The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Childish religion > Comments

Childish religion : Comments

By Greg Clarke, published 6/10/2008

Is Christianity childish or the most mature thing we’ve got?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
No doubt the genocides ordered and executed by Moses and his troops are a good example of the Judaic ethic of justice.
Posted by nwick, Monday, 6 October 2008 8:47:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good point, nwick. The childishness of religious belief leads to all manner of evil being done to appease some mythical father figure.
What about the importance of personal ethics and responsibility?
W.E.Henley raised it in his poem "Inviticus", part of which states:

"Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;

I am the captain of my soul."
Posted by Ponder, Monday, 6 October 2008 9:16:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting and thoughtful article Greg.

"...that a concept of God is intellectually justifiable, even necessary, to make sense of the world"

From an atheist's point of view the idea of making sense of the world via the supernatural is to make less sense of it. But of course to the devoutly religious it must serve a spiritual function and give meaning to their lives.

"Even if a society wants to “outgrow Christianity” it will struggle to know where to go next."

I think society is slowly outgrowing or evolving away from Christianity in the West. More and more you hear Church leaders lament on lack of numbers in the congregations or the lack of young people wishing to enter the priesthood.

It would be interesting to know if the dominant religions in the East are experiencing the same and if so, why?

As an atheist I don't look for meaning via a God but simply 'am'. There is joy and beauty all around us - in nature, in people and in doing good. Religion is not essential for altruism as some might offer.

Is religion childish? One can no more blame an adult than a child for an entrenched belief bestowed by parents. As society becomes more educated it tends to move away from religion which is why many sects denounce education, especially of women.

For me, religion does more to divide than to include. It concentrates more on allegiance and obeyance to a God and ignores real connections between flesh and blood humans.

There are thousands of different religions and thousands of variations on those religions, all claiming to be the one and only truth. This is the part which is childish and narrow minded and only serves to create bigotry and hate.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 6 October 2008 9:22:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I welcome anything that opposes the drivel published by the new atheists the writer of this the writer makes a fundamental mistake. He draws a picture of secularisation as the transformation of Judeo/Christian ideas into a modern equivalent. Thus Christian eschatology becomes our obsession with progress, Old Testament justice becomes human rights, New testament love becomes equalitarianism etc. The problem is that the biblical concepts are totally transformed in the process to become for us more of a problem than a blessing. Take for instance the way the concept of justice has been transformed into human rights. In the OT the ways of justice were established by God and was directed towards the wellbeing of the community. Human rights on the other hand are simply invented and then attached to the individual who must protect them. So community is shattered by the competing claims of individuals who must demand their rights.

Likewise individual human freedom is said to have its origin in Christianity. However, the Christian idea of freedom is that true freedom only flows from bondage to Christ. It is a far cry from the empty freedom of modernity in which the individual can do whatever they want.

Of course the culture of the West has its origin in Christianity but modernity has so distorted that culture that it is virtually unrecognisable. It is therefore little comfort to argue that modern secular values are inherently Christian in origin because they are so estranged from that origin as to be false.

These ideas are teased out in Blumenberg’s “The legitimacy of the modern age”, first two chapters.

Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Monday, 6 October 2008 9:46:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear! Peter Sellick sees joy in a 'fundies' view of the world for us all. Back to the OT and stoning the women sinners who lead men astray. Quite right too Peter... good on yers.

Yes, we need to fill all our state schools, those moral vacuums Julie Bishop warned us of, with Christian mentors, like Tim Costello is currently doing, and push a little auld-time religion down those kiddies necks.

Only when we look to the OT for approval for everything that is done today, will we end the environmental and economic vandalism we see about us today.

Of course, let's end the evils of money lending and the miracle of compound interest too shall we Pete, in line with the Bible.

I can see that going down well on Wall Street, not to mention Hillsong and the AOG types of Christians who so worship wealth.

Back to the drawing board Peter.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 6 October 2008 9:58:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course adherence to religion per se is childish - the need for an imaginary friend is something that sane and secular adults outgrow as they mature. As to whether Christianity is any more childish than other religions, that could be the subject of an interesting debate.

With respect to Habermas, it's also interesting how many otherwise sane and mature individuals suddenly find religion as they approach their twilight years. It's probably a form of psychological insurance.

And it's rather ironic that Peter Sellick accuses atheists of writing "drivel", given his regular contributions of same in this forum.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 6 October 2008 10:13:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are right, Pelican, "There is joy and beauty all around us - in nature, in people and in doing good". My name for that joy and beauty is God, and as a free thinking adult I choose to nurture my relationship with my God through the practice of my Christian faith.

Your statement that religion does more to divide than to include ignores the fact that religion in and of itself doesn't divide, rather some people choose to use their religion to justify their self-importance. Human beings will always find avenues to do that - it's sometimes called tribalism, other times nationalism. The greatest evil perpetrated against me was work related (in a prior profession). It had nothing to do with religion.

Spiritually I'm a Catholic and professionally I'm a social worker. My life and my work are improved through my faith practice. I don't shy away from the fact that many have done evil things in the name of my Church. But there has also been much more good done. It is unfortunate that many choose to be blind to that good and prefer to focus on the evil. But, that is a human response.

For me, the Catholic Church has no purpose or identity in and of itself. It exists to facilitate the relationship between my God and me, and all others who use it as their vehicle to be in relationship with God. In that context, I can call myself Catholic but at the same time question, doubt and often disagree with the dogma of the Church. This enables me to respect, and celebrate the fact that others maintain their relationship with God through different vehicles (One River, Many Wells by Matthew Fox is a terrific read).

Religion gets into trouble when people apply the tribal attitudes of football or the Holden/Ford dispute to their faith lives. If mankind can ever overcome its tendency to be tribal it will be of much greater benefit than moving beyond religion.
Posted by Ian D, Monday, 6 October 2008 10:24:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rather Christianity a bit childish possibly re Sermon on the Mount than similar to the ultra right US Evangelicals.

On Compass only last night, in a portrayal of the ultra Believers the look in the eyes of the more youthful was certainly far from softening, but more like portrayals of the Hitler Youth Movement.

Even the so-called prayer sessions sounded very martial, a session with President Bush completing the picture, the type of adoration, from my philosophical point of view, really completing the imagery.

Certainly much rather be known as a Looney Leftie.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 6 October 2008 10:55:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The quote by Dawkins shows that at the heart of it, religion is childish - the worship, the blood sacrifice, the metaphysics. All rather ridiculous presumptions that would not stand up to the slightest scrutiny in any other field of discourse.

The author seems to concede this and tries to argue that the bedrocks of modern society were laid by the Judeo-Christian ideology.

While he's right to a certain degree, this doesn't refute the argument made my Dawkins and it doesn't provide any reasoning as to why religion is still relevant.
Posted by Bathos, Monday, 6 October 2008 11:05:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The secular humanist hate being labeled but love to give out labels. A couple of words in Scripture sums up the secularist. It reads 'a fool says in his heart that there is no god'. Thousands of books by god deniers and god haters have not changed the truth of that simple proverb. If they had any proof they would not need to continue to come up with the sort of rehashed crap that Dawkins spews out.

