Book Burning

[MMI]

Here's a good idea ... Let's put an inanimate book on "trial". Although it can't defend itself, we can appoint someone to put up a really determined defence on its behalf - or we can put up some stooges to do the opposite.

If the verdict is innocent, then, of course, the book will be allowed to go free. But if it is guilty then it shall suffer the ultimate penalty ... it will be eliminated by fire.

Now this isn't intended to be an incitement to violence in any shape or form, indeed, as devout Christians, we abhor violence, it's just a genuine attempt to find the truth and to glorify God.

So, which book shall we try for its life? Mein Kampf? Le Grimoire du Pape Honorius? Ad abolendam? Bhagavad Gita?

No, none of those. Far more evil to a righteous Christian is the Koran, so let it be that.

(Actually, we don't know it is far more evil than any of the other books: that's for the fair trial we have organised to determine.)

And when we find it guilty, and burn it ... I mean if it is found guilty after a fair trial (with no right of appeal) ... and if it is sentenced to be burned, then we expect all Moslems to accept the verdict calmly and philosophically, as the just and rational decision it would be, and to realise that God's truth can only be found in Christian texts.

And if innocent non-Americans die as a result of our action, who gives a fuck? It won't be our fault.

[Thorne]

And if innocent non-Americans die as a result of our action, who gives a fuck? It won't be our fault.

No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.

[TantricSoul]

Insanity.
That's the word that comes to mind in this circumstance, and there is plenty to go around on all sides.

[thir]

Insanity.
That's the word that comes to mind in this circumstance, and there is plenty to go around on all sides.

Ain't that the truth. I just saw a program about the Phelps cult and their hate church, but got no wiser as to what has happened to these people. I was totally shaken! I never would have thought I'd actually feel sorry for such people, but in the end I was. They seem driven by one emotion: fear. Fear of hell. This emotion controls their whole life, more important than family or anything else. It is almost insane.

I can see why some people think that religion is a real danger and a curse.

[denuseri]

It is fanatical a holes like them that give other people a bad name by proxy in the eyes of too many unfortunately. Both the book burners and the people rioting over it just make terrible examples of how religion can be abused by those who dont follow the very things they claim too.

And calling people stupid for having religion and such hypocritical stereotyping of all faiths for the actions of a few is just as bad a crime imho becuase all it does is add fuel to the fire of intolereance.

[thir]

It is fanatical a holes like them that give other people a bad name by proxy in the eyes of too many unfortunately. Both the book burners and the people rioting over it just make terrible examples of how religion can be abused by those who dont follow the very things they claim too.

And calling people stupid for having religion and such hypocritical stereotyping of all faiths for the actions of a few is just as bad a crime imho becuase all it does is add fuel to the fire of intolereance.

If you mean me, I did not call anyone 'stupid', I called them 'almost insane'. And so they were, and I think maybe all real cults are like that. 'Cults' as in isolating their members from the rest of society, and, as in this case, living in fear of Hell every waking moment of their life, as well as sprouting hate and obscene slogans at other people - all other people.

That does not spell normal to me.

As for "I can see why some people think that religion is a real danger and a curse" that should have been "dogmatic, institutionalized religion." I was too shaken to think straight but by all gods large and small, I stand by that!

On the same evening I (stupidly) saw the film The Magdalene Sisters. If you do not know it, it concerns the Irish laundries which were run by nuns, with the work done by 'fallen women', such young girls who had been raped, or was considered flirty, or had a child out of wed-lock, or who were otherwise on edge with their family or the local, catholic priest. They were in there for an indefinite time, some all their lives, working 10 hours a day, always scolded, treated with contempt, and without any human relationship to even each other, as they were never allowed to talk with each other which was enforced by any and all means.

Same thing happened in protestant UK and much of Europe, and the last of these launderies closed in Ireland in - guess - 1996!

Neither church has even apologized for this inhuman behaviour.

This is obviously one a small part of what dogmatic religion can bring - the kind that is either a tool for power, or is, in itself, a power.

No religion, no government, no political faction has the right to tell anyone what to think, or do.

As for fire of intolerance, that has always seemed to me to come from said dogmatic religions. Everybody else simply discuss, they do not try to make all other people abide by their ideas.

[Thorne]

If you mean me, I did not call anyone 'stupid', I called them 'almost insane'.

Usually she's addressing me with this kind of statement. And that's probably because I feel that anyone who BLINDLY follows a religious leader is, indeed, stupid. Those who learn about their religion, who actually think about (a rarity in my experience) might be considered gullible, perhaps, but not necessarily stupid.

As for "I can see why some people think that religion is a real danger and a curse" that should have been "dogmatic, institutionalized religion." I was too shaken to think straight but by all gods large and small, I stand by that!

A religion is, by definition, institutionalized. Faith does not have to be either religious or dogmatic.

Neither church has even apologized for this inhuman behaviour.

Just give them a couple of hundred years. They'll get around to it. (see: Galileo)

No religion, no government, no political faction has the right to tell anyone what to think, or do.

And yet this is exactly what religious organizations are designed to do! Political organizations as well. Governments tend to follow the dictates of whichever political organization is in control at the time.

