Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Anath on September 10, 2008 at 10:49pm

Lea's covered it pretty well here. You'd do well to distinguish between institutionalized, organized religions/ fundamentalists / activists, and something a person chooses to believe passively, no matter how irrationally.

I don't have a problem with those who keep their faiths to themselves, or only use them as constructive and personal, out of legislature, and away from military force. Even the big three in this state aren't much different than other benign forms of spirituality. If I can meditate, they can pray; its really the same thing at the core. Its not respect for them or their beliefs, its apathy.

Unfortunately it seems that most religious can't keep it to themselves, and feel the need to direct everyone else, infect the schools, corrupt children, and try to legislate it. Then I have problems.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug on September 11, 2008 at 1:11am

Unfortunately it seems that most religious can't keep it to themselves, and feel the need to direct everyone else, infect the schools, corrupt children, and try to legislate it. Then I have problems.

It is like an illegal drug they get on and enjoy so much that they try to force their friends and contacts to try it.

I have seen this over and over people get "high" on religion and think "WOW this is so good for me everyone should try it!" Unfortunately some of us have seen the downside of the addiction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug on September 11, 2008 at 1:08am

I have seen religion used as a force for good and a force for evil.

It is not the religion but the people who take a doctrine and use it for their own personal power ( either political or financial ) that get me.

All great religions have a base in philosophical teaching, it is the perversion of those teaching that causes the problems.

I have no problem with religion I have a problem with religious fanatics and fundamentalists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Lopez on September 14, 2008 at 7:49pm

Religion has a goal, and that goal is ALWAYS the same...to "save" people. All religions, always. There are no religions that don't have an aspect of salvation built into them. It could come in many forms from "enlightenment" to Heaven...and ALWAYS to save people and nothing else.

Since Salvation is the most important thing there is, everything else takes a back seat to it. So religion's first goal is to save people...even at the expense of all other life on the planet.

This salvation Dogma is the heart of the evil we non-theists observe. If it weren't for the salvation part of religion, all we'd see is a bunch of people believing in a fairy tale. Harmless. But salvation is so important to religion that it justifies everything evil that religion is responsible for...in the eyes of the religious at least.

This is why I'm not only a non-theist, but an anti-salvationist. I'm literally an anti-Christ. Since Jesus Christ's sole purpose on Earth was to save humans from damnation, I'm anti-Christ in the sense that I'm interested in saving all life on the planet, not JUST humans.

I consider myself and animist, an atheist and an anti-salvationist. The term Antichrist is one I savor because it's so scary to Christians...it's not exactly accurate, but it's funny so I embrace it.

This idea that morality is connected in ANY WAY to religion, especially Christianity, is just stupid and offensive. It was biblically moral to own slaves, rape wives and beat children at one point. But it was logic and science that dragged religion into the 21st Century (kicking and screaming as they say) and forced the religion to update its own "morality."

Religion is only as moral as the society in which it flourishes and not the other way around.

At least, that's what I think.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on September 20, 2008 at 4:52pm

Jim Ashby: The holocaust was (mostly) AGAINST JEWS

Do the arithmatic. I'm a "dirty slav". And I may, or be not, homo.

You no longer surprise me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by funk Q on September 17, 2008 at 12:54am

I take it you refer mainly to the Abrahamic trio when you talk about religion. The eastern religions/philosophies are nowhere as pedantic with their dogmas and some are atheistic. That I can respect.

I can't respect dogmatic adherence to any code which denies freedom of action or even happiness for the individual. Can anyone quote a passage of western scripture which says religion, faith, god can be fun?

I must also add I can't respect atheists who are so convinced they are right and who bully others who can't accept certainty.

Here are two quotes which are pertinent:
Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths do harm . . . What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define faith as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.- Bertrand Russell

Gods don't kill people. People with gods kill people.- unknown

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LeaT on September 17, 2008 at 7:52am

I see people doing this constantly... DO NOT use the word religion if speaking in a general sense unless it is clear in the context you are strictly referring to the Abrahamic religions ONLY! Some person on this page started to talk about being antichrist, and that all religions have a dogma to take over the world. This isn't true, which is why I to insist that you should avoid such logical fallacies and general statements because the one who looks stupid is YOU, not the other way around. When presenting facts to support your argument, claim or opinion, do it correctly. You cannot say all religions strive for world domination because it isn't true. A lot of pagan religions for example, are based upon secular views and there is no dogma involved, since the religion is only focused on an INDIVIDUAL level of selfullfilment, not that of an authority.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Lopez on September 17, 2008 at 2:52pm

"A lot of pagan religions for example, are based upon secular views and there is no dogma involved, since the religion is only focused on an INDIVIDUAL level of selfullfilment, not that of an authority."

Could you cite an example of one of these? Or several, since there are "a lot" of them?

This is literally the first time I've ever heard this argument and it sounds a bit fishy to me.

I'm genuinely interested in reading about religions that are as you claim.

I also take offense at you telling me not to use "religion" as a term unless I'm only speaking of the Abrahamic top 3. As far as I'm aware, all religions other than animism are essentially salvationistic in nature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LeaT on September 18, 2008 at 4:13am

Ok, about paganism: check up any neo pagan religion (Wicca is a good start along with all odd pagan believers like myself who don't really adhere to a specific set of beliefs) and you'll see this, animism, shamanism and the ilk are more about self fullfilment also, and then we have religions such as Buddhism which is pretty much the same.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Lopez on September 18, 2008 at 2:29pm

Well, I understand animism and shamanism...neither are actually religions with doctrine and dogma. Buddhism in its' westernized form is not the same Buddhism practiced in Asia; there it is very much a salvationist religion.

Paganism is a farmer's religion invoking gods and goddesses, prayers and spirituality (whatever that is supposed to mean)...theism for certain. While it may be unusual for Pagans to utilize dogma, they are absolutely theists.

I think you might be confused about the meaning of atheism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LeaT on September 18, 2008 at 4:17am

Yes, but he also in the same text cited ALL religions of the world, and "The word "religion", though, refers to more than the Abrahamic religions...Hinduism. Buddhism. Shinto. Satanism. Zoroastrianism. There are lots", yes, that's my point! Buddhism is about relying upon an authority figure, it's about self fullfilment.

I am serious because I don't like when people make "uneducated" claims. If we here on this forum are for freedom of knowledge, our first priority is to get our knowledge right, no? How can you ever think of fighting against something if you make false claims?

I am not a dictionary police, I was merely stating that he might want to avoid pigeon holing religion and drawing a line religion = Abrahamic religions. I understood his point, but I still wanted to make clear to anyone who was going to post after him.

I never said he was wrong calling himself Antichrist, I said that he starts off with "all religions" then goes into pigeon holing religion into = Christianity.

Well, I thought people knew enough about it so no need to show any evidence? I gave you some examples to the poster above you. I can't think of any neopagan religion which isn't about selfulfillment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Lopez on September 18, 2008 at 2:38pm

atheism means non-theism...no gods in any form...no afterlife/spirit/soul/heaven/hell, etc.

religion = theism

All forms of theism are religion.

Self fulfillment is often a watered down version of salvation. Other terms for salvation include: absolution, atonement, conservation, deliverance, emancipation, extrication, liberation, mainstay, manumission, nirvana, preservation, redemption. Dressing it up by calling it "selfulfillment" doesn't change that.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page