|
Post by cagnazzo on Mar 13, 2009 23:02:03 GMT -5
As an agnostic, I feel that I'm on the same quest for truth that both atheists and theists are. Just so you know, there are definitions of atheism that you qualify as already. "Atheism" is commonly used to mean either that there is active disbelief or that there is a lack of positive belief. Strong and weak are usually used to describe the two positions. Some people reject the "strong and weak" classification and use the word atheist to exclusively describe someone in either group. Or just in the strong group. It's also worth noting that Spinoza was a pantheist of sorts, yet in his time people called him an atheist. I guess my point is that being agnostic doesn't preclude yourself from being atheistic or theistic, though agnosticism tends to imply weak atheism in my experience. Really though, just labeling yourself with a term doesn't usually convey what you believe, especially if you've throught through the beliefs. I know I don't fit neatly into any categories unless you define "god" first anyway.
|
|
|
Post by auroramike on Mar 14, 2009 1:14:32 GMT -5
I personally don't give a hairy rat's ass what people chose to believe or not to believe. However, the instant that someone's belief system interferes with my personal freedoms, I have a HUGE problem with faith. This includes paying nickel one to support it, which my tax dollars certainly do. By not taxing the businesses that religions are, they ARE infringing on my personal freedom, by forcing me to pay more taxes than I should, with no return for it. Call me militant, radical, whatever, but fair is fair. My money subsidizing something that contributes nothing to society, and, in fact, is generally a detriment to society is patently unfair. Yes, I know all the arguments about the charitable work that churches do, but those "good works" are subsidized by ME, with religious strings attached. We're talking, to misquote Carl Sagan, BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars, sucked into the con-job that religion is. sorry, rant over... I'll agree and disagree because according to the book of Revelations, I'm "lukewarm", neither hot nor cold. ;-) Joking aside, that's a slippery slope to travel. Technically speaking, churches are not-for-profit orginizations and most, not all, do operate as a charitable entity. Mega churchs as headed by the likes of Joel Osteen and Rick Warren along with the televangelist ministries are a different cup of tea and I agree that they probably should be taxed. When your church is so big that Starbucks opens a franchise in your lobby, you are far beyond the not-for-profit tax bracket. With that said, your traditional few-hundred member churches actually do a lot of community good with no expectation of thanks or returns. Just take religion out of the equation for the moment (which I know is your point), they act as additional sources for food drives/baskets, visiting shut-ins, community work that doesn't involve evangalizing, provide heavy investment into homeless shelters and initiatives like Habitat for Humanity and so on. If you suddenly tax tithing which is no different than a charitable donation to "Feed the Children" or some other 2am infomercial charity, that outreach dries up. As someone who used to organize his church activities in this field, not all Christians try to use these as opportunities to evangelize. It does happen though and I 100% see where you are coming from because some churches are take, take, take, rich, rich, rich and there should be some degree of oversight on church finances (after all, doesn't the US keep watch over Islamic "charities", why do Christians get a free pass) but an outright tax would have a snowball effect to other charities, or at least it could.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 14, 2009 7:28:15 GMT -5
I personally don't give a hairy rat's ass what people chose to believe or not to believe. However, the instant that someone's belief system interferes with my personal freedoms, I have a HUGE problem with faith. This includes paying nickel one to support it, which my tax dollars certainly do. By not taxing the businesses that religions are, they ARE infringing on my personal freedom, by forcing me to pay more taxes than I should, with no return for it. Call me militant, radical, whatever, but fair is fair. My money subsidizing something that contributes nothing to society, and, in fact, is generally a detriment to society is patently unfair. Yes, I know all the arguments about the charitable work that churches do, but those "good works" are subsidized by ME, with religious strings attached. We're talking, to misquote Carl Sagan, BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars, sucked into the con-job that religion is. sorry, rant over... I'll agree and disagree because according to the book of Revelations, I'm "lukewarm", neither hot nor cold. ;-) Joking aside, that's a slippery slope to travel. Technically speaking, churches are not-for-profit orginizations and most, not all, do operate as a charitable entity. Mega churchs as headed by the likes of Joel Osteen and Rick Warren along with the televangelist ministries are a different cup of tea and I agree that they probably should be taxed. When your church is so big that Starbucks opens a franchise in your lobby, you are far beyond the not-for-profit tax bracket. With that said, your traditional few-hundred member churches actually do a lot of community good with no expectation of thanks or returns. Just take religion out of the equation for the moment (which I know is your point), they act as additional sources for food drives/baskets, visiting shut-ins, community work that doesn't involve evangalizing, provide heavy investment into homeless shelters and initiatives like Habitat for Humanity and so on. If you suddenly tax tithing which is no different than a charitable donation to "Feed the Children" or some other 2am infomercial charity, that outreach dries up. As someone who used to organize his church activities in this field, not all Christians try to use these as opportunities to evangelize. It does happen though and I 100% see where you are coming from because some churches are take, take, take, rich, rich, rich and there should be some degree of oversight on church finances (after all, doesn't the US keep watch over Islamic "charities", why do Christians get a free pass) but an outright tax would have a snowball effect to other charities, or