Why God?

[rapunzel77]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

I don't understand where these kind of impressions are coming from. Why would anyone use atheism as a weapon, because it's simply the absence of faith, in other words, empty. Atheism has nothing to do with faith or believing in anything, because by the definition it would have to have some sort of "thing" to believe in.

I understand that most atheists are not that way but I have encountered some that go out of their way to insult my beliefs when I have done nothing to insult theirs. Thankfully, that isn't the case on TOS .

I think it's some sort of misunderstanding, because what I think most atheists(myself included) want, is to diminish the value of religious authority. Personal beliefs are fine and we all have them, even if they are not religious.

This might be where the crux of the conflict arises from. Obviously my religious beliefs, etc has no bearing on you. That's fine. We do have a religious structure and that is something that my religion can't get rid of. Since this is the case, it maybe very difficult for "religious authority" to be diminished. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by that statement though.

Do you mean that you don't want religious beliefs forced on you or do you believe that no public expression of religion need to be exhibited anywhere?

Or do you mean that you don't want religious people to express their views in public and allow all voices to be heard in the public or political arena?

I don't think that most Christians (myself included) would want to force our beliefs on anyone. I know there are a few that do and they tend to talk to much. However, I guess what I am saying is that I would like to see a society where someone is not afraid to express themselves in a religious manner. I would allow for all religions to express themselves in public. I think that to much expression would be better than none.

I also believe there is a whole lot of misunderstanding in how this is to be applied. There are so very strange stories that pop up in the news at times about this. There was one story where a small boy was told in class to draw his favorite hero, etc and he decided to draw Jesus and he was told he couldn't do that.

There are others but you probably can see what I mean. It seems that in this area in particular we are very afraid to mention it. Its funny but religion is being treated almost the way sex was treated several decades ago. It wasn't something that you discussed or mentioned in public.

So, I'm curious and I would like to get a better understanding where you and other atheists are coming from on this matter in particular.

In the end we should all learn to think for ourselves and listen to our hearts, because no one else can ever tell you what is truly right or wrong.

I agree with this statement in part. We should learn to think for ourselves and listen to our hearts. However, we will probably differ on the last part of your statement .

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

Do you mean that you don't want religious beliefs forced on you or do you believe that no public expression of religion need to be exhibited anywhere?

Or do you mean that you don't want religious people to express their views in public and allow all voices to be heard in the public or political arena?

It varies. Myself, I am against public expression, since it causesn othing but problems, but some are fine as long as people don't try to force it on other people.
The problem with public expressions is other religious people take offence, and often it starts leading into that whole load of crap that is political correctness as a result, which just annoys EVERYONE.

I also believe there is a whole lot of misunderstanding in how this is to be applied. There are so very strange stories that pop up in the news at times about this. There was one story where a small boy was told in class to draw his favorite hero, etc and he decided to draw Jesus and he was told he couldn't do that.

Well, from a secular perspective, I'd say it depends whether they meant real life people (alive or dead) or whether characters from stories were allowed.

There are others but you probably can see what I mean. It seems that in this area in particular we are very afraid to mention it. Its funny but religion is being treated almost the way sex was treated several decades ago. It wasn't something that you discussed or mentioned in public.

Yet you'd get arrested if you had sex in public, but not if you go round advertising your religion, which are the same thing.
Same for if you asked random people if they wanted sex... which is the same as the people who try to force their beliefs on others.

[rapunzel77]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Human No More

It varies. Myself, I am against public expression, since it causesn othing but problems, but some are fine as long as people don't try to force it on other people.

I understand that it can cause many problems but in a society that values free speech, etc then that would also apply to religion, I think. Of course I wouldn't want to force it on anyone though.

The problem with public expressions is other religious people take offence, and often it starts leading into that whole load of crap that is political correctness as a result, which just annoys EVERYONE.

Exactly. I find it silly that other religious people take offense if someone else is freely expression their religion or if they are freely expressing their lack of religion. I think there must be some way we can get around this instead of resorting to political correctness which is definitely a load of crap and it is very, very irritating to everyone.

Well, from a secular perspective, I'd say it depends whether they meant real life people (alive or dead) or whether characters from stories were allowed.

