NoGodBlog.com

Agreed. You forgot to mention that religion happens to be a nifty social management tool in order to keep the population at bay.
By inventing religion, governments are able to keep their population under control, while chiping away at freedoms. Witness the periods in time when religion was firmly in control of the government, it also stopped any progress and are considered "dark Ages".

Amen brother Dave!

I dream of the day when the bibles are in the mythology section with Aesop's fables and the Arthurian legends.

Well, at least the thread will fit the topic for once.

Troll away!!!

hahahahahha!!

my feelings exactly r4d!

David,
Have you seen the "cult test" yet? You can find it on http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q0.html#cq_guru_right . This is something I would recomend to every atheist to try out. Choose any religion and apply it to all 100 statements and see how well it scores!

Hey, did you guys see this?

http://www.focusonyourchild.com/develop/art1/A0000671.html

This is the kind of crap they like to spread about us because we don't believe their myths. I don't know about you guys, but I love my dad dearly.

Actually I would tend to agree with those studies as I have a bad relationship with "the father, spirit and holy ghost"
Ever since being born!

Not much else to say. I suggest that everyone read Alan Dundes book "Holy Writ as Oral Writ" He does a great job of showing this a folklore, which it is. Check it out.

I adored my father. My grandfather was a horse of a different oder.

Great thread topic. I remember watching some kind of mythology thing with my theist husband not long ago and he asked "why did people believe silly things like that?" I just stared at him and went "Duh! Why make fun of them when you believe in things that are just as silly?" He had never looked at it from that perspective before.

oops. Horse of a different ODOR. Mixing my adages on purpose; spelled it wrong accidentally.
sheesh.

Holy crap, that link is horrendous. People cry 'Persecution!' when you point out the evils of religion yet don't bat an eye when someone says people are atheists because their father was a bastard. What a load of dung. My father was and is a religious man and I love him very much but that is neither here nor there when it comes to my disbelief in the FSM.

carl0632: that link is quite amusing.
My father was neither abusive, nor a bad dad. He was a strong figure. I think it's more likely that the religious people have weaker parents, ergo they have the Freudian issues that article stipulates.
Of course, not positing an absolute.

Bad parenting? Oh, please. It's scapegoating, pure & simple.

I dream of the day when mankind will see clearly and put away childish things like religion and superstition.

But I have no real hope that this will happen in my lifetime because encouraging religion, faith, superstition, and a generally unquestioning attitude is the key to keeping people controlled and powerless.

It is such a damnably effective means of controlling the masses that its use will likely continue for many decades to come; and the blind and ignorant masses will remain an obstacle to mankind attaining greater knowledge and a better life for all.

Now aren't I the cockeyed optimist!!!

It seems like we are all in agreement! Is this "preaching to the choir" or "preaching to the trolls"? Should keep some of our favorite trolls busy all night trying to disprove the reality of it all.

Incidently, that article didn't say how much overly religious mothers turn people away from theism of all types. Would be interesting to do a piggy-back study of those agnostics and atheists who had such "terrible" fathers, and see if those dads were trying to balance things out a bit. My own mother, as religious as she is, has no idea that she is married to a saint. ;)

My father is an evangelical christian, and he can be a pain in the ass in that respect. Plus, he (they) certainly made more than a few mistakes in my upbringing. Bu tI don't blame him for my atheism. Not in the least. I still think my dad is a really great guy despite the lunacy, and there are still plenty of attributes in him that I look up to.

No, if anybody's a bad father figure, it's God. What an abusive, two-faced, irresponsible, dead beat, lying, cheating, son-of-a-bitch!

hahahahhaha!

I'm having fun today :)

Lets take a look at this comment from the author of those articles, and tell me if he is not coming to conclusions before the study.. (this is at the preface of the study). Sort of like ID i recon.

Oops.... Here it is, trying to get fancy.
"Before beginning, however, I wish to make two points bearing on the underlying assumption of my remarks. First, I assume that the major barriers to belief in God are not rational but-in a general sense- can be called psychological. I do not wish to offend the many distinguished philosophers-both believers and nonbelievers-in this audience, but I am quite convinced that for every person strongly swayed by rational argument there are many, many more affected by nonrational psychological factors"

Unfortunately, most people want immortality, or something like it.
I was talking to my brother-law recently, & stated I was an atheist. 1st, he started carrying on about how 'religious' I was around 9/11, to which I responded, "Hey, not a politician. I'm allowed to change my mind."
I got the "You've got to believe in something!" comment. I told him "look around. This is what I believe in. My 5 senses."
He then started in on whether or not I had a soul. I asked him, "Why do I need 1?"
Some people want to live forever. Occam's razor, after all.

sm

Seems like the guy's got it backwards.
More people believe in god because of non-rational psychological factors.

As r4d said, God is the quintessential bad father figure. How does that study account for all the Christians with bad fathers who still believe? Just statistically, there have to be more of them than of us.

Maybe some of us with good fathers turned away from religion because our good fathers didn't gel with the bad father concept of the Bible.

