religion and control

[drwineglass]

religion like all other parts of life is control....... on a mass scale and that is why it works well in the world today governments like that it keeps people feeling guilty... and feeling bad for what they have really never done anything in the first place like christians keep telling me i have sinned .....sinning is like having done something really bad like copulating with a donkey at a seaside resort...or something drastic in that configuration ...but when i am told that i have sinned by a person who does not know me that makes me wonder about the whole deal ...jesus died on the cross because he did ......not for me .....no one dies for me ....unless i am about to be struck by a 12 o clock freight train coming from memphis ....yes...well if that person died for i do thank them for saving me but it was their choice not anyone else i cannot make them do something they do not want to do .....so although religion works for the masses it is sub concious control among powers that the congregation would rather not be told about ....i mean the power of the vatican speaks volumes ....there will always be people needing to be told what to do and how to live these are the masses they live in fear and always will then there will be people born with eyes wide open and see what the real deal is....you can live your life being told what to by a man i a snazzy purple and gold cloak telling you what he thinks and you should follow or you can simply follow you own path to a fruitful life .....knowledge is power and power dissapates fear ...fear is created through lack on knowledge therefore merits no power...thus this breeds fear ...and as we know .....FEAR ...is FALSE EVIDENCE APPEARS REAL.......3% of the planet dispenses fear to the other 97%....

It is very clear to me that you do not know any actual atheists.

[Talon]

I agree with Neil..

purpose is found from within..and to live without doctrine makes you stronger not weaker... because,simply more choice was required to bring the mind to such comprehension

though again I will say, as I have before..in all walks we have misfits and its silly to think one can blanket, in any area..

and tom..maybe one day you will realise that the individual has the power to indoctrine themselves..given enough time to think and to that end a reason to..

I have shared time since rehab with clergymen whom have not thought as deeply as I... nor could in there present bindings

everything in life is a state of mind... or in advancement from a stage of a mind thats in a state...God is not the one who is all powerfull and understanding... its us...

GOD is only a synonym for Good Orderly Direction

[Rid_Sonja]

I agree with Neil and Talon.

It appears to me that many theists are very good at quoting from various sources with regards to how people should live, without seeming to actually think about what it means to live unless within the strictures of whatever word of wisdom from whichever book they apply.

Perhaps lettng go of the apron strings would be a liberating experience, or perhaps it would be far too scary to even try.

Morality and Ethics are not bound solely to people who believe in a diety, but to listen to them it appears that people who do not believe are somehow less than human. Between operators of differing dieties it appears to be a competition of "who can urinate furthest up the wall" A very adult stance I must say.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Rid_Sonja
Morality and Ethics are not bound solely to people who believe in a diety.

It is certainly possible to be a moral atheist. However, your worldview gives you no reason to do so. If humanity is an acciedent, then morality is only an arbitrary social construct, and if you ever see an opportunity there's nothing stoping you from circumventing it to benefit yourself. Heck, you could create an entire philosophy built around escaping morality and living as an uberman. Theists, on the other hand, believe the universe was created from a principle of goodness (God) and hence morality is wired into the fundamental natural law. Catholics, for one, believe that all our good and evil actions have a ripple effect; doing good will help everyone around us and doing evil will hurt them. A great saint draws a thousand to heaven with him; a great sinner a thousand to hell. We have every reason to be moral, whereas you, even if you are in fact a moral person, have none.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
The heart of the matter is obediance. Christians obey Christ. Atheists ultimately obey themselves. If there is no God, I am at the mercy of myself and other people...

atheists have less motivation...

We all have a sense of right and wrong, whether we have read the Bible or not...

So to say that religious men are bound by dogma is not quite accurate. They have their attention on (a) God and (b) their fellow man. If they falter, they seek repentance and are hard on themselves. An irreligious man has no such fall-back procedure. If he faults, there is no Higher Power to tell him to stop and re-group. He is left entirely to himself and give in to his Ego. Neitzsche, himself an atheist, said that atheism requires a rigor which is not usually found in atheists. Simply put, an atheist has the option of calling into question all the traditional values (according to C.S. Lewis this is not even possible). In so doing, he then chooses HIS OWN rules to live by. The next step, says Neitzsche, is to live by these rules each and everyday, and if you faulter from the rules you have to punish yourself accordingly. But is this the reality with most agnostics and atheists? Of course not. They have all too easy. They can do what they want, whether it has value or not, because they are at the mercy of themselves...

The thing to remember is this. If there is no God, then not everything is 'seen.' Therefore, I can 'cut corners' at work and have nothing to worry about. The whole mentality of 'it ain't a crime if you don't get caught' is prevalent in at least the Western world, and that mentality is essentially atheist...

Ironically, "of all bad men religious bad men are the worst." (C.S. Lewis)...

The error is in thinking that atheism is MORE free-minded than Theism. First of all, I prefer to be RIGHT-minded rather than FREE-minded...

I would say that most people, atheists and theists alike, are not really ethical. Most people are not really good or bad: they're just apathetic and lazy and do shabby things quite often. Truly good people are hard to find and I think that belief in God makes you a stronger person, provided your belief is genuine.

There are a lot of contradictory and, ultimately, muddle-headed statements here, but much of what you say answers your own doubts about atheism. And let's be clear here, we are talking about atheism. Agnostics are simply people who avoid the hard questions, who sit on the fence. It is a mistake to lump agnostics in with atheists.

Every atheist I know has reached that position through long hard thought. Atheism is not taken lightly and such people have more self-discipline that almost all self-professed Christians. An atheist has no harsher critic than him (or her) self, and generally adheres to a very strict moral code. Christian, on the whole, believe themselves to have a pre-booked ticket into Heaven.

