Letter from school..

[FallingSkyward]

The inherent flaw in divine retribution is fear.
When you fear something (God), you cannot respect it, and we can't understand God, which once again leads us to fear it (because you always fear what you don't understand). In psychology, it is a variable form of operant conditioning - God doles out punishment and rewards sporadically, so we are much more compliant with God's commandments.

Since when can't you respect something that you fear? You fear the anger of your parents when you are a child, but that does not negate the awe and admiration you also feel. The idea of God is in conjunction with human fear, yes, but also with a variety of different emotions.

And what do you mean, "he doles out punishment/rewards sporadically"?

That fear percolates into other facets of our life - if he doesn't join my religion, I will be punished for it - his deeds may lead to my destruction - I am acting as a messenger for my God, thus I deal out justice.

That is alligned with a flaw in human understanding or adherance to religion. Taking a prominant example, Christianty: the foundation of the religion, Christ, repeatedly states that violence is completely wrong. Thus, the Crusadors had absolutely no moral justification for doing what they did within the confines of their own religion. They may have justified themselves in the way that you outlined, but this was due to their tendencies to fulfill their natural inclinations - a direct opposition to the teaching of their religion.

With atheism, this justification can be made(i.e. eliminate what will hurt me/my people) in perfect adherance to the societal implications that arise with Darwinism(see: Eugenics).

 

[Godless]

The world's riches philantropist is an atheist. His name Bill Gates

Yes I know about the statistics, though nothing was mentioned about premartial sex. LOL...

Ayodhya I have to disagree with you, fear is the prime motivator of theism, hense if one does not believe, they will burn in hell, fear of not knowing, ignorance created the gods, it's not that one does not understand religion. It's that religion manipulates by force and fear! They force their idealogy, on the assumption that what they are doing is good, those who refuse, they use lack of knowledge. I.E what happens at death, and speculate of hell, to bring fear to those who would fall for this BS.

Hence fear of not knowing, is used to manipulate their idealogy upon the ignorant masses!

 

[SnakeLord]

That is alligned with a flaw in human understanding or adherance to religion. Taking a prominant example, Christianty: the foundation of the religion, Christ, repeatedly states that violence is completely wrong. Thus, the Crusadors had absolutely no moral justification for doing what they did within the confines of their own religion.

This would only count if you were going to argue that the christian god and jewish god are not the same being. They are - later people just decided to lump a couple of other gods to this one god.

If the crusaders were paying attention to the works of the OT god, (who is the same 'one and only' god that apparently exists), then they are fully justified. Not only was this god violent beyond measure, (killing every human, plant and animal on the planet, closing innocent womens wombs, threatening to kill people that hadn't chopped a bit of their penis off, drowning Egyptians for his own amusement etc), but he commanded violence from others.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

No, science has a perceivable and even calculatable value. Religion does not.

How do you know it doesn't?

On top of that, science is a choice at the end of third form correct? Academia is a series of steps of learning and honing - exposure and choice. A student can choose business, or the arts etc after being exposed to all groups of academics. Religion offers no choice other than worship or burn.

Please explain how you have arrived at the conclusion regarding religion.

You'd have no objection to that of course;

My objections to who controls the wheels of power within this world, are, irrelevant.

...however, it is immoral to force your own values on impressionable minds. Especially without the knowledge of parents.

What is immoral about singing hymns as opposed to singing about sexual intercourse, in the presence of children?

This is a cowardly form of conquest.

Apparently it is the law of the land, and as such it has to be upheld.
This has been the system in the UK for a long time, yet it is heavily secular, atheistic and irreligious. How do you conclude that indoctrination has taken place, while at the same time pay no attention to the serious decline of moral standards, and intelligence, in this, our one-time great nation? Do you agree with hoards of young people accsesively binge drinking to the point where there is a serious concern for their health and well-being?

The fact that Snakelord was not made aware of this fact, and had to discover it AFTER enrolling his daughter is enough indication that indoctrination was clearly the intent.

It is a law of the land. I take it SL was born in the UK, and therefore attended school here, so he must have some idea as to what happens in public schools.

On top of which, the learning of religion as a historical curiosity is completely different from worshipping.

It depends how you look at it.

Of course it does not seem like force. Children are sheep, very impressionable.

So why is the secularisation of the UK, an increasing phenomenon?
Could it be that the sheep are being indoctrinated into becoming atheists?

You'd never feel like you were forced because it wasn't a strenuous effort. It was BORING yes, but not strenuous or even painful. It is still however a display of force, of power and of unrelenting conquest.

Then please demonstrate how this works, otherwise I can only conclude that you are a paranoid delusional.

This is not paranoia, this is reason.

The sheep are systematically forced to worship a god, while at the same time not knowing that they are whilst at school. They leave these evil institutions to become free-thinking atheists, who believe their main aim in life is to make alot of money, then get completely rat-arsed at the weekend.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the reason in your jumbled-up dialogues. Maybe it's an atheist thing...eh!

I know that religion is there, matter of fact my own personal experience gave me, the student, the option to stay away from it. That's why I'm shocked at the behaviour of the school under discussion.

Have you considered that maybe SL sent his child to that school because it has a good academic reputation, and like any caring parent, he wants a piece of that for his child?

Also, when Snakelord found out and removed his daughter from the indoctrination, the principal was supposed to say "Ok, noted for future reference". Plain and simple. Instead we get a letter war. Why?

I have read the post in question, and it seems to me that you are exajerating (spelling), to boulster-up a pointless argument.

I can flip this to say as a gross theist/spiritualist or whatever, understanding reality (for you et al.) is akin to an asylum patient perceiving what is clearly a stone and metal building as a giant marshmallow. And trying to convince others to grab a bite.

There can be no such thing as a gross theist/spiritual person, think about it.

