The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Wunderkind on April 17, 2008, 03:31:27 AM
-
I've been surfing the web reading my daily does of news and the pope has been plastered everywhere like he's the next Messiah. I'm reading along and so far they're reporting everything short of what he ate for breakfast this morning and I stumble on this:
Pope says U.S. society can undermine Catholic faith (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080417/us_nm/pope_usa_secularism_dc;_ylt=AsdeioE4BxY0s.zoYq99K0I7Xs8F)
Pope Benedict tempered his praise for American religious tolerance on Wednesday with a warning that U.S. society can quietly undermine Catholicism by reducing all faiths to a lowest common denominator.
I didn't think much of it at first and kept on reading. Then the little gears in my brain got to turning and I re-read it.
Pope Benedict tempered his praise for American religious tolerance on Wednesday with a warning that U.S. society can quietly undermine Catholicism by reducing all faiths to a lowest common denominator.
I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or be pissed off. I should expect these things to come out of the man's mouth, but it still threw me for a loop. He's at least alluding that religious tolerance is bad. And worse, this is the only snip of this I can find anywhere.
-
This probably isn't the right forum for this, but We're all reasonably intelligent in here, so I'm going to try to grab this bull by the horns. Full disclosure: I'm a non-practicing Catholic, whose issues with the Church lie primarily on the human side of things (i.e. I'm not pissed off with God, I'm pissed off with those who claim to be acting on God's behalf.)
Catholicism is not just another Christian religion. There are certain theological and dogmatic aspects to Catholicism which are not universally accepted by non-Catholic groups. For instance, with regard to Communion, Catholics believe in transubstantiation, whereas most Protestant faiths believe in consubstantiation (that is, Catholics believe the Communion bread becomes the body of Christ, and Protestants believe Christ is present with the Communion bread.) It's a subtle yet fairly important difference.
Additionally, the Catholic Church has a rich (and very misunderstood) tradition of honoring saints. The first thing I absolutely want to make very clear beyond the shadow of a doubt is that Catholics do NOT worship saints, nor do we most of us worship Mary (more on that in a minute). This is a common misconception. Theologically, Catholics believe that good people go to heaven, and are aware of what is going on here on Earth. Saints are in heaven, and are thus closer to god. Thus, many Catholics ask saints to intercede with God on their behalf. In office politics, it's akin to asking the person who gets along best with the boss to make a request on that person's behalf.
There are some Catholic sects which do practically worship Mary, even to the point of elevating her above God. These people are to be admired for their fervent devotion, yet pitied for their misunderstanding of basic theology completely nutso. The Church does not recognize this extreme devotion. Actually, I'd rather think it would irk Mary, since her whole schtick is that she's supposed to be the mother of God and not God him/her/itself.
What does all this have to do with the Pope's comments? My take is this: when all faiths are reduced to a "lowest common denominator" (i.e. "Hey, we all believe in Jesus! Yay Jesus!"), what sets individual faiths apart becomes lost, and a Catholic identity becomes a mere Christian (or even $religious) identity. When I was a kid, my family belonged to a cult an "echumenical covenant community", that is, a cross-faith Christian community bound by some fairly serious vows. It was supposed to be inclusive and sensitive to both Catholic and Protestant needs, but in practice, despite about a 75-25 Catholic-Protestant split, all those features of Catholic faith which were not shared by Protestants fell completely by the wayside. The Catholicism was stripped out in favour of mere Christianity.
If you're not Catholic and don't understand the intricacies and nuances of Catholicism, you might be inclined to say, "so what?" If you are Catholic, and embrace your Catholicism as much culturally as doctrinally, this is a bad thing, because it strips away much of that which makes your culture unique.
I think that's what he's getting at.
-
What baffles me, actually, is the fact that he basically said that religious tolerance is bad for all religions. It... well... it... hell, it just doesn't make any sense. I understand he may have been referring to the Catholic church exclusively and other religions like it, but the way it's worded is 'all religions'. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around that one statement before I dig any deeper into it. I can't past the point where he includes all religions in the sentence.
Although the article perturbed me a little (everything about the Catholic faith scares me, please don't be offended), I'm not saying it isn't true in certain cases that faith doesn't get watered down by socializing with other faiths, I'm just flat out confused. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that religious tolerance is bad for "all faiths". It sounds like a huge contradiction.
-
My take is this: when all faiths are reduced to a "lowest common denominator" (i.e. "Hey, we all believe in Jesus! Yay Jesus!"), what sets individual faiths apart becomes lost, and a Catholic identity becomes a mere Christian (or even $religious) identity.
And why is that a bad thing? When faith seems to be one of the primary sources of chaos in this world, wouldn't this actually be a good thing? Meaning that if more people can identify with a simpler religious concept, it becomes more inclusive.
-
What baffles me, actually, is the fact that he basically said that religious tolerance is bad for all religions. It... well... it... hell, it just doesn't make any sense.
Maybe it's a translation error. You know, like the bible.
-
Maybe it's a translation error. You know, like the bible.
Maybe...
What language do you think it was originally in?
-
I couldn't tell you. But what I mean is even if he himself said it in English, it was perhaps a language barrier that made it come out like that. Then again , maybe not. It's just a theory.