As for fire of intolerance, that has always seemed to me to come from said dogmatic religions. Everybody else simply discuss, they do not try to make all other people abide by their ideas.

Statistics seem to indicate that, in the US, the more dogmatic religions are losing young members in record numbers. It appears to me that, as those young people leave, the remnants cling ever more tightly to their archaic beliefs, further driving the young away, rather than trying to adjust to reality and at least attempt to keep the younger people aboard. And they quickly become even more demanding and intolerant of those who do not follow their particular superstition.

[denuseri]

Usually she's addressing me with this kind of statement. And that's probably because I feel that anyone who BLINDLY follows a religious leader is, indeed, stupid. Those who learn about their religion, who actually think about (a rarity in my experience) might be considered gullible, perhaps, but not necessarily stupid.

Giggles, he got me. I feel the same way about "blind" anything...including blind atheism especially. Yes they are out there too...just like with adherents of any faith.

A religion is, by definition, institutionalized. Faith does not have to be either religious or dogmatic.


Just give them a couple of hundred years. They'll get around to it. (see: Galileo)

OMG lol you really really dont like the Catholics do you sugar.

And yet this is exactly what religious organizations are designed to do! Political organizations as well. Governments tend to follow the dictates of whichever political organization is in control at the time.

So do individual arguments in any debate (attempt to sway the other side to their own).

Statistics seem to indicate that, in the US, the more dogmatic religions are losing young members in record numbers. It appears to me that, as those young people leave, the remnants cling ever more tightly to their archaic beliefs, further driving the young away, rather than trying to adjust to reality and at least attempt to keep the younger people aboard. And they quickly become even more demanding and intolerant of those who do not follow their particular superstition.

The faith of was raised in Lutheran (misery synod as we jokingly call it) has changed and adapted considerabely since first starting the whole reformation chatholic break up thing. I barely recognize the litergeies they use, many traditions once sacrosant are no longer considered as important and they way the congregation speaks after services to each other is even different, much more social and less reserved. I am a Bahai now but I still go to the Lutheran Church with my mother on occassion, my Owner even comes and he is a self professed Wittan (kind of pagan witch) and not shy of it.

[MMI]

No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.

Isn't that pretty much what Pastor Terry Jones would have said?

He deliberately provoked the riots. It was HIS fault. Sure the rioters are guilty for over-reacting, but Jones burned the Koran knowing something like that would happen, just to publicise his business, the Dove Outreach Centre, and its products: hate books, hate t-shirts etc.

[DuncanONeil]

"If the verdict is innocent, then, of course, the book will be allowed to go free. But if it is guilty then it shall suffer the ultimate penalty ... it will be eliminated by fire."

A court trial never results in a verdict of innocent! Merely "not guilty". Difference is that a "guilty" verdict means the state proved its case! "Not guilty" means the state did not prove its case.

[Thorne]

Giggles, he got me. I feel the same way about "blind" anything...including blind atheism especially. Yes they are out there too...just like with adherents of any faith.

I'm sure there are some atheists out there who have not seriously considered their position. Primarily those who were raised without any religious training, children of atheists or agnostics or lapsed religious parents. But it's been my experience that most atheists were formerly religious believers, from many, many different faiths, who at some point began examining what they were being spoon-fed and realized that it was all mush. I have read many accounts (and seen videos) by these people, and they are quite remarkable in both their similarities and differences. In almost all cases they have rebelled from their parents' religions. Some went directly to atheism, but many went through other religions first, before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bunch of hokum.

And yes, there are accounts of people going the other way, going from atheism to (or back to) religion. Some of those accounts seemed sincere and credible to me, but most seemed disingenuous, as though written by someone trying to make it seem as though he was once an atheist. Regardless, I take all such accounts, as well as those accounts of deconversion, with a grain of salt. All I know is my own path, and I know that it was the right path for me.

OMG lol you really really dont like the Catholics do you sugar.

Nope. Not one little bit. I was raised Catholic, so I had a good, close look at their foolishness. Also, the Catholic Church is historically responsible for far more misery and pain than any other religious organization. Even in modern times, these so-called arbiters of morality are far more interested in protecting the image of the Church than in protecting those people who depend upon them. But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

The faith of was raised in Lutheran (misery synod as we jokingly call it) has changed and adapted considerabely since first starting the whole reformation chatholic break up thing. I barely recognize the litergeies they use, many traditions once sacrosant are no longer considered as important and they way the congregation speaks after services to each other is even different, much more social and less reserved. I am a Bahai now but I still go to the Lutheran Church with my mother on occassion, my Owner even comes and he is a self professed Wittan (kind of pagan witch) and not shy of it.

So am I correct in assuming that you found the Lutheran Church to be lacking in something, and so you switched to something more to your liking? Doesn't this give you at least SOME understanding of those of us who have concluded that ALL religions are lacking, and that NONE of them are right? Even the pagan faiths are still professing a belief in some sort of supernatural beings, with absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings. Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.

Knock wood.