No it isn't, but you bring to the table an excellent parallel. "The Wind Cries Mary" is a perceivable artistic piece. The bible is a perceivable piece of literature. However to believe the Wind ACTUALLY cried "Mary!!!" is questionable at best, and to teach other people's children that the Wind can actually scream "Mary!!!" is grossly irresponsible.

Your point is silly, as nobody believes the wind actually cries mary.
You believe the atheist has an academic understanding of faith-based religions, my point illustrates upon what level this understanding takes place.

The only thing I claimed to 'know' is that the school authority is wrong to assume that all parents would agree to a wholly christian worship time period, and to make all the students go as a default action.

You claim to understand faith-based religions, and as such, given your opinions. I put it to you, based on your opinions, that clearly you do not understand faith-based religions outside of your biased atheistic opinions.
Of course, this is my opinion.

The creation of god is not the only weapon in a non-theist's arsenal. The existence of any god is almost beside the point. Real questions for example are "why is he worthy of worship?" or "why create a race of 6 billion humans for the sole purpose of worship?"

Can you cite any scripture which back up this claim?

Absolutely incomparable. Science encourages growth of intelligence. Religion encourages the fostering of a sheep mentality.

Science explains material phenomena (in short), how can that, alone, encourage a growth of intelligence?
And how do you explain the increasing secularisation of Britian, while it children, past and present, have been forcefully indoctrinated with religion?
There isn't even a rebelion against religion in this country.

Then go count for yourself. It's empirical data...can be proved or disproved by anyone.

How on earth is this provable.

I've compared. Admittedly not an entire population, but a selection. Like my alma mater (did it for the school paper once). The percentages there gave christianity a higher value than the world count (40% instead of 33%), but it was a close enough distribution to make the final world count believable.

If you say so, but I'm not convinced, I still think people use stats to give cred to their campaign. Tony Blair does it all the time, and it has become a joke.

The fact that you were called on it should be enough for you to realise...hmm...maybe it's not so obvious....maybe you're the one with jumped-up conclusions that do not apply to everyone.

Called on it by whom?
Your an atheist, and most probably a gross-materialist, what do you really understand, and how is it relevant to the essence of religion, other than to get rid of it quick, any which way, which, let's face it, is the easy way out.

This assumption is anything but obvious and has no relation to reality other than revealing your own bias.

I'm afraid it is obvious. A christian, who worships Jesus as their saviour, is most un-likely to be getting rat-arsed in town at the weekend, in the same way a rat-arsed youth is un-likely to want to be asociated with christianity.
THE TWO DON'T GO TOGETHER. :bugeye:

How about folks that gather for Christmas, and Uncle Harold consciously decides he's going to cut loose and have a few, because he's staying at the house he's currently in. Does good old Uncle Harold, who did nothing more than imbibe liquers, burn for eternity in your philosophy? If that is the case does this not strike you as overly cruel? Maybe even...dare you think it...evil?

What are you going on about? Do you really think that someone who celebrates christmas is necessarily a worshiper of Jesus, or even, a theist? By that logic then, the little kiddies who go trick or treating worship witches, ghouls and goblins. Do you really believe that?

More to the point...aren't you being judgemental? Sanctimonious even? As your own faith advises against?

You have a lot to learn about essential religion, God, and spirituality. However, I suspect you aren't that bothered, based on your writings.

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D,
How do you know it doesn't?

Because, empirical data is observable, calculateable and otherwise perceivable by EVERYONE, delusional or not. The claims of theists are comparable only to fantasy. Since no proof of reason can be offered, religion's value is literature only...which is subjective

Please explain how you have arrived at the conclusion regarding religion.

What is immoral about singing hymns as opposed to singing about sexual intercourse, in the presence of children?

Who said anything about singing about sex? Why do theists keep bringing up who I f*ck? Is there some sort of drilled-in obsession about sex?

At any rate...in proper response to your *cough* rebuttal, the act of "singing hymns" itself is not what we have a problem with. The fact that the school, or YOU take it upon yourself to assume we want to be involved in, or we would want OUR children to be involved in this silliness is the immoral thing. ASK first!!! and then accept the answer that some people will actually refuse!

Apparently it is the law of the land, and as such it has to be upheld.
This has been the system in the UK for a long time, yet it is heavily secular, atheistic and irreligious. How do you conclude that indoctrination has taken place, while at the same time pay no attention to the serious decline of moral standards, and intelligence, in this, our one-time great nation? Do you agree with hoards of young people accsesively binge drinking to the point where there is a serious concern for their health and well-being?


It is a law of the land. I take it SL was born in the UK, and therefore attended school here, so he must have some idea as to what happens in public schools.

<between stuff cut out here>

I have read the post in question, and it seems to me that you are exajerating (spelling), to boulster-up a pointless argument.

Unbelievable. I showed you the link. I even posted the PART in the link where it says parents can withdraw their children from worship without question. And yet you still harp on and on. Should I order you a sign? Maybe a plane can sky-write it for you. The letter from the school BY LAW is unfounded. Snakelord can withdraw his daughter without question or challenge.

It depends how you look at it.

No it does not. History is History. Fantasy is Fantasy. Plain and simple. Your romanticism is getting in the way of the higher logical functions of your intelligence.

So why is the secularisation of the UK, an increasing phenomenon?
Could it be that the sheep are being indoctrinated into becoming atheists?

Since when does a lack of belief require indoctrination? A lack of belief can occur simply by athiest parents NOT teaching their child or involving their child in worship. How is this indoctrination?

Then please demonstrate how this works, otherwise I can only conclude that you are a paranoid delusional.

Lol, name calling only signals a cry from a weakened position to me.

The sheep are systematically forced to worship a god, while at the same time not knowing that they are whilst at school. They leave these evil institutions to become free-thinking atheists, who believe their main aim in life is to make alot of money, then get completely rat-arsed at the weekend.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the reason in your jumbled-up dialogues. Maybe it's an atheist thing...eh!