-
And why is that a bad thing? When faith seems to be one of the primary sources of chaos in this world, wouldn't this actually be a good thing? Meaning that if more people can identify with a simpler religious concept, it becomes more inclusive.
It's a double-edged sword, really. The devil is in the details, and ultimately, those details do come to the forefront. I say this fully cognizant of the fact that the Pope has a very deep interest in preserving a Catholic identity over a more generic, inclusive version of Christianity. I mean, that's what he does. If you disagree, you disagree. I was mostly trying to put his quote into context.
I realize most people here tend to be atheists and have little use for faith, much less organized religion. I've had more than my share of issues with the Catholic Church - but for some reason, I still tend to defend the Church. Crazy, huh? Anyway, the nature of faith is such that it is a deeply personal thing, and different people need different things. Some people need to be left to their own devices. They need to be free to do their own searching and ask their own questions. Others require a great deal of structure and ritual in order to feel a sense of belonging. The Catholic Church is really an ideal situation for people who want lots of structure, ritual and tradition.
The bigger issue, I think, is that there's a movement toward an imposition of generic Christianity instead of denominationalism, with all that entails. And I'm not convinced that's a good thing. At the end of the day, each of us is responsible for arriving at whatever Truths we hold, and in a way with which we are satisfied. And if I've learned one thing about faith, it's that one size does not fit all. The real problems arise when the attitude appears that one size DOES fit all, and the One True Path is $path.
Each religion claims to have a moral authority and obligation to proselytize. Each religion claims to be the One True Faith. Many of these religions preach that followers not of the One True Faith must embrace the One True Faith or be destroyed. This is a huge shortcoming in most religions, and runs fundamentally counter to what I believe. It's also why I tend to be a fan of the prayer, "Lord protect me from your followers."
-
Each religion claims to have a moral authority and obligation to proselytize. Each religion claims to be the One True Faith. Many of these religions preach that followers not of the One True Faith must embrace the One True Faith or be destroyed. This is a huge shortcoming in most religions, and runs fundamentally counter to what I believe. It's also why I tend to be a fan of the prayer, "Lord protect me from your followers."
That's the nature of religions, and the fundamental problems with them. They can't just say "Come join us! We're pretty sure we're right! We think..." They have to make those unfounded claims of representing the absolute truth, and they have to hide behind the concept of faith, because they's the only way they can exist.
I think all religions have some concepts and principals that are positive on society and that can bring a sense of persoanl satisfaction in some way. But the opposite is true where all religions have elements that we don't necessarily agree with, that arn't necessarily good for society, and that aren't necessarily good at making us feel good about ourselves individually and collectively. Ultimately, I think the best course of action for a person is to select those "components" that they agree with and feel are positive, and practice them with some flexibility. Drop the "I'm a catholic" or "I'm a protestant" and start calling yourself a moral person instead.
Let's not kid ourselves: Religions were very powerful organisations that interfered in governement activities. In fact, they still do today sometimes. But there was a time when religious organisations had more power then many governments. There was a time when religion had significant influence on individuals, and it wasn't too long ago. When a religious organasation can decide to end a person's life without consequence, that is power. Power than can be abused (and has).
A catholic priest could knock at your door and request an explanation as to why you didn't have a child during the last year. And people were pressured to do acts that they didn't necessarily agree with, like having 15 kids. But think of the political context back a few hundre years ago when europeans came to America. One of the driving motivator for having large families was colonization, which was a political goal acheived under the pretext of religion. Then, the tradition keept on going for a long time. 2 or 3 generations ago, you still found priest visiting homes and pressuring people to have kids, because that is what God wants.
When will people realize that organized religions = puppet master + you dancing like an idiot. When will people realize that they can freely choose how to live their lives by their own rules, and not by some code others have set for them. When will people realize that many of them they were raised in an environement that enforced certain beleif without ever having the opportunity to choose for themselves. They just practice what they've been taught, and feel guilty about asking questions, and will do the same to their children. I remember attending mass where a priest was essentially telling his audience that it was the parent's responsibility to teach their kids the religion, and that giving them a choice was WRONG. He went on about a story of a family who had given their son the choice of which religion he would practice when he was 16 years old. He came to them and annouced that he had picked a religion: Satanism. He then went own about how the kdi ended up taking is own life and BLAMED THE PARENTS for this event. It was all attributed the letting the kid make a choice. How fucked up is that? Seriously? I almost got up and challenged him right then in there. It was very insulting I found.
I rememeber when I was a teenager, I wanted to go to a mass of another religion, just for the heck of it. Just to see what was different about it. I asked a friend if he'd come with me, and he was scared to do it, and eventually backed out. That's how powerful religion can be on a person who was raised with some concepts without ever having the opportunity to challenge them, or determine by their own will if they made sense or not. And what I notice frequently in many religions is that fear is the primary driver of behaviors, not rewards. Fear.
I think the world would be a better place without organized religion, and I only wish that people would snap out of it and see it for what it really is.
-
You know, my parents are hardcore true-believer dyed-in-the-wool ultra-orthodox Catholics. And we were raised to be that way. The irony is that not one of the 4 of us kids is a practicing Catholic any more. But I digress.