Karen: That seems to be my case. My father was not an overly devout catholic even though my grandmother was. She was the epitome of evil, and therefore I closely associate the Roman Catholic Church with her. Yes, this guy should also investigate evolution, as I am sure that he would start with the same conclusions as the ID'ers. BTW his name is Paul C. Vitz.
It is always interesting to see the other sides arguments, even thought they do not hold water...

David: 1 of my favorite 'apologies' is the old Martyr/Trypho dialogue, in which Martyr claims that the only reason some of the older mythologies bear any resemblance to Xtianity, is that the 'Devil' made them do it, i.e, Lucifer knew the prophecies, & decided to do a little espionage.

Yeah, it sounded a little out there to me too.

"Some people want to live forever", reluctant said.

Which was the reason our prehistoric ancestors invented gods. Death wasn't very appealing. Neither was nature, at times. I heard a screech owl for the first time in my life a few nights ago and it was an extremely frightening sound (at least I thought it was), so it's no wonder things like ghosts and banshees were invented.

Superstition ruled for so many thousands of years, and science has explained away most of that within only a few hundred years. What will happen in the next 300-400 years?

I, too, would love to see the major world religions today discussed as the mythology they all really are.
I know I won't see it in my lifetime and honestly wonder how society as we know it would react if there was some kind of religious bombshell. I think it could be catastrophic. Some people base their whole existence on their faith, and I don't know if they could handle it if some irrefutable evidence was found, "Da Vinci Code"-ish, for example, that proved the Resurrection was a fabrication. Would they riot? Commit suicide? Blame it on the atheists and kill all of us? There are some who say that evidence has already been found and has been suppressed by the Catholic Church for fear of what it will do to the world. Don't know about that, but it's fascinating to imagine.

Peach63: I do not know about that, but revolutions and uprisings are generally very quick, and except for the french revolution, just a matter of replacing one established regime with another. Just as quickly some piece of "evidence" can show up and people will question. People I have come to the conclusion like to be deceived as long as the deception is something that they want. Take it away, and things can get ugly!

sm: Up till now, I've been able to avoid mentioning this, as I don't want to be accused of 'argumentum ad hitlerum', but I believe it was either Goebbels, Goering, or AH himself, who said, "People will believe any lie, as long as it's big enough."

Peach63: "I know I won't see it in my lifetime and honestly wonder how society as we know it would react if there was some kind of religious bombshell."

Most of them would go swimming in that ole river in Egypt. Witness the efforts of Creationists falsifying those 'footprints' of men next to dinosaurs. The misrepresentation of evidence, to retrofit to their worldview.

From Ingersoll, from Secularism:

"Secularism is the religion of humanity; it embraces the affairs of this world; it is interested in everything that touches the welfare of a sentient being; it advocates attention to the particular planet in which we happen to live; it means that each individual counts for something; it is a declaration of intellectual independence; it means that the pew is superior to the pulpit, that those who bear the burdens shall have the profits and that they who fill the purse shall hold the strings. It is a protest against theological oppression, against ecclesiastical tyranny, against being the serf, subject or slave of any phantom, or of the priest of any phantom. It is a protest against wasting this life for the sake of one that we know not of. It proposes to let the gods take care of themselves. It is another name for common sense; that is to say, the adaptation of means to such ends as are desired and understood."

Hmmmm. where are those pesky theists when you need them?

I'll try to post later... crazed with deadlines.

Hmmmm. where are those pesky theists when you need them?

For real. Phreedm, jcc, and tom et al have no problem crashing the party when uninvited. But here we are throwing the welcome mat out for them and nobody's showing up! Must be a religious holiday I never knew about.

Come guys, put yer dukes up! Let's scrap!

heheh

If atheists do not believe in a higher power, then why are you so scared of christians converting people? If there is no God, you should have no concern for anyone but yourself. Why is it so important for you to get your opinion out and try to convince people of your beliefs? If there is no God, you won't be around to see if you were right anyway.

Additionally, the number of religious wars has resulted in conquorings and conquest, so today there are far fewer bobs considered “real” by anyone than there once were.

And there are more people believing in bobs then ever before.
P.S. All the Chinese people seem to be superstitous atheists. I can't imagine why. However, they are rather immoral and rude. I'm not racist. And I am Chinese.

why are you so scared of christians converting people?

Well, to be brief and blunt (because I'm supposed to be working at the moment) it's not so much that we're scared, it's that we don't like it when people are lied to. We hate lies.

You can relate to that, can't you?

religion and mythology are the same thing. but the one thing that keeps the xtian religion going in this country is that religion is BIG business. if you think wal-mart is a big deal,i bet the combined annual "take" of the xtian based religions is staggering.

so the xtian leaders are not only fighting for their beliefs, they are fighting for their existence and livelihood. i personally think most are fighting for the latter and a good number don't even believe what they are preaching. how can they believe it when child molestation, stealing, lying, cheating, etc. are sanctioned by turning away?

4him.....why are atheist so scared?....hardley....it is u that must be afraid....I was agnostic until I shed that fear of..H E L L

Atheist have no fear of the make believe...what we are pissed at..(not to be confused with fear) is any superstitious controlling idea....and I once felt that I would not see this hocus pocus fade to a minority in my times....but, I've changed my mind...and yes...there is hope....ladies and gentleman...welcome to the information age.....yahoo

We credit to mythology what we do not know or understand.

