more religious danger

[jez]

http://www.eubusiness.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=111208
Now the Vatican and the Greek Orthodox Church think they can interfere in secular politics. Yes, anyone is entitled to their opinion, but it would surely be a step backwards if EU politicians were to take into account these religious comments. As I have said, the Vatican is a state, and should act as one. It can't have it's cake, and eat it. As a State which is not in in the EU, it has as much reason to interfere as the US. Would it be acceptable for the US government to openly criticise the internal affairs of the EU?
Furthermore, Europe is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic continent. Each and everyone should be allowed to follow their religion, but religion should not be a defining aspect of a secular EU.

[Andocrates]

Religion is just one vehicle and political power is another. You can try to go back to the middle ages to justify your case, but you forget that at that time religion was also political power.

Political power has devastated our world, fascism, nazism, communism etc.

I don't trust the EU AT all.

George Bush has done more damage to America in the last 2 years (freedoms) then religion ever could have done.

So if you are asking me to trust the politicians and how dare the church interfere, a traditional check to power, I would suggest you are crazy or a truly devoted atheist - and BTW atheism IS very much a religion.

[Resolute Optimist]

I'm not sure about that... so when was humanity not political? Can you be so sure that in neolithical times the premises of politics weren't already in play?
I read a book called "Peacemaking among primates" by Frans de Waal and I have to say, there seems to be an element of political behaviour in monkeys too(by the way, the human is also a case study in this book )
I don't see the world without politics... Utopian ideologies brought on extremist regimes. The only way in my mind to avoid the suffering of a majority is moderation. And that includes moderation in condemning all politics... I will always see a difference between a democracy, even with it's flaws, and say, a state with no separation between religion and politics (Jez, agreed on that point) and will take sides for a democracy over any other regime.
I'm a bit tired, oyasuminasai.

[Resolute Optimist]

George Bush has done more damage to America in the last 2 years (freedoms) then religion ever could have done.

You can only be joking. Please revise your history of the Middle East. The arrival of Islam was the END of the great Middle Eastern intellectuals and scientists, that were mainly Assyrian and the beginning of the opression of basic freedom for women but also for men. Christian religion only became meek and mild like a lamb because of it's separation with the state.
I could be missing the point, it's time for bed... I think it's the "could ever have done" that got me...

[Andocrates]

OK, go sleep this topic will be here when you get back. The islam point is a valid one, but i must insist islam is as much political as religious. I was simply pointing out that religion is just politics under a different name, and vice versus. You need not have a god for religion, just a set of dogma that has adherents. An example druidism and communism.

The problem is any religion with hard and fast rules i.e. islam and judaism being the only major religions with a lot of rules, is bound to create conflicts.

I know people will jump up and blame christianity - but blame the church don't blame god. Christian rules all come down to love your brother as yourself and don't kill people. Not really bad rules.

This doesn't appeal to the nature of man though so man tries to make up a lot of rules. The bible teaches not to drink to excess, but that's not good enough for some preachers so they take it a step further and say don't drink at all - and the wine in the bible was really grape juice. Bullshit. The wine in the bible was wine. Oh yea and don't cuss (except that's not in the bible either. Filthy communication and curses would be "yo rebecca nice tits baby," and a curse would be well. . . I curse you to the 5th generation)

As I always say in this debates the problem boils down to people. Remove religion from the equation and people would just find another reason to start a war.

[jez]

I don't trust the EU AT all.

I didn't say I trusted it either. That doesn't mean I trust religion more.

George Bush has done more damage to America in the last 2 years (freedoms) then religion ever could have done.

Not sure about that one. Anyway, not trusting one, doesn't mean you have to trust the other.

So if you are asking me to trust the politicians and how dare the church interfere, a traditional check to power, I would suggest you are crazy or a truly devoted atheist - and BTW atheism IS very much a religion.

Traditional check on power? You admitted yourself that religion is a form of power!
Atheism is by definition not a religion, because there is no theistic belief. It always sounds cool to say 'atheism is a religion', but sadly not true.

