Is the DEVIL real?

[Nestor]

How do you view the Devil? Do you think of him as a real person who tempts people to do wicked things, or does he merely represent the principle of evil?

[neodude1212]

I assume you mean the Christian devil?

To me, the biblical Satan is a metaphor representing distraction and sensory self indulgence. He is portrayed as ultimately "evil" because a fixation upon these things will always lead you astray from any sort of spiritual path.

[Kizen]

it depends if you choose to believe in it or not

[Funkateer]

Quite true

but I happen to think that the christians switched the concept up a bit
should be the other way around replace the devil with god and god with the devil and its all good ;)

[liquidlight]

For a long time i've thought of the biblical satan as representing mind/ego/illusion, and in that sense, temptation, fear ect. So when Jesus says "get behind me satan", to me it's like he's centering himself to see the truth and not be led by illusion, and saying that thought is meant to serve rather than rule. So in short, satan is thought.

That's my take on it.

[xexon]

Satan is symbolic for the dark side of the mind.


x

[killuminati]

same here, I always thought the Devil represented an unbalanced ego

as people often deny the concept of a Devil, this metaphor goes over their head, and those happen to be the people who need to meditate on this message the most

[BlackBillBlake]

My view is that stan is a complex symbol - but mainly the devil represents the animalistic, instinctual side of our nature. At least to christians.

Of course, there's also the Tarot card 'the devil' which seems to represent a higher state of consciousness, psychic balance etc. on one hand, and inner opression on the other.

It's no co-incidence that the form in which the devil is often depicted is derived straight from pre-christian european gods such as cernanous, pan and so on. Those cultures worshipped forces of nature which under the new christian dogma were to be seen as evil.

[Skratch]

I think Satan is just humanity without love, all the evil shit we do on this planet, I don't think Satan is one entity just the collective evilness of humanity
ya know like if the body of God is just one big collection of love
Satan is just the opposite one big collection of hate
and humans are in the middle filling them up with either their love or hate

idk I'm drunk :)

[Mothman]

It depends on your personal perspective. If any of you are christian and are saying that satan is a metaphor then you are inventing your own new religion. Within the bounds of christianity satan is a sentient being. He was once one of God's favored beings in fact and held a high position in the ranks of heaven. So gifted and powerful that he challenged God himself and convinced 1/3 of heavens angels to stand in his corner against their creator. He is not just an ideal or a concept if you are a christian. If you are not then he can be whatever you want... or not want him to be.

[Lynnbrown]

It depends on your personal perspective. If any of you are christian and are saying that satan is a metaphor then you are inventing your own new religion. Within the bounds of christianity satan is a sentient being. He was once one of God's favored beings in fact and held a high position in the ranks of heaven. So gifted and powerful that he challenged God himself and convinced 1/3 of heavens angels to stand in his corner against their creator. He is not just an ideal or a concept if you are a christian. If you are not then he can be whatever you want... or not want him to be.

Yep, what Mothman said ^

[-clementine-]

The way I see it is that God represents the good and all things positive in the world, whereas the devil represents the bad, the negative and wrong doing. I do not believe that there is a being who is either rather a perception.

Just like Father Christmas represents happiness and toys, warmth and family for children, adults see santa and tend to feel the same and they know he isn't real, but the feeling he represents is like what god and the devil portrey.

[Mothman]

^nothing wrong with your concept unless you are a christian. if you are not a christian then the entire bible should be no more than a story to you, but as most wiccans are quick to point out(love you witches)satan is a christian idea so they own the patent on him and in their religious text he is clearly depicted as a ruthless, cunning hater of your soul. Not a metaphor representing elements of human behavior. I don't really understand non christians giving any kind of meaning to satan or jesus at all.

[-clementine-]

yes satan himself may be a christian concept, but the idea and good and evil is not christian. I don't call evil satan, just as I don't call the good things in the world god, but if I wanted to use that metaphor when talking about religion I think it fits. You should remember that most things in Christianity have been taken from other belief systems, the idea og god and satan being representative of good and evil isn't so far fetched.

[all hallows]

in my eyes, all external deities are make believe.

[all hallows]

you should remember that most things in Christianity have been taken from other belief systems,

mostly pagan.

[Mothman]

yes satan himself may be a christian concept, but the idea and good and evil is not christian. I don't call evil satan, just as I don't call the good things in the world god, but if I wanted to use that metaphor when talking about religion I think it fits. You should remember that most things in Christianity have been taken from other belief systems, the idea og god and satan being representative of good and evil isn't so far fetched.
Like I said. Nothing wrong with your concept unless you are a christian. Sure it fits God/satan good/evil... I never mentioned it being far fetched. I just don't see the point in people of other philosophies/religions to speak metaphorically of christian deities when they can simply say good and evil.

[Okiefreak]

Yep, what Mothman said ^I call myself a Christian because I try to follow the teachings and example of Jesus, not all of the elaborate doctrinal overlay added by Paul and various Church councils of the fourth century and after. I think Jesus probably did believe in Satan and thought he was real, so that's one of his teachings I don't follow, except metaphorically. It's a free country; I guess you can regard people as anything you want.

