By and large the vast percentage of the population are constrained in their actions by various controls. Fear of law and loss of liberties and fear of consequence in "the after life".

I'm curious, on this website there's an ACTIVE effort by many to attempt to dismiss the "existence" of "God". Not sure what's the point; soap boxing appears to be the greatest motivator because in reality they aren't gonna make too much of a difference. Attacking people of faith only makes them harden their resolve. Anyway, not the idea I'm trying to get across.

I think it's fairly safe to assume the population of the planet with some degree of faith out numbers those without. I'm sure 95% of us in here would agree that faith was, and is, used as a form of control; especially in the dark ages, where the barbarity of those with personal political agenda of power discovered the most powerful tools of all - (many suggest Islam is still in the dark ages) -, fear. This suggests more about people, than it does about faith.

My question is, considering that societal law and consequences regarding earthly liberties barely keeps things in check, what would happen if these Atheists got their way and NO ONE had a fear of the after life?. We're talking about BILLIONS of people.

Thoughts?.

Please show some restraint and stay on topic please.

StG, I don't believe it is a fear of the afterlife as such that controls the actions of the many people of faith in our world.

Most people, of faith or not, are brought up to know right from wrong, otherwise, wouldn't we have a large proportion of crimes being committed by atheists?

Do we even have any stats on this divide between God loving criminals and atheist criminals?

When children are growing up, are all discussions about right and wrong behaviour religion based in God loving homes?

Are children of Atheists known to be unaware of what is right and wrong because their parents didn't believe in a God?
Of course not!

No, I don't believe we would have a worse behavioural problem amongst mankind if we abolished religion.
We would almost certainly have less wars though, and that would be a good thing.

Show some control? stay on subject?
Does that say think like you.
I believe in humanity.
Remember we have many Gods.
We made them all, to keep us within standards to live by.
I hesitate to remind you, just last week the head of Christianitys bigest church, the pope called for believers.
In fact his priests in Ireland to change a history of child molestation, by them.
Not all the bad comes from outside the church not all the good from within.

StG

I suggest you consider that moral and cooperative behaviour is not the province of humans. Many animal species exhibit compassion, consideration and civility to one another - so far as I know only humans have created religion as a way of enforcing moral behaviour.

Please consider the following:

<<< Morality, as we define it in our book Wild Justice, is a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate social interactions. These behaviors, including altruism, tolerance, forgiveness, reciprocity and fairness, are readily evident in the egalitarian way wolves and coyotes play with one another. Canids (animals in the dog family) follow a strict code of conduct when they play, which teaches pups the rules of social engagement that allow their societies to succeed. Play also builds trusting relationships among pack members, which enables divisions of labor, dominance hierarchies and cooperation in hunting, raising young, and defending food and territory. Because this social organization closely resembles that of early humans (as anthropologists and other experts believe it existed), studying canid play may offer a glimpse of the moral code that allowed our ancestral societies to grow and flourish. >>>

Full article at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-ethical-dog

Also take a look at the following video where buffalo battle lions to save a young calf:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

I would also ask you to understand how insulting your question is to people who follow no formal religion, but are otherwise decent, contributing members of the human race.

Thank you

Those who believe humans will only behave well with fear of an afterlife are welcome to, but there is much to argue in a more scientific or biological perspective. Aren't there natural 'incentives' to behave well?

Societies (hence individuals) function better when people collectively establish a sense of harmony, fairness and justice. It is in our collective and individual interests to do so. Human needs are best satisifed as part of a group that looks after 'the whole' both from a social perspective and a survival perspective.

Once you have children you can see the 'natural' good in human nature as well as the selfish, even in little people who have not been in the world for very long.

The fear of the after life does not seem to make religious people any less likely to commit crime. Many around the world kill in the name of their God even if the hatred festers from other causes. Many kill and blow up abortion clinics and the KKK killed innocent African Americans believing they were doing God's work. George Bush claimed it was God that willed him to invade Iraq. We can all think of examples where religious faith can turn into religious mania. On the other hand, faith may spur people to do great things in their communities.

We are all human, the only difference between Atheists and Theists is the burden of proof. What is wrong in not knowing all the answers, why can't we just live our lives well and treat people as you wish to be treated.

