Research on Belief in God

Page 102 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
Re:

Hugh Januss said:
"Atheism brought cancer to the world" Oh FFS in a thread of ridiculous statements a new level has been set. Are you for real?
Oh c'mon did you even read his post? Did you even bother to read the discussion he was replying to?!

King Boonen seemed to imply a relation between suffering and religion because more religious countries have a lower life expectancy according to him. Echoes clearly made an ironic counter statement implying a relationship between atheism and cancer because cancer is more common in western countries which have more atheism.

Clearly the cause of the lower life expectancy is poverty and clearly the cause of cancer is an unhealthy lifestyle. Religion and atheism have nothing to do with it. King Boonen's statement was pretty silly and Echoes replied with irony. That should've been obvious if you read his post and the discussion he was replying to properly.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Re: God and Religion

ray j willings said:
Jspear wrote " (if you do some research you will find that Christianity has actually done a ton of work in the area of medicine.) "

Why would Christians want to help people that are ill. God made them ill "for their sins"
Surly if the Christians are trying to make them better they are going against gods will?

Can a Christian answer the above or have I stumped you ?
 
Re: God and Religion

ray j willings said:
ray j willings said:
Jspear wrote " (if you do some research you will find that Christianity has actually done a ton of work in the area of medicine.) "

Why would Christians want to help people that are ill. God made them ill "for their sins"
Surly if the Christians are trying to make them better they are going against gods will?

Can a Christian answer the above or have I stumped you ?
Hey Ray...read all of my recent posts. I've been pretty active here recently responding to multiple posters. Sometimes I'll miss a post from someone because there is so many of you responding. I tend to respond to the posters that seem to want to have a genuine discussion. No offense but your posts usually aren't worth responding to directly. I have answered your questions though in my posts to others. I'll give you a little hint. No where did any Christian on this forum say God made them "ill for their sins." Once you realize what we have said you will see that your post doesn't really make any sense.
 
Re: God and Religion

Jspear said:
ray j willings said:
ray j willings said:
Jspear wrote " (if you do some research you will find that Christianity has actually done a ton of work in the area of medicine.) "

Why would Christians want to help people that are ill. God made them ill "for their sins"
Surly if the Christians are trying to make them better they are going against gods will?

Can a Christian answer the above or have I stumped you ?
Hey Ray...read all of my recent posts. I've been pretty active here recently responding to multiple posters. Sometimes I'll miss a post from someone because there is so many of you responding. I tend to respond to the posters that seem to want to have a genuine discussion. No offense but your posts usually aren't worth responding to directly. I have answered your questions though in my posts to others. I'll give you a little hint. No where did any Christian on this forum say God made them "ill for their sins." Once you realize what we have said you will see that your post doesn't really make any sense.
No, no, my dear Jspear, you don't get off the hook that easily. What was said was that illness is caused by sin. Now if, as you assert, it was human fault for having sinned (free will etcetera), then God is still not exempt from the "consequences" He inflicted as a response to disobedience. Hence illness is "caused" by divine will. To say otherwise is a logical fallacy
 
Re: Re:

Maaaaaaaarten said:
Hugh Januss said:
"Atheism brought cancer to the world" Oh FFS in a thread of ridiculous statements a new level has been set. Are you for real?
Oh c'mon did you even read his post? Did you even bother to read the discussion he was replying to?!

King Boonen seemed to imply a relation between suffering and religion because more religious countries have a lower life expectancy according to him. Echoes clearly made an ironic counter statement implying a relationship between atheism and cancer because cancer is more common in western countries which have more atheism.

Clearly the cause of the lower life expectancy is poverty and clearly the cause of cancer is an unhealthy lifestyle. Religion and atheism have nothing to do with it. King Boonen's statement was pretty silly and Echoes replied with irony. That should've been obvious if you read his post and the discussion he was replying to properly.
Irony isn't even in Echoes' vocabulary. All atheists are bad, and all bad comes from atheists. He has been hammering this at us every chance he gets.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Re: God and Religion

Jspear this is one of your quotes " Suffering is a result of OUR sin. HUMANS sin. Its OUR problem. A child would be sick because of the sin nature which HE/SHE also has. It's not just their parents problem. Its THEIR problem"

