God is bad for you

[English assassin]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html



RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

Corrolation isn't causation of course but this does surely call for comment from the godly amongst us?

[A.Saturnus]

I all have to say to that is confounding factors.

[English assassin]

I all have to say to that is confounding factors

Aha, I knew you would say that. Could you, err, just translate it from statistician into English for, err, everyone else?

[A.Saturnus]

I highly doubt that this study has taken into consideration to control all factors that also correlate with these effects. It is an old fact that religious belief is stronger and more widespread for lower classes and lower educated people, which are also higher in most of these variables. It is rather obvious that not religiousness causes for example early adult mortality, but people of higher classes live healthier, less dangerous and are also less religious. One exception is maybe teen pregnancy. In that case religious convictions concerning safer sex may play a causal role. But in general, the conclusions presented in that article are quite unfounded.

To sum it up: I´m convinced that if you control for socio-economical status, most of these effects would disappear.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Huh, that must be why China is such a great place to live. Too bad these guys can't get back to the good ole Soviet Union.

And they seemed to ignore Ireland, which has, it appears, much less of the 'anti-social behavior' present in Britain.

Correlation, after all, is not causation, as any statician with half a brain who's not pushing an agenda knows.

Crazed Rabbit

[King Henry V]

I fail to see how Christianity, which preaches against sex before marriage, can be the cause of high std rates and the rest. It is just pure coincidence.

[Devastatin Dave]

~:handball:

[Don Corleone]

Now Dave, to be fair, the study addresses religious belief, not specifically Christianity.

[Don Corleone]

Interesting topic EA. You're right, I will abandon my faith right now. It's the only way to make certain my unborn daughter stays off drugs and doesn't get pregnant prior to completing her education... :dizzy2:

[English assassin]

Interesting topic EA. You're right, I will abandon my faith right now. It's the only way to make certain my unborn daughter stays off drugs and doesn't get pregnant prior to completing her education... :dizzy2:

my work progresses, oh satanic master....

[Devastatin Dave]

Now Dave, to be fair, the study addresses religious belief, not specifically Christianity.

I am being fair, I believe this is insulting to anyone that believes in "God" regardless of who is Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. So i responded to the thread. I didn't report it, that would be whining. ~D

[Don Corleone]

Well, honestly EA, you asked for comments from the benighted fools. How else did you expect us to respond? In one breath, you say "correlation isn't causation" but then follow with a large BUT. I suppose you could attribute all of life's social ills to religion, but I seriously doubt that Jeffrey Dahmer was a God fearing man.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ha, the article calls the US a 'developing democracy'. What a tool. I mean, if we, the longest lasting and best democracy in the world, are 'developing' what does that make countries like England, which still has royalty, and France, now in its 11th regime in the same time span America has had 1.

And, as has been pointed out, Christianity preaches against premartial sex, violence, etc. In fact, the whole article presents no evidence of what it claims to support.

Crazed Rabbit

[English assassin]

No, DC, you misunderstand, I love Satan.

Even taking on board A Saturnus's point, there is a case to answer on STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion, shall we say? They might not be caused by "abstenance only" sex "education" which in turn is caused by religion?


I suppose you could attribute all of life's social ills to religion,

Absolutely not. That would be to deny the role played by Liberal Democrats and Manchester United fans.

[Goofball]

On the one hand I am annoyed with this article for trying to imply that religion or belief in God actually causes all of these societal ills. Yes, I know they actually specify "correlation" rather than "cause" in the article, but let's face it: the unwashed masses really don't understand the difference between the two. So as far as I'm concerned, the article (as written) is nothing more than a cheap shot at religion.

However, I will make the following points:

1) Religious folks often hold out faith in God as the "cure" for all of society's problems. If nothing else, this study shows that that is a dubious claim at best.

2) One of the biggest "correlation/cause misdirections" I see used is the old "marijauna leads to heroin" tripe that I quite often see conservatives throw around whenever the subject of drug use comes up in here. They seem to be quite willing to ignore the difference between correlation and cause in that case, but when ignoring that difference works against them, they all of a sudden become expert statisticians.

[Don Corleone]

Oy vey. It might surprise you to learn how many Christians don't believe in Satan, that the construct of the 'enemy' mentioned in the bible is our own sinful nature. One of these days, my enlightened European friends that so dogmatically adhere to secular humanism shall have to venture to the nescient land of America. I believe you'll be shocked to learn how different the majority of practicing Christians are from your caricature of us. I'm sure you'll be amazed to learn I haven't engaged in snake-wielding in three, maybe even four whole weeks now....

Well, I'm right there with you when it comes to Man United Fans, so long as you toss in New York Yankee fans to boot.

The author's point was perfectly valid. He's on step 2 of the 4 step scientific process. 1) Identify a phenomenon 2) propose a hypthesis 3) design experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis 4) state your theory with supporting data. Interesting hypothesis, and I'll be happy to hear how me makes out with the rest of the investegation.

[econ21]

A statistical problem with this kind of study is that the unit of observation is the country and, as Saturnus says, there are potentially a lot of differences - confounding factors - between countries. For example, the Times report places a lot of emphasis on the UK: US comparison but clearly there are a lot of other differences between these societies which are unlikely to be controlled for in the study. One way of overcoming this would be to look at whether given countries fared better or worse as they got more religious, but I am not sure the study did that (ie used panel data).

One contrary bit of evidence to throw in to the discussion is that studies of self-reported happiness tend to show religious people are happier. Again there may be confounding factors - certain personalities may be more predisposed to faith - but I tend to believe this result. The causality seems plausible - Marx did not call religion the opiate of the people for nothing. Moreover, since the unit of observation is the individual within the same country, there are not so great cultural differences as between countries. Plus you have more observations and hence less problem trying to simultaneously trying to control for lots of confounders.

I wonder if both kinds of study could be true? ie happy religious people cause social problems for others?

[Byzantine Prince]

Society is the way it is because of people's developed nature. Stoping religion now will not solve anything.

[Adrian II]

I'm convinced that if you control for socio-economical status, most of these effects would disappear.Well, maybe you guys should all read the article a little better. The author sets out to check the claim made by theists 'that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society'. He concludes that this claim must be refuted on the grounds of all the social indicators mentioned. This process of checking a theory to see if it stands up to facts is known in science as falsification. The theists' claim has been falsified:


If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.
The author also concludes that the surprisingly high correlation between degree of theistic belief (which is not the same as religion, witness the case of Japan that he expressly mentions) and said social indicators warrants further research:


It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions?
Nowhere does the author say that religion 'causes' social misery.

[Don Corleone]

Okay, either things have RADICALLY changed since I went to school, or you European friends of mine are focusing on a red herring with this creationism business. Do people believe in it? Sure, but just because you can find a school district here and there that proposes offering it alongside creationism does not mean that the VAST majority of Americans, Christians and otherwise don't hold evolution as the prevalent theory explaining current biodiversity. Criminy, should I go find some backwater trend in the Netherlands and offer it as evidence that you're all a bunch of whackos?

[Don Corleone]

Society is the way it is because of people's developed nature. Stoping religion now will not solve anything.

You could knock me over with a feather.... never thought this would come from you.... ~:eek:

[Adrian II]

Sure, but just because you can find a school district here and there that proposes offering it alongside creationism does not mean that the VAST majority of Americans, Christians and otherwise don't hold evolution as the prevalent theory explaining current biodiversity.The article confirms something else I have been thinking for quite some time, i.e. that the movement to replace the teaching of evolution by that of creationism or intelligent design is in fact a political movement. It is not about religion or science, it is about power.


The continuing popularity of creationism in America indicates that it is in reality a theistic social-political movement partly driven by concerns over the societal consequences of disbelief in a creator (Forrest and Gross). The person most responsible for politicizing the issue in America, evangelical Christian W. J. Bryan, expressed relatively little interest in evolution until the horrors of WW I inspired him to blame the scientific revolution that invented chemical warfare and other modern ills for “preaching that man has a brute ancestry and eliminating the miraculous and the supernatural from the Bible”. In the United States many conservative theists consider evolutionary science a leading contributor to social dysfunction because it is amoral or worse, and because it inspires disbelief in a moral creator (Colson and Pearcey; Eve and Harrold; Johnson; Numbers; Pearcey; Schroeder).