One of the most damaging aspects of some religions that worry me is this brainwashing idea that all humans are 'naturally' bad. This causes more damage than not IMO, and we would be better off emphasising the good rather than archaic and counterproductive notions of adamic natures and the like.

It pretty much boils down to a personal decision to dismiss or embrace the idea of a God or other object of worship. As long as a person is good I don't really care how they got there.

I wasn't intending to suggest the ONLY reason many people of faith tow the line is because of fear. I guess I was asking whether we had the ability to remove religion - obviously we don't - if that would have a flow on affect for many. For many, religion is hope when nearly all else is deleted. Without hope what have you got?. And of course I'm NOT saying Atheists aren't hopeful because I'm sure someone will take it that way, I'm talking about the religious, not Atheists.

Suzeonline,

I actually doubt there are stats that separate the two. But I stand to be corrected. And again, I'm taking shots at Atheism. I'm kinda hoping to have a reasoned discussion without people going on the defensive.

Less wars?...yeah, maybe. But I'd suggest that religion isn't responsible for wars, the people using it for their own nefarious means are.

Belly,

Again, not having a go at Atheism FFS.

Severin,

Yeah, thanks David Attenborough. Insulting?. Not sure how, but I apologise, that wasn't my intention. I'm talking about religion, not Atheism.

Pelican,

Thanks for a reasoned discussion. I wouldn't suggest Atheists are more responsible for crime than people of faith. everyone ahs taken it that way and that wasn't my intention. Obviously my fault for not explaining myself. It's well known here I'm Christian, so a discussion like this obviously is coming across as a shot. It's not, I'm just whether ridding society of religion would have a negative impact.

Agreed with your last sentence very much.

My question is, considering that societal law and consequences regarding earthly liberties barely keeps things in check, what would happen if these Atheists got their way and NO ONE had a fear of the after life?. We're talking about BILLIONS of people. [Stg]

I have come across a few Atheists during my life [people who proclaim to be Atheists/Non believers]. Interestingly, all were people who seemed to me 'kinder' and more 'giving people' to the community as opposed to the many catholics I grew up around and know now. These atheists are more conscious of being law abiding also Stg.

Loving nature and treating people with respect was one athiest woman's philosophy through life, and she stated, these were her golden rules.

In summary, my response to your question Stg is that the world or our country would not be in a worse situation if every person did not believe and/or did not possess a fear in the after-life.

To some my post will look strange and confronting.
But I do believe if real hard core evidence exists that no God exists, world governments would not release it.
While convinced of the basic goodness in most reildgions I give the credit, and the blame to man for actions of all of them.
Doubt thrown on evolution, some times denial of evidence that can not be denied, is a symptom of fears some have that humanity still needs its crutches.
Maybe some do, even I have expressed thoughts of something not known to us, not however a God, but maybe a wish to believe in something other than a God.
This debate must confront the host of Gods, every one of them, remember to those who follow each of them, ours is false.
For the sake of the debate we must include every human remember God or no Gods we like to say all humans are equal

I can only speak for myself- an atheist raised by atheists- that I probably hold myself to much, much higher moral standards than most theists do- and unlike many theists, I don't make it a personal crusade to 'correct' anyone or force them to behave in a way more pleasing to myself.

In short, I gravely doubt religion goes anywhere NEAR as far as many claim into improving morals.

Wouldn't you recon people that are brainwashed into believing in something that is immaterial, would keep it to them self. Probably 7 day adventists, roaming the streets with kids.
They wouldn't even get buried like other normal people.
Keep ya beliefs of the imagination to your self.

StG: "My question is, considering that societal law and consequences regarding earthly liberties barely keeps things in check, what would happen if these Atheists got their way and NO ONE had a fear of the after life?"

It seems to me the almost near certain threat of being sent to jail for your unsocial actions is likely to have much more impact that same vague threat of what happens many years into the future, when you are dead. That neatly dovetails with the observation that countries with efficient police forces such as Australia and Japan are also have the least crime.

Interestingly, countries that do have strong, reliable and fair systems of justice also tend to be the most secular. The Brits, the Scandinavians, the Swiss are all secular. In countries that don't, such are Afghanistan, Uganda, and so on, religion thrives. Maybe, as you say StG, where government can't fill the need for encouraging good behaviour, religion does a similar job.