Didn't god create humans. If they "Humans sin " then surely that is because god created them that way ?
Why did he not create them the way he wanted them. " without sin"
Surely that means he created humans to sin so he could punish them? That does not seem the behaviour of a peaceful god.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
To me the bigger problem is the logical inconsistency of it all. To poorly summarize: God allows suffering because of sin (lots of hand-waving). This may have been logical several hundred years ago. However, we have advanced to the point where we actually understand what causes illness (bacteria, virii, prions, mutations, etc) and natural disasters (tectonics, thermodynamics, etc). Now here comes the logical disconnect - where does "sin" fit into all this? It doesn't. None of these natural phenomenon requires any activity from a god of any type. You don't get dysentery because of "sin". You get it because of poor sanitation and the prevalence of the pathogen involved.

The only place a god would fit anywhere in this scenario is in the *creation* of these natural phenomenon. And as far as I know, there's no redeeming quality to inventing prions. They would only serve the purpose of punishing those who contract them. And if the god who created them isn't in some way guiding who they infect (an innocent child), then the whole thing is completely arbitrary. And worse from a logical point of view, it can't be reconciled with the notion of "salvation". If the messiah took a crucifixion so that others could be "sin-free" in the eyes of god, then what's up with Ebola?

John Swanson
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,246
0
0
The funny thing is that the only reason we even know there is such a thing as cancer, is a proud tradition of people disobeying the church, and sneaking out to graveyards at night to cut open bodies in order to find out how the human body worked
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
That graph shows exactly what I was thinking. It has nothing to do with being a Christian (for your information the majority of Africa isnt Christian.) It has to do with the cultures and economies of the countries. Do you notice how those who are expected to live the shortest amount of time are in poorer countries for the most part?
I am not saying it has anything to do with them being Christian (a huge number of Africans are Christian, and I notice you are conveniently ignoring South America). You said illness is because of sin. I'm assuming that not believing in God is right up there with the main sins, so why would God afflict the worst of the retribution for sin on believers?

Here you go, several countries with extremely low life expectancy are majority Christian:





I KNOW what causes illness and it isn't God. It has nothing to do with God because God does not exist, but you claimed he is responsible for it. Now you're trying to claim that it is due to poverty and culture. So which is it? Is it due to God or is it due to what everyone knows actually causes illness?


Edit: Needs a key, obviously...
 
Re: Re:

Maaaaaaaarten said:
Hugh Januss said:
"Atheism brought cancer to the world" Oh FFS in a thread of ridiculous statements a new level has been set. Are you for real?
Oh c'mon did you even read his post? Did you even bother to read the discussion he was replying to?!

King Boonen seemed to imply a relation between suffering and religion because more religious countries have a lower life expectancy according to him. Echoes clearly made an ironic counter statement implying a relationship between atheism and cancer because cancer is more common in western countries which have more atheism.

Clearly the cause of the lower life expectancy is poverty and clearly the cause of cancer is an unhealthy lifestyle. Religion and atheism have nothing to do with it. King Boonen's statement was pretty silly and Echoes replied with irony. That should've been obvious if you read his post and the discussion he was replying to properly.
No, you obviously have not read the conversation properly. JSpear claimed illness is caused by God because of sin. I am merely pointing out that if this is the case, as he claims, then those who suffer most from illness CAUSED by God are the religious, as evidenced by the data I have provided. I don't understand how anyone could believe that and still have any faith in God.

Of course it's nonsensical, God has nothing to do with illness and I think almost all religious people know that. I don't believe that and I don't know anyone who does. But JSpear does believe God caused illness because of sin. I want to know how he can marry that view with the data I presented, that God caused something that afflicts many of his followers worse than those who do not believe in him.

To make it very, very clear: I AM NOT CLAIMING ILLNESS IS IN ANY WAY RELATED TO RELIGION.
 
Re: God and Religion

Echoes said:
What demagoguery! I've lost all respect I had for KB. For the sake of all my relatives who lived in the Congo, this paternalism can't pass. It's just unbearable.


Africans are paying because of the sins of Westerners who invaded them and plundered them for decades, dude. And that includes you, hypocrite Labour voter (fully conscious of all the crimes Labour perpetrated throughout the world).

And guess what? They know how to deal with suffering and poverty. Most of them are happy and hard people. Euro atheists don't know what it is to fast every other day, they been raised with their mums' baby bottle and such, okay.

By the way, I'm also suffering at this moment because of the same kind of left-wing elite you are voting for.

