Atheism

"making someone believe in God is like trying to make someone change their music taste."

So, so wrong, you couldn't be more wrong. It has NOTHING to do with opinion. Its like me saying I do not believe in jazz then playing me a jazz record. Hallelujah... jazz exists!!!

It has nothing to do with taste.

Religion brings so much good to so many people and I will not try to turn them away from it.

I believe in the 10 commandments. I do not need a really old (and in my opinion fictional) book to tell me the difference between right and wrong, I believe its wrong to murder someone because murdering is wrong.

I do not need a religious compass for me to realise this.

[QUOTE] [b]mooghead wrote:[/b]

I believe in the 10 commandments. I do not need a really old (and in my opinion fictional) book to tell me the difference between right and wrong, I believe its wrong to murder someone because murdering is wrong.

I do not need a religious compass for me to realise this.[/QUOTE]

It's called self-conscience, and you don't need religion to have one. Religions have guidelines of what's moral and what's not, and that has an influence the views of their followers.

Like I said, if you need spiritual guidance you can look it up from different places. You can stick to one, or you can independently take what things what makes sense to you.

"Religion brings so much good to so many people"

See, we stubbornly hold onto this fallacy, but it's time to let it go.

Anyone who's seen Dumbo will remember how he has this feather, and he thinks that the feather is what's giving him the ability to fly. Then during a steep dive or some such, he loses his grip on the feather. He can fly anyway!

We don't need no damned feather anymore. People attribute all of the 'good things' that have been done under the umbrella of religion to the religion itself, but really it's bunkum. Just as many good things can be done, and should be done, without religion having anything to do with it at all.

I'm not naive enough to assume that we're ready to go there as a species any time soon, but I hope that it happens someday. Religious beliefs should never have anything to do with legislation or tax free organisations, but at the moment they do and I think it sucks.

Maybe we are discussing religion and religions' definitions of God, and whether this is a logical or good idea to follow a religion, when we should be discussing the existence of "God". Religions are man-made institutions and with anything that comes from a group of people, there is good and bad. But regarding the question of the existence of God, maybe humans are just trying to understand nature and the mysteries of life. For example, math formulas existed before humans calculated their existence. Chemistry (which I know nothing about) existed before we gave all the elements names. Biological functions existed before biologists observed and measured and recorded them. Humans are trying to understand the complexities of nature, of life, of the universe; all that was here already. So if there is something out there that we don't understand yet, such as a helpful force, humans will try to understand it. I think it is best to keep an open mind. Otherwise, we may just be looking for evidence that backs up what we have already decided, and we could miss other important ideas. I don't know.

P.S. I have never watched the entire Dumbo movie, but I will try to do this. Maybe I saw the whole movie when I was too young to remember it all. One of my best childhood memories was being fairly close to real elephants as they were walking outside a circus venue and that was breathtaking at age 5. Also I rode an elephant once but it was not comfortable.

The major problem as I see it, is that I have never come across a remotely usable definition of "god". I can hardly discuss something philosophically if I really don't have a clue what it is. This is my single greatest reason for being a resolute agnostic.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]
I have a lot of Christian friends who are very active in their church, and even though I don't share their views 100%, it's good to find a common ground. My family and I try to help them whenever there are charity drives to help those in need. So from that aspect is great to be focus on what unites us, rather than what divides us.[/QUOTE]

Standing ovation.

Except perhaps for the grammar ;)

[QUOTE] [b]mooghead wrote:[/b]

I believe in the 10 commandments. I do not need a really old (and in my opinion fictional) book to tell me the difference between right and wrong, I believe its wrong to murder someone because murdering is wrong.

I do not need a religious compass for me to realise this.[/QUOTE]

Yup, I'm with you there. There is absolutely no moral lesson that cannot be taught secularly.

And the bible being fiction isn't just your opinion - according to most modern biblical scholarship, the overwhelming majority of it is fiction.

Fiction, philosophy, history, poetry, law, prophecy, wise sayings, etc. etc.

The problem is differentiating - it is pretty much impossible to tell the one apart from the other, because they are so entangled. What we must remember is that the oldest parts of the Old Testament are over 3000 years old. That is a time so distant from us, a time so different from ours, that even the most talented ancient historians cannot really understand how people at the time looked at the texts that are handed down to us. Anyone who claims to understand the bible, be they religious or otherwise, is talking crap. At best, any given person can understand a few small fragments with a reasonable degree of accuracy. As for the New Testament, I hope I do not hurt anyone's sensibilities, but it is generally understood amongst historians that it was written by a group of people who were by far intellectually inferior to the writers of the Old Testament. It is very jumbled and contains so many odd paraphrasings (often misunderstood by its own authors) of older texts that making any sense of it in a non-religious way can yield only very limited results, not in the least because it has been heavily censored on at least two occasions (the council of Nicea being the most important of the two).

What I find most interesting about the bible, primarily the Old Testament, is that despite the claims by Judaïsm and Christianity to originality (i.e. not being derived from an earlier religion), the Old Testament is absolutely bursting with elements of ancient Egyptian and Phoenician religion, as well as traces of many other eastern religions. A fine example is Psalm 104, which is nearly identical to the Great Hymn of the Aten discovered in an Egyptian temple, a religious text that predates the Psalm by perhaps as much as a millennium.