A man is appointed to die once and then comes judgement. No amount of religous secular thesis will change that. You can comfort yourself with lies or you can face the truth and turn to the only ONe who can save you from eternal torment. That is reality!
Posted by runner, Monday, 6 October 2008 11:08:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Only a fool says in his heart there is no god"

Ah, argument over folks. Runner found a quote in this scrappy, old book he had lying around.

If this works, we should cut out fragments of Dawkins books, mix them with some fragments from Hitchens and Harris, glue it all together and bury it in a Middle Easter desert.

In two thousand years noone will be able to argue with us!
Posted by Bathos, Monday, 6 October 2008 11:29:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O Lord, I beseech thee, save Sells from his antithetical syllogisms, and Runner from his eternal torments.
Please do it while I am out communing with the beauty that resides within the realities of the real world; before I return to the recycle bin of nature's composting system.
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 6 October 2008 11:40:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr sellers. Your just in time to witness the new age of modern man and religious concepts. As mans intelligence grows, evolution will slowly squeeze out religions childish beginnings (early mans beginnings ) and man will go on to develop a new conscious mind with an ever declining attachment of the belief system. Like I have said before, the bible has served its purpose but now more of a pillow when i feel frightened. The two will still need each other for a time to come, "but it is on the way out".( it will take thousands of years ) and the Christian's enterprise is not under any immediate threat. Re invent the good book or lose it!

I still firmly agree with my hypothesis that religion was a security mechanism that was vital for mans well being as on the same level as hunting for food and so on. Man will also developed a new understanding of this universe that we "all" live in, and what your all seeing is man just starting to grow up!

Big-bang+evolution equals early man+evolving minds equals where we are today. Its quite simply to me. And doesn't man look cute with its baby boots on, but unfortunately at this present time, religion is no laughing matter.

EVO
Posted by EVO, Monday, 6 October 2008 11:42:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Ian D'... it's one hell of a big machine when you describe it like this... "For me, the Catholic Church has no purpose or identity in and of itself. It exists to facilitate the relationship between my God and me, and all others who use it as their vehicle to be in relationship with God."

Couldn't you do that with a little less real estate, wealth and power just hanging around within the RC machine?

It's pretty clear the Vattie Factory exists to exist, and to impose, and to limit.

I have always suspected that those people who are inclined to do 'good works' would be doing them anyway, with no thought about 'glorifying' any god at all.

After all, it's not just 'the religious' who lend-a-hand in life is it?
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 6 October 2008 11:52:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EVO

You would have to be the comedian of the century if you believe we are evolving into a higher form of intellect and morality. NO wonder your belief system led to the treating of aboriginals as animals. If you can not see that man has actually become more corrupt and depraved your observance skills need a lot more evolving (like billions of years) And to think you label Christianity as childish). Please tell me that you are joking. I can understand man's arrogance and pride believing they are evolving in some kind of gods but to deny the obvious while criticizing others beliefs takes the cake.
Posted by runner, Monday, 6 October 2008 12:07:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This reference points out that conventional exoteric religiosity is very much an expression of a childish state of mind, or rather emotional patterning.

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html

Also:

"The "sacred power" that monotheistic "creationist-religion" claims it brings (or would extend) into the human world is, it says, the "Creator-God" of the universe---whereas, in fact, the power that monotheistic "creationist-religion" actually exercises (or would everywhere exercise) is that of a humanly-governed political, social. cultural, and, altogether, merely exoteric INSTITUTIONALIZATION of the totality of humankind.

The institutionalizing-power that monotheistic "creationist-religion" exercises (or would everywhere exercise, if allowed to function at will and unimpeded) is of an inherently intolerant nature---because it is "self"-possessed by a reductionist, tribalistic, and exclusively exoteric mentality, that cannot accept any non-"orthodox",extra-tribal non-monotheistic, or, otherwise, esoteric exceptions to its "Rule".

.....all such merely exoteric institutions are actually seeking to rule the world and the inevitable conflicts thus created by the competing powers (each with their inherently totalitarian agendas) are a constant threat to the unity, peaceful order, and practical well-being of Earthkind as a whole".

"The ego-bound (and pre-verbally brain-and-nervous-system-patterned) fixed ideas of "creationists" (and "religionists" in general) are direct extensions of an infantile and childish dependency patterning

.....and that of "rationalists" and scientific materialists is,in general, are direct extensions of adolescent independence patterning"
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 6 October 2008 12:10:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More

This reference: A Prophetic Criticism of the "Great" Religions provides a critique of the (archaic) mind created trap in which conventional "religionists" such as Greg Clarke, Sells and Runner are trappped, and how christianity becaming a would be world-dominating "religion"---by emptying it of any Spiritual content and possibility, and even by making such Spiritual content damnable and TABOO.

1. http://www.dabase.org/proofch6.htm

This reference describes the dreadful politics and "culture" inevitably created in the image of the equally godless power and control seeking "creationist-religious" and "scientific-rationalist" ego

2. http://www.ispeace723.org/liberationfromego2.html

Plus Greg Clarke is being patently dishonest when he claims that "christianity" is the only answer.

He just hasnt done his homework and his "mind", or rather Heart and consciousness, is very much trapped in the archaic mind-forms, myths etc described in ref #1 above.

How do I know this?

Because I know that he and his colleagues at Public Christianity know about the author of the references that I have posted.

And yet he works at a university which, at least in theory, is supposed to be devoted to a universal understanding of the human situation---and not just the Spiritually empty dim-witted religiosity, or "religious" provincialism, that we have inherited from our (at best) half-baked "religious" tradition.

This reference describes the rigidified parameters of what is acceptable within the walls of the academy, including what is thus acceptable in the field of "religion"--no esotericism allowed---strictly verboten.

1. http://www.dabase.org/ilchurst.htm
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 6 October 2008 12:54:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keep it up, Runner, but be careful about faith. That is why Thomas Aquinas believed it needed to be tempered with Aristotelian Reasoning, the union between the two being what our universities are based on.

Even our unbelievers have mostly gained their intellect from such education.

That is what our democracies are based on, giving us the choice, with hope also an important part of the search for commonsense.

Best of Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 6 October 2008 12:58:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner! You are right! The bible is a pathway for us to become gods. This is what the book was mean to do. ( its mans own code book ) No-one on this earth has the ability to translate the text correctly, and to say Christianity has it right, is heresy in its own interpretations. Did I mention it was a guide for man!

The link that Ho hum presented is my out-look procisely! but what ever level people are on, mankind must be patience. I stand out with standing right beside this god of my mind and we look upon the universe as a whole, as the good book is trying to tell you. It all goes pear-shaped when fundamentalism comes into play.

EVO
Posted by EVO, Monday, 6 October 2008 1:17:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Even if a society wants to “outgrow Christianity” it will struggle to know where to go next."

Given the high morals and ethics in Christ's teaching and life, and his conspicuous departure from carnal sensuality as a means of human fulfillment, his emphasis on "The last being first and the first being last" His teaching that true leadership comes through servanthood....

well.. to put it bluntly the only way for a society currently holding to such values is..."DOWN" and spectalularly so.

