War on Religion?

[Demosthenes]

Seems to me that the offensive measures in this "war" are coming from the religious right.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/14/perry-signs-merry-christmas-bill-into-law/?test=latestnews

Agnostics and Athiest are not calling for an end to religion. They are simply challenging churches in public institutions. Rick Perry, meanwhile, is saying that freedom of religion is not the same of freedom FROM religion... So, if you are non-christian in Texas... Merry Christmas anyway!!!

[Cheshire Cat]

Sounds like quite a show.  They didn't say a thing however about what happens when you say "Happy Halloween" in Texas.  Is freedom of paganism the same as freedom FROM paganism?  Inquiring minds want to know.  lol 

[Demosthenes]

Halloween, or All Hallows Eve (All Saints) is Christian, though it probably has Pagen roots to harvest festivals....
http://www.americancatholic.org/features/default.aspx?id=23

This is much like Christmas, which was simply a co-op of the winter solstice as the birth of a savior, to passify the pagans (See, we arent all that different!) Even though, based on the bibles own time tables, Jesus was more likely born in March or April....


http://www.ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/biblical-evidence-shows-jesus-christ-wasnt-born-dec-25/
http://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/holidays/christmas4.htm

But hey, Rick Perry knows better, so Dec 25th it is!

[Cheshire Cat]

Halloween was originally a pagan ceremony.   Like Christmas it was co-oped by Christianity.   You are right about the date celebrated as Christ's birthday.  Many theologians readily acknowledge that the birth was not actually on December 25th, especially considering the fact that ancient calender was quite different than the one used today. 

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

Would you say that the National Socialists were "Christians"?  Or how about Soviet Russia?

Most of the national socialists were actually encouraged to choose either an atheist or a nordic religious system, and the Soviets were official without religion, and simultaneously cracked down on the Christians as well.

The suppression of hundreds of religious groups in India and Africa happens for a variety of reasons, most of them commercial, and while Christian Groups would love to convert an entire continent to some form of Christianity, by no means does it have a monopoly on proselytizing.  Certainly the hindi and the pakistani muslims manage enough religious suppression well enough on their own without the help of either bishop or parson.

The Celts were suppressed by the Romans, and the Norse are suppressed to this day by government policy.

But I dont mean political war, perhaps I wasnt very clear in my meaning.  I just mean the general idea that there are two opposing groups of knowledge and world view in the Western viewpoint.  Science on the one hand, and Religion on the other.

We have spent a lot of time dismissing the religions of thousands of cultures and peoples all over the world, often to our own dismay and later regret in the name of 'progress'.

Its a long slow battle, and I am not the first person (by far) of reason to remark on this process.

you're absolutely right regarding the USSR, but you're fairly off-base regarding the NSDAP.  while the nazis encouraged norse folklore as part ov their overall program ov getting german people to see themselves as separate from and better than the rest ov the world, the actual beliefs encouraged were strongly christian--when the banners said "Gott mit Uns,"  they very much meant the god ov the bible (i used to be fascinated with the idea ov nazi occultism, bought myself a book or two, and discovered that there was almost no such thing--and what little there was simply retold the Christ story).

as far as a more general 'opposing groups ov knowledge' sense, well, ov course.  if that's what you meant, i think 'war' is too strong a term, but i certainly don't deny that it's been happening.  and while christianity doesn't necessarily have a worldwide monopoly on proselytizing, in what we generally think ov as 'the western world', it's got a nigh-stranglehold.

[ronchamblin]

The very question, “What god do you believe in?” allows some of us to suspect nonsense is in the environment, as the question implies that at least one of the gods does not exist, and if one does not exist, none do.  The question implies that one can “pick” a god from history’s pantheon, and then, if one is inclined, defend one’s pick against the gods selected by others.

The very statement from Don Redman, requesting that the Muslim “pray to his god” should show the absurdity of believing in, or praying to, a god.  Is Redman, or anyone else asking a similar question, admitting the existence of two gods?  And if there are two, are there more?  If there are more, then surely there are none.  Of course, there are no gods anywhere but in the minds of those who need them, or wish to imagine them. 

