Agnosticism on the rise in the US

[The Overlord]

More Americans say they have no religion


And I proudly count myself among thier ranks.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_re/rel_religious_america

A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out o of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.

"No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," the study's authors said.

In the Northeast, self-identified Catholics made up 36 percent of adults last year, down from 43 percent in 1990. At the same time, however, Catholics grew to about one-third of the adult population in California and Texas, and one-quarter of Floridians, largely due to Latino immigration, according to the research.

Nationally, Catholics remain the largest religious group, with 57 million people saying they belong to the church. The tradition gained 11 million followers since 1990, but its share of the population fell by about a percentage point to 25 percent.

Christians who aren't Catholic also are a declining segment of the country.

In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, largely explains the shift. Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population.

The report from The Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., surveyed 54,461 adults in English or Spanish from February through November of last year. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.5 percentage points. The findings are part of a series of studies on American religion by the program that will later look more closely at reasons behind the trends.

The current survey, being released Monday, found traditional organized religion playing less of a role in many lives. Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious wedding ceremony and 27 percent of respondents said they did not want a religious funeral.

About 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power but not the personal God at the core of monotheistic faiths. And, since 1990, a slightly greater share of respondents — 1.2 percent — said they were part of new religious movements, including Scientology, Wicca and Santeria.

The study also found signs of a growing influence of churches that either don't belong to a denomination or play down their membership in a religious group.

Respondents who called themselves "non-denominational Christian" grew from 0.1 percent in 1990 to 3.5 percent last year. Congregations that most often use the term are megachurches considered "seeker sensitive." They use rock style music and less structured prayer to attract people who don't usually attend church. Researchers also found a small increase in those who prefer being called evangelical or born-again, rather than claim membership in a denomination.

Evangelical or born-again Americans make up 34 percent of all American adults and 45 percent of all Christians and Catholics, the study found. Researchers found that 18 percent of Catholics consider themselves born-again or evangelical, and nearly 39 percent of mainline Protestants prefer those labels. Many mainline Protestant groups are riven by conflict over how they should interpret what the Bible says about gay relationships, salvation and other issues.

The percentage of Pentecostals remained mostly steady since 1990 at 3.5 percent, a surprising finding considering the dramatic spread of the tradition worldwide. Pentecostals are known for a spirited form of Christianity that includes speaking in tongues and a belief in modern-day miracles.

Mormon numbers also held steady over the period at 1.4 percent of the population, while the number of Jews who described themselves as religiously observant continued to drop, from 1.8 percent in 1990 to 1.2 percent, or 2.7 million people, last year. Researchers plan a broader survey on people who consider themselves culturally Jewish but aren't religious.

The study found that the percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Muslim grew to 0.6 percent of the population, while growth in Eastern religions such as Buddhism slightly slowed.

[Inkidu]

Okay. That still leaves 88% of people who believe in religion.

[Nessy]

Actually if you follow article to the source of the data, 1.6% of American's call themselves atheist or agnostic, the researches bumped it up to 12% because their stated belief's indicates they are aetheist or agnostic but that could also mean there were errors in how some questions were formed.

The methodology, however, leaves a lot to be desired. Respondents were only questioned in English or Spanish which in itself could exclude what they call "Eastern Religions", but at least they followed up with a cell phone survey which is more likely to capture the younger demographic that often gets left out of landline only surveys. I've also never been a fan of open-ended questions in surveys. It's messy to try and narrow it down, quantify such a variance in response. They also asked a question about a belief in God or a personal God, when they could have used a more neutral word for that, like deity, or include references from other religions.

There are some interesting contrasts between males and females in the study. Overall, not a horrible attempt to quantify a change, thankfully the information doesn't look subjective so people are going to take from it whatever they want to take from it.

[Inkidu]

Actually if you follow article to the source of the data, 1.6% of American's call themselves atheist or agnostic, the researches bumped it up to 12% because their stated belief's indicates they are aetheist or agnostic but that could also mean there were errors in how some questions were formed.

The methodology, however, leaves a lot to be desired. Respondents were only questioned in English or Spanish which in itself could exclude what they call "Eastern Religions", but at least they followed up with a cell phone survey which is more likely to capture the younger demographic that often gets left out of landline only surveys. I've also never been a fan of open-ended questions in surveys. It's messy to try and narrow it down, quantify such a variance in response. They also asked a question about a belief in God or a personal God, when they could have used a more neutral word for that, like deity, or include references from other religions.

There are some interesting contrasts between males and females in the study. Overall, not a horrible attempt to quantify a change, thankfully the information doesn't look subjective so people are going to take from it whatever they want to take from it.

There are three kinds of falsehoods. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. --Mark Twain.

Statistics are meant to be skewed to support whatever the person wants. I'm sure the number is actually higher.

[Nessy]

There are three kinds of falsehoods. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. --Mark Twain.

Statistics are meant to be skewed to support whatever the person wants. I'm sure the number is actually higher.

Yeah I know. The whole argument behind how the tobacco industry used numbers to prove their products don't kill and all. What I am saying is on the surface, the methodology looks all right although I think some of the questions might be written in a way to skew answers given. As for religion, I really don't care what religion someone else is, or if they have a lack of religion as long as they don't shove it in my face.

[Apple of Eris]

I saw this survey thing in USA Today like two weeks ago. I still say now what I said then. I think I want to move to Vermont. Less religious AND a socialist senator? I think I'm in love.

[The Overlord]

Yeah I know. The whole argument behind how the tobacco industry used numbers to prove their products don't kill and all. What I am saying is on the surface, the methodology looks all right although I think some of the questions might be written in a way to skew answers given. As for religion, I really don't care what religion someone else is, or if they have a lack of religion as long as they don't shove it in my face.

Pretty much where I stand, but I'm glad to see the statistics if they're reliable, because it means more people are finding cause to think for themselves. You pretty much forgo that right with much of organized religion.

[Nessy]

Pretty much where I stand, but I'm glad to see the statistics if they're reliable, because it means more people are finding cause to think for themselves. You pretty much forgo that right with much of organized religion.

That's a pretty big and inaccurate blanket statement to make about people and religion. That would be akin to claiming that atheists are just a bunch of self-centered individuals who care about the here and now and nothing else. It just isn't true. I've yet to encounter an organized religion, outside of a cult, where ever most members think the same.

[The Overlord]

That's a pretty big and inaccurate blanket statement to make about people and religion. That would be akin to claiming that atheists are just a bunch of self-centered individuals who care about the here and now and nothing else. It just isn't true. I've yet to encounter an organized religion, outside of a cult, where ever most members think the same.

So then you're telling me organized religion doesn't toot its own horn on 'explaining' the big issues like life, the universe, and everything? Funny, I must have seen different churches in my time….

[Cecily]

So then you're telling me organized religion doesn't toot its own horn on 'explaining' the big issues like life, the universe, and everything? Funny, I must have seen different churches in my time….

Organized religion may explain the big issues of life for some people, but that does not mean that all religious people don't think for themselves just because they're religious. I'm sure some religious fanatics barely think for themselves, but not everyone who is religious is a fanatic, obviously.

[Inkidu]

So then you're telling me organized religion doesn't toot its own horn on 'explaining' the big issues like life, the universe, and everything? Funny, I must have seen different churches in my time….

Huh? Kind of like atheists but their ending is really anticlimactic because there's nothing there. Real letdown.

[Nessy]

So then you're telling me organized religion doesn't toot its own horn on 'explaining' the big issues like life, the universe, and everything? Funny, I must have seen different churches in my time….

Yep I am. You are trying to over generalize the way people with a religion (still a vast majority in this country) think and act and what they believe based on what religion they have. At it's core, there might be similarities but even with those similarities, beliefs vary wildly just looks a Catholism. You'll have people believing in Women's Rights and Choice AND people against any form of abortion AND people against some forms of abortion possibly in the same congregation. Just because a figurehead of the church (the Pope) says something doesn't automatically mean that every catholic in the world is going to believe it, they don't.  I chose abortion because when the economy isn't unstable, it is an issue that frequently comes up that can divide households and I picked Catholics because that particular denomination is a little more visual than others... that's the only reason they were picked.

People don't suddenly all think alike just to make it easier to group them into a category and then dismiss that category all together. You don't like religion, fine, don't like religion but don't try to paint the world with your limited experiences in some churches.

[The Overlord]

Don't talk to me about limited, I've been around my share. Either you chose to believe Genesis is real or you've wised up and gotten with science. Between the two of them science is never really comfortable with the answers for too long. Theories get revised, we learn something else, and they don't refer to some moldy old book that's quoting 6,000 year-old science at best.

Comes down to ethics too; a lot of the ethical codes in religion is meant to control how people think, it's not really about right vs. wrong unless it's someone way up high giving their version of it.

Good for those who believe in women's rights for example and do their thing. My point is, even if it's not eating meat on Fridays during Lent, to a certain degree you're relinquishing your free will and letting someone else do the thinking for you.

Don't get mad at me for just stating the obvious. As they say, if you can't stand the heat then stay the hell out of the kitchen. As for atheists, they're a whole other ball of wax...

[Inkidu]

Don't talk to me about limited, I've been around my share. Either you chose to believe Genesis is real or you've wised up and gotten with science. Between the two of them science is never really comfortable with the answers for too long. Theories get revised, we learn something else, and they don't refer to some moldy old book that's quoting 6,000 year-old science at best.

Comes down to ethics too; a lot of the ethical codes in religion is meant to control how people think, it's not really about right vs. wrong unless it's someone way up high giving their version of it.

Good for those who believe in women's rights for example and do their thing. My point is, even if it's not eating meat on Fridays during Lent, to a certain degree you're relinquishing your free will and letting someone else do the thinking for you.

Don't get mad at me for just stating the obvious. As they say, if you can't stand the heat then stay the hell out of the kitchen. As for atheists, they're a whole other ball of wax...

And science is ethical? Hardly. Religion didn't give us the bow, the gun, the cannon, the atomic bomb, dynamite, the neutron bomb, viral warfare capabilities, science has produced two bad things to every good thing. Science is too objective, it has no moral spine to keep it in check. The only thing keeping the next holocaust is the amount of money it takes to produce. I'd rather not leave my life in te hands of greed. Science is just the next big religion. You have to believe in it just like everything else. It's just a little easier. I choose to take the moral highroad.

Adage: The difference between a moral person and an ethical person. Both know right from wrong, the moral person chooses not to do the latter.

[Nessy]

Don't talk to me about limited, I've been around my share. Either you chose to believe Genesis is real or you've wised up and gotten with science. Between the two of them science is never really comfortable with the answers for too long. Theories get revised, we learn something else, and they don't refer to some moldy old book that's quoting 6,000 year-old science at best.

Comes down to ethics too; a lot of the ethical codes in religion is meant to control how people think, it's not really about right vs. wrong unless it's someone way up high giving their version of it.

Good for those who believe in women's rights for example and do their thing. My point is, even if it's not eating meat on Fridays during Lent, to a certain degree you're relinquishing your free will and letting someone else do the thinking for you.

Don't get mad at me for just stating the obvious. As they say, if you can't stand the heat then stay the hell out of the kitchen. As for atheists, they're a whole other ball of wax...

Limited by the fact you are one person in a sea of people and experience. Limited by the fact that you only have a limited amount of time to actually visit a very, very small percentage of churches and meet a very, very limited amount of people that call this planet home. You, have in fact, a very limited amount of knowledge and that experience is not enough to make a blanket statement about all the people in all the world who have a religion.

You don't have to agree with a religion. You don't have to like religion. But don't tell me you have enough experience to make a judgment on every single person on this planet who doesn't agree with you.

[The Overlord]

You don't have to agree with a religion. You don't have to like religion. But don't tell me you have enough experience to make a judgment on every single person on this planet who doesn't agree with you.

