Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Religion Must End

By Laura Sheahen, Beliefnet. Posted May 16, 2006.


A leading atheist says people must embrace rationalism, not faith -- or they will never overcome their differences.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Laura Sheahen

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Sam Harris is not your grandfather's atheist. The award-winning writer practices Zen meditation and believes in the value of mystical experiences. But he's adamant in his belief that religion does more harm than good in the world, and has sparked controversy by suggesting that when it comes to faith-based violence, religious moderates are part of the problem, not the solution. 

Laura Sheahen spoke with him about his provocative book "The End of Faith" and his comments at the World Congress of Secular Humanism, where this interview was conducted.

Laura Sheahen: You've said that nonbelievers must try to convince religious people "of the illegitimacy of their core beliefs." Why are these beliefs dangerous?

Sam Harris: On the subject of religious belief, we relax standards of reasonableness and evidence that we rely on in every other area of our lives. We relax so totally that people believe the most ludicrous propositions, and are willing to organize their lives around them. Propositions like "Jesus is going to come back in the next fifty years and rectify every problem that human beings create"--or, in the Muslim world, "death in the right circumstances leads directly to Paradise." These beliefs are not very contaminated with good evidence.

LS: There are beliefs--like kids believing in the tooth fairy--that I wouldn't say are dangerous.

SH: Right. Those are not as consequential. But this whole style of believing and talking about beliefs leaves us powerless to overcome our differences from one another. We have Christians against Muslims against Jews, and no matter how liberal your theology, merely identifying yourself as a Christian or a Jew lends tacit validity to this status quo. People have morally identified with a subset of humanity rather than with humanity as a whole.

LS: You're saying we should be part of the human race, not part of any particular religious or national group?

SH: Yeah. It is still fashionable to believe that how you organize yourself religiously in this life may matter for eternity. Unless we can erode the prestige of that kind of thinking, we're not going to be able to undermine these divisions in our world.

To speak specifically of our problem with the Muslim world, we are meandering into a genuine clash of civilizations, and we're deluding ourselves with euphemisms. We're talking about Islam being a religion of peace that's been hijacked by extremists. If ever there were a religion that's not a religion of peace, it is Islam.

LS: If 9/11 hadn't happened, what would be the example atheists would point to--another egregious, contemporary misuse of religion?

SH:There are so many. Let's take the extreme case, honor killing in the Muslim world. Imagine the psychology of a man who, upon hearing that his daughter was raped, is inspired not to console her, not to seek immediate medical and psychological treatment for her, but to kill her. This is an honor-based, shame-based psychology. You cannot name a Muslim country to my knowledge where it doesn't happen. It even happens in the suburbs of Paris. It falls right out of the theology of Islam.

LS: What are some problems with Judaism and Christianity?

SH: There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament of the Bible--books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Exodus. The Qur'an pales in comparison.

LS: Richard Dawkins, a vocal atheist, has said the Old Testament God is a "psychotic monster."

SH: Not only is the character of God diabolical in those books, but there are explicit prescriptions for how to live that are not metaphors; they are not open to theological judo. God just comes right out and says "stone people" for a list of offenses so preposterous and all-encompassing that the killing never stops. You have to kill people for working on the Sabbath. You kill people for fornication.

LS: Doesn't the evidence show that people take their sacred texts with a grain of salt?

SH: That's the point: in the West, we have delivered the salt. Obviously, people are no longer burning heretics alive in our public squares and that's a good thing. We in the West have suffered a sufficient confrontation with modernity, secular politics, and scientific culture so that even fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews can't really live by the letter of their religious texts.

We now cherry-pick the good parts. That's easier to do with the Bible because the Bible is such a big book and it's so self-contradictory; you can use parts of it to repudiate other parts of it. Unfortunately, the Qur'an is a much shorter and more unified message.

But you ask me what the scariest things are in Christianity: this infatuation with biblical prophecy and this notion that Jesus is going to come back as an avenging savior to kill all the bad people.

LS: Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Christians believe that Jesus is going to come back, period? They don't necessarily believe that he's going to come back as an avenging person to kill people.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Laura Sheahen is Beliefnet's senior religion editor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is the sort of claptrap that makes all of us liberals seem like arrogant snots
Posted by: rbohan on May 16, 2006 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, we folks of faith are told that we're all, everyone of us, a violent, vengeful, and..oh, by the way...not very bright bunch. Once again, we're told that there's no proof for what we believe. (Here's a clue, Sam. It's all based on faith, a fact we freely admit.) Once again, the very worst examples of religious fanaticism and zealotry are thrown in our faces as if we were all just a hairbreadth away from killing our daughters for being victims of assault.

You want to be an atheist, be an atheist. But don't present your nasty bigotry and smarmy arrogance as if it were "enlightened thinking".

Sheesh...with people like Sam spouting this sort of mean-spirited baloney, it's no wonder the rest of America can't stand us liberals. Half my time in activism is spent trying to convince moderates that we aren't all as condescending and arrogant as Sam and his ilk.

» Well, if the shoe fits . . . Posted by: Moonray
» Silly argument Posted by: Moonray
» RE: Silly argument Posted by: Llama11
» rbohan is not liberal at all Posted by: monkopotamus
» Well, so much for rationalism Posted by: afrothetics
Organized problems
Posted by: janten on May 16, 2006 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SH: ...To speak specifically of our problem with the Muslim world, we are meandering into a genuine clash of civilizations, and we're deluding ourselves with euphemisms. We're talking about Islam being a religion of peace that's been hijacked by extremists. If ever there were a religion that's not a religion of peace, it is Islam.

What is that supposed to mean? Islam means submission and it means the peace one experiences when one submits completely to the will of Allah/God, and Allah can be legitimately described as the unity or oneness of all beings. This describes the very essence of Islam and everything else is commentary that has been hung on this religion by people with their own political agendas.

The same is true of Christianity and Judaism. What Sam Harris is talking about, and should be clear about, is that organized religion is what has caused so many problems, arguably more bad deeds than good. Harris, himself, practices meditation. I do, too. For millennia people have done so. And some have "come back" from interesting meditative experiences through which they have transcended ordinary experiences of life -- they have had experiences "outside the box" -- and they have reported as best they could on what they experienced. Others took those reports, their interpretations of them, and built religions around them. Most often these builders of religions have had various political agendas and few or no transcendent experiences of their own. So they have created and codified rituals, rules and beliefs to follow and to impose on others. They tell others what to do and what not to do, what to believe and what not to believe, and how much to pay.

The Truth of us all being in this life together, the Truth of all that we have in common, the Truth of the Oneness that unites us, the Truth that can be found for one's self through meditation and other genuine spiritual practices is the only basis for real religion. Re-ligion means a re-uniting, a re-binding with this Truth, which some name God or Allah. This is what religion is really about. And, when realized, this Truth can only result in goodness. It is only when people submit to their own egos, to their own small selves, and then try to impose their egoic agendas on others in the name of religion that the troubles begin, and continue, and grow.

The ideal of religion is that it -- this re-binding in unity -- is and can be achieved only through one's own individual transcendent or mystical experiences. Organized religions are, by definition and design, anti-individual and, ironically, anti-religion. Individualism can't be organized. The interesting paradox, though, is that mystical unity is an individual path that can best be accomplished in groups! And that, too, is part of the mystery of life.

Mystical experience is real. It is different from logical reasoning which is of the realm of the mind, yet the two are united. The way this is expressed in the Sufi tradition I am familiar with is that "the mind is the surface of the heart and the heart is the depth of the mind" and it is recognized that both the mind and the heart represent ways of knowing and understanding, as well as that neither way alone is complete but that both ways working together harmoniously can bring one complete understanding and wisdom, and a richer, fuller life of peace.

» there is a way... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Organized problems Posted by: jpinder
Overlooked point
Posted by: redstarwraith on May 16, 2006 3:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author fails to mention that there would be no secular humanism without the religion(s) that informed it. Personally I don't see why anyone needs to take such a galling approach as this guy. Obviously one need not be a religious person to be a good person (and there are plenty of religious creeps out there as well as secular creeps). No one need throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can't we allow the best of whatever is right and true in religion to migrate over into the secular world and inform us? This is what far more enlightened minds than Harris have argued for years (see Jurgen Habermas, and Rudolf Siebert's work). Harris' dogmatic rejection smacks of the same knee-jerk intolerance he accuses religion of.
And another thing. It's easy to say that Islam is not a religion of peace but it's quite another task to look at this accusation historically. As anyone with an ounce of historical background should be able to tell you, Islam brought a marked improvement in the living conditions in the Arabian penninsula and ended centuries of barbarism. Muslim conquerors typically showed far more tolerance to their vanquished than did Christians. . .but all this is a matter of record. The most important fact is that Christianity and Islam and Judaism have had more years of peaceful coexistence than of war. Religion is not the problem. Religious intolerance is.

