OT Yes, God does speak to me (and others)

[KAWDUP]

I agree with what Monster is saying concerning the relationship between doing good, and being religious. Religion and society both have standards of what is right or wrong, good or bad. You do not need religion to be good or to do good deeds. Virtue, Morality and Piety are mutally exclusive.
Just ask Socrates. He did such a good job of proving it to the theocracy that he was put to death.

Society guides morality and dictates what is acceptable and what is wrong. Religion is not necessary to determine morality, especially when several different religions are involved. In fact, the two will often contradict each other.

Pious individuals will look down their noses at atheists and tell them goodness is determined by god, when in reality they are no different than the hybrid driving yuppy preaching global warming to the soccer mom next door as she loads her 5 kids into the Suburban. No matter how strongly you believe in something, your beliefs do not constitute truth.

Well what does constitute truth? Any definition you come up with can have holes poked into it, so not sure saying that beliefs do not constitute truth is saying very much.

No matter how much you believe in God, or don't, the absolute truth that He exists cannot be proven, or really disproven for that matter.

. . . but that certainly doesn't tear down a belief in God or religion. Does anyone disagree that knowing God exists involves faith at some point in the equation??

 

[Michchamp]

editing mine.

I believe in nothing, Lebowski, nothing.

 

[redandguilty]

I believe in nothing, Lebowski, nothing.

That's just like, your opinion, man.

 

[Monster]

USSR and China...anywhere Marxist.

Regarding the rest, it's been pretty well documented that religion and charity are strongly correlated. You might not count money to a church a charity, but the people making the donation do and I think intent matters. Also, even if you don't count most religious costs and have a very narrow interpretation of what counts, it wouldn't matter. The correlation is very strong. I think Catholic Charities USA raises a couple billion from its members each year and spends the vast bulk of that on services. That's not everything they do, just the main branch. And Catholics are just the moderates.

The real problem with your first sentence is that these places used power to control religion - something that can NEVER happen to either extreme. The goal was never to promote atheism. It was always a selfish power grab. The atrocities carried out were never done in the name of Atheism, but rather government control.

I've already admitted several times that the Church does do a lot of charity work. I understand that they do. That's great. The Atheist community also has a lot of non-religious charities that we donate to. The overall amount of $ may not be the same, but that's because we only make up a small portion of the country. I know that sometimes we see things on TV asking for donations and then we realize that the organization is affiliated with Catholic or Christian charities, so we end up not giving. This has happened to me several times.

You mentioned Catholic Charities USA - It's not billions. The 2010 financial report shows nearly $30M in donations. About 80% of that was used as intended. 1%, nearly $300k was given to the President of the Organization, Rev. Larry Snyder. Not sure I understand that. How would your God/Jesus feel about a man making money off of donations? I understand this is how charities work, but I wouldn't expect a Reverend to be taking money in this manner.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10656#.Ugp5sW1rkaA

 

[Monster]

You have discussed most of this with others on this thread, so I won't reiterate what they have said. What I will do is provide one small insight. Your family members who are judging you are in the wrong. Only God can judge you. The fact that they do it in the name of religion is really not religion's fault per se, but more how they have been taught incorrectly maybe even by false prophets. Your relationship with God is personal, and that they would keep a family member from you because of their own jaded beliefs is quite a bummer, but it also reiterates what I have been saying all along. They also have free will and their exercising of it is actually damaging to you, but again really not the fault of God, as that certainly isn't any part of Jesus' teaching.

Thank you for what you said, but the bible has a ton of passages about people who don't believe in God. They're usually either killed, shunned, threatened, or enslaved. That is a part of why it can be blamed on their belief in God.

 

[Monster]

But regarding your own family, it easy to understand why your strongest impressions of religion are the way they are. I'm sorry to hear people react that way. I personally think they've got it wrong and you probably get that it's frustrating to feel like you're expected to own their behavior when you say you're religious.

I have no idea what the norm is, how often families are like that, but I don't believe it's an indicator of the fundamental goodness or badness of all religion any more than I believe our government's implementation of a democratic republic is indicative of the fundamental rightness or wrongness of that idea or other forms of government. It's more an indication of the practical limitations of people than anything. Some work better and some don't work as well, but that doesn't say anything about any ultimate truths with any certainty.

