works for all of us, why do you need to regret things at all? If your buddy paid for your parking ticket, you don't need to still apologise to the policeman (OK it gets a bit more complicated as the policeman and your buddy are the same person, or at least have the same fabric).

I disagreed with this part of Winstons statement: "This really troubling aspect of Christianity to me is that the need to be forgiven stems from the fact that we are all born as human beings, that, according to the dogma, being born a human requires a blood sacrifice by an all-powerful being in order to make us "worthy".
I understood this sentence as if we (as Christians") need someone to forgive us the fact that we are born as a human or to be worthy.

I believe in a forgiving God.
Do we have to regret to be saved? I really believe that, but I do not know.
Will he forgive me? I do not know, because I must admit that I do not know, whether I do regret all my sins. Maybe I did not even realize some of my actions as sins.
Will he forgive you or my son or any other given atheist? I do not know. I really hope and believe that he will judge you about your doings and not about your beliefs. But what do I know?
Will he forigve catholics/muslims/other form of believers? I do not know, but I hope he will.
Will he forgive suicide bombers? I do not hope so, but what do I know.
Will there even be someone to judge? What do I know, I just believe it. You just don`t.

And I do not believe that the sacrifice was in vain. It was a requirement and a statement for this "easy way to heaven." It is a central part of evangelic believe, that we do not have to pray thousand prayers, pay for some kind of indulgence, or atonement.

It is not as if your buddy pays the parking fine. It is as if kid stole a chewing gum but his brother takes the punishement for it. This does not take away the responsibility for his action from the little thief. (Sorry I do not know a better fitting english word, maybe a thief is a too hard expression, but I am positive that you will understand me anyway.)

[Codo]

Winstonm, on 2013-October-22, 06:29, said:

The 10 commandments list only 4 actions that cannot be condoned: stealing, killing, lying, and adultery. It is certainly possible for someone to live a life without violating the ban on these 4 activities, and any other "sin" listed by those commandments could be classified as an imaginary slight to an imaginary being open to subjective interpretation. Any claim of "sin" other than these 4 listed activities must fall into the category of man's explanation of sin rather than actual banned actions.

When one then extends the action ban to exclude normal, human emotions (coveting, jealousy, etc.), and then to even thinking about such actions

In fact, the entire message of the bible is to paint humans as so inferior to the power-base, invisible triad hierarchy as to require humanity to wallow in remorse for being born human.

Sorry, but you can count me out. I have no shame for being human - and my humanity makes me equal in that respect to every other human on the planet. That allows me to accept the failures of others without blame, because I allow myself to be imperfect, too.

After all, I am only human.

1. I do not know anybody who never lies. Do you?
2. It is your intepretation that the other commentments are not worth following. Why should this interpretation be true?
3. I am so glad that you know the complete message of the Bible and can put it in one sentence. Maybe you should at least try to understand the different pictures painted of man in the old and the new testamony?
4. I am very happy to hear that you accept the failure of you and others without blaming. This is one of the best attitudes to gain. A lot of religions try to work on this subject, f.e. if you take the meditation of the buddhists. And actually this is one of the nicest parts of being a lutherian Christian: I am accepted by my God as imperfect. I do not to be perfect and I do not have to pay for being imperfect. I just have to understand my imperfection and regret it if I harm someone else by this. Sounds like the way you are living, doesn't it? (At least besides this "God"-part...)

[Winstonm]

Codo, on 2013-October-22, 06:29, said:

I disagreed with this part of Winstons statement: "This really troubling aspect of Christianity to me is that the need to be forgiven stems from the fact that we are all born as human beings, that, according to the dogma, being born a human requires a blood sacrifice by an all-powerful being in order to make us "worthy".
I understood this sentence as if we (as Christians") need someone to forgive us the fact that we are born as a human or to be worthy.