» RE: Overlooked point Posted by: ZPaul
» Sam never said... Posted by: aonghus36
» try reading more carefully? Posted by: monkopotamus
Fear
Posted by: Poederbach on May 16, 2006 4:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my opinion all religions, at leat monotheistic religions, are based on fear. If you don't do this that terrible thing will happen to you. Who ever, that has a mind of his own, will believe fairy tales ( Bible, Koran)? Fear is in general the instrument used by people that are in power to control the masses. Politicians do exactly the same.

What needs to happen is to make everybody fearless by having a mind of your own. Only robots have no mind of their own. Reading Thomas Pain's The Age of Reason (1794) is a good start. More then 200 years ago this American had a mind of his own.

The second observation is that many people are kept ignorant about the facts of live by religions, it would hurt the religions if the people were knowledgeable or even worse had imagination. That would scare the hell out of religions and diminish their power.

Third observation, all politics are religious based and politics have to do with power (and money)

So I agree, end all religions

TomTom, Fearless Navigator

» RE: Fear Posted by: hagwind
You guys are missing the point
Posted by: riffraff2001 on May 16, 2006 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read The End of Faith and if you would read it you would realize that what Mr. Harris is basically saying is that there is no justification for using religion to run the world. In our weekday lives (Monday - Friday) most of us tend to require proof of some kind for many of the things we are told. Scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc. all need proof, or strong evidence to carry out their duties in their jobs. But somehow, on Sunday, they drop all of that and put complete faith in things which can not only not be verified, but really are rather rediculous. If you told someone you rose from the dead 3 days after you died, people would think you were crazy, but most people have absolutely no problem believing that some guy named Jesus did it 2000 years ago. And why? Just because they read it in a book. Well heck, even Scientologists have a book! And in 2000 years will Scientologists be any different than Christians are now? 2000 years later and they'll have a book. That's basically Christianity. 2000 years and a book.

Paradox of Religion
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 16, 2006 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The paradox of religion is a result of the belief that faith is a virtue. The more outlandish a religion is, the more faith is required to believe in it. Therefore, the best religion is the one that most flouts verifiable facts.

I'd also like to respond to people of faith by saying...
Posted by: riffraff2001 on May 16, 2006 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry but if you feel like your faith is being attacked, well... you're right. But not only that, your faith should be attacked. It should be mocked and laughed at. It should be held up to the harsh light of logical scrutiny and exposed for what it is: crazy talk. I grew up a Methodist. There was never any horrible tragedy in my life that made me abandon religion. What did it was that I started to use my brain. There is no god. Logically speaking, he cannot exist. Now I know your counter argument: "You just don't understand God!". Well that's not an argument. It's a statement that displays nothing but ignorance. I disagree that religion should be given up because that's the only way to peace. Religion needs to be given up because it is complete lunacy.

» see the response below... Posted by: riffraff2001
» Logically speaking.... Posted by: Longdream
» god is an experience Posted by: Lauren
Spirituality vs Religion
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 16, 2006 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author has many good points. What I beleive he may be attempting to explain is the difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality lead to transcending the self and aligning with the whole of life; a balance and serentity. Religion organizes people for needs of control and identity offering protection and acceptance in return. People need both but there is a paucity of venues where the two exist together. There is symbolic and object in life; i.e. the sky and the earth. It seems the majority of people in this country live predominantly in the sky and not on the earth. This of course makes reality difficult to face. Part of this earthly reality is our unconcious and the profound motivating forces of sexuality and aggression. To understand religion just read Freud's Civilization and Its Discontent. Moreover to understand how other cultures balanced the unconcious (mythology which encompasses religion) read Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God. As it is the unconcious is collectively out of balance as reflected in the plethora of examples of sexual perversion, exploitation and persecution and of course aggression as in our obsession with violence; competitive sports, war, television and movies. Children are the only hope if they can be taught to accept their natures as human beings. What happens behind closed doors in every home is source of our problems. And that is a cumulative secret.

» YES! Posted by: Paul D
» RE: YES! Posted by: Lauren
» NO! Posted by: Moonray
» RE: NO! Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Also... Posted by: aonghus36
» YES, YES, YES Posted by: woodford54
We need a religion (or values) that will
Posted by: greentime on May 16, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
support a future, not the end of civilization. One that insists on peace, justice and balance, not destruction.

We need a religion that supports sustainability and the truths of humanity. One that includes women, and children and their wisdom. One that is inclusive, not exclusionary and punishing of those who are good but different from the male models.

So far, I haven't found one among the offerings.

a better world
Posted by: mazel on May 16, 2006 4:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find most modern religion too misogynistic and too far removed from the planet to be attractive. I understand the human need to believe in eternal life and a higher power, though. I just think the world would be a better place if we all went back to worshipping the earth. This, after all, is heaven and hell. I think that ultimately, mankind will self-fulfill the prophecies of doom that appear in all the patriarchal religions, for no other reason than to prove the existence of God to himself.

» RE: a better world Posted by: greentime
You scare me more than they do
Posted by: solrev on May 16, 2006 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am an atheist and I believe everything Jesus said. I just do not believe there is a god. I am also a big fan of being rational. When you would be atheists, preach the evils of religion then tell me I need this mystical experience no thanks. The concept of good comes from your internal delusions achieved through some hallucinogenic state of mind. No thanks just give me some LSD its more fun to hallucinate and see what is not there. You just exchange one belief system for another. Your belief system is no more a product of any scientific rationalism than the one you just threw out. “Freedom of or freedom from” that is all that is important just leave it at that. You spend to much time trying to rationalize your own belief system I think you are scared they are right.

» HUH? Posted by: Paul D
» RE: HUH? Posted by: Saitia
» RE: HUH? re read Posted by: solrev
There was once a country in which all religion was outlawed.
Posted by: Krotos on May 16, 2006 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was Communist Albania. Not exactly what I would consider the ideal society.

There can be little dispute that certain forms of religion, such as fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity, are on the whole very bad things. But I disagree that we should aim for getting rid of all forms of faith. Mere belief in a deity or afterlife is arational or non-rational, since neither the existence nor nonexistence of these can be proven (thus atheists are also operating on faith!). The problems seem to come when you start adding on a lot of other anti-rational baggage that grossly conflicts with our empirical, scientific understanding of how the world works, such as the belief that the world was created 6,000 years ago or that somebody once turned water into wine.

I do not believe, as the interviewee appears to, that having faith necessarily means that you also have to accept myths and fairy tales as truth.

-K.Ai.-

» actually... Posted by: riffraff2001
» RE: actually... Posted by: Krotos
» hahaha Posted by: riffraff2001
» RE: hahaha Posted by: Krotos
» RE: hahaha Posted by: riffraff2001
» RE: hahaha Posted by: Krotos
» RE: hahaha Posted by: rbohan
» Again hahaha Posted by: riffraff2001
» come again? Posted by: Spot
» RE: come again? Posted by: Krotos
To redstarwraith
Posted by: boing007 on May 16, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
‘The author fails to mention that there would be no secular humanism without the religion(s) that informed it'.

Sorry, chum, there would be no religion without the secular humanism that informed it.

» Exemplary rebuttal boing007 Posted by: jpinder
I don't believe in extranatural states at all...
Posted by: brunowe on May 16, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...including Mr. Harris' mysticism. However, I think that this blanket disparagement of religion should be labeled the intolerant claptrap that it is.

You don't need drugs either...
Posted by: riffraff2001 on May 16, 2006 4:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
C'mon people! Why is it that people need anything outside of themselves to get through life? You don't need religion! You don't need drugs! All you need is your own ability to THINK! Drug users are cowards who won't face up to reality and use their own brains to get through the day. Religious people are delusional and think that they are going to be "saved" by some invisible wizard running around the universe. Why can't people just stop and think? We don't need all these rediculous concepts designed to make coping with life somehow easier. And the reason is that life is nothing you have to cope with. It's just life. It's not meant to be enjoyed or hated. It's not meant to be meaningful or devoid of meaning. It's not meant to be anything. We are here because of purely chemical and biological reasons and there is nothing more to it. Period. And that personally makes me very very happy. Because I know that any responsibility I feel that I should be a "good" person, or care about other people comes straight out of my own brain, not out of some silly purpose in life I supposedly have but can't even verify. I think people turn to something like drugs or religion simply because they don't want to face up to the truth that there is nothing out there in the grand universe watching out for us. We're on a rock floating through space and that is all we are. Any extra meaning we put into our existence is purely our own device. What I don't understand is why people don't feel good about that? It makes me feel free.

Peace thru love
Posted by: kick on May 16, 2006 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We will never love one another, truely love one another unless we dump completely all the religions from the father Abraham...Judism, Christianity and Islam all lay claim to the same sick history condemning one another along the way and offering everlasting life after accepting the sick mandates of their religion. Muslims may look the worst and most hardline today but back up a few years to when Christians were burning witches or killing women and children in the crusades and make your judgement. The Jews of the Old Testament were practicing ethic cleansing when they killed everyone in the cities they won in battle. Read it, it's there. The big three talk about accepting one another but in their doctrine they condemn anyone who does not belief as they do, condemn them to an eternity in hell. Conditional love is all they are capable of. The sooner we move way from fear the sooner we will heal and then maybe begin with true love and understanding, but I doubt we will.

