At the end of the day, the equation is very much binary. God either exists or doesn't; God can't "kinda" exist.
I agree that we all have different paths; I was just making the general statement about total blatant selfish hedonism, folks who add nothing to society.
and i say, some of those "blatant, selfish hedonists" may very well be sitting next to you in church on sunday. point is, faith alone has nothing to do with that....and in regards to the necessity of religion in this world, i personally don't see that as adding any support for the idea that it is a need, and not merely a want.
sure, the concept of a god existing or not existing is a whole other issue, and as i've said....he/she/it could easily exist, or not exist, without *religion* being, would make no difference.
it's not about the 'different paths' per se....but blatant selfishness can exist amongst all walks of life, the supposed believers/religious as well as the non-believers/non-religious. just my general statement there.
and yes, either god(s) exist or not....there's no inbetween, but there is plenty of inbetweens in being a good, faith-filled person and being a good, non-faith person. lots and lots of grey and co-mingling there. belief in a god does not = selflessness/goodness/adding to society.
and i say, some of those "blatant, selfish hedonists" may very well be sitting next to you in church on sunday. point is, faith alone has nothing to do with that....and in regards to the necessity of religion in this world, i personally don't see that as adding any support for the idea that it is a need, and not merely a want.
sure, the concept of a god existing or not existing is a whole other issue, and as i've said....he/she/it could easily exist, or not exist, without *religion* being, would make no difference.
it's not about the 'different paths' per se....but blatant selfishness can exist amongst all walks of life, the supposed believers/religious as well as the non-believers/non-religious. just my general statement there.
and yes, either god(s) exist or not....there's no inbetween, but there is plenty of inbetweens in being a good, faith-filled person and being a good, non-faith person. lots and lots of grey and co-mingling there. belief in a god does not = selflessness/goodness/adding to society.
I want to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like my father.
I see religion as a tool originally meant to keep things peaceful, but got more and more corrupt as time went on.
When you get tons of people needing to live side by side, it is probably a good idea to somehow motivate them to get along with each other. How about making them believe there is something watching them every minute of every day to make sure they don't do any bad things? If they do they will suffer for eternity, and if they follow the rules they will be in paradise for eternity.
As population grew they needed more space to live though, and their neighbors probably didn't like that too much. So they expanded things a little bit and said it was ok to do bad things sometimes for certain reasons, and you wouldn't be held accountable personally as God agreed with them.
Finally some control freaks were in charge and they started putting some very specific rules in that they felt were the way everybody had to live because they were right.
And it continued on from there.
Of course at the time I'm sure literacy was very low, and it wouldn't be hard to fool a large percentage of people with a 'holy man' telling them what was expected. Perhaps they even required it be taught to children so it'd take hold completely very quickly.
That chain of events isn't that hard to believe in my opinion. I was just thinking about ways it could have started without any supernatural stuff going on. No offense meant to anyone.
At the end of the day, the equation is very much binary. God either exists or doesn't; God can't "kinda" exist.
I agree that we all have different paths; I was just making the general statement about total blatant selfish hedonism, folks who add nothing to society.
"Binary"...nice word usage. Im proud of you J.
Btw- you make very valid points, some people are just too busy reading themselves talk to actually read what YOU said.
As FAnch says, God can't "kinda" exist.
Another way of looking at this is that a contradiction cannot truly exist.
If a contradiction seems to exist, then really, you just havn't thought about the problem enough, or you lack information.
So disproving the existence of God is actually not that hard, if a contradiction must stand to allow for his existence.
Personally I think teh disparity between the age of the Earth as calculated by the Bible, and the age as calculated by ANY other means, including that of other religions as well as science, serves the purpose quite nicely.
No doubt someone will argue that God created the other religions to test our faith, yet again !!!!!!!!!
I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.
but again, i can't prove it.
i am an atheist and i am accountable. i am accountable to myself. and only myself. it is my purpose in life to lead a righteous life. there is nothing hedonistic or egomaniacal in my life nor in the way i choose to live it.
true, i can't fathom how people have faith in any God, but that is their choice. just because i am irreligious doesn't mean i am unaccountable. and quite frankly i have known people who do believe in God and yet somehow believe that they do not have to account for their actions because it is their belief that their sins will be forgiven. i, on the other hand choose not to sin(for want of a better word) in the first place.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Btw- you make very valid points, some people are just too busy reading themselves talk to actually read what YOU said.
yes, valid points. don't think the 'validity' was questioned. one CAN see/understand/comprehend the validity of an opinion/point of view, and yet, STILL disagree. yea amazing, but it can be done. anyway, i thought that's what we did here....share ideas/opinions/differing perspectives...and discuss them, point and counter-point, etc. i thought that's what it was all about.
fanch, follow the force. :cool:
and sure, absolutely...follow your own beliefs, i think we all need to find our own path. and sure, i think for many faith/belief is quite a positive force for them and good for them....and for others they find a different path just as valid for themselves, and we ALL can be valuable contributors to society and the world at large...and yea, religion doesn't *have* to exist for any of it. *God* can exist just as well with or without organized religion....he/she/it would still be there for the faithfull. so yes, i still don't see it as a *must* in the world, that was all.
