January 24, 2005

• "why is religion being championed as a solution to: Charities, sexual education and restraint, and education in general?" To keep the masses stupefied. The magician uses distraction, waving his hand in one direction while he palms the card with another.
• Nostril: I'll agree that most politics is handwaving, esp. on a national level. I have friends who have worked out in D.C.; the stories they tell scare me. But is that it? Is religion only being used as an 'opiate for the masses?'. Is it calculated and intentional? I am wondering if people want to believe religion can change the world but it just isn't working. This would be the 'ignorance' answer. And another point is this: religion does do good but the catch is that so does 'nonreligion' and it seems that they do good and bad in even amounts. So what's the point? If there is a god, well, then the point is to follow his rules and either escape his punishment or get his reward. It is when govt. is brought into the context that bugs me. You can't legislate religion, and even if you could, apparently it wouldn't do much good. Religion is not effective in changing people significantly. The implications to me are staggering, and the govt. aspect is perhaps the largest one I can immediately see.
• Why do people still fall for this shit? (Rhetorical question).
• Religion is so popular because the alternative - that, when you die, there is simply nothing, an ending to consciousness, the big forever sleep - is far too frightening for most people to contemplate. We barely can stand to come to grips with our own inevitable mortality, let alone the possibility that there is nothing after. Hence: the human creation of something after, mankind's largest and most inventive fiction. There is something very comforting to the human psyche about believing that the end of life is simply a stepping stone to another life. As for why humans fail to measure up to their religion/creed/whatever: have we ever successfully measured up? They're a target, not a yardstick. But it's often the one's who proclaim loudest that it's a yardstick who ended up accounting a few inches short.
• Religion. Opiate. People. Opiates don't change human nature, simply modify human behaviour for a time.
• "Is religion only being used as an 'opiate for the masses?'" I'd say so, by the politicians at least. "Is it calculated and intentional?" Mostly. Those who actually *believe* religious hogwash are too stupid to last long in the game of politics. "Religion is not effective in changing people significantly." Fundamentalist religion is not effective in changing people. That's because it's bullshit. 90% of the human race are either stupid or psychologically ill. Many of them take solace in religion without any critical analysis of the belief systems, because it simply makes 'em feel better, the way me smoking a bong makes me feel better. My problems haven't gone away, I'm just applying a superficial consolation. Difference between me & a fundo religoid is that I know this. Changing yourself is hard, really working on your problems and attempting to change them is very. fucking. hard. It requires discipline & self awareness. People are too lazy, cowardly & downright stupid to do it, & apply the work long-term. That's the way it is. This is why religion is so insidious & is exploited by hypocrites & power-hungry types, because it seems to offer an easy fix for people, where they don't have to do any work, some magical intercessor will do it all for them as long as they make the magic finger shapes etc.
• Jesus helps me trick people.
• I know it's the unpopular and laughable view around here, but to some of us it's perfectly reasonable to believe in a higher power -- or, at least, no less reasonable than believing that all of this just happened. Some of us even believe we've had an experience of the divine, intellectual credibility be damned. Not that it makes much of a difference. As you were.
• Those who actually *believe* religious hogwash are too stupid to last long in the game of politics. That's a bigoted statement. 90% of the human race are either stupid or psychologically ill. That's an asinine statement.
• I don't think Christians are supposed to believe themselves better-behaved than other people (we're all sinners)- just better informed. Asking Christianity to deliver concrete social benefits is like those people who think the point of meditation is that it makes them more effective business executives.
• middleclasstool managed to miss the point entirely. It doesn't matter what people believe in their heads, whatever superstitions they might have is between them and whatever it is they believe in. The point of the article is that despite so many Americans loudly proclaiming that they adhere to a religion that makes them good people and is the key for their eternal reward, the way they act has very little to do with their claims. I think that Jesus fella might have said something about actions vs. words. In this case, we're simply looking at the actions. Sorry if that offends some. As you were.
