|
| Thread: Why Is Atheism So Prevalent In Online Communities |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 05, 2003 09:00 PM |
|
|
Why Is Atheism So Prevalent In Online Communities
I have been a member of several message boards, and I could not help but notice that Atheism is very popular when it comes to religious preferences or non-preferences. Has anyone else noticed this? Do you think online communities are a reflection of the general public? Is education a factor? I was hoping we could have a tactful discussion about this without offending anyone or their beliefs, since religion is usually a touchy subject. I am curious to hear your insights.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 05, 2003 10:32 PM |
|
|
Depends on the kind of forum really, I know a RP one where at least half of the people there are christian of some form or another, and of the Aethiests/agnostics/non-christians, I seem to be the only one willing to slug it out with them in a reasoned debate. Kinda hard debating things with someone who's answer to almost all your suggestions come via quoting a book written 2000 years ago though 
As for numbers of christians as such, I tend towards the notion that the numbers of true christians in the world, or at least in my country has not, as doom-merchants would have us believe in free fall. Personally I think those going to church these days in the main are true believers. In the not so distant past it was almost considered a social gathering to go to church on sunday, and people in the country were considered almost social lepers if they didn't go. Rather than seeing a marked fall in christians in western nations, I personally think the number of true christians hasn't really changed much down the centuries.
As for on message boards, no I don't think it's a case of intelligence as that's too generic to say that intelligent people don't worship god. I do think those with higher intelligence question things more than those without and to a higher level though. To me religion depends more on faith based on experience rather than intelligence as such. Even the least conventionally intelligent people can have strong faith in their god through their life experience. That doesn't mean they're stupid or gullable for doing so, merely that their experience in life has lead them to truly believe in god.
So I think the main thing is to question your beliefs at all times and ensure they come up to scratch as such. Maybe people on forums do more of this and are incresingly finding that the church or equivalent for other religions offers none of the answers to their questions. I dunno....
Bah ignore me, I never make any sense anyway Ask Dargon or Bort 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2003 12:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Is education a factor?
Hello Khayman, I think regarding the big monotheistic religions, education is nearly always the factor. For a person who hasnīt been educated from early childhood, and with use of countless repititions, that doubting is bad, that the brutal killing of oneīs own son is an act of love - to trigger some kind of magical salvation mechanism - that doesnīt make any sense at all. Itīs perceived as obscure and contra-rational. No less than the belief in the Easter Hare or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Itīs my impression that in a modern and enlightened society, the decrease of archaic views is the most natural thing. I donīt think thatīs specific to internet forums. Very few people of my generation that I know are religious in a monotheistic sense, and most by far are atheists and agnostics.
____________
|
|
DonGio
Promising
Famous Hero
of Clear Water Mountain Clan
|
|
posted May 06, 2003 01:20 PM |
|
|
OK, I'm going to be serious for once.
PH: That's one of the most reasonable, tolerant (in a good way!) and thoughtful posts I've seen on this forum (or any forum).
LT: I am a christian. Not a very good one, but then, noone really is. This is not to say that my faith is unproblematic. Amongst other things, those you mentioned are the things that don't make any sense to me. And politically and ideologically, I often find myself closer to atheists than my fellow believers.
Another thing that saddens me is the obsession many christians today have with pointing out all that is wrong and sinful, alongside their backwards and totally hypocritical view of the bible.
I mean, people having sex is, in my honest opinion, basically a good thing. It's good, it's our only means of procreation (well, soon we'll have cloning and stuff, oh, and we already have test tubes and artificial insemination, well darn), and they say it's good for curing headaches as well.
Yet this, extramarital sex, seems to be the first and foremost evil many christians have decided to rid the world of. Never mind gluttony, greed, wrath or pride or any other of the insignificant deadly sins (where are they mentioned in the holy bible anyway?), let's focus all our efforts on ridding the world of people enjoying themselves, not really hurting anyone.
And those christian republic conservatives (or whatever they label themselves) you have over in the US make me want to laugh and weep at the same time. A more hypocritical bunch you'll have a hard time finding. On one side, they preach the wrongness and cruelty of abortion (on which I agree, for the most parts) based on the holy bible, but when it comes to one of the ten commandments, like oh, I don't know, "YOU SHALL NOT KILL", they choose to ignore their scripture and say that, no, that particular commandment was for another dispensation.