If I recall, they didn't put a limit to that. I would probably have to dig up some examples from the internet. That might make it clearer.

Yet you'd get arrested if you had sex in public, but not if you go round advertising your religion, which are the same thing.

Well, it is probably not the same thing. Expressing religious, political, or other views in public wouldn't necessarily be the same thing as two naked people.......well...you know.

Same for if you asked random people if they wanted sex... which is the same as the people who try to force their beliefs on others.

I can understand the logic here though. If it is unsolicited then it probably shouldn't be done. That is why I have always have had trouble with the whole "witnessing" by knocking on random stranger's doors. It is much like telemarketing or someone trying to sell you stuff. I don't believe that is the best way to "witness" to someone.

I think that sharing beliefs should be a friendly thing and should be done with someone that you get to know. It shouldn't be forced like that.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

This might be where the crux of the conflict arises from. Obviously my religious beliefs, etc has no bearing on you. That's fine. We do have a religious structure and that is something that my religion can't get rid of. Since this is the case, it maybe very difficult for "religious authority" to be diminished. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by that statement though.

I'm referring to religious authority mainly as the kind of force used to control people.

Well I'm horrible at giving proper examples, but I will refer to ancient history, but the idea remains the same. The advance of science for instance was greatly hindered by religion, because scientific discoveries were not compatible with their views of the world and thusly were subjected to inquisition.

Today we have birth control being condemned by the catholic church and that causes many problems, seeing as earth's population is already out of control.

Religion should not be something that limits people, telling them that something is not allowed and something should be done because it says so in the sacred scriptures.

Also religions should not recieve any sort of special privilidges. The difference in believing in major power religion like christianity compared to some own life philosophy is still quite huge in todays world. One won't get any special treatment for having good life philosophies, but if one agrees with the majority of people(christianity in this case), that tends to give some advantages.

All religions should just be treated as personal life philosophies and all should be equally valid and invalid, regardless of the number of their supporters.

I guess I could say that religions will always have problems as long as they involve power and authority, because those things always attract the wrong kind of people.

I don't know if I'm making any sense here, because this post is hopelessly fragmented and incoherent as is my mind at the moment, and I can't seem to be able to think too clearly.

[rapunzel77]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

I'm referring to religious authority mainly as the kind of force used to control people.

Well I'm horrible at giving proper examples, but I will refer to ancient history, but the idea remains the same. The advance of science for instance was greatly hindered by religion, because scientific discoveries were not compatible with their views of the world and thusly were subjected to inquisition.

I understand what you are saying about "controlling" people but I honestly don't know of to many examples of the Church hindering science. If you can give me some concrete historical examples I might be able to answer them

Today we have birth control being condemned by the catholic church and that causes many problems, seeing as earth's population is already out of control.

I have actually discussed this issue on another thread. What is odd about this is that everyone else in the world is saying contraception is good. Only one is saying that artificial contraception is not is the Catholic Church. Should their voice be silenced because it dissents from the mainstream point of view?

Religion should not be something that limits people, telling them that something is not allowed and something should be done because it says so in the sacred scriptures.

I agree but perhaps this is where there is another misunderstanding. Religion is more than just a set of beliefs. It encompasses all aspects of a person's life. It influences art, literature, music, etc. It is an entire culture and it also becomes an identity to the person that adheres to it. I know this might sound funny but in the structure of religion, I feel a profound sense of freedom . Again, that sounds odd but its not if you understood it in terms of culture and identity. Am I making sense?

Also religions should not recieve any sort of special privilidges. The difference in believing in major power religion like christianity compared to some own life philosophy is still quite huge in todays world. One won't get any special treatment for having good life philosophies, but if one agrees with the majority of people(christianity in this case), that tends to give some advantages.

Hmm, I'm not sure what sort of privileges you are referring to. If you are referring to the practice that is still done in some countries of some of the taxes going to the Church then yes, I disagree with this practice as well.

All religions should just be treated as personal life philosophies and all should be equally valid and invalid, regardless of the number of their supporters.

