Ocee, that's pretty cool. How did you come by this theory? Also, when
you say 'at this time', are you referencing this time for your or for
humanity as a whole?

Poetnartist wrote:
“You, abra, are the one who said religions promoted "ignorance". Which
is a dead-on falsehood. Every truly great thinker in human history was
religious. Aristotle (for all intents, the inventer of science)....
Newton, Einstein, Da Vinci, the list goes on.”

Yes, and I hold to what I said. I think the current debates concerning
creationism versus evolution are a perfect example of religious views
continuing to promote ignorance.

You are confusing religions with a belief in a god. Religions are
structured beliefs that are based on dogma that hold specific beliefs
concerning how the universe must be, and how god must be.

I believe in a spiritual aspect of life. In other words I believe in a
‘god’. However I almost hate to call it a god because that implies to a
lot of people that I have a definite description of how that god should
be. I make no claims on what god is or how god should behave. I just
believe that the universe has a spiritual aspect to it. In fact, I more
than merely believe it, I’m a living example of it! In short, I have
living proof that god exists. In other words, my very existence is
living proof that the universe has a spiritual nature.

So I don’t need to have ‘faith’ in my god. I experience god every day
of my life. So to me god is a direct experience and there is no need to
have ‘faith’.

Am I religious? Well that depends on your definition of the term. My
dictionary has the word ‘religious’ listed as a belief in a religion,
and then goes on to define religion as a structured set of beliefs held
by a community involving rituals and codified ethics.

Well, my belief in god is not held by a community, and it doesn’t
involved rituals or codified ethics. So by that definition then I am
not a religious person.

However, some would still argue that I am religious and that my religion
is that god is this universe. That’s fine with me. I’m completely open
to embracing a free abstract semantics of words.

The bottom line is that while I might claim to know ‘god’ that doesn’t
make me part of a religion.

Since you mentioned Albert Einstein let’s take a peek at his view on
this topic:

”A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
and hope of reward after death.” - Albert Einstein

Believe it or not, I have actually spoken these very words almost
verbatim long before I ever knew that Einstein had spoken them. I
wholeheartedly advocate this sentiment.

I also believe that Einstein’s view of ‘god’ was much like mine. Here
is one of him many quotes on his ‘religion’.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior
spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive
with our frail and feeble mind. - Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein would never favor religious ‘dogma’ over the
observational evidence of the real world. Whatever we discover the real
world to be is evidently how god made it. So you would never catch
Einstein arguing religious superstitions over observational evidence
obtained from the real world.

He clearly denounces blind faith in this next quote.

’The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more
certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie
through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but
through striving after rational knowledge.” - Albert Einstein

He clearly advocates rational knowledge over dogmatic blind faith.

I am most certainly no less ‘religious’ than Albert Einstein was.

I also resent your continual implications that I’m an atheist. I have
told you on many occasions that I am not. I just don’t believe in
dogmatic religions that I personally believe have absolutely nothing at
all to do with god. I see religions as a mental cancer than prevent
people from knowing the real living god that is this universe.

I’ll leave you with one last quote from Albert Einstein just because I
think it’s cute:

“Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love.” –Albert
Einstein

WOW! I didnt think there would be so many replies to this and related
postings. Thanks EVERYONE.

Funny, the invite to hear about "what pisses you off" had the LEAST
bickering in it, and some of the most insightful commentary. What I got
out of it was a common complaint that many people are, appropriately so,
disgusted by the established religion's "telling you what to do, why,
and how".

Abra, who uses the Jewish mysticism name by the way, makes several
eloquent points. But, still, they're well stated, and have merit, and
Redy also Once a faith movement reaches critical mass, it becomes
self-sustaining by becoming orthodox, and intolerant of dissent. The
history of the church's abusing this is well known, but its certainly
not limited to the Church, look at Islam, at Buddism, at Hinduism.
[Oddly, I havnt seen it in Judiaism].

And that "Command & Control" mentality isnt limited to religions either.
We see it in any social structures - look at the Communist Uprisings
throughout the world in th 50s through the 70s. All the "liberalist"
thinkers revolt, take over, and become the in-tolerant regimes that rot
from within (Red-China, USSR, Cuba, and I'd even now say the USA).

