@ivo

You said earlier:
“one should always watch out when being too opinionated on issues he takes personally.” That’s good advice and I think that when an opponent is questioning whether I can “think for myself” based upon nothing more than my membership in a particular church that we may have reached that point. It sounds as if you might believe that atheists are the only ones who can think for themselves? That’s quite a stereotype to hold. I am certainly willing to continue the conversation sans critiques of that nature. If I’ve said something that has precipitated this type of argument please let me know what it is. I can’t really think that I’ve said anything about you in particular.

1) I did define the void (not my word actually obiwan's instead) as the energy and time that would otherwise be spent on religious pursuits. If they are not spent on such they will likely be spent on something else. Plainly and simply we tend to replace rather than just abandon. I think you may have added on some unrelated assumptions about me and religious people in general? Do you know anything of my moral compass or my ability to think for myself? I seem to be doing pretty well thus far, and yes I like presents at Christmas, don't you? Although I must admit I enjoy giving them more than receiving them as I get older.

2) It is completely okay for churches to accept anyone and everyone. They are not exclusive clubs. You seem to be keen on introducing another issue though. Be careful there. You've stated "all religions, or the institutions behind them” act in this manner. That is certainly untrue, and I'll blow it out of the water with examples if you like on that issue. It just doesn't have the same ring if you have to say "some religious institutions" act that way though does it? Are religious institutions unique in the tendency to protect members though? Perhaps there are some secular institutions that do the same? Then we have to get into the messy which ones? How often? Why are we besmirching the ones that do not for the actions of the ones that do, etc. etc. Then we might even get down to the basic truth that people are people regardless of the institution to which they belong. Some behave very well and other behave badly. The churches with their policy of allowing anyone in who wants to join are of necessity bringing in people who are going to behave badly, but with the intention of leading them toward better behavior.

3) And we end with another assumption? Who says that churches have not changed? There are many sects and tons of literature based upon religion and the understanding of it has most assuredly changed over the years. Adherents, as Friendly Sword states, are seen as picking and choosing or of being monsters? That’s a tautology that really leaves us no acceptable place to stand, but there is another option. Perhaps the churches do evolve and change over time though, and we come to greater understanding of the applications of those teachings in our lives. Certainly by the time of St. Paul the strict observance of Jewish law was a topic of debate. Decisions were made within the church as to how to apply the teachings and laws based upon people who were well versed in the teachings. That same thing is going on and it reflects real people in earnest deliberation of how to live. The difference here is that you have a community discussing morality and the how to apply scripture in their daily lives. Having a community of people willing to discuss and deliberate upon moral issues is not a bad thing nor does it of necessity mean that the dogma is overwhelming the good ideas. Instead the adherents, of my church at least, are urged to use scripture, reason, spirit to decide upon a course of action. That hardly sounds like they are either tied to ancient authority or are completely left to themselves on such decisions.

@ Friendly Sword

"I feel like you also reject dogma as your source of meaning about the world, so you and I differ very little except in terms of degree of belief and scepticism. :) "

I do reject dogma as "my source" I do not reject it as "a source", and as such I am very well within the teachings of my church. Scripture is primary over any church law or tradition. Still we are not expected to base every decision upon even scriptural knowledge. Christians are not going to the Bible to decide which grocery store to frequent any more than scientists are conducting experiments to do the same. Its merely that we have these teachings as guides when there is a big question.

I'd assert that I'm probably equally skeptical to you by nature. I'm just as skeptical of the atheists as I am the religious folks though. ;-)

To be clear, I fully support picking and choosing, as well as changing religions to suit modern times. Just don't try to claim moral righteousness based on the bible when you pick and choose and everything is hunky-dory. I mean, I prefer that over literally reading the bible, but it's still pretty inconsistent of the church.

Personally, I read the bible as a set of lessons that aren't too relevant to me, but if someone else finds relevance and uses some of the lessons to guide thier lives that is perfectly ok. Use any book you want for that. Please note however, that doing so is an example of rejecting religious dogma.

