Question for Christians - #3

[Ossai]

hodgy

I have to admit I didn't trawl through the whole 7 pages but did anyone, anywhere not raise the important issue that 'free will' is only an illusion and does not actually exist? On that basis, all the Christian God did at Creation time was to build a giant engine for the cyclical generation and alleviation of suffering. God is either evil or not omniscient.

To answer your question, yes. I think that was covered more on a different thread that was started around the same time as this one. But it was mentioned in this one at least once.

Oh, welcome to the forums as well.

Ossai

 

[elliotfc]

Depending on how you define "die". I believe there is some verse somewhere about "whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." I'm not sure you can reconcile that with saying he died. He just "left the earth".

That's a good point.

I think he did die, in one understanding of the word die. Die also means to have an orgasm, or at least it used to in Shakespeare's day.

Of course, I realize that most Christians use the term "die" to refer to the death of their physical bodies. Still, it is the lure of not really dying that gives Christianity (like some other religions) it's biggest draw.

Yes, to some extent. But Christians, to a man/woman, really think that Jesus did die. Of course they also believed that Christ "conquered" death, by dying. I think that if Christians didn't believe in dying, they wouldn't glorify the crucifix, but would rather have a resurrected Jesus above each altar.

My wife (a pagan) says, "I have to believe there is more than just this life." And it is true. She does. She rejected Christianity because of... well let's just say because of numerous factors, but she kept the "I will somehow live forever" part. Total and complete death is a concept that she finds it impossible to accept. Too scary.

It can be scary. It could also be scary to understand that we humans continually display our contempt for God by sinning.

In my opinion, I think the scariest thing would be to believe that there is more than just this life, and what comes after is a horror show. Maybe similar to Norse mythology. Now that's scary!

Perhaps many people's theologies are based on fear avoidance. However, I can also surmise that many skeptic's belief systems are based on fear avoidance as well! Think about it. If you recognize that, in your opinion at least, religion is based on fear, and then you reject religion, you are rejecting fear as well. That's also fear avoidance.

In my opinion, fear is just a variable emotion that is probably nominated for things that it may not necessarily be responsible for. Nor can I figure out how anyone can prove that fear is behind any particular belief. It all comes down to opinion, which is itself a belief system.

The exception, of course, would be people who explicitly say that their beliefs are based on fear.

This gets back to the question of whether entry to heaven is based on faith or deeds.

Unless the possession, or acceptance of faith, is itself a deed!

If it is faith, then no sacrifice is involved whatsoever.

The sacrifice of personal pride?

If it is deeds, then no faith will avail you.

Unless you need some obtuse faith in order to perform deeds. For example, you can take an exemplary skeptic, who insists he/she has no faith. Yet why does the skeptic act in an exemplary way, and why does the skeptic perform good deeds? Whatever is *behind* the good deeds is some sort of faith, whether it is an admittedly Christian faith or a humanistic faith.

If it is a combination of both, then we need to ascertain just what combination is necessary. Is agnosticism okay if your deeds are really great? Is a mountain of faith good enough to overcome really bad deeds like murder and pederasty?

I think it is different for each individual, and I think that the individual must, personally, never be satisfied where he/she is.

See, I'll apply Christian charity here. I won't say that any other person can't get to heaven based on their faith or their works. I will hold myself to a higher standard. I think that I need to continue to improve both my faith and my deeds. Since I do possess the faith, I think that more is expected from me.

At the end of it all, agnosticism would have to be rejected when you are confronted by God. Also, it is my belief that even if you accept God, you have to be held *accountable* in some way for all of the bad deeds you have done. I theorize that Hitler, in order for him to become reconciled with God, has to understand/experience all of the suffering that he inflicted on others. He has to be confronted by all those who died by his regime.

In both instances, I don't think that it is *easy* to get to heaven. It wouldn't be easy for the evil man, for obvious reasons. It also wouldn't be easy for the hardened skeptic. How many skeptics on this board would capitulate, or admit error, in front of God?

So how much suffering was really necessary for Jesus to atone for our sins? If you can say three days was enough, why not three hours? Three milliseconds?

That depends how you define suffering. Do babies suffer as they are being born? Or when they cry for food? Do kids suffer when they are not getting enough attention? Depending on how you define suffering, some people have been suffering every second of their entire lives.

-Elliot

 

[hodgy]

Elliott,

Your experiment doesn’t prove the existence of free will, it just shows that I am capable of making decisions. There are programs on my computer that are able to make decisions. A flipped coin does not exercise free will in determining which side to come down on.

As I am referring to the Christian God in this argument, I am using the Christian notion of evil in its general common-sense meaning. If God knowingly created a universe in which evil can exist (when he had the option to create one without evil since he is omnipotent) then he is evil.