Religion is like death and taxes... it's not going away
Posted by: medstudgeek on May 16, 2006 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not fond of it either, but it seems to respond to some fundamental need in the human mind. Every culture seems to have it, and people raised without it invent their own. (Notice the New Religious Movements of the 1960s.)

Besides, as the first commenter said, stuff like this gives the Repugs ammunition. "Oh, see, the liberals hate people of faith" blah blah blah. "I will stand up for the rights of the believing people of America" blah blah blah. And then we have four more years of warfare, environmental destruction, etc.

I think we need to steal religion back from the Repugs. Like it or not, America is a Christian country in the sense that most Americans are Christians. (I don't like it.) Look, Jesus said you were supposed to take care of the poor and needy. How on earth tax cuts for the rich is Christian is beyond me. (Anyone ever seen Ted Baehr's Movieguide?) At the very least the Nazarene is with us on economic issues, and probably on guns too. (Turn the other cheek...) Where does the Bible mention abortion? But hey, Jim Wallis said it better than me.

Let's get religion out of our wallets, government, lives
Posted by: Moonray on May 16, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only is religion patently stupid and socially pathological, it also is very coercive and undemocratic. Consider that we taxpayers are obliged to subsidize the church mafia with our tax dollars. Religious groups get huge tax write-offs, and that's adding insult to the injury they do to all of us.

The foolish laws and policies passed as a result of religious coercion -- such as bans on certain medications, early abortions and even the sale of sex toys in some states (!!!) -- do enormous harm to our society. For generations children have been warped and psychologically damaged by these weird beliefs.

Let's demand that tax codes be rewritten to ensure religious groups pay taxes like anyone else. And, no, those tax breaks are not in the Constitution. They were inserted into our laws by courts that caved to pressure from the church mafia.

How about we unite the tolerant religious people with non-religious people for a change ?
Posted by: SDres11 on May 16, 2006 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the only way we're going to clamp down on the religious "right" for hijacking our religion and misusing it to the point of running the country into the ground !

» fantastic idea, but how? Posted by: Lauren
A brief history or religion...
Posted by: riffraff2001 on May 16, 2006 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only reason why religion sprang up out of the muck to begin with was that early humans were ignorant of the natural processes happening around them. That's why all of the earliest religions deal with gods that represent nature, ie. a sun god, a harvest god, etc. These early religions eventually morphed themselves into the religions we know today. What's sad is that we have learned so much about the universe, and yet we keep clinging to insane rantings of madmen.

LSD for ME
Posted by: solrev on May 16, 2006 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am an atheist and I believe everything Jesus said. I just do not believe there is a god. I am also a big fan of being rational. When you would be atheists tell me I need these mystical states of enlightenment you have just rationalized your own belief system. Your belief system is no more subject to scientific validation than any other belief system. So meditate enter your hallucinogenic state and achieve what ever. I prefer LSD it is a lot more fun hallucinating and seeing what is not there. Rationalization does not mean you are being rational. Atheists who spend a lot of energy trying to rationalize their own belief system seem to be afraid the others are right. "Freedom of or freedom from” that is all that is important leave it at that.

True religion
Posted by: goldgrif on May 16, 2006 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WOW!!! All the anger. I am a very relgious man, raised two children alone in my faith. I see this man as simply saying stop the pain and violence in religion. We are all ultimately human. Religion is not FACT!!!! It is belief. There are many things we can say about the right and wrongs of it.But realize this man is saying as humans we are in this together. Using religion to divide to hurt to hate to kill, is inhuman, and if religion leads to that then it needs to be examined.
I have suffered for my religion, been beaten stabbed and shot at. There are people who hold their holy books close to their chest and their guns and knives as close if not closer.
I no longer trust anyone from outside my faith and neither do my kids, and there is no reason for me to. I have seen how religious americans are, and though I do not blame all people of faiths outside mine, I dont trust. And it is the relgions fault for fostering the idea of violence and hate. And the inability of humans to use their intelligence.
Blessed BE.

» Sorry but... Posted by: riffraff2001
» RE: Sorry but... Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Sorry but... Posted by: redjenny
» true practice of religion Posted by: decembrist
'Isms' don't cut it...
Posted by: Mutternich on May 16, 2006 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...especially rationalism. What we need is not rationalism, but rationality.

Virtue is Mature Spirituality
Posted by: metamind on May 16, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What does the spiritually mature individual believe? We all believe in something, whether it is religion, money, science, ourselves or something else. If you believe in virtue then you believe in the possibility of good. Virtue is good. If you focus on virtue and believe it is possible then you make it possible. You are the agent of creation. Whatever you think about becomes reality, first in your mind and then in the world. There are limits, of course, and you will bump into them along the way. These become the challenges of your life. Accept the limits and you will stop growing in that particular aspect of your life. Overcome the limits and you will create an even greater reality for yourself and then others.

Virtue is different than religion. You don't need to believe in virtue in order to discover virtue. You can try it out and discover the results you get. Go ahead and "love your neighbor" and see what happens. Go ahead and practice tolerance, truthfulness, honesty and compassion. You'll get your own results which you can use to further refine your behavior and your beliefs.

Everyone has beliefs. The question becomes one of "are you in a spell?" A spell is a web of belief which restricts your thinking about life, keeping you from possibilities which might expand your potential to create virtue. We see this in religion throughout history.

Poverty, population and prejudice are three issues which religion has failed to deal with in a rational, loving and compassionate manner. That's a broad generalization and there may be a religion which does deal with thm, but I'm unaware of what it might be so please tell me. As Jesus said, "Judge by the fruits." ( results ) The fruits of religion have often resulted in increases in poverty, population and prejudice. These are unvirtuous results. We should be seeking an end to poverty, a population in balance with nature and the ecosystem, and a reduction in the strength and acceptability of prejudice.

To deal with poverty we need to deal with the economic system, population issues and social/religous/economic prejudices. One of the basic problems is the prejudice of
"Some people are better than others" which is often re-inforced by religious belief. Religious belief is often used to justify overpopulation, poverty and economic oppression.

Simply increasing the amount of positive reinforcement whenever someone shows virtue would make a difference.
Honesty is a virtue. Let's tell the honest truth about religion
and support those people who do this. That's a good place to start in my opinion.

Steve Moyer
Candidate for U.S. Senate (VT)

http://stevemoyer.us


Think virtue. Teach virtue. Live virtue


Lightheartedness Assertiveness Faithfulness Kindness Respect Caring Flexibility Love Responsibility Cleanliness Forgiveness Reverence Compassion Friendliness Mercy Self-discipline Confidence Generosity Moderation Service Consideration Gentleness Modesty Steadfastness Courage Helpfulness Obedience Tact Courtesy Honesty Orderliness Thankfulness Creativity Honor Patience Tolerance Detachment Humility Peacefulness Trust Determination Idealism Prayerfulness Trustworthiness Enthusiasm Joyfulness Purposefulness Truthfulness Excellence Justice Reliability Unity.

» Virtue is an incredibly vague term Posted by: riffraff2001
I must believe as you believe?
Posted by: ladybellringerm on May 16, 2006 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Atheism requires the belief that there is no god. While I would not go so far as to call it a religion, I would go so far as to say there are evangelical atheists who would like to convert the whole of the planet to their "faith". Instead of insisting that we all believe the same way, how about preaching tolerance instead. Most religions that I know of are built, not on fear, not even on ignorance (although arguably they gave pre-scientific peoples reasons for natural phenomena), but on love. Love of God and love of other. Humans have frequently twisted religion for personal and nationalistic gain, but those who practice their faith deeply express it in love.

Peace.

» Surely, you jest Posted by: Moonray
» RE: I think you jest... Posted by: aonghus36
» Merely citing . . . Posted by: Moonray
» RE: Merely citing . . . Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Oops! Excuse me . . . Posted by: Moonray
Ummm, yeah, sure
Posted by: kenhymes on May 16, 2006 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, sure, let's hand over the progressive movement to people who have nothing but scorn for some of its most successful heroes. MLK (Methodist preacher); Dorothy Day (Catholic); the Berrigans (Catholic); Gandhi (Hindu); William Sloane Coffin (UCC), the Sanctuary movement of the 80's (several denominations); the entire Society of Friends who throughout the last fifty years have put their money, their freedom and their labor where their mouths are, and have been at the forefront of anti-war and pro-labor movements.

Where will the re-education classes be held, Sam? Starbucks? Or do you have a more secure facility in mind?

This is not liberalism or enlightenment thinking, it's Stalinism.
What are you suggesting, a committee of scientists (that impartial, noble bunch who have brought us thalidomide, napalm, the bomb, Chernobyl, Bhopal, eugenics, electric shock therapy, and forced medication of children) to decide whose beliefs pass muster?