[jez]

Religion is just one vehicle and political power is another. You can try to go back to the middle ages to justify your case, but you forget that at that time religion was also political power.

What do you mean by going back to the M/A?

[jez]

The problem is any religion with hard and fast rules i.e. islam and judaism being the only major religions with a lot of rules

'A lot of rules'? What does that mean? How do you define 'a lot'?

I know people will jump up and blame christianity - but blame the church don't blame god. Christian rules all come down to love your brother as yourself and don't kill people. Not really bad rules.

How could we blame god without knowing who it is? Can you tell us who god is? I can't blame god, since I believe Man and Woman invented god.
Humanist rules also tell you to love your neighbour and not kill others. No need for a book though.

Remove religion from the equation and people would just find another reason to start a war.

Who says? You done an exhaustive study on this?

[Neo-Rio]

About religion, art, and advertising
(Ripped from the Treatise of Love, by Anatoly Protopopov)

Religion as a system of undoubtedly civilized norms (I mean of course the big universally recognized global religions) could not have carried out civilizing functions if God had not had the highest rank, the highest position. Otherwise, a highly primative society with low culture could not be persuaded that making harm to the fellowman was inappropriate since from pragmatically egoistic points of view it was exactly right! At least, in the nearest future. But the fact that it harmed as much personally him as the whole humanity could be simply neither accepted nor realized by a certain individual. In practice, the super-hierarch was anthropomorphized with humanistic qualities which were being digested by congregation as samples for repetition because of his highest hierarchical status.
It is worth to pay attention that practically all religions appeared in the low levels of the society. It was extremely important for a person with low-ranking potential to have somebody "above" and at the same time it was wanted this one above to be just, kind, and merciful.
Aura of assurance which circumfluenting most of "saint books" (for example the Vedas) is the inexhaustible source of authority together with complete incomprehensibility of the content. Sense and value of these books are entirely lost for a modern man (not researcher) that's why their influence cannot be explained by the value of the contained information. On the contrary, self-criticism and public doubts which are typical for a real science severely damage the attitude to it from unscientific public.
Talented piece of art is also able to convince in anything as it directly affects subconsciously instinctive mechanism of brain. This is the purpose and the social destination of art - to convince in anything that is otherwise impossible to persuade or to prove logically (for whatever reason) in any way. However, whatever is proven this way is not always good in reality.
Modern advertising shamelessly and impudently exploits instinctive programs. Instincts are devoid the ability to rational analysis. So, finding the right hacking tool (template) to a man's instinctive programs makes possible to force a person to want virtually anything. The main point is to demonstrate assurance. Any proofs or detailed explanations beyond that is redundant. It is necessary to pay attention how the commercials are done. As a rule they are pretty illogical but very emotional. Information is presented in a very high pace, often tangled but attention is diverted with something flashing. Often text is read with a speed of machine gun. All this based on the fact that subconscious with its templates works much quicker than mind and if a mind is not given a chance and/or time to look into the situation (and probably to protest) thus making possible to instilled anything to man. The most deceptive mode of advertisement perception is to pay no attention to it. In fact, only mind misses it and it goes directly to subconscious. And that's what really needed.

[katakori]

The problem is any religion with hard and fast rules i.e. islam and judaism being the only major religions with a lot of rules, is bound to create conflicts.

I know people will jump up and blame christianity - but blame the church don't blame god. Christian rules all come down to love your brother as yourself and don't kill people. Not really bad rules.

you will have to read the jewish bible (which accounts for quite a lot in christianity too, by the way) and the coran before you can make such a lame comparison...

neither judaism nor islam say "don't love your brother"

on the other hand, christianity, which comes from judaism and has a whole "lot of" rules of its own, has been known for bringing as many wars, if not more than judaism and islam together. please get a history book. then on a different level, check how many people from "lesser develepped countries" have lost their culture when forced to adopt christianity.

the fact that you think there are less rules, is just because in most western countries, the political and the religious (which is christian most of the time) has been separated, and christians have become more slack about it. it is not true that christianity is an easy-going religion where you love your brother and that's it. far from this...

and let's not discuss about asian ones.

anyway, religion in general, and christianity in particular, is very much political. it has been linked to politics forever, and will probably ever be. the pope should either not speak on anything else than god and humankind, or be allowed to express his opinion as a religious leader on any topic the church decides. just consider it a "lobby of the christians"...

