It’s OK, it’s part of my religion

Posted by on May 29, 2010 in Thoughts | 45 comments

As you know, my universe has no room for the possibility of a god. And in general I don’t care what other people think and believe as long as their suppositions and practices don’t affect me in any way. You can believe in fairies and unicorns and believe you have to bay at the moon 2 times a night to stop from imploding, and I wouldn’t care less. I’d probably call you a nutbag, but it wouldn’t affect me in any way.

But unfortunately, religions don’t work like that. In particular the religions of Islam and Christianity are guilty of believing that their religion is the ONLY way, and are more than willing to kill and die for it. People of faith not only believe that their religion is the only true way, but they also believe that they have a moral right and obligation to try to make others believe them too. Somehow, the fact that they are “saved” from a fiery fate in the afterlife gives them a duty to tell others about it, and in some cases, kill them if they don’t believe. This affects me, but not directly, as I don’t live in a heavily religious country, I am reasonably well off, and am not threatened by others for not believing their stories.

What got me thinking about this in particular was a report from the ABC that stated that Australian doctors were considering allowing a “ritual nick” to placate those who wished to have their female children “circumcised”. This later turned out to be a false story, but it got me thinking about the way religious people foist their ideals upon not only society, but their own family members. Some of these practices are particularly barbaric, and really deserve to be called out for the brutality it is. And more often than not these atrocities are enacted against women.

Both Christianity and Islam reveal themselves to be anti-women if either of the religions are studied and deeper than the surface edicts of “killing is wrong, stealing is wrong”. Women are not only treated as second-class citizens in both religions, but are treated with unequaled disdain in Islam. The burqa is an example where men choose to force the women of their society to cover themselves up so as to be out of the gaze of other men. They say that it will protect the women from the lecherous eyes of the men around them, citing the fact that men can’t be trusted, but in reality it is the women who are untrusted. They claim this is to give the women some sort of security, but really this is an example of men jealously guarding their “possessions”. Women in this situation have often been quoted as saying that this type of behaviour is not only their wish, but the wish of their God. I can understand that if this is all that a woman had known her whole life, and had never been told otherwise that they may really believe this lie.

In the Christian faith, it is the “original sin” which keeps women down. The fact that the bible, which was written by a man, states that ALL the evils in the world stem from the act of “eating an apple from the garden of Eden” is testament to this fact (this piece of prose is also the root of societal ideas about sex being wrong, bodily functions such as menstruation as a punishment for mankind etc.) Women were also “created” not from mud or dust, but from the rib of a man. A very convenient concept, meaning that women are lesser than men in the first count. Idiocy like this trickles down through all Christian cultures, and is one of the main reasons that women have been kept down. This kind of stone age storytelling came from someone’s imagination, not from God.

If my partner or wife decided to disobey me, would it be just to beat her, stone her to death or set her alight? It’s OK if it’s part of my religion! What about pedophilia? Is it OK to sleep with a 12-year-old? Muhammad had a 6-year-old bride, do you think he waited til she was 16 before he had sex with her? And what does this say for the members of the numerous societies who truly believe that not only are his words the true word of God, but that all his actions are infallible?

Men wrote these “holy books”, not God. Men, who were making decisions based on their own views of the world many, many years ago wrote these texts based on what they would like to see in the world. Women had no say. And who is allowed to make official interpretations of these texts? Men only.

And the main problem here is that the world has changed, and our understanding of the universe has grown exponentially. These ideas came from people who believed that the world was flat, that the sun was carried across the sky in tha back of God’s chariot, that every species of animals on earth fit on a single boat. These ideas are fanciful, antiquated, barbaric, unjust and male-centric. We have grown up a lot as a species. We have increased our knowledge beyond just how to herd goats. We now KNOW so much more, and yet people still depend on these ancient and misogynistic texts to guide their lives.

The idea that we can justify something on any level of barbarity based on the fact that it is either part of a religion, or that someone’s interpretation of a religious text says it is true, is no longer acceptable. The fight for freedom from religion is the fight for freedom for women from oppression at the hands of men. We all need to take a stance in this, and to point out to the wrongdoers that we do not accept that kind of behaviour, nor will we tolerate barbaric “religious” practices and longer, just because we fear to tread on the toes of a few religious extremists.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

45 Comments

  1. It is time that we as a society told religious types to keep their views out of law making and allowed laws to be made for the good of all society, based on human rights, not based on their outdated dogma.

