Printable View
Look, if you've SEEN God,
Then God exists
If you haven't,
Then He doesn't.
Not a problem.
The people who are talked into believing in God,
can just as likely be talked out of it.
http://s30.postimg.org/4u0fzn43l/eas...ny_death_1.jpg
free upload pictures
That's just the sort of infantile cartoon that gets this thread a bad name. Shame on you
Listen, if you're afraid to give away everything you own, leave all your friends and family, give up sex and fine food, TV.......Then you're rightly afraid of God.
And even a fool as foolish as buttslinger sees this debate as a no-win draw at best.
I contend that the actual Entity of God is standing directly in front of you at this direct moment.
One size fits all.
What kind of reasonable person would try to sell that?
http://s24.postimg.org/43nl1q9ad/Alice_Liddell.jpg
pic host
1 size fits all, huh?
So God's an asshole?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Not a totally new theological argument. The question to ask "With all the shit in the world, where does it come from?" Or perhaps, he (I assume "he") doesn't care a shit.
Butt aparently, "he" gives one.
If I have any weakness it is that I care too much.
Trump just quickly drew the logical conclusion to the pro-life premise. If a fertilized egg is a person and abortion is murder, than women who hire abortionists are contract murderers and should be punished. Trump is guilty of two things here. 1) Adopting the pro-life premise (probably for political purposes - because he clearly never gave this issue two minutes of thought on his own). 2) Not having enough familiarity with the issue to know that pro-life adherents have long ago been forced to retreat from the logical conclusion their position entails. Trump got himself snagged by the logical conundrum inherent in position he is forced to adopt if he wants the pro-life vote.
Jesus Christ is usually presented as a kind, gentle and forgiving healer. He intervenes between humankind and the angry Old Testament God. I was taught to pray to God in Jesus’s name. But among the End Times evangelicals today that Jesus is on the wane. The modern Jesus carries a sword and rides a steed. He wreaks vengeance and beheads monsters. He’s more like Gandalf and less like Gandhi.
It is curious how this thread seems to generate a mixture of baby-talk and incoherence, as if the concept of God were so obscure, or so daunting no rational sense could be made of it. If we reconsider the concept of God in the context of 7,000 years or more of human history, it should not be difficult to see how at one time humans viewed themselves as part of a cosmic, universal system from what they could see on earth to what they thought they saw in the sky during the day or at night. Most systems of belief thus attributed super-human powers to earth, air, fire and water -the earth breaking apart in front of you and swallowing up a village, or providing grain and fruit and other tasty foods. The air that enables you to breathe and live, or carries with it bad smells, or nice smells, or the 'mal-aria' which kills with fever. The fire that gives you roast meat, warmth in winter, or burns your family to a crisp as it comes roaring out of the forest. Water to drink, to live, with which to cook, that floods your home and takes away everything you own. And not so hard to imagine humans making moral judgements on the basis of either a catastrophic event, or a blessing.
The Ancient Egyptians shared with the Hindu as they shared with Australians a cosmology in which they were embedded in time and space across the earth and in the universe they could see and imagine. There was no beginning and no end to time, no limits to space, and a sense in which humans were on a journey and/or that life revolved in cycles again and again. One wonders why people from different parts of the world all had a similar view of their place in the scheme of things, and why it has been so important for others to dismiss it, for just as the baby-talk brigade or the confused prefer to lean on Darwin and dismiss thousands of years of human thought as gobbledegook about a sky-fairy with no relevance to the modern world or the cause of most of its misery, so they walk arm in arm with those religious fanatics who also dismiss thousands of years of belief and practice to insist that their version of Judaism, Christianity or Islam is the only one that matters and that everything since Moses, Jesus and Muhammad has been a mistake or is an error that needs to be corrected. It is a negative reaction to modernisation which cannot cope with the complexity and diversity of human societies, and thus reduces it all to a piece of shit.
One would have thought we also had a more educated cohort of citizens more willing to think deeply about issues be they religious, secular, scientific or political, rather than march arm in arm with those who wish education, like the wheel, had never happened.
So the answer to: "The question [to ask] "With all the shit in the world, where does it come from?" Or perhaps, he (I assume "he") doesn't care a shit" is one that produces a simple explanation: human agency. Just as humans have either created the concept of God as a concept of power, or deduced from the evidence there must be a supernatural power religion has always placed the explanation of human behaviour on human agency -if you are rewarded by God with a life of happiness it is because you led a moral life in accordance with the scripture; if you failed, it is because you wanted to be exempt from the rules. But it was always a human response to human success and failure, the God element is thus, like the law, the benchmark by which human agency is judged. It doesn't take a genius to come up with the idea that the sky is angry when lightning and thunder wake you up at night, and not much genius to use it to organise society as, I suspect, societies want to be organised and look for organising principles to control human behaviour. Thus, whenever there has been a breakdown in state power, when 'the centre does not hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world' in fact humans find a way of organising authority amongst themselves, be it a tribe, a gang, a guerilla band, a coven, whatever it might be.