And God help any who might suggest that removing their "God-given" right to bear arms might decrease the number of school massacres, for example.
Oh, yeah, and let's not forget, if there's a war, God will always take USA's side.
Quite frankly, they make me sick, and they give christians all over the world a bad name.
Hmm... this kind of turned into a rant, more than a constructive addition to the argument, sorry about that, I'll see if I can make a more helpful contribution later.
Dixi
DonGio
____________
There are 10 types of people: Those who read binary, and those who don't.
|
|
Gothmog
Adventuring Hero
Honorable
|
posted May 06, 2003 04:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
PH: That's one of the most reasonable, tolerant (in a good way!) and thoughtful posts I've seen on this forum (or any forum).
Actually ALL the posts here are reasonable, tolerant and thoughtful. I am truly impressed.
Born an Atheist, it's hard for me to accept the existance of God to begin with. I have read the Bible, the Koran, I browsed through Buddhism literatures, I couldn't find the answer.
The truth is, most religions look good on paper, but it's what people actually have done that really matters.
Crusades, Jihads, Conservative Christian Republicians, Islamic Extremists ... How many wars were fought, how much evils have been done, in the name of God?
I believe in Virtue, I believe in Peace, I believe in Freedom, I believe in everyone's right to live in one's own way ...
For me, that's a much better choice than believing in God, then twist his doctorines for one's own benefit and force the others to accept.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 06, 2003 07:05 PM |
|
|
I'll try to be brief (yeah right)
PH and I had a discussion about this recently too. Having just recently realized that many of the posters here in HC are quite a bit younger than I, I have an age element to bring to the considerations here.
I am with you guys who speculate that education also has something to do with the numbers of athiests (and I would add agnostics to this group) so that the phenomenon partly arises from these two things: age and education.
First, many more younger people actively use the internet than older people do. Many older people find all this very new, and the older they are the truer this is. THerefore the population represented in bulletin boards is younger than the actual populace. When I was born not only was there no internet, but not everybody even had a television just yet. They were all still black and white, and none of them had any more than three national channels. Geeze, we didn't even get public television until I was in grade school. Computers still had little blinking lights and cards with chads and tape reels spinning around on them. The smallest one still filled a whole room for pity's sake.
So a lot of older people were not raised with the net and therefore do not use it as familiarly. (I'm somewhere in between this generation gap).
Second, people are more educated than before, and therefore do their own independent thinking about such deep matters as religion and spirituality. Given that many of the major religions (particularly Christianity) became an institution designed to serve the governments in feudal times the masses (us) became very skeptical once we started become more educated and getting on to them in the last few hundred years. There is much more thinking-for-ourselves going on than before.
But, once again, the age factor enters here. My experience is that as people enter middle age they start arriving at some conclusions about spiritual matters. So while we all start out as less dogmatized and more skeptical when we are younger, the older we grow, the more of us start putting the events of our lives together and considering (or seeking) some kind of spiritual explanation/connection that makes sense but that also satisfies that natural human craving for a higher understanding.
I have further witnessed a kind of "rigormortis" -- an increasing inflexibility that seems to set in with much older people who were skeptics when they were younger. For instance, my formerly doubting father has become, in his old age, a fundamentalist Christian. (WINCE)
I am also with (whomever it was) that said Christianity tends to be (he said hypocritical) I tend to think somewhat schizophrenic when it comes to sex and some other matters. This springs from the puritancial roots of American society. Put that heritage together with free speech, freedom of expression and the influence of the sixties and you really get a dichotomy going there. The two seem to perennially backlash against one another.
Nice thread Khayman.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 07, 2003 12:28 AM |
|
|
|
Maybe you're just looking in the wrong online communities.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2003 04:09 AM |
|
|
Hello DonGio,
Quote:
I am a christian. Not a very good one, but then, noone really is.
having read your "rant"  , Iīd certainly feel inclined to consider you a "good christian", especially in comparison than those who are loyal to the big churches and/or to neoconservative politics. Christianity in its origins had nothing in common with what these institutions and ideologies present it as. In the bible, Jesus is described as a person who deeply despised ownership. To escape eternal damnation, a rich man was expected to give all of his possessions to the poor. More radical than the most radical communist. How does that go along with Bushīs hooray-capitalism?
