Here's me preaching.

[Nevermore]

The following is written if you are a set religion and not agnostic, or atheist. Sorry if I offend you, but that's what the last sentance is written for.

 

 

 

 

I'm tired. I'm tired of dealing with people that refuse to accept the few facts that are undisputable.

 

-----

Fact 1: People are products of their enviroment. That means that if you grew up in a christian (islamic, buhdist, whatever) household odds are that you are your parents religion. Just like you adabt your parents habits you adabt their religion, ecspecially if they drag you to church as a little kid everysunday.

-----

 

People refuse to belive that their faith is false, some times this is understandable.

 

-----

Fact 2: Chathlics, muslims, ect. have nothing to ride on but hope. No facts, just what (often times) self serving people wrote hundreds of years ago. Catholisism is based on faith alone, it pounded into your brain at church constantly. If there were any facts and proff that any God or Gods were real then most peole would be that religion. Saying other wise is like saying some people don't belive in breathing but still manage to live. Catholisism threatens you into beliving it, "Belive us or burn in hell."

-----

 

Religion was used to explain the previsly unexplanable. Modern day religion is just the result of fact number one.

 

-----

Fact 3: Storys of gods and deities were used to expain nature, and the nature of nature. Take for instance the sun: Greek mythologies says it's a diety riding across the sky. Now days that not belived as fact becouse we know the sun is jsut a star. Also greece fell and with it it's true religion fell, wouldn't the Zeus do somthing if no one in the world belived he existed anymore and his image was being used to sell cereal and make cartoons?

-----

 

-----

Fact 5: Cristianity was first accepted becouse Romans needed the things it offered. It offered an afterlife of glory and joy, when in their life the Romans were starving and their kings were fools. The bible says the poor shall inherit the earth so be kind to them. %95 of Romans were below the poverty line, so that looks pretty good to them.

-----

 

-----

Fact 6: Christianity stayed becouse it spread so widely, not becosue it is nessisarly true but becase those that belived it went on to lead countrys, also fact #1

-----

 

I've been oriented around Christianity only becosue the two other religions (Judism and Muslim) are almost the same thing as it so there is little point in including them all the time.

 

-----

Fact 7: People, by nature, have the uncontrolled abilities to blot out their memorys, remember things diffrently, and at times go "crazy" as a way of shielding the fragil human mind from grave dispar and grief. Molested children some times can't remember it, and raped women say that it was their fault so if they just stay away from all men they won't get raped (wich is "crazy talk").

-----

 

If everyone suddenly just *knew* there was no god or afterlife many would kill themselves. Many people are predisposed to beliving in a higher power becouse, for them, the NEED to belive. No matter how ridiculas their belifes sound. "THere's no proof he exists, and he propbly doesn't, but I belive becose there is good in the world."

 

I could go on to list errors in the bible that make no scence but that's time consuming and I'm sure your not even listening now so I'll leave you with this:

 

People are taught religion from their parents not the gods that may not exist, this (literal) brainwashing is pounded in further by fear of hell, they see that many other people belive it and feel that this many people can't be wrong, also many people NEED to belive that what they've been taught is true. So look at you're self and you're beliefs. Can you honestly say, after looking at all that is present here, that you STILL belive in what you've been forced to belive? If so, I hope some day you relise what's been done and that you drop the burden of faith. If not, I'm glad you see it this way now, doesn't it feel much better?

 

Now feel free to flame me as much as you wan't, such by reducing to 3rd grade name calling will only further prove that you truly don't have any reason to think the way you do.

[Peregrine]

Nevermore's said pretty much everything I could add to this discussion, except this warning.

 

Flame anyone for their beliefs = instant strike, if not more. Disagreement is fine, but make it personal and I won't hesitate to strike/ban you.

[Marxist ßastard]

This is Bertrand Russel's speech to the National Secular Society in 1927, entitled "Why I am not a Christian." I believe it has some relevance here:

 

As your chairman has told you, the subject about which I am to speak tonight is "Why

I Am Not a Christian." Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what

one means by the word "Christian." It is used these days in a very loose sense by a

great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to

live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians of all sects and

creeds; but I do not think that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would

imply that all the people who are not Christians -- all the Buddhists, Confucians,

Mohammedans, and so on -- are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a

Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think you

must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a

Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in

the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that

he was a Christian, it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of

creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those

creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.

