Have you even read the bible or looked at the history of organised religion?
Something tells me you haven't since you appear to be completely unaware of the acts of mass murder not only carried out in its name, but encouraged within the text of the bible and Quran.
I dont consider any of those religions to be real. Just excuses to do evil.
I thought my post you quoted made that quite clear.
I have no difficulty in understanding English. You, however appear to have difficulty in understanding what you posted. That's not what you posted.
Not Unfortunately for them. Fortunately I would say.
Is this really all you have to add to this discussion?
IMHO your points in this thread are far from simple, but instead are very convoluted and twisted due to your dislike of anyone or anything religious. And you're blaming them for all the ills of the world when far more complex issues are at play - the 9/11 disaster being one of them, which was more political than religious anyway.
There are millions of people who have been murdered for political reasons, throughout human history.
No, it really is quite simple.
Suicide bombing is entirely dependent on the bomber believing that they will be rewarded in the afterlife. The same can be said of the 9/11 hijackers. That is how a strong belief is used to commit mass murder and it stems from religion.
History is littered with mass murder in the name of various gods. The bible and Quran condone mass murder, slavery and more besides.
I'm not lumping people together. I'm just not pretending that suicide bombers and perverse priests are suddenly not 'religious' just because they do bad things. 'Religious' isn't a catch-all term for acting nicely.
I'm not lumping people together. I'm just not pretending that suicide bombers and perverse priests are suddenly not 'religious' just because they do bad things. 'Religious' isn't a catch-all term for acting nicely.
That does appear to be Sweetpeanut's rather idealist interpretation of religion.
I'm not lumping people together. I'm just not pretending that suicide bombers and perverse priests are suddenly not 'religious' just because they do bad things. 'Religious' isn't a catch-all term for acting nicely.
Just because someone says they are religious it doesn't mean they are. Most religions are just a way for people to control others. Im sure if they really believed in a god or hell they would not do what they do.
No not everyone acts nice all the time everyone is human and has human emotions. But people who are pure evil are not really of any religion. Probably more mentally ill than anything else.
But what is a fact is there is an after life, --you cannot be nothing, (even when you are no longer living), as " nothing " doesn't exist on a molecular basis.
Just because someone says they are religious it doesn't mean they are. Most religions are just a way for people to control others. Im sure if they really believed in a god or hell they would not do what they do.
Really? I'd say a suicide bomber is very likely to believe in God to go through something that extreme and definitive.
(It goes without saying there are terrible atheists too, in case anyone confuses my line of argument with me thinking otherwise.)
Unfortunately, you and I don't get to define what religion is.
All the major religions of the world are just that: religions.
Religion is believing in a higher god like power.
As I said just because someone says they are religious it doesn't mean they are.
I'm sure many priest became priest so they can be closer to children rather than any god. A lot of people join a cult or sect as they cannot cope with life not because they have any love for a god.
My own personal beliefs are peaceful and loving, I'm not going to agree that a violent religion is real. I am allowed to pick the type of religion that reflects my own views and beliefs.
You say I cannot pick and choose or cherry pick of course I can. I can discard a religion that goes against my beliefs.
If belief in an afterlife was not used to control millions of people in this world I could agree with what you say.
Many, many things are used to control people. Doubtless religious authority did impact negatively on peoples lives. But there is a world of difference to how religion is generally practiced in modern societies compared to the world of medieval persecution, or the fanatics of some islamic theocracy.
If it was not used as a malignant force to encourage people to do unspeakable cruelty I could accept what you say.
As has happened within atheist based regimes also
My argument is that to say it's ok to not accept death as an end because it's depressing is not how we should be tackling peoples concern. Exploring why people are afraid of death is far more productive than replacing fear with fantasy wouldn't you say ?
What can we explore and discover answers too that will make death any less scary or final then. I think it's ingrained into our natures that most of us fear it, and I think that's probably a good thing. Whether we see death as personal oblivion, or a gateway to a new existence is irrelevent. We all have our coping mechanisms to deal with this momentous event, and obviously some cope by holding beliefs about God and an aftelife
.
For thousands of years humans have dealt with their fears by imagining things which are not true, I think it's about time we tackle the fantasies which can cause so much trouble in the world.
Don't let your dislike of religion lead you into dangerous territory where you start to think that what works for you should be the universal panacea to our fears of mortality. Religious/spiritual beliefs may have drawbacks especially when combined with human nature but they may well be a neccessary evil. I lack faith in a secular utopia and I don't think humanity will ever abandon some form of spiritual belief.
If you think there is something in the body, that is not "of the body", then it is hard to square this with atheism. I would have thought.
Though we are often reminded that atheism is simply an absence of belief in God. Full stop. On that basis I can happily believe in fairies and still be an atheist.
