Some questions to the "atheists/non-believers"

[kyser_soze]

And yet again, Alderbaran's role as Islamic Spin Doctor grinds any debate to a halt.

IJ, FFF and rich! have successully shown how limited and narrow your whole world context is and that this thread was originally nothing more than another opportunity for you to shout 'No it isn't' whenever someone mentioned the nastier bits of humans who behave under the influence of your and other faiths.

 

[Aldebaran]

Your responses all seem to take the form "this terrible thing religious people do is not authorised by their religious text". Mostly, I get your point, which appears to me to be "the good guys of this religion are different from the bad guys".

mmm... It was not my purpose with this thread to be forced to post that type of replies over and over again. In my view it should be clear enough to anyone with a functioning brain withouth having it spelled out over and over again to them.
Of course threads like this hold an open invitation to the more fervent "anti religious" to post the most fervent generalising nonsense. It is like saying: in the UK some people are criminals/lunatics/idiots = all UK'ers are criminals/lunatics/idiots. Only: because it is about "religion" such a generalising is all of a sudden not an amazing thing to do but seen as "normal".
Why wouldn't I find that somewhat abnormal?

one of the many problems atheists have with religions is "why do you need a 'divine being' to tell you to be a good person"?

Yes,seen the attitudes of some religious people that is a question asked with reason. Where do you see me stating that you need ot believe in God to be a good person?

When religious people start hairsplitting over "yes, they are of my/other religion and bad but that is because they have the wrong interpretation of the sacred text" the non-religious start thinking "throw it away and start again, it clearly doesn't work if it can be mis-interpreted that badly..."

If so, you should throw everything away and "start all over again" since absolutely everything you can think of can be badly mis-interpreted or abused. Humans stay humans, if they are religious or not. Religion or anything else you can think of works good enough for those who apply "it" for what "it" is meant to be.
(By the way: Where do you see me stating that people who follow an other religion then mine or those who don't believe in God are "bad"?)

Yet it works both ways, isn't it.
My impression is that many atheists like very much the idea that religious people are "bad" and/or mildly up to severely insane. They cherish the thaught... often enough without even knowing what they actually talk about. It must be re-assuring (is that a word?) to support and spread the news that atheists are the only "normal" people on the globe. Why wouldn't I find it amusing to observe such a naïvity that often even leads to a very clear arrogance?

salaam.

 

[Nickster]

My impression is that many atheists like very much the idea that religious people are "bad" and/or mildly up to severely insane. They cherish the thaught... often enough without even knowing what they actually talk about. It must be re-assuring (is that a word?) to support and spread the news that atheists are the only "normal" people on the globe. Why wouldn't I find it amusing to observe such a naïvity that often even leads to a very clear arrogance?

But you should realise that many atheists do have an in-depth knowledge of religions and converted from them so can talk about them with authority and experience. For example, I was not brought up religious but I converted to christianity in my early 20s. I used to call myself an evangelical christian, attended church regularly, read the Bible, went on retreats, prayed and lived a spiritual life - but I am SO glad now that I am not like that anymore. My world view is far far more interesting now, and I am so happy that I don't have to rely on what some severely-edited old book says or what a preacher preaches to guide how I live - I use my own rational thought and critical reasoning.

 

[kyser_soze]

Why wouldn't I find it amusing to observe such a naïvity that often even leads to a very clear arrogance?

And yet so unable to see the arrogance in yourself! Amazing. And amusing to read too

 

[Aldebaran]

But you should realise that many atheists do have an in-depth knowledge of religions and converted from them so can talk about them with authority and experience.

It is possible, but there is a notable difference between "in-depth knowledge" and an authority that comes from "first hand experience".

I am SO glad now that I am not like that anymore. My world view is far far more interesting now, and I am so happy that I don't have to rely on what some severely-edited old book says or what a preacher preaches to guide how I live - I use my own rational thought and critical reasoning.

