Religions of APS Members

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, don't misunderstand Fistful & I: he'll stand to fight for my right to be a godless heathen just as readily as I'll stand and fight for his right to be a bible-thumper... 

Sorry to spring it on you like this, but I've actually changed my position on that.  I have secured a bunk for you at one of our re-education facilities.  The Conversion Mobile should be along to pick you up on the morning of the 14th.  Cooperation is strongly encouraged.     

[freedom lover]

What, no Rastafarianism?

I was originally going to include both Satanism and Rastafarianism in my poll. The fact that both religions have few members gave me reason to post other choices instead. Besides, I doubt there is anyone on this board who actually could believe Haile Selassie is the Messiah, as he neither performed miracles nor claimed to be devine.

[Nick1911]

Atheist.  Not a social Darwinist.

[roo_ster]

Atheist.  Not a social Darwinist.

Which brings me to wonder, why no social lamarckians?

[BryanP]

Lastly, this talk of arrogance never accounts for the possibility that God might have actually given us One True Way or One True Holy Book, or that he might actually notice us.  It might be a little credulous to believe that he's reading our conversation right now, but it is hardly arrogant. 

I've always thought the ultimate joke would be that when we die it turns out that some little bush tribe from the back of beyond were the only ones who actually got it right.  They'd be standing there saying "No man, we don't have a problem with you.  You didn't know, that's all.  Come on in, the afterlife is a blast."  

[freedom lover]

Which brings me to wonder, why no social lamarckians?

There is no need for them. 

[Tallpine]

Before I was a "believer", I can remember thinking how could someone believe this stuff?. Now as one, I look back thinking how could I NOT?

And I had the exactly opposite experience 

[Kwelz]

Maybe there is a god or gods, maybe there isn't.  Personally I don't think there is and I think religion is dangerous.  However at the same time I think it is every persons right to believe and worship as they see best.  Basically I am an Atheist who also think you should be able to say a Prayer in scool and put "In god we trust" on money, etc.

[Racehorse]

Maybe there is a god or gods, maybe there isn't.  Personally I don't think there is and I think religion is dangerous.  However at the same time I think it is every persons right to believe and worship as they see best.  Basically I am an Atheist who also think you should be able to say a Prayer in scool and put "In god we trust" on money, etc.

Why do you think religion is dangerous?

[Werewolf]

Please explain how that fits the definition of "arrogance."  I believe the lowliest janitor and the smallest bug are well-known to God.  That's arrogant, somehow?  To think that God is just as interested in me or Henry Kissinger, or a blind, crippled orphan in Turkey? 

What/Who ever made the universe made THE UNIVERSE! Pretty big place. Billions of galaxies, trillions and trillions of stars. To imagine that the creator of all that also takes a special interest in a creature on a planet in a minor solar system in an unremarkable galaxy is pure arrogance. To imagine that same creator chose US to make in its image is - well - borderline insanity.

Mankind's importance relative to the universe is less than that of a single grain of sand among all the grains of sand on the planet.

The creator made the universe. All indications are that it lost interest very soon there after. Mankind is just a byproduct of the rules the creator set in place. At best the universe is an entertaining diversion for the creator and if it ever noticed us at all it wasn't for long and was worthy of little more than a - shrug - and a huh, that's wierd reaction.

We're on our own.

Am I right and everyone else wrong? Maybe. Maybe not.

Doesn't matter anyway. Too many religions. Too many folks who claim divine communication.

My philosophy has as much chance of being the right one as any other. Until the creator makes itself known it's all about that which most religions call faith. My faith in my philosophy is as strong as any other. Faith can't be argued to any logical conclusion because by definition faith is magical thinking which cannot be proven.

Fun to discuss but ultimately pointless.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Why do you think religion is dangerous?

i'll answer that from my vew point although, kweiz may have a diffrent answer.

becuase religion is a very strong insentive for the masses. i had a history teacher tell me that the best way to take over the world would be to create a religion, and set yourself up as the devine leader. a devine leader is powerful. the subjects not only don't want to break the law of the governement, but they also don't want to break the laws of god/s/ess.
the pharohs held much of egypt for a very long time, and much of there power came from the fact that they were thought to be devine.
so religion, or rather, belief, can be used to control.

now for the record, i'm not a big fan of ANY group that is fanatical in their belief. be they religious, political or anything else. in fact the Obama fans scare me in much the same way that religion does.


i want to state for the record, that i am not attacking anyones religion or religious experiance. i am not attacking anyone. i am stating what i have observed and what i understand.

and, yes, i am ending this with a kevin smith quote:

Rufus:" He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the *expletive deleted*it that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it. "
Bethany: "Having beliefs isn't good?"
Rufus: "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."