The role played by violence in the dismissal brigades of religion is a curious one because just as the baby-talkers want to 'bomb the shit out of ISIS', ISIS wants to bomb the shit out of us. The same Christians in the US who want to classify abortion as murder and thus punish the murderers who take away a human life, send adults to the death chamber for execution, or young men and women to a battlefield to fight and die, or sit in a bunker in Ohio while a drone drops a bomb on a village in Afghanistan. And yet the religious texts on which they base their creed admonishes them for the ease with which they kill others, just as Muhammad faced with someone rejecting the existence of the one God would feel sorry rather than angry, and prefer to persuade rather than to kill.
And one does wonder why it is that so many religious texts use literary devices such as metaphor, allegory, simile; and tones of voice such as joy, exaltation, bitterness and sarcasm with which to express the 'word of God' -as recited by man of course. Thus when Jesus in Matthew 10:34 says "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword", does this mean that a Christian can go to the shop and buy a sword with which to slay his enemies? If you think that the words are literally what they mean, then onward, Christian soldiers, go.
Or could it be that in an age when most people were illiterate, religious thought was transmitted through oral recitation and used literary devices as aids for memory? (cf Frances Yates, The Art of Memory). It does seem logical. Studies over many years of the oral traditions of epic poetry enabled scholars to unlock the means whereby the Iliad and the Odyssey became so crucial to understanding ancient Greek societies and indeed, our own. The moral composition in these poems is the basis of ancient Greek religious thought and uses literary devices, repetition of key phrases in particular, as modes of memory. People remember stirring or moving phrases, they remember that Agamemnon has a 'loud war cry' and instantly know of 'Man-slaying Achilles' and all his attributes, and from the hieroglyphs of Ancient Egypt to the symbology of Ancient America, you find this curious fact that in religion people do not always seem to be saying what they mean.
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" -If a person is not living a moral life or a happy life and they are discontent, they are not 'at peace' and maybe the 'sword' is the 'sword' of justice, or a weapon that will cut through the mire and the unhappiness and release the victim from his or her torment. One can see how the image of the sword is not intended to refer to Valerian steel or an object that beheads unbelievers, yet one can also see how in the hands of the baby-talk brigade, that is what it becomes, just as one can understand how decent people revolt against it, and prefer to make the connection between the metal and the man, rather than the metaphor and the human.
In Matthew 25:31,32,33 we read “When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate the people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.”
Are we to take this literally or is the second coming a metaphor? In either case, people are being likened to sheep and goats. What distinguishes the sheep from the goats?
Matthew 25:34-46 tells us that essentially the sheep are those who treated people with charity even though they were strangers and the goats are those who were uncharitable. The goats will say, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?” And the Son of Man will answer, “...just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me.”
One metaphor is made explicit here: every person, even the stranger, is Jesus and Matthew here is telling us that we must treat others as charitably as we would treat Jesus. But why?
Matthew has Jesus tell the sheep, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” To the goats he says, “...depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
If this is a metaphor, an implicit analogy, then what is homologue of eternal life? Well-being? Satisfaction? Contentment? Justice? Knowledge that you’ll be fondly remembered? What is eternal punishment? Frustration? Being disliked? Empty? Knowledge that you’ll be forgotten or hated by future generations?
From my perspective, these interpretations work fairly well as providing reasons (albeit selfish ones) for being charitable.
Now suppose eternal life and eternal punishment are not metaphors. Surely the harm done by any being of finite power is finite. Even the destruction of the planet and on life upon is a finite amount damage (especially if every soul on it lives forever anyway either in Heaven or Hell). Why would a charitable God choose to punish anyone eternally for something they did as a finite material being during a tiny, finite window of time spent on this little ball of dirt? Eternal life, eternal punishment, Heaven and Hell on one side of the scale and human beings, ignorant except of whatever conflicting things they’re told by human authorities purporting to speak for the Gods on the other side. Do the scales balance? I think not, not if eternal life and eternal punishment are interpreted literally.
So I’m perfectly willing to accept that the parables, the stories and the advice given in the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita etc. work as metaphors. But does any Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc. take all of these stories metaphorically? Are there any Christians who think the soul is finite? That life after death is a fiction? That the second coming is just a metaphor? Just a way of presenting a story? Or do Christians continue primarily to think in the primitive modes our prehistoric forebears explored? Do they not still walk in those same baby steps, afraid to set out on their own because otherwise the cosmos seems too big, too bewildering? Here in the U.S. Christians refuse to acknowledge that humans give purpose to life and as a result they live empty lives waiting for a non-existent God or one of his earthly authorities to tell them how to live.
I have no interest walking arm in arm with religious zealots who would force others to believe as they do. Conversation and thought are tools enough. As far as I’m concerned people can believe and will believe what they wish. That doesn’t mean I respect all religious belief, or will not criticize some religious beliefs or belittle some religious beliefs.
