Religion and hypocrisy?

[thestrangequark]

I do not believe in any God, nor have I ever. I cannot reconcile logic and reason and real life with religion.

 

[Captain_Nick]

Funny, a reward from God is just about the opposite of what I seek from religion. Nor is trusting the universe to take care of my material needs and wants. The universe exists, I exist (at least up til now), that's all I ever expect from beyond myself. If I die tomorrow, well, it was an interesting trip. Glad to have had it. Religion is also an attempt to answer to the question "Why?" The "why" of the source. Science gives you an excellent "how," but ultimately results in an infinite regression paradox (or a question mark) when you trace it back to the beginning. Logic gives you a great tool to separate the crap from the useful.

Fascinating. I think there is a slight difference between expecting rewards from God and having faith that 'you'll be right' in times of strife.

Tell me something, if the universe is not supplying you with your material needs, what is?

 

[STR]

Me. I have been given the tools, it is my choice to use them or not. I bring my own rewards, and my own condemnation. I do not blame the devil for my faults and weakenesses.

That's a simplification (it ignores family, and friends, and those that are born less abled), but I'm keeping it simple for the internet. One should not expect God to do anything for them, because he did enough in the first 2 pages of Genesis. No harm in asking for more, just don't get mad when the prayer isn't answered because you (borrowing from another poster) didn't go out looking for the toy YOU lost.

 

[Captain_Nick]

Me. I have been given the tools, it is my choice to use them or not. I bring my own rewards, and my own condemnation. I do not blame the devil for my faults and weakenesses.

That's a simplification (it ignores family, and friends, and those that are born less abled), but I'm keeping it simple for the internet. One should not expect God to do anything for them, because he did enough in the first 2 pages of Genesis. No harm in asking for more, just don't get mad when the prayer isn't answered because you (borrowing from another poster) didn't go out looking for the toy YOU lost.

I understand where you are coming from.

If I had not gone for a walk I would not have found my lunch, yes? God helps those who helps themselves. But on the other hand I 'put my trust in God' and was led to it. To an atheist that would be a coincidence and maybe it was, who knows. The world is full of strange coincidences. That is one of the consequences of living in a city with three million other people.

 

[stj]

A "heavenly scent" from McDonald's?

 

[gturner]

Still, obviously there is something wrong with their minds. This is why atheism in government is a necessity. The contradiction between praising bigotry and a secular government becomes sharper and sharper, which is why atheism is a moral and political imperative.

Ack. Even atheists would opt out of the 20th Century's atheist governments, as those governments seemed to solve problems by killing millions of their own people and dumping the bodies in mass graves.

Killing the poor is the quickest way to end poverty.

Killing political opponents is the quickest way to end partisanship.

Killing anyone who objects is the quickest way to end political strife caused by all the killings.

 

[STR]

A "heavenly scent" from McDonald's?

I assumed he lived in one of the countries where McD's doesn't smell faintly of garbage and deep fried cardboard. They do exist. I hear some of the European and Asian ones are kinda nice.

 

[Amaris]

A "heavenly scent" from McDonald's?

I assumed he lived in one of the countries where McD's doesn't smell faintly of garbage and deep fried cardboard.

Actually, I like the smell of McDonalds when I stop there for breakfast. You can smell the coffee and the egg McMuffins. It's a rarity that I eat there, though.

 

[STR]

Ugh...you just gave me a flashback to their McBurrito. Holy #### that's some gross stuff.

P.S. There are no eggs in Egg McMuffins.

 

[Amaris]

Ugh...you just gave me a flashback to their McBurrito. Holy #### that's some gross stuff.

Their breakfast burritos were great. I had to stop eating them though because of the calorie and cholesterol content.

P.S. There are no eggs in Egg McMuffins.

Wouldn't bother me if there aren't.

 

[Terengo]

I wouldn't give two shits about what people believed religiously if they weren't so busy trying to ram it down other people's throats. In Canada, people tend to, more often than not, keep their business to themselves and leave other people alone. Live and let live and all that. And religion is pretty much a hands-off topic in politics, the first whiff the public gets of a party trying to legislate by the Bible and they'd be gone, whether it was a Conservative or Liberal party. More people should act this way, IMHO, and stop worrying so damned much that everyone else is going to go to hell but people like them.

As a wise old comedian once said "Treat your religion like your penis: keep it out of sight and don't shove it down other people's throats."