[jackdanson]

I think religion is dangerous.

Religion is dangerous like guns are dangerous.  In the hands of a fool or facist they can cause great harm, in the hands of honest well-meaning people they are not only safe, but can protect life and liberty.

[Perd Hapley]

What/Who ever made the universe made THE UNIVERSE! Pretty big place. Billions of galaxies, trillions and trillions of stars. To imagine that the creator of all that also takes a special interest in a creature on a planet in a minor solar system in an unremarkable galaxy is pure arrogance. To imagine that same creator chose US to make in its image is - well - borderline insanity.

Mankind's importance relative to the universe is less than that of a single grain of sand among all the grains of sand on the planet.

All of which is a lot of (very poor) supposition on your part, and not a little presumptuous.  You might wish to heed Strings' warning against the notion that you understand the totality of divinity, before you preach against arrogance.  In fact, it's evident that you would limit God's intellect to the level of yours or mine, as if he were incapable of paying equal interest or care to each atom of his creation at once.  Now it's possible he's not that smart, but it's equally possible that he is. 

You claim that God cares about some other part of his creation, more than he cares about humanity.  What does he find more important or more interesting, and on what do you base this dogma of yours?  Why shouldn't God be more interested in the Turkish orphan than anything else?  Or to flip it around completely, it's possible that God cares more about amoebas on Earth or minerals on Neptune than anything else. 

Why would you presume that God cares more about galaxies than humans?  Do you claim to know the mind of God?  Do you really think a mind like God's would take interest in the clockwork of quasars and subatomic particles and nebulae, yet take no interest at all in human beings that are so much less predictable?  Or if he regards us no more than we regard ants, keep in mind that some people make their living by the study of ants.  Why should God, with such vastly superior mental powers, be less attentive than mere human scientists? 

And why are you so confident that the universe is nothing more than some accidental excretion of the divine?  If God is indeed God, why would you presume that anything happens outside of his most intimate scrutiny? 

[Strings]

Shoulda known you'd run with that...

Good job, by the way: you used it well. And demonstrated the problem I have with most current religions. Congratulations!

Oh... this:

The Conversion Mobile should be along to pick you up on the morning of the 14th

Is kinda scary, since I'm heading down to St Louise ON the 14th. This year, we're at one of the Hiltons: I'll give you a call when we get in.

[Werewolf]

so religion, or rather, belief, can be used to control.

Which in the end is what oganized religion is all about...

CONTROL

Religion as a social structure pre-dates governments. In any social group there must be rules to live by else it's members tend to kill each other off.

In a tiny group its enough that the the strongest make the rules and enforce them thru sheer strength.

In a group of 30 or more it takes more than brute force rule for the group to thrive - thus evolved shamanism - organized religion in it's most primitive form.

Most - if not all - rules of any organized social group exist to maintain harmony and social order. They make little or no sense to the rabble. Even if the rules do make sense to the strong and/or intelligent they have no real incentive and/or disincentive to obey them (the universal rule against adultery for example). It is the lack of incentive/disincentive that resulted in the social construct of religion.

Why? Because adding a higher and feared authority* to the mix than just the word of a wise one worked to maintain harmony in the group more successfully than other constructs that may have developed and went the way of the dodo because they didn't work.

For example:
The local wise man - no matter how wise and respected - points out that fooling around with the wife of the guy in the next hut over tends to create hate and discontent at best and murder at worst and folks say to themselves - ehhhhh - not in my case - its OK for ME to fool around with Bog's ole lady - won't be a problem. Bog on the other hand would probably disagree with the no problem take of his neighbor.

Same guy says GOD orders you not fool around with Joan next door or <insert devine retribution of your choice here> and the rabble - at least most of them - listen and obey.

End result - less societal friction.

Same is as true today with all of our more advanced forms of religion as it was 40,000 years ago. The only differences are the costumes the shamans wear and the power they wield. The rules are still essentially the same.

Organized religion provides a common belief and moral system for groups. It keeps things running smoothly at least until different belief systems clash but then that's another thread entirely.

Organized religion is fine for the masses - it gives them a crutch to lean on when times are hard, rules to live by and for many even a reason to live.

Organized religion is a necessary institution for society to thrive as a group. It just isn't necessary for some individuals.

*Yeah - yeah - GOD is love and all that and faeces smells like roses too. The foundation of control in every religion that has ever been is the absolute fear of its deity and the retribution that deity will exact for failure to adhere to its proclaimed moral code. EVERY Religion. Especially the 4 main ones on the planet today. Even buddhism which comes as close as a religion can come to not being based on fear of its deity has built within it the fear that if one doesn't live according to the established rules one just might get reincarnated as a dung beetle or something.

[Werewolf]

All of which is a lot of (very poor) supposition on your part, and not a little presumptuous.  You might wish to heed Strings' warning against the notion that you understand the totality of divinity, before you preach against arrogance.  In fact, it's evident that you would limit God's intellect to the level of yours or mine, as if he were incapable of paying equal interest or care to each atom of his creation at once.  Now it's possible he's not that smart, but it's equally possible that he is....

PAY ATTENTION WHEN YOU RESPOND TO SOMEONE'S POST

Am I right and everyone else wrong? Maybe. Maybe not.

Doesn't matter anyway. Too many religions. Too many folks who claim divine communication.

My philosophy has as much chance of being the right one as any other.

Until the creator makes itself known it's all about that which most religions call faith. My faith in my philosophy is as strong as any other. Faith can't be argued to any logical conclusion because by definition faith is magical thinking which cannot be proven.

Fun to discuss but ultimately pointless.

Discussing religion with the faithful is as pointless as wrestling a pig in the mud and almost as fun.

All of which is a lot of (very poor) supposition on your part, and not a little presumptuous.  You might wish to heed Strings' warning against the notion that you understand the totality of divinity, before you preach against arrogance.

Ahhh the faithful. You prove my point about discussing religion with your ilk. My philosophy isn't yours so by definition my philosophy must be wrong. You can couch your assertion in any way and spin you want. Doesn't change what you mean one bit. You're right therefore I must be wrong.

I hate to burst your bubble (actually I don't and your bubble won't be burst anyway since you're convinced you're right) but my understanding of the totality of divinity is as valid as yours or anyother.

You have no evidence, hard facts, indeed nothing more concrete than your belief in the fairy tales told by primitive herdsmen on which to base your beliefs. And neither do I have evidence, hard facts nor anything terribly concrete on which to base mine.

You have your faith, I have my belief.

Both philosophies are thus equal.

[grampster]

"You have your faith, I have my belief.

Both philosophies are thus equal."


Ehh, you just destroyed the lengthy maunderings in your last 2 posts.  You burned up a plethora of words mocking folks who have faith,then proceed to declare the whole conversation actually not worthwhile on the basis  that it is an unarguable, unknowable mission, and then destroy your position by declaring that your position and the one you mock is equal.  That can't be.

Either people of faith are right and you are wrong, thus not equal.  Or vice versa and still not equal.  Both positions to be equal (especially since it's a philosophical position we're dealing with here) means you'd both be right or both be wrong.  Equality of positive and negative would = a null state of nothingness.

[Nematocyst]

Nemo, it seems to me that if the above resonates with you, especially with your background in science, and curious nature, you could just as easily call yourself a Deist?  I mean it wouldn't be much of a leap to come to an opposite conclusion would it?

A reasonable question, G'ster.

Here is a typical definition of "deism":

"a belief that God created the universe and then abandoned it"  

I don't fit a typical interpretation of deism for two reasons:

1) My sense is (based on no serious study) that deists still believe that God created the universe in a purposeful way, using the same kind of consciousness that we use when designing a machine. I do not subscribe to that view. In my view, the universe may appear to be purposefully "designed" and constructed, but it is not; instead, it has evolved according to the laws of nature that we have uncovered as thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

2) The  phrase "and then abandoned it" doesn't apply to me. Since in the Spinozan view God is the laws of nature, that would imply that the laws of nature were only active during its creation (i.e., in the "beginning"), but no longer. Clearly that's not the case; the laws of nature still apply today and science continues to uncover them.