Thank you for your thoughts and sympathy. Much appreciated.

You have no idea how many atheist friends that I know of that still are terrified to tell their parents. One friend was actually out of the closet as a gay teenager. His parents were shocked, but they got over it. Fifteen years later, he's still to scared to tell them that he's an atheist, too.

Barney Frank, former congressman, was out of the closet for decades as a gay male. He was continually re-elected, but was too scared to admit he was an atheist until he was out of office. Why is that? You can't make it in politics unless you say "God Bless America".

There is no room in this world for politics based on religion. Why can't gays get married? You know just as well as I do. The only reason is because of religion. That's the ONLY reason. I'm just lucky that I grew up as a white, heterosexual male in a small town in Northern Michigan. My only problem is that I stopped believing in God. I guess I just learned a bit too much about the bible and how the world actually works.

 

[redandguilty]

The real problem with your first sentence is that these places used power to control religion - something that can NEVER happen to either extreme. The goal was never to promote atheism. It was always a selfish power grab. The atrocities carried out were never done in the name of Atheism, but rather government control.

I've already admitted several times that the Church does do a lot of charity work. I understand that they do. That's great. The Atheist community also has a lot of non-religious charities that we donate to. The overall amount of $ may not be the same, but that's because we only make up a small portion of the country. I know that sometimes we see things on TV asking for donations and then we realize that the organization is affiliated with Catholic or Christian charities, so we end up not giving. This has happened to me several times.

You mentioned Catholic Charities USA - It's not billions. The 2010 financial report shows nearly $30M in donations. About 80% of that was used as intended. 1%, nearly $300k was given to the President of the Organization, Rev. Larry Snyder. Not sure I understand that. How would your God/Jesus feel about a man making money off of donations? I understand this is how charities work, but I wouldn't expect a Reverend to be taking money in this manner.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10656#.Ugp5sW1rkaA

Wikipedia says billions with 62% of it coming from the US government. (Where the separation of church and state there?) I think the $30M is just the central office/fundraising branch.

But the point isn't who does or doesn't give, you're probably aware that religious people give more per person, so I don't know why you wrote half of what you wrote here.

Regarding the whole atheism/nation bit, I still don't see the distinction you're trying to make. You asked for an example of atheists taking away the rights of theists because of beliefs, I did. Estimates of the numbers of people killed over religion in the USSR are all over the map, but they're orders of magnitude more than the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

[byco42]

The athiest as Victim. Not a concept I experienced in my atheist years. I was "proud" to communicate by beliefs with impunity. Never once hesitated. Was never ridiculed, either, unlike now, which is inconsequential, anyway.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) is an open atheist. So is Ernie Chambers (State Senator, NEB). Pelosi might as well be one. Biden, too. Both are certainly not Catholic. But the Church is not, either, so Nan and Hoagie Joe fit right in to the Novus Ordo of the present day.

 

[redandguilty]

Barney Frank, former congressman, was out of the closet for decades as a gay male. He was continually re-elected, but was too scared to admit he was an atheist until he was out of office. Why is that?

Good freakin' question. Regardless of what you believe, I'll never understand the people that want to bury & hide opposing ideas. I have a hunch that the people that most aggressively try to prevent alternative ideas from even being heard deep down don't actually believe the things they claim they do. Open discussion and inquisitive thought favor the truth whatever it may be. If someone genuinely believes truth is on their side, why fear open disagreement and discussion?

 

[RABID]

Well what does constitute truth? Any definition you come up with can have holes poked into it, so not sure saying that beliefs do not constitute truth is saying very much.

Truth is a relative term. It changes based upon perception.

No matter how much you believe in God, or don't, the absolute truth that He exists cannot be proven, or really disproven for that matter.

. . . but that certainly doesn't tear down a belief in God or religion. Does anyone disagree that knowing God exists involves faith at some point in the equation??

No argument there.
"Knowing" that God exists is 100% faith. Like you said, there is no test.
I don't understand how anyone can KNOW God exists. You can BELIEVE or not believe, but you cannot KNOW. It is illogical.

 

[RABID]

Wikipedia says billions with 62% of it coming from the US government. (Where the separation of church and state there?) I think the $30M is just the central office/fundraising branch.