Nonetheless, we are left with the correlation, based on crime and corruption rates, that secular societies do a much better job of getting everyone to behave civilly than religion does.

I think that answers your question.

StG

Your sarcasm is duly noted - particularly as it reveals a complete lack of understanding of my post.

I used the examples of animal cooperation to illustrate that moral behaviour is not confined to humans and therefore religion is not the only contributor to civil behaviour - as other posters have demonstrated, far from it.

As for finding you question offensive, within it lies the implication that non-religious are somehow unable to behave ethically without the threat of eternal damnation to goad us into being good. That you have since modified your stance to acknowledge that atheists can and do behave ethically and conversely that religious can behave very badly indeed, is commendable.

All of which leads me to ask what is the point of your original question? Both religious and non-religious can behave badly or with the greatest of altruism and courage. Hence your question is entirely moot.

"Obedience that is based on fear of punishment, this-worldly or otherworldly, is not really goodness, it is merely cowardice."

I feel sorry for you godbotherers living your lives in fear.
I dont commit crimes, hurt other people or lie and be dishonest because I am fearful of consequences but because I think that honesty, caring, empathy and courtesy are the best way to live and progress society. I actually really believe in "do unto others" and other like platitudes spouted by the faithful. Spouted mindlessly and vacuously while at the same time they practice their bigotry, intolerance and viciousness towards those they see as sinners, heathens, apostates and unbelievers.

I think you may be guilty of too-narrow thinking here, StG. You focus on one specific aspect of religion - concern over death - at the expense of a broader view of why people might be religious.

My own current favourite theory is that religion is an evolutionary trait that so far, has been beneficial to communities.

Dr David Wilson of Binghamton University in New York sees a kind of "group benefit" to the cohesion that religious observance provides.

He notes also that it is the least secure societies that tend to be most fundamentalist - regardless of the religion in question. He suggests this is to be expected where sticking to the rules is a critical component of the security earned from membership of the group.

There is also compelling research that highlights the evolutionary benefit, at an individual level, of rigid conformance to a set of rules, for example, around reproduction. Jason Slone of Webster University in St Louis discerns that people guided by religion can be viewed as more likely to provide stable parenting than those who are not. (Note, it is only the perception that matters here!)

Your question, which boils down to "is society better off with or without a fear of the afterlife", is only one small corner of the discussion.

As such, it can also lead to some strange conclusions.

Does the very existence of an afterlife (with or without those 72 virgins) promote good behaviour in the über-devout Islamist? Or is it a dangerous distraction from the act of living a full and blameless life?

And, fascinating though the topic is, I do object somewhat to your views on atheism.

>>what would happen if these Atheists got their way and NO ONE had a fear of the after life<<

"If Atheists got their way?"

This atheist, for one, couldn't give a flying fig whether you fear an afterlife or not. I reached my views without the aid of propaganda or group-think, and I confidently expect, as the evolutionary benefit reduces, future generations will do the same.

In the meantime, enjoy your fear.

Dear StG,

I believe we've got a conscience for a reason.
And, as I've written in the past - I try to
follow my conscience, demand meaning and relevance
from my Church, and I won't permit my God to be
reduced to empty ritual and all-absorbing law.
I'm a Catholic - but probably not a very good one.
I try not to judge people - be they religious
or not. My philosophy is - "Live and let live!"
As long as you're not hurting anyone...
And I certainly wouldn't dream of trying to
convert anyone. I think faith and belief is such
a private matter.

I think what's important is the content of our hearts
and minds (or what's often described as character).
If we respect each other, and have a good sense of
fair play - chances are we're decent human beings.

I don't fear hell because I can't fathom it.
I don't seek heaven because it doesn't offer an
image I can grasp. I simply struggle along
my life's path.

Religion in all it's forms is just is a manifestation of a fear of death. Under all the window-dressing, dogma and ritual, it's really nothing more than that. Without the chance of a big payoff at the end, there's simply no point.

Good and bad deeds are decided on the basis of "what's in it for me", not some higher moral purpose.

