[bruce goose]

Well, you know what type of people assemble at internet forums.:lol: And most bloggers only blog because they have something to bitch about. I don't think that most Europeans hate religion as such, but many have a "fuck if I care" attitude towards it. And of course the countless stories of child abuse associated with the catholic church made even more people cynical about it all. The one thing that annoys me about religion is when believers claim some sort of moral superiority. The above example plus the fact that millions upon millions all throughout history have murdered in the name of god pretty much put that one out the window I think. Of course I agree that you shouldn't kill, rape, torture, steal and the rest of it. But you don't need religion for that. All you need is a conscience.

"Religion",in the purest,most relevant definition,is a system of beliefs that one feels is fundamental to existence.In that more honest sense,atheism,evolutionism,humanism,capitalism and socialism are religions,for those who blindly and unquestioningly adhere to their theories,just as the more 'traditional' religions are.Of course you are correct that merely being religious is no reliable indicator of one's moral integrity.

As you may have guessed,the Vatican's shameful,guaranteed-to-continue legacy of sexual abuse is not limited to Europe.As a general rule,I've found that sexual abuse of women and children is far more common in religions such as Catholcism,Islam,Mormonism,etc.(haven't done a thorough compare/contrast study) where the minister--or WhateverTF title he/she has--has an inordinate amount of power and authority.In THEORY,at least,the spiritual minister is supposed to be God's humble servant,but there are so many immensely contrasting cases where said minister is treated as God's direct Messenger,and you are commanded to obey without questioning.In certain Islamic countries such as Pakistan,you may be executed on the first offense for 'blaspheming' some illiterate dead guy named mohammed who admitted that he was a mere mortal and that he had sinned during his life(i.e.,he wasn't perfect...as if we had any doubts).Apparently,even a single witness is enough to effect that death sentence in Pakistan(so you could legally kill any non-Muslim you had a grudge against merely by concocting a lie,if you wanted),and the 'guilty' person is given no chance to repent of his/her 'crime'...but I digress...

As someone who worked in the prison system for years,I can speak with authority on the criminal mindset and many psychological patterns.Child molestors and other sexual predators virtually always scheme for opportunities to prey upon the vulnerable.If a rapist sees a drug lord's attractive daughter that he desires control over,he'll find someone ELSE to rape--no matter how strong his lust might be--because he fears the consequences of HIS becoming a helpless victim if he gets caught by someone who has the power to enforce brutal vengeance upon him.It's been the testimony of MANY pedophiles that they actually converted to Catholicism with aims on becoming a priest b/c they KNEW that the Vatican would shield them from prosecution.Indeed,the Vatican's M.O. has been to transfer the pedophile to another parish cuz,if they defrocked him,he might go public and claim that they were aware of his vile sickness and did nothing about it.As the RCC is more concerned about maintaining its pure,holy image(yeah,I know;try not to laugh at that sickening premise),they'd rather transfer the pervert with the insane hope that he might be 'cured' instead of notifying the legal authorities who might then,in turn,inform the newspapers of what had happened.Even worse,the transferred perverts are not forbidden access to women and children in the new parish,and the parishioners are not warned of the threat in their midst.There are countries who will criminally prosecute the hierarchy who shield a sexual predator,but it must be proven,beyond reasonable doubt,that they KNEW of his wicked deeds...and that's usually a big challenge to establish.

Let me close by saying that I don't hate all Catholics(I'd have to hate about 90% of my countryfolk to do that).I know quite a few "rank-and-file" Catholics who are sincere,decent people.However,to reach the UPPER hierarchy in the RCC,one must be complicit in the rampant,greedy corruption and abuse that they have perpetuated over the centuries.If you had ANY conscience at all,you'd reject seeking any sort of brotherhood with such lowlifes.....At the risk of sounding arrogant,I don't struggle to find female companionship but,even if aye DID,I would never marry a devout Catholic gal...it wouldn't matter if she were the most gorgeous Latina goddess with a pleasant personality: I couldn't live with myself if anyone taught our children to swear blind allegiance to those Vatican smegma...nor could I throw away my money by tithing to the slimiest thieves on the planet...just couldn't do it

 

[terjw]

Well, you know what type of people assemble at internet forums.:lol: And most bloggers only blog because they have something to bitch about. I don't think that most Europeans hate religion as such, but many have a "fuck if I care" attitude towards it. And of course the countless stories of child abuse associated with the catholic church made even more people cynical about it all. The one thing that annoys me about religion is when believers claim some sort of moral superiority. The above example plus the fact that millions upon millions all throughout history have murdered in the name of god pretty much put that one out the window I think. Of course I agree that you shouldn't kill, rape, torture, steal and the rest of it. But you don't need religion for that. All you need is a conscience.