 

Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of

Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are essential to

anyone calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely,

that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two

things, I do not think you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than

that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The

Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and immortality, and yet they would

not call themselves Christians. I think that you must have at the very lowest the belief

that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and very wisest of men. If you are not

going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call

yourself a Christian. Of course, there is another sense, which you find in "Whitaker's

Almanack" and in geography books, where the population of the world is said to be

divided into Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshippers, and so on; but

in that sense we are all Christians. The geography counts us all in, but that is a purely

geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore. Therefore I take it that when I tell

you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things: first, why I do not

believe in God and in immortality; and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was

the very best and wisest of men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral

goodness.

But for the successful efforts of unbelievers in the past, I could not take so elastic a

definition of Christianity as that. As I said before, in the olden days it had a much

more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included the belief in hell. Belief in eternal

hell-fire was an essential item of Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this

country, as you know, it ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the

Privy Council, and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the

Archbishop of York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of

Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override Their Graces and

Hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a

Christian must believe in hell.

 

To come to this question of the existence of God: it is a large and serious question,

and if I were to attempt to deal with it in any adequate manner I should have to keep

you here until Kingdom Come, so that you will have to excuse me if I deal with it in a

somewhat summary fashion. You know, of course, that the Catholic Church has laid it

down as dogma that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason. This is

a somewhat curious dogma, but it is one of their dogmas. They had to introduce it

because at one time the freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that there were such

and such arguments which mere reason might urge against the existence of God, but

of course they knew as a matter of faith that God did exist. The arguments and

reasons were set out at great length, and the Catholic Church felt that they must stop

it. Therefore they laid it down as dogma that the existence of God can be proved by

the unaided reason and they had to set up what they considered were arguments to

prove it.

 

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is

maintained that everything we see in the world has a cause, and as you go back in the

chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First

Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry much

weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The

philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything

like the vitality it used to have; but apart from that, you can see that the argument that

there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I

was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a

long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of

eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My

father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it

immediately suggests the further question "Who made god'" that very simple sentence

showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If

everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything

without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any

validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the

world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they

said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The

argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not

have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why

it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a

beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the

poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon

the argument about the First Cause.

 

Then there is a very common argument from Natural Law. That was a favorite

argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir

Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun

according to the law of gravitation, and the thought that God had given a behest to

these planets to move in a particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was,

of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking

any further for any explanation of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the

law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I

do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by

Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the

sort of Natural Law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason

that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that

a great many things we thought were Natural Laws are really human conventions.

You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a

yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of

nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that

kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms

actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and

the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge

from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that says if you throw dice you will get

double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence

to the contrary that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the

double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of

nature are of that sort as regards to a great many of them. They are statistical averages

such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes the whole business of

natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. Quite apart from that, which

represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea

that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human

laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which

you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a

description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they

in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be supposedly someone who told them to

do that, because even supposing there were, you are faced with the question, "Why

did god issue just those and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own

good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is

not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more

orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for

giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best

universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for

the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do

not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law

outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, as he is

not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument from natural law no longer

has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am traveling on in time in my

review of these arguments. The arguments that are used for the existence of God

change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard intellectual arguments

embodying certain quite definite fallacies. As we come to modern times they become

less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing

vagueness.

 

The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all know the

argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to

live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to

live in it. That is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form;

for instance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do

not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody.

You all know Voltaire's remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to

fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearly so wide of the mark

as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since the time of Darwin

we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is

not that their environment was made to be suitable to them, but that they grew to be

suitable to it, that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.

When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing

that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its

defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to

produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were

granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your

world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the fascists?

Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human

life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the

decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions

and temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a

short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing

to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless.

I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that

if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living. Do not believe it; it is all

nonsense. Nobody really worries about what is going to happen millions of years

hence. Even if they think they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving

themselves. They are worried about something much more mundane, or it may merely

be bad digestion; but nobody is really seriously rendered unhappy by the thought of

something that is going to happen in this world millions and millions of years hence.

Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out -- at

least I suppose we may say so, although sometimes when I contemplate the things that

people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation -- it is not such as to render

life miserable. It merely makes you turn your attention to other things.

 

Now we reach one stage further in what I shall call the intellectual descent that the

Theists have made in their argumentations, and we come to what are called moral

arguments for the existence of God. You all know, of course, that there used to be in

the old days three intellectual arguments for the existence of God, all of which were

disposed of by Immanuel Kant in the "Critique of Pure Reason;" but no sooner had he

disposed of those arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that

quite convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was

skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had

imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much

emphasize -- the immensely stronger hold that our very early associations have than

those of later times.

Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in

varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. it has all sorts of

forms. One form is to say there would be no right and wrong unless god existed. I am

not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and

wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned

with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then

you are in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to

God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it

is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as

theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some

meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad

independently of the fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will

have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but

that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. you could, of course, if you

liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this

world, or could take up a line that some of the Gnostics took up -- a line which I often

thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know

was made by the Devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal

to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.

 

Then there is another very curious form of moral argument, which is this: they say

that the existence of God is required to bring justice into the world. In the part of the

universe that we know there is a great injustice, and often the good suffer, and the

often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is more annoying; but

if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a

future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. So they say that there must be a

God, and that there must be Heaven and Hell in order that in the long run there may

be justice. That is a very curious argument. If you looked at the matter from a

scientific point of view, you would say, "After all, I only know this world. I do not

know about the rest of the universe, but so far as one can argue from probabilities one

would say that probably this world is a fair sample, and if there is injustice here then

the odds are great that there is injustice elsewhere also." Supposing you got a crate of

oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would

not argue, "The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance." You

would say, "Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment"; and that is really what a

scientific person would argue about the universe. He would say, "Here we find in this

world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing

that justice does not rule in this world, and therefore so far as it goes it supports a

moral argument against deity and not in favor of one." Of course I know that the sort

of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about is not really what

moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual

argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early

infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.

Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling

that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in

influencing people's desire for a belief in God.

 

I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite

sufficiently dealt with by rationalists, and that is the question whether Christ was the

best and the wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree

that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which

I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know

that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most

professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, "Resist not evil: but

whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." That is not

a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-Tse and Buddha some 500 or

600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians

accept. I have no doubt that the present prime minister (Stanley Baldwin), for

instance, is a most sincere Christian, but I should not advise any of you to go and

smite him on one cheek. I think you might find that he thought this text was intended

in a figurative sense.

Then there is another point which I consider excellent. You will remember that Christ

said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." That principle I do not think you would find was

very popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I have known in my time a

number of judges who were very earnest Christians, and none of them felt that they

were acting contrary to Christian principles in what they did. Then Christ says, "Give

to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn thou not

away." This is a very good principle. Your chairman has reminded you that we are not

here to talk politics, but I cannot help observing that the last general election was

fought on the question of how desirable it was to turn away from him that would

borrow of thee, so that one must assume that the liberals and conservatives of this

country are composed of people who do not agree with the teaching of Christ, because

they certainly did not behave that way on that occasion.

Then there is one other maxim of Christ's teaching which I think has a great deal of

good in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian

friends. He says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that which thou hast, and give to

the poor." That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practised. All

these, I think, are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do

not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing

as for a Christian.

 

Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in which I do

not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative

goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I may say that one is not

concerned with the historical question. Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ

ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not

concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned

with Christ as he appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and

there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he

certainly thought his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death

of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove

that. He says, for instance, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son

of Man comes into his kingdom"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear

that he believed his second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then

living. That was the belief of his earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal

of his moral teaching. When He said, "Take no thought for the morrow," and things of

that sort, it was very largely because He thought the second coming was going to be

very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of

fact, known some Christians who did believe the second coming was imminent. I

knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them the second

coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found

that he was planting trees in his garden. The early Christians really did believe it, and

they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did

accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In this respect,

clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He certainly was not

superlatively wise.

 

Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in

Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in Hell. I do not myself feel that

any person that is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.

Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and

one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen

to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does

somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance, find that

attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who

would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that

line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of things

that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally

did say to people who did not agree with him.

You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers,

how can ye escape the damnation of Hell." That was said to people who did not like

His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great

many of these things about Hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin

against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be

forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come." That text has caused an

unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that

they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and though that it would not be

forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a

person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and

terrors of this sort into the world.

Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall

gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and

shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth";

and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after

another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in

contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then

you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming

He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats,

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues, "And these shall go

away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it

is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into

the fire that shall never be quenched, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not

quenched." He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this

doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine

that put cruelty into the world, and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the

Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as his chroniclers represent Him, would

certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine,

where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make

them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent,

and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into

the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig tree, which has always rather

puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and

seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything

thereon; and when he came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was

not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for

ever' ... and Peter ... saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is

withered away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year

for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the

matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other

people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those

respects.