[Mothman]

I'm with you to a point. I believe christians are way of course when it comes to following Jesus example. There are many things in the bible that are left to interpretation but to know the scriptures(which you questioning Paul's teachings suggest that you do) and to still see satan as a metaphor is a stretch. He is referenced from one side of the bible to the other.
Michael fought and will fight with a metaphor? Will a metaphor be cast into the lake of fire? Will a metaphor be loosed for a thousand years? Jesus had dialogue with a metaphor? A metaphor challenged God for the throne? Why does this metaphor have a name? Did God ask a metaphor "have you tried my servant Job"?

If something so personified over and over in the bible is only a metaphor to you then why take any of it seriously? Why not just look at the whole thing as a story about good and evil? You are free to believe what you want and I respect your opinions I simply don't get your thinking on this.

[liquidlight]

If something so personified over and over in the bible is only a metaphor to you then why take any of it seriously? Why not just look at the whole thing as a story about good and evil?

... or why not just take the whole thing as a metaphor and not just Satan

Michael = metaphor
lake of fire = metaphor
1000 years = metaphor

... ect ect

[Mothman]

... or why not just take the whole thing as a metaphor and not just Satan

Michael = metaphor
lake of fire = metaphor
1000 years = metaphor

... ect ect

That is pretty much what I just said about looking at it as just a story. If it's ALL just symbolism then that is logical, but to claim to follow Christs teachings and consider satan a metaphor for evil and not an actual being... not so much. I'm not asking anyone to take christianity seriously. I'm only pointing out the flaw in this methodolgy.

Satan is a main character in the bible, tough turkey if you don't like it. That is the christian story, there is an enemy of your soul, the devourer, who to this day approaches the thrown to bash you before God by pointing out your sins. It's not a metaphor. In fact there is a bible verse that clears this up. I have been struggling to find it but the gist of it is that basically rejecting the existence of satan is rejecting the reality of God also.

Then you could say that this verse is also a metaphor. This brings me back to my original post. By the time your done picking and choosing what is comfortable for you, what you end up with is a new religion of your own design. Why bother calling yourself a christian if you don't subscribe to the meat and potatoes of christianity. Metaphorically speaking of course;)

[Hoatzin]

I guess the thing is, it's kind of like asking if God's real. If you met Him, would you believe that what you'd met was the Devil?

I think the Devil is the word we give to a concept we need - to express that something is wrong quickly, without going into the long rambling reasons as to why.

And I'm sure there will be plenty of people who think it's indefensible to not tell a child precisely why it's wrong to steal (in the face of the "whyyyyyy???" logic of the average five year old), going extensively into the mechanics of structuralism, altruism and so on, and that suggest that something exists which probably doesn't is unequivocally a form of child abuse. But those people probably believe in a shit-ton of fairy stories without even knowing it.

[Hoatzin]

That is pretty much what I just said about looking at it as just a story. If it's ALL just symbolism then that is logical, but to claim to follow Christs teachings and consider satan a metaphor for evil and not an actual being... not so much. I'm not asking anyone to take christianity seriously. I'm only pointing out the flaw in this methodolgy.

What, Christ can't use a metaphor now?

[Mothman]

Ahh another convert to metaphorism. I embrace all philosophies and religions even brand new ones.

[Hoatzin]

Ahh another convert to metaphorism. I embrace all philosophies and religions even brand new ones.

Sadly I'm

1) not a convert
2) not particularly persuaded that Christ's ideas were any better than mine
3) pretty sure that metaphors have been around for quite a long time.

[Mothman]

I'm pretty sure you need to read my posts again.

[Hoatzin]

Define "need".

[Mothman]

More word play, eh?

[Hoatzin]

Not really. I've made my position fairly clear, and if it comes to it, I'm on the side of the Christians. I believe that Satan is as good a label to put on "evil" as any, and I'd rather that such a label exist than see all actions judged solely by their consequences (because then it's only wrong if you get caught).

[Okiefreak]

I'm with you to a point. I believe christians are way of course when it comes to following Jesus example. There are many things in the bible that are left to interpretation but to know the scriptures(which you questioning Paul's teachings suggest that you do) and to still see satan as a metaphor is a stretch. He is referenced from one side of the bible to the other.
Michael fought and will fight with a metaphor? Will a metaphor be cast into the lake of fire? Will a metaphor be loosed for a thousand years? Jesus had dialogue with a metaphor? A metaphor challenged God for the throne? Why does this metaphor have a name? Did God ask a metaphor "have you tried my servant Job"?

If something so personified over and over in the bible is only a metaphor to you then why take any of it seriously? Why not just look at the whole thing as a story about good and evil? You are free to believe what you want and I respect your opinions I simply don't get your thinking on this.As the saying goes, "the Bible should be taken seriously but not literally". I don't think Satan is referenced "from one side of the Bible to the other." He made his debut in the Old Testament (Job) relatively recently, and is probably Persian in origin. Of course, there was the snake in Genesis and Lucifer, with whom Michael fought. Satan is the "Adversary" or "Accuser" in Job, apparently working at the time as a kind of public prosecutor in the Divine bureaucracy. Eventually, these figures were conflated into a personification of evil. But I think they are all metaphors--and should be taken very seriously! I do look at the whole thing as a story about good and evil. That's what it's all about! What could be more real, true and important than that!

