# An Atheist Defends Religion



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 15, 2009)

I thought this was an interesting read.

http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-27550


> ROME, NOV. 15, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The Catholic Church is one of the greatest forces for evil in the world, at least according to atheist Richard Dawkins. This is just the latest of many volleys by him against religion and God.
> His remarks were published Oct. 23 on the religion section of the Washington Post's Web site, when he was asked to comment on the move by the Catholic Church to facilitate the entry of Anglicans.


...


> Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens, who argued the negative case, enjoyed a substantial win over their opponents -- Ann Widdecombe, a conservative party parliamentarian, and Archbishop Onaiyekan of Abuja in Nigeria -- obtaining 1,876 votes against 268.


...


> Another recent example comes from Australia columnist where Catherine Deveny put God on the psychiatrist's couch and proclaimed that: "God has narcissistic personality disorder."


...


> In "An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion Than Without It," (Alpha Books), Bruce Sheiman offers a new perspective to the contest between believers and atheists.
> The "God question" can't be resolved to the satisfaction of the contending sides, he states but what Sheiman does set out to do is to consider the value of religion itself. He does not seek to prove God exists, but defends religion as a cultural institution.
> Regarding his personal views, Sheiman explains that he is not a person of faith, but he does not "stridently repudiate God." He describes himself as an "aspiring theist" because "religion provides a combination of psychological, emotional, moral communal, existential, and even physical-health benefits that no other institution can replicate."


----------



## Omar B (Nov 15, 2009)

As an atheist, I really don't give a damn what anyone else believes.  Worship Bugs Bunny for all I care, as long as you are not a prick.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 15, 2009)

Omar B said:


> As an atheist, I really don't give a damn what anyone else believes.  Worship Bugs Bunny for all I care, as long as you are not a prick.



What about atheists who are pricks?


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What about atheists who are pricks?



There seems to be no shortage of those. On the internet at least. Seems like every "atheist post" I come across is condescending, smug, self-righteous, belittling....and on and on. Sometimes I get the impression that many atheists enjoy wielding their opinion because it makes them the "smart ones" amongst all us "superstitious savages". 

Im sure that many Atheists are not that way and it's only the vocal ones that come across like this, but it seems to me that quite a few have as many social issues as we "believers" do.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> There seems to be no shortage of those. On the internet at least. Seems like every "atheist post" I come across is condescending, smug, self-righteous, belittling....and on and on.



That's the main reason I dropped my reading of Boing-Boing.  Once a favorite magazine, later a decent blogazine, and finally a snark-fest of self-loathing asshats who only seem to gain pleasure from hurting as many people as possible.  Disgusting little creeps.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 15, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What about atheists who are pricks?



Yeah, what about them?  You've got pricks of all types and belief systems.  I can't speak for them, much like I can't expect you to speak for christians.  

I find religion as ridiculous as many other atheists, but at the same time I realize it's not my place to point fingers and make fun of other people's deal.  I also do take issue with the religious who belittle, speak ill of or try to convert someone who's obviously an atheist.  Why do people feel the need to wave their religion or lack thereof around like it's the flag?  How about waving the flag!


----------



## arnisador (Nov 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Im sure that many Atheists are not that way and it's only the vocal ones



This is a perception problem. You accept hours of religious programming, crosses and ten commandment displays at public buildings, prayers at all sorts of public events, etc., but if a person who is not religious seeks 'equal time' then it's problematic and offensive.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 15, 2009)

What sort of "display" would an atheist have?? 

And I really don't see all these "hours of religious programming" out there. A nativity at X-mass or a prayer before a graduation ceremony is far from a "daily event".

I've seen far more "snarky behavior" from atheists than I have from any religious.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 15, 2009)

Again, I think it's a matter of perception. I see religious messages everywhere I go, and people who think it's fine to pray at my lunch table but not for me to discuss evolution as though it were a valid theory there.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 15, 2009)

But why should there be a prayer at a graduation unless it's at a religious school?  I've seen prayers given at college graduations and the audience is a mixed crowd of all faiths and considering it's not a religious school it serves of purpose but to stroke the christians egos rather than getting on with the ceremony.  As I said before, faith should be a private matter or kept to your houses of worship.

No atheist ever knocked at my door trying to convince me about anything.  Yet somehow with my apartment in a gated community somehow christians are ringing my doorbell every Sunday at the dumbest hours trying to save me.  Didn't save me, in fact it cost me ... sleep!


----------



## Tames D (Nov 15, 2009)

Omar B said:


> .No atheist ever knocked at my door trying to convince me about anything.


 
That's a good point. We get alot of Jahovah Witnesses coming to the door. Nicest people in the world, but they apparently never learned the words, "no thank you". Unfortunately, have to slam the door in their face after the 7th or 8th "no thank you". I'm not an atheist, but I don't like the hard sell on religion at my door, or anywhere else for that matter. My beliefs are my private business and that's the way I like to keep it.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 15, 2009)

Atheist documentary makers go door-to-door in Salt Lake City to get back at Mormons who woke them up one morning:
[yt]CMXD4iwklcI[/yt]

The good stuff starts at about 2:45 in. My wife posted this on her FB page and it cost her several Mormon friends.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> There seems to be no shortage of those. On the internet at least. Seems like every "atheist post" I come across is condescending, smug, self-righteous, belittling....and on and on. Sometimes I get the impression that many atheists enjoy wielding their opinion because it makes them the "smart ones" amongst all us "superstitious savages".