See what I mean? You acted in disgust because of your experience with a certain sect of Christianity (or maybe with some of its followers). You were led by your emotions, not by your rational or critical reasoning, for making that decision. That you now experience a sensation of being "freed" is in my idea not *because* of the religion - and even less because you believed in God - but because of your personal experience with that type of the religion in practice.

What you describe could be the most common reason why people denounce their religion or even their belief in God (God is not the same as religion). It also leads to what I call "religion shopping". Changing one "church" for an other seems to be common in certain circles of Christianity, especially in the USA.
In my idea one of the causes could be that many Chrsitians seem to look at religion as something that must "pay off" and if possible "immediately". I call that Capitalist-inspired expectations and views of what should be all and only about worshipping God.

Maybe if you would examine what exactly bothered you so much you could separate emotion from it and then look at what the religion itself actually means or describes at the points you were so dsigusted about. Possibly you shall detect some discrepancies. Maybe not. It depends.

Talking for myself: my worldview is as interesting as can be and my mind works very rational and critical

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

And yet so unable to see the arrogance in yourself! Amazing.

It is not even amazing to me that some people tend to confuse self-confidence with arrogance.

And amusing to read too

Hence you can't say I don't add to your life quality. "which is nice" (having The Fast Show in mind. I just got the DVD's).
By the way: happy birthday. I just saw that you have the weight of maturity to crush me with

salaam.

 

[Nickster]

It is possible, but there is a notable difference between "in-depth knowledge" and an authority that comes from "first hand experience".



See what I mean? You acted in disgust because of your experience with a certain sect of Christianity (or maybe with some of its followers). You were led by your emotions, not by your rational or critical reasoning, for making that decision. That you now experience a sensation of being "freed" is in my idea not *because* of the religion - and even less because you believed in God - but because of your personal experience with that type of the religion in practice.

What you describe could be the most common reason why people denounce their religion or even their belief in God (God is not the same as religion). It also leads to what I call "religion shopping". Changing one "church" for an other seems to be common in certain circles of Christianity, especially in the USA.
In my idea one of the causes could be that many Chrsitians seem to look at religion as something that must "pay off" and if possible "immediately". I call that Capitalist-inspired expectations and views of what should be all and only about worshipping God.

Maybe if you would examine what exactly bothered you so much you could separate emotion from it and then look at what the religion itself actually means or describes at the points you were so dsigusted about. Possibly you shall detect some discrepancies. Maybe not. It depends.

Talking for myself: my worldview is as interesting as can be and my mind works very rational and critical

salaam.

Ok - I had to pause for a while with incredulity after reading your post.

You are completely and absolutely wrong if you think my conversion away from Christianity was done on emotional grounds. And I would not be so insensitive to use the word "disgust" in describing a religion.

It was an entirely rational decision. The Christians I met while I counted myself as one of them (5 years of my life) were some of the most lovely people I've ever met and the "feeling" I got from my spiritual life was very comforting. But the authority of Christianity flows from its central tenet that the Bible is the word of God.....a 2000 year old book that is based on the culture of the ancient middle-east, heavily edited by the early church. The more I studied what my belief was based on, the more I realised (THROUGH INTELLECTUAL REASONING) that the evidence for a reason for me to live my life based on something called original sin and redemption from some figure called Jesus being nailed to a cross, is so unbelievably dodgy as to be entirely opposed to rational thought (but then that is after all what faith is isn't it?)

I have never "religion-shopped". As I said I was not brought up religious at all and have only ever considered myself either a christian or an atheist. For me, the evangelical church filled a gap in my life at the time - THAT was the emotional bit, the realisation that it was nonsense was not an emotional journey but an intellectual one.

There are some who might say therefore that I didn't have enough faith. Well, that's a moot point. When did my faith become "not enough"? When my knowledge of the facts became "too much"?

