God keep our land

I like this:

quote:

---

My Project Teen Canada national survey of 3,500 teenagers in late 2000 found that 24 per cent indicated they had no religion -- yet when asked if they anticipated turning to religious groups in the future for a marriage ceremony, 79 per cent of these same teens said "yes."

---

Contrast that with George "atheists should not be considered citizens, nor are they patriots" Bush Sr., and George "I don't consider Wicca a real religion" W. Bush Jr., snd, well, a host of others in this God-unforsaken-apparently land of mine.

and the michilin man. He has tire power. Better then jesus power tell you that.

Where would we be with out the wheel and marshmellows? Certainly wouldn't have tire fires to sing good ole camping songs and having roasted marshmellows thats for sure.

Religion is fine, hell Atheism in my opinion is pretty damn close to religion (or is in fact) except it isn't organized and my money don't go to anyone. But every time i hear people rant about religion and push it onto others, it makes me cringe just that bit more. Why is their need to force religion? Oh yeah the saviour bit and blah blah blah. I care not.

quote:

---

The release of the 2001 census data on religion confirms that Christianity -- especially mainline Protestant denominations and francophone Catholicism -- is nearing free fall in Canada. Reginald Bibby's nuanced yet provocative attempt in these pages to minimize the significance of these declines and the increasing numbers claiming "no religion" (now 16 per cent) deserves a response.

The demographic outlook is bleak. Immigration is increasingly non-Christian. The median age of unchurched Canadians is 31, compared to the mid-40s for mainline Protestants. It's true that young Canadians may choose to identify with a religion later in life. But this was likely also true in the 1970s when the "no religion" figures were at 4 per cent.

---

But then, granted, even Michael Valpy in the Globe wrote about Trudeau's beliefs:

quote:

---

A recent conference at St. Jerome's University in Waterloo, Ont., titled The Hidden Pierre Trudeau, was both unprecedented and daringly un-Canadian: a gathering of politicians, academics and journalists to examine a prime minister's religious faith and beliefs.

---

The problem is, most secular humanists like myself really just want to be left alone, and naively believe that religious people will return the respect in an understood quid pro quo.

Arch neo-con Rory Leishman in the London Free Press and Church Bulletin likes to point out that in Canada, there is no entrenched right to "Freedom from religion".

It's rather ominous, don't you think?

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]

quote:

---

Arch neo-con Rory Leishman in the London Free Press and Church Bulletin likes to point out that in Canada, there is no entrenched right to "Freedom from religion".

---

I've been reading Michael Coren for a while, and I only wish there was an analogous non-believer that would fight the fight. The problem is that Religion automatically produces the Coren's, it automatically produce the Valpy's, it automatically produces the Bush's, but non-belief doesn't produce the same icon's that say, "religion is fucked" in the same frequency. I mean, Bertrand Russell, Richard Feynman, may be great icons but you're never gonna see a church that elevates them to saint's, who's word is sacrosanct, who should be believed above all else.

Sure, Bertrand Russell should be believed, but there is no audience that believes him without proof, or hear poor old Russell's moralizing. There is no popular figure that the naive places all their hopes and needs onto. Secular Humanism may not register far on the census, but the identifiable religious that don't observe are secular as well.

quote:

---

One of the problems I see here is that people who make comments about the scope of religion are religious studies people (or in first link, sociology professors from our own Bible Belt).

---

So, what you don't like, is the fact that allegedly everyone who talks about religion is your perception that they are all religious. What does that say about you then?

quote:

---

There are no Atheist studies programs, there is no church of Atheism, there is no dedicated lobby in Canada that I know of that promotes secular humanism.

---

What would you define as an "atheist" program anyway? I can imagine it now: a class that starts out with the prof saying, "Ok, to being with, there is no God, or Gods. Got that? Good. Now open your Biology texts to page 31..."

There are many secular programs and courses out there that do not mention God or religion once. Try visiting one of your local universities and find out for yourself.

quote:

---

So it's up to the odd person in all sphere's of disciplines to take up the media fight to say religion isn't the persuasive force as it's claimed.

---

So, you find it offensive when religious people talk about religion, but you don't seem to see the hypocrisy in your feverent desire to speak out about your personal beliefs as strongly and as often as possible. So what is the difference between you and a Jehovah's Witness - you're just as pushy and opinionated.

quote:

---

There is no organized secular human resistance to any clap trap that is uttered in the national or local media.

---

You have an utter lack of respect for other people's beliefs: why should anyone respect yours?