i am an atheist and i am accountable. i am accountable to myself. and only myself. it is my purpose in life to lead a righteous life. there is nothing hedonistic or egomaniacal in my life nor in the way i choose to live it.
true, i can't fathom how people have faith in any God, but that is their choice. just because i am irreligious doesn't mean i am unaccountable. and quite frankly i have known people who do believe in God and yet somehow believe that they do not have to account for their actions because it is their belief that their sins will be forgiven. i, on the other hand choose not to sin(for want of a better word) in the first place.
exactly, and thank you...that's what i was saying above. while i am not an atheist, i just think the idea of only the 'believers/faithful' as being accountable, non-selfish, etc...is just misguided at best. belief/non-belief and being accountable and a positive contributor to the world is not mutually exclusive.
yes, valid points. don't think the 'validity' was questioned. one CAN see/understand/comprehend the validity of an opinion/point of view, and yet, STILL disagree. yea amazing, but it can be done. anyway, i thought that's what we did here....share ideas/opinions/differing perspectives...and discuss them, point and counter-point, etc. i thought that's what it was all about.
fanch, follow the force. :cool:
and sure, absolutely...follow your own beliefs, i think we all need to find our own path. and sure, i think for many faith/belief is quite a positive force for them and good for them....and for others they find a different path just as valid for themselves, and we ALL can be valuable contributors to society and the world at large...and yea, religion doesn't *have* to exist for any of it. *God* can exist just as well with or without organized religion....he/she/it would still be there for the faithfull. so yes, i still don't see it as a *must* in the world, that was all.
exactly, and thank you...that's what i was saying above. while i am not an atheist, i just think the idea of only the 'believers/faithful' as being accountable, non-selfish, etc...is just misguided at best. belief/non-belief and being accountable and a positive contributor to the world is not mutually exclusive.
I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.
I don't mean to flog a dead horse here. But the magnitude of what you are saying is that you discriminate against non-believers. You view atheists as pathetic people that can't control themselves. Maybe not in every case, but that distinction is there in your mind. That alone proves my point that religion has negative affects on our society. It encourages discrimination, in many more cases than just this. A person might be non-discriminate to any other minority, but still have this distinction about atheists and pass judgement on a person. I know from first hand experience, from the closest of family and friends. People persistently tell me that I will eventually "Learn" and realize the "truth". Like I am somehow ignorant and they are enlightened. Unfortunately faith in god is such a hardcore belief that it ultimately has that effect. Atheists that believe in nothing have nothing to believe strongly in. I don't even consider a person's beliefs as a substantial part of their character. Unless they somehow discriminate based on them.
I hear this all the time "we are good Christian folk". I'm not good because I don't believe in Christ? Or being Christian is somehow an adjective emphasizing good positively?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't mean to flog a dead horse here. But the magnitude of what you are saying is that you discriminate against non-believers. You view atheists as pathetic people that can't control themselves. Maybe not in every case, but that distinction is there in your mind. That alone proves my point that religion has negative affects on our society. It encourages discrimination, in many more cases than just this. A person might be non-discriminate to any other minority, but still have this distinction about atheists and pass judgement on a person. I know from first hand experience, from the closest of family and friends. People persistently tell me that I will eventually "Learn" and realize the "truth". Like I am somehow ignorant and they are enlightened. Unfortunately faith in god is such a hardcore belief that it ultimately has that effect. Atheists that believe in nothing have nothing to believe strongly in. I don't even consider a person's beliefs as a substantial part of their character. Unless they somehow discriminate based on them.
I hear this all the time "we are good Christian folk". I'm not good because I don't believe in Christ? Or being Christian is somehow an adjective emphasizing good positively?
can you clarify this statement for me please?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well, if you are an atheist. Haven't you had experiences with people thinking differently about you?
Even as the example of the pope saying Canada needs to stop abortion and homosexual marriage. That is directly negative to people that hold alternate beliefs. A homosexual couple certainly would not like it. A person, such as myself, that wishes to allow abortion doesn't like it. And the pope really has nothing to do with our politics anyway. Somehow since he is the supreme judge of a religious doctrine then he is wiser.
Of course you know from conversing with me that I have a different perspective on homosexuality. I feel it's rooted in science though and I certainly don't discriminate against homosexuality. I'm simply suggesting an explanation. As the case with religion is homosexuality is evil and banned by God. The significance difference being, my belief system is subject to new evidence, religion is not. That means, if we are trying to come to a level of understanding or tolerance, I believe atheism is more successful.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, if you are an atheist. Haven't you had experiences with people thinking differently about you?
yeah and the fuckers still want to offer prayers for my eternal soul.
the most amusing thing though is when i tell them i don't doubt the existence of jesus and that i do actually read the bible. they don't understand how i can still be an atheist. but i understand and that's all that matters.
i read that statement both ways and i still was unsure of the context. i thought i got it but then i thought it best to ask you instead of jumping down your throat. turns out i did read it correctly.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yeah and the fuckers still want to offer prayers for my eternal soul.
the most amusing thing though is when i tell them i don't doubt the existence of jesus and that i do actually read the bible. they don't understand how i can still be an atheist. but i understand and that's all that matters.
i read that statement both ways and i still was unsure of the context. i thought i got it but then i thought it best to ask you instead of jumping down your throat. turns out i did read it correctly.