[Hoatzin]

There are many things in the bible that are left to interpretation but to know the scriptures(which you questioning Paul's teachings suggest that you do) and to still see satan as a metaphor is a stretch. He is referenced from one side of the bible to the other.
Michael fought and will fight with a metaphor? Will a metaphor be cast into the lake of fire? Will a metaphor be loosed for a thousand years? Jesus had dialogue with a metaphor? A metaphor challenged God for the throne? Why does this metaphor have a name? Did God ask a metaphor "have you tried my servant Job"?

Metaphor is an ill chosen word here, really. It's more like how Moby Dick is a symbol. Satan is a symbol of that which is cruel, sadistic, degenerate, sinful...

To me, if you're prepared to pontificate about whether things in the Bible actually happened (whether you think they did or didn't) you're missing the point.

If something so personified over and over in the bible is only a metaphor to you then why take any of it seriously? Why not just look at the whole thing as a story about good and evil?

Well, that is what it is, dude. And again, I mean that whether it's true or false. Even the Bible is to be taken literally, there will still have been some process of discerning what is relevant in writing it. To cite an unwholesome source: if Jesus never went to the toilet in the Bible, do we assume that he never went to the toilet ever? Of course not. So it's reasonable to assume that the Bible is a composed work. Even if we believe everything that happened in it happened, that doesn't mean we aren't free to interpret it; we're just interpreting history rather than fiction.

[Mothman]

Now you're talking. Do you realize though that we are saying nearly the same thing. Our main difference is that I fail to see the logic in CHRISTIANS interpreting satan as merely a symbol. His character is directly responsible for man's fall from grace and the ongoing war for man's soul. If it were not for satan, then man would not have sinned and there would be no need for salvation and so on.

This is a religion of spirits and miracles, think about it... an all knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent being created the heavens and the earth and hell. Sacrificed his only Son 33 years after his miraculous,virgin birth, then raised him from the dead and he floated into heaven after visiting his friends a few times following his resurrection. Now believers have the luxury of salvation and life after death in heaven, a spiritual paradise. This leads me to my problem. When you reduce such a main character as satan to symbolism then shit man, the whole thing comes unraveled. Satan is TOO BIG a character in this story amongst other supernatural characters to be dismissed as a symbol without diminishing the other characters resulting in the whole thing being meaningless and unworthy of faith.

I can totally grasp him as a metaphor/symbol if you are NOT a christian. I have heard of AIDS being referred to as "The Monster" or "The Ninja" and it consumes people and could be personified in the same way that evil could be. I'm fine with satan being only a symbol to non christians.

[Lynnbrown]

I've noted Mothman, that all you really want people to do is to truly realize that there are Sides to be taken.
At the risk of Total Condemnation and being picked apart to heck (HA) and back, all of y'all know that I believe in God and therefore, yes, I Most Certainly believe in a literal entity known as satan, lucifer, beelzebub, among others. He was the Most Beautiful angel, and known as the Bearer of Light.
Truly your words seem inspired,
You know the word, yet in the Bible, I recall that it is Pointed out that even the devil knows scripture. Wasn't that when Jesus was being tempted?
Now I do feel you believe (Smile); I guess I'm just interested/curious to hear...(..

[BlackBillBlake]

Never mind, I hear chewing garlic will keep him away.

[Hoatzin]

Now you're talking. Do you realize though that we are saying nearly the same thing. Our main difference is that I fail to see the logic in CHRISTIANS interpreting satan as merely a symbol. His character is directly responsible for man's fall from grace and the ongoing war for man's soul. If it were not for satan, then man would not have sinned and there would be no need for salvation and so on.

This is a religion of spirits and miracles, think about it... an all knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent being created the heavens and the earth and hell. Sacrificed his only Son 33 years after his miraculous,virgin birth, then raised him from the dead and he floated into heaven after visiting his friends a few times following his resurrection. Now believers have the luxury of salvation and life after death in heaven, a spiritual paradise. This leads me to my problem. When you reduce such a main character as satan to symbolism then shit man, the whole thing comes unraveled. Satan is TOO BIG a character in this story amongst other supernatural characters to be dismissed as a symbol without diminishing the other characters resulting in the whole thing being meaningless and unworthy of faith.

I can totally grasp him as a metaphor/symbol if you are NOT a christian. I have heard of AIDS being referred to as "The Monster" or "The Ninja" and it consumes people and could be personified in the same way that evil could be. I'm fine with satan being only a symbol to non christians.



I guess the question is, why be a Christian if you're only going to take the Bible as literally as any other book with a moral message. And I'm kind of with you on that. It seems foolish for someone to limit hirself to one text if they're only looking for spiritual inspiration.

[mephist00]

the devil isnt real.. god isnt real. only the people who keep them alive in myth are real.


'religions exist as barriers to personal and social growth'

religious belief has also caused more conflict and war then any other ideology in the world, ever.

watch the second zeitgeist.

[Hoatzin]

'religions exist as barriers to personal and social growth'



I can understand personal, but social? Most religions have a impetus towards community, and even when that community is exclusive of those of other faiths, is that really any more damaging than hanging out with people who like similar bands?

Some people argue that language is a form of child abuse, because it forces children to see meaning in words that only attain any significance through social reinforcement. And yet what could me more obstructive to social growth than the inability to make oneself understood or to understand others?