    Nice blog.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  2. I do agree with you completely. But just a point of clarification: although Muhammad married a 12 year old Ayesha, she remained with her father until 15-16 before she moved into Muhammad’s house. Either way, the marrying of a 12 year old to someone in their mid-40s is just wrong. And even if she was 16 when she moved in to his house, STILL very wrong.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Thanks Ali for the clarification. The point still stands, I have seen documentaries where people cite the 12 year old bride as reasons why it’s ok to have sex with children of the same age. Its a bad idea to communicate. It’s a wrong idea to believe.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Ali, the overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars disagree with you. Tabari and Bukhari make it clear the Aisha was 6 when she married Muhammad, and the marriage was consummated when she was 9. Muhammad was a paedophile.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  3. I think that the main issue with religion is this: many take faith and mythology as law.
    Faith is believing beyond what the eye can see exists. In scientific terms we are told about the relationship between atoms and their properties. Unless we have an electron microscope or our own collider we will never experience this visually.
    Religions, cultures and mankind have always tried to see their universe in ways that make sense. Many have used this mythology for their personal benefit, with wealth, power and personal status.
    And in cases this has become law of the land. The questioning of the universe is not the problem, it is the application, in some cases for the benefit of man in others not.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  4. Great post. I recommend you read “Doubt: A history” by Jennifer M. Hecht. It is a very good book and a good insight on the long history of struggle between reason and superstition.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  5. Great post. As my daughter grows, society’s at best ambivalent, and often hostile and possessive attitude to women bothers me more and more. Thanks for elaborating this part of the problem so well.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  6. Ok, I wanted to point something out. I’m kind of afraid to but I must. People are by nature liberal in both politics and society. When religions go against that nature, they are usually rejected by society. The degree of rejection depends on the degree of liberalism of the person. A little liberalism is ok, but too much can backfire on society as badly as something like Islam. In fact, Muslim terrorists are more liberal than Christians in Christian faiths. They are in the extreme. Women can be badly treated by these muslims largely because they are extremely liberal. Society in America has degraded because of extreme liberalism. So, you can be extremely conservative and hence strict and end up being bad towards women. But liberalism I think, our own nature, gets the better of us. We become very much about our selves and about being tolerated to the point where almost anything gets tolerated. Or we take our liberalism and justify it with some faith, making it all the more potent and dangerous. Liberalism is simply our narcistic desire to be tolerated and like no matter what or who we are or what we are doing. In small amounts it is ok, but when its extreme form becomes justified by the religious or nonreligious then society goes haywire. I think, instead of blaming any one religion, one should blame extreme cases of liberal thinking. It is the religions that do not appeal to our selfish nature that are most helpful to man. I have heard of womans rights and environmentalism and such. It is a good thing for women to have rights and even vote and I am not the type to be some tin plated dictator (being a guy). But it is getting to the point where women are starting to act like men and are justifying an “I can do whatever I want” mindset. God ment for things to stay in a certain balance. Our own human nature often disturbs that balance. So, instead of blaming religions that go against negative human nature to some extent (like Christianity), one should be pointing the fingure at religions that promote narcism (such as Islam and communism). Christianity is the only religion that asks every last person to “deny” themselves and that we don’t deserve anything. But look at Islam. Its not about denying one’s self at all. Its about having many virgins.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Every evil dictator on earth you can name was a liberal. do the research and see. Its the truth.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • I have to take issue with you on this one Mike. I’m wondering what your definition of “liberal” is. A quick google search gave me this:

      lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
      adj.
      1.
      a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
      b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
      c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
      d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
      2.
      a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
      b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
      3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
      4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

      I’m wondering what part of this description you’re talking about? Also I am wondering why, again, you’ve dragged communism into a debate about religion?

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • That is so weird it’s not worth justifying with a response…

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • I suspected it in the other thread (where you STILL have refused to answer ANY questions), but now I know it. You are a brainwashed nutcase. It’s no wonder to me at all that you won’t allow yourself to ponder questions about your beliefs. You view the very idea of examining your beliefs critically as being inherently wrong.