I know some deeply religious people and none of them claim moral superiority. We get on reallly well. Also it cuts both ways the atrocities committed in the name of religion. There have been appalling atrocities committed in the name of atheism in Russia/China. I would never single out crimes by religious people as being worse or better than other crimes.

On a day to day level - I think the only thing that I have a problem with is the hell doctrine and good people going to hell just because they don't believe. I sort of think - do you really believe that? We never discuss that. Never go there. I wouldn't want to.

On the subject of evil - how can someone just go into a school and kill schoolchildren and teachers there. I cannot imagine being able to cope with something like that if I lost people I loved like that. I don't care how mentally disturbed he was or what troubles he was going through - how could he do that? That was just pure evil.

 

[terjw]

On the subject of Americans, Europeans and religion - reminds me of something that happened several years ago. I was coming back in the plane from the States after staying with my sister and her children. She lives in the States.

Anyway I was on my own and next to this couple. And the lady asks me about my holiday, where I've been. And I tell her we went off to Mount Desert Island for a week and then she says she was also there and teaching the joys of a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. And then she asks me if I have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and I reply I used to believe but I don't anymore. And then she goes "Oh snatched away by the Prince of Darkness..." :lol: Anyway - she tries asking a few more questions to convert me back - but I have a book to read and I'm not really interested in this conversation. After a little while - she swaps places with the man she's with (who incidentally remained completely silent). She'd obviously given up on me as lost to the dark side and didn't want to sit next to me. :lol:

Anyway - I relayed the story to my sister when I got back. And she goes - why didn't you call the flight attendant and complain you were being harrassed? The thought never entered my head. That advice from both the lady on the plane and my sister I can quite happily ignore. It's obviously a huge generalisation but complaining like my sister would - is that more an American thing?

 

[Chrissie-fan]

I know some deeply religious people and none of them claim moral superiority. We get on reallly well. Also it cuts both ways the atrocities committed in the name of religion. There have been appalling atrocities committed in the name of atheism in Russia/China. I would never single out crimes by religious people as being worse or better than other crimes.

On a day to day level - I think the only thing that I have a problem with is the hell doctrine and good people going to hell just because they don't believe. I sort of think - do you really believe that? We never discuss that. Never go there. I wouldn't want to.

On the subject of evil - how can someone just go into a school and kill schoolchildren and teachers there. I cannot imagine being able to cope with something like that if I lost people I loved like that. I don't care how mentally disturbed he was or what troubles he was going through - how could he do that? That was just pure evil.

I don't single out crimes by religious people as worse as those from others either. I only mentionned it to say that the're no better or worse than the rest of us.

When it comes to the hell doctrine, well, at least when it comes to the Christian faith it all depends on what the bible says about it, don't it? If you claim to be "a true Christian" you can't go, "Ok, I like this part, so I'll believe it, but I don't believe this part because I don't like it." As far as I'm concerned you either believe all of it or none of it.

Problem is that most Christians really haven't got a clue about what's in the bible. At the most they are familiar with certain parts of it. Time has erased most of what I've read from my mind, but in my younger days I've read quite a bit of it, including the prophecies - Daniel and Revelations especially, the last of which is incomprehensible to most because they can't make heads or tails of the symbolism in the book. But with the help of some books I've managed to plow my way through it and I've learned that all the syumbols that are in the bible are actually explained in the bible itself. In other words, "the bible always explains itself."

Anyway, to cut a long (and no doubt boring :lol story short, Revelation is about the evils of world religions, the false prophet, the anti-Christ, how you'll be able to recognoze him when he arrives on the scene (the famous 666 number of the beast), how this figure who is actually a representation of Satan will deceive the world into thinking that he's God, the return of Christ after a 3 1/2 year rule of this anti-Christ figure, predictions of plagues, wars, earthquakes and much, much more. Fascinating stuff, and things that most of those that call themselves Christians are totally unaware off.

 

[terjw]

I don't single out crimes by religious people as worse as those from others either. I only mentionned it to say that the're no better or worse than the rest of us.

When it comes to the hell doctrine, well, at least when it comes to the Christian faith it all depends on what the bible says about it, don't it? If you claim to be "a true Christian" you can't go, "Ok, I like this part, so I'll believe it, but I don't believe this part because I don't like it." As far as I'm concerned you either believe all of it or none of it.

