Religon Influence Fading

[joecoolfrog]

Yup, that's me..

Mentally challenged as evidenced by my inability/disinterest with deciphering your emoticon code.

Oh I think your posts are evidence enough

[OnlyAmbrose]

Seems like this holds as true as it did when I posted it before.

In fact it seems that every Christian who has posted in this thread has agreed with the statistics.

It seems that every time a Christian says something you just must, must, misconstrue it. Hmmm, do I smell insecurity?

[StiffMittens]

In fact it seems that every Christian who has posted in this thread has agreed with the statistics.

Hang on a sec. Which ones were the Christians agreeing with the statisitics? You mean Jesterhawk?

[OnlyAmbrose]

In fact it seems that every Christian who has posted in this thread has agreed with the statistics.

Hang on a sec. Which ones were the Christians agreeing with the statisitics? You mean Jesterhawk?

JH certainly agreed with them, luns didn't give an opinion but I'm fairly certain he would agree that secular humanism is gaining ground, and I agree as well.

[luns101]

Hallelujah, brother, the Lord is non-partisan.

Brother?!! Welcome aboard

The poll concerns the influence of religion -- not god.

Splitting hairs here...most religions purport the existence of God or a god of some sort.

I think it interesting that with each of the polls I have posted, there is a core of rebid-religious posters that must, just must, explain the poll away. Hmmm, do I smell insecurity?

What in blazes is a "rebid"-religious poster?

[mpjh]

rabid

[Artimis]

Religion Influence Fading.

This is not the awful thing that people think it is.

Yes, religion has inspired many great things, it served as a uniting force to bring people of a similar bent together in one purpose. The result is some of our laws, some of the greatest works of art, charitable organisations working to alleviate pain and suffering in areas of the world where no other help is forth coming. Many good things have come from religion.

But lets not be nostalgic, many bad things have been done in the name of religion, especially when two distinct religions meet. The persecution of free thinkers who dared to question the veracity of religious teachings or commonly held assumptions. The 'Holy Crusade' lead by Europe against the Middle East. The hysterical(to say the least) witch hunts of Europe in the middle ages. I could run off a whole list but no one wants to read a post that's three pages long! It can be summed up by this picture, this was posted as a joke in another thread, but I personally believe that this is closer to the truth than some will admit to.


With the rise of the secular state in the 2nd millennium, we've managed to break the strangle hold of religious doctrine on the state. Religion and the state are now two separate entities and we can use reason rather than religion to set new laws or repeal/revise old laws. It's going to take a long time, but we've already made the first step towards maturing as a species. So long as we follow the path of reason then our circumstances will continue to improve.

[StiffMittens]

The poll concerns the influence of religion -- not god.

Splitting hairs here...most religions purport the existence of God or a god of some sort.

That's a hair that should be split. That a religious group purports the existence of god does not necessarily mean that they are correct. Even if they are correct, is does not necessarily follow that the members of that religion act in accord with the deity's will - they may claim to, or even believe that they are, but that doesn't make it so. It's entirely possible that a religious doctrine directly opposes (either purposefully - e.g. satanism - or mistakenly) God's will (if He exists).

[luns101]

The poll concerns the influence of religion -- not god.

Splitting hairs here...most religions purport the existence of God or a god of some sort.

That's a hair that should be split. That a religious group purports the existence of god does not necessarily mean that they are correct. Even if they are correct, is does not necessarily follow that the members of that religion act in accord with the deity's will - they may claim to, or even believe that they are, but that doesn't make it so. It's entirely possible that a religious doctrine directly opposes (either purposefully - e.g. satanism - or mistakenly) God's will (if He exists).

Huh? What are you talking about?!! There was absolutely no discussion of whether a religious group is correct or not. The subject of the original post was religion's fading influence. He never defined what the object of that influence was from his source...culture, family constructs, the arts, public policy, etc.

I proceeded to post a picture from the Barack Obama campaign where they did use religious influence to sway voters to vote for him. He made a funny comment back to me and tried to distinguish between God and religion. Many religions do, in fact, include the worship of God, a god, or a group of gods. It's a part of religion(s).

A religious group's hypocrisy to their deity isn't even what we were talking about. We were talking about influence (influence in what area still hasn't been defined).

[mpjh]

My point is that the poll did not ask whether people thought that god's influence was declining (notwithstanding whether she exists), it asked whether the influence of religion was declining. I think that some could conclude that their god was not declining in influence but that organized religion was.

[StiffMittens]

He made a funny comment back to me and tried to distinguish between God and religion.

Exactly. And you tried to suggest that distinguishing between god and religion is irrelevant to the topic. I responded by suggesting that distinguishing between god and religion is actually relevant and enumerated several reasons why I think this is so.

The original post simply said that religious influence on "American life" is waning. Pretty broad scope, but regardless of exactly what is being influenced, the thing that is doing the influencing is religion. And religion may very well bear no relationship to any deity whatsoever (regardless of what the religious doctrine purports). So distinguishing between the two is not "splitting hairs." It is simply being accurate.