• Plegmund, so you're saying religion is just the same as new-age bullshit? Great, let's keep it out of government along with the soothing ocean sounds played through the PA system.
• Maybe I should have clarified. My statement was not in response to the article. I know very well how flawed and fucked up Christians can be. My statement was instead a response to this: Why do people still fall for this shit? (Rhetorical question). And the usual "religion is st00pid" commenting that invariably follows.
• Still, it's incredibly damning to read all that, knowing that many people who profess the faith that I do are indeed living as if they are not even familiar with the name of Jesus, much less his teachings and his way of life. I myself am guilty of leading a life that is far from exemplary or faith-worthy. Yet despite it all, I can find hope in the possibilities of redemption. Thanks for this link.
• Religion itself, no matter if you profess faith, or mock it, has been a great catylist for social change, from the abolitionist movement, to zionism, to martin luther king. Like any doctrine, it may be used for good or to justify evil. I am glad that there is a soul searching by american evangelicals. It is sorely needed.
• Oh, I agree f8x, absolutely. Fes's target/yardstick comparison upthread is right on, but as a whole Christians should be doing one hell of a lot better to live up to the example of Christ. Particularly, IMO, when it comes to that whole greatest-commandment idea. On preview, squidranch, there has never been a more powerful double-edged sword than religion. As you point out, it has been a wonderful agent for positive social change, but it's also killed millions and still stands as the most effective tool for social control that the world has ever seen. Personally, I'd like to see a resurgence of concern for social justice in churches. There's been quite a bit, but not nearly enough. Not nearly.
• If anyone bothered to read to the end of the article, there are people who talk the talk and walk the walk. Nobody can measure up to every standard laid out in the Bible, but there are lots of people who are pretty good examples of good Christians. I'm not a Christian myself (currently leaning towards Buddhism), but many friends around me are. They tithe, they attend church and Bible class, and they don't bug me to join them. They make good neighbours and good friends.
• Well yes, Space Coyote (you trenchant pragmatist you), you could put it that way. I could do with some of those soothing ocean sounds, though...
• But believing in higher power is very much less reasonable than believing all this just happened to happen. We are not part of some special plan and you are not a unique snowflake. We're here because we're here, a cosmic accident that's probably happened in a few other places too.
• a cosmic accident that's probably happened in a few other places too That could be seen as a very unreasonable belief, seeing how there is no real evidence to back it up.
• Speaking as a very lapsed Catholic, I've got to agree with Fes, squid, MCT and the f8xman... Religion can be a good thing, when handled by people with a conscience. When used as a tool of those without conscience, (i.e. a large crop of the current religious and political leaders, be they Christian, Jew or Muslim) only bad things can come from it.
• Interesting conversation. I was trying VERY hard not to knock religion when I posted this. Not being very religious myself, more of a spiritual person, I was surprised to read that strong religious conviction has very little to do with behavior. I at least thought it would have -some- sort of effect on people. It just seems that it doesn't. It is not my intention here to say that religion or belief in god is wrong or worthless, just that it doesn't seem to be a very effective avenue of social change or personal behavior. Knowing that is true, a person can then work logically out from there and have a solid basis to question the role of religion in our social structure, especially govt. If religion is not an effective social tool, why pretend to use it as one? I can see it as being politically convenient, for sure. But then this just adds to my cynicism that politicians using god as a political tool really are just being manipulative. As for there being religious people who do walk the walk, so to speak: I know atheist who are more socially conscious that the most religious people I know, even those the tithe. I guess it boils down to this; is this proof that: You don’t have to be religious to be good. Being religious doesn’t give you any greater chance of being good. Or is there a different way of looking at it?
• kitfisto, you are presenting a genuinly polar viewpoint to thost who profess a belief in God and there is as much or as little merit to your arguement as there is to theirs. From the viewpoint of a Christian, those who fail to live up to the standards they claim so emphatically to believe in are by all rights accountable to that God who set those standards. To those who have no belief in and do not accept the sacrafice offered by Jesus, they have no claim on the promises and blessings obedience to those principles guarantees. What can be simpler than that.