After Konstantin declared Christianity to be the official state religion of the Roman Empire, the church slowly gained political power and wealth, and the damnation of ownership didnīt look very much like a good idea anymore. Those clerics who wanted to keep the old doctrine alive were excommunicated and declared to be heretics, their texts burned.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2003 04:38 AM |
|
|
Hello Peacemaker, as often I very much agree with most of what you wrote , but about this one thingQuote:
But, once again, the age factor enters here. My experience is that as people enter middle age they start arriving at some conclusions about spiritual matters. ... For instance, my formerly doubting father has become, in his old age, a fundamentalist Christian. (WINCE)
the experiences that I made are exactly the opposite. First of all, my father has been a Christian for all of his life and only recently, as a pleasant surprise for me, became a sceptic . And in general, itīs my impression that there are far more conversions away from Christianity than towards it. Most believers have been educated to believe at their earliest childhood, before they develop the ability to doubt and to criticise. Thatīs why many cristians are highly sceptical thinkers in other areas of life, but not at all able to criticise their own beliefs. From what Iīve seen, there are mostly the ones who manage to break free from their "chains", and those who donīt - and only few who become believers at an adult age.
____________
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted May 07, 2003 06:11 AM |
|
Edited By: Laelth on 6 May 2003
|
This thread is so interesting, I feel compelled to post. Perhaps the life experiences I've had may shed some light on the phenomenon in question. I have a theory, anyway.
Here goes:
I take issue with the argument that there are more atheists online than in other social settings. From my experience, well over half the people I know are atheists, but they will only admit this fact in private (and even then, they're often reluctant to talk about it). Online, people feel more free to express their true beliefs because the social consequences of doing so are minimal. Whereas, in other spheres of our lives, it's deemed important to project a "religious" image.
As an example, let me offer my own family. I come from a highly educated Southern US family whose working members are mostly either doctors or lawyers. All four of my grandparents graduated from college as did my parents and all my aunts and uncles ... and of my entire extended family, only two of my aunts on my mother's side really believe in a "God" in the Judeo-Christian sense (from what I can tell). The rest? I don't think they believe in a Judeo-Christian "God." Some have told me they don't; other haven't, but have implied it. Still, and here's my point, many of these people attend church on a regular basis. Almost all of them of them will claim, in public, to be Christians. Living in the South, it's almost essential to project a Christian religious image, but remember that not everyone who goes to church believes in God. A lot of people who claim to be religious in "the real world" do so because social pressure forces them to. Online, though, who cares? People feel more free to express their beliefs online because there are hardly any connected social consequences. What's the worst someone can do, flame you?
So, what I conclude from this is that there is not, in fact, a higher percentage of atheists online. There is, instead, more honesty online because conformist social pressure is minimal here. The fact of the matter is that there are, simply, a lot of atheists, and, if my family is any indication, this is not a new phenomenon.
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted May 07, 2003 12:16 PM |
|
|
I am a believer of my own religion.
I do not believe in church or books like the bible cause those are things created by men. My parents always taught me that God is in my heart, not to be found in a book or building.
I know many people say: If there was a God, why would he allow wars, children dying , disease, etc
Personally I think the way the world is today is the reason many people don't believe in God anymore.
We see all kinds of misery going on in the world.We see it on tv, read it in newspapers, hear it on the radio.
But the "good" things happening in the world isn't given as much attention as the "bad" things and I'm sure there are still a lot of "good" things happening. I don't hold God responsable for our misery, humans themselves are.
Also I think experience of life has a great deal to do with it as PH said.
Anyways that's just my opinion, so don't kill me
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 07, 2003 05:45 PM |
|
|
WOW! If you all don't mind my saying so, Romana, Laelth and Lews, EXCELLENT posts!
First Lews, in reply to your rebuttal, I would have to agree that the direction of spirital inclinations can and do appear to also go in the opposite direction than the one I suggested. For instance, my mother, who was once very parochial and religiously conservative, has become somewhat of a new spiritualist in her old age. She puts my dad to shade in terms of open-mindedness and continues to seek new ways of thinking. As you suggest, she was indoctrinated early, but then as she became more worldly, began to question the old answers, and in her response, to seek new answers. She is, however, a woman. But I'll get to that point in a minute.