That I didn't do; I did make a general statement about organized religion, but everyone in this place is (should be) smart enough to know there are exceptions to every rule.

[The Overlord]

And science is ethical? Hardly. Religion didn't give us the bow, the gun, the cannon, the atomic bomb, dynamite, the neutron bomb, viral warfare capabilities, science has produced two bad things to every good thing. Science is too objective, it has no moral spine to keep it in check. The only thing keeping the next holocaust is the amount of money it takes to produce. I'd rather not leave my life in te hands of greed. Science is just the next big religion. You have to believe in it just like everything else. It's just a little easier. I choose to take the moral highroad.

Adage: The difference between a moral person and an ethical person. Both know right from wrong, the moral person chooses not to do the latter.

No, but religion took most of those inventions and put them to good use...in fact it didn't have a problem with it at all. This is quite a bit like blaming gun manufacturers for all the deaths by guns, and not the kooks that actually do the shooting.

To say that science is proceeding with no ethics is way off base. The men who built the first atomic bomb knew damn well what they were doing, but knew if they didn't someone else would; likely the enemy at hand.

It was Oppenheimer that quoted the Bhagavad Gita, "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." To which test director Kenneth Bainbridge replied, "Now we are all sons of bitches."

Jurassic Park was not overstating it when the story said with genetics we have something potentially even greater and more dangerous a force than the nuclear. There's actually a lot of moral people in the sciences who are very well aware of what they're tinkering with and believe there should be limits or controls in place.


As far as science being the next big religion: Thank you for dragging that out into the light, for I was loath to say it because it smacks of hypocrisy.

In a sense, if science is a religion, then science is the ONLY true religion, because it's actually going out and seeking the truth, not just sit content that it's got it all figured out. There's a reason after growing up in a Catholic setting I chose to go agnostic, and science had a lot to do with it. There's nothing there to 'believe'...you can either accept the truth as it's uncovered, or remain in ignorance.

[Nessy]

That I didn't do; I did make a general statement about organized religion, but everyone in this place is (should be) smart enough to know there are exceptions to every rule.

Everyone on this board shold be smart enough not to make general unsupported statements that attempts to categorize millions of people of difference ages, sex, nationalities, races with different religions, cultures and life experience into one category to be dismissed at your leisure.

[Oniya]

In a sense, if science is a religion, then science is the ONLY true religion, because it's actually going out and seeking the truth, not just sit content that it's got it all figured out. There's a reason after growing up in a Catholic setting I chose to go agnostic, and science had a lot to do with it. There's nothing there to 'believe'...you can either accept the truth as it's uncovered, or remain in ignorance.

"Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose foundations
rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element of reason which
may be present. Quantum mechanics, for example, would be a religion under
this definition. But mathematics would hold the unique position of being
the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous demonstration of the fact
that it should be so classified." - F. DeSua

[Inkidu]

No, but religion took most of those inventions and put them to good use...in fact it didn't have a problem with it at all. This is quite a bit like blaming gun manufacturers for all the deaths by guns, and not the kooks that actually do the shooting.

To say that science is proceeding with no ethics is way off base. The men who built the first atomic bomb knew damn well what they were doing, but knew if they didn't someone else would; likely the enemy at hand.

It was Oppenheimer that quoted the Bhagavad Gita, "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." To which test director Kenneth Bainbridge replied, "Now we are all sons of bitches."

Jurassic Park was not overstating it when the story said with genetics we have something potentially even greater and more dangerous a force than the nuclear. There's actually a lot of moral people in the sciences who are very well aware of what they're tinkering with and believe there should be limits or controls in place.


As far as science being the next big religion: Thank you for dragging that out into the light, for I was loath to say it because it smacks of hypocrisy.

In a sense, if science is a religion, then science is the ONLY true religion, because it's actually going out and seeking the truth, not just sit content that it's got it all figured out. There's a reason after growing up in a Catholic setting I chose to go agnostic, and science had a lot to do with it. There's nothing there to 'believe'...you can either accept the truth as it's uncovered, or remain in ignorance.

Of course you believe in science. That's all you really can do. It's just your leap of faith is more like a hop.

You prove my point on science though. Sure, Alfred Nobel invented dynamite to help miners but someone got the bright idea to use it to rob banks. Just like some people decide to take religion and warp and pervert it to serve there own purpose. The truth is for all science's hooting those laws of nature, not even the congregation itself is sure. Some think Newton others think Eisenstein. Just because some people seek something higher than themselves doesn't make them ignorant it makes them humble, makes them think twice. Because there will always be a scientist who takes the funding and doesn't ask a question. On the other side of the argument that there will always be a religious man who perverts and manipulates, but he won't be handing the next great horror over in a convenient little package.

Personally I would rather believe in God or a vengeful, nonviolent entity than pure chance. I would also prefer to believe in a final judgement over nothing. Without it this world wold mean nothing. No one would have to answer for their actions. 

[Mycroft]

Everyone on this board shold be smart enough not to make general unsupported statements that attempts to categorize millions of people of difference ages, sex, nationalities, races with different religions, cultures and life experience into one category to be dismissed at your leisure.

Everyone should be, but as OL says "there are exceptions". And I've come to find he's an exceptional individual. As for me, I suppose I'm an adherent to the god of science, because one thing I could never stand was a man who possesses an unshakable certainty.

Atheist, theist, or monkey of a different flavor, people find comfort in their beliefs. And that's just dandy. But fear the man who refuses to challenge his own views. There was an old saying I quite liked about debate. "Be prepared to listen, and be prepared to lose".

Listening is important. A man who is certain, doesn't listen. Because he already has all of the answers. FRANKLY, he's irritated that he has to wait for your jaws to stop flapping. And I think that's what I like about science as a "religion". It's almost an impossibility for science to accept anything as a hundred percent certain. Science is all ABOUT listening and observing.

I don't like people who feel they have all the answers, REGARDLESS of how long they feel they've put themselves to task. Pontificating from the pulpit or from a keyboard is still an aggressive act. It says, "I am so very certain of my position that I must force it upon you!" and frankly... that sets off alarms for me. It smacks of an arrogance born of insecurity. I, of course, have my opinions, and I will defend them in proportion to the strength of my convictions. But sometimes I feel I'm discussing things with people whose goal isn't really to enlighten me, but rather to show me how very brilliant they are. And that's not really a conversation I want to have, because it moves away from the exchange of ideas. It becomes almost an exercise in semantic debate and creatively applied fallacies.

For instance... agnostic pride?

I am an agnostic personally. At the end of the day, with my experiences tallied, it was what I came up with on the bottom line. I might very well defend my belief or lack thereof if challenged. But I should never claim to be proud of the decision one way or the other, really. It conjures images of the kid on top of the monkey bars, squawking his superiority to the children below.

Who can take pride in an uncertain conclusion? And what is agnosticism, if not a confession of uncertainty?

[Nessy]

Everyone should be, but as OL says "there are exceptions". And I've come to find he's an exceptional individual. As for me, I suppose I'm an adherent to the god of science, because one thing I could never stand was a man who possesses an unshakable certainty.

I make few judgments on a person based on the views they post on a message board other than my general agreement, indifference or disagreement with the views they post. The subject of someone's intellect being in question was brought up by OL himself.

[The Overlord]

Everyone on this board shold be smart enough not to make general unsupported statements that attempts to categorize millions of people of difference ages, sex, nationalities, races with different religions, cultures and life experience into one category to be dismissed at your leisure.

No, everyone on these boards should be smart enough to figure out there's exceptions to every rule. What's your problem?

[The Overlord]

Of course you believe in science. That's all you really can do. It's just your leap of faith is more like a hop.

You're seeing it as hop not a leap as you're willing to throw yourself over the edge with no real guarantees what's on the other side (or the bottom).

The defining difference here is that you see faith as something worthwhile...something to aspire to. To me, it's archaic ideological refuse, but I suppose that's what keeps the world interesting.

[The Overlord]

The subject of someone's intellect being in question was brought up by OL himself.

Actually no, that would be inaccurate.

It's not so much an issue of questioning someone's intellect, as it is questioning their will to use it.

[Nessy]

Gotta love insults as a defense. Thanks for the fun.

[The Overlord]

 


Pot calling kettle black. You strike with an insult then get angry when someone takes the gloves off? WTH is that? Way I see it, you've gone out of your way to be insulting here. It's only as courtesy to keeping the general peace on the boards that I've restrained myself up to this point.

Thank you for proving my case; many religionists just can't handle a strong debate against their beliefs. You'll just cry foul and say we're being insulting, persecuting you, making fun of your beliefs, etc. Nice little crutch you got yourself there.


P.S. Note that I inserted a 'many' into to above sentence, we wouldn't want any more interpreted 'blanket' statements would we?

[Zakharra]

 

To say that science is proceeding with no ethics is way off base. The men who built the first atomic bomb knew damn well what they were doing, but knew if they didn't someone else would; likely the enemy at hand.

Science by itself has no ethics. None at all. It's the scientists that might or might not have thics. The people who study and research in it that have the ethics. Which makes them, in the end, just people. As ordinary in their own way as anyone. Religious or not.

[Nessy]

Pot calling kettle black. You strike with an insult then get angry when someone takes the gloves off? WTH is that? Way I see it, you've gone out of your way to be insulting here. It's only as courtesy to keeping the general peace on the boards that I've restrained myself up to this point.

Thank you for proving my case; many religionists just can't handle a strong debate against their beliefs. You'll just cry foul and say we're being insulting, persecuting you, making fun of your beliefs, etc. Nice little crutch you got yourself there.


P.S. Note that I inserted a 'many' into to above sentence, we wouldn't want any more interpreted 'blanket' statements would we?

Too bad I am not part of an "organized religion". Then again, you don't actually work with facts so.

[Maeven]

Folks...

Please remember that civility is a requirement for discussions here. This thread will be locked if the tones don't change. 

[Inkidu]

You're seeing it as hop not a leap as you're willing to throw yourself over the edge with no real guarantees what's on the other side (or the bottom).

The defining difference here is that you see faith as something worthwhile...something to aspire to. To me, it's archaic ideological refuse, but I suppose that's what keeps the world interesting.

Like Science provides anything for what's on the other side? They can't prove it so if you say nothing then it's a belief.

[Mycroft]

Like Science provides anything for what's on the other side? They can't prove it so if you say nothing then it's a belief.

Ah, but science doesn't say "nothing". Science says there is no observable evidence. I'm not trying to sound disrespectful or start a semantic argument.

I think the difference is key here, that Science does not tolerate faith any longer than is truly necessary. Occasionally you will come upon a precept which fits within the structure of our understanding of the universe, yet can not be proven or disproven with our current technology. Some would make the claim that the afterlife is similarly, a hypothesis that fills a gap in the human condition, upon which the scientific method is unable to be applied due to limitations in our own ability to test it. I would disagree, because frankly, even those scientific theories which we take on good faith are based off of observable evidence.

While it would be wrong to out of hand dismiss the hereafter, the scientific method can not be applied in good conscience upon an unobservable. So, no, science does not provide anything for what's on the otherside, nor should it be expected to, because by it's very nature, it is focused upon things on "this side".

[Inkidu]

Ah, but science doesn't say "nothing". Science says there is no observable evidence. I'm not trying to sound disrespectful or start a semantic argument.

I think the difference is key here, that Science does not tolerate faith any longer than is truly necessary. Occasionally you will come upon a precept which fits within the structure of our understanding of the universe, yet can not be proven or disproven with our current technology. Some would make the claim that the afterlife is similarly, a hypothesis that fills a gap in the human condition, upon which the scientific method is unable to be applied due to limitations in our own ability to test it. I would disagree, because frankly, even those scientific theories which we take on good faith are based off of observable evidence.

While it would be wrong to out of hand dismiss the hereafter, the scientific method can not be applied in good conscience upon an unobservable. So, no, science does not provide anything for what's on the otherside, nor should it be expected to, because by it's very nature, it is focused upon things on "this side".