[Don Corleone]

If you really think that the evangelical movement in America today is guided by the nascent hand of William Jennings Bryant and his arguments in the Scopes monkey trial, you don't know us as well as you think you do.

[Reverend Joe]

I honestly don't see any way that violence, etc. can be attributed to religion. Religion is a natural construct for human beings, as a result of the god gene (which, for those who don't know, encourages the creation of a system of worship of a higher being. That's not to say that that being isn't real; just that we have a gene that predisposes us to worship him.) Therefore, religion is as natural for humans as killing each other, and having sex. Eliminate religion, and more religion will appear in its place- and our violence and debauchery will be just as unaffected (I, for one, hope to help with the debauchery. ~D)

[Adrian II]

If you really think that the evangelical movement in America today is guided by the nascent hand of William Jennings Bryant and his arguments in the Scopes monkey trial, you don't know us as well as you think you do.You misquote the author; he writes that Jennings Bryant was the one who contributed most to politicising the creationism drive. The Scopes trial was a major landmark.

[Don Corleone]

It was in 1925! How can one claim that the recent blurring of the lines between Church & state by the religious right stems from this? Sorry, I'm just not following...

[Adrian II]

I honestly don't see any way that violence, etc. can be attributed to religion.It can not. The article finds a high correlation between social ills and the belief in a personal God (not religion in general) but he does not state that correlation equals causation.

[Adrian II]

It was in 1925! How can one claim that the recent blurring of the lines between Church & state by the religious right stems from this? Sorry, I'm just not following...Here is what the author states about him: '[W.J.B] expressed relatively little interest in evolution until the horrors of WW I inspired him to blame the scientific revolution that invented chemical warfare and other modern ills for “preaching that man has a brute ancestry and eliminating the miraculous and the supernatural from the Bible”.'

I hear echo's of that view all the time when reading or listening to proponents of the creationism drive. For instance in the latest thread about theThe March of the Penguins, a leading Christian promotor of the movie was quoted as saying that it 'really contains very little violence, jut like nature itself'. In other words: only the 'Darwinists' hold the view that nature is all about survival and inter-species violence, whereas nature is in reality quite peaceful.

[PanzerJaeger]

I dont understand why people hate religion so much. Most Christians certainly dont hate athiests or agnostics.

[Dâriûsh]

I bet someone can dig up a report that claims those conditions mentioned as the result of a general lack of belief.

[A.Saturnus]

Adrian, I had it over the Times article, which stated:


RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

Which is hardly a valid conclusion. It is not surprising that a newspaper is misinterpreting a scientific paper in an outragous way.

The hypothesis that religion makes society better is indeed undefendable, but comparing different nations for which is least dysfunctional is not a reliable method. There are too many factors in it.

[Navaros]

the quote in the original post is utterly untrue garbage

God is not bad for you

what is bad for you, is publications who produce such vile propaganda-based articles to promote an evil agenda whilst putting on the masquerade of not being biased

[Adrian II]

Adrian, I had it over the Times article, which (..) is hardly a valid conclusion.Then we are in total agreement. I would also wish that people respect the remarks made in the original journal article about the differences between religion in general, the belief in a personal God, and the belief in a God as the creator of the universe.

[Navaros]

whereas nature is in reality quite peaceful


in reality, nature was indeed quite peaceful before the fall of Adam. at that time, Adam and all animals on the Earth were vegetarians. they did not kill each other at all. it was total harmony back then

[A.Saturnus]

in reality, nature was indeed quite peaceful before the fall of Adam. at that time, Adam and all animals on the Earth were vegetarians. they did not kill each other at all. it was total harmony back then

Well, that must have been before I was moderator here.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Even cats? They need a specific meat protein, or they go blind and die. They can't synthesise it.

Those dinosaurs were quite nasty too, by all accounts.

[Adrian II]

in reality, nature was indeed quite peaceful before the fall of Adam. at that time, Adam and all animals on the Earth were vegetarians. they did not kill each other at all. it was total harmony back thenThank you for corroborating my last point about creationism.
:bow:

[Ironside]

It was in 1925! How can one claim that the recent blurring of the lines between Church & state by the religious right stems from this? Sorry, I'm just not following...

Was W.J.B operating mostly in Chicago? I'm wondering because I've red that the modern Christian fundamentalism (as in literarly interpreting the Bible: think Navaros-style) was started there about 1920-1930.
And the issue about creationism certainly seems to been created from that movement at some point.

[Don Corleone]

Well, the Scopes trial itself was in Tennessee. I don't believe in this sinister political plot to enslave our minds that Adrian is hinting at, so I couldn't begin to guess where it's headquarters might be.

I can tell you that today, the majority of fundamentalist doctrine comes from the Southeast US. I can also tell you, that even here, it is a distinct minority of practicing Christians, let alone the general populaiton that buys into the hard line fundamentalism (creationism etc.)

It does exist. I won't deny that. My sister-in-law yanked her kids out of the local Baptist school (the biggest culprits) because they were teaching that the sun wasn't a star (according to Genesis the stars were created one day, the sun on a different one, so the sun cannot be a star) and other scientifically challenged theories.

But the percentage of the population, even here in one of the more fundamentalist areas of the country is relatively small. Looking at America reflexively through European eyes, I would expect that every American that admits to a belief in God is an ardent dyed-in-the-wool hellfire & brimstone bible thumper. That simply isn't so. Most of us are concerned with getting our own act straightened out and helping out our fellow man.

Look, Navaros and those like him believe what they believe. But even he will tell you that most Christians don't agree with him. I believe he would tell you that I and others like me are Christians in name only. That's fine, I'm used to such scare tactics.

Honestly, I think more people believe in ghosts and haunted houses (which are impossible, according to Christian doctrine) or astrology then do the 6 day creation story as scientific fact.

[BDC]

It does exist. I won't deny that. My sister-in-law yanked her kids out of the local Baptist school (the biggest culprits) because they were teaching that the sun wasn't a star (according to Genesis the stars were created one day, the sun on a different one, so the sun cannot be a star) and other scientifically challenged theories.

That's pretty grim. Aren't religious schools under state control at all?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

Amen brother... ~:cheers:

You should listen to some music from my favorite band. Godsmack

[Adrian II]

I don't believe in this sinister political plot to enslave our minds that Adrian is hinting at (..)Dear Don, where would you be if I disappeared into thin air one day and you would have to find yourself another strawman?
:brood:

[Don Corleone]

I apologize if I misunderstood your comments, I really wasn't trying to build a strawman.

Here's what I heard in what you wrote "Christian fundamentalism has less to do with actual belief in the fundamentalist theories put forward and more to do with an antagonism of scientific intellectuals".

Now, if I misunderstood you, again, I apologize. But if that was what you meant, then the only logical conclusion is that Bob Jones, Pat Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart and a whole host of others don't really believe what they preach, they're just trying to put a finger in the eye of the scientific community. And I just don't believe that. Misguided as I think they are, I think they actually believe what they're saying. Your comments thus far, to me, indicate you do not think they do.

[Ironside]

Well, the Scopes trial itself was in Tennessee. I don't believe in this sinister political plot to enslave our minds that Adrian is hinting at, so I couldn't begin to guess where it's headquarters might be.

Well I was only curious about it, as the time seemed about right.


Honestly, I think more people believe in ghosts and haunted houses (which are impossible, according to Christian doctrine) or astrology then do the 6 day creation story as scientific fact.

It seems to fit my understanding quite well, but it's still interesting why they are flexing thier muscles on creationism and intelligent design as the first have never been taken too serious and the second isn't contradicting with science (but it doesn't belong in science, but in philosophy or religious class).