Trish - Well argued. I can not hope to compete with such a superior being (though still finite). I offer this quote in reply
“How dismal it is to see present day Americans yearning for the very orthodoxy that their country was founded to escape.”
― Christopher Hitchens
I have no interest walking arm in arm with religious zealots who would force others to believe as they do. Conversation and thought are tools enough. As far as I’m concerned people can believe and will believe what they wish. That doesn’t mean I respect all religious belief, or will not criticize some religious beliefs or belittle some religious beliefs.
Here's the thing: religious zealots have no interest in walking down the street with a mixed race guy in a dress, either. Judging someone with your eyes or judging someone with your mind only states the obvious. Congratulations. How can a SCHOOLTEACHER lecture anyone on grading people? Are you claiming that they shouldn't judge you, or they shouldn't judge you WRONGLY???
A group of religious zealots are all on the same page, just like a group of outlaw bikers or a bowling team. I'm glad they found each other.
Have you people EVER listened to a Dylan album? Music, Art, Literature?
They have put SPECT and PET scans to yogis in deep meditation. They showed that the brains were asleep. Conversation and thought are way too slow for God. So are brains. And the World. This place is a shithole, get out while you have the energy.
In Life, EVERYTHING counts.
Criticize what you don't even understand HEATHENS!!!!!!
Who's got it better?
The transsexual call-girl who make 5 grand a night?
Or the Fat-Cat Republican who can afford to pay?
You can't have one without the other.
http://s27.postimg.org/xsvb72ebn/pab...davignon_2.jpg
image hosting websites
Neither. What part of “people can believe and will believe what they wish,” don’t you understand? Judging, as you use it here, is a part of believing. If you read carefully you’ll see that I merely object to Stavros lumping of you, Martin and others with just those zealots. Just in case you prefer to be lumped with them, I left your name out of it and spoke for myself only.Quote:
Are you claiming that they shouldn't judge you, or they shouldn't judge you WRONGLY???
Mostly I criticize what I do understand, study what I don’t understand and ask people who claim to know things like “Conversation and thought are way too slow for God” exactly what they mean and how they know.Quote:
Criticize what you don't even understand HEATHENS!!!!!!
I wouldn’t know.Quote:
Who's got it better?
The transsexual call-girl who make 5 grand a night?
Or the Fat-Cat Republican who can afford to pay?
"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.
This is GOD-101
That's why I thought you were.......Pro-God.
It's like, the long answer with the pretty picture and the humorous pseudo-moral, have absolutely nothing to do with the quote in red that supposedly inspired the response.
Maybe I'm not reading it right.
I know I'm on drugs buttslinger...I only hope for your sake you are too...lol
The Humor that I am the one speaking for god here has not escaped me.
My humo(u)r is independent of an imaginary being.
Humans have created the narrative which presents a moral life to people in the context of punishment and reward based on the way that people live. At some point in the last 7,000 years or more, humans realised the difference between a 'state of nature' and a 'state of government' -as Hobbes puts it- and developed politics to order society so that people could find a way to live through co-operation and common endeavour, rather than through selfishness and perpetual violence, and justified it using the existing cosmology and adapting it to contemporary issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
It seems to me you are looking at this issue backwards by ignoring the cosmology that was at the foundation of human thought -accepting that some human societies, but not many, appear(ed) to have no religion (eg, the Pygymy of Central Africa)- a cosmology that as I suggested has no practical concept of time as a finite thing but sees the here and now joined to an eternal past and future in which without knowing how, humans believe they live on, as humans or spirits, or are re-incarnated so that death never really means death. I am afraid you have to accept that the idea that there is nothing after death terrifies a substantial number of people, even if it is true. One of the reasons people turn to religion for spiritual nourishment is the absence of it which they find in modern life, just as for some the benefit in the here and now is the practical experience of being part of a community that believes the same things and worships together, much as fans of a baseball or football team will congregate in a stadium once a week.
The metaphors and literary styles one finds in so many religious texts have become the axis on which much of contemporary interpretations rest, because the fundamental problem is precisely how we in the 21st century understand texts that were written in the Bronze Age or after, up to and including the Quran, and in the case of the Old Testament we know that many of the ideas contained in it were imported into Judaism from beliefs and practices that were common in Babylon, just as Ancient Egypt had a greater impact on 'classical' Greece than used to be thought by some scholars. This raises the question why so many ideas if not all practices endure across thousands of years -a scientist might say, because we are all humans and inherit the same characteristics- which is why I find it at least odd that some atheists would so easily dismiss thousands of years of human history in just the same way that Abdul Wahab dismissed everything that had happened in Islam since ibn Taymiah in the 13th century if not before that. I suspect that modernization is a key breakwater here and that different reactions to it enable some to dismiss everything that has happened before as 'out of date' and 'archaic' just as others believe modernization is destroying the human past and should be opposed, be they Salafists of Islam or the Unabomber in the USA.
