From the "for what it's worth" department, my personal take on the idea of even bothering to debate religion. It's actually, really comical. Not one person here is going to be converted, convinced, swayed, or much more than remoted interested by anything anyone else says. There are the faithful sniping on atheists without really knowing what they are talking about, there are atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, pagans, wiccas, asatru, etc etc etc sniping on the faithful without really knowing what they are talking about.

And the Christmas thing is just too funny. In the city/county area where I live, there are over 250 christian churches (there are 262 listed in the directory on the local newspapers website). Every christmas, they put up a nativity (a few of them, that face more than one major road, put up 2). So, when you count all those churches, the "christian organizations", the YMCA, the Salvation army and what have you, you end up with nearly 300 nativity scenes. But, when the city refuses to allow them to put a nativity on city property, the christians scream "taking christ out of christmas!!" Just how much exposure does this nativity thing need, anyway? Aren't 300+ displays in one county enough?

Brainwashing...that is such a mean word, and not really accurate in these cases in my opinion. Brainwashing would suggest that a person is weak minded enough for everything they know and hold dear to be erased and replaced by something else. A more suitable phrase might be "intensive postnatal indoctrination". As soon as mother and baby are well enough to get out of the house, the baby is taken to the altar of the parents choosing, where the child is dipped, dunked, dribbled, or annointed in some form or fashion, and from just a few days old is the focus of intensive indoctrination. When they are 4 or 5 they are taken to a separate part of the house of worship for "bible study", where they are assigned passages to quote, passages to find, and quizzed repeatedly on all that they learn. They will eventually become adults that have never, ever known anything other than their programming, so they have no means to make comparisons, and have no idea of the depth of their "learnings" influence.

Atheists have started to organize in the last few years, which I also think is hilarious. Organizing and adopting symbols and a doctrine would seem to be becoming the very thing they contest. I looked into it, and said "no thanks". There is no way, ever, no how, that any group or groups of non-believers is ever going to gather enough clout to make any kind of political changes. Most of the atheists I've met had been hiding that fact from at least one other person, and wasn't willing to tell too many people about it.

I'm going to stay home with the kittens, kept them safe and warm and fed, and not even worry about the fact that there are religious wars coming, on a large scale. Humankind is destined by our own decree to destroy ourselves, to war and fight in the name of (insert name of preferred bronze-aged fairytale here).

The one truth of the bible...."the meek shall inheret the earth". But the meek are the wiccas, and pagans, and followers of earth magics, that will have the horrid task of trying to help the world heal, after all the faithful have destroyed each other.

My 2 cents.

You have a good point. It is utterly ridiculous to think that someone could be converted on an internet forum.

However, I think the discussion is still worthwhile, not to try to convert others to your viewpoint, but to try to get others to respect your viewpoint. I have no problems with Christians saying their prayers in their bedrooms, but as soon as they shove it in my face and tell me I'm going to hell, then we have a problem.

AHHHHHHHHH I think you need to read more about christianity....

Who?

BTW, welcome to the forums

I'd say that the reason that we discuss these things is not to convince others, but to get a firmer understanding of our own beliefs. Just thinking about it, or talking to people who agree with you leads to unexamined faith, and it feels much better to have a real understanding of his own beliefs and not a vague cloud of ideas, most of which aren't even his own.

Jellicletrb I like your topic... you’re right 100%... before I working in san antonio church when I was 12 years old until I am 21. With in 9 years Im not satisfied about Christianity way… their some are intelligence people, nice to here where they are reading the bible. But behind of their real life they are big liar. You can see them in gambling place….hmnnnn... I sad because mostly are christian people doing this...

Agree almost completely, except that Christians and any other religious or non-religious or anti-religious people have the right to speak their mind to anyone they like (in the USA at least), as long as it's not harassment.

If you fully understand their position and have a strong belief in yours, it shouldn't be that difficult to give some sort of retort...

You can't ban things simply because you disagree with them or find them offensive...

No, we're not going to change anyone's viewpoints, but it just might spark some thought and can help solidify their position as they develop it throughout a thread.