But when the financial crisis we are now in, reaches its peak, combined with an energy crisis, I hope atheists have the decency not to cry...

Oh and the cancer map. Have a look! Atheism brought cancer to the world and then they pretend to be surprised. Hypocrites!

And leave Africans alone !!!!
Legend.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Re: Re:

Maaaaaaaarten said:
Hugh Januss said:
"Atheism brought cancer to the world" Oh FFS in a thread of ridiculous statements a new level has been set. Are you for real?
Oh c'mon did you even read his post? Did you even bother to read the discussion he was replying to?!

King Boonen seemed to imply a relation between suffering and religion because more religious countries have a lower life expectancy according to him. Echoes clearly made an ironic counter statement implying a relationship between atheism and cancer because cancer is more common in western countries which have more atheism.

Clearly the cause of the lower life expectancy is poverty and clearly the cause of cancer is an unhealthy lifestyle. Religion and atheism have nothing to do with it. King Boonen's statement was pretty silly and Echoes replied with irony. That should've been obvious if you read his post and the discussion he was replying to properly.
Religion must have to do with illness because Echoes has told us that illness is punishment for sin, Religion also has to do with poverty as it is an important tool for society to keep the poor placated with the (false) promise of a better life in the next one. It is a mechanism for controlling the masses.
I'd have attributed Echoes statement to irony if I thought he was capable of it on the subject, but I think he is 100% dead serious.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Hugh Januss said:
"Atheism brought cancer to the world" Oh FFS in a thread of ridiculous statements a new level has been set. Are you for real?
Oh c'mon did you even read his post? Did you even bother to read the discussion he was replying to?!

King Boonen seemed to imply a relation between suffering and religion because more religious countries have a lower life expectancy according to him. Echoes clearly made an ironic counter statement implying a relationship between atheism and cancer because cancer is more common in western countries which have more atheism.

Clearly the cause of the lower life expectancy is poverty and clearly the cause of cancer is an unhealthy lifestyle. Religion and atheism have nothing to do with it. King Boonen's statement was pretty silly and Echoes replied with irony. That should've been obvious if you read his post and the discussion he was replying to properly.
No, you obviously have not read the conversation properly. JSpear claimed illness is caused by God because of sin. I am merely pointing out that if this is the case, as he claims, then those who suffer most from illness CAUSED by God are the religious, as evidenced by the data I have provided. I don't understand how anyone could believe that and still have any faith in God.

Of course it's nonsensical, God has nothing to do with illness and I think almost all religious people know that. I don't believe that and I don't know anyone who does. But JSpear does believe God caused illness because of sin. I want to know how he can marry that view with the data I presented, that God caused something that afflicts many of his followers worse than those who do not believe in him.

To make it very, very clear: I AM NOT CLAIMING ILLNESS IS IN ANY WAY RELATED TO RELIGION.
If you took away the "religion," the people in 3rd world countries would still have the same level of poverty. I don't get what so hard to understand. Level of poverty and lifespan has to do with your physical environment, access to medical care, ect. It doesn't matter what you believe in. Also I don't really get what those charts have to do with what I've been saying. I'm a protestant. Those charts show protestants as being predominantly in North America. By your logic that would mean that Protestant Christians cause lifespan and high standards of living to go up.
 
Re: God and Religion

ray j willings said:
Jspear this is one of your quotes " Suffering is a result of OUR sin. HUMANS sin. Its OUR problem. A child would be sick because of the sin nature which HE/SHE also has. It's not just their parents problem. Its THEIR problem"

Didn't god create humans. If they "Humans sin " then surely that is because god created them that way ?
Why did he not create them the way he wanted them. " without sin"
Surely that means he created humans to sin so he could punish them? That does not seem the behaviour of a peaceful god.
God did create man without sin. Then man sinned. If you have an issue with sin then you can repent and be saved. You're so quick to criticize that you forget about the gospel - the good news of the Bible.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Re: God and Religion

Jspear said:
God did create man without sin. Then man sinned. If you have an issue with sin then you can repent and be saved. Your so quick to criticize that you forget about the gospel - the good news of the Bible.
You say forget I say discount, but then you also say your when you mean you're, so........ ;)
 