[leo9]

And yes, there are accounts of people going the other way, going from atheism to (or back to) religion. Some of those accounts seemed sincere and credible to me, but most seemed disingenuous, as though written by someone trying to make it seem as though he was once an atheist. Regardless, I take all such accounts, as well as those accounts of deconversion, with a grain of salt.

Then you'll have to take mine with the appropriate seasoning.

I was raised humanist, by parents who had quietly rejected the faith of their parents and wanted their children to make their own choices. (AFAIK, my sisters are still atheists, and treat my religion as just another of my oddities.) As a child I was briefly attracted by the bible-stories books my grandparents gave me, but my father very wisely gave me a basic guide to all the world's faiths, and let me figure out for myself that just because someone once put it in a book doesn't make it true.

In college I resolved the conflict between that and my growing sense of the spiritual by trying out Buddhism. But though I retained a love of the Zen doctrines, it felt too abstract unless you ended up treating Siharta Gautama as a god - and if you're going to deify some historical figure, why choose one from a foreign culture? (Ironic, since I ended up worshipping the Goddess of Sumer, but since she got at least as far as Scandinavia, I feel a bit closer to her than to an Indian sage!)

Paganism appealed to me as an idea, but at that time there was nobody to teach me unless I wanted to get into the pseudo-Masonic structures of Wicca, which I'm too anarchic for; so I felt around blindly till I came across the translations of the scriptures of Inanna, and felt that this was what I'd been looking for. Eventually theoretical studies and prayers into the void brought me an answer, and I believed.

But of course you have only my word for this, and I might just be a paid shill for the deist conspiracy

But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

And invisible friends. Some of us have nice supportive invisible friends. I'm very glad mine found me.

Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Thorne]

But of course you have only my word for this, and I might just be a paid shill for the deist conspiracy

No, I wouldn't go that far. At least with your account, you appear to have given it a lot of thought and "soul" searching. I will admit, I have difficulty understanding why you would go on such a search, or why anyone else would.

And invisible friends. Some of us have nice supportive invisible friends. I'm very glad mine found me.

Ahh, I see. You were lonely! Well, invisible friends are better than none, I suppose.

One question, though. How can one differentiate between invisible friends and mental illness? (see my sig.) I mean, YOU claim they are there, and I'm sure you BELIEVE they are there, but how can you prove to ME that they are there?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If you try to run your life based on superstitions, then it IS a bad thing. People like to think that astrology, for example, works. But in reality we KNOW it doesn't work. There is no demonstrable basis for claiming that the planets can control our destinies. The claims of the astrologer cannot be tested, they cannot be demonstrated, they cannot even be agreed upon by other astrologers. Do you consider it a good thing to allow one's life to be ruled by such nonsense?

[denuseri]

I'm sure there are some atheists out there who have not seriously considered their position.

More than you are most likely willing to believe I bet.

I had friends in high school that were basically raised that way.

My Father was actually raised that way believe it or not and converted to Lutheran later.

My Mother was raised jewish and converted to Lutheran after several years of being a rather adament atheist when she married my father.

I was raised lutheran but studdied a lot of different theologies, not only allowed by those in authority over me, but encouraged by both my parents and the Lutheran clergy to engadge in study of all faiths and decide for myself prior to confirmation.

I took up Buddism all on my lonesome and like many of my fellow students who practiced it's philosophies along with another religion (Shinto in the case of my BFF) I never had a conflict with following its tennents along with the ones I was raised in.

For a brief period I considered atheism while I was a Nursing Student but discarded it as illogically narrow minded and intolerant.

Especially after getting really deep into the biological sciences.

For a while I had a more agnostic approach; it was more inclussive and was a much more logical path to follow...for no one is capable of really knowing 100% for sure one way or the other anything as to whats really going on there.

I converted to Bahai when I was a travel nurse working abroad after having a rather satori like experience. It apealed the most too me anyways becuase of its full tolerance for all the sciences and religions and faiths of all kinds...in other words...I believe in ALL paths to God, what ever God is or is not is something I can only fathom and have faith in anyways, his or her or it's language for telling me how the universe is made and how it works is observation (ie science) and my cognative sences tell me God is everywhere and in everything, at all times.

At no time is this more apparent to me than when I study the history and chemistry and physics of our planet and people, from its beginings during what we so far believe to be in the big bang to the present.

Primarily those who were raised without any religious training, children of atheists or agnostics or lapsed religious parents. But it's been my experience that most atheists were formerly religious believers, from many, many different faiths, who at some point began examining what they were being spoon-fed and realized that it was all mush. I have read many accounts (and seen videos) by these people, and they are quite remarkable in both their similarities and differences. In almost all cases they have rebelled from their parents' religions. Some went directly to atheism, but many went through other religions first, before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bunch of hokum.

Just as precluding the existence of a god is by all standards of logic also just as likely to be "a bunch of hokum".

And yes, there are accounts of people going the other way, going from atheism to (or back to) religion. Some of those accounts seemed sincere and credible to me, but most seemed disingenuous, as though written by someone trying to make it seem as though he was once an atheist. Regardless, I take all such accounts, as well as those accounts of deconversion, with a grain of salt. All I know is my own path, and I know that it was the right path for me.