 

As I said before, I do not think that the real reason that people accept religion has

anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is

often told that it is a very wrong thing to do to attack religion, because religion makes

men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. You know, of course, the parody of

that argument in Samuel Butler's book, Erewhon Revisited. You will remember that

in Erewhon there is a certain Higgs who arrives in a remote country, and after

spending some time there he escapes from that country in a balloon. Twenty years

later he comes back to that country and finds a new religion in which he is

worshipped under the name of the "Sun Child," and it is said that he ascended into

Heaven. He finds that the feast of the Ascension is about to be celebrated, and he

hears Professors Hanky and Panky say to each other that they never set eyes on the

man Higgs, and they hope they never will; but they are the High Priests of the religion

of the Sun Child. He is very indignant, and he comes up to them, and he says, "I am

going to expose all this humbug and tell the people of Erewhon that it was only I, the

man Higgs, and I went up in a balloon." He was told, "You must not do that, because

of all the morals of this country are bound round this myth, and if they once know that

you did not ascend into Heaven they will all become wicked"; and so he is persuaded

of that and he goes quietly away.

That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian

religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most

part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the

religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater

has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages

of Faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness,

there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate

women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts

of people in the name of religion.

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress of humane

feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of

war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or ever mitigation of

slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently

opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the

Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal

enemy of moral progress in the world.

 

You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so, I do not think

that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it. It is not a pleasant fact,

but the churches compel one to mention facts that are not pleasant. Supposing that in

this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in

that case the Catholic Church says, "This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must

endure celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth

control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children." Nobody whose natural sympathies

have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all

sense of suffering could maintain that it is right and proper that this state of things

should continue.

That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present

moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts

upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we

know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the

ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a

certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human

happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make

for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What

has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people

happy."

 

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the

unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder

brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the

whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of

cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It

is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a

little to understand things, and a little to master them by the help of science, which has

forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and

against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this

craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach

us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary

supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts

here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place the

churches in all these centuries have made it.

 

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good

facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid

of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by

the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of a god is a conception derived

from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.

When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are

miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of selfrespecting

human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face.

We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish,

after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A

good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful

hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long

ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope

for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust

will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

 

thislineisjustsettingthemarginforlowresolutionpeoplesothatthelinesappearproperly

solalalalalalalalaladone

[Mojlnir]

Holy hole in a donut Marxist, that is a seriously long post. I must say that I agree with it almost entirely, particularly the part were Jesus cursed the fig tree and sent demons into pigs. Very illogical. Nevermore, I must take issue with several of your posts:

 

Fact 1: I think to a certain extent you are correct here, though I would argue that it is not a forgone conclusion that a child will automatically follow their parents into a specific religion.

 

Fact 2: Religion of all forms is a human construct, as I have said before. However, I do not believe that your claims of coercion are completely justified. All religions attempt to provide the same thing for their followers i.e. a sense of purpose and belonging the larger universe. The majority of these religions do not hold a proverbial "gun" to their followers heads and force them to believe anything. I think people choose to believe in order to feel accepted into the particular community they have chosen to join. The majority of instances where coercion is apparent seem to be those concerning religious extremism.

 

Fact 3: Are you trying to argue that here that were any self respecting diety actually to exist, they would not allow humans to use their likenesses as merchandising tools? Why would said diety even care? They get us in the afterlife anyway so what's the point of wasting effort on us now?

 

Fact 5: I think the reasoning here is a little backwards. The Roman Emperor Constantine was not poor, and it seems illogical that an emperor would adopt a religion that lifted his peasants above himself. Constantine was an opportunist who felt that the Christian god had done well by him in battle as well as various power struggles. Constantine also clung to paganism for the majority of his life. The Roman Empires official recognition had little to do with what the poor wanted (remember they liked to throw Christians into the gladiator rings) it had to do with superstition and opportunistic behavior on the part of leadership.

 

Fact 6: You're essentially right on this point and I won't draw issue with your position.

 

Fact 7: What? I agree that human nature leads to subjective interpretations of events, but what are you trying to say here? Also, I think you are making dangerous assumptions about the psychology of abused persons and the possibility of connections to assumptions about religious beliefs.