To use the parent/child analogy much loved by the believers on the thread:

Example A: I am not omniscient

I put a baby to bed in an overheated room and he died. I thought I was keeping him warm and didn't know that the temperature was dangerous.

Result: I am not omniscient and I am not evil.

Example B: I am not omnipotent

I put a baby to bed and a fire broke out in our house. I could not put out the fire or rescue the baby and he died.

Result: I am not omnipotent and I am not evil.

Example C: I am omnipotent and omniscient

I put a baby to bed in an overheated room, even though I knew it was dangerous. Since I am omniscient I also know that the temperature would eventually kill him. I knew that a fire was going to burn the house down because I started it. Since I am omnipotent I could have put out the fire or rescued the child. The child died in the flames exactly as I knew it would.

Result: I won't use my defintion of evil - draw your own conclusion about me...

 

[Ossai]

elliotfc

Yet why does the skeptic act in an exemplary way, and why does the skeptic perform good deeds? Whatever is *behind* the good deeds is some sort of faith, whether it is an admittedly Christian faith or a humanistic faith.

Again, let’s stick to commonly accepted definitions.
You’re just insulted every agnostic, atheist, deist, etc that has ever performed a good deed. There need not be any faith involved at all, every.

I think he did die, in one understanding of the word die. Die also means to have an orgasm, or at least it used to in Shakespeare's day.

I think you’re mixing you’re languages as well as meaning up here.

Yes, to some extent. But Christians, to a man/woman, really think that Jesus did die. Of course they also believed that Christ "conquered" death, by dying. I think that if Christians didn't believe in dying, they wouldn't glorify the crucifix, but would rather have a resurrected Jesus above each altar.

If the whole point is the resurrection / conquering death why isn’t there a resurrected Jesus instead of a torture instrument hung above the altar?

More later.

Ossai

 

[Kitty Chan]

Ossai sorry this is a big thread and alot of posts, I found your post and did not mean to be rude.

The instruction manual is Gods Word the Bible but you knew that.

My point was if man as a whole should be concerned about others rather than only personally what one can gain. Then a early warning system would have been set up and the effects of the storm lessened. Gods warning was love one another.

As for the people who do terrible things in Gods name God has a answer for them it is:

Not all who call me Lord will I recoginize, I will spit them out of my mouth. So dont worry Gods all over that.

As for the authority I did tend to talk to C4ts re that so just read those posts so I dont repost this already long thread.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by kimiko
But that is exactly what materialists *do* perceive! Materialists/skeptics/atheists/agnostics know they have no one to rely on but themselves and each other to make things better, so they do. It is the religious who waste effort with prayers that don't work, money on religious groups who waste it proselytizing and supporting structures and clergy when all of that money could go to a useful purpose. It is the unbelievers who are efficient about helping their fellow man, rather than diverting their energy through a religious system. . . . . .


Reply by Kitty Chan

God said bear one anothers burdens, or rely on one another. Its an instruction actually.

I may add that if you do a search you will find that christians are at the head of the pack in giving and serving others. another instruction from God. Just His way of improving the world getting us up off our duffs and helping out.

Unbelievers do have organizations (I never mentioned they didnt) But its a fact that they are not out giving christians. So where is the waste? Theres none.

Also go back to what I said was waste its in sex, drugs, booze, wild selfish lifestyles, govts that spend money on themselves and forget their own poor. Sure some people who do not believe in God can give but its not the norm of this world the norm is to stomp one another. History plays this out.

And those that use Gods name in the persute of their own gain will answer to God for it like I already mentioned to Ossai. They are just using God like they would use their own mother and stomp on her to get ahead. They are not worthy of anything.

You can look on religion as to what you are losing or what you are gaining. Gods way is giving all you can of yourself to others. The worlds ways is stomping on one another to get ahead.

If you understand Gods way to be guilt and shame then you do not understand anything God said in the least. You have totally missed the boat. If you look at what Gods wants its you to be refined as gold. How does that play out for a life of guilt and shame.

Refined and grow to be better than you are through loving your neighbour.

Man as a society wants the gold without the refining by stomping the neighbour.

Thats the difference.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Kitty this is an exceptional answer.

People who *should* know better, like materialists, are always doing what they can to improve the lot of humanity. Yet they can't perceive what you, in your "blind" faith, can see quite clearly.

Yours is a very empowering point of view Kitty.

-Elliot

Well Elliot I have been of late trying to determine what exactly we are to be doing and I truly believe that when we say to Christ what are you doing about this? He responds I am doing something thats why I spoke to you and laid it on your heart.

 

[kimiko]

I may add that if you do a search you will find that christians are at the head of the pack in giving and serving others. another instruction from God.

Unbelievers do have organizations (I never mentioned they didnt) But its a fact that they are not out giving christians. So where is the waste? Theres none.