I believe in a forgiving God.
Do we have to regret to be saved? I really believe that, but I do not know.
Will he forgive me? I do not know, because I must admit that I do not know, whether I do regret all my sins. Maybe I did not even realize some of my actions as sins.
Will he forgive you or my son or any other given atheist? I do not know. I really hope and believe that he will judge you about your doings and not about your beliefs. But what do I know?
Will he forigve catholics/muslims/other form of believers? I do not know, but I hope he will.
Will he forgive suicide bombers? I do not hope so, but what do I know.
Will there even be someone to judge? What do I know, I just believe it. You just don`t.

And I do not believe that the sacrifice was in vain. It was a requirement and a statement for this "easy way to heaven." It is a central part of evangelic believe, that we do not have to pray thousand prayers, pay for some kind of indulgence, or atonement.

It is not as if your buddy pays the parking fine. It is as if kid stole a chewing gum but his brother takes the punishement for it. This does not take away the responsibility for his action from the little thief. (Sorry I do not know a better fitting english word, maybe a thief is a too hard expression, but I am positive that you will understand me anyway.)

A question I have never seen successfully explained is why an all-powerful being would be constrained to a sacrificial offering to atone for actions he had the power to forgive without sacrifice? The entire concept of the death of the christ stems from the sacrificial deaths of animals deemed necessary by the Jewish religion - but I have never heard a satisfactory explanation as to why god decided that killing an animal was necessary when he had the power to make any other activity - skipping a stone on water - sufficient to atone for Jewish "sin".

It is at this point in trying to explain their religion that people I have read or talked to break down to making assumptions about the unknowable.

And that leads me back to my theory of equivalent humanity - if I can't know it, you can't know it.

Which, for me, ends the discussion as there are only two choices I can see: an all-powerful god cannot be constrained, so blood sacrifice could not have been a necessity but was instead the choice of a savage, bloodthirsty god, or god is constrained and is not all-powerful and thus the idea of an all-powerful god is product of man's imagination.

Either way, I have to pass on worshiping this creature.

[Winstonm]

Codo, on 2013-October-22, 06:43, said:

1. I do not know anybody who never lies. Do you?
2. It is your intepretation that the other commentments are not worth following. Why should this interpretation be true?
3. I am so glad that you know the complete message of the Bible and can put it in one sentence. Maybe you should at least try to understand the different pictures painted of man in the old and the new testamony?
4. I am very happy to hear that you accept the failure of you and others without blaming. This is one of the best attitudes to gain. A lot of religions try to work on this subject, f.e. if you take the meditation of the buddhists. And actually this is one of the nicest parts of being a lutherian Christian: I am accepted by my God as imperfect. I do not to be perfect and I do not have to pay for being imperfect. I just have to understand my imperfection and regret it if I harm someone else by this. Sounds like the way you are living, doesn't it? (At least besides this "God"-part...)

1. Is is possible to lead a life without lying? (answer, yes. Child that dies prior to speech, for example.)
2. Worth following has no bearing on "sin". Are you suggesting that we decide for ourselves what is or isn't sin?
3. It is one bible, is it not? The message presented by the entirety of the bible is that man had to be "saved" from his nature by the death of christ as a sacrifice.
4. IMO, religions are most harmful in fostering division, as no religion I know accepts that its beliefs may be wrong - and why do you have to "regret" being human? What is perfection other than man's idea?

I am glad you are content with your choices - but they do not make much sense to me.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2013-October-22, 06:29, said:

The 10 commandments list only 4 actions that cannot be condoned: stealing, killing, lying, and adultery.

A woman who takes her religion very seriously had something to tell me about this. In fact the relevant Commandment says "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" She explained that this does not prohibit lying, it does not prohibit cheating. As long as you do not falsely claim that your neighbor did something that he did not do, you are square with the Commandments.

The Christian view of what is allowed and what is not allowed is, to my mind, very strange. Not only can you lie as long as you do not bear false witness against your neighbor, you really can do pretty much anything you want as long as afterward you ask Jesus for forgiveness. Apparently it is always granted. This philosophy suggests that one should exercise care when dealing with the godly.