Punishment and reward are fundamental to the ways in which human societies are organized, and much of secular law in many parts of the world incorporates into its statutes the principles that can be found in all religions. If precise punishments for crimes have changed -stoning adulterers to death, for example- that is more a reflection of contemporary life than the religion, and it shows how religions endure by adapting to their times, though I don't think that they would survive if people did not believe in the religion, and that is where I think the main divide exists today between believers and non-believers. What is interesting here is how major traumas can lead society onto different paths.
Thus, in the years that followed the collapse of Biafra's attempt to break away from Nigeria, resulting in a terrible civil war and famine, local people -many as a result of evangelical work by outsiders- became evangelical Christians in a way that had not been noticed before. The same process, albeit one that was encouraged by American Missionaries, happened in Uganda after the collapse of Idi Amin Dada's dictatorship and has been part of the hysterical anti-homosexual abuse in life and in the law that is also prominent in numerous, mostly Christian African countries, just as the revival of the Russian Orthodox church since 1991 has been accompanied by a 'conservative' attitude to social issues, as well as reviving the 'nationalism' that was an indelible part of the Tsarist autocracy before 1917. On the other hand, many people who see the horrible crimes that are committed in the name of religion go in the opposite direction and reject religion altogether. Whether or not the convulsions in the Middle East will mark the beginning of the decline of Islam I cannot say as the alleged resurgence of it is so bound up with the search for a practical politics that enables people to live a quiet life that is is too early to say. It is in the revival of what to many are the out-dated practices of religion -the 'abomination' of same-sex relations for example- that encourages the dispute, even though the easy way round it, and it is not a cop-out is to simply dismiss this aspect of religion much as other practices have been. If this sounds like a 'perfect menu' has gone from all-or-nothing to pick-and-choose this is also a fact about religion, because most believers most of the time find the moral strictures too strict, and constantly seek exemptions, and these disputes and practices explain why all of the Abrahamic faiths have fractured into sects which modify the religion even as each one eyes each other with suspicion, even loathing. The irony here being that if these warring parties were indeed to 'return' to the basic tenets of their faith these disputes would ebb away, whereas in the context of a fiercely contested political realm as one finds in the Middle East in the current disputes between Muslims, and between Orthodox and Secular Jews in Israel and the West Bank the way in which a religion is lived seems to take over from the beliefs that inform it, where modernization is the key driver begging the questions for which religion may only have an unsatisfactory answer.
What is clear is that there are people who want to be part of something bigger than themselves, that they want to be part of a collective -the use of sheep in Christian metaphor implies innocence rather than servility-, rather than in Nietzsche's sense develop themselves on the basis of their own personal vision. But one can never really separate the individual from the collective, because without language we cannot exist as societies, although it may be possible to do so individually if one becomes a hermit. And it is that language that binds, which both asks and answers questions if not always in a conclusive way.
But I do think that just as the secular world must acknowledge the debt it owes to religion, those who believe and practice religion must make that bold, even reckless step to admit that their scriptures do not contain the first and last word on everything and that the men who propagated it were not perfect or divine even if that is what people want to believe. This seems to me the rational way of maintaining the essence of what religion is without taking on the baggage of those features of ancient life which we now consider to be useless, offensive, or counter-productive, but as there is such a degree of intolerance on both sides, I don't expect universal peace and harmony to shape our lives in the near future, if ever. But one lives in hope....
There is little, if anything, I would take issue with in your latest post.
I might imagine the transition to politically organized societies may have been less abrupt then Hobbes describes, but I agree our moral narrative is of human origin. I can understand how the fear of death inspires the kind of denial of its existence that most religions perpetuate in the guise of everlasting souls, or perpetual reincarnation. I also understand how organized worship and its ritual provides a sense of community and provides ritualized experiences around which communities can bond.
I do not think religious practice is the only thing around which such bonds can be formed, but perhaps because of their age, the roots of these practices sweep broadly through the foundations of most societies. One cannot birth, marry, suffer illness, celebrate good fortune or sit down to a family meal without someone invoking the blessing of one god, goddess or another through the ritual of prayer or sacrifice.
We may differ on the weight one should grant to age when evaluating the truth or falsity of a proposition, but I do realize (I think) that you are less concerned with the truth of a justification given for an enduring practice than with the value of the practice itself. There are many arenas.
I was brought up within a Christian tradition to which my parents and siblings still subscribe. Even though I am openly atheistic, I still bow my head at family meals, weddings, baptisms and funerals because the world isn’t about me or my beliefs. People deal and grow however they are able. In this sense I respect these practices; and in this sense they are forced upon me.
Reward and punishment is how we train our pets. I owe no debt to religion at all. Like the vast majority of people on this planet, I follow the universal moral code that tells me to treat everyone as if they were me. Like people since prehistory (regardless of religious bent), I do this without a single thought about what some self proclaimed mage, sage, seer, king, bureaucrat, "leader", preacher, writer, editor, compiler, philosopher, or any other hack has to say about it. Personally, I think the code is innate, but that's a different argument. Religion & all other forms of autocratic rule just slow the pace of human social progress by forcing their own rules to the top of the priority list, while confounding or ignoring the basic moral code.