Shall we install Mysticism Detectors in airports?

Shall we have little children chant in unison: "I am a chemical accident! When I die I'm a rotting corpse and nothing more! Yaaaaay, rationalism!!" ?

But see, the problem is, this is a democracy. It's not up to Jerry Falwell or Sam Harris to tell me what to believe about the universe or about morality. I believe in the Holy Spirit, and I believe in social justice. There are tens of millions like me in the USA.

Every time you spout this hateful garbage, Sam, you drive one more nail in the coffin of a successful coalition to restore pluralism and democracy and the rule of law in this country. but I don't think you really care about that. You want to win, and having watched you speak a number of times, I think deep down what you want to do is hurt people.

Who was down in New Orleans after the flood? The Government took a vacation. ANSWER and Move On typed away at their computers. The churches (many of whose ideology I totally disagree with) were, and are, out in force, feeding people, clothing people, housing people.

Obviously, a great deal of damage is being done in the name of religion in this world. And in the name of democracy. And in the name of globalization and "economic progress." And in the name of "research."

Because people lie, and use excuses for their destructive behavior. It's one thing to see through the lies and hold people accountable, to establish a common purpose in commonly held institutions. It's another thing to say, "Well, science, you've screwed up too many times, so we're getting rid of you." Or, "Sorry, most of the world's population, your religious leaders have lied too many times for their own nefarious purposes, so you need to stop believing in God."

If Christianity IS the Inquisition... then Science IS Hiroshima... the United States IS slavery... Marxism IS a Stalinist prison camp.

The left is wasting much too much on this issue. Religion DOES NOT CONTROL AMERICA. RICH PEOPLE DO. THis whole topic is a very useful distraction, and a wedge being used to drive people away from the left.

Good going, Sam.

» You just don't get it Posted by: riffraff2001
» RE: Ummm, yeah, sure Posted by: tussinup
» RE: Ummm, yeah, sure Posted by: redjenny
» RE: Ummm, yeah, sure Posted by: schnoggi
» Sarcasm aside ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
You people aren't listening
Posted by: riffraff2001 on May 16, 2006 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's no god out there. He's not listening to your prayers at night because he doesn't exist. All we have is this world. The sooner people realize that, the sooner we can stop worrying about religion and get down to solving real problems like alternative fuels, global warming, famine, and disease.

» Right on! Posted by: Moonray
» I must disagree Posted by: ezilla
we need
Posted by: rsaxto on May 16, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to operate on what we know is real not on what we have been brainwashed to believe. We need to test what we know to insure that it is accurate. If we cannot test a belief for reality regardless of where that belief comes from then our thinking has been somewhat deranged as it is in the White House.

Smug new age self aggrandizement.
Posted by: tussinup on May 16, 2006 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why has Alternet set itself up as a platform for this smug, self satisfied new age pablum? Most people on the left, and on the right, are struggling with faith. Not all of us belong to organized religions, but almost all of us are looking for some way to understand our relation with God. Why waste time with the tiny minority of "atheists"? Why not engage in dialogue with the great majority of us who are struggling to incorporate our personal experiences of a power greater than ourselves into our personal and political lives? A very short list of religious progressives includes, Desmond Tutu, Thomas Merton, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Thich Nhat Han, Dorothy Day, and virtually everyone involved in the abolitionist movement. Then there are the many non religious progressives who still honored The Spirit. The old time IWW militants who honored "Fellow Worker Jesus" come to mind. Even Marx didn't claim to be anti-religious, but post religious. Instead of honoring humanity's great struggle to understand and nourish our spiritual longings, we get to hear about Sam Harris and his worship of "rationalism" as embodied in the holy being of...Sam Harris.
And could we puh-leeeze not have any more of the racist "clash of civilizations" crap? I don't claim to understand Islam or Islamic culture, but I am willing to listen to Muslims and let my understanding grow through dialogue. Meanwhile, Sam Harris and millions of little Sam Harris's are walking around saying "They ain't like us. We've got us a clash of civilizations here." They usually base that statement on a flash of inspiration they received (O, That rationalism!) after reading a newspaper article based on a "scholarly paper" funded by the Hoover Institution.

» Good grief people! Posted by: riffraff2001
the universe doesn't require your efforts
Posted by: schnoggi on May 16, 2006 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a simple Venn diagram, like in fifth grade: big circle, inside it is God and EVERYthing. okay, so: Evil and Satan, inside or outside of the circle? go ahead, I'll wait. Stay with it. Thought so.
if there is a "God", "he" must exist so far outside of time and narratives, that "he" doesn't even know we are here. The whole notion that "he" needs our help to create some preferred outcome is just incredibly stupid.
Religions are supposedly about some connection to the divine, but they generally boil down to assurances about what's going to happen to your stupid little ego for eternity. I don't think we need legislation to keep people from practicing them, but boy am I glad to be alive at a point when saying you're a "Christian" (oh btw "Christianity" is descended from the people who exterminated Christ's actual followers, I'm just saying...total heresy from the get go) marks you as a muttering dangerous simpleton rather than some upstanding citizen.
when will we ever have a politician with the balls to stand up and say what bullshit it all is...on that day the world will begin to move towards real light at lonnnng last.
btw: Ken's Guide to the Bible: short and sweet, deliciously mean.

end justifies means?
Posted by: schnoggi on May 16, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so in other words the cocaine lords in Colombia are just awesome to you because they build loads of schools? Hitler had the trains running on time, lickety split. Your Xtian rescuers, would they even bother if they didn't have Mr. GoodyGood attached-by-fangs to their spines?

more lazy thinking. Gd loves you for being a goldfish.

» RE: end justifies means? Posted by: russianblue1
Comments
Posted by: vojak on May 16, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I agree with many of your points I think attempting to convince people that religion must end is a futile endeavor. Most people who seek meaning in their lives look to something larger than themselves. For most people that involves participation in a pre-established religion.

It would be great if we could all hammer out our own philosophies, but I think that is asking too much of the average person who is busy with the tasks of daily life and has no use for such creative ponderings. Besides, looking to one's own intellect, in many people's minds, runs counter to the belief that spiritual truths are larger than the thoughts of any one person.

I don't believe it is generally possible to convince people to be rational about religion. That is like trying to convince a Democrat that she should become a Republican, or the reverse scenario. It is possible, however, to teach people to be reasonable and respectful with people who do not share their beliefs. To live and let live. As Thomas Jefferson once said "...it does no injury to me for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (notes on Virginia, 1782)

Finally, I would like to point out that given the many unknownable aspects of our universe and its origins, atheism is just as dogmatic as religions that are convinced God exists. Really, the only justifiable rational stance is agnosticism.

» RE: eligion does pick our pocket! Posted by: Michael Robin
» RE: Comments Posted by: aussidawg
Non-theistic religion is still religion
Posted by: Jasonix on May 16, 2006 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see a lot of merit in Sam Harris' arguments. People believe in preposterous things that they base on crudely literal interpretations of old texts. I've seen first-hand how people create bizarre beliefs - like wearing pants is evil - from snippets of ancient books that they don't understand. While Sam may be labeled an "atheist," the truth is that his insights into religion (as well as his own personal spiritual practice of meditation) accords very well with the teachings of Eastern Orthodox mystics, who recognized a long time ago that "God" is just a metaphor that human beings use to describe ultimate Being (God's secret name is actually "I AM," according to the Bible), which is beyond all human conception and categories.

But I've noticed that people create evil "religions" out of political ideology, economic theory, corporate policies, multi-level marketing, etc. The notion of a personal God isn't necessary for people to be collectively bad. If anyone knows how to defeat human evil, let me know.

huh!
Posted by: karyse on May 16, 2006 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone said, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

The comment seciton of this article is the proof that religion, spirituality, and lack of reason is responsible for hate, fear, and loathing.

Atheism is living without belief in god; to the monotheists in this crowd -- not to worry, I only believe in one less god than you do.

» RE: Atheism is not a thing Posted by: Jasonix
The Proper use of Faith
Posted by: metamind on May 16, 2006 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This may sound simplistic, but I think the fundamental source of conflict and division is over the "proper use of faith." Should you have raith that there is a huge diamond in your back yard and if you keep digging you will find it?
No, of course not. Should you have faith in the existence of truth? Yes, of course you should. This kind of faith empowers you to seek the truth and possibly find it. If you have faith that "there is no truth" then you will neither seek it nor find it. If faith in God helps you find things of value in your life then it is a good thing. If faith in God make you do crazy things, then it is a bad thing. But faith in the truth is a good thing because it produces good results. Faith in virtue is a good thing because if produces more virtue. Faith in the goodness of humanity is a good thing because people will respond well to it. Faith in the evil nature of humanity is a bad thing because people will prove you are correct.

Faith in righteousness is a good thing because it produces good results; it lets you know the difference between good and evil.