• there has never been a more powerful double-edged sword than religion I'm stealing that :)
• At the risk of further derailing the thread, I don't have a problem with a religious interpretation of, as some would say, the First Cause of the Universe. Whether it was a femtometer density or energy blip in a proto-Universal singularity that caused the Big Bang by chance, or whether said Big Bang was nudged by a Divine Fiat Lux is (currently) an unanswerable question, with no strong evidence in either direction. In cases just such as this, there remains plenty of room for God, however each person may experience him or her or it. Back to the thread topic, I think the implication here is simple. People haven't changed. One guy comes up against the existing, fetid and core-rotten religious establishment packed with noisy people who like to preach their holiness while in their unsound souls they harbor avarice and evil and says "You got it all wrong. The most important thing in life is to treat each other respectfully, and kindly." On top of this, the guy spends his time with and teaching the "undesirables" of that religious society: gang members, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, pedophiles, welfare cheats... Oops! I meant tax collectors, poor-ass fishermen, lepers, prostitutes, and (Eek!) Samaritans. The example Jesus set in the Bible is unmistakable, and for those who profess sanctification and still would cast a stone at the adulteress... Oops! I mean still would want to criminalize homosexuality (let alone fight to deny them their full civil rights), I call them all Pharisees, and the church they attend a den of snakes.
• I know that the focus is on Christianity because of Dubya, but we need to keep in mind that there are plenty of people who profess faiths they don't then seem to follow. I find it particularly amusing that this surge of "evangelicals" who don't seem to be following Christ's teaching overlap so heavily with "republicans" who don't follow the ideals of the original founders of the rebublican party. So, if you get anough people to agree, then you can redefine any term.
• You don't have to be religious to be good. Of course not. Being religious doesn't give you any greater chance of being good. Not necessarily, no. To be good takes the desire and determination to be good, not to mention a standard of goodness that you find acceptable. You don't need religion to provide these things, but it can. Some do it because they believe it will draw them nearer to [insert supernatural being here], others because they believe it will bring them closer to their fellow man, still others because they believe that being a good man or woman matters, even if there is no "point" or design to life. I think that Christians take the bulk of the criticism on the issues of moral lapses, hypocrisy, falling short, etc., because some of us tend to be very vocal about values, and some of us have an annoying tendency to tell others that they're going to hell. Unfortunately, those who are the most vocal and condemnatory are frequently considered to be representative of the whole. It's a shame, but not hard to understand.
• That could be seen as a very unreasonable belief, seeing how there is no real evidence to back it up. Same could be said for most religions. The point is kinda moot.
• Oops sorry for the horrendous spelling errors in my last comment. Ugh reminds self to review before hitting the post button. killThisKid, you just have to look around to see proof that you don't have to be religious to be good, as you have pointed out there are scores of examples of individuals in everyone
• "If Christians are no different than the rest of us, why is religion being championed as a solution to: Charities, sexual education and restraint, and education in general?" It is a solution because if it is done properly, then it will address those issues. A new democracy may kill more people than a military dictatorship does. That does not mean that democracy might not still be something to strive for. The failure of members of a system does not mean that the system is not a good one.
• the way me smoking a bong makes me feel better Someone please FedEx Nostril some weed? Dude's jonesin'.
• It is a solution because if it is done properly, then it will address those issues. But it's not being done properly. And with the current crop of hypocrites at the helm, it never will. A new democracy may kill more people than a military dictatorship does. That does not mean that democracy might not still be something to strive for. Not if the attempted foundation of that democracy runs the risk of destabilizing an entire region. Especially if that attempt comes to naught due to poor planning and execution by hubristic zealots who believe the rightness of their cause is enough to overcome any obstacle. The failure of members of a system does not mean that the system is not a good one. No, but the failures of members on a massive scale such as this, bring up the possibility that the system needs to be overhauled.
• The failure of members of a system does not mean that the system is not a good one. Good point. There are many idiots in the world, and some of them are Christians. When one (or all) of them do or say something outlandishly stupid, we should attribute this to their idiocy, not their Christianity.