Hehe, I see what you're trying to do, but not going to work :)

I asked about the void and gave possible answers - moral compass and way of seeing the world being reasonable options (I'd think - and i've heard it from religious people) and the Christmas presents being a joke, clearly :)

You now describe this void as more-or-less a problem what to do with your free time if you don't go to church. Is this all religion is to you - a hobby? :)

Go to the movies each Sun then and we're settled :)

Does this actually qualify Dimplinacy as a good replacement? It certainly fits the criteria you set (spending some time and energy on something new)

What part of atheism or athiests are you skeptical about?

There are several arguments that I've heard that I thought were lacking. I did not say that I was skeptical of atheism any more than anyone else might be skeptical of theism. Atheists however are people and are as given as to pulling the wool over your eyes as anyone else.

You don't think that every argument proposed by an atheist in on the up and up do you?

@ivo

Glad you asked :-) Not at all it's a serious process of growth and study. The idea of going to the movies or palying Diplomacy may seem equivalent to you for you seem to see religion as having very little use, but being part of a community that is committed to doing good in on a local, nationwide, and worldwide level is not in any way equivalent to playing Diplomacy or going to the movies.

@CA

Oh, of course. Being an atheist doesn't mean that your arguments about things are right. I just see 'being an atheist' as an identity that is very limited in scope (ie. religious arguments). Honestly, I would never call myself an atheist outside of debates regarding what ought to be scope of religious influence in public life. Thus, apart from arguments about religion there isn't much to skeptical about. But I digress.

Secondly, regarding "being part of a community that is committed to doing good in on a local, nationwide, and worldwide level". Aren't there plenty of organisations that do just this without the influence of religion? I tend to believe that most people who do good things in religious organizations would do good things no matter what, and likewise for most people who murder in the name of religion, etc.

As to being skeptical of ahteist's arguments it's the religious debates that I'm skeptical of. If you pm me I'll send you a link for a book that you might want to read (if you're open minded about the subject). It is a critique of some of the prominent atheist writers (completely devoid of Scriptural references and completely packed with footnotes and
cited sources so that you can check his conclusions).

Perhaps but it is a stickier proposition with Christianity though. We have those pesky Gospels and attach so much importance to the Christ fella'. Sure there are other organizations that do good in the world and they might actually pick up some people if those people dropped out of the religious institutions, but all of them? Even most of them?

When it comes down to it it's far easier to develop an argument based upon the Gospels for giving to a charity than one for gay bashing. The problem comes when you have so many adherents who just don't read the Scriptures. Have you ever seen a church that urges its adherents not to read the Scriptures? That's probably a failing of the individual if he's duped don't you think?

** 2) Perhaps....** I started an entirely different train of thought there sorry that it derailed.

@CA - you have still not defined this void in any way - please, don't avoid the tough questions :)

And you really cannot excuse all bad things with "it's just individuals", "they are not representative of the whole", "some governments are no better" and so on.

I have a simple question for you - do you support the existance of an institution that is resposible for an estimated 60,000 child abuse cases in Germany, during the past fifty years, and refuses to take ANY action against it's own guilty members?

I can give you links to read that will make you weep and vomit in shame - but you'd actually have no problem to find such info if you were as open-minded as you claim.

"Have you ever seen a church that urges its adherents not to read the Scriptures?"

Dude.... have you any experience with the Catholic Church? That used to be it's raison d'etre. ^^

But in any case, what are we arguing about here? I have kind of lost track... we agree that accepting dogma at face value is bad, right? And we agree that religion is not the sole route by which to achieve happiness and find meaning right? If so I have little substantive disagreement with what you are saying. ^^

And sure, send me your link. :)

@ivo

Hmm.. I didn't think that defiing it clearly twice and giving another quick correction to bring it into sharper focus was avoiding a question. It wasn't that tough by the way :-)


I also make no such excuse and from the beginning acknowledged the bad that was present in some churches. Where I differ from you is that I'm not willing to paint with such a wide brush. Why would you think that I'd excuse any wrong done by any religious person or institution? I've made no attempt to do so.

