lpetrich

Another perspective on this subject would be that the religion business is a sort of fantasy world -- one that tends to be mistaken for reality.

Those who believe in some religion who are reading this I invite to consider how they view other religions.

Peter Kirby

I appreciate very much the kind words. It has been one of my goals to be "humble before the data" in the true spirit of science.

But may an atheist make an atheological point? There is such a thing as reasonable non-belief by a person who has given some consideration to Christianity. Assuming that there is a God who allowed such a state of affairs, and assuming that this God is reasonably benevolent, does it not seem problematic that this God would condemn to eternal hellfire those who do not believe?

Assuming, of course, that you are not already a universalist Christian.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

I'm closer to Baptist ideals and attend a Southern Baptist Church. I, however, believe that the necessary Christian core is in the majority of Christian denominations, yes, even including Catholics. Most of what they quibble over is rather trivial in my opinion, at least in the grand scheme of things.

Do I believe that people like yourself and others here will go to hell? The Bible seems to say so. However, I believe God is a merciful God and I like to think that he will also save those who are "honest" doubters. I feel that God has planted something in me... I would think that he would do the same for others, but I, myself, cannot know how honest, "honest" doubters are with themselves and in their quest to find God.

Regardless, it is not for me to determine your "fate". Ultimately, it is between you and God, or you an nothingness (if you prefer).

Sincerely,
Haran

Haran

CloudyPhiz,

So you liked my edit?

So is that the reason for your moniker? Perhaps not. No slight was intended. Some around here have interesting monikers, so it simply struck me this way, but then I became unsure and edited it out...

Haran

Haran

I realize this was to Peter, but I'd like to say some things.

I've known some pretty bad atheists in my time. They were reckless and destroyed their lives. Some destroyed the lives of those around them, even to death. So, I don't buy that Christians somehow made the world worse.

Some Churches spend a lot on themselves. Others spend a lot on charity. Mine happens to spend a lot on charity.

This past week, I served food at our local homeless shelter. I give money to charities. I support a poor child in Haiti.

What do you do, since you come down so hard on religion?

Judging from some of the atheists that I knew, this is very doubtful.

Atheism is not necessarily better than religion.

Haran

Methodissed

If your church is like most, it is a physical structure that must be built and maintained. Ministers/Priests are housed and supported. They have administrative costs, etc. Charity is a positive sideline, but from a budgetary standpoint, receives but a small percentage of church revenues. It would be deceptive to imply that a significant portion of the money going to churches goes toward charity. Their primary purpose is that of worship. Now take the countless thousands of houses of worship around the world and we have massive waste. If that money was used to solve real problems, rather than supporting prayer and worship, we could see real change.
I'm not going to go tit-for-tat on charity. I give and do plenty. I think it's great that you help to feed the homeless. Yet religions like Catholicism oppose birth control, which has a negative impact on world population. Overpopulation leads to disease, famine, war, and yes hunger. So while you can feel good about feeding a few, on a much larger scale, religion is making matters worse - something that threatens the very existence of our species. Of course as that day approaches, religionists will use our demise as justification of their belief in armageddon - an incredible irony.
Your experience with a few atheists is hardly representative. As I said earlier, there are good and bad atheists. The real issue is rational vs. irrational thought. As history has shown, people who are grounded in superstitious belief (religion) tend to make irrational choices - sometimes having dire consequences. Generally speaking, religion contributes to world problems, it doesn't solve them. Our best hope for the future is to value rational thought, which unfortunately is in direct conflict with religious ideals.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Methodissed ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Would a world without religion be a far better world than one with religion as we have it today? The quick and easy answer is "not necessarily," especially since we forgot to add the phrase "all else being equal." With that phrase, though, the hypothesis that a world without religion will be better becomes difficult ever to prove empirically, being that any real future world without religion will have quite a lot of stuff that is not equal -- say, the advance of technology, possibly the exercise of reason in various spheres of life, possibly different political systems, possibly different cultural values. There are lots of ways to imagine a world that is without religion but is nevertheless worse off than our own.

All posturing aside, I think that a secular society is a noble ideal towards which to work.

A key point here in this discussion is that all parties seem to take it for granted that atheism is the opposite of religion. But atheism is only the opposite of theism. One can be religious without being theist, and one can be atheist without being completely skeptical. "Secular" does not mean non-religious, it refers only to role of government in religion, or so I always understood it.

