Very touchy subject here..approach with caution.

[HarlotMinx]

Having read American Gods and EVERY Pratchett book I can recommend both highly. Pratchett brilliant on so many levels, not only are his books brilliant on their face but he weaves a lot of really subtle political and social commentary into his books. Like Jingo was totally about western relations with the middle east over gaza, and going postal.... internet verses snail mail. American Gods was pretty entertaining too, kind of makes you look at how our belief gives rise to things, I like how he turned the TV, cars, cell phones, etc into gods as well.

 

[HarlotMinx]

ahh, a question truelly reserved for catholics and newbis. to that I say..
1. god = invisiblle omnipotent being that lives in the sky, who's perfect but creates imperfect beings
2. religion= groups of old prueds and closet homos that feel the need to repress others to make themselves feel better about there own twisted lives, plus argue and cause the most amount of death and murder in gods name.


in the end love whomever, sleep with whomever, do you best to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the morning and be happy with what u see.

You know, as a atheist, I find that a very disappointing opinion, not to mention short sighted in the extreme. First of all, it looks like you're trying to attack Catholicism(possibly evangelicals as well) and yet lump in every religion.... which makes no sense at all. But even if you just applied your statement against Catholics and some of the evangelical churches it's still shows a inordinate amount of naivety.

However it does serve as a good example that atheists can be just as capable at being ignorant as religious zealots.

 

[angelkitty7888]

ahh, a question truelly reserved for catholics and newbis. to that I say..
1. god = invisiblle omnipotent being that lives in the sky, who's perfect but creates imperfect beings
2. religion= groups of old prueds and closet homos that feel the need to repress others to make themselves feel better about there own twisted lives, plus argue and cause the most amount of death and murder in gods name.


in the end love whomever, sleep with whomever, do you best to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the morning and be happy with what u see.

http://fapomatic.com/thumbs/1005/motchrisitianity.jpg http://fapomatic.com/thumbs/1005/atheismchristianitygoddemotivationalposter1219205696png.jpg

How about a quick laugh at the strangeness of religions in general?

 

[haurni]

"So Man created Gods in his own image, in the image of Man he created them; male and female and everything else he created them."

From a neurophysiological standpoint, I believe god to be the exteriorized and reified expression of our ability to conceptualize the abstract, god being the ultimate abstract concept. Deities are also humanity writ large and an expression of our innate desire to know that there is someone out there watching over us - the ultimate parent. Not to mention that gods are great tools for social control.

HarlotMinx is right about modern 'paganism' in that it is a recent invention and that the original pagan practices were no doubt much different - I haven't heard that any druids have been authorized to burn people alive in huge wicker statues at Stonehenge recently. It's a nice idea and all very warm and fuzzy and inclusive, but it has little historical reality. It's not my place to knock your concept of divinity (especially in a forum such as this!) but I'll stick to atheism flavoured with the Golden Rule.

Oh, and American Gods is a pretty good book, btw.

EDIT: Doesn't mean I don't like some of the modern pagan ideas. If I were religious, I'd probably be some sort of new age pagan. I have quite an interest in magic, religion and the paranormal. I also play D&D.

 

[HarlotMinx]

I haven't heard that any druids have been authorized to burn people alive in huge wicker statues at Stonehenge recently. It's a nice idea and all very warm and fuzzy and inclusive, but it has little historical reality.

While it probably wasn't practiced by the druids of Gaul it's still up for debate.... depends on whether you think Caesar was just listening to rumors.... though that would be a awesome way to win a religious argument!
"So, how do you contend with Christianities clear success in converting your followers?"
"Well you see john, what you have to understand is- BURN HIM!"

Actually though, animal sacrifice for religious purposes is allowed under the constitution (you could possibly be arrested for animal cruelty though). I think the reason more pagans don't practice it is it's become a little politically incorrect to kill animals... it has some slightly taboo associations.

 

[captainkid28]

You know, as a atheist, I find that a very disappointing opinion, not to mention short sighted in the extreme. First of all, it looks like you're trying to attack Catholicism(possibly evangelicals as well) and yet lump in every religion.... which makes no sense at all. But even if you just applied your statement against Catholics and some of the evangelical churches it's still shows a inordinate amount of naivety.