To go off on a tangent, I read a recent interview with Derren Brown in which he posited that humanity's obsession with work and why we spend an absurdly disproportionate fraction of our lives doing it probably sprung from the historical assumption that there was an afterlife which fashioned the mindset of 'suffer now, bask in paradise later.'
While it may not be as relevant today, I'm not convinced that mankind's belief in an afterlife has always been totally innocuous.
There's definitely a 'jam tomorrow' aspect. Thing is .......
Fear of death does not mean a lower quality of life, if you realise that this life is all there is, it makes sense to me that you would make the most of it.
Those who believe if the afterlife, in conjunction with religious beliefs, may think that they have to behave in a certain way to get to their religions particular heaven. Depending on the religion, those ways can be very restrictive to what I would consider to be high quality of life.
But that doesn't happen does it? You see people of all persuasions not making the most of life ... why is that?
And in my more depressing moments I think the whole of western civilisation is based on a master con trick which persuaded people to give up a lifestyle that optimised happiness in favour of one that benefited the rich and powerful. I'm sure religion has served the needs of the rich and powerful, but it has not been their only tool.
Seems to be fairly obvious. Some of us need an afterlife narrative some of us don't. Some base what we believe to be true on what we wish to be true some do not.
And I think the point is it meets some current need - not a future one. Whether there actually is an afterlife or not starts to become of less interest than the different life attitudes adopted by those who do and those who don't. I suppose it's possible to hold a belief that doesn't affect the way you live your life - but then it hardly matters what the belief is anyway.
I know that our knowledge is not absolute, but religion seems to be just that for some. Generally human belief in things without proof is not what has advanced our civilisation. Yes, theories have been the foundation of knowledge, but significant theories have been tested with practicable outcomes. I can see no reason to see that belief in an afterlife should be treated any differently.
If we are talking about something that is so fundamentally important to the human race, don't you think we should be rigorous in our questioning of it ? Do you not think we should doubt ? All I see as counter arguement is ' I've got my own proof, but you wouldn't believe it'.
That's a good point. I would have hoped that our understanding of an afterlife would evolve in line with our changing culture. Unfortunately, established religions tend to fix beliefs in time.
It is fascinating; if I say there is no such thing as the jabberwocky very few will ask me to prove it does not exist. Yet asking for proof of the absence of a God or an afterlife is often expected or considered necessary.
Anyway I promised myself not to get involved with these threads any more.
We are allowed to visit and wave hello to each other my friend
For some non-direct reason you reminded me of one of my favourite scenes in Attenborough's Miracle on 34th Street (not my absolute favourite scene, that has to be the little deaf girl). Santa is talking after a day in court and complaining that part of the evidence against him was that they could not find his home in the North Pole. He is aghast '.....it exists in the the dreamworld, I thought that was perfectly well understood!'.
I'll resist the chance to suggest that most of the world's children are brainwashed into believing in God, and simply say that if someone is brainwashed into a belief it's still a belief. Its origins may be dubious, but then I think a lot about religion is dubious.
I guess we're at the 'agree to disagree' point though. I think that people who sincerely believe in God are still capable of doing terrible things, but if you think otherwise then ok.
As I said just because someone says they are religious it doesn't mean they are.
I'm sure many priest became priest so they can be closer to children rather than any god. A lot of people join a cult or sect as they cannot cope with life not because they have any love for a god.
My own personal beliefs are peaceful and loving, I'm not going to agree that a violent religion is real. I am allowed to pick the type of religion that reflects my own views and beliefs.
You say I cannot pick and choose or cherry pick of course I can. I can discard a religion that goes against my beliefs.
As I said, you don't get to define what religion is. Not in real terms, at least.
To say that followers of organised religion and those who commit atrocities in the name of religion don't believe in a god is fundamentally wrong. It is the strength of their belief that drives them. They also have a supposedly holy book that condones their actions.
The argument you're using is the typical "my god is better than your god" one, which in itself has caused no end of conflict and death. In a way, you have made my point for me.
My critique of that article is that it is warning of the dangers of the real over the imaginary. Would you say that is correct ?
I do find that those who hold a supernatural belief system think that those who don't, have a cold and stark view of the world, are pessimistic and without understanding of the joy of existence. I know I can speak for many other atheists when I say that this is not the case.
For me the beauty and wonders of nature are enhanced by scientific understanding. The article fears technology is overtaking human 'knowing' of what 'lies beneath,' when in fact technology has started to allow us to see exactly what is there. What we see is amazing enough without having to impose ideas upon it which have no basis to be true.
The article mourns the loss of the Titans and champions their return as a kind of saviour for humanities insight, but as lovely as it all sounds, they are a myth. If a person wants to believe in a myth, then let them at least accept it for what it is. If a person wants to build the foundation of their life on a myth , they should understand why others look on with disbelief.