Would the earth be better off without authority beliefs, including religion? You bet. Look at Iraq, Pakistan, and the US compared to Western Europe or Iceland. Of course that would not solve all the problems of the world, but as I look at the headlines of Christian-Muslim violence in Indonesia, and Communist persecution of Christians in China, and the Catholic Church's inability to deal with its pedophilia problem....well, all I can say is that Peter is a lot more generous-minded than I am.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

I understand this point very well. Please note that I have mentioned the existence of one "Wiccan atheist" and that I said, "Buddhism has several interpretations, some non-theistic. Jainism is non-theistic, while the moral precepts of Confucianism do not require the belief in higher powers."

Making use of my four-part partition of religion, an atheist is one who does not hold to a particular religious 'theory', that of the existence of a supernatural God or gods. But an atheist can certainly share non-theistic 'theory' and the full freight of 'mythology', 'ritual', and 'morality' with any religion. So one could have an "Atheist for Jesus" or a Jewish atheist or a Buddhist atheist and so on. Or one could be a deist without any of the trappings of religion. I have always understood that the antonym for religion is not atheism but rather irreligion.

Merriam Webster gives the first definition of 'secular' as "a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal &lt;secular concerns&gt; b : not overtly or specifically religious &lt;secular music&gt; c : not ecclesiastical or clerical &lt;secular courts&gt; &lt;secular landowners&gt;." One of the meanings of secular is non-religious.

I don't know where I gave the impression that I have the best of thoughts about religion. I don't, and I have said that I don't. In this very thread I have given a criticism of religion that included the point that we cannot look to ancient scripture as an authority.

I do have reservations about the ethical calculus involved in estimating that the world would be better if religions of all type were magically eradicated (if that concept even makes sense) or that history would have been better if humanity never developed any religious ideas. This continue to seem to me to be 'overall impressions' based on 'anecdotal evidence' that aligns with ideological/mythological ideals, not cold and calculated conclusions. This has nothing to do with any generosity towards religion, as it would fit my prejudices for these statements to be true. I just don't know the algorithm and the parameters to be fed to it in reaching such an estimation.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

Of course, just like any organization. An organization of atheists, sort of like the internet infidels (or other groups which I'm sure exist) have their own overhead expenses. Their are many churches that keep these expenses to a minimum though there are some that do not. I'm sure it is the same with atheist organizations. They are simply groups of people.

Why deceptive? This seems like a rather cold and insensitive generalization. I happen to think different of many churches, honestly... At least there are organizations of people like churches who do give to charities and help the poor. There are probably far more of them than atheist organizations. Coordinated efforts go a lot farther sometimes than do individual efforts. Why do you think there are organizations such as the United Way or the Red Cross? Money unfortunately must go toward buildings and salaries as well. It's a fact of life, not a problem of the church.

Churches have many purposes, the main being fellowship of Christians. Christians are supposed to worship but also to serve others after Jesus' example. Besides that, prayer and worship are wasteful only from your own point of view.

Obviously people give to the church for charity reasons as well as for the upkeep of the building, etc. In addition to this giving, many give individually to charities. If this is not helping to solve real problems, then I must be losing my marbles. Yet, in addition to this physical and earthly help, we yield earnest prayer. Can't hurt to add some earnest prayer on top of all that "real problem solving". So, many Christians do what you ask and more.

My point was to show you that your generalizations don't fit the mold and to make you think about yourself in comparison. It's not good enough to talk bad about others and not do much yourself. If you do, great. If you don't, you might think about doing more also, especially before talking bad about Christians and religion.

That was rather melodramatic, if you ask me. I differ with you greatly.

Some will. Some atheists will use any such events in world history against the Christians and/or religion, true or not.

Hmm... Sounds kinda like groups of Christians. There are some that are probably not worthy of the name, while others are quite good and helpful in both earthly and spiritual needs.

My opinion is that people who act selfishly are the ones who cause the problems. Most religions have the element of helping ones neighbor included in their somewhere. It is when people forget that, that everything falls apart.

People of religion can be rational, but I think you place way to much value on the rational, perhaps to your own detriment. I think it's better to have both rationality and spirituality. And I sure do not believe that people of religion are any worse, in general, than are groups of atheists. I could generalize all day about atheists. I'll refrain.

Oh well, I doubt you'll change your mind. However, before you speak in generalizations, just remember that there are probably Christians out there who do much more to help this world in earthly atheistic terms than some/many atheists, perhaps even than you and I. In addition to the earthly things, they pray which they believe makes a difference whether you do or not. So, they are helping in more than one way. Demeaning generalizations do more to harm this world and other people than do any religions, Meth.

Haran

CX

Just out of curiousity, why should you want to sway a theist? Evangelism is the theist's game not ours (presuming you are an atheist). Furthermore I'd say (with apologies to any theists who might be reading) that religious belief is like alcoholism in one respect. You cannot get someone else to stop believing. It is up to him or her.