The day an athiest straps a bomb to himself and blows up innocent people while waving a copy of Darwin's "Origin of Species" is the day I'll care about what bigots - religious or otherwise - believe.

Very easy to see the result of those who believe in their own self righteousness (ie million s of murdered unborn children). No wonder God puts limits on the depravity of mankind. Just seeing the fruit of god deniers should be enough to convince anyone who can think of the stupidity of denying their Creator. And oh yes they always have a pathetic excuse to justify their actions.

Dear runner,

How will your God judge your comments in the
previous post?

"Judge not ...."

and

"Love thy neighbour..."

"Do unto others..."

Shouldn't you be practicing - what is being preached?

<<Shouldn't you be practicing - what is being preached? >>
That would be a first.

Thanks runner for proving the soundness of the final comments in my last post. Here was me thinking maybe I was a bit harsh.

Foxy
Murdering the unborn is hardly "Love thy neighbour...". It really is barbaric.

Maybe I am wrong STG if I am forgive me.
Your posts on this subject while very much more anchored to reality than say runners are heated, barbed, warlike to those who do not believe.
You must not take away a persons goodness because they do not believe in fables.
runner, yet again I find you strange, like others here you hide behind God, yet if he/she existed I have no doubt you would be first in the fire.

Right-to-Life is really just Right-To-Birth because once they are born they are qualified to be treated the same way as everybody else, whether bombed, starved or stuffed into Gas Ovens - by all those God-Fearing nations throughout history.

The other difference is that those who promote it suffer no consequences of their own either way, but they do get to feel better about themselves.

I actually explained what I meant as clear as I can there Belly, if you STILL can't comprehend that that was NOT what I was saying then the fault lays squarely in your own head.

I. Am. Not. Saying. People. Without. Faith. Are. Fundamentally. Bad.

FK me man, want me to draw you pictures or what?. My questions related to religion and the religious, my intention had ZERO to do with Atheism excluding their wish to rid the world of religion.

WOULD THERE BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SOCIETY IF RELIGION WAS ABOLISHED?.

As for fables, science doesn't even know how lightening works, archaeology is guess work where no one in the field agrees with each other and Darwinism is only decades old. Please, get some points on the board before you start condemning and vilifying others.

Dear runner,

It isn't up to you to judge.

"Judge not, lest thee be judged..."

"He who's without sin throw the first stone..."

et cetera...

Sorry, thanks Foxy, that's pretty much how I take it all too.

Foxy

The point I am making is that those who don't have a healthy fear of God are more likely to be able to commit heinous deeds because they are foolish enough not to listen to their conscience. They are silly enough to convince themselves that they won't have to face their Maker one day. When you can't even admit that killing the unborn is murder it just shows how blind and hard hearted people can be.

Most of society have no problem condemning child abuse. This is not possible without making a judgement that it is vile. By your understanding we should not judge this vile act.

Despite the way you and Belly judge my motives I would much prefer to see you, Belly and all people finding forgiveness rather than judgement for your sin.

The problem for many is that they can't find forgiveness because they can't even admit fornication, lying, abortion or adultery is even wrong.

I must say you have a poor understanding of Jesus words that you quote.

I would like to question your question a little, StG.

>>on this website there's an ACTIVE effort by many to attempt to dismiss the "existence" of "God"<<

True. But that doesn't necessarily mean they wish to deny others the right to believe.

Apart from a few blowhards who make a living out of controversy, I am hard pressed to think of any atheist who wishes to "rid the world of religion".

All the atheists of my acquaintance recognize the importance that religious people place in their faith. Where we express concern is primarily when religion creates hatred.

Usually towards another religion.

At that point we occasionally suggest politely that the world would be a safer place without it.

But to return to your question, but without the baggage of what atheists may or may not wish.

A world without religion is quite difficult to envisage, given its long history, and the high percentage of people with a religious bent. Nevertheless, in order to get an idea of what life would be like in a fully atheist world, it might be instructive to look - not at the end result on its own - but the journey society would take in order to get there.

Which would be, quite simply, through a process of individual, rather than collective, decisions. Given that religion - as you point out - thrives in adversity, a "thou shalt not" command would not have the slightest effect.