Perhaps even more interesting is that some short parts of the oldest sections of the Old Testament contain strong hints of a polytheistic origin, something that has given exegetics a very hard time in trying to explain. For instance, in Genesis chapter 6 there is mention of the "Sons of the Gods". Traditional exegesis interprets this by a bizarre construction that would make the evident plural of God into a mark of respect that is never used anywhere else in the bible.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

it is generally understood amongst historians that it was written by a group of people who were by far intellectually inferior to the writers of the Old Testament. It is very jumbled and contains so many odd paraphrasings (often misunderstood by its own authors) of older texts that making any sense of it in a non-religious way can yield only very limited results
[/QUOTE]
Example - compare Zechariah 11:12 to Matthew 27:9 - the Matthew writer actually quotes the wrong book.

[QUOTE]Traditional exegesis interprets this by a bizarre construction that would make the evident plural of God into a mark of respect that is never used anywhere else in the bible.[/QUOTE]
Right, because monotheism is their accepted theological starting point, when in reality they are likely missing the bigger picture by eliminating other (and likely more accurate) options.

One thing I would mention on this subject is to paraphrase Stephen Hawking who as I understand it said something to the effect that "the what and how " is the subject of science, whereas "the why" is the subject material of philospohers, religions and mystics etc. And regardless of what's true on the why, has anyone heard of "pascale's wager">? It basically says that emotionally, there is no logical reason not to believe in an afterlife, whether there happens to be one or not.

[QUOTE] [b]Heavenite wrote:[/b]And regardless of what's true on the why, has anyone heard of "pascale's wager">? It basically says that emotionally, there is no logical reason not to believe in an afterlife, whether there happens to be one or not. [/QUOTE]

This technical marvel of a website dumped my reply. I'll reassemble later.

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
As the old saying goes, "calling atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sex position.". [/QUOTE] ===

Absolutely love this.

I was raised to believe, through threat of severe punishment in this life and in the next, that there was a god up there watching and listening to everything - everything - I said and did. It took ages for me to rid myself of the fear and finally acknowledge that my church's teachings were little more than a way to control as many people for as many lifetimes as was possible.

I don't know if I still have 'doubt' because of some remaining bit of fear or if I actually believe there might be something. But in my everyday existence, in my everyday thoughts, I consider 'god' an imaginary being who humans lazily thank or curse, depending on circumstance, because they'd rather give control and responsibility to this magical being than accept it for themselves.

I find it funny - as a homeschooling parent (whose daughter is now half-way toward earning her associates degree in business at age 17, btw, and is maintaining a 4.0 !!!! - yes I'm bragging but I'll stop now...) - it amazes me when people say they are sending their children to religious instruction for structure and moral direction. In the same breath, I'm told how lovely my daughter is - considerate, polite, confident - as if she, too, learned that behavior from some church's teachings. We don't need religion or 'god' to guide us. My daughter doesn't do what's right and kind as a way to avoid some afterlife punishment. She does it because it's the right thing to do in the here and now. We don't need 'god' we need simple and logical consideration of this planet and its inhabitants. Seriously. In my experience, religion has been a barrier to fulfillment and true happiness.

I used to worry a little about being watched over by God and the spirits of the dead.

Now I'm over it. I beat off with impunity.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

I don't know if I still have 'doubt' because of some remaining bit of fear or if I actually believe there might be something.
[/QUOTE]
I suspect it's the former, but you may prefer the latter to be true as such an idea may make it easier for you to make peace with your past.

[QUOTE]I find it funny - as a homeschooling parent (whose daughter is now half-way toward earning her associates degree in business at age 17, btw, and is maintaining a 4.0 !!!! - yes I'm bragging but I'll stop now...)[/QUOTE]
No, don't ! Unlike most parents who follow a formula and scratch their heads wondering why their offspring are failing at life, you've made the difficult choice to do it your way, and with excellent results. As far as I'm concerned, this is your badge of honour.

Unschooling is catching on. At the very least it is a viable alternative to the school system. At best, it creates people who are not programmed by popular culture and what the powers that be would like us all to accept as important.

[QUOTE]In my experience, religion has been a barrier to fulfillment and true happiness.[/QUOTE]
Like Frank Zappa said - if you want to raise normal, healthy children, keep them as far away from church as possible.

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

I don't know if I still have 'doubt' because of some remaining bit of fear or if I actually believe there might be something.
[/QUOTE]
I suspect it's the former, but you may prefer the latter to be true as such an idea may make it easier for you to make peace with your past.
[/QUOTE]

You're probably right about that since there were many times religion played a negative role in my life. 

About homeschooling - When I first considered it for my daughter years ago, the number one reason most families homeschooled was religion - even here in NYC. It was simple - if you weren't a christian, you were not welcomed into the group. A few years later, when my daughter turned 11, there were a couple of secular homeschooling groups in my area. They had amazing activities for the kids and a diverse group of people from whom we have learned so much - about food, culture, religious beliefs, language and more. Unfortunately, even within our purposely secular group, there are members who consistently break the rules to force their religion into standard conversations... and then become indignant and claim intolerance when called out for it.

So now, while homeschooling and unschooling have become more mainstream, a portion of the religious element is digging in and trying to yank it back. I suppose with more people in the US turning away from their churches, there's a sense of panic rippling though the faithful. What they don't realize is that the majority of non-religious folk aren't concerned whether others attend church or pray before meals as long as they don't shove their beliefs onto everyone they meet.

So maybe it's not religion that I loathe but the manner in which many practice it. Or maybe it's both.