Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 30, 2008 17:26:08 GMT -4
Well, as an atheist I have no desire to tell people what to think or believe. That is up to the person but I hold my view on all religions. But it is a very complex subject to dismiss, so I am more than happy to live and let live. So, and pardon me for asking if this is a sensative subject for you, but as a self-proclaimed atheist, do you object to the whole idea of God, or is it primarily organized religion that you object to? Would you say that you know there is no God, or merely that you find the idea of the existence of God very improbable and therefore not something you would chose to believe in? I'm curious.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jun 30, 2008 18:03:03 GMT -4
No problem and not sensitive. I do not object to the question. Personally I think it is part of human development over the eons. The organisation does make me wonder though. For example, the clergy. Who decided to what level they are? For example, the pomp and ceremony when a religion preaches peace and tolerance. Is there a need for the ceremony and hierarchy when personal insight and belief and just being an all around nice person?
I think humans have been good at being good for a very long time without religion. From that point I mean that if we were otherwise then we would not be where we are today. Humans are also very nasty, that goes without saying.
On the subject of knowing. I would say I am content in what I have and where we have come from. I suppose that to say there is no god, for me, is a belief that there is no higher being that created everything. I could be swayed to agnostic on occasion for, say, a more advanced being dabbling in affairs but that is really down on my list of godly things.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 30, 2008 18:29:59 GMT -4
No problem and not sensitive. I do not object to the question. Personally I think it is part of human development over the eons. You mean that organized religion was simply a result of the evolution of human societies? In other words, is there a need for organized religion? I would answer yes. I think that even a religion that does not have God backing it up (a religion that is not true, in other words) can be a force for good, and that most religions are. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Surely humans have been aware of and influenced by some kind of religion for all of our recorded history? It's probably impossible to imagine what a human society with no religious influence at all might look like. They would have to have no connection to any previously existing society with religion and no religions of their own. So it sounds like you're not taking the position of "I know that there is no God because of x," but rather "I don't believe there is a God because I've never seen any plausible evidence that there is."
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jun 30, 2008 19:06:01 GMT -4
Not got the hang of quoting yet so bear with me. Any pointers gratefully received. You mean that organized religion was simply a result of the evolution of human societies?
I meant that religion is a result of human development. It progressed as well with the need to control and dare I say the need for some to project authority. I should add that this is my own belief of the system from observing over my life and am not through official qualifications etc. Casual observer if you like. Maybe started from the need to understand the inexplicable. For example. Why the crops failed. sun comes up, sun goes down, why? And so on. In other words, is there a need for organized religion? I would answer yes. I think that even a religion that does not have God backing it up (a religion that is not true, in other words) can be a force for good, and that most religions are.
It would already be organised but I wonder at the need for the pomp. Not using that in a derogatory way. It's not mine to say what happens but I can question it. I do not disagree that religions are for good but think that given the nature of humans it is tainted. I often hear that wars etc have been caused by religion over the centuries, personally I think that is the human in the equation not the religion. But the religion can have an effect on the human and bring out traits or used as an excuse. I like the history of the UK in this aspect of thinking. Henry VIII for example. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Surely humans have been aware of and influenced by some kind of religion for all of our recorded history? It's probably impossible to imagine what a human society with no religious influence at all might look like. They would have to have no connection to any previously existing society with religion and no religions of their own.
There must have been a point where instinct for survival faded and religion took over. But from my point of view, religion was a means to some and did not stop the general nicety. It took the means that humans being sociable would survive. In a way, religion survives despite which god is revered. Be it many of the Greeks and Romans or one as today.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jun 30, 2008 19:07:18 GMT -4
Apologies, my reply window was cluttered. So it sounds like you're not taking the position of "I know that there is no God because of x," but rather "I don't believe there is a God because I've never seen any plausible evidence that there is." Bit of both but it does not bother me.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 2, 2008 7:26:01 GMT -4
Pardon me for butting into the questions you directed at Tedward, but I thought I might have a go at answering them myself.
I seriously doubt the existence of any form of divine power, simply because in my experience it has neither manifested itself or proven itself necessary. I can't absolutely rule it out, so I think of myself as weak atheist/strong agnostic.
As a counter, do you think that Zeus, or any of the other no-longer-worshipped gods and Gods ever had an existence similar to the existence you believe for the Christian God? What about other gods/Gods currently worshipped? Does Ganesh exist?
As for organised religion, I acknowledge it has done some good, but I also expect others to acknowledge it's been responsible for some evil as well. What I find so frustrating is how much more good many religions could do if they used some of the funds they currently direct towards other projects. To give an example, Saint Vincent de Paul is a worthy Catholic charity. How much more effective could it be if it received even 1% of the Vatican's funds?
But one other factor which counts against organised religion for me is the fact that for most religious people on Earth, there is no doubt in their minds that the religion their parents brought them up in is the most logical and sensible religion that exists. What I mean is that the idea that their religion isn't correct simply doesn't enter the minds of many people. For those it does, they simply find rationalisations to justify a position they never reached logically in the first place.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that a genuine conversion experience is any more rational. Given that all the time people convert to opposing religions means either that someone who was previously saved is now in trouble (despite the genuineness of their conversion), or that both religions are a correct path to being saved.