I will grant that religion can be limiting on a personal level, but no, socially speaking, shared belief is the one thing that makes humans able to be the tribal, social animals that they are. If you see that as a bad thing, fair enough, but be aware that there are many more "lies" that have similar characteristics to religion and serve similar functions. To single out religion (which people do even if you do not) among these for criticism seems unjustifiable.

[all hallows]

I can understand personal, but social? Most religions have a impetus towards community, and even when that community is exclusive of those of other faiths, is that really any more damaging than hanging out with people who like similar bands?


you must be blind. don't you see groups of kids and people in general that pick on other kids and point fingers, shun them because they don't listen to the same music as them or dress the way they do? i do. and i've seen people of certain religions do the same thing even worse, to others, and myself.

i just think religion shouldn't even be talked about in social settings. this just isn't the case.

Some people argue that language is a form of child abuse, because it forces children to see meaning in words that only attain any significance through social reinforcement. And yet what could me more obstructive to social growth than the inability to make oneself understood or to understand others?


understanding is often preached by those who are "understood", but never lived up to.

i understand that i don't like people that talk about jesus a lot not because they are horrible people, but because they don't try and "understand" that other people understand differently and live their life without some guy that lives in the sky. that's a social barrier. they tilt their heads in confusion and then they get almost...angry. i also understand that not all people who believe in god are like this.

i wouldn't deny the fact that religion is damaging, a brainwashing mechanism, and a clusterfuck of self-deceit. that's just my opinion though.

I will grant that religion can be limiting on a personal level, but no, socially speaking, shared belief is the one thing that makes humans able to be the tribal, social animals that they are. If you see that as a bad thing, fair enough, but be aware that there are many more "lies" that have similar characteristics to religion and serve similar functions. To single out religion (which people do even if you do not) among these for criticism seems unjustifiable.

what about unshared belief? what about "opposing" beliefs (i.e. "not theirs")? you just admitted that religion can be juxtaposed next to "lies that have similar characteristics to religion and serve similar functions"...and that is good in any way, shape or form, regardless? i understand a majority of society is full of people lying to themselves about a lot of things, but why would you want to continue to build on that?

to single out religions among these for criticism seems unjustifiable? why? how? i'd love to know. you must believe in god; you don't get much shit for your beliefs? you fit in nicely with most people? "in god we trust" is printed on the american dollar, don't know if you noticed but america is drunk off god. assuming that that's where you live.

[neodude1212]

the devil isnt real.. god isnt real.

do you mind proving this claim? ;)

[Hoatzin]

you must be blind. don't you see groups of kids and people in general that pick on other kids and point fingers, shun them because they don't listen to the same music as them or dress the way they do? i do. and i've seen people of certain religions do the same thing even worse, to others, and myself.

I do see them. And then I see them five or ten years older not giving a shit any more. People are social and tribal in nature. If you try and prevent them grouping around one thing, they'll group around something else. I'm all for social reform, but you do ultimately have to accept that it's the human animal you have to work with, and that you can't change how people act, you can only accommodate it.

i just think religion shouldn't even be talked about in social settings. this just isn't the case.

But why not? Why shouldn't people discuss their beliefs and opinions, religious or otherwise? I think people should be free to discuss whatever they want to, be it the nature of existence or the nature of video games. In some way, religion is actually obstructive to discussion, because a religion is a cluster of assumption which the devout will obviously not want to go over over and over again. As the analogy runs, what else should people not talk about in social settings? Music? Art? Literature? Perhaps I should ask: what should people be discussing? What would be okay with you? I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent, but really, if people are discussing the meaning of existence, rather than some faggy boyband or piece of shit on MySpace, man, I'd love to see that.

I can see where you're coming from. In the US, religion is a factor in politics. In the UK, politicians are extremely wary of even mentioning a religious conviction, let alone using it as a vote winner. It's a massive cultural difference, and for that reason I can understand why American atheists are more outspoken and antsy than they are here. In the UK, really, most people are if not atheist then at least very ardently undecided.

understanding is often preached by those who are "understood", but never lived up to.

i understand that i don't like people that talk about jesus a lot not because they are horrible people, but because they don't try and "understand" that other people understand differently and live their life without some guy that lives in the sky. that's a social barrier. they tilt their heads in confusion and then they get almost...angry. i also understand that not all people who believe in god are like this.

Maybe it's different in the US, but here in the UK, possibly religious people recognise that they're on borrowed time to some extent. A lot of people don't like born agains in this country. Personally I've found them to be very nice people, and not unpleasantly judgmental. And I speak as an open homosexual. True, most of them mumble something about Freddie Mercury being quite cool, but to be honest, that's the best I get out of the secular too.

i wouldn't deny the fact that religion is damaging, a brainwashing mechanism, and a clusterfuck of self-deceit. that's just my opinion though.

I would argue that it has also brought people together and provided impetus for great works of society that cynicism never will. Whether those things are good in themselves is a matter for philosophy. But I certainly don't agree that religion is any more damaging than a hell of a lot of ideas society has. Most wars we think of as religious are questions of territory, economics, etc., that use religion as an excuse or a tool for manipulation. But the idea that, for example, the America vs. Middle East conflict has at its heart anything to do with Christianity vs. Islam is a convenient façade to both sides.


what about unshared belief? what about "opposing" beliefs (i.e. "not theirs")? you just admitted that religion can be juxtaposed next to "lies that have similar characteristics to religion and serve similar functions"...and that is good in any way, shape or form, regardless? i understand a majority of society is full of people lying to themselves about a lot of things, but why would you want to continue to build on that?