Yet, you seem to think that seeing the good that religion does is an automatic whitewashing of the bad and will not give up that assupmtion. Corporate actions are corporate responsibility, but individual actions are individual responsibility. A church that refuses to take action against child abuse isn't fulfilling their responsibility. That hardly indicts all churches though. Yet you think that I'm closed minded, but stated earlier "I blame organized religion"? Throw them all out the innocent with the guilty, eh? I'm finding at every turn that there is some stereotype or some assumption upon which you appear to base your judgements.

I do not excuse any action that harms anyone, nor do I see that a large group of individual organizations can be indicted for actions of any of the smaller organization or departments thereof. So much of your argument depends upon stereotype and innuendo. It's tantamount to saying that all democratically elected governments are bad based upon the Wemar Republic.

** Weimar Republic** (The Wemar Republic was actually fantastically successful, but suffered from such a bad public relations department very few even know that it existed)

"Dude.... have you any experience with the Catholic Church? That used to be it's raison d'etre."

Yeah, you probably got me there, which is why it's so difficult to make blanket statements about "organized religion" or even "Christianity".

Can you please quote yourself on where you explained thud void - I still don't see it - you just said that you have explained it twice - but all you did was tell me it's not a moral compass, it's not a way of thinking, it's not like going to the movies or playing Dimplomacy to fill up time...

So what is it exactly????

Really - if you want to be taken seriously you have to stop bulshitting around. I don't want five paragraphs nonsense - just a simple question - all you do is say something and then when I push into the core you change the subject.

Okay here's one.

"I think that's precisely what he means by void. That when one thing is taken away there is the room for something else to take its place. Look at it like this, If you are were a committed Christian and decided for whatever reason to reject Christianity. You would not, in all likelihood, merely sit and do nothing for the time that you previously spent at Church or pursuing a greater understanding of Chirstianity, Scripture, etc. There would be some extra time and energy to spend. Hence a void (something that was filled and now isn't) not necessarily a gaping hole upon which one would necessarily brood and feel sadness."

Simple answer given a page or two ago.

Asserting that I can think for myself and pointing out the inherent problems with stereotyping religion in general based upon the actions of some individuals and organizations is hardly changing the subject on my part. I'm not really that worried about whether I'm being taken seriously ;-)

It's not actually that serious a discussion after all.

I'm sorry, but your response is a joke - I told you - on hhis definition Diplomacy fits the bill. Is this what we're arguing about? At least have the spine to admit this "void" thing was a nonsense argument and move on. This for the being taken serious part :P

As to the overall discussion, let me say this - I know most of the people associated with any religion are good people. However, they can be a bit like sheep - that's the nature of blind faith - and I hate it because you are the ones who can make the change. You just have to realize it's simply not ok to support the current system of organized religion and keep defending it. Atheists don't want to bring it down - they want it to stop being so corrupt and dogmatic - a lot of them are disillusioned ex-followers who find it hard to associate in any way with an organization directly connected to the Inquisition, slavery, crusades, witch-hunts and burnings, torture, faschism, Nazism, racism, mass expulsions and forceful convertions, pillage... and now mass child abuse.

The same organizations that claimed monopoly on God, in all variations, managing to collect a hefty 5-10% of the GDP in their areas of influence. Money from which only a small fraction was used for "giving back" (keep this in mind when talking about charity), while most went for supporting the clergy, building temples, buing land and assets, stockpiling the largest art and luxury collections since before king Solomon.

Then you come here to say that atheists are the problem, because they don't want to accept the other point of view. Of course I don't - NOTHING can justify the list above and the fact we're still adding to it.

It's not atheists who are the problem - it's people like you - because you believe you're a good Christian (or whatever) but you're not. You should be arguing with your priest, not with me - and letting him know the next time you read about a new case of abuse you're buying a turban. And it doesn't matter if it's another church in another town (what kind of am argument is this???) - such attitude has led to clergy being literally infested, and targeted as an occupation, by molesters.