Problem is that most Christians really haven't got a clue about what's in the bible. At the most they are familiar with certain parts of it. Time has erased most of what I've read from my mind, but in my younger days I've read quite a bit of it, including the prophecies - Daniel and Revelations especially, the last of which is incomprehensible to most because they can't make heads or tails of the symbolism in the book. But with the help of some books I've managed to plow my way through it and I've learned that all the syumbols that are in the bible are actually explained in the bible itself. In other words, "the bible always explains itself."

Anyway, to cut a long (and no doubt boring :lol story short, Revelation is about the evils of world religions, the false prophet, the anti-Christ, how you'll be able to recognoze him when he arrives on the scene (the famous 666 number of the beast), how this figure who is actually a representation of Satan will deceive the world into thinking that he's God, the return of Christ after a 3 1/2 year rule of this anti-Christ figure, predictions of plagues, wars, earthquakes and much, much more. Fascinating stuff, and things that most of those that call themselves Christians are totally unaware off.

OK - but leaving aside the book of Revelations which could mean anything - what I meant to say about hell being a problem is that logically if you think your friends are going to hell because they don't believe - that should drive you to try to convert them. And evangelists who try to do that to me are a real turn off. So if you want to be friends with others - you don't try to convert them. But ... You see where I'm coming from here. It's not really me with the problem. We are friends because we are friends - nothing else. But I just think that must be a conflict in their minds not to try to convert me if they really believe the gospel which the bible states (unless you interpret it as a Universalist).

One thing all this reminds me of is the hatred Margaret Court has got on this forum and elsewhere for her views on gay marriage etc. which are based on deep religious conviction. I also saw an open letter from Nav arguing with her. What was the point of that? To try to make her change her mind? The person I have the most respect for on this is BJK. She couldn't disagree more with Margaret Court but they are friends for friends sake. They see each other and they don't talk about that stuff and try to convert each other. Of course the claim on these boards is when Margaret Court stated she was friends with those who don't share her views is that she is only friends to try to convert them. I think BJK would disagree.

 

[Chrissie-fan]

OK - but leaving aside the book of Revelations which could mean anything - what I meant to say about hell being a problem is that logically if you think your friends are going to hell because they don't believe - that should drive you to try to convert them. And evangelists who try to do that to me are a real turn off. So if you want to be friends with others - you don't try to convert them. But ... You see where I'm coming from here. It's not really me with the problem. We are friends because we are friends - nothing else. But I just think that must be a conflict in their minds not to try to convert me if they really believe the gospel which the bible states (unless you interpret it as a Universalist).

Yes, I also understand the temptation of the believer to try to convert their non-believing friends because if you really are convinced that those who don't believe will be punished for it by the big man in the sky you obviously want those you love to be spared those things.

Btw - I don't subscribe to the idea that the book of revelations could mean anything though. It's just an extremely complicated book that one either understands or doesn't understand, and that one even if one understands it either believes or doesn't believe in. Not that I claim to understand it completely myself, even (much) less so now because it's been 25 or 30 years ago that I 'studied it' (well, sorta), but in my opinion it's a lot less open to interpretation than most think.

 

[bruce goose]

- what I meant to say about hell being a problem is that logically if you think your friends are going to hell because they don't believe - that should drive you to try to convert them. And evangelists who try to do that to me are a real turn off. So if you want to be friends with others - you don't try to convert them. But ... You see where I'm coming from here. It's not really me with the problem. We are friends because we are friends - nothing else. But I just think that must be a conflict in their minds not to try to convert me if they really believe the gospel which the bible states (unless you interpret it as a Universalist).

Well,I can explain that to you from a doctrinal standpoint: The premise is that you've either been deceived,allured by some worldly doctrine,or never really had deep roots of faith in the first place.I can't speak for doctrines on this specific topic in other religions,only what Catholicism and Christianity teach.

In the RCC,they might be able to 'save' you by praying for you even after you're dead,having a certain(quite frankly,arbitrarily-chosen)number of masses on your behalf---so you're not hopelessly 'lost'.Also,according to some priests,you can make it to heaven if you merely suffer enough in the course of death,but I'm not sure if atheists are included in that 'grace'.Perhaps it depends on just how much of an atheist you are....To digress,I personally feel that "pure atheists" are in a small minority(maybe 5% of those who profess);from my personal observation,the majority had a negative--in many cases,abusive--experience in organized religion and were pushed away by THAT,or they feel that,in general,it's intellectually inferior to belong to a religion;i.e.,deep down,they're not wholly convinced that no God exists,and I've noticed that they will internally 'explore',to some extent,with people of faith when some crisis or the finality of death approaches in their lives.