Sure some people who do not believe in God can give but its not the norm of this world the norm is to stomp one another.

If you understand Gods way to be guilt and shame then you do not understand anything God said in the least. You have totally missed the boat. If you look at what Gods wants its you to be refined as gold. How does that play out for a life of guilt and shame.

Over 30% of the charitable giving in the US goes to religious organizations, but has anyone ever looked to see how much of this actually goes to helping others and how much goes to maintain buildings, provide salaries to employees/priests/preachers and support the social activities of the groups? I can't find any stats on that. So, I don't believe Christians are ahead of the pack, and won't until there is a good study showing that.

I'm not sure what you mean by this "Unbelievers do have organizations (I never mentioned they didnt) But its a fact that they are not out giving christians.".

Some people who don't believe in God give, and only some Christians give. Some of the meanest people I've ever known were Christians, and some of the nicest were atheists. No blanket statement can cover either group. You'll find the whole spectrum of cruelty to kindness in both groups.

I didn't say God's way was just guilt and shame, but those emotions can be a product of the teachings of organized religions. Whatever God's way would be is not the same as the man-made religions that claim divine purpose.

There are plenty of atheists who are generous and charitable and they didn't need instructions to be that way. They also don't expect to be rewarded for their generosity in some way. I'm not saying all Christians do, but some certainly volunteer and donate not out of love but for other reasons. It isn't unusual to expect atheists to donate, not out of faith, but out of simple love for other human beings, realizing they could be in the same position, or perhaps some evolutionary instinct for survival of the species.

Basically, people are people, no matter what faith they do or don't have. Religious people aren't better than nonbelievers, and you don't need religion to be a decent person.

 

[Kitty Chan]

This is getting more off track, while I appreciate what you say and agree with alot of it, I was never talking about charitable groups I was talking about society as a whole.

The original statement was about the storm, I said because people are too self centered thats why these things are worse. Im not talking about the minority who are christian or not christian that give. You will find givers over all are minority and the takers are majority.

It was never a comparision between christians and atheists, that was not the point. Reread what I said and think about the people and govt's Im referring to. Im speaking about a bigger picture of the whole world.

Realize what the world spends its money on and know why there is still poverty, sickness, starvation and lack of storm warnings. All countries have a pot of money to spend now, its almost like a competition.

So, where was it when they could have gotten together and made a system to warn people. Too busy with themselves thats my point. Thats what Gods on about with loving the neighbour. Hes just asking people to wake up and bear one anothers burdens.

 

[Ossai]

elliotfc

At the end of it all, agnosticism would have to be rejected when you are confronted by God.

Doesn’t that go without saying. However, so far god hasn’t confronted anyone – AFAIK.

In both instances, I don't think that it is *easy* to get to heaven. It wouldn't be easy for the evil man, for obvious reasons. It

That is not the typical Christian attitude in my area.

It also wouldn't be easy for the hardened skeptic. How many skeptics on this board would capitulate, or admit error, in front of God?

To answer your general question – I would say all – given that it was god (if god were proven and standing in front of the skeptic).
The real question would be, why? If it were god then all their errors would already be know and god would already know how they feel about them.


Kitty Chan

The instruction manual is Gods Word the Bible but you knew that.

That mishmash of contradictions and faulty logic? That’s the best instruction book an all loving, omnipotent being could come up with? BTW I’ve read the bible and it doesn’t offer much in the way of instructions. Now when a preacher/priest/clergy is ask the same question they always have their own interpretation of some passage that they claim answers the question. The only problem with that is they almost never agree with each other.

Gods warning was love one another.

So you don’t actually expect god to do anything at all, merely steal credit for people’s hard work.

I may add that if you do a search you will find that christians are at the head of the pack in giving and serving others.

I would say that has more to do with expectation, group dynamics, social pressure, etc than any sort of divine intervention.

Sure some people who do not believe in God can give but its not the norm of this world the norm is to stomp one another. History plays this out.

How about actually reading some history. It’s those that believe in God doing the stomping.

And those that use Gods name in the persute of their own gain will answer to God for it like I already mentioned to Ossai.

No true Scotsman.

If you understand Gods way to be guilt and shame then you do not understand anything God said in the least. You have totally missed the boat.

Kind of a tongue in cheek response, but got ask a Catholic about that.

Ossai

 

[elliotfc]

This is why I'm being snarky: The question was how does God show he loves people. Your answer was a passage that says (paraphrasing, if you'll let me) "he loves us so much, he sent this guy so you won't die in a figurative sense". Well the second part of the passage doesn't necessarily follow from the first, and the first part was exactly what was being asked. Responding with that was....dare I say, useless?

I get your point.

The Christian answers it in the past tense (that he gave us his only Son), and the theology proclaims that this past tense has everlasting consequences for all of humanity.