Is is possible to create a "godless" mythology? Scientology, for example?

Is evolution just one more human-devised fairy tale? Seems to some the only things evolving are the textbooks that discard dogmatic "scientific facts" in light of new "scientific discoveries."

dogmatic "scientific facts"

There is no dogma in science. It is amendable per new evidence. But if you are going to challenge evolution, one of the most successful and substantiated scientific theories in history, then you better have something better than "god did it" to back up your claim. Plus, if you do decide to postulate 'god' as a reason for things, then you need to be willing to scientifically define this 'god' thing and come up with a way of scientifically measuring and verifying your 'god theory.'

But since you can not, I'll stick to the atheistic view point for now. Thanks anyway.

hehe

One more thought, then I'm going to jog.

When Protestants controlled Germany:
Catholics and Atheists were persecuted.

When Catholics controlled Spain:
Protestants and Atheists were persecuted.

When Atheists controlled Russia:
Catholics and Protestants were persecuted.

Conclusion: It is neither religion nor secularism that leads to persecution. Rather, it is intolerance for the views of others.

[end of sermon]

So... the fact that there is not one shred of evidence supporting an all-powerful being who just happens not to show itself, or care about us in any meaningful way, means that there is NO God. Just like there is no Hera, Allah, or Ra. Okay, I'm glad I got that cleared up, and out of the way.

Of course there is a FSM, I've been touched by his noddly appendage, so it must be true...

/Sarcasm, in case you were too busy praying for my non-existant soul to realize it.

There is no dogma in science.

1+1=2 is a fundamental, irrefutable scientific truth.

I’m no fan of watering down the truth, so here’s a nice absolute. There is not a single reason to accept any of today’s gods that wasn’t used to support the gods we all consider mythology.

Is that dogmatism?

This leads to one undeniable conclusion: religion and mythology are the same thing.

Is that amendable per new evidence?

And now I'm REALLY going to go jog.

When Atheists controlled Russia:

Well, come on. They were a little more than just 'atheists.' You want to talk about dogma? Soviet Communism was probably one of the most inflexible dogmas ever conceived. The atheism part was just an afterthought when it came right down to it, and only because they didn't want any competition from the clergy.

But I do agree with you that as soon as a group becomes too 'sure' of their own position, then discrimination is inevitable. It's the curse of faith.

Have fun on your jog.

Is that amendable per new evidence?

Sure, dude. Show us the money!

There may be an instance in the universe where 1+1=3, it's just that we have yet to see it.

Here's a good explanation of the concept itself:
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html

Okay, I will preface this with ideas those of you who know me have heard before:

Belief IMHO is based on three things

1. Personal History
2. Personal Need
3. Personal Choice

I view my beliefs as personal choices and have a pretty good handle on what I think, but am not afraid when I haven't thought of something. I freely admit I have an irrational belief that is not provable, but also understand that there are aspects of life I cannot work out logically. Part of the balance I work for in my life is to engage in the rational, but also participate in what I cannot explain.

It seems to be a pervasive aspect of human life to believe in a higher being. As Dave suggests there have been and continue to be many gods that are worshiped. I look for common threads throughout history. While Christian, I believe there are many paths that one can follow. The fiats of Christianity, at times, are too difficult to discern and are too open to interpretation for me to condemn anyone.

What I do strive for is to pick and choose (yes, conservative christians pick that mentality apart, but I don't care) the parts that make sense to me based on education and experience. I have studied mythology through the ages and see many common themes. I chalk that up to the way that humanity understands the world and understands god or the idea of god. I've never read about any culture ever that didn't understand the concept of god. I could be wrong, but it seems that humanity seems to have this need to believe in something larger than them.

I suspect your response would be that it is not a need, but a tool used by the rulers to control their people. I view that idea the way I view many conspiracy theories; we give people too much credit for being effectively nefarious. My opinion is that leaders pick up on things they notice that people participate in to consolidate their power. My theory is that the belief came first and the use as a tool of control came later.

Looking at historic examples of atheist rule further proove to me that many of the issues we object to exist in both a religious and non-religious context. What I read and interpret in many of your posts is an objection to abuse of power and using undemocratic methods to gain power. In a theocracy, rule is based on the unknowable (and unaccountable) will of god, while in a democracy (okay, representative republic) rule is based on consent of the people.

What I would suggest is that belief in god is not offensive in and of itself, but the way people choose to express those beliefs and subjegate others to it. It is the power they try to consolidate with it that is offensive to me, but belief in god (whichever you believe in) is a personal matter.

I hope some of this makes sense. I'm trying to squeeze it in before I upload a catalog and write an estimate.

Sure, dude. Show us the money!

There may be an instance in the universe where 1+1=3, it's just that we have yet to see it.

Here's a good explanation of the concept itself:
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html

gasp!

ebonyfax

Is evolution just one more human-devised fairy tale? Seems to some the only things evolving are the textbooks that discard dogmatic "scientific facts" in light of new "scientific discoveries."