at least it could. omng, what a load of apologetic crap. Organised religion does a LOT of harm , not just to adherents but to society in general. They actively work against the use of reason, knowledge and education in society. They actively interfere in people's lives. They use their power to influence government. They often constitute "boys clubs". They actively work against social justice. They do not pay taxes and use gov legislation to compete unfairly with tax paying businesses. When you see a church give charity you can be pretty sure they are just handing out money they have collected, nothing comes out the black holes of the church coffers, nothing. Congregations in US churches are usually split along the colour line, what does that say about them? hmmmmm Some actively discourage their members from seeking medical care for themselves or their children. Churches promote an Us V Them mentality, believers v unbelievers, how is that constructive? Church actively encourage authoritarian behaviour and unquestioning compliance. Some churches actively lie to and deceive potential members about the beliefs and requirements of being a member. They arrogate all positive human qualities and behaviours into their teachings, teaching that these qualities are given by supernatural intervention. I could go on. Religion is NOT a force for good, even moderate religion is not moderate, and it effects all, not just the adherents.
|
|
|
Post by auroramike on Mar 14, 2009 14:53:41 GMT -5
I'll agree and disagree because according to the book of Revelations, I'm "lukewarm", neither hot nor cold. ;-) Joking aside, that's a slippery slope to travel. Technically speaking, churches are not-for-profit orginizations and most, not all, do operate as a charitable entity. Mega churchs as headed by the likes of Joel Osteen and Rick Warren along with the televangelist ministries are a different cup of tea and I agree that they probably should be taxed. When your church is so big that Starbucks opens a franchise in your lobby, you are far beyond the not-for-profit tax bracket. With that said, your traditional few-hundred member churches actually do a lot of community good with no expectation of thanks or returns. Just take religion out of the equation for the moment (which I know is your point), they act as additional sources for food drives/baskets, visiting shut-ins, community work that doesn't involve evangalizing, provide heavy investment into homeless shelters and initiatives like Habitat for Humanity and so on. If you suddenly tax tithing which is no different than a charitable donation to "Feed the Children" or some other 2am infomercial charity, that outreach dries up. As someone who used to organize his church activities in this field, not all Christians try to use these as opportunities to evangelize. It does happen though and I 100% see where you are coming from because some churches are take, take, take, rich, rich, rich and there should be some degree of oversight on church finances (after all, doesn't the US keep watch over Islamic "charities", why do Christians get a free pass) but an outright tax would have a snowball effect to other charities, or at least it could. omng, what a load of apologetic crap. Organised religion does a LOT of harm , not just to adherents but to society in general. They actively work against the use of reason, knowledge and education in society. They actively interfere in people's lives. They use their power to influence government. They often constitute "boys clubs". They actively work against social justice. They do not pay taxes and use gov legislation to compete unfairly with tax paying businesses. When you see a church give charity you can be pretty sure they are just handing out money they have collected, nothing comes out the black holes of the church coffers, nothing. Congregations in US churches are usually split along the colour line, what does that say about them? hmmmmm Some actively discourage their members from seeking medical care for themselves or their children. Churches promote an Us V Them mentality, believers v unbelievers, how is that constructive? Church actively encourage authoritarian behaviour and unquestioning compliance. Some churches actively lie to and deceive potential members about the beliefs and requirements of being a member. They arrogate all positive human qualities and behaviours into their teachings, teaching that these qualities are given by supernatural intervention. I could go on. Religion is NOT a force for good, even moderate religion is not moderate, and it effects all, not just the adherents. As someone who once founded and led a church as well as being a member of a few different congregations in my lifetime (I am agnostic these days but on occasion attend a United Methodist Church because the pastor is a friend of mine and he doesn't shy away from conterversial social commentary), that's really an over generalization. There are certainly sects of any social group that fits the mold you've painted but I personally refuse to stereotype and label entire groups of people because of the actions of the minority of them. Not every Christian is an adherant to the mindlessness that is Rapture Ready, Rapture Forms or the die-hards @ CARM. Before starting my own church, I was an associate pastor of a Calvary Chapel and you are spot on about that bunch, at least for that time frame. But a lot of Christian instutions do not reject evolution, do not assume everyone that isn't like them is going to hell, that women are simply servants to men or cry about persecution every 5 minutes. One could turn around and say, based on google results alone, that atheists are hateful, spiteful baby eating monsters who enjoy raping, killing, and shitting on everything in their path but likewise (and I'm over exaggerating here since it's hard to show sarcasm on the internet) could be generalized based on the actions of the few. I just don't think it's fair to paint all people of any faith or belief with such a broad brush. Your above points are related to a very vocal yet very small minority of the Christian population and in particular the far right ultra-conservative Evangelical Christian camps. Those include the likes of the Calvary Chapels, "independant"/non-denominational camps instead of places like the "Catholic-light" Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist camps or even more liberal (from the Chrsitian standpoint) groups like Unitarians or the UCC.