The second part does follow from the first, according to the gospel, which is how a Christian (I think) should be expected to answer the question.

Now, do you expect me to answer your question from the perspective of a Christian? Or the perspective of a non-Christian?

If I answer your question form the perspective of a Christian who does not see the essential point of Christianity in John 3:16 (I suppose there are some of them out there), I'd say that the mere existence of us and every thing is how God shows that he loves people.

Do you reject my two answers? Obviously you do. We have different belief systems/expectations of God. But I must insist that your question has been answered. You reject my answer (which disappoints me) while others have no problem with my answer (which may or may not disappoint you).

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

God as parent does know how his children feel, human parents cannot.

Good point. This would make God a super-parent, which is how Christians perceive him.

So you mean unite as in "a direct relationship", not separation.

Yes, basically. I don't think that we can have a relationship with God as Adam had a relationship with God in the Garden. That is how I think of my current separation. And I have mixed feelings about how literally I should take Genesis...but that is my working model of separation, or relationship, with God.

Christianity heavily advertises its "personal savior" and "personal relationship with Jesus" as why it is better than other religions.

Yes, better follows I think from the mere acceptance of Christianity. Which is why I wouldn't necessarily use the word better, but would indicate what you identify, the mere fact that a Christian does feel a personal relationship with God through Jesus, the intermediary aspect of God. Better follows from the possession of that belief, but that word can overshadow the mere existence of the professed relationship, which can be identified by someone who does not believe that the belief is *better*.

God takes a personal interest according to Christianity and you can talk and pray directly, not through intercession/rituals/whatever. Well, do you have to be reconciled with God to pray?

No, God will listen to any prayer. Heck God listens to everything I suppose. Anyone can pray.

Does not prayer alone bridge the gap?

No! Not to the Christian. If prayer alone could bridge the gap, that would make Jesus unnecessary.

What is it about having a personal relationship that requires Jesus to have died?

Because Jesus is a human, like us, a human that will physically die. We have shaken our fists at God for death and suffering for thousands of years, and Jesus is Gods' response. It is a *human* response, and as such, we can have a *human* relationship with God. This is why Jesus is sometimes called the divine condescencion.

Could people not pray before Jesus?

They absolutely could. I've already indicated a working concept of *relationship* (Adam/God in the Garden). It may be different from that.

-ELliot

 

[elliotfc]

How does the personal relationship of a sinner emoting/thanking/asking God differ from an 'absolved' person doing the identical? I would out of hand reject the idea that one has to be absolved to truly pray since Christianity requires one to seek forgiveness through prayer to be absolved.

Those are good questions...that I can't answer to even my own satisfaction.

Absolution, as I as a Catholic understand it, is a sign of God's grace. It is part of the sacrament of Reconciliation. It is not salvation. Absolution is akin to being baptized. It is a gift. In addition, a human *continually* needs absolution, so you never really stop being a sinner.

Regarding to your point about how prayer *differs*...I think that all prayer differs. Forget, for a moment, whether or not the person is a sinner or is absolved. Every human being has a unique relationship with God (even if it is a *disconnected* one, like Christians believe it to be). So God will listen to each of us in a unique way. It is dependent on circumstances. So...back to your specific point...yes, it does differ. How exactly does it differ? It differs because it must differ...because every human differs from every other human. As for the how...that's up to God and to the specific person I guess. I really can't speak for any personal relationship with God besides my own.

I think I'm familiar with the belief that a sinner shouldn't, or can't pray...it's usually a personally practiced belief however. Many times a sinner will publicly or privately decide that they can't pray, or that they are so bad that God won't hear them. Hopefully a stand-up Christian will step in and inform the person that God will hear their prayers louder than any others! Like the lost sheep, God has a special interest in those who have strayed from the flock. In this case however, pride is a tremendous obstacle. Those who thinks they are too bad to pray are actually too proud to pray.

-Elliot

 

[kimiko]

I don't think that we can have a relationship with God as Adam had a relationship with God in the Garden. That is how I think of my current separation. And I have mixed feelings about how literally I should take Genesis...but that is my working model of separation, or relationship, with God.

No! Not to the Christian. If prayer alone could bridge the gap, that would make Jesus unnecessary.

Because Jesus is a human, like us, a human that will physically die. We have shaken our fists at God for death and suffering for thousands of years, and Jesus is Gods' response. It is a *human* response, and as such, we can have a *human* relationship with God. This is why Jesus is sometimes called the divine condescencion.

So you have a different kind of relationship in heaven and earth, I can follow that. So would the relationship in heaven be identical to the relationship in the garden? God wasn't in the presence of Adam and Eve constantly. And it isn't simply a conversation like on earth. God 'shows up' occasionally to check in. Is that the only difference?