However it does serve as a good example that atheists can be just as capable at being ignorant as religious zealots.

ohhh, please, are u one of those, i read a bunch of books about make believe spirits a supernatural beings, so now i judge whose smart and whose not. The fact is, people who treat the bible as true events and characters cant seperate fiction from fantasy. you had might as well read harry potter and practice magic.
and i'm agnostic

 

[HarlotMinx]

ohhh, please, are u one of those, i read a bunch of books about make believe spirits a supernatural beings, so now i judge whose smart and whose not. The fact is, people who treat the bible as true events and characters cant seperate fiction from fantasy. you had might as well read harry potter and practice magic.
and i'm agnostic

Actually it has nothing to do with any judgment of intelligence so much as a judgment of ignorance. Intelligent people are fully capable of being ignorant. Just as I would chastise a religious person for attacking the beliefs of an agnostic, I will readily point out when someone attacks religion for it's beliefs. A person who claims religious people are "old prueds and closet homos that feel the need to repress others to make themselves feel better about there own twisted lives" is equally guilty of intolerance as a southern baptist minister who feels homosexuals are a bunch of immoral agents of Satan. Both are just as blinded by their hatred and generalizations.

Now, if by "books about make believe spirits a supernatural beings" you mean religious books then yes I've read some texts from a few religions but that in no way makes me any more or less intelligent than the next girl, at the most it might make me more informed about the religious practices of a group than a complete stranger but still significantly less informed than a practitioner....

By the way, I'm not sure you know what agnostic means.
(from the dictionary)
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

You can easily be a agnostic christian or an agnostic atheist even.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Personally, I don't argue with people who post in textspeak.

but I totally admit to having about 0.1 tolerance for the general run of Xtianity, on a scale of 1-10. I am not ashamed of my intolerance, I don't have ambitions to be a better person about it, but at the same time I don't go out of my way to inflict it on believers.

 

[Jagged]

My catholic lesbian friend had a nice answer. She says two women together technically isn't considered sex by the church, so she's free to be as promiscuous as she wants.

Yes while scholars debate about men having relations the topic of lesbianism isn't mentioned at all. So have fun ladies, and it is there hell let them burn in it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes while scholars debate about men having relations the topic of lesbianism isn't mentioned at all. So have fun ladies, and it is there hell let them burn in it.

har!

 

[HarlotMinx]

Personally, I don't argue with people who post in textspeak.

but I totally admit to having about 0.1 tolerance for the general run of Xtianity, on a scale of 1-10. I am not ashamed of my intolerance, I don't have ambitions to be a better person about it, but at the same time I don't go out of my way to inflict it on believers.

Eh, you can have intolerant opinions, that's the freedom of thought but their is a difference between having a intolerance and umbrella statements. Having issue with how a majority of Christianity practices it's religion isn't the same as saying all Christians are idiots. I don't know if that makes any sense but I think I was more offended by his attacking all religion. I mean if you want to say that the catholic church has been throughout history a perpetrator of many wars and torture... well that's accurate but that is different.... eh does my reasoning make sense here?

 

[dark moon]

Easy. The religious message in the Bible is nonsense.

 

[haurni]

Yes while scholars debate about men having relations the topic of lesbianism isn't mentioned at all. So have fun ladies, and it is there hell let them burn in it.

[...] Hell is reserved exclusively for them that believe in it. Further, the lowest Rung in Hell is reserved for them that believe in it on the supposition that they'll go there if they don't.
HBT; The Gospel According to Fred, 3:1. Principia Discordia

 

[rbone04]

As for religion...

Because there are SO MANY different belief doctrines out there--all of which have been defined, interpreted, and re-interpreted over and over again by fallible humans--statistically speaking even if there is a higher power, the odds weigh HEAVILY in the favor of every single religious person's beliefs being completely wrong.

If you want to put your stock in a shot-in-the-dark guess at how you're supposed to live your life, and worship an idol that may or may not exist and according to what another mortal man determines is "the right way" then by all means go ahead... but ONLY if that's what makes you happy.

I think it's safe to say that most religious people believe what they believe because that's what they were taught at a young age. I think it's also safe to say that most religious people don't question what they have been taught because it helps them rationalize their fear of dying. This is sad.

As for happiness...

Some people may be truly happy as a result of their religious practices. I think most have created the illusion of happiness by convincing themselves that something better happens when they die. Regardless of whether or not these people are actually happy, the fact is they are still living their life with death in mind.

Now I am agnostic, and I acknowledge the fact that there might be a god who wants us to live our life a certain way. One of the only good things I can say about religion is that, generally speaking, most religious teachings encourage us to be good people. Big deal, just be a good person.