• A new democracy may kill more people than a military dictatorship does. That does not mean that democracy might not still be something to strive for. ..
• The failure of members of a system does not mean that the system is not a good one. Tell that the millions who suffered through the Soviet Union's version of Communism.
• Tell that the millions who suffered through the Soviet Union's version of Communism. Actaully that's probably what many old russians would tell _you_.
• Space Coyote: Re-read your own dot link. Wingnut didn't present his argument as an exhaustive dichotomy. His point is valid.
• I guess I finally figured out what this article means to me: Religion has no moral advantage or authority over secularism!
• Religion has no moral advantage or authority over secularism! Agreed. For some people, however, religion *does* provide a moral compass that might otherwise be missing. For them, I'm glad it exists.
• To all you people claiming that religion is better than its adherents, I ask: how else can we find out what a religion is about except by studying what its adherents say and do? The religion doesn't exist without its adherents.
• And for some people, I wish they were without the "moral compass" that they claim their religion provides.
• There are some very kind, generous and selfless people whose religion guides them to do good deeds - Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter, for example. They're not all nutbars.
• There are some very kind, generous and selfless people whose religion guides them to do good deeds I would say it's not necessarily their religion that drives them to do so, tho they may certainly frame their morality in that sense. If the Carters had never "found Christ," would they have become avaricious whoremongers? I doubt it. One's own sense of what is right and wrong is usually reinforced by one's belief system. After all, it's like "Bob" Dobbs taught me -- "They'll pay to know what they really think."
• And, because I can't resist: Monkeyfilter: avaricous whoremongers?
• We're not saying they're all nutbars rocket. Just the glaring, obnoxious, "I-wear-my-religion-on-my-sleeve-so-do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do", types. Those are the ones in charge right now, and they are indeed nutbars. Look at the shots they've taken at the Carters in recent years for examples of this.
• Don't get me wrong, surlyboi, I hate that type too. I just don't like to tar them all with the same brush. I have many friends and family members who are religious, and most of them are excellent, honourable people. Some people are kept in line by their beliefs. I have a friend who told me in confidence that she was tempted to cheat on her husband on several occasions, but didn't - because of her Catholic religious convictions.
• I was raised Southern Baptist, and I always got the impression that the pastors believed that absent the threat of Hell, we'd all be running around, drinking the blood of the innocent, sodomizing our pets, and reading Marx and Darwin--like that was the "default" setting. It has made me wonder in the years since whether, deep in their secret selves, that's what THEY would do, absent the threat of Hell. It is an interesting question--are people good because their religion tells them to be, or do they subscribe to a certain religion because it best reflects their views on what is good? I'm sure there are many in each column, and all points in between.
• And more power to them, rocket. Those are the people who need to stand and be counted right now. They need to let their more vocal and less devout members know that they're not going to let them trade on their good name anymore.
• Whoops. Of course the point of the post was that people AREN'T good just b/c their religion tells them to be. So it must be the other. :) We probably all know good atheists and bad Christians. Jesus said "by their fruits ye shall know them"--which I took to mean, talk is cheap; if people are really good, you'll know it by how they act, not what they say. Of course I'm no seminarian...so that might be The Debbil talkin'...
• Nope, you got it, TP.
• I just cannot, cannot, cannot accept the belief that a good person will go to hell if s/he does not believe in God, and is not "saved". If we are truly made in His image, why then are we considered so vile and so unsalvagable that it takes divine grace to pull us out of the dross? If anyone dares to come at me and tell me my dad will go to hell because he refused to stay with the church, I'm gonna pull their guts out by their throats and make bow ties. /rant
• Neddy, I have never liked you more than I do now...