To those who question how the complexity of the universe could have evolved without a purposeful, sentient creator, I've got some proposed answers, which in the first version of this post I explained. However, I've decided to remove that section of this post (saved as a file, though) ... at least for now from here. I think they are interesting, relevant and fun to discuss, but since they involve science, and science is (rightfully) not listed as an option in this poll, and therefore may be a bit OT for a discussion about religion. (Besides, science and religion already fight too much. No sense adding to the ruckus.   

When I get some time, maybe I'll upgrade them, put 'em into some thread about science.  :rolleyes:

OK, I've got to go (back) to work now. I may be away for a couple of several days ... busy week ahead.

Nem

[Perd Hapley]

grampster,

I think Werewolf meant to say that both views have an equal chance of being correct, not that they could both actually be correct. 

Even if that were so, there is not equal reason for anyone to believe in either one.  To use Christianity as an example, people like McDowell have made huge books of evidence (including hard facts) to make an objective case for the literal truth of the Christian religion and its various stories, "myths," etc.  While this may not be convincing to some people, Christians can point to this evidence, as a reason for their belief. 

Werewolf, on the other hand, has made his case on the basis that there is no evidence, either way.  While denying that we can know the mind of a God who has never cared to reveal himself to us, he nevertheless claims to know what God thinks of us. 

But then, as you say, he hides behind the disclaimer that he could be wrong, after he has already said that people like me are arrogant and "borderline insane." 

But wait a minute.  If he and I have an equal chance of being right, then he must also be arrogant and borderline insane.  OK, you were right, then.  Werewolf just gutted his own point of view. 

[BlueStarLizzard]

what you believe to be true, i don't believe to be true. what i believe to be true, you don't believe to be true.

you can believe it all you want, but thats not gonna change my veiw.

and i can believe what i want, and its not gonna change your veiw.

but i am not going to tell you that your way is totally bogus. i am also not going to tell you how much better my way is and tell you, you need to change for your own wellbeing.

 please return the favor.

[thebaldguy]

I was born Catholic. I'm now a recovering Catholic; I now consider myself an athiest.

I believe in evolution.

I remember nuns telling us that if you wern't Catholic you were going to hell.

I shudder to think of all the money my mom gave to the church over the years which went to settle molestation lawsuits.

By the way, no religious discussion would be complete without the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.venganza.org/

 

[Kwelz]

Sorry I am just now getting back to this.  I haven't been on the computer today much at all.

I see religion as dangerous for a number of reasons.  Religion has been the grounds for some of the worst periods in human history.  The Dark ages, The Crusades, Witch Trials/Inquisitions, Hitler's Germany, etc on a large scale, and Hatred of smaller groups on a lesser scale.  Religion teaches us that we should be good people not because it is the right thing to do, but because we should fear some eternal afterlife of hell and torment if we don't.  It uses fear to get people to follow along with what the religion wants instead of just sharing what it believes. Don't agree with us you go to hell, Do something we don't like then go to hell, say something against us then go to hell. 

Religion breeds closed mindedness.  I have even seen it here.  Someone made the comment in another thread that they didn't feel any marriage except a christian marriage was valid.  To me this is the exact attitude that religion breeds and it easily leads to more extreme actions against people who don't agree the same. 
I much prefer science where the facts lead to the conclusion instead of the facts being twisted to fit the desired conclusion. 

I really don't want to turn this into a big fight.  While I feel religion is dangerous I would stand next to every one of you defending your right to worship whatever god or gods you wanted and do it however you wanted.  However once you use your religion to hate another or as an excuse to do them harm then I will stand against you.

[grampster]

what you believe to be true, i don't believe to be true. what i believe to be true, you don't believe to be true.

you can believe it all you want, but thats not gonna change my veiw.

and i can believe what i want, and its not gonna change your veiw.

but i am not going to tell you that your way is totally bogus. i am also not going to tell you how much better my way is and tell you, you need to change for your own wellbeing.

please return the favor.

I don't believe anyone in this discussion has attempted to change anyone's views.  Werewolf's comments might border on mild contempt or ridicule at worst and rudeness at best, but he is not trying to convert anyone to his point of view.  (Which he basically wrecked as I mentioned above. )

So, I am puzzled by your request highlighted above.



"I see religion as dangerous for a number of reasons.........."   (Kwelz)

1.  Substitute guns for religion in this and your next paragraph.  Perhaps you will begin to see the shallowness (I say this with respect, it's a descriptive adjective used to describe your argument, not demean you personally) of your argument.