So here's a compromise: Lets agree that organized social structures
usually wind up evil. Be it, Religious, Governmental, Socio-Political,
and even the local Bowling Teams. Lets also agree that p1ssing on
someone's statements of beleif is just as evil.

Lets further agree that polite "sparring", "debating", and "challenging"
of each other is OK. But, if it gets hot, send the other person a direct
mail message "hey... i wasnt jumping on your sh1t" - or something to
that effect.

I want to understand what makes ppl tick, and having semi-anonymous
chat-rooms is a great way to do that. Lets keep it friendly, and open.

People get mad here? When did this happen??

Thanks Mike !

I don't do chatrooms... woops

its bound to happen once in awhile when disscusion gets into politics,
religion, or love. but it is good to learn to get more open an be able
to discuss diferences without being booted or discarded always good to
have opinions from all some may change me some may change you thankyou
all for your imput back when ever i comment even if i dissagree with you
or you with me. an above all maybe we can learn from eachother.

Wow, some truly excellent points being made all over the place.

I don't have a religion, or religious stance; however I don't agree with
everything Abra has to say either. Just to point out a slight
contradiction, you state emphatically that religion promotes ignorance
and a deterioration in logical thought, yet your second(?) entry said
that you can't "blame religion any more than you can blame any other
belief."

Personally, I take the former statement to heart. You can't blame an
institution for the works of organized INDIVIDUALS. No matter the power
of "group think", every person is always responsible for themselves. The
Crusades are no more quintessential to Christianity than the U.S.S.R.
was the "ultimate example" of communism.

That being said, it is the individual that is responsible for a way of
thinking, not the religion. As a whole, religions promote love, reward
for good behavior, and hope for the hopeless. If their beliefs are
"dogmatic", well I've met a few fanatical atheists as well. Intolerance
is the same the world over, regardless of belief.

Tomokun & Abra: You poked me into another thought. Abra's point that
"religion encases ppl in ingnorance" is probably TRUE, when it is used
to control large groups of ppl, rather than ppl willingly subscribing to
a particular creed.

Case in point: Judiasim, with its "Law" was the ONLY middle east
religion to state that a legal system MUST be objective, must have
evidence, and that payment for offence must in proportion to the
offence. Further, and most importantly, it was the only legal system to
REQUIRE consideration of mitigating factors. When a boy completed his
studies of the Law, he was given his "Bar Mitzvah". That legal term
still stays with almost every country of the world today, because thats
what it means to "pass the Bar" - completion of studying the legal
systems.

Point being, this "religion" changed the world for the better. It can be
argued that christianity, as a social movement, did great things for the
equality of man (ignoring the organized Church for the moment), and
Islam too has made serious tangible contributions to our modern civil
society. As we know, christianity and islam have a history of oppression
as well.

-Mike

I would have to agree with some things here. Even in the Bible Jesus had
go up the evil of religion and was persecuted by religious fantics. But
how many see him as a rebel? He threw the money changers out of the
temple. Called so many of the religious fanatics as vipers. He said they
have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. The very people he
came to save hung him on a cross. Doesn't matter if you are a vampire or
a religious person there is always somebody trying to come at you with a
cross of some kind.

I can tell you what *I* take extreme issue with, and that's someone
insinuating -- nay, practically stating outright -- that, because
someone believes in God, they're STUPID.

I like to point out to those people that they are using a logical
fallacy to "prove" their point

Good point. Logic is good up to a point. When computers can think for
themselves they won't need us any more.

Getting pissed off is illogical.

most of those angry people have ego issues. They think they own the
truth. And starting from there they are absolutely lost. My prayers for
them.
State ur point, explain it, give examples, but don't try to impose it.

First, I’d like to say that I try my very best not to get emotional when
discussing religions, or politics for that matter, but sometimes the
frustrations can be overwhelming. Even when I become emotional about
things I still make every attempt not make a direct attack on the person
I am conversing with. However, I do sometimes become inflamed enough
to make derogatory comments about their ‘religion’ which they then take
as an insult to their own personal ‘belief’.

So like I say, it can be extremely difficult to differentiate between a
comment made about the ‘topic’ and an actual ‘personal insult’.

Tomokun wrote:
“You can't blame an institution for the works of organized INDIVIDUALS.
No matter the power
of "group think", every person is always responsible for themselves”

I am absolutely aware of that, and I’m not even talking about fanatical
radicals. I’m talking about the actual behavior of the formally
recognized organized institutions themselves.

As a scientist I’m particularly speaking about the Church attacking
scientific discoveries, such as their actions against Copernicus,
Galileo, Mendel, and numerous others throughout history.

I mean, the Pope himself eventually officially apologized for the
Church’s malevolence against Copernicus. How more official can you get?
These scientists weren’t attacked by some misguided band of fanatical
radicals. This kind of institutionalized oppression is commonplace
among official religions.

In fact, I submit to you that that it’s ongoing today. Any church that
officially denounces the scientific theory of evolution is practicing
bigotry and hatred guided by blind faith directed against intellectual
discovery and progress. There are many churches that support and
preach this kind of blind-faith bigotry against the theory of evolution.

Are these just fanatical radicals? Where’s the line? When does an
official organized religion cross the line to become nothing more than a
bunch of fanatical radicals?

One thing that I hate about blind-faith religions is the very fact that
they can so easily cross over into nothing more than a group of
fanatical radicals claiming to have “God” behind their hatred and
bigotry.

I’ve posted outlines of my religious ‘faith’ in various differnet
threads on these forums. I believe that god is this universe, that we
are all god equally, we are all one, including the animals. I would
love to share this beautiful picture of god with the world. A god that
you can never be separated from.

But look what I’m up against. People are so far removed from God that
they are more interested denouncing intellectual discovery than they are
with loving each other and embracing the very universe in which they
live.

To me it’s so utterly ironic. The very churches that claim to be taking
people closer to God are actually driving people away from god. The
observation that we evolved out of the universe is a story written by
god. No need to believe in ancient unsubstantiated parables, legends or
myths that were written by men. No one can deny that the universe
itself was indeed written by the hand of god, and not by the hand of
man.

If a person wants to read the writings of god they only need to look at
the book that god wrote, which is not written in documents, but rather
is written into the very workings of nature. How can anyone deny this
book? Heck, we are the living pages in this book! How more real does
it need to be than that?

So churches denounce the actually writings of god in favor of ancient
dogma written by men. And they do this to such a degree that they breed
hatred and bigotry toward anyone who genuinely wants to read and share
the living story of our creation that has been written in the stars by
the finger of god.

Religions are so anti-god it’s not even funny. They are
anti-enlightenment. They favor dogmatic myths over observational truth.
And they spread, bigotry and hatred toward anyone who makes any attempt
to enlighten them to truth. By truth, I’m simply referring to the
actual universe that we live in. If dogma says one thing, and the
universe says another who are you going to believe?

It’s not “Religion pitted against science”, like as if scientists are in
cahoots to pull the wool over the eyes of all humanity, “It’s mythical
dogma pitted against reality” .

Which do you choose to worship? Superstitious Dogma? Or reality?

Is anyone personally insulted by this post? If so, why?

As usual I'm late. Thanks Mike for your summary. I agree with your
thoughts on how we need to view and respond to the replies of a topic.
In addition, I especially like how you acknowledged and gave due
credit to the Jewish faith. I said it 30 years ago and I have found no
reason to change my mind, the Jewish faith, by far, is more true to it's
original faith, than any other organized faith or belief system in
existance today. What's even more incredible, is that they have
maintained this incredible feat for thousands of years, and STILL have
managed to keep current with the changes of social, civil and moral, and
political thoughts throughout, with very little ethical change in their
'religion'. There is only one reason I can see for this, they
question, they listen, they analyze and they accept or they change,
whatever is necessary to keep up with 'the current'.

Abra, I don't know how many, here at JSH, you may have or will
influence with your very well written, posts. I do know you have been a
wonderful influence on me. You are a 'teacher' and like all teachers,
the lessons you pass on, may not immediatly show the fruits of your
labor. It will, however, exist, somewhere, in the minds of those who
read. Maybe one day it will be recalled and then will the studends be
grateful for your time, eloquence, and persistance in getting some few
small points across.

Abra, please don't tell me you can't see why or how someone would be
offended by your claiming their religion is "supersititious dogma."

I am a Christian and, though I don't go to church and I'm not a
particularly "devout" one..and there is plenty about "organized"
religion I'm not happy with...to say that my religion (that being
Christianity) is "superstitious dogma" is VERY MUCH an insult.

What I see behind your "scientific rantings," impressive nomenclature
and flowery adjectives aside, is, indeed, insulting and belittling and,
what's more, I think it's done intentionally.

That being said, I fully support your right to say it, without fear of
being censored, as well as I (or anyone) should have the right to rebut
your statements, also without fear of retribution.

If you went so far as to say (for example) "Sheila, you are an idiot
because you believe in the God of the Bible," that'd be a totally
different story.

I believe a person should have a right to express a generic opinion
about any topic he or she pleases...without that right to freedom of
expression, there would be no sense in even HAVING forums for the
purpose of "discussion."

Viva la difference!

Sheila, I confess to some degree that my choice of words to describe
dogmatic religions is less that complimentary. However, I still claim
that it is the religions themselves that I am attacking and not the
personal believers.

I feel that I’ve established good reasons of why these religions need to
be attacked. I hold that they are detrimental to both the human spirit
and human intellect. I therefore view them as a cancer of the mind
that needs to be eradicated no less than a cancer of the body.

Yes, I confess that I hate those religions. I make absolutely no
apologies for that.

I defend my use of words to describe these religions with the following
definitions that came directly from the Princeton dictionary.

Superstitious - showing ignorance or the laws of nature and faith in
magic

There are many examples of this throughout the Christian doctrine

Dogma - a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

How are these words inappropriate?

If a person who practices these religions finds these words insulting
perhaps they should stand back and take a birds-eye view of precisely
what it is that they are placing their faith in.

These words are an accurate description of these religious faiths by
their very defintion.

"Sheila, I confess to some degree that my choice of words to describe
dogmatic religions is less that complimentary. However, I still claim
that it is the religions themselves that I am attacking and not the
personal believers."

And I feel that by attacking the religions themselves, you are, whether
directly or indirectly, claiming that people who believe in them are
"ignorant" or are "blind followers" of those religions.

"I feel that I’ve established good reasons of why these religions need
to be attacked."

I feel that that's entirely YOUR opinion.

"I hold that they are detrimental to both the human spirit
and human intellect."

Again, entirely your OPINION. Doesn't mean anyone who doesn't happen to
view religion in the same way as you do is somehow being "duped," does
it?

"I therefore view them as a cancer of the mind that needs to be
eradicated no less than a cancer of the body."

Again, your opinion. Which is fine; you're certainly welcome to think
however it is you wish to think.

"Yes, I confess that I hate those religions. I make absolutely no
apologies for that."

That's your prerogative, but you DON'T have the "right" to go around
stating, as though it were "fact," that someone who doesn't think the
way you do is somehow "ignorant."

"I defend my use of words to describe these religions with the following
definitions that came directly from the Princeton dictionary."

"Superstitious - showing ignorance or the laws of nature and faith in
magic."

Excuse me, but I don't think Christianity is based on superstitition or
"magic" or anything of the kind.

There are many examples of this throughout the Christian doctrine.

Oh? News to me.

"Dogma - a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof."

Just because you can't hold it in your hand, just because it's not
"tangible," does not mean it isn't true. Some of us don't NEED tangible
proof to believe in the existence of God. Some of us are intelligent
enough to not have to have a "scientific explanation" for the inner
workings of the universe. Some of us don't need to proclaim superior
intelligence by stating how we KNOW there is no such thing as God
because of (whatever reason).

Personally, I believe the tangible evidence is right in front of our
faces. Not up to me to state that someone who can't see that is
"ignorant," however. I believe science and religion co-exist. Science
wouldn't be possible without God; nothing would be, so far as I'm
concerned.

"How are these words inappropriate?"

The words themselves are not inappropriate, it's the way in which
they're used. You're proclaiming, and in not such a thinly veiled manner
(at least not to me, anyway) that by following a religion one is
"ignorant" and "superstititious."

At least that's how I see it. If you aren't doing that, then you've
always got an opportunity to explain otherwise.



If a person who practices these religions finds these words insulting
perhaps they should stand back and take a birds-eye view of precisely
what it is that they are placing their faith in.

These words are an accurate description of these religious faiths by
their very defintion.