Genesis 13 Left & Right

[ProximaCentauri]

Yep, as fervent and zealous as a born again fundamentalist evangelical. Heh.

I agree. I realize it's better to avoid a sledgehammer approach in favor of a softer one that promotes more dialogue.

You will mature in your atheism in due time and then you won't care so much about what others do or do not believe.

No, I don't think so. Beliefs inform actions and these actions can be detrimental to society if religiously motivated. There is overwhelming evidence that most of our western nation allies are surpassing the US in nearly every societal strength indicator from education to health to teenage pregnancy rates. As I believe you're aware...Canada, Australia, UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, and other western democracies are much less pious than the US.

Thankfully, there is now a strong trend with the Millennials, and with Americans of every age group, who are rejecting religion. A trend I'm obviously very enthusiastic about.

 

[Bird Dog]

I agree. I realize it's better to avoid a sledgehammer approach in favor of a softer one that promotes more dialogue.



No, I don't think so. Beliefs inform actions and these actions can be detrimental to society if religiously motivated. There is overwhelming evidence that most of our western nation allies are surpassing the US in nearly every societal strength indicator from education to health to teenage pregnancy rates. As I believe you're aware...Canada, Australia, UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, and other western democracies are much less pious than the US.

Thankfully, there is now a strong trend with the Millennials, and with Americans of every age group, who are rejecting religion. A trend I'm obviously very enthusiastic about.

..but we are not going away anytime soon. In your lifetime or your grandchildrens. Sorry for your luck.

...and the reason we are being surpassed in all the the items you mentioned have nothing to do with Religion. It has to do with the lack of it.....JMHO.

 

[This_person]

I agree. I realize it's better to avoid a sledgehammer approach in favor of a softer one that promotes more dialogue.



No, I don't think so. Beliefs inform actions and these actions can be detrimental to society if religiously motivated. There is overwhelming evidence that most of our western nation allies are surpassing the US in nearly every societal strength indicator from education to health to teenage pregnancy rates. As I believe you're aware...Canada, Australia, UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, and other western democracies are much less pious than the US.

Thankfully, there is now a strong trend with the Millennials, and with Americans of every age group, who are rejecting religion. A trend I'm obviously very enthusiastic about.

So, I asked you to explain your contradictory statements in an effort to have a dialog, and you chose to ignore it again. Clearly your only intent is to throw bombs and inflame others for having the gall to have faith in something different from your faith.

You should attempt to be more honest with yourself and others.

 

[Radiant1]

I agree. I realize it's better to avoid a sledgehammer approach in favor of a softer one that promotes more dialogue.

But yet you still swing that sledgehammer and as a result come across as repulsive as the fervent fundamentalist Christian who wants to shove the bible down everyone's throat. Stop shoving atheism down everyone's throat, PC. Don't be that guy.

No, I don't think so.

Time will tell.

Beliefs inform actions and these actions can be detrimental to society if religiously motivated. There is overwhelming evidence that most of our western nation allies are surpassing the US in nearly every societal strength indicator from education to health to teenage pregnancy rates. As I believe you're aware...Canada, Australia, UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, and other western democracies are much less pious than the US.

I'm aware. The question is if the lack of religion can take credit for successful societal programs, or rather is the lack of successful society programs in the USA a direct result of religion. I'm not completely convinced that's the case.

For the record, I support a secular government as long as I have my freedom of religion. I wish to practice my faith, whatever it may be, without harm and acknowledge the right of others to do so as well. I don't think it's a complete removal of religion that is needed but rather a lack of attempting to force one's beliefs upon another (admittedly Christians and Muslims are the most guilty of this practice). I guess I'm a secular first and a religious adherent second, but that doesn't stop me from being a religious adherent...nor should it. The two are not by necessity mutually exclusive. Once again, similar to our religion/science discussion, you see a dichotomy where I do not.

Thankfully, there is now a strong trend with the Millennials, and with Americans of every age group, who are rejecting religion. A trend I'm obviously very enthusiastic about.

Yeah, but a good many self-describe themselves as "spiritual", so you might want to tamper that enthusiasm just a bit.