I admit I've not read all of this thread. I don't usually like to post until I'm up to date with the discussion, but I read a few pages and then felt rather depressed so skipped to the end. I suppose that means the thought of death does disturb me if I think about it too deeply, so I prefer not to.
I did note criticism of belief in any form of afterlife before I jumped to page 20 and just wanted to add my tuppence worth.
When my grandmother was dying she asked me whether I believed in Heaven and whether I thought she would see my grandfather (her husband who had died a few years previously) and her child (her first born, died whilst only a baby) again. I assured her that I did and she would. She was comforted by that in her final hours. She was not particularly religious, but she knew she was dying and she felt scared.
I lied to her because I haven't a clue what happens after we die as I haven't experienced it yet. But I presume it is the end and we just cease to be. I don't think that would have been a kind or helpful reply in the circumstances.
My point is; I don't see the need to mock those who do believe. If it is not harming anyone and they feel more at peace for thinking they will see their loved ones again, then I wouldn't wish to challenge that. I suppose it is a human construct, but one borne out of pain and confusion. I don't think ego necessarily comes into it. If you argue with anonymous people on an internet forum for believing in life after death, you don't know if they are grieving, or even dying. I just think that it is such a sensitive topic that it is best to debate without ridicule.
I miss people who I loved very much. I appreciate the sentiment behind such comments that infer I will be reunited one day. I don't think so though, but it's a nice thought and I know they mean well. I feel irritated by such comments that scorn such sentiment. Even though I tend to agree it feels a bit unnecessary. Emotive subject I suppose. And however absurd the notion of afterlife is, we would all probably hope our own loved ones believed in such a concept if it helped them deal with our own passing. You don't need to share a belief to respect it.
Now I will Google something silly and uplifting and put such thoughts out of my mind...
Comments
It's an opinion based on an established fact.
There is no afterlife. It is a man made fantasy.
I dont consider any of those religions to be real. Just excuses to do evil.
I thought my post you quoted made that quite clear.
Is this really all you have to add to this discussion?
You clearly have nothing to say.
No, it really is quite simple.
Suicide bombing is entirely dependent on the bomber believing that they will be rewarded in the afterlife. The same can be said of the 9/11 hijackers. That is how a strong belief is used to commit mass murder and it stems from religion.
History is littered with mass murder in the name of various gods. The bible and Quran condone mass murder, slavery and more besides.
Well I am a Capricorn..
Now you just reminded me of this. Dare I say Jung(ish).. Nowt to do with the afterlife.
Last couple of paragraphs left column, second page (page 11)..
http://www.jungatlanta.com/articles/summer05-return-of-titans.pdf
Christianity and Islam are not real?
Ok then.
What would you call a "real religion" then?
I'm not lumping people together. I'm just not pretending that suicide bombers and perverse priests are suddenly not 'religious' just because they do bad things. 'Religious' isn't a catch-all term for acting nicely.
Any religion that is peaceful, gentle or just a persons belief. I have my own beliefs I am not a member of any church.
Unfortunately, you and I don't get to define what religion is.
All the major religions of the world are just that: religions.
That does appear to be Sweetpeanut's rather idealist interpretation of religion.
Just because someone says they are religious it doesn't mean they are. Most religions are just a way for people to control others. Im sure if they really believed in a god or hell they would not do what they do.
No not everyone acts nice all the time everyone is human and has human emotions. But people who are pure evil are not really of any religion. Probably more mentally ill than anything else.
Really? I'd say a suicide bomber is very likely to believe in God to go through something that extreme and definitive.
(It goes without saying there are terrible atheists too, in case anyone confuses my line of argument with me thinking otherwise.)
Religion is believing in a higher god like power.
As I said just because someone says they are religious it doesn't mean they are.
I'm sure many priest became priest so they can be closer to children rather than any god. A lot of people join a cult or sect as they cannot cope with life not because they have any love for a god.
My own personal beliefs are peaceful and loving, I'm not going to agree that a violent religion is real. I am allowed to pick the type of religion that reflects my own views and beliefs.
You say I cannot pick and choose or cherry pick of course I can. I can discard a religion that goes against my beliefs.
I think more brainwashing than the love of a god.
Read about how they brainwashed Kamikaze pilots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze#Cultural_background
Many, many things are used to control people. Doubtless religious authority did impact negatively on peoples lives. But there is a world of difference to how religion is generally practiced in modern societies compared to the world of medieval persecution, or the fanatics of some islamic theocracy.
As has happened within atheist based regimes also
What can we explore and discover answers too that will make death any less scary or final then. I think it's ingrained into our natures that most of us fear it, and I think that's probably a good thing. Whether we see death as personal oblivion, or a gateway to a new existence is irrelevent. We all have our coping mechanisms to deal with this momentous event, and obviously some cope by holding beliefs about God and an aftelife
.