I wonder if part of your path of intolereance is a pathological need to enforce your ideas as being the only "right" ones above all others becuse they are obviously too stupid to really have decided for themselves if they believe in anything you disagree with...much like the you accuse so many religions of doing?

Nope. Not one little bit. I was raised Catholic, so I had a good, close look at their foolishness. Also, the Catholic Church is historically responsible for far more misery and pain than any other religious organization.

You may be surprised at the numbers if you include all religions world wide, (The are a LOT of wars in human history other than the ones the catholics were involved in and we cant discount all the pruges against all regions carried on in the name of atheism eaither, ecpesially since the state sponsered atheists of communist nations acted exzactly like their religious counterparts in every way especially when it can to making war on other people for their beliefs.

Even in modern times, these so-called arbiters of morality are far more interested in protecting the image of the Church than in protecting those people who depend upon them. But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

Just like the atheists. Could it be that saving face and worrying about image are natural human responces?

So am I correct in assuming that you found the Lutheran Church to be lacking in something,

Nope I still follow Luthran values, I just was encouraged to study other faiths and spent more time on some than others as they apealed to me at different times...including as mentioned earlier a brief foray into the illogical depths of atheism (the faith of not having a belief in god).

and so you switched to something more to your liking? Doesn't this give you at least SOME understanding of those of us who have concluded that ALL religions are lacking, and that NONE of them are right? Even the pagan faiths are still professing a belief in some sort of supernatural beings, with absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings. Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.



Knock wood.

The atheists simpley have no more ground to stand on with their cool aide than any other faith or belief system.

Calling everyone who doesnt believe in your way of thinking stupid without any more proof than the people your accusing of being dumbies imho makes one in large part a pot calling a kettle black.

[Thorne]

At no time is this more apparent to me than when I study the history and chemistry and physics of our planet and people, from its beginings during what we so far believe to be in the big bang to the present.

Allow me to speculate: you study these sciences and feel that certain things would not be possible without God? But I study these same things and say, "Where is this god?" I see no evidence for any kind of supernatural intervention in this universe. I see many coincidences, and many things which we might not yet understand, but that does not mean God, to me. What I do see are people figuratively tossing a coin into the air, drawing a circle around the coin when it lands, then claiming that it's impossible for that coin to have landed so precisely in that circle, therefore gods!

Just as precluding the existence of a god is by all standards of logic also just as likely to be "a bunch of hokum".

And for the umpteenth time I must say, I do not preclude the existence of gods. I only say that there is no definitive evidence for them. There is nothing one can point to and say, "There is God!" No one can definitively say that there are no gods. What I can say is that there is no evidence for gods.

I wonder if part of your path of intolereance is a pathological need to enforce your ideas as being the only "right" ones above all others becuse they are obviously too stupid to really have decided for themselves if they believe in anything you disagree with...much like the you accuse so many religions of doing?

I have no need, nor desire, to enforce anything! I don't really care what people choose to believe in. What I DO care about is those people who try to force their beliefs upon me and others, those who want to prevent atheists from holding public office, for example. Or those who want to force their morality on me, even though I find their morality offensive. Also, I do find it important that people understand the history of religious beliefs, learn how those beliefs have been manipulated to control entire populations and to keep religious leaders at the top of the heap.

Just like the atheists. Could it be that saving face and worrying about image are natural human responces?

Yes, these are natural human responses. So I would expect an organization which professes to be the voice of God on Earth would try to stand above such pettiness and try to be more "holy".

Nope I still follow Luthran values, I just was encouraged to study other faiths and spent more time on some than others as they apealed to me at different times...including as mentioned earlier a brief foray into the illogical depths of atheism (the faith of not having a belief in god).

And I respect that. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort coming to your faith. I don't think you are stupid because of that. It is those who do NOT study religion, who blindly accept the faith of their fathers, those who denigrate all other faiths but their own, simply because it IS their own.

I can't understand WHY you would choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But I can respect the fact that you have made a conscious choice.

The atheists simpley have no more ground to stand on with their cool aide than any other faith or belief system.

And once more I challenge you to explain how NOT believing in gods can be a faith. I do not BELIEVE there are no gods. I simply DON'T believe there are. If you can provide me with evidence, solid evidence, which can be tested, I'll be happy to change my mind. All I've ever seen from most theists are self-confirming anecdotes and demands that I "open my mind to accepting God". Whatever that means.

Calling everyone who doesnt believe in your way of thinking stupid without any more proof than the people your accusing of being dumbies imho makes one in large part a pot calling a kettle black.

And yet again I deny that I am saying everyone who believes is stupid. If that were so then I would have to call my parents stupid. They believe. But they do not BLINDLY believe. They have studied, and modified their beliefs to more closely conform to reality. I still think they are wrong, but I don't think they are stupid. Just as I don't believe you, or leo9, or so many others who have really learned of their faith, are stupid. I do think you are wrong, but not stupid. And I'm just as sure that you think I am wrong. And hopefully NOT stupid.

