Atheist Billboard Vandalized

[Swatopluk]

We still don't know whether religion is 'built-in' and atheists are the equivalent of the gay (i.e. deviations* form the standard pattern).
Doesn't mean that religion is 'true' but I am not aware of any culture that did not develop some kind of it.
Even the Neanderthals must have had some ideas in that direction given findings at burial sites and they are not even our ancestors but our relatives.
Well, of course our ancestors could have infected them with the god nonsense

*no moral judgement implied

[Sibling DavidH]

I've been arguing this out on another forum.  My view is that the 'god-shaped hole in man' is just one of a number of inbuilt drives, including aggression and war, music and dance, art and probably some less obvious ones.  I argued that, as you said, the fact that this drive is universal does not validate it.  We need to recognise the need for religion and the need for war as aberrations and condemn them before we can progress.

[Swatopluk]

recognise yes, condemn not necessarily. That depends.

[Aggie]

It seems to me that you cannot root both out at once (or you will get very dead by the warthirsty hands of the religious ); best to start with war.

So many of the abuses of religion seem to me to have little to actually do with religion, but use it as a cover and/or excuse for other human drives.  I do think the Christian culture (and theology) of failure and forgiveness is a dangerous thing, as it allows some believers to commit terrible acts and then beg for forgiveness, but generally I think that most of the bad stuff that happens in the name of God would happen under some other justification if religion did not exist.  Using the authority of God makes it easier to convince people, but there are other ways.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

So many of the abuses of religion seem to me to have little to actually do with religion, but use it as a cover and/or excuse for other human drives.  I do think the Christian culture (and theology) of failure and forgiveness is a dangerous thing, as it allows some believers to commit terrible acts and then beg for forgiveness, but generally I think that most of the bad stuff that happens in the name of God would happen under some other justification if religion did not exist.  Using the authority of God makes it easier to convince people, but there are other ways.

I generally agree with you on that but I do believe that religion is a perfect vehicle for such endeavors. Every time you get a bearer of absolute truth it's easier to convince others of the righteous of your cause in the name of that absolute. Once removed that absolute can be replaced by the state or a cult of personality (ie: stalinism, maoism, or the cult status of Kim Jong Il to mention a few), but following a mortal 'savior' is a bit more restricted than following an omnipotent, eternal, etc one.

[Swatopluk]

An interesting variant of the failure and forgiveness idea was Rasputin's theology:
God loves the repentant sinner, so a Christian should always have enough to repent for => sin nor not for sin's sake but to provide the opportunity for repentance and forgiveness. But this seems to refer to personal sins only for he was in no way involved in any bloodthirsty politics (he was actually mainly murdered for trying to keep Russia out of WW1 and because he had an affair with the wife of one of his assassins)
Seems to be a Russian thing. Ivan V. Grozny (aka The Terrible) used up all the time he did not use for doing terrible things for repentance, excessive repentance. That included writing painstaking confession lists about what horrible stuff he did and how the people he did them to were innocent victims of his wickedness (even those that probably even deserved what came to them). This was clearly not done for show but genuine.

[Lindorm]

I've been arguing this out on another forum.  My view is that the 'god-shaped hole in man' is just one of a number of inbuilt drives, including aggression and war, music and dance, art and probably some less obvious ones.  I argued that, as you said, the fact that this drive is universal does not validate it.  We need to recognise the need for religion and the need for war as aberrations and condemn them before we can progress.

So, in other words, we have to civilize these poor misguided savages and teach them what's Right and Wrong, whether they like it or not, all in the name of tolerance and progress?

[Swatopluk]

Well, that's the way it usually ends

[Lindorm]

I do think the Christian culture (and theology) of failure and forgiveness is a dangerous thing, as it allows some believers to commit terrible acts and then beg for forgiveness,

Or perhaps an important recognition of human fallability, and a means of not only recognizing that, but trying to cope with it and direct it towards something "useful"?

[Sibling DavidH]

So, in other words, we have to civilize these poor misguided savages and teach them what's Right and Wrong, whether they like it or not, all in the name of tolerance and progress?

I'm not sure who the savages would be, but no.  I'm not advocating forcing anything on anyone.  I mean that we should encourage a culture of suppressing in ourselves the urge to be religious, as we (mostly) suppress the urge to rape and kill.
Most of us nowadays would be a bit ashamed to admit that we're afraid to walk under a ladder or walk the wrong way round a church.  The culture these days is to laugh at such stuff.  That's the direction we ought to be moving in.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

It seems to me that we also can deal with absolutes with the same perils involved. Religious thoughts aren't necessarily damaging (personally I see Buddhism under a good light) as long as the absolute isn't involved. On the same token an absolute confidence on the worthlessness of religion could border arrogance and be as perilous as any other absolute.

[Swatopluk]

Hey, I am a non-believer but still superstitious.
I also noticed that it is easier to get appointments on Friday 13th

[Aggie]

I generally agree with you on that but I do believe that religion is a perfect vehicle for such endeavors. Every time you get a bearer of absolute truth it's easier to convince others of the righteous of your cause in the name of that absolute.

*rumble*  That's the danger of allowing anyone to speak for God. Anyone claiming to do so is ungodly in my books.  I am more ready to allow statements beginning with "According to my interpretation of (insert scripture here)...." because these inherently imply that other interpretations are possible.

--------

I do think the Christian culture (and theology) of failure and forgiveness is a dangerous thing, as it allows some believers to commit terrible acts and then beg for forgiveness,

Or perhaps an important recognition of human fallability, and a means of not only recognizing that, but trying to cope with it and direct it towards something "useful"?

That too.  It's a double-edged sword that allows the sincere to bounce back from failure and keep going in the face of adversity, but it also allows many to continue 'business as usual' while appearing to follow the rules (and maybe even fooling themselves that they are doing so).  I suspect that the lines are blurred in quite a few cases; only the individual involved knows the sincerity of their repentance. This makes it dangerous to Christianity itself, as 'outed' failures are often held up as horrible hypocrites and examples of what is wrong with religion (Ted Haggard comes to mind).  I personally think that hateful Christians are horrible hypocrites to start with; the methamphetamine and homosexuality are lesser issues in my mind. 

Where it's applied openly, humbly and honestly - such as in a 12-step program - I'd say it's a good thing.

--------

We need to recognise the need for religion and the need for war as aberrations and condemn them before we can progress.

I defend your right to have this opinion, BUT I feel the need to say that IMHO it's intolerant, untaddy and contrary to the whole purpose of the Toadfish Monastery.   That being said, this is an interesting discussion and worth continuing, also IMHO.

I've been arguing this out on another forum.  My view is that the 'god-shaped hole in man' is just one of a number of inbuilt drives, including aggression and war, music and dance, art and probably some less obvious ones.  I argued that, as you said, the fact that this drive is universal does not validate it. 

I feel the same way about sex*.  From what I can see, all the evil in the world comes from the drives for sex, money and power.  Money is simply a method of gaining power, and while power for power's sake is the ultimate peak of power-drive, much of the lesser motivations for gaining money and power are actually the sex drive in action (to gain access to a desired type of sex partner or partners).  Sex can be a comfort for some, and under ideal conditions can be benign, but on the whole causes more misery, emotional distress, violence, disease and war than is justified by the fleeting and rather insignificant benefits.  The ongoing sex scandals within the Catholic Church, for example, have been covered up and exacerbated 'for the good of the religion', but are ultimately rooted in SEX, not religion.  The inequality between the sexes in most cultures has been driven primarily by men's need for control over sex itself; without sex there would be greater equality. The global sex trade causes untold harm to women and children EVERYWHERE, and domestic sexual abuse is far more damaging than physical or emotional abuse.

I think we should condemn this harmful drive, despite the fact that it is universal and that some people enjoy it.


^{*I'm partly playing the Devil's Advocate here, partly facetious and partly serious.  Outrageousness is intended.}

[Griffin NoName]

one day maybe there will be a Dignity in Birth organisation - I didn't have control over my birth either.

That would be lovely-- if you could ask a potential human, what sort of parents they would desire?

Some people do believe that we choose our parents. Some idea that we are endlessly spirits waiting to incarnate. I think the choice is also meant to have something to do with our past life - that we seek the ideal parents for us to learn the lesson etc.

We still don't know whether religion is 'built-in' and atheists are the equivalent of the gay (i.e. deviations* form the standard pattern).
Doesn't mean that religion is 'true' but I am not aware of any culture that did not develop some kind of it.

Even if it is built in, isn't the more interesting question - why do many religious people need to have everyone else believe what they believe?

We need to recognise the need for religion and the need for war as aberrations and condemn them before we can progress.

I defend your right to have this opinion, BUT I feel the need to say that IMHO it's intolerant, untaddy and contrary to the whole purpose of the Toadfish Monastery.   That being said, this is an interesting discussion and worth continuing, also IMHO.

It's a question of expression. Aggie's hit the spot - it's fine to post as your opinion.

[pieces o nine]

Even if it is built in, isn't the more interesting question - why do many religious people need to have everyone else believe what they believe? 

I've often wondered about this myself. In my personal, non-scientific observations, people who present as the most content with -- and the most relaxed about -- their respective religious beliefs tend to be least upset when others do not share those beliefs. Conversely those who present as 'very strong' or 'committed' in their respective beliefs are the most likely to become agitated or belligerent when confronted with differing beliefs in others.

My conclusion is that the first group has the best grasp on the differences between 'belief' and 'fact'; thus, even if 'committed' to their present path, they would have relatively little distress about course corrections when and if met with greater information or differing evidence.

On the other hand, those in the second group may not, in fact, have the courage of their convictions. Encountering strong differing beliefs -- or, even worse -- differing beliefs with casual disinterest in 'debating' the respective merits of either, strikes an emotional achilles' heel. It is intolerable for them to accept that another person is resisting a system which depends heavily on terrible threats to enforce conformity. The 'committed believer' has much in common, I think, with those in other repressed groups who turn viciously on any in their ranks who do not embrace -- or, when possible, ignore -- artificial limitations.

If one person thinks, speaks, or acts for him/herself, it strains the assumption that others in that group cannot -- let alone should not -- do the same. It presents a new burden to either show the same courage for dissension, or to increase the energy put towards publicly toeing the party line. In human-governed groups, there is a strong, historically proven possibility of punishment being meted out on the entire group to discourage dissension. 'Committed believers' cannot conceive  [<-- ha!]  of a deity who does not react like themselves, and in the mix of all their other reactions is anger and fear that god will punish *them* for not converting  -- or silencing -- the unbeliever.

It's sad.