 
Perhaps they just enjoy having an opinion based upon observation and disproveability rather than mysticism? 



Archangel M said:


> Im sure that many Atheists are not that way and it's only the vocal ones that come across like this, but it seems to me that quite a few have as many social issues as we "believers" do.


 
The real question is what made them that way and why the fierce combativeness exists towards the organised religions.

It's not hard to see why that is.

As an interesting aside, have we reached a point where the proportion of the global population that is 'religious' is now officially a minority?  Or has the Enlightenment still not done it's work?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 15, 2009)

Sorry but this guy is no atheist. In reading the article it obvious he's a theist. 

There are many arguments we can play out here boys and girls, but lets be honest, There are a half dozen of us on the atheist side here and another half dozen on the theist side here, and then we'll get the odd nutbar throwning in their 2 cents worth and after 12 pages or so, the whole thread will tetter out with no one a clear winner. 

Maybe someone can cut and paste all our past discussions together? i'm kinda lazy tonight...

Sorry, its 11:34 pm, i have to get up in 6 hours. I'm going to bed. Good night.


----------



## David43515 (Nov 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> As an atheist, I really don't give a damn what anyone else believes. Worship Bugs Bunny for all I care, as long as you are not a prick.


 
I`m a devout christian (well, more or less devout but trying to be better) and I can tell you I`ve met far more pricks who claim to be christian than I have pricks who claim to be atheists. I wonder if it`s because believers outnumber nonbeleivers in general, or just because more of us are pricks?

Either way I enjoy hearing what other people beleive or think, and enjoying the differences along with the similarities. I think we`d get along great.

Reminds me of when a Lebanese friend of mine stood up for me and told his Jordanian lab partner " Dave doesn`t treat you like an ******* because you`re a Muslim. He treats you like an ******* because he thinks you, individually and specifically, are an *******. And today I think he may be right."


----------



## MBuzzy (Nov 16, 2009)

It may also have to do with the fact that atheists don't claim any central belief or morality system.  Christians and all other religions claim to be good people, treat others kindly, etc etc etc, then turn out to be pricks.  I know a lot more people who claim to be devout christians who are jerks than any other belief system.......but they are SUPPOSED to be nice!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> It may also have to do with the fact that atheists don't claim any central belief or morality system.  Christians and all other religions claim to be good people, treat others kindly, etc etc etc, then turn out to be pricks.  I know a lot more people who claim to be devout christians who are jerks than any other belief system.......but they are SUPPOSED to be nice!



Who said Christians are supposed to be nice?  There's no _'be nice'_ commandment.  The basic requirements of Christianity vary by denomination, but most center around belief in God, and acceptance of His son, Jesus Christ, as one's personal savior.  Some denominations also require baptism.

That covers what it takes to 'be' a Christian, but what are Christians supposed to 'do'?

Having been released from obedience to most of Mosaic law, there remained mainly the Ten Commandments, which are still in force for Christians.  They describe how to worship God and how to relate to others in terms of what not to do to them (not steal, not kill, not commit adultery, not bear false witness, etc).  Christians additionally believe that Jesus reinforced the _'Great Commandment'_ paraphrased as 'love God with all your being, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.'

The so-called _'Golden Rule'_ is common to many ancient religions, including Christianity.  Basically, it is _'Treat others as you would prefer to be treated'_.  One would expect, however, that this is not strictly a _'be nice to others'_ rule.  What if one likes to be whipped and beaten?  It is more of a simplification of the basic premise of treating others honestly, fairly and with respect than a commandment to _'be nice'_.

Many people believe that it is a Christian requirement to be polite, courteous, friendly, happy, and meek.  Even some Christians believe that.  However, it is based on misunderstandings of the laws Christians have been given.  We are required to be forgiving, loving, and to treat others honestly, fairly, and with respect.  We don't have to be nice, and we don't have to be meek.  For those of us who believe, when Jesus comes again, He will carry a sword.  It won't be very nice.


----------



## xJOHNx (Nov 16, 2009)

I'm not religious, I'm spiritual.

My bond is between Allah and me only. No man should be between Him and me. Too much possebility of corruption and political stuff which I surely wouldn't agree with.

A very distinct difference that most Atheists don't make.
Religion and spirituality, a world of difference.


----------



## Carol (Nov 16, 2009)

I think it has more to do with the way religion is brought up in conversation.  Other than practical matters, many people don't talk about religion in mixed company unless they are in a focused group of like-minded people they are trying to sway another person to their way of thinking.


----------



## JDenver (Nov 16, 2009)

The great difficulty for Christians, I believe, is that they don't seem to understand that the God of the Old Testament is simply not the same one as in the New Testament.  Makes things tricky.

As for the overall discussion, I think there is 'religion', a cultural institution, and then there's 'theism', which is bound up in spiritual pursuits.