[gwnn]

Codo, so we have the following 3 things you stated (according to your belief):

-It is impossible not to sin as a human being (I am excluding cases where, say, a baby dies when he is 3 days old, or similar extreme cases, they would account for a very small fraction of human beings).
-Christ's sacrifice was necessary for forgiveness from God.
-Honest regret is also necessary for forgiveness from God.

It really doesn't sound like you disagree at all with Winston when he said that Christ sacrifice was necessary for us to be born as a human and worthy of going to Heaven. Maybe his phrasing is not one that you or I like but you agree with him on a fundamental level. The third thing you stated seems to make the requirements even more strict, not less strict (you yourself are unsure whether you truly regret the wrongs you have done).

So now that everyone agrees, can we have a beer now?

[kenberg]

gwnn, on 2013-October-22, 07:23, said:

So now that everyone agrees, can we have a beer now?

Far and away the best suggestion so far. In fact, I'm fine with it even if we don't all agree. Perhaps particularly if we don't all agree.

[Fluffy]

I don't like beer, will you call that a heressy?

[kenberg]

Fluffy, on 2013-October-22, 08:01, said:

I don't like beer, will you call that a heresy?

I prefer wine myself, but in the spirit of ecumenical reconciliation I'll have a beer. Not Miller Lite please.

[ArtK78]

Codo, on 2013-October-22, 06:43, said:

3. I am so glad that you know the complete message of the Bible and can put it in one sentence.

Rabbi Hillel did, in fact, put forth the complete message of the Bible (the Old Testament - the Torah) in a single sentence, as set forth in Wikipedia:


The Sage Hillel formulated a negative form of the golden rule. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, he answered:

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn it.

—Talmud, Shabbat 31a, the "Great Principle"

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2013-October-22, 07:31, said:

Far and away the best suggestion so far. In fact, I'm fine with it even if we don't all agree. Perhaps particularly if we don't all agree.

I'm in with that.

[mikeh]

Codo, on 2013-October-22, 01:18, said:

Yes, this is easy: If there is horror in theists states, it is obvious that religion is guilty. If there is horror in atheists states, there are other reasons. This is a point of view any other fundementalist will gladly share. That the communist countries developed another "ism" maybe just shows that people "needs" a kind of "ism"?

Firstly, at no time have I said that only a theistic state can commit state-sponsored atrocities. Imo, all belief structures that imbue in the believer a sense that those who don't share the convictions are 'other' and are in some way less human than the believer can and do give rise to atrocities.

Atheism isn't such a belief structure because it is not a belief at all: it is precisely the antithesis of the sort of belief that causes these attitudes. An atheist can, of course, have strong beliefs about other matters than induce the same attitudes: an atheist may become a maoist, for example, and commit atrocities in furtherance of that 'ism', but that has nothing to do with being atheist, anymore than being, say, 6 feet tall is connected with having brown eyes. Ok, maybe a bit more: because fervent religious feelings might leave no room for fervent maoist feelings.

I don't think people need an 'ism'. I do not regard atheism as an 'ism', other than for spelling purposes, because, as has been frequently pointed out, atheism is about an absence of a belief, not the presence of one. It seems astounding to me that so few religious thinkers recognize this.

Quote

As usual you have the urgent need to insult people who do not share your beliefs. And as always, this shows more about you then about me.

Well, either you are widely read in the area of which we were writing, or you aren't. Given that you made statements that are at odds with much of the literature in the area, to the extent that I am familiar with that literature, and that you appeared unaware of this, I stated that it appeared that you were not widely read.


You took that as an insult, altho I am unsure why. Are you widely read in evolutionary thinking, and in particular evolutionary psychology? I am no expert but I have read several books in the field, and subscribe to some blogs that occasionally discuss these issues.

Several years ago, in a similar thread, a believer took me to task for not having read some works by a favourite Christian writer of his. I was ignorant of what that writer had said. Were I you, I would no doubt have responded by claiming to be insulted. Not being you, I found the works, read them, and rejoined to thread having cured my ignorance.

You and I do seem to have differences. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't the ones you think exist.