2.  I disagree with your conclusion further.  It is not religion that is dangerous at all.  What is dangerous are people who use religion to further their own selfish or evil ends. 

3.  Have you ever fully read and pondered any sacred texts?  Just curious.

PS:  This thread has been delightful.

[BlueStarLizzard]

grampster,

i find that many of those from religions that preach converstion, often press the issue on others. sometimes in a manner seems almost unintentional. for example, i often find that christians i know personally, openly pity me for the fact that i don't believe the same thing they do. it usually comes across as 'oh what a nice girl, such a pity the poor thing doesn't believe in christ, and will go to the bad place'. i find that EXTREAMLY offensive (as well as terrifing), on multiple levels.
i realize that in most cases this is oversensitivity on my part. i've had one to many so called christians trap me in a corner and essentually demand that i convert.
however, there is the simple fact (and correct me if i'm wrong) that a general and accepted tenent of christian faith (as well as a corrisponding tenent of Islamic faith) that those who do not accept christ as their savior are going to hell.
this offends every partical of my soul. its one thing to belive diffrently then those around you. its another to beleive that those who do believe diffrently then you are going to what is imagened to be the worst place imaginable.
this tenant of dogma is also a driving force behind many evils commited by followers of those who use religion for power or control. i don't think i need to explain why.

i much prefer the Hindu dogma that states that there is no true path (although it is accepted that YOUR path is better and quicker then others, whatever your path may be  ) Basically everyone ends up at the same place, but at diffrent times with diffrent experiances that lead to the same truth. i find this much more in line with my own understandings of the world, and much less offensive. Darn, i know i have that particular chunk of the Vedas around here somewhere, but i can't find it.

anyway, there you go. one of my reasons behind my rejection of christianity. and also an explaination of why i am a little sensitive when discussing this stuff (i really am trying to be better about that) 

[Kwelz]

1.  Substitute guns for religion in this and your next paragraph.  Perhaps you will begin to see the shallowness (I say this with respect, it's a descriptive adjective used to describe your argument, not demean you personally) of your argument.

Guns are Dangersous.  Perhaps not by themselves but they are dangerous.  The same is true of religion.  A reliion however does not equate directly to a firearm.  It is almost a living breathing entity that can change over time.  The rulers of a religion have vast sway over the people who worship under them.  A bullet is a bullet.  Words can be re-interpreted or as in the case of the bilbe, completely changed.  Sections of text can be left out to completely change meaning, etc.  And lets not even get into the contridictions.

2.  I disagree with your conclusion further.  It is not religion that is dangerous at all.  What is dangerous are people who use religion to further their own selfish or evil ends. 


All Monotheistic religions eventually follow the same path.  That path being "My way or the Highway"  I have yet to see a major arm of Christianity or Islam that is not furthering it's own slefish ways.  a low key example are the people fromt he local church who wont' stop coming to my house.  They insist on "Saving" me.  If they dont' watch it they are the ones who are gong to need saving when I get tired of the BS they go on about. 
Honestly my main issue is with the Three Major Religions we hear most about.  Christianity and Islam specificly.  The Jewish religion seems to have reached a much less violent and...  Shall we say dangerous stage.  Christianity has started in that direction but still causes a lot of problems, and Islam is just going though the same stage Christianity did a few hundred years ago. 

3.  Have you ever fully read and pondered any sacred texts?  Just curious.

I was raised catholic.  I could and still can quote the bible quite well.  I also was well on my way to becoming a priest of the Catholic church when I came to my senses.  I have read multiple version of the bible along with text not included.  I have also read parts of the Torah and Qur'an although admittedly not in detail as I have the bible.  Honestly I have found them lacking.  They are earlier mans attempt to explain the world around them in most cases, and a textbook example of Population control in others.  They were all selectively created and pieced together to maximize the message the writers wanted to get across while minimizing questions.  They are a good mix of fear mongering and a gentle hand.  On that level I think they did a good job.  However they didn’t' account for the variable of scientific progress and once parts of it were proven false then other parts started to unravel as well.   As I explained it to my very religious friend.  Free will is my Anti-Religion. 

PS:  This thread has been delightful.

Agreed, I hope we can all remain civil even in our dissagreements.