While Christian, I do not share your view of science and atheism. What I think you are suggesting is that science is based as much on belief as religion in the sense that we search for truth. The distinction for me lies in that religion is belief and science is a method. The goal of religion and science are very different in the sense that religion does not need proof to be viable, while science is simply a method to provide proof.

By putting quotation marks around scientific proof you seem to be suggesting that fact can always be questioned. I would put to you that the mentality you are employing suggests that you are viewing science and religion in the same light. You question the beliefs of atheists because there are revisions and constant work being done on and with the scientific method. IMO you have tried to shift the conversation to say if the scientific method isn't perfect then science and religion must be equals. That's bad rhetoric.

What you need to do is defend the position you have taken. You cannot ask atheists to prove a negative (there is no god). If you care to engage in the discussion you must defend your position and why it is right for you and again, if you care to, suggest why it might work for others. To condemn atheism based on science not being perfect is folly.

Spanders,

as usual, you actually bring some intelligence to the theistic side of the debate, and you've done a pretty good job at pointing out a commonly used yet ultimately weak case for atheism - the argument from control, which was most famously used by Karl Marx.

For me, the strongest case for atheism, and subsequently against theism, is based on just how humanity attains knowledge. Both religion and science stem from the same basic need - a thirst to explain. Humans can not stand to be ignorant of the world, and we need explanations to feel secure.

So it really boils down to two fundamentally different world views. You spell out this conflict a number of ways. Faith vs. Reason. Dogma vs. Meritocracy. Sacred Cow vs. Blank Slate. Revelation vs. Observation. You get the idea.

Depending on which world view you decide to subscribe to, you will ultimate be led to an atheistic or a theistic conclusion. But I suspect that you, like many others, are using both methods to some extent. Where reason cannot explain, faith takes over. While I understand that approach, I cannot fallow it. For faith can be applied evenly to any belief what-so-ever, which sort of makes it useless when you really think about it.

So instead, where reason fails me I'll just be content with not knowing. To not know, in a way, is virtuous. It leaves room for discovery. Is there a supreme being? I doubt it, but that does not mean that I know for sure. It only means that reason is not yet able to take me there, and faith has too poor a record for me to trust it.

You spell = You can spell
eeehhh

Okay, so all those other gods that were (an are) worshipped prior to Father Abraham were made up and incorrect, right? And Abraham, loyal and loving father that he was, wanted to kill his son to prove his loyalty to HIS ONE TRUE made up god.

What would Dobson say about HIS parenting skills? And a god that would use this as a test...of what? Loyalty at the price of a child's life.

It is amazing to me that anyone would believe any of this. Oh, and "but I am a virgin! My child was concieved by god!" don't get me started. By the way, Mary was not the first one with this story. Alexander's mother told him the same story. It was a very interesting story, too, but the Greeks knew that it was a story.

spanders

"It seems to be a pervasive aspect of human life to believe in a higher being." i would agree except that it is pervasive only in the need to explain that which appears to be unexplainable, like thunder and lightning to early man. once science explains it the myth and associated gods goes away.

therefore, as soon as science advances to the point of filling the evolutionary holes enough to satisfy the religious, the myth of adam and eve will go away. then the only myth left available will be creation of the universe.

once that is explained religion will die. so to answer 4HIM's question of who is afraid... it is the theists. science advancements threaten their mythology and they know it. we on the other hand do not fear the truth, because like someone above said... it sets you free.

flanonblvr: Amen!

Flanonblvr

I'm not convinced that once something is explained that god goes away. For instance, I think it's perfectly reasonable that god used evolution to create the world and appreciate their efforts. If we're made in god's image, maybe god looks like a monkey and most people are too arrogant to consider it. My point is that I think to take genesis literally is a mistake and much of the bible for that matter. My belief is that the bible is not to be interpreted literally at all times. Oddly, the part where jesus says if we have two coats we should give one to those who need it probably should be interpreted literally.

I don't think what sets us free is religion or science, but one's mentality. I suspect that we all shoulder a good number of burdons that "imprison" us in one way or the other. I think you are right it is how we percieve the world that enables us to feel free or not. I agree that religion has many aspects that will imprison us if we let it, but I think relationships, finance, work and so on can hold us down or set us free depending on how we deal with it. I suspect the same thing that sets us free one day imprisons us the next. Life, as I see it, is very complicated with so many interconnections that it is difficult to ascertain what sets us free or not.

For instance, I think it's perfectly reasonable that god used evolution to create the world and appreciate their efforts.

Yup, I seemed to have deleted something there. ...it's perfectly reasonable that god used evolution to create the world and scientists have uncovered how it was done and I appreciate their efforts.

That's more clear I hope.

spanders:
"To condemn atheism based on science not being perfect is folly."
Well said my friend.

flanonblvr: "therefore, as soon as science advances to the point of filling the evolutionary holes enough to satisfy the religious"
I wouldn't hold my breath on that 1, flanonblvr. For every fossil, they want 5 more, and it becomes exponential from there.