Re: God and Religion

Hugh Januss said:
Jspear said:
God did create man without sin. Then man sinned. If you have an issue with sin then you can repent and be saved. Your so quick to criticize that you forget about the gospel - the good news of the Bible.
You say forget I say discount, but then you also say your when you mean you're, so........ ;)
edited. :p
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Re: God and Religion

Jspear said:
ray j willings said:
Jspear this is one of your quotes " Suffering is a result of OUR sin. HUMANS sin. Its OUR problem. A child would be sick because of the sin nature which HE/SHE also has. It's not just their parents problem. Its THEIR problem"

Didn't god create humans. If they "Humans sin " then surely that is because god created them that way ?
Why did he not create them the way he wanted them. " without sin"
Surely that means he created humans to sin so he could punish them? That does not seem the behaviour of a peaceful god.
God did create man without sin. Then man sinned. If you have an issue with sin then you can repent and be saved. You're so quick to criticize that you forget about the gospel - the good news of the Bible.


That seems like an easy out to me. He obviously has created them with sin ,,,,they sinned.

God has created the mental functions of every creature that has existed. Look at the capabilities of the very smartest humans and the extraordinary abilities that some humans have in a pacific mind skill.
Good could easily control the mind set of humans and give them the mind set not to sin.
just to say it's "Man who sinned" it's a complete cop out IMO.

I am not criticizing Jspear , I appreciate your views. Just making points/views of my own.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Re: God and Religion

ray j willings said:
Jspear said:
ray j willings said:
Jspear this is one of your quotes " Suffering is a result of OUR sin. HUMANS sin. Its OUR problem. A child would be sick because of the sin nature which HE/SHE also has. It's not just their parents problem. Its THEIR problem"

Didn't god create humans. If they "Humans sin " then surely that is because god created them that way ?
Why did he not create them the way he wanted them. " without sin"
Surely that means he created humans to sin so he could punish them? That does not seem the behaviour of a peaceful god.
God did create man without sin. Then man sinned. If you have an issue with sin then you can repent and be saved. You're so quick to criticize that you forget about the gospel - the good news of the Bible.


That seems like an easy out to me. He obviously has created them with sin ,,,,they sinned.

God has created the mental functions of every creature that has existed. Look at the capabilities of the very smartest humans and the extraordinary abilities that some humans have in a pacific mind skill.
God could easily control the mind set of humans and give them the mind set not to sin.
just to say it's "Man who sinned" it's a complete cop out IMO.

I am not criticizing Jspear , I appreciate your views. Just making points/views of my own.
 
Jul 16, 2011
1,551
0
0
Re: God and Religion

Jspear said:
Luke is following Mary's genealogy.
Luke 3:23-24

23* And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

Only Joseph is included in the genealogy.

Jspear said:
a.) Daniel wasn't written after the fact. He also predicted the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. No scholar believes Daniel was written after ad 70.
I guess you're to the end of Daniel 9. Daniel as a book was definitely known by the middle of the 2nd century BC. So this can be treated as prophesy, written in an apocalyptic style. It is certainly open to interpretation (what are the flood and the desolation?). That the temple would be rebuilt (around 20BC) and destroyed again (70AD) is not an amazing prediction given the political and religious climate and it's unsurprusing that such a prophecy exists. The latest possible dating of Daniel is around 165BC.

Jspear said:
c.) Let's pretend for a moment that they filtered out the prophets that were wrong: 1st off a prophet that told lies was dismissed as a false prophet. A prophet was judged by whether or not what he said came to past or not.
The fact that there false prophets doesn't negate what the true prophets did and said.
That sounds exactly like what I call publication bias. There were lots of prophets and predictions of the future. Those that could not be interpreted as being true prophecies did not enter the canon. You are left will a much smaller number of "true" prophecies. Check out my predictions for week 3 of the Tour last year: they're almost prophetic (don't go looking at my predictions for the Giro though).

Jspear said:
The gospel writers didn't have a crooked agenda (slowing adding different characteristics to Jesus.) They purposefully were bringing out different aspects of Jesus person and nature (his humanity, divinity, ect.) The gospels harmonize each other. Of course they share different stories or go into more or less depth than each other. There would be no point in having 4 gospels if they all said the same thing.
Sometimes they harmonize each other. Matthew and Luke often record Christ's sayings identically. The fact that different gospels relate different stories or the same stories in slightly different ways certainly does not mean disharmony. However, I can't see that e.g. the nativity stories are harmonized as they seem to be completely independent stories (as opposed to independent accounts of the same story).