Edit: Ilya said it much better than I did

Ilya, good call. I think you hit the nail on the head.

I guess harassment is a fine line, but when someone is literally shoving a bible in my face and telling me that I'll go to hell, that seems pretty harassing.

And from the what its worth department, my personal take on your personal take is…



I don’t think you realize what the word comical means, I think you may be trying to laugh, but you sound pretty miserable about everything in your post. I guess this is fake it till you make it eh?

That’s a good one, I like it. I think we all go through that. socialization is another word… but the devil is in the details

sounds like every person ever born, but don’t worry too much about it, there are those that find ways to beat the system, but you may have to actually find your amusement to see them.

I think they have been trying all along but their attitudes and destructive isms are a real social killer. People don’t like having their illusions challenged and especially by someone with a sh*tty attitude.

I happen to think that people that don’t rely on those other systems of belief will play a part in the healing, and they won’t have cause to gloat either because they are just people.

It won’t be a horrid task either; it will be an indescribable one.
Chin up, the more things stay the same, the more they change, and big change is coming, so hold your head high amidst the gloom.

We need your light in this world, where so many that refuse to let theirs shine.
Which is how the healing will take place, so we each need to start practicing, LOL

I couldn't laugh.
When religion daily kills people with the help of AIDS, bombs and knifes, I cannot sit by and laugh at it. Maybe you can...

Actually, not trying to be snide or anything, I used the word comical by the definition. I'm in a position of being "outside looking in" in quite a few of these debates. I'm a person that had no, none, not any religious upbringing, pro or con. My parents decreed that to be my choice, someday. So, its my opinion that all religions are "feely good" stories amassed over time...but, I'm not anti-religion either, whatever gets a person through the day and helps them sleep at night.

I think that it may be the passion thrown into some of these debates that I find funny. Not to offend, its just me

It's a very fine line... especially if you try to find where what you see as harassment crosses into what the law views as harassment :-/

Unfortunately, there are plenty of nutjobs out there whenever beliefs or convictions come into question

People kill people. Not guns, not religion, but people. Religious people kill, as do atheists (just look at the USSR). Since religion exists almost everywhere in the world, it makes absolutely no sense to use the argument of "where there is religion there is death", especially considering that atheistic regimes have been even more violent than religious ones. By your logic, you could also argue that pants kill people. After all, everywhere where you see pants, you also see death.

What is dangerous is radicalism, and which symbol the radicals stick on their banner makes no difference at all, be they crosses, stars, hammers and sickles or swastikas.

I do not believe atheists don't kill people. People with messed up beliefs or extreme ideologies in general, kill people (and some special cases like mental disadvantages, etc.). Come on, I'm not stupid. So that is not "my logic", because I did not claim any such thing, so that would be your generalization of my statement.

But when a priest of an organized and generally respected church/ branch of christianity (for example), says "If you use condoms you will go to hell.", then if those words reflect the official standpoint of that religion, then it is not the priest that kills (well, only a little at least), it is not AIDS that kills (but a little more than the priest), it is the religion (to the largest degree). And this is a religion that is not considered "radical", in general.

No, it is not. Your statement is that because of certain radicals, you can make the claim that religion kills. Well, yes, religion kills, but so does any other cause for which people can become radicals. It's foolish then to blame religion when the cause, radicalism, is right under your nose. Just like you wouldn't say that atheism, or even the desire for social justice and equality, are to blame for the deaths of Stalin's victims, you can't say that religion is to blame for any of the deaths you have described.

It is not the religion that is to blame, but the radical priests that claim that condoms are evil. I assure you that the majority of Christians do not believe this, are quite happy with using condoms, or at least approve of others using them if it prevents AIDS. When a kid takes a gun and shoots people in his school, do we blame the computer games he was playing? Likewise, when a priest preaches foolish and harmful things, do we blame his religion?

Of course, if the harmful doctrines are at the very heart of the religion, you could have a case (and this is why we generally don't tolerate religions like Satanism and ideologies like Nazism, but in this case you are generalizing.

