[Brenda]

Wait, FV... So you say that religion is not a reason, but secularism is?

[Jonny_C]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

The 20th century has proven that mankind does not need religion to commit untold atrocities since it was secular regimes like the Third Reich...

Wehrmacht WWII belt buckle "Gott Mitt Uns" worn by every German soldier... "God is with us"...

0:

wehrmacht buckle.JPG [ 58.48 KiB | Viewed 229 times ]

[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

The 20th century has proven that mankind does not need religion to commit untold atrocities since it was secular regimes like the Third Reich, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia are responsible for the deaths of millions. Oh, I know many atheists love to point out that Hitler was a lapsed Catholic and Stalin was once in a Russian Orthodox seminary school (or something like that) but they are missing the point. I believe that religion and ideology are merely reflections of mankind's better nature and darker impulses.

Religion mandates atrocity. Secularism does not.

It's hard to determine if you're being an absolute idiot here by design or accident.

I'm going to assume accident and feel sorry for you instead.

[Gunnair]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

I care, because like most other people, I'm trying to make my own personal sense out of things. Hence what I wrote above rambles a bit, because so many thoughts demand to be crammed into the limited time I have for writing something like this out.

Make of it what you will. There's plenty to disagree with, I'm sure, and I don't blame people for disagreeing. We each have to try to figure out our own way,

Fair enough, my apologies if some sniffiness came through. This is a time when some of the more obnoxious atheists on the site roll in with the, 'Where's your God now and why did he let this happen?" bullshit.

I erroneously was getting a feeling you might be looking at that route as well.

[Gunnair]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

The 20th century has proven that mankind does not need religion to commit untold atrocities since it was secular regimes like the Third Reich...

Wehrmacht WWII belt buckle "Gott Mitt Uns" worn by every German soldier... "God is with us"...

0:

wehrmacht buckle.JPG

Yeah but religion didn't tend to play a driving force in the culture - not near as much as race and ethnicity and history.

[Brenda]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Gunnair Gunnair:

It appears you assume that the only relationship with God is based on him doing stuff for you. Not always the case.

I guess there can be many aspects of a relationship with God. Some of them are simply belief that living a good life will secure a place in God's heaven. That's a very positive aspect of belief in God, as it "codifies" moral behaviour and gives it a reward. Contrary to what some will tell you, however, it's not the only way to lead a truly moral life. That can be done in a totally secular way too. The secular way, though, promises no reward except the satisfaction stemming from being kind, compassionate and principled.

$1:

The old stand by of God hears all prayers but doesn't answer them is the challenge of faith that religious people have.

I agree that that is a test of faith. What I tend to believe, however, is that since there are no grounds to believe that prayer will sway God's intervention, prayer has no use except to comfort the one who prays, in a mental sense but not in a concrete sense. Prayers can be asking for totally different things, such as when two armies face each other on a field of battle. The prayers on one side will succeed, the prayers on the other side will fail, and it is not always the morally right side that will succeed.

The "granting of prayers" is entirely random, yet the failure of prayer is accepted by the faithful as "God's will" and the success of prayer is evidence of his love. It's a strange self-delusion. The faithful see it as a strength; the doubters see it as weakness. The faithful see it as support sought from without, from a greater power. The doubters see it as a lack of self-confidence and self-reliance. "God helps those who help themselves" is something that comes closest to a thing that can be believed by both groups.

A man and wife are stranded on the roof of their house amid rising flood waters. A boat is sent to rescue them and they refuse. "God will provide," they say. A helicopter comes to pluck them off the roof and they refuse again, saying "God will provide." As the flood waters rise to engulf them they cry out, "God, why hast thou forsaken us?" God answers, "Forsaken you? I sent you a boat and a helicopter!"

$1:

I'm not quite sure why you care enough to post this since it does not appear you have faith or a relationship with a divine being.

I care, because like most other people, I'm trying to make my own personal sense out of things. Hence what I wrote above rambles a bit, because so many thoughts demand to be crammed into the limited time I have for writing something like this out.

Make of it what you will. There's plenty to disagree with, I'm sure, and I don't blame people for disagreeing. We each have to try to figure out our own way,

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Fantastic post.
I have to spread the love before I can rep you.

[Gunnair]

Brenda Brenda:

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Gunnair Gunnair:

It appears you assume that the only relationship with God is based on him doing stuff for you. Not always the case.

I guess there can be many aspects of a relationship with God. Some of them are simply belief that living a good life will secure a place in God's heaven. That's a very positive aspect of belief in God, as it "codifies" moral behaviour and gives it a reward. Contrary to what some will tell you, however, it's not the only way to lead a truly moral life. That can be done in a totally secular way too. The secular way, though, promises no reward except the satisfaction stemming from being kind, compassionate and principled.

$1:

The old stand by of God hears all prayers but doesn't answer them is the challenge of faith that religious people have.

I agree that that is a test of faith. What I tend to believe, however, is that since there are no grounds to believe that prayer will sway God's intervention, prayer has no use except to comfort the one who prays, in a mental sense but not in a concrete sense. Prayers can be asking for totally different things, such as when two armies face each other on a field of battle. The prayers on one side will succeed, the prayers on the other side will fail, and it is not always the morally right side that will succeed.