And to thier help they are lumping in things that isn't the same (Big Bang, the formation of the solar system, the beginning of life has nothing to do with evolution), spreading pseudo-science, classifying that a scientiffic theory is the same as a regular theory, calling evolution darwinism and then attack darwinism (that would be about the same as to call the idea that the earth goes around the sun copernikaism or gallilism and then because they didn't think that the planets had eliptic paths, you say that they had wrong and because of that, does the sun go around the earth), attacking weak spots in those theories (ok that part is actually good) and then uses the logic that "you're wrong because you cannot explain everything, thus I'm right", without needing any proof that they are right.

As they are only a minor fragment of the US society, why are they fighting with thier tooth and nails for this? And they are certainly using (and getting... from somewere) heavy firepower for this crusade too. :charge:

[Don Corleone]

I mean Adrian, how am I supposed to interpret a statement like this:


The article confirms something else I have been thinking for quite some time, i.e. that the movement to replace the teaching of evolution by that of creationism or intelligent design is in fact a political movement. It is not about religion or science, it is about power.

This is a heck of an indictment against Christian fundamentalists. While I think they're wrong, that's a long way from attributing sinister motives to what they preach as you do here...

[Adrian II]

Here's what I heard in what you wrote "Christian fundamentalism has less to do with actual belief in the fundamentalist theories put forward and more to do with an antagonism of scientific intellectuals".Not al all, I merely addressed creationism.

I think creationism is not just about creation, nor is it just about science. It is a political movement, driven by the concern that society will fall apart if certain beliefs are lost.

Belief in a creator is crucial to that movement. Hence the plea for Intelligent Design, which is just another way to re-introduce creationism in biology classes in places where creationism as such has no chance of making it into the curriculum.

But I believe that the concern mentioned above is genuine. This is certainly the case with our fellow member Navaros. As he demonstrated in his post in this thread, belief in a creator is essential for militant Christians because it speaks to issues like social harmony, justice and peace, in short: the notion of a lost Paradise that must be regained.

[Strike For The South]

I bet someone can dig up a report that claims those conditions mentioned as the result of a general lack of belief.

yes we coluld my friend

Wow another attempent to disbar faith as something vile and evil and something that should be destroyed instead of something that should be embraced and worn with pride. I mean is this honestly how its going to be people who express there faith treated as 2nd class people that should be avodied ~:confused: because if it is God give me faith ~:cheers:

[Don Corleone]

Ironside, your question seems to mirror Adrian's musings somewhat, so let me offer to you an alternate explanation as to why creationists are so hard over on their beliefs.

There is a fundamental problem (no pun intended) with fundamentalist doctrine.The Bible contains revealed truths and it contains metaphorical truths. Which are which? If you believe God has preserved the Bible through the centuries to say what He wants it to say (and I actually do), it can be a little scary to think that different people have interpreted the same passages different ways over time. It challenges your notion of the universality of God's mesage and the constancy of it. One way around that is to make a 'leap of faith' if you will that "no, I'm not going to play this game of interpretation. Every last word means exactly what it says, there are no metaphors in there". This approach has the advantage of simplicity, but it also runs smack into scientific evidence controverting many biblical tales when taken literally.

So I would say that fundamentalism has less to do with mind control than it does to do with one approach of trying to reconcile the universality of God's message with the fact that it can be interpreted many different ways. I happen to believe that God tells me exactly what He wants me to in it's passages, and it doesn't scare me at all that other people will read the same passages and reach different conclusions. In my mind, God has already solved this problem, as anyone who honestly stives to know Him will not be disappointed. I think fundamentalists are afraid that I am wrong, and seek to come up with a constant, eternal message to make certain that God is constant. I don't think such steps are necessary. After all, our intelligence mirrors his (in a lesser way). Surely, He is more capable of allegory than we are.

[Adrian II]

I bet someone can dig up a report that claims those conditions mentioned as the result of a general lack of belief.Then why doesn't anyone come up with it? We hear so many claims that loss of religion leads to social collapse; there must be authors who want to prove that instead of merely speculating about it.

[Azi Tohak]

Here is the full 'article' (if you can call this disgrace an article):

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Beyond that, I don't know what else to say.

Azi

[Ironside]

So in essence, what yo're saying is that they are "only" trying to keep any ideas that can threaten thier viewpoints away from thier children (and that by imposing thier views on the rest of us). And that thier power compared to thier size is because they scream the loudest?

Possibly, but I still feel that there's some bigger issue behind it. Of course will not the average Joe naturallly know about it, for him it's on a personal level.

The "comprimise" to attemt to have intelligent design in science class for example. The Bible never mention evolution and it can certainly have enough space in other classes. What's fundamentallistic about it? What words in the Bible is defended by it?

And the very heavy artillery used, comes from either heavy devotion or some kind of support.

[Adrian II]

After all, our intelligence mirrors his (in a lesser way). Surely, He is more capable of allegory than we are.Aha! That is the attitude of the great Christian philosophers: humility, attention to every little detail of the holy texts, the courage to doubt one's own interpretation, and the courage to take every word personally, as you so eloquently explained, because that is the essence of any message from man to man or from God to man. I may not believe in God, but Bible stories never stop to fascinate me for that reason. There is always more to them than meets the eye. But there is nothing in them if we don't take those stories personally, if we don't acknowledge that they speak of us, not of some distant past.

[Byzantine Prince]

You could knock me over with a feather.... never thought this would come from you.... ~:eek:
Society has become this way because of Christianity. Can you imagine what the world would look like if the pagans had survived christianity? Pretty different I would think. This is why I think history is important, it's looking at the origin of things and then deciding if the current state of affairs is legitimate at all.

Stopping Christianity now would not change what has already been engrained in people's minds over thousands of generations.

It's not 'God is bad for you'. It's religion is bad for you. Believing in God alone does nothing, it's the dogma and the way of thinking, which by the way is not what Christ intended, has been altered to a degree that no one is really Christian. I think Christ was the only true Christian, because every dogmatic leader and martyr after him have changed his message. It's quite obvious if you read the Bible actually, there are many contradictions between what Christ says and what Paul later added.

[Devastatin Dave]

Society has become this way because of Christianity. Can you imagine what the world would look like if the pagans had survived christianity? Pretty different I would think. This is why I think history is important, it's looking at the origin of things and then deciding if the current state of affairs is legitimate at all.

Stopping Christianity now would not change what has already been engrained in people's minds over thousands of generations.

It's not 'God is bad for you'. It's religion is bad for you. Believing in God alone does nothing, it's the dogma and the way of thinking, which by the way is not what Christ intended, has been altered to a degree that no one is really Christian. I think Christ was the only true Christian, because every dogmatic leader and martyr after him have changed his message. It's quite obvious if you read the Bible actually, there are many contradictions between what Christ says and what Paul later added.

Amen, excellent post. Thank you.

**wipes tears from eyes**
~:)

[Strike For The South]

Society has become this way because of Christianity. Can you imagine what the world would look like if the pagans had survived christianity? Pretty different I would think. This is why I think history is important, it's looking at the origin of things and then deciding if the current state of affairs is legitimate at all.

Stopping Christianity now would not change what has already been engrained in people's minds over thousands of generations.

It's not 'God is bad for you'. It's religion is bad for you. Believing in God alone does nothing, it's the dogma and the way of thinking, which by the way is not what Christ intended, has been altered to a degree that no one is really Christian. I think Christ was the only true Christian, because every dogmatic leader and martyr after him have changed his message. It's quite obvious if you read the Bible actually, there are many contradictions between what Christ says and what Paul later added.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH BP

[Don Corleone]

Ironside, I think it goes beyond their children. I think they are seeking to protect themselves from that which does not fit into their worldview. The problem I have with fundamentalism is that despite the fact that its adherents claim to believe in the omnipotence of God, they have limited Him to the depth of their own imaginations. How can God say the same exact words to every soul that has ever read His text and have it mean what He wants it to mean? I have no idea, as I am not Him. What I do know is that at no time did Christ claim that believing in Genesis in a literal fashion (and there were competing cosmological theories available at the time) was vital for salvation. If He did say it, His followers didn't consider it important enough to write down (and they wrote down a fair amount).