Faith in positive things yields positive results. Faith in negative things yields negative results. The proper use of faith is to believe in the positive potential of yourself, other people and the entire universe.

Therefore, it is possible that faith in the existence of God is a positive thing. Judge by the fruits.

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us

» Again sorry... Posted by: riffraff2001
» Sizzlin' rant! Posted by: Michael Robin
The Agnostic and the AGS
Posted by: ZPaul on May 16, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certainly, I see the Agnostic as being tolerant, and the "Anti-God Squad", so to speak, as being intolerant, and encouraging intolerance. I´ve never been one to get enthused with "Preachers" who want to "enlighten" me, whatever be their well-(or not-so-well)meant dogmatism.
If my neighbor wants to worship Mount Kilamanjaro and believes it´s the center of the universe, it´s fine with me, until he or she starts telling me it´s what I have to believe, too. I feel pretty much the same about "The Anti-God Squad"...

» RE: The Agnostic and the AGS Posted by: mysticpal
» RE: The Agnostic and the AGS Posted by: redjenny
Ancient Holdover
Posted by: O.B.Server on May 16, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is a holdover from prehistoric times when consciousness was rare and underdeveloped. Preconscious people needed some kind of external guidance to get through the day. Apparently many living today still don't have the ability to steer their own lives without external guidance.

» of course not Posted by: riffraff2001
Occam's razor
Posted by: secretchief on May 16, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tend to agree with the author's point that any belief needs to stand on equal ground when we judge its value.

However, I am far from certain that rationality alone will make our world a better place. Many philosophers seem to think that a rational discussion (Habermas for instance) will undoubtedly lead to a universal conclusion.
I do not wish to sound snotty, but I think that if you spend some of your time travelling around the world, you will quickly come to the conclusion that "rational" arguments can take you to many contradictory places. A logical or rational conclusion in Sweden will sound irrational in Alberta, not to speak about Bangladesh.
To make a long story short, I do not think the elimination of religion would mean the end of "irrational" arguments. Religious stupidity/intolerance will be replaced by cultural stupidity/intolerance. I think Erich Fromm was right when he said that our reason is just a tool that tries to validate our gut feelings.

God is Great-Science is Better- Science is God!
Posted by: IanA on May 16, 2006 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like most arrogant and bigoted extremists Sam Harris builds the foundation of just another evangelistic thesis on the narrow views that supports his reality, without conceiving even the possibility that his reality may be as flawed and as much a dream state as the next.

Does God exist because people accept His existence? If nobody new of God would He cease to exist? Is everything in the universe connected and interdependent? Did gravity exist before Newton? Do we need to submit all understanding and belief to some authoritative scientific committee of rational thinkers to have an “approved” basis of belief. And what would be the conclusions on the diversity of definitions on such subjects as time, energy, matter and space. Would we then be restricted hence forth within the parameters defined by a new lot of self righteous people, prophets, organizing our present and future comprehension?

Sorry not enough for me. Since I do not accept that an amoeba must have the capacity to understand the universe in which it exists and that I share, why should I believe that I, Sam Harris or an august bunch of “scientists” are so much further ahead. Their arrogance and a few million years of evolution do not give them any more wisdom to dictate correctness or denial of any belief system.

No ones God started any war or did “more harm than good in the world”, Good and evil is done and defined by people. God does not use religions but people do use God. The International Academy of Humanism represent just another limited belief system organized with power and money for money and power just like any other religious grouping. So, more than I detest “Fundamentalism”, I love tolerance and would suggest that Sam Harris and a few of the commentators above meditate a little more carefully the words of Immanuel Kant’s description of Enlightenment:

“Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if its case is not lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one’s own intelligence without being guided by another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use one’s own intelligence!”

It takes wisdom not just intellect to accept that we know far more than we can prove. To condemn extremism is understandable, but to deny all beliefs that do not lend to a limited methodology, that is extreme.

» A Question Posted by: errandchild
Does Harris need a history lesson?
Posted by: hagwind on May 16, 2006 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, having waded through both the interview and all the comments in this thread, I can't help noticing that adherents of monotheistic religions sure don't have a monopoly on irrational arguments. If I believed in God, I might say "God help us," but I think we're on our own. (Maybe there's a clue here to why so many people do believe in, or hope for, a god that can create order out of chaos?)

If you try to critique a belief system by focusing entirely on its texts, you're going to miss a few things. That goes for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, sure, but also for communism, socialism, feminism, the 12-step program, and all the others I can think of. The excesses of Stalin and the collapse of the Soviet Union do not prove that socialist ideas are worthless. The state hasn't withered away; that doesn't mean we don't have plenty to learn from Marx et al.

Sam Harris makes some valuable points, but some of his analysis is as ahistorical as that of the people who say things like "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Honor killings are not unique to Muslim countries. Not so very long ago they were widely sanctioned in Catholic and Protestant countries too. A man could kill his wife or daughter for "dishonoring the family name" and the usual laws didn't apply. (Lynching is a variant: the white woman's honor is restored or protected by killing the black man who supposedly poached on the white man's territory.) Honor killings, along with rape, suttee, witch burnings, making a fetish of female virginity, and a whole bunch of other nasty practices, are a symptom of patriarchal thinking and patriarchal institutions. Sure, the world's major religions are all deeply rooted in patriarchal societies, but sexism seems to do pretty well in secular ones as well, so let's not delude ourselves that "religion" is the only problem.

Harris also doesn't consider the distinct possibility that Islamic extremism has as much to do with the legacy of European (at least nominally Christian) imperialism in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia as it does with the Qur'an. When those 18th-century Americans rebelled against their colonial master, they used the ideas and imagery of their time and place. The 21st-century jihadists are doing likewise.

The missing question...
Posted by: jesme on May 16, 2006 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...in most such discussions with atheists is plain enough. The 20th century was the first in human history in which explicitly atheist political movements came to power. I refer, of course, to communism. How did these atheists conduct themselves? By murdering as many as 100 million people in less than 100 years. many of their victims, by the way, were killed for believing that there is a God.

So does atheism produce mass murder?

» excuse me Posted by: riffraff2001
» RE: The missing question... Posted by: jdwismer922
Atheist here, to raise Awareness level and dispell misinformation from the panicy theists here
Posted by: jdwismer922 on May 16, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After scanning over the posts I see a lot of...

1. Atheists want to abolish all religion

2. Atheists are communists

3. Religious people are all violent vengeful, etc..

4. True Religion is (fill in the blank)

5. Atheism is a religion

6. Hitler was an atheist

7. You can't have morality w/out god

8. Life is meaningless w/out an afterlife

9. Rationalism is New Age Garbage

10. Atheists are synonomous with the Devil

Rationalism...blah
Posted by: Uncle Tupelo on May 16, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a whole lot of us folks for whom the reigning orthodoxy of scientism and rationalism that Sam Harris and the evangelical atheist commenters above vent is too antiseptic, too rigid, too disheartening. At some level, I don't even care if you all think I'm a violent, superstitious idiot for being religious.

When I'm in church singing a hymn or gazing idly at a rushing river or moving through a crowded subway platform, I'm overwhelmed with the sensation -- the innate knowing that we're part of something present, something bigger, something conscious. Compared to the wet warmth of that knowing, your dry cold rationalism seems puny and laughably wrong. If you haven't experienced that oceanic feeling, my sympathies go out to you.

» RE: ationalism...blah Posted by: jdwismer922
» RE: ationalism...blah Posted by: tclaverdure
» RE: ationalism...blah Posted by: Uncle Tupelo
Rationalism...blah
Posted by: Uncle Tupelo on May 16, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a whole lot of us folks for whom the reigning orthodoxy of scientism and rationalism that Sam Harris and the evangelical atheist commenters above vent is too antiseptic, too rigid, too disheartening. At some level, I don't even care if you all think I'm a violent, superstitious idiot for being religious.

When I'm in church singing a hymn or gazing idly at a rushing river or moving through a crowded subway platform, I'm overwhelmed with the sensation -- the innate knowing that we're part of something present, something bigger, something conscious. Compared to the wet warmth of that knowing, your dry cold rationalism seems puny and laughably wrong. If you haven't experienced that oceanic feeling, my sympathies go out to you.

» RE: ationalism...blah Posted by: kick
» RE: ationalism...blah Posted by: Uncle Tupelo
» ??? Posted by: jdwismer922
Do we really have to do this again?
Posted by: McJulie on May 16, 2006 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Among progressives and liberals, there is always somebody who will claim "humans will not truly mature as a species until we give up our childish belief in invisible men."

And somebody else will say "amen, brother!"

And then religious liberals get offended. And anti-religious liberals pretend they don't understand how anybody could possibly be offended by being called childish, ignorant, unevolved, prone to violence, and in league with secular devils like James Dobson.

After more than 200 years it still does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It still neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

But it is unhelpful, anti-Constitutional, and also annoying, for my neighbor to say that I must ALSO say there are twenty gods or no God.