What? WHAAAAAAAT? LOL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ohhhhh Gs and Hs....I love it....*whew* waaait I can't breathe!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* *tears*

And you call me a paranoid delusional? Ohh flip I can't stop laughing

Let's rerun that folks:

They leave these evil institutions to become free-thinking atheists, who believe their main aim in life is to make alot of money, then get completely rat-arsed at the weekend.

Oh dear...we non-religious folk are a bad lot aren't we? Snakelord, I'm going to hop on my personal helicopter (leather interior, complimentary Martini for the guests) and we'll get "rat-arsed" over this topic. What's your drink?

Have you considered that maybe SL sent his child to that school because it has a good academic reputation, and like any caring parent, he wants a piece of that for his child?

Of course he did. And as a caring father, I'm sure he noted that the school has excellent academic results. However, as a responsible institution, they should inform Snakelord of their theist habits. Failing that, when Snakelord requested that his daughter not take part in it, as responsible law-abiding citizens, the administration of the school simply has to comply with the girl's father's command. Without question. That is the end of THAT. That was the issue of this thread, and that issue is answered.

There can be no such thing as a gross theist/spiritual person, think about it.

Gross (adj.) arrant, extreme, complete, out-and-out. IE FUNDAMENTALIST

Your point is silly, as nobody believes the wind actually cries mary.
You believe the atheist has an academic understanding of faith-based religions, my point illustrates upon what level this understanding takes place.

I loved this parallel. There was NO way you could respond to this without crashing. Jan...by the same token that people can listen to a completely made up song and NOT believe the Wind cried Mary!!, folks can read the piece of literature called the Bible and NOT believe that some super-duper being up there flooded the earth, or turned someone into salt, or split the sea in two.

Let me put it another way. Your reaction (which was all I needed) was "nobody actually believes that the wind actually cries Mary". So why do you think it is logical to believe in god? Both the song and the bible offer exactly the same amount of proof to their claims...none.

You claim to understand faith-based religions, and as such, given your opinions. I put it to you, based on your opinions, that clearly you do not understand faith-based religions outside of your biased atheistic opinions.
Of course, this is my opinion.

Of course this is your opinion. I understand it fully. There was once a time I would have been arguing against athiesm. When I was 14.

Jan, I have analysed religion objectively, starting from 17 and continuing even now, and I find no redeeming trait...save those few who actually find a depth of self satisfaction and inner peace (these folks generally don't FORCE their beliefs or seek to preach at peers about their rat-arsing, or threaten that a lack of conversion will result in being thrown into the hellfires). Spirituality and religion have nothing to do with each other.

Can you cite any scripture which back up this claim?

Trying to get me on your battleground are you?

1. YOU are the one claiming that your god has to be worshipped, so much that you object that Snakelord (an athiest) chooses to exercise HIS right and remove his daughter from christian worship rituals. I therefore am not the one who needs to back up any claim.

2. I claimed NOTHING, I asked a real question (not a rhetorical one). Why do you think your god deserves worship? Why do you think six billion people are required simply to worship him? (I ask the second question due to the massive conversion drive christianity has...and this question can be applied to any religion).

Science explains material phenomena (in short), how can that, alone, encourage a growth of intelligence?

Because the scientific process nurtures thinking. Academia (inclusive of science, business, the arts etc) encourages question and challenge.

And how do you explain the increasing secularisation of Britian, while it children, past and present, have been forcefully indoctrinated with religion?
There isn't even a rebelion against religion in this country.

Of course not, it is wasteful to fight an enemy who outnumbers you 8 to 1.

Second, the increasing secularisation of Britian is occuring because your people are growing obsolete and being replaced by younger bodies with newer ideas. Very simple.

How on earth is this provable.

I never said a consensus is EASY. I said it's provable. Or verifiable. You can go count yourself!

If you say so, but I'm not convinced, I still think people use stats to give cred to their campaign. Tony Blair does it all the time, and it has become a joke.

Oh one thing we do agree on is that statistics are very very easy to manipulate. However, this does not draw from the fact that numbers are always verifiable. Any statistics you can check yourself.

Called on it by whom?
Your an atheist, and most probably a gross-materialist, what do you really understand, and how is it relevant to the essence of religion, other than to get rid of it quick, any which way, which, let's face it, is the easy way out.

Jan...I called you on something you wish other people to accept as truth without question. Why can't you see that?

Second, as a theist what do you really understand about reality? Serious question.

Third, as eager as I am to see the topple of the Christian Reich and the Islam Empire et al. I am in no way labouring under the misapprehension that it can happen in my entire lifetime. And in no way do I see the destruction of religion as an easy answer.

Forth, theists are the ones who accept easy answers ("god did it") as opposed to figuring out the mysteries of the universe.

I'm afraid it is obvious. A christian, who worships Jesus as their saviour, is most un-likely to be getting rat-arsed in town at the weekend, in the same way a rat-arsed youth is un-likely to want to be asociated with christianity.
THE TWO DON'T GO TOGETHER. :bugeye:

Absolute rubbish. Who are you Dionne Warwick? I suggest you actually leave your house on Saturday night. Go see who's ACTUALLY at the pubs.

What are you going on about? Do you really think that someone who celebrates christmas is necessarily a worshiper of Jesus, or even, a theist? By that logic then, the little kiddies who go trick or treating worship witches, ghouls and goblins. Do you really believe that?

Well...I just drew a parallel. You seem to be associating a lack of christianity with alcoholism. Why? The story was about good old Uncle Harold (a devout churchgoer), who decided to have a little indulgence. In your world, is he burned for eternity?

You have a lot to learn about essential religion, God, and spirituality. However, I suspect you aren't that bothered, based on your writings.
Jan.

CORRECT!!!

I suggest you have a lot to learn about the difference between religion, god and spirituality. I guarantee you the three things are completely different.