I only offer to others my opinion as to the nature of believing in gods, and therefore in one of the various religions.  One’s mind is possessed by its owner, and although it is always vulnerable to persuasion from outside, it settles upon beliefs comfortable to it.  One must possess beliefs which give comfort and mental stability, whatever these beliefs turn out to be -- even if it involves a belief in a religion and/or a god.

My indifference to the drunk or the druggie evolves to concern and opposition only when the consequence of the habit negatively, and excessively, affects me or other citizens.  After all, who am I to judge, as their addictions frequently allow levels of happiness and oblivion many of us could appreciate too, if we should find ourselves able to engage the same addictions.

I support anyone’s freedom to engage any habit or thought process which gives happiness and balance, unless that process begins to excessively cause difficulties or harm to me or other citizens. 

When does the drunk or druggie begin to excessively cause difficulties?  And when a bothersome or harmful excess exists, does one simply ignore, or attempt to change or remove the drunk or the druggie from one’s environment?

The point is that people accumulate and cultivate ideas, beliefs, and convictions which allow them to be at peace with themselves and their world -- so that they might survive and stabilize within their environment.  Therefore, one should not attempt crushing the beliefs, methods or vehicles or addictions which give them the ability to survive unless one has alternatives, perhaps in the form of new ideas, which will also allow survival, comfort, and stability.

All one can do is offer ideas ...  new and different thoughts, to others.  And this is the wonderful thing about this forum, and others like it. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Ron Chamblin The point is that people accumulate and cultivate ideas, beliefs, and convictions which allow them to be at peace with themselves and their world -- so that they might survive and stabilize within their environment.  Therefore, one should not attempt crushing the beliefs, methods or vehicles or addictions which give them the ability to survive unless one has alternatives, perhaps in the form of new ideas, which will also allow survival, comfort, and stability.

All one can do is offer ideas ...  new and different thoughts, to others.  And this is the wonderful thing about this forum, and others like it.

So you clearly understand the point, yet knowing that ones beliefs is also deeply tied to their own comfort and stability you continue to challenge others beliefs in your posting in such a way that suggests your ideas about what folks should believe and how are superior.  Constantly you put forward your rational as an intellectual challenge to others who read and post, i.e. if they believe in a greater presence in their existence and soul that it is they, not you who is mistaken or misguided. 

I hope you do not think my words insulting as that is not the intent, but in your zeal to make a point, you as well should take care not to insult the intellect, understanding and beliefs of others.  Clearly you are well read and I too adore books and the accumulation of knowledge, but spiritual understandings can only be tested by wide experience in the world.  Ron, I have traveled far and been blessed enough to have experienced and been involved with the spiritual understanding and practices of people all over the globe.  There is something to this existence as human beings that reaches far beyond the physical, lies deep within and without and is born of love and kindness.  This is not fancy, whim or will but a real force.  I don't think you truly understand or have been able to touch that which lies beyond the "tangible" in this world and I am sorry for that.  Perhaps add some life experiences to your reading about spirituality and it will be your eyes that open.

I respect your right to your views as I do those of believers and nonbelievers alike.I don't though believe there is an innate right possessed by anyone to make others feel as if their truth is somehow inferior, foolish or plainly stupid.  Each reality is a personal reality created by the one living it and believe it or not, that reality is truth for the person living it. 

[Demosthenes]

Religion is born of mankinds deep fear of the unknown. We have applied mysticism and God like importance to things we didn't understand through out human history. Modern religion is no different.

At least many of the old religions demanded its followers live in harmony with the world around them. Judeo-Christian religions takes a different tact. God made this all just for us. Yeaaaa humans, we don't have to be good wards of our world because God made it just for us!! weeeee.!

[ronchamblin]

Ron Chamblin The point is that people accumulate and cultivate ideas, beliefs, and convictions which allow them to be at peace with themselves and their world -- so that they might survive and stabilize within their environment.  Therefore, one should not attempt crushing the beliefs, methods or vehicles or addictions which give them the ability to survive unless one has alternatives, perhaps in the form of new ideas, which will also allow survival, comfort, and stability.

All one can do is offer ideas ...  new and different thoughts, to others.  And this is the wonderful thing about this forum, and others like it.

So you clearly understand the point, yet knowing that ones beliefs is also deeply tied to their own comfort and stability you continue to challenge others beliefs in your posting in such a way that suggests your ideas about what folks should believe and how are superior.  Constantly you put forward your rational as an intellectual challenge to others who read and post, i.e. if they believe in a greater presence in their existence and soul that it is they, not you who is mistaken or misguided. 