[MeDeFe]

I agree with brooksieb, practically all of our laws are, in one way or an other, influenced by religion. It starts at the most basic of premises, that humans are capable of being guilty of something. Judeo-christian religious premise since 1000 BCE, if not even earlier. Without that premise our society would be a lot different from what it is, utopian or dystopian is your choice, I can imagine both.

[mpjh]

I don't agree. Religion is certainly on powerful means by which culture is expressed, however, I think the underlying basis for guilt is more fundamental and has to do with a sense of justice. People want to live in a society that has justice as a central tenent of its civil life. I think that impetus is what lead to the development of culture and societies.

[MeDeFe]

I don't agree. Religion is certainly on powerful means by which culture is expressed, however, I think the underlying basis for guilt is more fundamental and has to do with a sense of justice. People want to live in a society that has justice as a central tenent of its civil life. I think that impetus is what lead to the development of culture and societies.

But "justice" used to be something the gods (and their priests) defined a long time ago. You can't get religion out of the equation without starting completely from scratch.

[mpjh]

I think "justice" preceded religion. No religion could form that did not incorporate the concept into its lexicon. I think "justice" is hardwired into us and closely related to the so-called altruism gene.

[Snorri1234]

I think "justice" preceded religion. No religion could form that did not incorporate the concept into its lexicon. I think "justice" is hardwired into us and closely related to the so-called altruism gene.

Not to mention that a society cannot grow without some very clear rules regarding accepted behaviour. A society where murder isn't considered a crime is not a society can really grow, this leads back to the tribal phase of our species. You couldn't murder, rape or steal from any people in your community since that would be detrimental to the whole community. This is also why murder, rape and stealing aren't considered that bad when it's the enemy. (i.e. another tribe)

Laws are generally based on their benefit to society as a whole, with occasionally the influence of religion or a life-philosophy.

[Backglass]

Not a surprise, it is what the Bible said would happen.

There are enough stories in the bible that you can twist any poll/topic/world event to prophesy, yet they are always open ended and vague as to WHEN.

DOOM IS COMING! SOMEDAY!

[mpjh]

Yeah the next "bounce" of the universe will be a bitch to life on earth.

[MeDeFe]

I think "justice" preceded religion. No religion could form that did not incorporate the concept into its lexicon. I think "justice" is hardwired into us and closely related to the so-called altruism gene.

Not to mention that a society cannot grow without some very clear rules regarding accepted behaviour. A society where murder isn't considered a crime is not a society can really grow, this leads back to the tribal phase of our species. You couldn't murder, rape or steal from any people in your community since that would be detrimental to the whole community. This is also why murder, rape and stealing aren't considered that bad when it's the enemy. (i.e. another tribe)

Laws are generally based on their benefit to society as a whole, with occasionally the influence of religion or a life-philosophy.

But there's a huge difference whether you think a person decided (free will and all that) to commit a crime, or whether you think the crime is a result of external factors influencing the person committing it.
All religions I know of go with the first option, but the second is also possible and if we apply that one we have to redefine most of the workings of our legal systems.

[mpjh]

You set up a false dichotomy. People can decide between choices. Presumably they will make such choices in their own self-interest. So far, so good. However, when their self-interest conflicts with the collective interest of the larger society, guess what, you get a legal system to enforce the larger society's interest.

[Snorri1234]

I think "justice" preceded religion. No religion could form that did not incorporate the concept into its lexicon. I think "justice" is hardwired into us and closely related to the so-called altruism gene.

Not to mention that a society cannot grow without some very clear rules regarding accepted behaviour. A society where murder isn't considered a crime is not a society can really grow, this leads back to the tribal phase of our species. You couldn't murder, rape or steal from any people in your community since that would be detrimental to the whole community. This is also why murder, rape and stealing aren't considered that bad when it's the enemy. (i.e. another tribe)

Laws are generally based on their benefit to society as a whole, with occasionally the influence of religion or a life-philosophy.

But there's a huge difference whether you think a person decided (free will and all that) to commit a crime, or whether you think the crime is a result of external factors influencing the person committing it.
All religions I know of go with the first option, but the second is also possible and if we apply that one we have to redefine most of the workings of our legal systems.

Actually, we don't. It doesn't matter if it was free will or determinism because there is only one way to deal with it. It is no secret that external factors influence people's descisions already anyway, so what would change?

[luns101]

you tried to suggest that distinguishing between god and religion is irrelevant to the topic.

I certainly didn't...what I actually said was:

"most religions purport the existence of God or a god of some sort." (You can go back and check it for yourself).

Most religions do, in fact, purport to the existence & worship of God, a god, a group of gods, and some even say you can become a god of you do a list of rituals.

I responded by suggesting that distinguishing between god and religion is actually relevant and enumerated several reasons why I think this is so.