The real problem is this afterlife business. Christians believe they will live for ever and so, often, are prepared to waste their time on earth because there'll be infinitely more in Heaven. Christianity positively encourages people to tolerate all sorts of suffering and injustice their entire lives because they'll get their reward later (even though no-one has actual knowledge of this afterlife). Atheists, on the other hand, believe they only have one shot at life and so they will make the most of it while they can. No atheist should be willing to accept slavery because he/she would know there is no ultimate reward as there is no afterlife. Better to throw off the shackles now, in this life, than meekly submit and pray for deliverance beyond the grave.

Originally posted by TomSawyer

1. You say I have "a lot of contradictory and, ultimately, muddle-headed statements." I do not think so, Neil, and I challenge you to show otherwise. Happy fishing.

Just read the selected parts of your post which I quoted. Many of them are contradictory.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
2. You claim that atheists adhere to a strict moral code. But how can a strict moral code be believing in if all our thoughts are only physical and chemical accidents? You assume a validity to human thinking that undermines that materialism you start from.

Who says our thoughts are accidents? Certainly not me. Life is an accident, but those who are alive do not act in a random manner, neurons do not fire randomly. Once we are alive, we think and act in a deliberate manner.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
3. It is true that very many Christians believe they are going to Heaven. But Christianity says the reverse: "very few" reach Heaven.

4. Atheists have "one shot at life" and will make do with what they have. This is what you are saying.

Not at all! I am saying atheists will make the most of this one and only life, not "make do". For atheists there is no reward after death, so no excuse to put up with the injustices of this life.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
I am inclined to disagree. A proper religious man knows that life is a Test: daily "we are on a knife-edge between Heaven and Hell" (C.S. Lewis). Atheists, conversely, assume that life is the by-product of matter and may be tempted to think in terms of the minimum requirements of existence: food, sex, security.

Sorry, but you have it backwards. Atheists think in terms of maximising this life as it is the only one they're going to have.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
5. "Christianity postively encourages people to tolerate all sorts of suffering and injustice their entire lives
because they'll get their reward later (even though no one has actual knowledge of this after-life)." That is a simplification if I have ever heard one. To begin with, true Christians do not aim for 'pie in the sky' : they aim for Christ. Secondly, the idea of pain before pleasure is a common feature of human life, Christian or otherwise. Athletes train hard for medals, students 'cram' for exams (not that that's my approach), employees earn promotions. You might say this is 'challenge' and not 'suffering' but I reply by saying that all challenge has a component of suffering. Hunger and thirst are forms of suffering and are satisfied by meals and drink.

I am not talking about petty annoyances like the pain involved in athletic training, I am talking about a lifetime of grinding poverty, of slavery, of a subsistence existence, of starvation. Things you and I will probably never know at first hand. We may have experienced discomfort and hunger, but not a lifetime of nothing but misery and starvation. These are the things religion misleads people into accepting with the promise of eternal bliss after an all-too-brief spell on earth. An atheist would never meekly accept being the chattel of another because he would never buy into the lie of an ultimate reward after death.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
Imagine a set of people all living in the same building. Half of them think it is a hotel, the other half think it is a prison. Those who think it a hotel might regard it as quite intolerable, and those who thought it was a prison might decide that is was really surprisingly comfortable. So that what seems the ugly doctrine is one that comforts and strengthens you in the end. The people who try to hold an optimistic view of this world would become pessimists: the people who hold a pretty stern view of it would become optimists." (C.S. Lewis, "Answeres to Questions on Christianity" in Timeless at Heart)

A fine example of what I was talking about. Christianity teaches you to keep your head down, don't complain too loudly, accept your prison, and all will be made right after you die. Atheists would complain about the terrible service in their hotel and find a better place to stay!

Originally posted by TomSawyer
You say no one has knowledge of this after-life. This not quite true. Spiritualism claims knowledge, however partial, of the Hereafter, resulting from channeling and mediumship. Christians, on the other hand, are inclined to distrust Spiritualism (I, however, have no quarrel with Spiritualism). So you are correct in saying that Christians do not know Heaven at all. But this is how you contradict yourself. On the one hand you say that Christians aim for Pie in the Sky, the implication being that religion is wishful thinking for people who cannot handle this world and invent, therefore, another one. But if that were the case then Heaven and the Afterlife WOULD be known by Christians and the like. This is not what we find. What we find is that only in Spiritualism is the Hereafter described in any detail. You said it yourself: Christians don't have any knowledge of the Hereafter. That being so, I ask you again: how can people aim for Pie in the Sky without having a fantasy of what Pie in the Sky is actually like?

Surely you are not trying to claim that Christians don't have some picture of what their Heaven will be like??? This is the whole point of Christianity, to get to Heaven through Jesus Christ, or by whatever means. Their preachers spell it out all the time. You claim spiritualists have some knowledge of the afterlife, I say they only claim such knowledge. They are charlatans and have no more proof of their claims than do Christians, or anyone else. No-one knows what is beyond the grave, but the evidence suggests there is nothing.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
Also, you have said that atheists have more self-control than most self-professing Christians. That may be, but I am only interested in TRUE Christians, not pseudo-Christians.

The great weakness in you argument is that you try to ignore all the Christians who do not meet your exacting standards while trying to include every agnostic and irrational "atheist" on the opposing side. You ought to compare like with like. The "best" Christians versus the "best" atheists, or all Christians and all atheists, and at no time should you consider the fence-sitters, the agnostics.