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Mar 14, 2009 15:05:59 GMT -5
When was the last time athiests tried to bend the law to their will? And why cant we have charities without all the religious strings attached? I'm certain we could do more for people if we didn't divert funds to pay priests, buy stain glass windows and 'defend' marriage.
|
|
|
Post by auroramike on Mar 14, 2009 15:22:33 GMT -5
When was the last time athiests tried to bend the law to their will? And why cant we have charities without all the religious strings attached? I'm certain we could do more for people if we didn't divert funds to pay priests, buy stain glass windows and 'defend' marriage. Whether we like it or not, at least in the US, there were a number of Jewish-Christian practices within the secular realm until the 1960s/1970s. Prayer in schools, prayers at public events, invocations of "God" at a vareity of events and so on. We can debate the merits of said practices until we're blue in the face but the fact is, they were always there and it wasn't 30 or so years ago when that started to change. A sense of entitlement was established as a result and some have further romanticized the idea and they want those "values" back. Of course the flip side is that America has become considerably more secular and thus that's why we have thus huge divide and cultural war as a result. As for paying priests, I don't know of any cases where public funds (i.e. tax dollars) have gone to pay for that but I know I was never certainly paid that way nor was any pastor of any congregation that I was a part of. (Re-reading your post, I might have misunderstood your point here and that you just meant instead of tithing give the money as a charity - I didn't want to change my post though and keep my original thoughts in place) And for charitable donations without the string of religion - if there was more publication of non-religious or unaffiliated instutions that did charity work then I'm sure it would work out but the fact is, that area is dominated by religious (Catholic, Protestant Christian, Islamic and Jewish) sects. I know there are some non-religious groups out there, Doctors Without Borders for example, but until these groups step up and make themselves known then most of the money will continue to flow via religious orginizations. And since most "atheist" (I use the term loosely here because it's not a fair representation) charities or charitable orgs have a very public and fairly controversial public image with them, the public at large stays away from investments in those instutions. I am of course referring to Planned Parenthood, FFR and their ilk. Short of it is you don't need a religious tie-in for charity. Gates, Buffett, Carnigie, Jolie and others have all more than proven that. But again, the bulk is initiatied in those realms and until that paradigm changes, that's the world we'll continue to live in.
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Mar 14, 2009 15:57:33 GMT -5
So because religions had a head start and tend to absorb the secular organizations *I imagine most will go religious if it means more resources for their cause* we should just accept that and keep wasting a portion of the money donated to them on appeasing a diety instead of feeding the hungry?
