Your religion, your crutch...Part 2

[PaulDupre]

I am proud to have Jesus as my crutch. I admit that I need Him to live a truly fulfilling life, and so does everyone, whether they know it or not.

I admit that He is strong where I am weak.
I admit that He is wise where I am foolish.
I admit that He is all-seeing where I stumble in the darkness.
I admit that I need Him as a crutch.

God bless us all,
Paul

 

[Seeks_God]

Mutant,

I agree with your accounting of the discussion; I was becoming sarcastic - it’s a flaw I have when being confronted with this type of discourse. I have never doubted God’s existance, though at times I’ve been at a loss for several phenomena that exist in society today. Secularism is a scary thought (notice, it’s not Hell in which I’m afraid) since it is the fundamental principle behind communism.

SG

 

[coralewis]

Strength:

I don’t see the positivity of religion in a social context…anymore than physical exercise, or yoga, or chess club.

Strength, I’m not sure if this is what you mean but I know of a few examples of religious people doing good for others. Christians have ministries for single mothers, women who are trying to heal after abortions (Project Rachel), marriages in trouble, troubled teens (Boys Town in Nebraska and other states), and much more.

I was reading my local newspaper the other day and there was a photograph of a group of teens and pre teens (I’m going to use a mispelled word so that our admin does not block this thread.) with signs that said…God hates frags…and they all had big smiles on their faces standing right out in front of our statehouse!..you may say - well these kids are misguided…it doesn’t represent my faith etc… etc… but this is the pattern - this is the product…it is you’re burden…and every religious persons burden…this is what non critical thinking breeds…on all levels. I was sick to my stomach…and it really got me thinking about the revelance of religion on a social level…vs. a person one.

I do not hate homosexuals and I know that God doesn’t, either. I know that God loves EVERYBODY. I believe that God is saddened when we sin (whether that’s pre-marital heterosexual sex or homosexual sex) and God longs for us to return to Him so that He can heal us. God is incredibly merciful and loving and I don’t like it when “Christians” like the kids you read about give God and Christians a bad name.

 

[A_O]

Hello Strength,

If religion is merely my crutch, I don’t really mind. I’d much rather have a crutch than refuse one, and crawl around in the dark, refusing to accept help.

I probably don’t have the mind for all these theories and what not you’re slinging about. But where does your standard of morality come from? A liberal surely feels they are ‘more right’ in forwarding morality than a conservative, but what is the standard with which they way what is right, or rather where does the idea that being right and moral come from? And why is this universal in humanity?

Most object that this is a mere instinct, a herd instinct. Feeling the desire to do something (reproduce, consume) happens to be different than feeling you should do something.
If a woman was about to be struck by a car, you may have a feeling that you should stay safe and away, but you feel you should try to push her out of the way. If it were instinct, the stronger would override (safety) but as cowardly as you may be you would have the desire to help her, and may do so.

If there is a universal morality aside from instinct, could one not conclude there was a deity?

 

[Fieryjades]

Strength, while I agree with the posts of SG and Mutant, I am going to make an effort to appeal to your highly regarded "free thought"and will through the words of G.K. Chesterton. He was a pagan at 12 and totally agonistic by 16, but through philosophy became an orthodox Christian. I’d appreciate it if you would listen to his words:

"That peril [of free thought] is the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further teaching that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk to always of the alternative of reason and faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have no relationship to any reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, ‘Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why not should not good logic be misleading as bad logic? They are both movement in a bewildered age?’ The young sceptic says, ‘I have no right to think for myself.’ But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, ‘I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.’

“…The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of priests to define authority, even of inquistors to terrify: those were all only dark defences erect around one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all—the authority of man to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing it. For we can hear sceptism crashing down through the old right of authorities, and at the same movement we can see reason swaying upon her throne. In far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both same primary and authoritive kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot be themselves proved. And in the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of human authority by which we do a long divison. With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it” ----G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, pgs. 38-39

Food for thought:

“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” - Where All Roads Lead, 1922

Now, what do you think?

 

[JimO]

Strength:

I was reading my local newspaper the other day and there was a photograph of a group of teens and pre teens (I’m going to use a mispelled word so that our admin does not block this thread.) with signs that said…God hates frags…and they all had big smiles on their faces standing right out in front of our statehouse!..you may say - well these kids are misguided…it doesn’t represent my faith etc… etc… but this is the pattern - this is the product…it is you’re burden…and every religious persons burden…this is what non critical thinking breeds…on all levels. I was sick to my stomach…and it really got me thinking about the revelance of religion on a social level…vs. a person one.

