Actually ...
While I think humanity only stands to gain from the end of Christianity, a couple of points for the discussion.
.............and makes me laugh like mad
What
actually makes me laugh like mad is this absurd assumption of a noble human spirit corrupted by Christianity:
• Reid leaping from Christianity to all religion in the space of seconds.
• Reid's notion of deliberation in religion:
someone started them so they could slowly evolve into new religions.
• Neutrino's leap to all religions.
• Supernova's apologism.
• Pollux's direct leap to all religion.
In the topic post (Reid), I see a couple of valid points:
- One's religion determined by cultural factors.
- Reasons for religious suppositions.
But the broader attack is utterly pointless. We know, for instance, that Christianity does an enormous amount of human damage, but there are two vital errors. First, that it kills more people than it saves. In terms of the "going to heaven" saving, I agree entirely. But everybody is so damn obsessed with things like rape and murder and war that they don't notice what the religious
psychology does, in fact, contribute.
Adam, for instance, recently stood on the point that atheism is the natural state by birth. We had a row about the transitory nature of the natural state, but that aside, as the analogy goes, we see that in the natural state after birth, all is instinctive at best, and largely incapable. And
this is whence rises the misplaced fear by religionists that a lack of religion equals a lack of morality.
Atheism is, by and large, a reaction to the Judeo-Christian ethic which makes God nonsensical. As I believe it was Diderot who put it, God is the most sublime and useless of mysteries. Anyone delving into Hinduism or Buddhism, for instance, eventually comes upon parts of the religious model so representative of the larger mysteries of being alive that one cannot apply such grand, temporal cycles to the living experience but merely work within them. As one steps into "American Hindu", for instance, everything religious becomes even more vague, and in the California interpretation it seems that religion becomes psychology. But prior to the atheism of Diderot, Spinoza, and others, largely reactive to the Newtonian God of the Christians, atheism was a particularly odd insult bandied about. The nonsense of the Christian trinity even moved some in its foundling days to refer to the religion as atheist, that is, that Christians were without a god.
I don't object to the central philosophy of atheism, for there is none to object to. But, as we see, such an aggressive and personalized philosophy as modern atheism does nothing to reduce the human tendency toward division, artificial classification, or personal supremacy.
Religions make people laugh? Well, they ought to. But sexuality makes me laugh, too. Relationships make me laugh morbidly. Commerce is a joke at best. As we see in the United States, thousands of Christians-by-label have dropped their ethics and morals in order to play "keeping up with the Joneses", both politically and materially. Take the number of pro-life (abortion) advocates who are also pro-death (capital punishment). Even more stunning, in the face of the new concept of "lifestyle sins" (e.g. homosexuality) is the number of divorced and remarried Christians, who are technically living in adultery. One might say that the collapse of Christian morality is a desperate attempt of undereducated people to keep up with the Joneses.
Sadly, though, if we compare the Christian experience to the Islamic one, the tragedy is that Christian "progress" comes from the process of lowering God among Christian priorities. That is, it appears that Muslims take what God says more seriously, to the point of lethal extremism.
The failure of Christianity comes in an examination of its results. Redemptionism is dangerous, especially when presented within a paradigm that prefers eternal truths to observable reality.
I, for instance, resent Christianity on these grounds. After all that's promised, that flock can't even begin to deliver.
Thus, we can look at, say, the results of Christianity: on the one hand, sexual mores can be beneficial to society; to the other, we see what such obsession brings in the recent Catholic scandal. Now, is that a "Christian" issue of pedophilia, or is pedophilia a greater issue of human nature? It seems that adults having sex with children happens quite frequently, across the spectrum. Is the Christian failure, then, the pedophilia itself or that God is not strong enough to prevent (or, by some interpretations, even advocates) the act? One cannot resolve the issue of "Christian" pedophilia within the Christian paradigm.
Functional results are a good measure.
When you vote, what is the primary consideration:
What does this get me? or
Who gets hurt? It depends entirely on what is important. The former, being the most common consideration, only reflects the benefit of
one person in the act of voting, and that benefit is dubious. The latter reflects considerations of a larger number of people. Tax issues are about the government taking
your money or
my money; moral issues are about "me" or "mine" (e.g. My kid shouldn't have to have a faggot teacher; it's a violation of my rights my kid cannot be raised in a heterosexual-only environment according to family values the way God (?!) intended.)
On that count, collectively, atheists are as guilty as Christians.
It's not actually about God or no God. It's more about the self. It's a
me, me, me! situation.