 

[Amaris]

I wouldn't give two shits about what people believed religiously if they weren't so busy trying to ram it down other people's throats. In Canada, people tend to, more often than not, keep their business to themselves and leave other people alone. Live and let live and all that. And religion is pretty much a hands-off topic in politics, the first whiff the public gets of a party trying to legislate by the Bible and they'd be gone, whether it was a Conservative or Liberal party. More people should act this way, IMHO, and stop worrying so damned much that everyone else is going to go to hell but people like them.

As a wise old comedian once said "Treat your religion like your penis: keep it out of sight and don't shove it down other people's throats."

Carlin?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

But when someone actually says that he did something because God told him to, then EVERYONE rolls eyes and doesn't believe it.

Not really, it just depend on what precisely the person says. A lot of people say "God called them to serve" or "God showed me the way." Which is basically saying that after reading scripture, and meditating on what they want, and what they think God wants them to do. Often the individual will come to a realization, which they feel has divine inspiration. Basically, God planted the seed, and they individual nurtured it into something positive (at least from the perspective of that individual finding a purpose in life), and ultimately personal. They don't claim to know more about the world than you do. They're not telling the world to live like them. They're not trying to sell you something.

I do think that people have the right to share their beliefs, though. What I have a problem with is coercion, belittling, bullying, and any form of violence, be it physical or spiritual. It is right to speak--it is not right to insult or harm those who choose not to listen. To be cruel and then claim "God wanted me to do that" is the worst form of blasphemy that I can imagine.

Now, the people that claim either a 2-way conversation with God, or that God literally spoke to them (ala Moses), or received divine instruction to spread to the world, are usually spouting their own (often extreme) views and are merely using God to pump up something that otherwise no one cares about (everyone thinks that if they were emperor of earth, things would be working better). So they're not dismissing God, they're dismissing a snake-oil salesman that doesn't have the gravitas, or the good thinking, to hold his own water.

People aren't that gullible. That's why they roll their eyes at the "jiving preacher." Plus, it's pretty damn arrogant to proclaim that you, a nobody, are somehow in the same rarefied air as an ancient and renowned prophet. People don't like that either.

I have the feeling that those who HAVE had the most direct communication with God tend to be very quiet about it, and that in some cases they may not fully recognize what was happening, or if they do, they understand it isn't something that elevates them above anybody else, or gives them any right to gloat--because they're human just like anyone else. I am also distrustful of those who put on a big show about their supposed "abilities," because that's just a grab for fame, not something that looks to something greater--no matter how much such people loudly proclaim that it's the case.

That doesn't mean that a person who is very close to God can't become famous, but I think it often happens without that person intending it or deliberately courting that attention except where power is truly required to act.

Me. I have been given the tools, it is my choice to use them or not. I bring my own rewards, and my own condemnation. I do not blame the devil for my faults and weakenesses.

That's a simplification (it ignores family, and friends, and those that are born less abled), but I'm keeping it simple for the internet. One should not expect God to do anything for them, because he did enough in the first 2 pages of Genesis. No harm in asking for more, just don't get mad when the prayer isn't answered because you (borrowing from another poster) didn't go out looking for the toy YOU lost.

Adding to this, I think that there are multiple forms of prayer. Rituals and meditation have their place, but some forms of prayer are absolutely tied in with action--and if we ignore that, then the kind of absurdity you mention is going to crop up.

I think, though, that often answers are denied us not just because we might not always ask for the right things--but even when we DO ask for something that is right, if that answer is to come through somebody else and those people make the wrong choice, then this can also delay or deny an answer. We have free will and if we don't choose to do what we should, then in essence we are sometimes the ones who have denied a prayer. (I do believe that God is very persistent and will keep working, but that this is a factor that does interfere--because to eliminate free will would be a crime even more heinous than killing the body.)

Still, obviously there is something wrong with their minds. This is why atheism in government is a necessity. The contradiction between praising bigotry and a secular government becomes sharper and sharper, which is why atheism is a moral and political imperative.

Ack. Even atheists would opt out of the 20th Century's atheist governments, as those governments seemed to solve problems by killing millions of their own people and dumping the bodies in mass graves.

Killing the poor is the quickest way to end poverty.

Killing political opponents is the quickest way to end partisanship.

Killing anyone who objects is the quickest way to end political strife caused by all the killings.

I'd like to point out that people speak of secular government, but forget that an atheistic government, though not driven by religion, is driven by an ideology almost as strong--and people pervert it just like some pervert religion.

What I think many people who speak of secular government really want is a non-ideological government, one that does not presume to have any answers about God, be they positive or negative.