[Resolute Optimist]

you will have to read the jewish bible (which accounts for quite a lot in christianity too, by the way) and the coran before you can make such a lame comparison...

neither judaism nor islam say "don't love your brother"

It dosen't sound like you have read them either. I've read the Coran. And while it promotes on one side things like helping the poor, it also fully justifies killing non-muslims should the time call for it. Islam is not like the other religions, in the sense that being a political system aswell, the actual text itself can be used to justify extreme actions.
The history of the West was rife with religious wars. But when the church and the state became more and more separated, the reading of the testament left no doubt that these wars were not explicitly supported by the text itself. However, if all the muslims were to uprise tomorrow and kill all non-muslims, there is a part in the Coran that legitimizes it.
And by so-called respect for other cultures we are quite happy to see populations live in conditions that we wouldn't dream for ourselves. The reality is that the youth today, in countries like Iran and Egypt suffer from being born into such archaic rules. The Middle East would be better off without Islam, it's culture declined upon it's instauration.
You can criticize christianity, but despite becoming highly kitsch, it has made some efforts to move with it's time... It finally admitted that the Earth evolves around the sun!

check how many people from "lesser develepped countries" have lost their culture when forced to adopt christianity.

So you obviously don't know much about the implantation of Islam then?

[Andocrates]

christianity, which comes from judaism and has a whole "lot of" rules of its own

Now see you didn't even read my message, you responded like pavlov's dog to some pre-existing opionions about the topic . . . ano. . . kamo.

Name one of these rules in christianity? And remember, the jewish law (the OT) was superseeded by the new testement - which is the whole point of Jesus Christ.

In Christianity there are not rules but some suggestions for daily living. I'm saying if Jesus was running Christianty here on earth instead of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fawell it would be a wonderful, alive thing, nurturing thing - but the message has been so corrupted by men that it really doesn't even recognize the early church.

[jez]

You can criticize christianity, but despite becoming highly kitsch, it has made some efforts to move with it's time... It finally admitted that the Earth evolves around the sun!

Why should any religion move with it's time? Either what Jesus/Mohammad/Buddha etc. said was true, or it wasn't. Is it supposed to be truth, or is it supposed to be a fiction to fit and adapt to different cultures at different times?
'Moving with it's time' is simply a way to fool people. Surely, it should make people realise it's all just a scam!
If you believe people need something to believe in, whatever it is, that's fine. However, why not try the truth?

[jez]

In Christianity there are not rules but some suggestions for daily living. I'm saying if Jesus was running Christianty here on earth instead of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fawell it would be a wonderful, alive thing, nurturing thing - but the message has been so corrupted by men that it really doesn't even recognize the early church.

If Jesus really did exist, as it is said in the Bible, I would tend to agree with you.
It always amazes me, however, how people claim, that believing in different systems of government(no state, for example) is a utopia, and leads to dictatorship, and yet often the same people believe in some invisible force, and organised religion, which has brought violence and wars over centuries. Mad!

[Andocrates]

Well, over the course of this thread you have made it plain that you are a enthusiastic atheist, and thus you are not an objective party - because of this your arguments don't carry any more weight then an enthusiastic Christian or Muslim.

I think it's very utopian to believe that religion is the root of all mans problems. It completely ignores the spiritual side of man that is inherent to our species.

Every place where people exist, no matter how remote, have some form of religion- and up until the mid-1900's new pacific island people groups with religion in place) were still being discovered. You want to blame Christianity or organized religion for all men's troubles, but the problem is mankind needs gods.