      All the bad in the world is caused by liberalism? Muslim societies are the most liberal? It takes an extreme amount of worshipping at the alter of Fox News and Glenn Beck and his cohorts to say that with a straight face.

      This nonsense doesn’t even justify a rational critique. It is such nonsense just on its face that it’s absolutely breathtaking that anyone would seriously propose it. If I had not heard your nonsense ramblings in the other thread, I’d accuse you of being a Poe.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  7. By liberal I mean essentially the 60s hippie generation in America, most of whom have in my view turned out to be very selfish, wanting tolerance only in as much as it suits their own needs.

    I tend to view communism as not only a political force but a religion because its adherents follow it with religious zeal. Not saying here in any way that all atheist are communists. Just that “anyone” that follows communism always seems very religious about it.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Let me clarify . . . anyone who has the same personality characteristics as those of the hippie generation in America are essentially liberal . . . . any person that supports extreme feminism, nontraditional marriage, tends to worship nature or consider it equal to the value of human beings and also happens to be very selfish and slightly more obsessed with sexual matters.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      • That is a massive overgeneralisation mike. On what do you base this? Extreme feminism or ideas about the importance of nature are just a front for narcisism? I don’t see how you can know this, and in anycase people who have liberal views can generally see past the whitewash that the mass media has over society, and see problems for what they really are!

        No I really disagree with you there. I wonder if you have an axe to grind about particular people in your life who may fit this description.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • All the so called tollerance espoused by them (and it is a big deal in their circles) is usually just a smoke screen for narcisism

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Yes, communist dictators intend to replace the worship of religious gods with worship of the heads of state. This is very important to remember when you’re attempting to make an argument that atheism leads to genocide. Forced atheism in communist states is merely a method of controlling the minds of the people. This is one way that religions used to get their start and increase their numbers. During the crusades, those who wouldn’t convert to Christianity were slaughtered. During the Ottoman invasion of Otranto, muslims beheaded anyone who would not convert to Islam. In this context, the genocide in Communist countries is not without precedent (though Stalin was much more efficient than his medieval mentors).

      In other words, communist dictatorships are simply proto-religions. To claim that this is some inherent flaw in liberalism or that the “hippie culture” (which would absolutely abhor any of this) is in any way at fault is absolute, unrivaled ignorance.

      But fiercely holding on to wrong-headed ideas is sort of your specialty, so it isn’t like I’m surprised or anything.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  8. This is a message for Mike…I am not sure where you are getting your information from. As someone with an honours degree in politics and philosophy, I can tell you that your definitions, applications and conclusions are all erroneous.

    Firstly, liberalism was correctly defined by @atheistclimber above. A political liberal believes in the opportunities for reform, a lack of strict adherence to ‘traditional’ ideas or accepted ‘norms’ and a tolerance for those who hold differing views.

    Therefore, by definition, no dictators can ever be described as ‘liberal’ because, by the very nature of dictatorship, they insist upon strict political adherence and ties to one way of thinking. There is little-to-no tolerance of alternative views, and this is often enforced by agression and violence. Ergo, totalitarianism is the correct definition for dictatorship.

    Many fundamentalist religions share this totalitarian attitude – which is actually conservative in nature (conservatism being the opposite of liberalism, and being interested in maintaining a system or regime and opposing radical change). That is why many political conservatives are naturally drawn to conservative religions such as fundamentalist Christianity.

    Strict Muslim states (such as Iran) are also totalitarian and conservative. They are not liberal.

    There are several different models of communism and socialism. Your link to communism as a ‘religion’ has an iota of validity – but only because the models we have seen enacted across the world have been totalitarian in nature – USSR under Stalin, China, North Korea (especially the latter in terms of being quasi-religious) insisted in a form of dictatorship with unquestioning obedience to the leader in a quasi-religious manner of ritual, rhetoric, allegiance and control of thought and action. This is also a version of extreme conservatism because of the opposition to change and the restrictive and oppressive nature of the regimes.

    As to the hippies from the 60s… you are probably quite young and definitely ill-informed. Yes, they were liberal… and those of them who maintained any shred of their ideals remained tolerant and accepting… not because it ‘suited them’, but because they knew that this was the way to be a better human being. That is what having ideals (about fairness, justice, equality, civil rights, human rights…) is all about. It is not narcissistic pursuit.