 

I think you're flat wrong when you argue that there would be mass suicide were we to prove without doubt that God does not exist. People would find something else to believe in, and you (as well as many others) have decided God does not exist and yet you still live. People can have faith in many things, not just a higher power or a book that contains particular teachings. All the holy texts were written over a thousand years ago and are simply not applicable contextually anymore. That does not mean that their messages are rotten as well though, many of the teachings of the holy books still ring true today.

[punkfiveo]

People are products of their enviroment.

 

Very true. I'm guessing your parents were atheists. Look at it this way... If your parents are convinced that their beliefs are right (i.e. they have tested their own faith and questioned to full extent what they believe in) , then wouldn't you want the best for your child aswell? (This also goes for atheists, because, believe it or not, atheism is a belief system, or in other words, a religion)

 

People DO change their minds. A few of my friends have turned atheists. Maybe because they didn't want to get persecuted by non-christians, or maybe because they don't quite "get" what they are believing in. Who knows, but something inside their brains turns or stops turning. The most obvious thing that clicks is the big question "Why did God create such a poo hole?" (pardon my language) This question will be discussed later on in this post.

 

I have also seen many people become christians in mid-life (i.e. after 16yrs-60yrs.). Ask yourself the question, why do they do that? Again, something inside their brain their brain turns or stops turning. The most obvious thing that clicks here is the big question "What is the purpose of my life?". This question will also be discussed later on.

 

People refuse to belive that their faith is false, some times this is understandable.

 

This is also very true. Either of two things cause people to refuse to recant their faith....1) Because they're too stupid and stubborn to do so...and 2) because they've tested their belief system, and, against all odds, found answers to (any/all) questions that hinder their faith. BTW I will be starting up a thread on questions on Christianity and it's beliefs.

 

Catholisism threatens you into beliving it, "Belive us or burn in hell."

 

Sadly true. I, personally, am against Catholicism. I find that their "rituals" and "hail mary"'s do not in any way do anything for God. I also have other reasons but I'm not up to listing them all here.

 

Another thing, the reason why one would say "Believe us or burn in hell" is twofold. 1) either the person is overzealous in trying to let people believe, or 2) they are power and control freaks and/or loonies who believe that they are some form of higher being because of their beliefs.

 

Religion was used to explain the previsly unexplanable

 

It is still used today. Look into the big bang, study it, know it, learn it. I have learned from top professors and read many lectures on the big bang. They have theoretically proven what (supposedly) happened billionths of a second before the big bang, however, to know what happened at t=0, is impossible (You could argue this on rants about the "something from nothing" theorem etc. and, if rant you must, rant you will, but start a new thread about it or mix it in with a post concerning the "real" issue at hand). Quite a few scientists believe that it would take the power of a god to initiate a "big bang", because there's simply no other way that that much energy can be produced in that large a scale......from nothing. They have even gone so far as to say that religion and science are ultimately looking for the same thing....purpose.

 

Cristianity was first accepted becouse Romans needed the things it offered.

 

Actually Christianity had more cons than pros. By believing, Romans would have to give up all sexual immorality (which was very rampant in those days), love of money, etc. In short, the "good life" had to be given up for the "pure life".

 

t offered an afterlife of glory and joy, when in their life the Romans were starving and their kings were fools.

 

Might I remind you that believing in God does not make your tummy full, and it doesn't replace bad kings, and it STILL offers an afterlife of glory and joy....yours for the taking.

 

The bible says the poor shall inherit the earth so be kind to them. %95 of Romans were below the poverty line, so that looks pretty good to them.

 

In actual fact, it says "The meek shall inherit the earth." The word "meek" means "Showing patience and humility; gentle". If the poor inherit the earth there wouldn't be very many poor people around.

 

Christianity stayed becouse it spread so widely, not becosue it is nessisarly true but becase those that belived it went on to lead countrys

 

It wouldn't spread widely if it isn't true.....you'd think we'd catch on by now. Those believers who lead countries and "legislate" people into believing are also, as i said, either 1) overzealous, or 2) power and control freaks and/or "loony higher beings".

 

If everyone suddenly just *knew* there was no god or afterlife many would kill themselves. Many people are predisposed to beliving in a higher power becouse, for them, the NEED to belive.

 

True. Know WHY they need to believe? Purpose. If one really thinks about it, love, money, relationships, memories, feelings, emotions, toys, etc. become useless when you die. Without afterlife, there is no purpose to life, except, that is, to simply live. (Which is quite a paradox)

 

 

 

"Why did God create such a poo hole?"