Most atheists, and I place myself among them, are not interested in destroying people's faith. They are only interested in preventing those people from infiltrating those faiths into our governments, schools, and work places. They are interested in being just as respected for their NON-beliefs as those believers want to be respected FOR their beliefs. They want a person who has been properly elected to be able to fill the office he was elected to fill without having to go to court because he happens to be an atheist. They want to be able to advertise atheist groups and meetings, just as churches advertise their meetings, without having to go to court to force businesses to place those advertisements. In short, we want to be treated as equals in society, without having to bow our heads and pray at the beginning of every activity. We want theists to keep faith in their hearts and religion in their churches, where it belongs.

[leo9]

I will admit, I have difficulty understanding why you would go on such a search, or why anyone else would.

And I don't understand what manga fans or opera lovers or politicos get out of their particular interests, but it's variety that makes the human race so amazing. One just has to accept that there are a lot of people out there who feel intensely about things that leave us cold, and their concerns are as legitimate as ours. As we say back here in perveland, YKIOKIJNMK.

Ahh, I see. You were lonely! Well, invisible friends are better than none, I suppose.

I guess you could call spiritual searching loneliness for something that humans can't offer. And not better, different from the human kind.

One question, though. How can one differentiate between invisible friends and mental illness? (see my sig.)

Only pragmatically, the same way you differentiate between apps and viruses: do they do something useful? In the immortal words of the Prophet Bokonnon, "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

It's been observed that love - the swept-away-infatuated kind - meets all the clinical tests of mental illness. The same can reasonably be said for religious devotion, which proves that psychology is still far from having a complete description of human nature.

. I mean, YOU claim they are there, and I'm sure you BELIEVE they are there, but how can you prove to ME that they are there?

As I've said many times, I have no interest in proving it to you, and I'm relaxed about the view that it's probably impossible. I don't ask you or anyone else to prove to me that your spiritual belief system is true in the physical sense that the law of gravity is true, because that is applying a test that is meaningless in the context: as if an accountant were to ask you to prove that your atheism is profitable, and refuse to accept it if you can't.

(Possibly not a good metaphor, now I think of it, because televangelism shows that some religions can be very profitable indeed. But that still doesn't prove they're true.)

If a person's religion makes them happy and useful, it's a good religion, but whether it's true or not is a null question for me: only they can decide that.

If you try to run your life based on superstitions, then it IS a bad thing. People like to think that astrology, for example, works. But in reality we KNOW it doesn't work. There is no demonstrable basis for claiming that the planets can control our destinies. The claims of the astrologer cannot be tested, they cannot be demonstrated, they cannot even be agreed upon by other astrologers. Do you consider it a good thing to allow one's life to be ruled by such nonsense?

That depends. If a person makes good decisions and feels secure in their life because they believe they are guided by the planets, I feel it's no worse than being guided by any of the other objectively absurd belief systems that people live by.

I think it's wise to have a solid grasp of the difference between a belief system and physically verifiable facts, but that's my only caveat.

[thir]

Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
And if innocent non-Americans die as a result of our action, who gives a fuck? It won't be our fault.

No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.

True, the one who kills is responsible for killing. But what about the instigator? Does this person not have any responsibility at all? Or does book burning also come under the heading of 'freedom of speech'?

As in, some hateful people shout 'kill the gays kill the gays' and not only are they not part of the killing that follows, because it is all freedom of speech, and nobody needs actually do it?

[thir]

Usually she's addressing me with this kind of statement. And that's probably because I feel that anyone who BLINDLY follows a religious leader is, indeed, stupid. Those who learn about their religion, who actually think about (a rarity in my experience) might be considered gullible, perhaps, but not necessarily stupid.

Following anyone blindly is, in my view of things, a very dangerous thing to do and, also in my view, plain wrong. Because the last judge of your behaviour is you yourself, and you cannot just let that go. It is part of being a sentient being to be accuntable for your actions, whoever gives the orders.

As for thinking about your religion I am sure that you are wrong in assuming that most people do not do that. In less religious countries you have to think a lot to become religious in the first place, as it is not part of the culture. People who change religions have also thought a lot. And I would guess that most young people sooner or later take such things - and all kinds of things - up to revision. They should, anyway.

Of course that still leaves a number of people who do not think about their religion, and that is as dangerous, as I see it, as people who blindly trust authorities in general.

That is why I could never be a soldier of a member of various 'operational forces' of one kind or another. I could never make myself a blind tool for other people, least of all politicians of priests, meaning no offence to either as individuals but targeting the system. Defending your own homeground, on it,that is different, but also a different situation.

A religion is, by definition, institutionalized.

No. A pagan religion is a religion, but as far from being institutionalized as you can get.

Faith does not have to be either religious or dogmatic.

True, nor anything to do with anything spriritual at all.

Statistics seem to indicate that, in the US, the more dogmatic religions are losing young members in record numbers.

If so, I see it as very positive. If the religion is any good, they will come back later, or start their own, but they will base it on their own thoughts and values.

[thir]

Thorne:
Just give them a couple of hundred years. They'll get around to it. (see: Galileo)

Denuseri:
OMG lol you really really dont like the Catholics do you sugar.

Just to clear up a misunderstanding: Thorne is answering to my comments about the Magdalene Sister's Launderies, and, as I was careful to say, they were in use all over Europe in both catholic and protestant countries, though under different names.