But, as people decide, on an individual basis, that they are perfectly able to behave themselves without the threat of hellfire, the world will gradually leave those belief systems behind. The natural requirements for a society to be cohesive will ensure that villains continue to be punished, and goodness rewarded.

It may well reach a tipping-point along the way, where religion itself is seen as a residual threat to social harmony - but again, this is most likely to take the form where religions fight amongst themselves and with each other, as they have always done.

I won't see the final outcome myself. But it will happen.

Runner

Actions are more important than beliefs.

Your words are meaningless and you do not care one jot for Foxy or Belly's well-being if you believe they would spend eternity in hell simply for not holding the same beliefs as you.

StG

Consider the following, please:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpJ8PGT2yY&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=4C9012DF955634EA

Severin, you write

'Your words are meaningless and you do not care one jot for Foxy or Belly's well-being if you believe they would spend eternity in hell simply for not holding the same beliefs as you.'

Your thinking is the wrong way around. If I knew a building was about to burn down and said or did nothing about it I would be liable for the people killed. If I cared nothing about the people I would shut up.

Your video as usual tries to paint God as the evil One and humans as the victim. The fact that God did do something by sending His Son to die for your corruption and my corruption shows His love and mercy. You have the opportunity to respond to the greatest act of love in history or remain in self denial and your own self righteousness and reject God's mercy.

You cannot separate actions from belief. The killing of the unborn in masses has come about by stinking beliefs (what we are killing in not a person). A persons beliefs nearly always ends in actions in line with your beliefs. If you believe you have a responsibility to the poor then you will act. If you believe that pornography is okay then you will watch it. People over a period of time nearly always act out their beliefs.

Dear runner,

I don't make assumptions about other people -
and I certainly don't think that my way is
the right way and that people who think
differently to me or disagree with me are
bad. Your inability to analyze things perplexes
me - as does your inability to be tolerant,
compassionate, and understanding - to love
your neighbour as yourself. You accuse me of
all sorts of things yet you don't know me.

You condemn people that (like me) - people you
don't even know. It isn't your job to condemn -
for God condemns no one. He heals through
forgiveness and asks that you do likewise.

You tell me that I know nothing of the teachings
that I quoted to you - it seems to me that you're
the one who lacks understanding.

People find their God in "Church" or "Abraham" or
"Personal honesty." But no one has the right to say
that he has defined and comprehended God, nor that any
other person was certainly without God's forgiving love.

God has no boundaries, and His love cannot be limited by
the blindness or egotism of frightened men - such as
yourself.

Pericles,

It's a hypothetical. I've got some good mates who are Atheist and neither they, nor I, give a s*%t about each other's personal feelings on the "greater scheme of things". Sure, it get's discussed on occasion but generally it 'live and let live'. There is a few on here that would like to see it gone. 'Fables' was brought up already.

Thanks for you thoughts on the rest. The way I see it is that it would happen two ways. One way would be by force, by making worship illegal and punishing people for worshipping. I believe that has been tried throughout history by various people for little or no success. 'Wanton slaughter' would probably sum that way of doing it up. The second would be by choice. Some event or understanding that makes people let faith go. Chances are the transition would be fairly smooth for the population, different story for the Vatican et al, you'd assume.

What's an Atheist called if religion doesn't exist?. Just curious.

Severin,

That's insulting and rude. Don't bother aiming comments in my direction again thanks.

Runner,

STFU mate. You're a hypocrite and rude....and a nutter.

StG,

So, if "god" didn't forbid it, all those religionists would be unable to work out basic rules of interaction? The *only* reason runner doesn't murder daily is "god said so"? The *only* reason runner doesn't walk about hitting people randomly, or stealing, is "god said so"?.

What lousy people your world contains. Once normal kids learn that others will hit back, ethics starts to emerge without any special input. *Even* monkeys (goodness me, chooks!) get it.

If certain subtypes can't learn from experience, and then apply those first principles, maybe they are constitutionally unfit to hold positions of responsibility, thereby protecting the billions.

Rusty

StG
I think there are a number of issues intertwined.

Belief in the afterlife is probably pretty minimal as a constraint on behaviour.

The best example I met in real life was a Balinese girl who asked her boyfriend why he had cheated on her. "I didn't!" he protested.