 

We humans are so quick to blame others. The right question to ask is "Why did we create such a poo hole?" Remember, it was a human that took the apple from the tree.

 

Feel free to go ahead and ask your question about free will/all knowing God. I've been waiting for it.

 

"What is the purpose of my life?"

 

If you don't believe in an afterlife, your answer is......nill. Even the feelings we live for nowadays are useless when death rolls around....happiness, joy, good times. Call me a sap and a pessimist for saying that, but one day you will be on the verge of death, and you will know what I'm talking about.

 

If you do believe in an afterlife, your answer is......to get to that afterlife, and to have a good time getting there.

 

 

 

So look at you're self and you're beliefs. Can you honestly say, after looking at all that is present here, that you STILL belive in what you belive

 

Yes. :)

[Peregrine]

The majority of these religions do not hold a proverbial "gun" to their followers heads and force them to believe anything. I think people choose to believe in order to feel accepted into the particular community they have chosen to join. The majority of instances where coercion is apparent seem to be those concerning religious extremism.

 

No, they just give you a choice of "believe this" or "fry in hell". Right or wrong, it is a very persuasive argument. Also, you can't deny that many people are biased against atheists, or even people of a different religion. And remember, much of this is taught from a very young age, before most people are capable of forming their own opinions on such things. How can pressure like that be called anything but coercion?

 

 

Very true. I'm guessing your parents were atheists. Look at it this way... If your parents are convinced that their beliefs are right (i.e. they have tested their own faith and questioned to full extent what they believe in) , then wouldn't you want the best for your child aswell? (This also goes for atheists, because, believe it or not, atheism is a belief system, or in other words, a religion)

 

No, because I value the idea of independent thought. And since "what is best" can not be decided by anything but personal faith, forcing your beliefs on someone who isn't old enough to decide for themselves is wrong. Notice the key word there. Beliefs, not facts. Maybe I have tested my beliefs, but assuming that I can decide that for someone else is pure arrogance.

 

People DO change their minds. A few of my friends have turned atheists....

 

I have also seen many people become christians in mid-life (i.e. after 16yrs-60yrs.)....

 

True, but you can't deny the influence of parents/early life teaching. Once you have been told and convinced that one set of facts is true, its not easy to change that.

 

 

QUOTE 

Catholisism threatens you into beliving it, "Belive us or burn in hell."

 

 

 

Sadly true. I, personally, am against Catholicism. I find that their "rituals" and "hail mary"'s do not in any way do anything for God. I also have other reasons but I'm not up to listing them all here.

 

Another thing, the reason why one would say "Believe us or burn in hell" is twofold. 1) either the person is overzealous in trying to let people believe, or 2) they are power and control freaks and/or loonies who believe that they are some form of higher being because of their beliefs.

 

Or honestly believes that following a specific set of morals/rules is the only way into heaven. I agree that threats of Hell are entirely wrong, but of course that's one of my objections to organized religion.

 

QUOTE 

Religion was used to explain the previsly unexplanable

 

It is still used today. Look into the big bang, study it, know it, learn it. I have learned from top professors and read many lectures on the big bang. They have theoretically proven what (supposedly) happened billionths of a second before the big bang, however, to know what happened at t=0, is impossible ..... Quite a few scientists believe that it would take the power of a god to initiate a "big bang", because there's simply no other way that that much energy can be produced in that large a scale......from nothing. They have even gone so far as to say that religion and science are ultimately looking for the same thing....purpose.

 

Ultimately looking for the same thing, an answer to the unexplained things in the world. The difference is what answers they find, and how they find them. Without evidence, scientific theories are just that, theories. To claim otherwise is both bad science and irresponsible. Can you say the same about religion? How often do you hear "God might exist" from someone who really believes in their religion.

 

 

QUOTE 

Cristianity was first accepted becouse Romans needed the things it offered.

 

 

 

Actually Christianity had more cons than pros. By believing, Romans would have to give up all sexual immorality (which was very rampant in those days), love of money, etc. In short, the "good life" had to be given up for the "pure life".

 

And the "pure life" just happened to promise eternal happiness to replace those things in this life. When the alternative is suffering or just simple nonexistence, Christianity starts looking like a very attractive idea.