 

[Ayodhya]

Ayodhya I have to disagree with you, fear is the prime motivator of theism, hense if one does not believe, they will burn in hell, fear of not knowing, ignorance created the gods, it's not that one does not understand religion.

As much as you might hate religion and/or theism Godless, you have too look at the facts. Religions could essentially be considered personal philosophies. Personal philosophies of who? Personal philosophies of those people who wrote the documents (Vedas, Bible, Quran, etc.). According to those in charge of the society (consider loosely, Marx and the creation/implementation of Communism), they created a system to create a peaceful society. Even though you may believe otherwise, I truly believe religion was originally created for peace.

Since you are most familiar with Jesus, consider what he said. His word isn't original: Love thy neighbor. Simple. This idea has been around since time immemorial, but no one ever follows it. All else is dogma, wouldn't you say?

Ignorance may be there (as in, people don't read their religion's scriptures), but I don't believe it is ignorance that turns religion into violence. Without a knowledge of eternity (after death, etc.), people fear their finite existences. That is the ignorance which torments people, not necessarily ignorance of their religion.

It's that religion manipulates by force and fear! They force their idealogy, on the assumption that what they are doing is good, those who refuse, they use lack of knowledge. I.E what happens at death, and speculate of hell, to bring fear to those who would fall for this BS.

If I behaved badly as a child, my parents sometimes beat me. And I guarantee you I didn't do whatever it was again. You need fear to keep people in line. Some people follow rules automatically; others don't. It's impossible for everyone to follow the rules - it's not within our imperfect human nature. Personally, nothing will change without religion. People are people and when they need to do bad things, it doesn't matter what their upbringing is.

 

[SnakeLord]

Snakelord, I'm going to hop on my personal helicopter (leather interior, complimentary Martini for the guests) and we'll get "rat-arsed" over this topic. What's your drink?

I'll drink anything, even car diesel.. That's the atheist way.

 

[Enterprise-D]

The sheep are systematically forced to worship a god, while at the same time not knowing that they are whilst at school. They leave these evil institutions to become free-thinking atheists, who believe their main aim in life is to make alot of money, then get completely rat-arsed at the weekend.

I forgot I wanted to highlight this again. This is exactly what I expect that the behemoth entity "the Vatican" aka "Christianity" wants: for their followers to believe that "free-thinking" is evil.

 

[Enterprise-D]

As much as you might hate religion and/or theism Godless, you have too look at the facts. Religions could essentially be considered personal philosophies. Personal philosophies of who? Personal philosophies of those people who wrote the documents (Vedas, Bible, Quran, etc.). According to those in charge of the society (consider loosely, Marx and the creation/implementation of Communism), they created a system to create a peaceful society. Even though you may believe otherwise, I truly believe religion was originally created for peace.

Since you are most familiar with Jesus, consider what he said. His word isn't original: Love thy neighbor. Simple. This idea has been around since time immemorial, but no one ever follows it. All else is dogma, wouldn't you say?

Ignorance may be there (as in, people don't read their religion's scriptures), but I don't believe it is ignorance that turns religion into violence. Without a knowledge of eternity (after death, etc.), people fear their finite existences. That is the ignorance which torments people, not necessarily ignorance of their religion.



If I behaved badly as a child, my parents sometimes beat me. And I guarantee you I didn't do whatever it was again. You need fear to keep people in line. Some people follow rules automatically; others don't. It's impossible for everyone to follow the rules - it's not within our imperfect human nature. Personally, nothing will change without religion. People are people and when they need to do bad things, it doesn't matter what their upbringing is.

Remember the famous quote, 'religion is the opiate of the masses'. This rings true especially for the point. Let me reword your belief. Religion was created as a political tool, much the same way as the current government structure is concerned. By granting folks power thru religion, the masses would be quelled into acceptance of rule.

The thing is though...the masses are becoming more educated daily, and beginning to see what a farce organized religion is.

Keep in mind as well, that you yourself said religion is a personal philosophy. This is no longer justifiable enough to hold the overwhelming majority in check. Religion will eventually become obsolete as a control mechanism, as humans develop a collective high moral set and a better legal system. As I mentioned before tho, I hold no illusions that this will happen in my lifetime.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I'll drink anything, even car diesel.. That's the atheist way.

I'll join you with Absolut and sex juice lol

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

The claims of theists are comparable only to fantasy. Since no proof of reason can be offered, religion's value is literature only...which is subjective

The "claims of theists", and whether religion has a percievable and calcucable value, are two different things. My question was; how do you know religion (based in scripture) does not possess these qualities? Please back-up your confident claim.

Who said anything about singing about sex? Why do theists keep bringing up who I f*ck? Is there some sort of drilled-in obsession about sex?

Who do you think the kids are gonna pay more attention to, some hymns presided over by the school headmaster/mistress, accompanied by a piano, or p. diddy, fiddy-cent, beyonce, justin timberlake and the like?
In the UK, we have one show called "songs of praise", which may have vague references to essential religion. Which show is gonna interest them more, that one, or "desparate housewives", "sex and the city", "eastenders", "holby city", "shameless!", "little britain", "da ali g show", "big brother, etc....

Ooh! I could go on all night long.

Did you know that the UK is the leader, in europe, for underage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, the worst binge-drink, and drug problem. Even worse than amsterdam. It has the lowest literary levels in europe, the worse case of youth gang related violence in europe. Why do you suppose that is?

At any rate...in proper response to your *cough* rebuttal, the act of "singing hymns" itself is not what we have a problem with. The fact that the school, or YOU take it upon yourself to assume we want to be involved in, or we would want OUR children to be involved in this silliness is the immoral thing.

What is silly, is that you bypass the real, growing problems, in our society, and focus on the one thing that actually teaches some kind of human intelligence, as a problem. I find that amazing.