Btw, I'm waiting for you to answer ThisPerson about which of your previous assertions is true and which one is false. I can tell you which one is false, but I wouldn't want to shove my opinions down your throat or anything.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

But yet you still swing that sledgehammer and as a result come across as repulsive as the fervent fundamentalist Christian who wants to shove the bible down everyone's throat. Stop shoving atheism down everyone's throat, PC. Don't be that guy.

Time will tell.

I'm aware. The question is if the lack of religion can take credit for successful societal programs, or rather is the lack of successful society programs in the USA a direct result of religion. I'm not completely convinced that's the case.

For the record, I support a secular government as long as I have my freedom of religion. I wish to practice my faith, whatever it may be, without harm and acknowledge the right of others to do so as well. I don't think it's a complete removal of religion that is needed but rather a lack of attempting to force one's beliefs upon another (admittedly Christians and Muslims are the most guilty of this practice). I guess I'm a secular first and a religious adherent second, but that doesn't stop me from being a religious adherent...nor should it. The two are not by necessity mutually exclusive. Once again, similar to our religion/science discussion, you see a dichotomy where I do not.

Yeah, but a good many self-describe themselves as "spiritual", so you might want to tamper that enthusiasm just a bit.

Btw, I'm waiting for you to answer ThisPerson about which of your previous assertions is true and which one is false. I can tell you which one is false, but I wouldn't want to shove my opinions down your throat or anything.

Rad1, repent of your IRRATIONAL WAYS!!!! Really though I'd settle for a little self-examination of one's beliefs and the motivations behind them, which is almost impossible for some, but I don't sense that with you. I think we can agree that there is nothing to be gained by believing in falsehoods.

Further, it's in our best interest as humans to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. We just don't agree on the existence of the supernatural, but someday you'll wise the fu*k up. What, too much?

I want a world where people base their beliefs on sound reasons. A world where people are taught how to think not what to think. A world where the strength of any belief is proportional to the evidence in support of that belief. So sue me.

You and I are in agreement on a secular government that supports freedom of religion. But I think freedom from religion is equally important.

We need to discuss 'spirituality' further, you appear to think the concept of spirituality is inseparable from religion - I disagree.

I appreciate that we can have a lively discussion and still agree to disagree without getting pissed...

 

[littlelady]

PC, why do you care so much about what others 'believe'? You don't believe, and that is fine. You should use the smilie on yourself. JMO.

Also, I think your comment about 'freedom from religion' is pointless. No one forces anyone to be religious; at least in America. If you don't like the faithful that come to your door to preach to you, don't open it. That was easy.

 

[Radiant1]

We just don't agree on the existence of the supernatural, but someday you'll wise the fu*k up. What, too much?

Maybe, maybe not. It might just be that one day I will tell you "I told you so, dumb ass".

A world where people are taught how to think not what to think.

Then stop waiting for science to tell you what to think!

You and I are in agreement on a secular government that supports freedom of religion. But I think freedom from religion is equally important.

I have a response to this, but I should first ask what you think the difference is.

We need to discuss 'spirituality' further, you appear to think the concept of spirituality is inseparable from religion - I disagree.

No, actually. I think they are separate; however, spirituality would still give you the same issues that you rail against regarding religion. According to you a spirituality would still be "irrational", no?

I appreciate that we can have a lively discussion and still agree to disagree without getting pissed...

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Maybe, maybe not. It might just be that one day I will tell you "I told you so, dumb ass".

Maybe so. I don't claim absolute certainty. Do you?

Then stop waiting for science to tell you what to think!

I don't assume science is right about everything, but it's a helluva lot better than the alternative of accepting things on blind faith.

I have a response to this, but I should first ask what you think the difference is.

Separation of church and state, which I thought should be fairly obvious. Did you think I was going to say something different than this?

No, actually. I think they are separate; however, spirituality would still give you the same issues that you rail against regarding religion. According to you a spirituality would still be "irrational", no?

Spirituality is not irrational from my perspective. For me, 'spirituality' is connection to nature, others, the universe. The word 'spirit' comes from the Latin spiritus, which in turn is a translation of the Greek pneuma, meaning “breath.” Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 'spirituality' had a religious context originally.