 

 

QUOTE 

Christianity stayed becouse it spread so widely, not becosue it is nessisarly true but becase those that belived it went on to lead countrys

 

 

 

It wouldn't spread widely if it isn't true.....you'd think we'd catch on by now. Those believers who lead countries and "legislate" people into believing are also, as i said, either 1) overzealous, or 2) power and control freaks and/or "loony higher beings".

 

Again, you underestimate the power of persuasion and inertia. If the majority of people are taught from a young age that Christianity is true, then a majority of them are going to keep those beliefs, and pass them down to their children. This is especially true if people want to believe the idea. Mere numbers of believers do not make an idea true or false. Remember, the majority of people used to believe the Earth was flat. Of course we all know that is wrong now, but it was still the most popular theory. Now before you say Christianity is different, how do we know that we just haven't waited long enough for it to be found false?

 

 

QUOTE 

If everyone suddenly just *knew* there was no god or afterlife many would kill themselves. Many people are predisposed to beliving in a higher power becouse, for them, the NEED to belive.

 

True. Know WHY they need to believe? Purpose. If one really thinks about it, love, money, relationships, memories, feelings, emotions, toys, etc. become useless when you die. Without afterlife, there is no purpose to life, except, that is, to simply live. (Which is quite a paradox)

 

Well then honestly, I feel sorry for you if you can't see any purpose in this life. I do, however, think the idea of mass suicide is exaggeration at best. Why does there have to be any greater purpose than what you see here? I am a complete atheist and I am perfectly happy with my purpose in life: all those things you just called meaningless. Maybe to you, they're not the highest purpose, but your views are far from the only ones. And in any case, our purpose and our views of it are irrelevant. God and an afterlife exist or don't exist whether or not we believe in them and consider them our purpose in life or not.

 

"What is the purpose of my life?"

 

See above. Your purpose is what you want it to be, nothing more.

[Malchik]

I repeat what I have said elsewhere albeit in different words. We are made up of a multiple of components. When we 'die' these are recycled. In this respect we are never ending.

 

If there is a 'creator' our limited human minds would not be able to (pace Acrid) 'comprehend' it. Any attempt to do so is based purely on guesswork and doomed to failure.

 

People should be allowed to believe whatever they like provided:-

 

1. They accept that others may also believe whatever they like.

 

2. They make no attempt to force their beliefs on others (and that includes anyone who starts a thread on religion in these forums).

 

The same holds true for politics and indeed underlines the fact that religion is and always has been politics.

 

But, as everyone should have worked out by now, we are all really NPCs in a celestial computer game! That makes sense of everything!

[Faust870]

You said pretty much what i have many times before... Just a hell of a lot longer lol

 

But you should never really say God doesnt exists and stuff... because its all about Faith in the long run...let people believe what they wish, i personally do not believe in a extreme being... But im openminded,... so i dont really say he DOESNT exist...i just lack in the faith

[Akrid]

Very true. I'm guessing your parents were atheists. Look at it this way... If your parents are convinced that their beliefs are right (i.e. they have tested their own faith and questioned to full extent what they believe in) , then wouldn't you want the best for your child aswell? (This also goes for atheists, because, believe it or not, atheism is a belief system, or in other words, a relig

 

True, Atheism is a Religion, so is Science and they go hand in hand. But athiest tend to not turn away from their parents believe at the age of desion (16-19yrs) While religions jump around all over the place changing beliefs due to facts not adding up. There is even such thing as whica christans and babtist/mormen's.

 

Often defenders of religion will tell why we can't understand God, and explain how it benifit's their lives. But they never explain why it's feasible to belief. They only explain why they choose to believe and offer no reason.

[Ancalagon]

I would like to add to this if I can. Lutherism (sp) was created on the premise that the Catholic Church had, for it's own gains, created or made up 'Purgatory' (sp). This was done so as to draw more believers to the Church, since all the talk of going to burn in 'Hell' proved to be a little un-savory to the common peasant and scared off any potential believers. Lutherans seperated from the Church because they saw through 'Purgatory' as a way to make money and felt it was a wrong idea. Also, since the Church was practically contradicting the Bible itself by making purgatory a place where one could go if they held minor sins, and in a little while would be granted entrance into Heaven if they repented during their time in Purgatory. While the Bible states that if you sin, then Hell is your lot forever (I think, here I am making huge generalizations on my part). So, obviously, the 'Human Factor' comes in a bit too often in religion. Taloring a religion to suit your lifestyle would seem legitimate if one really beleived it.