I firmly believe that if there is a god, then he gave us all the amazing gift of life and the ability to derive happiness from it. If this god were to damn us because we are homosexual, bisexual, kinky, etc., etc., then this god would be purely evil. We engage in these practices because they make us HAPPY. I think that any god gracious enough to bless us with the gift of life and endless sources of happiness (even beyond sexuality) would be kind enough to just make us not enjoy these things we are told he hates.

So if the religious fanatics honestly think "God" hates these things we find so joyful, then they must realize that their god is a sick being who created a majority of us so he could damn us to Hell (or wherever) just because he can.

 

[RyeandGingerAyle]

Well and thoughtfully said.

 

[HarlotMinx]

As for religion...

Because there are SO MANY different belief doctrines out there--all of which have been defined, interpreted, and re-interpreted over and over again by fallible humans--statistically speaking even if there is a higher power, the odds weigh HEAVILY in the favor of every single religious person's beliefs being completely wrong.

If you want to put your stock in a shot-in-the-dark guess at how you're supposed to live your life, and worship an idol that may or may not exist and according to what another mortal man determines is "the right way" then by all means go ahead... but ONLY if that's what makes you happy.

That assumes that there is a right and a wrong way at all. Maybe religion only asks that people believe, whatever the details of their belief are is determined by us based on our morality. Personally I think religion was the first attempts at morality and imposing consequence while also explaining that which we couldn't grasp, answering curiosity. A first attempt at government and law. I think there is a reason religion sprouted all over the world wherever you can find humanity, it's a natural development of human psyche. That said I also think that atheism is a form of religion in that it too call on people to believe in the unexplainable... just not in a divine reason. I think the problem is not in deciding "this is my religion and this is the right way to live my life" but in saying "this is my religion and this is the right way for you to live your life".

 

[Stella_Omega]

That said I also think that atheism is a form of religion in that it too call on people to believe in the unexplainable... just not in a divine reason.

In what way do you see Atheism doing this?

We all have to accept that some things are not explainable, but we do not have to accept that they must always remain so-- which is what religious belief is all about. Most atheists are not willing to accept "it's unexplainable" as an ultimate answer to any question of life.

I think the problem is not in deciding "this is my religion and this is the right way to live my life" but in saying "this is my religion and this is the right way for you to live your life".

Well said

 

[HarlotMinx]

In what way do you see Atheism doing this?

We all have to accept that some things are not explainable, but we do not have to accept that they must always remain so-- which is what religious belief is all about. Most atheists are not willing to accept "it's unexplainable" as an ultimate answer to any question of life.
Well said

I think of it more as religion is the explanation of what we can't understand yet. Some people believe that god is the answer and some believe that science is the answer. Both accept that they don't know everything and that their IS an answer but they come from different sources. I like to think atheists believe in the "personal god". Not this major divine source telling them how to live their lives but instead imposing their own morals on themselves based on their beliefs. I think one of the major flaws in religion is to assume that humans naturally have no morals. The fact is, we all have different morals but any sane person does in fact have morals.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think of it more as religion is the explanation of what we can't understand yet. Some people believe that god is the answer and some believe that science is the answer. Both accept that they don't know everything and that their IS an answer but they come from different sources. I like to think atheists believe in the "personal god". Not this major divine source telling them how to live their lives but instead imposing their own morals on themselves based on their beliefs. I think one of the major flaws in religion is to assume that humans naturally have no morals. The fact is, we all have different morals but any sane person does in fact have morals.

I think atheists see a big difference between 'god' and 'morals'

I would say that anyone who "believes science is the answer" (and there are more of those than otherwise, don't get me wrong) has a fundamental ignorance of what science is-- it's a process of enquirey. The answers that these enquiries arrive at are 'knowledge.' and the utilisation of that knowledge is 'technology.'

Religion is indeed an explanation of what we don't understand yet, but it isn't a factual explanation-- it provides a substitute for actual knowledge. For many things that will never matter, but some wrong explanations are very very damaging to our world, our selves, our species. And what is worse is that the beliefs that make up these explanations are told to us as definitive, final, unaltering, by people who have a real stake in our gullibility. We are trained by religion to expect final answers on everything-- which is why so many people expect science to provide the same kind of reassurance.

 

[HarlotMinx]

I think atheists see a big difference between 'god' and 'morals'

I would say that anyone who "believes science is the answer" (and there are more of those than otherwise, don't get me wrong) has a fundamental ignorance of what science is-- it's a process of enquirey. The answers that these enquiries arrive at are 'knowledge.' and the utilisation of that knowledge is 'technology.'