It will not be servanthood which takes people to leadership, but brute force and greed.

Translate that into a whole society and we have a formula for social chaos.

It won't struggle to know where to go next, it will be completely lost, and as many people who have ideas will try to take society in the direction of those ideas by whatever means they consider suitable.
Legal or otherwise. The would simply say "Ok..it's not legal to do this, so I'll first take power then change the law"...it's as simple as that.

Lost, meandering fools.. crashing into each other..headbutting rams and competition for breeding rights... compliant females as they realize they don't have any voice now...a dismal picture indeed.

Mad max is closer than we think.

But aaah..the glory and beauty of the Lord.. his risen life and longed for return... psychological insurance? :) sure.. have it your way, but we who have Him in our hearts know differently. I'ts not 'in'surance it is A-ssurance.

I serve a risen Savior, He’s in the world today,
I know that He is living, whatever men may say;
I see His hand of mercy, I hear His voice of cheer.
And just the time I need Him, He’s always near.

He Lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way
He Lives, He lives, salvation to impart!
You ask me How I know He lives?
He lives within my heart.
Posted by Polycarp, Monday, 6 October 2008 2:25:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article points out religion evolves. It follows that faith must evolve with it or there would be no church. Some, like Ian D, cherry pick - "I can call myself Catholic but at the same time question, doubt and often disagree with the dogma of the Church" - while others take it lock, stock and barrel and consider it His immutable word, to the point of denying the utility of all the sciences.

Either way it should be kept to oneself. Once those of one pursuasion try to forcibly modify the bahaviour of others, religion gets itself a bad name. There is no reason to vilify writers such as Hitchens any more than there is to rally against Paul the apostle, other than to sway by reason or logic. But there's the rub. What's logic got to do with religion?

The article overrates the contribution of christianity. "Egalitarian universalism...social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love."

A bit gushing. As if basic human kindness never existed prior to 33AD?
Posted by bennie, Monday, 6 October 2008 2:35:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and, like Voltaire, I will disagree with what religious people say, but defend to the death their right to say it, provided always that they do not use their rights to reduce mine.

However, the notion that modern concepts of morality derive exclusively or primarily from the Judeo-Christian intellectual tradition ignores the greater influence of the ancient Greek philosphers, Socrates in paticular, who used the exercise of human reason to derive ideas of virtue and morality. Indeed, Plato's rationale for human existence was the contiued search for the Form of the Good. These ideas were lost in pre-Renaiisance Christian societies and were revived through the good offices of people like the Medici family and the Arab nations who preserved much of the original Greek writing.

Let's not indulge in Christian vs atheism silliness. Let's instead value human reason as the prime source of moral values and let those who hold religious beliefs add God's influence where they see fit.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Monday, 6 October 2008 3:05:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
XYZ is 'childish.

Compelling logical arguement that. Devoid of irony too.
Posted by trade215, Monday, 6 October 2008 3:08:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycrap: << He walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way
He Lives, He lives, salvation to impart!
You ask me How I know He lives?
He lives within my heart. >>

Like I said, an imaginary friend. Some of the most infantile even sing to him.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 6 October 2008 3:24:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article and so true. All of the centuries since the Protestant Deformation ( no misspelling) have progressively brought all civilisations lots of blopodshed, secualr revolutions and culminating in the massive bloodshed and genocides of the twentieth century.

A return to daily prayer, consecrating oneself to the Immacualte Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Rodary and Novena devotions, Holy Mass and sacraments regularly will help restore any nations to economic and spiritual health.
Look at thosae who have thrown away the social encylicals and the catechism as relates to social teaching. We have had extreme tarioff reductions ( Whitlam), easy no fault divorce ( Lionel Murphy), privatisations, amalgamations of businesses and of trade unions, deregualtion of currency and many other commerical arrangements, removal of legitimate consorship( from Hawke through to Howard).
These guys, especially the Labor guys rejected the DLP; as did the NSW bishops. Now we all pay the price for Iemma and Costa and now Rees with thire 'parternships with merchant banks and the selling of public assets and encouragement to toll raods instead of employing fulltime permanent workforces through the old DMR.
All these secularists have caused this social upheaval on behalf of the libertarian immoral Left and on behalf of evila nd greedy big business. The Liberal Party and the Nats have always been on the side of big business and of the bad guys out there. That is why we need a return to the DLP ( true Labor ) platform that is consistently pro worker, pro Australian, pro Christian heritage.
Posted by Webby, Monday, 6 October 2008 6:23:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
belief in god may not be childish, but i don't see how the article provides any support for the claim. the article seems not much more than (childish) appeal to authorities, one of whom i know has written demonstrable nonsense. and, the one authority referred to in detail is (contentiously) quoted on the judeo-christian basis of our society's ethics and morality, not the idea of god.

articles like this do nothing to dispel the notion that religion is childish nonsense. it's bait and switch. at least sellick tries an honest justification, even if i think he fails dismally.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 6 October 2008 7:09:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hilarious topic.
Einstein also said that religion is childish and primitive.

In my very humble opinion, if people feel insecure or wicked without imagining they have the support of, as CJ said, an "imaginary friend", and actually imagine that this God watches everything they do every freakin' minute of the day, and that he actually is obsessed about what they wear or eat, who they have sex with and when, then don't mind me if I point and laugh.

But I don't think that a belief in god is necessarily MORE childish or primitive than some other things that people do or believe in, like believing that treating rocks like pets brings luck, or that a fish tank in the 'wealth area' of your home will make you stinkin' rich.

I have to admit that I find it quite childish of moi to sit back with coke and popcorn to indulge in a dose of schadefreude whenever the OLO fundies manage to imagine impossible things like witchcraft, or that a fertilised ovum is a person, and claim to believe that, too.
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 6 October 2008 10:38:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nothing is said of sin as the great equaliser: "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".

Christianity turned the virtues upside down. For example, wealth was once seen as desirable, but with Jesus it became a hindrance - "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"

In its early days Christianity had a stronger polemic against elitism, oppression and empire than anything a rabid communist could come up with.

Nietzsche's 'On the Genealogy of Morality' is worth a read on these topics.
Posted by paulr, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 6:37:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see that a tribal culture might consider it expedient to worship a local god. Where the childishness appears is in the steady inflation of the powers of that god as Christianity expanded. "Your god can make a volcano explode an' turn sticks into snakes? Well, my god can do EVERYFINK!! Nyahh, nyahh, top that!" Unfortunately by rewriting dogma to specify an infinite god, Christianity lay down all sorts of trouble for itself later, when enough of its constituency became educated enough to see the logical flaws inherent in this claim.

How do vocal Christians react now to the exposure of this silliness? By generating more silliness: unverifiable claims that civilisation would have been worse or not have developed without Christianity (how can anyone possibly _know_?) or that human morality depends somehow on a belief which is confined to about one-quarter of human beings. Much more mature to make the kind of polite retreat exemplified by Anglican clergy: "We know we're wrong, chaps, but it makes us feel better, so just leave us alone and we won't bother you." Stiff upper lip and all that! But if you argue yourself into a corner, what else can you do?
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 7:01:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,

You can laugh at it now but if you want to live forever, you need to telepathically talk to somebody and symbolically eat His flesh since we've all got something bad inside us because a long time ago, a talking snake told some rib-woman to eat some fruit from a magical tree.