Yea, I attended church every sunday at the Faith Lutheran church when I was growing up. My parents weren't exactly tight christians, but they wanted to teach their kids about Christ. When I was a teenager I went through confirmation. I actually went to church when I could have been out with my friends. I studied parts of the bible with my study group. I ate the bread and the wine. I lit the candles. I've watched numerous videos and read articles arguing the points of Christianity. Every single person in my family that I am concsiously aware of is Christian, some of them quite seriously.
Why do people automatically assume atheists just aren't learned?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea, I attended church every sunday at the Faith Lutheran church when I was growing up. My parents weren't exactly tight christians, but they wanted to teach their kids about Christ. When I was a teenager I went through confirmation. I actually went to church when I could have been out with my friends. I studied parts of the bible with my study group. I ate the bread and the wine. I lit the candles. I've watched numerous videos and read articles arguing the points of Christianity. Every single person in my family that I am concsiously aware of is Christian, some of them quite seriously.
Why do people automatically assume atheists just aren't learned?
i was christened catholic, went through confirmation and did my first holy communion. none of this through any choice of mine. and look how well i turned out.
because it's easier to condemn someone for ignorance.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yea, I attended church every sunday at the Faith Lutheran church when I was growing up. My parents weren't exactly tight christians, but they wanted to teach their kids about Christ. When I was a teenager I went through confirmation. I actually went to church when I could have been out with my friends. I studied parts of the bible with my study group. I ate the bread and the wine. I lit the candles. I've watched numerous videos and read articles arguing the points of Christianity. Every single person in my family that I am concsiously aware of is Christian, some of them quite seriously.
Why do people automatically assume atheists just aren't learned?
I did all of that and even sang in the choir and.... I'm atheist! Atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in anything and you are not accountable. I believe in myself and others, I am accountable to myself and others (whether I touch them personally or not). As I said before, not believing in a god/not following a religion does not lessen your spirituality.
Why does fanch assume that god fearing people more accountable than others? Is it because, like in the christian faith, there is a threat of hell (eternal damnation) if you don't 'behave' or a reward (Heaven) if you do? Is this like a bribe? But then again.. isn't god all forgiving? So what accountability is there?
My mother who is a catholic even said my daughter would be damned because I didn't have her baptised.... how ignorant and intolerant is that?
My mother who is a catholic even said my daughter would be damned because I didn't have her baptised.... how ignorant and intolerant is that?
does our mother still think that?
not surprisingly none of my children are baptised. i think for a lot for people it's automatic. have children. have baptism. perhaps the anabaptists have it right. grow up. know what you're getting yourself into. make an informed choice. get baptised. or not.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
not surprisingly none of my children are baptised. i think for a lot for people it's automatic. have children. have baptism. perhaps the anabaptists have it right. grow up. know what you're getting yourself into. make an informed choice. get baptised. or not.
She probably does but dares not say it anymore. My parents live in Brussels (and us in London). After saying such a vile thing (vile because she sincerely believes it, even if I don't), among others on a similar subject, I cancelled a visit we were going to make. Since then, she might slip in things like: 'I'll die knowing my grand-daughter was not baptised - it will be held against me because I didn't do anything about it.' or 'She's the only one in the family (extensive french family) that's not baptised - it's shameful'... you get my drift. I don't listen to her and don't bother answering.... it ends up in arguements!!!!! Mothers!!!!!
She probably does but dares not say it anymore. My parents live in Brussels (and us in London). After saying such a vile thing (vile because she sincerely believes it, even if I don't), among others on a similar subject, I cancelled a visit we were going to make. Since then, she might slip in things like: 'I'll die knowing my grand-daughter was not baptised - it will be held against me because I didn't do anything about it.' or 'She's the only one in the family (extensive french family) that's not baptised - it's shameful'... you get my drift. I don't listen to her and don't bother answering.... it ends up in arguements!!!!! Mothers!!!!!
hey!!! i'm a mother.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
As a person with a professional training and long experience working in mental health it is obvious. If you placed a description of Jesus' life into a psychiatry fellow's exam without a name attached, every candidate would come up with "schizophrenia" as a diagnosis.
It is the very intensity of belief that a psychotic person (in the correct sense of the word, rather than teh emotive sense most people use) has that would have motivated his followers.
Delusional beliefs and sensations such as voices, visions etc are TOTALLY real to the person experiencing them, just not to anyone else.
The only thing which prevents all religion form fitting the DSM-4 definition of delusion is the descriptor, "not in fitting with the persons cultural setting", but you only have to move into a different cultural setting to neutralise that even.