Oh, come on Strength, this is so weak! Do you really expect us to believe that religion is the source of bigotry and hatred? You’ve got to do better than that. Every philosophy, system of belief, world view or even sets of personal opinions can be a platform for bigotry and hatred. Why? Because we are basically selfish beings. Certainly, religion is used as an excuse to justify “bad” behavior, but it no more breeds it than any other system of belief or thought. Besides, if there are no moral absolutes, who are you to say that this group of teens was wrong? Right and wrong are subjective and based on the will of the majority (actually on the will of the powerful). Thus, if the majority or the powerful say this is acceptable behavior, then it is and there is no standard against which to measure it.

 

[john_doran]

Strength:

ILike I said…if you cannot demonstrate objectively that you somehow live your life more just, more moral than I can just by believing and worshipping a god idea…then yes…religion is a crutch…because how else is it relevant? The individual is

1. Scared of going to hell
2. Scared of the unkown…or
3. Is harboring some type of guilt/problems, and is hoping for a god to save then from themselves.

this doesn’t make sense at all. people are catholics because they believe it’s true.

do you honestly think that catholics think to themselves, “well, i have absolutely no idea if religion is true, but i am afraid of dying and what may or may not come after, so i’m just going to start doing what the catholic church says”?

strength:

Since it isn’t verifiable by any empirical means outside of our own subjective opinions and proofs (our mind)…then it is indeed a crutch…or a rock if that makes you feel better.

why is empirical provability a condition for the believability of religion, or anything else, for that matter?

is the proposition “only empirically demonstrable propositions are believable” capable of empirical demonstration?

 

[Strength]

Ok through much fault of my own (with the help of others also…) the thread did indeed become off topic…I was simply trying to use certain examples that I believe could illustrate some of my points…I didn’t intend for said examples to become the topic of debate… I included the theology article regarding the founding fathers because.

1. It was written by someone who is a person of faith (we’ll talk more on that later)
2. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the points he is making…from an intellectual standpoint…much of it is compelling - which leads us to 3.
3. It is completely debateble on whether or not things went down the way we think they did…or that maybe we are foolish in our attempt to think that we know what they were thinking.

So lets move on…we are obviously not going to agree on the historical accuracy regarding our founding fathers. I think ultimately they were a bit more intelligent than what some people give them credit for.

ANYWAY -

Regarding the crutch and relevance argument. Have we ever had a society that didn’t have large groups of people involved in religion?..well of course not. People aren’t intelligent in that way. I GUARANTEE that I could get a few non theist friends and associates, and we could get together and form a society that is on par or BETTER organized than anything the world has known. That’s just the confidence I have…I have a friend living in Oregon on 50 acres somewhere with quite a few other in a communal self contained -off the grid setting…and he’s blown away by the structural and moral integrity of the society…He couldn’t come up with any problems.

Why can’t you have moral absolutes without a belief in a god? See the problem is that you guys frame everything from a CHRISTIAN viewpoint…you don’t realize that there is another world out there that is contrary to your thinking…and I mean “realize” in the context of your own relationships with what you think a society is bounded my “moral absolutes”…you have a bible that you completely cherry picked the ideas that suited you…you have a group of people that “formed” the bible leaving out other books that were clearly in conjuction with said books… The only reasoning behind it is “well the holy spirit worked through us during the canonization process” —which I’m sorry to say is a complete unverifiable load of manure…I wish I could use arguments like that to justify biased collusion, and malformed opinions on things that are obviously beyond anyones grasp…IF you dive into your intellect for a brief moment and think deeply…there isn’t even such thing as a BIBLE!..it’s letters, stories, accounts etc… take it with a grain of salt…there are parts in the bible that describe the eating of rabbit as an abomination!..we shouldn’t let people who eat rabbit get married. God killed children because they made fun a bald man??? MORALITY??? You can’t cherry pick the lot…I could turn anything great if I got to leave out the bad stuff…tis lame…SO WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE…NONE of you have proven, explained, compelled…however you want to describe it…None of you have shown how your life is more fulfilling than a non-thiests entrenched in the SAME SOCIETY that you are… NOT ONE OF YOU… How would I even know you’re a religious person unless you told me? It’s irrelevant! How would you know I wasn’t? It’s irrelevant…!!..these are my points…I admit it is very progressive thinking…But that’s just me.

 

[JimO]

Strength:

Why can’t you have moral absolutes without a belief in a god?

As has been stated over and over again, if morals have a human origin, they are not absolute, they are subjective and change. Absolute means changeless. Something that has always been wrong, always will be. History has shown that humans are not capable of this.