I think we would all agree on Separation of Religion from Government
Posted by: jdwismer922 on May 16, 2006 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Especially in the United States.

» Absolutely. Posted by: Krotos
Complex Topic Requires More to Address Properly
Posted by: cynicaloptimist on May 16, 2006 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, I applaud AlterNet for posting this article with clearly alternative-to-the-mainstream ideas, and which many people might not otherwise be exposed. Second, I disagree with the choice of title and limited coverage of these broad, controversial topics. I highly recommend reading Harris's Atheist Manifesto at truthdig.com.

A lot of discussion seems to miss that point that Harris does not advocate atheism, as in "belief there is no god." In fact, he uses the term only begrudgingly. His point is rather that we must avoid dogmatic (i.e. un-provable) beliefs because they constrain our thinking and eliminate the possibility of rational resolution of differences. In other words, "belief in only that which can be proved" -- which some might consider "agnostic" (another insufficient term). He argues that a great deal of major world problems (not America's per se) can only be addressed when people stop believing unconditionally and start believing that which has direct, observable evidence.

His analogy to slavery is interesting. Can we imagine a society, perhaps in several hundred years, looking back on the 20th century and wondering, "How could those people have thought they were right? Don't they see how many problems they were causing by sticking to their dogmatic beliefs?" It simply won't make any sense to them. He argues such a society will find no less meaning in their lives and is not necessarily immoral in the absence of dogmatic beliefs -- these can come from rational, humanistic tendencies for which we have examples today. Interesting stuff to consider. Thanks, AlterNet!

From Harris's book
Posted by: thegreenknight on May 16, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."

If one of Harris's supporters could please explain how this is a reasonable position to take, I'd appreciate it.

» NO Posted by: jdwismer922
» RE: NO Posted by: thegreenknight
» RE: NO Posted by: jdwismer922
» RE: NO Posted by: model_consumer
» the limits of tolerance Posted by: hagwind
Just another example of how fundamentalism helps the right.
Posted by: djtyg on May 16, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I'm not talking about Chrisitian fundamentalism, either. I'm talking about Athiestic fundamentalism.

Athiestic fundamentalism is just as evil and bigoted as religious fundamentalism. The same people saying "IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE LIKE ME YOU'RE WRONG AND YOU'RE LESS OF A HUMAN BEING FOR DOING SO!"

All of these attitudes only help conservatives. Islamic fundamentalism has helped the right force their agenda on America ever since 9/11. Hell, Bush was able to just use the word 9/11 for 3 years after the fact to get a free pass from just about everyone.

Christian fundamentalism-well, do I have to tell you how it helps the right?

And then Athiestic fundamentalism, which helps fuel the persecution complex that conservative Christianity needs to survive.

In the end, it's all bigotry. Until you decide that maybe, just maybe, that guy who believes in something different from yourself can be a decent human being who wants to be a moral person and is just as good as you are, then the left will lose.

Thanks a lot, Alternet! You've now just done more for the right wing with this article than a month long subscription to the Wall Street Journal! I hope you're happy!

And to all you commenters who say religious people should be mocked, congratulations to you as well. You're no less bigoted than the KKK or Nazis. I hope you're really proud of yourself and your self-righteousness.

» Don't mince words. Posted by: djtyg
» To be perfectly clear with you... Posted by: jdwismer922
» I'm an atheist but... Posted by: riffraff2001
» You're a faker. Posted by: djtyg
» Who's a faker? Posted by: jdwismer922
» RE: Who's a faker? Posted by: djtyg
» Thankyou Posted by: jdwismer922
Ayn Rand called it "objectivism"...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 16, 2006 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...before the current author called it "rationalism".

» And your point is... Posted by: jdwismer922
I hope its ok if I Pimp Beltway Atheists,since we're taking about it(A washington DC atheist group)
Posted by: jdwismer922 on May 16, 2006 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beltway Atheists = Geered around Young Professionals

Basic steps we should take right away
Posted by: Moonray on May 16, 2006 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The religion debate will go on forever, but there are some things that all well-meaning people should demand right away:

1) Separate religion from government. Demand an end to the tax breaks now granted religious groups. Demand that laws based mainly or solely on religious beliefs (ban of the morning-after pill, ban on certain activities on Sunday, ban on sales of certain sex-related products, bans on gay marriage, etc.) be abolished.

2) Prohibit churches or individuals from isolating children under 18 in private schools. Require a certain amount of public instruction for all children, even if only by internet.

rationalism is also a religion
Posted by: Michelle on May 16, 2006 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it very amusing when people speak as if "rationalism" is not its own religious system.

That weird faith in a particularly Western way of seeing the world, in the truth of a stunted way of relating to the world.

These monotheistic religions are one side of the western cultural coin. Rationalism is the other. Ugly, disconnected stuff either way.

So now this rationalist wants to evangelize just like the Christians do. Great. All these people are arrogantly trying to spiritually coerce other people toward their "truth," apparently unaware (all of them) that they don't have the first clue about the core flaws in their way of perceiving the world.

Between these people and the New Age creepy folks, it's getting harder to remember that stunted Euro-centric worldviews do not define the spiritual landscape. But I remember.

» and a PS Posted by: Michelle
» You're just rationalizing Posted by: Moonray
insideous role
Posted by: yellow on May 16, 2006 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the problems I have with organized religion is that, liberation theology aside, the Churches play an insideous role in politics all throughout history. In modern times alone, long after religious wars had become a thing of the past, the Churches distinguished themselves as forces for the most retrograde types of authority and war. During the 1930s, trumped up hysteria about "anti-clericalism" in Republican Spain led the Church to support Franco with the obvious consequences. The Vatican supported Hitler during world war II and even helped known Nazi War criminals escape justice after the war. Today the megachurches support US fascism. There seems to be a pattern here!

The Problem is not Religion, it is People
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 16, 2006 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember the story about an apprentice who at graduation stated that his mentor 'taught him everything he knows'? If you don't, the mentor then says 'No, I taught you everything you know'. When people impose their own filters, make assumptions, or extrapolate from the basic texts and teachings there is a potential for all kinds of nonsense.

The writings at the core of most faiths are not an omnibus explanation of everything. Nowhere have I ever read in any religious text a claim that all that could be known is contained within. In fact the Bible, central to 3 faiths, states quite the opposite. Just as a person would not use a can opener to change a tire, reasonable people do not use faith texts as a basis for anything but faith.

Third is people who do not hold to a faith, but 'adopt' and use it for their own purposes. This is as old as history. In the Christian Tradition Jesus warned his followers about people who would do such things. The term 'wolves in sheep clothing' comes from this very warning. The same abuse of religion is doubtless true of any faith.

Last, most people are lazy. I would wager that out of 1,000 evangelicals picked at random, easily less than 200 have read the entire New Testament much less the entire Bible. If one were to extent the survey to see if they have investigated other faiths first-hand, the number would be very small. Most fire breathing religious right supporters have ben hand-fed and have largely second-hand knowledge of their primary texts.

Just because many ill-led, ill-read, and duped people have done stupid things in the name of a faith or god does not condemn the faith that was misused. Much of what is good and right in our society and world is a direct product of the faith that the people who made the changes followed. That tells me it is of value.

» More rationalizing Posted by: Moonray
picked & commented
Posted by: celinaa on May 16, 2006 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In my opinion all religions, at least monotheistic religions, are based on fear" Not every religion. Some religions are based in something similar to pleasure or deep satisfaction. You see this easily in some newagers and gnostics.

"The End of Faith", not every faith is born equal. It's different to have faith in your doctor or in the team who designed the plane you are travelling than in any mental process, name it god or whatever you want.

"getting rid of all forms of faith" faith in personal mental process (name them god or any other name: energy, people united, gaia) and religion are traits evolution gave us. We used to develop faith to be able to follow our leader who decided how to save the flock. The guy who used to think too much was a dinner for predators so faith and religion is in our genes. We can not and we must not get rid of faith, it's evil to do it and it is impossible.

I'm religious, I can't avoid it, so I take care this handicap don't disturb my rationality.

Religion probably is a disease which we will cure in the next centuries if the world we are forging rewards rational behaviour.

first you have to give them an alternative to soothe death anxiety
Posted by: cry0fan on May 16, 2006 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mine is cryonics

Equating organized religion with faith is not something even the organized religions do.
Posted by: Sojourner on May 16, 2006 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The faith you have in your own opinions, as expressed here, mirrors the worst of religion. The "he said, she said" version of truth perpetuates disagreement.

However, now that physics has to deal with unobservable entities (quarks, etc.) it finds it necessary to operate within some of the same problems associated with faith: "What do I call what I have just observed?"

Discursive ignorance...
Posted by: rayo on May 16, 2006 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we're picking at the potential dangers of religion as a discourse, we should also remember that secular humanism holds out its own particular problems with regards to human, and particularly minority, rights. It has been used historically to silence "non-rational" voices, for example, those of women or slaves who were thought to be incapable of rational thought on the order of white men.