Then it's observations are one-sided (no pun intended) death and what does or doesn't lie beyond is a part of nature. It therefor needs to be observed, or attempted.

[Mycroft]

Then it's observations are one-sided (no pun intended) death and what does or doesn't lie beyond is a part of nature. It therefor needs to be observed, or attempted.

No.

Perhaps it is one-sided, but the purpose of science is to observe and attempt to understand the world and phenomena around us, not to confirm our beliefs. To expect it to prove or disprove the existence of something we suspect exists because of faith and nothing else, is unfair. That's not what science is there for, and it isn't how science works. If there were an observable quantity to the afterlife, then yes, science would be obligated to pursue it.

[Inkidu]

No.

Perhaps it is one-sided, but the purpose of science is to observe and attempt to understand the world and phenomena around us, not to confirm our beliefs. To expect it to prove or disprove the existence of something we suspect exists because of faith and nothing else, is unfair. That's not what science is there for, and it isn't how science works. If there were an observable quantity to the afterlife, then yes, science would be obligated to pursue it.

I thought science was all about confirming beliefs. Newton: I think that this apple was attracted to my head because there is a force that attracts them proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.

So by what you say, science is merely choosing not to observe what, it doesn't want to.

[HairyHeretic]

It can be.

It can also be about observing repeated patterns of behaviour, and trying to come up with some rules to explain them.

[Inkidu]

It can be.

It can also be about observing repeated patterns of behaviour, and trying to come up with some rules to explain them.

Well it has to start with someone believing that there is a pattern.

[Apple of Eris]

I think you're arguing about two definitions of the same word:

Belief:
▸ noun:  any cognitive content held as true
▸ noun:  a vague idea in which some confidence is placed

Are two defintions of belief, with rather different meanings. Science follows the second, faith follows the first.

A better word for how the scientific method works would be a Hypothesis rather than a belief.

Hypothesis:
▸ noun:  a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
▸ noun:  a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
▸ noun:  a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence



:)

[Inkidu]

Anything held as true. No both religionand science hold their beliefs to be true, and both have an idea in which confidence is placed.

[MHaji]

I thought science was all about confirming beliefs. Newton: I think that this apple was attracted to my head because there is a force that attracts them proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.

So by what you say, science is merely choosing not to observe what, it doesn't want to.

I'm afraid that this is inaccurate in no less than four ways.

I thought science was all about confirming beliefs.: No, that's ordinary induction. One study - a bit anecdotal, in my opinion - tested how non-scientifically trained people find patterns by giving them sets of words and numbers. Some of the sets contained genuine patterns, while others were randomly chosen.

The researchers found that nonscientists, in discussing their reasoning, would do the following:

* Come up with a pattern.
* Look for every piece of evidence that could confirm it.
* Ignore all evidence against it.

While it's hard to get out of this pattern of thinking, the purpose of peer review, training in working with hypotheses, and scientific competition is to encourage people to knock down their own ideas and the ideas of others if there's evidence against them.

Science is not about confirming beliefs. In the Popperian view, it's about falsifying inaccurate models until we get closer and closer to the truth, even if we never reach it precisely.

Newton: I think that this apple was attracted to my head because there is a force that attracts them proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.:

No, he observed large amounts of astronomical data, worked on the hypotheses of his predecessors, and ended up creating an entire branch of mathematics (along with Leibniz) in order to make sense of the behavior of the planets... and even then, he had reservations and doubts about this idea of "action at a distance."

So by what you say, science is merely choosing not to observe what, it doesn't want to.

Inaccurate on two counts:

1) "Science" is not a person; it's a tool, and does not make decisions. Scientists are people, some of whom are spiritual, some of whom are religious. Many great scientists had a mystical/supernaturalist bent, including Kepler and Newton. But eventually, future scientists learned from their experiences that this tended to lead to mistakes. For example, Kepler assumed that a perfect God would create perfectly circular orbits, which stalled understanding of elliptical ones. And let's not even get started on alchemy, a system that worked fine until you actually tried to explain things.

2) If credible, reproducible evidence of divine or supernatural activity appeared, scientists would be the first ones to want to investigate. Being remarkable, such a find would be subject to increased scrutiny and skepticism, just as extreme natural results are, but it would be investigated.

Whenever I hear a claim that "scientists have ignored the latest PROOF OF GOD," I suspect that somebody else has an interest in that proof not being looked at too closely. Take the recent alleged find of an overlapping human/dinosaur track. Investigators noted that the track's features suggested an impossible weight distribution, a hitherto unknown species of dinosaur that, incidentally, has a lot in common with a forgery, and very odd behavior from the people who reported the find.

[HairyHeretic]

Science is independently provable though. Given the same circumstances, the same results should occur, whether or not a person believes.

Religion tends to be unprovable, and requires the faith of the believer.

[Inkidu]

I'm afraid that this is inaccurate in no less than four ways.

I thought science was all about confirming beliefs.: No, that's ordinary induction. One study - a bit anecdotal, in my opinion - tested how non-scientifically trained people find patterns by giving them sets of words and numbers. Some of the sets contained genuine patterns, while others were randomly chosen.

The researchers found that nonscientists, in discussing their reasoning, would do the following:

* Come up with a pattern.
* Look for every piece of evidence that could confirm it.
* Ignore all evidence against it.

While it's hard to get out of this pattern of thinking, the purpose of peer review, training in working with hypotheses, and scientific competition is to encourage people to knock down their own ideas and the ideas of others if there's evidence against them.

Science is not about confirming beliefs. In the Popperian view, it's about falsifying inaccurate models until we get closer and closer to the truth, even if we never reach it precisely.

Newton: I think that this apple was attracted to my head because there is a force that attracts them proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.:

No, he observed large amounts of astronomical data, worked on the hypotheses of his predecessors, and ended up creating an entire branch of mathematics (along with Leibniz) in order to make sense of the behavior of the planets... and even then, he had reservations and doubts about this idea of "action at a distance."

So by what you say, science is merely choosing not to observe what, it doesn't want to.

Inaccurate on two counts:

1) "Science" is not a person; it's a tool, and does not make decisions. Scientists are people, some of whom are spiritual, some of whom are religious. Many great scientists had a mystical/supernaturalist bent, including Kepler and Newton. But eventually, future scientists learned from their experiences that this tended to lead to mistakes. For example, Kepler assumed that a perfect God would create perfectly circular orbits, which stalled understanding of elliptical ones. And let's not even get started on alchemy, a system that worked fine until you actually tried to explain things.

2) If credible, reproducible evidence of divine or supernatural activity appeared, scientists would be the first ones to want to investigate. Being remarkable, such a find would be subject to increased scrutiny and skepticism, just as extreme natural results are, but it would be investigated.

Whenever I hear a claim that "scientists have ignored the latest PROOF OF GOD," I suspect that somebody else has an interest in that proof not being looked at too closely. Take the recent alleged find of an overlapping human/dinosaur track. Investigators noted that the track's features suggested an impossible weight distribution, a hitherto unknown species of dinosaur that, incidentally, has a lot in common with a forgery, and very odd behavior from the people who reported the find.

Please do not argue semantics and writing. I know  well science is not a person. That's why it's called personification. I know Newton did more. I was boiling it down because the apple is merely easier to explain. No science requires belief. They have to believe something is out there to observe. Then they apply the scientific method.

[Oniya]

'Same circumstances' being a little dicey sometimes.  Incredibly small errors creating vastly divergent results is almost a requirement in certain sciences.

[HairyHeretic]

Well, true, but I think you understand the point I was aiming at.

[Inkidu]

Science is independently provable though. Given the same circumstances, the same results should occur, whether or not a person believes.

Religion tends to be unprovable, and requires the faith of the believer.

My point is that every bit of science takes even the smallest amount of faith.

[MHaji]

Please do not argue semantics and writing. I know  well science is not a person. That's why it's called personification.

"Science as a person" is not a harmless personification. It is a dangerous personification, and no game of semantics. People who treat Science as something to be capitalized, or as something that can be acceptably and usefully personified, generally fall into two camps:

* The first camp: People who use a generalized, personified Science as a dartboard. "Look at the crimes of Science!" "What has Science done?" Or, as above, "Science is merely choosing not to observe." This is harmful, because it avoids citing specific people and cases, but it's no different from generalizations about religion, political parties, or cultures.

* The second, more dangerous, camp: "Of course, this experiment is slightly unethical, but think of the gains for Science!" These people aren't as common as Hollywood would have us believe, but they exist, I've met some, and they repulse me.

Rhetorical devices are fine, until they cause us to oversimplify a problem and forget the human motives involved - as in the next case:

I know Newton did more. I was boiling it down because the apple is merely easier to explain.

Misleading. Your implication was that Newton had a belief, and sought out evidence to justify it. It was the opposite - he had evidence, sought out a rule to explain it, and never entirely believed it himself in the end.

No science requires belief. They have to believe something is out there to observe.

* Science may require belief in an external world. Some people call this the one dogma of science: The Real World Is Out There, or TRWIOT. But that's... that's not much of a stretch, is it? Believing in some kind of external reality, even one that can never be fully described?

It's arguable, in fact, that a person can believe in a subjective universe, or a nonexistent one, and still do science. They'd just treat it as a game of perception, though, rather than a search for knowledge.

Then they apply the scientific method.

Scientific Method? What's that?

The common description of the scientific method taught in schools is very far from the truth. There is no one scientific method. Some scientists observe without prior hypothesizing. Some hypothesize without much in the way of experiment, but use math to support their logic. Some experiment with no prior hypothesis in mind. All of these approaches can be valuable.

Science isn't a single Scientific Method, but rather a giant toolbox of methods.

[Mycroft]

My point is that every bit of science takes even the smallest amount of faith.

I'm sorry. Clarify faith please.

I hate to break out the dictionary like Apple, but I think I have to here. Do you mean by faith "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing" which in the case of science is based off of observable data and consistent outcomes, or do you mean "the theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will"?

[Inkidu]

noun:  any cognitive content held as true
noun:  a vague idea in which some confidence is placed

Both apply to science and religion. In one shape form or fashion. If we're going to start arguing semantics.

[MHaji]

a vague idea in which some confidence is placed

Not a good definition of belief. That's closer to "held ideal," and even that isn't necessarily vague. And what if one only puts "25% confidence" in an idea? 49%? 51%? Is that a belief?

A better set of definitions:

Belief: Anything one considers true, or likely to be true.
Knowledge: Any belief that is both justified and true. (If we deny the existence of a vantage that gives us truth, we can replace "true" with "likely to be true.")
Faith: Any belief that is either held independent of justification, or justified largely by subjective or unreproducible means.

Science requires belief and also requires some faith, in that the statement "I exist and the world exists, too" can never be objectively justified. The basic principles of logic that we consider true a priori also require faith. However, almost all religious and philosophical stances, with the exception of those that declare that the world doesn't exist, add additional articles of faith into the equation. This does not mean that they are wrong, but it does mean that our world's faiths generally require more than the baseline level of faith. That's why they're called faiths.

A scientist can embrace any of these faiths, but that is not a part of science. Science begins with the smallest amount of faith possible, and then gives all further statements about nature the trial by fire. In this respect, although both science and religion require faith, science requires fewer points of metaphysical faith. Declaring that all knowledge is equally uncertain because "everything takes faith" is a favorite ruse of those who wish to put decades of experimental study in the same position as the words of the palm-reader next door.

[Mycroft]

noun:  any cognitive content held as true
noun:  a vague idea in which some confidence is placed

Both apply to science and religion. In one shape form or fashion. If we're going to start arguing semantics.

Semantics? I'd prefer we didn't actually, but while we're here... that's the definition of BELIEF, not faith. And your point was "that every bit of science takes even the smallest amount of faith". So assuming you meant belief, what you're trying to say now is that science requires belief?