And the paranoia is almost mythical:
• Yes invented is the wrong word, but someone started them so they could slowly evolve into new religions (Reid)
If religion was
invented, started, or otherwise, in the latter 20th century, yeah, I would agree with that. But that nexus occurred somewhere around the Christian experience, at least, when laws of the Judeo-Christian endeavor became arbitrary. Incidentally, the idea of salvation through grace is largely responsible for this decline, as well, as what one does in life became less and less important to God, an acknowledgment of human nature.
Cris once made the important and, imho proper point that in a redemptive scheme, life becomes less valuable because there is something
more valuable to be sought. This reflection is somewhat idyllic; in an atheistic world, it would seem, the sacredness of life should take a step up since there is no longer a mythical "more important" factor to be considered. Thus, one would not be so ready to rush headlong into death (Origen, the Song of Roland, &c). This is a bit profound in terms of Sciforums debates, except that it has one functional problem to overcome. It seems that, functionally speaking, that elevation of human life
has, in fact, taken place. But only, so to speak,
my life or
your life. That is, while it is admirable that nobody's going to be dashing off to martyr themselves among our atheist crews, the result is that those
other people do not seem to matter as much. Like I said, when you vote ...?
But religion most likely arose from superstition--they are, after all, vitally intertwined. One did not conceive of the
fire god for instance, with the idea that he could possess the fire god and control people.
The exploitation of religion for political purposes came about as a largely-atheistic notion; obviously, one does not respect the "reality" of a god if one intends to own and control it. And the notion of allowing religions to evolve did not truly come about until either Christ himself or well into the Christian endeavor. History tells us how broadly Christ's words are received. Torture is mercy, hate is love, darkness is light; they are the original mona lisas and mad hatters of the god-set:
While Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters
Sons of bankers, sons of lawyers,
Turn around and say, "Good Morning," to the night--
For unless they see the sky,
But they can't and that is why
They know not if it's dark outside or light.
(John/Taupin)
And from that Christian chaos we see a resolution between politics and religion that we are still trying to break today. But it seems that people are focused largely on the labels. It's unaccpetable because it's Christian or atheist or whatever. Rather, it should be unacceptable because it doesn't work. It seems atheists are even caught up in the stupid either/or duality of modern life.
I must admit, though, that in a topic directed at Christians, the leap to criticizing all religious thought--even those one is unaware of--is hasty, extreme, and more than a little ridiculous.
• I say we don't need religion anymore, it kills more people then it saves (Reid)
• The one and only purpose of religion is to keep a supply of stupid people to entertain me. (Neutrino Albatross)
• I think before religion really disapears all of these hardcore fascists at the heads of the generally big religions will have to die out to be replaced by more liberal people. (Pollux V)
Clarity? Anyone? It's just that while I can definitely apply such statements to Christianity (and yes, there is a Christian breeding ground for stupidity, it's called American fundamentalism), and I can extend them to a good number of faiths, but I can also exclude Buddhism, Sufism, and a number of localized tribal religions; I exclude the Christian "Society of Friends" (Quakers) because of observable results, but neither do they speak for the general trend among Christians. (George Fox was an interesting dude.)
We can, from
Pollux's quote, draw some restriction, but it seems this restriction is incidental, an accident of syntax.
That instantaneous leap, though, is just as silly and presumptive as the Christians who would brand you as evil for your lack of faith.
But it is nice to know that people have so much in common.
And even the art of apologism:
• Atheism is not a religion. A beleif (or lack of one) doesn't necessarily mean it's a religion. (Supernova Smash)
You are correct that atheism is not a religion. Its protection as a religion is, of course, necessitated in the United States by the Christian presumption of the favor of the law.
But the lack of a god due to lack of exposure is natural. To actively choose to have no god is to take a religious stance. In one's own life, it is hardly consequential. But since we all realize--don't we?--that life isn't just about the self, the relationship of what atheism is to what other people think of it becomes quite important.
Take recent discussions in other topics, where in the name of atheistic objectivity, people are expected to accept on faith the nobility of the atheist stance and to ignore the observable result.
Quite frankly, it sounds religious to me.
Religions (and atheism) are merely accretions to disguise the inevitable human nature. Beneath the religions, people are still largely the same in certain ways. Greed, ignorance, politics. Our idea of a "good guy" these days is "someone who doesn't hurt me".
Personally, I carry an intentionally-vague religion. But I must confess that it has, of late, occurred to me that the goddess does, indeed, have a name:
Caprice.
For, after all, caprice is a trait most common to humans, and since humans create gods ....
thanx much,
Tiassa