Besides which, I did a quick Internet search. There are loads of secular - even atheist - resources out there. Why don't you contact these people and tell them they don't exist?

The Atheist Alliance
http://www.atheistalliance.org/

quote:

---

Originally posted by muggetywumpus:
I couldn't care less if anybody else is religious. What I do object to is the tendency by some religions and their followers to pretend they are the only ones who have any morals.

---

I've seen that condascending attitude in MANY atheists as well.

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: Gir Draxon ]

I'm going to hear it, of course. But when I do, I'm always going to call it bullshit. Loudly. I'm not an atheist, not at all, but I don't believe in a partisan or warring God and I'm offended when people suggest I should.

Take, for example, the recent letters to the editor in the London Free Press and Church Bulletin on the idea of Creationism being preached in public schools. If you read Sagan, or the various sceptic publications, you recognize that those objecting have been reading there too.

We just don't all meet every week, is all.

quote:

---

You have an utter lack of respect for other people's beliefs: why should anyone respect yours?

---

quote:

---

When religious beliefs are used as a mask for bigotry and hatred, abuse of children, and other criminal activities, the term "clap trap" offers more respect than is due.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sophrosyne:

I'd agree with that, but I'd disagree that all - or even most - religious people deserve to be tarred with this brush.

---

I didn't see anybody on this board condemn "all or even most" religions. It seems to me people object to being told how to live, by anybody who would presume that right. Your argument seems to be aimed at strawmen you erected yourself.

quote:

---

So, what you don't like, is the fact that allegedly everyone who talks about religion is your perception that they are all religious. What does that say about you then?

---

quote:

---

---

If you think I'm being insulting, I refer you back to my statement above.

quote:

---

There are many secular programs and courses out there that do not mention God or religion once. Try visiting one of your local universities and find out for yourself.

---

quote:

---

So, you find it offensive when religious people talk about religion, but you don't seem to see the hypocrisy in your feverent desire to speak out about your personal beliefs as strongly and as often as possible. So what is the difference between you and a Jehovah's Witness - you're just as pushy and opinionated.

---

I wouldn't be so pushy or opinionated if I'm made to feel like on outcast because I happen not to believe in your God, or Bill's God, or even Sayeed's God.

quote:

---

You have an utter lack of respect for other people's beliefs: why should anyone respect yours?

---

quote:

---

Besides which, I did a quick Internet search. There are loads of secular - even atheist - resources out there. Why don't you contact these people and tell them they don't exist?

---

TP: I'd hardly call it organized. I remember when poor ol' Svend Robinson put forward a motion to have God taken out of the Charter (supposedly secular society and all). He claimed he was asked to do this by his constituents (although I disagree with his language). Well, I thought it was a pretty snazzy idea. The booing and heckling in the Commons was a nice touch. I swore I heard the laughter all the way from BC. I definitely read the outrage in the papers.

Relax, joke.

quote:

---

I don't find it offensive when religious people talk about religion.

---

Not to put you on the spot, but I can only wonder why you write about feeling marginalized when you chance upon a religious section in your local newspaper... after all, what's it to you? Do you think it's reasonable to get so upset at these religious connections?

quote:

---

Ever been told your going to hell? You're in league with the devil?

---

quote:

---

after all, what's it to you? Do you think it's reasonable to get so upset at these religious connections?

---

It doesn't bother you that in these spirituality, or whatever they call them, sections of the newspaper stick primarily to mainstream Christianity? Maybe they'll throw in a Jewish thing every once in a while, but I've never seen a Wicca or a Zoorastrian or even a Raelian in there.

You'd probably feel the same way if the newspaper devoted a complete section every Sunday to the glory of Maoism. I know the fact that there is always a business section but never a labour section in the papers really pisses me off.

quote:

---

Welcome to the British Columbia Humanist Association

The BCHA is a non-profit association that is part of an international philosophical movement committed to the following principles; secular ethics, freedom of choice, pluralism, democracy, free inquiry, separation of church and state, concern for others, personal responsibility and freedom from religion.

---

All atheism and agnosticism are, IMHO, alternative POVs to other beliefs and ideas. I don't understand why so many people get so riled up about other people do or do not believe in.

Nice post Pimji.

[ 24 May 2003: Message edited by: sophrosyne ]

I have an interesting question to pose to people about this:

What actually makes the Bible's version of morality so "absolute"?