I don't think there was ever anything such as a "unified, orthodox Christianity" (Paul argues against other interpretations of christianity in his epistles). The latest gospel, John, has very little in common with the other gospels and pays great emphasis to the divinity of Christ. I definitely would not call either a crooked agenda or a theological view that was universally accepted within the church at the end of the 1st century.
 
Death and disease exist because we are organic beings. If beings were designed by an intelligent creator, as humans may themselves do in the fairly near future, they would be made of non-organic components, e.g., silicon transistors instead of nerve cells, metal wires for nerves, and metal moving parts. Such machines, as we tend to call them, do not get disease and do not die, and while they occasionally may break down, they can be fixed relatively easily.

To connect disease to sin is not simply wrong-headed. It discourages any research into the causes of diseases that can lead to prevention, alleviation and cure. If we were having this conversation several centuries ago, people like Jspear would say there is no need to investigate into the basis of disease, because it’s caused by, related to, whatever, sin, end of discussion. All the explanation you need. Repent and you will be saved, meaning after you die, possibly by a slow and painful death, you will go to heaven—an unassailable view, since no one can ever prove it wrong.

It was only when science began to challenge religions that diseases could actually be understood well enough to be eradicated. Religious people have been happy to piggyback on the benefits of science, while remaining in massive denial about how religion resisted scientific advances at every step of the way. And while they may speak of the glories of the after-life, I have never met any person claiming to be deeply religious so confident in that life that s/he would commit suicide, no matter how wretched their life in this world. The fact that suicide itself is a sin speaks volumes about the confidence religions actually have in an afterlife when crunch time comes. James Jones was at least not a hypocrite.

Sin itself is a nebulous concept, as different individuals may define sin differently. People like GM and Jspear define homosexuality as a sin, while apparently they do not regard as a sin killing other conscious animals (their religion, I’m pretty sure, does not preach vegetarianism). Contraception is a sin, but bringing more children into the world than you can feed is not a sin. It’s a sin to covet your neighbor’s wife, but not a sin to contribute to a culture of consumerism based on addiction to material wealth. It's a sin to be unclean or eat unclean food, but not a sin to pollute the entire planet. And on and on and on.

And yes, there is a strong correlation between poverty and religion. Even in the U.S., fundamentalist religion is more prominent in the poor rural areas of the south, and among poor minorities in urban areas, and it’s growing fast in many third world countries. Why? One reason is that poverty is inversely correlated with education, and fundamentalist religion is more likely to appeal to people with relatively little education. Another reason is that when people are desperately poor, they cling to religion as offering hope, even if it is a false hope. I spend a lot of time in a third world country, and have seen how fundamentalism takes hold among people who live in substandard housing, have little to eat, and are a major medical problem away from complete disaster. The same type of people tend to believe in ghosts, curing diseases by laying on of hands, and divine patterns in some ancient shroud.

It isn’t, of course, that being religious has caused suffering in these people, it’s that when there seems no hope to alleviation of suffering, people turn to religion. Their leaders are happy to encourage this, as it makes them less likely to put efforts into activities that might actually change the conditions that lead to their suffering.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
Death and disease exist because we are organic beings. If beings were designed by an intelligent creator, as humans may themselves do in the fairly near future, they would be made of non-organic components, e.g., silicon transistors instead of nerve cells, metal wires for nerves, and metal moving parts. Such machines, as we tend to call them, do not get disease and do not die, and while they occasionally may break down, they can be fixed relatively easily.

To connect disease to sin is not simply wrong-headed. It discourages any research into the causes of diseases that can lead to prevention, alleviation and cure. If we were having this conversation several centuries ago, people like Jspear would say there is no need to investigate into the basis of disease, because it’s caused by, related to, whatever, sin, end of discussion. All the explanation you need. Repent and you will be saved, meaning after you die, possibly by a slow and painful death, you will go to heaven—an unassailable view, since no one can ever prove it wrong.

It was only when science began to challenge religions that diseases could actually be understood well enough to be eradicated. Religious people have been happy to piggyback on the benefits of science, while remaining in massive denial about how religion resisted scientific advances at every step of the way. And while they may speak of the glories of the after-life, I have never met any person claiming to be deeply religious so confident in that life that s/he would commit suicide, no matter how wretched their life in this world. The fact that suicide itself is a sin speaks volumes about the confidence religions actually have in an afterlife when crunch time comes. James Jones was at least not a hypocrite.