Back on track,biblical Christianity,indeed,teaches that you are hopelessly lost at the moment,but that you may have hardened your heart,so to speak.If that were the case,it would be futile to preach to you no matter how eloquent the speaker were(because the Lord will not use His omnipotent power to turn you into a robot who obeys/believes without free will).It's not quoted much,but there's a scriptural verse that deals with that;i.e.,not vainly babbling about the message of salvation to those who have clearly rejected it.Therefore,it's possible that your friends are watching and waiting for some sort of indication from you that you ARE 'seeking' before they waste their breath trying to evangelize you.

To answer your earlier question,I've found that Americans are more arrogant than others when it comes to taking offense largely because they have such a shallow,valueless culture that's based mostly on amassing financial wealth.Those who aren't totally 'hardened',though,still retain some sort of conscience...and that makes them feel very insecure whenever anyone,even indirectly,forces them to put a moral magnifying glass on their lives....a lot of them do what you referred to above;they join some sort of Universalist or other highly liberal church-or maybe they become Zen Buddhists or Scientologists-so that they can have a sprinkle of religion to soothe their guilty consciences,yet not so much that they'd have to change their lifestyles.Personally,I've found that evolutionists get every bit as offended when you challenge their beliefs,sometimes even MORE,than traditional religious types do.I'm probably in the minority in that I never get angry no matter how insistent someone is: I always find an answer that turns them away quickly.I once asked a young Mormon 'elder' if he wanted me to reply candidly to his invitation.He consented IF I could respond respectfully(not sure if I accomplished that:lol,so I told him of my certainty that Joseph Smith was a false,self-appointed 'prophet' who openly expressed his hatred for darker-skinned peoples(like most Latinos),and that I would absolutely never put my trust in him....the young fellow politely excused himself

 

[bruce goose]

Btw - I don't subscribe to the idea that the book of revelations could mean anything though. It's just an extremely complicated book that one either understands or doesn't understand, and that one even if one understands it either believes or doesn't believe in. Not that I claim to understand it completely myself, even (much) less so now because it's been 25 or 30 years ago that I 'studied it' (well, sorta), but in my opinion it's a lot less open to interpretation than most think.

Not trying to convince you of anything but,for the sake of intellectual interest,I'll tell you that there ARE some clear,biblical prophecies that came to pass.When I post 'clear',I refer to highly-specific,unequivocal forecasts for which even some atheist scholars agree on the doctrinal interpretation.As you may have read,the follow-up argument to that is that religious leaders re-wrote the Bible after the fact to make it look credible in relating fulfilled prophecy.....AFTER the 'original' biblical texts had been destroyed

Am off to see my gf soon,so we can continue this later,if necessary(big wave emoticon)

 

[Achernar]

"Religion",in the purest,most relevant definition,is a system of beliefs that one feels is fundamental to existence.In that more honest sense,atheism,evolutionism,humanism,capitalism and socialism are religions,for those who blindly and unquestioningly adhere to their theories,just as the more 'traditional' religions are.

Well, mister bruce goose, I certainly can't adhere to your definition of religion as you wrote it here. And even less to the idea that it would be the most relevant way to define it.

A good definition would be the one we find on Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion): a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. .

There you go. I can not think of any religion or spirituality that does not invoke some supernatural being(s) or influence under one form or another. As well, every religions I know include a "code of conduct" and ritual observances. And I would add a leader, be it the Pope, the King (or Queen) of England, the Dalai Lama, or simply the religious leaders of Islam and Hinduism.

We can't define religions without taking into account their social functions and attributes in the same way we can't define a table without taking into account its function and distinctive attributes.

So, atheism, evolutionism, humanism, capitalism and socialism are not religions by any means. Evolutionism is simply a scientific theory. As was heliocentrism. These theories are bothering some religious fundamentalists, but they are often major advances in the scientific development of mankind.

As for atheism, humanism, capitalism and socialism, they're philosophies and ideologies. As every ideology, they are definitely capable of producing their own fanatics for those, as you rightly say "who blindly and unquestioningly adhere to their theories". That's why freedom of speech is so important, because we need to remain critical of all ideologies, whether they're secular or religious. Unfortunately, nowadays, any criticism of a religion passes for religious intolerance.

As you may have guessed,the Vatican's shameful,guaranteed-to-continue legacy of sexual abuse is not limited to Europe.As a general rule,I've found that sexual abuse of women and children is far more common in religions such as Catholcism,Islam,Mormonism,etc.(haven't done a thorough compare/contrast study)[...]

To be honest, these abuse exist in every society, regardless of their religious culture. At the present moment, women in India are regrouping to fight against sexual harassment and sexism that they face on a daily basis.

If a rapist sees a drug lord's attractive daughter that he desires control over,he'll find someone ELSE to rape--no matter how strong his lust might be--because he fears the consequences of HIS becoming a helpless victim if he gets caught by someone who has the power to enforce brutal vengeance upon him.It's been the testimony of MANY pedophiles that they actually converted to Catholicism with aims on becoming a priest

I agree with you. And it says a lot about their alleged inability to control themselves.

I know some deeply religious people and none of them claim moral superiority. We get on reallly well. Also it cuts both ways the atrocities committed in the name of religion. There have been appalling atrocities committed in the name of atheism in Russia/China. I would never single out crimes by religious people as being worse or better than other crimes.

And yet, about the bolded part, you give an example of such a claim of moral superiority with this woman on the plane.

Also, just to give you a glimpse of the way many believers perceive the atheists, here's an excerpt from a Muslim site:

"Nevertheless, the atheist who denies the existence of Allah and rejects His Messengers and disbelieves in the Last Day, is in a greater state of kufr and his beliefs are more reprehensible than the one who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, but he associates something of His creation with Him. The former is stubborn and arrogant to an extent that can not be imagined or accepted by sound human nature. Such a person would transgress every sacred limit and fall into every sin; his worldview would be distorted to an inconceivable level". Source: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/113901

I have nothing else to add. The text seems clear enough.

When you said "There have been appalling atrocities committed in the name of atheism in Russia/China", those crimes are the results of the implementation of Communism. You should blame the communist dictatorship rather than atheism. And Russian and Chinese citizens were not atheists. Now that communism is collapsing, these people are returning to their beliefs. They were forbidden to believe because their dictators did not want to share their power with religious leaders and influence.

 

[Achernar]

Perhaps it depends on just how much of an atheist you are....To digress,I personally feel that "pure atheists" are in a small minority(maybe 5% of those who profess);from my personal observation,the majority had a negative--in many cases,abusive--experience in organized religion and were pushed away by THAT,or they feel that,in general,it's intellectually inferior to belong to a religion;i.e.,deep down,they're not wholly convinced that no God exists,and I've noticed that they will internally 'explore',to some extent,with people of faith when some crisis or the finality of death approaches in their lives.

Here you bring a fundamental question: what is atheism? As you state, "pure atheist" (personally I would say real atheist) are in a small minority. Most people that are qualified as atheist, as most people who call themselves atheist, aren't atheist. Many are simply non-believers, others are agnostics, and some are religious believers who have cut ties with their Church. But they're not atheists.

I will not try to define atheism here, since many sites are doing it quite well, but the real atheist would never believe in any god or even in any form of supernatural.

 

[bruce goose]

Well, mister bruce goose, I certainly can't adhere to your definition of religion as you wrote it here. And even less to the idea that it would be the most relevant way to define it.

A good definition would be the one we find on Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion): a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. .

There you go. I can not think of any religion or spirituality that does not invoke some supernatural being(s) or influence under one form or another. As well, every religions I know include a "code of conduct" and ritual observances. And I would add a leader, be it the Pope, the King (or Queen) of England, the Dalai Lama, or simply the religious leaders of Islam and Hinduism.

We can't define religions without taking into account their social functions and attributes in the same way we can't define a table without taking into account its function and distinctive attributes.

So, atheism, evolutionism, humanism, capitalism and socialism are not religions by any means. Evolutionism is simply a scientific theory. As was heliocentrism. These theories are bothering some religious fundamentalists, but they are often major advances in the scientific development of mankind.

As for atheism, humanism, capitalism and socialism, they're philosophies and ideologies. As every ideology, they are definitely capable of producing their own fanatics for those, as you rightly say "who blindly and unquestioningly adhere to their theories". That's why freedom of speech is so important, because we need to remain critical of all ideologies, whether they're secular or religious. Unfortunately, nowadays, any criticism of a religion passes for religious intolerance.



To be honest, these abuse exist in every society, regardless of their religious culture. At the present moment, women in India are regrouping to fight against sexual harassment and sexism that they face on a daily basis.



I agree with you. And it says a lot about their alleged inability to control themselves.

As for the last part,you were either being naive or else trying to rationalize a militant form of atheism(can't read your mind and assume motive,actually).The leaders of those communist governments,and also the early ideological proponents,believed that atheism was a superior religious attitude and felt that the inferior theistic ones should be eliminated.In that sense,they were no different from Muslim crusaders who have invaded,conquered and slaughtered hordes of people who dissented.You can argue semantics,but it would be merely THAT,semantics,because the conduct of the oppressors was nearly identical.

I'm well aware of how sexual abuse exists everywhere;no offense,but I didn't need you to explain that to me:lol:.I was merely comparing various religions and which ones had a greater frequency of manipulation of ministerial power.