... of course it does. No one ever claimed differently.

What was claimed was that belief in science does not exist in a vacuum! In short, it is believed, because it is observed to be true and has been proven to be consistent. While belief as it applies to religion as far as I know boils down to gut feeling. Is there more to substantiate it?

I'm not attacking your faith, really, I'm not. But you're telling us that the fact science can't document and study an afterlife you feel reasonably certain exists without observable evidence is somehow a shortcoming of scientific method.

What's your alternative?

[Jzorkie]

One thing that irks me is how the word Atheism is presented as a label. There are some connotations tied to it when you tell someone "I am an Atheist". I'd really like to get the viewpoint changed from "This guy is a heathen!" to "I am normal."

Smart Catholics I know do not take the bible seriously, they know it is a story. But my personal opinion thinks a man named Jesus Christ indeed walked the earth, and was really influential, but some guys decided to write a book about him and glorify it.

Bleh, random bantering from me. :-\

[Oniya]

Smart Catholics I know do not take the bible seriously, they know it is a story. But my personal opinion thinks a man named Jesus Christ indeed walked the earth, and was really influential, but some guys decided to write a book about him and glorify it.

Or as my husband once told the religion-pushers (the ones that come around door to door to tell you you're going to hell), 'Oy, Jesus was a great rabbi!' (aka 'teacher'.)

[Zakharra]

Or as my husband once told the religion-pushers (the ones that come around door to door to tell you you're going to hell), 'Oy, Jesus was a great rabbi!' (aka 'teacher'.)

Hai, I'll have to try that. Jesus  -was- a good jew after all.  ;)

[The Overlord]

Science by itself has no ethics. None at all. It's the scientists that might or might not have thics. The people who study and research in it that have the ethics. Which makes them, in the end, just people. As ordinary in their own way as anyone. Religious or not.

So you're implying without a religious base that humans don't have ethics and don't know right from wrong?

[HairyHeretic]

I wouldn't take that interpretation from what is written there, but I have heard variations of that from some of the more religious posters on another of my forums.

Actually the scary ones are the ones that claim without religion there would be nothing to prevent people from going out raping and murdering at will.

[The Overlord]

One thing that irks me is how the word Atheism is presented as a label. There are some connotations tied to it when you tell someone "I am an Atheist". I'd really like to get the viewpoint changed from "This guy is a heathen!" to "I am normal."

Smart Catholics I know do not take the bible seriously, they know it is a story. But my personal opinion thinks a man named Jesus Christ indeed walked the earth, and was really influential, but some guys decided to write a book about him and glorify it.

Bleh, random bantering from me. :-\

I think that's the critical thing about Christ that's going to continue to be argued. It appears we have an actual historical figure, and an influential one at that, yes. What he actually was; mortal man or something else entirely else, is the center of debate.

Interesting to note that one religion did seem to deify him, while many other recognize him to varying status.

~Ripped from Wiki.

Islam holds Jesus to be a prophet, or messenger of God, along with Muhammad, Moses, Abraham, Noah, and others. In particular, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى‎ `Īsā) is described as the Messiah, sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl) with a new scripture, the Injīl (gospel).[195] According to the Qur'an, believed by Muslims to be God's final revelation, Jesus was born to Mary (Arabic: Maryam) as the result of virginal conception, a miraculous event which occurred by the decree of God (Arabic: Allah). To aid him in his quest, Jesus was given the ability to perform miracles. These included speaking from the cradle, curing the blind and the lepers, as well as raising the dead; all by the permission of God. Furthermore, Jesus was helped by a band of disciples (the ḥawāriyūn). Islam rejects historians assertions that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, instead claiming that he had been raised alive up to heaven. Islamic traditions narrate that he will return to earth near the day of judgement to restore justice and defeat al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl (lit. "the false messiah", also known as the Antichrist) and the enemies of Islam. As a just ruler, Jesus will then die.[196]

Like all prophets in Islam, Jesus is considered to have been a Muslim, as he preached for people to adopt the straight path in submission to God's will. Islam denies that Jesus was God or the son of God, stating that he was an ordinary man who, like other prophets, had been divinely chosen to spread God's message. Islamic texts forbid the association of partners with God (shirk), emphasizing the notion of God's divine oneness (tawhīd). As such, Jesus is referred to in the Qur'an frequently as the "son of Mary" ("Ibn Maryam").[196][197] Numerous titles are given to Jesus in the Qur'an, such as mubārak (blessed) and `abd-Allāh (servant of God). Another title is al-Masīḥ ("the messiah; the anointed one" i.e. by means of blessings), although it does not correspond with the meaning accrued in Christian belief. Jesus is seen in Islam as a precursor to Muhammad, and is believed by Muslims to have foretold the latter's coming.[196]

Ahmadiyya views
Main article: Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam

According to the early 20th century teachings of the Ahmadi Muslims, Jesus did not die on the cross, but after his apparent death and resurrection (or resuscitation from his tomb) he journeyed east to Kashmir to further teach the gospel until his natural death[198] (The general notion of Jesus in Kashmir is older than the Ahmadi tradition,[199] and is discussed at length by Grönbold[200] and Klatt[201]).

Following Jesus' death of natural causes (so the Ahmadi tradition) "at a ripe old age of roughly 120 years",[202] Jesus according to Ahmadi doctrine was then laid to rest in Srinagar, and that the tomb of a sage known locally as Yuz Asaf (which in Kashmiri means "Leader of the Healed"[203]) is really the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.[204]

Further, according to this movement, the second coming predicted in the Muslim tradition is not actually that of Jesus, but that of a person "similar to Jesus" (mathīl-i ʿIsā), i.e. the founder of the movement himself and his teachings were representative of Jesus.[199]

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, Ahmadi Christological beliefs are one of the three primary characteristics that distinguish Ahmadi teachings from general Islamic ones, and that it had provoked a fatwa against the founder of the sect, "purporting that this doctrine disagreed with the Koran and therefore had to be looked upon as a heresy".[205]

Judaism's view
Main article: Judaism's view of Jesus

Judaism holds the idea of Jesus being God, or a person of a Trinity, or a mediator to God, to be heresy.[206] Judaism also holds that Jesus is not the Messiah, arguing that he had not fulfilled the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh nor embodied the personal qualifications of the Messiah. According to Jewish tradition, there were no more prophets after Malachi, who lived centuries before Jesus and delivered his prophesies about 420 BC/BCE. Judaism states that Jesus did not fulfill the requirements set by the Torah to prove that he was a prophet. Even if Jesus had produced such a sign that Judaism recognized, Judaism states that no prophet or dreamer can contradict the laws already stated in the Torah, which Jesus did.[207]

The Mishneh Torah (an authoritative work of Jewish law) states in Hilkhot Melakhim 11:10–12 that Jesus is a "stumbling block" who makes "the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God".[208] According to Conservative Judaism, Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah have "crossed the line out of the Jewish community".[209] Reform Judaism, the modern progressive movement, states "For us in the Jewish community anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate."[210]

Bahá'í views

The Bahá'í Faith, founded in 19th-century Persia, considers Jesus, along with Muhammad, the Buddha, Krishna, and Zoroaster, and other messengers of the great religions of the world to be Manifestations of God (or prophets), with both human and divine stations.[211]

Hindu views

The Hindu beliefs about Jesus vary. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) considers Jesus to be a shaktyavesha Avatar, the beloved son of Krishna who came down to Earth to preach God consciousness. Contemporary Sant Mat movements regard Jesus as a Satguru. Ramakrishna believed that Jesus was an Incarnation of God.[212] Swami Vivekananda has praised Jesus and cited him as a source of strength and the epitome of perfection.[213] Paramahansa Yogananda taught that Jesus was the reincarnation of Elisha and a student of John the Baptist, the reincarnation of Elijah.[214]

Buddhist views
Further information: Buddhism and Christianity

Buddhists' views of Jesus differ. Some Buddhists, including Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama[215] regard Jesus as a bodhisattva who dedicated his life to the welfare of human beings. The 14th century Zen master Gasan Jōseki indicated that the Gospels were written by an enlightened being.[216]

Other views

Mandaeanism, a very small Mideastern, Gnostic sect that reveres John the Baptist as God's greatest prophet, regards Jesus as a false prophet of the false Jewish god of the Old Testament, Adonai,[217] and likewise rejects Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad. Manichaeism accepted Jesus as a prophet, along with Gautama Buddha and Zoroaster.[218]

The New Age movement entertains a wide variety of views on Jesus. The creators of A Course In Miracles claim to trance-channel his spirit. However, the New Age movement generally teaches that Christhood is something that all may attain. Theosophists, from whom many New Age teachings originated (a Theosophist named Alice A. Bailey invented the term New Age), refer to Jesus of Nazareth as the Master Jesus and believe he had previous incarnations.

Many writers emphasize Jesus' moral teachings. Garry Wills argues that Jesus' ethics are distinct from those usually taught by Christianity.[219] The Jesus Seminar portrays Jesus as an itinerant preacher who taught peace and love, rights for women and respect for children, and who spoke out against the hypocrisy of religious leaders and the rich.[220] Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a deist, created the Jefferson Bible entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that included only Jesus' ethical teachings because he did not believe in Jesus' divinity or any of the other supernatural aspects of the Bible.

[The Overlord]

I wouldn't take that interpretation from what is written there, but I have heard variations of that from some of the more religious posters on another of my forums.

Actually the scary ones are the ones that claim without religion there would be nothing to prevent people from going out raping and murdering at will.

The second sentence in particular: I see that as a very transparent ploy to imply that man needs religion to be functional.

I'd say the reverse is much closer to the mark; religion needs believers to be functional. What most of them are comfortable with is the level of control they exert...their best kept secret is that you don't need their particular brand of control or ethics to be functional person.

[HairyHeretic]

The mindset of that particular group (thankfully there's only 2 or 3 of them post with any kind of regularity) is that all morality must come from their God. Without that, there would be no morality, and we'd all be out raping and murdering.

They also believe that their God is perfect, and good and anything he does is therefore good, even if we can't understand it .. things like obliterating individuals, peoples, cities, the entire human race .. all good, because their God is by definition good and hence cannot do bad.

Their logic makes my head hurt.

[Nessy]

Science doesn't explain the conscience very well. Scientist think they are getting somewhere with serial killers but they can't really tell why someone will stop and help someone in need and someone else doesn't. Even in the Christian faith, there is explained that humanity is given a choice so again, that doesn't explain why one person does "good" and while another might do "bad" even if you factor in the influence of a devil.

None of the religions or science, whether you consider a science a religion or not, garauntees it's followers will only do good or is even the source of all good.

[Zakharra]

So you're implying without a religious base that humans don't have ethics and don't know right from wrong?

At first, yes. Religion explained the world to primitive man in ways that made sense and laid out an ethic that allowed them to work together in groups that allowed the rise of civilization. Religion has evolved down through the ages as nations/people evolved.

I highly doubt that ethics would have formed without religion to set down a basis for what happens to people if they do wrong. It's only recently that government has taken a step back from religion.

People need to believe in something. Whether it is a religion, themselves, a personal code of honor or belief, most all tend to have something to follow.

Science, by itself has NO ethics at all. It's the scientists and those that use it that bring in any ethics. A scientist can be as blind and bullheaded as the most fanatical religious nut in, persuing their pet theories. This can be less so in the physical sciences like chemistry, physics and the like. Sciences we can feel and touch. It almost can be like a religion in  belief when the sciences are more intangible, like social and psychological.

[The Overlord]

This is sort of taking my thread off track but I have to say these people leave me somewhere between confuzzled and outright laughter.

The mindset of that particular group (thankfully there's only 2 or 3 of them post with any kind of regularity) is that all morality must come from their God. Without that, there would be no morality, and we'd all be out raping and murdering.