Quote

And btw: I did not claim that selfishness is the best way to develop. I just claimed that I can see no simple logic to support the idea of the golden rule. I think that from a pure logical point of view it would be better to be selfish if you are in a position to be it. Cooperation is usually better for the trailing companies, not for the leaders. (But of course life is not as simple as that, it surely depends on the single case and how big your lead is.)

I am the first to admit that our posts don't always read to others the way we intended them to read.

I am pleased to see, I think, that you may have reluctantly recognized that this isn't so.

Quote

And yes, I do believe that all people need some guides to stop them from stealing, selfishness, cruelity etc. This could be laws, a good education, a good role models or whatever.
I personally belief that the fear of punishment in purgatory is no good teacher for good ethics, I prefer positive ways of learning, but maybe there are many people who needs this fear.

So the best you can do to support the notion that we need a belief in a supernatural 'god' who threatens his creations with eternal torment if they piss him off, is that 'maybe there are many people who need this fear'???????

I take it you see yourself as far too morally correct and inherently superior to be one of those 'people'. And I am the one accused of arrogance in these threads! Do you not see how obscene your argument is? How demeaning of other people?

Quote

I would not talk about Dawkins ideas as if they are science. As far as I know, memes and "selfish genes" etc. are still just ideas, no facts or theories.

Do you have any idea of the scientific method?

All 'theories' are 'just ideas' at some point. Science proceeds by people speculating...by generating conjectures and then by testing them.

The idea of a 'meme' is now almost 40 years old, and as Dawkins stated in coining the phrase, he was building on ideas floated by others before him.

The concept of the meme has been accepted by a number of researchers into areas such as evolutionary psychology. It isn't on a level with the theory of gravity (which is of course intrinsically wrong, tho still useful to most of us...since Einstein's ideas of space-time curvature don't lend themselves as readily useful in most human activities....note, however, that those responsible for positioning, say, communications satellites have to account for space-time curvature rather than rely on purely Newtonian calculations), but it is a recognized intellectual proposition. You are wrong to so cavalierly dismiss it, which reinforces my view that you are largely illiterate in this area.

I feel sorry for you if your reaction to learning that you may possess inadequate knowledge is to take offence. Personally, I prefer to seek out the knowledge that I am said to be lacking and then see whether my views change....sometimes they do. However, as you said, you and I think differently.

[Zelandakh]

Fluffy, on 2013-October-22, 08:01, said:

I don't like beer, will you call that a heressy?

I also do not like beer and am an Englishman living in Bavaria - now that is heresy!

On topic, I am a non-believer (the term atheist means to me someone who believes in a religion with no god, such as Shintoism) who happens to believe that religion represents a positive force for many believers. Of course it can also be a negative influence but I see no inherent reason for arguing against it other than when this affects the wider society (such as Creationism being taught in schools). People can believe what they want. And they can give their money away to whatever cause they want too. What harm is it doing? In many cases the religious activity helps them feel good about themselves and the world - that can only be a good thing. Does it matter if that is based on a genuine set of miracles or a collection of fairy tales? Not to me.

I have my own beliefs, which by and large are grounded in science. Such a grounding in logic helps me. For another person, the knowledge that we can never understand everything would be unsettling, especially when someone else is telling them that everything is already understood. No problem. Yet another person might decide that the writings of a life coach give their life meaning (to use 32's line) and adopt those tenets in much the same way as a religion. Is all good.

The issues only come when groups try to impose their ideas on others. I do not see that from the Christians posting here and think it is disrespectful to state categorically that something is untrue that cannot currently (and probably not ever) be proved falsh. I much prefer the line that each lives their own life according to their own beliefs. The difficulties only come when a religious belief impacts on the rights of indivduals or another group or when the rights of a religious belief are impacted by other rules within society (usually coming from a different group). These cases are complex and, in my opinion, much more interesting than any debate on whether the beliefs of a particular religion are correct or not.