I don't regret having been a christian due to the fact that I can now look back and learn from my mistake of being spoon-fed a religious belief by others in a comfort zone without using my own critical faculties.

 

[Aldebaran]

You are completely and absolutely wrong if you think my conversion away from Christianity was done on emotional grounds. And I would not be so insensitive to use the word "disgust" in describing a religion.

It is teh impression I had when reading your description... and I used it that word simply because I could not think of an other one. ("aversion" maybe? )

The Christians I met while I counted myself as one of them (5 years of my life) were some of the most lovely people I've ever met and the "feeling" I got from my spiritual life was very comforting.

That is nice to hear about. Usually people who leave a religion have an other type of stories.

But the authority of Christianity flows from its central tenet that the Bible is the word of God.....

I learned differently and every Christian I know is very much aware of it that the Bible was edited several times.Especially the NT gives stories "according to x or y". My late mother's family is Catholic and so was she. What they believe is that the writers were "inspired by God".

The more I studied what my belief was based on, the more I realised (THROUGH INTELLECTUAL REASONING) that the evidence for a reason for me to live my life based on something called original sin and redemption from some figure called Jesus being nailed to a cross, is so unbelievably dodgy as to be entirely opposed to rational thought (but then that is after all what faith is isn't it?)

I had to laugh reading this because you express - a bit vividly - more or less what I think about the Jesus story according to Christians (he is a prophet in Islam) and "original sin" (does not exist in Islam). All that is in my view completely in opposition with the idea of a Compassionate and Just Creator of All.

Belief in no matter what can be described as the opposite of rational. It all depends of how you would define "belief" and teh scope of this.

For me, the evangelical church filled a gap in my life at the time - THAT was the emotional bit, the realisation that it was nonsense was not an emotional journey but an intellectual one.

I still see it as a form of the "religion shopping" I described. You were looking for something that gave you a feeling of being rewarded for your commitment to it. That is not the purpose of worshipping God, hence not the purpose of religion. Any rational person should know that
Once the goal to be religious was gone or satisfied, your intellect drove you to examine and ultimately found it to be superstitional ballast. Would you have searched for God instead or a religion to "fill a gap" maybe the outcome would have been different?

There are some who might say therefore that I didn't have enough faith. Well, that's a moot point. When did my faith become "not enough"? When my knowledge of the facts became "too much"?

Then I have no faith either (sounds a bit weird if you ask me). My first academic field is orientated towards historical research on Islam. The first thesis I defended was my research concerning the history of Al Qur'an as text. No matter what I found or may find about this or related subjects, it can't destroy my belief in God or make me "leave Islam". Religion is not about slavely following human interpretations and/or imposing them on others. It is a personal search for God.

salaam.

 

[Nickster]

Religion is not about slavely following human interpretations and/or imposing them on others. It is a personal search for God.

salaam.

That is precisely what's always quoted by religious people and a stock phrase that I used to quote when I was one, but the truth is if that were the case, everyone would be practicing their own religion and not adhere to a one particular set of beliefs. By practising Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc etc you are in effect nailing your flag to a particular pole that was built by someone else.

 

[Aldebaran]

the truth is if that were the case, everyone would be practicing their own religion and not adhere to a one particular set of beliefs. By practising Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc etc you are in effect nailing your flag to a particular pole that was built by someone else.

To some extend that is of course correct. Were you miss the point is precisely the aspect I mention: the personal search for God. I don't need organised religion for that.
When you look at the mainstream, most visible aspects of organised religion you see the cumulative result of sociological translation/transformation and sociological aspects of and provoked by that belief.
Religion provides for clear definitions, gives a direction to the worshippers and a way to focus on a range of values and issues. In the case of Islam it also provides for frame and law system for an organized society.

salaam.

 

[kyser_soze]

Faith is a personal search for God - religion is a socially constructed mechanism for the purpose of social control.

 

[Aldebaran]

Faith is a personal search for God - religion is a socially constructed mechanism for the purpose of social control.

