Post of the week...

[Spinach Genie]

Van, religion is like any belief system or tool. It can be abused by the unscrupulous or used for great good. Like all things in life, the ugly is far more visible than the positive. Religion feeds people. Clothes people. Shelters people. It brings them medicine, education and can lend them a compassionate perspective they may never have had access to in their lives. It can give them hope where otherwise they may see no hope. It's a very powerful thing. As such, it can be used in wrongful ways and has been. The same can be said of politics, philosophy, education, sex, money, guns and countless other things. The one common variable behind all of these things is people. Some use and there are those who will be used. For every Torquemada, however, there's a Mother Teresa or a Jesus Christ...and the one shouldn't diminish the other.

[Van]

Van, religion is like any belief system or tool. It can be abused by the unscrupulous or used for great good. Like all things in life, the ugly is far more visible than the positive. Religion feeds people. Clothes people. Shelters people. It brings them medicine, education and can lend them a compassionate perspective they may never have had access to in their lives. It can give them hope where otherwise they may see no hope.

Yes, but at what cost?

A person (and many a society) literally trades their soul for it.

It's a very powerful thing.

Too powerful. Far too powerful. Considering it's really nothing but a collection of fables there's just no way in hell (pun intended) that entire societies should be elevated and/or wiped out over it.

As such, it can be used in wrongful ways and has been.

Probably to a greater and more damaging extent than any other force in mankind's history.

The same can be said of politics, philosophy, education, sex, money, guns and countless other things.

Of all those things only money and possibly politics have ever approached organized religion in terms of the destruction visited upon mankind as a result of its existence.

Money can and has also been used for good; same with politics. Problem is, it's those little acts of benevolence that fire people's imaginations and in the case of religion it's all downhill from there...

The one common variable behind all of these things is people. Some use and there are those who will be used. For every Torquemada, however, there's a Mother Teresa or a Jesus Christ...and the one shouldn't diminish the other.

It's not a one for one situation though.

For every Mother Teresa there's ten million indigents who are indigent primarily due to their lack of education and their sole focus being one of adherence to a series of fables.

Ever notice how educated and non secular societies really don't have much of a need for Mother Teresa? It's not a coincidence. As a society, any society, religion as its prime driving force must be abandoned before the society will advance...

[Diogenes]

For the most part Karl Marx was dead on correct.

Speaking of "root causes of overwhelming tragedies"...

Every religion on earth combined can't touch Communism's body count.

I was only referring to his "Religion is the opiate of the masses" comment, not communism.

And atheism is the hallucinogenic of the elitists, props.

Dimsdale's post is still crap and his hiding behind and twisting the BOR still hypocricy BTW.

[Spinach Genie]

Yes, but at what cost?

A person (and many a society) literally trades their soul for it.

That's a bit melodramatic. How many christians, muslims, hindus, etc. are there in this world? How much of the world's wrongs can honestly be laid at their feet? How much good?

Too powerful. Far too powerful. Considering it's really nothing but a collection of fables there's just no way in hell (pun intended) that entire societies should be elevated and/or wiped out over it.

It's a belief. The most bloody wars in this nation's history were fought over beliefs, none of which had very much or anything to do primarily with religion. Taxes, yes. Differing views on economy? Yes. Slavery? Yes. Clashing political ideology? Yes. Ideas are just ideas. What is done with them is where the good and bad weigh in.

Probably to a greater and more damaging extent than any other force in mankind's history.

Arguable, but I doubt it to be true. What really causes the damage? The religion or the cultural, economic and political struggles that may or may not be hiding behind it?

Of all those things only money and possibly politics have ever approached organized religion in terms of the destruction visited upon mankind as a result of its existence.

I'd say money and politics easily equal and possibly surpass it. The same basic factors are present with all three.

Money can and has also been used for good; same with politics. Problem is, it's those little acts of benevolence that fire people's imaginations and in the case of religion it's all downhill from there...

It's easy to try and say one thing is or isn't responsible for the wrongs of the world, but the truth is if it wasn't religion it would be something else. There are those who have a need for power and will take it at the expense and use of any they come in contact with. There are people who use food and water, sex, money, influence and countless other things people feel a need for to get their way. We all have weaknesses. It's easy to single the religious out, but you can find as great of evils among the faithless.

It's not a one for one situation though.

For every Mother Teresa there's ten million indigents who are indigent primarily due to their lack of education and their sole focus being one of adherence to a series of fables.

...and what of the countless who selflessly give their time working in poverty stricken nations, giving food and shelter to the needy and so on and so on with or because of their faith? You can't just pick and choose.

Ever notice how educated and non secular societies really don't have much of a need for Mother Teresa? It's not a coincidence. As a society, any society, religion as its prime driving force must be abandoned before the society will advance...

America has done pretty well for itself, I'd say. So has Rome, England, and many others who have a very religious past and present.

[Van]

And atheism is the hallucinogenic of the elitists, props.

I'm agnostic, not an atheist, so don't give me any props, sarcastic or otherwise.

Besides, atheism is every bit as faith based as any religion. There's no proof either way.