Ok. I agree they should be treated equally and should be allowed to have free expression. For instance, if during Christmas time there is someone who wants to put a nativity scene out in public and someone who is Jewish wants to put a menorah out and a wicca wants to put a yule log out then by all means...go ahead. I prefer that to act as if religion doesn't exist in public .

I guess I could say that religions will always have problems as long as they involve power and authority, because those things always attract the wrong kind of people.

I agree to a point. However, religion is more than just power and authority. I understand what you are getting at though .

I don't know if I'm making any sense here, because this post is hopelessly fragmented and incoherent as is my mind at the moment, and I can't seem to be able to think too clearly.

No worries . I understood you.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

I understand what you are saying about "controlling" people but I honestly don't know of to many examples of the Church hindering science. If you can give me some concrete historical examples I might be able to answer them

Well I'm not much of a historian, but that's why wikipedia is so handy.
Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have actually discussed this issue on another thread. What is odd about this is that everyone else in the world is saying contraception is good. Only one is saying that artificial contraception is not is the Catholic Church. Should their voice be silenced because it dissents from the mainstream point of view?

Of course not by the basis of difference in opinion, because that's what I advocate most, the freedom to express one's opinion. Opinions are tricky things though, because they are never absolute truths, but more of approximations of truths, biased in one direction or another.

The thing to remember about opinions, that when you present your's, one should always be prepaired to justify the claims in such way, that they appeal to the maximum number of audience. This usually requires universal understanding, something that is not limited by culture.

For me things might appear as reasonable as they ever could, but the trick is to present my ideas in such a way, that everyone could see the world through my eyes is next to impossible, so one must always approximate and simplify, because human brain cannot handle complexities that well and this is why we don't understand each other, because we express ourselves in compressed manner, and information is thus always lost.



But more on the issue of cotraception, from purely objective perspective, the earths population IS too high for sustainable development, but it's not spread around equally like water on a flat surface. In some places there might be tolerable amount of people, but like in china for instance, there are way too many. If every chinese would live like an average european, we would need at least two earths to sustain that kind of consumption.

Then on a more subjective basis on why most people support the use of contraception. People enjoy sex, but are not always ready for parenting, be it for financial reasons or some other, and contraception gives freedom in this scenario. This I think is more of a male issue, since males are mostly programmed by our genes to mate with as many females as possible, something having to do with maximising the success rate or those genes living on in the next generation or something. I'm not much of a biologist, but this is the conclusion I've drawn from what I've read. There's nothing really romantic about reality and that's a real shame and it's one of the things why I hate reality so much, one of the many many reasons, but that's besides the point here.

I agree but perhaps this is where there is another misunderstanding. Religion is more than just a set of beliefs. It encompasses all aspects of a person's life. It influences art, literature, music, etc. It is an entire culture and it also becomes an identity to the person that adheres to it. I know this might sound funny but in the structure of religion, I feel a profound sense of freedom . Again, that sounds odd but its not if you understood it in terms of culture and identity. Am I making sense?

Like I said about simplifying stuff, the limited human brain, at least mine is limited in that way, that it can't process information unless it's first compressed into more digestable format. And as with any kind of compression, information is always lost and the results are more open to interpretation.

I'm an armchair philosopher, and I never claim to truly understand or know anything. I can always try, but usually the results are more or less non-satisfactory. All I can say is that I try my best to understand, but I can never say I truly do, because I do not want be dishonest.

Conversation however is the best way to understand one another, but the problem here lies in the fact that plain text is so much more open to interpretation than talking face to face is. Debating is thusly really complicated over the internet(and sometimes plain pointless), because we all draw different conclusions from whatever we both write. This is also one of the things why I hate reality, because I can never talk to any of you here irl, because we all live scattered around the globe and so on.

Also one must take note that I'm horrible at expressing myself in any manner, and in text is one of my weaknesses. I guess I'll get little better at it eventually, but for now, this nonsense is all you're going to have to put up with, because it really is the best I can do.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

I understand what you are saying about "controlling" people but I honestly don't know of to many examples of the Church hindering science. If you can give me some concrete historical examples I might be able to answer them

Geocentricism, anti-evolution claims, impossible claims about the age of the earth, and going further back, even claims about the nature of things like the day/night cycle. It would be fine if they realised that their theory was wrong and ditched it in favour of ones with better evidence when they came along, but that has historically almost never happened.