Sin itself is a nebulous concept, as different individuals may define sin differently. People like GM and Jspear define homosexuality as a sin, while apparently they do not regard as a sin killing other conscious animals (their religion, I’m pretty sure, does not preach vegetarianism). Contraception is a sin, but bringing more children into the world than you can feed is not a sin. It’s a sin to covet your neighbor’s wife, but not a sin to contribute to a culture of consumerism based on addiction to material wealth. It's a sin to be unclean or eat unclean food, but not a sin to pollute the entire planet. And on and on and on.

And yes, there is a strong correlation between poverty and religion. Even in the U.S., fundamentalist religion is more prominent in the poor rural areas of the south, and among poor minorities in urban areas, and it’s growing fast in many third world countries. Why? One reason is that poverty is inversely correlated with education, and fundamentalist religion is more likely to appeal to people with relatively little education. Another reason is that when people are desperately poor, they cling to religion as offering hope, even if it is a false hope. I spend a lot of time in a third world country, and have seen how fundamentalism takes hold among people who live in substandard housing, have little to eat, and are a major medical problem away from complete disaster. The same type of people tend to believe in ghosts, curing diseases by laying on of hands, and divine patterns in some ancient shroud.

It isn’t, of course, that being religious has caused suffering in these people, it’s that when there seems no hope to alleviation of suffering, people turn to religion. Their leaders are happy to encourage this, as it makes them less likely to put efforts into activities that might actually change the conditions that lead to their suffering.

Feel free to share your own point of views here as everyone else is but stop with the whole "people like Jspear." You obviously don't know me as well as you think. For the record, (in case anyone thinks you do actually speak on my behalf) I think it is great that we have learned what we have about diseases and that we have different ways of preventing/curbing diseases. I welcome and encourage the continuation of research. And, in case any of you think this clashes with a biblical worldview; Jesus healed the sick, so ya, He is for this to. :)
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
To make it very, very clear: I AM NOT CLAIMING ILLNESS IS IN ANY WAY RELATED TO RELIGION.
Okay in that case, I'm sorry for not assessing your comments correctly!

Hugh Januss said:
Religion also has to do with poverty as it is an important tool for society to keep the poor placated with the (false) promise of a better life in the next one. It is a mechanism for controlling the masses.
This claim is painfully in want of any factual support.

Sure, it will be easy to find a couple of cases where religion has been abused by some tyrant as a propaganda vehicle, but clearly just that wouldn't suffice to argue for this point at all. Unless your only claim is only that it can be (ab)used to control the masses, in which case I would agree, but it wouldn't mean anything for the depreciation of religion. Socialism has been (ab)used by tyrants to oppress the masses and kill a lot of people. Heck, in the French Revolution there were even terrible totalitarian acts of atrocity committed in the name of liberty and all the enlightenment values that our culture clings to so dearly. So it turns out almost any ideal can be (ab)used to control the masses. If you want to make a link between religion and oppression and controlling the masses and linking it to poverty, I invite you to come with an argument to make your case, because I don't see how it's true at all.

Actually, it's not hard to think of many examples where religion helped in bringing liberty and serving the poor and oppressed. Think William Wilberforce, think Martin Luther King. Oh and I posted an article in this thread recently which may be relevant in this case, which shows how Christian missionary endeavors have contributed to bringing about political freedoms and mass education all over the world, and mind you this article isn't some Christian propaganda, it's a serious academical publication:
http://www.academia.edu/2128659/The_Missionary_Roots_of_Liberal_Democracy
 
Re: Re:

Maaaaaaaarten said:
King Boonen said:
To make it very, very clear: I AM NOT CLAIMING ILLNESS IS IN ANY WAY RELATED TO RELIGION.
Okay in that case, I'm sorry for not assessing your comments correctly!

Hugh Januss said:
Religion also has to do with poverty as it is an important tool for society to keep the poor placated with the (false) promise of a better life in the next one. It is a mechanism for controlling the masses.
This claim is painfully in want of any factual support.