• *goofy grin*
• I think that while the article is accurate, in a larger sense it is missing the point. The problem it's detailing - that Christians, particularly in the US, are not living up to the standards for living laid out in the New Testament - is made to sound like a gathering crisis, getting worse all the time. Every day, the church is becoming more like the world it allegedly seeks to change. We have very little time, he believes, to reverse these trends. My question is, how is this different from what has gone on for the last 2000 years? The article itself quotes the letter of John to Laodicea in the book of Revelations which the article points to as being applicable to today's Western church. So what's changed? How is this a "crisis?" In my darker moments, I often feel that the best thing that could happen to Christianity in this country would be good, old-fashioned repression. What I see of history is that the church will more often live up to its self-set goals once it's no longer of social or personal advantage to be a Christian.
• Deeds and works are the measure of a man. Faith helps to accomplish deeds and works.
• Well said, JC.
• To all you people claiming that religion is better than its adherents, I ask: how else can we find out what a religion is about except by studying what its adherents say and do? But surely a religion should stand or fall by the credibility of its truth-claims, not by the behaviour of its adherents?
• I wonder whether a lot of people who publicly trumpet their faith are subconsciously saying "I'm better than you, I believe in God" ... certainly that would apply to some of the people I've known who've been very public about their religion. I watched them behave selfishly, cruelly, vindictively, but it was OK cos they had a personal relationship with Jesus ... People who don't make a fuss about believing in God are often much better at turning the other cheek and failing to cast the first stone. As for religion - what Fes said - I firmly believe that man made god rather than vice versa.
• I've also seen a lot of "I'm better than you, I don't believe in God" from my fellow atheists. It's just as bad.
• And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him.
• It's possible to fill in the blank(s) in the statement, " I'm ____ (____ ... ____) (than you); I don't believe in God(s)." You just have to be careful how you do it, and with what you want to say.
• You can fill in the blanks of the following statement to say anyhing you want: "_____ ______ _______ ___ ____ _______ ____ ________ ____ _ ______ _________ ________."
• God hates blanks
• You blank fucks.
• God hates blanks But I thought every sperm was sacred?
• Don't you see that filling in the blanks is part of the problem? Just be one with the blank, and resist the desire to fill it in.
• I belong to the blank generation I can take it or leave it each time...
• OMFG, I think this post has lost it's meaning. Well, so be it: bernockle: You can fill in the blanks of the following statement to say anyhing you want: well, no... two problems: it doesn't have the right number of words or the right number of characters per word... and... WTF is a anyhing! I think I might want one. Really. Well. Ok, anyone up for anymore serious talk? Oh god.... I mean GOD. I just derailed my own thread. I'm going to monkeyfilter hell.
• I think that many of the Christian beliefs are admirable, but it seems to me that the tenet of several large, influential churches that "good deeds" are irrelevant since the only criterion for salvation is believing in Jesus, gives believers the freedom to act like the rest of us. In the larger scheme of things, that may be ok, but it doesn't say much for the churches which raised the members referred to in the article. I really miss the discussions I (agnostic) had with Christians some years ago - some of them were from conservative sects, but could still express their deepest feelings and allow me to express mine. We posed no threat to each other, and the debate allowed us to review our beliefs. And, they were lovely people who tried to follow the example of the way Jesus lived. If neither of us changed, it was ok. They were confident enough in their beliefs and generous enough in their spirituality that a little dissent was not a threat. I don't know that that's possible with the majority of Christians today. (f8x - you're the only one I know of.) Discussion of conflicting ideas seems so threatening to those Christians that I know. It doesn't seem that they have any real basis for their beliefs apart from the fact that someone told then they were the truth. Presenting a conflicting opinion brings up "deer in the headlights" frozen posture rather than discussion. Since they have so little handhold on the ethical/moral implications of their faith, the results don't really surprise me.
• I apologize for whatever part I have played in the derailing of this thread. I also apologize for bring something as conceptually difficult to grasp as the anyhing into the conversation. I will point out that in the article the true "evangelicals" (the author tells us that this is nine or so percent of the population) does generally have better moral scores than the rest of society. It is not enormously better, but it is better. So perhaps there is the answer: being very, very Christian (evangelical) is a way to make us better people and a way to make a better society. It just might not be perfect.