I find it scary that you do and/or have worked with mental health patients.
Lack of understanding and awareness cannot be justified by a DSM-4 "diagnosis".
Your story about "every candidate would come up with...." is a figment of your imagination. I don't accept pretend statistics. If "candidates" in the mental health field are being trained to isolate facts and not consider the big picture of where the patient is in their life, that does not indicate illness to me, it indicates poor training in the mental health field.
The bottom line regarding mental imbalance is if the person in question is feeling happy; comfortable; personally empowered; has good, functioning relationships with friends and family; and feels that they are on the right path in life, if one sees that as illness, that's about that person imagining illness. On the other hand, when someone uses "mental health" concerns to try to stifle someone's subjective experience that is not agreed with, I see that as a dangerous abuse of power.
When you talk about "you only have to move to a different cultural setting to neutralize that even", I am hearing that you are saying if one is set on proving delusion, one can find a way to prove it. Using information to back up bias is different than using information to uncover illness.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't mean to flog a dead horse here. But the magnitude of what you are saying is that you discriminate against non-believers. You view atheists as pathetic people that can't control themselves. Maybe not in every case, but that distinction is there in your mind. That alone proves my point that religion has negative affects on our society. It encourages discrimination, in many more cases than just this. A person might be non-discriminate to any other minority, but still have this distinction about atheists and pass judgement on a person. I know from first hand experience, from the closest of family and friends. People persistently tell me that I will eventually "Learn" and realize the "truth". Like I am somehow ignorant and they are enlightened. Unfortunately faith in god is such a hardcore belief that it ultimately has that effect. Atheists that believe in nothing have nothing to believe strongly in. I don't even consider a person's beliefs as a substantial part of their character. Unless they somehow discriminate based on them.
I hear this all the time "we are good Christian folk". I'm not good because I don't believe in Christ? Or being Christian is somehow an adjective emphasizing good positively?
I'd like to clarify my own stance on this. To me, good is it's own indicator of good. It's self evident, whether such action comes from athiest/agnostic/religious-folk. And likewise for bad.
It's clear to me that we are all wired in different ways. But the bottom line is we all have our ultimate lows and our ultimate highs, regardless of what we call them. And to further clarify, when I say I see God, I realize it's relative and that it is my experience. I know others cannot minimize what I have seen. And yet, others may see differently, and yet that is not "wrong".
About enLightenment, though, that concept itself calls upon for people to literally know and understand "the Light", and therefore if one has not experienced the Light, one is by definition not enLightened.
I definitely agree that religion has a lot of fallout. Every physical world concept is dual in nature. Where we have light we have dark. We have awareness and we have ignorance. We have the good religion does, we experience the bad it does. When the group humanity is ready to go beyond ideas of duality, then it will be. The higher we climb in our awareness the deeper into our ugliness we must travel and acknowledge in order to keep balance. If we ignore our ugliness, we begin to see everything outside ourselves through the unacknowledge ugliness within. It is normal on the path to raised awareness to have our ugliness come out. It give us a chance to resolve it. Many people are not willing to learn in theory, and must learn by consequences. In the end, humans reaching potential or enlightenment is the only way to transcend the duality.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
About enLightenment, though, that concept itself calls upon for people to literally know and understand "the Light", and therefore if one has not experienced the Light, one is by definition not enLightened.
Whose 'Light'? Enlightenment is an eastern concept. Though it is found in eastern religions (Buddhism and Hinduism) in which it is a state in which a person will transcend desire and suffering to attain a superior state, it is not necessarily religion based. It is certainly not a Christian concept. Enlightenment is the ultimate spiritual goal, an awakening and self-realisation - it's the 'light' within you. Thus ANYONE, religious, atheist, pagan, etc. can achieve 'enlightenment'.
I definitely agree that religion has a lot of fallout. Every physical world concept is dual in nature. Where we have light we have dark. We have awareness and we have ignorance. We have the good religion does, we experience the bad it does. When the group humanity is ready to go beyond ideas of duality, then it will be. The higher we climb in our awareness the deeper into our ugliness we must travel and acknowledge in order to keep balance. If we ignore our ugliness, we begin to see everything outside ourselves through the unacknowledge ugliness within. It is normal on the path to raised awareness to have our ugliness come out. It give us a chance to resolve it. Many people are not willing to learn in theory, and must learn by consequences. In the end, humans reaching potential or enlightenment is the only way to transcend the duality.
Do we have to follow a religion for this? This can be any spiritual quest.
The existence of God can't be proven, which is why it boils down to faith. WHich is why it's so controversial among believers/non-believers/different believers.
I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.
At the end of the day, the equation is very much binary. God either exists or doesn't; God can't "kinda" exist.
I agree that we all have different paths; I was just making the general statement about total blatant selfish hedonism, folks who add nothing to society.
I am posting these posts together because I don't hear prejudice against all athiests. What I hear is fanch75 saying that in cases where people want to justify self-centeredness and non-contribution, non-acceptance-of-accountability etc, non-religion can be comforting. I see this as a valid point. I'm guessing athiests see this among other athiests, just as religious people see the blind spots among their own. Again, if one is non-religious, and yet believes in aspiring to truth, and to contributing to our society and planet, that's different than what I see being mentioned. I think generally, it's realistic to think we are all somewhere on the continuum: aspiring to do better, and not always being able to.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Whose 'Light'? Enlightenment is an eastern concept. Though it is found in eastern religions (Buddhism and Hinduism) in which it is a state in which a person will transcend desire and suffering to attain a superior state, it is not necessarily religion based. It is certainly not a Christian concept. Enlightenment is the ultimate spiritual goal, an awakening and self-realisation - it's the 'light' within you. Thus ANYONE, religious, atheist, pagan, etc. can achieve 'enlightenment'.
I agree 100%.
Do we have to follow a religion for this? This can be any spiritual quest.
What I see is that there are many, many paths to one's potential. The psychological path to self-actualization has been highly spiritual for me. And I consider what are considered "self-actualized" people who are living at potential, to also be enlightened. There is no way that a universal concept of finding potential can be owned by a certain path.
That said, to minimize the path of another person, to judge it and degrade it is, imho, taking one's self off of their own path to personal power--taking a detour to learn a major life lesson. Yes, all paths are valid. So when we hint that another is "wrong" on their path, it's about us. Not them.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't think I was minimizing, judging or degrading someone else's path. I'm trying to say exactly what you're saying! There are numerous paths to find your 'salvation'. You find the one that suits you and I have said that. There have been posts suggesting that 'religion' is the only way. And posts such as this...
"I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.
..makes you think that those who are 'believers' think they are superior and they are the ones judging and degrading others. When these people can open their minds, accept others and stop ramming religion down your throat, then maybe they can become 'enlightened'.
I think you were being kind in your response to the above from fanch in giving him/her the benefit of the doubt! His/her additional line of 'but again, I can't prove it' states that he/she firmly believes that all those who do not believe in a god are like that!
But in short.. you and I.. lots of words exchanged for basically the same principles, live and let live!
I don't think I was minimizing, judging or degrading someone else's path. I'm trying to say exactly what you're saying! There are numerous paths to find your 'salvation'. You find the one that suits you and I have said that.
I apologize if my words gave the impression I meant that part to you specifically. My intent was to refer to a general principle.
There have been posts suggesting that 'religion' is the only way. And posts such as this...
"I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.
..makes you think that those who are 'believers' think they are superior and they are the ones judging and degrading others. When these people can open their minds, accept others and stop ramming religion down your throat, then maybe they can become 'enlightened'.
It makes you think that, I understand. I see it a very different way as I mentioned in my post about it.
I think you were being kind in your response to the above from fanch in giving him/her the benefit of the doubt! His/her additional line of 'but again, I can't prove it' states that he/she firmly believes that all those who do not believe in a god are like that!
But in short.. you and I.. lots of words exchanged for basically the same principles, live and let live!
You are too kind thinking I give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I see that I am as direct as is possible without crossing the line.
Athiests have blind spots. Athiests, when they are not willing to acknowledge their own flaws project those flaws onto others, just like Christians do. When we move past the illusion of the duality: Christian/athiest, we're all people, and are subject to the human condition. What I call out is if athiests believe they are above their flaws. When one does not acknowledge their own flaw and place the "judgment" on another group, it's the same thing, whether done by an athiest or by a Christian. Telling ourselves otherwise cannot make it not exist. Rather it makes it exist beyond our own awareness. Therefore we have two side pointing fingers at one another.
EDIT: I have personally heard different athiests use non-belief to excuse not owning their personal behaviour. Numerous, numerous times.
I do agree--the only way to peace is to accept IS: to live and let live.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What I call out is if athiests believe they are above their flaws. When one does not acknowledge their own flaw and place the "judgment" on another group, it's the same thing, whether done by an athiest or by a Christian.
It's just human nature. Not acknowledging our flaws and thus passing judgement on those that are 'different' is just a way to try to comfort yourself saying 'they're worse than me' (because deep down you KNOW of those flaws in you). This is not just a religious/non religious, believer/non believer thing, it's for everything - thus racism, discrimation against sexes, sexual practices, etc. Not nice, but then man is less than perfect!
EDIT: Quoting your edit! As we have heard religious 'zealots' use their faith to justify the same. See what is happening in the world in the name of religion. Not only fanatics (from which we would expect some kind of irresponsible rhetoric) but also from someone like Bush (and I'm not going into politics here..)
It's just human nature. Not acknowledging our flaws and thus passing judgement on those that are 'different' is just a way to try to comfort yourself saying 'they're worse than me' (because deep down you KNOW of those flaws in you). This is not just a religious/non religious, believer/non believer thing, it's for everything - thus racism, discrimation against sexes, sexual practices, etc. Not nice, but then man is less than perfect!
EDIT: Quoting your edit! As we have heard religious 'zealots' use their faith to justify the same. See what is happening in the world in the name of religion. Not only fanatics (from which we would expect some kind of irresponsible rhetoric) but also from someone like Bush (and I'm not going into politics here..)
I hear what you are saying. I'm talking in the context of this thread where I've heard some athiest points of view that are projecting their own issues on religion and thinking that is about religion. We all do it, like you say, and yet, this thread is bringing out the athiest opinions that are justifying what is not justifiable--making the other guy wrong. By doing so, it highlights where the individual themself is stuck. It is the opposite of letting all views stand with support and respect. And when we partake of what is unacceptable, we contribute "ugly" just like we see that religious folk do. It's human nature, like you say. We're all learning and cannot afford to blame the other guy. Being unaccountable is being unaccountable.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
and i say, some of those "blatant, selfish hedonists" may very well be sitting next to you in church on sunday.
sure, the concept of a god existing or not existing is a whole other issue, and as i've said....he/she/it could easily exist, or not exist, without *religion* being, would make no difference.
it's not about the 'different paths' per se....but blatant selfishness can exist amongst all walks of life, the supposed believers/religious as well as the non-believers/non-religious. just my general statement there.
and yes, either god(s) exist or not....there's no inbetween, but there is plenty of inbetweens in being a good, faith-filled person and being a good, non-faith person. lots and lots of grey and co-mingling there. belief in a god does not = selflessness/goodness/adding to society.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I want to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like my father.
When you get tons of people needing to live side by side, it is probably a good idea to somehow motivate them to get along with each other. How about making them believe there is something watching them every minute of every day to make sure they don't do any bad things? If they do they will suffer for eternity, and if they follow the rules they will be in paradise for eternity.
As population grew they needed more space to live though, and their neighbors probably didn't like that too much. So they expanded things a little bit and said it was ok to do bad things sometimes for certain reasons, and you wouldn't be held accountable personally as God agreed with them.
Finally some control freaks were in charge and they started putting some very specific rules in that they felt were the way everybody had to live because they were right.
And it continued on from there.
Of course at the time I'm sure literacy was very low, and it wouldn't be hard to fool a large percentage of people with a 'holy man' telling them what was expected. Perhaps they even required it be taught to children so it'd take hold completely very quickly.
That chain of events isn't that hard to believe in my opinion. I was just thinking about ways it could have started without any supernatural stuff going on. No offense meant to anyone.
"Binary"...nice word usage. Im proud of you J.
Btw- you make very valid points, some people are just too busy reading themselves talk to actually read what YOU said.
Another way of looking at this is that a contradiction cannot truly exist.
If a contradiction seems to exist, then really, you just havn't thought about the problem enough, or you lack information.
So disproving the existence of God is actually not that hard, if a contradiction must stand to allow for his existence.
Personally I think teh disparity between the age of the Earth as calculated by the Bible, and the age as calculated by ANY other means, including that of other religions as well as science, serves the purpose quite nicely.
No doubt someone will argue that God created the other religions to test our faith, yet again !!!!!!!!!
i am an atheist and i am accountable. i am accountable to myself. and only myself. it is my purpose in life to lead a righteous life. there is nothing hedonistic or egomaniacal in my life nor in the way i choose to live it.
true, i can't fathom how people have faith in any God, but that is their choice. just because i am irreligious doesn't mean i am unaccountable. and quite frankly i have known people who do believe in God and yet somehow believe that they do not have to account for their actions because it is their belief that their sins will be forgiven. i, on the other hand choose not to sin(for want of a better word) in the first place.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yes, valid points. don't think the 'validity' was questioned. one CAN see/understand/comprehend the validity of an opinion/point of view, and yet, STILL disagree. yea amazing, but it can be done. anyway, i thought that's what we did here....share ideas/opinions/differing perspectives...and discuss them, point and counter-point, etc. i thought that's what it was all about.
fanch, follow the force. :cool:
and sure, absolutely...follow your own beliefs, i think we all need to find our own path. and sure, i think for many faith/belief is quite a positive force for them and good for them....and for others they find a different path just as valid for themselves, and we ALL can be valuable contributors to society and the world at large...and yea, religion doesn't *have* to exist for any of it.
exactly, and thank you...that's what i was saying above. while i am not an atheist, i just think the idea of only the 'believers/faithful' as being accountable, non-selfish, etc...is just misguided at best. belief/non-belief and being accountable and a positive contributor to the world is not mutually exclusive.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Im tired now.
I don't mean to flog a dead horse here. But the magnitude of what you are saying is that you discriminate against non-believers. You view atheists as pathetic people that can't control themselves. Maybe not in every case, but that distinction is there in your mind. That alone proves my point that religion has negative affects on our society. It encourages discrimination, in many more cases than just this. A person might be non-discriminate to any other minority, but still have this distinction about atheists and pass judgement on a person. I know from first hand experience, from the closest of family and friends. People persistently tell me that I will eventually "Learn" and realize the "truth". Like I am somehow ignorant and they are enlightened. Unfortunately faith in god is such a hardcore belief that it ultimately has that effect. Atheists that believe in nothing have nothing to believe strongly in. I don't even consider a person's beliefs as a substantial part of their character. Unless they somehow discriminate based on them.
I hear this all the time "we are good Christian folk". I'm not good because I don't believe in Christ? Or being Christian is somehow an adjective emphasizing good positively?
can you clarify this statement for me please?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well, if you are an atheist. Haven't you had experiences with people thinking differently about you?
Even as the example of the pope saying Canada needs to stop abortion and homosexual marriage. That is directly negative to people that hold alternate beliefs. A homosexual couple certainly would not like it. A person, such as myself, that wishes to allow abortion doesn't like it. And the pope really has nothing to do with our politics anyway. Somehow since he is the supreme judge of a religious doctrine then he is wiser.
Of course you know from conversing with me that I have a different perspective on homosexuality. I feel it's rooted in science though and I certainly don't discriminate against homosexuality. I'm simply suggesting an explanation. As the case with religion is homosexuality is evil and banned by God. The significance difference being, my belief system is subject to new evidence, religion is not. That means, if we are trying to come to a level of understanding or tolerance, I believe atheism is more successful.
Video: Atheists are not fools
yeah and the fuckers still want to offer prayers for my eternal soul.
the most amusing thing though is when i tell them i don't doubt the existence of jesus and that i do actually read the bible. they don't understand how i can still be an atheist. but i understand and that's all that matters.
i read that statement both ways and i still was unsure of the context. i thought i got it but then i thought it best to ask you instead of jumping down your throat. turns out i did read it correctly.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yea, I attended church every sunday at the Faith Lutheran church when I was growing up. My parents weren't exactly tight christians, but they wanted to teach their kids about Christ. When I was a teenager I went through confirmation. I actually went to church when I could have been out with my friends. I studied parts of the bible with my study group. I ate the bread and the wine. I lit the candles. I've watched numerous videos and read articles arguing the points of Christianity. Every single person in my family that I am concsiously aware of is Christian, some of them quite seriously.
Why do people automatically assume atheists just aren't learned?
i was christened catholic, went through confirmation and did my first holy communion. none of this through any choice of mine. and look how well i turned out.
because it's easier to condemn someone for ignorance.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I did all of that and even sang in the choir and.... I'm atheist! Atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in anything and you are not accountable. I believe in myself and others, I am accountable to myself and others (whether I touch them personally or not). As I said before, not believing in a god/not following a religion does not lessen your spirituality.
Why does fanch assume that god fearing people more accountable than others? Is it because, like in the christian faith, there is a threat of hell (eternal damnation) if you don't 'behave' or a reward (Heaven) if you do? Is this like a bribe? But then again.. isn't god all forgiving? So what accountability is there?
My mother who is a catholic even said my daughter would be damned because I didn't have her baptised.... how ignorant and intolerant is that?
does our mother still think that?
not surprisingly none of my children are baptised. i think for a lot for people it's automatic. have children. have baptism. perhaps the anabaptists have it right. grow up. know what you're getting yourself into. make an informed choice. get baptised. or not.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
She probably does but dares not say it anymore. My parents live in Brussels (and us in London). After saying such a vile thing (vile because she sincerely believes it, even if I don't), among others on a similar subject, I cancelled a visit we were going to make. Since then, she might slip in things like: 'I'll die knowing my grand-daughter was not baptised - it will be held against me because I didn't do anything about it.' or 'She's the only one in the family (extensive french family) that's not baptised - it's shameful'... you get my drift. I don't listen to her and don't bother answering.... it ends up in arguements!!!!! Mothers!!!!!
hey!!! i'm a mother.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i think i'm safe on that one.
after 20 years i doubt i'll ever be a mother like anyone but myself.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Truly spoken! I've only got 12 years experience but, yeah... I like to think we parent in our own unique way...
Now... not to hijack the thread.. back to why we need religion... WHY????
I find it scary that you do and/or have worked with mental health patients.
Lack of understanding and awareness cannot be justified by a DSM-4 "diagnosis".
Your story about "every candidate would come up with...." is a figment of your imagination. I don't accept pretend statistics. If "candidates" in the mental health field are being trained to isolate facts and not consider the big picture of where the patient is in their life, that does not indicate illness to me, it indicates poor training in the mental health field.
The bottom line regarding mental imbalance is if the person in question is feeling happy; comfortable; personally empowered; has good, functioning relationships with friends and family; and feels that they are on the right path in life, if one sees that as illness, that's about that person imagining illness. On the other hand, when someone uses "mental health" concerns to try to stifle someone's subjective experience that is not agreed with, I see that as a dangerous abuse of power.
When you talk about "you only have to move to a different cultural setting to neutralize that even", I am hearing that you are saying if one is set on proving delusion, one can find a way to prove it. Using information to back up bias is different than using information to uncover illness.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's clear to me that we are all wired in different ways. But the bottom line is we all have our ultimate lows and our ultimate highs, regardless of what we call them. And to further clarify, when I say I see God, I realize it's relative and that it is my experience. I know others cannot minimize what I have seen. And yet, others may see differently, and yet that is not "wrong".