I have actually discussed this issue on another thread. What is odd about this is that everyone else in the world is saying contraception is good. Only one is saying that artificial contraception is not is the Catholic Church. Should their voice be silenced because it dissents from the mainstream point of view?

They can say what they want, even if it is hugely irresponsible and the people that suffer as a result are mostly in third world countries. They should just say they're against it though and not actually distribute misinformation, let people make an informed choice 'well, this will stop me getting AIDS or an unwanted pregnancy, but that guy says his invisible friend says it's wrong' - if they want to make that choice themselves, they they should, but when catholics claim condoms cause AIDS for example, that is irresponsible and immoral, resulting in unnecessary suffering, death and overpopulation.

I agree but perhaps this is where there is another misunderstanding. Religion is more than just a set of beliefs. It encompasses all aspects of a person's life. It influences art, literature, music, etc. It is an entire culture and it also becomes an identity to the person that adheres to it. I know this might sound funny but in the structure of religion, I feel a profound sense of freedom . Again, that sounds odd but its not if you understood it in terms of culture and identity. Am I making sense?

Depends on what one. Most religious people don't even go to any kind of church, or only on specific occasions.

Ok. I agree they should be treated equally and should be allowed to have free expression. For instance, if during Christmas time there is someone who wants to put a nativity scene out in public and someone who is Jewish wants to put a menorah out and a wicca wants to put a yule log out then by all means...go ahead. I prefer that to act as if religion doesn't exist in public .

Having a simple display like that on a holiday is fine, and some holidays such as christmas (which is actually a pagan festival christianity just stole anyway) are as much cultural as religious, they're a part of tradition. That said, I am against any religion demanding any kind of special privileges.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Well I'm not much of a historian, but that's why wikipedia is so handy.
Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had a feeling that Galileo would come up. However that was over 400 years ago and science has made many advances since then. So, can you cite any other examples where the Catholic church has hindered science?

Of course not by the basis of difference in opinion, because that's what I advocate most, the freedom to express one's opinion. Opinions are tricky things though, because they are never absolute truths, but more of approximations of truths, biased in one direction or another.

I agree. That is why we believe there must be some sort of universal truths.

The thing to remember about opinions, that when you present your's, one should always be prepaired to justify the claims in such way, that they appeal to the maximum number of audience. This usually requires universal understanding, something that is not limited by culture.

Understandable. It does become difficult when you are trying to explain your viewpoint to someone who has a completely different worldview. However, it is still necessary to try .

For me things might appear as reasonable as they ever could, but the trick is to present my ideas in such a way, that everyone could see the world through my eyes is next to impossible, so one must always approximate and simplify, because human brain cannot handle complexities that well and this is why we don't understand each other, because we express ourselves in compressed manner, and information is thus always lost.

Agreed. It also doesn't help that in this oversaturation of soundbites that we get every day in the media, our society, etc that a more nuanced argument or even a simplified one is lost in all the voices. I actually think this is where the Church has a problem. Since many of the views that Catholics have can't be put into soundbites, the viewpoints get garbled and it comes out sounding really weird to a lot of people. I'm trying in my own meager way to explain them .

But more on the issue of cotraception, from purely objective perspective, the earths population IS too high for sustainable development, but it's not spread around equally like water on a flat surface. In some places there might be tolerable amount of people, but like in china for instance, there are way too many. If every chinese would live like an average european, we would need at least two earths to sustain that kind of consumption.

I understand your viewpoint on this. However, the Church and my own belief is that children are gifts from God. You might say they are gifts from mother earth, etc. We also believe that sex is a gift that is freely and totally given. We believe that you can't separate the two. This is one of the reasons why we don't agree with artificial contraception.

Then on a more subjective basis on why most people support the use of contraception. People enjoy sex, but are not always ready for parenting, be it for financial reasons or some other, and contraception gives freedom in this scenario.