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 14, 2009 18:18:35 GMT -5
omng, what a load of apologetic crap. Organised religion does a LOT of harm , not just to adherents but to society in general. They actively work against the use of reason, knowledge and education in society. They actively interfere in people's lives. They use their power to influence government. They often constitute "boys clubs". They actively work against social justice. They do not pay taxes and use gov legislation to compete unfairly with tax paying businesses. When you see a church give charity you can be pretty sure they are just handing out money they have collected, nothing comes out the black holes of the church coffers, nothing. Congregations in US churches are usually split along the colour line, what does that say about them? hmmmmm Some actively discourage their members from seeking medical care for themselves or their children. Churches promote an Us V Them mentality, believers v unbelievers, how is that constructive? Church actively encourage authoritarian behaviour and unquestioning compliance. Some churches actively lie to and deceive potential members about the beliefs and requirements of being a member. They arrogate all positive human qualities and behaviours into their teachings, teaching that these qualities are given by supernatural intervention. I could go on. Religion is NOT a force for good, even moderate religion is not moderate, and it effects all, not just the adherents. As someone who once founded and led a church as well as being a member of a few different congregations in my lifetime (I am agnostic these days but on occasion attend a United Methodist Church because the pastor is a friend of mine and he doesn't shy away from conterversial social commentary), that's really an over generalization. There are certainly sects of any social group that fits the mold you've painted but I personally refuse to stereotype and label entire groups of people because of the actions of the minority of them. Not every Christian is an adherant to the mindlessness that is Rapture Ready, Rapture Forms or the die-hards @ CARM. Before starting my own church, I was an associate pastor of a Calvary Chapel and you are spot on about that bunch, at least for that time frame. But a lot of Christian instutions do not reject evolution, do not assume everyone that isn't like them is going to hell, that women are simply servants to men or cry about persecution every 5 minutes. One could turn around and say, based on google results alone, that atheists are hateful, spiteful baby eating monsters who enjoy raping, killing, and shitting on everything in their path but likewise (and I'm over exaggerating here since it's hard to show sarcasm on the internet) could be generalized based on the actions of the few. I just don't think it's fair to paint all people of any faith or belief with such a broad brush. Your above points are related to a very vocal yet very small minority of the Christian population and in particular the far right ultra-conservative Evangelical Christian camps. Those include the likes of the Calvary Chapels, "independant"/non-denominational camps instead of places like the "Catholic-light" Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist camps or even more liberal (from the Chrsitian standpoint) groups like Unitarians or the UCC. You're reading skills are poor. I wrote about religions and churches, not about adherants.
|
|
|
Post by amindfarfaraway on Mar 14, 2009 20:07:40 GMT -5
As an agnostic, I feel that I'm on the same quest for truth that both atheists and theists are. Just so you know, there are definitions of atheism that you qualify as already. "Atheism" is commonly used to mean either that there is active disbelief or that there is a lack of positive belief. Strong and weak are usually used to describe the two positions. Some people reject the "strong and weak" classification and use the word atheist to exclusively describe someone in either group. Or just in the strong group. It's also worth noting that Spinoza was a pantheist of sorts, yet in his time people called him an atheist. I guess my point is that being agnostic doesn't preclude yourself from being atheistic or theistic, though agnosticism tends to imply weak atheism in my experience. Really though, just labeling yourself with a term doesn't usually convey what you believe, especially if you've throught through the beliefs. I know I don't fit neatly into any categories unless you define "god" first anyway. I've always had a similar idea, that agnosticism tends more toward a 'weak' atheism, although I've heard of agnostic xtians, as well as agnostics in other religions that traditionally have a god belief. But I've seen that agnosticism can also be defined as either 'weak' or 'strong', the weak position stating that they don't believe in a god because there's not enough data presented to say either way, but that someday we might actually know, while the strong camp says that we can never know whether a god exists or not, because we can never have enough proof, so there's no real point in worrying about it. I actually feel that I fall somewhere in between, and might also consider myself an ignostic.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Mar 14, 2009 20:42:25 GMT -5
Allrighty. Strong atheism isn't really a problem. Someone is positive there isn't a supernatural deity, that's not really an issue. It's easy, however, to confuse the idea of someone who's positive there's no god and someone who thinks you should agree, because we've seen it with theists.