Atheism could not exist without the church, because a movement can not exist without dogma. You cannot see it but I see it clearly - your religion, your god, is stating over and over and believing with all your heart that there is no god. If you truly believed there was no god you would simply be ambivalent about the matter.

It's hard for me to get angry or emotional about something I don't believe in, I don't really care if some people believe in UFO's I just snicker to myself and move on.

If I went to UFO message boards and posted hate messages or made fun of them a psychiatrist might be interested in the underlying reasons why I would do such a thing.

[katakori]

It dosen't sound like you have read them either.

don't worry

Islam is not like the other religions, in the sense that being a political system aswell

so is judaism. if you put it back in context when it was "created". and to a certain extent, christianity. let's still not talk about states religions-that-are-not-religions (but what is religion?) like confucianism for instance...

the actual text itself can be used to justify extreme actions.

any text can.
darwin was used by hitler to justify his...

The history of the West was rife with religious wars. But when the church and the state became more and more separated, the reading of the testament left no doubt that these wars were not explicitly supported by the text itself.

once again, everything comes with context.
what people call "muslim extremists" are actually a very small minority of all the muslims worldwide.

However, if all the muslims were to uprise tomorrow and kill all non-muslims, there is a part in the Coran that legitimizes it.

there is a part of christianity that says "convert them all, by all means". it doesn't say anyone should be killed, true, but it says you should work towards world supremacy of christianity.
anyway, it's all in interpretation(s). neither holy text is to be read like the yellow pages...
by the way, judaism does not ask for proselytism.

And by so-called respect for other cultures we are quite happy to see populations live in conditions that we wouldn't dream for ourselves.

who is "we"? who respect who?
never heard of exploitation of "new worlds" by european christian states? that was not so long ago. politically correct behaviour, AND the separation of state and church came only recently in the west...

The reality is that the youth today, in countries like Iran and Egypt suffer from being born into such archaic rules.

look at suicide and drug use statistics in places like "democracy heaven" switzerland, than we can debate about this point.

The Middle East would be better off without Islam, it's culture declined upon it's instauration.

wow!!!!!! this sentence is very strong. i don't think you realize how much...
anyway, i do not want to enter any conversation that starts there.......

You can criticize christianity, but despite becoming highly kitsch, it has made some efforts to move with it's time...

look at the pope and the way church is actively promoting AIDS in africa, then we will argue who's the funkiest religion of all...

It finally admitted that the Earth evolves around the sun!

the (current) Pope John Paul II officially reinstated Galileo in 1992!!!

So you obviously don't know much about the implantation of Islam then?

i'm not saying islam is a nice funky religion. i am saying religion is often corrupted by humans AND politics. and that the nice "love your brother" is not an applicable point in any argument, since it has NEVER been followed by any christian church anywhere so far. therefore, my point is that there is no "better" monotheistic religion. it is all interpretation.

[Andocrates]

there is a part of christianity that says "convert them all, by all means". it doesn't say anyone should be killed, true, but it says you should work towards world supremacy of christianity.

The bible says no such thing. The bible says "narrow is the way and few there be that enter it." There will never be a Christian world, such a thing is preposterous because the bible teaches that only the elect few will see God.

The bible says "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers and unto God what is God" the bible says "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities"

you are painting Christianity with the muslim brush. This world is not the focus of Christianity - heaven is.

The text you refer to says "go into the highways and hedges and compel them that my house my be full." How people have interperted the word "compel" is what led to the roman inquisition and the crusades, but I firmly believe poor paul just meant compell them with words.

[jez]

Well, over the course of this thread you have made it plain that you are a enthusiastic atheist, and thus you are not an objective party - because of this your arguments don't carry any more weight then an enthusiastic Christian or Muslim.

Which of my arguments carry no weight? Can I not, as an aetheist, complain about the amount of religious interference in secular affairs? It is exactly because I am an aetheist(or agnostic), that I complain. It seems pretty clear and fair to me.