And my own comment: I think the important thing here is that great injustice was done and much suffering occured as a result of that, and that is the point here, no matter what religion caused it. As I said Neither church has bothered to apoligize for these atrocities but what the heck, it was only women who got hit and they did not, and do not, count for much anyway in the 3 mono religions. Oh, and, in some cases their babies, of course. If that matters.

[thir]

Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.
[/quote]


Isn't that pretty much what Pastor Terry Jones would have said?

He deliberately provoked the riots. It was HIS fault. Sure the rioters are guilty for over-reacting, but Jones burned the Koran knowing something like that would happen, just to publicise his business, the Dove Outreach Centre, and its products: hate books, hate t-shirts etc.

This is a difficult moral question. Certianly both parties are responsible for their actions.

That book burning was a dispiseable act, pretty much like the darn Mohamed drawings
in the Danish news paper. But it still does not excuse killing people.

To me a response that makes sense would be to burn a bible online, or to publish drawings mocking Jesus. Yell at each other, but that is the extent of it. It is the killings that makes me think that what I insist on calling dogmatic religions are too dangerous and have too much power over other people.

[thir]

I'm sure there are some atheists out there who have not seriously considered their position. Primarily those who were raised without any religious training, children of atheists or agnostics or lapsed religious parents. But it's been my experience that most atheists were formerly religious believers, from many, many different faiths, who at some point began examining what they were being spoon-fed and realized that it was all mush. I have read many accounts (and seen videos) by these people, and they are quite remarkable in both their similarities and differences. In almost all cases they have rebelled from their parents' religions. Some went directly to atheism, but many went through other religions first, before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bunch of hokum.

As I say, culture matters, and it is hard to distinguish cultural matters from religious ones. In basically atheist countries that is what you get, and not from a lot of thinking.

Also, the Catholic Church is historically responsible for far more misery and pain than any other religious organization. Even in modern times, these so-called arbiters of morality are far more interested in protecting the image of the Church than in protecting those people who depend upon them. But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

I keep wondering at this emphasis on there being no actual evidence. There isn't any - that is what faith means. And what does it matter what people think? As long as they keep it to their own lives. Do you see any damage to them, or to society as such, from that?

Even the pagan faiths are still professing a belief in some sort of supernatural beings, with absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings.

Not all of have supernational beings in our beliefs or outlook. But for those who do, they need no scientific proof. Why should they? It would mean that only that which science can prove, and has so far been interested enough in to work with, or even thought of, or know about, is real. That is a very limitted world indeed! Don't you think that there is tons of stuff out there and in there that noone has thought of yet, or are you on the page with the 'plateau' people who think that basically we now know everything, and the rest is just tinkering?

Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.

All different from any actual faith ;-)

Personally I belive in luck, and bad luck too, as they excist. Fate too - as in we cannot control nearly as much as we think we can. And good-luck charms too! If I decide that I can 'store' energy in a charm, and that it will help me in a specific case, then it will. Proven fact ;-)

Knock wood.[/QUOTE]

[leo9]

No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.

So in your view, if one shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, the responsibility for the consequences lies entirely with those imbecilic enough to believe that there was a fire?

[leo9]

Here's a good idea ... Let's put an inanimate book on "trial". Although it can't defend itself, we can appoint someone to put up a really determined defence on its behalf - or we can put up some stooges to do the opposite.

By a most entertaining coincidence, in the same week UK television showed Paul Theroux' second documentary on the Wesborough Baptist Church, who would certainly be Exhibit A if one were to put the Bible on trial.

The thought that occured to me was: if I were to go to Pastor Jones' neighbourhood and burn a Bible with much hullaballoo and publicity, what would be my chances of getting out alive? Because, y'know, they've proved to their satisfaction that only Muslims are violent...

[leo9]

As in, some hateful people shout 'kill the gays kill the gays' and not only are they not part of the killing that follows, because it is all freedom of speech, and nobody needs actually do it?

This is always a judgement call, and historically, the US has drawn the line a lot further over on the side of free speech than Europe. I'm pretty sure that if Pastor Jones had been in England he'd have been arrested just for proposing his trial and burning; he'd certainly be in jail now. Likewise the Wesborough Baptist Gay-haters. It is arguable that our political debate is that much less free as a result: but with all due respect, the US's wider limits for speech don't seem to have produced a markedly higher level of wisdom in the debate.

The real problem internationally is the same kind of cultural incomprehension that bedevils so much international debate. The countries that feel attacked by this have such radically different traditions of politics that they honestly do not believe that the President of the world's most heavily armed nation can only show his disapproval of this by wringing his hands in distress. One can understand why. If something similar (mutatis mutandis) happened in a Middle Eastern state, and the perpetrator went unharmed, we would take it as proved that his actions were at least approved, if not actually sponsored by the government.

[leo9]

PS - I realised after it was too late to edit that what I was referring to in the above was the book-burning, not the riots. I hope that's clear now.

[Thorne]

And I don't understand what manga fans or opera lovers or politicos get out of their particular interests, but it's variety that makes the human race so amazing.