|
|
|
Post by auroramike on Mar 14, 2009 23:17:04 GMT -5
As someone who once founded and led a church as well as being a member of a few different congregations in my lifetime (I am agnostic these days but on occasion attend a United Methodist Church because the pastor is a friend of mine and he doesn't shy away from conterversial social commentary), that's really an over generalization. There are certainly sects of any social group that fits the mold you've painted but I personally refuse to stereotype and label entire groups of people because of the actions of the minority of them. Not every Christian is an adherant to the mindlessness that is Rapture Ready, Rapture Forms or the die-hards @ CARM. Before starting my own church, I was an associate pastor of a Calvary Chapel and you are spot on about that bunch, at least for that time frame. But a lot of Christian instutions do not reject evolution, do not assume everyone that isn't like them is going to hell, that women are simply servants to men or cry about persecution every 5 minutes. One could turn around and say, based on google results alone, that atheists are hateful, spiteful baby eating monsters who enjoy raping, killing, and shitting on everything in their path but likewise (and I'm over exaggerating here since it's hard to show sarcasm on the internet) could be generalized based on the actions of the few. I just don't think it's fair to paint all people of any faith or belief with such a broad brush. Your above points are related to a very vocal yet very small minority of the Christian population and in particular the far right ultra-conservative Evangelical Christian camps. Those include the likes of the Calvary Chapels, "independant"/non-denominational camps instead of places like the "Catholic-light" Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist camps or even more liberal (from the Chrsitian standpoint) groups like Unitarians or the UCC. You're reading skills are poor. I wrote about religions and churches, not about adherants. I wasn't writing about adherants either, I was writing about denominations and orginizations. Not only is it not fair from a honesty standpoint but to all involved, all of Christianity does not eqate to the "Titus 2" woman or "everyone but us are going to hell" group. I mean we disagree, that's fine. But how is being an atheist and hating all form of organized religion, especially when a good chunk of it does not fit into your broad brush stroke, differ from a highly conservative religious right Evangelical Christian painting all atheists/agnostics as inferior or evil or <insert fundie adjective here>? I just think it's sad that hate begets hate and this isn't directed at you, just in general.
|
|
|
Post by auroramike on Mar 14, 2009 23:20:09 GMT -5
So because religions had a head start and tend to absorb the secular organizations *I imagine most will go religious if it means more resources for their cause* we should just accept that and keep wasting a portion of the money donated to them on appeasing a diety instead of feeding the hungry? That's not even remotely close to what I said. If non-affiliated orginizations did more to publicize themselves, not for glory but to share an alternative choice for charity, you would probably see more money flow that way. I hate to so over-trivialize it but it's flat out a marketing issue and theist charities are out marketing and out working the non-theist ones. But that doesn't mean give up. And certainly there have been many cases of Christian charity abuse in the past. But if people don't have an alternative and they want to be charitable, other than doing something themselves what alternatives are there?
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 15, 2009 1:32:05 GMT -5
Amike, not all religions and churches do everything on the list I wrote out, but there are some things they do all do.
Like arrogate the natural good nature of mankind to a supernatural origin.
Religion in America is like politics in America, what you think is moderate is still extreme by the standards of other predominantly christian countries.
Fundamentalism is becoming the norm if it isn't already.
|
|
|
Post by auroramike on Mar 15, 2009 2:24:01 GMT -5
Amike, not all religions and churches do everything on the list I wrote out, but there are some things they do all do. Like arrogate the natural good nature of mankind to a supernatural origin. Religion in America is like politics in America, what you think is moderate is still extreme by the standards of other predominantly christian countries. Fundamentalism is becoming the norm if it isn't already. Now there you and I see eye to eye. Having lived in Germany, Denmark and Belgium for 3 years and spending a lot of time in Canuckle-land (that was be Canada for you non-North Americans), the extreme Fundamentalist sect within America is outright batshit crazy. Thankfully it's mostly centralized within the Bible Belt (from the southern Gulf states up through the north-central plains) but yeah, they love mixing their religion and government. Thankfully the dense urban centers are offsetting their influence but it does make things interesting come voting time. Sadly, what turns out to be a minority group within America is having a large impact on America falling so far behind in areas like education and research while at the same time, promoting some bizarre fear syndrome that if you aren't Fundie you are out to kill America. Makes me want to move back to Germany some times. Like all media, I think what you see on TV isn't an honest representation of the US. I've spent time in Bahrain, Qatar, UAE/Dubai (god I used to love Dubai, Russian whores everywhere in the hotels), Jordan, Egypt. Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia and not once did I ever see some whacked out Muslim shit like US TV loves to show. In fact everyone I met in those countries were far beyond nice and went out of their way for me and I'm not talking about hotel staff. But I think it's a fair assessment nonetheless since the US does have a large population of whacked-out mindless Bible thumpers who like to stir up shit and make life miserable for everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Mar 15, 2009 4:23:49 GMT -5
Canuckle-land?
That's Canuckistan, dammit! Soviet Canuckistan!
Pat Buchannan said so!
|
|