To cite just a few examples of the relative morality that pervades the Bible, we have the following:

• God appears to believe that heterosexual rape is fine in some circumstances, since God doesn't slap Lot for offering up his two daughters in place of the angels, who happen to be men.
• God doesn't slap Lot's daughters either when they get the old man drunk and then have sex with him to have kids.
• God eventually gets around to slapping King David for boffing the neighbor's wife, but all David has to do is tearfully say he's sorry, a la Jerry Falwell, and boom, all is forgiven (more-or-less).
• God even cheerfully lets his own son get bumped off in the most public and gruesome fashion possible, apparently to make a point about the abstract concept of redemption.
  

So apparently, if I treat the Bible as a smorgasbord (and some modern-day Christians do a lot of that treatment, seeing as how they wear clothes made of two fibers but bash the homos), it is possible to have just as "relative" a morality as any atheist.

At least the atheist can't point to a book as a way of getting off the hook about justifying his moral code.

And I, as an atheist, particularly resent the notion that I have no ethics or morality whatsoever.

Excuse me for reverting to sarcasm as my primary literary device, but my attitude is "Hel-LOOOO?! Wake up and smell the coffee! I haven't robbed you, killed you, stolen your wallet, etc." I don't do those things because fundamentally, doing no harm to human beings is a good thing and doing harm to human beings is a bad thing.

Both inherently and for smooth social relations, I might add.

That's a morality and an ethical code right there: Act in ways which maximize social harmony and minimize harm to others.

Boom.

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

The coolest one that I know is a BC Skeptic who sells the "Snot of God" and calls ads in the yellow pages with fish symbols to see what discount they give to Christians and what proof they require for ones 'rebirth' ('do I have to give testimony of my rebirth, or can I just say my family is Anglican').

---

These wouldn't be the International Secular Atavism people would it? I still have the CD they put out a few years ago, titled "Free Snot of Jesus". They do some hilarious prank phonecalls to Bob Larson and Jerry Falwell on that CD.

[ 24 May 2003: Message edited by: Snuckles ]

quote:

---

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

---

quote:

---

To cite just a few examples of the relative morality that pervades the Bible,

---

And if you take the next step, we see the appeal of religion to the immoral. It can be used, not as a moral guide, but as a vehicle to justify immoral behavior.

quote:

---

Sunday, June 1
Killing for Our Beliefs
From suicide bombing, to the war in Iraq, to the murder of a doctor who provides abortions - guest host Mary Hynes explores how people justify violence in the name of God

---

[ 25 May 2003: Message edited by: Pimji ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
God is dead, and babble killed him.

---

Organized religion has always been there in one form or another at the root of human warfare. When our wars were small local affairs we could afford to beat the crap out of each other arguing about angels and pinheads and such. Now our wars are global and we live in a time where reality includes bristling stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. We have run out of the luxury of our irrationalities.

Arguing over our primitive superstitions was fine when I got together a few knights and you got together a few knights and the winners got to burn the losers at the stake. If we continue to fight over theology, our extinction is assured. Fundamentalists of any religion, are by nature fanatics, and rest assured it is religious fanaticism that is driving both sides of the current "War on Terror".

We'd better come to grips soon with the fact that Moses, Jesus, Mohammed et all and the people who wrote about them were just a bunch of ordinary guys, who lived in rude, primitive, and especially ignorant times. Anything useful they might have to tell us is far outweighed by the monstrous use their philosophies have been put to.

Take a cold shower people and wake up to a world full of hellish weapons and implaccable Science pushing back the frontiers of life itself and tell me it really matters what a bunch of uneducated hillbillies thought centuries and millenia ago.

We've been able to get away with being stupid for a long time. Time for the stupid is running out.

[/rant]

[ 26 May 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]

http://tinyurl.com/cp60

quote:

---

Losing their religion
Good, bad deeds are done by believers and non-believers alike

Douglas Todd
Vancouver Sun
Monday, May 26, 2003

No doubt about it: A lot of bad things have been done by people operating under the influence of religion.

There's been terrorism (in the name of Islam, Protestantism, ultra-orthodox Judaism, Indian Sikhism and Doukhoborism). There have been the Crusades, the Hundred Years War, the Catholic Inquisition, King Henry VIII beheading various wives and too much Sunday morning fear-mongering.

But for the B.C.-based editor of The Humanist in Canada to argue a more civil society is being magically advanced by a 40-per-cent rise in Canadians who tell census takers they have no religion is questionable and unnecessarily divisive. His cheering the demise of religiosity may also be a subtle form of bigotry.

---

I especially agreed with this part...

quote:

---

I have no fear of rising non-religiosity among Canadians. Some of my best friends, as they say, are atheists. But Bauslaugh's suggestion only secular humanists can be "considered" and "rational" in their judgments is stereotyping of the worst order.