Well, this is where you leave the domain of the strictly hypothetical, and just get into the practicalities of whether a belief has more positive or negative consequences. And that, to be honest, I'd be completely happy with. But see below.

to single out religions among these for criticism seems unjustifiable? why? how? i'd love to know. you must believe in god; you don't get much shit for your beliefs? you fit in nicely with most people? "in god we trust" is printed on the american dollar, don't know if you noticed but america is drunk off god. assuming that that's where you live.

Actually no, I don't believe in God, and I'm British so no-one else I know does either. I'm defending religion from blind, dumb atheism, and there's a huge amount of that around. Ideally, people should be good to each other without believing in supernatural entities. They should also be nice to each other without believing in justice, mercy, karma, etc. But they're not, and chances are, a fair chunk of them never will.

I'm saying it's unjustifiable for the obvious reason. People have died in the name of non-religion - look at Communist China, for example. People don't need religion to kill each other, people don't need religion to believe in things at the expense of human life, in the absence of evidence. I mean, seriously, ALL POLITICS is founded on notions that are every bit as unsubstantiated as the existence of a god. Why should all men be considered equal, when our advertising execs will show you statistics proving that all men are not equal? Why should we imagine that justice is a right, when all our laws of physics indicate that the universe is cold, hostile and indifferent?

[all hallows]

I do see them. And then I see them five or ten years older not giving a shit any more. People are social and tribal in nature. If you try and prevent them grouping around one thing, they'll group around something else. I'm all for social reform, but you do ultimately have to accept that it's the human animal you have to work with, and that you can't change how people act, you can only accommodate it.

i am aware of this social and tribal nature. "i see them five or ten years older not giving a shit anymore" is a really suck-ass argument point. why? because you're basically minimizing the tribulations people of all sorts of religions go through everyday because of their chosen belief system (or lack thereof).

did you hear about columbine, yes? do you know what those kids asked the kids they shot, before they shot them? they asked them, "do you believe in god?" if they said "yes", they blew them the fuck away. i don't think any of those kids got the opportunity of living five or ten years later to not give a fuck.



But why not? Why shouldn't people discuss their beliefs and opinions, religious or otherwise? I think people should be free to discuss whatever they want to, be it the nature of existence or the nature of video games. In some way, religion is actually obstructive to discussion, because a religion is a cluster of assumption which the devout will obviously not want to go over over and over again. As the analogy runs, what else should people not talk about in social settings? Music? Art? Literature? Perhaps I should ask: what should people be discussing? What would be okay with you? I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent, but really, if people are discussing the meaning of existence, rather than some faggy boyband or piece of shit on MySpace, man, I'd love to see that.

i'm all for discussion of beliefs and opinions. keyword discussion, not cutthroat.

i said nothing about the restriction of free speech, so don't make it out like i did, ok? i just said i think it's a good idea to refrain from discussing religion in social settings because it usually leads nowhere good, and somebody getting insulted. there is a difference between openly saying things of personal religious concern in a room full of people you don't know, compared to being in a room with 2 or 3 of your close friends.

solipsism is a form on self-deceit in which one thinks and assumes everybody will act as they do and think as they do. it's poisonous. this is the reason why religion is a dangerous conversation piece. it is nowhere in league with the discussion of music, video games, or food; your comparisons are horrible. the only thing analogous to religion in regards to social reactions is politics.

I can see where you're coming from. In the US, religion is a factor in politics. In the UK, politicians are extremely wary of even mentioning a religious conviction, let alone using it as a vote winner. It's a massive cultural difference, and for that reason I can understand why American atheists are more outspoken and antsy than they are here. In the UK, really, most people are if not atheist then at least very ardently undecided.

outspoken? yes. antsy? your word choice wreaks of judgement and negative connotations. perhaps you meant "impatient".

Maybe it's different in the US, but here in the UK, possibly religious people recognise that they're on borrowed time to some extent. A lot of people don't like born agains in this country. Personally I've found them to be very nice people, and not unpleasantly judgmental. And I speak as an open homosexual. True, most of them mumble something about Freddie Mercury being quite cool, but to be honest, that's the best I get out of the secular too.

if you were a homosexual, especially a homosexual man, in america i think you'd feel a just a littledifferently. one of my best friends is a gay man and luckily we live in a city in the northeast that embraces and accepts gays/lesbians to an awesome extent.

this same friend traveled south with his boyfriend, and while on the road, they stopped to get some food at a diner just like anybody else. to their dismay, they found themselves the center of attention as they walked in and were seated; everybody looked them up and down and stared at them as if they were the anti-christ in their cuddly little bible-thumping town dripping with its southern accent and "good christian values". and i'm sure they were all white; and would of treated a black person the same way.