The difference is that these are physical, measurable, tangible things, not ephemeral beliefs which cannot be distinguished from wishful thinking.

One just has to accept that there are a lot of people out there who feel intensely about things that leave us cold, and their concerns are as legitimate as ours.

I can accept that. It's the religious who want to force their beliefs onto everyone else who seem to have a problem with it.

In the immortal words of the Prophet Bokonnon, "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

I prefer to live with the truth. There's generally far less disappointment that way.

It's been observed that love - the swept-away-infatuated kind - meets all the clinical tests of mental illness.

I can see that, especially for that kind of love, which is more akin to lust than real love. Having been married as long as I have, I can say that real love is much deeper, and far less intoxicating, than that. And more fulfilling.

The same can reasonably be said for religious devotion

Except that, once again, you are equating love, or devotion, of a tangible, physical person with the devotion of something, or someone, that is not provable.

which proves that psychology is still far from having a complete description of human nature.

Something else we can agree on!

as if an accountant were to ask you to prove that your atheism is profitable, and refuse to accept it if you can't.

Except that I CAN prove it. Look at all the money I save by not throwing it into some church!

If a person's religion makes them happy and useful, it's a good religion, but whether it's true or not is a null question for me: only they can decide that.

Then why does it seem so many of them want to force me to believe as they do?

That depends. If a person makes good decisions and feels secure in their life because they believe they are guided by the planets, I feel it's no worse than being guided by any of the other objectively absurd belief systems that people live by.

If they ONLY made good decisions I might be convinced that there were something to that. But it's been shown that they make just as many bad decisions as those who don't believe. And in some cases, they have failed to make ANY decisions because "the stars were not aligned."

I think it's wise to have a solid grasp of the difference between a belief system and physically verifiable facts, but that's my only caveat.

I agree.

[Thorne]

Just to clear up a misunderstanding: Thorne is answering to my comments about the Magdalene Sister's Launderies, and, as I was careful to say, they were in use all over Europe in both catholic and protestant countries, though under different names.

While I was responding to your comments, denuseri is right, my statement was primarily aimed at the Catholic Church. But yes, it does apply to the others as well.

[Thorne]

As I say, culture matters, and it is hard to distinguish cultural matters from religious ones. In basically atheist countries that is what you get, and not from a lot of thinking.

Exactly my point! People tend to believe (or not believe) based upon how they were raised. Some never venture beyond that.

As long as they keep it to their own lives. Do you see any damage to them, or to society as such, from that?

That's my entire point! They SHOULD keep it to themselves, NOT try to push it into everyone else's lives. Too many don't!

It would mean that only that which science can prove, and has so far been interested enough in to work with, or even thought of, or know about, is real.

Not at all! Science doesn't define reality. It catalogs it, measures it, tries to understand it. And since much of Western science has it's origins in the Church, one of the things they have tried to prove is the existence of gods, heaven, hell, spirits, afterlife, etc., etc., etc. And to date there is nothing there!

That is a very limitted world indeed! Don't you think that there is tons of stuff out there and in there that noone has thought of yet, or are you on the page with the 'plateau' people who think that basically we now know everything, and the rest is just tinkering?

Far from it! Science doesn't know everything. But it's my belief (and you can call this a faith if you want) that science CAN know everything, eventually. Given enough time and enough resources mankind just might learn how everything works. They might even find out WHY everything works, if there IS a why. Who knows? They might even find God someday. If they do, though, I think He'll have a lot to answer for!

Personally I belive in luck, and bad luck too, as they excist. Fate too - as in we cannot control nearly as much as we think we can. And good-luck charms too! If I decide that I can 'store' energy in a charm, and that it will help me in a specific case, then it will. Proven fact ;-)

NOT a proven fact. It's called a placebo effect. You THINK it helps you, which can have some positive effects, but when tested under controlled conditions we find that it does nothing at all.

This is the importance of science. It shows us what works and what doesn't. It helps to keep us from deceiving ourselves. Without science we'd still be wallowing around in the mud, dying of mysterious diseases, grubbing out a dangerous existence plagued by fear of imaginary beings. Science has brought us medicine that works, an understanding of our place in the world, near instantaneous communications with the rest of the world, the ability to travel to any place we want to go.

Sure, it's also brought us nuclear weapons, and more efficient ways to kill ourselves. Nobody claimed it was perfect. Science is, and should be, dispassionate, uncaring. It's people who can take the lessons of science and use them for either good or evil.

[Thorne]

So in your view, if one shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, the responsibility for the consequences lies entirely with those imbecilic enough to believe that there was a fire?

Only those who will blindly race for the exits, knocking down anyone who gets in their way.

But this is not the same kind of thing. In this case some radical Imam stood up and claimed that, since this one asshole burned the Koran, Muslims should rise up and kill anyone who is not Muslim. He didn't shout "fire"; he whispered, "kill the projectionist!"

[denuseri]

Allow me to speculate: you study these sciences and feel that certain things would not be possible without God? But I study these same things and say, "Where is this god?" I see no evidence for any kind of supernatural intervention in this universe. I see many coincidences, and many things which we might not yet understand, but that does not mean God, to me. What I do see are people figuratively tossing a coin into the air, drawing a circle around the coin when it lands, then claiming that it's impossible for that coin to have landed so precisely in that circle, therefore gods!