"Then swear to it." she said.

"No." he said.

Now *that's* fear of the afterlife, and of course it was that fear in traditional western society that gave rise to the use of oaths in court proceedings. (Anyone who doesn't believe in negative consequences in the afterlife as punishment for false statements should solemnly affirm, not swear.)

But I think what you are driving at is, without religion, would not people be more morally unconstrained? Of course the religious have long argued that religion is the necessary basis for morality. But religion is no more a necessary basis for morality, for caring about the misfortunes of others, for helping the poor, the sick, the aged, the oppressed and so on, than it is a necessary basis for having a sense of awe at the beauty of nature. From an atheist point of view, there is simply no reason to bring "God" into the equation, than there is to bring the invisible pink unicorn, or the magic teapot into the equation. Contrary to theist belief, sympathy for our fellow creatures does not arise from "God" but is part of human nature and culture. We can and do value these moral sentiments directly in their own right.

Without religion it may be harder for people to have hope, but that is not any reason to believe religion is true. There is no reason or evidence for believing that a supernatural all-powerful personal creator mentioned has anything to do with the origin of the universe, of species, or of morality; and it is an intellectual vice to reason backwards from the desirability of his supposed existence to conclusions of fact.

Runner if you feel so strongly about the baby issue, you should really commence a thread as your platform, and be brave seeking comments from OLO posters on that issue as STG bravely sought comments on his query/thread.

STG actually composed his question correctly and explained his reasons for doing so.

Great topic STG and should have posted after I had read twice. Should have given it more thought of the consequences too.

For example, those who follow religion zealously: who and what would they latch onto if religion were abolished. [not talking Christians of the non-religious variety btw].

Strike! Can one imagine? Who would the fanatical religious dictate to and about what issue? Who would some of them judge? What tools would they use to 'judge' and crucify another's disposition lifestyle and life choices? How would they live their lives?

Runner: you would be 'shocked' out of your socks if you interviewed 5,000 or 10,000 catholic, anglican, methodist, presbyterian, orthodox, 'religious' men and women from any era within Australia on questions relating to any of God's commandments. Just as they would be shocked replaying your life's sins for each year.

Abortion is not a black and white issue. I do not agree with it, however understand and sympathise with girls and women in certain situations that need, for sanity and health reasons, to progress.

One can never condemn girls and women on this issue as there are individual reasons regarding this act [it is their business and God's business and not yours to generalise, judge nor condemn]

StG

I apologise if you were offended by the depiction of god in the video. However, that is the god I encountered in my bible studies as a child - irrational, vindictive and egotistical - not a god of love. Whenever love is mentioned in the bible it is always demanded by god and never earned.

Finally (even among the religious), there is no consensus on the existence of an afterlife, the fear of eternal damnation only works for a few - and what a way to prevent harm of others?

The majority of humans have a conscience, for example I feel bad for upsetting you, however I would be personally dishonest to pretend that I saw the god of the bible as anything other than a bully. Therefore, I am sorry for upsetting you, but not for expressing my honest opinion - which is what OLO is about.

That's usually in a particular context, StG.

>>There is a few on here that would like to see it gone. 'Fables' was brought up already.<<

It is predominantly a reflex action. When the religious folk posting here quote from their scripture in order to justify their stance on an issue, atheists tend to react by suggesting that they are relying upon a bunch of stories, as opposed to strictly factual occurrences.

Hence "fables".

To understand this, you need to recognize that to an atheist, the Bible is as reliable a source, on issues of fact, as the Harry Potter stories. They will, generally speaking, accept that the parables and morality tales are more or less appropriate for human consumption. But again, in much the same way as we can "learn" from the trials and tribulations of a fictitious child wizard.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that this indicates a general desire to see the end of religion.

>>The way I see it is that it would happen two ways. One way would be by force, by making worship illegal and punishing people for worshipping.<<

That is exactly how I see it NOT happening. Trying to deny someone else the right to believe what they believe, by force, is like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasolene on it.

If we haven't learned that by now. then I suspect we never will. We are surrounded by recent, vivid examples, mostly in the animosity between Christianity and Islam, that underline the reality that religious beliefs will never be eliminated by coercion of any kind.