—which I’m sorry to say is a complete unverifiable load of manure…I wish I could use arguments like that to justify biased collusion, and malformed opinions on things that are obviously beyond anyones grasp…IF you dive into your intellect for a brief moment and think deeply…there isn’t even such thing as a BIBLE!..

This tirade is evidence of what I pointed out earlier. Intellectual non-theists (or in your case, clearly, anti-theists) feel that they are intellectually superior to people of faith and, therefore, better equipped to establish morality. Each moral decision is based on some kind of thought, whether it is attributed to opinion, common sense, reason, or faith. Why do you think any of these bases should carry more weight than another? I will tell you why, because you aren’t a pure atheist, one who simply doesn’t believe in God, you are an anti-theist, one who feels compelled to “enlighten” us foolish, superstitious, religious people because you reject the idea of God, whether or not He exists.

Strength:

I admit it is very progressive thinking…But that’s just me.

Oh, come now. Progressive? Gimme a break.

 

[theMutant]

Strength:

Why can’t you have moral absolutes without a belief in a god?

On what ground would these absolutes be formed in a way that is absolute and not subject to the changing views of the majority or powerful? This question has been asked of you several times and you ignore it again.

Strength:

See the problem is that you guys frame everything from a CHRISTIAN viewpoint…you don’t realize that there is another world out there that is contrary to your thinking…

What an absurd statement. Of course we realize this or we would be befuddled at the very thought of your question. The very core of the Church’s mission assumes what you say we don’t realize and that, my friend, is why we evangelize. Because we DO realize that there are others who do not share our Christian viewpoint. Again, you show your total ignorance of us in your very accusation of our ignorance. We address your questions directly and answer them. It is you who don’t seem to realize things; such as the fact that you’re not going to convince anyone of your view if you are unwilling to answer their questions.

strength:

.and I mean “realize” in the context of your own relationships with what you think a society is bounded my “moral absolutes”…you have a bible that you completely cherry picked the ideas that suited you…you have a group of people that “formed” the bible leaving out other books that were clearly in conjuction with said books… The only reasoning behind it is “well the holy spirit worked through us during the canonization process” —which I’m sorry to say is a complete unverifiable load of manure…

Well, you are obviously not very familiar with those other books otherwise you would realize that it was not merely reliance on the Holy Spirit in the canonization process but the fact that the rejected writings were not in close conjunction with the accepted ones. Most were written centuries afterwards and explicitly contradict what the accepted writings teach. The judgment used to confirm the Scriptures was the testimony of their use by the Early Church combined with the consistency of the teachings and naratives with those writings accepted by the Early Church and the other writings which clearly demonstrate the consistent teachings of the church. Please do not presume to lecture us on the origins of our faith and the Bible. Otherwise, you’ll start making absurd claims about Marcan priority and the time frame of when the Gospels were written. You say our view is clearly biased based on faith but yours is equally biased on your lack of it; as is your choice of which “historians” to believe regarding the history and nature of the writings of the Bible.

Strength:

IF you dive into your intellect for a brief moment and think deeply…there isn’t even such thing as a BIBLE!..it’s letters, stories, accounts etc… take it with a grain of salt…there are parts in the bible that describe the eating of rabbit as an abomination!..we shouldn’t let people who eat rabbit get married. God killed children because they made fun a bald man??? MORALITY??? You can’t cherry pick the lot…I could turn anything great if I got to leave out the bad stuff…tis lame…

And if you would allow your intellect to expand you would realize the absurdity of your statement. If there is no such thing as a Bible then why are you trying to make an argument based on its contents. I know that you were trying to make a point that the Bible is not one “book” but that is even more absurd because the very word Bible is derived from the Greek word that is the root for “library.” You clearly think we are ignorant uneducated people but you are not proving anything other than your own hatred toward religion. Ironically, you accuse religion of causing hatred. Just look at the tone and demeanor of your response. This from an intellectual who proposes that human reason alone can provide absolute moral standards for society in general? I’m disappointed.

Also, we don’t leave out any of the bad stuff as you claim; otherwise, it would no longer be in the Bible and you would have no argument to make; so what’s your point? You clearly do not understand the concept of covenant and the theological, philosophical, and psychological reasons behind the events of the Bible’s covenant story.
(continued)

 

[theMutant]

(continued from post #69)

Strength:

SO WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE…NONE of you have proven, explained, compelled…however you want to describe it…None of you have shown how your life is more fulfilling than a non-thiests entrenched in the SAME SOCIETY that you are… NOT ONE OF YOU

And yet, we are at peace with our state and you anguish over it. Interesting contradiction, don’t you think? If it is truly irrelevent as you claim then why does it matter so much to you? If you really feel you have an answer for us then why do you seem to be unable to answer our questions? We are happy with our faith because it provides us with the answers to your questions - answers which we have passed on to you but which you have chosen to ignore (I assume this based on your total lack of response to them). You seem to be unhappy and unfulfilled because you cannot convince us of your own view without using any evidence.