My parents are both very intelligent people. Dad has a doctorate in philosophy. Mom owned her own business for awhile. For both of them, using your noggin has been extremely important, and they (Dad especially) really impressed on us kids the importance of knowledge, education, thought and reason. Dad taught me how to reason stuff out. He taught me the basics of logic, and taught me how to approach difficult questions. That's really the purpose of those 100-level philosophy courses in college.
Many of you are probably wondering how someone can be reasonable and logical and so fervently religious, and I think I have an answer to that. Basically, he presumes certain things to be true because he has arrived at these truths on his own, and these truths now serve as his starting point. So when he makes a statement, his faith in God and the correctness of the Catholic Church have to be presumed. His "mistake", if you will, was that in learning to reason, us kids asked the same questions but arrived at very different answers. It's caused some tensions, but he and Mom are also somewhat placated by the fact that we arrived where we did not due to laziness, but because of genuine soul-searching and reason.
I remain fervently of the belief that faith and reason need not be enemies. Conflicts really only arise when they tread on each other's territories... which, sadly, happens far too often.
-
Pope Benedict tempered his praise for American religious tolerance on Wednesday with a warning that U.S. society can quietly undermine Catholicism by reducing all faiths to a lowest common denominator.
"hay guys I think it's great that you tolerate each other's religious views, but don't forget who the top dog is around here, mkay?"
-
Conflicts really only arise when they tread on each other's territories.
But how is that possible? Let's replace the word "territories" with the word "topics", because I think it means the same thing in the end. Then you are sayiong that in order for reaosn and faith to coexist, you can only look at one particular topic form one particular perspective? (faith or reason).
Because everytime you do that comparison, you'll always end up with different results, and always will the results be opposed simply because reason critizises the analysis approach used by faith, and faith does the same to reason.
Faith itself is a very logical process that requires assuming unverifiable conditions. In that sense, they are the same. The difference however, is that conditions set by faith cannot be confirmed, whereas conditions set by logic can. For example, I can logically conclude that because I can lunge my hand in water, I will not be able to walk on water. But faith will tell you, that while this is true, Jesus was able to walk on water because he is the son of God and thus has powers we do not posses which he uses to create "miracles". The belief that Jesus can walk on water is conditional to the belief that he has powers (which is conditional to the beleif that he is the son of God), which no one can prove or disprove. The guy has been dead for 2000 years. But if you beleive that he had unusual powers, then it is only logical to concluded that he was perhaps able to walk on water.
Now, from a logical perspective. Is it possible that Jesus did walk on water? Yes, but there had to be a trick to it. Perhaps Jesus was an elaborate illusionist. Some people beleive that David Coperfield can fly, because they saw him levitate out of thin air. But those who "beleive" don't understand how he does it. There are a series of tiny blue wires involved in the trick, which blend in with the blue background of his stage. David wants you to belive he can fly, and if you beleive he can, he's done his job.
See this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8qX0ZhzJBU
There is a reason why he's wearing that bagy shirt. And there's a reason why when he first goes trough the loops, he doesn't actually go throught them, it just looks that way. Just keep an eye above him and you will see that no loop completely goes around him.
Anyway, my point is simple: People will beleive what they can't understand if it seems credible. But that doesn't make it true.
-
I think everyone knows my stance on this issue: The Pope Is A Cocksucker.
And not in a good Las Vegas way.
-
ALright. I've had some time to sleep on it and mull on it and I've finally decided what bothers me so much about this statement.
Simply put, I'm pagan.
[rant]
I am the oldest target of the militant Catholic church. I also am a target of the Christian church. When I hear a statement that sounds an awful lot like a call to the purification of any religion, I get the heebee-jeebees. When I hear religious tolerance being blamed for the inpurities of a relgion I get nervous. When the religion doing it Catholism or Christianity I start to get sick to my stomach.
That religious tolerance is the only reason I can practice my own beliefs without fear of being hung for being a witch or being burned for just not being a Catholic. I like that it evens the playing field. I like that it allows religions to bleed into other religions. I love that it makes it harder to determine who really is Catholic and who isn't. The loss of definition in more powerful religions like Catholicism means that more passive religions like my own can go about their business with having to look over their shoulder.
I do still have to look over my shoulder. I live in the "Bible Belt" of the United States, where we believe in religious freedom as long as you're a Christian. I have enough to worry about without having to hear the pope pop off a statement like this one calling for the purification of the Catholic faith, because, if you recall, the last time someone called for the purification of a group of people it didn't go so well! The last pope who shunned religious tolerance had an ulterior motive and I'm not saying this one does, but I do learn from history.
When I hear a statement like this being made in a public arena it scares the crap out of me. It troubles me so because the very tolerance he's condemning in order to strengthen his own faith, is the tolerance that allows me to have my faith.
The whole article sounds like a Catholic call to arms. I'm NOT saying it is, I'm saying, from the perspective of a pagan, it sounds like it is. Catholicism still has a good deal of power and a good deal of money, so does Christianity. I have to fight tooth and nail as it is just to legally pratice divination in the state of North Carolina because Catholicism and Christianity are so powerful. Technically, even in this modern age, I can still have my business shut down and be fined, if not imprisoned, for selling wiccan altar items in the state of North Carolina. I could sell a voodoo doll in my county and end up with a completely legal fine smacked on my ass. I don't need Catholics to start screaming about how there's too much religious tolerance in the United States. The next thing I know I'll be having to watch my neighbors closely in case they see me doing something like burning incense in my garden. That might get me arrested.