The problem is that everyone still suffers and dies. But everyone is supposed to still exist in an afterlife, just a particularly painful one for the nonbeliever. So Jesus wouldn't be preserving anyone's life, only giving them admittance to a comfy place.

 

[elliotfc]

But that is exactly what materialists *do* perceive! Materialists/skeptics/atheists/agnostics know they have no one to rely on but themselves and each other to make things better, so they do.

That's interesting...yet surely you'd rely on someone's hand to help you up if you fall. Or, you'd rely on medical treatment to cure an ailment.

Frankly...I'm not sure if you practice what you say, no offense. What is life if not relying on other people CONSTANTLY? Just think about everything that happens around you.

It is the religious who waste effort with prayers that don't work, money on religious groups who waste it proselytizing and supporting structures and clergy when all of that money could go to a useful purpose.

You've decided that they don't work, so of course you view prayer so negatively. Since I don't share your absolute belief in this matter, your particular opinions associated with your personal belief really don't register with me.

*Useful* is a subjective term based on our own particular moralities and beliefs. Since our belief system and morality differ, I understand your position here, but I reject your opinions.

It is the unbelievers who are efficient about helping their fellow man, rather than diverting their energy through a religious system.

The Red Cross has been working quite efficiently for a long time. I'm glad the religious spearheaded the abolition movement in the US. Suffrage too. I'm not sure how to really judge your statement as you deliver it non-scientifically...you'll have to back up your decree with institutions or examples so I can compare and contrast.

In addition, the religious people consider helping people to include spirituality, and obviously the unbelievers reject religion and belief in God, so yours is a position that obviously no Christian could appreciate.

Everything that religion does that physically benefits humanity is accomplished without God.

We believers think that we exist because of God. Believing that, your statement makes about as much sense as if I was to say that anything humans could do for each other could be possible without the sun.

In other words, I can boil down what you say to "I don't believe in God", while I can say "I believe in God". Everything else follows from that. As a rejoinder to every one of your statements in this particular point, I can "Of course, this follows because you do not believe in God".

Agnostics and atheists give money and volunteer time to charities to improve the world, so you don't need religious organizations to do that.

Yet they exist, don't they? Would you do away with them?

This is like me saying believers give money and volunteer time to charities to improve the world, so we should do away with agnositc/atheist organizations who do the same. What's the point? It is good for everyone to do what they can to benefit their fellow man, regardless of their belief system.

I'm not the kind of person who says that agnostics/atheists have no concern in helping their fellow man. I also recognize that a cursory view of reality shows that churches do a hell of a job in organizing relief aid. You could tip the cap for that, right? Just like I'd tip the cap if the American Humanist Society raises a million dollars from its membership to benefit tsunami victims. We can have problems with our belief systems, yet we're all still humans and we all still have morals and we all do what we can, in our own ways, to help the world. Let's have more faith in each other if possible!

People engage in socializing outside of churches. The most efficient religious charity can be run equally efficiently without being religious.

Yeah, and the most efficient non-religious charity can be run equally efficient without being non-religious. I'm not sure what your point is. I, myself, will never accuse a non-believer of lacking the ability to be generous or charitable or interested in the plights of humanity. All I will say is that a religious person can help other people in ways that a non-religious person could not. Of course I would not be talking financially or materialistically in that case.

The time wasted in religious schools on religion classes could be devoted to more constructive subjects, like languages, math and science.

Constructive is based on subjective morality. I understand your opinion, I really do, but it has no objective worth. All you are saying is "Religion is a waste of time".

But let's be practical now. This is where the "So what?" question kicks in. So I'll ask it. So what? So religious schools, in your opinion, are a waste of your time, or, would be a waste of yours or your childrens' time. So what? How about TV? Nintendo? Professional wrestling? Crossword puzzles? You've indicated an aesthetic notion. Is it your desire to proselytize it? Legislate it? Or just say things to get things off your chest?

For example, maybe you could swing by a Catholic school, at a parent/teacher meeting, and express your views. Or you could write an op-ed. Or you can try to organize a telephone campaign to call senators and try to get legislation passed to ban, or restrict, religious education to minors. These are all practical things you can do (you are the one talking about being constructive, right?).

Short of that, all I'm getting is that you don't believe in God, and that you don't like religion. Message received loud and clear.

Religion doesn't give a way to help people in environmental disasters, science and human beings do.

Sure, if you ignore the empirical data, you're absolutely right. Or maybe you think you understand the concept of "help" better than the people in question. Here's a link:
http://www.wwrn.org/parse.php?idd=9864&c=85

Can I guess your response? "Oh, but that really isn't help." Tell that to the victims who do think it is help.