KIS,S
I appreciate the meat in your post, but must admit I feel your opening sentence -Reward and punishment is how we train our pets- trivializes an important dynamic in human relations and not least because you later imply that this arrangement of moral judgement is innate in all humans. I think we can do better than that, and see my other post for an additional argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
I don't think this debate needs to delve too deeply into our personal situations, I would prefer to debate the broader issue which is the relationship between organized religion and society, not least because at the present juncture there is such a terribly real connection between organized religion and violence and intolerance.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Consider that 100 years ago, it was secular regimes that were attacking religious communities and with substantially greater violence than we have seen since 9/11. In the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, millions of Christian Armenians and Greek Orthodox were either expelled from Anatolia or slaughtered by the Nationalist zealots of an emerging Turkish state which went on to abolish religious education in schools and promote atheism as a component of the secular state. As the Russian autocracy collapsed, it too led to an orgy of violence in which religious communities, notably the Jews and Christians were targeted by the Bolsheviks, just as a consolidation of Communist rule involved the demolition of churches across the USSR. A violent anti-clerical movement was a central feature of the Republic in Spain in the 1930s, just as the suppression of religion in China in the 1940s was extended in the 1950s to Tibet, while atheism became a key feature of the autocracy in Albania while the Catholic church was viewed with deep suspicion in Eastern European countries like Poland.
It may be that religion, if it has been resurgent as an organized force, as it has been in Poland (my earlier post drew attention to this phenomenon in Nigeria, Uganda and Russia), has found a new space in which to grow because of the failures of previous secular regimes to provide jobs, to cleanse the state of corruption, even to provide the 'people' with a sense of shared entitlement and belonging. This is a key theme in a short but fascinating book by Michael Walzer, The Paradox of Liberation (Yale University Press, 2015) in which Walzer tries to understand how three states emerged from a 'national liberation' struggle to erect secular/socialist/humanitarian governments, only to be overtaken decades later by religious movements that appear to contradict what the founders of the state intended -the examples being Israel, Algeria and India.
It has been argued for some years now that political Islam grew in the Middle East as a response to the failures of Arab liberalism, socialism and nationalism, yet it is clear that if there has been a resurgence of Islam, it has been a fractured attempt to re-mould the state and on present evidence is a dismal failure. Even in the case of Saudi Arabia which has now lasted for the best part of a century, the Royal Family is still detested in the Hejaz and in the east, while the export of its horrible creed across the world has alienated Muslims from each other as much as the societies in which they live.
We have also seen how a militant Christianity in the USA in recent times may have emerged as a religious response to the fear of Communism, while modernization in the form of film, tv and now social media excited the 'moral majority' to campaign politically for reactionary policies, and on issues such as abortion -if not divorce and homosexuality- has earned some success, with the additional point that Presidential candidates appear to be obliged to make public their religious views as if it were not possible to be selected, let alone elected, if one does not proclaim a belief in the Christian God.
But tolerance to have any meaning must work both ways, and what I find dispiriting in these times, is an intolerance on the part of those who dismiss religion out of hand as a concoction of fables about a sky-fairy and some non-existent after-life, and on the other side an organized group who not only believe they are in exclusive possession of the truth, but also claim religious justification when they choose to murder. My generation inherited a world in which we were determined that mass murder -any murder- would no longer be justified for reasons of 'race' religion sexuality or ideology, and it appears we have failed, either because it is in human nature to be bad, or because bad things happen when we create the permissive environment in which it becomes possible to behave badly with impunity, even if there are occasional moments of hope, such as the conviction of Radovan Karadzic.
What worries me most is this 'permissive environment' in which the state allows bad things to happen, because once the law is ignored on one aspect of social relations, it encourages law-breaking elsewhere, and that is the road to perdition.
You’re the historian and what you say about the reasons for the resurgence of religion in regions where there had been violent attempts to eradicate it ring true. Not only the violence, but the economic and political failures of secular, nationalist regimes have left a vacuum that religion and tribalism rushed back in to fill. I’ll be sure to check out Michael Walzer’s book, thanks for the reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Not being a historian myself, I don’t have much to add to the general argument. As a citizen of the U.S. I might comment that McCarthyism may have made some contribution to the stranglehold evangelicalism has had and still has on American politics, but I don’t really see it as a major contribution. My opinion is that this strange relationship Americans have with religion is much older than the fear of Godless communism. Consider the Puritans, the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, the Calvinist movement, the Mormon movement, the Bible Belt, the early traveling evangelists who later took over huge swaths of radio bandwidth, the hoopla over the Scopes Trial etc. It was all already there for McCarthy to exploit. Presidential candidates have always had to flout not just their Christianity but their Protestantism. Kennedy’s Catholicism was an issue when he ran. Only recently is organized religion in America somewhat on the wane (at least among young people) and concomitant with that we find tolerance of various sexual orientations and identifications among young people. Even Bernie Sanders’ nod to Judaism hasn’t got a lot of press - yet.