Adrian, I am deeply heartened to see that you have not indeed disappeared into thin air. ~:smile: I agree with much of what you are saying. And if it turns out you are right and I am wrong and that in fact there is no divine inspiration contained within the Bible, I agree that I will be none the poorer for familiarizing myself with its contents.

[Don Corleone]

I'm with SOS... BP I don't think I have ever agreed with you more than I do with what you just said. Believe it or not, the faithful can be as opposed to mindless dogma as anyone, and it is here that most great evils of religion reside.

And you're absolutely right about everyone needing to put their spin on Christ's message, which is why when the two conflict, I have to chose Jesus over St. Paul, every time, and this is why I will never be a good Protestant, no matter how many years of my life I attend Methodist services. At the end of the day, I will never believe in salvation though belief in Christ alone. I do not believe anyone can earn their way into heaven, but I certainly believe you can earn your way back out again.

[Byzantine Prince]

Thank you for the kind words guys.


I will never be a good Protestant, no matter how many years of my life I attend Methodist services.
You shouldn't feel concerned with that. The organizations of Christian dogma came 300 years after Christ himself, how can they possibly represent anything close to Christ, or God? How could they possibly control who goes to heaven or what is a sin? Those things were pre-determined from Jewish law... they have little to nothing to do with Jesus. If everyone was more like Jesus, there wouldn't be a need to even define 'sin' in my opinion.

[Don Corleone]

You don't think I'm really concerned, do you? How can you have a personal relationship with God if you're obessed with acting and praying the way your churchmates are telling you to instead of trying to figure out what He wants for you. I appreciate the sympathy, but I've never been worried about my religious status, per se. After all, I jumped ship after having been raised Catholic.

There is a need to define sin, but I think most religions, Christian ones included miss it. It's not an action or a thought. It's turning your heart away from God and your fellow man. After all, it was this that Christ called the greatest commandment, no?

[Adrian II]

I think Christ was the only true Christian, because every dogmatic leader and martyr after him have changed his message. It's quite obvious if you read the Bible actually, there are many contradictions between what Christ says and what Paul later added.So you have actually read the Bible with an eye to what Christ truly meant, Byzantine Prince? It is hardly surprising that you come up with contradictions; there are too many contradictions in the Bible to mention in a single post. What I find hard to believe is that people try to find a consistent message in it. There is none, there are only grounds for reflection. If I were a Christian I would (like Don Corleone) seek an answer to questions such as: is salvation reached by good works (as per the synoptic gospels) of by faith (as John would have it)? The answer would be my own, based upon my own choice - not 'God's word' or 'Christ's message'.

Being a non-Christian, who regards Christ as a legendary figure at best and the Bible as the intellectual inheritance of an historic age, I tend to look for the wisdom contained in the many stories and allegories. I apply them to myself and try to gauge the 'hidden' meanings in them -- obviously I don't mean secret codes or alien messages to the human race or that sort of nonsense, but alternative interpretations that may not be obvious at first sight. I seek answers to all sorts of questions, too.

Even us non-believers are in the belly of the whale, to use a Biblical allegory. ~;)

[Kanamori]

Once you have cast doubt on the very base of the religion, what are you left with for sure besides some guidelines?

[Strike For The South]

So you have actually read the Bible with an eye to what Christ truly meant, Byzantine Prince? It is hardly surprising that you come up with contradictions; there are too many contradictions in the Bible to mention in a single post. What I find hard to believe is that people try to find a consistent message in it. There is none, there are only grounds for reflection. If I were a Christian I would (like Don Corleone) seek an answer to questions such as: is salvation reached by good works (as per the synoptic gospels) of by faith (as John would have it)? The answer would be my own, based upon my own choice - not 'God's word' or 'Christ's message'.

Being a non-Christian, who regards Christ as a legendary figure at best and the Bible as the intellectual inheritance of an historic age, I tend to look for the wisdom contained in the many stories and allegories. I apply them to myself and try to gauge the 'hidden' meanings in them -- obviously I don't mean secret codes or alien messages to the human race or that sort of nonsense, but alternative interpretations that may not be obvious at first sight. I seek answers to all sorts of questions, too.

Even us non-believers are in the belly of the whale, to use a Biblical allegory. ~;)


*Strike has heart attack on the spot* :freak:

[Papewaio]

I have seen a similar articles stating that water or milk or chocolate or anything else that is widely consumed is the cause of all lifes misery.

[Azi Tohak]

A moment please... for the passing of Strike.

Anyway, I believe most of us know the problems that have been accumulating on Christianity (or any other religion) like leeches. The sad part is, I know too many people (including two very dumb roomates) who just think the problems are with the message. Being college students (like I know more than one other person here is) the tendancy is towards sophomoric thought, what I think the authors problem is.

Personally, I wonder if the (inevitable) counter to his essay will get an publicity at all? I am reading a book called "The Next Christendom", by Philip Jenkins. Superb book, and I think he would do very well refuting Paul.

Speaking of, anyone know Paul's credentials?

Azi

[Don Corleone]

Wasn't he a wandering 'Sanhedrin prosecutor' who prosecuted early Christians for being heretical Jews?

[English assassin]

Wasn't he a wandering 'Sanhedrin prosecutor' who prosecuted early Christians for being heretical Jews?

~D


Being a non-Christian, who regards Christ as a legendary figure at best and the Bible as the intellectual inheritance of an historic age, I tend to look for the wisdom contained in the many stories and allegories. I apply them to myself and try to gauge the 'hidden' meanings in them -- obviously I don't mean secret codes or alien messages to the human race or that sort of nonsense, but alternative interpretations that may not be obvious at first sight. I seek answers to all sorts of questions, too.

Which touches upon the question of what is a religion. You, AII, are essentially seeking self knowledge, and choose from whichever texts you feel may spark off a promising line of thought. Me too, and if I find myself reflecting on Njal's saga more often than the bible no doubt it only shows a lamentable lack of discernment.

Intellectual though DC's approach is, though, he has to be doing something different. He is not free to choose and create, he is free only to discover. Even if he approaches the Bible as a historical text which he has to understand and apply to himself living in C21, as he does, rather than signing up to the "I'll be a cabbage for christ" movement, he has to believe the bible is a special text that does indeed contain "hidden" divine meaning. Or that brings that meaning out of himself.

I have to ask myself what this adds, (although of course if the christians are right its a non-question. It is what it is, whether it adds anything or not) Notwithstanding the annoyance of those who feel we are always bashing "christianity" I hope I have never given the impression that the way Christ suggested we live our lives would be anything other than a very good prescription for a happy and harmonious existence. (Minus the apocalypic expectations, and I'd want a rain check on the celibacy). That is a non-issue. (Its curious of course that many of those who dismiss socialism as failing to address the inherently devious and self interested nature of mankind nevertheless espouse an even more impractical set of standards (judge not lest ye be judged seems a weak basis for a criminal justice system)).

But equally good prescriptions can be found in other beliefs and in non-religious belief. (JAG would be off into existentialism here, but I was thinking more of the classical philosophers). Why/how/what be a "christian"? Its seems somehow intellectually dishonest. (no offence intended)

[Byzantine Prince]

So you have actually read the Bible with an eye to what Christ truly meant, Byzantine Prince? It is hardly surprising that you come up with contradictions; there are too many contradictions in the Bible to mention in a single post. What I find hard to believe is that people try to find a consistent message in it. There is none, there are only grounds for reflection. If I were a Christian I would (like Don Corleone) seek an answer to questions such as: is salvation reached by good works (as per the synoptic gospels) of by faith (as John would have it)? The answer would be my own, based upon my own choice - not 'God's word' or 'Christ's message'.

Being a non-Christian, who regards Christ as a legendary figure at best and the Bible as the intellectual inheritance of an historic age, I tend to look for the wisdom contained in the many stories and allegories. I apply them to myself and try to gauge the 'hidden' meanings in them -- obviously I don't mean secret codes or alien messages to the human race or that sort of nonsense, but alternative interpretations that may not be obvious at first sight. I seek answers to all sorts of questions, too.
I don't agree with you.

