Plus, I Got Religion

[zen_magick]

I've been hesitant to add anything to this thread.  I've enjoyed hearing what everyone has had to say.

I spent the last four years (actually a lot longer) studying religion.  I'm still at a loss, I think I know less now then when I started out.  Some of the problems I think come from associations that the word religion brings up.  Such as religion being "irrational", etc.  I think there is an over emphasis on reason in our culture.  But I'm biased here by John Ralston Saul's - Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West. 

The atheist position when stated in the movie "Religious", that all we have to do is get rid of religion and that will solve the world's problems is naive to say the least. 

Faith and Belief are both loaded words.  But we have both in daily life to some degree or we would come to the conclusion that there is no reason to go on. 

I liked the OP but I've seen some good discussion around the forum more so than plain out religion bashing.  Then again I haven't been around these parts that long. 

I'm still dealing with my own issues around the type of christianity that I was subjected to.  But I no longer have that burning 'all religious types are fools' that was my own rebellion against an oppressive religious structure. 

I still have problems discussing religion it was a social taboo, don't talk about religion, politics, sex, etc.

Whoops, gotta get back to work
                                           z_m

[P3nT4gR4m]

That depends on whether you lean towards the "compassion" side, or the "certainty of conviction" side.

I lean toward the less mentally ill side. Institutional religion being a sort of viral form of schizophrenia.

[LMNO]

You, of all people, are a proponent of sanity?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'm completely in favor of separation of church and state, but lack of religion is not requisite to being a good leader or scientist, IMO.

Hell no. IMO there's virtually no such thing as a good leader, leadership is one of those "necessary evils" with the emphasis on "evil" and a big question mark hanging over the "necessary" parts. My point is that strong religious conviction will make it worse never better

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

"Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."

In theory, depending on how one perceived their belief system... beliefs could make a good leader. If the person believed that they were responsible to help the poor and needy or face God's wrath (that you did it to the least of these, my brothers, you did it to me). If the person believed that God demanded love over hate, even to one's enemies... maybe they would be a better leader.

In my opinion, dogmatic belief in fairy tales appears to generally indicate that your brain may not work really well in dealing with complexities like 'opinion', 'perception' etc. However, depending on the fairy tale it may promote some very good leadership qualities. I was kinda impressed with Carter's book "Our Endangered Values" where he applied strong Christian conviction in a way that appears far better for leading than many other 'leadership' books I've read.

[Thurnez Isa]

my own personal opinion is that organized religion is that it is a form of marketing... even to a degree that it uses broad vocabulary to form memes that are suppose to fabricate some type of transcendence but in most cases they don't mean anything... which is something I've notice creeping into the so called new-atheists -at least the ones who are organizing in way's other then similar ideas and or thought processes. You see this a lot on some of the more militant youtube comments, which is why I say it has the "feel" of religion, though I don't think it is, or at least yet...

Where I think the main problem rises with religion is in the texts which were made to pass down the stories in where people try to explain life. Many of these explanations are now useless - for example the Earth was most likely created when small, rocky debris was attracted by gravity to larger debris and through accretion created a large planetary object.

Many of the organized religions explanations for things even outside of those which we have scientific explanations for also make make little if any sense
if x=y in one chapter
and y=z in another
then you must assume that x=yz
but here is a quick example from the bible which we are familiar with
if, as it says many times God is all knowing and omnipotent
then God=all knowing
but then when the people of Sodom and Gomorrah started to get interested in butt sex, God clearly says that he's going down to investigate so that he may "know" how bad it gets
sorry I don't have the quotation, but you could check it out, besides it's the crutch of the story, since he sends down two angels to check things out.
then all knowing must = not knowing
so then x can not = y
or y can not = z
it makes no sense
and there are plenty of other examples. We all know them as basically biblical contradictions