There is a part of religion that is indeed a concoction of sky-fairy fables that promise eternal bliss and threaten eternal pain. Unfortunately, at least here in the U.S., these parts are more important than the actual practice of going to Church, communing with the congregation in worship, serving to help the poor in one’s community etc. Every time a city fails to pass an anti-homosexuality law, or a school board throws out an attempt to establish a creationist biology curriculum, Pat Robertson or some other Evangelical preacher warns that God will punish us. In this decade Christian ministers have told us that various hurricanes, tornados and plagues were divine retribution. This part of religion would be easy to dismiss, if it weren’t so galling...but dismiss it I do.
There is a part of religion I don’t dismiss: the practices that tie people together (which I touched upon in my prior post). If only religious practitioners could separate the practices that bind people to one another from the silly and inane beliefs that dissuade, perpetuate fear, resentment and hatred.
Reciprocally, atheists could do what? It’s difficult to be tolerant of the beliefs we are urged to accept as literal truths, when as literal claims they’re false. We could try, perhaps, to argue the merits of those claims as metaphors; but not being believers, that’s not really our job: it’s a job for the clergy. We can’t really embrace the practices of religion (though I have explained in the last post how I have done so in various personal setting) because they are not our practices. But we can be tolerant of those practices; and I think that by and large most atheists are tolerant of the practices - if not the fables - of the religious communities in which they find themselves. We say "Happy Holidays" we paint Easter Eggs with our children. We even sometimes say, "Bless you" when somebody sneezes.
What does God fearing mean if you are a Buddhist, Jane, Hindu, or Taoist ? Perhaps there is a type of Karma rooted in a more subtle patchwork, that could be applied as retribution and Justice...Mirroring the "God fearing", old Testament equivalent to the eastern non monotheistic stuff.
Nothing. It doesn't have much meaning to Jews or Catholics or Muslims either. What we see as terror of a vengeful deity is the product of Protestant reformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitron
We seem to have stepped into the area of morality. “God is dead, so all hell breaks lose”
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."
Albert Einstein
Regardless of where you believe morals innately come from, the idea that you behave in a good way to either achieve a celestial reward or to avoid eternal suffering is grossly immoral. Not to mention the fact that the Bible is hardly the “good book” it claims to be. It’s full of genocide, sacrifice, murder, mayhem, slavery, rape, incest, not taking accountability for your own shortcomings and much, much more. This is supposedly the holy word of god, and it’s fundamentally evil.
I don’t need to read a 2-3 thousand year old book to tell me that it’s wrong to kill someone. I don’t need a book to tell me that cheating on my spouse is not a good thing. Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t mean that I go out raping, pillaging and killing people because I have no morals without the Bible. The thought is ridiculous to an extreme, but it’s unfortunately not that uncommon.
A lot of believers find it impossible to accept that morality is something innate in the human species and that it doesn’t exist because of a Bronze Age set of rules says so. The fact of the matter is that many of the “10 Commandments” existed long before the Jewish people did, and they’re hardly unique to the Jews. In fact, early records put some of the 10 commandments hundreds of years before the Jews were around. They’re simply basic human principles.
You don’t have to think too hard to understand the principles for an overall morality. You see evidence of it in the animal kingdom, so it’s not something that is strictly exclusive to human beings. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Wolves, Dolphins, Whales and other high-brained animals all exhibit some forms of societal morals, and it’s for the same reason that humans do. As humans evolved, they recognized that survival was much more likely if they came together as groups. In order to function as a group, certain things had to be understood. Basic human morality stems from the idea of avoiding harm and collectively focuses on the good of the group instead of the will of an individual. The idea of individual property that belonged to one specific person didn’t evolve until much, much later. The tribe communally owned things and shared them as needed with others. They didn’t kill each other because they depended on each other for their very lives. The infant mortality rate was so high in some areas that they avoided intentionally killing children. It’s the foundation of human morality completely separated from the concept of an overpowering god. God simply did not create human morality – humans created religious morality – and ironically the laws attributed to god tended to follow the customs that were already in practice by the people who dictated them, and they demonized the behavior of that particular culture’s territorial enemies.
BTW --- I still feel it odd to have these discussions on a porn site. Where's the morality in that?
I was kind of perplexed when first Trish then Stavros kind of poo pooed Hippifried's morals clause.
Then it dawned on me that when it comes to morals, Stavros and Trish have found themselves on the WRONG side of the moral fence!! I honestly doubt whether most people here have any idea what that's like. How many of us are UNWELCOME in Church?????????
I must say, though, despite their sick perverted needs and deeds they do talk good, and make sense sometimes.