• bernockle - I'm not sure that the article supports that. And, the "rest of society" is a pretty nebulous conglomerate. Too bad they didn't tell us how they stack up against other specific Christian denominations or non-Christian leanings.
• Just double-checked. Divorce was about the same. Charitable giving favored the evangelicals significantly (33% or so). Opinions about adultery favored evangelicals. Living in sin before marriage favored evangelicals. Pornography viewing was the same. Racism -- people objecting to having a black neighbor -- was very strongly against evangelicals. Apparently, they did not have black Samaritans at the time of Jesus.
• I have a hard time believing those stats about racism. Even among the most racist group (Southern Baptists), only 20% objected to having black neighbors. I mean, if only 20% of white Americans are hung up on race, how come race relations are such a mess? Perhaps the numbers would be higher if you asked them about having black co-workers or a black son-in-law.
• Or a black lover.
• Shoot! I wish I got here earlier. Guess I'll chime in anyway. MCT - (on God being just as likely as not) - God makes less sense than no god, because it is an unnecessary addition. How did the universe come to be? A. We don't know -> end of the line. B. God made it. -> What made God? -> We don't know -> end of the line. You reach the same conclusion, but now have to deal with more factors. It can't really be turtles all the way down. New subject: there was one area where being Christian did seem to have a big impact - helping the poor. Now, I know that the question of whether you did "a lot" to help the poor last year is very nebulous, but the difference between 9% for heathens and 20-30% for Christians seems pretty significant to me. Especially when there were no other differences of note. In my opinion, that is the only thing religion has going for it in light of the behavior stats. It is just too easy to get out of the habit of charity if you are not reminded to give. So having a weekly reminder is great. Of course, you can join secular charity organizations, but apparently not many do. Mackerel (on the suspiciously low racism stats) - keep in mind that many Christians are black. Presumably, they don't mind other blacks. And the people they live next to already probably don't mind them. Also, it's pretty obvious that the question adresses racism, so you'll have a lot of people who won't want to make themselves look bad, even in an anonymous poll (which we don't know this was). I'm surprised that a full 20% admitted it. killThisKid - "Religion has no moral advantage or authority over secularism!" Hallelujah!
• Ok, thread back on track. Good! What sort of monkeys are we if we can't laugh at ourselves. Well, I did get the spirited debate I hoped for. I so wish for a good forum (online or otherwise) where religious discussion can be a civil act. Ours seems to be decent. So, what have we come up with? We are all sinners. Some of us are good regardless of reward or punishment. Overall, we are a race of beings that need work. Is the answer religion? I'm not convinced. So one final question, and a very big one at that, before this thread drops into 'off the front page' oblivion: What is the answer? What will make us all 'just get along?' I have a theory, but I'll wait for some other answers first.
• I mean, if only 20% of white Americans are hung up on race, how come race relations are such a mess? Because it's enough. it's way enough to sow a world of shit.
• So, what have we come up with? We are all sinners. Some of us are good regardless of reward or punishment. Overall, we are a race of beings that need work. Is the answer religion? I'm not convinced. Love your neighbour as yourself. Love God. The whole of the Law is summed up in those two commandments. The day that happens, when we can truly do those two things, the world's heartbeat will stop for a moment in collective awe.
• Love your neighbour as yourself. Love God. The whole of the Law is summed up in those two commandments. The day that happens, when we can truly do those two things, the world's heartbeat will stop for a moment in collective awe. My God or your God? Because I personally think you've kneeling before the wrong deity.
• The holy war on crap.
• f8xmulder: But the 'Love God' part? What does it do? Haven't we just come to the conclusion that religion is largely ineffective? I'm not dissing it, I'm just asking: what good does it do? Love your neighbor, that's self evident. The other half, I need some explaination. Truly curious.
• Wolof - fantastic link. That has to be the most tasteless Christmas decoration ever - and there's a heckuva lot of competition. But, I still think it sucks that he got off with a $100 fine for $2500 worth of damage just because he justified his vandalism with religion.
