Yeah that's pretty damn offensive. The implication is that morality only exists in a religious context. What tripe.

Make sure your holy writings contradict themselves every few pages and mix in a few solid "religious facts" like "gravity makes things fall upward" or "ice is warmer than fire" so that you can have a healthy and vigorous "the jury is still out because I say so" debate with scientists.

You are the expert in religion afterall.

You don't have to be an expert to recognize that belief in the supernatural is in tension with factual reality.

If you say so.

Well either that or the jury's still out, right? In a world where reality is as one chooses anything is possible. They say knowledge is power, but that underestimates imagination by a long-shot.

Its not a case of believing in

A) the real world
Or
B) magical fairy land

True. The word "fairy" can be anything you choose.

If that were true this, statements like 'religion should be wiped out' or that 'all people who believe are idiots' would not bother me.

Well we differ there. I don't care that religions are all appeals to supernatural powers to explain shifting cultural norms of morality. To call for them to be wiped out strikes me as tragic. I have nothing against tradition. I am fine with anybody else believing whatever they want to to help them do what they consider moral (provided it doesn't interfere with my lives or the lives of others that do not wish to be interfered with or that lack the capacity to make that judgment like children). Calling for them to be wiped away just because they are legends and fictional stories is the same as erasing your history. Human culture is depleted by such a thing and that is a terrible loss in my view.

As for the idea that all people who believe are idiots, again I don't think I would go so far despite the fact that I think that what they believe is false. The idiots are those that argue for their spiritual version of reality in place of the fact-based experiential reality that surrounds us. Religion has its place and that place is not the laboratory or the school room. If a person is religious then I think his reasoning is flawed but his result is fine. Provided he doesn't rub my face in his reasoning I usually don't even know he's religious. Religion is a private matter. Idiots go out of their way to make it public. You can't just call all religious people idiots simply because their reasoning is poor.

Doormouse - was up in a bookstore on walnut last night and saw world history according to the bible, including maps ect, thought of you. Looked interesting.

When you believe Jesus, what He told us, you know that the entire Bible can be summed up in the ONE "rule" of Do Unto Others.

fyre, man. sometimes you're real hard to understand, but sometimes you really hit the nail on the head. You're absolutely right, the entire new testament (well at least the gospels and acts) can be summed up into just that "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself" Which, if you're looking at just that, is some solid advice.

Morality can really come from anywhere. I make it no hidden secret that my moral code comes from my very strong Roman Catholic background, but I don't think I truly (tried to) live them for the sake of doing what is right (not just living the code for fear of some eternal damnation) until I became sans-religion, atheist, or whatever I "am". Different strokes, different folks, I guess.

I was raised Christian and I remember that one of the things that bothered me the most was that according to the Sunday School teachers it didn't matter how nice of a guy the Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist fellow you knew was. He had selected the wrong religion and would burn for it eternally. Even at this early formative age something about that just struck me as completely wrong and evil.
[/quote]

I assume that is an exclusively Christian idea? Catholics see it differently since Vatican II, particularly since 1994 and 2000 -  People of different faiths as long as they live "do unto others" (which is the basis for a whole hell of a lot of religions) will obtain "salvation" as the gospel lays it out.

With that being said, Catholic teachings really don't bother with a concept of hell anymore. No idea what the Vatican thinks of that.

I was actually raised Roman Catholic too. But I had some oldschool CCD teachers. Full of detailed descriptions for the kids of the the fire and brimstone of hell that the wicked would see. I know the official line has changed within Catholicism but it's still alive in Christianity at large and even in some individual Catholics.

I guess I'm not certain of the details but I imagine the current dogma holds that those who have not been baptized or confirmed or those that don't believe in Jesus will still have to burn off some of these sins in purgatory, no? I mean as far as I was taught almost nobody gets directly into heaven except saints and no non-Christian is eligible for sainthood, right?

Japan has a good system, all the sting was taken out of the religious system by the feudal lords so these days it's go to the temple on new years day and party up for the next 364.

Yeah that's pretty damn offensive. The implication is that morality only exists in a religious context. What tripe.

Straight up, they have appropriated all normal human traits and branded them as their own.

They appropriated a damn sight more than that and claim it as their own.

I mean, YEAH!

These filppin' RELIGIOUS folks have just taken every freakin' GOOD TRAIT known to man,

and claimed that their "God" not only INVENTED it, but actually ENCOURAGES exhibiting it!!!

Cripes!

God invented Guinness. I'm serious, who hasn't had a Guinness without thanking some higher power?

"God" not only INVENTED it, but actually ENCOURAGES exhibiting it!!!

Opinion.

God invented Guinness.

Fact.

God invented Guinness. I'm serious, who hasn't had a Guinness without thanking some higher power?