You don’t want to believe in religion, fine. While I’ll feel sorry for you and pray for you, it’s your decision to make.

Strength:

How would I even know you’re a religious person unless you told me? It’s irrelevant! How would you know I wasn’t? It’s irrelevant…!!..these are my points…I admit it is very progressive thinking…But that’s just me.

Progressive thinking? Hardly. What is progressive about requiring to make judgments about whether a person is religious or not when we’ve never even met them. Obviously you wouldn’t know the answer unless you either observed or were told such a thing. Do you think this proves your point. Hardly. Your argument is, in fact, irrelevant and so is this thread.

Also, please note that such uncivil attacks as you have made in your last post are against the rules of this forum. Naturally, it is up to the administrators to make the final decision but, if you wish to continue to participate, you should keep your tone under better control.

 

[john_doran]

Strength:

…SO WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE…NONE of you have proven, explained, compelled…however you want to describe it…None of you have shown how your life is more fulfilling than a non-thiests entrenched in the SAME SOCIETY that you are… NOT ONE OF YOU… How would I even know you’re a religious person unless you told me? It’s irrelevant! How would you know I wasn’t? It’s irrelevant…!!..these are my points…I admit it is very progressive thinking…But that’s just me.

i remain unsure as to why you continue to focus on this question of yours…

let me say it again: religion is not “relevant” because it succeeds in making better people out of everyone - it’s relevant because it’s true.

catholics are catholics because they believe that it is true that there is a god; that god created us; that god became man and lived among us; that he founded a church; that he died for our sins; and so on. they are NOT catholics because they think it’s a good way to be “relevant”…

whether or not religion actually succeeds in causing people to be good or better than non-religious people is utterly beside the point, since religious moral directives are statements about what people ought to do, NOT statements about what they do, in fact, do. which means, of course, that millions of religious people failing to live up to their own moral standards is NOT evidence of the falsity of those moral beliefs.

even if everyone in the whole world became a murderer and thought that murder was ok, the proposition “murder is wrong” would still be true. same goes for religion.

 

[Seeks_God]

I’ve given up on this guy a long time ago, I’m cleaning the dirt off my feet. He wants to have an ‘intellectual’ arguement but doesn’t appreciate or respect anyone’s intellect but his own. I think Mutant spelled it out - He has realized his intellect and now believes he is smarter than anyone of faith. Maybe he and his intellectual buddies need to get together and come up with their ‘moral absolutes’, and the rest of us will keep praying because we aren’t intelligent enough to develop moral absolutes on our own…

SG

 

[theMutant]

Seeks God:

I think Mutant spelled it out - He has realized his intellect and now believes he is smarter than anyone of faith.

While I may have shown this, JimO is the one who actually (and accurately) states it.

 

[Strength]

Look…I am actually not testy…I just find it bewildering to say the least - that you guys feel I am attacking you or that I have an agenda. PLease see “seeks gods” posts…those are almost outright lies…Agenda?? Look I STARTED THIS THREAD…When does it ever work when the protagonist submits the ideas, and questions…and then others respond with more questions?..Such as “Show me a society that didn’t have religion”…how does that work? Blah blah blah… Were there airplanes before someone invented an airplane? Right…? Just because humans have never overcome their psycological limitations when it comes to understanding god theory…doesn’t mean that it can’t be done? You accuse me of not answering your questions…I’ll take the most simple one (in my eyes)

I asked in an earlier post “why can’t we have moral absolutes without religion”…the responses I got were anything from “On what ground would these absolutes be formed in a way that is absolute and not subject to the changing views of the majority or powerful? This question has been asked of you several times and you ignore it again.”…“who would we be accountable to”?..

Let’s take the easy one…Murder…can you show me evidence in a society, group of people, where murder was deemed ok? Pre christian, post christian whatever. I’m talking about global exceptance hear…Hitler murdered people, Stalin murdered people etc…etc… of course…Did the world think that was ok???
I’m still not clear on how you guys seem to think that without god everything goes out the window…It points to a severe lack of strength in your own neural power…Is it that you don’t believe in yourselves so you believe in a god figure?