I'm NOT saying it is going to happen, I'm saying it could happen, and in the state in which I live, I DON'T need a leader of a politically powerful, currency wealthly religion that already has proven that it hates me, encouraging it. I'm having enough trouble with the Christians as it is, I don't need the Catholics to join the party too.
[/rant]
And that is what bothers me about this statement. I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying, from the viewpoint of a pagan, is sure as hell sounds like it is, and everyone here should know by now that there are going to be a few who take him way too seriously.
-
Hm. I'm not "Christian" or "Catholic" or pagan or whatever; but , uh, this thread seems borderline bigoted? Isn't this just about the same thread - different religion? But in my thread; I'm a bigot or a racist. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
-
Hey, I'm prejudiced against Christians and Catholics! Get over it!
Joe called the pope a cocksucker first! Why aren't you complaining about his post? :x
Actually, V just hasn't gotten to this thread yet. I'm sure she'll rip us all new ones for pointing out that one religion wants to rule them all. I'll probably get the brunt of everyone's hatred for posting that Catholics scare the bejesus out of me. In this case, it's not a matter of extreme versus moderate, all Catholics scare the bejesus out of me. But then so do all Christians. Hell, anyone from a highly organized sect of any path of beliefs, including other pagans scare the bejesus out me.
I'm not by any right saying they're wrong in believing what they believe and they're more than welcome to start burning bodies again, I'll just have to re-evaluate my choice of country. I am saying they scare the bejesus out of me.
You'll have to ask V personally what the difference between the threads is when you see her next. That is, of course, assuming she doesn't smite me for posting this then post another scathing review here talking about how this thread is also bigoted.
-
I'm not saying anything about the Catholic faith. I'm not saying all Catholics are douchebags. I'm saying The Pope, personally, is a cocksucker. Nothing "bigoted" about that.
-
Hm. I'm not "Christian" or "Catholic" or pagan or whatever; but , uh, this thread seems borderline bigoted? Isn't this just about the same thread - different religion? But in my thread; I'm a bigot or a racist. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
I think over all, you were misunderstood in your thread. The lack of a clearly defined topic at the start kind of derailed it.
-
The lack of a clearly defined topic at the start kind of derailed it.
Yep. I coulda had a better title and spelled out my thoughts in the first post; not the second.
However; it's still hard to misunderstand what I typed. What I intended for the thread to be; yes, but what I typed; no. Somehow it was assumed by nearly everyone posting that I'm talking about "all Muslims are radical". Even after I posted several posts specifying my thoughts. All I ask is that my posts are read before I'm hammered for something.
-
I'm not saying anything about the Catholic faith. I'm not saying all Catholics are douchebags. I'm saying The Pope, personally, is a cocksucker. Nothing "bigoted" about that.
Just like I wasn't opinionating about Islam, and wasn't calling all Muslims radicals. I was saying the fact that the moderates aren't making much of a difference to, and seem to be really quiet about the extremists scares me. Specifically and ONLY because they(<--- this "they" indicates only radicals) say -over and again- their goal is killing me/us/our culture - and have already acted on that. They are to be taken seriously. Nothing bigoted about that, either. No?
-
When you say "where are all the moderate Muslims", you are implying that there aren't m(any).
-
I'm not saying anything about the Catholic faith. I'm not saying all Catholics are douchebags. I'm saying The Pope, personally, is a cocksucker. Nothing "bigoted" about that.
Aw, shit. I keep forgetting to use my sarcasm flag that Bizb gave me. Here, this was supposed to be at the end of that sentence about your post.
-- |>
-
I'm saying The Pope, personally, is a cocksucker.
As a Catholic, I found that statement offensive. As an American who believes it is the basic right of the individual to express their opinions in open forums, and with the understanding that this forum exists in no small part for this purpose, I support your right to express that opinion. Therefore, I held my tongue.
Part of the freedom of religion is the responsibility to accept that there are other people out there who do not recognize freedom of religion and do not recognize the beneficial nature of a pluralistic society. However, that does not mean that those who disagree with religion/Christianity/Catholicism should feel free to run roughshod over the faiths of those who do believe in a higher power.
Wunderkind is a pagan. I'm fine with that (no, really, I am.) Demosthenes is an atheist, and I'm fine with that. He and I have had some very interesting and insightful discussions about faith. What I'm not fine with is the general attitude I'm seeing more and more that "I don't believe in God, and anyone who does is a moron." We all have our reasons for believing (or not) as we do (or don't.) In my case, my faith is not unexamined. I know what I believe, and I have a pretty firm grasp on why I believe it.
Don't get me wrong: I have my issues with the Catholic Church and the Pope (particularly when he starts talking in terms of the One True Path.) At the same time, though, I am quite loyal to my faith as it is.
An inclusive and pluralistic society has to begin with you. Years ago I figured out that faith is a very deep and very personal thing. I have no more right to impose my faith on others than others have the right to impose their faith - or lack thereof - on me. I understand the whole "I'm tired of hearing about it" thing. Because I'm also there - just on the other side.
-
I am very tired and cranky, so I will continue this when I wake up. I'm not ignoring it.