I would argue that it has also brought people together and provided impetus for great works of society that cynicism never will. Whether those things are good in themselves is a matter for philosophy. But I certainly don't agree that religion is any more damaging than a hell of a lot of ideas society has. Most wars we think of as religious are questions of territory, economics, etc., that use religion as an excuse or a tool for manipulation. But the idea that, for example, the America vs. Middle East conflict has at its heart anything to do with Christianity vs. Islam is a convenient façade to both sides.

i'm not going to deny that religion is a great influence for most people and has indeed brought many people together. it has provided great strength for those that find truth in it. it instills a sense of community and gives one a purpose. that is wonderful, and i am all for that. i am not for high horses or solipsism. and frankly, many people involved in these religions that involve a higher power practice it (solipsism), also contradicting most of what their texts preach.

but religion is a tool of manipulation, not just on the level you speak of.

you bring up a good point about the wars, and i cannot refute the truth about the current war, but there are plenty of "good christians" and "__insert devout follower of said religion here__" that haven't read one damn page of the book they claim to follow. they just follow it because that's what they were told, and because most people believe it to be true. they fail to question.

this certainly is NOT all of them, but i find most people that are judgmental and preachy have neglected to read anything or have read everything. i have the utmost respect for those that are confident and secure in their faith, have read and furthered their understanding all they can, and still respect views other than their own.

Actually no, I don't believe in God, and I'm British so no-one else I know does either. I'm defending religion from blind, dumb atheism, and there's a huge amount of that around. Ideally, people should be good to each other without believing in supernatural entities. They should also be nice to each other without believing in justice, mercy, karma, etc. But they're not, and chances are, a fair chunk of them never will.

what do you constitute as "blind, dumb atheism"? i'd love to know. and yes, i agree, in an ideal pipe dream that will never happen, everybody would be kind and helpful to one another. and you're right, a fair amount of people never will act that way. i used to act that way. keyword used to. i have my own reasons as to why i don't anymore.

I'm saying it's unjustifiable for the obvious reason. People have died in the name of non-religion - look at Communist China, for example. People don't need religion to kill each other, people don't need religion to believe in things at the expense of human life, in the absence of evidence. I mean, seriously, ALL POLITICS is founded on notions that are every bit as unsubstantiated as the existence of a god. Why should all men be considered equal, when our advertising execs will show you statistics proving that all men are not equal? Why should we imagine that justice is a right, when all our laws of physics indicate that the universe is cold, hostile and indifferent?

sure, people have died in the name of non-religion. no shit! religion may not always be the matter at hand when it comes to war, but a belief in something is, whether it is a belief of disrespect, honor, or protection.

all men and woman are not equal. you would be a fool to think so.

justice is a concept, much like good and evil is, and religion too. justice, to me, is simply an eye for an eye or worse.

"oh well, i was on drugs when i molested this little girl" or "oh, i'm so sorry for what i have done". ok? well you shouldn't of been doing drugs in the first place, and you're just sorry you got caught. it's no excuse, even though some of these fucks get lessened penalties. electric chair please.

[mephist00]

do you mind proving this claim? ;)

can you prove to me that they are real? how? i cant prove 100% to you that he isnt real, because he is kept alive in myth by tons of people who sin, who belive there is only one god.. that belive in "him". but there are so many other religions, that offer the same path...

Each religious group provides a distortion of faith, that they offer the only way to rightousness.

"each theistic religion provides a closed point of view, that new logic, faiths, and idea's are rejected in favor of traditionalized, outdated beliefs"

a cardinal doctrine or the christian faith, is the death and ressurection of christ, perhaps the most important notion in the bible
"And if christ be not risin, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" -Corinthians 15:14

yet, there is no primary source of noting this supernatural event in secular history.. you would think, some guy rising from the dead, would be noted in more then just a book, called the bible.. however the ressurection and death of 'a person' has been in belief, since like what 10,000BC ?

and the fact that a large number of pre-christain savors with the same attributes, birth date, three kings.. same miricles.. instantly puts the any religion in mythological territory by association.

religions are just alagorical expressions derived from many years of what is thought to be.... hence its just a story
and if religion is the 'savoir', how come all religion shares the same threat, War. Christianity has more then 34,000 different battles over belief.

religions were created so many years ago, when we didnt know how things work.. they didnt know about atoms.. the fact that everything in this world is a whole,

but thats what happens when u questions someones faith.. peopleget mad, because they cant defend it..
im not here to question, i just cant belive in a world we know, the intelligence we have.. how our DNA, Atoms and everything else works as a whole, that religion is still keeping us from our full potential, there is no such thing as independance, everything in this world works and is created by a reaction.

do some reading, compare all the religions and gods before christ, there are about 40 'gods' with the same exact attributes.. dec 25th birthdate, started work at 30, was sold for.. worked miricles, ect ect ect.. krisnah, horus.. are some few..

open your mind, to what you truely are.. a chemical reaction that worked.

if u have some questions, watch the zeitgeist movies, otherwise, keep the narrow minded point of view, that there is only one way to self perfection, religion.

[Hoatzin]

i am aware of this social and tribal nature. "i see them five or ten years older not giving a shit anymore" is a really suck-ass argument point. why? because you're basically minimizing the tribulations people of all sorts of religions go through everyday because of their chosen belief system (or lack thereof).

did you hear about columbine, yes? do you know what those kids asked the kids they shot, before they shot them? they asked them, "do you believe in god?" if they said "yes", they blew them the fuck away. i don't think any of those kids got the opportunity of living five or ten years later to not give a fuck.