Second, Laelth, your point about demographic pressures is absolutely on point and undeniable. The South (one would get the impression) carries a tremendous amount of social pressure to conform that other regions in ths States to not carry to the same degree. So the freedom one feels when those pressures are eliminated (such as when one is on the net)surely plays a factor, probably for many of us even when we are not from that region as well.
However, here in the Southwest, there is such a broad and diverse demographic base that the tolerance level, and mobility factor in terms of religion, give us a very different experience. Here we have large number of peoples representing everything from the latin Catholic influence, to Judaism and Islam, to the Urantians, to the right-wing Republican fundamentalists, to the Protestants, to American Indian traditionalists. Probably because of that, there is no single prevailing social pressure to conform to any given sector, and people here voice their differences, and even cross "religious" lines perhaps more that folks in your region do.
Which brings me to Romana's point. Romana, I'm so glad to finally talk with another woman here! (No offense guys -- you're great too.) But women have, well a different sense about things like this than men do. The European male influence is the most prevalent on the planet. European culture has ALWAYS been male-dominated, and its religions are no different. The male thought paradigm is radically different than the female paradigm to degrees that the experts are just beginning to understand. This male European mindset is external- and authority- driven, control oriented, excessively mechanistic, and extremely centric. European religions, being no different, are externally driven, (you must defer to the anointed male leadership of the church for all answers to your spiritual questions,follow their directions, and the like) and therefore usually appear to many of us women to be utterly devoid of the internal intuitions about goodness.
I have so much to say about this but very little time. The main point is that, oddly in connection with western culture, and as you point out Romana, our western technological culture has led to a vast dissemination of the negative things going on in the world (going back again to "education") which leads people to question how an omnipotent God would allow all this.
However, it is not that there are more bad things (which I think is your point) but that we are made more aware of them than before. As this information taxes the boundaries of our traditional "faith," we find ourselves asking more questions and finding the old placating answers designed for the peasantry unsatisfying. So we seek individual, internal insights that we as women intuitively know we possess. In my opinion this is not because we possess insights men do not, it is just that as a cultural (perhaps even genetic) matter, we are better in tune with ourselves and have more permission, if you will, to trust our intuitions to a greater degree than men do.
SO while Lews describes indoctrination at an early age blossoming into skepticiam as one matures, I think we're really saying the same thing here. The underlying common theme to all these thoughts is that the more information we all have, the less inclined we are to swallow dogma hook line and sinker. Yet we still all ponder these questions, suggesting that the questions themselves transcend the shallow answers humanity has developed in the past. So whether we start out being indoctrinated and then grow more skeptical, or whether we start out being educated (instead of indoctrinated) and then seek new answers to the old questions, it appears that the human trend is this:
RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION + NEW INFORMATION leads to SKEPTICISM leads to SEEKING NEW ANSWERS leads to SPIRITUAL QUEST.
SO in the evolutionary sense, institutionalized religion is a step in the development of the human race, but it is certainly not the end-all and be-all. So it's not really the opposite direction at all, Lews, it's really all part of the same line of movement, with people just jumping in on it in differnt places depending on where and by whom they are raised.
The aging factor enters when, the older we get, the more willing we become to accept some of the answers that repeatedly illustrate themselves (or question our conclusions about the absence of those answers), if we can remain tenaciously open-minded about things. I think you will all find that atheists will also tend to begin questioning their conclusions about the existence of a higher power as they grow older. I know that in my experience as a philosophy major, few of my college friends who were athiests in those years remain so resolute and certain new about the absence of such a force.
Even Physics itself has led us to the brink of unanswerable questions; Schroedinger's Cat and the Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principle leave us all at Buddah's doorstep chanting "Nothing is knowable! Nothing is knowable!) which is the opposite place the Scientific Revolution -- the soil whence athiesm sprang -- purported to be leading us to.
On the other hand, what I have seen is people (like my father and other elderlies in his community) fatiguing of this quest in their old age, and returning by default to more traditional answers and religious habits.
Whaddaya think???
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted May 07, 2003 08:23 PM |
|
|
I think you use a lot of difficult words
But i finally managed to understand what you are saying.
This is of course a pure philosophical discussion, cause the truth lies within the individual and his/her experiences. It is however very interesting to hear what those different truths are and they do contribute to my point of view on things.