Religion is indeed an explanation of what we don't understand yet, but it isn't a factual explanation-- it provides a substitute for actual knowledge. For many things that will never matter, but some wrong explanations are very very damaging to our world, our selves, our species. And what is worse is that the beliefs that make up these explanations are told to us as definitive, final, unaltering, by people who have a real stake in our gullibility. We are trained by religion to expect final answers on everything-- which is why so many people expect science to provide the same kind of reassurance.

There is a misunderstanding, god would be the enforcement of morals, the idea that you behave a certain way because a unquestionable force says so and polices those morals. Atheists look at it as more of a personally enforced moral set(I recognize that's very ignorant on my part on religious individual's morals but I'm over simplifying to save space). Morals and god/dess should be looked at as separately.

Also the second misunderstanding is I don't think that science holds the answers but more that some people believe that through science all answers can be achieved. Which is interesting because that calls into the question of whether some religions purposefully foster ignorance....

Rereading your post I realize we're going over the same tangent here. Um to be fair to religion though I don't think that's true of religion as a whole or even religion in general so much as it's a function of some religious organizations. I've always felt it important to distinguish between religious organizations and religion because they are not the same. Religion has my blessing, it's religious organizations that I feel are the problem. I think that very few religions impose ignorance directly. Many ask us to question ourselves and our surroundings... the problem is when religious organizations try to remove the human from the religion. It's the idea that religion is above man, infallible, immutable, and universal is the issue.

 

[Stella_Omega]

There is a misunderstanding, god would be the enforcement of morals, the idea that you behave a certain way because a unquestionable force says so and polices those morals. Atheists look at it as more of a personally enforced moral set(I recognize that's very ignorant on my part on religious individual's morals but I'm over simplifying to save space). Morals and god/dess should be looked at as separately.

We are totally in agreement there!

Also the second misunderstanding is I don't think that science holds the answers but more that some people believe that through science all answers can be achieved. Which is interesting because that calls into the question of whether some religions purposefully foster ignorance....

yes, and yes and I say that the reason some people believe that science can answer every questions, is because they have been indoctrinated, by growing up in a society that depends so very much on belief, the think that there must be answers to every question. Religion fosters ignorance because it offers answers to every question-- in whatever way is most useful to that religion's leaders-- and does not encourage further exploration.

Rereading your post I realize we're going over the same tangent here. Um to be fair to religion though I don't think that's true of religion as a whole or even religion in general so much as it's a function of some religious organizations. I've always felt it important to distinguish between religious organizations and religion because they are not the same. Religion has my blessing, it's religious organizations that I feel are the problem. I think that very few religions impose ignorance directly. Many ask us to question ourselves and our surroundings... the problem is when religious organizations try to remove the human from the religion. It's the idea that religion is above man, infallible, immutable, and universal is the issue.

How do you separate the religions from the people that practice them? Religion as philosophy is a nice idea, but, sorry, all I know of them are the bits that hit me in the face.

 

[HarlotMinx]

How do you separate the religions from the people that practice them? Religion as philosophy is a nice idea, but, sorry, all I know of them are the bits that hit me in the face.

Not religion from the people who practice them but religion from the church. Christianity for example is independent of Catholicism or Evangelism. Both of those are movements based on Christianity but are about control.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Not religion from the people who practice them but religion from the church. Christianity for example is independent of Catholicism or Evangelism. Both of those are movements based on Christianity but are about control.

yeah, I know but-- the few Christians that don't use their religion to control don't bother me, whereas the bazillions who do-- do. And the people are the church.

I can see that it would be nice to separate the philosophies from their practice; guns for instance, are beautiful objects in their own right-- when they aren't being pointed straight at a person.

 

[HarlotMinx]

yeah, I know but-- the few Christians that don't use their religion to control don't bother me, whereas the bazillions who do-- do. And the people are the church.

That's like saying the American people ARE the US government. I mean, the reason their is a difference is that the average christian follows what they're told to believe. A lot of people equate a priest to the same level of trustworthiness as a police officer. They're looking at the leaders as authority figures so a certain amount of blindness is present. Also, many churches capitalize on humans natural tendency to assume things we don't understand are wrong in some way.

I can see that it would be nice to separate the philosophies from their practice; guns for instance, are beautiful objects in their own right-- when they aren't being pointed straight at a person.

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people?

 

[Etoile]

I consider myself a moral person because I think it's wrong to kill other people, not because the Old White Man In The Sky said not to kill other people.