DiArtemis: "but the Greeks knew that it was a story."
Actually, http://englishatheist.org/little/shakenpart2chapter4.shtml relates a # of ancient common beliefs about parthenogenesis.

Flanonblvr,

I think spanders may have shown why, even with enlightenment, regardless of how detailed and incontrovertible scientific discoveries may be, individuals of faith will adapt their thinking in order to maintain the influence of a supernatural entity. I direct you to his statement:

"For instance, it's perfectly reasonable that god used evolution to create the world and scientists have uncovered how it was done and I appreciate their efforts."

Unfortunately, I think humans will always do this.

However, I do believe that the concept of religion may become extinct. That would be enough for me. I’m much more comfortable with the idea of people being spiritual rather than religious.

Spanders,

It just occurred to that if every theist was as liberal and open as yourself then there would be little need for any sort of avowed atheist push-back in this country. The debate would be more like this:
Theist: "I believe."
Atheist: "Well, I don't."
Theist: "That's cool. So, you coming bowling with me Wednesday night or what?"
Atheist: "Sure, dude, I'm there!"
- end of debate.

I really don't have a problem with your particular style of theism. It's those guys yelling on the TV who make me (and others) assume a fighting stance. Too bad, huh?

DVanWechel

if I were to appreciate the accomplishments of science, encourage the scientific method and generally not push my beliefs on others, why do you think it is unfortunate that my beliefs would be what they are? Also, what is your distinction between spiritual and religious?

rainbows
if you saw me bowl it would only reinforce the notion that there is no god.

It is too bad. It's similar for me in that I have my back up to conservative christians. I hope by listening that I am able to shed any animosity I may feel. At this point I often play devil's advocate when discussing issues of atheism with other theists. It's actually harder for me to deal with conservative christians. Something I need to work on.

Spanders,

By the way, bravo on well-articulated and intelligent comments. I wish I had more encounters with people of faith such as you. Unfortunately, here in small-town, rural Nebraska, I do not.

reluctant: The site you gave(http://englishatheist.org/little/shakenpart2chapter4.shtml) is down, but I look forward to viewing it soon.

Spanders: So how do you decide what parts of the bible are true and literal and what parts are lies or figurative? Do your Xtain friends and leaders know that you do this? You may need to start your own new religion based on this enlightened view.

Spanders,

To answer your question regarding the distinction between religious and spiritual, I would say…rules.

People who hold to religion typically follow their particular religion’s set of rules and practice that religion’s particular set of rituals.

I find those who are more spiritual in nature and associate less with a religion, do not necessarily adhere to a particular set of rules and rituals - though often the same could be said for some people who consider themselves religious. With a lack of defined rules, a person has little reason to force others, who do not believe, to conform.

And, please do not be offended by my above post. I was making a point that people of faith will likely always find a way to include their particular god in any scientific discovery - from my standpoint that's what is unfortunate. I feel it undermines what science attempts to do - find the truth. By inserting the supernatural, you dismiss the vary reason science exists - to explain the unknown through natural processes. Every scientific discovery would have a footnote: And God made it that way.

Almost anyone could say they believed in God, if they were
allowed their own definition of God.

But isn't this just where heresy comes in?

So how do you decide what parts of the bible are true and literal and what parts are lies or figurative?

Yes, that's the trick, isn't it. It is my belief that all people of all religions pick out what parts they believe or not consciously or unconsciously. For me it's an issue of focus. Conservative christians choose a certain way of believing and I choose another. As most of you know, the bible is open ended to say the least, so we all choose how to interpret. I even find the editorial process of the bible fascinating. I really enjoy elain pagels. To answer you question, the only things I take pretty literally are about taking care of the poor and how we're supposed to love each other, especially in context of Jesus saying it.

Do your Xtain friends and leaders know that you do this?

Actually, they encourage it. We go to a really liberal UCC church in North Carolina no less. I built www.progressivechurches.org with my minister. My wife's family would be horrified if I told what I really thought, but fortunately it hardly comes up as I don't want to offend.

And, please do not be offended by my above post.

Not at all. I appreciate input. A suggestion however, try to point out the problem with the comment in a more clear way. For instance,

I think spanders may have shown why, even with enlightenment, regardless of how detailed and incontrovertible scientific discoveries may be, individuals of faith will adapt their thinking in order to maintain the influence of a supernatural entity. I direct you to his statement:

might be better as:

Spander's comments may illustrate how individuals of faith can adapt their thinking which allows them to maintain the influence of supernatural entity as illustrated below:

I know, it's subtle, but it takes the "judgement" off of me and puts it onto my statements. Notice that I also pull out some of the absolute words like "will". This helps people feel less defensive from my experience. Just some suggestions.

But isn't this just where heresy comes in?

Right, and that's the problem with more liberal applications of faith, because you end up with a multitude of varying and mutually excluding belief systems (just check out your local Unity church.)

The problem is that they can't all be true, so the journey itself becomes too muddy for most people. Of course, some people love the idea of multiple truths. In a way, this sort of complication simplifies things, for it allows one to apply a sort of quasi free inquiry approach to the question of god. It's still based on the assumption of a God (or 'higher power' if you prefer), so it doesn't really qualify as truly free inquiry, but it at least it's fairly benign and doesn't result in any sort of subjugation or bigotry. Plus it gets people to hold hands and sing together and talk about love. That sort of thing has always creeped me out, but I can still see the appeal.