>>The second would be by choice. Some event or understanding that makes people let faith go.<<

Agreed. But I strongly believe that will be a personal choice, and not a collective one.

>>What's an Atheist called if religion doesn't exist?. Just curious.<<

"Atheist" will simply become a historical term, along with "Christian", "Muslim", "Hindu" etc.

Much as we don't refer to people as "serfs" any longer. It no longer refers to feudalism, instead is used figuratively, rather than literally.

Foxy

you write
'You condemn people that (like me) - people you
don't even know. It isn't your job to condemn -
for God condemns no one. He heals through
forgiveness and asks that you do likewise.'

I have never seen you as any better or any worse than any other human including myself. I think you know that. The point is that all humans are born into sin as is obvious by their actions. People who don't fear the consequences of their actions are far more likely to commit crime of all sorts than those knowing they will be held accountable.

Every person on earth has fear. Faith actually overcomes that fear. Whether people fear the death of a love one, the irrationality of gw or not having enough money to pay the bills. A healthy fear of God reduces all other fears. Usually people who say they have no fear are in deniable. It seems one of biggest fears would be Tony Abbott as PM (joke intended).

My view of you is as every other human. Like me I see you as a sinner in great need of grace. It seems that only the self righteous are in denial. This message has and will always be offensive to those who are secure in their own self righteousness

Dear runner,

self righteous?

No!

I don't look at other people as "sinners."

I also don't feel obligated to believe that
the same God who has endowed us with sense,
reason and intellect has intended us to forego
their use.

Pericles,

I didn't "quote from scripture" when Belly brought up 'fables'. 'Harry Potter', you actually want me to take that seriously?. Stopped reading there.

we are unique,

Thanks for taking the time to comprehend and consider my question. It's very much appreciated.

Peter Hume,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Severin,

'God', to me, isn't some crochety old bloke with a cane and beard who wears his undies on the outside and a cape. To me, that's ridiculous, and that's why I take take those thought processes seriously.

God doesn't allow man to kill each other, man is responsible own his own. Did God allow my partner to have Cystic Fibrosis to punish her?. Of course not, CF is a genetic disease, her genes make her terminal. Does God allow children to be hurt by predators?. No, that's man's doing. To me, God welcomes them home when we lose them. To me, God knows what's in a our hearts no matter our sexual orientation or mistakes - as the "Christian" idea of sin was mentioned in your vid - and judges us on our soul. If I lead a good life and make the best decisions I can based on respect for others then surely I'll get a place in this heaven?. IF not, I tried, and I can only be me. At least I felt I was a good person and lived my life accordingly. ISn't that the main thing regardless of personal beliefs?.

Just because I identify myself as a Christian that doesn't give you, or others, an opening to ridicule and vilify me based on your own misconceptions, assumptions, ignorance, and personal agenda.

I haven't, and would never, do it to any of you guys, so why is it alright for you guys to do it to me?.

StG

Nowhere have I personally vilified you. However, I do not share your belief in god and, if I am to be honest to myself, I will present reasons why, be they in the form of humour or serious discussion. On your thread I have done both.

I don't believe that if I live a decent life I will go to heaven (which sounds dead boring) I simply won't 'be' any more. Therefore, I am trying to live as best as I can with what abilities I have during the short span of time I have here on earth. Occasionally, I am proud to say I have made positive difference to some other lives, that I can look back and see where I have erred and where I have succeeded is enough - I don't need the promise of a reward. Most atheists and agnostics would say much the same thing.

PS

I appreciate your honesty regarding your partner and that you don't expect god to intervene.

Thank you.

"I appreciate your honesty regarding your partner and that you don't expect god to intervene."

Why would I, that's retarded. Isn't it only like the 7th Day and Mormons that do that?. One could lay a better argument that God gave the doctors the ability to help. Do you think they use band aids or dentists?.

And no, thank YOU.

No indeed, StG

I have been thinking that your idea of god differs greatly from, say, Runner's who believes in the more literal vengeful variety. I would also put to you that no-one, if a superior deity exists, can know the mind of god. What you believe is what you believe, what Runner believes is what he thinks is correct, what Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, other Christian sects (for example Unitarians) are all very different and may or may not include a singular deity at all - let alone a belief in heaven...