I found a website like that today, and it seems very reasonable. Particularly: Self Scrutiny, Humility are important.(And i think they are rather too low on the list)
I have read it only today, so i do not have that much opinion about it. The website does say it is concerned about what you said. I am also a bit concerned about what they think the goal is; just the core parts or the thing around it too.

I just think it is silly when anyone pretends to know anything about spiritual things or the lack thereof or whatever. I have my beliefs which through maturity and a lot of thought, I now have not need to convince anyone else of. I don't even feel compelled to share them.

Ever heard the expression used by the Bible thumpers "you have a God shaped hole in your heart?" I don't think that hole people have is shaped like God as much as it is shaped like some sort of need to belong to an us-against-them faction with a pecking order they can rise through the ranks of.

So you see this in people claimin atheism just as you see it in Bible thumpers, cultists, etc. There was a thread a while back titled something like "lets celebrate our atheism." That's as worthless a concept as I can think of. Ridiculous. I don't believe in the Santa Clause, but that isn't something I need to celebrate, and definately I don't need to go out in search of people who still believe in Santa so I can convince them they are wrong.

Any type of religion discussion on a forum like this one is basically a disaster of intellectual honesty. Especially when so many liberals are involved. That's why I generally stay out of religious discussions here - they generate heat, but no light. Religion, whether talking about denying it exists, promoting it, or whatever is just a way to score points and convince yourself you are better than "them."

Look at your average liberal - they hate admitting, much less confronting the fact, that Islam today has a lot of problems. They'll pander and make excuses for people who go against everything they believe in and save their guile for Christians who *gasp* want to erect nativity scenes. There are people in the world - millions of them - who hate the idea of a woman wearing shorts in public, but lets start 5000 threads a day on how horrible it is some people believe God created the Earth.

Boggling.

You do have a point, but then (at least I don't see that I have) I have not made a statement where I claim that all other (or even many) non-religious organized radicals are to blame for the deaths they are causing.
And I have not generalized... or at least that has not been my intension. There are how ever large parts of common religions that imposes beliefs that do lead to deaths. And that only by considering how easy it is to manipulate a human and the direct words of some parts of some religious scripture.

Errr... those priests are not in general considered radical. They only preach the Vatican's view on condoms (and other contraceptives). And I do not generalize this to every catholic christian, of course I realize that the catholic church has followers that are at a different degree of orthodoxy, and some might not take the words of the Vatican that seriously.
But, if this priest did not have a million-people religion as support (these priests are not often officially condemned), he would not cause as many deaths as he now is able to. So I do blame the religion, since the organizers of that religion do preach the same views, and do not respect the difficulties that one must take in consideration before start preaching.
And when it comes to violent games, they are not real, but there are of course still people that cannot make any difference, and the do not preach violence directly (often). There is also a large deal of studies that can be made on this area that could give an definite answer to 'do violent video games cause an heighten risk of violent behavior' (or something similar). But in more relation to the topic; I see a difference between the video game and the preaching priest, and I do consider the priests religion to be something that are closer together than video games and random school shootouts.

Not generalizing, just have a wider view of what I consider "harmful doctrines".

I think they are too low on the list too Jasper84.

I stumbled on that site last year. It's a very interesting experiment. It seems they are attempting to reinvent a branded reasonability as a way of circumnavigating the pit falls of existing as humans the way that we have up till now with well uh, branded reasonabilities. Never hurts to try right? Well here is what I think.

It is a very good business model they are working with because people work better as a team or a number of teams rather than through the chaos and destruction of the partial anarchy that we have been attempting with our thousands of wars.

But As I look through the linguistic marketing of this site, I see where they are making many of the same old mistakes that all theologies tend to make. And just for the record, in my little book of belief, all systems of belief are religious by the definition including atheism as a systematic belief. Science is a belief system too and it proves this itself, if you are wondering, at least I believe it does. LOL

The first is a subtle re-mistake and is detectible in the name “The Church of Reality”
It sounds like every absurdly arrogant religion I have ever had thrown in my face as “the right way to believe”. Pier pressure is usually a good selling point, I mean no one like to look stupid unless they are getting paid to.

The difference in it as compared to older names that are claiming to know the truth, is that this is sold as a newer and therefore better and a more attractive conceptuality and could be summed up in a sentence like this.

“We are not trying to tell people what to think like the old religions, rather we are trying to teach them how to think the best way.” which is amiable and much less destructive if you get the majority to buy it but so would any if most buy it right? But good luck getting the majority behind one system because people only like change when it is, well they don’t for the most part, it is an acquired taste for those that do. So in essence is just another sales pitch for a brand of ready made, shake before use, truth Kool-Aid. My opinion.

To anyone practiced even a little in searching for their own truth this language in the title can be obvious as an absolutist and therefore an oppressive beginning of a faith. The doctrine following on their site is very amiable in my opinion also, but is still flawed as a belief system, and it reads: “We welcome doubt and scrutiny as a means of purifying truth. It makes us accountable and ensures the integrity of our beliefs.”

This sound like my sixth grade science teacher, and I mean no disrespect, it’s just that it is a bit naïve to the practice seeker of human truth. I like those things too and rely on them in earnest but not as absolutes of finding truth.

Ad the absolute mechanism, and basically you have an ism or an excuse for not thinking for oneself. This inevitably leads to oppression of that very ability in people. The social is then the ONLY deciding thought process acceptable and so the free will of the individual is lost. Not my cup of tea.

My truths tell me that all people think religiously whether they are theologians, atheists, or if they have never heard of either one, it doesn’t matter. Cognitive scientists and linguistic studies show this.

A religion is any system of belief and our minds are conceptual systems of belief that are removed from reality we only detect. Some of it through our senses, the rest is made up!

Facts are simply believed. They are not part of “the reality” we are always seeking, they are simply concepts made with our individual and social mindsets.
This is an atheist religion unless you can prove god to the majority or to the social order running it, and try to avoid the pier shunning that will follow anyone not proving what the masses want proved.

The truths I believe and that can be found in many ancient texts of many brands of thought tell me that there only a few certainties in existence that we can measure from multiple perspectives. One of them is that everyone suffers; another is that truths will appear contradictory with simple changes of perspective.

The latter leads people that are in need of an absolute to not reserve their abilities to change perspective for fear of loosing hold of their illusions that ground them to their contrived realities. A good answer I see people trying to learn is to look for where you may need absolutes, and then find the lie that makes you need that to find your mental or spiritual freedom.

I prefer to live and then die searching because the end will find me that’s for sure; I don’t need to go looking for it, and since I do have the choice in the matter.

I think I could find things in the website to counter each of your arguments, like individualism against your claim that they want people to think alike. If i were in that group, i would like it to expand to a large portion of society, but i do not think i would want to be entire society; just enough to have 'positive' evolution. Perhaps i would not want to expand it at all, just as a platform of activism.
About my claim of links to counter everything i am not sure whether that would actually be valid counterarguments. I can not deny that fanboys could just not follow the ideas, but whether the ideas themselves are flawed, i have to think about. Currently i am hard pressed to see how you can follow those ideas and be closed minded at the same time. Or at least, the things that you are close minded about do not deal with reality, and hence can hurt no-one but yourself. Especially following the 'respect' clause.
Perhaps at its base it consists of three things:

• Declare that seeking reality should be the goal. And that other religions do not do this. It considers science as doing just that. I think this assumes some things, but things that i gladly assume.

• However it is not science. It adds values that are to be achieved using knowledge of reality. These are subjective too, and although as far as i can see i agree with them, but i do not think these subjective assumptions correspond with the name of the church well; that part looks at the whole right/left discussion as well. I agree with them though, and i do think, an misleading name is not really reason to ditch it completely.(Maybe they should call it the Left/Humanitarian Church of Reality.

• Maybe it provides a rallying cry, a community that can recognize each other. Perhaps it can be used positively as a vessel for activism, rather then religion.

As i am reading it, i am filing some issues i have with it. Later, i will seek out its forum or mail issues i have with it. I am sure they have discussed it, or will discuss it with me.