    Your tone of writing was essentially negative about liberalism, too. I wonder why? Why are you saying there is something wrong with being open about sexual matters or supporting alternative marriage/relationship arrangements? And as a female, I would be incredibly interested as to your clear and highly-researched views on what you mean by ‘extreme feminism’.

    What we are seeing now is the truly narcissistic generation are those born in the 1980s and beyond. I will not label them all with a broad stroke of my brush, but percentage-wise, the majority are materialistic, care little for the planet we inhabit (as long as they can have their latest accessories and techno-gadgets), will not stand up and fight for the causes they believe in if it involves them being inconvenienced any more than pushing a button of a keypad, and they are completely unaware of political realities – preferring to deal in soundbites or – like yourself – believing the slanted bias of a right-wing media rather than researching the grass roots of politics and movements through action and experience.

    You are completely misinformed about the nature of atheism as well.

    Mike, you really need to do some unbiased and open-minded research. You should experience grass-roots politics (not the kind who do fund-raisers to run for office, either!), listen to some great intellectuals debate the TRUE nature of atheism… you explain your ideas in a way that makes you appear intellectually immature, not very well read, and lacking any independence of thought.

    I apologize if I am incorrect, but maybe you could use this opportunity to clarify what you mean, citing the sources you have read to gain this ‘understanding’. Because, as with @atheistclimber, I am really at a loss as to the reason or ‘logic’ behind your posts.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  9. I just re-read Mike’s posts and I get it now. Only Christians ask people to give up the material self… I see your agenda, Mike.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • The majority of these so called “better humans” are supporting communism. The elected Obama, an outright communist.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Show me one country where a majority of the hippie culture supported the constitution of America.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • So now Obama is an outright communist? Wait, didn’t Palin instruct her minions that he is a Socialist? Maybe the two are interchangeable in your mind. I bet you think he’s a Muslim too don’t you? What else did you learn about Obama from the right wing, Mike? Was it that the health care plan is going to give us death panels? Maybe it’s that Obama’s cap and trade is a globalism policy designed to enslave the world?

      You’re an odious caricature of the ultra right wing, Mike. What nonsense you believe. It’d be funny that you believed this nonsense if those beliefs didn’t have such a large potential impact on normal peoples’ lives.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • @Mike

      Show me one right wing evangelist Christian who doesn’t believe we should change the US constitution from what it is to a document that officially and explicitly pays homage to the Christian God. You think hippies don’t like the US constitution? Hippies pale in comparison with right wing evangelist Christians when it comes to disdain for the Constitution of the US and the government in general.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  10. or a constitution like it.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  11. Through all the readings and doco’s etc that I have viewed. I was always lead to believe that the Constitution was written by Athiests and/or Agnostics who would be appalled at the current state of politics.

    I also wonder why you are so anti-communist? Not that I am one but you seem quite passionate about the topic.

    You could also look towards the American Republican party and label that as a religion following your logic.

    Odd how this topic went on such a large tangent.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  12. To Mike –

    Obama a communist? What? Did I read that right? There speaks somebody who neither understands the definition of communism, nor the policies of the Obama government in relation to communism… Oh dear.

    Sorry, Mike. You need to study some REAL politics before you make comments like this. Your ‘Tea Party’ version of truth is meaningless in the realms of debate and intellect.

    I really don’t know what you mean by ‘hippies’ either in the context you used… all a hippy is/was is an arbitrary label for a person who rejects conventionality and supports liberalism. As the American Constitution relies upon freedom of speech, belief, and thought, the ‘hippies’ are perfectly constitutional in nature. It is also perfectly constitutional in the USA to criticize government policy and action with which you do not believe. It is constitutional to take part in peaceful protest. It is constitutional to stand up for what you believe in. The government is there to enact the will of the majority of the people, to protect them and serve their interests. They are not elected to serve the interests of corporations, businesses and banks beyond keeping the economy in ‘working order’. The people are not there to blindly agree with and silently kowtow to the government. That is not how things work.