 

[Amaris]

I'd like to point out that people speak of secular government, but forget that an atheistic government, though not driven by religion, is driven by an ideology almost as strong--and people pervert it just like some pervert religion.

What I think many people who speak of secular government really want is a non-ideological government, one that does not presume to have any answers about God, be they positive or negative.

Exactly. When I've advocated secular government, I have always meant that what I want is:

Question: "Excuse me, Congressman, what is the government's view on Christ?"
Answer: "We don't know, and quite frankly, it's none of our business."

Let people believe what they want, but as a government agency, you don't know, you don't want to know, you have far more pressing concerns like employment and international diplomacy.

 

[FordSVT]

In Canada, people tend to, more often than not, keep their business to themselves and leave other people alone. Live and let live and all that. And religion is pretty much a hands-off topic in politics, the first whiff the public gets of a party trying to legislate by the Bible and they'd be gone, whether it was a Conservative or Liberal party.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Canadians, especially Canadian politicians, are reluctant to acknowledge their subservience to God as the highest power, because He lives in the US.

Cthulhu bless America!

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I'd like to point out that people speak of secular government, but forget that an atheistic government, though not driven by religion, is driven by an ideology almost as strong--and people pervert it just like some pervert religion.

What I think many people who speak of secular government really want is a non-ideological government, one that does not presume to have any answers about God, be they positive or negative.

Exactly. When I've advocated secular government, I have always meant that what I want is:

Question: "Excuse me, Congressman, what is the government's view on Christ?"
Answer: "We don't know, and quite frankly, it's none of our business."

Let people believe what they want, but as a government agency, you don't know, you don't want to know, you have far more pressing concerns like employment and international diplomacy.

The Congressman (and other civil servant) should not be banned from belief, though, or from being allowed to explain how that belief shapes his or her character and thought process. That does not constitute the establishment of religion.

 

[Amaris]

I'd like to point out that people speak of secular government, but forget that an atheistic government, though not driven by religion, is driven by an ideology almost as strong--and people pervert it just like some pervert religion.

What I think many people who speak of secular government really want is a non-ideological government, one that does not presume to have any answers about God, be they positive or negative.

Exactly. When I've advocated secular government, I have always meant that what I want is:

Question: "Excuse me, Congressman, what is the government's view on Christ?"
Answer: "We don't know, and quite frankly, it's none of our business."

Let people believe what they want, but as a government agency, you don't know, you don't want to know, you have far more pressing concerns like employment and international diplomacy.

The Congressman (and other civil servant) should not be banned from belief, though, or from being allowed to explain how that belief shapes his or her character and thought process. That does not constitute the establishment of religion.

Oh, certainly not. I just mean in any official capacity.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Still, it would be foolish to think that his/her beliefs wouldn't affect decision-making. The law can remain equal with respect to beliefs--yet the system also has to represent people who hold beliefs, and who decide what they do and do not believe the government has a right to do.

 

[Amaris]

Still, it would be foolish to think that his/her beliefs wouldn't affect decision-making. The law can remain equal with respect to beliefs--yet the system also has to represent people who hold beliefs, and who decide what they do and do not believe the government has a right to do.

There is a method to it. If one strives to keep rights and liberty at the top of the priorities list, it can work. You may be personally against pornography, but enabling anti-pornography laws goes against the right of free speech and freedom of the press, so what do you do? You do not make laws against pornography, because it tramples over the rights of others to enjoy it. Above all, the system should not respect the beliefs of those who seek to take away rights.

 

[gturner]

There is a method to it. If one strives to keep rights and liberty at the top of the priorities list, it can work. You may be personally against pornography, but enabling anti-pornography laws goes against the right of free speech and freedom of the press, so what do you do? You do not make laws against pornography, because it tramples over the rights of others to enjoy it. Above all, the system should not respect the beliefs of those who seek to take away rights.

But that doesn't always work.

What about the right to sell crack cocaine to school kids, which is a fundamental right to do business?

What about the right to freely distribute Oxy-contin to poor people who can't otherwise afford it?

What about the right to engage in underage child prostitution, which falls under free association?

What about the Carthaginian right to sacrifice babies, which is fundamental to both religion and families?

What about the right to refuse to pay taxes to the government if you think it's wasteful or corrupt?

What about the right to walk into a courthouse with a General Electric mini-gun and twenty pounds of C-4 to protest a law against bringing mini-guns and explosives into the courthouse?

What about the right to slaughter and eat any neighborhood pet that wanders onto your lawn?

Under your method, anyone who is against any of the above shouldn't be allowed a say in making laws, which would leave us with laws made by people who should be in jail.