These can make sense to many of those who are religious if they see them as only attempts to explain transcendence. Them sure there would always be human error and just like in science just a flowed hypothesis
But if the texts are God's "direct words", or a collection of divine stores, like in the Abrahamic religions, then in order for x to = z you have to basically start making shit up... which is why I think Christians believe a vast majority of stuff that is not in their sacred texts. For example the Rapture appears no where in John's Apocalypse, or in the Essene Apocalypse (which is the book which John takes his apocalypse from, sometimes word for word), or the Book of Daniel (where the Essene's take their apocalypse from) and the idea of the rapture actually contradicts those books. But that idea is the foundation of which fundamentalists base their beliefs upon.
Which brings me to an interesting question, do religious people base their beliefs on the text, on the interpretation of the texts, or the bullshit that one has to make in order for the text to have continuity?

[fomenter]

any pd'rs listen to pastor Melissa Scott?
i get a kick out of the language translation analysis of scripture she does,  i don't know what kind of christian she is but her bible study show is interesting.

http://www.pastormelissascott.com/whoIsPastor.html

http://www.pastormelissascott.com/lcVideos.html video clips

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The funniest thing about atheists railing against religion:  They may as well get mad at the sun for rising.  Humans have religion because they NEED a belief structure of some sort.  And worshiping a god or gods is no sillier than worshiping, for example, little green paper rectangles.

[Thurnez Isa]

The funniest thing about atheists railing against religion:  They may as well get mad at the sun for rising.  Humans have religion because they NEED a belief structure of some sort.  And worshiping a god or gods is no sillier than worshiping, for example, little green paper rectangles.

ah it's all just a game.
I've been paying attention to the youtube wars as of late... usually it follows like this: some Christian makes a video that you could tell is made to solely get a response. The militant athiests move in..
the Christian gets to feel persecuted
the atheist gets to feel smarter then thou
then it's on to the next round
it's win, win

The real funny part is there are a few on both sides which are trying to make serious points and have a serious discussion

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Youtube wars mean as much as SCA wars

just sayin'

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Youtube wars mean as much as SCA wars

just sayin'

Balls.  In Youtube wars, the loser doesn't get stuck with Pennsylvania.

INFERIOR.

[P3nT4gR4m]

You, of all people, are a proponent of sanity?

Yes. And, unlike a lot of people, I have the experience of both sides of the fence. Ironically, during one of my "episodes" I got religion big-time. Through the process of recovery I gained a bit of insight on how the religion meme had affected me. It'd always been there, conditioning from early childhood, through education and various other propaganda streams but it was relatively benign. Insanity made it malignant, rapidly growing through my psyche like some kind of fucking uncontrollable logic tumour.

Since then I've revised my opinion that a little bit of religion isn't a dangerous thing. It's a highly irrational meme who's fundamental instrument is a surrender of will and it's like a little ticking timebomb. Maybe it will never blow up but one day it might and god will tell you to do something, potentially terrible, and you will be compelled to carry out his word. Why invite something like that into your head if you can possibly avoid it?

[Cain]

The funniest thing about atheists railing against religion:  They may as well get mad at the sun for rising.  Humans have religion because they NEED a belief structure of some sort.  And worshiping a god or gods is no sillier than worshiping, for example, little green paper rectangles.

ah it's all just a game.
I've been paying attention to the youtube wars as of late... usually it follows like this: some Christian makes a video that you could tell is made to solely get a response. The militant athiests move in..
the Christian gets to feel persecuted
the atheist gets to feel smarter then thou
then it's on to the next round
it's win, win

The real funny part is there are a few on both sides which are trying to make serious points and have a serious discussion

Unsurprising, really.  Both sides wouldn't do something unless it fufilled certain desires and without a win-win nature most people wouldn't engage in it.

I'm more and more convinced Foucault was right about everything, and that all power structures that come into conflict will in, a strategic sense, be mutually reinforcing.

[Soylent Green]

Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

[Urraco]

Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

It's because numbers arn't real; however, the apples are. They work by different rules.

[Soylent Green]

Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

It's because numbers arn't real; however, the apples are. They work by different rules.

I hold up two fingers, then I hold two more up. I don't magically get another finger.