I hope you do not think my words insulting as that is not the intent, but in your zeal to make a point, you as well should take care not to insult the intellect, understanding and beliefs of others.  Clearly you are well read and I too adore books and the accumulation of knowledge, but spiritual understandings can only be tested by wide experience in the world.  Ron, I have traveled far and been blessed enough to have experienced and been involved with the spiritual understanding and practices of people all over the globe.  There is something to this existence as human beings that reaches far beyond the physical, lies deep within and without and is born of love and kindness.  This is not fancy, whim or will but a real force.  I don't think you truly understand or have been able to touch that which lies beyond the "tangible" in this world and I am sorry for that.  Perhaps add some life experiences to your reading about spirituality and it will be your eyes that open.

I respect your right to your views as I do those of believers and nonbelievers alike.I don't though believe there is an innate right possessed by anyone to make others feel as if their truth is somehow inferior, foolish or plainly stupid.  Each reality is a personal reality created by the one living it and believe it or not, that reality is truth for the person living it. 

Thanks CC.  Other’s beliefs regarding religion are of little concern to me in many respects, except when the consequences of their beliefs are perceived by me to be harmful to me, to other citizens, or to society in general.  As I’ve stated above, if someone wants to get drunk or drugged in isolation, so be it, especially if it gives them comfort and allows them to function with reasonable stability in society. 

So, the question might be whether or not certain segments of believers, as a consequence of their beliefs, pose problems for me directly or indirectly; that is, on society in general, perhaps via governmental influences on policies, and even via effects on the economy.  Just how the existence of, and power of, religious groups negatively affect the quality of life in our country is a whole subject in itself, which I will not delve into for the moment.

However, if I, or other concerned citizens who happen to be atheists (good people), perceive negative consequences of a relatively large population of believers, then we are, by our concern and willingness to improve society and the quality of life within, inclined to offer ideas targeted to enlighten the believers, and others “on the fence” of believing, as to the preferred condition, according to our beliefs, of non-belief in some of the established religions.

Just as the religious enthusiasts are given the freedom to practice their beliefs, and to offer continual pressures to non-believers as to the benefits of believing; so too, we atheists welcome the freedom to offer ideas persuading our views.  So…. yes I offer ideas suggesting my ideas are superior, as you’ve suggested above, as most discussions or arguments usually offer one view as right, another as wrong; otherwise I would choose silence.  And yes …. I do suggest that I am right, and that believers are wrong for the most part.  Otherwise, what is the use of engaging the subject?  If I come across as arrogant, perhaps it is because I offer directness, not being shackled or influenced by the ambiguities and superstitions of religion. 

One would think that believers would welcome the ideas coming from me and other atheists, as the engagement with new or opposing ideas usually forces one to weigh the quality of their own, with the consequence that the content of their minds will achieve greater conviction at least, but hopefully, if the ultimate good is to be achieved, more truth in the end. 

Again, I appreciate your balanced ideas CC.  You soften, and invite reflection.

[Cheshire Cat]

Ron, let me see if I can break this down a bit more to perhaps show you more clearly that the way you sometimes express your views is an indicator of a line of thinking that may not be based in the reality behind the views of others but rather what you "think" to be the views of others, in this case those holding religious or spiritual beliefs.  In the statement quoted below and another later in your post you use the word "perceive" to make a point.

Thanks CC.  Other’s beliefs regarding religion are of little concern to me in many respects, except when the consequences of their beliefs are perceived by me to be harmful to me, to other citizens, or to society in general, perhaps via governmental influences on policies, and even via effects on the economy.

Much in life is a matter of perception don't you think?  The rub is and has always been that human beings "perceive" things differently. When we speak to a serious point and make assertions about the views of others being "incorrect" based simply upon our own "perception", we are in essence stating that our "perception" of an issue is superior to those we argue against. Some like the color blue and find it soothing, others might not like blue and find it depressing.  Some "perceive" beauty in modern architecture while others may find it cold.  So who is correct?  The answer is that both are because their response to a color or architecture is based in their own emotional response to what they see, feel and hear.  That is their personal reality. 