Pass the popcorn.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 7:32:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Bennie
I hardly think that the scientist in charge of the Genome project, who is Christian, fall into the category of:

".... to the point of denying the utility of all the sciences."

The evidence totally contradicts that oft spouted mantra.

CJ.. yes we sing to Him. Often and with great enthusiasm :)

Jon J
"How do vocal Christians react now to the exposure of this silliness?"

Well...you say by generating more silliness. I suppose we cannot avoid that charge. When Paul proclaimed Christ at Athens.... there were those who Mocked "What is this babber speaking about" and those who believed.

It goes with the territory. But for those who are called.. the gospel is the power unto Salvation. We proclaim...and you the hearer decide to believe or not.. in the end.. all who are called will believe.

Our prayer is that you and all here will become as some of us are.. firmly founded in Christ and growing to maturity in Him.
Posted by Polycarp, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 7:35:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp I was talking about creationists.
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 8:01:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Intriguingly, it is the author of this piece himself who seems to have decided unilaterally that the descriptor "childish" is the one that needs to be examined and addressed.

In the example he provides:

"There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else ... has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point"

...the word Dawkins uses is "infantile".

This can equally be paraphrased as "childlike", as "childish".

Both "infantile" and "childish" carry pejorative overtones, and I have no doubt that Dawkins was aware of this. But the author chose to carry this nuance over into his article without placing it in context.

Intended insult apart, Dawkins was describing the childlike position of deferring to external authority, not a childish - e.g. emotionally immature - attitude.

Stripped of any unnecessary overtones, his assessment is a perfectly accurate reflection of the religionist's approach to life.

The authority figure - the surrogate parent, who separates for the child the notions of right and wrong - obviates any need for independent thought. Pulling the cat's tail might be fun, but it's wrong. Picking one's nose may make a tasty snack, bit it's not nice. Smacking one's younger sibling might be gratifying, but reprehensible. All these are accepted without question or argument.

Religion invokes an authority figure to draw the line between what is seemly and what is not. The subject goes along with this interpretation with childlike faith that the determinations are just and justified.

The sleight-of-hand is apparent when the author bounces off his own straw man into...

>>But there are plenty of intellectuals, even professors on par with or outstripping Dawkins for academic standing who hold that a concept of God is intellectually justifiable, even necessary, to make sense of the world.<<

There's no need for a "But".

Dawkins agrees.

He points out that children accept unquestioningly that an authority figure who dictates their actions is both intellectually justifiable and necessary to make sense of the world.

It is not "childish" to do so, simply "childlike". As in innocent, untutored, unworldly.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 10:06:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most childish of all are the children of darkness who rejected and still do reject the Light. They make up silly little dogmas about how the world happened (evolution) not realizing that one day their father (the devil) will be thrown into hell along with all his children. They continue to argue against their Creator and insist on their own way. They want to live by their own little hypocritical rules and think they are clever in mocking their Creator.

Jesus summed it up accurately when He said 'For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices truth comes to the Light so that his works may be revealed, that they exist, having been worked in God.'

The childish ones are those who refuse to bow their knee to the Only one who can save them from sin.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 12:08:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what am I now runner? The Antichrist! smile.

EVO
Posted by EVO, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 12:35:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You write a good letter Runner.

Are you the Antichrist EVO?

Wheres your microchip?
On the forehead or the right hand (Revelation 13:16-18 / 14:9-11)?

Someone apart from myself ought to write on the Antichrist so we get different perspectives.
Posted by Gibo, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 1:01:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gibo! Sorry mate! I don't believe in him either. If you would like a little crash course on anthropology, I would be more than glad to tell you were the devil and hell comes from, but you wont like it! but they do occupy the same area.

EVO
Posted by EVO, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 2:29:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't mind if my religion is childish. That way I can be a child of God.
Posted by Steel Mann, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 2:40:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel Mann: << I don't mind if my religion is childish. That way I can be a child of God. >>

You mean, as in "the" Children of God?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_God
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 2:51:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It may be childish, childlike or infantile to believe in a deity of some description. It may even be a sign of being un-educated or un-worldly but here is one thing that cannot be denied. At some point in our adult life we yearn either secretly or publicly for the simplicity of youth, believing in a deity, an imaginary friend as one poster put it, if viewed in this light it is not silly or childish. At some point in our life we all need someone or something to take the load off our backs to allow us to find our feet and give us a break from what can be a very depressing and harsh life. Religion can give this support, as in my experience the next door neighbour or the guy down the street, even friends and relatives (both religious and atheist) either have too much in their own lives or are too afraid to get involved to help others out with their problems.

Secondly, the universe is vast, most do not realise how vast it really is. Our own galaxy is 100 thousand light years across yet it is a mere pin point of light when the universe is viewed in its entirety. To believe that all that we can see, hear, taste, touch and smell is all that there is, is to misunderstand the universe itself. Radio, X-rays and other electromagnetic phenomena cannot be seen with the naked eye yet they exist. The head of the New York patent office declared early last century that everything that could be invented has been, yet we sit in front of computers reading each others comments even now. To declare there is no God, no deity out there in this vast universe is to declare the totality of ignorance. Whether this deity cares for us is another matter, all that can be said for now is that we have no evidence either way.
Posted by Arthur N, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 3:24:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ

I suggest that Bill Henson and his supporters are more akin to the 'children of God' than follows of Christ!
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 3:29:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"To declare there is no God, no deity out there in this vast universe is to declare the totality of ignorance".

I think I know what you mean by this. By the same token to declare there is a god is also to declare the totality of ignorance. I only learned about it from someone else Arthur; it wasn't self-evident. Still isn't.
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 3:35:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ & Runner,

I am in no way connected with the Children Of God cult. I go to an ordinary Protestant Church.

Runner, you don't agree with my support for Bill Henson and my association with the Nudist movement. That's fine, you don't have to.My faith in God comes first, my interest in the Nudist movement is a much lower priority in my life, and I have other hobbies and interests that come before that.
Posted by Steel Mann, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 3:43:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

"He (Greg) draws a picture of secularisation as the transformation of Judeo/Christian ideas into a modern equivalent." - Sells' cite

I would restate the above, as, secularisation is the transformation of humanistic ideas derived from old religions, including the Judeo-Christian, into a modern equivalent. Before the OT, there existed Laws and there were Moral peoples.

Moses (Law) needed to hold his little band together, so they would not move to worshipping agricultural gods (calf), while his crew were still henothesists en-route to monothesism. Self-actualised, Jesus (born 7 BCE during the reign of Herod the Great), the humanitian, was a highly educated claimant to the throne of David, ministering the Jewish faith to the Gentiles. The sermon on the Mount posits him a highly moral human.