I can't help but be a theist when I look at the ocean or at the stars or at other people and ponder how it is all so interconnected.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 16, 2009)

The original debate with Stephen Fry and Ann Widdecombe was arranged by the London debating society 'Intelligence Squared" with the participants being paid to take part. I'm not sure the debate was a fair one as such, Stephen Fry is a delightful talker, entertaining, erudite and charming whereas Ann Widdecombe is such a horror most people would vote against her whatever she said even if it coincided with their own views. She is not known as Doris Karloff for nothing, she hectors you, patronises you,maintaining she knows what is best and if you disagree with her you are obviously a fool, she's the very worse type of politician.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

JDenver said:


> As for the overall discussion, I think there is 'religion', a cultural institution, and then there's 'theism', which is bound up in spiritual pursuits.



I see the distinction, but to a person who is of the a-theism mindset they both require a belief in the supernatural and so distinguishing between the ways of having such beliefs misses the sweeping statement of atheism: The supernatural doesn't exist. Show me convincing evidence of a supposed supernatural creature and, if verified, it has been shown to be part of the natural world.



> I can't help but be a theist when I look at the ocean or at the stars or at other people and ponder how it is all so interconnected.



Sometimes I know what you mean. Othertimes, I look at the mess this planet is in and think just the opposite. But always, I go with evidence.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I see the distinction, but to a person who is of the a-theism mindset they both require a belief in the supernatural and so distinguishing between the ways of having such beliefs misses the sweeping statement of atheism: The supernatural doesn't exist.



The supernatural cannot be proven to exist, which is not the same thing.  Anything supposedly supernatural which can be proven is, as you say, natural.

The existence of the supernatural is intertwined with other mind problems such as contemplating infinity.  We speak of infinity as having existence - for example, an infinite set of whole numbers.  Yet we cannot put a boundary on infinity - just a boundary condition.  If we could count to infinity, it would not be infinity by definition.

The fact that the supernatural cannot be proven does not mean, however, that it does exist or that it must exist.

As to atheism, there are differences in atheists as well as in religious; I seldom see agreement even between those who profess no belief in a deity.

Some atheists do not believe in God.  Some believe there is no God.  Those are different beliefs.  Some simply state that _"There is no God,"_ meaning it as an absolute statement of fact, rather than a statement of personal belief.  Some atheists have what appears to me to be a distinct aversion to religion, some a distaste for it, some a dislike of religious believers, and some seem to revel in being as offensive to religious people as possible.  I try not to shovel all atheists into one bag, although I wouldn't mind pummeling a few.  Not for being atheists, but for being jackasses.


----------



## JDenver (Nov 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Sometimes I know what you mean. Othertimes, I look at the mess this planet is in and think just the opposite. But always, I go with evidence.



I can agree with you.

For me, though, my personal, internal engagement to something is a fact.  No one can tell me that I don't feel love for my wife.  Can you provide evidence of love to make it a fact for yourself?  Maybe from my actions.  

Yet couldn't you say that, because every person is made of the same physical material as stars, that this isn't a natural 'action'?  How about that the ellipses of an electron around an atom is the same pattern as that of enormous planets around suns?  Or the relationship of our oceans to cycles of the moon?  Could be a coincidence, it could also be a coincidence that I love my wife and I made dinner the other night.  Or there could be a relationship there; my love and my action.

I suppose it's how you look at it, but I think the patterns and actions are there for what I'll call 'obtuse fact'.  It's in my feeling.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I try not to shovel all atheists into one bag, although I wouldn't mind pummeling a few.  Not for being atheists, but for being jackasses.



And the ones I know are jackasses on other issues as well. Is it atheism that make them jackasses or is it just that atheism attracts jackasses?

Chicken? Egg?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> And the ones I know are jackasses on other issues as well. Is it atheism that make them jackasses or is it just that atheism attracts jackasses?



I think in general, there are a certain percentage of jackasses to be found in any given division of people into groups.  Christians, Muslims, atheists, philatelists, horologists, or snake-charmers.  In the USMC, we used to refer to it as _'the ten percent'_ that can't or won't get with the program.  Estimates of percentages, of course, vary.  it's like background radiation; you can't really avoid it, you're going to get a dose no matter what you do.

It may also be that whenever there are controversial statements being made, the very nature of the reception may attract the attention of those who gain some inner satisfaction from general asshattery.  Adopting the beliefs of a group that appears to garner a lot of hatred may allow one who wishes to be hated and to hate back to do so easily.  I am not, of course, claiming that all atheists choose their opinions based on how much it pisses off others; just a small subset of them.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I try not to shovel all atheists into one bag, although I wouldn't mind pummeling a few.  Not for being atheists, but for being jackasses.



First threat of the thread provided by ... a theist!

Always able to fit general threats into your posts huh?  Like the time you talked about punching me in the face.  I see where this thread is going.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> First threat of the thread provided by ... a theist!
> 
> Always able to fit general threats into your posts huh?  Like the time you talked about punching me in the face.  I see where this thread is going.



A threat??

Please.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> First threat of the thread provided by ... a theist!
> 
> Always able to fit general threats into your posts huh?  Like the time you talked about punching me in the face.  I see where this thread is going.



Omar, I never threatened to punch you in the face.  I doubt I could even if I wanted to, which I do not.  I said you had a _'punch me face'_, which is an entirely different thing.  Your attitude at the time, combined with your profile photo, which is (IMHO) a sneering smirk, is what my generation once called a _'punch me face'_ meaning a person who infuriates people in general and seems to walk around with a chip on their shoulder, daring others to knock it off.