Personally I always found being an atheist is a depressive thought. I like to think I will see my loved ones again in somekinda afterlife. I find it hard to believe that when I die I will just seize to exist. What would it matter what I do in my life then afterall? And why do we have a conscience if it doesn't matter in the end?
Conscience and religion.. I can't help but think there is a relation between them.
p.s.: Nice to talk to you too Peace 
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 03:03 AM |
|
|
Hello Peacemaker,
when I looked into the german dictionary to be absolutely sure that weīre talking about the same thing, I found 2 clearly different meanings of the word "scepticism":
Skepsis -> Doubt, the critical and reluctant approach to an information or idea.
Skeptizismus -> A philosophical position that uses the above as a method of thinking in general.
Or in other words, the distinction between scepticism regarding a specific idea (like Christianity) or scepticism as a philosophy doesnīt seem to exist in English language (please correct me if Iīm wrong ). It seems to be that this is mixed alot - sorry ībout my pedantry , but in the following, itīs not clear to me which one you meant:Quote:
it appears that the human trend is this: RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION + NEW INFORMATION leads to SKEPTICISM leads to SEEKING NEW ANSWERS leads to SPIRITUAL QUEST.
What I donīt like about the word "spiritual quest" is that it can have so many different meanings. If philosiphically youīre still a sceptic on and during this quest, and it leads you to for example Atheism, Agnosticism, Taoism, New Age, Satanism, ..., or even back to Christianity, then youīre right, thatīs a development, a step forward.
On the other hand, if you throw your scepticism overboard in order to enter this spiritual quest, Iīd rather consider that a regression: An attempt to fill white space thatīs been opened with your first conversion.Quote:
SO in the evolutionary sense, institutionalized religion is a step in the development of the human race, but it is certainly not the end-all and be-all. So it's not really the opposite direction at all, Lews ...
It surely is a step, but is it a step forward? I donīt think so. Is it "natural" that a person is indoctrinated so it can free itself from it later? No, not everyone succeeds in that second step, and most of those who do are not thankful for whatīs been inflicted on them when their defenses were down.
Institutionalized religions have been in bed with the oppressors and warlords during most of history, spreading intolerance and social exploitation. Progress and enlightenment has always been made against them. Human race has developed forward in spite of institutionalized religion. A good idea can evolve on its own, and doesnīt require a godly revelation.
Quote:
chanting "Nothing is knowable! Nothing is knowable!) which is the opposite place the Scientific Revolution -- the soil whence athiesm sprang -- purported to be leading us to.
Again I disagree. "Nothing is knowable!" is self-contradictory, it can simply be refuted by the reply:"How do you know?"
But the assessment that all knowledge is uncertain does correspond very well with modern science. When science examines the world, it makes the assumption that the world is explainable. Theories stand until they are falsified. To science, there is no certain knowledge, an experiment that succeeds a billion of a billion of times is still possible to fail when itīs done next. Science does not know, but so far its method has been doing well, enabled us to for example fly to the moon or blow up the whole planet .
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 04:28 AM |
|
|
Romana, first of all Iīd like to say that Iīm also very positive about your world view: You donīt hurt anyone, you donīt indoctrinate anyone, you do what you think is best for yourself, and thatīs as it should be.
But I would still like to add a few thoughts ...Quote:
This is of course a pure philosophical discussion, cause the truth lies within the individual and his/her experiences.
Does it really? You move on speaking of "different truths". Our individual perception is subjective of course, but I see no reason to believe that an objective truth, which we can try to come closer, does not exist. Even though we may never be able to grasp it fully.Quote:
Personally I always found being an atheist is a depressive thought. I like to think I will see my loved ones again in somekinda afterlife. I find it hard to believe that when I die I will just seize to exist.
Personally, Iīd like to win Lotto ... does that make me a Lotto winner ? Seriously, why do you choose a belief based on what you would like reality to be? As a curious person, I find the world fascinating and want to learn more of it, try to dig a bit closer to the truth. The thought of just choosing a view that suits myself and leaving it at that is depressing to me, too .
And regarding our deaths, this planet exists for billions of years, of which weīve been non-existent for billions minus twentysomething or thirtysomething. It hasnīt hurt us, not to be, so I donīt think it will when we are not again.
Quote:
What would it matter what I do in my life then afterall?
I think it matters even more, as I donīt have a second one.