I just sincerely hope you get that I'm not calling Catholics wrong (scary maybe, but whatever floats your boat), I'm saying this sentence about religious tolerance being bad for religion sounded dangerously. Too dangerously. If it was a pagan saying this I would be just as bothered by it, and I would have a brand new rant to post in here.
-
That's fine. My initial post was mostly an effort to provide some context to his statement.
-
I have no more right to impose my faith on others than others have the right to impose their faith - or lack thereof - on me. I understand the whole "I'm tired of hearing about it" thing. Because I'm also there - just on the other side.
Absolutely true.
Obviously, if someone is tired of hearing about it, they can simply skip the thread. And if others want to discuss the topic, without calling everyone else who disagress and idiot, that is fine too. I did use this word myself earlier, and I didn't really mean that. I understand and accept that anyone can choose their own beleifs, I just get very excited when I talk about it because to me, it makes no sense.
Trust me, I have tried and tried to understand. I've done my years of soul searching. I just don't get it at this point in my life. I remember a time when I was younger where I was a firm beleiver. But something changed over time. It's almost like I "woke up" on day and when I look back, I see how naive I was back then. And I'm not calling anyone who beleives in God naive. Not at all. I see myself as naive because I took in the information I was given and accepted it without questions, because I wasn't wise enough to consider that the information could be wrong.
The day I woke up, I became angry with myself for letting others manipulate me. I felt violated in some way. Back then, I just accepted what I was taught as the truth. I view the whole experience equivalent to brian washing quite frankly. Today, I just can't take all the information in without questioning it, and when ever I question it, I realise that I won't find answers and I won't get anywhere. It's a never ending cyclce, and quite frankly, life is too short to spend it pondering about questions that no man will ever be able to answer. It's like spending your existence driving around in a traffic circle and never running out of gas.
While I accept that others can choose to beleive what they want, I always maintain that in neither party should impose their beleifs on others. I've had my share of religious people telling me I couldn't this or that however. "You can't do that because God ... fill in the blank". The people who do that truely beleive they are doing the right thing, because they beleive what they say to be true. That's the fundamental problem. Have you been to the other side and back? Then how the fuck do you know ANYTHING? It pisses me off.
My whole take on God is actually quite simple. Because I can't prove or disprove his existence, I chose not to beleive what religion tells me, and I chose to conduct myself in a maner which I deem to be good and just. I recognise that I may be wrong about God's existence. Should that be the case, I hope that God will judge me on my actions and not my beleifs when I die. Because if he does, I don't think he'll be upset with me. And if he comdems me for not beleiving in him, regardless living my life in a positive manner, then that is not the kind of God I would worship anyway.
Simply put, I'm pagan.
SHE'S A WITCH! BURN HER!!!!!
-
She turned me into a newt. But I got better.
-
I don't think people who disagree with me on this subject are lacking in intelligence in any way. If you are familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor, you get down to this: is it "simpler" that a) a magical force in the sky created everything, or b) all the atoms in the universe cooled and congealed in just such a way to form a star at our distance from the galactic center, with our planet at just such a distance from our star in order to support our form of life? An intelligent person could decide either way just on that point, and there are many different ways to think about it.
I also don't care if you're offended. However, if what I say about some cocksucking old man in a stupid hat has a tangible effect on your emotional well-being, I would say you have some self esteem issues to work through.
-
However, if what I say about some cocksucking old man in a stupid hat has a tangible effect on your emotional well-being, I would say you have some self esteem issues to work through.
Heh. I'd argue you're the one who has to get past this papal blowjob fetish you have. I recommend you buy your wife a mitre and some red shoes and fantasize about it while she's going to town. That should take the edge off.
-
(http://www.handytools.co.uk/acatalog/Rexon_Mitre_Saw_SCM8EA.jpg)
I don't think she would know what to do with one of these....
OR WOULD SHE???
-
Gotta love a woman who knows how to handle her hardware.
-
Anyway... Power tools and divine blowjobs aside, I actually think this is a good thread. Let's keep it productive folks!
-
Part of the freedom of religion is the responsibility to accept that there are other people out there who do not recognize freedom of religion and do not recognize the beneficial nature of a pluralistic society.
Okay, everybody, mark it down in your books. Prepare to file it for a national holiday. Light firecrackers. The pagan and the Catholic agree on something. |>
Actually, I pretty much agree with everything you said. This morning when I got home I was about to go off on full on tar-n-feather campaign about how much Catholicism has butchered other's religious freedoms in the past and have at times even abolished them completely. That the very nature of a montheistic religion is "Our way or burn, bitch" and that, in its very concept, destroys the fabric of what is relgious freedom. Needless to say, I'm glad I slept on it.
I have no more right to impose my faith on others than others have the right to impose their faith - or lack thereof - on me.
Neither do I and I think now is a good time to point out that this was not intended to put down any particular religion or belief (or lack thereof as the case may be). This thread was intended to point out that a man of some considerable influence has spoken against religious freedom, period. End of statement.
...I'm also there - just on the other side.
Apparently, now I am too. According to this man's words my mere existence near you is a threat to your faith. I now pose a new question:
Is it possible that by merely associating with those of another religion that your religioun is trampled upon? Is my mere existence in this forum, conversing with you, watering down your faith?
I understand and accept that anyone can choose their own beleifs, I just get very excited when I talk about it because to me, it makes no sense.
Ditto, but from the other side. People who don't believe in some form of a deity stupify me. We could have some very intriguing conversations.
And if he comdems me for not beleiving in him, regardless living my life in a positive manner, then that is not the kind of God I would worship anyway.
Actually this behaviour is very human in nature so I would say, if this occurs, that creature is not god, and you have nothing to worry about.
She turned me into a newt. But I got better.
How in Pangea's womb....?
I thought that was fool proof!
I don't think people who disagree with me on this subject are lacking in intelligence in any way. If you are familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor, you get down to this: is it "simpler" that a) a magical force in the sky created everything, or b) all the atoms in the universe cooled and congealed in just such a way to form a star at our distance from the galactic center, with our planet at just such a distance from our star in order to support our form of life? An intelligent person could decide either way just on that point, and there are many different ways to think about it.
I'm glad you added that last sentence, because I find option a) the simpler answer. Probably not completely correct, but simpler anyway.
-
Well, I can personally observe stars, the effects of gravity, etc... so for me that goes a long way towards choosing b). But the point is, nowhere did I ever insinuate that religious people are stupid.
Some are, of course.
-
Some non-religious people are stupid too. I don't think faith is anyway tied to stupidity or vice versa.
Some people are just stupid, religious or not is beside the point.
-
I don't see why the concept of God and science aren't compatible.
Where did all this come from? - Study God. (the idea of God; not some religion**... or maybe study ALL religions.)
Weird Tingly Feeling? How? - Study science.
The whole idea that the two aren't compatible is a prime example of how 'religions' skew things. Not to mention that most mainstream religions all believe the same things; but somehow call it different so they can be at odds.
Allah. God. Jesus. Mohammed. Heaven. Be faithful. Believe.
. . . ok, so what's to fight about? Except one case I can think of in Jerusalem; where the same spot of ground means different things to different people. Although as a rational person, I would think that that could be worked out. Maybe that's the problem. Rationality.
**edit
-
If you are saying that God is the creator of everything, then it means that you are using it to explain things that you don't understand. That's why the God concept is at odds with empirical science. This doesn't make them wholly incompatible, necessarily. But as far as science should be concerned, the God question is irrelevant.
By the way, there is a big difference between believing in some kind of creator and calling it God, and believing in the Judeo-Christian Biblical God.
If you believe the the earth was literally created in 7 24 hour days and that humans were put right there with the lions and the sheeps and the dirt-eating snakes, that is a long way from believing that the universe didn't begin in a spontaneous combustion, and there must be some form of powerful sentient creator (and I daresay you do have a bit of an intelligence issue).
-
If you are saying that God is the creator of everything, then it means that you are using it to explain things that you don't understand. That's why the God concept is at odds with empirical science.
No; but God -the idea of God- has a LOT to do with what exists now; since it seems to be an innate tendency of humans to have a God in some form; and we as humans have had a huge effect on what exists now. Thats why I edited to say study ALL religions.
By the way, there is a big difference between believing in some kind of creator and calling it God, and believing in the Judeo-Christian Biblical God.
If you believe the the earth was literally created in 7 24 hour days and that humans were put right there with the lions and the sheeps and the dirt-eating snakes, that is a long way from believing that the universe didn't begin in a spontaneous combustion, and there must be some form of powerful sentient creator (and I daresay you do have a bit of an intelligence issue).
This is precisely why I say 'religions' skew things.
-
But as far as science should be concerned, the God question is irrelevant.
On this we agree.
I do not understand why my belief in a deity suddenly makes my perception of science skewed. I believe the two exist independent of each other. Whether or not there is a god and it created the universe, is beside the fact. The facts are that we have proof of these events occuring in this order, if it fucks up your belief in your god that's a matter between you and your god, not you and science. Science is the matter of what is known and knowing more. I do not see how it relates to the god issue in any way. (This is, of course, eliminating those few who deem science as their god. That is a discussion for later.)
No; but God -the idea of God- has a LOT to do with what exists now; since it seems to be an innate tendency of humans to have a God in some form;
Actually, it seems more that humans have an innate tendency to take the blue pill and pretend none of it exists. It is the nature of religions to provide that blue pill, so that we can continue taking the easy way out instead of testing theory until we find truth. Therefor, it seems the innate tendency of humans to have a religion of some form.
-
Therefor, it seems the innate tendency of humans to have a religion of some form.
Ok, yep; thats a better way to put it. Nonetheless; the end result is the same.
-
No; but God -the idea of God- has a LOT to do with what exists now
Indirectly at best, by how humans have reacted to it. You could say the same about any number of imaginary things. It doesn't mean we should sacrifice children to the kobolds (although maybe, just to be safe...).
Knowing a lot about religions is the best toolbox against Bible-thumping nutjobs, so I'm all for studying them all.
-
I do not understand why my belief in a deity suddenly makes my perception of science skewed.
Belief in a deity and religion are not neccessarily one and the same.
-
Indirectly at best, by how humans have reacted to it. You could say the same about any number of imaginary things.
Yeh, but that doesn't negate effect Im talking about.
It doesn't mean we should sacrifice children to the kobolds (although maybe, just to be safe...).
:?
Knowing a lot about religions is the best toolbox against Bible-thumping nutjobs, so I'm all for studying them all.