I don't believe that for a second, and I doubt anyone else on these boards does. I know that running raping and pillaging indiscriminately is wrong and I don't need a higher power breathing down my next to tell me that.

Translation: Those people you're quoting would not have a focus or moral compass in their lives if it weren't for their little enclave.

They also believe that their God is perfect, and good and anything he does is therefore good, even if we can't understand it .. things like obliterating individuals, peoples, cities, the entire human race .. all good, because their God is by definition good and hence cannot do bad.

That's more extreme a view than I'm used to hearing, but I think it's the sharp edge of that general view of 'god's will'. When the universe does things that throws us into chaos and that we don't understand, some of us like to assign it to the designs of a higher power. If god directly invoked a storm that knocked down half our town, we'll feel a little better about it, since the divine deigned to get directly involved with we mere more mortals.

^{Gee thanks God! I just got the roof redone right before you ripped it off, but thy will be done...thanks for letting us know you care!!  ;D}
Without going out and making another ‘blanket statement’ by saying that I believe religionists are weak-minded (but to be fair, I've met a few that fit the bill), I believe a lot of the faithful have a 'softer' psyche that needs to find a nice tidy, orderly way to perceive things to keep hold of their sanity.


So when the cosmos throws us a fastball and a little chin music, we like the dots to connect. Darn thing is, time itself is driven by entropy. It's a fundamental characteristic of the universe...eventually, things get changed or outright fucked up. This is a domain where I think the agnostics and atheists take a more pragmatic approach on things.

Their logic makes my head hurt.

I think that throbbing you're experiencing is occurring at the quantum level in your brain- When logic and antilogic meet, they explode violently.  ::)

[HairyHeretic]

I don't believe that for a second, and I doubt anyone else on these boards does. I know that running raping and pillaging indiscriminately is wrong and I don't need a higher power breathing down my next to tell me that.

Agreed. I've tried pointing out that plenty of other cultures managed to come up with the idea of 'murder is bad, mmkay?' without any influence from their god.

The response to that is generally along the lines of 'they were still responding to Gods will, they just didn't know it'. That's the point you kinda throw up your hands, because rational arguement is never going to get through that.

Translation: Those people you're quoting would not have a focus or moral compass in their lives if it weren't for their little enclave.

I have thought it, I'm just too polite to say it :)

That's more extreme a view than I'm used to hearing, but I think it's the sharp edge of that general view of 'god's will'. When the universe does things that throws us into chaos and that we don't understand, some of us like to assign it to the designs of a higher power. If god directly invoked a storm that knocked down half our town, we'll feel a little better about it, since the divine deigned to get directly involved with we mere more mortals.

These people try to argue that morality is an absolute. Something is either right or wrong. I kill someone, it's wrong. Their God kills someone, it's ok. Their God orders the obliteration of an entire people, oh, well, they obviously had it coming because they were evil. Don't question God's will.

Sorry, that one don't fly for me.

Without going out and making another ‘blanket statement’ by saying that I believe religionists are weak-minded (but to be fair, I've met a few that fit the bill), I believe a lot of the faithful have a 'softer' psyche that needs to find a nice tidy, orderly way to perceive things to keep hold of their sanity.

Some do, some don't.

I think that throbbing you're experiencing is occurring at the quantum level in your brain- When logic and antilogic meet, they explode violently.  ::)

Count yourself lucky you haven't seen the .. dear Gods .. 15,000 post thread on creationism. There are a pair on there, the main one whose arguement style consists of badly understood science, ouright lies from creationist sites, line after line of smileys, and declaring himself the winner of every arguement, even when what he's said has been disproven countless times. Give it a few pages and he'll dredge the same arguements up again, possibly reworded.

I stick my head in every so often to see if it has changed any. It hasn't.

[The Overlord]

At first, yes. Religion explained the world to primitive man in ways that made sense and laid out an ethic that allowed them to work together in groups that allowed the rise of civilization. Religion has evolved down through the ages as nations/people evolved.

I highly doubt that ethics would have formed without religion to set down a basis for what happens to people if they do wrong. It's only recently that government has taken a step back from religion.

Possibly. I’d like to see some positive anthropological evidence to back that however…until then the jury is still out for me. For now anything we say here is subjective.

I could point out that many people seem to have an internal moral compass that’s there regardless of what faith they follow, or even if they follow no faith. Now, was that given by a creator or something specific to us that came up in our DNA structure? This goes along with that argument I love to consider now and then: Are good and evil truly universal concepts or just human concepts?

Fact is, we could argue this for the next hundred years, and in the end have to admit we really don’t know for sure.

People need to believe in something. Whether it is a religion, themselves, a personal code of honor or belief, most all tend to have something to follow.

I remain unconvinced here. Maybe a personal moral blueprint at the very least, but once you scale up from there it gets dicey. Many people do, but trust me, not all of us.

I don’t believe it’s necessarily about ‘following’. One of the great frailties of the human race is that we have endless legions of willing followers and far too few leaders. I can speak only for myself, but I have no real compulsions to follow anything. This doesn’t automatically make me a leader, in fact, I’m more comfortable in my mantle as a lone wolf.

However, as a mentor once said to me, a leader is anyone who influences others by their thoughts or actions…whether they realize it or not.

Science, by itself has NO ethics at all. It's the scientists and those that use it that bring in any ethics. A scientist can be as blind and bullheaded as the most fanatical religious nut in, persuing their pet theories. This can be less so in the physical sciences like chemistry, physics and the like. Sciences we can feel and touch. It almost can be like a religion in  belief when the sciences are more intangible, like social and psychological.

Now we’re screwing up terminology. You're comparing science to a force; like saying that electricity or nuclear energy isn’t good or evil, it just depends on how it’s used. However, scientists and researchers ARE science…science would not exist without its practitioners. Any many of them are moral people, so I maintain science has morality.

But I can see the confusion here; you’re looking at science as some sort of fundamental force in nature. It’s not; science is a human discipline that’s trying to crack nature wide open to see what makes her tick.

[Zakharra]

Possibly. I’d like to see some positive anthropological evidence to back that however…until then the jury is still out for me. For now anything we say here is subjective.

I could point out that many people seem to have an internal moral compass that’s there regardless of what faith they follow, or even if they follow no faith. Now, was that given by a creator or something specific to us that came up in our DNA structure? This goes along with that argument I love to consider now and then: Are good and evil truly universal concepts or just human concepts?

Fact is, we could argue this for the next hundred years, and in the end have to admit we really don’t know for sure.

All of the findings of neolithic and early civilized man show signs of the gods the people back them worshipped. From the EarthMother to the early deities of the Summerian, Egyption and Chinese cultures, as well as every other one clear up to modern times. I'm not aware of -any- culture that achieved civilized (or barbarian) status without some belief in higher powers.

The last is definately true. We simply do not know for sure.

I remain unconvinced here. Maybe a personal moral blueprint at the very least, but once you scale up from there it gets dicey. Many people do, but trust me, not all of us.

I don’t believe it’s necessarily about ‘following’. One of the great frailties of the human race is that we have endless legions of willing followers and far too few leaders. I can speak only for myself, but I have no real compulsions to follow anything. This doesn’t automatically make me a leader, in fact, I’m more comfortable in my mantle as a lone wolf.

However, as a mentor once said to me, a leader is anyone who influences others by their thoughts or actions…whether they realize it or not.

You are confusing belief  to an organized faith of some sort. I'm meaning a person, themself, all people believe in something. Not always a religion,  or the same as others, but we seem to have a need to believe something. Whether in a god, a personal code of ethics/honor or a simple belief in what's around them.

Now we’re screwing up terminology. You're comparing science to a force; like saying that electricity or nuclear energy isn’t good or evil, it just depends on how it’s used. However, scientists and researchers ARE science…science would not exist without its practitioners. Any many of them are moral people, so I maintain science has morality.

But I can see the confusion here; you’re looking at science as some sort of fundamental force in nature. It’s not; science is a human discipline that’s trying to crack nature wide open to see what makes her tick.

Hhhmmm...  A human discipline eh? That could explain the good and bad scientists. Like the Angel of Death. He was an amoral man by our standards, yet his methods led to some medical advancements because of his brutality. As long as scientists do not subscribe to the methood of their way is 100% right and the ends justify the means.

[Oniya]

Hhhmmm...  A human discipline eh? That could explain the good and bad scientists. Like the Angel of Death. He was an amoral man by our standards, yet his methods led to some medical advancements because of his brutality. As long as scientists do not subscribe to the methood of their way is 100% right and the ends justify the means.

Discipline in the sense of an academic field of study, not as in 'maintaining discipline'.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I keep seeing this exception to the rule statement.  Granted I did not go in depth to the commentary, but that seems to be a continuing defense here.  An exception to the rule means that a substantial portion of a population exhibit something.  In most statistics this tends toward a 5% margin as 95% is the standard, acceptable confidence level for a statement.  So is it to be said that only 5% of people who follow an organized religion are thinking for themselves and acting on their own beliefs.  Only 5% of people are doing something aside from what their religious leaders tell them to do.  I dare say the statistics on abortion, birth control, crime, etc can be used to counter that statement.

Also you may wish to look at the amount of scientists, doctors, political figures and so on that count themselves among a particular religion.  Many of these people make contributions to both science and society that are not in agreement with “standard” religious practices.  I would think they make up more than 5% of their population.  There are priests, pastors and other religious figures that are also doctors and scientists as well.  These pillars of their organized religion likewise subscribe to science and understand what certain trains of thought imply.  So honestly this exception seems to be the rule or at least such a large portion of the population that the hypothesis is proven false.

What exactly is wrong with believing in an organized group?  What is wrong with people of similar beliefs getting together in order to pray and worship as they believe is right?  So long as they don’t hurt anyone else, what is the problem?  Does this give some sort of ego trip to stand on the side and say you’re an independent cause you’re not with them?  Congratulations, I applaud you for doing as you see is right but let other people do as they see is right without your ridicule.

[Mycroft]

I keep seeing this exception to the rule statement.  Granted I did not go in depth to the commentary, but that seems to be a continuing defense here.  An exception to the rule means that a substantial portion of a population exhibit something.  In most statistics this tends toward a 5% margin as 95% is the standard, acceptable confidence level for a statement.  So is it to be said that only 5% of people who follow an organized religion are thinking for themselves and acting on their own beliefs.  Only 5% of people are doing something aside from what their religious leaders tell them to do.  I dare say the statistics on abortion, birth control, crime, etc can be used to counter that statement.

Also you may wish to look at the amount of scientists, doctors, political figures and so on that count themselves among a particular religion.  Many of these people make contributions to both science and society that are not in agreement with “standard” religious practices.  I would think they make up more than 5% of their population.  There are priests, pastors and other religious figures that are also doctors and scientists as well.  These pillars of their organized religion likewise subscribe to science and understand what certain trains of thought imply.  So honestly this exception seems to be the rule or at least such a large portion of the population that the hypothesis is proven false.

What exactly is wrong with believing in an organized group?  What is wrong with people of similar beliefs getting together in order to pray and worship as they believe is right?  So long as they don’t hurt anyone else, what is the problem?  Does this give some sort of ego trip to stand on the side and say you’re an independent cause you’re not with them?  Congratulations, I applaud you for doing as you see is right but let other people do as they see is right without your ridicule.

Oh I wouldn't applaud just yet.

First, it's never a good idea to admit you didn't go into depth reading the commentary in a debate. Frankly it's not a good idea to not read it in the first place, but admitting it is, while honest... not advisable.

Now rather than turn this into a novel, let me focus on the big issue. What exactly is wrong with religion so long as they don't hurt anyone else? The answer is nothing!

Unfortunately, that's never the case.

People have different ways of looking at things, you see. So while I'm perfectly content to allow for the possibility of any and all gods exist, I'm LESS than keen to let their adherents to do as they would. It's inevitable that my agenda will find itself contrary to their agenda. And eventually, both sides bring out the lawyers.

I think even OL and I can agree on this point, that we do NOT want to be governed by legislation that is based upon the religious beliefs of others. I'm fine with people doing what they feel is right, but frankly, I'm not fine with people, motivated by their God's words handed down from scripture, who wish to dictate what I personally should feel and do.

Stem cell research, homosexual marriage, abortion, death penalty, divorce, red meat seven days a week, magical underwear, praying to mecca, we all have our views on these matters, and no one is readily willing to concede. So... yes, I'm entirely willing to let people do as they see is right, provided it doesn't stand in the way of doing what I feel is right and proper.

[Zeitgeist]

Good God kill this thread, someone.

Hope you all appreciate the irony in my choice of capitalization.

[The Overlord]

All of the findings of neolithic and early civilized man show signs of the gods the people back them worshipped. From the EarthMother to the early deities of the Summerian, Egyption and Chinese cultures, as well as every other one clear up to modern times. I'm not aware of -any- culture that achieved civilized (or barbarian) status without some belief in higher powers.

I'm not aware of any civilization that didn't make it because of lack of religion; just because all major civilizations that emerged had religions doesn't automatically mean religion was a factor to their survival. A factor to their social order most certainly; if religion is has gotten anything perfected over the centuries, it's telling people what they think they should be doing and finding ways to get them fall in line like good little sheep. From pomp and pageantry to outright gunboat diplomacy.

Perhaps religion did play a factor in keeping at least some long-term civilizations afloat, then at least that's one good thing it's done over history.

You are confusing belief  to an organized faith of some sort. I'm meaning a person, themself, all people believe in something. Not always a religion,  or the same as others, but we seem to have a need to believe something. Whether in a god, a personal code of ethics/honor or a simple belief in what's around them.

And maybe the equation is as simple as belief in one's self, and not necessarily a higher power. Looking at my own personal situation I find more and more reason to believe that the single greatest obstacle I'll ever face is myself. All the showboaters I run across are just pretenders to be kicked aside. Yeah, I think at least belief in one's self may be needed.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Honestly, you just said that you’d prefer to have policies you agree with enacted.  I would agree with you and simply say that most, if not all, people feel that way.  You are just ridiculing those policies because they have a foundation in religious belief.  So you are saying that the way you choose to live your life is right because it comes from whatever you believe, but the way they believe is wrong because it derives from a major religion.  Then when they gain power they use their ethical values to make laws which is wrong.  Yet if you gained power you would create laws…against your values and viewpoints?

[MHaji]

You are just ridiculing those policies because they have a foundation in religious belief.  So you are saying that the way you choose to live your life is right because it comes from whatever you believe, but the way they believe is wrong because it derives from a major religion.

No, the objection is that it's an imposition of a religious belief on a secular legal system. I don't think anybody sane thinks that "the way they believe is wrong because it derives from a major religion." The "atheist who thinks religion is AUTOMATICALLY evil" is a strawman, a creature of fantasy. Even anti-religious critics will usually allow that Bach was pretty cool, and Thou Shalt Not Kill is a good baseline rule.

I disagree with the logic of many religious arguments. I disagree with many moral decisions made in the name of religion. But I do not disagree because these positions are religious.

Case in point: If a religious person says that stem cell research is wrong because human souls are sacred, and a blastula has a soul, I might disagree with both religious reasons, but still think that there's some substance to the position. I favor stem cell research, but I also admit that abuse can happen if people aren't very careful with where the line is drawn between human and inanimate.

Case in point: If a religious person says that murder is wrong because God said so, I might argue the reverse - that Biblical morality is anti-murder because murder ruins societies. But we'd both agree that murder is wrong.

Finally, if a religious person said that a perfectly benevolent God would be merciful, I would absolutely agree. A perfectly benevolent God would be merciful. But we'd disagree on whether such a God actually exists.

Conclusion: Even an atheist like me does not necessarily discard religious beliefs, culture, or ideas as wrong simply because they are religious - and I'm about as firmly atheistic as a person can get. Atheism is not a state of being anti-religious, it's not believing in God's existence. That's all.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

There can be no government run by human beings that is not at the whim of human beings.  There is no individual that anyone can put into a position of government that will not seek to impose his/her own views.  Even a secular system will be ruled by the values of those that are put in charge of its construction and operation.  So the objection might as well be against ethics and values being implemented into a secular system.  Those values will be there even if the person is an atheist.  People will then just say atheist values instead of Catholic ones.

I don’t see how someone telling you what is right or wrong is any better based on the source if you disagree with what they are saying.

Also, I have little problem with atheism.  I do believe in God so there is an obvious philosophical disagreement, but I do not categorize atheists together as stupid.  My original post was dedicated toward the lumping of participants in organized religion together and labeling them as incapable of thinking on their own.  I would honestly have the same objection if someone did the same thing to atheists.  Just seems more in style to do that with religion.

[MHaji]

There can be no government run by human beings that is not at the whim of human beings. There is no individual that anyone can put into a position of government that will not seek to impose his/her own views.

That is why a balanced government is not ruled by one individual, but by many people working together, compromising, and using agreed-upon guidelines to ensure that no single group's views are allowed to dominate.

Even a secular system will be ruled by the values of those that are put in charge of its construction and operation.

Yes and no. If imposing those values on the people who disagree is made costly - for example, by a structure of law that makes it harder to violate the rights of a minority - then only the shared values will be imposed.

So the objection might as well be against ethics and values being implemented into a secular system.  Those values will be there even if the person is an atheist.  People will then just say atheist values instead of Catholic ones.

But are the base values of atheists that different from those of Catholics? Do atheists even share a common set of base values? I'd say no and no. I know atheists who believe that the Individual Will is more important than anything else, and that pride is a virtue, not a moral failing. And I know atheists who believe the opposite - that humility in pursuit of a common goal is best. Clearly, the divide isn't between the religious and the non-religious, but between individualists and collectivists, between the Left and the Right, and so on.

I don’t see how someone telling you what is right or wrong is any better based on the source if you disagree with what they are saying.

If someone can give a set of reasons why something is right or wrong, based on shared concepts - that hurting people is generally wrong if there's no justification, for example - then they stand on firmer ground.

Also, I have little problem with atheism.  I do believe in God so there is an obvious philosophical disagreement, but I do not categorize atheists together as stupid.  My original post was dedicated toward the lumping of participants in organized religion together and labeling them as incapable of thinking on their own.

Fair enough.

I would honestly have the same objection if someone did the same thing to atheists.  Just seems more in style to do that with religion.

I'm not going to say one group is more oppressed than the other; in general, "people who care about any position" don't fare well in a cynical society. But consider this: 48% of Americans (as of 1999, but the number's held steady for over a decade before that) would never vote for an atheist president... even if they were sure that candidate was "generally well-qualified." And people vote for unqualified candidates all the time!

You can claim that this is simply "cultural," but the common belief, simply put, is that atheists are inherently immoral/emotionally broken/immature/dead inside/outright evil. Religious people also get their share of flack, of course. I have more sympathy for a religious group that's genuinely oppressed/hated - for example, Muslims in America, Catholics in anti-Catholic communities, and so on - than I do for people who claim the social benefits of religion without actually believing in anything.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

A government is still ruled by its own people and those people share common ideas.  There will be a popular religion amongst the people and shared ethical values.  Should the government bring those people into its ranks, then it will fill itself with those ideas and beliefs.  So a ruling value system will be implemented into the government, regardless of its origins being religion of cultural.  To separate human beings from their personal code of ethics is impossible, so they will bring that with them to their jobs. 

While I have little data to confirm this, I will go out on the limb and say that atheists do place a lot of faith in science.  Granted there are multiple branches and disciplines in science, but I would wager that many still feel that science holds our best chance for understanding the world.  With that would come a certain set of beliefs and feelings toward scientific research and its benefits.  In truth there is probably only a little more tying Catholics together than atheists. 

Whether something can be made to make sense or made to seem logical does not change disagreement.  If you do not agree with something, its source or base has little bearing on you feeling better about its implementation.  I could make an excellent argument about why sex outside of marriage should be illegal due to STDs, unwanted pregnancy and the social ills that it brings.  I doubt that’d make it any easier to swallow if that was made into a strict law.  You’d simply pick apart my logic rather than my religious belief.

I have little sympathy for anyone that picks at another.  Oppressed or not, that does not make generalizations any better or more useful for the cause.

[MHaji]

A government is still ruled by its own people and those people share common ideas. There will be a popular religion amongst the people and shared ethical values.  Should the government bring those people into its ranks, then it will fill itself with those ideas and beliefs.  So a ruling value system will be implemented into the government, regardless of its origins being religion of cultural.

I'm skeptical. Yes, people share a lot of common ideas, but saying that this implies that a government will act to give all of them legal force is a stretch. Just because people believe something doesn't mean that they'll want the government to establish it. Legal protections exist to prevent even a majority from forcing all aspects of their "ruling value system" on a minority.

"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all sorts of directions." - Terry Pratchett

To separate human beings from their personal code of ethics is impossible, so they will bring that with them to their jobs.

Sadly, politics does a great job of separating human beings from their personal code of ethics. By and large, politicians act based on what works, not what suits their ideals. And not turning government into a religious or antireligious arena can work pretty well.

While I have little data to confirm this, I will go out on the limb and say that atheists do place a lot of faith in science.

Atheists do. So do agnostics. So does anybody who flies on a plane, gets medical treatment, or plays on a computer.

In truth there is probably only a little more tying Catholics together than atheists.

If so, Catholics are pretty fragmented; have you ever tried to get a roomful of atheists to agree to anything except the nonexistence of God? There are plenty of atheists who hold anti-intellectual or anti-scientific views.

Whether something can be made to make sense or made to seem logical does not change disagreement.

But understanding the logic of a stance is a crucial first step towards compromise and acceptance.

I could make an excellent argument about why sex outside of marriage should be illegal due to STDs, unwanted pregnancy and the social ills that it brings.  I doubt that’d make it any easier to swallow if that was made into a strict law.

You could make an excellent argument that sex outside of marriage is a bad thing due to those factors. The excellent argument you could not make is that all bad things should be illegal.

I have little sympathy for anyone that picks at another.

Picking on other people is wrong. Picking at their arguments, particularly if those arguments promote intolerance or misunderstanding? An excellent thing to do.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So if a government can fragment the ideals, politics has people moving against their code of ethics and those in religion also believe in science...what is wrong with someone worshiping in a form of organized religion?

Also, picking at arguments is certainly fun and acceptable.  Generalizing an entire group of people is not picking at their arguments.

[MHaji]

Also, picking at arguments is certainly fun and acceptable.  Generalizing an entire group of people is not picking at their arguments.

True.

So if a government can fragment the ideals,

Not my point at all. I'm saying that the ideals were never a unified whole - they were always fragmented, always colliding with each other. The government should reflect this truth, rather than try to sweep it under the rug by establishing a given religion.

politics has people moving against their code of ethics and those in religion also believe in science...what is wrong with someone worshiping in a form of organized religion?

Nothing's wrong with worshiping. Quite a bit is wrong with the position of the vocal minority of religious people who try to establish their chosen type of worship as an officially sanctioned doctrine, or the 48% of Americans who would shut people out of a political office on the grounds of a religious disagreement.

A rise in agnosticism is not a strike against organized religion, but a realization that other choices are available, and that it is acceptable to make those choices.

[Zakharra]

Nothing's wrong with worshiping. Quite a bit is wrong with the position of the vocal minority of religious people who try to establish their chosen type of worship as an officially sanctioned doctrine, or the 48% of Americans who would shut people out of a political office on the grounds of a religious disagreement.

A rise in agnosticism is not a strike against organized religion, but a realization that other choices are available, and that it is acceptable to make those choices.

So far it is a majority that still believe in some form of Christian religion. About 88% I believe. That is a huge majority.

[MHaji]

A majority are Christian, but it's a small, vocal minority that's actually trying to make the country into a theocracy. I said "the vocal minority of religious people who try to establish their chosen type of worship as an officially sanctioned doctrine" specifically in order to make the point that the vast majority of Christians would rather not establish a sectarian government.

[Zakharra]

 True, but because of that vocal minority, which is a small percentage of the religion, all Christians are being labeled that way and there are a lot of athiests, agnostics that are trying to remove -all- religious backed/leaning laws, symbols and substance. Even going as far as to say that the Founding Fathers were not religious/Christian. When there are groups that are actively trying to remove religious symbols from monuments, State, county, and city seals.

  A number of years ago, I remember hearing about a law that was attempted, in Oregon I believe, that was going to regulate how tall the steeples/crosses could be on churches. Because some people were offended at seeing the crosses when they drove along.

On another board I am on, I've seen people posting that religion should be outlawed because it is 1, outdated. 2, repressive and 3, the people who believe in it are idiots and morons and should not be allowed to vote or hold office.

Christianity is under serious attack in this country by those who want to push their/i] view point on the Christians.

[MHaji]

True, but because of that vocal minority, which is a small percentage of the religion, all Christians are being labeled that way and there are a lot of athiests, agnostics that are trying to remove -all- religious backed/leaning laws, symbols and substance.

A lot of atheists? A lot of agnostics? As you just noted, atheists are a minority. Although I do appreciate any attempts to do away with religious-leaning laws in a secular state; religious laws are to be enforced by one's conscience, not by the strong arm of the government.

Even going as far as to say that the Founding Fathers were not religious/Christian.

Straw-man. The claim isn't that the Founding Fathers weren't Christian or religious, but that many of them were Deists who believed in a God that wasn't big on direct intervention, and that most reached the common agreement that they didn't want an Established Religion. They understood that if you allowed one creed to dominate, others would suffer.

When there are groups that are actively trying to remove religious symbols from monuments, State, county, and city seals.

And these groups are generally assumed to be fringe crackpots - on the grounds that they object to the idea that it's assumed that a government will be by Protestant Christians, for Protestant Christians, and that its symbols will reflect that.

A number of years ago, I remember hearing about a law that was attempted, in Oregon I believe, that was going to regulate how tall the steeples/crosses could be on churches. Because some people were offended at seeing the crosses when they drove along.

I thought it was because projecting displays on businesses are limited in size and visibility, and a small minority thought that churches ought to follow the same rule.

On another board I am on, I've seen people posting that religion should be outlawed because it is 1, outdated. 2, repressive and 3, the people who believe in it are idiots and morons and should not be allowed to vote or hold office.

On the Internet, you will find people who will post a lot of things, and the loudest will be the most extreme. This does not mean that they have a snowball's chance in the heart of the sun. Anyone who seriously thinks that religious people should not be allowed to vote or hold office is living in some sort of Bizarro world. In America, only religious people can hold office. See below.

Christianity is under serious attack in this country by those who want to push their view point on the Christians.

The claim that there's a massive War on Religion by fanatical atheists has been propagated by a number of sources, notably News Corp. Claiming that 86% of the population is about to be stripped of their religion by a small, but powerful cabal of the godless is a great sell, but the truth is more along these lines:

For centuries, it has been assumed by the rank and file that Christianity was not only the default state, but the only way a person could be trusted not to be pure evil. Even Thomas Jefferson's presidential campaign suffered most from attacks claiming he was an atheist who would "ban the Bible" if elected. Eventually, Catholicism and Judaism got a pass from at least some, but there's currently only one open atheist in Congress, and he's nearing retirement and getting senile. Though a cynical society may well be attacking Christian values - values shared by many atheists as well! - there's no War on Christianity.

There IS an attempt by some to make sure that religion remains a personal, rather than a State, matter. But calling this a "serious attack" against religion is like calling women's suffrage a "serious attack on the rights of men." It's not an attack on religion, it's an attack on the idea that religion is inherently privileged. Churches should be allowed to exist, and their members should be allowed to advertise their existence, to proselytize their faith, and so on. But they should not be allowed to use the government as a pulpit, or place the symbols of their particular religion in a place that's supposed to represent impartial justice.

[The Overlord]

Christianity is under serious attack in this country by those who want to push their/i] view point on the Christians.

Well I suppose it’s a matter of perspective and a vicious little circle.

From where I’m standing, there appears be at least elements of the Christian right that want to carry their ‘values’ (a seriously overused and tiring term heard far too often by the GOP this past election process) beyond their own thresholds and into common law, and that’s a problem where some of us are concerned.

It’s impossible to deny popular media has had a strong liberal slant in past years, something I’ve discussed (or argued) on with members of my own family. The vicious circle is obvious; popular media is powerful and widespread, and I can understand some feelings by the right of being besieged.

So, some of them get more belligerent and in-your-face about their faith, which only gets hair to bristle on the left.


I think a crucial question that’s overlooked is why there’s a strong bias there…because one day the media moguls woke up and unanimously decided they needed to pick on someone at random? Unlikely.


My view on it; I don’t want to by definition push my view on Christians, but I will admit my urge to enlighten some of them on the wider view outside their faith, as surely as they would feel compelled to ‘save’ me.

But at worst I only want to push them back into their corner; that being those instances where they seem to standing in boots five sizes too large for them and get the notion what’s good for them is good for everyone.

Of course that doesn’t just apply to the Christian faith; my aunt in Texas believes we need to continue the war in the Middle East ‘before America is under Sharia law', which is of course just hard right folly and propaganda, and the Red Scare all over again.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The objection raised earlier dealt with organized religion governing the lives of others.  If what you say is true, then there is little to fear from government regulating someone’s life from a religious pulpit.  Real world examples such as abortion being legal, there still being no prayer in schools and that governments still tread lightly in giving vouches to parochial schools should enforce this system.  So as you state there is no problem with people getting together for organized worship.  That is, while round about, my point.  To simply shore up the idea that organized religion is fine so long as it does not harm those around it.

People will always attempt to impose their values on others.  That is simply how they view the world and anyone pulled into their circle will be placed under that scrutiny.  That organized religion has more people due to their organized nature does mean they have more influence.  Of course 88% of the population having a common belief would have influence anyway.

As for presidential election, I’m not understanding the real problem.  How many people would vote for an openly Islamic president?  How about a gay president?  Recently a black president got into office, which is a historical event that few saw coming.  There was a mormon that tried for office and was voted down with his faith being attacked.  According to surveys a president with a doctorate has a much lower chance of being elected than one with a Masters.  Protestants have a better chance than Catholics.  That 52% of the country would elect an agnostic as their President is honestly quite surprising. 

I mean, I don’t call men stupid cause they haven’t elected a woman yet.  Nor do I consider all men historically stupid for the oppression they placed on women.

As for attacking Christianity, I believe Christians are safe.  People will quibble over crap just to see if they can get away with it and stretch their limits.  Just like the student president that tried to enforce a prayer at a public highschool football game.  Also the Kansas Education board trying to push for Creationism to be taught over evolution.  There are people on both sides fighting for this or that.

Yet I do not feel that agnostics have a “place.”  I also don’t think that I am going to enlighten them by telling them about God, nor do I really want to.  I don’t know the truth and presuming I do only makes me an idiot.  So I find it funny that you can say that imposing views is bad, but in the same breath say you want to show them their place.

[ShrowdedPoet]

. . .I have only read the first page of posts. . .I am responding to the original article.

I am a polytheist.  I do not think I have all the answers, nor do I think that my religion is necessarily correct in any views.  I also do not think that my religion is for everyone.  I think that people should pick a religion that works for them and doesn't suppress their true hearts.  There is nothing wrong with having religion and having a religion doesn't make a person weak or stupid.  I choose to have a religion because it is what I want to have in my life.  I don't care how wrong or right is may be to the world it is right for me.  That's all that matters to me.  I like to listen and learn and find out about other religions and constantly add things to my own beliefs to make it better for me.  I love life and I love my faith.  This is my way and it makes me happy.  If being agnostic makes more Americans happy then that's good for them.  My opinion of it though is that most people claim to be agnostic because they don't want to be beaten down for their beliefs.  Beliefs are scrutinized so hard in America that it makes it hard to proudly and openly believe in anything. 

[Sho]

...What I don't understand is why science and religion have to be so contradictory. Of course, right-wing Christians who are fully mired in their beliefs might argue with me, but I'm a churchgoer. Admittedly, my church isn't Catholic or terribly traditional, but I am a Christian nonetheless.

My church teaches that God is a spiritual being who can save you. God is there so that you always have someone to turn to in your darkest hour, so that you are never alone. So that someone is always looking after you. My church also teaches that it is up to students to make their own choices as to what they believe in. The church presents creationism, but just the other day our pastor asked, "Why is it that it's so impossible that God created the world...and then created evolution?"

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that.

I won't deny evolution...the proof is there, set out. What caused this earth to be born is still a mystery. There are vague theories, but no hard proof to prove where the earth came from. This way, science and religion mesh comfortably in my mind.

What I have to say irks me more than a little bit is this attitude that Christians are close-minded, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-everything. We're not. Most aren't. Most Christians are caring, loving individuals who let their love for God guide them to be better people. Of course there is a section of Christians who are extremely conservative and seem terrifying to people like OverLord. I get it. But...don't lump us all together. It's insulting to be told that my religion has absolutely no worth because science, often times unproved, is undeniably better than anything people have used for thousands of years to guide them.

[Oniya]

Out of curiosity - Unitarian?  We had our wedding at a Unitarian church, because they were just cool that way.

[Sho]

I have a great fondness of Unitarian churches, but no, we're not. Actually completely non-denominational (not in the sense of evangelical or mega churches)...there were a bunch of Protestants, Catholics, and Baptists in our neighborhood that wanted to raise their children with Christian values and a church to go to on Sundays, so they all got together at a town meeting and decided to fundraise for and build a modest, but pretty, church.

[HairyHeretic]

Interesting. How do you handle the differences of doctrine?

[Sho]

Well, there  have been a few problems but the pastor essentially sat down and said, "Look, here's how we're going to do it..." And he talked about how he wanted to allow kids to come to their own conclusions about religion and science, and how the Sunday school would teach from the Bible, but would tell kids not to forget about what they learned in school. Everyone's been pretty happy with it. I don't really know intimately...I'm one of the kids who sortof missed the Sunday school by a few years and I've only recently gotten into the church. My parent's generation is the one that started up the church. All I can say is that everything seems to be going pretty well so far.

[Mycroft]

They wanted to raise their children with Christian Values...

What precisely are Christian Values, if I might inquire? Given the various incarnations of the faith, which you are unfairly lumped together with, precisely what Christian Values are on the agenda?

[Sho]

Well, its a pretty general statement. I suppose I meant that they wanted to raise their children with the knowledge that they had a church to turn to. But, as fara s Christian values, that would include honesty, charity, openness, and faith to God. Not to say other people don't have those values either. They're just sort of inherent in the church's teachings for children.

And...how is it unfair that our church lumped the incarnations together?

It works out really well. We have a church we go to. We pray to God. We're happy and feel secure in our faith. I don't see what's bad about it...

[HairyHeretic]

I suspect he is refering, as I did, to doctrinal issues. Every sect of christianity has its own take on things, its own set of unique beliefs that separate it from the other sects. While the core teachings remain common, there's plenty around that that isn't.

Take the issue of saints .. fairly big in the catholic church, not so hot in the protestant ones. Contraception .. big no no for catholicism, not an issue for protestants.