[Both the Law of Moses and the Sermon on the Mount, had alike predessors. No doubt developed by, not suprisingly, legal and humanistic minds.]

Religions have acted to drive and restrain humanitianism depending on who has been at the wheel.

Secular humanism two hundred years from now one trusts will support a mature and rational society, as well as a moral and law abidding citizens, whom appreciate that their one, limited life, as a metabolism temporily existing against the second law of thermodynamics, is the real miracle.

O
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 10:16:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ian D

I respect your right to have a relationship with your God and I admire your statement:

"This enables me to respect, and celebrate the fact that others maintain their relationship with God through different vehicles (One River, Many Wells by Matthew Fox is a terrific read)."

It is nice to hear a Christian say that, because so often we do only hear the tribal stuff and the arrogant assertions.

I liken religion a bit to the gun debate in that while the weapon does not make the decision to do harm, it provides the means to commit harm. Perhaps religion in the wrong hands becomes a kind of evil, where authority and power is abused.

I feel safer and more comfortable in gaining the same things you do through 'God' via other means which I cannot really express but I guess it is a form of spirituality (to borrow a term from the religious folk). Feeling a part of the earth and connected to all other living organisms through life itself, realising the importance of living in harmony with our environment which in turns looks after us. That feeling of tending your garden and then reaping the benefits of the food grown in healthy soil without contamination and the feeling of knowing your children are eating 'real' food, for example.

As I warned, I am not good at explaining exactly what 'it' is but I do hope that people of all "belief systems" will one day let each other live in peace with whatever it is they believe (as long as it does not harm others of course).

I am guilty of passing judgement on religious folk at times because I get a bit sick of the arrogant assumptions connected with terms like sinful or evil. Those that don't see the light cannot be saved or washed of their sins etc - emotional blackmail based on primitive unsubstantiated beliefs of any kind irk me.

[PS I will find a copy of that book and give it a read] :)
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 10:42:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gods, Sons of Gods, Spirits of Gods, Devils, Angels, Virgin Births, Hells, Heavens, Demons and Resurrections. Sounds like a new novel beckoning for Dan Brown. Can see it know, "Machinations of the Council of Nicaea" or "How the churches indoctrinated humanity into childish faith and learned to extract their tithe". There's a whole universe out there if you look, and none of the gods of men (man's greatest myths) had anything to do with it. Maybe we could restart the bible with a new prologue for genesis: "In the beginning there was a big bang, Adam and Eve perhaps!"
Posted by sillyfilly, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 8:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Oliver *waves* :)

You said:

<<Moses (Law) needed to hold his little band together, so they would not move to worshipping agricultural gods (calf),>>

I wonder if it occurs to you (and Pericles..who's last paragraphs of his last post were barely comprehensible and stopped in mid air) that the very fact of Moses Law being in direct conflict with 'natual religion' ie.. calf worship/agricultural/seasonal deities is in fact evidence that the source of Moses law and it's focus on the Creator Yahweh was in fact God Himself?

We often hear that 'religion is a creation of man'....but the evidence in the life of Moses and the Israelites goes against this like a large piece of 2x4 belting a cockroach.

If the evidence points to the intervention by God, and is a construct which denies the claim that it was simply invented by man...then we are left with no other rational conclusion than that it was from God.

The choosing of Abraham first..then confirmed through Isaac and Jacob/Israel...and the 12 tribes was always with an over-riding purpose of bringing salvation and blessing to the rest of humanity.
It certainly was not 'tribal gods' territory.

It reaches a crescendo in Isaiah "He was wounded for our transgressions, brused for our iniquities" and fullfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ who after he was recognized as "The Messiah".....

BEGAN to teach his disciples that "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be killed and after 3 days rise again"

He warned his disciples "If any man would follow me.. let him DENY Himself....." This is not popularist religion, nor is it popular.
People don't invent such unpopular ideas.
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 8:05:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How typical of Porky to begin his post by claiming that Pericles' finely crafted prose is "barely comprehensible", and then proceed by babbling on in barely comprehensible, infantile mumbo-jumbo. Trust me, Porky - you're completely outclassed in English comprehension and expression by Pericles. By attacking his excellent writing you just make yourself look even more stupid than usual.

Steel Mann - I'm pleased to hear that you're not involved with that particular Christian cult.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 9:45:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Greg but you make the mistake many make.

That is the basic message of Jesus is, of course, sound and is exactly what I believe and try to follow.Not easy and forgiving others for many things is not the way to go as they just go further.

But the basic message is really the ONLY message and it has nothing to do with religion, belief, faith or God.

It's just blatantly obvious that if we don't at least attempt to live closely in that manner we are cavemen fighting over every scrap of food, or like today, every single cent in the market. Those guys will kill for a profit, which is what they are actually doing.

However to want to live as basically preached by Jesus is not an indication one should swallow the man made fantasies that have confused and damaged that message.

The hippies essentially tried that way and got hammered (in 2 ways as we know). And who were the biggest critics of their way? Religious far right lunatics of course as they "know" the truth. Of course they don't as the truth there is those right wingers are just dangerous and ignorant people.

To try and put down Dawkins by saying more intelligent people believe otherwise is really, really dumb. You see religion is mostly hammered into our brains in the age range 0 - 5 and very little changes that learning. Religious parenting? Religious belief, forget logic.

Intelligence has little to do with sanity when religion is the issue. But the ability to think through an issue regardless of training does.

It is time, well beyond actually, to put away the pschological needs of ancient man and deal with reality. The problem there of course is the poorer countires cannot and are unlikely to even consider that as it's all most of their people have to believe in, real or not. So in many ways it's better to keep these fantasises alive simply to avoid the clashes between cultures. Bad enough as it is.
Posted by RobbyH, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 12:37:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, I'd like to help, I really would.

>>...Pericles..who's last paragraphs of his last post were barely comprehensible and stopped in mid air<<

Which part did you not understand?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 5:26:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Justice in the Old Testament? Two examples:1) if an Israelite buys another Israelite, that person can only be owned for 6 years, and on the 7th must be allowed to go free. Very generous indeed. And 2) each 50th year, any purchases by Israelites of land owned by another Israelite, would be declared null and void. Hence the power relations which had been established at some early point in Israelite history, would be perpetuated. Hardly justice to do that.
The Old Testament is replete with an attempt at domination, by the Israelites over the other populations of the area, and lots of attempts at revenge, both against the Israelites (!) and against their opponents, by the Israelite's reputedly just god.
Neither is there any love in the New Testament, only an act of child abuse, preceded by a cacophany of contradictory stories and statements, the banal amongst the inexplicably violent.
So much for Christianity. As for Islam, their book is the most immature thing I've ever read: threats, real and fantasy, are kept apart only by tracts of self praise and imprecations to join the caravan. It is an early attempt to sing the praises of Fascism, pure and simple. It would be hillarious, except that around 1.2 billion people we share the planet with follow it. I'm very glad most appear not to have read it, or can't bring themselves to do what it wants of them.
The most remarkable aspect of the childishness of these two religions is that devotees could read all of this and not see it for what it really is. Instead, they could explain it away, justify it on whatever grounds, or simply deny that it is really there.
Posted by camo, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 6:03:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some very interesting posts indeed. I think john Lennon said it beautifully!