Again,I'm fairly literate,so I didn't need you to read the dictionary for me:lol:;I even clarified that those belief systems weren't religions for EVERYone,but they definitely ARE religions for certain people...even large numbers of them.You either have a biased,contemptful view of religion or you're being intellectually dishonest when you claim that evolution and other worldviews are never 'religious'.I have personally met LOTS of rigid evolutionist adherents who first gravitated to their beliefs largely because of a DISbelief in any deity,so their whole thought system is based heavily on your nerd's definition;i.e.,the creation of the universe and our overall place in it.Let me tell you that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in the behavior and reactions of a devout Catholic when you suggest to him/her that the human Mary wasn't an eternal virgin(and that she may have had normal kids after Jesus)...and those of an evolutionist when you point out the laughably-embarrassing flaws in his/her theories about the geologic column or carbon dating.Members of BOTH groups get VERY,very defensive--as if you were rattling them to their spiritual core--when challenged even politely on the above issues and,if you've never seen that,then you simply haven't gotten around too much

 

[terjw]

Atheist, agnostic whatever. To make my own position clear:

• I no longer believe in a personal God and saviour although I used to.
• I think when you are dead that's it.
• I do not claim I'm right and others with their personal beliefs are wrong. I have no wish to impose my view on anyone else.
• I do have respect for other people's religious convictions.
• I've not looked into other religions apart from Christianity and have no desire to do so.

As far as an omnipresent impersonal creator - I'm open-minded on this. Science cannot disprove the existence of God. If you ask what or who started the big-bang, the answer you'll get from a physicist is that it is a meanigless question because time and space did not exist before the big-bang. And if there's no time - it is meaningless to put a question about "before the big band". I suspect most people find that answer unsatisfactory. To be told that their question is meaningless as an answer usually riles most people up.

 

[bruce goose]

Atheist, agnostic whatever. To make my own position clear:

• I no longer believe in a personal God and saviour although I used to.
• I think when you are dead that's it.
• I do not claim I'm right and others with their personal beliefs are wrong. I have no wish to impose my view on anyone else.
• I do have respect for other people's religious convictions.
• I've not looked into other religions apart from Christianity and have no desire to do so.

As far as an omnipresent impersonal creator - I'm open-minded on this. Science cannot disprove the existence of God. If you ask what or who started the big-bang, the answer you'll get from a physicist is that it is a meanigless question because time and space did not exist before the big-bang. And if there's no time - it is meaningless to put a question about "before the big band". I suspect most people find that answer unsatisfactory. To be told that their question is meaningless as an answer usually riles most people up.

As for the last part,you've surely deduced that many leaders in the scientific community would prefer to completely discredit,as intellectual manure,any sort of theistic beliefs on the formation of the universe.In a forensic sense,they've become NO different than the RCC leaders from centuries ago who looked to silence any dissent on their doctrines or discussions of our world.An honest scientist will admit that they barely have the first damned clue on the formation of the universe...but they can't admit that publicly or else it might undermine the blind trust many folks have about the proclamations of self-professed experts...and the self-appointed leaders would lose great sway.

A perfect example is my sister who is a brilliant young gal with a doctorate in bio-chemistry from Johns Hopkins University.She sees MICRO-evolution on a constant basis in her work;however,she acknowledges the glaring flaw in genetic evolutionary theory that results from the fact that genomes contain a blocker that prevent mutations from being passed on to the direct offspring.Those mutations CAN re-surface as a recessive gene in a later generation but,obviously,the above reality seriously undermines the mathematical probability model for diehard evolutionists.When I pointed that out to my sis,her response was,'Well...they have OTHER evidence'.When I asked her to cite solid examples of such evidence,she couldn't do it: As a scientist,she's naturally inclined to believe claims of 'proof' from other members of the community,even though she hasn't done ANY research in some of those other fields,and I was exactly the same when I was younger whenever I heard the words,"scientists have proven".

What's hilarious is how the RCC now dopily follows along with the evolutionists who despise them--probably because they're afraid of looking like inbred,village-dwelling religious simpletons,and they'd hate to hurt the 'Holy Mother Church's' p.r. image:lol:...and yet they actually have some validation for being skeptical...the irony,huh:lol:?......Now aye REALLY have to get going or else my jealous Mexican gf will fear that I'm fooling around

 

[Achernar]

As for the last part,you were either being naive or else trying to rationalize a militant form of atheism(can't read your mind and assume motive,actually).The leaders of those communist governments,and also the early ideological proponents,believed that atheism was a superior religious attitude and felt that the inferior theistic ones should be eliminated.In that sense,they were no different from Muslim crusaders who have invaded,conquered and slaughtered hordes of people who dissented.You can argue semantics,but it would be merely THAT,semantics,because the conduct of the oppressors was nearly identical.