Unbelievable. I showed you the link. I even posted the PART in the link where it says parents can withdraw their children from worship without question. And yet you still harp on and on. Should I order you a sign? Maybe a plane can sky-write it for you. The letter from the school BY LAW is unfounded. Snakelord can withdraw his daughter without question or challenge.

Sorry, I thought that link formed part of your response to Sputnik.

No it does not. History is History. Fantasy is Fantasy. Plain and simple. Your romanticism is getting in the way of the higher logical functions of your intelligence.

Okay seeing as your so sure, explain how it is different. And remember "religion" does not mean "christianity".

Since when does a lack of belief require indoctrination?

You imply that belief in God is not a natual phenomenon, by that, what can only be a rhetorical question. I don't agree with you, everything is based on belief in God, even your lack of belief.

A lack of belief can occur simply by athiest parents NOT teaching their child or involving their child in worship. How is this indoctrination?

But the child can still develop God-consciousness. How so?

Lol, name calling only signals a cry from a weakened position to me.

So you admit you cannot demonstrate how it works, yet you speak with upmost certainty and conviction. My position has been bolstered by your response.

What? WHAAAAAAAT? LOL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ohhhhh Gs and Hs....I love it....*whew* waaait I can't breathe!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And you call me a paranoid delusional? Ohh flip I can't stop laughing

I don't think you quite understood my point; that is a written caricature of the points you make, mixed with the reality of day to day life in the UK.
You are laughing at yourself.

However, as a responsible institution, they should inform Snakelord of their theist habits.

Why should they, if their institution yeild excellent results?
How do you know their "theist habits" as you put it, isn't part of the reason for their success?

Gross (adj.) arrant, extreme, complete, out-and-out. IE FUNDAMENTALIST

Theists, to my knowledge, do not reject matter.

I loved this parallel. There was NO way you could respond to this without crashing. Jan...by the same token that people can listen to a completely made up song and NOT believe the Wind cried Mary!!, folks can read the piece of literature called the Bible and NOT believe that some super-duper being up there flooded the earth, or turned someone into salt, or split the sea in two.

Not only have you dodged the real point of the analogy, you have proved my analysis of atheists who take it upon themselves to claim that they understand faith-based religions. Either they see God with their own eyes, or they ask who created God, thereby assuming him to be a material being.
Those are the only arguments they can muster, which only shows their ignorance of scripture.

Let me put it another way. Your reaction (which was all I needed) was "nobody actually believes that the wind actually cries Mary". So why do you think it is logical to believe in god? Both the song and the bible offer exactly the same amount of proof to their claims...none.

That's a fair point, but for me it is way too simplistic, and superficial.
Its like saying someone must be a good person because they have a beautiful face.

Of course this is your opinion. I understand it fully. There was once a time I would have been arguing against athiesm. When I was 14.

I'm not arguing against atheism, if that is the case, I may as well argue against winter and autumn. An atheist, to me, is some who does not accept the authority of God, for whatever reason. I can totally understand that.

In fact, from the viewpoint of a jehovahs witness I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

Jan, I have analysed religion objectively, starting from 17 and continuing even now, ........
........Spirituality and religion have nothing to do with each other.

Then your analysis, in my opinion, is a waste of time, unless of course by "religion", you refer to sectarianism, and not the scriptures, then in that case, it is entirely possible that you could be right, which would be based on a person by person analysis.

Trying to get me on your battleground are you?

Not really, but out of courtesy, I would like to know how you arrive at this brute-fact conclusion. But if you choose not to disclose the scripture in question, I will take it as yet another dead-end comment.

1. YOU are the one claiming that your god has to be worshipped,

I claimed no such thing, you did, remember.

so much that you object that Snakelord (an athiest) chooses to exercise HIS right and remove his daughter from christian worship rituals.

Which has nothing to do with religion (from my point of view).
This is an atheist forum, if I don't like it, then I leave. Same principles apply.

Why do you think your god deserves worship?

Because he is the greatest.

Why do you think six billion people are required simply to worship him? (I ask the second question due to the massive conversion drive christianity has...and this question can be applied to any religion).

This question makes no sense, which is why I asked you to cite a scriptoral source

Because the scientific process nurtures thinking. Academia (inclusive of science, business, the arts etc) encourages question and challenge.

So does religion.

...Any statistics you can check yourself.

My question was; how is this provable?

Jan...I called you on something you wish other people to accept as truth without question. Why can't you see that?

Why can't you see that getting rat-arsed, like a trooper, every weekend, is not a part of the christian life-style, and if a christian does do that, then he/she, by definition, is not a christian.

Second, as a theist what do you really understand about reality? Serious question.

That it is real...
What kind of a question is that?

Forth, theists are the ones who accept easy answers ("god did it") as opposed to figuring out the mysteries of the universe.

What? As opposed to "God didn't do it", the atheist answer.

Absolute rubbish. Who are you Dionne Warwick? I suggest you actually leave your house on Saturday night. Go see who's ACTUALLY at the pubs.

How do you know I don't?

Well...I just drew a parallel. You seem to be associating a lack of christianity with alcoholism.

Not at all. I am associating lack of christianity with getting rat-arsed every friday and saturday night, as a cultural pastime.

Why? The story was about good old Uncle Harold (a devout churchgoer), who decided to have a little indulgence. In your world, is he burned for eternity?

Wrong!!
In your world.

Jan.

 

[Godless]

Jan, do you like the noose around your neck? Enterprise has put the noose around your neck, and tightens it, with every post, you are helping him make that noose tighter. Sease and leave it at that, your done for, you've lost, move on, why keep making yourself look like an imbesil?

 

[SnakeLord]

Did you know that the UK is the leader, in europe, for underage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, the worst binge-drink, and drug problem. Even worse than amsterdam. It has the lowest literary levels in europe, the worse case of youth gang related violence in europe. Why do you suppose that is?