The differences are obvious though:

-By and large, atheists don't persecute non atheists. There haven't been countless wars started by atheists where their main purpose was to slaughter Believers.

-Atheists generally don't live hand to mouth third world existences. Atheists believe they'd better enjoy life now so they get off their asses and make themselves a better existence in the Here and Now.

-No atheist ever went on Sunday morning tv and tried to guilt you into sending them money to help fund atheism.

[Van]

Buc, America, England and Rome are exactly what I'm talking about: None of those very advanced societies were driven primarily by organized religion. None were true theocracies.

In fact, the most advanced civilization in the history of mankind, America, they specifically set out right from the start to deemphasize religion by separating religion from government. They also established total freedom of religion...including the option of being atheist.

America, England and Rome. Exactly. (At the govenmental level Rome took religion about as seriously as you take 'Bama Fan...)

Meanwhile, cavemen leaders in Afghanistan maintain a straight face while handing down a public death sentence on one of their citizens.

His crime? He converted from Islam to Christianity. He didn't attempt to overthrow the government. He didn't protest or start any riots. He committed no treason.

He merely traded Muhammed in on Jesus.

Now take a look at theocratic nations, past and present. Look at those nations that are preoccupied with religion. What you'll notice is that they're still every bit as backwards and third world as they ever were. Their only saving grace is when they occasionally luck into being located atop vast crude oil reserves, at which point their standard of living jumps up to modern standards. Otherwise, they're useless. They depend on the largesse of non secular nations such as the U.S. to assist them in merely keeping afloat. They offer nothing to the world. They're strictly a burden.

When you worship religion rather than societal advancement you end up with Africa. You end up with the middle east. You end up with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and much of India and China.

You almost inevitably also end up with wholly patriarchal and misogynistic societies. You stay in the toilet and you cement your position as another of the needy orphan nations of the world. Your hand is always out, pointed in the direction of the non secular societies that advanced past the point of depending on fables and the heavens to move them forward...

[M2]

And atheism is the hallucinogenic of the elitists, props.

I'm agnostic, not an atheist, so don't give me any props,

Why?

Do you believe in fairy tales.

Religion/God, was a good guess and story of how we got here... 2,000 years ago.

It's amazing how "Evolution" can make us view the world differently.

Hmmmmm, the world isn't flat?

Thank you, evolution, thank you.



One thing that confuses me....

Why is it... ya'll when it should be spelled y'all???

Just another reason the south has some catching up to do.



m2

[Van]

m2, try to pay attention. I said I'm agnostic, not atheist, which means I don't believe anything...least of all, religious fairy tales.

An atheist has faith. I don't.

[SunCoastSooner]

I'm just in for some light chainmail harassment. As to Dim's post, I'm not sure of the context...however I find it a rather typical panty-wetting full of generalizations and recriminations that might make even Pat Robertson proud. I'm not a christian, but I live in a town that is as majority christian as anywhere you might find. Among them, I've met a few vocal sorts...but most keep their spiritual lives to themselves and attempt to be good people. Politically, they have their opinions and vote them just like everyone else. However, contrary to Dim's comparison to muslims, they didn't begin burning and rioting when Roy Moore's rock got hauled out of the statehouse. I find the vast majority far less arrogant than the tones dominating Dinsdale's post and in fact most churches around here are as involved if not more so in charitable works than anyone. I live in probably the most christian-dominated society in this country, and I've found attitudes toward christians every bit as arrogant and preachy as the worst of those they rail against. My philosophy has always been live and let live, and I find if I ain't looking for it, I typically don't find it.


PS - m2, I just have to know, what university offers a program of study in windchime sales? :wink:

I like your way of thinking genie.

[Diogenes]

And atheism is the hallucinogenic of the elitists, props.

I'm agnostic, not an atheist, so don't give me any props, sarcastic or otherwise.

Besides, atheism is every bit as faith based as any religion. There's no proof either way.

The differences are obvious though:

-By and large, atheists don't persecute non atheists. There haven't been countless wars started by atheists where their main purpose was to slaughter Believers.

I guess you missed the whole communist thing, the French Revolution and all of that.

Atheists generally don't live hand to mouth third world existences. Atheists believe they'd better enjoy life now so they get off their asses and make themselves a better existence in the Here and Now.

They believe there are no absolute right and wrong, therefore whatever is good for them personally is acceptable.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Whether it be murder, rape, genocide....

I doubt if many serial killers are the devout churchgoers you distrust so much.

-No atheist ever went on Sunday morning tv and tried to guilt you into sending them money to help fund atheism.

They don't need to. They have the supreme court misinterpreting the first amendment to make it the law of the land.

[Screw_Michigan]

MT was no saint. let that be known.

[M2]

m2, try to pay attention. I said I'm agnostic, not atheist, which means I don't believe anything...least of all, religious fairy tales.

An atheist has faith. I don't.

Van, you really did miss out on a higher education...

ag·nos·tic Audio pronunciation of "agnostic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)

n.

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.



Would you like to spin this???



the truth

[M2]

Just to help Van... with his definitions


a·the·ist Audio pronunciation of "atheist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)

n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

... and you wonder why "Van" is an SC fan!!!


"You need to pay more attention"... Van!!!


the truth

[Spinach Genie]

Two things I don't notice Van doing in any of his posts, chainmail.

1) denying the existence of a god
2) professing any belief in the nature of god one way or the other

As far as I can tell, it fits the agnostic bill if that's how he wants to label it.

By the way, I couldn't find jousting or windchimery on Cal's course list. :D

[Van]

And atheism is the hallucinogenic of the elitists, props.

I'm agnostic, not an atheist, so don't give me any props, sarcastic or otherwise.

Besides, atheism is every bit as faith based as any religion. There's no proof either way.

The differences are obvious though:

-By and large, atheists don't persecute non atheists. There haven't been countless wars started by atheists where their main purpose was to slaughter Believers.

I guess you missed the whole communist thing, the French Revolution and all of that.

I guess you missed the part where those "things" weren't about religion/non religion at all. The French Revolution wasn't athiests attacking Believers and the whole communist thing was political, not religious.

Atheists generally don't live hand to mouth third world existences. Atheists believe they'd better enjoy life now so they get off their asses and make themselves a better existence in the Here and Now.

They believe there are no absolute right and wrong, therefore whatever is good for them personally is acceptable.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

That's Aleister Crowley style hedonism, not atheism.

Whether it be murder, rape, genocide....

There's been far more of those things committed in the name of religion than atheism...

I doubt if many serial killers are the devout churchgoers you distrust so much.

I don't distrust churchgoers. I distrust the organizers of the church.

-No atheist ever went on Sunday morning tv and tried to guilt you into sending them money to help fund atheism.

They don't need to. They have the supreme court misinterpreting the first amendment to make it the law of the land.

Link? I'd like to see where the SC ever made it the sole religious law of the land that we must dig into our pockets to fund atheism. Also, last I checked, religion hasn't been banned. In fact, God is still mentioned on our currency.

[Van]

m2, explain to me how your two definitions prove your point and not mine???

I said I don't have faith in anything. By your definition of agnosticism...


1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

...that describes me to a tee. I CAN'T know whether or not there is a God, so I don't know whether or not there is a God. That's agnosticism.

I also said I'm NOT an atheist, which by your definition...

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

...doesn't describe me at all. See, to be an atheist one has to feel a degree of certainty that I just don't feel. One has to have faith in something that's unknowable, same as a religious person. I lack any such faith, in either direction.

I'm just wondering why you even bothered here? How did posting those definitions support your contention?? Nothing you wrote managed to do anything but cement what I already said.

Believe me, I've lived it my whole life. I know the definitions, and I feel the enormous difference.

[Diogenes]

I'm agnostic, not an atheist, so don't give me any props, sarcastic or otherwise.

Besides, atheism is every bit as faith based as any religion. There's no proof either way.

The differences are obvious though:

-By and large, atheists don't persecute non atheists. There haven't been countless wars started by atheists where their main purpose was to slaughter Believers.

I guess you missed the whole communist thing, the French Revolution and all of that.

I guess you missed the part where those "things" weren't about religion/non religion at all. The French Revolution wasn't athiests attacking Believers and the whole communist thing was political, not religious.

Atheists generally don't live hand to mouth third world existences. Atheists believe they'd better enjoy life now so they get off their asses and make themselves a better existence in the Here and Now.

They believe there are no absolute right and wrong, therefore whatever is good for them personally is acceptable.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

That's Aleister Crowley style hedonism, not atheism.

Whether it be murder, rape, genocide....

There's been far more of those things committed in the name of religion than atheism...

I doubt if many serial killers are the devout churchgoers you distrust so much.

I don't distrust churchgoers. I distrust the organizers of the church.

-No atheist ever went on Sunday morning tv and tried to guilt you into sending them money to help fund atheism.

They don't need to. They have the supreme court misinterpreting the first amendment to make it the law of the land.

Link? I'd like to see where the SC ever made it the sole religious law of the land that we must dig into our pockets to fund atheism. Also, last I checked, religion hasn't been banned. In fact, God is still mentioned on our currency.

1) If you think the French Revolution wasn't a war by 'frrethinkers' against among others, the Catholic Church, you need to pick up a book sometime. And Communism is an atheistic religion, dedicated to the destruction of all non-communist systems and anyone who gets in their way. They have much more in common with the jihadists than any psuedo-christian sect ever has. And most of the so-called 'religious wars' in Christendom have actually been political.

2) Crowley, DeSade and the Jacobins are the outcome of taking atheism to it's logical conclusion.

3) Because something is committed in the name of religion doesn't mean it is a result of said religion. Wheras social Darwinism, nihlism and relativism are natural results of atheism.

You should read Camus' The Rebel.

4) The whole anti-first amendment principle of seperation of church and state was from the start a reacationary measure to suppress the free exercise of religion, and still is today.




5) This place needs a forum for shit like this. :wink:

[Van]

I'd avoid it like the plague, unless and until you started dropping hottie pics in it.

:-)