Religious affiliation poll

"I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians" - Gandhi

 

Atheism and Agnosticism are intellectually the easiest choices to make; they certainly don't require much thought and morality is entirely relative to whatever pop culture whims prevail at the time. Perfect for an age of instant gratification.

 

As if theism requires much thought? In my view, atheistic agnosticism is the only logical choice. Because -really- none of us knows. But it's also true that involving a god in any way gives us more questions than answers.

 

None of what you listed are 'religions.'

 

No brainers.

As opposed to clinging to hoary, antediluvian, prelapsarian notions concerning the whims of reputed denizens of a fancied spirit world?

I have always championed the tenets of Christian morality - To feed the hungry, To give drink to the thirsty, To clothe the naked, To shelter the homeless, To visit the sick, To visit the imprisoned, To bury the dead - and such should be the noble goals fof self-governance in any advanced society, but are in no way dependent upon personifying divinities - as if they would care.

It should be noted that moral progress, even in institutions chronically resistant to it, is possible:

 

Because people are so much better off now then when they believed in something. That must be why people around the world are committing suicide in record numbers, because they're happier now, because modern secular society gives people so much to hope for. And as for moral progress: there hasn't been any, ever, anywhere. People are exactly the same as they were a hundred thousand years ago, they're just more confused now.

 

Most of today's 7+ billion humans (who do "believe in something") are better off now than the estimated 10 thousand of 70 thousand years ago, the remnants of a supervolcano that erupted in Indonesia and wiped out most of humanity - despite undoubted attempts at propitiating the volcanic gods. Life was characterized by universal religious dogma, and was nasty, brutal, and short. Blind faith in deities never assured a blissful existence.

I have no idea what data you reference to form an inverse correspondence between suicide rates and the prevalence of notions of a spirit world. This is the World Health Organisation list of nations in order of per capita suicide rates. Is Greenland, that leads the list, a stronghold of deity deniers? I had thought that it was largely Lutheran (which is far more apt to occasion seppuku, imho.)

The US rate of suicide is higher than that of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, or Iceland - despite all having a much higher rate of atheism and agnosticism.

More aware of the complexity of existence and less susceptible to myth, true, but also far more apt to be vegans than cannibals - although being consumed by one's fellow man would preclude subsequent suicide, naturally.


.

 

Pastafarian. Every Friday is a holiday and their heaven has a beer volcano and a stripper factory.

 

While moral progress is subjective, most would say that ending slavery would be considered moral progress, for example.

The same goes for ending segregation.

 

After years of careful deliberation and in depth analysis and of course how obvious it is, I have come to the conclusion that I am my own god. Which category would that place me in?

 

How smart or moral is a humanity that puts so much energy into maintaining the means of it's own extinction? I see no signs of progress, simply a changing rationalization of what we are and how we conduct ourselves. Some people are very impressed with mankind's achievements. I'm not one of those people.

 

Who said slavery and segregation have ended? They just take different forms now.

 

If you don't avail yourself of the dependable food distribution, health care, plumbing, central heating, electric lighting, communication, etc. with which advancing technology has improved the quality of life for so many, you are probably impervious to the boon to humanity that it is. Survival of the fittest did nothing to advance moral behaviour.

 

Maybe I should be more impressed with humanity's achievements and accumulated knowledge, after all, look what we have to work with. You are correct in saying people are materially happy, they have the things they need to make life more comfortable, opening up all kinds of opportunities and possibilities for people that never before existed. One might think people would be quantitatively happier as a result; mentally, emotionally, and yes even spiritually, their minds, hearts and souls finding some level of peace and satisfaction. Yet even with the demise of organized religion billions of people continue to seek answers and solace from a growing variety of sources. I wonder why that is. Is it a transitional confusion of society? Is there a basic defect in human DNA? Is it a conditioned response? Or is there something else about the human condition that atheist might have missed?

 

I wonder as well. Organized religions may have obsessed over and attempted to perpetuate the mythological elements too far into a scientific age, and the far more important moral component has suffered as a result. I hope it recovers and thrives without the crutches that once sustained it.

 

Science is a huge problem for people, most understand it about as well as they understand religion, almost not at all. People are prone to rely on anecdotal half truths, it's easier.

 

And new Philosophy calls all in doubt, the element of fire is quite put out; the Sun is lost, and the earth, and no mans wit can well direct him where to look for it."

John Donne.​

The respect for science derives from its advances often being applicable to the mundane demands of life, and its inherent self-correcting assessment. Even those who cannot embrace its complexities appreciate its applied practicalities, and its unrelenting quest for truth. As Darwin noted concerning the ennobling unity revealed by biological evolution, "There is a grandeur in this view of life."

When the institutional inertia of organised religion confronts such a dynamic endeavour, it has often assumed a defencive and churlish posture. As it overcomes feeling threatened by the ongoing acquisition of knowledge, it may re-assert its moral legitimacy and embrace science as an ally, not an enemy. Self-examination benefits all human pursuits, and the current Pope's re-prioritizations bode well for the religion business.

 

Sure, but there's a huge difference between the state forcing them vs. illegal markets and private preferences.

Sex slavery and human trafficking in general are obviously problems today, but they aren't being supported by the government.

At the same time, segregation is voluntary in modern society. People choose to live apart, which implies social problems, but it's a far cry from being forced to separate.

 

For me there is no conflict between science and religion, and yes religion should have embraced science a long time ago. In part because science has no morality.

 

Have a look at your shoes, clothing, or electronic devices sometime. Where they made in China? If so there's a good chance they were manufactured using prison slave labor. I wonder how many political prisoners it took to make your I-Pod?

 

This is true. Our consumption unfortunately supports slavery.

Granted, this is hardly a modern arrangement. You could easily categorize the labor standards of the factories in America in the early 1900s as being pretty close to slavery as well.

Unfortunately, capitalism tends to support slavery-esque conditions when it comes to cheap manufacturing. This is a problem that we can hopefully evolve past in the future.

Automation has solved part of this problem, however.

 

Capitalism has never supported slavery-esque conditions. Capitalism encourages competition. The better employees work for the companies that pay the most money and offer better incentives. Those companies who do not choose to compete, settling for cheap labor, eventually gets crushed by the competition.

China is not a truly capitalist society. The media continues to espouse China's embracing of capitalism to move their economy forward, but their government structure remains authoritarian. They have not yet embraced free-market capitalism. Watch out, when they do.

Back on religion...

I'm a Christian - raised Methodist, but really non-denominational, since most church hierarchies have been corrupted by now and truly have lost their way. The progressive movement has, unfortunately, reached the upper echelons of most denominations. It's of my opinion that if you want to be a good Christian, you should follow the word of God and example of Christ, not that of a Priest or Minister. Churches are good for one thing... and that is community building and meeting like-minded people. A church is not a requirement for worshiping God.

I'm also a student of Anthropology (I have my BA degree in the field) and have a great respect for science. I've thought about going back for my master's or doctorate to do something interesting in the sciences, but have chosen to forego the advanced education and remain in business. Both are fun/interesting, but I've taken to business. That being said, those who are religious should certainly embrace science... but only when the science is "true."

The lie of evolution (and we can argue that if you'd like), just like global warming, shouldn't be embraced, merely because many in the scientific community have accepted the theories as truth and proven, despite the lack of evidence proving such a conclusion. I'm of the belief that the Theory of Evolution was concocted by the Atheist Darwin to further a Marxist/Socialist/Communist agenda, which is the disproving of God. Without God, who do we answer to? Government? They are, after all, the law makers... and surely we can't govern ourselves, since people are certainly imperfect, as has been proven by our history and experiences.

So, while science can aid in the progression of society, in that we can achieve goals we've never thought about achieving before (healing diseases, landing on the moon, development of various automobiles, creation of artificial limbs, etc.), it cannot replace or disprove God or the belief in God. Religion is based on faith, belief and common sense ("everything coming from nothing, for no particular reason whatsoever" lacks sense), not physical evidence.

 

Here you are saying both Evolution and Global warming are lies, although they have ungodly amounts of evidence in support of them. Many people believe just because its a theory it means its not true, this simply shows your ignorance when it comes to science. Everything, I repeat, EVERYTHING is a theory. Scientists are not 100% absolutely sure about anything, why? Because they have the guts to admit they may actually be wrong, unlike religion which claims it has the absolute unalterable truth. Do you realize gravity is a theory? Why dont you have a opinion about that why do religious people and libertarians always have to talk crap about global warming instead of our theory on gravity or the distances between planets? The reason they focus on global warming is Capitalism, they are scared if people begin to realize global warming as the truth they will put caps and regulations on highly polluting industries, which would hurt business and people will lose jobs. That is the only reason they debate global warming and not gravity, all though both are extremely credible theories.

They only have a problem with science when it interferes with their personal beliefs, they were indoctrinated as a child to believe we were created by God, so when science says we come from Apes they will obviously deny it. The bible says nothing about the distance in between planets, so when a scientist says "This planet is x amount of miles away from that planet" they have no problem with it because it has nothing to do with their personal beliefs. They believe in a completely free market and no regulations, the science of global warming is a threat to that, so what they do? Simply deny it or try their hardest to make the science doubtable by spewing out half truths and often times complete nonsense.

edit:
Oh, and science is simply a latin word for "Knowledge", that is all it means, so when you attack science and the overwhelming evidence, you are making your self look quite literally unintelligent.

 

Im sorry to brake it to you guys but slavery is not just in China, it is right here in America. Just read the 13th amendment, it in fact does not abolish slavery its one of the biggest lies I was ever taught.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
You see, if you have "committed a crime", slavery is very much so still on the table. Not surprisingly when slavery ended and it was the time of year to pick cotton, mass numbers of blacks all across the south "coincidentally" happened to be arrested for committing a crime. Sure you can blame Jim Crow laws, but how is it today? Blacks make up less than 50% of the population yet make up well over 50% of the prison population. They work for less than a dollar an hour and have to pay extra for items and of course are no longer allowed to vote even after being released, it is modern day slavery right here in America. We are the "land of the free" yet have a much higher percentage of our population in prison than any other country in the world, by far.

America, Home of Capitalism, Land of the Gun.

 

We have slavery here, but it's in illegal markets like sex slavery and such.

As far as black people go, they hurt themselves more than the system hurts them.

That being said, ending the War on Drugs would help some of the situation.