All you need is love.

Long-live the hippies\environmentalist.

Thank You all for your words of wisdom
and just let it be.(song)

I believe there are things man should not Question and the search for god is one of them.

All the best.

EVO
Posted by EVO, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 8:43:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Greetings Polycarp,

I would be included towards Occam's Razor. That is, accepting Moses acted to unify his people under their Hebrew nomadic tribal god, before accepting an ethereal entity entered onto the World stage to project manager humanity. Assuming Moses et al., existed, which case is the most plausible... The most like likely?

Cheers,

Oly.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 9 October 2008 12:52:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to add my comments to this article as well and point out that there are approx 4,500 known religions in the World.

If one was to 'join', which one would you.

I agree with other 'negative comments' on this, that children are too young mentally to have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, and get caught up in the fear factor that they 'won't go to heaven' if you dont believe and condemmed to a life of malpractice!

So wrong to brainwash people!

The Muslim faith must be the worst regarding brainwashing young from birth into its' belief system, and not giving people a chance to choose another religion or none.

The Muslim countries which practice this are denying people of this choice and condemming them to a life of fear that Allah (God) will punish them if they don't prey 5 times a day and collect 'points' particuarily if they prey in a Mosque rather than in a room by themselves.

It is a male driven religion which precludes women from recognition, and makes women wear the hijab to cover themselves, treats them like second class human beings.
I feel that this is disgraceful.

I work in a multi-cultural place in which I see Muslim men use the male toilets vanity basins to wash their arms and then their feet before dissapearing into their own 'prayer room', leave the vanity cabinet and floor saturated with water, use toilet paper and paper hand towels to dry themselves, which is left in the pedestal clogging it up or filling up the waste bins to overflowing!
And if you complain about it then you are classed as a racist, even though this can be identified as a workplace health and safety matter, should someone slip and hurt themselves!

Could I be feeling the same the majority of Australians who are losing their identity and the religious 'takeover' here and our inability to do anything because we are then labelled as stirrers, radicals, racists and made to feel like we are the minority here!!
Posted by commonsense1, Thursday, 9 October 2008 6:38:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
commonsense 1 you ask

'if one was to 'join', which one would you.' I suggest you turn to the only One who can forgive your sin. I suggest you turn to the only One who pours out the rain on the righteous and unrighteous. I suggest you turn to the One who created the earth and all thats in it. I suggest you read the new testament and see that everything Jesus said has never been matched and is just as relevant today as always. I suggest you turn to the One who rose from the dead. Forget about all the others (they are phonies).
Posted by runner, Thursday, 9 October 2008 7:30:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think runner's latest rant above is exactly the kind of infantile nonsense described by Dawkins et al.

Oh to be so childishly credulous - it's a pity that so often they're childishly hateful as well.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 9 October 2008 10:26:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jesus was to my taste one of the greatest philosophers of all times, but he was leaving in a time of fear of God, a time when gods where a part of life and it was very unhealthy to doubt their existence. Religion must have been the best way to carry a message, (ad agencies where pretty shabby), temples where also used as market places(religion seems to have a close relationship with money). Jesus 's philosophy as the one of John Lennon or Socrates, preached Love, Respect and a permanent critic to greed, money, looks (in other words Capitali$m). I believe that he adjusted his message to what was available to his philosophy, which in this case was One god (make things a bit easier to deal with when you have to tell a story), he imaged his sayings by telling stories where he could get his listeners to question themselves on morality, ethics, love, greed (in a different manner than of Socrates but the aim remained the same). He was transmitting an imaged story, the old and new testaments are written for the large uneducated crowds, and it remains a story that is taught to the christian youth.
Mohamed with the coran also was a philosopher that adapted his toughts to what was available at his time to create a better living for his people Islam, to my understandings Islam gives directions to its followers in an "imaged" way, or via rules ( A very simple example is the sin of eating porc in the muslim world, it is just a health rule due to the worms or diseases that pigs carry especially in warmer climates) making it a deadly sin is a guarantee that no one will get sick from it.
Yes I think religions are childish, they teach thoughts that are pre-chewed instead of teaching the process of the thinking, and then they threaten you with punishment when you don't know the lesson.
Preach Love and Thinking my Brothers but watch for the greedys they are killers, remember Jesus , Socrates or Lennon.

Childish Gavroche
Posted by gavroche, Thursday, 9 October 2008 10:32:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Certainly reading your childish rants CJ would give me no reason to change my mind. And to think you could of been brainwashing my kids at university. I am relieved you told me that you have retired!
Posted by runner, Thursday, 9 October 2008 11:45:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting how a small group seem to talk only to each other and with a vicious need to denigrate each other.

Very sophisticated and worthy reading. Not.

None of you on either side has seen the most obvious problem. If the West does move away from religion, which is indeed happening, I'm afraid the East is not. So the clash of cultures can only become more pronounced as the East clings to the variety of God's avaailable and the West moves towards worshipping one God, money.

Poverty must be eliminated to avoid the inevitable clash. Not greed, just poverty.

Not even the financial greed and destruction of many people's lives due to Bush's extravagance and ignorant avoidance of monitoring his fellow greedy breed will change the West's devotion to money first and foremost. Listen to your government. Everything is predicated on affordability. Or used to deny the public of service while wasteing it on themselves etc.

If lives aren't affordable they are disposed of by ignoring basic needs and services. Then no one can blame government can they? I point the finger.

It would be quite difficult from any perspective to see how the human race has advanced at all from it's earliest days of hiding in caves at night in fear. Back then, a valid fear.

But if anyone can distinguish the overall behaviour pattern today from way back then I'd ask you enlighten me.

It's still about what you have or have not got. There are exceptions of course but, like the movie "Idiocracy" the overwhelming numbers of the scared and uneducated slowly drag those who see ways to advance as humans back to base level.

Technology and scientifically of course there are big advances. I'm referring to man's basic behaviour. Unchanged. Darwin was right, survival of the fittest is the rule of life. Still.
Posted by RobbyH, Saturday, 11 October 2008 3:07:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobbyH,

Monotheism is problematic, when we have more than one monothesistic player on the same field at the same time. And we do. There is no tolerance for there being two suns in the sky.

The Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, via pantheism and syncretism, were better placed at diluting inter-faith conflicts. Islam and Christianity (Neo-Judaism) by the definition of their posits must be in conflict.

The commonality between the three major monothesistic religions starts with the needs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to leverage religiosity to manage a socio-political circumstance:

Judaism required archaism and futurism to sustain an occupied a Diasporian People (Toynbee). Christianity extrapolated the deeds of a medicant (Mack) whom is a claimant to the House of David (Theiring)and Islam the unification of the Arabs against the physical encouchment of Persia and the ideological encrouchment of Judeo-Christianity (Armstrong).