I haven't threatened to assault anyone, either.  I said there are a few atheists I'd like to pummel.  A general statement of dislike for people who use religion as an excuse to behave like jackasses.  I'm not planning on punching anyone.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Omar, I never threatened to punch you in the face.  I doubt I could even if I wanted to, which I do not.  I said you had a _'punch me face'_, which is an entirely different thing.  Your attitude at the time, combined with your profile photo, which is (IMHO) a sneering smirk, is what my generation once called a _'punch me face'_ meaning a person who infuriates people in general and seems to walk around with a chip on their shoulder, daring others to knock it off.
> 
> I haven't threatened to assault anyone, either.  I said there are a few atheists I'd like to pummel.  A general statement of dislike for people who use religion as an excuse to behave like jackasses.  I'm not planning on punching anyone.



I equate the "YOU MADE A THREAT" thing here to the same "YOU ARE A RACIST!!" accusation if you use an opportune word (for the person looking to define you) in a sentence. 

If people are actively looking for something they will see it at ANY opportunity.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Omar, I never threatened to punch you in the face.  I doubt I could even if I wanted to, which I do not.  I said you had a _'punch me face'_, which is an entirely different thing.  Your attitude at the time, combined with your profile photo, which is (IMHO) a sneering smirk, is what my generation once called a _'punch me face'_ meaning a person who infuriates people in general and seems to walk around with a chip on their shoulder, daring others to knock it off.
> 
> I haven't threatened to assault anyone, either.  I said there are a few atheists I'd like to pummel.  A general statement of dislike for people who use religion as an excuse to behave like jackasses.  I'm not planning on punching anyone.



So you don't see wanting to pummel people as a problem?  We are not talking rapists of child molesters here, it's people who have a different opinion than yours.  It may be different, but it doesn't deserve a "pummeling."


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Omar, I never threatened to punch you in the face. I doubt I could even if I wanted to, which I do not. I said you had a _'punch me face'_, which is an entirely different thing.


 
Bill,

I'll help you get him after school. I'll hold him for you, OK.


----------



## crushing (Nov 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> *As an atheist, I really don't give a damn what anyone else believes.* Worship Bugs Bunny for all I care, as long as you are not a prick.


 
Are you sure you really don't give a damn?  You really invest yourself and seem to get pretty emotional in the threads regarding religious faith.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> So you don't see wanting to pummel people as a problem?  We are not talking rapists of child molesters here, it's people who have a different opinion than yours.  It may be different, but it doesn't deserve a "pummeling."



No, I don't see _wanting_ to pummel people who behave like jackasses as a problem.  Doing it is another issue.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 16, 2009)

And he's not talking about _"people who have a different opinion than yours"_ and you know it.

He's talking about snarky, condescending and smug "asshats". Which come in people who I both agree and disagree with.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 16, 2009)

crushing said:


> Are you sure you really don't give a damn?  You really invest yourself and seem to get pretty emotional in the threads regarding religious faith.



I like to hear other points of view, what's wrong with that?  I still don't care what they worship.  Heck, Alan Moore worships a giant snake and he's one of my favorites ... though I find that just as crazy.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> And he's not talking about _"people who have a different opinion than yours"_ and you know it.
> 
> He's talking about snarky, condescending and smug "asshats". Which come in people who I both agree and disagree with.



Snarky and condescending we can all get behind.  But I'm never one to talk violence ... unless it's about f-ing Cobra Commander!  That a-hole!

Oh, and I hate hats, they hide the metal!


----------



## crushing (Nov 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> I like to hear other points of view, what's wrong with that? I still don't care what they worship. Heck, Alan Moore worships a giant snake and he's one of my favorites ... though I find that just as crazy.


 
I don't understand why you are asking "what's wrong with that?".  I haven't said or even suggested anything was wrong with hearing other points of view.

Out of curiousity, what point of view were you "hearing" when you posted:

"As an atheist, I really don't give a damn what anyone else believes. Worship Bugs Bunny for all I care, as long as you are not a prick."

The snarky and condescending "worship bugs bunny" thing was a nice touch.  :lol:


----------



## Omar B (Nov 16, 2009)

You have a problem with Bugs Bunny now?

It's not condescending.  I consider the worship of one thing just the same as any other, and holds just as much (or little depending on how one's piety might have them view my atheism) weight.


----------



## crushing (Nov 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> You have a problem with Bugs Bunny now?


 
Yeah, that's exactly it.


----------



## Carol (Nov 16, 2009)

Hey man, no one messes with my spear and magic helmet!


----------



## Omar B (Nov 16, 2009)

crushing said:


> Yeah, that's exactly it.



Don't like jokes huh.  :BSmeter:


----------



## crushing (Nov 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Don't like jokes huh. :BSmeter:


 
Ahhh, I didn't make the connection with the various other earlier posts where you attempted to assign attitudes and other characteristics to people you don't know.

Claiming someonen is making a threat, or that people have a problem with others hearing points of view, and now that someone has a problem with bugs bunny.

Self deprecating humor is one of my favorites and you pulled it of there, but I didn't get it.  My apologies.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Snarky and condescending we can all get behind.  But I'm never one to talk violence ... unless it's about f-ing Cobra Commander!  That a-hole!
> 
> Oh, and I hate hats, they hide the metal!