I don't recall 'poo pooing' (nor when I look back over the last few pages can I find where I 'poo pooed') Hippiefried's 'moral clause' (by which I assume you mean the 'Golden Rule'). I simply made no comment directly relating to it, basically because 1) I have no opinion on whether the Golden Rule is innate or not and 2) that the Golden Rule is good moral advice is so obvious no comment is required.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
As to what you mean by the "WRONG side of the moral fence" you'll have to elaborate.
"WRONG side of the moral fence"
Just trying to get this site back to its roots
nice rootQuote:
Originally Posted by martin48
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeF1JO7Ki8E
As to what you mean by the "WRONG side of the moral fence" you'll have to elaborate.
Until you post photos, I'll just have to use my imagination.
Why are you people arguing with the world, the world is PERFECT. Even with it's flaws.
I can prove it.
There.
The World clarifies it's position when you engage it in argument and it thereby imparts its perfection.
God clarifies His position when you detach your self from the World.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnE-5lD7w8
I did post a photo which left little to the imagination, but didn't seem to add much to the debate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Although I agree with a lot, indeed most of what you write, there is a gaping hole in your argument -if what you say about morals is true, why have human societies developed such elaborate religious systems of belief that make moral judgements about what it is right and wrong to believe, why some activities are good or bad, what is selfish behaviour and what is good for society as a whole? Why are there so many rituals in religion based around times of the week, or year; or recollections of and symbolic repetitions of sacrifice, or phenomenal events or shows of reverence for individuals long dead? Why are there so many detailed lists of rules on sexual behaviour, on diet, and on issues related to kinship and property? If we do not need a religion or its 'sacred texts' -let alone its clerics- to tell us how to live and what to believe, why have religions been so fundamental to the human experience?Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
There is no simple answer to this, and attempts to answer it range far and wide. There is, for example, the evidence from archaeology and anthropology which suggests that rules on sexual behaviour became fundamental to human existence when early humans -possibly through their mating with neanderthals and other humanoids- realised that unrestricted sexual behaviour led to the propagation of sexually transmitted diseases with all its complications and death; that procreation within the family led to genetic deterioation and thus threatened the very survival of the family and the wider community. Religious thought and practice at this level imposed a group-based moral code on individuals to prevent the extinction of the group, because individuals did apparently need to be warned off the perils of sexual temptation and an apocalyptic religious verse in this case may actually have been close to the truth even if the subsequent journey to heaven or hell is not. But here one notes what a Dante scholar once wrote about the Inferno, the Italian poet's depiction of a journey through Hell -that it was not written as a warning of what might come but a chastening experience of what actually exists, in the here and now.
Another perspective from anthropology and philosophy formed part of the early work of Lévi-Strauss for whom the study of Amazonian myths and rituals led him to a comparative study of language and ritual, whether it was the various ways in which humans denote their kinship through language or the reason why humans eat cooked as well as raw food. Embedded in the human experience there may be structural affinities with all humans- Lévi-Strauss was influenced by Roman Jakobson just as in recent years Habermas has taken this aspect of language and behaviour further in an attempt to discern in human societies a 'universal pragmatics'. What these studies tend to look at is what it is that unites humans, but they could just as well engage in comparative theology to discern what it is that unites all the major religions, where surely the emphasis on a rule-based form of behaviour is the most common, for religions appear to come laden with rules.
If these issues are important, it may be because of the way in which human societies have changed since the Neolithic. The transition from a nomadic to a sedentary life has not been complete, but one notes that the Bedouin of the Middle East always considered themselves superior to sedentary farmers, associating their freedom of movement with freedom from government and the entrapments of taxation and conscription even if these days they participate in the modern state. When Cain killed Abel, it was a sedentary farmer growing crops with no animals to sacrifice, murdering his nomadic brother, who did. Embedded in that confrontation the modern world comes alive in which two brothers fall apart over resentment, and what it is that each other does or does not possess. Religion thus becomes in this context the rule-book that establishes what property rights are in a society and culture where possession matters, and once you have a stability of possession -'this land is my land'- you can see the development of a sense of belonging, and by extension group identity, an identity buttressed by shared beliefs, shared rituals, and shared outcomes of work. Out of that too, must come social stratification of the kind that enables some crafty humans not to work for a living, but to 're-invent' themselves as Kings, or Pharaohs and thus get other people to feed them and clothe them.
In other words, while we may not agree on the reasons why, it is clear that elaborate religious thought and behaviour has indeed been the means whereby crucial rules on sexual behaviour, diet, property rights and kinship have been developed to maintain the species. To wish all that away because we can see how obvious morals are without the apparatus of religion, seems to me to wish away thousands of years of culture that may yet have more to tell us about who we are and why we are asked to 'fear god' or 'love god' or ignore God altogether. Because ultimately it is about us, and how we have used language to seek dominion over the earth -and each other.
A few thoughts
Many other animals exhibit altruistic behaviour, social hierarchies, seemingly meaningless rituals and other aspects, which we would normally associate with religion. So what makes us different? May be the knowledge of our own mortality. This knowledge produces an unbearable emotional drain.