Spanders,

United Church Christ!!! Didn't think about that one. I was thinking either Unity or Unitarian Universalist.

Well, you have to admit I was pretty close! ;)

spanders:
you said "religion does not need proof to be viable", I would argue that it does indeed need proof to be viable.
and you said "science is simply a method to provide proof", actually i think the proof is in the evidence and science is the art of forming rational theories to make logical sense of the evidence.
The fact that a lot of things that used to be attributed to various gods is not anymore is because of recent theories that are supported by evidence have taken their place.
If you want to say the unexplained or unknown is god fine with me just don't tell me the unexplained wrote a book and talks to your soul.
Why would god only talk to church leaders and tv evangelists and not every believer?
To me faith is trust based and not blind. For example if you fill your car up with gas you can have faith that it will go so far before running out. If on the other hand say the gas gauge is broken and you don't fill it up how much faith do you have that it will make the trip.
Blind faith is nonsense and one of the things that no doubt describes a cult or myth.

"How long are we going to dance around the 800-pound gorilla in the room?"

Cenk Uygur recently used this sentence to describe people's general reaction to the absolute absurdity that religion is. Here's the link:

'If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/if-youre-a-christian-mu_b_9349.html

I don't like that Cenk left out Scientology, and Taoism, or anything else anyone imagines up to explain what scientists have yet to uncover about the universe. Must be fair, and include all religions, but I still think we get the point.

Okay, I'm not religious, because I think it's absolutely pure myth, a fairy tale for adults, a Santa Claus for old people. If religion is legitimate in its claims then so am I when I say, "You've been decieved by all the world's religions. You've not opened your eyes to the truth, and the truth is the universe is a grain from a giant peanut butter, and jelly sandwich. Convert now, and be saved, for all who believe in FSM, Christianity, Muslianity, and whatever else will be placed in an empty jar to suffer in hydrochloric acid, for angering the sandwich with your incredulity!"

Voila, I've just made up a myth story, and you have no proof that the sandwich didn't just channel this story through me, no matter what. So, covert, or be dissolved in eternal pain. From here on, the entire myth requires I make up a set of morality people are to follow as believers.

This can be done in an infinite number of ways, all the same. To explain the unknown parts of the universe, the parts science has yet to uncover. When all else fails, you can always rely on the insubstantial unknown, to rationalize lunacy, and use this to control people. Truly, fear (of the unknown) plus confusion (with religious casuistry), equals submission.

Covert now, and be SAVED!!!

Save on all items selling fast!

slimmins is it chuncky or smooth penut butter because if its chunky i am in

almond brother

"slimmins is it chuncky or smooth penut butter because if its chunky i am in

almond brother"

Well, you see. That's one of the freedoms we have as a grains from the bread. We are endowed with the freedom to choose either chunky or smooth. But we musn't mess with the texture of the bread. For to do so, is cinny. What is cinny? Is it an arbitrary meaningless word understood only the context of the PB&J religion, yet to be imposed oafishly on others you judge? Of course not. It's cinny: what people do when they question the texture.

Remember the old saying in times of doubt: "Careful, too much cinny ain't all too skinny."

Of course, here the ancients are referring to the many skinny tribes who refused PB&J, and punished with starvation, as well as eternally low pH levels of suffering.

"Careful, too much cinny ain't all too skinny."

It may seem like this contradicts itself, but we must not forgot the second apologetic stanza.

"But with enough cinny, skinny, you end up real thinny."

well then ibetter eat some cinny i am skinny i think i will eat sitting on pew but if i eat to much cinny i might just spew

i was going to add ring of fire really should make a pb&j car emblem
like the fsm or pirate fish

Hey

It's quite easy to find out which God is real (alive) and which are dead.

1) Try giving your life to any of the mythological gods you mention. Thor or what have you. Nothing will happen.

2) Then try giving your life to Jesus. Lots will happen. Life will never be the same again!

I'd recommend starting with step no. 2:)

Problem solved.

1) Try giving your life to any of the mythological gods you mention. Thor or what have you. Nothing will happen.

2) Then try giving your life to Jesus. Lots will happen. Life will never be the same again!

I tried them both. Nothing happened; now PB&J. I've eaten that stuff for quite a while. My life's never been the same since. I recommend Skippy, or Jiff, with Smuckers. Mmmmmmm, that's good Deity.

Slimmins

Did you really try giving you life to Jesus?

When? What did you do?

Slimmins

or better: how did you give your life to Christ?

"Did you really try giving you life to Jesus?"

Well actually, not really. It was more like I was born into it, thought it was true, until, I learned other things that made more sense, and moved on. For example, PB&J, a more palatable option ;-)

Slimmins

So, you haven't tried.

My 2-step theory has yet to be disproven.

The challenge remains:)

Shoot, but I warn you my one step theory's also not been disproven.

"So, you haven't tried."