I practice meditation for health purposes and I do feel a spiritual component to it, a connection with mind, body, spirit. I use the word 'spirit' in this context, non-religiously, simply referring to the essence of who you are as a person. I also enjoy sunsets, looking up at the starlit sky, taking a walk in the woods and consider these things 'spiritual' in a sense - just not in a religious sense.

Religion has hijacked the word 'spirituality', and uses it falsely in my view, connecting it with the myth of an immortal soul. There's no evidence of a 'soul', it's merely a religious claim that is sometimes adopted by the non-religious alike.

 

[Radiant1]

I don't assume science is right about everything, but it's a helluva lot better than the alternative of accepting things on blind faith.

Is that like the lesser of two evils? Don't discount your right brain, it knows things intuitively which is not the same as blind faith.

Separation of church and state, which I thought should be fairly obvious. Did you think I was going to say something different than this?

No, it wasn't obvious. The way you stated it seemed you meant something else.

Spirituality is not irrational from my perspective. For me, 'spirituality' is connection to nature, others, the universe. The word 'spirit' comes from the Latin spiritus, which in turn is a translation of the Greek pneuma, meaning “breath.” Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 'spirituality' had a religious context originally.

I practice meditation for health purposes and I do feel a spiritual component to it, a connection with mind, body, spirit. I use the word 'spirit' in this context, non-religiously, simply referring to the essence of who you are as a person. I also enjoy sunsets, looking up at the starlit sky, taking a walk in the woods and consider these things 'spiritual' in a sense - just not in a religious sense.

Religion has hijacked the word 'spirituality', and uses it falsely in my view, connecting it with the myth of an immortal soul. There's no evidence of a 'soul', it's merely a religious claim that is sometimes adopted by the non-religious alike.

Fair enough I suppose, but by what do you mean "spirit" when you say you are connecting it to mind and body? It is spiritual to connect the mind and body*, but you are using the term "spirit" in a sense that it is something perceptible. Perhaps you are using it in a similar sense as a religionist would use the term "soul"? Hmm.

*I think this is silly from a purely scientific viewpoint. How can the mind and body be disconnected, are they not a part of the same human being? To believe that they are or can be disconnected is to passively point to something more than just the physical, no?


I think perhaps you should re-think what "religion" is. Religion in it's strictest definition is a societal organization that relates humanity to an order of existence. It sounds kind of like Atheism fits that bill. :shrug:


I saw this and thought of you.

View attachment 112179

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Is that like the lesser of two evils? Don't discount your right brain, it knows things intuitively which is not the same as blind faith.

Knowing something 'intuitively' differs drastically from knowing something based on evidence or fact. And intuitions are often wrong. Sure, your intuition could get it right, but would you want to base all your important decisions in life only on what your intuition was telling you? Or, would you perhaps want to validate your intuitions with data and evidence, and sound reasoning?

Your "knowing things intuitively" appears to me like a rationalization for believing things on faith.

Fair enough I suppose, but by what do you mean "spirit" when you say you are connecting it to mind and body? It is spiritual to connect the mind and body*, but you are using the term "spirit" in a sense that it is something perceptible. Perhaps you are using it in a similar sense as a religionist would use the term "soul"? Hmm.

I'm using mind/body/spirit in this context more or less as a colloquialism. In reality, all we have are our brains and bodies. The mind is a product of the brain. The brain is a product of 4 Million years of hominid evolution. I don't think my usage of the word 'spirit' indicates that I'm using it in the same way a believing person would use the word 'soul'.

Words have a variety of usages, especially a word like 'spirit'. I'm using it loosely, referring to the essence of who you are as a person and how you relate to the world. Using it in that manner, I think one can connect to one's spirit through self awareness to understand yourself, your biases, personality traits, etc.

I think perhaps you should re-think what "religion" is. Religion in it's strictest definition is a societal organization that relates humanity to an order of existence. It sounds kind of like Atheism fits that bill. :shrug:

Atheism is simply absence of a belief in a god. If you would like to equate Atheism to religion, you obviously won't be the first, but what's your motivation for doing so? Appears to me you want to say...Hey, you Atheists are just as silly as us Theists.

 

[Radiant1]

Knowing something 'intuitively' differs drastically from knowing something based on evidence or fact. And intuitions are often wrong. Sure, your intuition could get it right, but would you want to base all your important decisions in life only on what your intuition was telling you? Or, would you perhaps want to validate your intuitions with data and evidence, and sound reasoning?