You view the Bible as a self help book, which is not what it was designed to be. It was made the way it was to control people. The fact of the matter is that priests of Judea held power that some early Christians wanted to emulate in their own sect to raise themselves in status, when that is NOT what Christ would have wanted at all!

As for 'Allegories', they are cryptic like that for a reason, so that anyone can bend their meaning and have power over others.

[Adrian II]

You view the Bible as a self help book (..)No way. I view it as literature.
It was made the way it was to control people.Prove it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
You view the Bible as a self help book (..)

No way. I view it as literature.
Quote:
It was made the way it was to control people.

Prove it. -- Adrian II


Adrian:

The bible is literature, history, law code, self-help, and (I believe) a tool of salvation. It is a religious anthology, not a single text. Any claim to sigularity it may have stems from the divine inspiration guiding the individual works written by a number of authors over the course of centuries.

As to BP's controlling commentary, I think you have to allow the point. The host of Levitican strictures, the 10 commandments, the Great Commandment, all of these are tools for societal control. Religious doctrine teaches these as tools to develop self-disicpline and to encourage behaviors and beliefs that promote closeness to God (which they can), but they also function to stabilize and control "secular" society at the same time.

Rich discussion. I am enjoying this. Much less religious bashing in this thread and more thoughtful questioning. Almost reads like a Monastery "argument."

Seamus

[Don Corleone]

Interesting points, Adrian & EA. EA, I just want to touch briefly on one point you made... about the 'judge not lest ye be judged'. I've never taken that to be a prescrpition on the court systems as such, i.e. nobody should ever be found guilty of anything. I've always taken that as an admonition for judging people themselves worthy or unworthy.

Your discussion, and in a way BP's touch on a confounding dilemna that has been ongoing in Christianity as far as I can read back. Let's put the whole Pauline principal of 'faith alone' alone for a second, because Christ himself never taught that all that was necessary for salvation was to believe He was the son of God. He said "He who believes in me will never die". That is in the context of a Hebrew view of the afterlife from that timeframe, either being resurrected or being utterly destroyed upon the cessation of your temporal life. An eternal existence in hell is still life, and I've always taken Christ's words to mean 'once you know who I am, your chips on the table'.

Back to my dilemna, as I said, if you follow Peter's train of thought, faith and actions versus Paul's faith alone, then your behavior IS of value. It's frequently dispargingly referred to as the belief you can earn your way into heaven through good works. I do not believe this, but I do believe you can un-earn the salvation that Christ offers you. Anyway, what if you lead an exemplary life but never accepted Christ as your savior, either through ignorance or willful rejection? Many intelligent people who's opinions I respect would say such a person cannot be justified. In truth I don't think there's any way to know for sure, because Christ never actually comes out and says "If you do not believe I am the Son of God and your salvation, you will burn in hell". He tends to speak rather elusively on the actual conditions, and therefore, I've always interpreted that to mean that He will judge the 'wheat from the chaff' based on the contents of our hearts and our actions here on Earth, not your theological beliefs. You might have good reasons for rejecting a belief structure focused on him. My wife is agnostic, mainly because she cannot believe a loving God would allow a man like the minister she grew up with (primitive Baptist) to speak in His name and teach with authority. In her mind, if Christ really held each of us in his heart, He would take steps to protect people at the very least from those who claim to speak in His name. It's a valid view that I cannot refute, but I myself do not hold it.

What has all of this got to do with the topic of this thread? Well, for one thing, I think a Pauline doctrine of salvation IS dangerous and can lead to social ills. Reportedly, John Wayne Gacey accepted Christ as his savior while on death row (for those who don't know, this was the pedophile who dressed up like a clown and raped/tortured/killed young boys then buried them under the floorboards of his house). The BTK killer was a Lutheran elder. In some way, I cannot help but think that these people allowed themselves to behave the way they did because they believed themselves to be in an irreversible state of Grace. I cannot begin to imagine the depths of God's forgiveness (and I really hope I never find out the hard way) but this tests even my ability to accept the boundlessness of God. What's more, in a discussion such as this, I think it is vital to separate the terms faith and religion. Faith is the belief itself, it is what establishes a relationship between you and the divine. Religion is the creed and ethos you agree to in a public acknowledgement of your faith with other human beings. Neither is required for the other, and if we are discussing religion without faith, which happens at all levels, then we can indeed introduce woe upon ourselves. Don't forget, Christ Himself spent His entire ministry railing against the religious authorities of His day, specifically for their lack of faith. It's not that the Law wasn't important. It was they had completely missed the concept of WHY the Law was important. In much the same way, I think people that follow a prescribed regimen of behavior (regular church attendance, tithing etc) that at some point don't attempt to open their hearts to God and their fellow men are wasting their time.

Okay, I've blathered enough. :bow:

[Byzantine Prince]

No way. I view it as literature.
But you yourself admitted:


there are too many contradictions in the Bible to mention in a single post. What I find hard to believe is that people try to find a consistent message in it. There is none, there are only grounds for reflection.
I think that literature usually has a point. But the Bible is an anthology of stories.


Prove it.
What Seamus said.

[Adrian II]

I think that literature usually has a point. But the Bible is an anthology of stories.So is Homer's work. And that, too, is great literature.

[Adrian II]

As to BP's controlling commentary, I think you have to allow the point. (..) Religious doctrine teaches these as tools to develop self-disicpline and to encourage behaviors and beliefs that promote closeness to God (which they can), but they also function to stabilize and control "secular" society at the same time.They also function as social stabilisers, no doubt about that. But Byzantine Prince suggests they were expressly written/compiled in order to control people. That remains to be proven. I for one think it reflects a poor reading of the Bible.
Rich discussion. I am enjoying this.Likewise. :bow:

[A.Saturnus]

Most parts of the OT were written during the Babylonian exile. Their purpose was to strengthen the sense of community. Of course the scriptures base on legends much older which were (just like other religions) created as a measure of social coherence. It is unlikely that the social control function of religions is entirely epiphenomenal.

[Adrian II]

It is unlikely that the social control function of religions is entirely epiphenomenal.Quite. But some of the crucial OT texts seem to contradict the very notion of social control, conceived as hierarchy, quid-pro-quo, and related concepts of social harmony. Just look at Genesis 4:1-17.

Genesis covers the 'birth' of man (Adam), the first human conception (Adam and Eve's children), the first labour on earth, etcetera. It also covers, in Chapter 4, the first murder, which is immediately followed by... the first amnesty! God declares that Cain will bear a mark upon his forehead that will protect him from human justice, i.e. from an institution that is considered the mainstay of any well-ordered society. The principle introduced here (that vengeance does not belong to man) does not support social control, but rather undermines it. Quite a few OT stories are in the same vein.

[Byzantine Prince]

So is Homer's work. And that, too, is great literature.
Homers work is not an anthology. Homer did not conbine all his books into one and then call it something. ~:rolleyes:

[Tachikaze]

AdrianII leaves me no reason to post anything more on the subjects he has addressed. I love what he has been writing here.

I think religion has at least two purposes.

1) social cohesion and institutionalizing mores, ethics, traditions, laws, etc.

2) Something to provide comfort, purpose, and meaning in the lives of people who need them.

I don't seem to need them, at least not from a social organization. Even though I belong to a buddhist temple and love the teachings of the minister, the temple (and all other religious organizations) really doesn't provide anything lacking in my life. One reason I have become involved with the temple might be that I'd rather live in a society guided by Buddhism than Christianity.

Is god "bad for you"? I translate "God" to "tao" and leave it at that. In that case, no. God is the unity and principles of the cosmos whether you believe or not. God is not good or bad. I see dualism as artifical, not real. Dualism is a human invention.

Is Judaism/Christianity/Islam bad for you? Yeah, kind of. I think they're bad in the sense that they have completely missed the point of their spiritual founders, and, indeed, the nature of god or tao. The Western religions are political institutions, not spiritual ones. They are as damaging as any other corrupted political institutions.

[Soulforged]

Homers work is not an anthology. Homer did not conbine all his books into one and then call it something. ~:rolleyes: Well the Iliad was reconstructed in various occassions. Many authors added to the original work some parts that didn't have much to do with the possible true history of the Troy war.