Of course I've tried, and I didn't like it, no more than I did Islam, or Greek mythos.

Slimmins

So you tried between writing these posts?:)

You just said you actually never tried. Now you say of course you've tried.

So if you tried please tell me in what manner you gave your life to Jesus. What did you say and do?

If you never have then just say so:)

First I must understand how you gave your life to Jesus. Please describe this in detail.

GooseHenry:

Why don't you lay off Slimmins. Nit picking isn't going to get you anywhere. Here's a proof of how your theory doesn't work. I gave my life to jesus as you say when I was 3 years old. I remember it very well. I felt all warm and fuzzy about it. Much like your James Dobson describes his experience. My parents are evangelical types, I was raised that way too. I went to private christian school and everything. My life did change, and as you put it, lots of stuff happened. My life was ruled by the specter of what I "should" be doing, and the ever popular guilt complex. I looked down on everyone that didn't believe the same things I did. Yes, a very positive experience - NOT.

Then I got an EDUCATION and realized that I had been lied to all my life. It was like being set free from jail. Like seeing daylight for the first time in my life. I could never go back. I want to spread the joy that I've found in realizing that god is a lie and we're not all unworthy sinners.

carl0632,

it's not that Goose is pressing on me anything difficult. I'm just not sure what he means by giving anything to Jesus. I could describe my entire experience, pretty much similar to yours, yet this isn't what Goose considers number 2. So I ask what HE means by giving his life to Jesus.

To me it seems he's stating that because I've not done as he has to where I'm supposed to still believe as he does, despite all other views, then I've not "opened" my self up to Jesus. What he's really saying, is that maybe I should close myself off to fully buying the Jesus myth as he has.

Of course, this doesn't mean opening up to anything, but rather closing oneself off to the same silly story.

All I'm sayin' is why that one when there's so much more out there to explore. People have carried the Jesus story too far off the deep end.

Now, PB&J. That's a story much ahead of its time ;-)

I'm of the camp that thinks there's a good case to be made that Jesus never existed. There is no contemporary evidence after all. I think it's pretty funny when I hear people like Josh McDowell say that the resurrection is the single most provable historical event. He must have a pretty strange concept of what history is.

Pass the peanut butter!

"I'm of the camp that thinks there's a good case to be made that Jesus never existed."

That's not even counting the 50, 60 some odd years of hearsay. Every other day, people back then saw demons in tree stumps. Yeah, real historical. pffffrrt!

Now the sandwich!

"Pass the peanut butter!"

There you go. Evidence that my theories are true. Zeus never tasted this good.

Ok, here's a humorous side bar:

My dad, the fundamentalist type, had to be in China for business for months at a time a while back. When he headed back over there the second time you know what he took with him? A gallon tub of Skippy! He couldn't stand the thought of going another two months without peanut butter!

Maybe there's more to this PB&J thing than meets the eye!

"Ok, here's a humorous side bar"

Not at all. This is very relevant discussion.

Obviously the prophecies are coming true. Deep down we all carry a little bit of the ol' sandwich in us, whether you choose to believe or not.

See, why can't we form solidarity around the PB&J. It likes it when you smile! :-)

"Ok, here's a humorous side bar"

Not at all. This is very relevant discussion.

Obviously the prophecies are coming true. Deep down we all carry a little bit of the ol' sandwich in us, whether you choose to believe or not.

See, why can't we form solidarity around the PB&J? It likes it when you smile! :-)

"1) Try giving your life to any of the mythological gods you mention. Thor or what have you. Nothing will happen."
Yeah? I sacrificed a human to Odin once to gain wisdom and knowledge, and plenty happened.

No, I didn't.

But why does Jesus get his own step in your experiment? He's one of the mythological ones covered in step 1.

Also, I'm interested in how to 'give your life' to Jesus.

Notyourdaddy

I would argue that it does indeed need proof to be viable.

For me this is a place that we will have different opinions. I don't think that faith requires proof. As I stated earlier, I don't think religion and science are trying to accomplish the same thing (even though some Christians might argue otherwise, but their opinion falls apart pretty quickly when challenged).

proof is in the evidence and science is the art of forming rational theories to make logical sense of the evidence.

Science, among other things, is certainly an art and does make logical sense of evidence. I think you are saying that the art of science replaces the "need" for religion and that religion only exists or existed to fill in the blanks that science is now filling in. Like DVanWechel said earlier

I feel it undermines what science attempts to do - find the truth. By inserting the supernatural, you dismiss the vary reason science exists - to explain the unknown through natural processes. Every scientific discovery would have a footnote: And God made it that way.

For me, it's not an either/or situation. I do tend to think "and God made it that way", but don't discount what scientists are thinking or saying. I think it's incorrect to say that faith is only about explaining aspects of the natural world we don't understand. Faith, for me, is a way of viewing the world that causes me to examine why I do what I do and contemplate my purpose. I'm not saying that everyone needs faith to do that, but it's what works for me. I'm not sure that it's like a tank of gas that gets filled up. There is ebb and flow, but I don't think the ultimate outcome is to run out of faith. That may be the case for you, but not for everyone.