Was religion (which grew out of the proto-humans in Africa – sorry, but we are all descended from Africans) was a response to fear. We, as a unique species, were self-conscious, had long-term memories, and above all had language that could express abstract thoughts and allow oral traditions to develop. These developing abilities of proto-humans were a double-edge sword. On the one hand, they aided their chances of surviving in a cruel and unpredictable world. They helped each successive generation to build upon the knowledge base of their ancestors.
Religions were created to give people a feeling of security in an insecure world, and a feeling of control over the environment where there was little control.
During our evolution from proto-human to homo sapiens, we developed questions about ourselves and our environment:
What controlled the seasonal cycles of nature - the daily motion of the sun; the motion of the stars, the passing of the seasons, etc.
What controlled their environment - what or who caused floods, rains, dry spells, storms?
What controls fertility -- of the tribe, its animals, and its crops?
What system of morality would best promote the success of the tribe?
And above all: what happens to us after we die?
Living in a pre-scientific society, people had no way to resolve these questions.
But the need for answers (particularly to the last question) were so important that some response was required, even if they were merely based on hunches. Some people within the tribe invented answers based on their personal guesses. Thus developed:
The first religious belief system,
The first priesthood,
The first set of rituals to appease the Goddess – usually a female deity (there lies fertility),
Other rituals to control fertility and other aspects of the environment,
A set of behavioral expectations for members of the tribe, and
A set of moral truths to govern human behavior.
These formed an oral tradition which was disseminated among the members of the tribe and was taught to each new generation. Much later, after writing developed, the beliefs were generally recorded in written form. A major loss of flexibility resulted. Oral traditions can evolve over time; written documents tend to be more permanent.
Unfortunately, because these belief systems were based on hunches, the various religions that developed in different areas of the world were, and remain, different. Their teachings are in conflict with each other. Because the followers of most religions considered their beliefs to be derived directly from God, they cannot be easily changed. Thus, inter-religious compromise is difficult or impossible.
Religious texts are often ambiguous, so divisions developed within religions. Different denominations, schools, or traditions have derived different meanings from the same texts. Thus were laid the foundations for inter-religious and intra-religious conflict.
The various religious proscriptions restricting human sexuality may have (and may still) somewhat function to minimize the transmission of disease, maximize fertility and the chances of tribal survival through the generations. If so, nevertheless “because God says so” is not the reason they function in this way. That “diseases are caused by demons or sent by angry gods” is not a viable hypothesis. If we wish to refine and develop more effective prophylactic behaviors and measures against the spread of disease, we need to understand (indeed we do understand) the real causes of disease. The question then becomes, is it still moral to use the fear of God as a way to enforce (or at least encourage) safer sexual practices? I think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
God was never a real hypothesis, for the hypothesis of His existence entails nothing without additional ad-hoc assumptions. “God exists” doesn’t entail that a woman shouldn’t cuckold her husband. “God exists and He doesn’t want women to cuckold their husbands and if you disobey Him you will be eternally punished” does. You need some variant of all three components to get the entailment. Though the proscriptions of religion may have survived and evolved to serve a useful function for the tribe, they are as ad-hoc as thumbs and appendices. Some proscriptions still function well and some no longer serve any function at all. Some may even misfire and do real damage. Other than the shape they are given by their social evolution and the fiction that they spring from a common source (the will of the gods) the laws of religion have no coherence; certainly no logical coherence.
Fear of God was always just a way to motivate people to follow the laws of the tribe (whether those laws serve the tribe well or not). This is not to say the history of religion isn’t valuable. Just because we choose now not to follow an ancient collection of tribal laws doesn’t mean we have to forget who we were and from where we came. To appreciate our culture and understand our history, we don’t have to believe the same silly things our ancestors believed or live by the same standards. Indeed, if we wish to propagate our culture into the future, we have to acknowledge that some of our old ideas and practices were wrong and obstructive. We don’t have to burn our history books or destroy our religious texts and artifacts; but neither do we have to furnish our moral space with uncomfortable antiques.
Whoa, you guys are not talking God, you're talking SOCIETY.
If I were up on that cross looking down at the crowd, I might have thought...
"Gee, maybe they weren't ready for God yet...."
Who wouldn't?
JESUS!!!! That's who!!!!!!
Even on his worst day he was enlightened.
Is eternal peace an illusion???
Was all that homework I did in school a complete waste of time?
It wouldn't be too hard to "play" this crowd, if it amused me I could write a post that got 10 thumbs up or 10 thumbs down. The only people who really agree with gays and trannys are other gays and trannys. WORD!!! (uh oh, thumbs down, Claudius)
It hurts my eyes to look up directly into the sun, but I'm glad it there, warming us all.
The Universe has one God,
The World has one KING..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj0Rz-uP4Mk
Was that the day he cursed a tree for not bearing him a fig?Quote:
Even on his worst day he was enlightened.