This is why you are a respected member of this community.

Doormouse: WARNING:  Im going to use some "god language" (the thought makes my skin crawl), but I dont know how else to answer your questions without it, so bear with me.

I guess I'm not certain of the details but I imagine the current dogma holds that those who have not been baptized or confirmed or those that don't believe in Jesus will still have to burn off some of these sins in purgatory, no?

you're thinking of "Limbo" which isn't necessarily taught anymore. Purgatory, as it is taught post-vatican II, is a "conversation" with god - like your final confession of sin after death. According to Catholics, the merciful God forgives and you resurrect. There is no floating around or concept of time in a waiting room as was previously taught.

I mean as far as I was taught almost nobody gets directly into heaven except saints and no non-Christian is eligible for sainthood, right?

I think there's a lot you have confused here. "Saints" don't become "Saints" until well after the human in question is deceased. For example, Mother Theresa of Calcutta isn't a Saint yet, she is only "blessed". St. Katherine Drexel took forever to be canonized. There's all sorts of things that go on in the Vatican before a deceased can become a saint. Therefore, no one resurrects as a saint. The Vatican is always reviewing who is, who should no longer be, and who could become a saint. Its all very confusing. As for the non-christian and sainthood, I am not sure about that. Mahatma Gandhi would be the best candidate for that but I dont think that's on the table.

the 7th sacrament, the anointing of the sick, contains reconciliation within it which is supposed to prepare the person for resurrection into heaven. That's why it is very important for many hard-line catholics to wear a bracelet that says they are catholic, or to tell a hospital that they are in need of a priest when they are very sick. Also the catholic rite of burial contains all sorts of reconciliation references in it.

Sounds like you were taught by a very old catechist. I had the same problem in my primary years. I went to 13 years of catholic education, 4 were single sex. From grades 1-3 I was taught out of old 1950's catechism books and learned all about purgatory, not eating meat on fridays, limbo and all sorts of pre-vatican II stuff (the scary stuff) when I was very young. It really fucked me up. But then the bishop closed a bunch of schools, including mine and I ended up in a different school, taught by a different sect of nuns, and these sisters taught by Vatican II and I re-learned the faith.  I relearned again when my mother sent me to high school (a liberal single sex school). I learned about myths, catholic "facts" and  had an opportunity to survey Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism... ect. However, its important that i say my liberal education didn't keep me in the faith - But learning proper catechism helped me not to hate the faith. I found that religion was not for me after plenty of self examination and meditation in mid/late high school. I began to dislike religion after watching too many kill all in the name of something whose existence they could not prove.

And Brats soaked in Guinness, grilled over charcoal - that is Manna, bitches.

Purgatory, as it is taught post-vatican II, is a "conversation" with god - like your final confession of sin after death.

Whereas I was taught that Limbo is reserved for unborn babies (because they weren't baptised and didn't need punishment) and Purgatory was a place of mild to severe punishment (like hell) but for a limited time. Essentially you'd "burn off" your sins in Purgatory and only the truly wicked would stay in Hell forever.

I think there's a lot you have confused here. "Saints" don't become "Saints" until well after the human in question is deceased.

As far as I remember being taught Sainthood is merely recognized by humans years afterward. There is an extensive examination process including the need for at least one miracle to be attributed to the saint in question. But I thought that that the saint's direct entrance into heaven without any purgatory is as a result of his/her past life and not the politics-infused determinations of us lowly humans. If non-Christians are eligible for Sainthood then things really have changed. Then again I'd have said the same thing about altargirls and look where we are today, right?

Doormouse: WARNING:  Im going to use some "god language"