I'll stop arguing more - I think I've said enough to illustrate my point and don't want to take this too far :)

What should I be arguing with my priest? He's a good man. He doesn't abuse children. He doesn't run the inquisition. He doesn't keep slaves, set up crusades or burn witches (he did have a bonfire party last autumn but no witches were harmed). He takes a small salary for a hard job providing community cohesion and care to vulnerable people in a tough urban area.
Tell me what to say to him and I will.

"because you believe you're a good Christian (or whatever) but you're not..." Who the hell is *anyone* on this forum to tell another person - Christian or not - that they are not a good person/Christian/dog-licker/whatever. It's funny, the self-styled atheists in these forums seem to be the *most* judgmental assholes around, yet they constantly point fingers at people who claim to have one faith or another and call them names, call them child-abusers, etc. I pity you people not because you have no faith - that's your right - but because you seem to be such a damned self-righteous, angry lot of people with nothing but insults to throw at people. It's really quite pathetic. In truth, most Christians go about their life raising their families the best they can, going to work, paying their taxes, doing a little charity work every now and then and, on the whole are not offensive, in-your-face zealots. Most Christians don't have a big enough pair to speak openly about their faith for fear of some asshole like Ivo being a dick about it.

regarding the "void" argument:
If one's "almost fanatical devotion to the pope" is to be replaced, most likely it will be replaced by an almost fanatical devotion to "X"... whatever "X" may be. Such a person, needed a fanatical devotion to "a greater power" to which they can spend a significant amount of time and energy each week praying to, thinking about, and feeling inferior and such... such a person will feel a void if that object of their devotion is displaced... perhaps by proof that the church is unworthy or that the bible is self-contradictory - whatever the case may be. ...such a person, then will desire to put something in it's place. But for one who's belief in a higher power never took on such a level of psychological need and obsession will do just fine with it's absence. Though an atheist, I have no void in the absence of god because I never was fanatically devoted or fanatically obsessed. I go about living - playing Diplomacy, going to see the fireworks, walking the dog, etc. Life goes on just fine. There is no hole in my life. Frankly, as with many insights I've had through my life, I actually feel less of a void having come to a logical and comfortable view that fits all available data... There is no void from me not believing astrology, no void from not believing in ghosts, in UFOs, nor is there any void in not believing in God.

Oh, krellin... your brilliant mind strikes again :)

Dude, did you even read my post? I didn't call anyone a child abuser - and I only spoke up when it was said atheists are the problem - because I don't agree to it - and I provided what I think is a logically sound explanation, admittedly using some below-the-waist punches. Still, everything I said was in the context that I don't like organized religion, not that I don't like religious people.

You, on the other hand, said one thing - Ivo is an asshole - essay-style (and lenght).

Thank you for your contribution :)

krellin,
I've met more than my share of arrogant in-my-face Christians than I care to think about. ...and I shudder to think what I would experience if I visited Iran or some other Islamic fundamentalist enclave. I don't think ivo's rant is proof of anything. ...nor is my occasional rant. ...nor is your rant where-in you say you "pity you people" ..."because you seem to be such a damned self-righteous, angry lot of people with nothing but insults to throw at people. It's really quite pathetic". Didn't you just step in the poop you were complaining about?

Crap - I get missionaries at my door every week... ever have an atheist come to your door to try to "save" you? I haven't. Ever seen or heard of an atheist terrorist? ...or an atheist performing a hate crime? Ever turn on the television or the radio and heard an atheist ranting about the evils of religion? Probably not too often if ever. Ever turn on the AM radio or TV and heard an "evangelist" ranting about the evils of the non-religious or the religious of other faiths? Of course you have - it is ubiquitous. Not to say that we atheists don't have anger (we are human) - and that religious issues are often the target of our anger... of course, these are issues that strike a nerve. But when you say we're an angry bunch, you should look in the mirror and realize that you and your "group" (religious folk taken whole) is no different. Not nice being put in a wide-sweeping group, is it? Not particularly fair, is it?