"God Bless America!"

[motherengine]

If there is one thing that I think all of us, even Freethinker, can agree on, it is that religion has given us some of the greatest art of all time.

 

not to mention some of the most poignant poetics concerning basic human truths ever written. hell, even hunter s. thompson admits to finding the book of revelation (specifically the king james translation) a great work. attacking religion in general says more about the attackers mindset than about religion which, as far as the actual writtings are concerned, has never claimed to be a science.

[lindagarrette]

not to mention some of the most poignant poetics concerning basic human truths ever written. hell, even hunter s. thompson admits to finding the book of revelation (specifically the king james translation) a great work. attacking religion in general says more about the attackers mindset than about religion which, as far as the actual writtings are concerned, has never claimed to be a science.

This is very lopsided thinking. Religion has not given us any art whatsoever. People are inspired by their own ideas to create. They paint what is popular ane paid for at the time. The bible is a very bad example of literature. It is not well written, been translated hundreds of times with so many various meanings assigned that it has invariably lost its original content. It has not joy, no humor, only occasional mention of music and it distains art, to boot. That shalt have no graven images.

[motherengine]

This is very lopsided thinking. Religion has not given us any art whatsoever. People are inspired by their own ideas to create. They paint what is popular ane paid for at the time. The bible is a very bad example of literature. It is not well written, been translated hundreds of times with so many various meanings assigned that it has invariably lost its original content. It has not joy, no humor, only occasional mention of music and it distains art, to boot. That shalt have no graven images.

 

every thing you have written here is lopsided or just plain incorret. the bible has been translated from the original hebrew aramaic and greek and 'literal translations' as well as 'meaning-based' translations exist. if you are suggesting that translated work is irrelevent as poetic art than i guess only italians can appreciate dante's divine comedy as well and we will have to agree to disagree. the bible is a collection of written works, some of which may not be as 'well written' as others (i will not attempt to support the claim you have put in my mouth concerning the bible's worth as literature because this is not what i said at all) but honestly if you are trying to tell me that the 'song of songs is bad poetry than i am sorry but you are quite mistaken. one may prefer a literal to a meaning based translation but it is easily apparent that this work as well as the book of psalms are quite beautifully conceived poetics regardless of how they have been translated. as far as the bible being absent of joy and humor you obviously have read very little if any of the texts for both can be found, though admittedly more joy (again read the song of songs) than humor, but since when has any artform been reliant on either? read any book by kafka and tell me about joy. watch any film by tarkovsky and talk about the necessity of humor. listen to the music of bartok and tell me how the absence of joy and humor hinder the power of its its expression. the comment about the passage concerning graven images is completely irrelevant for this is a conflicted book with many authors. ever see a flawless work made by more than one person? i doubt it.

 

oh and your comment about religion 'giving' art was not made by me. i did respond to it because i was giving the person who did say it the credit of knowing the differance between religion literally giving and religious conviction inspiring an already artistic mind. i will also point out that a great deal of european and north american art is directly inspired by religious works. ask anti-religious crusader richard dawkins about one of his favorite poets, william butler yeats.

[motherengine]

so can anyone think of how buddism (or native american spiritualism for that matter) has caused great suffering in the world or not?

[Buffy]

so can anyone think of how buddism (or native american spiritualism for that matter) has caused great suffering in the world or not?

Some might quibble that they did not adhere strictly to "native american spiritualism" but both the Aztecs and the Anasazi were heavily into human sacrifice...does that count?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[motherengine]

Some might quibble that they did not adhere strictly to "native american spiritualism" but both the Aztecs and the Anasazi were heavily into human sacrifice...does that count?

 

as you pointed out the aztecs were not native americans, so no it doesn't count. but it is still a valid point concerning tribal spiritualism and violence. now that i think of it i would be interested in wiccan evils as well.

[zadojla]

snip...the aztecs were not native americans.....

Huh?

[motherengine]

Huh?

 

native americans are members of north american tribes [american indian, eskimo, aleut and native hawaiians]. the aztecs lived and practiced in mexico. as far as i know most geographers do not concider mexico to be a part of central and therefore north america. but then maybe i am 'quibbling'.

[pgrmdave]

This is very lopsided thinking. Religion has not given us any art whatsoever. People are inspired by their own ideas to create. They paint what is popular ane paid for at the time. The bible is a very bad example of literature. It is not well written, been translated hundreds of times with so many various meanings assigned that it has invariably lost its original content. It has not joy, no humor, only occasional mention of music and it distains art, to boot. That shalt have no graven images.

 

 

Religion has given us art, if it has given us anything else. If people can be inspired by their religions to perform any act, as FT often implies, then it can be used to inspire art. If the church's funding deaths can be used by FT to provide bad things religion has been a part of, then religiously funded works can be accepted as religious. As for the bible being bad liturature, I disagree. Psalms in particular is very moving. Many of the psalms, if not all, are meant to be sung, and it is the largest book in the bible, which I think counters the idea of only occasionaly mention of music. The bible does have joy, just not in the histories, or laws. As for humor, it depends on what you find amusing. I have found some passages to be humorous.

[Buffy]

native americans are members of north american tribes [american indian, eskimo, aleut and native hawaiians]. the aztecs lived and practiced in mexico. as far as i know most geographers do not concider mexico to be a part of central and therefore north america. but then maybe i am 'quibbling'.

Oh the Mexicans go back and forth on whether they wanna be "Norte Americanos" although actually most geographers do put Mexico in North America. I think you'd get a big argument from the folks in central and south america about them not being "native americans."

 

But even if I were to grant you all of this, the Anasazi were most definitely in New Mexico and Arizona. There has been lots of evidence of sacrificial ceremonies found in the Anasazi sites like the famous cliff dwellings in Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

native americans are members of north american tribes [... and native hawaiians].

Uhhhhh, there might be some bleeding heart hao'le's who wanna put the hawaiian natives in the "native american" classification, but I think they'd die laughing and choking on their Primo, Maui Chips and Spam. They are most definitely Polynesians and they'd die before being told otherwise. If anything, they'd point to Thor Hyerdahl proving that the south american "native americans" all were polynesian!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

now that i think of it i would be interested in wiccan evils as well.

Hey, some of my best friends are witches! Willow, Phoebe, Piper, Prue and Paige (oops! wrong series!) are definitely not evil--although Willow did have that phase after Jonathan shot Tara...

 

No seriously, wiccans are almost always pacifists, but they're like Gypsies and Jews: they get blamed for everything and it becomes impossible to separate truth from fantasy.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Stargazer]

Stargazer - I agree with many of your points, but when you describe what science and religion can do, you only describe the good points of technology - while it is possible to do much greater good, it also becomes possible to do much greater evil. The atomic bomb was created by science, as were guns, crossbows, spears, and all weapons. And you do admit that prayer can make the pray-er feel better, which is at least one good thing about religion.

I know, it's all about how we chose to use science. Obviously I wish we wouldn't use it to build weapons. It's a huge waste of lives, resources, time and brains. But if we want to do good, then our chances to do it will improve with science.

[Stargazer]

i don't think anyone here is trying to convert you to christianity (which is what most zealous atheists are talking about when they attack 'religion') only to bring to your attention the inherent arrogance in the position that there is no god and anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot.

Surely it's far more arrogant to say that there is a god, yet be unable to show any kind of evidence. After all, this would assume that you are special in some way, making you one of the selected ones who can see this god. Then I suppose god, too, is rather arrogant.

 

for me it is a pipedream to think all sixplus billion of us could dismantle god from our vocabulary and find meaning and peace of mind and a reason to go on enduring the sufferances of existance with only a system of measurment to guide us.

For me too. After all, why would people use nothing but a "system of measurement" to guide them? I find it strange that religion is everything for some people. All or nothing.

 

'weak' agnostics are simply those who demonstrate the humility to admit that there is a world beyond their own minds and that they not the master of it. dragons, purple unicorns and such are bad examples for an argument against belief god because god is by definition intangible, a 'spirit'. and i strongly doubt a belief in purple unicorns gives anyone the kind of peace of mind concerning death that religion does. this is not to say god exists but that maybe criticizing and/or mocking someone elses belief is a adolescent and disrepectful activity that proves nothing but the weakness inherent in those who do so.

But if people know that there is absolutely no basis for their beliefs, it surely follows that they know it might very well not be true at all. Wouldn't the utter lack of evidence or support actually cause greater discomfort?

 

And what if purple unicorns help people get through the day? You don't know that, do you? There is no difference.

[IrishEyes]

But if people know that there is absolutely no basis for their beliefs, it surely follows that they know it might very well not be true at all. Wouldn't the utter lack of evidence or support actually cause greater discomfort?

Stargazer, there are people that believe they have a basis for their beliefs. I think that's what this "great divide" (i like that one, Aqua!) is all about, really.

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say though.

*hypothetically* --- If I know that there is nothing factual on which to base my belief in God, that creation is a myth made up to explain where we came from, that abiogenesis and evolution actually explain the origination and expansion of life, that Jesus never actually lived but was an invention by people in 450AD to keep a group of conquered peoples in line, etc... If I KNEW these things, yet I still believed in God and called myself a Christian, then wouldn't the utter lack of support for the God-myth that I still believed cause great discomfort? Well, if I KNEW all of those things to be false, I don't think I'd actually believe them to be true. Do you understand what I mean? "if people know that there is absolutely no basis for their beliefs, it surely follows that they know it might very well not be true at all"... I guess maybe I'm missing your point. You are just saying the same thing, aren't you?

 

Ugh, I feel like I'm talking in circles with this one. Let me think this through a bit more and try this one again later in the day. I need some more coffee, and I have to finish my taxes. Beyond that, my homework is waiting. But this is an interesting discussion and I hope that it wil continue for a bit. Also, everyone please remember to stick to our FAQ, ok?

[C1ay]

Freethinker Resident Atheist

 

Wow. I found my alter ego. I'm Freethinker over at the forums at FindLaw although my position is more of an agnostic. Nice to meet you.

[Stargazer]

*hypothetically* --- If I know that there is nothing factual on which to base my belief in God, that creation is a myth made up to explain where we came from,

Well, of course. Or did you think that it was all based on actual observation?

 

that abiogenesis and evolution actually explain the origination and expansion of life,

Well, it just so happens that they do. Are you telling me, seriously, that you completely reject these parts of modern science, despite all the evidence? Abiogenesis is fact no matter how it happened, since life do come from non-life. This goes for life created by a god, too. Evolution is indeed a successful theory that one cannot so easily throw out the window merely because one wishes to - and that is currently the only reason anyone could have. Biblical creationism is a complete failure compared to science. No evidence.

 

that Jesus never actually lived but was an invention by people in 450AD to keep a group of conquered peoples in line,

If there was a person that lived and was the inspiration for the stories about Jesus, I wouldn't know. However either way it is an extraordinary claim that he was the son of god.

 

etc... If I KNEW these things, yet I still believed in God and called myself a Christian, then wouldn't the utter lack of support for the God-myth that I still believed cause great discomfort? Well, if I KNEW all of those things to be false, I don't think I'd actually believe them to be true. Do you understand what I mean? "if people know that there is absolutely no basis for their beliefs, it surely follows that they know it might very well not be true at all"... I guess maybe I'm missing your point. You are just saying the same thing, aren't you?

Well, I was just assuming that there must be at least some people who actually knows that the universe is around 13.7 bn years (current estimate), that the Earth and rest of the Solar system are around 4.5 bn years, that life came from non-life (and continues to do so, obviously!), that life evolved and will continue to do so, that a global flood is impossible, etc. Also, some must know that if they believe in all the things you mentioned, such as creationism, god, etc. they believe for a reason. If people have good reason to believe the creation myth for example, it means that observation and science are completely unsufficient in providing a better image. To write down a myth that is not supported by any observations is apparently a better method.

 

Let's assume that they actually believe all those things for a reason. They have evidence, and more so than there is for contemporary scientific theories - even evidence that completely refutes modern scientific knowledge.

 

This would be revolutionary, to say the least. We now know that those who believe in the creation myth of the Bible have plenty of evidence supporting it (likewise, obviously, people who believe in other creation myths must have evidence for those, why else would they believe?). I think they should present all this evidence for the scientific community. I think they should show the rest of the world that evidence supporting biological evolution is all wrong, that the universe is 6000 years old, that a flood happened, and all the other things. Anyone who can revolutionise science in such a way is sure to be celebrities on a scale that would make Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein jealous. They would be forever written in the history books. Prizes, awards and respect would shower over them.

 

Yet, this has not happened. They chose to hide all this awesome knowledge. They chose to present it without evidence, thinking it will work anyway. Sadly, it does work - on the general public.

 

But, I suppose that since there obviously is plenty of such evidence to be found, mainstream science will find it. It's just a matter of time, I'm sure.

 

Meanwhile, there is a stream of new knowledge flowing in, every day, to improve our understanding when it comes to biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology. Nothing at all seems to support the Bible or any other mythological, made-up stories. The evidence seems to go in a completely different direction.