Quote:
And why do we have a conscience if it doesn't matter in the end?
The conscience consists of our internalized values, what your are taught by your parents and what you experience when you are in interaction with the world, rules and exceptions. If a mother teaches her child to steal, it will have a bad conscience about coming home with empty pockets. A terrorist or a soldier can have a good conscience about killing people, while a child of religious fundamentalist suffers from a very bad one after touching its genitals.
Quote:
Conscience and religion. I can't help but think there is a relation between them.
Institutionalized religion uses the desires and fears of the people to control and exploit them. What could be a better place to implant itself in than their conscience?
____________
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 05:04 AM |
|
|
Hello peacemaker,
Quote:
RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION + NEW INFORMATION leads to SKEPTICISM leads to SEEKING NEW ANSWERS leads to SPIRITUAL QUEST.
SO in the evolutionary sense, institutionalized religion is a step in the development of the human race, but it is certainly not the end-all and be-all. So it's not really the opposite direction at all, Lews, it's really all part of the same line of movement, with people just jumping in on it in differnt places depending on where and by whom they are raised.
This sounds like a ?gscientific development?h viewing through kuhn?fs eyes, but I agree with it generally. Though I would like to add that there are different degrees of ?gRELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION?h (sometimes, maybe just merely cultural influences), and that the ?gSPIRITUAL QUEST?h will eventually leads to a formation of a personal ?greligious doctrine?h (believe, philosophy, or whatever you call it), which may (or not may) changes, but only superficially, in future. Do I understand you correctly?
Hi Lews_Therin, I think you've been through the stages, right?
Quote:
The aging factor enters when, the older we get, the more willing we become to accept some of the answers that repeatedly illustrate themselves (or question our conclusions about the absence of those answers), if we can remain tenaciously open-minded about things. I think you will all find that atheists will also tend to begin questioning their conclusions about the existence of a higher power as they grow older. I know that in my experience as a philosophy major, few of my college friends who were athiests in those years remain so resolute and certain new about the absence of such a force.
On the other hand, what I have seen is people (like my father and other elderlies in his community) fatiguing of this quest in their old age, and returning by default to more traditional answers and religious habits.
Whaddaya think???
Do you think that the reason is because, when people get older, hence wiser (thus, nothing to do with intelligence), they become aware that: at the end of the day, "WHAT IS" is not so important afterall, since we cannot ACTUALLY perceive it; rather, what really counts is "what we believe"?
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 05:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hi Lews_Therin, I think you've been through the stages, right?
Hello Snogard, if Iīd answer this question with a "yes", this would mean that I were still at the very beginning .
Seriously, I hope that Iīll always stay open for new insights.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 06:28 AM |
|
|
PH I always find you balanced and generally objective about religion...props to you.
Is education a factor...yes and no.
No its not a factor as both the educated and intelligent can be found in both religous circles and non-religious circles. Likewise I have seen many subintelligent and uneducated atheists/agnostics/heathens/etc. and I have seen many subintelligent and uneducated Christains/religious people.
As far a child indoctrination...again it cuts both ways...those raised in a religious home need to overcome their indoctrination through serious questioning and those in a non-religious home need to overcome their indoctrination through serious questioning.
and now on the other side...Yes education is a factor in that any thing that creates a sense of self confidence (for a positive term) or pride (for a negative term) leads one to think they are not in need of an absolute being or anyone else for that matter. In Christainity we call this a "stumbling block".
So sometimes one's skills, intelligence, natural ability can be a hard thing to put in perspective if one is to accept their NEED for God/gods/Mother Nature/whatnot.
Beauty, intelligence, money, athletic ability, etc. can all be a source of self centerdness that leads one to not comprehend our need for the Other (whether it be other human beings, God, nature, etc.)
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 06:33 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 8 May 2003
|
Quote
"Crusades, Jihads, Conservative Christian Republicians, Islamic Extremists"
Well I guess someone missed the point about being tactful.
Ok this is a logic question...like on college admissions tests and the like...which one of the above terms does not fit in the list?
That list cracks me up...maybe we should make this the list "crusades, Jihads, Americans, Islamic Extremists"...hmm something doesn't fit in that one either
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 07:17 AM |
|
|
I whole-heartily agree with Dargon that the second list contains an unfitting term ...
____________
|
| |
|
|