I'd actually be interested to see statistics concerning this, (I have seen vague media reports concerning a couple of these things [mainly underage pregnancy], but would like to see actual statistics).

I'd also like to know why it came up. Surely you're not trying to say there is a link to this and lack of religion? If so you'd need something to back it up with.. I could argue for instance that Germany has a lower rate of underage pregnancies but also has a lower % religiosity than England, and so surely, if you were to claim these things were down to a lack of religion, Germany would be higher?

Why can't you see that getting rat-arsed, like a trooper, every weekend, is not a part of the christian life-style, and if a christian does do that, then he/she, by definition, is not a christian.

You need to see that "getting rat-arsed" is irrelevant to what religion or lack thereof somebody would consider themselves of belonging to. While sure, you wont find many fundies in the local boozer, (nor will you find many grand chessmasters for that matter), you will probably find more people in the boozer that consider themselves christian than atheist. They might not be 'christian' in accordance to your specific ideals of what makes a christian a "real one" (tm), but that isn't really the issue here.

I can do a survey if you want, (although very hard pushed to get any decent results too late on a Saturday night), but it wont work if you're denying someone the right to call themselves christian if they happen to drink. You're making your own statistics by doing that:

A) "Real" christians don't drink.

B) There were 100 drinkers in the pub Friday night

C) None of them were christian because (A) says so.

That's pretty silly.

 

[Ayodhya]

Remember the famous quote, 'religion is the opiate of the masses'. This rings true especially for the point. Let me reword your belief. Religion was created as a political tool, much the same way as the current government structure is concerned. By granting folks power thru religion, the masses would be quelled into acceptance of rule.

Interesting enough, in one of the oldest pieces of the written word, the Vedas (Hindu scripture), there are several passages that could be interpreted as disbelief or at least uncertainty. So perhaps it was indeed a way of keeping the masses in check.

You have to agree that as long as the society is quelled, it truly couldn't have been a completely disastrous invention? Men will do what they will - fight, make peace, make love, etc. regardless of religion's existence in my opinion, so to create a rule structure seemed natural. Isn't it? We all do it - constantly creating rules that is.

The thing is though...the masses are becoming more educated daily, and beginning to see what a farce organized religion is.

The disintegration of organized religion is giving way to personal spirituality and personal philosophies.

Keep in mind as well, that you yourself said religion is a personal philosophy. This is no longer justifiable enough to hold the overwhelming majority in check.

Yes, a personal philosophy extended to too many people who probably did not share (or weren't smart enough to create their own) their beliefs (this is especially evident in today's world).

Religion will eventually become obsolete as a control mechanism, as humans develop a collective high moral set and a better legal system. As I mentioned before tho, I hold no illusions that this will happen in my lifetime.

In my mind, morality is subjective on some accounts.
To say, that we as humans are developing a higher moral set could be true on some levels, but overall, I don't think the major social evils in this world will ever be removed regardless of how far we "progress" as a society.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

I'd actually be interested to see statistics concerning this, (I have seen vague media reports concerning a couple of these things [mainly underage pregnancy], but would like to see actual statistics).

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/23112006/140/uk-s-cocaine-problem-worst-europe.html
http://www.ias.org.uk/newsroom/pressreleases/press010606.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ain.html?in_article_id=244507&in_page_id=1774

I'd also like to know why it came up.
Surely you're not trying to say there is a link to this and lack of religion?

Read my posts.

I could argue for instance that Germany has a lower rate of underage pregnancies but also has a lower % religiosity than England, and so surely, if you were to claim these things were down to a lack of religion, Germany would be higher?

You seem worried about a few hymns while this tornado (above) which has
nothing to do with singing hymns in assembly, spirals out of control.

You need to see that "getting rat-arsed" is irrelevant to what religion or lack thereof somebody would consider themselves of belonging to.

There is no scriptural religion that encourages people to get rat-arsed, or encourages illicit sexual relations, yet this is increasingly rife in the UK.
Being worried that your daughter may be indoctrinated by singing a few hymns, in this type of atmosphere, seems silly.
Plus, if you believe religion is a tool to indoctrinate people, and it encourages, at worst, drink in moderation, and at best, no intoxication whatsoever, then the people for whom getting rat-arsed is part of their culture, will include no religious people.

While sure, you wont find many fundies in the local boozer, (nor will you find many grand chessmasters for that matter), you will probably find more people in the boozer that consider themselves christian than atheist.

So you believe that if someone calls themself a "christian", that is the only qualification needed, and they are automatically "a christian", or a muslim?
What if they claim to be, but are not? What say you then? :bugeye:

They might not be 'christian' in accordance to your specific ideals of what makes a christian a "real one" (tm), but that isn't really the issue here.

A christian is a follower of Jesus, therefore that,
by definition, must
be the utmost ideal. Coming down from that, a christian is a person who follows the doctrine of their particular sect, and I know of no sects which encourages binge-drinking.
DO YOU?
If someone whimsically claims he is a christian, but does as he likes, then what is the actual difference of action, compared to someone who does as they like.

I can do a survey if you want, (although very hard pushed to get any decent results too late on a Saturday night), but it wont work if you're denying someone the right to call themselves christian if they happen to drink. You're making your own statistics by doing that:

I am the greatest scientist in the world. Do you believe me?

Real
christians don't drink.

B) There were 100 drinkers in the pub Friday night

C) None of them were christian because (A) says so.

That's pretty silly.

Define "a christian"?

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Folks I apologize for the loooooong post :$

Enterprise-D,
The "claims of theists", and whether religion has a percievable and calcucable value, are two different things. My question was; how do you know religion (based in scripture) does not possess these qualities? Please back-up your confident claim.

I should qualify this statement...the acceptance of religion as unchallengable historical fact, and reason to worship is intellectually barren. Religion had its place in controlling unruly and uncivilized masses.