Very emotive, but I don't see how such incidents reflect religion as a whole. The vast majority of people will neither shoot someone not be shot in the name of religion. And I think it's pretty well-documented that the Columbine kids were social outcasts, rallying against the "jocks" and athletes at their school. I don't remember anyone implying that Columbine was religiously motivated. They were probably going to shoot the kids anyway, no matter what they answered.

i'm all for discussion of beliefs and opinions. keyword discussion, not cutthroat.

i said nothing about the restriction of free speech, so don't make it out like i did, ok? i just said i think it's a good idea to refrain from discussing religion in social settings because it usually leads nowhere good, and somebody getting insulted. there is a difference between openly saying things of personal religious concern in a room full of people you don't know, compared to being in a room with 2 or 3 of your close friends.

I'd offer the counter argument made by, among others, Rowan Atkinson to the BBC, that the right to offend outweighs the right not to be offended. I know that you're only talking about "social censorship" - much the same way that talk about our own feces is largely "socially censored" - but to be honest, I haven't noticed many people discussing religion in social settings lately. Maybe America really is a backwoods shithole, I don't know.

solipsism is a form on self-deceit in which one thinks and assumes everybody will act as they do and think as they do. it's poisonous. this is the reason why religion is a dangerous conversation piece. it is nowhere in league with the discussion of music, video games, or food; your comparisons are horrible. the only thing analogous to religion in regards to social reactions is politics.

Why are my comparisons "horrible"? Is it solely because they don't make religion look as bad as you want it to look, or do you have some evidence? You're talking about death tolls, but as far as I can see that's just an issue of scale of reaction. I don't see anything inherently different between two people disagreeing over which god is the best and which band is the best. How people react to the disagreement might vary, but I don't think that, for example, it is any more unreasonable to expect those who are discussing god to show restraint and a sense of decorum than it is those who discuss music.

People have killed one another over allegiance to music. A lot of the acrimony in the Columbine shootings is meant to have something to do with the killers' allegiance to music, to the culture that surrounded it, compared to those of the victims. I honestly don't know how you could think that religion had anything to do with that one. Maybe it was reported differently in the US.


outspoken? yes. antsy? your word choice wreaks of judgement and negative connotations. perhaps you meant "impatient".

Your word choice reeks of favouritism and bias :). You say "impatient" though, and it's interesting. A lot of modern atheists talk as though religion is something that will pass, as if they're ahead of the curve and people who have religions just need to catch up with them. I find that rather arrogant, coming from them.

I might be wrong about this, I don't live in America so I don't know how hard it is to not be a religious person there. But it does seem like you're at least on the verge of "growing up" a bit with regard to religion. It's just a question of the atheists (particularly the "public" ones) being patient, making sure that they don't allow impatience to cause them to become frustrated and to misrepresent their views when the opportunity arises.

if you were a homosexual, especially a homosexual man, in america i think you'd feel a just a littledifferently. one of my best friends is a gay man and luckily we live in a city in the northeast that embraces and accepts gays/lesbians to an awesome extent.

this same friend traveled south with his boyfriend, and while on the road, they stopped to get some food at a diner just like anybody else. to their dismay, they found themselves the center of attention as they walked in and were seated; everybody looked them up and down and stared at them as if they were the anti-christ in their cuddly little bible-thumping town dripping with its southern accent and "good christian values". and i'm sure they were all white; and would of treated a black person the same way.

K. Don't really see your point though. Christianity is the dominant religion in America, so those invoking the spirit of the majority would probably go via Christianity. But really, those people just have an incredibly rigid idea of what is "normal", and you'll find that in every culture, every country, religious and non-religious. Few people in this country consider themselves Christians (certainly not practicing ones), but plenty still have a problem with homosexuals. They just hate them for being "unnatural" rather than ungodly. So I fail to see how the mere existence of intolerance can be directly link to religion.

This is my point; you're not proving that religion is the cause of these injustices, just that it is present.



i'm not going to deny that religion is a great influence for most people and has indeed brought many people together. it has provided great strength for those that find truth in it. it instills a sense of community and gives one a purpose. that is wonderful, and i am all for that.

Indeed, and people can get that sense of community from other sources, so in many ways, religion doesn't need to exist, just as fashion and other aspects of culture don't. This makes me think that they will exist, whether we need them or not - because we've never actually needed them before, and yet they do exist now.

i am not for high horses or solipsism. and frankly, many people involved in these religions that involve a higher power practice it (solipsism), also contradicting most of what their texts preach.

Maybe I'm hanging around too many music nerds, but you'd be surprised how many fans of one band or another do basically the same thing. The "straight edge" subculture is a pretty good example: one guy writes a song saying that you shouldn't do certain things (specific examples being drinking and doing drugs) just because the mass says so, and within thirty years you've got a cult developing around it, with some adamantly against others drinking and smoking as well. Laudable acts, but with no vestige of the intent of the original song.

but religion is a tool of manipulation, not just on the level you speak of.

I am jut saying that a hell of a lot of other, totally acceptable things can be considered tools of manipulation. Marxists would argue that every aspect of culture is tailored to impart ideology. You've only got to look at the fairy stories you knew as a child to see how society is shaped by narratives. To me, there's no difference. I'm a Grimmsian and a Roald-Dahlist, laterally a Pratchettist rather than a Christian, and as a result I have certain values, instilled into me by those stories, that have made me believe that the world should ideally be a certain way. You see this kind of thing a lot more plainly in the Harry Potter books, actually - very strong messages of anti-authoritarianism, self-determination rather than blind obedience, and the unwillingness to let one's world be divided into black and white, good and bad - and I think that's what frightens the churchy types, far more than some mumbo-jumbo about witches and wizards.

you bring up a good point about the wars, and i cannot refute the truth about the current war, but there are plenty of "good christians" and "__insert devout follower of said religion here__" that haven't read one damn page of the book they claim to follow. they just follow it because that's what they were told, and because most people believe it to be true. they fail to question.

this certainly is NOT all of them, but i find most people that are judgmental and preachy have neglected to read anything or have read everything. i have the utmost respect for those that are confident and secure in their faith, have read and furthered their understanding all they can, and still respect views other than their own.

Thing is, I don't think it can even be most of them. I'm putting aside people being a bit judgmental now and then here, because I do not believe that religion creates that type of person, and most of those people would be every bit as judgmental as Buddhists or atheists. But this ties into it. I don't think bad people are made bad by religion. They can be enabled in their badness by religion, but the mere fact that millions of people can read the same book, and only one of that million flips out on it is, to me, quite compelling evidence that religion isn't bad.

To give a non-religious equivalent, now and then, some kid will flip out and go around killing people. Society as a whole will insist that "this didn't happen in our day" (which is bollocks in itself), and start looking for something to blame. And they find that the kid has a few violent video games. And the little wheels of the mob mind get moving and they think "violence in games = violence in real life!" because it sounds sensible. But what they don't do is check. They don't check to see whether the sales figures for that video game correspond to the number of school shootings or violent sprees. If there was a simple causal relationship, you would expect every kid who bought the game to have at least attempted some kind of killing spree. But instead, it's easier to just blame the game, so that's what happens, and there's a lot of noise about it, it goes to a court, the court then takes the most sensible decision that will get the thing off their desk as quickly as possible, and nothing happens.

Long rambling tangent, but I see a parallel between video games and religion here. Both are blamed for the crimes of (in my view) a certain type of person who is at best suggestible (likely to commit a crime just because someone says it's a good idea) and at worst just attracted to violence and clearcut black and white morality because they are violent and crave authority. The fact that millions manage not to be so influenced is barely mentioned.

Of course, I'd imagine that it must be intensely frustrating to live in a country where religion appears to be beyond reproach, let alone accountability. Here, there's a lot less reverence, and a lot of people believe that religion makes people do bad things (e.g. Islam). But again, the percentage of Muslims who will actually kill someone is so negligible that the demonisation of the entire religion is absurd. And pretty much every religion I'm aware of does a lot more to stress the consequences of violence than the average video game!

what do you constitute as "blind, dumb atheism"? i'd love to know.

As in, those who have not gone through a process of reasoning that God doesn't exist, but who are just mad at their daddies for making them go to church when they were kids. I guess it's anti-religion-ism rather than atheism. I can respect someone who simply does not believe in a god a lot more than I can someone who's just got a bee in their bonnet about Christianity and thinks atheism is their best alternative. There's no goal to atheism, after all, no Heaven or Hell or Internet coolpoints to tell you that you've done well. So it seems like it should be about the journey, the process of inquiry into the nature of the world, more than just a mad race to get some kind of answer before anyone else.

and yes, i agree, in an ideal pipe dream that will never happen, everybody would be kind and helpful to one another. and you're right, a fair amount of people never will act that way. i used to act that way. keyword used to. i have my own reasons as to why i don't anymore.



sure, people have died in the name of non-religion. no shit! religion may not always be the matter at hand when it comes to war, but a belief in something is, whether it is a belief of disrespect, honor, or protection.

all men and woman are not equal. you would be a fool to think so.

justice is a concept, much like good and evil is, and religion too. justice, to me, is simply an eye for an eye or worse.

"oh well, i was on drugs when i molested this little girl" or "oh, i'm so sorry for what i have done". ok? well you shouldn't of been doing drugs in the first place, and you're just sorry you got caught. it's no excuse, even though some of these fucks get lessened penalties. electric chair please.

Quite. But then, you're getting into an awkward domain of either declaring all beliefs to be wrong, or deciding which beliefs are or aren't okay. Myself, I'd rather simply declare actions bad or good. A lot of the anti-religious argument just seems to be looking for something to blame, to explain how men could do such terrible things, because we fear our bestial nature and the fact that, actually, most of us are capable of truly awful things. Two-thirds of people are capable of inflicting (what they believed to be) lethal electric shocks to strangers. Admittedly that means that one third aren't, but still, surely we can agree that that fact is something that would make social animals such as ourselves rather uncomfortable, depending as we do on our ability to trust those around us.


LONG POST IS LONG.

[neodude1212]

can you prove to me that they are real? how?

You made the positive claim. The burden of proof is all yours. I'm simply pointing out that you don't practive what you preach. You are stating something that you cannot know for sure, and can never prove, yet you expect your polar opposites to do just that.

Also it was sort of interesting to see you automatically lump me in the christian category, even in the general philosophy forum. This tells me that you aren't really interested in hearing what other people say, but you already have all your "opponents" lumped into one broad group.

BTW, if you are getting your information from zeitgeist, then God help you. :rolleyes: (insert comment on how you've done countless hours of research)