About enLightenment, though, that concept itself calls upon for people to literally know and understand "the Light", and therefore if one has not experienced the Light, one is by definition not enLightened.
I definitely agree that religion has a lot of fallout. Every physical world concept is dual in nature. Where we have light we have dark. We have awareness and we have ignorance. We have the good religion does, we experience the bad it does. When the group humanity is ready to go beyond ideas of duality, then it will be. The higher we climb in our awareness the deeper into our ugliness we must travel and acknowledge in order to keep balance. If we ignore our ugliness, we begin to see everything outside ourselves through the unacknowledge ugliness within. It is normal on the path to raised awareness to have our ugliness come out. It give us a chance to resolve it. Many people are not willing to learn in theory, and must learn by consequences. In the end, humans reaching potential or enlightenment is the only way to transcend the duality.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Whose 'Light'? Enlightenment is an eastern concept. Though it is found in eastern religions (Buddhism and Hinduism) in which it is a state in which a person will transcend desire and suffering to attain a superior state, it is not necessarily religion based. It is certainly not a Christian concept. Enlightenment is the ultimate spiritual goal, an awakening and self-realisation - it's the 'light' within you. Thus ANYONE, religious, atheist, pagan, etc. can achieve 'enlightenment'.
Do we have to follow a religion for this? This can be any spiritual quest.
I am posting these posts together because I don't hear prejudice against all athiests. What I hear is fanch75 saying that in cases where people want to justify self-centeredness and non-contribution, non-acceptance-of-accountability etc, non-religion can be comforting. I see this as a valid point. I'm guessing athiests see this among other athiests, just as religious people see the blind spots among their own. Again, if one is non-religious, and yet believes in aspiring to truth, and to contributing to our society and planet, that's different than what I see being mentioned. I think generally, it's realistic to think we are all somewhere on the continuum: aspiring to do better, and not always being able to.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What I see is that there are many, many paths to one's potential. The psychological path to self-actualization has been highly spiritual for me. And I consider what are considered "self-actualized" people who are living at potential, to also be enlightened. There is no way that a universal concept of finding potential can be owned by a certain path.
That said, to minimize the path of another person, to judge it and degrade it is, imho, taking one's self off of their own path to personal power--taking a detour to learn a major life lesson. Yes, all paths are valid. So when we hint that another is "wrong" on their path, it's about us. Not them.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.
..makes you think that those who are 'believers' think they are superior and they are the ones judging and degrading others. When these people can open their minds, accept others and stop ramming religion down your throat, then maybe they can become 'enlightened'.
I think you were being kind in your response to the above from fanch in giving him/her the benefit of the doubt! His/her additional line of 'but again, I can't prove it' states that he/she firmly believes that all those who do not believe in a god are like that!
But in short.. you and I.. lots of words exchanged for basically the same principles, live and let live!
It makes you think that, I understand. I see it a very different way as I mentioned in my post about it.
You are too kind thinking I give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I see that I am as direct as is possible without crossing the line.
Athiests have blind spots. Athiests, when they are not willing to acknowledge their own flaws project those flaws onto others, just like Christians do. When we move past the illusion of the duality: Christian/athiest, we're all people, and are subject to the human condition. What I call out is if athiests believe they are above their flaws. When one does not acknowledge their own flaw and place the "judgment" on another group, it's the same thing, whether done by an athiest or by a Christian. Telling ourselves otherwise cannot make it not exist. Rather it makes it exist beyond our own awareness. Therefore we have two side pointing fingers at one another.
EDIT: I have personally heard different athiests use non-belief to excuse not owning their personal behaviour. Numerous, numerous times.
I do agree--the only way to peace is to accept IS: to live and let live.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No apologies necessary....
It's just human nature. Not acknowledging our flaws and thus passing judgement on those that are 'different' is just a way to try to comfort yourself saying 'they're worse than me' (because deep down you KNOW of those flaws in you). This is not just a religious/non religious, believer/non believer thing, it's for everything - thus racism, discrimation against sexes, sexual practices, etc. Not nice, but then man is less than perfect!
EDIT: Quoting your edit! As we have heard religious 'zealots' use their faith to justify the same. See what is happening in the world in the name of religion. Not only fanatics (from which we would expect some kind of irresponsible rhetoric) but also from someone like Bush (and I'm not going into politics here..)
I hear what you are saying. I'm talking in the context of this thread where I've heard some athiest points of view that are projecting their own issues on religion and thinking that is about religion. We all do it, like you say, and yet, this thread is bringing out the athiest opinions that are justifying what is not justifiable--making the other guy wrong. By doing so, it highlights where the individual themself is stuck. It is the opposite of letting all views stand with support and respect. And when we partake of what is unacceptable, we contribute "ugly" just like we see that religious folk do. It's human nature, like you say. We're all learning and cannot afford to blame the other guy. Being unaccountable is being unaccountable.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!