• I always thought that the 'love god' part was to enforce the 'love your neighbor' part. So, more like love/fear/try to impress God. But I don't the God part is necessary. I tend to do pretty well by my neighbors, as well as my parents, friends, the earth, and on a bi-yearly basis, the poor. And I don't believe in any god or anything spiritual. My parents weren't religious, so they just taught me to be good because that's what you should do. No heaven or hell, just be good for goodness sake. I don't know why that worked, but it did.
• Of course, the article is more about hypocracy than anything else. You have to care a bunch more about getting married before you fuck, or the wrongness of divorce, to be shocked, shocked at their existence in a community.

  If Christians are no different than the rest of us, why is religion being championed as a solution

  Because the people pushing that hardest are all about Paul or Augustine: a contempt for reason, a hatred of this world, a the glorification of faith and the afterlife. In that context, use of empirical evidence is irrelevant, and arguing about the utility of policy is an obscenity. Bear in mind that US Evangelical Christianity is all about faith, not deeds.

  Those who actually *believe* religious hogwash are too stupid to last long in the game of politics.

  If only.

  Asking Christianity to deliver concrete social benefits is like those people who think the point of meditation is that it makes them more effective business executives.

  Many Christians seem quite keen to assert otherwise. Why would there be "faith based" government spending? Of course if a religion doesn't deliver some sort of positive outcome in the world, what's the point? It makes one feel better? Masturbation makes me happy, but I'm not going to run around telling everyone they ought to be pushing my porn collection in schools and communities.

  It is a solution because if it is done properly, then it will address those issues.

  Oh, so it's like Marxism, then? It would be perfect if only...

  I just cannot, cannot, cannot accept the belief that a good person will go to hell if s/he does not believe in God, and is not "saved".

  Well, it's the doctrine of most of the major schools of Western Christianity.
• 'a cosmic accident that's probably happened in a few other places too' "That could be seen as a very unreasonable belief, seeing how there is no real evidence to back it up." Whereas some beardy guy in the sky creating everything in 6 days about 6000 years ago is so much more reasonable. It all becomes clear now. Sheesh!
• Argh: This isn't a scientific logic test. It's about who and what you are truly seeking. If you're really on the search for God (the true one, if there is a true one), my faith says you'll find Him. Your faith probably makes allowances for me worshipping another God, so it's alright, right? killThisKid: I don't believe loving God and religion are the same thing. Religion is the circling of the wagons, so to speak, a bunch of people getting together and solidifying their common belief structure and then professing their belief in it. Loving God and your neighbour is an action, an act of volition. How do you love God? By following His commandments (even the ones you don't necessarily like). Faith and obedience. That's ultimately what it comes to. Sure those are nebulous terms, especially when you face the myriad of choices out there. Faith in what? Obedience to whom? Like I said to Argh, it's gotta be a personal thing. Corporate belief is a function of the structure, not the faith.
• kitfitso: I never said anything about the bearded guy.
• kitfisto: 6 days is only the Christian belief (and the other religions of the Book, so to speak). And I think it's more of a metaphor than anything else (for a humourous treatment of it, there's a short short written by Asimov about a conversation between Moses and Aaron about how this came about) Hindus, for example, believe the universe is eternal, and take billions and billions of years between cycles.
• 'How It Happened' by Isaac Asimov
• ...and the original link was about the Christian belief...
• God makes less sense than no god To you. That is my only point. It makes less sense to you. I'm not saying that theism makes as much sense period, I'm saying it makes as much sense to me. The point of my original comment, taken in context, is that not all of us arrived at faith because we're stupid or superstitious or terrified of the abyss or got it beaten into us by some hellfire-'n'-brimstone preacher. I, for instance, arrived at mine after years of study, reflection, meditation, and soul-searching. It was not cheaply purchased. On the contrary, I read a lot of books, did a lot of arguing, lost a lot of sleep, and even shed a tear or two along the way. You say to you it makes absolutely no sense to believe in a higher power -- that's great, if it's what your mind and heart tell you, and it underscores one of the differences between you and me. And those differences make our conversations more interesting, no? :) I'm not at all trying to argue for theism of any sort here. I was just (perhaps unfairly) sensing another "religious people are stupid" thread ramping up early on, and wanted to try to head it off. Looking back at my first comments, I can see they came off as a bit pissy and bitter, for which I apologize. I was a little grumpy that morning, and wasn't in the mood to be (however unintentionally) called an idiot.