[Derfasciti]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html




Corrolation isn't causation of course but this does surely call for comment from the godly amongst us?


I am sure you and whoever you quoted are in the very least a little intelligent and I won't attack your moral or character backgrounds. But almost ALL religion preaches against what you say are bi-products of a religious society. I would love to see the unbiased statistics. To say this is true is simply absurd.

Lets take a look at the Soviet Union. Stalin alone had about 20 million people killed, many of which were simply due to "religious fervor".

China today is officially Athiest and they are not moral at all. Many religious people there are persecuted for trying and attending their faith's houses of worship.

Religion will only hurt society if witch hunts against others happen. Athiesm will almost definitely hurt. With no moral need to keep society moral and just, it is only logical that those societies will decay and die. Simple as that.

[Soulforged]

Lets take a look at the Soviet Union. Stalin alone had about 20 million people killed, many of which were simply due to "religious fervor". If you don't see at least the correlation the other way then you can't see it here...

Religion will only hurt society if witch hunts against others happen. Athiesm will almost definitely hurt. With no moral need to keep society moral and just, it is only logical that those societies will decay and die. Simple as that.Not true at all. Society is kept by law, not morals. If you want to be a moral man, then do it, the other shouldn't be forced to be a moralist. And atheism will almost definitely hurt? WOW In wich unbiased statistic this is founded... :dizzy2:

[Azi Tohak]

Atheism hurt Cult-of-reason France, USSR, China, North Korea. Care to give me an atheist society that was/is not a disaster?

Azi

[Soulforged]

Atheism hurt Cult-of-reason France, USSR, China, North Korea. Care to give me an atheist society that was/is not a disaster?

AziSaying atheist society is a very relative thing, as saying religious society. Some are atheist some not. The state of those countries could never achieve to simply change the way people think. In any case let me see if I understand your logic. Atheism + society= disaster. Certainly it's flawed logic. You can't propose causalism over that premise, don't even correlation. All communist nations did wrong, not because of the lack of institutionalized religion, but from the lack of real power of the majority. In all those countries I remember the cult to the "leader" and not the "cult" to society in general, or to the proletariat at least. So no you can't stablish correlation between atheism and disaster. Besides atheism doesn't propose the lack of morality as many think or doesn't presume the systematic anihilation of relgion from human mind, only the beheading of it.
Another thing, inductivism is not good for stablishing general rules. A (being atheist society), B (being disaster): A1=B,A2=B, A3=B....->A always= B...certainly not.

[Azi Tohak]

Atheism + society = disaster

Yup! Come on now, disprove it. Isn't this how evolution was confirmed? It was not disproven. Inductive reasoning worked wonderfully for that didn't it? Moths were natually selected, therefore all of us were too. Right?

Azi

P.S. Soulforged, I don't know if English is your primary language or not, but I am having a heckuva time understanding your previous post. Yeah, it is late for me (class tomorrow and all), but I don't think that explains it.

[Adrian II]

Homers work is not an anthology. Homer did not conbine all his books into one and then call it something. ~:rolleyes:We can not even be sure that there was a historic Homer. The Iliad and Odyssee were compiled from oral poems and fragments of different origin, some composed by rhapsodes, others possibly even stemming from tales told or sung by war prisoners or hostages in their long hours of captivity. The books also underwent a process of polishing and standardising, much like the Bible. Therefore the Homer books we read nowadays are known as the Homeric canon.

[English assassin]

Atheism + society = disaster

Yup! Come on now, disprove it. Isn't this how evolution was confirmed?

No, it wasn't. In common with every other scientific hypothesis, evolution was proved by gathering data (evidence) and formulating a theory that was consistent with the data. It was not proved by making an assertion and waiting to see if anyone could disprove it. That thought process belongs to the creationists.


Care to give me an atheist society that was/is not a disaster?

Would the United Kingdom in 2005 do? France doesn't seem to be a complete disaster either.


I am sure you and whoever you quoted are in the very least a little intelligent and I won't attack your moral or character backgrounds

Maybe just a little, and you would have had some difficulty atacking my moral background since for all youi know I am the Bishop of Durham.


Athiesm will almost definitely hurt. With no moral need to keep society moral and just, it is only logical that those societies will decay and die. Simple as that

Ah, so in your opinion the only way mankind can be kept good is by fear of a more powerful being? How depressing.

[Adrian II]

Atheism hurt Cult-of-reason France, USSR, China, North Korea.With all due respect, I believe you are making the same mistake as the Times journalist who misquoted the original scientific article. You will find all necessary references higher up in this thread...

The Times journalist stated that religion 'causes' an array of familiar social ills in western society. That is not what the original article says. The original article merely refutes a well-known claim, i.e. the theist claim that a wide-spread belief in a personal God and creator of the universe is the best remedy against these social ills.

I think we would make the same mistake if we attributed the woes of modern France, North Korea or the Soviet Union solely to atheism. There is a lot more to be said about its role in history, just as there is a lot more to be said about the role of religion in society.

One approach I have suggested before is functionalism, a theorem in anthropology that says certain institutions are ingrained in all known societies, and that the belief in some transcendent authority is one of those ineradicable institutions. The implication being that if we attempt to destroy one transcendental belief, it will merely be replaced by another.

I think the Soviet Union would be a prime example of this process: the irrational belief in the Orthodox doctrine and the infallibility of its patriarchs was replaced by an irrational belief in the infallibility of the Communist Party and a personality cult surrounding its leaders.
Care to give me an atheist society that was/is not a disaster?As the original author demonstrates, atheism certainly did not hurt France and most other secular western countries in the sense that these social ills are less prevalent there than they are in the predominently theist United States: less crime and violence, less drug abuse, less unwanted pregnancies.

The conclusion is that theism does not prevent these problems. I think nobody except the Times journalist is suggesting that theism causes all sorts of social ills.

[Sigurd]

Having read nearly all replies in this thread and taken a brief look on the actual article, I must admit that I can agree with the allegation that religiosity in itself does not promote healthy societies.

However, I can see why it is believed that it does.
Those who believe in a literal God and believes that the stories in the religious texts were literal historical events can’t escape Zion.

It is said that the city of Enoch with its inhabitants were so righteous that they were all taken to heaven, city and all. Zion and its inhabitants where a religious society that shared all and lived in peace for 365 years before they were all taken to heaven. They had no poor among them.
Although this last section is more or less Mormon theology (because it is found in their book “Perl of great price”), it gives a point.

Throughout history there have been religious societies that have had nearly the same peace. I am thinking of monastic movements and other religious groups that have taken it upon them to gather into places consisting of likeminded people. An example would be the early members of Mormonism and their first cities. The problem has always been prosecution and outside temptation. Truly pious people would live in peace and give much to conquer poverty.
The crux is separation from the evil carnal world ("live in the world but not of the world"... "you can't serve both God and Mammon").
I can’t exactly remember where I read this, but I remember that the society created by Adam lived in high places (something to do with the fact that high places were considered holy unto God, mountain of the Lord, etc…) they all lived in peace until a society settled in the valley below. It was Cain & Co. They lived a promiscuous life with parties, dancing and other “fun” activities. The sons of God (for thus were the sons of Adam called) looked down and became tempted. Soon some went down and partook in the merriment.
The point is, somehow, every time exceptionally pious people gather and lives in peace, other not so pious people want to destroy them. We want to test their faith to see if they really can keep the natural man at bay. HAHA, see? They finally gave in; they are not so holy after all (even I have these inclinations).

Why do I keep apologising for religion?
:thinking2:

[Adrian II]

The point is, somehow, every time exceptionally pious people gather and lives in peace, other not so pious people want to destroy them.I beg to disagree with this view. I think your rule of thumb applies to all communities that separate themselves from the rest of society, be they pious or godless or anything in between. The way in which hippie communities were often treated by the surrounding society is reminiscent of some of the religious examples you mentioned.

On the other hand, piousness is no guarantee for peace. Some historic pious communities such as the Anabaptists of Muenster were not peaceful at all. From 1534 to 1535, the Dutch tailor's apprentice Jan van Leyden brought his group of Anabaptists in northern Germany to some prominence. Jan was revered by his followers as the new David and he pronounced the city of Muenster to be the new Zion and himself its king. He confiscated all private property, took sixteen wives and wielded a reign of terror that was unknown in recent German memory until his kingdom was besieged and conquered by the Bishop's army.

[A.Saturnus]

Quite. But some of the crucial OT texts seem to contradict the very notion of social control, conceived as hierarchy, quid-pro-quo, and related concepts of social harmony. Just look at Genesis 4:1-17.

Genesis covers the 'birth' of man (Adam), the first human conception (Adam and Eve's children), the first labour on earth, etcetera. It also covers, in Chapter 4, the first murder, which is immediately followed by... the first amnesty! God declares that Cain will bear a mark upon his forehead that will protect him from human justice, i.e. from an institution that is considered the mainstay of any well-ordered society. The principle introduced here (that vengeance does not belong to man) does not support social control, but rather undermines it. Quite a few OT stories are in the same vein.

Oh, in the contrary, that´s a good example of social control. Concepts like vengeance have a function in tribal cultures but are contra-productive in more organized societies. When people are organized in states, the state tries to reduce the individuals options to gain control by violence. By shifting the means of punishment from the individual to a more abstract concept like god the clerical class gains power and social coherence is increased.

I think a truly contra-control statement can be found in Ecclesiastes, but I´m not entirely sure how it went.

[Sigurd]

I beg to disagree with this view. I think your rule of thumb applies to all communities that separate themselves from the rest of society, be they pious or godless or anything in between. The way in which hippie communities were often treated by the surrounding society is reminiscent of some of the religious examples you mentioned.You could be perfectly right as I know nearly nothing of the hippie movement.
I can’t say if the hippie communities suffered the social ills that the discussion in this thread laid as premise. I can’t even say if the hippie movement was religious at all.
On the other hand, piousness is no guarantee for peace. Some historic pious communities such as the Anabaptists of Muenster were not peaceful at all. From 1534 to 1535, the Dutch tailor's apprentice Jan van Leyden brought his group of Anabaptists in northern Germany to some prominence. Jan was revered by his followers as the new David and he pronounced the city of Muenster to be the new Zion and himself its king. He confiscated all private property, took sixteen wives and wielded a reign of terror that was unknown in recent German memory until his kingdom was besieged and conquered by the Bishop's army.
Maybe pious was a bad choice of a word. But I did lay the premise of both pious and peaceful for my assertion to be valid, saying nothing about all pious people is peaceful.
Pious as revering one’s religion is even true for Satanist or Norse paganists. The word I was picturing was more related to holiness than zealous.

[edit]: It seems I did say: Truly pious people would live in peace and give much to conquer poverty.
This statement is of course not considering all possibilities as Adrian II pointed out...

[Goofball]

Wow another attempent to disbar faith as something vile and evil and something that should be destroyed instead of something that should be embraced and worn with pride.

Actually, faith (or at least Christianity) should be worn with humility. That's the problem with a lot of Christians. They are too proud of their own piety, and they forget that pride itself is a sin.

[Goofball]

Atheism + society = disaster

Yup! Come on now, disprove it. Isn't this how evolution was confirmed? It was not disproven. Inductive reasoning worked wonderfully for that didn't it? Moths were natually selected, therefore all of us were too. Right?

None of the societies you mentioned are atheist societies. In fact, I don't think there is an atheist society anywhere on the planet. So you really have no point.

[solypsist]

god i hope you're being sarcastic.



I dont understand why people hate religion so much. Most Christians certainly dont hate athiests or agnostics.

[Byzantine Prince]

Actually, faith (or at least Christianity) should be worn with humility. That's the problem with a lot of Christians. They are too proud of their own piety, and they forget that pride itself is a sin.
That exactly what I have been saying for a loooong time.


Atheism + society = disaster

There is no atheist society, and there never will be, because I'm sure SOMEONE will believe in god. There is no Christian society as well because there is always someone who questions their faith every moment. In fact there never was a Christian society to begin with.

[Derfasciti]

If you don't see at least the correlation the other way then you can't see it here...
Not true at all. Society is kept by law, not morals. If you want to be a moral man, then do it, the other shouldn't be forced to be a moralist. And atheism will almost definitely hurt? WOW In wich unbiased statistic this is founded... :dizzy2:


I did not claim any statistical proof except the fact that any athiest society we've had has been terrible.

Also, law is based on morality. That's obvious.

[A.Saturnus]

I did not claim any statistical proof except the fact that any athiest society we've had has been terrible.

Also, law is based on morality. That's obvious.

The notion that atheists cannot have morality has been debunked before and would be off topic here.
The "atheist" societies you mentioned had the common feature that religions were outlawed. Outlawing religion is an act of oppression and it is therefore no wonder that these have been terrible. If you look at societies that were religious and opressive, you´ll notice that all of them have been terrible too.
You may notice that all societies that were not terrible were secular. But a secular society can neither be called religious nor atheist. It´s secular. In secualr societies religious people and atheists often manage to live quite happily with each other.

[Soulforged]

I did not claim any statistical proof except the fact that any athiest society we've had has been terrible.

Also, law is based on morality. That's obvious.It's not that obvious. Law is now separated from morality, at least in my system, the common law is very obscure to me even now. So it will work fine without morality. In any case religion is not the only source of morals, it's not even the best one. Also you made a general rule of it, like the one on the article.

Yup! Come on now, disprove it. Isn't this how evolution was confirmed? It was not disproven. Inductive reasoning worked wonderfully for that didn't it? Moths were natually selected, therefore all of us were too. Right?I can do the same proposition asking you to disprove what the article sais. Careful with double edge weapons.


P.S. Soulforged, I don't know if English is your primary language or not, but I am having a heckuva time understanding your previous post. Yeah, it is late for me (class tomorrow and all), but I don't think that explains it.No my primary is spanish, I talk brazilian, and I'm on myway to german, my english is not that good, i admit it:embarassed: .

[Redleg]

No my primary is spanish, I talk brazilian, and I'm on myway to german, my english is not that good, i admit it:embarassed: .

Your English is better then my Spanish. ~D

[Soulforged]

Your English is better then my Spanish. ~DWell then I should create a thread to see how your spanish looks like (and laugh as some of you might have done already ~D ). And I see your problem really. I think that after comparing the two, english is much more simple, spanish is way too complicated.

[Strike For The South]

Actually, faith (or at least Christianity) should be worn with humility. That's the problem with a lot of Christians. They are too proud of their own piety, and they forget that pride itself is a sin.

Why Im not talking about trying to convert people but I wont sit back and allow my religon to become demonized

[Soulforged]

Why Im not talking about trying to convert people but I wont sit back and allow my religon to become demonized
Ahhh...But your religion is already demonized, i.e. it has demons.~D

[Ldvs]

Ha, the article calls the US a 'developing democracy'. What a tool. I mean, if we, the longest lasting and best democracy in the world, are 'developing' what does that make countries like England, which still has royalty, and France, now in its 11th regime in the same time span America has had 1.
I know it's off topic but I couldn't resist, sorry.

I mean no offense, but patriotism seems to have serious side-effects such as blindness, doesn't it?

You're praising the USA as though they are the best democracy, and the rest of the lesser countries in the world (every nation except the USA, of course) are primitive, when there are frauds in your elections (Florida?) and something supposedly guaranteed in the first Amendment of your Constitution is actually not: the liberty of free speech and of the press.

Do you remember the Watergate scandal? When Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, along with their informant “Deep Throat” (n° 2 of the FBI), kept the White House under pressure for two years and eventually led to Nixon's resignation? Or more recently, Clinton and Lewinsky's scandal: Clinton was so hard pressed that he had to acknowledge his affair. Yes, I'll grant you, it was a time when the media were almighty and independent. Yet, you may not have cared if you have followed the pro-Bush stance through the recent years, but something terrible happened to your dear and grand country: it's become a political tyranny. Don't believe me? Ok, here's the story.

Back in the mid-90's, powerful media companies lobbied the government in order to relax the media law, which was preventing any firms from owning too many newspapers, TV and radio stations. At that time, the USA assuredly had the best law guaranteeing both independence and variety. Nonetheless, the “big ones” pressed so much so that the government accepted their requests and the media law was relaxed. Where it was impossible for a single company to hold more than 40 radio stations, Clear Channel, a Texan firm (what a surprise), now owns 1,225. What's wrong with that, you'll tell me? Clear Channel also acquired the majority of the venues in the USA, thus allowing it to threaten artists to be blacklisted in case they don't accept to perform in one of its venues. Not to mention that songs such as “Imagine” were banned, for they were considered “anti-war” or that artists criticising, directly or indirectly Bush, are off the air. Another nice example is Sinclair who bought up to 62 local TV stations. They systematically fire the local employees and replace them with their own, located in Baltimore, while they pretend the shows are still presented by local people. Sinclair broadcasts every single “pro-Bush” news report the White House fabricate. In exchange, your government intends to further relax the media law according to Sinclair's wishes.

Perhaps my favorite example, now. Prior to the presidential debate between Senator John Kerry and President Bush, the White House forbade, without any justifications, any cameramen to film the candidates from behind. Yet, at least one of those cheeky cameraman did it, and several people subsequently noticed a strange bulge in the back of Mr. Bush. A NASA scientist put the video footage through the space agency's image-enhancement process. It clearly showed Bush had a wire in the back, the sort used by actors and news-readers. He even betrayed himself when he said “Now let me finish!”, when nobody was interrupting him. Do you remember our pal Bob Woodward who helped bring Nixon down? Good, because he refused to publish the investigations his journalists conducted about “Bush's wire in the back during the presidential debate” for fear of consequences, even though he believed them to be genuine. The same thing happen to the New York Times's journalists. The White House pressured the media and the incident was soon forgotten.

Shall I add that “live-broadcasts” are now delayed by five seconds in order to allow censorship? All that for Janet's poor breast? Yes, because because Conservatives (religious) were so shocked they demanded that things so horrendous, so despicable, so frightening be banned. So much for your supposedly liberty. Broadcasters can now censor at will.

I'm not finished yet, though. Has anyone ever checked Reporters Without Borders' annual report and ranking? Have a look then. In 2003, the USA were ranked 135th out of 166 for their coverage of the operations in Irak. Impressive! In 2004 they have hardly improved and are 108th. Indeed, embedded journalists rarely are a proof of independence and objectivity. Ever wondered why you don't see the dead soldiers' coffins, or injured Americans in Irak? That's deemed anti-patriotic, of course! Better lying than demoralising the whole country, heh? What I like best, though, is Fox News calling for war on Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, because “We'll do whatever our patriotic duty is” (Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, Australian), or CNN's “In deciding what to air, CNN will consider guidance from appropriate authorities” (CNN spokesman). If you're a true American patriot you must support Bush's wars, yes?
If anyone read 1984, it's sad to notice the political tyranny, inspired by the Stalin's regime, Orwell was criticising is appearing in the USA. I'm exaggerating? Remember what happened after a presenter on ABC said the way Bush called the hijackers “cowards” was absurd, then. His show was axed when several advertisers left, and Bush's official spokesman made this banal statement “[This is] is reminder to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not time for remarks like that”. Translation: “Be a good boy, don't question, don't criticise the government's actions and you won't get into trouble”.

You were right in a way, though. As long as you support Bush, the USA are the greatest democracy ever and the country where free speech and the freedom of the media is guaranteed.
But after all, that's only a stupid rant written by a poor inhabitant of a lesser country. Surely, you have learned better from your biased media.

[Tachikaze]

Ldvs,

Most Americans don't want to believe what you say, so they will argue against you. They have built up such a image in their minds of the US being the best, the free-est, the most democratic, the strongest, the most benign, and the most moral, that they can never see their own nation objectively.

American patriotism is built on myths, like the Founding Fathers, the first democracy, individualism, self-reliance, overcoming adversity with sweat and inventive thinking, George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Charles Lindberg, Neil Armstrong, etc. It is like a religion, and don't you dare desecrate the religious artifact, the US flag! You will have to face the American Inquisition! Whereas Italians and Mexicans hang crucifixes in their homes, Americans hang flags on their houses and cars.

In that sense, your post isn't completely off-topic. I think US patriotism is the religion of a significant number of (most?) Americans.

These Americans want to feel safe and secure in their myths. They don't want to know the truth and may even react violently against anyone who tries to show it to them.

[Azi Tohak]

Ldvs, please take off topic rants elsewhere.


These Americans want to feel safe and secure in their myths. They don't want to know the truth and may even react violently against anyone who tries to show it to them.

And you somehow know the truth? Every nation has heroes. Part of what binds nations is their love of the great men and women from their past. There is something wrong with that? You would rather that I be self-loathing? How exactly is a person supposed to be objective when there is so much information available?

Azi

[Ldvs]

Ldvs,In that sense, your post isn't completely off-topic. I think US patriotism is the religion of a significant number of (most?) Americans.
I didn't see it that way. Now that you said it, though... ~;) Obviously my cause isn't lost, for at least a few Americans aren't duped.


Ldvs, please take off topic rants elsewhere.
Sorry to have told blunt facts. One can't let statements such as Crazed Rabbit's pass without reacting.

[Don Corleone]

I didn't see it that way. Now that you said it, though... ~;) Obviously my cause isn't lost, for at least a few Americans aren't duped.
If you mean you've managed to goad Tachikaze into another of his anti American screeds, I hate to break it to you, but that's not much of an accomplishment. From what I've seen of his posting he hates the US (though I've never figured out why he chooses to stay) and it's inhabitants. I've never known him to have one positive thing to say about America or Americans. Not exactly what I'd call 'turning one of the faithful'. But by all means, keep whining about what a bunch of neanderthals we all are, I'm sure that will you some converts. Now, perhaps we can take ourselves from our favorite pasttime and actually discuss the topic this thread is about?

[Tachikaze]

If you mean you've managed to goad Tachikaze into another of his anti American screeds, I hate to break it to you, but that's not much of an accomplishment. I've never known him to have one positive thing to say about America or Americans.
The US has good music.

And an almost universal acceptance of casual attire.

It has beautiful natural features . . .

. . . until the Republicans have their way.

Oh, and we're smart enough to import Japanese cars.

[Tachikaze]

You would rather that I be self-loathing?
The standard response seems to always be, "should I be self-loathing?".

No, stand back and sort out the hype and PR from the reality, and be politically active. Resist the negative and reinforce the positive. Examine the real motives behind the policies of the US.


How exactly is a person supposed to be objective when there is so much information available?
Azi
Disassociate yourself from the US. Strip away American identity and see the US, its values, and people from the outside. Peel away US dogma and try to take a neutral stance. Visit other nations and learn other viewpoints and understand them the best you can. Understand their feelings and motives, not superficially, but deeply and nonjudgementally. For a while, forget what people have been drilling into your head all these years, and try to see things with a blank slate.

[Soulforged]

If you mean you've managed to goad Tachikaze into another of his anti American screeds, I hate to break it to you, but that's not much of an accomplishment. From what I've seen of his posting he hates the US (though I've never figured out why he chooses to stay) and it's inhabitants. I've never known him to have one positive thing to say about America or Americans. Not exactly what I'd call 'turning one of the faithful'. But by all means, keep whining about what a bunch of neanderthals we all are, I'm sure that will you some converts. Now, perhaps we can take ourselves from our favorite pasttime and actually discuss the topic this thread is about?
The topic is over Don, but as many Americans you misunderstood his statements. Though they were against your nation that doesn't mean that you're neanderthals, or nothing less, is just pointing out that you're not the best. If you want to say it out loud "I'm proud of being american" Ok for you, but you've to understand that there's always an objective point of view of things. In my case I'll never feel proud of nationallity, i disregard nationalism in any form, as I disregard religion, see I achieved to turn it back on topic...