Don't let your dislike of religion lead you into dangerous territory where you start to think that what works for you should be the universal panacea to our fears of mortality. Religious/spiritual beliefs may have drawbacks especially when combined with human nature but they may well be a neccessary evil. I lack faith in a secular utopia and I don't think humanity will ever abandon some form of spiritual belief.
Though we are often reminded that atheism is simply an absence of belief in God. Full stop. On that basis I can happily believe in fairies and still be an atheist.
There's definitely a 'jam tomorrow' aspect. Thing is .......
But that doesn't happen does it? You see people of all persuasions not making the most of life ... why is that?
And in my more depressing moments I think the whole of western civilisation is based on a master con trick which persuaded people to give up a lifestyle that optimised happiness in favour of one that benefited the rich and powerful. I'm sure religion has served the needs of the rich and powerful, but it has not been their only tool.
And I think the point is it meets some current need - not a future one. Whether there actually is an afterlife or not starts to become of less interest than the different life attitudes adopted by those who do and those who don't. I suppose it's possible to hold a belief that doesn't affect the way you live your life - but then it hardly matters what the belief is anyway.
That's a good point. I would have hoped that our understanding of an afterlife would evolve in line with our changing culture. Unfortunately, established religions tend to fix beliefs in time.
We are. I am suspicious of anyone who claims their views are pure cold objective logic.
We are allowed to visit and wave hello to each other my friend
For some non-direct reason you reminded me of one of my favourite scenes in Attenborough's Miracle on 34th Street (not my absolute favourite scene, that has to be the little deaf girl). Santa is talking after a day in court and complaining that part of the evidence against him was that they could not find his home in the North Pole. He is aghast '.....it exists in the the dreamworld, I thought that was perfectly well understood!'.
I'll resist the chance to suggest that most of the world's children are brainwashed into believing in God, and simply say that if someone is brainwashed into a belief it's still a belief. Its origins may be dubious, but then I think a lot about religion is dubious.
I guess we're at the 'agree to disagree' point though. I think that people who sincerely believe in God are still capable of doing terrible things, but if you think otherwise then ok.
As I said, you don't get to define what religion is. Not in real terms, at least.
To say that followers of organised religion and those who commit atrocities in the name of religion don't believe in a god is fundamentally wrong. It is the strength of their belief that drives them. They also have a supposedly holy book that condones their actions.
The argument you're using is the typical "my god is better than your god" one, which in itself has caused no end of conflict and death. In a way, you have made my point for me.
My critique of that article is that it is warning of the dangers of the real over the imaginary. Would you say that is correct ?
I do find that those who hold a supernatural belief system think that those who don't, have a cold and stark view of the world, are pessimistic and without understanding of the joy of existence. I know I can speak for many other atheists when I say that this is not the case.
For me the beauty and wonders of nature are enhanced by scientific understanding. The article fears technology is overtaking human 'knowing' of what 'lies beneath,' when in fact technology has started to allow us to see exactly what is there. What we see is amazing enough without having to impose ideas upon it which have no basis to be true.
The article mourns the loss of the Titans and champions their return as a kind of saviour for humanities insight, but as lovely as it all sounds, they are a myth. If a person wants to believe in a myth, then let them at least accept it for what it is. If a person wants to build the foundation of their life on a myth , they should understand why others look on with disbelief.
Your smugness is totally unwarranted.
And as if to prove my point, you pop up with another inane comment.
I did note criticism of belief in any form of afterlife before I jumped to page 20 and just wanted to add my tuppence worth.
When my grandmother was dying she asked me whether I believed in Heaven and whether I thought she would see my grandfather (her husband who had died a few years previously) and her child (her first born, died whilst only a baby) again. I assured her that I did and she would. She was comforted by that in her final hours. She was not particularly religious, but she knew she was dying and she felt scared.
I lied to her because I haven't a clue what happens after we die as I haven't experienced it yet. But I presume it is the end and we just cease to be. I don't think that would have been a kind or helpful reply in the circumstances.
My point is; I don't see the need to mock those who do believe. If it is not harming anyone and they feel more at peace for thinking they will see their loved ones again, then I wouldn't wish to challenge that. I suppose it is a human construct, but one borne out of pain and confusion. I don't think ego necessarily comes into it. If you argue with anonymous people on an internet forum for believing in life after death, you don't know if they are grieving, or even dying. I just think that it is such a sensitive topic that it is best to debate without ridicule.
I miss people who I loved very much. I appreciate the sentiment behind such comments that infer I will be reunited one day. I don't think so though, but it's a nice thought and I know they mean well. I feel irritated by such comments that scorn such sentiment. Even though I tend to agree it feels a bit unnecessary. Emotive subject I suppose. And however absurd the notion of afterlife is, we would all probably hope our own loved ones believed in such a concept if it helped them deal with our own passing. You don't need to share a belief to respect it.
Now I will Google something silly and uplifting and put such thoughts out of my mind...