The "granting of prayers" is entirely random, yet the failure of prayer is accepted by the faithful as "God's will" and the success of prayer is evidence of his love. It's a strange self-delusion. The faithful see it as a strength; the doubters see it as weakness. The faithful see it as support sought from without, from a greater power. The doubters see it as a lack of self-confidence and self-reliance. "God helps those who help themselves" is something that comes closest to a thing that can be believed by both groups.

A man and wife are stranded on the roof of their house amid rising flood waters. A boat is sent to rescue them and they refuse. "God will provide," they say. A helicopter comes to pluck them off the roof and they refuse again, saying "God will provide." As the flood waters rise to engulf them they cry out, "God, why hast thou forsaken us?" God answers, "Forsaken you? I sent you a boat and a helicopter!"

$1:

I'm not quite sure why you care enough to post this since it does not appear you have faith or a relationship with a divine being.

I care, because like most other people, I'm trying to make my own personal sense out of things. Hence what I wrote above rambles a bit, because so many thoughts demand to be crammed into the limited time I have for writing something like this out.

Make of it what you will. There's plenty to disagree with, I'm sure, and I don't blame people for disagreeing. We each have to try to figure out our own way,

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Fantastic post.
I have to spread the love before I can rep you.

Got your six.

[Brenda]

Thank you!

[FieryVulpine]

sandorski sandorski:

Religion mandates atrocity. Secularism does not.

Irrelevant. Secularism still allows it to happen.

Brenda Brenda:

Wait, FV... So you say that religion is not a reason, but secularism is?

Apologies for the late reply, but the point I was trying to make is that atrocities have happened and will continue to happen because of BOTH religion and secularist philosophy/ideology. Humans will always find some excuse to kill each other.

[andyt]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

sandorski sandorski:

Religion mandates atrocity. Secularism does not.

Irrelevant. Secularism still allows it to happen.

Brenda Brenda:

Wait, FV... So you say that religion is not a reason, but secularism is?

Apologies for the late reply, but the point I was trying to make is that atrocities have happened and will continue to happen because of BOTH religion and secularist philosophy/ideology. Humans will always find some excuse to kill each other.

Agreed. To drag religion into human evil is silly. Religions contain elements of human evil, because humans invented them and humans use them for their ends. But the evil, ie drive to power, that makes us want to harm each other goes way deeper than that.

[andyt]

God the watchmaker who winds up the universe, knowing all possible outcomes, and then sits back and watches the show as it unwinds seems pretty silly to me. Hell, we can do that now with computers, tho of course in more limited systems. Let's say we designed such a program, knowing all possible outcomes, including the probabilities of such outcomes. And we also are able to design consciousness and "free will" (anybody who studies the unconscious knows how little meaning that term has), into elements of this program, so these elements can cause each other suffering, and we know damn well they will. For good measure we also throw in all sorts of suffering not caused by other sentient elements of the program, but just how the laws of the program work - disease, accidents, etc. What would we think of such a computer programmer? Not the nicest guy in the neighbor hood, sounds like a nazi scientist sorta, no?

[Brenda]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

sandorski sandorski:

Religion mandates atrocity. Secularism does not.

Irrelevant. Secularism still allows it to happen.

Brenda Brenda:

Wait, FV... So you say that religion is not a reason, but secularism is?

Apologies for the late reply, but the point I was trying to make is that atrocities have happened and will continue to happen because of BOTH religion and secularist philosophy/ideology. Humans will always find some excuse to kill each other.

I agree. Sorry I misread it.

[sandorski]

Gunnair Gunnair:

sandorski sandorski:

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

The 20th century has proven that mankind does not need religion to commit untold atrocities since it was secular regimes like the Third Reich, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia are responsible for the deaths of millions. Oh, I know many atheists love to point out that Hitler was a lapsed Catholic and Stalin was once in a Russian Orthodox seminary school (or something like that) but they are missing the point. I believe that religion and ideology are merely reflections of mankind's better nature and darker impulses.

Religion mandates atrocity. Secularism does not.

It's hard to determine if you're being an absolute idiot here by design or accident.

I'm going to assume accident and feel sorry for you instead.

Your point is moot.

[raydan]

You've finally graduated from "fail".

[sandorski]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

sandorski sandorski:

Religion mandates atrocity. Secularism does not.

Irrelevant. Secularism still allows it to happen.

Brenda Brenda:

Wait, FV... So you say that religion is not a reason, but secularism is?

Apologies for the late reply, but the point I was trying to make is that atrocities have happened and will continue to happen because of BOTH religion and secularist philosophy/ideology. Humans will always find some excuse to kill each other.

Allows? How exactly do you define this or what point are you trying to make exactly? History shows that anything can happen under any regime(Philosophy/Religion/Government) and pretty much has. The point I am making is one of Intent. Secularism does not Intend to harm, Religion(especially the Abrahamic variants)has at times Commanded Atrocity. The difference is night and day.