I agree that people enjoy sex and that's fine. The church doesn't have a problem with that either. I am a practitioner of NFP. Its a natural way to monitor the woman's cycle. That way, if the couple feels that they can't have children at the time for financial reasons, etc then they abstain for about 3 days out of the month during that time or when she is on her menstrual cycle. That leaves a good couple of weeks during the month in which the woman isn't fertile at all.

This I think is more of a male issue, since males are mostly programmed by our genes to mate with as many females as possible, something having to do with maximising the success rate or those genes living on in the next generation or something. I'm not much of a biologist, but this is the conclusion I've drawn from what I've read. There's nothing really romantic about reality and that's a real shame and it's one of the things why I hate reality so much, one of the many many reasons, but that's besides the point here.

This is a good point. It also leads to another issue in the matter of contraception. It has led to the increased objectifying of women. Women are seen more as objects for male pleasure and nothing more. Therefore, a woman's natural reproductive cycle must be controlled and medicated in order that men can have their pleasure. Sure, women can too but it is always with the caveat that women must be medicated in order to have pleasure.

This is also a mentality in other areas of our society. It is lamentable that two whole generations of especially boys here in the US have been medicated because they were considered to be "hyper active". They were not allowed the freedom to move. It comes for a mentality that everything must be medicated. You want to lose weight, here's a pill. You want to stop your kid from running around the house, here's a pill. You want to have all the pleasures of sex without the responsibility for the consequences, make sure the woman is medicated.

This is a view that the Church disagrees with. The church has said that the increased use in contraception leads to the objectifying of women. Women are not treated well. Many are abused and not treated with respect. In turn, women don't respect themselves. Its sad.

Conversation however is the best way to understand one another, but the problem here lies in the fact that plain text is so much more open to interpretation than talking face to face is. Debating is thusly really complicated over the internet(and sometimes plain pointless), because we all draw different conclusions from whatever we both write.

I know its one of the drawbacks. I would love to have these conversations in person. Both of you are enjoyable to talk to as well as many others on TOS.

Also one must take note that I'm horrible at expressing myself in any manner, and in text is one of my weaknesses. I guess I'll get little better at it eventually, but for now, this nonsense is all you're going to have to put up with, because it really is the best I can do.

You're doing fine

Originally Posted by Human No More

Geocentricism, anti-evolution claims, impossible claims about the age of the earth, and going further back, even claims about the nature of things like the day/night cycle. It would be fine if they realised that their theory was wrong and ditched it in favour of ones with better evidence when they came along, but that has historically almost never happened.

HNM, whew..where to begin? LOL. Ok, these are generalizations and Christians have a wide variety of views on these different issues. However, the Church is not against science. This article might help, then again it might not but at least it will show there is wiggle room when it comes to these matters: The Vatican's View of Evolution: Pope Paul II and Pope Pius

They can say what they want, even if it is hugely irresponsible and the people that suffer as a result are mostly in third world countries. They should just say they're against it though and not actually distribute misinformation, let people make an informed choice 'well, this will stop me getting AIDS or an unwanted pregnancy, but that guy says his invisible friend says it's wrong' - if they want to make that choice themselves, they they should, but when catholics claim condoms cause AIDS for example, that is irresponsible and immoral, resulting in unnecessary suffering, death and overpopulation.

We've discussed this before. I understand your viewpoint although I disagree with it .

Depends on what one. Most religious people don't even go to any kind of church, or only on specific occasions.

Yes, I know this is often the case. However, when you look at most religions in the world, you will see that it does encompass their whole lives. Look at the Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians, etc. Their lives are rooted in a religious culture. Here in western society, that has been largely eradicated.

Having a simple display like that on a holiday is fine, and some holidays such as christmas (which is actually a pagan festival christianity just stole anyway) are as much cultural as religious, they're a part of tradition. That said, I am against any religion demanding any kind of special privileges.

That's true. Here in the US, every Christmas there is always some controversy somewhere in regards to Christmas displays .

I think I understand where you are coming from on the special privileges issue since you are from the UK. I know that some European countries still raise taxes for either the Church of England, the Lutheran Church, etc. That is something that we don't have here in the US. That kind of privilege I agree should probably go. It leads to to many problems.