But the point isn't who does or doesn't give, you're probably aware that religious people give more per person, so I don't know why you wrote half of what you wrote here.

Regarding the whole atheism/nation bit, I still don't see the distinction you're trying to make. You asked for an example of atheists taking away the rights of theists because of beliefs, I did. Estimates of the numbers of people killed over religion in the USSR are all over the map, but they're orders of magnitude more than the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

Or the Holocaust? It is no secret that Hitler claimed to be on a divine mission from God to destroy the Jews.

 

[redandguilty]

Or the Halocaust? It is no secret that Hitler claimed to be on a divine mission from God to destroy the Jews.

Yes. Or the Holocaust. That's a better comparison.

 

[Monster]

Wikipedia says billions with 62% of it coming from the US government. (Where the separation of church and state there?) I think the $30M is just the central office/fundraising branch.

But the point isn't who does or doesn't give, you're probably aware that religious people give more per person, so I don't know why you wrote half of what you wrote here.

Regarding the whole atheism/nation bit, I still don't see the distinction you're trying to make. You asked for an example of atheists taking away the rights of theists because of beliefs, I did. Estimates of the numbers of people killed over religion in the USSR are all over the map, but they're orders of magnitude more than the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

Yes. Religious give 2 to 1 compared to atheists. Sure. They go to church every sunday. Many more chances to give. Also, as I said, a lot of us atheists refuse to give to any religiously affiliated charity. That is a big factor. Another factor is that a lot of today's atheists in this country are younger, with less money to throw around. Can't exactly donate a ton of money while you're paying off student loans, trying to buy a house, get married, and start a family.

I'm sure that if you compared amount given by age groups, it'd be fairly similar. I'm sure religious would still be a bit higher, but not anything like 2 to 1.

 

[KAWDUP]

Thank you for what you said, but the bible has a ton of passages about people who don't believe in God. They're usually either killed, shunned, threatened, or enslaved. That is a part of why it can be blamed on their belief in God.

I really meant it - you are welcome.

I'd be interested in some New Testament examples if you can remember any of them. At least part of your belief might have a bit to do with interpretation too.

I may have said this before - the literal word of the Old Testament has quite a number of logical, moral, and possibly philosophical, shall we say "anomalies". You have to jump through quite a number of hoops to believe that some of those stories in the Old Testament are more than allegorical, but it isn't quite as difficult in the New Testament and especially in the Canonical Gospels.

John writes some things that are a bit out there, but Matthew seems pretty down to earth.

Did you know the books of the New Testament are organized in the order of their considered importance, not necessarily in chronological order? Notice what the first book is - Matthew. Notice what the last book is - Revelation. This is at least according to the Council of Trent which BTW didn't occur until the 1500's. There were at least 2 dozen previous ecumenical councils prior to this to discuss the Bible, the Christian dogma, Catholicism, and other heretical problems. The history of how the Bible we know today came to be is extremely interesting and worthy of study just by itself.

So, what am I saying? I think it is very hard to be Christian without believing that at least some part of the Bible was divinely inspired - meaning that the literal word, at least as we understand words, and specifically those words, are truly the Word of God. But it also explains why there are so many different interpreted versions by people claiming to know the Word of God.

It is amazing to follow just the simple etymology of some pretty powerful passages in the Bible from their start in Biblical Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, but a true study of the Bible would at least consider how this affects what we believe today. What if the Rosetta Stone was a lie?

It affects how Jesus, Mary, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven, and things like the body and blood of Christ are all interpreted. The one thing that it doesn't seem to affect though is the existence of God. Philosophers and Scholars for years tried to connect absolute truth to the existence of God, because then they could connect all the canons up as truth, and Christianity would be tied up in one neat little "truth" package. Well as we know, that most certainly has not happened - at least not yet. :*)

My statement about faith being required is not based in some religious teaching I received in high school, it is actually the culmination of quite a bit of study.

So I don't fault you for your doubts, I just pray that at some point your faith will be stronger - then just think what a debater for the existence of Christ we would have.

I know all the above can be dismissed as just more preachy bologna - and that is OK, but at least maybe it can show that it isn't always the complete ignorant who might have a belief in the existence of God.