-Elliot

 

[kimiko]

Absolution, as I as a Catholic understand it, is a sign of God's grace. It is part of the sacrament of Reconciliation. It is not salvation. Absolution is akin to being baptized. It is a gift. In addition, a human *continually* needs absolution, so you never really stop being a sinner.

As I always understood it, one had to be saved already to be absolved, except at one's first communion when it happened simultaneously. I don't think a person needs absolution continually, I think it is cyclical. Absolved, sinner, absolved, sinner, etc. You wouldn't need absolution again until you had actually committed a sin.

But the idea of God's grace is most interesting. Since christianity separates faith and works ( I think I've argued here before how I would disagree) faith cannot be a deliberate act. Some believe faith itself is a gift of God's grace. In fact it would have to be unless it is admitted to be an act. The problem with it being an act of course it that it isn't different from a ritual and is something you've earned, then. You would simply have to perform the act, whatever mental tricks to convince yourself, and then you've earned your way into heaven. Nips at Jesus' heels somewhat. But if it is a gift from God, then God made people into the believers and unbelievers they are, so he couldn't exactly punish them for that. And if he did, then he wouldn't be the benevolent God he is portrayed to be.

I much prefer Shin Buddhism, and it shares quite a bit with christianity. Simply, Buddha made a promise that anyone who asked him sincerely he would help to make their way to heaven. That way, you only have to want to be 'saved', rather than having to believe or earn your way. It seems far more forgiving. And since Rennyo beleived society was so corrupt at the time, it was expected that it would be too difficult for a person to attain enlightenment themselves within their lifetime, making help necessary.

 

[kimiko]

That's interesting...yet surely you'd rely on someone's hand to help you up if you fall. Or, you'd rely on medical treatment to cure an ailment.

Frankly...I'm not sure if you practice what you say, no offense. What is life if not relying on other people CONSTANTLY? Just think about everything that happens around you.

You've decided that they don't work, so of course you view prayer so negatively. Since I don't share your absolute belief in this matter, your particular opinions associated with your personal belief really don't register with me.

*Useful* is a subjective term based on our own particular moralities and beliefs. Since our belief system and morality differ, I understand your position here, but I reject your opinions.

The Red Cross has been working quite efficiently for a long time. I'm glad the religious spearheaded the abolition movement in the US. Suffrage too. I'm not sure how to really judge your statement as you deliver it non-scientifically...you'll have to back up your decree with institutions or examples so I can compare and contrast.

In addition, the religious people consider helping people to include spirituality, and obviously the unbelievers reject religion and belief in God, so yours is a position that obviously no Christian could appreciate.

This is like me saying believers give money and volunteer time to charities to improve the world, so we should do away with agnositc/atheist organizations who do the same. What's the point? It is good for everyone to do what they can to benefit their fellow man, regardless of their belief system.

I'm not the kind of person who says that agnostics/atheists have no concern in helping their fellow man. I also recognize that a cursory view of reality shows that churches do a hell of a job in organizing relief aid. You could tip the cap for that, right? Just like I'd tip the cap if the American Humanist Society raises a million dollars from its membership to benefit tsunami victims. We can have problems with our belief systems, yet we're all still humans and we all still have morals and we all do what we can, in our own ways, to help the world. Let's have more faith in each other if possible!

Yeah, and the most efficient non-religious charity can be run equally efficient without being non-religious. I'm not sure what your point is. I, myself, will never accuse a non-believer of lacking the ability to be generous or charitable or interested in the plights of humanity. All I will say is that a religious person can help other people in ways that a non-religious person could not. Of course I would not be talking financially or materialistically in that case.

Constructive is based on subjective morality. I understand your opinion, I really do, but it has no objective worth. All you are saying is "Religion is a waste of time".

But let's be practical now. This is where the "So what?" question kicks in. So I'll ask it. So what? So religious schools, in your opinion, are a waste of your time, or, would be a waste of yours or your childrens' time. So what? How about TV? Nintendo? Professional wrestling? Crossword puzzles? You've indicated an aesthetic notion. Is it your desire to proselytize it? Legislate it? Or just say things to get things off your chest?

For example, maybe you could swing by a Catholic school, at a parent/teacher meeting, and express your views. Or you could write an op-ed. Or you can try to organize a telephone campaign to call senators and try to get legislation passed to ban, or restrict, religious education to minors. These are all practical things you can do (you are the one talking about being constructive, right?).

Short of that, all I'm getting is that you don't believe in God, and that you don't like religion. Message received loud and clear.

I said themselves "and each other", meaning people and people. Of course no one makes their way entirely on their own in the world, I would never argue that.

I think prayer doesn't work, because they aren't all answered, unless some are answered no, but then it isn't spelled out that way except that the prayee doesn't recieve what he asked for. Basically, there is no way to know if any particular prayer did anything.

I would define useful as physically effective, but certainly I can see how believers might reject that.

It wasn't meant to be scientific, it is only a generalization. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so giving directly to an organization that provides help is more direct than giving first to a church that takes a cut, then passing some of that on through charity. Naturally, not every religious charity operates through a church, so they would be equally as efficient as secular charities.

You aren't seeing what I'm saying. If anyone is fed or clothed or comforted in the world, it is themselves or others doing it. God doesn't make appearances.

It doesn't matter if someone feels motivated by God, it is they who are getting up or donating or whatever. In that respect, I don't care if it is a direct religious aid organization, because it is only people doing the helping. God doesn't fill soup bowls at shelters. I don't feel any need to 'tip the cap' at religious charities, I tip my cap at the people in them.

"All I will say is that a religious person can help other people in ways that a non-religious person could not."

No they don't. There are atheists who are as comfortable in the world as christians, so whatever peace the concept of salvation gives can be found other ways.

"Constructive is based on subjective morality. I understand your opinion, I really do, but it has no objective worth. All you are saying is "Religion is a waste of time"."

You're right, it is subjective; I only think things are constructive if they have some basis in the real world. Religion is lovely as a subject for its mythology and psychology and cultural values, but when it is treated as true without the standards that are applied to everything else to determine accuracy, it is a waste.

TV, Nintendo and the rest are leisure activities and recognized as such. Religion is not recognized as a social club, leisure activity, hobby, etc. It is portrayed as something true. Well, once you start with that, you have to show how it is true, and religion fails because it always comes down to a leap of faith.

So what? Well, you asked for an opinion, so I gave it. I am doing something constructive right here by arguing about it, because I find it interesting and is a bit of a hobby of mine. I don't care if other people are irrational, I don't want to change them, but I'll give my opinion if I feel like it and I think it's appropriate. I find value in philosophy, logic, and rationality because they have been shown to be constructive. If interaction with me brings someone else to look at them again, that's great, but I'm not on a great campaign.

(edited to shorten quote)

 

[kimiko]

Sure, if you ignore the empirical data, you're absolutely right. Or maybe you think you understand the concept of "help" better than the people in question. Here's a link:
http://www.wwrn.org/parse.php?idd=9864&c=85

Can I guess your response? "Oh, but that really isn't help." Tell that to the victims who do think it is help.

-Elliot

What empirical data are in that link? And my response isn't the one you expect. From the article: They have come to the house of god, they will be well looked after," he said."

And yes, they will be looked after, by people. It is the human beings who matter in humanism.

A beautiful sentiment often abused by the faithful: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."- Karl Marx

I am always amazed by the human mind, and what they are able to create. All the good and horror in religion is a product of people, and to them I give the credit.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Ossai

Calling the bible a mishmash is your understanding. To the millions who have read it they consider it instructions. Even other religions consider it as a source. There is many who read it and understand it just fine.

But I think theres a difference between understanding and accepting. You said you have read it so I would say if you dont accept whats written thats your choice but I cannot believe you are that incapable of understanding words on a page.

I was watching the NGC on the people who think its a hoax that we landed on the moon. They have some good points. The producers did the show and looked at the skeptics view. But the skeptics never looked at Nasas view. So they never had the whole picture so how could the skeptics decide.

And they missed interviewing the science station in texas where they actually point a laser at the moon and its reflected back from parts the astronauts left there. If nothing else thats the easiest answer but the skeptics wont interview him in 30 years.

 

[elliotfc]

Religion doesn't give a way to help people in environmental disasters, science and human beings do.

I've been thinking about this one a bit more...

It's just so wrong. EVERY TIME you have a catastrophe you will find people turn to religion for help. And the thing is...they GET help, whether you want to believe that or not.

In fact, I propose that if religion did not, in fact, help people after catastrophes, it would be analogous to a deleterious trait! Religion would have a hard time competing and surviving through the generations if it did not serve as a benefit to the survivors of severe environmental stresses.

People don't need religion or a God to not lie/cheat/steal.

Agreed.

You don't have to be religious to not waste your time, and I would argue that religion, if untrue, is little other than a gigantic waste of time.

Not necessarily. How many movies do we watch that our untrue? How man fiction books do we read that are untrue? I disagree with your proposition. I mean, you may practice your life where you completely avoid all fiction, but to me that is very unfortunate. Engaging with things that aren't true is not *necessarily* a waste of time. Of course it could be a waste of time, just as engaging with things that are *true* could also be a waste of time.

It can be a great exercise in critical thinking if it is looked at objectively, and is interesting in the way literature is if the books are read as entertainment.

I critically think through the Bible, and I also read it as entertainment. I read the Bible on several different levels.

In fact, any time you spend reading the Bible or going to church could be better spent improving the world.