While it would be entertaining to get into a metaphysical debate here about dualism and the nature of the "unknowable," there's no room for it. The important thing to mention is the world is fast becoming divided not between religious people and non-religious, but between various fundamentalists -- those hardliners, including some atheists, who think their way is the only way, and who refuse to engage with "the other."

If Bauslaugh is trying to be a voice for Canada's disparate atheists (which they could use) it would be more hopeful to see him start building bridges than engage in the kind of triumphalism practised by so many of the religious zealots he fears and dislikes. The well-organized and dialogue-inclined humanists of Holland could be his model.

---

quote:

---

That's a morality and an ethical code right there: Act in ways which maximize social harmony and minimize harm to others.

---

This is essentially a rewording of the 'Golden Rule', which is the central plank of Christianity, and also a modification of Rabbi Hillel's teachings.

quote:

---

In defence of the spiritually inclined, I can also draw on a crop of statistics and studies showing that formally religious people are more giving and have stronger values, on average, than non-observant people.

University of Lethbridge sociologist Reginal Bibby has found Canadians who regularly worship are more likely be committed to ethical qualities such as forgiveness, honesty and generosity. The Canadian Centre for Philanthropy has found religious people give more to charity, and not only to religious causes, but to health, environmental and sports organizations.

I could also cite the eminent Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, who rejects Christian triumphalism, but also believes the Achilles heel of many secular activists is their tendency to self-righteousness. Since they're hostile to transcendent inspiration, Taylor says, they often lack a deep source of inspiration for philanthropic action.

---

This is the hubristic nonsense I be on about. Not buying into the fairy stories of organized religion does not have to make one 'hostile to transcendent inspiration', nor does it make one an atheist. The universe revealed by Science is rife with transcendent inspiration. I am made of star stuff and share a common ancestor with every living thing on this planet for starters.

As for 'the observant' being more giving and having stronger values, I can only shake my head at this self-evident and unsupportable arrogance.

Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Kant's categorical imperative:

Act in such a way that the maxim of your action could form a universal rule (or something like that).

Dr. Conway:

Act in ways which maximize social harmony and minimize harm to others.

quote:

---

I don't see much of a connection with the golden rule.

---

It doesn't really matter though, as it is a moral guideline set by a human to be followed by a human either way. And its a personal guideline not some imposed organized rule.

One may say it is a benefit of religion that it could organize people to all follow the same moral code, end to chaos, and whether is right or not, makes people accountable to a power that is greater then any human could ever abtain (or one would hope). But why is there such a fear of people communially agreeing to a set of moral codes? What drives humans to destrust eachother to leading us all into chaos that we need to create an ultimate fear to keep people in line?

Maybe the prime reason of hate in distrust in the world is at the root the cause of major organized religion. In defeating religion we can began a new era of trust, and individualism where people work and co-operate together under free will and not coersion of fear. How free are we really that we are subjected to the fear of an omnipresent and oppressive entity? Even if we are basking in that being's love, we are still servants and thus prisoners of that power, there is little escape from it.

Atheist choose to believe in no god, not only for their fear of allowing an unknown cloud the judgement/understanding of the world but also because we wish to be individuals and not subject to the control of others. We choose to be kind and good natured beings because it is the right thing and best thing for humanity. We do not live in fear of an unknown rather live for ourselves and those that we can say exist around us. It allows us an untainable freedom that can not be achieved by those who subject themselves to the control of a supreme being, benevolent or not (true or not).

quote:

---

such a moral and ethical code can, in theory, be derived without any exposure to religious precepts.

---

quote:

---

Every rule that says do good things is not an offshoot of the golden rule.

It is to be noted that the basic premise of my statements is that such a moral and ethical code can, in theory, be derived without any exposure to religious precepts.

---

I guess my question would be: will people still follow this moral code you describe if some are claiming that it came from God ?

[ 27 May 2003: Message edited by: Michael Hardner ]

quote:

---

Pogo:
I guess my question would be: will people still follow this moral code you describe if some are claiming that it came from God ?

---

quote:

---

In an episode of a PBS series entitled Closer to Truth: Science, Meaning and the Future, Michael Schermer, president of the Skeptics Society, offers the following analysis of the relationship between science and religion: "Here's the deal, there is no conflict between science and religion as long as the God you believe in doesn't do anything."

---

Something I didn't know:

quote:

---

It is a little-known quirk of intellectual history that many widely respected modern statistical techniques were first developed in the endeavour to show that apparently paranormal effects can't be due to chance.

---