Now...you're once again asking me to join you on your turf where YOU have the advantage. Obviously I'm not going to be able to prove to you that religion is worthless based on scripture since the very thing I'm telling you is of no value IS scripture.

I can however cite examples where religion's perceivable value comes into question. Right here on this board.

Any theist save the MOST disillusioned can witness, perceive and understand the value of scientific pursuit, business pursuit, arts pursuit. For purposes of time I'll leave out examples assuming you're smart enough to realise it yourself.

Accepting the assumptions of religion however goes completely opposite with what discoveries of physical evidence have exposed. As well, a simple definition of process of religious endeavour couldn't be agreed upon or even properly outlined by LG and ilk - probably numbering less than 10 in that argument, so how is this acceptable as a universally valuable pursuit on a wider scale?

The above is my stab at it, however, I'll take a risk though against my better judgement. Scriptural oddities:

(Leviticus 11:13-19, repeated in Deuteronomy 14:11-20) Where the bat is referred to as a bird. Scientifically useless.

(Proverbs 23:7) "As he thinketh in his heart, so is he." KEEP in mind that English slang was not invented back in those days...so the heart as an personified emotive entity did not exist. That thought came from the heart was a literal belief. Scientifically useless. Also repeated in Deuteronomy 15:9, Judges 5:15, I Chronicles 29:18, Esther 6:6, Job 17:11, Psalm 10:6, Psalm 33:11, Jeremiah 23:20, Isaiah 10:7, Daniel 2:30, Acts 8:22.

Who do you think the kids are gonna pay more attention to, some hymns presided over by the school headmaster/mistress, accompanied by a piano, or p. diddy, fiddy-cent, beyonce, justin timberlake and the like?
In the UK, we have one show called "songs of praise", which may have vague references to essential religion. Which show is gonna interest them more, that one, or "desparate housewives", "sex and the city", "eastenders", "holby city", "shameless!", "little britain", "da ali g show", "big brother, etc....

LOL you didn't answer my question. Besides I'd pay more attention to Justin Timberlake too anyday...

Did you know that the UK is the leader, in europe, for underage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, the worst binge-drink, and drug problem. Even worse than amsterdam. It has the lowest literary levels in europe, the worse case of youth gang related violence in europe. Why do you suppose that is?

Don't have a clue. However, your European secular counterparts do not have that problem. Maybe there's still too much religion in the UK? Anyway, Snakelord handled this.

What is silly, is that you bypass the real, growing problems, in our society, and focus on the one thing that actually teaches some kind of human intelligence, as a problem. I find that amazing.

WHAAAAAAAAT? LOL hahahahahahaha Jan you are by far the funniest person I've located on these boards. lol. By your own words, viewers of our little back-and-forth can garner for themselves that you are a facilitator of the status-quo and a supporter of imprisoned minds. Since this is a product of your theistic opinions (educated guess here), your bold statement that religion teaches human intelligence is quite quixotic.

Okay seeing as your so sure, explain how it is different. And remember "religion" does not mean "christianity".

AH! But therein lies the problem. Christianity (for example) forms an immutable part of humanity's history. It's destruction of pagan religions, it's hold on Rome, the justifications of the Vatican of old to wipe out and assimilate opposing cultures, it's eventual ratification to slightly better human behavior. All of that is history. This is a historical review of religion. One can even examine the literature of the bible/quran/bhagadvita (whatever) from a historical context, eg the evolution of morals, the development of language, even the extent of writer's imaginations and poetry of verbage.

What is NOT history much of the actual content of these books. Holding up the writings of compendiums of literature as history when physical evidence shows quite the opposite is where theists replace history with fantasy. And teaching other people's children this brouhaha without their knowledge, or even fighting to keep an athiest's child IN worship is the moral issue here.

You imply that belief in God is not a natual phenomenon, by that, what can only be a rhetorical question. I don't agree with you, everything is based on belief in God, even your lack of belief.

LOL what crap. This is semantics based on your own bias and perspective.

But the child can still develop God-consciousness. How so?

The same way they develop imaginary friends. Or construct Pokemon adventures in their minds with inanimate toys.

So you admit you cannot demonstrate how it works, yet you speak with upmost certainty and conviction. My position has been bolstered by your response.

What audacity.

I don't think you quite understood my point; that is a written caricature of the points you make, mixed with the reality of day to day life in the UK.
You are laughing at yourself.

Touche and brava, I honestly missed that you could have been using sarcasm as another debating tactic. However, I still love your choice of words, because many fundamentalist theists actually hold beliefs such as that which you whimsically sprinkled.

Why should they, if their institution yeild excellent results?
How do you know their "theist habits" as you put it, isn't part of the reason for their success?

Because you sanctimonious prude, YOU do not hold the rights, and the SCHOOL does not hold the right to teach Snakelord's daughter something that is based on opinion. It matters not where their success came from, as this right is legally, ethically and intellectually independant of successful academic education.

PS my opinion is that the teachers are able to separate themselves from religion in the classroom and wield effective teaching tools.

Theists, to my knowledge, do not reject matter.

Ok?

Not only have you dodged the real point of the analogy, you have proved my analysis of atheists who take it upon themselves to claim that they understand faith-based religions. Either they see God with their own eyes, or they ask who created God, thereby assuming him to be a material being.
Those are the only arguments they can muster, which only shows their ignorance of scripture.

Then Jan enlighten me, what was your point? Because Jan, I brought OTHER questions to bear, which place your beliefs in doubt. The WHY of worship. You assume much in thinking if I (or other non-religious folk) SEE god we'll automatically worship him. This by and large is not the case. Let's suppose I accept that god exists...