"Heaven" being the beginning of your topic here - that how do people behave decently to each other without the 'reward' of everlasting life in heaven?

Many people can and do behave very compassionately to one another without the idea of reward or punishment.

People like runner give me the shtz more than militant Atheists do. Gross generalisations of Christianity is annoying because someone assumes they know what you believe, how you think, and how you feel which is obviously impossible but here comes someone like runner living up to that idea people have. Unfortunately because of the nature of his beliefs he is obliged to be the most vocal.

I was trying to question if faith was taken away. Not that people without faith are bad. OBVIOUSLY most people without faith live compassionately. I never suggested they weren't, or don't. I was talking about what would be the consequence to those with faith having it taken away.

StG

If you didn't have faith in religion, you would be just like the rest of us atheists and agnostics. You would still feel spiritual if that is what you are concerned about. Particularly when out in bushland or under the stars I get the feeling of being part of something great - I just don't label it "god" nor do I require reading formal religion for guidance - I can ask myself whether I am doing right or wrong. Sometimes I make mistakes and feel remorse, sometimes I make a real difference and feel alive.

The world wouldn't fall into chaos and anarchy if religion was no more.

That's subtly different, StG.

>>I was talking about what would be the consequence to those with faith having it taken away<<

I thought you were considering a world that voluntarily determined to live without religion, not one that has it "taken away".

In fact, I'm not at all sure that you can actually "take away" someone's faith.

I'd go to the opposite extreme, and say that all the evidence that we have to date, points to the absolute impossibility of "taking it away".

Even if the entire world (except for you) came to accept that there is no God, why should that make a difference to you? Choosing to maintain your faith remains absolutely your right, nobody could actually "take it away", without your absolute consent.

Mind you, I don't think you would be looking around at a world that had changed a great deal, in terms of the way people treat each other.

Except, of course, there would be no longer be any reason to fight over which religion is "right".

Severin,

You and me aren't really that different. We just call the same things something else.

Pericles,

My religion is right ... for me. Good luck to yourself and everyone else in what gives you comfort.

StG,
>>You and me aren't really that different. We just call the same things something else<<
Well put.

The “good old lady”, the TV-technician and the professor of electronics can all enjoy (or not) the same TV program. The difference is that the good lady does not care how and from what source the program is transmitted to her, the professor knows all about Maxwell’s equations etc, the technician is somewhere in-between. Do you find this metaphor relevant?

Sure, why not.

StG

<<< You and me aren't really that different. We just call the same things something else. >>>

Cool.

:-)

I'm not so sure, StG.

>>Severin, You and me aren't really that different.<<

Here's a fairly significant difference, I would have thought, from the same post.

>>My religion is right ... for me. Good luck to yourself and everyone else in what gives you comfort.<<

It's the phrase "what gives you comfort" that provides the clue.

I am aware that religion "gives people comfort", but curious as to what it gives them comfort from.

Why should one look for comfort? Why is it necessary to be comfortable?

To answer my own question somewhat, I suppose the fact that we are a cosmic anomaly, a freak accidental combination of factors that enabled life to form, develop and become self-aware, can be a distinctly uncomfortable thought. Which can explain to some extent why many people invent a "maker", and invest that "maker" with a "purpose".

This belief provides comfort to StG. Possibly, at an individual level, to avoid having to contemplate the vast emptiness that surrounds us.

But it needs to be said that at a societal level, it doesn't work quite so well. Thanks, mainly, to all the different conceptualizations of the "maker" and his "purpose".

Those differences cause, I would suggest, substantial discomfort, to many.

That's quite a big difference.

Pericles

I think you are being very pedantic.

The sense of being, the feeling of life that I experience when looking at the universe or sitting quietly in a forest (even though I am a minute collection of atoms), I still feel a part of an extraordinary immensity. That I don't think it is a result of some sky-daddy, is something only the fundamentalist religious has difficulty with, StG has shown he can relate to what I have said - even though he has been offended by some of my POV's. If formal religion gives StG succour then so be it. My comfort is in just the simple fact of 'life, the universe and everything'.

Each to their own, the most important thing is communication. To that end, this thread has been successful.