I think that some people have a view that religion should be a moral guide, and strive to follow that idealized version of that moral guide. They are good to others, help others in need, are decent all around people that are outstanding citizens. I think that if they really though about religion, it would prove out to be quite the oposite of what they think it is. Those qualities are social qualities that come with living in a civilized society, and religion has hijacked them in order to make themselves look good, but for the most part are not in the bible.
As far as religion being used to control the mases, it is as old as moses. Yes it is a weak argument, but are we not being controlled by a religious nut right now?

Just my two cents of insight on how people "give their life" to Jesus:

Supposedly, at least according to most Protestant churches in my area, all you have to do is ask Jesus to come into your heart and you will be saved, and have all these wonderful ecstatic feelings. I have known people who say they have very profound experiences when doing this, mostly at "altar calls" at church when lots of other people are around. I've thought maybe the good feeling was a trance-like state similar to the Pentecostals/Charismatics being "slain in the spirit." Some people I've talked to who say they did it when alone, when questioned, admit to not feeling anything. The reason I know this is I spent a good deal of time in my late teens/early 20's wondering about it, and asked questions to lots of people about it. I have never put much stock in the Bible or Christianity, and I had never felt the need or desire to be "saved", really, but wanted to know what was so special about it, because so many people seemed to think it was so important.

I can say I tried it, very sincerely (or so I thought), at least four times in my life - and never felt any different at all. Then I worried for a little while because someone told me that if you had any doubt in your heart, Jesus would hate you and not come into it. So that's when I said, well, if he's that damn picky, who needs him anyway?

p.s. I like PB & banana sandwiches. Can I stage a Reformation and start my own religion? Or will I be burned at the stake as a heretic for even THINKING about bananas??? :)

Spanders,
I'm so confused as to why most theists have this goal of finding "their purpose" in life/the world/universe. It seems as silly as asking "what's the purpose of this delicious PB&J sandwich"? It also is much like everyone having their own predetermined station in life, that makes them complacent in their situation, and lack personal responsibility to better themselves.

Okay,

Just for the record: I like PB, I like jelly (jam), and I like bananas. To mix any of these aspects of the Trinutty^TM must be considered as gross, total heresy.

"Well, to be brief and blunt (because I'm supposed to be working at the moment) it's not so much that we're scared, it's that we don't like it when people are lied to. We hate lies.

You can relate to that, can't you?"


Who decided lying was wrong? That would be a moral issue. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, especially if there is no one truth.

My uncle and aunt are very "churchy" type people. They used to go to a church were they devoted much of their time, supported the church financially, and provided all they could to make the church work. It was a working class church, where the churchgoers mostly were poor. They helped them out by doling minor jobs, food, and confort. They were also considered a part of the "elders". 2 months ago, the pastor, stood up on the podium and publicly humiliated both of them in front of the congregation for not providing enough money for him to send his daughters to europe. They stormed out, and have not been back. The Pastor called my brother in law to change the locks, so that my uncle, and aunt could never come back into the church. They also gave away all the food that they had donated over the course of many food drives.
Now they have "gatherings" at their house. I try to avoid them like the plague, and me and my wife just laugh at how pathetic it is. Church for the most part has never provided me with a warm fuzzy feeling. It has always looked dictactorial, cold, and calculating. If you do not do what they say, you roast. Well, i might be "well done" when I die, but I will take control of my life, and I will stop asking a deity to help me out.

4Him

I assume you're implying that "moral" issues can't be separated from religion?

i co run a small press publishing label and as part of our "intiative" to be an atheistic label, we decided to mark it by producing these shirts:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a375/darknessyou/ATHEISMsmall.jpg

we saw them as a symbol - the same way Xians wear crucifix's to show their faith, the same way churches display the same stolen religious symbol. The reaction we have recieved has been bizarre. We understood that there might be a negative reaction but so far most anger has come from agnostics who think that we are touting "intellectual totalitarianism". this made me realise that most people are terrified to question the beliefs of the masses. Only when we tackle the "sheep" effect do we start to bring reason into society. and this can be done without fascistic systems - better education for one. But as it has been said so many times before - governments like religion, its the greatest tool they ever created.
If you would like one of these shirts email us at
glass_shore_press@yahoo.com
(shameless plug!)

Hey, Danish guy here, first time poster. (And by Danish I mean "from Denmark", not "I sure luv 'em pastries!").
Since, I suppose, you are mostly Americans here, and thus know next to nothing about the rest of the world (sorry! Hyperbole and stereotypical, I know, but stereotypes ARE exactly that for a -reason-...), I feel a need to give at least a -very- cursory idea of my country; so:
A very small country growing out of the northern tip of Germany, with a population of less than 6 million.
Yes. A small nation, indeed.
Well, that's enough for now...
As for -this- discussion, well,
Dave is right, of course.
The rest is babble.

SM,

You can't judge God by the human run church. Some churches do not let God be in control. People are human. I would have to questions that pastors relationship with God. You can't judge a religion by one person or experience. Church is not about a "warm and fuzzy feeling" God did not promise life to be happy and jolly all the time. I tend to stay away from churches that want to give you a warm and fuzzy