I think it's very utopian to believe that religion is the root of all mans problems. It completely ignores the spiritual side of man that is inherent to our species.

Every place where people exist, no matter how remote, have some form of religion- and up until the mid-1900's new pacific island people groups with religion in place) were still being discovered. You want to blame Christianity or organized religion for all men's troubles, but the problem is mankind needs gods.

If that is so, why do people like myself(and there are many of us) not feel the need for gods? Are we not human?

Atheism could not exist without the church, because a movement can not exist without dogma. You cannot see it but I see it clearly - your religion, your god, is stating over and over and believing with all your heart that there is no god. If you truly believed there was no god you would simply be ambivalent about the matter.

It's hard for me to get angry or emotional about something I don't believe in, I don't really care if some people believe in UFO's I just snicker to myself and move on.

Since when does the UFO lobby play a role in the affairs of the EU? I get 'angry and emotional', beacuse I believe religion is not harmless. I also worry about people who believe in UFO's, but they are much fewer, and have less influence.
I have already told you(and you haven't responded), that religion implies the belief in a god. Aetheism/agnosticism do not have this belief. Therefore they are not religions. They are ideologies or philosophies. Do you believe that the beliefs of Freud constitute a religion?
Sorry, but it's not enough to attack me. If you want me to accept religion, you'll have to show me why you believe, that there really is a god.I know the majority need to believe in such things, but that does not make such a belief true. What is important to me, is the truth, not simply believing.

If I went to UFO message boards and posted hate messages or made fun of them a psychiatrist might be interested in the underlying reasons why I would do such a thing.

Are you implying I've been posting hate messages? If so, I find it rather baffling.

[cstaylor]

[jez]

:zzz:

anyone who finds this discussion boring, need not come here. Otherwise, please comment!

[cstaylor]

Now that I'm awake... let me simply state that believing in anything requires a huge leap of faith... and that includes the religion of science and the scientific method. Just because scientists use long words with latin-roots doesn't make what they say any more believable... but at least believers in science are content not to push their views on others.

[ramchop]

[quote="cstaylor"]... but at least believers in science are content not to push their views on others. ]

Yes, much better to leave their discoveries in the hands of the moral politicians. They're much more responsible.

[kotatsuneko]

i rather like cornelius' line "i hate hate"..

its such a strong word/emotion and one that can really start to screw with your life, a friend from america who lives in lithuania helped me realise and opened my mind up quite a bit..

racism/religion/politics are the things in life i used to hate, now i just ignore them as they won't ever end and its a waste of time getting worked up over them anyway imho

seems this thread won't either, can't we talk about living in japan again?

[Andocrates]

choodo! I just responded cause he posted "religion danger" and it set me off. And yes kotatsuneko hate is never a good thing no matter what your cause is. Unless you hate snakes then I got yo back



edited to sound softer, wow the wa is starting to get to me.

[katakori]

one can find something dangerous and not necessarily "hate" it...
i find the pope and religious bodies often potentially dangerous, yet i hate neither him, nor the church, nor catholics as a whole, nor religions, nor religious people...

[Big Booger]

without hate, there can be no love.

[katakori]

i do hate some people, fortunately. don't worry...

[jez]

[quote="cstaylor"]:?

Now that I'm awake... let me simply state that believing in anything requires a huge leap of faith... and that includes the religion of science and the scientific method. Just because scientists use long words with latin-roots doesn't make what they say any more believable... but at least believers in science are content not to push their views on others. ]
You do realise that being an aetheist/agnostic, doesn't automattically mean one treats scientists as gods, don't you?(ironical contradiction intended).
Perhaps the problem(for me it's a problem) is, that people can't accept not to know certain things about who we are, where we come from, and where we are going. So some seek the answers in religion, others in science. We probably won't ever know the whole truth, and that's just fine with me. However, I'd rather not be misled.