I believe in God, but I don't believe in religion... After watching this..... wow.. it's official, religion it's not my thing and it never will be... In theroy it's wonderful, 'cause it's all about love and blah blah blah.... but we all know that it's not true, so I'd rather to be away from all that stuff!!!
sharejust curious- why would anyone believe in God, but not religion? Seems to me the entire concept of any gods even existing all had to come came from sort of religion in the first place.
It's kinda like halfway buying the goods. Me? I haven't bought any of it ever since I was about 10 and could see none of it made any sense in the real world. And now 40 years later I know even more....
One can believe in a higher power, while also believing that religions, being man-made, are poor ways to forge a connection to one's higher power.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
That's true, but it presents another problem: Is that "higher power" a personal being who gives the proverbial rat's patootey about any of us?
I can see the atheist's point of view, that anything can be assumed about what cannot be proved. I ceased being an atheist, honestly, because I ran into the wall of purposelessness: If there is no god at all, no "personal" force out there, then we are nothing more than a strange accident of predictable forces and unpredictable chance occurrences (climatological favoritism, etc.), and thus "good" and "evil" are merely arbitrary constructs that mostly don't matter much. One need only note the ongoing horrors of human existence (all of which have human agency at their heart) to see that this is pretty much the global attitude toward it all.
Obviously that's not to say that atheists are amoral or immoral; to the contrary, some of the atheists I've known have been among the best people I've ever known. But in my experience, that had something to do with the fact that they were extraordinary people in any regard—intelligent, thoughtful, concerned, and possessed of many other qualities we'd all do well to emulate. For the mass of humanity who are ordinary or less, atheism offers absolutely nothing aside from "life sucks, and then you die."
As for myself, I no longer know what I believe. I cling largely to the words of Jesus Christ, but I have a deep distrust of the church itself, and I have trouble with much of orthodox Christianity. Thus, I have gone through periods of belief and unbelief, and I'm still trying to figure it all out. I respect that others have to find their own way, too.
Oh, about this documentary: It's outstanding. I really appreciated the non-inflammatory tone Berg maintained throughout, which makes the power of the film that much greater. To this day, the Catholic Church is stonewalling all efforts to uncover the truth. (Not picking on Catholics there; all churches have a problem with sexual abuse in their hierarchy. No exceptions.) So I share the OP's anger with religion in general, although I must admit it leaves me grasping at straws all over again. I just don't know.
No life doesn't suck.
Heaven and hell are on earth and we control which one there will be more of. There is no God and no afterlife.
It means life doesn't have any purpose or meaning. It also means that good and evil are only subjective, there is no objective morality and there is no way to claim that Hitler was evil. All we can claim is that we don't like Hitler.
sharewhy are you replying with this to me?
and yes there is a purpose in life - it's pretty simple - survival.
I'm replying to you to describe the problems with atheism. There are two problems - meaningless of life and lack of objective morality.
You suggest that a purpose in life is survival.
First, since we are mortal, it means we are born to eventually fail that purpose.
We are born to be losers.
Second, you are justified in committing any crime in order to survive a little bit longer. For instance, if you can kill someone without getting caught and get victim's organs to transplant to your body to live longer - you should totally do it. If you're not doing it - you're betraying your stated purpose of life.
First off i am not atheist. Why did you assume that? Atheism presupposes you believe in something too. I don't believe either way.
As for objective morality? Really? Religion has been the cause of many wars and unspeakable cruelty (and still is). This is what you base your moral compass on?
Does man really need somebody to dictate morality? Do we not have our own senses.
Is it moral that the catholic church possess such wealth, opulence and display it without any reservation while most of the "flock" live in poverty? That is objective morality perhaps?
" it means we are born to eventually fail that purpose. "
No because you are not really thinking. Our purpose is to carry our genes and facilitate their survival. That is why you exist and the only reason why you exist. And anybody who exist now carries the genes of winners - having survived countless generations. We are the winners.
"Second, you are justified in committing any crime in order to survive a little bit longer. For instance, if you can kill someone without getting caught and get victim's organs to transplant to your body to live longer - you should totally do it. "
You are making assumptions about me. Everybody has to answer for their own actions to themselves. Further, I think that having an organization tell you what is moral or not is a far greater threat than leaving this to the individual. History has certainly proven that.
First off i am not atheist. Why did you assume that?
Religion has been the cause of many wars and unspeakable cruelty
Does man really need somebody to dictate morality?
We are the winners.
