An Atheist Defends Religion

[Carol]

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

 

[Omar B]

Yeah, that's exactly it.

Don't like jokes huh. :BSmeter:

 

[crushing]

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]

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]

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

 

[Omar B]

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]

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.


Christian reformers of the seventeenth century, in fact, were among the first to grasp the importance of freedom of conscience to the stability and economic well-being of the state.

 

[Cryozombie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.