 

[buffalo]

Strength:

I asked in an earlier post “why can’t we have moral absolutes without religion”…the responses I got were anything from “On what ground would these absolutes be formed in a way that is absolute and not subject to the changing views of the majority or powerful? This question has been asked of you several times and you ignore it again.”…“who would we be accountable to”?..

Let’s take the easy one…Murder…can you show me evidence in a society, group of people, where murder was deemed ok? Pre christian, post christian whatever. I’m talking about global exceptance hear…Hitler murdered people, Stalin murdered people etc…etc… of course…Did the world think that was ok???
I’m still not clear on how you guys seem to think that without god everything goes out the window…It points to a severe lack of strength in your own neural power…Is it that you don’t believe in yourselves so you believe in a god figure?

There is no society as you ask. From the very beginning God set the absolutes. Cain and Abel being the first regarding murder. God pointed out that murder was not acceptable. Later he wrote it in the Ten Commandments. So it has been with us from the start.

I ask you a question - the first atheist - how did he know what was right and wrong?

 

[Strength]

I know there is no society as I ask…this is nauseating.

Maybe…maybe not…I think humans may have invented gods, demons etc…

The first atheist? What?..are you telling me that the only reason you know the difference between right and wrong is…because of Christianity?
You’re a loose cannon.

buffalo:

There is no society as you ask. From the very beginning God set the absolutes. Cain and Abel being the first regarding murder. God pointed out that murder was not acceptable. Later he wrote it in the Ten Commandments. So it has been with us from the start.

I ask you a question - the first atheist - how did he know what was right and wrong?

 

[buffalo]

Strength:

I know there is no society as I ask…this is nauseating.

Maybe…maybe not…I think humans may have invented gods, demons etc…

The first atheist? What?..are you telling me that the only reason you know the difference between right and wrong is…because of Christianity?
You’re a loose cannon.

No! Christainity only goes back 2,000 years.

My question stands - how did the first atheist now the difference between right and wrong?

 

[JimO]

Strength:

I asked in an earlier post “why can’t we have moral absolutes without religion”…the responses I got were anything from “On what ground would these absolutes be formed in a way that is absolute and not subject to the changing views of the majority or powerful? This question has been asked of you several times and you ignore it again.”…“who would we be accountable to”?..

I, for one, have been very clear in responding to your questions without posing my own and you seem to be ignoring my responses. Look at my posts regarding the difference between moral “absolutes” that have a human basis and those that have a divine basis. I believe that I am being very clear.

Regarding murder - first, this a a bad example because murder is a term that, by definition, is the unacceptable killing of another human, so in that sense it has always been considered wrong by definition. However, what constitutes “murder” has changed and been manipulated such that it is pretty meaningless to say that all societies have always considered murder wrong. Some societies have taken part in “institutional murder” by either creating laws that allow for the killing of certain groups of people, or by considering other groups of people less than human. Look at the Romans or the Nazis. What about tribes of headhunters?

I have also openly acknowledged that non-theistic societies can have a moral code that works for a time. The problem comes when groups within that society disagree on a basic morality. Then who is more right since all morals have a human origin and can change depending on the will of the majority or the powerful?

The position that moral absolutes can be established by humans is untenable. You cannot have it both ways. Either you have to acknowledge some “higher power” that establishes moral absolutes or morals have a human origin and they are never absolute.

Finally, my experience has been that many so-called atheists are actually anti-theistic intellectuals who think that they are superior to people of faith and, therefore, better equipped to establish morality. They do not even want people like me at the table deciding what is right and wrong because I claim moral absolutes of a divine nature. Your comments suggesting that our “Christian” world view limits our ability to be rational suggests that this is how you think. Do you deny this? If not, then regardless of the origin of my morality, I should have an equal say in what should be considered right and wrong as you do.

As you pointed out, you started this thread and my comments are not off topic, so I’d appreciate a direct response.

 

[JimO]

Just some food for thought -

An atheist is someone who simply doesn’t believe in God. I know a few and none of them are passionate about it either way, they just don’t believe and assume that when they die, that’s it, curtain closed.

Anti-theists, on the other hand, have rejected the notion of God, whether or not He exists. They are typically very passionate about their beliefs and resent theists, particularly Christians and are obsessed with “showing” Christians how wrong they are. Even if concrete “proof” that God exists were provided, they wouldn’t believe because they have rejected God. One person like this recently told me “If your God did exist, I’d spit in His face.” This revealing comment sums up their attitude and God’s existence is really irrelevent to them.

I realize that there are parallels among theists, but the anti-theists I know want to be thought of as objective and rational, but they are just as emotional and passionate about their beliefs as any theist.