Our purpose is to carry our genes and facilitate their survival.
You are making assumptions about me
I think that having an organization tell you what is moral or not is a far greater threat than leaving this to the individual
"no God and no afterlife."
Not the way you define it for sure. However, my not subscribing to your fairy tale nonsense doesn't make me an atheist.
"Religions can get morality right or wrong"
So what is the point in it then? You said that was the point in religion - objective morality. So you agree there is no point.
"Atheism means there's no objective morality at all. "
If you believe somebody has to tell you what to do then how are you any better than a robot? Why does a life form that is endowed with such intelligence require to be controlled by decree? Perhaps you don't have the mental faculties to discern a good action from a bad. Most people can.
"It's not an act that we did ourselves. It was our parents' act."
You take things a tad too literally don't you. Our genes define who we are. Our genes are the survivors and the winners. If you did not understand this fairly clear statement I am not sure how to make it any clearer.
"Did someone give us this purpose? Who was that?"
It is not "who" but "what. read above. If you still do not get it. Read again.
"And does it mean that childless Ayn Rand or Jane Austen are the losers and some rapist who got someone pregnant is the winner?"
A weak debating tactic as it is fairly transparently futile. Picking out exceptions does not prove a point as it is not scientific. By and large we have evolved to be intelligent and the top of the food change on this planet because of this fairly simple rule. For the 2 examples you gave there are millions more that did carry on their genes.
"If the purpose of life is survival, you have to do all it takes to survive longer. "
There are higher goals of course but this is the foundation. Anybody who denies that is just suicidal and hence has let go of any higher goals. If that is not the purpose why don't you stop breathing now? Why do you breathe? Why do you eat? Why do you drink water?
"Again, to decide what would be greater threat we need some objective morality as a reference. If there's no objective morality, we can't really determine if organization's morality is better or worse - it's just a matter of one's personal preference. "
A dictated "objective morality" is akin to a totalitarian political system. It is based on dictate and from the few to the many. Why should the few impose their views on the many? Who gives them that right? Oh i see ...."God". We come back to the reason for religion now don't we :)
"P.S. I'm coming from atheist background, so critical attitude to religion is familiar to me. But I found that the arguments about purpose of life and objective morality cannot be answered from atheist perspective."
Religion gives one answer - live according to "God's" teachings (books written by and about a few people claiming to be prophets and messenger of "God") and you will go to heaven after you die. That is what religion boils down to both Christian and Muslim (we won't go into Buddhism as that one has a a less simplistic teaching).
I guess believe in what makes you happy. Who am I to deny this. I'd rather look at things analytically and see what realistically drives us.
It's funny that you protested my assumption that you are an atheist after you said "there's no God", but you are very quick to assume that I'm religious and that I have some fairy tale that I subscribed to. :) Double standards are funny.
Not the way you define it for sure
"Religions can get morality right or wrong"
So what is the point in it then?
You take things a tad too literally don't you.
If you believe somebody has to tell you what to do then how are you any better than a robot?
Our genes define who we are.
"Did someone give us this purpose? Who was that?"
It is not "who" but "what"
"If the purpose of life is survival, you have to do all it takes to survive longer. "
There are higher goals of course but this is the foundation.
If that is not the purpose why don't you stop breathing now?
A dictated "objective morality" is akin to a totalitarian political system.
I guess believe in what makes you happy. Who am I to deny this.
"It's funny that you protested my assumption that you are an atheist after you said "there's no God", but you are very quick to assume that I'm religious and that I have some fairy tale that I subscribed to. :) Double standards are funny. "
why is that surprising to you. not believing in a/the "God" doesn't make you an atheist. For somebody who is discussing religion and professing to be such an authority on it's merits you are surprisingly unaware of the landscape. May i point out that Buddhism doesn't talk about a or the God nor does it hold it's/his existence as a belief in it's teachings.
"I don't remember defining God in our discussion. But whatever."
I did not mean "you" when i said that. It was meant as collective you - i.e. the obvious monotheistic religions which you are obviously a subscriber too. I don't know which one you are referring to nor do i care frankly.
"That's exactly why you completely ignored my question about whether the best strategy would be to acquire female slaves and produce hundreds of children. You know it's somehow wrong - yet in the absence of OM you can't even claim it's wrong (only that you don't like it for some reason). I invite you to think more about it, rather than dismiss my question. This is importan"
You are proving the fallacy and redundancy of religion as a form of moral restriction for our actions. I do think that and that is exactly why I think religion is unnecessary and actually quite counterproductive as some religions like Mormonism and Islam actually condone the behavior you just took as an example (and much worse behavior).
"If you believe that your genes define who you are, how are you any better than a biorobot? :)"
There is a difference between building a car and driving a car. The genes provide information for the structure and it's function. This one would think is quite evident.
"Okay, somehow you feel that it's not okay to receive purpose from God, but it's totally okay to receive purpose from the cells we are made of. I don't see how it's different from saying that our stomachs give us a purpose - to eat as much food as we can. "
I don't feel it's not okay. I just think you are deluding yourself. That is all. Whatever floats your boat though.
"So what are these higher goals? "
Art, science, culture....why would I need to specify something this obvious. How old are you by the way?
"It seems that you confuse a purpose with means for a purpose. Survival is obviously a mean for a higher goal."
No i do not. As I said our main purpose is this. Try going without water for a few days or food and see how your purpose in life will crystallize and your higher purposes will disappear.
We are programmed to survive and that is our main goal. Most of what you do daily is done to this end. I'd suggest you think about how much of your time you spend on this vs "higher" goals. I bet you will be surprised.
Technically even love is predicated on survival - finding the best compliment to our genes to allow them to have a better chance of survival in the future. Indeed love would not exist and there would be no need for that if we did not need to evolve our genes.
"but it's totally okay to receive purpose from the cells we are made of."
I never said that. Genes are not cells.
"Not any more than you think of law of gravity as akin to a totalitarian political system."
you cannot be serious.
"I'd like to kindly remind you that our topic is not religion, but existence of OM and purpose of life."
That may be where you want to go. If you are unsure about the topic of conversation I'd suggest you reread the posts. It's in the title for god's sake.
not believing in a/the "God" doesn't make you an atheist.
"So what are these higher goals?"
Art, science, culture....why would I need to specify something this obvious.
How old are you by the way?
you cannot be serious.
"I'd like to kindly remind you that our topic is not religion, but existence of OM and purpose of life."
That may be where you want to go. That is not where I want to go
"Saying "there's no God" does make you an atheist by definition."
not really. it means i may be a theist. or a buddhist or many other forms. just not a monotheist.
"I still didn't get a response from you on whether owning female slaves to produce hundreds of children would be the best strategy to fulfil our purpose"
the answer was there if you cared to read. we don't need religion to prevent that from happening and as I mentioned religion quite often promotes this kind of practice. so your central argument that religion is needed to define "objective" morality is quite misguided and is disproven by reality.
"I am. "
enough said
"Okay, so I guess there's no point in continuing this. :)"
no there is none. if you wanted to discuss OM then you should have started with that. the topic of discussion is "religion". look at the title first
"Because it's far from obvious, of course."
it's obvious to a thinking man. perhaps not to one who lets "religion" program them though....
"I still didn't get a response from you on whether owning female slaves to produce hundreds of children would be the best strategy to fulfil our purpose"
the answer was there if you cared to read. we don't need religion to prevent that from happening
so your central argument that religion is needed to define "objective" morality
if you wanted to discuss OM then you should have started with that.
" I wasn't asking you about how to prevent that from happening. Please focus: "
No you do. THe answer is there if you care to read.
And your proposal that religion solves this issue I debunked quite conclusively.
"I did start exactly with that."
Not really. Perhaps in your mind you did. I made a comment on a topic I was discussing and you responded to it. There is no mention you wanted to discuss anything other than religion. Sorry but this fails.
"I did not have such an argument."
oh really? now who said this:
"I'm replying to you to describe the problems with atheism. There are two problems - meaningless of life and lack of objective morality. "
Now I've had enough. If you want to waste somebody's time in meaningless chatter perhaps you should talk to somebody brainwashed like yourself.
THe answer is there if you care to read.
now who said this:
"I'm replying to you to describe the problems with atheism. There are two problems - meaningless of life and lack of objective morality. "
"I didn't find it. "
You didn't understand it I guess. It's different.
"I did. It doesn't mean that my central argument is that religion is needed to define "objective" morality"
Yet you keep arguing this all along and how atheism lacks any moral compass because it does not posses this.
"My central argument was that OM must exist and we have to discover it somehow. "
How do you propose that we go about finding that? And how do you define "finding" it.
Yet you keep arguing this all along and how atheism lacks any moral compass because it does not posses this.
How do you propose that we go about finding that?
"There is such thing as non-religious theism - deism. "
yes i am quite aware of that. yet you kept talking about religion as the alternative that atheism doesn't provide a moral compass. Deism is not as dogmatic but still believes in a Creator with no real proof of that. Nor does it actually give a set of moral principles so it fails in providing this rigid structure you seem to be looking for to corral us into dictated "moral" boundaries.
Atheism is for education and education by itself builds a persons own senses. As I said before we are the only ones responsible for our own actions. Buddhism offers a way better structure for this without the danger of dictating morals from the few to the many.
Philosophy as a teaching is obviously quite compatible with atheism and can serve as a moral compass if you prefer an external force guiding you.
"Religious people are looking for it through their religion, obviously. I imagine OM could be also found through philosophical means. I think if we acknowledge that killing innocent people is wrong even if we can get away with it - we discovered a small piece of OM. If we acknowledge that slavery and genocide are wrong (not only now, but also in the past; not only for those who signed a convention against genocide/slavery, but for everyone) - we discovered yet another piece."
Religious people are NOT looking for it. They read teachings of what others tell them is moral - so they would rather somebody program them with these truths. Not to say some of these teachings are not good but a lot are not and even the good ones are used to manipulate people into causes that are far from good.
Furthermore - Who is we? And how is this any more objective than atheism? Most atheists will acknowledge these things as true already. Technically religious and uneducated people are much more likely to ignore these principles.
Heaven and hell are on earth and we control which one there will be more of. There is no God and no afterlife.
i was and i moved.
shareWell, lucky you that you were able to get out of whatever hell you were living in. If only others could be as fortunate as you...
shareit's not that hard. people do it all the time with no resources. if there is a will there is a way.
also you misunderstood my statement. i meant that people create the hell or the heaven and it is right here on earth. i didn't mean we as ourselves. i meant we as humans.
Whatever.
So share your plan to the millions living in poor places like Africa or North Korea.
<< For the mass of humanity who are ordinary or less, atheism offers absolutely nothing aside from "life sucks, and then you die." >>
On the contrary, I would think being an atheist would make the person appreciate every single day MORE. There's no Heavenly pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, so you enjoy what you can, here.
.
Drink alcohol, smoke marijuana and sniff cocaine as much as one can until the death. And if one can get away with a crime and profit from it - one should totally do it.
That's logical conclusion.
Drink alcohol, smoke marijuana and sniff cocaine as much as one can until the death. And if one can get away with a crime and profit from it - one should totally do it. That's logical conclusion.
I ceased being an atheist, honestly, because I ran into the wall of purposelessness: If there is no god at all, no "personal" force out there, then we are nothing more than a strange accident of predictable forces and unpredictable chance occurrences (climatological favoritism, etc.), and thus "good" and "evil" are merely arbitrary constructs that mostly don't matter much.
[deleted]
its like saying one can believe in fairies but also believing fairy tales are man-made.... i believe in fairies and pikachu too... whatever makes u happy man...
shareSome people believe in god, but not organized religion. I don't completely rule out the possibility of a god...but organized religion creeps me out.
-- I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
I agree, at 10 I could see it was something of a farce that other were buying into and as well, 40 yrs later, I have never fell through this veil of illusion. Deaths in my family, divorce, losing children - none of these things has made me go "running back to the mishmash of dogma." Our Founding Fathers were not Christians, they were Deist. This is why more and more people say they are spiritual but not religious. No one could believe in a Fair Higher Power that could intervene or show grace, mercy, and justice to that Sick-o Priest, but didn't... The Priest ruined those people's lives and took happiness away from families and the Vatican just covered it up... How is this really new? If you have done ANY historical research on the Early Church in Rome and the politics or powers that be HERE On Earth, you would learn a great deal, be it all very disturbing.
Merovingian Goddess
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
This movie was very very depressing.
I do know that the anger those parents and victims feel they should literally close down those churches.
Yep... it's one of those movies you don't need to see to understand. We all know stuff like this goes on...but we don't need to see it.
http://www.youtube.com/user/alphazoom
http://www.vimeo.com/1986276
Religion and God, to me, are the same. The church however, is man made. And is flawed and evil like man is.
Also... I can kill you with my brain
I find it sad that the corruption still thrives more than good will in the church, only in a worse way. I'm not saying the protestants or other sects are better, but you would think with all this Scandalous and down-right messed up history the Catholic Church is built on, they'd want to protect their image. I don't really think the people in charge believe because if they did, they would realize that they are representing GOD.
Sweet baby, I need fresh blood...