OK, I don't see that in your previous post after reading it again but thanks for clarifying...it sounded more like you were bringing up the point of a sect's hypocrisy towards its deity through a doctrine that directly opposed [insert deity]'s will.

The original post simply said that religious influence on "American life" is waning. Pretty broad scope, but regardless of exactly what is being influenced, the thing that is doing the influencing is religion.

Yeah, I agree. Which religion is losing influence was not defined in that original post. Also, the object being influenced by [whatever religion mpjh is referring to] was also not identified.

And religion may very well bear no relationship to any deity whatsoever (regardless of what the religious doctrine purports). So distinguishing between the two is not "splitting hairs." It is simply being accurate.

While I can't recall having discussed things with you before, you should know that almost every time these subjects come up I've been lectured to by atheists here on how God, gods, or a group of gods is absolutely necessary for something to be defined as a religion. If you don't believe me then go talk with Backglass or someone like him. Sounds like atheists on CC disagree with each other over the definition of what religion is. If a deity is not necessary then I agree with you (and also the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals), but just know that every time I've brought up that issue atheists here scream bloody murder and try to say they have a "lack of belief" in gods - and that is what defines them as an atheist in the first place. That would seem like something atheists here would need to hash out amongst themselves.

Just so you don't think I'm making this up...

One more time...and please, pay attention. Atheism = non-religious. They are the same thing. Being an atheist simply means not believing in god(s). Nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a description like "Blonde" or "SKinny". It simply means you don't believe in gods...any of them. Thats all. Nothing more.

No "conversions", no church, no bibles, no gods, no demons, no magical miracles, no rituals, we don't "fellowship" or even get together usually...that would be too much like a religion. Oh...and we sleep in on Sunday mornings.

[mpjh]

I think "justice" preceded religion. No religion could form that did not incorporate the concept into its lexicon. I think "justice" is hardwired into us and closely related to the so-called altruism gene.

Not to mention that a society cannot grow without some very clear rules regarding accepted behaviour. A society where murder isn't considered a crime is not a society can really grow, this leads back to the tribal phase of our species. You couldn't murder, rape or steal from any people in your community since that would be detrimental to the whole community. This is also why murder, rape and stealing aren't considered that bad when it's the enemy. (i.e. another tribe)

Laws are generally based on their benefit to society as a whole, with occasionally the influence of religion or a life-philosophy.

But there's a huge difference whether you think a person decided (free will and all that) to commit a crime, or whether you think the crime is a result of external factors influencing the person committing it.
All religions I know of go with the first option, but the second is also possible and if we apply that one we have to redefine most of the workings of our legal systems.

Actually, we don't. It doesn't matter if it was free will or determinism because there is only one way to deal with it. It is no secret that external factors influence people's descisions already anyway, so what would change?

Yes. People can make choices between alternatives; presumably, they will decide in their own self-interest.
When their self-interest conflicts with the larger society's collective interest you get a legal system designed to enforce the society's interests.

[Backglass]

While I can't recall having discussed things with you before, you should know that almost every time these subjects come up I've been lectured to by atheists here on how God, gods, or a group of gods is absolutely necessary for something to be defined as a religion. If you don't believe me then go talk with Backglass or someone like him. Sounds like atheists on CC disagree with each other over the definition of what religion is.

How can you argue over a definition? It's very simple actually. If the definition doesn't fit, you aren't an atheist. Much like you would say someone who doesn't believe that Jesus Christ existed isn't a christian. You could try to "argue" about it all you want but it's pretty cut & dried.

that every time I've brought up that issue atheists here scream bloody murder and try to say they have a "lack of belief" in gods - and that is what defines them as an atheist in the first place. That would seem like something atheists here would need to hash out amongst themselves.

I don't understand why this is so hard for you. You believe that there is ONE god and all the others are false. I believe they ALL are false. We are not so different actually.

This is as silly as me saying that "You christians need to hash out amongst yourselves whether Jesus was real" because some "christian" said he didn't exist.

The definition is easy to find...just look in the dictionary.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
: one who believes that there is no deity

One more time...and please, pay attention. Atheism = non-religious. They are the same thing. Being an atheist simply means not believing in god(s). Nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a description like "Blonde" or "SKinny". It simply means you don't believe in gods...any of them. Thats all. Nothing more.

No "conversions", no church, no bibles, no gods, no demons, no magical miracles, no rituals, we don't "fellowship" or even get together usually...that would be too much like a religion. Oh...and we sleep in on Sunday mornings.

Thanks for the quote.

All true.


...and I have never screamed "BLOODY MURDER!" :LOL:

[jonesthecurl]

Atheism is not a religion. It is not an organised set of beliefs, doctrine, rules, philosphy, or whatever.
That doesn't mean that you couldn't have a religion without gods.
In fact, the Buddha when asked if there is/are god(s) said that he didn't know.