Your "knowing things intuitively" appears to me like a rationalization for believing things on faith.

I'm quite comfortable with my faith and am at a point in my life where I don't give two craps what anyone else thinks, so I have no need to rationalize anything to anyone. It was a prompt for you to think about something you are missing. Quite frankly, my intuition (when I actually follow it) hasn't steered me wrong any more than the best of my logic has because, let's face it, the world and especially the people we share our lives with are not always logical. Intuition is a subconscious form of knowing as opposed to a conscious form of knowing; both are human knowledge. I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking a holistic approach to human knowledge; after all, both the right and left brain are part of being human.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/intuition-may-reveal-where-expertise-resides-in-the-brain/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/radical-remission/201405/the-science-behind-intuition

Atheism is simply absence of a belief in a god. If you would like to equate Atheism to religion, you obviously won't be the first, but what's your motivation for doing so? Appears to me you want to say...Hey, you Atheists are just as silly as us Theists.

It was more an observation. That observation started when I told you that you were acting like a Christian fundamentalist proselytizing and cramming your views down everyone's throat and how abhorrent that was. But let's discuss this further. God doesn't have to be in the equation for something to be a "religion". You obviously have an agenda regarding your own perceived order of existence (your presence on this forum attests to this), and some Atheists have organized to further the same agenda. Atheism fits the religion bill. The old tired adage of "Atheism is simply absence of a belief in a god" in answer to whether it's a religion or not doesn't really wash with rationally thinking people. It's rather ironic that you would deny it, but I don't suppose you have to admit it for it to be true and we can call it something else if it makes you feel better. And yeah now that you mention it, you atheists can be quite silly sometimes.

 

[seekeroftruth]

Joshua 24:15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

 

[ProximaCentauri]

I'm quite comfortable with my faith and am at a point in my life where I don't give two craps what anyone else thinks, so I have no need to rationalize anything to anyone. It was a prompt for you to think about something you are missing. Quite frankly, my intuition (when I actually follow it) hasn't steered me wrong any more than the best of my logic has because, let's face it, the world and especially the people we share our lives with are not always logical. Intuition is a subconscious form of knowing as opposed to a conscious form of knowing; both are human knowledge. I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking a holistic approach to human knowledge; after all, both the right and left brain are part of being human.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/intuition-may-reveal-where-expertise-resides-in-the-brain/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/radical-remission/201405/the-science-behind-intuition

That "the world and the people we share are lives with are not always logical" is something we can agree on." We can't be logical all the time but it would be nice if we could be logical most of the time. I think America has lost its logical rudder. I believe it's critical for our continued prosperity as a country to improve our science and math literacy rates, which are lagging behind pretty much every other developed nation in the world. Also, teaching kids to think critically and logically would pay dividends. I'm not saying a little intuition
can't be a useful in our lives. What I am saying is that critical thinking and logic should be the foundational bedrock of 'how to think'. BTW, interesting links. Thanks

It was more an observation. That observation started when I told you that you were acting like a Christian fundamentalist proselytizing and cramming your views down everyone's throat and how abhorrent that was. But let's discuss this further. God doesn't have to be in the equation for something to be a "religion". You obviously have an agenda regarding your own perceived order of existence (your presence on this forum attests to this), and some Atheists have organized to further the same agenda. Atheism fits the religion bill. The old tired adage of "Atheism is simply absence of a belief in a god" in answer to whether it's a religion or not doesn't really wash with rationally thinking people. It's rather ironic that you would deny it, but I don't suppose you have to admit it for it to be true and we can call it something else if it makes you feel better. And yeah now that you mention it, you atheists can be quite silly sometimes.

Fine then, since Atheism is a religion I'll feel free to proselytize.

I think you're misinterpreting my message but I know I've done a poor job relating it so that's mainly on me. In an effort to refocus it a tad...I would hope that people can wake up to the fact that Christianity and Islam are a net negative to the world and impede the progress of humanity in the 21st century. We have a shared humanity that religions have always been divisive to, but especially Christianity and Islam over the course of the last Millennia right up to present day. Many Americans would already agree that Islam is a net negative but they have a blind spot when it comes to Christianity.

A significant swath of the American population, Fundamentalist Christians, want creationism taught in our schools, gays and minorities as 2nd class citizens, and a Christian-Centric society where Non-Christians are essentially discriminated against. The societal costs of this nonsense are science illiteracy, bigotry, and divisiveness. The political clout of fundamentalist evangelicals has already enabled them to influence state and local laws. The problem is, that moderate Christians who may disagree, are not making their voices known and that Christianity is so engrained into American culture that many moderate Christians discount the negative impact to society overall. So it's the Atheist community that often has to take up the mantle of opposition.

 

[This_person]

That "the world and the people we share are lives with are not always logical" is something we can agree on." We can't be logical all the time but it would be nice if we could be logical most of the time. I think America has lost its logical rudder. I believe it's critical for our continued prosperity as a country to improve our science and math literacy rates, which are lagging behind pretty much every other developed nation in the world. Also, teaching kids to think critically and logically would pay dividends. I'm not saying a little intuition
can't be a useful in our lives. What I am saying is that critical thinking and logic should be the foundational bedrock of 'how to think'. BTW, interesting links. Thanks




Fine then, since Atheism is a religion I'll feel free to proselytize.

I think you're misinterpreting my message but I know I've done a poor job relating it so that's mainly on me. In an effort to refocus it a tad...I would hope that people can wake up to the fact that Christianity and Islam are a net negative to the world and impede the progress of humanity in the 21st century. We have a shared humanity that religions have always been divisive to, but especially Christianity and Islam over the course of the last Millennia right up to present day. Many Americans would already agree that Islam is a net negative but they have a blind spot when it comes to Christianity.

A significant swath of the American population, Fundamentalist Christians, want creationism taught in our schools, gays and minorities as 2nd class citizens, and a Christian-Centric society where Non-Christians are essentially discriminated against. The societal costs of this nonsense are science illiteracy, bigotry, and divisiveness. The political clout of fundamentalist evangelicals has already enabled them to influence state and local laws. The problem is, that moderate Christians who may disagree, are not making their voices known and that Christianity is so engrained into American culture that many moderate Christians discount the negative impact to society overall. So it's the Atheist community that often has to take up the mantle of opposition.

While using that logical thinking, and increasing math literacy, can you please provide me a quantitative measure that shows how current-day Christianity is a "net negative to the world and impede the progress of humanity in the 21st century"? Since YOU put in the 21st century clause, please use just 21st century examples.

You used the phrase "net negative", which implies you recognize both positive and negative aspects, and believe that the negative is quantitatively larger than the positive aspects. I'm looking for you to show me how you quantify the positive and negative aspects of 21st century Christianity to come to your logical conclusion.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Radiant1]

I believe it's critical for our continued prosperity as a country to improve our science and math literacy rates, which are lagging behind pretty much every other developed nation in the world. Also, teaching kids to think critically and logically would pay dividends.

I agree, but this has nothing to do with the presence of religion or the lack thereof.

I would hope that people can wake up to the fact that Christianity and Islam are a net negative to the world and impede the progress of humanity in the 21st century.

Take a look at atheistic societies in the past and that should tell you they weren't any better (do we really need to go through the death toll numbers again?). Ultimately, it's the human condition you have issue with. So, by all means, continue with your humanism and make it secular if you so wish, but you need to realize it's not religion that is the crux of your complaint. It seems to me that for whatever reason you have personal issues with religion and that makes you blind to the logic you so uphold. Your pointing the finger at religion so quickly before thinking things through is much the same as the Christian fundamentalist who refuses to listen to reason, which only proves my point about it being a human condition. Congratulations on managing irony and hypocrisy all at the same time.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

I agree, but this has nothing to do with the presence of religion or the lack thereof.

What about Creationism and the rejection of evolution science? Religiously inclined kids most often reject biologic evolution. Some religious public high school teachers are teaching creationism in the biology classroom against the approved curriculum. Creationism has become part of private and even public high school curriculums, especially in the bible belt. I realize this is not an issue with Catholicism.

Take a look at atheistic societies in the past and that should tell you they weren't any better (do we really need to go through the death toll numbers again?). Ultimately, it's the human condition you have issue with. So, by all means, continue with your humanism and make it secular if you so wish, but you need to realize it's not religion that is the crux of your complaint. It seems to me that for whatever reason you have personal issues with religion and that makes you blind to the logic you so uphold. Your pointing the finger at religion so quickly before thinking things through is much the same as the Christian fundamentalist who refuses to listen to reason, which only proves my point about it being a human condition. Congratulations on managing irony and hypocrisy all at the same time.

Christians and Muslims have killed in the name of Christianity and Islam for more than a Millennia. Who has killed in the name of Atheism? Btw, you do realize Hitler was a Catholic? Hitler referred to his faith often in speeches and in Mein Kampf. The phrase 'Gott Mit Uns' on every Third Reich soldier belt buckle means 'God With Us'.

And what exactly are you referring to when using the term "human condition"? We have touched on this before, but religious indoctrination begins practically from birth for most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. If indoctrination is not the primary driver of religious faith, then what is in your view?

It's curious on your part to claim..."that for whatever reason have personal issues with religion". Sure I take issue with the damage it does in the world, the irrationality it promotes, the divisiveness it promotes, and its agenda to have sway on others' lives according to its dogma. I think any rational person should. What about you? Perhaps you're inclined to look the other way, especially when it comes to Catholicism. Perhaps you could do with a little introspection.

 

[Radiant1]

What about Creationism and the rejection of evolution science? Religiously inclined kids most often reject biologic evolution. Some religious public high school teachers are teaching creationism in the biology classroom against the approved curriculum. Creationism has become part of private and even public high school curriculums, especially in the bible belt. I realize this is not an issue with Catholicism.

What about it? Yes, creationism is taught...and so is evolution. If both are taught along side each other I see no issue with it. You do want people to think for themselves, yes? So, then why do you want to indoctrinate them with your own agenda through the public schools? As for private schools, they're private and they have the right to teach whatever they want. Maybe atheists should start their own private schools and we can then keep both the religions of Christianity and Atheism out of public schools, eh?

Do you not see how you are guilty of your own accusation? You and I both agreed that Atheism is a religion, so stop pushing your religion off on others in the public setting.

Christians and Muslims have killed in the name of Christianity and Islam for more than a Millennia. Who has killed in the name of Atheism? Btw, you do realize Hitler was a Catholic? Hitler referred to his faith often in speeches and in Mein Kampf. The phrase 'Gott Mit Uns' on every Third Reich soldier belt buckle means 'God With Us'.

I can't believe you just attempted this same old tired tripe, I thought you were smarter than that. People kill in the name of all kinds of things and they'll certainly use religion or philosophy or anything under the sun if it's opportunistic to do so. Whether it be Hitler, Stalin or Mao, it's *people* who are at issue, not the religion. All of those people (even Hitler) killed Christians and it was not in the name of Christianity. Stalin alone killed more than the entire years of Christian crusades. (I've posted the numbers here before a couple times, you're free to dig it up if you feel you have to.) There really isn't much difference between "I kill in the name of my Lord" and "I kill in the name of the State". Or, as as happened in that "millennia" you speak of, "I kill in the name of territory", "I kill in the name of gold", "I kill in the name of politics", "I kill in the name of preserving my culture" as well as "I kill in the name of my God". For ####'s sake, you can't seriously pin an entire millennia of crap on religion alone. If you attempt to do so, then you are woefully ignorant of secular history and you are being completely *irrational*.

And what exactly are you referring to when using the term "human condition"? We have touched on this before, but religious indoctrination begins practically from birth for most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. If indoctrination is not the primary driver of religious faith, then what is in your view?

The human condition, as in our penchant to kill others for our own cause whether it be Christianity, Atheism, oil, gold, food, whatever; our penchant to be hateful; our penchant to be our own worse enemy. It's not hard to understand, PC. You don't have to be a Christian to be indoctrinated. A child can be indoctrinated on patriotism, philosophy, ideology, politics, insert whatever you choose here it doesn't really matter.

It's curious on your part to claim..."that for whatever reason have personal issues with religion". Sure I take issue with the damage it does in the world, the irrationality it promotes, the divisiveness it promotes, and its agenda to have sway on others' lives according to its dogma. I think any rational person should. What about you? Perhaps you're inclined to look the other way, especially when it comes to Catholicism. Perhaps you could do with a little introspection.

Sorry, but the chip on your shoulder is glaringly obvious. *Human beings* are irrational, we both have already agreed that's true and you just proved it above. It's people, not the religion, or the philosophy, or the politics, or the whatever. It's *people*, people like you and people like me, people like her and people like him. It's *people*, that human condition, that you need to take issue with.

I think this conversation has dwindled to a close at this point. There's really not much else I can say that I haven't already said. I'll let you have the last word. Cheers!

 

[TheLibertonian]

What about Creationism and the rejection of evolution science? Religiously inclined kids most often reject biologic evolution. Some religious public high school teachers are teaching creationism in the biology classroom against the approved curriculum. Creationism has become part of private and even public high school curriculums, especially in the bible belt. I realize this is not an issue with Catholicism.



Christians and Muslims have killed in the name of Christianity and Islam for more than a Millennia. Who has killed in the name of Atheism? Btw, you do realize Hitler was a Catholic? Hitler referred to his faith often in speeches and in Mein Kampf. The phrase 'Gott Mit Uns' on every Third Reich soldier belt buckle means 'God With Us'.

And what exactly are you referring to when using the term "human condition"? We have touched on this before, but religious indoctrination begins practically from birth for most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. If indoctrination is not the primary driver of religious faith, then what is in your view?

It's curious on your part to claim..."that for whatever reason have personal issues with religion". Sure I take issue with the damage it does in the world, the irrationality it promotes, the divisiveness it promotes, and its agenda to have sway on others' lives according to its dogma. I think any rational person should. What about you? Perhaps you're inclined to look the other way, especially when it comes to Catholicism. Perhaps you could do with a little introspection.

Prior to the rise of the catholic church common practice was for baby girls to be killed by their fathers via the ordering of exposure; the babes were left on rocks or thrown away.

The reasoning was entirely secular. A son was a valuable asset in greek and roman society because they could become warriors, philosophers, senators, and importantly, heirs.

The catholic church tried to put a stop to this as it spread, not only in rome and greece, but as it spread north into the germanic realms there as well, since they too held a similar attitude. This was, again, a result of secular logic. Girls were simply not as valuable as boys.

it is true that religion has been used as a hammer throughout history, but that is where your kind of atheism gets it wrong. Concepts lack morality. Religion, slavery, killing, fascism, communism, et al, have no morality except what we as human beings give them. As an atheist, you should know that no morality exist beyond us. We are it. There's no gods (Okay on my screen on the editor it says "There's no gods" but when I click save it keeps reverting to There's Gods"? NM it fixed) out there, the universe doesn't care. Rape is no more abhorrent or good then charity from a universal standpoint.

The same is true of religion, and all he other concepts I just rattled off. They are tools to be wielded, and can no more be blamed for the use to which they are put then a hammer can.

 

[Radiant1]

Prior to the rise of the catholic church common practice was for baby girls to be killed by their fathers via the ordering of exposure; the babes were left on rocks or thrown away.

The reasoning was entirely secular. A son was a valuable asset in greek and roman society because they could become warriors, philosophers, senators, and importantly, heirs.

The catholic church tried to put a stop to this as it spread, not only in rome and greece, but as it spread north into the germanic realms there as well, since they too held a similar attitude. This was, again, a result of secular logic. Girls were simply not as valuable as boys.

it is true that religion has been used as a hammer throughout history, but that is where your kind of atheism gets it wrong. Concepts lack morality. Religion, slavery, killing, fascism, communism, et al, have no morality except what we as human beings give them. As an atheist, you should know that no morality exist beyond us. We are it.There's no gods out there, the universe doesn't care. Rape is no more abhorrent or good then charity from a universal standpoint.

The same is true of religion, and all he other concepts I just rattled off. They are tools to be wielded, and can no more be blamed for the use to which they are put then a hammer can.

Thank you. You have expressed the same thought far more succinctly than I did in 1000 words or more.

 

[TheLibertonian]

Thank you. You have expressed the same thought far more succinctly than I did in 1000 words or more.

Practice. The previous forum I was on was full of europeans, hardline atheist, and progressive leftists.