Not if going to church or reading the Bible makes you a better person! And please don't supply the rejoinder "but you don't have to go to church or read the Bible to become a better person". Duh, we all know that. That's like saying you don't have to go to college in order to improve the world. Does that mean going to college is a waste of time?

What you are doing is *proselytizing*. In your experience, going to church or reading the Bible does not make you a better person, a person better able to improve the world. Why is your anecdotal testimony proof that *all people* would be better served by not going to church or reading the Bible?

I accept your testimony as evidence that alternatives to religious edification exist. Of course I've never challenged that.

Plenty of nonbelievers love others and help them. Just because you ascribe these things to God doesn't mean they only happen in the context of religions.

I really don't think I've ever claimed the contrary.

I think I just answered part of that above. If theology is false, it is an enormous waste of time, energy, money, and lives (people who go into the clergy/volunteers who spend time on purely religious, not charitable, activities).

By your morality. By my morality, engaging with things that are false are *not necessarily* a waste of time. I am invovled with 4 different creative writing groups. I continually engage with written words that are contrived and false. I understand that by your perspective, I am wasting my time. I disagree. And you are also missing, or disposing of, the *associative* benefits. You have to disassociate charitable from religious, don't you? But what if the religion CALLS AND DEMANDS charity? It's a divorce you can identify in your head, but in practice it doesn't work out like your ideal. Like in my creative writing groups. There are so many associative benefits (meeting some OUTSTANDING people, being challenged and challenging others, learning some pedagogical and organizational skills, etc) that I can't divorce from the pure *fiction* of the activity because I am PRACTICING the exercise. Unlike you, who are outside of it, and can dissect and comparmentalize the *good* things (charity) from the *bad* things (theology). To reiterate, completely rejecting the fact that the theology calls for charity!

A parasite on humanity.

Six and a half billion people. Parasite...such a negative word. An idea being a parasite? Be fruitful and multiply? Surely you can see *some* symbiosis...

Do you mean being religious gives you a negative opinion in the eyes of others?

Ummm...well, if I take people seriously, people have in fact told me that they have negative opinions of religious people. Should I not take those people seriously?

Well, it can work the opposite direction when the religious hold negative views of nonbelievers. That would be a waste if their theology is wrong.

*EVERYTHING* would be a waste if my theology is wrong.

It's basically Pascal's wager. If you gamble that god exists and are right, great!, he got that part. If you're wrong, then you haven't lost nothing, you've lost everything!

Except I'm not interested in gambling. And I'm not fixating on the reward. I'm saying, basically, the obvious. If I'm wrong, so what? *I AM NOT SAYING* that if I'm wrong, I've lost everything. Those are your words. I am content to *limit* what I say, to mean what I say, and not have what I say extrapolated. If I truly believed that if I'm wrong, I've lost everything, then I would say that. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. I also don't believe that if you're wrong, you've lost everything!!!

That's why I have no use for Pascal's wager. I don't believe that the people who are *wrong* (by rejecting God) will lose everything. I believe that they will have the opportunity to accept God after they die.

I just believe what I say. I say that if I'm wrong, so what? That's it. End of.

The only life you'd ever have- wasted on religion.

But I certainly don't feel that way now. What, do you think I'll feel that way after I'm dead? What you say has no meaning to me. The worth of my life is not for you to judge. I certainly have more self-esteem than that. If it makes you feel better to describe the lives of religious as being wasteful, that's on you. Whatever gives meaning to your worldview, I guess you have to go for it.

I don't believe that anyone wastes their lives solely based on their worldview. I'm sorry that you feel differently.

Throwing away money and energy; wasting feelings of guilt and shame over one's inherent sinfullness and disobeyed religious directives; countless opportunities and experiencies lost through prohibition, time being occupied by religion instead; fear of hellfire and damnation.

More fear. Get in line, you're only about the fifitieth randiforum-skeptic to invoke the fear word. Funny, I hear nothing about fear in my church. The only people I hear talk about fear, when it comes to religion, are in this forum. Nice one. Keep talking and thinking about fear. I'm not interested, and neither are the people with whom I practice my religion. If you want to believe differently, you are free to create your own reality. We all have to find validation as best we can.

Anyways I reject the fear of Hell. If you want to reject God, Hell is PERFECT. It is wish fulfillment. Why should we paste the fear label on what people want? It misses the point completely. Why the bad attitude about hell? The people who want hell, get hell. Fear is irrelevant. It's like that stupid Green Day song. You accuse the *other* of being motivated by fear, while spinning your own sob stories about how horrible the world is and how they're about to start breaking down your doors. It's so flimsy...my heart goes out for them more than my intellect. If I intellectually try to engage such thinking I feel embarrassed.

Do an experiment. In the next month, count the number of times you use the "fear" word, or think about fear, or consider how others are motivated by fear. Talk about wastes of time...........

-Elliot