Bill was no more "talking violence" than a person saying they would like to "kick the ***" of some bad guy character in a film. You are just reaching WAY too far to try and find some "gotcha" talking point. This one just makes no sense.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 16, 2009)

http://www.familyguyfiles.com/family-guy-creationism-video/


----------



## Omar B (Nov 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Bill was no more "talking violence" than a person saying they would like to "kick the ***" of some bad guy character in a film. You are just reaching WAY too far to try and find some "gotcha" talking point. This one just makes no sense.



Religion doesn't make sense to me either.

I'm having myself ordained a minister online by the by.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2009)

Two interesting articles on religion and economics:

*Satan, the great motivator*

*The curious economic effects of religion*




> The two collected data from 59 countries where a majority of the population followed one of the four major religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. They ran this data - which covered slices of years from 1981 to 2000, measuring things like levels of belief in God, afterlife beliefs, and worship attendance - through statistical models. Their results show a strong correlation between economic growth and certain shifts in beliefs, though only in developing countries. Most strikingly, if belief in hell jumps up sharply while actual church attendance stays flat, it correlates with economic growth. Belief in heaven also has a similar effect, though less pronounced. Mere belief in God has no effect one way or the other. Meanwhile, if church attendance actually rises, it slows growth in developing economies.
> 
> 
> 
> McCleary says this makes sense from a strictly economic standpoint - as economies develop and people can earn more money, their time becomes more valuable. For economic growth, she says, What you want is to have people have their children grow up in a faith, but then they should become productive members of society. They shouldnt be spending all their time in religious services.



This site represents a certain political point of view but the reading is interesting in any event:
*Economic Prosperity: A Step of Faith*

*There is a strong relationship between economic prosperity and religious liberty.*



> Several years ago a group of Arab intellectuals came together to study the economic malaisefueled by high unemployment, massive illiteracy, and anemic GDPsthat grips much of the Muslim and Arab world. Their 2002 study, The Arab Human Development Report: Creating Opportunities for Future Generations, remains one of the most sober self-assessments of what has gone wrong with Arab economies and why. The reports authors lament the bridled minds and shackled potential of nations which deny their citizens basic civil liberties.
> 
> 
> Their candor, however, cannot disguise a fundamental evasion: There is no admission of the cultural hostility toward religious freedom and pluralism that infects Arab societies. This mental state of denial prevents Muslim leaders from recognizing the strong relationship between economic prosperity and religious liberty.
> ...


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Again, I think it's a matter of perception. I see religious messages everywhere I go, and people who think it's fine to pray at my lunch table but not for me to discuss evolution as though it were a valid theory there.


 
Here's my question to you on that Arni...

Are they saying "Arni, bow your head and pray over your food with me" or are they just praying, and are you discussing Evolution "at" them or just amongst yourself?

Because there is a difference in both cases.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 17, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Religion doesn't make sense to me either.
> 
> I'm having myself ordained a minister online by the by.


 
An Athiest Minister eh?  I can hear it now

"Dear nothing, do nothing to this food we are about to eat, and thanks to the cow we killed and the farmer who grew these potatoes.  The End."


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Here's my question to you on that Arni...
> 
> Are they saying "Arni, bow your head and pray over your food with me" or are they just praying, and are you discussing Evolution "at" them or just amongst yourself?
> 
> Because there is a difference in both cases.



I'm surrounded by evangelicals here in the Midwest. They are always primed to attack evolution if they even think it's going to co me up.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 17, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The original debate with Stephen Fry and Ann Widdecombe was arranged by the London debating society 'Intelligence Squared" with the participants being paid to take part. I'm not sure the debate was a fair one as such, Stephen Fry is a delightful talker, entertaining, erudite and charming whereas Ann Widdecombe is such a horror most people would vote against her whatever she said even if it coincided with their own views. She is not known as Doris Karloff for nothing, she hectors you, patronises you,maintaining she knows what is best and if you disagree with her you are obviously a fool, she's the very worse type of politician.



Thanks, Tez. I saw that on BBC World News. I found the discussion interesting, and I was intrigued by the comments made by all four speakers. The topic of the debate -- whether the Catholic Church is/is not a force for good in the world -- seemed a bit sidetracked. Hitchens and Fry went after the Church on the grounds of not promoting condoms and its failures in regards to pedophile priests -- these are valid examples. Widdecombe and the other speaker never had a chance. It seems to me they were responding to Hitchens and Fry so much, they missed out on advancing any other arguments.

Doris Karloff. I love it.


----------



## crushing (Nov 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I thought this was an interesting read.
> 
> http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-27550


 
This shows how atheist can be defined in different ways.  The prefix a- can mean either "not" or "against".  The author appears to be more of a not-theist, than an against-theist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 17, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> The topic of the debate -- whether the Catholic Church is/is not a force for good in the world -- seemed a bit sidetracked.



Kind of like how the discussion of the original article never really got off the ground here.  Quickly became a 'why I hate [atheists/christians] thread'.  Dang.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 17, 2009)

Let me preface my following comments with this:

I don't consider myself an atheist, though I do not subscribe to any religion nor do I accept that any one religion is the correct one because every single one of them were invented by a human being and human beings are flawed and subject to personal agendas. 