    And in reality, those ‘hippies’ who were political did a lot of good for the USA in terms of fighting for civil liberties, equality, justice, peace and feminism. We could use a few more young people like that today, to stand up for the environment and the welfare of humans against the huge multinational corporate machines.

    “Money doesn’t talk, it swears” as Bob Dylan once wrote.

    Actually, the election of Obama was a move, by those who voted for him, to try and better the USA and life for the people of the country. It was a move against the anti-intellectualist nepotism and self-serving era of GWB.

    I won’t bother to throw a bunch of statistics at you as to why this was actually a wise move (although I am still undecided as to my review of his term in office so far), because I am not sure you will read them or understand them…

    I’m wondering if there is any point in continuing this conversation with somebody who does not even properly understand the political terminology. Also, I am unsure from reading this (very cool) blog, and this entry in particular, why you brought up the political aspects when religion was being debated? Politics and religion should be kept apart always. Especially by people who understand neither with any great insight!

    As I challenged you before, I do so again… please explain yourself, your background and agenda clearly and we can continue the debate on a firmer footing.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  13. While on a high level I agree with this post, there are some very disappointed points made in it. My intent here is not to offend, but to nudge you to tighten up your arguments so they are more cogent and persuasive.

    First: “As you know, my universe has no room for the possibility of a god.”

    This is definitely a dogmatic stance. While obviously some specific conceptions of deities are ruled out, all are not. This statement is, in essence, a claim to knowledge no human possesses or will likely ever possess: that there is in now way a possibility for any sort of higher power whatsoever. Absolute claims like this are precisely what gives legitimacy to claims that some non-believers are dogmatic.

    Next you make some generalizations about believers that are simply not accurate. Now, while I certainly believe, as Sam Harris does, that moderates do in fact give cover to extremists, it is bad stereotyping indeed to paint them with the same brush as zealots and fundamentalists. It is also not the case that moderates are in the minority, they are, however, and sadly, not very outspoken. We are effectively suffering from a selection effect.

    Tossing out such obviously incorrect statements does a huge disservice to the argument you are trying to make. It distracts from it, detracts from it and makes you look like exactly what ‘they’ claim: a dogmatic atheist. That puts you in a dogma vs dogma position, which is not at all where any truly rational person wants to be I should think.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  14. Thanks for your comments Cary.

    I use this terminology “As you know, my universe has no room for the possibility of a god” because my understanding of the universe does not allow for the superstitious or supernatural. Without going into that topic too deeply, I use the wording to avoid a problematic use of the word “believe”. This comes from my understanding of how the universe works, so I would argue it’s not an irrational stance at all.

    I’d like to ask you, what are the inaccuracies in particular you are talking about? I may have generalised, but I believe that the point of the article is not to paint all believers as zealots, but to criticise the enforcement of religious ideals onto other family members and other members of society. Maybe this is not clear in my article. I know not all religious people are nutters, but I also know that my points about the influence that religious ideals have had on our societies is very strong, and particularly with regards to the way women are mistreated by the doctrines of these 2 religions. Christianity and Islam are mens clubs, and sure, women are allowed to join, only as second class citizens.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • I’m not sure if this clarifies anything at all or further digs me into the same hole…

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  15. I’ve got to agree that “As you know, my universe has no room for the possibility of a god” steps over the line from rational thinking to semi-religious dogma. Is there a god? There’s no reason to think so. Is there room for one in the universe? Considering all that we don’t know, the answer is yes. In principle, it is possible that any one of an infinite number of Gods exist either within or external to the universe.

    One of the things that I’m very fond of saying is that we need to be prepared and able to accept truth wherever we happen to find it. Those who are religious in their thinking, whatever that thinking is, are more likely to miss out on understanding the truth about the universe. In extreme forms, religion allows people to deny the obvious (e.g. religious denial of evolution). In other forms religious thinking make make people dismiss things that aren’t so obvious.

    Also I think it is wrong to make moral comparisons between Christianity and Islam. Post-enlightenment Christianity is nowhere near as barbaric (or socially powerful) as modern Islam. Suggesting otherwise offers merely to distract from the problems of Islam first by alienating Christians with whom we have very real and very useful overlapping opinions about the problems with Islam and second by allowing Muslims to hide behind the shield of modernity that comparisons with Christianity can provide to muslims.