• I'm an atheist myself, but I'd like to say a word on behalf of the bearded old guy (in the white nightshirt). For one thing, I don't see why God shouldn't take that form if He feels like it - Christians all believe he became a young man with a dark beard at one time, after all. Moreover, I find the angry old man of the Old Testament easier to relate to than Jesus. The old fellow is really emotionally engaged with the Israelites - they make him uncontrollably furious at times - which makes it easier to believe he really loves them, as compared with water-blooded Jesus, who never loses his cool or seems upset by anyone. If you really care about people, you will be angry and upset at times. The one thing you can't say for Jehovah is that he's a good moral example. Christian commentators used to sneer at the morals of the pagan gods, but really, what's the odd spot of adultery compared to Jehovah's bouts of indiscriminate slaughter? So really, it's amazing that people who worship the old chap manage to be as virtuous as the rest of us. Maybe JC balances him out.
• Okay, at the risk of being too tangential, I have a question that I have wondered for a while. There is a fairly strong feeling among black people in the US that they do not want to be like white people or act like white people. Black people do not like the idea of Uncle Tom's, and they do not like the idea of being denied their own culture, language, etc. Black people were largely not introduced to Christianity. They had it forced on them by slaveowners. They had previously existing religious beliefs, and the white man forced them to believe and worship something else. How is it that I am not aware of a significant backlash against Christianity in the black community? Could there be anything more offensive than having someone else's religious beliefs forced upon you? But I see black people become more and more Christian, and more and more emphatic about declaring their Christianity.
• There was a trend, most popular about 30-35 years ago, of blacks converting to Islam to reclaim their culture. Kareem Abdul Jabar and Mohammad Ali were two famous converts.
• I guess that I am just surprised that converting to Islam (or something else they see as more traditional) is not more popular today. Jabbar and Ali were two wildly famous people to do so. One would think that people would have followed them in greater numbers. I guess that it is difficult to wake up one day and decide that the magical being you have been praying to does not exist. People generally believe whatever religious views their parents' taught them. It would be interesting to see figures on what childhood religions get rejected the most often when the children grow up.
• bernockle, blacks did not necessarily have Christianity forced on them by slaveowners. Though that might have been the case in some places, it seems rather to have been a combination of pre-slavery missions work in Africa, as well as a possible adaptation from ancient African religions into a Christianity of sorts. It was the relative freedoms that Christianity offered to slaves whilst they were still slaves that attracted blacks, and the history of the black Christian church is very strong, with many vibrant and well-known leaders, going back to the early 1700's. Fact is, Christian mission work in Africa predates some of the Apostle Paul's missions to Europe, and some early church fathers were African (Clement, Tertullian for a couple). More info on this can be found here and here.
• Christianity is also now undeniably an important part of African-American culture - gospel, church lunches, and the fact that churches and ministers were by no means a small part of the civil rights movement. For every Ali, there is a Martin Luther King Jr. Black American culture is not African culture, or even West African - it is African-American, its own thing which has roots in all of its history.
• Not to mention Augustine of Hippo, f8xmulder. Kind of important in the history of Chrtianity. Similarly, the Coptic Church is older than the Roman Catholic.
• Aww, what a Copt-out... (I was late to the party, so I'll just jive it).
• Russian study finds conscience in brain scans when lies are even thought about... Alcohol and patriotism the main workarounds for subsequent remorse. Probably these things should be outlawed?
• Banning one didn't work. And the other is an industry, so no chance of banning it.