 

[redandguilty]

Yes. Religious give 2 to 1 compared to atheists. Sure. They go to church every sunday. Many more chances to give. Also, as I said, a lot of us atheists refuse to give to any religiously affiliated charity. That is a big factor. Another factor is that a lot of today's atheists in this country are younger, with less money to throw around. Can't exactly donate a ton of money while you're paying off student loans, trying to buy a house, get married, and start a family.

I'm sure that if you compared amount given by age groups, it'd be fairly similar. I'm sure religious would still be a bit higher, but not anything like 2 to 1.

I've also seen it expressed as a fraction of income. Religious people give more as a percentage of their income.

BUT!!!

To agree with the bit about avoiding religious charities, here's where I take a shot at my own position to be fair. Some of the difference is a conservative/liberal thing. People that believe that taxes should be high and the government should do a lot for the poor are more likely to give less personally. So, taking that into consideration, it's tougher to say they're less sympathetic or less generous, they just disagree about the appropriate mechanism.

I just think that religions do increase the giving of their followers. Not 2 to 1, but some significant amount.

 

[KAWDUP]

Truth is a relative term. It changes based upon perception.

No actually truth is not a relative term. It isn't truth unless it is beyond question actually true. My vernacular use of absolute truth is actually redundant, but I used it as a way of saying axiomatic - not open to question of any kind.

No argument there. "Knowing" that God exists is 100% faith. Like you said, there is no test.
I don't understand how anyone can KNOW God exists. You can BELIEVE or not believe, but you cannot KNOW. It is illogical.

Knowledge is also an interesting discussion. What can you know? Is there anything then that doesn't take 100% faith?

Descartes said that since he was able to think, that absolutely he must start with "knowing" that he personally exists. So "100% faith" is more ambiguous that I think you meant.

 

[Monster]

The athiest as Victim. Not a concept I experienced in my atheist years. I was "proud" to communicate by beliefs with impunity. Never once hesitated. Was never ridiculed, either, unlike now, which is inconsequential, anyway.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) is an open atheist. So is Ernie Chambers (State Senator, NEB). Pelosi might as well be one. Biden, too. Both are certainly not Catholic. But the Church is not, either, so Nan and Hoagie Joe fit right in to the Novus Ordo of the present day.

Pete Stark...yes, i give you credit for knowing that one. How long did it take for him to reveal the truth? 2007. He started in politics in the 60's or 70's, I believe.

Chambers was much the same. Announced he was Atheist soon after Stark did in 2007. He'd been around just as long as Pete Stark.

Not sure about Biden being an atheist, but i do believe that Pelosi may be.

Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) is the only remaining openly atheist member of Congress at the moment.

 

[RABID]

I think the point is that both Christian and non-Christian groups do a lot of good. There is nothing to knock there. Like any other big business there can be abuse but the people giving the money have their heart in the right place for the most part.

There are however, a lot of people that give via guilt or obligation whether their heart is in it or not which can skew the argument. When the offerings plate comes down the pew there is a ton of stigma involved if you pass it without a contribution. There are also a lot of wealthy people that make donations for a multitude of reasons and churches are often the beneficiary whether they have strong religious ties or not. Atheists and Agnostics included.

There can be a lot of pressure from spouse/family/church/community/business to give, especially if you have plenty to share.

 

[redandguilty]

I just can't wait for my church to catch on to dynamic pricing. Just imagine what you could do with dynamic pricing + plenary indulgences...

 

[KAWDUP]

I think the point is that both Christian and non-Christian groups do a lot of good. There is nothing to knock there. Like any other big business there can be abuse but the people giving the money have their heart in the right place for the most part.

There are however, a lot of people that give via guilt or obligation whether their heart is in it or not which can skew the argument. When the offerings plate comes down the pew there is a ton of stigma involved if you pass it without a contribution. There are also a lot of wealthy people that make donations for a multitude of reasons and churches are often the beneficiary whether they have strong religious ties or not. Atheists and Agnostics included.

There can be a lot of pressure from spouse/family/church/community/business to give, especially if you have plenty to share.

LOL - this is an easy one. Who gives more, the person who only has a penny to their name, and freely gives it, or the person who has millions and gives his 10% tithe and no more?