Yep. Anything-thumping.
-
If your deity consciously makes no demands on your time I don't see the distinction.
So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.
And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.
Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.
-
Fuckin a. Call me a convert. 8-)
-
Ok, yep; thats a better way to put it. Nonetheless; the end result is the same.
Only if you use "god" as your blue pill, which I think is a cop-out and makes the rest of us look bad. Some people use chocolate. Religions require you to use "god" as your blue pill, hence their built-in flaw.
Belief in a deity and religion are not neccessarily one and the same.
I was hoping that would be clear, but thank you for pointing it out. I will still be told that my belief in a deity is somehow un-scientific.
It doesn't mean we should sacrifice children to the kobolds (although maybe, just to be safe...).
I nominate we sacrifice the parents of the most annoying brats first. |>
Fuckin a. Call me a convert. 8-)
The moon is better than the sun. :-P
It doesn't matter why dammit! IT JUST IS!
-
I will still be told that my belief in a deity is somehow un-scientific.
Have them study human psychology. It's actually very scientific.
-
Is it possible that by merely associating with those of another religion that your religioun is trampled upon? Is my mere existence in this forum, conversing with you, watering down your faith?
Now you've opened the can of worms... :-P
Seriously, I'm firmly of the opinion that faith and reason not only have to coexist, but that they have to help each other. I believe God created the world, and I believe that the Big Bang was the mechanism used. I believe in intelligent design, because evolution isn't just intelligent, it's freakin' brilliant. Put another way, God set up the dominoes and gave the first one a nudge, then let things happen.
But I digress.
Is the mere fact that I converse with pagans and atheists about faith an affront to my faith? Absolutely not.
(WARNING: I'M ABOUT TO GET RELIGIOUS HERE)
Per Christianity, and per what I believe, God made humanity in God's own image and likeness, and that entails everything about humanity. Including reason, intellect, natural curiosity and free will. These are God's gifts to humanity. For humanity to reject these gifts in favour of blind obedience is, I believe, a misuse of these gifts. If you're at all familiar with the Bible, you might remember the story about the landowner who gave 3 servants stewardship over some money. 2 invested that money and were profitable, one buried it in the dirt and had only the original money to show for it. While that's not the original intent of the story, I think it applies to human reason. We are given an intellect, curiosity and free will not to bury in the sand, but to better ourselves and those around us.
If reason is a gift from God, then even the nature of faith itself must be subject to that reason. True faith demands absolute belief that something is true. This means that if a tenet of faith cannot withstand rational scrutiny, it must not be true. Similarly, if what I believe is true, it MUST stand up to rational scrutiny. By testing my faith, by subjecting it to scrutiny and legitimate questioning, I can strip away those aspects which are not actually of divine mandate and strengthen what I do know to be true.
Association with others who believe differently in no way waters down my faith. On the contrary, it strengthens it. That said, I must be aware that my circumstances are uncommon. I'm a rather intelligent person conversing rationally with other intelligent people. There are lots of other places on the internet where discourse of this nature (i.e. on-topic and reasonably intelligent) is simply impossible because of the number of idiots who decide to make it into an ad hominem attack-fest. In a forum like this, in which we actually generally respect one another, even when we disagree, I think the situation is ideal for rational questioning of what I believe.
-
I have this theory about religions. I think that an important part of what drives people to faith is the fear of death. Most religion speak of life after death in some form. They give hope that existence is not ended by death. Do you think that it is perhaps convenient for people to embrace such beliefs because it comforts them in some way? It helps them cope with the unknown by chosing to beleive, without actual proof, that certain things will occur once they pass on? To me, that is one of the greatest benefits religions offer to individuals. I beleive that those who choose to practice any faith do so because it brings them something in return, whether that benefit is real or not being irrelevent. As long as it is perceived as being real, then this is all that matters. And if I am correct with my theory, then this only supports another theory that I have which is that all humans are driven by personal greed. Now, I know, this sounds radical. I admit it. But I beleive that humans only act in one way or another when there is some kind of benefit to them in doing so. Even a random act of kindness is driven by personal gain. You do it because it makes you feel good. Yes, it is true that you also provide a benefit to someone else, but that's a secondary effect. The primary driver is personal gain, or preventing/minimizing personal loss, always.
I think that religions directly translates into that personal greed factor. To continue on with my "fear of death" theory, those embrace the delusion that they will somehow continue on, and that somehow the next life will be rewarding in many ways, are those who gain something from beleiving this. They end up embracing the concept to the point where they beleive it to be the absolute truth. And it's a convenient truth. Most religions use reward as an incentive to join. What better reward than eternal life? What better way to avoid facing the possibility that when I die, there is nothing?
I've intentionally used the word "delusion" realier because "eternal life" and "nothing after death" are equally viable outcomes of death. Clearly, one outcome is not as appealing as the other. So if you can choose to pick one or the other, which do you think people will "choose" to beleive? Religions provide a framwork to deal with the unknown, which is a way for people to cope with the unknown. That is why they choose to beleive something. Ultimately, this translates into personal gain. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Perhaps it's not a bad thing to live a potential lie and be happy your whole life, than to live a potential reality and be miserable because of it. Because of the unverifiable nature of life after death (or the absence of it), people can just swing both ways. Well... if you're a catholic, it is frowned upon to swing both ways! hehe!
Anyway, these seem like viable theories to me, and they are both interlinked.
Now, I will ask a few personal question to those who practice a religion, should they feel like answering them.
1 - Have you considered the real possibility that you are completly wrong?
2 - And if so, what was your thought process, how did you reach a conclusion?
3 - And now, to entertain my personal greed theory: After you've conducted the analysis and reached your conclusions as per your response in #2, do you think that your choice in the end was the option that directly provided the greates personal benefit to you? In order words, did you really choose your faith because if either promises rewards, or it provides the threat of punishement should you choose any other option (or both)?
-
1. Yes. All the time.
2. I'll just say a lot of it has to do with statistical anomalies. They could be explained as statistical anomalies (i.e. a 99.999% probability of something not happening still leaves a 0.001% probability of something happening) or as divine will or whatnot. There are some other very personal things involved I'm not completely comfortable discussing in an open forum such as this, but have to do with personal experiences.
3. I grew up in a family with faith, so it's something I've had to deal with on a daily basis. And I've had to deal with serious abuse of faith as well. So my subconscious has a healthy dose of "you'll go to hell if you..." in it. Even though, by those same terms, some of the people who had the most influence on that are also the most likely to experience the most severe punishments in the afterlife (assuming there is such a thing.) Frankly, it's almost a miracle I'm not atheist, given the crap I've had to deal with.
Lord, protect me from your followers, indeed!
-
lol! Good answer
-
I'm not shitting on your religious experience, or whatever - in my opinion that's the only reason to believe in it. But let me say something about your "statistical anomalies".
In cards, it's incredibly rare that you would be dealt a royal flush, but it can happen.
But if you shuffle and deal enough cards, over a long enough period of time, it eventually becomes extremely unlikely that you *wouldn't* be dealt a royal flush.
-
Sure. But that's why I phrased things the way I did, rather than calling them "miracles."
-
I assert that our entire universe is just a simulation program running on someone's computer.
-
I assert that our entire universe is just a simulation program running on someone's computer.
Not a flower being carried by an elephant?
-
Not a flower being carried by an elephant?
No, of course not.
That would be ridiculous.
-
I assert that our entire universe is just a simulation program running on someone's computer.
A big, giant version of "Sim City" that some deity cranked the time speed up on, then went afk for a few million years?
-
I remember playing SimLife back in the mid 90s.
-
A big, giant version of "Sim City" that some deity cranked the time speed up on, then went afk for a few million years?
If by "deity" you mean some mouth-breather programmer who went out for a pack of smokes and some ding dongs, yeah. Precisely.
-
Ding dongs should've been in the sweet lovin'
-
I assert that our entire universe is just a simulation program running on someone's computer.
The movie was decent, but the sequels sucked.
-
1 - Have you considered the real possibility that you are completly wrong?
Yes.
2 - And if so, what was your thought process, how did you reach a conclusion?
This is a very difficult question, because if I am brutally honest with myself I will answer like this. "I cannot say." Bear with me. There are things that came about in the course of my very early life that brought me to the conclusion that there is an entity similiar to a god in exsistence, but when you ask me to explain how I came to that conclusion, I can't ever form the words to make it make sense the way it does to me. So I don't try. I came to this conclusion, because there is something there, whether or not it is "god" is still a matter to be questioned, and I will.
3 - And now, to entertain my personal greed theory: After you've conducted the analysis and reached your conclusions as per your response in #2, do you think that your choice in the end was the option that directly provided the greates personal benefit to you? In order words, did you really choose your faith because if either promises rewards, or it provides the threat of punishement should you choose any other option (or both)?
Both. It was some bizarre mixture of my grandmother screaming sulfur and brimstone and my mother taking peace and love. Ironically enough, I chose the one religion, my grandmother is stilling screaming sulfur and brimstone at me for, I don't know what that might say about me, but I'll let you decide how that might be important.
The movie was decent, but the sequels sucked.
I read this whole thread up to this point, and even though I knew what this was about, I still took it in context of religions and died laughing.
I still think the mice are really in control of everything, and this all just delusion we're allowed.
-
Regardless of whether we're just a program running on some yo yo's computer, or a flower in an elephant's trunk*, it's clear that religions developed either as a power grab or an explanation for what was scientifically unexplainable at the time - except for Buddhism. Notwithstanding these truths, religion keeps the brainless masses in line – let’s not take it away from them and cause chaos. In other words – nothing to see here, nothing at all – move along please, keep it moving. Thank you.
*personally I’ve always thought we’re just an experiment placed on this planet by a bunch of futuristic astronauts with names like Adam, Eve and Jesus (as in “Hay Zeus”, the Hispanic astronaut).
-
Maybe we're in hell.
-
"Hell is other people." -- Jean-Paul Sartre
-
I'm pretty sure Hell is Kansas in the daylight.
-
That's funny, I was certain it was on the lower east side of manhattan where the crackheads and tranny hookers run like antelope on the plain.
-
What you call hell is what I call Saturday Night.
-
I'm pretty sure Hell is Kansas in the daylight.
Yeah, maybe if you're sober. :roll:
-
GIS result for "dry counties in Kansas (http://www.ksrevenue.org/images/maplg.gif)".
*shudder*
-
Sedgwick for the win!