Call me what you will, but if I must have a label then it's probably agnostic. 

In short, I agree with many scientist who state that there is entirely too much order to the universe for their not to be a supreme intelligence behind it; however, I am humble enough to admit that our minds are not developed enough to comprehend it. I also feel it's the height of human arrogance to assign petty human traits and short-comings to such a being. 

Now that's out of the way...

I often observe that those who are very religious can be very defensive about their beliefs, often even becoming violent when their beliefs are challenged. 

I also often observe atheist who are insensitive to religious people's beliefs, and as such are often labled as buttholes. 

I think if more people minded thier business, there would be less conflict between them. If you don't like having an opposing view smashed into your face, then perhaps others feel the same. Ever consider that? 

It doesn't matter what view it is... athiest, christian, or otherwise. 

I would think a true athiest couldn't care less about converting anyone; however, many religions encourage their members to go out and actively "recruit" in the interest of "saving a soul." 

So, intentions are not always bad though the outcomes often are. Religious folks are trying to save your soul and atheist are trying to save your mind. One thinks your spirit is in jeopardy, the other your intelligence. Actually, neither is responsbile for either and have no responsibility to bug me about it. LOL  

One's religion, or spirituality should be a personal and private thing. There's really no need to defend that unless you're trying to convert somebody who doesn't share your beliefs. 

I can't recall any wars, mass killings, or military campaigns that were ever launched in the name of atheism. So the obvious difference would be that atheist are non-violent when compared to religious zealots in getting thier "point" across. 

I suppose if religious folks would stop killing those that don't subscribe to their belief system and atheist would stop being insensitive to religious folk's beliefs the world would be a more peaceful place. 

Bottom line: A little respect goes a long way.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 17, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I can't recall any wars, mass killings, or military campaigns that were ever launched in the name of atheism. So the obvious difference would be that atheist are non-violent when compared to religious zealots in getting thier "point" across.



The point about wars in the name of religion is well-taken.  The story of religion's service or disservice to mankind hardly begins and ends there, however.  One can just as easily point to periods of time in our western history in which religion, culture, and government were intertwined, and we experienced great leaps forward.  The Renaissance, for example.

The history of man is the history of religion, and vice-versa.  Not including just Christianity, there has seldom been a time in human history in which a general belief in a religion of some sort was not part and parcel of the culture - any culture.  It has only been in recent times (since The Enlightenment) that being irreligious was even considered acceptable behavior.  This is not to slur those who are atheists; simply to acknowledge that their contribution to the history of mankind - for good or ill - has not been sufficient to date to amount to much.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 17, 2009)

And most of those "Wars in the name of religion" were really about economics, power and territory...really.

And to be honest. I tire of the "YOU GUYS STARTED WARS!!" pap. Really? name the ones I was responsible for or am expected to answer for.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The point about wars in the name of religion is well-taken. The story of religion's service or disservice to mankind hardly begins and ends there, however. One can just as easily point to periods of time in our western history in which religion, culture, and government were intertwined, and we experienced great leaps forward. The Renaissance, for example.
> 
> The history of man is the history of religion, and vice-versa. Not including just Christianity, there has seldom been a time in human history in which a general belief in a religion of some sort was not part and parcel of the culture - any culture. It has only been in recent times (since The Enlightenment) that being irreligious was even considered acceptable behavior. This is not to slur those who are atheists; simply to acknowledge that their contribution to the history of mankind - for good or ill - has not been sufficient to date to amount to much.


 
Religion's purpose has continued to diminish, especially with advances in science. It is no longer needed to explain the unexplainable to the extent it once was. It's primary purpose evolved into obtaining and maintaining political power and today also serves as a method of community organizing (whish is politically oriented in itself) and a refuge for those who need emotional support & comfort and can't find it elsewhere. 

I guess the question is does, or has it done more good than harm?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 17, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I guess the question is does, or has it done more good than harm?



And from my point of view, since the history of humanity *is* the history of religion, if you ask if religion has done more harm than good, the real question is whether or not man has done more harm than good.  Religion is intrinsic in man's history.  It's like saying has the earth done more harm than good?  How could we know - it's all we've ever lived on.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2009)

That is a genuinely interesting and novel way of phrasing the question, Bill (I'll accept the speculative assertion that religion has always been part of the human social order in one form or another). :tup:.

It is a difficult one to answer it has to be admitted.  I would present an analogy that it is like having a father that gave you life and nurtured you against the mysteries and dangers of the world.  But then he turned controlling and somewhat abusive, given, in the end to flying into drunken rages with attendant violence and destruction.

'Religion' (capital 'R') served a useful purpose in our species infancy and fostered a class within the social order with the time to begin to study the real reasons why things happened, gaining the ability to predict the cycles of nature, planting the seeds of mathematics and literature et al.

That in itself is an invaluable augmentive contribution to what the temporal figures of power were doing too (and oftentimes in recorded history the two (the Lords temporal and spiritual) were the same).

But once the path of progress and development really started to gather momentum, the Priestly classes began to lose their grip on authority (or shared authority) and that is when Religion began to be a hinderance rather than a help.