[Sho]

The Catholics in our church pushed a few of those issues but there was so much backlash that we ended up settling on a plain cross (no image of Jesus hanging from it) for the wall of the church. Also, kids are taught about the saints but I don't think they pray to them. Not really certain on that...like I said, I missed the Sunday school by a few years so I never went. I'm sure my church has given a lecture on contraception, buuuuut... :) I've only recently gotten back into the swing of Christianity, so I missed quite a few speeches in between. I'm pretty sure they worked out doctrinal issues by sitting down and taking a vote with the founding members of the church on whether or not various things would be included (like saints) in the education of their children. I think some people decided to sacrifice certain aspects of their doctrine in order to have a unified neighborhood church.

Seems to work well, though.

As it is, there were a few Catholics who wanted a more Catholic church and ended up going to a Catholic church that's a few miles away. So, I think the ones who were the most gungho about keeping their doctrine actually ended up attending a Catholic church anyways, instead of ours. So the people left on the board were more moderate, as far as making concessions to include the views of other religions.

[Inkidu]

I suspect he is refering, as I did, to doctrinal issues. Every sect of christianity has its own take on things, its own set of unique beliefs that separate it from the other sects. While the core teachings remain common, there's plenty around that that isn't.

Take the issue of saints .. fairly big in the catholic church, not so hot in the protestant ones. Contraception .. big no no for catholicism, not an issue for protestants.

The act of necessary baptism is another. Catholic and Church of Christ say you have to be baptized. Baptists say it's not necessary for salvation.

[Sho]

Yeesh. I feel like I'm going to have to go through every single practice of my church now.

But...

Baptisms at my church are optional. I was baptized, my step-siblings were baptized, but not everyone in our church has been baptized. We're hardly a traditional church. It's very much, 'do as you please', so long as it doesn't step on anyone's toes.

[Mycroft]

Well, its a pretty general statement. I suppose I meant that they wanted to raise their children with the knowledge that they had a church to turn to. But, as Far a s Christian values, that would include honesty, charity, openness, and faith to God. Not to say other people don't have those values either. They're just sort of inherent in the church's teachings for children.

And...how is it unfair that our church lumped the incarnations together?

It works out really well. We have a church we go to. We pray to God. We're happy and feel secure in our faith. I don't see what's bad about it...

You said it was unfair to lump you in with other Christians.

My point, which you already make, is that none of the values you bring up are intrinsically Christian, except faith in God. Further, I'd make the argument that many of the good Christians you insist are in the majority (I would disagree, incidentally) are simply good people who happen to be Christian.

You can't on the one hand claim that a person's virtues are tied to their faith, while insisting that those "other" Christians are just naturally assholes. Given that you're a member of a Church that understands the flexibility of the doctrine and the leeway that exists for interpretation, you have to understand, those conservatives are reading the same textbook you are, and given it's nature their views are equally valid.

I don't attribute being a bigoted closed minded twonk with any particular religion, and it's equally laughable to associate a decent human nature with one. Everyone knows there are "good Christians" and "good Muslims" and "good scientologists" because they're composed of people, who are individuals. But the vocal minority (or majority depending on locale) are some scary dudes, Sho. You can't rightly disavow any knowledge of your associates, nor is it a particularly Christian thing to point the finger and say, "I'm not with those guys."

Your faith provides comfort and direction, and that terrifies the piss out of me. Because while many individuals may simply find comfort that "God is there so that you always have someone to turn to in your darkest hour", a great many use it as silent (or vocal) justification for pushing their beliefs on others.

In my personal experience, the holier than thou crowd is much much more prevalent than those who take quiet comfort from the Lord. So while I understand your disdain for being lumped in with the crazy Christians, their beliefs stem from the same source material and are equally valid. After all, who says where to draw the line when interpreting scripture?

When you question the scripture, at what point do you stop? At what point do you say, "Okay. These laws and parables mandated by my chosen Deity and his scribes are kind of crazy. We're tossing those. Now THESE on the other hand, are the thin line that keeps the world on this side of sanity." Did we really need faith to tell us it's a bad thing to bludgeon people to death or steal their stuff? And in a sect of Christianity where you set your own rules, at what point does God become somewhat redundant, except as a spiritual shoulder to cry on?

[Sho]

This argument is making my head hurt, just a bit. I tossed in my two cents to show that not all Christians are crazy, bigoted, right-wing people. I'm not saying that those values (as stated above, being honesty, charity, etc) are ONLY Christian values. They are also Jewish, atheist, etc. etc. values. BUT. They are also Christian values. Most countries, religions, and people put an emphasis on those values. I'm not saying that other people can't, and that being a Christian makes you an inherently good/bad person.

I'm sure that there are a great many out there who push their views onto those around them, using religion as an excuse to do so. I don't deny it. I've seen Jesus Camp (speaking of which, everyone should check it out...scary, but interesting at the same time!).

I think that, to you, the holier-than-thou crowd you fear (understandably so, I'm rather scared of them myself) isn't so much greater in number, but louder in voice. As most fanatics are.

I've found that most people who are just content in God being their guiding light/a friend to turn to tend not to speak out loudly. Afterall, they're happy with their lives. They don't feel threatened by people who are in any way not a part of their group.

There are plenty of people in the world who are happy to keep religion and work separate, and I think that would be the majority (numerically) of Christians. Sadly, we get lumped in with the (admittedly growing) few who are loud and want to make everyone hear them. The same way I don't like to get lumped in with right wings, I'd assume (I may be wrong) that you don't want to be with the atheists who are completely unwilling to listen to anything anybody says that isn't in exact agreeance with them. I don't say that the right-wing aren't Christians; they're just not the crowd I hang with.

Now. Onto your last point. I'm not asking you to raise your children Christian, or to convert your friends. I'm just explaining my experience with the religion, so that other people at least have an example of a different type of Christianity. I don't think we need faith to tell us to be good people. We need families and friends and our conscience to do that. Christianity, for people like me, just offers another family both physical and spiritual that I know is there for me, all around the world.

[Nessy]

In my personal experience, the holier than thou crowd is much much more prevalent than those who take quiet comfort from the Lord. So while I understand your disdain for being lumped in with the crazy Christians, their beliefs stem from the same source material and are equally valid. After all, who says where to draw the line when interpreting scripture?

I don't think this is surprising at all. The holier than thou crowd, as you call them, are probably the most vocal of the Christian faith. Being the most vocal does not make you the majority. I went to school with a lot of people. I work with a lot of people. I have worked with a lot of people. I have no idea what their faith is except for a few, and those few were the ones that liked to talk about their faith a lot, justify it, maybe try and convert others. That doesn't mean that most the other people I worked with didn't have a religion, it just meant they didn't feel the need to bring it up. And why should they? Faith is a personal experience. You can't force people to believe something. You can force people to go to church but believing is a different issue all together. As for interpreting scripture, it's ancient text. Most people can't even agree on interpreting a document passed into law yesterday so how are millions of people from every walk of life all over the planet going to agree on the mean of the scripture. They don't. And not ever christian is part of a sect, and not all references to religion is a reference to christianity.

As to who says where do you draw the line in scripture, I say you do. If it's your faith, you follow it as you think its meant to be followed. I was only following ordes doesn't work for the military all the time and certainly doesn't work for religion. That's how religions have been used to commit horrific acts in history and will probably be used to do so again. However, the abscents of religion doesn't necessarily equal justic and tolerance. Believe me, the intolerant asswholes of the world find their way into every faith, or lack of faith. As for equal validit because they follow scripture, I would say, not entirely true. There have been cults that claimed to follow one scripture or another but clearly didn't not to mention false prophets.

Christians shouldn't be judged as a whole anymore than all  Americans, or all Brits, or all aethists or all muslims, all teachers, all lawyers... If you start grouping people into large groups to easily dismiss them to make your point, I would say that point is weak to begin with. (and by you, i don't mean you specific, i mean you as a general for people who might do this). And keep in mind a weak point isn't irrelevant but it's weakness is probably stemming for being too general. Be specific. Example: "I didn't like it when some preacher told me I was going to hell in high school because I wanted to use the condom", is not the same as "Christians don't believe in birth control and want to force their religion on other people."

[Sho]

Wow. thanks, Nessy. Took the words right out of my mouth, and much more eloquently than I could have said them.

[Mycroft]

I had hoped to let the matter lie, but I did have a question that hasn't really been answered.

The part that Nessy quotes was simply me stating that it was somewhat strange for one Christian to claim that ANOTHER Christian was crazy, when both are simply living their own interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but it was my hope to illustrate that frankly they are equally valid, in so far as they are earnest interpretations of the same source material.

My following paragraph illustrated more candidly my confusion, in that I wondered at what point does God become redundant? The unitarian church outlined seems to approach the bible like a buffet, taking what it likes/what works, while ignoring the rest. That seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous.

Nessy suggests that it's the perception of the given adherent that sets the bar for what is good and moral. If so much relies on perception and interpretation of the individual, again, at what point does God become somewhat unneccessary?

[MHaji]

I don't think this is surprising at all. The holier than thou crowd, as you call them, are probably the most vocal of the Christian faith. Being the most vocal does not make you the majority.

It's not just a matter of "vocal." The news - regardless of its political slant! - will give the biggest emphasis to the most obnoxious members of any group, because that makes viewers angry, and angry viewers are engaged viewers. It's like Internet trolling, but more pernicious. The more troll-y an adherent is, the better the chance they have of getting an answer.

Obnoxious Christians are not the majority of Christians. Obnoxious atheists are not the majority of atheists. Obnoxious agnostics are not the majority of agnostics.

EDIT:

The part that Nessy quotes was simply me stating that it was somewhat strange for one Christian to claim that ANOTHER Christian was crazy, when both are simply living their own interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but it was my hope to illustrate that frankly they are equally valid, in so far as they are earnest interpretations of the same source material.

My following paragraph illustrated more candidly my confusion, in that I wondered at what point does God become redundant? The unitarian church outlined seems to approach the bible like a buffet, taking what it likes/what works, while ignoring the rest. That seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous.

Nessy suggests that it's the perception of the given adherent that sets the bar for what is good and moral. If so much relies on perception and interpretation of the individual, again, at what point does God become somewhat unneccessary?

Ironically, you're arguing like an extreme fundamentalist - "Either the Bible's right, wrong, or ambiguous. And if it's wrong or ambiguous, what's the point of having it at all? If you pick and choose what you listen to, why have it?"

Well, consider this analogy: "Different judges interpret the law differently. But if it's up to judges to interpret the law, and they can interpret it differently, why do we even need a law at all? If judges make it up as they go along, what's the point? There should either be no leeway given to judges, or no law at all! Judges can figure it out themselves!"

Different shades of legal interpretation can be reasonable, but some interpretations are deeply dubious. If a judge said that we should ignore the emancipation of slaves and push back our interpretation of civil rights to 1850 because "the new laws don't count," we'd think that judge was crazy - and we'd have every right to do so. That's an interpretation of the law so far out there that you don't need to be a lawyer to see a problem. How did we draw that line? I don't know, exactly, we just eventually worked it out.

Similarly, if a Christian says we should hate our neighbor, revel in sanctimoniousness, and torture people... you don't have to be a Christian to see this doesn't quite square with the stuff in the Sermon on the Mount, delivered by someone who died by torture. There's such a thing as leeway of interpretation, but things like the Spanish Inquisition seriously went too far. Hindsight. 20-20.

It is true that Biblical morality, alone, lacks current context. Biblical morality, alone, would not have given us free speech or a Civil Rights movement. And conservative religious morality is painfully correlated with the repression of women and minorities. But Martin Luther King, Jr. was a reverend, and it'd be foolish to think that his religion was useless to him, and all of his insights came from extrabiblical sources.

Biblical morality is ambiguous, founded on dubious historical precedents, and frequently dangerous and regressive. But interpreted carefully, it can also defend the dignity of people in an oppressive society. I'm a humanist first and an atheist second; if something improves human lives, I don't care if it's religious in origin. If something hurts people, then I'll rail against it even if it was proposed by atheists.