While I have my own problems with the uses of religion, we should remember that, as social, cultural, and historical discourses, religion and secular humanism can constitute both a response to or the re-enforcement of normativity.

Intolerance by those preaching tolerance
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 16, 2006 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aside from all of the 'my belief/non-belief is better/more logical/virtuous than yours' stuff is a critical problem: how can people who advocate tolerance in all things be so harshly intolerant of people of faith? It is an immediate turn-off to most any person of whatever faith tradition to hear all of the acrid pronouncements that come from many in the liberal/progressive tradition. If church and state should be separate, maybe we can operate under the agreement that faith and politics should largely be as well.

Dogma is dogma--be it atheist, agnostic, deist, jewish, muslim, christian, wiccan, whatever. If faith is and should be personal & private then the lack thereof should also be. If someone shows up at an organizing event for an environmental concern they do not deserve to be subjected to a diatribe on the evils of their faith in official or casual conversation. People who do this are just reducing their numbers and hurting their cause.

The fact is that there is room in the tent for everyone who will be tolerant of others who will reciprocate. There is a place for discussions and arguments of faith/belief/spirituality, but that is not in the mainstream arena of politics in most cases.

If you are an atheist-- good for you. If you are a christian-- good for you. If you are jewish-- good for you. If you are a wiccan-good for you. Now let's drop the dogma and get on with the issues of our community, nation and world. A group of diverse people who don't spend their time and energy devouring each other can find a lot of common ground and accomplish much.

What bothers folks about Sam Harris...
Posted by: pdxlinuxchix on May 16, 2006 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is that he is breaking the rules. In the West, certainly, there is this tacit agreement that we will not comment about religious belief--provided that one practices a mainstream religion and that one is not an atheist. The ONE metaphysical position that people feel no compunction saying something about is non-theism. If a Christian says that they believe that homosexuality is a sin and is the moral equivilant of murder (and I have had Christians say *exactly* that) then people may be shocked, people may shake their heads, NO ONE will say 'that's bigotry' because it's this person's religious belief and most folks will say "I respect that". Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are done saying 'I respect that' and, in no small way, they are correct to do so.

There is nothing wrong with believing in god, per se. There is nothing wrong with believing that Jesus taught that humans can and should live together with compassion. Hell, there's nothing inherently wrong with believing that one day you will spend eternity next to Jesus someplace. The problem comes when folks insist that these non-provable assertions are universally true. I am an ex-Christian and I know--don't think but know--that to be true to the spirit of what is in the Bible one must have a certain level of intolerance. It is built into the framework. Christianity makes no bones about the matter, it considers itself the One True Way and while Christians can be tolerant of other religions, at the end of the day the Bible says what it says; if you believe that God sent Jesus for the forgiveness of sins (and if you don't, are you a Christian?) and that only through accepting Jesus can you be forgiven (and again, there's really no escaping that, there's no wiggle room) then it is an inescapable conclusion that those who do not accept Jesus will pay the price for that non-acceptance. Now, you may recoil at that suggestion but if you are Christian and honest about your religion, you end up having to admit that that *is* what your religion teaches.

Given this, why should the rest of us be silent? What benefit accrues to society by our being complicit in maintaining a fiction with no more empirical veracity than the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus? There are implications to the religiosity of our nation, folks, I'll lay out three interesting stats:

1> In the US, fewer people know about Darwinian theory than in any other major industrialized nation. In fact, in order to find a population where as few people know the basics of Darwinian as in the States you have to look at nations like Bulgaria and Slovenia. In school systems across this country, people are clamoring to have religion taught in biology class.

2> In the US, we have the second highest infant mortality rate of any major industrialized nation. Only Latvia does worse than we do on that measure.

3> The US also has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world.

Now, what does that have to do with religion? Everything. Because we keep silent, religion gets taught in biology classes dressed up as 'intelligent design'. Because of religion we hold to this outmoded way of dealing with pregnancy which ends up leading to women *not* having prenatal care that is demonstrable in saving lives. Because of religion we teach abstinence instead of giving children *good*, whole-picture sex education. I'm not suggesting that religion is the *only* cause of items 2 and 3 but we delude ourselves if we say that it isn't a cause.

Sam Harris, whatever flaws he has in presentation, has the courage to break the rules and start the dialog of saying "if you want your religious beliefs translated to public policy, the rest of us have an obligation to challenge you to demonstrate that your religious beliefs have some kind of high correspondence mapping to the real world".

» Exactly right Posted by: Moonray
When faith is free, it is what you make of it.
Posted by: Sojourner on May 16, 2006 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Faith is free, so no one else can be blamed for whatever form we give to our personal faith. I have never met anyone absent of faith. It equates to the expectation that tomorrow will be the same (understood as the dynamic of identity and difference) as today. My experience that I am the same person today as I was yesterday is as filled with mystery as the fact of my existence.

My only problem with organized religion is that, as with everything else, it can be peddled as promising to do something for you. Yet the message of all the great religions is that it is up to us to do something. Jesus’ golden rule is found in them all. Do to them as you would have them do to you. Treat others as you wish to be treated. If you had life to live over again would you want to do again what you are now doing?

I understand communal worship as an opportunity to gather to wish each other and all living things well. Kant taught us that the one guaranteed good is goodwill. That’s a faith worth keeping.

Yes indeed.
Posted by: Saitia on May 16, 2006 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unity, not uniformity!
The religion of the spirit requires only unity of experience— uniformity of destiny— making full allowance for diversity of belief. The religion of the spirit requires only uniformity of insight, not uniformity of viewpoint and outlook. The religion of the spirit does not demand uniformity of intellectual views, only unity of spirit feeling.

» New Age nonsense Posted by: Moonray
» Old age nonsense Posted by: Sojourner
I think this might have touched a sore spot
Posted by: radnar on May 16, 2006 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anytime someone makes the assumption that one has made an attack on them, wether true or not, the first thing they often do is to attack back.

This article has raised more hatred than almost anything I have read on Alternet for several years. People! Let's chill out here, please.

Mr. Harris raises some very good points and I don't believe that he is directly attacking anyone. I don't believe everything he says but that is my right. I certainly don't believe everything many Theists say either but that is also my right.

I do believe that I am no better than anyone else but that no one is any better than I am. We are truly equal in the only way that matters. Here and Now. We are all equal because we are all going to die sometime. We are no better AND no worse than anything on this world or anyother because we are going to end, even the Sun and all of the stars. What happens afterwards is a matter of personal belief and all sorts of tradegy has happened because of those beliefs.

Here and Now, let's let people have their own opinions.

"The Value of Mystical Experiences" - Sam Harris is a Believer
Posted by: ZPaul on May 16, 2006 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what Sam Harris believes, according to what we read above:

"Sam Harris .... practices Zen meditation and believes in the value of mystical experiences."
From Webster´s Third New International Dictionary:
mystical: having a spiritual meaning, existence, reality, or comparable value that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence: relating to such a value: of, resulting from, or manifesting an individual´s direct or intimate knowledge of or communion with God(as through contemplation, vision, an inner light),

mysticism: the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics: a theory of mystical knowledge: the doctrine or belief that direct knowledge of God, of spiritual truth, of ultimate reality, or comparable matters is attainable through immediate ituition, insight, or illumination and in a way differing from ordinary sense perception or ratiocination.

.......Which dictionary does Sam Harris use?

two paradoxical results of religion I have seen here in the boonies
Posted by: zooeyhall on May 16, 2006 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Out here in the Nebraska boondocks (where I grew up and have lived all my life) I have seen religious belief resulting in a paradox of either:

Passivity---people out here accept loss of economic power, bullying by corporations, concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, loss of jobs, environmental degradation, etc.---by basically re-assuring themselves that it is "God's will" or that "God will fix it all someday"

or conversely--

Some use it as a justification for agressiveness and economic inequality i.e. "I got my reward for believing in Jesus and following his ways. The poor are poor because their faith wasn't as strong as mine, etc. etc. I lived God's life and that is why I now have my McMansion and a million $$$ in the bank".

The Problems Caused by Labels
Posted by: ezilla on May 16, 2006 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Allow me to fully label myself for you -

White
Female
Liberal
Femminist
Atheist
Wife
American
College Graduate
etc.

Do you know me now?

Every one of those words has built in connotations. But honestly, i could list labels all day and you still wouldn't really know me, would you?

Atheist - would you know I was raised Christian? Work for a Christian organization?

American - would you know I spent my formative years on a Canadian island?

Femminist - no I don't spend my free time burning bras and hating men.

Labels are stereotypes - based in a nugget of truth, certainly, but hardly difinitive of any single person. Religious labels are particularly loaded. They are used to unite and to divide. I certainly don't agree with this article 100%, but my grain of salt and I prefer to open-mindedly entertain a differing opinion and take something away from the discussion.