As for this part, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm well aware of how sexual abuse exists everywhere;no offense,but I didn't need you to explain that to me:lol:.I was merely comparing various religions and which ones had a greater frequency of manipulation of ministerial power.

:lol: Well, since you wrote "As a general rule,I've found that sexual abuse of women and children is far more common in religions such as Catholcism,Islam,Mormonism,etc.(haven't done a thorough compare/contrast study)", I understood that you felt such crimes more common in the various Christian faiths (edit: and other Religions of the Book) than in other faiths or societies - which is not accurate. I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you said.

Again,I'm fairly literate,so I didn't need you to read the dictionary for me:lol:;I even clarified that those belief systems weren't religions for EVERYone,but they definitely ARE religions for certain people...even large numbers of them.You either have a biased,contemptful view of religion or you're being intellectually dishonest when you claim that evolution and other worldviews are never 'religious'.

I have no doubt about your level of literacy and general knowledge. This is the reason why this discussion is of interest to me. Believe me, I do not waste my time arguing with brainless people Life is too short.

However, I like to define the terms I use in such discussion. This enables a better mutual understanding. You have defined religions in a way that I can not agree (even stating that it was the most relevant definition), so I simply brought a definition that I find most acceptable and complete. I maintain my position. A religion is a religion and an ideology is an ideology. However, I can understand what you mean by saying that certain concepts are religions for certain people .

Atheist, agnostic whatever. To make my own position clear:

• I no longer believe in a personal God and saviour although I used to.
• I think when you are dead that's it.
• I do not claim I'm right and others with their personal beliefs are wrong. I have no wish to impose my view on anyone else.
• I do have respect for other people's religious convictions.
• I've not looked into other religions apart from Christianity and have no desire to do so.

As far as an omnipresent impersonal creator - I'm open-minded on this. Science cannot disprove the existence of God. If you ask what or who started the big-bang, the answer you'll get from a physicist is that it is a meanigless question because time and space did not exist before the big-bang. And if there's no time - it is meaningless to put a question about "before the big band". I suspect most people find that answer unsatisfactory. To be told that their question is meaningless as an answer usually riles most people up.

From the bolded quote, you propably could define yourself as an agnostic. From what I know of your ideas, I would also say that you are a humanist and an open-minded person :yeah:

 

[Chrissie-fan]

Not trying to convince you of anything but,for the sake of intellectual interest,I'll tell you that there ARE some clear,biblical prophecies that came to pass.When I post 'clear',I refer to highly-specific,unequivocal forecasts for which even some atheist scholars agree on the doctrinal interpretation.As you may have read,the follow-up argument to that is that religious leaders re-wrote the Bible after the fact to make it look credible in relating fulfilled prophecy.....AFTER the 'original' biblical texts had been destroyed

Yes, and than there's the biblical apocrypha - a collection of ancient books that ultimately didn't become part of the bible or were removed at some point. And yes, I know that some (many even) of the biblical prophecies have already come to pass. Whether religious leaders just rewrote the original texts after the fact to fit their own agenda - who knows? I've heard that one before, but whether it's true or just an attempt to discredit what's in there, your guess is as good as mine.

 

[bruce goose]

As for this part, we'll have to agree to disagree.





However, I like to define the terms I use in such discussion. This enables a better mutual understanding. You have defined religions in a way that I can not agree (even stating that it was the most relevant definition), so I simply brought a definition that I find most acceptable and complete. I maintain my position. A religion is a religion and an ideology is an ideology. However, I can understand what you mean by saying that certain concepts are religions for certain people .

First of all,thank you for your friendly gesture with the good repping

I would say that you've simply failed to read some of the statements and dogma by many Communist political and ideological leaders.They've made it clear,VERBATIM,even in simple terms,that atheism is superior to theism and that the latter,and even its supporters,should be eradicated ASAP for the general good while the former should be promoted for the betterment of self.I'm not debating whether or not that stance is true,only re-affirming that Communist diehards have often unequivocally believed in ramming atheism down everyone's throats just as religious fanatics aim to do with their chosen faith.

With all the movements you cited a few posts back(atheism,humanism,socialism,evolutionism and capitalism),the notable difference exists between rank-and-file supporters and the LEADERS who are at the forefront of the movements.The former will often tolerate dissenting viewpoints and the latter will NOT....If you look back at your dictionary definition of religion,there are only a couple elements lacking in the dogma of the diehards.They don't cite any supernatural deity,but they DO forcefully claim that no such deity exists(with the exception of capitalists and the more moderate socialists--moderate as compared with militant communism),and with THAT statement on supposed spiritual truth,the distinction from religion is largely semantic.The biggest disparity is in the lack of rituals and similar ceremonies in the ideological movements.In other respects,they fulfill your definition by claiming to know what our purpose in life should be,how we should behave towards fellow human beings,and what sort of world we should have...even professing that allegiance to the doctrine will lead to utter personal self-realization...not that dissimilar from the religious concept of salvation.

Aside from the more hardcore communists,none of the ideological movements we've discussed have typically practiced physical oppression of others,but even a quick glance at some of the literature demonstrates a quest to intellectually demagogue dissenting philosophies as both inferior and harmful to humankind...which entails educating EVERYone to think the same way to the extent that--they hope--opposing viewpoints will be discredited and erased from the public mindset....QUITE similar to religious brainwashing,IMO...with the only advantage being that dissenters are rarely tortured or killed when it comes to socio-political brainwashing.....Capitalist apologists are the least guilty of morally pontificating as they normally just lecture about how to get rich,but even THEY have their preachers like Rush Limbaugh who strongly imply that we all can achieve a near-blissful,idyllic state if we're only allowed an unfettered pursuit that leads to financial gain

 

[Protoss]

Ugh. Caro is a Miami Heat fan or at least on their bandwagon.

 

[bruce goose]

Ugh. Caro is a Miami Heat fan or at least on their bandwagon.

And you're going to explain to all of us why that's a bad thing,right?

 

[Chrissie-fan]

Ugh. Caro is a Miami Heat fan or at least on their bandwagon.

Caroline is not a bandwagoner. If she was she wouldn't be such a huge Liverpool fan. :lol: But Caro seems to be a huge 'allround' sports fan. Tennis, basketball, football, American football, rugby, golf of course, boxing... She's the ideal woman really, and not only because she's such a cutie.

 

[Achernar]

I would say that you've simply failed to read some of the statements and dogma by many Communist political and ideological leaders.They've made it clear,VERBATIM,even in simple terms,that atheism is superior to theism and that the latter,and even its supporters,should be eradicated ASAP for the general good while the former should be promoted for the betterment of self.I'm not debating whether or not that stance is true,only re-affirming that Communist diehards have often unequivocally believed in ramming atheism down everyone's throats just as religious fanatics aim to do with their chosen faith.

I can't see where I would have suggested otherwise? :shrug:

I am well aware that atheism has its own fanatics. Some of them would gladly eradicate all forms of religions. This doesn't change the clear distinctions between atheism and religions. But we have already discussed this issue and our positions seem irreconcilable. So, I'll leave it at that.

With all the movements you cited a few posts back(atheism,humanism,socialism,evolutionism and capitalism),the notable difference exists between rank-and-file supporters and the LEADERS who are at the forefront of the movements.The former will often tolerate dissenting viewpoints and the latter will NOT....If you look back at your dictionary definition of religion,there are only a couple elements lacking in the dogma of the diehards.They don't cite any supernatural deity,but they DO forcefully claim that no such deity exists(with the exception of capitalists and the more moderate socialists--moderate as compared with militant communism),and with THAT statement on supposed spiritual truth,the distinction from religion is largely semantic.The biggest disparity is in the lack of rituals and similar ceremonies in the ideological movements.In other respects,they fulfill your definition by claiming to know what our purpose in life should be,how we should behave towards fellow human beings,and what sort of world we should have...even professing that allegiance to the doctrine will lead to utter personal self-realization...not that dissimilar from the religious concept of salvation.

Those are very interesting thoughts...even if you have no chance to convince me that a political movement can be assimilated to a religion :lol: But the comparison is relevant

Just a brief return in Russia.

Although communist leaders have committed crimes in the name of a political doctrine which was qualified as atheist, the population of Russia has never ceased to believe. Its churches were closed, they were forbidden to practice any form of religion, but the citizens remained believers. Even the people who proclaimed themselves atheists often continued to believe in God. Therefore, they were not atheists.

In 1990, the freedom of religion was promulgated in the Russian Federation and most citizens embraced again a religion. Claiming that Russians are atheists is either a sign of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Nowadays, most of them are believers. Here's the result of a survey:

"Russia is a multi-ethnic and multi-faith nation. Orthodox Christianity is Russia's largest religion with 75% of the population belonging to the Orthodox Christian denomination. Islam is professed by 5% of the population. Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and Buddhism are professed by 1% of the population each. Other religious denominations represent 1% of the population, while 8% consider themselves atheists".

http://masterrussian.com/russia/facts.htm

And among the 8% of atheists, how many are "real atheists"?