    In other words, fair is fair. The scourge of radical, barbaric islam isn’t going to be overcome by atheists. We have to rely on Christians to help the world overcome this threat to decent society. Alienating Christians at every turn by suggesting that every act of barbarism perpetuated by modern Muslims should never be criticized without an equal (and unfair) comparison to Christians is not helping. I don’t agree that all or even most Christianity is a men’s club. There are small pockets of Christians who dominate women, but I argue that they are insignificant. Woman’s suffrage happened in large part with the aid of Christianity rather than being impeded by it. Remember that. Contrast that with Islam where barbarism towards women is ingrained in the religion, culture, and government. The first thing many Muslim fathers think to do when they hear their daughter has been raped is to kill their daughters. Women are not allowed to drive or even be alone without a male relative. This is insane.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Perhaps I should unpublish this article and rewrite it. So you see my prblems I have when writing emotionally rather than when I am in a state is calm. I always come off sounding half cooked… :(

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  16. Marty, I do understand your stance, and mostly concur. Cary makes a valid point. We shouldn’t state that there’s no possibility of any god, since we can’t efficiently prove this, but if we’re all honest about it, there’s almost zero chance that any god exists. Until some evidence is presented to us, god is a construct of men’s imagination.

    While some generalizations have been made, the real intention of this post is completely valid. Women immersed in some fundamentalist religious cultures ARE treated like mere things. While it is true that modern christianity isn’t as barbaric as modern islam, let me guys remind you – maybe not entirely related – that the ones who starved a 11 year-old to death, and the ones who delayed treatment on their kids (many) waiting for prayers to work, were christians.

    So, I ask you guys, are these really that much different?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • I’m not interested in absolving Christians for their mis-deeds any more than I’m interested in absolving anyone who would do such a thing. My point is that comparisons between the most strident Christian and the average muslim will show VAST differences in outlook and moral attitude.

      I stand by my critique (which I learned from Sam Harris to be perfectly honest) that this perverse need to find some kind of moral equivalence between Christians of any era and Muslims today is a destructive one. Islam is not conducive with decent society, Christianity obviously is. Wishing your wife would stay home and leave the decisions to her husband is not the same as cutting her head off if she doesn’t.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  17. Good post. Stick to your guns about the your opening statement regarding god. It’s your universe and spending time on the possibility of a god is pointless. Most here have said that it is something we can’t know. Does there universe have room for unicorns the FSM, Valhalla?
    Comparing Islam to Christianity is valid. The Islam per say has had enlightened moments and like Christianity depends more on the cultural background of the people. Islam is no more uniform than any other religion. The issue is that more and more the fundamentalist and literal views are being accommodated. The issue is why are these views growing and how to combat them? Education would be a good start and also making the immigrants and youth feel more accepted without changing everything about the society for them.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  18. FWIW, One speech (in 2 parts) where Sam Harris expounds on the ideas I mentioned earlier:

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2oJgsGR6c&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

    and

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsrtOZdJitA&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  19. Yes he has a good point, but I believe the girl who asks the firs question has a good point also. Sam only says that maybe it’s a good idea to not be under one banner and that the influence coming from a seemingly unlabelled and dissonant group would be more powerful, but I have my doubts. I’m not saying he’s wrong, and I actually hope he is right as I dislike the label “atheist” anyhow (it implies I am without religion, as if something is missing), but for the moment, I am happy to sit under the banner as atheist.

    Harris Tweed, what do you think? Do you think it’s plausible?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  20. All you people out there that are sooo behind on the understanding of WHAT is written in the Bible, just read a number of the verses I have posted..then maybe you will stop being stagnant within the OLD Laws (which have been replaced by the NEW Testament anyway) and CATCH UP!!!

    Did you know that the verse..’He BOWED the heavens and come down’ is speaking of SPACE BENDING?

    Did you know that the verse ‘ with the Lord, a day can be a thousand years and a thousand years can be a day’ also speaks of this Time control?( ‘I am the LIGHT…’)

    Did you know that the verse’ It is already done’.. is speaking of being able to see future events?

    Did you know that eve was made differently to adam..ie..putting ‘adam into a deep sleep and making eve from his ‘Rib’ (human DNA)

    Ephesians 6:12…For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
    “… we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.
    On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and
    every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.”