Sure, it will be easy to find a couple of cases where religion has been abused by some tyrant as a propaganda vehicle, but clearly just that wouldn't suffice to argue for this point at all. Unless your only claim is only that it can be (ab)used to control the masses, in which case I would agree, but it wouldn't mean anything for the depreciation of religion. Socialism has been (ab)used by tyrants to oppress the masses and kill a lot of people. Heck, in the French Revolution there were even terrible totalitarian acts of atrocity committed in the name of liberty and all the enlightenment values that our culture clings to so dearly. So it turns out almost any ideal can be (ab)used to control the masses. If you want to make a link between religion and oppression and controlling the masses and linking it to poverty, I invite you to come with an argument to make your case, because I don't see how it's true at all.

Actually, it's not hard to think of many examples where religion helped in bringing liberty and serving the poor and oppressed. Think William Wilberforce, think Martin Luther King. Oh and I posted an article in this thread recently which may be relevant in this case, which shows how Christian missionary endeavors have contributed to bringing about political freedoms and mass education all over the world, and mind you this article isn't some Christian propaganda, it's a serious academical publication:
http://www.academia.edu/2128659/The_Missionary_Roots_of_Liberal_Democracy
Really? Man is a coward and can't accept his own mortality. Furthermore there are some cowards who capitalize on this weakness and, as Hugh has pointed out, seek to exploit it to the maximum for personal gain. The nascence of religious systems are borne out here: control and illusion works for the useful idiots who are most suseptable to superstition.
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Really? Man is a coward and can't accept his own mortality. Furthermore there are some cowards who capitalize on this weakness and, as Hugh has pointed out, seek to exploit it to the maximum for personal gain. The nascence of religious systems are borne out here: control and illusion works for the useful idiots who are most suseptable to superstition.
Unfortunately such chicanery isn't limited to religion. There's Ray Kurzweil, who thinks we'll achieve immortality in the near future by uploading our consciousness to a computer. :rolleyes:
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2015/06/so-ray-hows-that-singularity-coming-along.html

I suppose one could consider techno-optimism a new type of religion. A religion for the modern age based on the myth of progress.
 
Re: Re:

Maaaaaaaarten said:
This claim is painfully in want of any factual support. [snipped for length]
I admire your patience and I wish I were as polite as you are, Marty for with such ridiculous statements, I sure am baffled (though with modern atheists, nothing can surprise me now).

I think we shouldn't remain defensive. The best defense is counter-attack. This case to me seems like another example of atheists' usual trick: the "transfer of guild" or "reversing causes".

Whether they like it or not, the consumption society started within left-wing circle: Keynsianism ("recovery in consumption") and the whole post-war permissive society with its avatars: hippie movement, feminism, etc was meant to incite people to consume more in order for big corporations to open new market that they could never have reached within traditional societies. For this, we need read Michel Clouscard and Pier Paolo Pasolini, among others.

Already, Marxism transformed the traditional religious feasts into miserable carousals in order to lul the working class to sleep. Impairing their health in order to be sure they don't revolt and making them squander the little money they have for the benefit of a happy few...

Edit: Forgot to mention that there's a difference between poverty and misery, of course. Poverty is honourable, misery is negative.

It's interesting that you mention Martin Luther King. I recently read a book by Christopher Lasch called "The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics". I already recommended it to our friend BigMac but perhaps he's still too young for it now (or not :)) but I'd sure advise it to you too (it's more important than Khomiakov :p).

Lasch talks about various topics, some sort of a history of American thinking but a whole chapter is dedicated to Dr King. He argued that the Black movement prevailed in Dixie because the Black community in Dixie had self-discipline that they got from religion and which enabled them to revolt. On the other hand, in the North, Black people were part of an aimless suburbian riffraff affected by drugs and all kinds of problems. So later in his life, King tried to adapt his speeches with more left-wing tones, which his companions from the South did not always appreciated and of course the movement failed in the North.

Well I summarized Lasch's discourse with my own words, though but I think I didn't betray his thought. :p

He also showed that the bourgeois elite of the North East coast would always look down on Dixie for being brilliant, "stuck in the past" with their religion and all but that this judgment was valid for both the White community and the Black community in Dixie. He quoted a guy arguing that the proof that Dixie is brilliant is that there is no art gallery there, lol. I don't remember if it was Mencken or another of these arrogant rich Northerner but it says it all. :rolleyes:

Lasch's observations are still topical for USA today, I think: viewtopic.php?p=1631056#p1631056
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS