Elton John: 'I would ban religion completely'

Just want to know if anyone else feels that there is a difference between being spititual and being religious. Not trying to stir anything up, just curious because I don't practice any organized religion but try to follow buddhist philosophy as much as I can so I would say I am a fairly spiritual person.

At least half the thread deals with the comparison between the two. I think the eventual consensus was that no one has a problem with someone wanting to be spiritual, as long as the person doesn't persecute/kill those who believe differently.

sorry got distracted from reading it oh about 2. will have to sit down at home and read it in its entirety later to catch up, as enduramil says "coles notes please".

yes, the thread has gone beyond the original scope. but considering the inflammatory nature of the opening clause and the STRONG anti-religion sentiment in the last 10 pages, the claim that atheists aren't trying to change beliefs is a stretch.

as for mutual understanding, the whole thing has the air of a circle-jerk of babel. whether or not god could exist is totally moot because god was never defined! and not a single person ever claimed that religions SHOULD be allowed to impose their faith on others. instead we were treated to a bunch of rationalists pulling their brains and having big bang orgasms over how clever they are to "disprove" the "big guy with the beard" theory.

my points were added in an effort to improve clarity and to provide some counter-points and you flatter me by being the only person to give a shit. cheers!

Max

Well there's a difference between a debate, and the way people deal with their day-to-day lives. Of course the athiests are trying to convince people here, that's what you do when you're debating: you take apart the other person's argument, counter it, and offer your own point(s).

I never bring this up in my day-to-day life. To be quite honest, I do tend to look down on people who believe in an organized religion. I see it as a crutch, and the people that believe it to be naiive and almost childlike in many ways. However, I would never say that in any context other than this one, and I don't let it influence my decisions (at least I like to think I don't).
Much the same way everyone deals with that coworker they hate, but they can get along in a business environment.

Your Going To Hell For That One.

YOU'RE going to Hell for your poor grammar. :P

Well there's a difference between a debate, and the way people deal with their day-to-day lives….

It's been my experience that people will "debate" their views, which is more like "push their views", as an affirmation of their beliefs. It is done not for educational or enlightenment purposes, but more to scratch their ego.

I never bring this up in my day-to-day life. To be quite honest, I do tend to look down on people who believe in an organized religion. I see it as a crutch, and the people that believe it to be naiive and almost childlike in many ways.

I would call that an arrogant attitiude, and a blanket statement. There are a lot of incredibly intelligent, sane, and mature people who believe in organized religion. Also, there is a lot of humanistic good that is provided by organized religion. I will give you an example.

In the small town where I grew up, there are various churches (organized religions). Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. Every Christmas, in this small town of approximately 10,000 people (it's more like 35,000 now), one or more the these churches will have members thatg spend countless hours organizing a hamper fund for Christmas. They collect donations, as well as donate themselves, food and clothing goods. These goods are delivered to homes of needy people before Christmas. In the past, I have helped out with this effort. There is no preaching or converting going on. The people are given, for free, something to help them because the doners have a belief that it is the right thing to do. This isn't limited to Christmas as similar types of events occur during the year.

These type of activities occur a lot on a daily basis throughout the world, and I've never seen (or heard of) any group of atheists that perform the same kind of charitable work on behalf of their fellow man. The people of the organized religion, even the poor, will make an effort. The atheist might if they have a lot of money.

What most organized religion helps to establish is a sense of community. Hundreds of years ago the world would was much more ruralized, and a "church" was a center point for a community. This does not show naivety, it shows thought and common sense.

These type of activities occur a lot on a daily basis throughout the world, and I've never seen (or heard of) any group of atheists that perform the same kind of charitable work on behalf of their fellow man. The people of the organized religion, even the poor, will make an effort. The atheist might if they have a lot of money.

You piqued my curiousity; Google found this: http://www.atheistcharity.org/

While charity groups that label themselves as "atheist" may be few and far between, there are certainly lots of charities that do not have a specific religious association. As a side note, the Bush administration (from my limited understanding) tends to give preferential funding to religious organizations with respect to AIDS work.

(though I definitely do agree that many churches and other religious organizations provide a positive contribution through charity work)

some facts for you to ponder

the US is the most willingly charitable (i.e. through donations and not taxes) nation in the world. it is also one of the most religious with heavy judeo-christian western influence.

the most religious areas of the US give significantly more of their modest earnings to charity than wealthier, less religious districts.

the most devastating genocides the world has seen have been the works of accused atheists, or at least darwinists (i.e. hitler, stalin, mao).

This does not show naivety, it shows thought and common sense.

Common sense also entails the ensuring of the best possible quality of life as a society. Whether church truly does that or not, IMO, is still debateable.

Christianity, for example, employs a guilt driven mechanism which, from my perspective, definitely leads to a great deal of mental anguish and reduction in the quality of life. Of course, there are examples of an increase in quality of life associated with Christianity, I just think it's important to look at the bad along with the good…

Regarding being thoughtful, to me being thoughtful means to rationalize and try to understand EVERY single human being and understand why they do things. Understanding includes NOT judging them which is clearly what Christianity does hence Christianity, IMO, is clearly not thoughtful.

Pedro

You piqued my curiousity; Google found this: http://www.atheistcharity.org/

The first link, at the top left, takes you to a page that lists "Catholic Relief Services". :lol:

Christianity, for example, employs a guilt driven mechanism which, from my perspective, definitely leads to a great deal of mental anguish and reduction in the quality of life. Of course, there are examples of an increase in quality of life associated with Christianity, I just think it's important to look at the bad along with the good…

And what is constantly looked at is the bad. Not once does anyone bring up the good that it provides. Perhaps that is a testament to our society, as negativety draws people much more strongly. I don't like reading reading local newspapers because that's their slant; sensationalism of negative events.

As for the comment that Chistianity "employs a guilt driven mechanism", I've been around Christianity for a long time, and I've not experienced that. Perhaps the Ernest Anglies and Benny Hinns of the world give Christianity a bad rap, or perhaps some sects of Christianity misinterpret what they are part of. It's been my experience that 99% of Christians are open minded and do not push their beliefs on others. If there was such a large percentage that did, you'd never see help/money/supplies/etc. going to any poor areas that have only "heathens". Even my Muslim friends do not discriminate where their charity goes; to them charity is charity, whether it's work for free at a non-profit society, or helping to feed starving people that aren't Muslim.

It's never been about what god says, it's been man inventing religion and interpreting what god says.

You ever hear of Scopes Monkey Trial?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

Of course, there are examples of an increase in quality of life associated with Christianity, I just think it's important to look at the bad along with the good…

why does our society have a preoccupation with focusing on the negative? it's prevalent in all aspects of life. why not just focus on the good in something and discard the negative?

^^ agreed, switch. I haven't seen it either. I've only seen a solid set of values taught to people, regardless of whether or not they follow them (which they often do).

what I think is more interesting is that there are 27 pages of debate on an subject for which there is no conclusive way to prove the existence of a supreme being to begin with. (sorry gooch). to each their own is all I have to contribute to this one.

why does our society have a preoccupation with focusing on the negative? it's prevalent in all aspects of life. why not just focus on the good in something and discard the negative?

The answer is simple:

Society as a whole feels like shit.

People who feel like crap only want to see the negative so they can momentarily feel better about their crappy ass lives thinking someone has it worse. Unhappy people do (EDIT) NOT (EDIT) want to see happiness because that would only be a further re-enforcement how crappy their lives are.

If you look at most of the TV shows/media reports, they are about something negative happenning to someone else. It's all about drama and that is the cheapest and most effective way to make the miserable masses to feel better about their lives momentarily.

There you have it.

Society as whole feels like shit…

Pedro

The answer is simple:

Society as a whole feels like shit.

People who feel like crap only want to see the negative so they can momentarily feel better about their crappy ass lives thinking someone has it worse. Unhappy people do want to see happiness because that would only be a further re-enforcement how crappy their lives are.

If you look at most of the TV shows/media reports, they are about something negative happenning to someone else. It's all about drama and that is the cheapest and most effective way to make the miserable masses to feel better about their lives momentarily.

There you have it.

Society as whole feels like shit…

Pedro

i don't disagree, but put that question out to people in general. try and focus on the good things in life and leave the negative behind.

i don't disagree, but put that question out to people in general. try and focus on the good things in life and leave the negative behind.

It's a catch 22.

Do you start by trying to have people focus on the good and hope they will feel better?

Or do you make them feel better (consistently better and not just momentarily) first which will automatically lead them focusing on the good?

I would think the 2nd option would be the only one the works.

The first one would only work for a limited time. It's like being on a diet. You can try all you want but until you truly feel better about yourself, you will keep eating crap (eventually)…

Pedro