    Jerimiah..’call out to Me and I will show you great and UNSEARCHABLE things that you do not know.’

    And as ‘starwarsish’ as this sounds…He IS a ‘Supreme Being’ and there IS a Celestial Royality UP there..and there IS those that rebelled against His Omnipotent Rule..

    The Bible starts…’…God’s Spirit ‘hovered’ over the water…’

    ‘…Adam was put into a deep sleep..’
    ‘…and Eve made differently…from Adam’s ‘rib’…'(Human DNA)
    ‘..I Am your ONLY Father..’
    ‘…the mother of all ‘living’… ‘
    ‘…And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers…’
    ‘….they come to earth..interbred with human women..'(hybrids in Noah’s Time)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ‘…pharoah MATCHED the ‘miracles’ of Moses..’
    ‘…pharoah contended with the Lord…’ (then WHAT was he?! How could he perform such ‘miracles’… Technology!)
    ‘…God came and freed His people ..’
    ‘…EVERY HAIR ON YOUR HEAD HAS BEEN COUNTED…’
    ‘..stayed over His people in a ‘cloud’ and lit up the way…’
    ‘.. the glory of the Lord entered the temple through the gate facing….’
    ‘.. night became as day..’
    ‘…. their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of ‘eyes’ all around…’
    ‘…a wheel within a wheel..’
    ‘…wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise…’
    ‘…. above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne…’
    ‘…..when the creatures rose from the ground, the wheels rose along with them,
    ‘…..because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels….’
    ‘…. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up..’
    ‘…..God spoke from a cloud..’this is My Son in Whom I Am well pleased..’
    ‘..You watch my going in and coming out…’
    ‘…You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways…’
    ‘…You know when I sit and when I rise..’
    ‘…a war in the heavens..’
    ‘…Micheal and his army..’
    ‘…on the throne with 24 elders seated around Him…’ ‘…’My throne is in another place..’
    ‘…He bowed the heavens and come down..’ (bending space)
    ‘..a thousand years can be a day…’ (Time control)
    ‘…it is already done’….(another Time reference)
    ‘…’I am the LIGHT…’
    ‘..My throne is in another place..’
    ‘..they are not of this world..just as I am not of this world…’
    ‘..it will be as in Noah’s Time..’
    ‘..He will meet us in the clouds..’
    ‘..one will be taken..one will be left..’

    now read….’psalm 139′..in the mindset you are in now..

    Are their ‘others’ on this planet???
    Hebrews 13
    ‘Be aware of those you entertain..
    as you may have entertained one of My angels unawares’

    A verse from the Old Testament..
    ‘And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.
    For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own.
    If they had longed for the country they came from, they could have gone back.
    But they were looking for a better place, a heavenly homeland.
    That is why God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.’

    I saw Him seated on a throne with twenty four elders seated around him. (sound like a scene from starwars??!!)

    1 God presides in the great assembly;
    he gives judgment among the “gods”:

    Just a small piece from the ancient Script of Enoch….Who was ‘taken up’..
    …saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come. 3. Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them:
    Chapter 4, IV
    1 THEY BROUGHT BEFORE MY FACE THE ELDERS AND RULERS OF THE STELLA ORDERS, and showed me two hundred angels, who rule the stars and (their) services to the heavens, and fly with their wings and come round all those who sail.”

    And don’t start on the old ‘interpretation’ bit….’ ‘He BOWED the heavens and come down’..(space bending) how else can you possibly interpret THAT!!! Even Einstien knew that!!! Sharon.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • I do feel sorry for those who have to constantly bend and twist iron age mythology to try to make it fit in with modern day science. Sharon apparently doesn’t even understand that what is written in the english translations of the bible aren’t agreed upon among the various different bibles. The passage that Sharon seems to be speaking about is 2 Samuel 22:10. The KJV has Sharon’s preferred translation:

      “He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet”

      But the newer translation that has been made by scholars to be a much better translation, the NIV, has that line as follows:

      “He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet.”

      Obviously, Sharon has decided that the best translation is the one she can most easily twist to fit her needs. That one item which you’ve harped on (not us) makes me suspect that your motives are less than honest and that you’re attempting to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  21. Sharon… I am not quite sure what you were attempting to archive by posting a bunch of out of context quotes.

    My main gripes with your post is your interpretation of rib referencing DNA. The main difference between a woman’s and man’s DNA is the extra X chromosome in a woman and the replacement of that with a Y in the man.

    There is far more genetic information in an X when compared to a Y. So therefore a woman has more genetic information and a Man, if anything, was made from a woman. Which is the complete reverse of what the bible teaches.

    Also the fallacy of the new test replacing the old is outright confusing. An all knowing omniscient being who can see the future would never change his/her mind, this also raises the question of god even having free will.

    A god knowing the outcome of his decisions/laws before he even makes them would result in a god not changing his mind once his path is set.

    This results in one of two possibilities. Either god wanted there to be thousands of years of bloodshed resulting in old testament interpretations, which means he is evil and twisted and not worth following. Or he is not omniscient and all knowing.

    This same logic can be applied to the original sin. God, if all knowing, knew in advance that Eve would sin. So god planned all along to kick man out of Eden

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  22. Some people just don’t want to see. . . or are just not interested in learning. They decide to stay close minded to the realities of the world. (Speaking to you, Sharon). The bible is not true. It is just a book. Written a long time ago, by people looking for answers to what they did not understand. It is also a compilation of stories, greatly exaggerated, I might add.

    If you want to believe that all you need to know lies in the bible, fine. That’s your prerogative. But please realize, all, and I mean ALL, of today’s modern achievements, from technology to medicine and to the understanding of the world is due to Science, Reason and Questioning everything. Not the bible, and certainly not religion.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  23. Could not have said it better myself Miguel

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  24. Great response, Chris!

    @Sharon… again, as Chris asked, what was the point of the laundry list of Biblical verses?

    Firstly, I am suggesting in a friendly way that you do not make sarcastic assumptions about what people know and don’t know, and accuse them of being “…sooo behind in their understanding” of the Bible. As well as being highly insulting, this is blatantly incorrect.

    Many atheists writing on this blog, and in other places, are incredibly well-educated. Many have excellent knowledge of a variety of ‘holy books’ and religious texts, as well as historical contexts for the interpretations, re-writings and human editing of such texts. For many of us, it is the detailed understanding and experiences of religion which has led us to becoming atheists/agnostics in the first place!

    Secondly, it appears to me that whenever science makes discoveries – which basically destroy ancient and uneducated religious tenets one by one – religion seeks to scramble backwards and find obscure and unclear portions of the holy books to say, “Look! This refers to DNA / evolution / space exploration..” etc, etc, etc…

    This is a clear case of apologetics and somebody trying to intellectually justify an increasingly untenable position.

    Your unwillingness to discuss interpretation surprises me as your whole list is pure speculative interpretation.

    The Bible cannot be quoted and used to defend or explain anything in true debate as it is merely a collection of tales written by fallible humans, translated several times with words altered and misinterpreted, whilst being edited and rewritten for political reasons along the way.

    I also suggest that if you are going to use his name in an argument, you should study not only the scientific genius of Einstein, but also some of the philosophical ideas he expressed. He was actually an accomplished thinker in many disciplines and his ideas on theology are enlightening. Here is a quote from the great man:

    “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” Albert Einstein

    Chris is also very correct in reiterating the old saying from Epicurus:

    ‘Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?’

    Put into the context of a ‘God’ so blatantly changing his mind so often in the Bible (I mean, just look at how he acts so irrationally and with human-style vengeance and uncontrolled hot-headedness, murdering and destroying, then feeling bad after…) this can also be used to question his omnipotence, abilities, omniscience and as Chris suggests, brings up the entire issue of free will.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  25. Why iron age folks thought they should bury their understanding of modern facts deep inside religious texts is beyond me. Just think about how much more difficult it would be to discount the bible if it came out and talked about DNA or flying in aircraft or special relativity. But no, apparently the bible writers had to hide these references in their texts so as to make it ambiguous and easily dismissible.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  26. Miguel – spot on!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. It’s OK, it’s part of my religion | Young Australian Skeptics - [...] See the original post and the comments that go with it. [...]

Have your say

%d bloggers like this: