The rejection of organized religion

[junctionalfunkie]

please don't generalise all christians with a single brushstroke based on some of it's negative parts

If that was directed at me, I don't. Some of my closest friends are Christians, Catholics, even. I have known a wide spectrum of Christians. It is specifically the Catholic church and its history and methods I have a problem with.

....as no one generalises all atheists as being bigotted idiots like richard dawkins.

No one? Oh really? Come visit the southern USA and get back to me on that. Atheists rank well below black people and homosexuals on the "hatred" scale, believe me.

And I wouldn't necessarily call Richard Dawkins a bigot. Certainly, he is extreme in his views, but essentially what he believes is that the irrationality of organized religion, particularly the fundamentalism involved, is causing society worldwide big problems.

And I agree with him.

 

[Docus]

i've noticed alot of people who think themselves to be very intelligent because they reject all forms of organized religio in favor of their own specific brand of spirituality, which usually involves poorly thought out ideas and no real philosohpical value whatsoever.

I like to think these people alot more intelligent than any follower of the catholic church, which claims to have a monopoly on truth, forces their followers to dogmatically accept their vision of the truth, for the major part of their history claimed that anyone who did not accept the catholic way of thinking would be excluded from heaven and indeed persecuted and killed those they did not agree with.

Let's get one thing straight here: you can not claim to have figured out the absolute correct interpretation of reality and how God (or whatever you like to call it) thinks humans should live their lives.

That is a deeply personal conviction that is up to every human being to figure out for him/herself. I don't see any reason why someone should blindly adopt the spiritual viewpoints of someone else over taking his own feelings, wisdom and experiences and figuring out what he believes for himself. Perhaps because he lacks the integrity and inspiration to do so?

Because I know about the Catholic Church most, I'll use it as an example. The only two systems that use the idea of accepting and working off of previous ideas to create new concepts and to thus progress knowledge are the scientific community (with the scientific method) and the Roman Catholic Church (with it's history of doctrine and tradition). Scientists are able to develope new ideas because they have old ideas to work off of, For example Einstein couldn't have developed his theory of relativity if it hadn't been for Copernicus, Gallileo, and Newton, developing their own theories centureis earlier. The same is true about the Chruch, theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas progress offthe work of earlier theologians. Now imaine if there as a scientist, and he said "Nope, the scientific method is all wrong, I have a better idea" and he started from scratch to create his own version of science. That would be absolutely ludicrous and he would be seen as a pseudoscientist or worse. "Free thinkers" who reject millenia of theological and philosophical thought in favor of their own personal religion are committing the same logical fallacy.

Mathematics, physics and science are indeed a pyramid of theories, concepts, etc. completely based on objectively proven empirical evidence. Spirituality and philosophy on the other hand, are entirely based on subjective personal opinions.

It's ironic that you mention Copernicus and Galileo because the theories of those very people were considered herecy and anti-christian by the catholic church when they were originally published. What's worse is that you're saying that someone who breaks with the catholic religion and starts his own religion, based on new ideas and new viewpoints should be discredited on the grounds of it being a pseudoreligion? News flash, there are thousands upon thousands of wildly different religions, yet there is only. one. science.

I was raised a catholic and in a way still live by some of its most important rules, such as most of the ten commandments, not because I care for catholicism, but because they happen to fall in line with my personal spiritual beliefs. Does that make me a "bad" philosophical thinker? I'm sure it doesn't, because I'm just doing what my conscience tells me. There you have the truth: just do what your conscience tells you is the right thing to do, everything else is superfluous and bullshit.

 

[SececaRD]

The Holy bible says that if you deny Jesus before men, Jesus will deny you before god and you will be tossed into hell.

Thats why Tru beleivers, "Christians" Arn't willing to waver their faith.

You can call it selfish or whatever you want, But I call it Faithfullness to the God of all creation. Im not willing to compramise my faith, or waver it.

Thanks for your time

 

[Rodya]

The Holy bible says that if you deny Jesus before men, Jesus will deny you before god and you will be tossed into hell.

Thats why Tru beleivers, "Christians" Arn't willing to waver their faith.

You can call it selfish or whatever you want, But I call it Faithfullness to the God of all creation. Im not willing to compramise my faith, or waver it.

Thanks for your time

catholicism doesnt interpret the bible literally at all and i dont car emuch for fundamentalists

 

[Rodya]

And I wouldn't necessarily call Richard Dawkins a bigot. Certainly, he is extreme in his views, but essentially what he believes is that the irrationality of organized religion, particularly the fundamentalism involved, is causing society worldwide big problems.

And I agree with him.

richard dawkins has written quite often about how a fully fucntional horse has more of a right to live than a mentally incapacitated human, though i respect that he has the right to have his own opinions, id say hes pretty out there

also, most atheists, who are also usually liberal thinkers, claim to be all about tolerance, but they tmeselves refuse to tolerate anyone with a worldview conflicting to theirs. They demand respect for themselves and those who they victimize, but tey give no respect to people such as fundamentalist christians who are against homosexuality. Yes the fundies are totally wrong, but you have to tolerate them as well. This is why the whole tolerance ideology is bullshit, those who voice it are usually the most intolerant of all.
I've personally found athiests to be especially inolerant and condescending, they usually dismiss anyone who believes in God or who proclaims themself to be for example a Catholic as a medieval, submissive, ignorant, moron.

 

[Rodya]

To teach innocent children that they are sinners is beyond reprehensible. Both my parents and my ex-fiancee were all raised hardcore Catholics, and this upbringing has fucked up all their lives in countless ways, from guilt about sex to an inability to show emotion.

Forcing Catholicism down the throat of a child should be considered a form of child abuse. I am completely serious.

youre totally misunderstanding the ideo or iriginal sin, it simply sas that people are inherently flawed and have to work to be good, that doing good is harder than doing bad, and that we must strive to do good in order to live as Jesus intended.

I dont see whats wrong with teaching children religion, it works perfectly well as a moral compass for them. Furthermore, the child can choose to either stay with the faith or abandon it when they get the opportunity to go to confirmation. I abaondoned the faith for about 3 yearsand i gradually came back, and i now understand it better than i did beforehand.

All you're really sayi is that you want children to be taught your worldview (taht there is no God, that science will solve everythi) rather than my worldview (the doctrine of the church). I think that we should allow the parents decide what they want their children to grow up knowing, you can raise your kids as you wish, my kids will go to CCD and regularly attend church services. Thats not too unreasonable is it?

Science and religion are virtually incompatible. Science is subject to adjustment if elements of it are disproved. Not so with dogmatic religions.

not at all, embarasingly wrong.
scinece and religiona dress two compeltely different things. though there are things in the bible about how the world was created, etc. they are almost always interpreted metaphorically by thinking Catholics.



Lets take evolution, because lots of people like to latch on to it. Evolution explains the process by which organisms came to be. (Darwin's four postulates of evolution) The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution, and currently holds the view that that is, in fact, the process, and that God allowed such a process to exist. So religion and science aren't conflicting at all. So the literal biblical word that God created animals is metaphoricall interpreted as meaning that God created the laws of evolution and allowed a process such as evolution to occur, thus leading to the current diversity of organisms.

 

[swilow]

please don't generalise all christians with a single brushstroke based on some of it's negative parts, as no one generalises all atheists as being bigotted idiots like richard dawkins.

That is true. I persdonally have great distaste for Christianity, but not for christians or Christ for that matter.

 

[junctionalfunkie]

richard dawkins has written quite often about how a fully fucntional horse has more of a right to live than a mentally incapacitated human, though i respect that he has the right to have his own opinions, id say hes pretty out there

I think you may be confusing Dawkins with the Australian ethicist Peter Singer, who does make such claims and is widely ostracized for them. However, you are leaving out lots of qualifications for this argument. It's essentially about the rights of a Person superseding the rights of a non-Person. If you are interested in understanding this argument, I'll try to find an explanation for you. It's not quite as simple as you put it.

also, most atheists, who are also usually liberal thinkers, claim to be all about tolerance, but they tmeselves refuse to tolerate anyone with a worldview conflicting to theirs.

You are generalizing to a ridiculous degree. I have been an atheist all my life and have never felt this way. It's more like the sympathy/empathy one might feel for a blind person.

They demand respect for themselves and those who they victimize?

And who, exactly, are "victimized" by the Evil Atheist Conspiracy?

but tey give no respect to people such as fundamentalist christians who are against homosexuality.

Fundamentalist Christians who are against homosexuality deserve zero respect. Isn't Christianity supposed to be about love and acceptance of one's fellow man?

I've personally found athiests to be especially inolerant and condescending, they usually dismiss anyone who believes in God or who proclaims themself to be for example a Catholic as a medieval, submissive, ignorant, moron.

Sorry to hear that. You should get out more.

 

[junctionalfunkie]

youre totally misunderstanding the ideo or iriginal sin,

Perhaps because I regard the concept of "original sin" as utter horseshit.

I dont see whats wrong with teaching children religion, it works perfectly well as a moral compass for them. Furthermore, the child can choose to either stay with the faith or abandon it when they get the opportunity to go to confirmation. I abaondoned the faith for about 3 yearsand i gradually came back, and i now understand it better than i did beforehand.

It doesn't quite work like that. The earlier you indoctrinate a child with a specific agenda, the less likely they are to ever abandon it (permanently). Watch the film Jesus Camp.

All you're really sayi is that you want children to be taught your worldview (taht there is no God, that science will solve everythi) rather than my worldview (the doctrine of the church). I think that we should allow the parents decide what they want their children to grow up knowing, you can raise your kids as you wish, my kids will go to CCD and regularly attend church services. Thats not too unreasonable is it?

Actually, it is.

Why not allow your children access to ALL the information and various forms of spirituality there are out there, emphasizing none, but pointing out the pros and cons of each, honestly?

Then, around adolescence (or whenever the individual child is ready), allow him or her to decide for themselves what they believe, if anything. Almost as if they were thinking human beings and free moral agents rather than programmable robots. :D

I never said that my "worldview" is comprised of there being no god and that science will solve everything. We will never know everything. Our brains are simply too limited.

Lets take evolution, because lots of people like to latch on to it. Evolution explains the process by which organisms came to be. (Darwin's four postulates of evolution) The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution, and currently holds the view that that is, in fact, the process, and that God allowed such a process to exist. So religion and science aren't conflicting at all. So the literal biblical word that God created animals is metaphoricall interpreted as meaning that God created the laws of evolution and allowed a process such as evolution to occur, thus leading to the current diversity of organisms.

<sigh> I'm not even going to touch this one. 8)

 

[The_Idler]

this guy started out saying how he hated people, who pick and choose from major religions, to suit what they feel comfortable with, and has now proceeded to explain a great number of things he has decided are "wrong" or "metaphoricall" in his religion.

most weak-minded type of individual.

 

[Lost Ego]

Because I know about the Catholic Church most, I'll use it as an example. The only two systems that use the idea of accepting and working off of previous ideas to create new concepts and to thus progress knowledge are the scientific community (with the scientific method) and the Roman Catholic Church (with it's history of doctrine and tradition). Scientists are able to develope new ideas because they have old ideas to work off of, For example Einstein couldn't have developed his theory of relativity if it hadn't been for Copernicus, Gallileo, and Newton, developing their own theories centureis earlier. The same is true about the Chruch, theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas progress offthe work of earlier theologians. Now imaine if there as a scientist, and he said "Nope, the scientific method is all wrong, I have a better idea" and he started from scratch to create his own version of science. That would be absolutely ludicrous and he would be seen as a pseudoscientist or worse. "Free thinkers" who reject millenia of theological and philosophical thought in favor of their own personal religion are committing the same logical fallacy.

I know that sciene and religion are not the same, bt the system that the church and the scientific community are using are defiently simmilar in certain very important aspects.

what a horrid comparison. you seriously cant compare the scientific method to religion. religion is illogical with nothing to support it other than the bible, where as science has evidence to back itself up. please try to apply the scientific method to the bible. you cant because it is all fictional, written by so-called prophets who wanted to fuck with mankind. dont insult us because we reject fiction, its like telling a boring old man to read some exciting fictional kiddy book and getting mad when he rejects it.

-if you aren't lost, then you aren't having fun

 

[junctionalfunkie]

^ Great analogy!

I especially like this part from the OP:

i've noticed alot of people who think themselves to be very intelligent because they reject all forms of organized religio in favor of their own specific brand of spirituality, which usually involves poorly thought out ideas and no real philosohpical value whatsoever.

As opposed, I imagine, to the sound and well-thought-out ideas of Catholicism, like immaculate conception and resurrection. Real "philosohpical" value there. 8)

Also, I hate to nitpick on minor points like this, but why is it that deeply religious people are so often poor spellers? Perhaps it's a flaw on the same gene that causes them to believe in angels, demons, zombies, and heaven knows what else. :D

 

[New]

Hey, I believe in organized religion and can spell immaculately.

Do not generalize. Not all deeply religious folk are 'tards. Not all atheists are self-earned gifts to mankind.

 

[junctionalfunkie]

Hey, I believe in organized religion and can spell immaculately.

Do not generalize. Not all deeply religious folk are 'tards. Not all atheists are self-earned gifts to mankind.

Thus my inclusion of the phrase "so often." Check out:

http://www.atheistforums.com/

or

http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism

for examples galore.

And I never claimed that "all deeply religious folk are 'tards" or that "all atheists are self-earned gifts to mankind."

 

[New]

I'm sorry. Maybe it was the insulting manner you chose to use that prompted me, as if there was something fundamentally wrong with someone who believed in organized religion by association that there was something wrong with organized religion. The only reason I'm not trying to force mine down your throat is because my religion, if read into and practiced fully, respects people who don't believe in it as long as they don't kill, lie, steal, or try and eat the live flesh of an animal(apparently that was a problem in Biblical times). And I assume an Atheist would be more respected than a Polytheist, judging by the "second commandment"(there are many laws, most of which don't apply, many have been ruled to be pure jackassery, and a good portion of the rest suck).

Thank you for clarification.

 

[junctionalfunkie]

I'm sorry.

You are forgiven.

The only reason I'm not trying to force mine down your throat is because my religion, if read into and practiced fully, respects people who don't believe in it....

Thank you for your restraint and mercy. Jesus would be proud of you.

 

[New]

I asked for that one.

 

[L2R]

If that was directed at me, I don't. Some of my closest friends are Christians, Catholics, even. I have known a wide spectrum of Christians. It is specifically the Catholic church and its history and methods I have a problem with.

Not all churchs are the same as the ones you have experienced negativity from.

No one? Oh really? Come visit the southern USA and get back to me on that. Atheists rank well below black people and homosexuals on the "hatred" scale, believe me.

sorry, i meant no one here (on bluelight)

And I wouldn't necessarily call Richard Dawkins a bigot. Certainly, he is extreme in his views, but essentially what he believes is that the irrationality of organized religion, particularly the fundamentalism involved, is causing society worldwide big problems.

And I agree with him.

No, his message (as far as i can see it) is a resounding "religion is false" and "god is myth". These bold and certainly unproveable statements say nothing of religious fundamentalism. I disagree with extremists on "any side". Dawkins displays more fundamentalism than his subject matter, and for this reason, i detest his work outside of his actual expertise: evolutionary biology.

tbh, i really enjoyed his books on evolution.

 

[medical_meccanica]

No, his message (as far as i can see it) is a resounding "religion is false" and "god is myth".

I got the impression that his message is more like "people have and are still doing horrible things for the sake of something that is, for want of a better word, fiction." He uses REAL historical events to describe violence in the world that is in most part a result of organized religion. I don't think Dawkins would have much of a problem with an individual holding private religious beliefs, but he is OUTRAGED by unnecessary violence and discrimination, so am I.

These bold and certainly unproveable statements say nothing of religious fundamentalism. I disagree with extremists on "any side". Dawkins displays more fundamentalism than his subject matter, and for this reason, i detest his work outside of his actual expertise: evolutionary biology.

When people confuse passion with fundamentalism... it really gets my goat!

Sure, most atheists feel just as strongly that there is no god as religious types believe there IS one. Nothing wrong so far, we're all entitled to our opinions. Dawkins continues, however, to believe that organized religions are accountable for a lot of the violence and discrimination in the world and that it shouldn't be forced into the minds of children who can't make informed decisions and are effectively being brainwashed. Wait a second... there's nothing wrong with that either, it's still just an opinion!

See, the difference I see crop up all the time in religious debates is that religious people usually detest ideas they don't agree with, atheists like Dawkins detest actions. And violent actions based on fiction are just... wrong. I think that's a fine opinion.

And MY opinion is that to detest his work, one must have a pretty apathetic view of humanity in general.

 

[L2R]

i detest it for i see it only as hate mongering.

i absolutely agree with your assertions that violent actions based on any prejudices are wrong, but i don't see that message being said by rd. his book is called "the god delusion" ffs!

and yes, many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. they still do. it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to point that out. people would committ atrocitied for any reason. just since many have used religion as an excuse, it doesn't mean religion is at fault for it.