From that point on, Religion has done far more harm than good, becoming a touchstone for the voluntary (or involuntary) abrogation of reason and the surrender of individual moral responsibility - that being with the hefty caveat of 'In my estimation'.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 17, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Religion's purpose has continued to diminish, especially with advances in science. It is no longer needed to explain the unexplainable to the extent it once was.



Agreed, but I find it unfortunate that religion is pitted against science and vice versa. Lots of people believe in Darwin and sit in church pews each Sunday. One doesn't have to cancel the other out. 

I don't dispute religion because of a handful of Christians who think the world is six thousand years old; I dispute religion because it doesn't hold any meaning for me. Just because it doesn't hold any meaning for me doesn't mean it shouldn't for someone else.

And this is where I'm wary of some of the new agnosticism and atheism. I can be a non-believer all myself. I don't need a club to join. People find their own beliefs validated by getting others on side.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 17, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Religion doesn't make sense to me either.
> 
> I'm having myself ordained a minister online by the by.


 
Why not? It's easy... I bet you all didn't know I was an ordained minister did you?



Bill Mattocks said:


> And from my point of view, since the history of humanity *is* the history of religion, if you ask if religion has done more harm than good, the real question is whether or not man has done more harm than good. Religion is intrinsic in man's history. It's like saying has the earth done more harm than good? How could we know - it's all we've ever lived on.


 
"Man" is influenced by a great many things. The question is what impact a specific thing has had on "man" and his world. 

Weapons have been an "intrinsic" part of our history as well as food and other things. 

If we continue to eat the garbage we're eating we'll likely all become extinct. So do you change your eating habits or die? 

We have nukes instead of slings, do you drop a nuke every time you feel like it? No, because it's not conducive to the perpetuation of our species. 

I guess I just don't see your point here. 



Gordon Nore said:


> Agreed, but I find it unfortunate that religion is pitted against science and vice versa. Lots of people believe in Darwin and sit in church pews each Sunday. One doesn't have to cancel the other out.
> 
> I don't dispute religion because of a handful of Christians who think the world is six thousand years old; I dispute religion because it doesn't hold any meaning for me. Just because it doesn't hold any meaning for me doesn't mean it shouldn't for someone else.
> 
> And this is where I'm wary of some of the new agnosticism and atheism. I can be a non-believer all myself. I don't need a club to join. People find their own beliefs validated by getting others on side.


 
Don't confuse religion with spirituality. 

...and no, I don not belong to any clubs...except for martial arts. LOL


----------



## Omar B (Nov 17, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> An Athiest Minister eh?  I can hear it now
> 
> "Dear nothing, do nothing to this food we are about to eat, and thanks to the cow we killed and the farmer who grew these potatoes.  The End."



It's Dear Superman dude.



Bill Mattocks said:


> And from my point of view, since the history of humanity *is* the history of religion, if you ask if religion has done more harm than good, the real question is whether or not man has done more harm than good.  Religion is intrinsic in man's history.  It's like saying has the earth done more harm than good?  How could we know - it's all we've ever lived on.



I see what you are saying, but that history tied to religion usually reflects upon the worst aspects of human nature.  From the crusades to kill or convert the natives, to the inquisition to make sure everyone within your borders was christian or dead, to even the Renaissance that you brought up where progress was made because people could study more than just religion (as opposed to the dark ages just before it).  Religion and history has been tied together, but it was never a happy marriage.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2009)

Omar B said:


> It's Dear Superman dude.


 
Nah, That doesnt work.  If you are praying to somthing or someone, you are no longer an athiest.  Even Levay, despite the name "Satanism" had people basically worshipping themselves... or maybe the Human Condition, depending what part of his books you were reading... and that prevents you from believing in nothing.  Or somthing.  Its late, Im tired, and I know what I mean, but I dont think Im articulating it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Religion and history has been tied together, but it was never a happy marriage.



It got us here.  Good and bad together.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It got us here. Good and bad together.


 
That, and a million other things.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> That, and a million other things.



Sure!  That's why I say it's pretty much inseparable from us.  We are, for good and bad, a product of our historical experiences.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It got us here.  Good and bad together.



Wheels, fire, penicillin, bricks.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 18, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Nah, That doesnt work.  If you are praying to somthing or someone, you are no longer an athiest.  Even Levay, despite the name "Satanism" had people basically worshipping themselves... or maybe the Human Condition, depending what part of his books you were reading... and that prevents you from believing in nothing.  Or somthing.  Its late, Im tired, and I know what I mean, but I dont think Im articulating it.



I'm not praying to Superman!  I'm using a fictional character there because he carries as much weight as any other religious figure to me, non.  You could substitute him for Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Luke Skywalker ... it's all the same ridiculous stuff. 

Yes, I know what Satanism is, I have several friends who are.  Heck, I went to the Satanist family picnic this summer.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Wheels, fire, penicillin, bricks.



All products of cultures inextricably linked to religions.  That's the point.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 18, 2009)

I have a huge project due in 12 hours I&#8217;ve barely started, I can&#8217;t believe that I&#8217;m wading in here&#8230;..

Imagination and superstition has been with us since that first conscious neuron fired up in the original Homo Sapiens head. Hell we were in the middle of the food chain, not a good position to be in. We had nothing but the most rudimentary science, smack flint with this stone and you get a sharp edge, do this and you can make fire, pee on an animal hide and it doesn&#8217;t rot. You know basic ****.