[mikeh]

Zelandakh, on 2013-October-22, 11:12, said:

On topic, I am a non-believer (the term atheist means to me someone who believes in a religion with no god, such as Shintoism) who happens to believe that religion represents a positive force for many believers. Of course it can also be a negative influence but I see no inherent reason for arguing against it other than when this affects the wider society (such as Creationism being taught in schools). People can believe what they want. And they can give their money away to whatever cause they want too. What harm is it doing? In many cases the religious activity helps them feel good about themselves and the world - that can only be a good thing. Does it matter if that is based on a genuine set of miracles or a collection of fairy tales? Not to me.

I agree with your sentiments in principle. However, for a religious believer, it appears fundamental to their world view that the supernatural god is in charge and that it is a net benefit for all of us to come to believe in their version of that god. Hence it is often seen by believers as their duty to impose their beliefs upon others, and rarely by force. Instead, they want their beliefs taught in schools. They want their political leaders to embody their rules in law, or to give their beliefs special treatment, such as government subsidies or freedom from taxes.

The reality is that the nature of the beliefs held by most religious believers is incompatible with your ideal...an ideal that would be completely acceptable to me, fwiw.

The fact that many believers are far more tolerant than those I fear, and many have no difficulty separating religion from secular aspects doesn't help much and indeed goes to the very question that was at the start of this thread.

It seems to be an inescapable reality that in any recognized religious movement, there is some component that seeks secular power, and that power is for the purpose of spreading the religious belief.

Even Bhuddism, to which many religious apologists point as being far more benign than other organized religions, has this sort of effect, as anyone who has studied the history of Tibet in even cursory detail will know.

It is popular and imo justified to assail China for its Tibet policy but the fact that China is doing, we think, wrong doesn't make the former Tibetan theocracy any less of an authoritarian theocracy.

If the entire world of religious believers consisted of the Mycrofts and Codos of our forum, I'd be happy to see religion left completely alone. However, it isn't and the nature of the beast appears to preclude the possibility.

Quote

The issues only come when groups try to impose their ideas on others. I do not see that from the Christians posting here and think it is disrespectful to state categorically that something is untrue that cannot currently (and probably not ever) be proved falsh. I much prefer the line that each lives their own life according to their own beliefs. The difficulties only come when a religious belief impacts on the rights of indivduals or another group or when the rights of a religious belief are impacted by other rules within society (usually coming from a different group). These cases are complex and, in my opinion, much more interesting than any debate on whether the beliefs of a particular religion are correct or not.

I agree 100%. However, some factual aspects of, say, the Christian version of history are demonstrably false, and there is no harm saying so. It is not intolerance to say, for example, that there is none of the historical evidence that surely would exist were the OT tales of the Jews in Egypt true. It is a question of fact, based on current research and findings. Information in this can be found very easily by using google (and I do know that the internet is fallible )

That is a different category of assertion than the assertion, for example, that there is no god. I don't recall anyone on this thread making that sort of assertion.

However, the believers seem to have a problem understanding the difference.

[Trinidad]

Scarabin, on 2013-October-22, 03:25, said:

Happy to give you points for humor but are you not avoiding admitting error by fantasizing? My Fowler was never like this.

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by your last two posts. I don't get what you intend to say.

Rik

[Winstonm]

Meaning no disrespect to any group or person, but as I have aged I have come to see parallels between Old Testament stories and the mythologies of other regions, so that this gathering of stories that comprise the OT sounds to me like a mixture of Jewish mythology, a little history, and some Aesop-like morality stories.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on 2013-October-22, 11:57, said:

However, for a religious believer, it appears fundamental to their world view that the supernatural god is in charge and that it is a net benefit for all of us to come to believe in their version of that god. Hence it is often seen by believers as their duty to impose their beliefs upon others, and rarely by force. Instead, they want their beliefs taught in schools. They want their political leaders to embody their rules in law, or to give their beliefs special treatment, such as government subsidies or freedom from taxes.

Hey, we love you as Jesus loved us. So we care about you, and its natural that we wanna help you understand the real truth, but forgive me for not trying harder and giving up too easily.