The goals of the puppetmasters cum contrivers would not have been childish; rather the retention of knowledge, most specifically, whom has the right to translate events for others, the enjoined to ignorance, fear and superstition of the masses. Herein, it is not merely the case of Religion being an opiate (Marx) but super-added the modivations of the opium pushers. Propagation is sustained familily, and societally reinforced; whilst, to the lay, the original needs for the said religious inventions are lost in time.

O.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 12 October 2008 10:16:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

"Drivel"

The critiques of religions often have a sound socio-anthropological and historical foundation, to which, we can add scientific discoveries and societal advancement since the Enlightenment.

Peter, no matter which side of the fence one sits, it is logical to retain a hull hypothesis. For you,that is, testing that god does not exist. Moreover, is it not sequentially more apt to first test for the exsistence of god, before nominating a particular entity as a/the god?
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 12 October 2008 10:53:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver you pointed out "there is no tolerance for there being two suns in the sky."

I reckon the ancients had it right by worshipping Sol. We shoulda stuck with that.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 13 October 2008 8:44:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those with faith don't need proof, and those that need proof by definition don't have faith.

Dawkins and his ilk fail to grasp the deep need for further meaning. The concept of nothing after death is as incomprehensible to the human mind as infinity.

Challenging someone's faith is like challenging their need to have children. There is no logical justification, but will surely get a visceral response.

Runner cannot convince anyone of his convictions as he has no proof, and spouting scripture is his visceral response to a perceived attack on his emotional security.

As proof is neither available or required, this thread is simply a chance to sling mud, and no one is likely to leave with their opinions altered in the slightest.

Athiests 0
Zealots 0
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 13 October 2008 9:21:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister's last post is overly cynical i think, though with a grain of truth. I recall Milan Kundera writing that most conversations are about one person just waiting for the other to finish putting her boring views so that he can get a chance to put his own, much more interesting ones. Yet we need to express ourselves all the same, and we like to hear what others think...
So now I'll get stuck in. Peter Sellick, who really is one of the most tedious of contributers to these issues, starts his first comment with a remark about the drivel of the new atheists. After such a shallow beginning, is there any point to reading any more of him?
Having read the bible recently, I can find no coherent ethical system there, in either the old or the new testaments, and much that is grotesque, vicious or simply assinine, with the bulk of the crimes perpetrated by a deity who makes Saddam Hussein look like a kindergarten teacher.
Homo Sapiens has been wandering this planet as a social being for 150,000 to 200,000 years, making ethical/survival decisions throughout this period. Christianity is less than 2000 years old. If we want to know what comes after, we might do well to study what came before.
Much recent work in evolutionary psychology and cognitive psychology has shown that our morality is less related to our religion than to visceral experiences of disgust which we rationalize after the fact, but usually not in a very sophisticated way - e.g. 'that behaviour is just wrong, or 'ít's against god's will', etc etc.
The impact of Christianity is grossly, even ridiculously, exaggerated.
Posted by Luigi, Monday, 13 October 2008 10:16:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

Both fixed absolute religionism and absolute atheism claim infallibility. A nonsense concept, for human ability.

Alternatively, testing the evidence based on probability of the evidence is rationale. One needs to have a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis, regardless of belief or disbelief. I do read religious material and said material, wanting.

At least, one should say on the balance of proability on one hand; yet, on the other hand ... .

Sells believes in Jesus, which is a refined idea, before he has tested for the existence of god or, why it might have benefitted the ancients to invent/assume gods. Here, facts are held to be proven, a priori, before there accuracy,and the constructs, is shown.

Luigi,

Eighty billion people have lived and died under the genus, "Homo". What would be the relationship between a person living 300,000 years ago to the alledged "substitionary ransom" of the son of a god?

If said sacrafice was perfect and had absolute conformance (engineering term) for all time, why are the churches necessary? Our churches should not needed to perform in a less perfect way that which an alledged son of a god had acheived, absolutely.

If a the Jesus event were true, why do we need churches
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 13 October 2008 12:16:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find this a little hard to swallow.

>>The concept of nothing after death is as incomprehensible to the human mind as infinity.<<

The concept of "nothing after death" is as easy to understand as that of "nothing before birth".

Think about where you were before you were born, and understand that you will be in the same place after you are dead.

Whether we like the idea, or feel comfortable with the idea, or rebel against the idea, or wish the idea were not so self-evident, is completely beside the point. It is certainly comprehensible, in the sense that we have already had the experience.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that it is a pleasant thought. Which is of course why there appears to be, in some people, a need for "deeper meaning".

Others - Dawkins included, probably - certainly recognize this as a human trait, but suggest that the "deeper meaning" should not suddenly veer away from the facts of our existence - we are born, we live, we die - into the realms of wishful thinking.

Deeper meaning is uncovered each time we see further into space, and further back in time, or when beams of protons collide.

To assume that we somehow deserve an existence outside the universe, outside time and space, is a touch arrogant, as well as a figment of our imaginations, fed by a vague feeling that "I deserve something more than this short span", plus a little bit of the fear of the unknown.

>>Challenging someone's faith is like challenging their need to have children. There is no logical justification, but will surely get a visceral response.<<

That's fair comment.

But most of the "yes it is, no it isn't" disputes on this thread arise from that use to which religion/atheism is put, rather than its existence per se.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 13 October 2008 4:44:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
beenie,

Amenhotep IV would agree with you. His monothesism predates Christianity by over 1,300 years, and, his name, Amen ~ Hotep, literally means, the Sun (God) is satisfied.

The Ancient Egyptians also gave Nicaea a model for the Christian trinity, to be later developed and ratified at the Council of Constantinople. It took a few decades but they need to Buy-Some-Time ;-).

Cheers,

Oly.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 13 October 2008 9:27:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Dawkins and his ilk fail to grasp the deep need for further meaning."

As an ilk I find tremendous meaning in the real world. It's amazing; 6 billion humans each with complex brains and behaviour beyond understanding; all the ideas and constructs those brains have created from nothing; a physical universe with physical laws we barely comprehend...it's all there. Isn't that enough?

Wysiwyg, plus interpretations. Anything more is conjecture, which is where philosophy comes in. In my view 30 000 religions is testament to dissatisfaction with reality.

Some religionists have been so unkind as to say atheists believe in nothing. I fact, they believe in everything.
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 9:01:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

Whilst the concept of nothing after death is intellectually easy to grasp, emotionally it is not.

Coming from a family where an afterlife was assumed, I had struggled with some of the contradictions between science and the teachings of the church, but never made the step to "there is no god".

Only after the death of a close friend of mine in my late teens was I forced to consider seriously what followed. The concept of nothingness was a terrifying look into a bottomless abyss.

Only after a couple of hours did I realise that my rational for an afterlife was simply because I wanted it and not because there was any evidence.

My personnal experience prevents me throwing stones at peoples religious beliefs, only at their attempts to "scientifically" prove their beliefs.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 9:03:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absolutely agree, Shadow Minister.

>>Whilst the concept of nothing after death is intellectually easy to grasp, emotionally it is not<<

Which is, of course, where the problems start.

>>Only after a couple of hours did I realise that my rational for an afterlife was simply because I wanted it and not because there was any evidence<<

Yep, that's enlightenment for you. As human beings we first look at what we want, and see the rest of the world in that light. But some of us can take a more detached view, and - while the abyss is still an emotional and scary concept - stop trying to fill that gap with our imaginations.