Correcter would be to say that religions are abused to serve for social control. That is not the fault of the religion but of the humans using and abusing it.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

deleted double post

 

[fudgefactorfive]

It's one of those irregular verbs, innit:

I am self-confident
You are arrogant
We are an internet bulletin-board

 

[OriginalSinner]

OrignalSinner

I think your quite correct in saying that religious belief is often a source of personal strength, and that confidence in one's convictions allows a person to acheive much.

What I'm not so convinced about is if we can consider this to be a good thing.

It's good for the person themselves, but rarely for the people around them. There are countless examples of people who unflinching belief in the rightness of their actions that have caused misery and pain for everyone affected by them.

A bit like a loaded gun.. wouldn't you say?

The result depends upon the bearer. In a way it's a device that helps human beings to achieve their potential... but their potential for what is not really the concern.

So I think questioning whether religion is a 'good thing' is a bit moot. It's a thing - the person who uses it is the real issue.

That's one reason why I think religious convictions should always be examined critically. There is a very real danger that they will lead to foolish actions if they are not.

What they believe - isn't important.

Why they believe it - is.

 

[OriginalSinner]

Confidence in your god gives you confidence in your ability to influence events.

No it absolutely does not. All relies on and depends of God. Believing in God does not give anybody any "power" over anything.

What... not even the power to ask for peace and protection?

Not much point behind your Salaam then, eh?

It's an anagram, of masala.. did you know that? I thought I'd throw that in to add a bit of spice...

You're being silly, by the way, believing in god gives you a path to salvation.. in every case - if that's not a power to influence things.. then Robbie Williams is the fifth beatle.

But confidence in the power of yourself and your ability to deal with events also helps you deal with them.

Has nothing to do with yes or no believing in God or with having yes or no a religion. Self-confidence is merely a question of self-knowledge.

Out of the mouths of babes.

salaam.

Doesn't mean so much now you told me you ain't got no power to do nothing.

 

[The Groke]

Correcter would be to say that religions are abused to serve for social control. That is not the fault of the religion but of the humans using and abusing it.

salaam.

What an odd thing to say.

So you see "Religion" as an entity, concept or quality which exists completely independantly of Humans - that somehow people then distort this pure "force" for their own ends.

Religion is a completely artifical human construct and concept - it is not some kind of base element or resource which people make use of in their own way.

Just a meme, nothing more, nothing less.

When the very last human being dies, so does God, in all his/her forms.

 

[snorbury]

What an odd thing to say.

As I understand that post, you see "Religion" as an entity, concept or a quality which exists completely independantly of Humans - that somehow people then distort this pure "force" for their own ends.

Religion is a completely artifical human construct and concept - it is not some kind of base element or resource which people make use of in their own way.....

When the very last human being dies, so does God, in all his/her forms.

what about the angels ?????

 

[The Groke]

what about the angels ?????

They all retire to Eastbourne.

 

[kyser_soze]

And God, Jesus, Allah and Mohommed will all have those little beach hut things and share a place in Frinton-on-Sea (it's a dry town you see!)

 

[Jo/Joe]

Of course religions are forms of social control, what would be the point otherwise? They dictate what should be believed and how people should behave if they want to get into heaven/win the lottery/whatever. This appears to be especially the case in Islam.

 

[Aldebaran]

What... not even the power to ask for peace and protection?

Since when is the one who needs to ask in power?

Not much point behind your Salaam then, eh?

Since that constitutes my wish that peace may be with you, I am actually the one who gives. I have however no power to let it happen. That depends on Allah solely. I can only hope you shall have God's blessing, as I wished.

You're being silly, by the way, believing in god gives you a path to salvation

the "salvation" idea and concept is a Christian thing (Islam is not Christianty.)

.. in every case - if that's not a power to influence things.. then Robbie Williams is the fifth beatle.

Could be, I don't know who "Robbie Williams" is. I do know some of the Beatles (their music). Like it very much.

salaam.
(If a wish for you to have peace doesn't mean a thing to you is not my problem.)

 

[Poi E]

It is a personal search for God. .

That's faith, isn't it? God exists, just got to find him. Religion is the bureaucratic side of faith.

 

[OriginalSinner]

Since that constitutes my wish that peace may be with you, I am actually the one who gives. I have however no power to let it happen. That depends on Allah solely. I can only hope you shall have God's blessing, as I wished.

....They both give you confidence... and they both give you hope.

If you have no confidence in your God listening to your wishes then what is the purpose of making them?

None.

So either your faith is weak or your argument is.

the "salvation" idea and concept is a Christian thing (Islam is not Christianty.)

But I assumed you'd understand a simple metaphor.

My bad.

The fact is that religion offers you knowledge of the correct way to live.. in the eyes of your god. It offers you the chance to control your own destiny by your adherance to the rules. That's power.

salaam.
(If a wish for you to have peace doesn't mean a thing to you is not my problem.)

If wishes were fishes, I know where I’d be,
Casting my net in the dark rolling sea;
And if my net’s empty when it comes back to shore,
I’ll throw it away and go fishing no more.
---------------------Eric Bogle

 

[OriginalSinner]

Why can I not have an "unquotable" post?

I missed this first time round.

I do not like being quoted over a subject matter that resides on opinion (especially my own opinion). I see it as unpolite and irritating. Especially when it is attempted to be used against me, as some flaw in my logic.

Can't possibly be more irritating than a person that wishes only to say what they want without the inconvenience of interacting.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Since when is the one who needs to ask in power?



Since that constitutes my wish that peace may be with you, I am actually the one who gives. I have however no power to let it happen. That depends on Allah solely. I can only hope you shall have God's blessing, as I wished.




the "salvation" idea and concept is a Christian thing (Islam is not Christianty.)



Could be, I don't know who "Robbie Williams" is. I do know some of the Beatles (their music). Like it very much.

salaam.
(If a wish for you to have peace doesn't mean a thing to you is not my problem.)

Do you actually wish peace to the poster, or is it just a pro forma mode of address, like goodbye [God be with ye]?

 

[snorbury]

When the very last human being dies, so does God, in all his/her forms.

I repeat my question, what about the angels in Eastbourne? That is if Eastbourne still exists when the very last human being dies

 

[The Groke]

That is if Eastbourne still exists when the very last human being dies

Well now you are just bringing this back to the Tree/falling/Forest/Sound issue.

"Does Eastbourne exist if there is no-one alive to go there"


I dunno.

 

[snorbury]

we have the proof

I dunno.

 

[frogwoman]

right i told you i'd reply and here goes ...

There's a couple of things I disagree with there Frogwoman.

Firstly, I think it's inaccurate to say that 'true' position of Judaism is the hippy all-loving, it doesn't matter how you worship, so long as you're a good person aproach.

well actually, it is and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know the religion very well

the torah repeatedly points out that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come - which means that everyone who is righteous will be "saved"

because judaism isn't a prosetylising religion it means that theres no requirement to be jewish or to convert to judaism in order to please g-d.

and we dont know what's going to happen after our deaths ... nobody does so its a bit stupid to say that some people will go to heaven, if we don't know what form the afterlife will take.

Even if it is a popular one.

its popular because it is true.

Certainly it's doesn't hold that much water to me when some sects of your religion believe that all contact with the gentiles should be avoided.

umm see above ...

if say someone was in a fundamentalist group that thought that there should be jihad in the uk (or something similar) well i don't think that you could say that they were religious in any way, since if they did take their religion seriously they would believe in all parts of it(like the ones that said don't kill and treat other people the way you'd like to be treated)

Those sects may even have a greater claim to the title of 'true interpretation' of Judaism.

the "literal" interpretation isnt necessarily the true one. its not about following everything it says in the torah and the talmud literally, its about finding hidden meanings in it and analysing it ... there are loads, you don't just have to say that what it says is what it says and thats the end of it

oh and even if their interpretation was true which it isn't, one of the main ideas of judaism is tikkun olam which is to heal the world and get social justice for everyone in it, work towards the end of war, that sort of thing

its a bit hard to do that if you're in a cult that forbids you talking to someone that isn't jewish !!!

Also, even amongst the non-orthodox religious Jews, conversion to another religion still seems to be a gigantic taboo.

well yes it is

once you're a jew you're always a jew and that means that you accepted the commandments and beliefs of judaism upon yourself.

whether you choose to follow them and how you do so, is another matter, but you've got that obligation.

therefore, if you follow another religion you're abandoning it

I don't think that's really consistent with the 'it doesn't matter what you believe' line.

you got a point there m8

but what that means is that nobodys going to hell because they're not jews, nobody's going to be hated by g-d for it or find that g-d doesn't love them or something, or be punished for no reason

but according to judaism you're not allowed to convert out of the religion if you're actually in it, thats a different thing from changing the denomination you are in

if people do this, then imo they dont deserve to be shunned the way some jewish sects treat the ones who leave (like by pretending they're dead)

i dont agree with it but i wouldn't tell them they were gonna get punished or something - thats not gonna help - they need people being good friends and being understanding towards them, coz that was prolly why they leave the religion (or any religion) in the first place

a lot of it is also historic - coz in the "olden days" - the time of the crusades - people who did this often used to be the most zealous persecutors in order to prove themselves and work their way up the social ladder, so people became very unhappy and suspicious whenever that happened

i can understand why you have issues with that tho and i wouldn't expect you to go along with it

Secondly, and equally I don't think that the jihadi position is any less 'true' an interpretation of Islam than the friendly peace loving one. Again, from what I've read, the Qu'ran discusses at length the rules for a (military) jihad and when one can fight in one and they certainly don't strike me as particularly restrictive rules. It also seems to state quite clearly that jihad is the responsibility of all Muslims and that the grand plan is for a worldwide Muslim state with toleration for Christians and Jews as lesser citizens within it.

i've never read the koran so i can't really comment, but dont a lot of those rules come more out of the hadiths which were collected after mohammed's death, or the sunnah?

and don't forget that mohammed was basically a general with an army, and the koran was written down at the time he was fighting ... there are loads of things in the bible which were only meant to apply to the israelites/jews or the christians at the time, and not at other times, and didn't apply to everyone . im sure that a lot of it must have been the same at the time the koran was written

oh ... and although the death penalty is technically allowed in judaism, there are so many safeguards placed upon its use as to render it completely impossible ... maybe its like that in islam, but the jihadis have chosen to ignore it?

i don't know. it'd be interesting to find out ... from somewhere that wasn't biased

If there is an inconsistency between that and the moral rules about how a Muslim conducts himself, it's not a failure of interpretation. It's a failure of the text itself.

im not sure about that either to be honest ... i think someone like that is going to find an excuse whatever it is ...

as i said before it's like communism

just because stalin killed 20 million people doesn't mean that the communist manifesto was a bad idea, it just means that stalin was a nutcase, he took it to extremes and subverted the aims that marx had had in the first palce

I probably don't need to add this disclaimer, or shouldn't anyway. But I'm not suggesting that all Muslims are raving mad suicide bombers, merely that their religion does not forbid them to be. I tend to think that the fact that most muslims seem to be reasonably decent people, is in spite of their religion rather than because of it. Same goes for Christians and jews, and probably everyone else.

sorry but i dont agree with that at all

i think religion does give people moral values, or at least reinforce them

i think if you think that people and the world are created by g-d, an all powerful being who loves and helps you, you're going to have respect for them if you take the religion at all seriously ...