And what I see with atheists is the same thing coin and all.

And for the umpteenth time I must say, I do not preclude the existence of gods. I only say that there is no definitive evidence for them. There is nothing one can point to and say, "There is God!" No one can definitively say that there are no gods. What I can say is that there is no evidence for gods.

So your not really an aethiest now? Your agnostic?

I have no need, nor desire, to enforce anything!

Your arguments do not sound any different from the people you call idots for blindly following any faith.

I don't really care what people choose to believe in.

Then why do you constantly attack them for their beliefs?

What I DO care about is those people who try to force their beliefs upon me and others, (like you would do on everyone else if you were in power?) those who want to prevent atheists from holding public office, for example. Or those who want to force their morality on me, even though I find their morality offensive. Also, I do find it important that people understand the history of religious beliefs, learn how those beliefs have been manipulated to control entire populations and to keep religious leaders at the top of the heap.

Better also keep in mind how the aethist belief system was forced on entire populations of religious followers against their will too then, and manipulated to keep those same corrupt leaders at the tops of the heap.

Yes, these are natural human responses. So I would expect an organization which professes to be the voice of God on Earth would try to stand above such pettiness and try to be more "holy".

And the communists used the same exact kind of lofty rehtoric conserning aethism and look what happened.

And I respect that. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort coming to your faith. I don't think you are stupid (and yet you ussually manage to say I am in the same breath and then try to break from the argument by catagorizing me different from the rst of those who have a faith or following a religious organization...its sophistry 101) because of that. It is those who do NOT study religion, who blindly accept the faith of their fathers, those who denigrate all other faiths but their own, simply because it IS their own.

You do realize you do the same thing every time you make statments about unicorns and flying fairy dust and equate it to religion dont you? Then sophistacally suggest that if one believes in such one has to be stupid, and when called on that revert to saying "well only if they blindly follow it then" yet ...that doesnt in any practical way change that your still saying the same thing or worse about we who made a studied decision on the matter...though as thir pointed out, no one who is human really follows their faith blindly anyways.

I can't understand WHY you would choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But I can respect the fact that you have made a conscious choice.

And I cant understand why you would choose to believe in aethism when there is also no evidence that it is the one true way eaither lol.

If you respect we who have faith in a belief system so much (religion , philosophy what have you) then why dont you show it for a change instead of making the same statements of intolerance against us?

And once more I challenge you to explain how NOT believing in gods can be a faith.

I do every time we have this debate you just choose to not see the obvious.

I do not BELIEVE there are no gods.

So then you believe there are gods or a god? lol Tell me which god or gods do you believe in then?

I simply DON'T believe there are.

lol ok which is it, you believe or you dont?

If you can provide me with evidence, solid evidence, which can be tested, I'll be happy to change my mind.

Hummm, looks up at the other two posts before this set and sighs...looks to me sugar that you still need to make you mind up to begin with.

All I've ever seen from most theists are self-confirming anecdotes and demands that I "open my mind to accepting God". Whatever that means.

Not me, all I am doing is asking you to acept that others may not share the same belief system as you and that no matter what we personally may think of those said beliefs (like aethism for instance), it doesnt mean we cannot be tollerant and live together and work for the betterment of our species as a whole together or even one day find harmony in acceptance of each other as having different beliefs.

And yet again I deny that I am saying everyone who believes is stupid. If that were so then I would have to call my parents stupid. They believe. But they do not BLINDLY believe. They have studied, and modified their beliefs to more closely conform to reality. I still think they are wrong, but I don't think they are stupid. Just as I don't believe you, or leo9, or so many others who have really learned of their faith, are stupid. I do think you are wrong, but not stupid. And I'm just as sure that you think I am wrong. And hopefully NOT stupid.

Illogical at times maby, especially when it comes to discussions conserning religion and wether or not belief in aethism constitutes a belief..I mean you do have faith that aethisum is right dont you? Despite a complete lack of evidence to support your beliefs. That there really is not a god or gods? I know you must be flip flopping somewhere at least subconsiously since you apeared to have vacilated in your beilefs right in those very set of posts once allready.

Most atheists, and I place myself among them, are not interested in destroying people's faith.

Then why do you spend so much effort trying to do so?

They are only interested in preventing those people from infiltrating those faiths into our governments, schools, and work places.

And replacing them with your own.

They are interested in being just as respected for their NON-beliefs as those believers want to be respected FOR their beliefs.

We already legally have that in the USA.

They want a person who has been properly elected to be able to fill the office he was elected to fill without having to go to court because he happens to be an atheist. They want to be able to advertise atheist groups and meetings, just as churches advertise their meetings, without having to go to court to force businesses to place those advertisements. In short, we want to be treated as equals in society, without having to bow our heads and pray at the beginning of every activity. We want theists to keep faith in their hearts and religion in their churches, where it belongs.

So you wish to take a page from Stalin's book and take away the people of faith's right to freee speach and assembly? That way you will never have to see another church service or god forbid someone cross themselves or pray?