I don't mind god language of the sort you've provided. I'm not opposed to objective discussions of religion at all. I rant and rave about religion a lot but I think most of what I write falls into the too long didn't read category so my essential views don't come through. I'll try to be brief with this although I love to go on and on:
1) I think religions are inaccurate or false depictions of reality. I believe the capacity for religion is inbuilt into people. Humans are pattern-finders. If patterns don't exist we create them and are completely able to fool ourselves that they exist. We have a strong drive to come up with explanations for things. We have an innate sense of morality which is the product of the intersection of social evolution with regular survival-of-the-fittest evolution. We needed a way to explain why things are right and wrong in a pre-scientific era. So we invented frameworks or systems that used the supernatural to explain it. Now that science conflicts with religions (due to science's outright rejection of the concept of supernature) it has become a cultural battleground with conflicting portions of both memes locked in mortal combat. I find that the scientific method is much better suited for determining reality than the immutable legends and stories of former generations. I have bought into the scientific concept that there is no supernatural world for no other reason than that experience teaches this. I appreciate that those who believe in a superior being finds this thought to be monstrously arrogant but for me I have to accept experience over the words of "the elders" because again experience teaches me that "the elders" are human and are frequently wrong. So I treat all religion equally as presumptively inaccurate at best.
2) I think people should be able to practice whatever religion they want (within reason). The reasoning behind why a person is moral doesn't bother me that much. Morality is fine and if you need the threat of an angry god or if you need to feel like your moral behavior pleases a superior being then that doesn't bother me. I like tradition and I like the friendly ability to associate with and identify as a member of a group. So in that sense I am quite in favor of people adhering to the traditional aspects of any religion. To me it's a cool recognition of your origins or at least the origins of the group whose philosophy you subscribe to. On the other hand I am quite opposed to those elements of a religion that force you to put yourself in a position that conflicts with the beliefs or practices of others. See point #3.
3) I think people should not actively or aggressively proselytize (or otherwise force their religion on others). This includes invading school boards or scientific fields to push religious views, holding religious protests and of course the various acts of terrorism (middle eastern car-bombs, anthrax letters, abortion clinic sniping, etc.), and arguing the superiority of their religion over others (see point #4). As I said earlier, I think religion is at essence a private matter. It's something that one can engage in publicly but only to the extent that it doesn't infringe on the ability of others to do what they wish to do.
4) I think no religion is superior to any other. I think the counter-premise is a feature of most religions. If you subscribe to a certain set of views then you obviously think they are better than those of other groups. While religions usually agree over the main tenets of human morality, there are a few differences in the fringes. To judge superiority of religion based on these fringe elements presupposes that morality is objective. It is not. Morality is the product of social evolution and is subject to change. It wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was shocking for example. As a corollary to my point #1 (that religions are just half-assed explanations of why we should do that which we do), the legends and stories of one group are no better than the legends and stories of any other. Religions are all equally inaccurate and none provides a superior explanation because all rely on supernature as the basis for their reasoning.

So in sum, I think religion is the wrong explanation but I find it interesting and I support the the rights of the religious equally to practice their religions to the extent that it doesn't interfere with anyone else.

Bonus microtext: My ranting online (not just here) usually starts because someone conflicts with either point #2 or #4 and then, as the argument progresses and I reveal that I have adopted a scientific perspective, the argument gets mired in point #1. I find it particularly difficult to make any headway against the ridiculous notion that science is nothing more than another religion. Mainly because I don't think most people understand what science or the scientific method is. They conceive of it as little more then men in white lab-coats and flasks quizzing them on matters which bore them to tears. Furthermore I'm arguing with faith and that is pointless. Then I get depressed and resolve to never get into point #1 again. And then I see a violation of points #2 or 4 and that gets me going again. It's a pretty amazing waste of time, no?

Good post, man.

I agree with 2, 3, and 4 kinda. (it makes me think of the blind men and the elephant story, I dont know if that makes them equal or not but I dont intend to learn enough about my own and all the other religions to make a judgement).

Anyway, I went to the temple today. Paaaaar-tay. 

Saints need 3 confirmed "miracles", at least the last time I heard about it - which who knows when that was! The rest, Im not sure.

And I completely agree with your views on religion - I feel the same way

So if I fart 3 times, and no one dies, that's 3 miracles, right?

I's GONNA BE A SAINT!!!

I'm not touching any relics you leave behind

Saints need 3 confirmed "miracles", at least the last time I heard about it

One down, two to go?

Of course, who knows where all this Sean Payton/prescription drugs scene will go...

Bonus microtext: My ranting online (not just here) usually starts because someone conflicts with either point #2 or #4 and then, as the argument progresses and I reveal that I have adopted a scientific perspective, the argument gets mired in point #1. I find it particularly difficult to make any headway against the ridiculous notion that science is nothing more than another religion. Mainly because I don't think most people understand what science or the scientific method is. They conceive of it as little more then men in white lab-coats and flasks quizzing them on matters which bore them to tears. Furthermore I'm arguing with faith and that is pointless. Then I get depressed and resolve to never get into point #1 again. And then I see a violation of points #2 or 4 and that gets me going again. It's a pretty amazing waste of time, no?

I cosign.

Bonus microtext: My ranting online (not just here) usually starts because someone conflicts with either point #2 or #4 and then, as the argument progresses and I reveal that I have adopted a scientific perspective, the argument gets mired in point #1. I find it particularly difficult to make any headway against the ridiculous notion that science is nothing more than another religion. Mainly because I don't think most people understand what science or the scientific method is. They conceive of it as little more then men in white lab-coats and flasks quizzing them on matters which bore them to tears. Furthermore I'm arguing with faith and that is pointless. Then I get depressed and resolve to never get into point #1 again. And then I see a violation of points #2 or 4 and that gets me going again. It's a pretty amazing waste of time, no?

I cosign.

Ditto. It's a quagmire. Giggity.