To the second part of your statement let me remark that while there is undoubtedly influence exerted by "some" with deep religious convictions on society, government or economy as you assert, not all who hold specific religious beliefs try and impose them upon others, but do in fact simply hold to their faith at a personal level and do not try and force those beliefs or views on others.  I think this is an important fact worth noting.    When it comes to impact on society, government and the economy we could just as easily argue that these things are impacted negatively by one political party or another or a wide variety of other influences, race, gender, level of education etc.

It appears that your thought processes is based in an either/or mentality for I can honestly state that not all who disagree with religious beliefs influencing and driving things in government etc. are atheist. I think religion has not place in governing.  lol   Further, you state that all do not welcome debate or discussion with "atheists" and that is just incorrect Ron.  There are many in this world who hold beliefs about spirituality who will readily discuss and engage the thoughts of "atheists" about any and all topics including religion.  To take the thought further if I may, not everyone thinks that "atheists" are bad people.  I know I certainly don't and I hold no negative or "superior" judgement against those whose life experience and views have caused them to decide that religion or spiritual beliefs are not reasonable for one reason or another.   Nor do I think those who do not believe are going to suffer some horrible retribution for that non belief in an afterlife.  All that matters is that we live with respect for the earth and each other. Even better when we act to lift up those who suffer.  Do no harm if you will.

[Cheshire Cat]

Thought this information is worth posting in view of the various discussions on the forum about believers and non believers.  I know many in the different threads have declared they are atheists.  Who knew there were six categories?  Be nice and don't make me regret posting this.  For those who don't believe, which one would you describe yourself as?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/15/the-six-types-of-atheists/?sr=fb071613sixtypesatheist6p

"These categories are a first stab at this," Silver told the website Raw Story. "In 30 years, we may be looking at a typology of 32 types."

Silver and Coleman derived their six types of nonbelievers from 59 interviews. We're pretty sure we've spotted all six in our comments section.

1) Intellectual atheist/agnostic

This type of nonbeliever seeks information and intellectual stimulation about atheism.

They like debating and arguing, particularly on popular Internet sites.

(Ahem.)

They're also well-versed in books and articles about religion and atheism, and prone to citing those works frequently.

2) Activist

These kinds of atheists and agnostics are not content with just disbelieving in God; they want to tell others why they reject religion and why society would be better off if we all did likewise.

They tend to be vocal about political causes like gay rights, feminism, the environment and the care of animals.

3) Seeker-agnostic

This group is made up of people who are unsure about the existence of a God but keep an open mind and recognize the limits of human knowledge and experience.

Silver and Coleman describe this group as people who regularly question their own beliefs and "do not hold a firm ideological position."

That doesn't mean this group is confused, the researchers say. They just embrace uncertainty.

4) Anti-theist

This group regularly speaks out against religion and religious beliefs, usually by positioning themselves as "diametrically opposed to religious ideology," Silver and Coleman wrote.

"Anti-theists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental," the researchers wrote. "The Anti-Theist has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding of the limitations and danger of religions."

Anti-theists are outspoken, devoted and – at times – confrontational about their disbelief. They believe that "obvious fallacies in religion and belief should be aggressively addressed in some form or another."

5) Non-theist

The smallest group among the six are the non-theists, people who do not involve themselves with either religion or anti-religion.

In many cases, this comes across as apathy or disinterest.

"A Non-Theist simply does not concern him or herself with religion," Silver and Coleman wrote. "Religion plays no role or issue in one's consciousness or worldview; nor does a Non- Theist have concern for the atheist or agnostic movement."

They continue: "They simply do not believe, and in the same right, their absence of faith means the absence of anything religion in any form from their mental space."

6) Ritual atheist

They don't believe in God, they don't associate with religion, and they tend to believe there is no afterlife, but the sixth type of nonbeliever still finds useful the teachings of some religious traditions.

"They see these as more or less philosophical teachings of how to live life and achieve happiness than a path to transcendental liberation," Silver and Coleman wrote. "For example, these individuals may participate in specific rituals, ceremonies, musical opportunities, meditation, yoga classes, or holiday traditions."

For many of these nonbelievers, their adherence to ritual may stem from family traditions. For others, its a personal connection to, or respect for, the "profound symbolism" inherent within religious rituals, beliefs and ceremonies, according the researchers