-WHY should I worship this being?
-WHY do you theist folk insist on converting others to your own religion insisting that all of us were created to praise him (Yahweh, Allah whatever).
-WHY does a lack of worship buy us nonbelievers - who are otherwise very moral, charitable and sober people - a one way ticket to your hellfires?
-WHY would your so called loving god destroy his 'children' for such inane reasons as not kneeling and praising?
-WHY does an omnipotent being require praise anyway?

Keep in mind that giving us life is NOT a sufficient answer. Him being omnipotent is also NOT a sufficient answer.

That's a fair point, but for me it is way too simplistic, and superficial.
Its like saying someone must be a good person because they have a beautiful face.

Incomparable analogy. Or maybe I'm unenlightened.

I'm not arguing against atheism, if that is the case, I may as well argue against winter and autumn. An atheist, to me, is some who does not accept the authority of God, for whatever reason. I can totally understand that.

Then why side with the school? Snakelord has every legal right to insist that his daughter be removed from it's theist rituals, yet benefit from the academic education that his tax money is paying for.

Then your analysis, in my opinion, is a waste of time, unless of course by "religion", you refer to sectarianism, and not the scriptures, then in that case, it is entirely possible that you could be right, which would be based on a person by person analysis.

Yes and no; I was referring to spirituality like Oprah or Maya Angelou would display. While they're both christian, they project an aura of self-contained happiness, and do not seek to assimilate people or cultures to their own beliefs.

Not really, but out of courtesy, I would like to know how you arrive at this brute-fact conclusion. But if you choose not to disclose the scripture in question, I will take it as yet another dead-end comment.

Fine...scripture it is then. Even though I KNOW I should not be on your battleground, handle these two for now.

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exodus 34:14)

How about even:

"Bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." (II Corinthians 10:5)

Doesn't that sound like demand of worship to you?

I claimed no such thing, you did, remember.

Quote me where I CLAIMED it, instead of asking. You however claimed it indirectly when you became indignant that Snakelord dared question the school's worshippy habits.

Which has nothing to do with religion (from my point of view).
This is an atheist forum, if I don't like it, then I leave. Same principles apply.

NO they do NOT. Snakelord, and yourself, pay TAXES for education. Therefore it is NOT a simple case of "if you don't like it, leave".

Because he is the greatest.

This is not an acceptable answer (to me). I don't see the moral need to worship anyone because he's better than I am in certain tasks or attributes. Visible or invisible. Impotent or omnipotent. Real or fake.

This question makes no sense, which is why I asked you to cite a scriptoral source

Sigh...Jan...it is the movement and habit of many theists (esp Christianity and Islam) to seek to convert. I need no scriptural reference, I just need my eyes and ears. Jehovah's witnesses visit constantly. Islamic fundamentalists seek to kill if you make a muslim cartoon. WHY? WHY? Tell me WHY Jan...what is the reason that all of you think that us 6 billion humans NEED to worship your respective god?

So does religion.

How does religion generate a process that nurtures thinking Jan? Tell me. Outside of debating athiests that is

My question was; how is this provable?

And my answer was YOU can go count for YOURSELF. I never said the proof was easy, cheap or quick.

Why can't you see that getting rat-arsed, like a trooper, every weekend, is not a part of the christian life-style, and if a christian does do that, then he/she, by definition, is not a christian.

Snakelord dealt with this issue quite handily, even though I see you came up with your usual tattered response. I wont deal with the "rat-arsed" section again.

That it is real...
What kind of a question is that?

LOL yes, it was sorta a wide question. Really should be a separate thread or something, never mind.

What? As opposed to "God didn't do it", the atheist answer.

AH but athiests go a step further and FIND the correct answers. YOU guys don't. Another point showing how theism fosters academic stagnance.

How do you know I don't?

Do you? Asking me if i know you don't doesn't tell me whether you sought to prove it.

Not at all. I am associating lack of christianity with getting rat-arsed every friday and saturday night, as a cultural pastime.

You seem to have disdain for both alcohol, and "hanging out" as the Americans say. Why?

Wrong!!
In your world.

Forget Uncle Harold for now, the issue of associated level of sin to hellfires could be a separate thread.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I apologize for the lengthy post

 

[Enterprise-D]

Interesting enough, in one of the oldest pieces of the written word, the Vedas (Hindu scripture), there are several passages that could be interpreted as disbelief or at least uncertainty. So perhaps it was indeed a way of keeping the masses in check.

Indeed? I did not know this.

You have to agree that as long as the society is quelled, it truly couldn't have been a completely disastrous invention? Men will do what they will - fight, make peace, make love, etc. regardless of religion's existence in my opinion, so to create a rule structure seemed natural. Isn't it? We all do it - constantly creating rules that is.

This brings to mind another saying. "The ends do not justify the means". Yes religions succeeded at controlling their respective societies. But what about the destruction that occured when religions clashed? Was that price worth it?

In my mind, morality is subjective on some accounts.
To say, that we as humans are developing a higher moral set could be true on some levels, but overall, I don't think the major social evils in this world will ever be removed regardless of how far we "progress" as a society.

Well, I agree to some extent. Humans love a conspiracy for example. I disagree that major social evils will never be removed. I'd like to think that criminal murder will cease to exist (example). If this ceases to exist, self defense killing would no longer be necessary (example extrapolated).

That aside, evolution is as permanent as the human race...however long we last will tell how far our morals develop.

 

[Oniw17]

If someone whimsically claims he is a christian, but does as he likes, then what is the actual difference of action, compared to someone who does as they like.

The christian believes that Jesus was their savior. Isn't that the definition of a christian?

I am the greatest scientist in the world. Do you believe me?

If you said that you believe you are the greatest scientist in the world, I would believe you. A christian is defined by belief, not by their actions. The same as every other religion.

Define "a christian"?

One who has faith that a person named Jesus was their Messiah.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Oniw...do you get "rat-arsed" sometimes?

Edit: I'll leave the question, but I just noticed that in many areas it would be illegal for Oniw to get "rat-arsed" - assuming his age is correct.