No matter the literal words used, I get the feeling the author agrees that that whatever your religious label, we must all identify first as Human. All other labels are both secondary and tertiary. If I treat you as human first, catholic second, religion becomes a non-issue.

You can't control the actions of others, but you can control yourself.

» RE: The Problems Caused by Labels Posted by: mamawheelie
» RE: mick3 Posted by: solrev
IGNORANCE
Posted by: Roverton on May 16, 2006 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YES, RELIGIONS HAVE CAUSED GREAT DESPAIR AND ARE BY NO MEANS THROUGH. YES, THEY HAVE BEEN A DESTRUCTIVE AND DIVISIVE FORCE THROUGH HISTORY. However...

Comparing religion to spirituality is ignorance.

Most people attacking the ancient practices within the "New Age" have had no extensive experience in those areas.

Peripheral at best.

PRE-JUDICED. Judged in advance of data.

NO EXPERIENCE, NO REAL RESEARCH = IGNORACE. Works the same on any topic.

I'm not religious. I try to be spiritual. The concept that we are connected by something more than just a philosophy.
A bonding.

No names in particular, but some of these kind and loving "Rational" posts have the derisive humor of a scared and cruel litttle child.

That's the sort of "Rational Kindness" that only a spiritual person could drive cross country with.

Religion runs on that very system. No experince, so just believe.

PS: How can anyone with a scientific mindset believe that telling a world to ditch their religious beliefs will just work? Why hasn't it yet? A rude awakening in the form of Armaggeddon might just, but then it's too late. Academia is understandably wounded by a world that no longer values their work. But bitterness is creeping out and that alone can scare droves of potential believer away.

Not rational.

FACT.

Humanity will continue to explore concepts. We jusrt simply will. Aethism has to come up with more than mockery to deter us from experimenting with other ways of living.

my atheism is not religion.
Posted by: mousiedung on May 16, 2006 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am an atheist. I do not have "faith" that God does not exist. I do not argue for or against the existence of God. I simply don't believe in the supernatural and I make no exception for God. Moreover, I don't care whether God exists. As far as I can tell, God isn't helping. Therefore, God is irrelevant.

I don't care how the universe got here, but I'd like to know why the universe got here. Neither science nor theology has a plausible answer to that one.

As far as religious tolerance goes, I understand the everyone in the US has a constitutional right to believe in whatever they want to. However, I have no constitutional obligation to believe they are sane.

GOD LESS AMERICA
Posted by: LMNOP on May 16, 2006 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How's that God Bless America bumper sticker campaign working out?

Here are the types of ideas of evidence based thinkers:

(1) When evidence is incontovertible, we have proof and we proceed with assurance. We know we are right and are justified in that.

(2) When evidence is suggestive or supportive but does not exclude other possibilities, we have belief and we proceed with caution knowing that we are making an educated guess.

(3) When there is no evidence for a proposition, or there is insufficient evidence to justify belief, we are undecided and we don't act at all unless we must. If we must act, we know that we are guessing wildly.

Now, here's how faith based thinking works:

You are in category three - no evidence except fallacious arguments and an apocryphal source book - just pure wild guessing, but you choose to be in category one, so you just forget that you are unsure and make yourself certain by refusing to consider the matter again. Anything that threatens that reverie is considered the devil and to be ignored.

Then, if you're an evangelical in the mold of the American movement, you impose your belief system by law and by threat of force onto people who have not taken the Kool-Aid with you and consider your rules arbitrary and counterproductive.

Isn't that nice.

What religious institutions do
Posted by: johnwilkins1672 on May 16, 2006 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as a priest, I don't have much problem with his argument about evidence being important for creating public policy. But I don't think he knows what really goes on in most mainline churches. Tomorrow, a group of us, Rabbis, Imams and clergy are going to here a secular Iranian talk about human rights. Our faith is a part of this.

I also doubt that rationality would bring us peace. the fact is that people who are rational can have a variety of perspectives, and be as angry and as certain as individuals who are irrational. There is no necessary connection between rationality and, say, empathy.

1000’s of questions
Posted by: jpinder on May 16, 2006 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are 1000’s of questions, here’s some of my favorite: Why is the idea of “god” born in the middle east, it seems nothing else happened anywhere on this entire planet in the last 4-5 billion years. Which story of the 16 crucified saviors is true ? Horace 3500BC, Chrishna 1200BC or Mithra 500BC??? I dunno, these fables all sound the same, born of a virgin on dec 25th (winter solstice) performed miracles and died on a cross or tree for our sins etc. Most believers have not read any of the scriptures nor have they read the history, a few paragraphs is enough for most to rationalize. Subsequently some would read more on the subject and discover that they are allegories (Galatians 4:24).

BTW Here is something menacing that G. Bush senior stated in an interview:

“No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

johngary66
Posted by: johngary66 on May 16, 2006 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your as intolerant as any raving conservative I know. You sound more like a fundamentalist than a liberal to me. Are sure your not a ringer? Fax me your membership card now!

To Thine Own Self Be True
Posted by: American Reflections on May 16, 2006 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In this country we have freedom of religion, and we have freedom from religion which, in my opinion, is pretty much as it should be. Religion, or a belief in God (or a higher power) is a highly personal thing, and most generally is based on individual beliefs and needs.

If you believe there is no God, that is certainly your right, just as my belief that there is a God is my right. My own belief system is not based on, nor is it subject to, approval from persons or religious institutions that disagree with me.

I was raised in an evangelical religion, and as I look back on it, I see a great deal of harm in the manner in which it was presented to me as a child. Yet, now, as I close in on my 70th year on this planet, I look back and also see a great deal of good. It was from my religious training that I learned everything that has been good in my life, and which I believe is the good in this world, those things being honesty, respect for all living things, compassion for those who are suffering or in need, tolerance, and justice. And I believe that anything that flies in the face of common human decency is wrong. At least, it is wrong for me.

I don't get much involved with dogma because that is a man-made type of prejudice that denies the right of the individual to think for theirself. Where people like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell are concerned, I see them as the worst of the worst, making their fortunes from the fear of other people. And in considering the supposed religious conversion of George Bush who claims that God is leading him....whispering in his ear, so to speak...I have to say that the God I believe in would most likely not choose a chronic liar to represent Him.

In reading the comments on this forum, I am reminded of something I read many years ago, and in quoting it, I am going to change it to fit this debate. I think it is a quote by Somerset Maugham...but it could have been someone else, and it was focused on the the question of whether or not we are alone in this universe. As I recall, he said, "Sometimes I think we are alone in thie universe, and sometimes I think we are not. Either way, the concept is mind-boggling." That can easily be changed to reflect the issue of whether of not there is a God. Sometimes I believe there is a God, and sometimes I question it, but either way it is a concept that boggles the mind.

I choose to believe that God exists, although I'm not sure what form He takes. Mankind has always interpreted the world around him according to his understanding of the things he experienced. The more primitive his understanding, the more primitive were his gods, i.e. "rain gods, gods of wind, sun gods and thunder gods." Back in the 1970s, a writer by the name of Erik Von Danniken (sp?) published a couple of books that suggested God was a spaceman. I read them, and much of what he said made sense to me. Whatever phenomena was designated as "God," it seems always to have come from the sky. And exerpts from the Bible can be easily be defined as beings from other planets, come to earth in chariots of fire. For the moment, dispense with your skepticism and consider that there may be a basis for that. If God is an alien being who has visited earth, bringing with him evidence of a highly developed knowledge, it seems natural that primitive man would have viewed this being as "God." If there is any truth to this does this take away from the belief that there is a God? Of course not. It simply changes the mysticism surrounding the God concept and forces it into a more understandable belief system, yet it remains unprovable.

For whatever may be my needs, I have chosen my beliefs. The rest of the world must choose theirs. And whatever those choices may be, let us hope for acceptance and tolerance of the beliefs of others.

To escape the void
Posted by: robmikejas on May 16, 2006 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How religion functions in the world today is as it always has been. A man made means of escaping the void upon death. Our seperate religious communities all offer, through pre-prescribed behavior, the promise of everlasting life. Through our evolutionarily gifted ability to concieve our individual existence. we are inately fearful of death and its eternal void, hence the faithbased gift of eternal life if only we believe in the particular dogma of ones chosen religion. Religion is a concept invented by humans to ease the fear of dying, when in fact the fear is an irrational one. There are only two possibilities...you die, you go to heaven or some place of eternal concious existence, or you die and the void overtakes you and you have no further conciousness, or feeling or memory. In the case of the void, "you" no longer exist and therefor have no fear or realization of your life or lack thereof. Or as the "Faithful" would have you believe, you are at peace in some place in the sky and still a concious being in eternal servitide to your savior. Either way, you win...no pain, no fear, no strife, no heartache, no past life. Only the mixing of your moleclues with the infinite universe. In the physical sense, we have eternal life, just not on our terms. All the political, spiritual, religious,societal arguments posted here go out the window with this realization. God bless, or not. Impeach Bush.