But this in turn causes its problems. There are many people out there who *don't* believe that multiple religions can provide a path to being saved - the only such path is the one *they* follow, and as a result of their actions, people die. This can be particularly dangerous in countries where there's a major religious split, such as in Nigeria.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 2, 2008 12:13:45 GMT -4
I seriously doubt the existence of any form of divine power, simply because in my experience it has neither manifested itself or proven itself necessary. I can't absolutely rule it out, so I think of myself as weak atheist/strong agnostic. And that is a position I can respect. No, I don't feel Zues or Odin have any real existence currently or ever had such in the past, nor do I feel Ganesh or other Hindu dieties are in any sense real. However, I believe that the real God loves all His children, and He won't ignore you simply because you have a faulty idea of His nature and call Him by the wrong name; so prayers to Zeus or Odin or Ganesh may well have received positive answers. Typically I find that when organized religion has done evil it has been in contravention of its own doctrines. In other word it has usually been hypocrites who have done evil in the name of religion. I agree that religion should be a personal choice, and based on one's experiences rather than one's heritage. If the religion you inherited from your parents is really worthwhile then you should be able to see that worth in your own life, and you shouldn't fear to compare it to others. My own position (and that of my faith) is that there are degrees of being "saved" and that a good life never goes unrewarded, regardless of what religious tradition you follow. To reach the greatest rewards and find the most peace and happiness in this life does require finding the best paths, however, and the closer a church is to God the better the tools they have to help you find and follow those paths.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 3, 2008 12:00:54 GMT -4
Pardon me for butting into the questions you directed at Tedward, but I thought I might have a go at answering them myself. No problemo
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 9, 2008 17:38:27 GMT -4
An interesting news story - this man is apparently suing a pair of Bible publishers because their versions of the Bible "refer to homosexuality as a sin and violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability." Can someone be held liable for an essentially accurate translation of an ancient work? It seems unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 9, 2008 19:37:07 GMT -4
An interesting news story - this man is apparently suing a pair of Bible publishers because their versions of the Bible "refer to homosexuality as a sin and violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability." Can someone be held liable for an essentially accurate translation of an ancient work? It seems unlikely. \ A lot of Canadians look at the U.S. as a place where you can sue over almost anything. I guess if you get good lawyers... Didn't someone once get millions of dollars from McDonalds once because they coffee was too hot and burnt her? I might just be spreading an urban legend. No, I found something here: www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htmIt seems that they did realize that their coffee was hotter than anyone elses but continued to serve it that hot, and was headed for trouble. Many people were getting burned all the time and the cases were being settled out of court, until Macdonald's decided to fight this one. Seems like something out of a Kurt Vonnegut novel.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 9, 2008 22:19:39 GMT -4
A lot of Canadians look at the U.S. as a place where you can sue over almost anything.
A lot of Americans look at our country this way. They are called Trial Lawyers. In fact you need very little reason to sue someone. Many states have implemented civil and criminal penalties for using the legal system to harass others with frivolous claims. But a law suit really needs nothing more than a lawyer and a filing fee.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 9, 2008 23:44:00 GMT -4
Don't forget the people who willingly file those suits, too. And you mean civil trial lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 10, 2008 7:35:46 GMT -4
The phrase "Trial Lawyer" typically us used in the legal business to mean plaintiffs attorneys, or at least in Texas it is. Lawyers that represent the criminally accused are typically called criminal defense attorneys. The Texas Trial Lawyers Association defines itself as an "organization comprised of plaintiff's attorneys." Although it should be composed of plaintiff's attorneys rather then comprised of them. And you are correct that clients are as responsible as those that represent them, however trial lawyers are a powerful lobby that works to get laws shaped for there own interests. Whether this represents a balance to other interest groups is open to question.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 10, 2008 11:02:38 GMT -4
Trial lawyers are one of the largest contributors to Democrat candidates, and they lobby the government heavily to resist tort reform (reform that would limit penalties granted for successful suits). There has been some movement recently towards reform, however, including the Supreme Court recently vacated the award Exxon had been ordered to pay for the Exxon Valdez oil spill (originally $2.5 billion) calling it excessive - the ruling limtits the damages to only $500 million.
I heard this morning on the radio on the way in to work that a teenager is suing a bar that he got shot in for letting him in when they supposedly knew he was underage.
To pull this back towards the subject of the thread, I might argue that the movement towards blaming everyone else for one's actions and the general lack of personal responsibility in the country go hand in hand with the general decay of religious conviction in the country. Christianity teaches that there will be a reckoning for every action "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Someone who believes that might think twice before trying to bilk their neighbors out of millions of dollars with a frivolous lawsuit.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Jul 11, 2008 8:30:26 GMT -4
Not being at all religious myself (but I have no problem with people who want to be) , I've tended to do no more than skim this debate from time to time. My own view is that it's not religion that's good or bad, it's what people do with it that causes the problems.
|
|