We felt a need to make sense of the world around us, we traded with neighbours, we killed our neighbours, we lost our loved ones to disease and violence, we told stories around the fire, we came to unwritten social agreements of how to act in our groups so as not to piss everyone off, everyone was valued, but some were more valued then others. Warriors, story tellers, healers, hunters, eventually the stories we told became truths, that were passed down millennium, upon millennium.

Countless religions and thousands of deities came from these stories. You&#8217;re tribe or family group has grown too big? Well XYZ says you are special and these people over here are not, go kill them and take their land.

Our morality, our social contract with our primate selves gave rise to our religious morality, all the great apes have a form of troop morality, it&#8217;s a social contract for living reasonably peacefully with each other. We are not special. We gave religion its morality, it did not give it to us.

Religion has been an instrument of great violence, and social control of the masses. That being said religion has also contributed greatly to education, social welfare and charity. 

We are now at the point were science can answer many of the questions our ancestors had. The answer &#8220;that&#8217;s the Gods will&#8221; doesn&#8217;t hold water anymore. Which God? Of the thousands of Gods that man has created, why is the Judeao Christian God the correct and true God? 

You can do good works, you can help the world without religion. You can build wells, and homes in the 3rd world without believing in or being influenced by a &#8220;god&#8221;. 

Those that do good works because they want to go to heaven or are afraid of god watching them saddens me. You should help others because it is the right thing to do, not because you fear retribution.

Regardless of what you believe, keep it to yourself. Each side views the other as &#8220;children&#8221; with naive thoughts, and if only you will accept god or atheism you&#8217;ll understand.

I love talking on MT about this stuff, Bill and some others make great arguments, I disagree with them, but they are articulate and thoughtful. My side has the same. Then both sides have some nut bars.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 18, 2009)

To a theist everything is linked to religion, you may see everything as some result of the work of god, gods or church, doesn't mean it's so.  Hell, Ive heard theists claim science and art.  

And we can be pretty sure fire's not a result of religion since it's been around since before the written word or even humans.  Flint axes and bows (our first invention) I'm pretty sure were not the results of god or prayer either, no matter how furiously the praying may have been.


----------



## Xinglu (Nov 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All products of cultures inextricably linked to religions.  That's the point.



However, there is no way to reasonably argue that religion brought us those things.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All products of cultures inextricably linked to religions. That's the point.


 
That's a bold statement. Even though it's wrong, I'd love to here the reasoning behind it with some specific examples...

...say... like how toothpaste is inextricably linked to religion, or kitty litter maybe.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 18, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> That's a bold statement. Even though it's wrong, I'd love to here the reasoning behind it with some specific examples...
> 
> ...say... like how toothpaste is inextricably linked to religion, or kitty litter maybe.



Come on man!  We all know that the kitties were crapping in the rectory so the priests prayed for kitty litter, then there was a poof and the monks ran outside to see what was the matter and they saw the sand that was there the whole time.  See, he does provide ... even if it's been there the whole time.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 18, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Come on man! We all know that the kitties were crapping in the rectory so the priests prayed for kitty litter, then there was a poof and the monks ran outside to see what was the matter and they saw the sand that was there the whole time. See, he does provide ... even if it's been there the whole time.


 
For some reason I was reminded of THIS.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 18, 2009)

Gotta love the Pythons.  Have you seen those round table discussions with Cleese and those priests around the release of The Life Of Brian?  Hilarious.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> That's a bold statement. Even though it's wrong, I'd love to here the reasoning behind it with some specific examples...
> 
> ...say... like how toothpaste is inextricably linked to religion, or kitty litter maybe.



I think we're not understanding each other here.  I'm certainly not going to posit that God created fire or the wheel, or that religion invented toothpaste.  I hope I didn't give that impression.

What I mean is that the history of humankind is inextricably intertwined with religion.  Until very recent times (roughly The Enlightenment onwards), most cultures were either based on religion or featured an official or unofficial religious core.  From stone-age man who we know fashioned and worshiped idols up to very nearly the modern day, most people who lived had religion in their environment, affecting them in their daily lives.  Even those who might have been atheists in their day could hardly avoid being affected by the religious aspects of the culture they lived in.

We remain affected by that historical tradition, in big ways and small.  Much of our cultural debate over issues like abortion and stem cell research are religiously-based arguments - at least on one side of the debate.  We have holidays such as Christmas and Easter and so on that may have become essentially non-religious, but which can hardly be separated from their religious connotations.

I am not claiming they are right or wrong.  I am not arguing the side of religion.  I am noting that in every age, mankind has lived in religious culture, either overtly or more subtly, but always present, always influencing the culture.  One may not agree with the religious argument against abortion, for example, but one cannot deny that it shapes the debate.

Religion impacts everyone.  It has since the dawn of time for man, as far as I know.  That may change in time, I have no idea.

However, my basic point is that arguing that religion has done more good than ill for mankind - or vice-versa - is a moot point.  Our history is the history of religion and vice-versa.  No, the Church didn't invent toothpaste, nor did God come down and chisel out the first wheel.  But the people who created those things lived in religiously-influenced cultures.  Religion therefore played a part in nearly all human endeavor.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 18, 2009)

Well re-stated, Bill.


----------

