No God, But Religion is Okay?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Louis on October 15, 2009 at 7:35pm

Unless Crusades, Fatwas, and Jihads are all mistranslations of 'pool party,' no.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on October 17, 2009 at 2:35pm

*Snicker* I'm afraid Jack, that's what many Theists will argue these things mean. "We're burning a cross on someone's lawn. It's just like the church picnic, only at night."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cara on October 15, 2009 at 8:31pm

Maybe for him and a lot of people, it seems like a waste of time to fight over. This bothers me a great deal too. I've spent many nights stewing over this.

In general I don't feel most people are aware of some of religions unfavorable history. Many of the people I have met, will believe what they are told with out reasearching or questioning it. They still believe if it's on the news it must be true. I rarely see... or never see a show on durring primetime, questioning religion or talking about how dangerous it is. Unless of course it's something other than the current flavor of the century. Mainly I believe it boils down to greed, and religion sells well. That and those that question the current status quo, face too much hostility for such a FREE nation.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bill E on October 15, 2009 at 11:09pm

There was actually a pretty good 3-night series on violent religious fanaticism (focusing on Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) on CNN hosted by Christiane Amanpour. It's worth checking out.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cara on October 16, 2009 at 1:05pm

Oh I've seen them, and some good ones too. My concern is that not many people are actually watching them. There is one that airs around midnight at Christmas time debunking Christianity. Think about how much air time "the good" of religion gets compared to "the bad".

I'm just pointing out that there is unbalced airtime regarding the views of religion. I also believe people generally accept what the hear without questioning. Those same people probably pick the path of least resistance... and this is not always the best path. Thus explaining why so many people seem to be okay with religion, and yet do not appear to be religious themselves.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Larry Smith on October 16, 2009 at 12:12am

Religion is the only thing Karl Marx actually got right. Religion is the "opiate of the masses" and is used to pacify the masses. Without religion most people would not behave in a moral, civilized fashion and would be much more selfish and self-oriented. Which god they believe in is immaterial as long as it includes a code of morality with a hierarchy. This is where Islam fails, it does contain a moral code, but lacks the hierarchy to enforce a single interpretation. This leads to many, varied interpretations of religious writings, including the justification of suicide murderers, which cannot be condemned by the religion's hierarchy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alex McCullie on October 16, 2009 at 12:16am

Without trying to be a smart-arse we probably need to disambiguate the question as what is meant by 'religion' and 'god'.

If god is the classical theist view - all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving being - then there are religions without a god. Eastern ones like Jainism come to mind. Most religious scholars today though see that religions have a common inner core of 'orientation' regardless of the significant outer differences of practices, beliefs, ceremonies, and scriptures. That inner core is a belief in the sacred or the ‘more’ as William James put it. It is something beyond our physical existence that is worthy of being worshiped and revered. From this, most atheists and all materialists and naturalists, like me, would totally disagree with the metaphysical bases of all religions.

So are they inherently dangerous? Without doubt many bad things have been done in the name of religions. People motivated by religions have done some wonderful work as well. Even in the latter, though, the good works often come with a need to evangelise. In either case from a religious perspective the need and benefits of showing non-believers the way to revelation and possibly eternal life far exceeds any physical pain in this world. And that is the scary part.

Ultimately I’m fascinated by religions though not a fan and at times very critical. My favourite topic is the Pope, condoms, HIV, and North Africa. Like it or not they are a fact in many parts of the world including, or more particularly, in the US. Here in Australia we have a greater indifferent population to religion. Thank God!

Alex

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Marshall on October 16, 2009 at 12:27am

Couldn't disagree more with Mr. Sheiman's conclusion. He has a right to his opinion, but I don't share it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ronin on October 16, 2009 at 12:59am

The phrase "agree to disagree" has always irritated me. To me it smacks of tacit approval, on some level, of the other point of view. Whether it is religion,politics, etc. I will listen to the opposing view. If they lack sufficient information to change my mind, they haven't made their case. I have,at times, researched others views and gone back to them, informed them of the holes in their arguments. This has had two results, 1) they agree with me and look more closely at my view or 2) call me an asshole and stomp away. I have also, upon investigating, found the holes in my argument and changed my view. But I will not just "agree to disagree".

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on October 17, 2009 at 2:50pm

The phrase "agree to disagree" has always irritated me.

I agree. (No pun intended).

It is so often used as a way of saying, "I don't have a good argument or comeback." Although I've recently had to use it with a FB friend. On the surface quite a nice person, but there's a all-government-is-evil-fascism side of her that makes Rush look like a liberal. I got tired of her rants every time I posted something pro-health reform, so tried the agree-to-disagree route. Haven't heard from her since, but I think that's because I was by far not the only one getting tired of the death panel rants.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by marty mueller on October 16, 2009 at 2:50pm

Atheists are "God's whistle-blowers," who keep believers honest and focused on the here-and-now,
It seems to me that Mr Burke would have look at only the good in religion, namely the social aspects. But do a few good things outweigh all the bad things that have come out of religion? There are many non-religious social organizations that have done more and harmed less. Sorry I am not buying!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sonny Mobley on October 19, 2009 at 1:22pm

Ewwwww. The only thing I can't stand more than defending the existence of a god-being is defending religion.

Anti-theism>atheism

▶ Reply to This

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