>>My personnal experience prevents me throwing stones at peoples religious beliefs, only at their attempts to "scientifically" prove their beliefs.<<

The only aspects of religion that puzzle me - I can very easily see why some people find it a comfort - is why religious folk put so much emphasis on i) theirs being the "right" one, and ii) insisting that others should share their belief.

It only causes problems when two competing concepts collide, when their entire basis is in the very human, very understandable, need for reassurance. A sort of permanent maternal presence "everything will be all right, my pet, mummy will look after you", but without the lousy cooking.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 10:32:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ponder

"...It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;

I am the captain of my soul."

Reap what you sow?
Posted by K£vin, Tuesday, 14 October 2008 11:36:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> "The childishness of religious belief leads to all manner of evil being done to appease some mythical father figure... WE Henley raised it in his poem "Inviticus"...'

Yeah, because anyone who takes the poem "Invictus" to heart would never commit or condone mass murder http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa1 like Moses did, right?

Oops. Might want to look further afield for a different poster boy for atheism.
Posted by Rod Blaine, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 10:05:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does religion make people nicer?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/129304.html

Only if you're being watched.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 11:23:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find this offering from Rod Blaine most fascinating.

>>Oops. Might want to look further afield for a different poster boy for atheism<<

It would appear that the "poster boy for atheism" referred to here is Timothy McVeigh, as illustrated by the Guardian article.

The connections seem to go as follows:

Ponder promotes a view on the importance of personal ethics and responsibility via a quote from W.E.Henley's poem "Inviticus".

According to the Guardian, Timothy McVeigh also used the same poem as his "final statement" to the world.

If we then accept Rod Blaine's implied association between McVeigh and atheism, we complete the cycle...

...quoting Inviticus puts you on the same level as an atheist mass murderer.

There are one or two flaws to this conclusion.

The first is that the logic is screwy.

Hitler liked Wagnerian operas. I like Wagnerian operas. Therefore you must expect me to invade Poland, at any tick of the clock.

The second is not about logic, but about the facts behind the "atheists behave like this" assumption.

Timothy McVeigh was in fact born a Catholic, and was given Catholic rites before his execution. From an interview with Time magazine:

"TIME: Are you religious?

MCVEIGH: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

TIME: Do you believe in God?

MCVEIGH: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109478,00.html

In the light of both the logical structure, and the facts at issue, where does that leave...

>>Oops. Might want to look further afield for a different poster boy for atheism<<

Swinging in the wind.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 12:57:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Pericles,

(1) If you really want to dust off the old "McVeigh was raised Catholic..." line of attack, then by the same token, Richard Dawkins and Phillip Pullman are Anglicans, and Isaac Asimov practised Judaism.

Again - oops.

(2) There's no necessary connection between liking a particular type of music (as music - maybe liking the lyrics is a different matter: see the Rev Charles Manson's admiration of the lyrics of Fr John Lennon's "Helter Skelter") and one's politics. I know devout Christians who can't stand "Christian" music, musically.

There is, however, a very big connection between a poem I select as my "anthem", and my views. You might, for example, admire GK Chesterton's works for their literary craft as poems. I doubt though you would choose one to be read out at your funeral.

(3) Even if we grant that McVeigh was a devout believing Catholic (again) at the time he was executed (yeah, cos, y'know lots of devout believing Catholics would "thanks whatever gods may be", but anyway...for the sake of argument), how does this fit with the idea that the "Invictus" idea of personal responsibility is incompatible with religious beliefs?

Oops!
Posted by Rod Blaine, Thursday, 16 October 2008 10:11:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From a historian's point of view, it seems that none of you have learnt the most important lesson of our democracies.

To never let reason be upset by religous faith.

And please to remember that such philosophy by both Thomas Aqunas and Immanuel Kant still helps to better relationships between our Christians and agnostics.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 16 October 2008 1:53:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver / bennie,

Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) was a devotee of Atenism (a minor aspect of Ra - the sun god) and his name meant spirit of Aten or such like.

I think he was as much a monopolist as a monotheist, and despite rebranding Egyptian religion into a new dominant brand - centred on himself as much as Aten - his 'more advanced' views on prohibiting idols and his god being transcendental and beyond nature are as eye opening as the monotheistic bent.

Needless to say, he wasn't much liked by his polytheist court who had their market (and power) interfered with.

Still, if I could go back to Egypt's past, then this would be a close second to Ramesses II (the great) - just love the poem Ozymandias by Shelley:

"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

A great line for all contributors to OLO to bear in mind...
Posted by Reality Check, Thursday, 16 October 2008 3:53:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice body-swerve, Rod Blaine.

>>If you really want to dust off the old "McVeigh was raised Catholic..." line of attack, then by the same token, Richard Dawkins and Phillip Pullman are Anglicans, and Isaac Asimov practised Judaism.<<

Irrelevant. Where's your admission that McVeigh was not in fact the atheist you claimed him to be. Did you forget?

>>There is, however, a very big connection between a poem I select as my "anthem", and my views.<<

Tripe. By that token, your ambit claim would include the poet too, would it not? Presumably W.E.Henley was also a closet mass murderer, and would have wrought destruction upon Victorian England, but for his tuberculosis.

>>Even if we grant that McVeigh was a devout believing Catholic<<

Oh, please. Read his remarks again. Does that sound devout and believing to you?

>>how does this fit with the idea that the "Invictus" idea of personal responsibility is incompatible with religious beliefs?<<

I'm not quite sure whose idea this is, so cannot comment.

>>Oops. Might want to look further afield for a different poster boy for atheism<<

Swinging in the wind.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 16 October 2008 6:26:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" - RC

Shelley's powerful poem was largely sourced from an inscription from the Library of Alexandria referring to Rameses II. Ozymandias is a Greek form of, Rameses.

Hacataeus of Abdera recalls;

"I am Rameses, King of Kings. Whoever wishes to know how great I am and where am to be found, let him surpass one of my works."

The daughter library, to the Ramesseum at Thebes, the Serapeum at Alexandria,was destroyed by maniac Christians, in Taliban-type style, shortly after the Council of Nicaea.

Egyptian pharoahs typically had five names including a god's. Unlike the popular literature, the god's name should come first; especially, if written, e.g., Amun Tut Angh. If memory serves, Tut was originally an Aten, but was renamed.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 18 October 2008 3:12:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The only aspects of religion that puzzle me - I can very easily see why some people find it a comfort - is why religious folk put so much emphasis on i) theirs being the "right" one, and ii) insisting that others should share their belief."

Because behaviour is familially and societally reinforced (Skinner) and, observance of the performance is act of indwelling in rites (Polanyi).

As, I think you know, I have commented in several threats on how illogical it is for Sells, to assume one Jesus Christ is a god, a priori, before testing for the existence of a god in the first place. Herein, one should confront the truth/falsehood of the prime construct, prior to the its embellishment with a more refined premiss.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 18 October 2008 3:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy