[quote]This is a question I actually can answer. As I mentioned before, I grew up as a atheist before and experienced faith when I was not younger than 25. My grandparents and my parents were (are) lefties, denying any idea that there may be a god. So I grew up god-less. But: According to the ethic rules of the party they were in, and of which I learned in school and in the youth organization, there was most of the Commandments (just without anything quoting god) So: honesty against anybody and against the country were the main principles I learned in past.
When I learned about the Bible, and read the 10 Commandments, and compared them to what I had learned, I experienced that I only had to add the "divine factor" to what I knew before - so little was the difference. I even dare to say, there are atheists who act even more Christian than some of the Christians themselves - depending on their own behaviour. So Ethics is not a matter of belief. Not always at least. Though those who are behaving unethically are mostly found among atheists and agnostics...

The problem with leaving out the divine is that children do not learn that they will need to account for their entire lives to someone who cannot be lied to, cannot be fooled, cannot be distracted. In my experience, this precept provides a powerful moderating influence on people for the same reason that children do not misbehave when an adult is present.

The problem with this line of thought ( in my opinion ) is that if the parent's don't believe in being accountable to that being, then teaching their children that THEY should believe it would seem hyppocritical to the child once he/she gets a little older. It's kinda the same thing as a parent telling a child not to smoke, and then lighting up right after the lecture about it.

The kids I knew who were not taught this lesson while growing up tended to get into trouble because they were able to rationalize and convince themselves that doing {whatever this wrong thing was} would be OK because nobody would ever find out. For kids, especially adolescent boys, the lesson seems to be "I'ts OK if you don't get caught!" not "Don't do it bacause it's wrong!"

That is simply a failure on the part of the parents to instill the proper values in the child with or without God being in the equation.

* author's note * These are simply opinions/ideas put forth. They should in no way be construed as what I truly do or do not believe in

This is a question I actually can answer. As I mentioned before, I grew up as a atheist before and experienced faith when I was not younger than 25. My grandparents and my parents were (are) lefties, denying any idea that there may be a god. So I grew up god-less. But: According to the ethic rules of the party they were in, and of which I learned in school and in the youth organization, there was most of the Commandments (just without anything quoting god) So: honesty against anybody and against the country were the main principles I learned in past.
When I learned about the Bible, and read the 10 Commandments, and compared them to what I had learned, I experienced that I only had to add the "divine factor" to what I knew before - so little was the difference. I even dare to say, there are atheists who act even more Christian than some of the Christians themselves - depending on their own behaviour. So Ethics is not a matter of belief. Not always at least. Though those who are behaving unethically are mostly found among atheists and agnostics...

The problem with leaving out the divine is that children do not learn that they will need to account for their entire lives to someone who cannot be lied to, cannot be fooled, cannot be distracted. In my experience, this precept provides a powerful moderating influence on people for the same reason that children do not misbehave when an adult is present.

The kids I knew who were not taught this lesson while growing up tended to get into trouble because they were able to rationalize and convince themselves that doing {whatever this wrong thing was} would be OK because nobody would ever find out. For kids, especially adolescent boys, the lesson seems to be "I'ts OK if you don't get caught!" not "Don't do it bacause it's wrong!"

Oh boy you can't imagine, how often I have heard: "Well, 'you shall not get caught!' is the Eleventh Commandment."
I was glad that my grandparents were teaching me by example, and not by "Do like I say and not like I do" - may be that's why I have some views which can be seen as totally out-of-date for an atheist, but suitable for one who grew up in a Christian family...

---

Account frozen...

[quote]This is a question I actually can answer. As I mentioned before, I grew up as a atheist before and experienced faith when I was not younger than 25. My grandparents and my parents were (are) lefties, denying any idea that there may be a god. So I grew up god-less. But: According to the ethic rules of the party they were in, and of which I learned in school and in the youth organization, there was most of the Commandments (just without anything quoting god) So: honesty against anybody and against the country were the main principles I learned in past.
When I learned about the Bible, and read the 10 Commandments, and compared them to what I had learned, I experienced that I only had to add the "divine factor" to what I knew before - so little was the difference. I even dare to say, there are atheists who act even more Christian than some of the Christians themselves - depending on their own behaviour. So Ethics is not a matter of belief. Not always at least. Though those who are behaving unethically are mostly found among atheists and agnostics...

The problem with leaving out the divine is that children do not learn that they will need to account for their entire lives to someone who cannot be lied to, cannot be fooled, cannot be distracted. In my experience, this precept provides a powerful moderating influence on people for the same reason that children do not misbehave when an adult is present.

The problem with this line of thought ( in my opinion ) is that if the parent's don't believe in being accountable to that being, then teaching their children that THEY should believe it would seem hyppocritical to the child once he/she gets a little older. It's kinda the same thing as a parent telling a child not to smoke, and then lighting up right after the lecture about it.

The kids I knew who were not taught this lesson while growing up tended to get into trouble because they were able to rationalize and convince themselves that doing {whatever this wrong thing was} would be OK because nobody would ever find out. For kids, especially adolescent boys, the lesson seems to be "I'ts OK if you don't get caught!" not "Don't do it bacause it's wrong!"

That is simply a failure on the part of the parents to instill the proper values in the child with or without God being in the equation.

* author's note * These are simply opinions/ideas put forth. They should in no way be construed as what I truly do or do not believe in

The issue is that absent belief in what has been called "a higher power" parents have a far harder chore instilling proper moral principles in their children's character. Not to say it can't be done. Not even to say that most arrive on the moral high ground on their own merits.
But I am saying that belief in a higher power provides an essential ballast to the ship of moral action. On average, people with strong faith are shielded from the worst of lifes buffets by that faith. They are not as susceptible to depression or despair. They are generally happier and claim a higher level of satisfaction with their lives.

On average, people with strong faith are shielded from the worst of lifes buffets by that faith. They are not as susceptible to depression or despair. They are generally happier and claim a higher level of satisfaction with their lives.

That may be true in most cases, but based on my personal experiences, I disagree.

I was brought up a Lutheran, believe(d) ( not saying I do or don't at this point ) in God, knew all the things that I was taught, and I have had to deal with depression ever since I was 12.

Maybe a whole lot of people are happier. I just happen to not be one of them.

Dang, this is a loooooooooonnnnnnnnngggggg thread. I've read a lot, but not all of it so I'm opening with the standsard apology for anything I say that's already been said!

One of my favourite parts of the HHGTTG was God's statement that "Proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing". Man replies "Well that just goes to prove...." and on it goes, but the point is fairly easy to grasp. A book shouldn't be needed for a religion if it's to be taken seriously. Men write books, not God.

Personally, I put "JEDI" on my census form a few years back (I'm in the UK) so officially that's my religion. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, God is like Father Christmas. It'd be great if he was around, but only the naive can possibly hang onto such beliefs.

Unfortunately, being naive isn't enough for many millions who choose to follow the insane rantings of madmen, rather than the guidance of some supreme being. That people who claim to be intelligent can condone the stoning of rape victims as the will of "God" never ceases to amaze me. Religion is, for me, the staple of the ignorant, the indoctrinated or the foolhardy. Some people of course will fall into two, or maybe all three categories.

Luckily I have achieved imortality already through the conventional method of passing my genetic material to my children. They had better keep the "project" running!

---

Tomcat's Taekwondo Pages

On average, people with strong faith are shielded from the worst of lifes buffets by that faith. They are not as susceptible to depression or despair. They are generally happier and claim a higher level of satisfaction with their lives.

That may be true in most cases, but based on my personal experiences, I disagree.

I was brought up a Lutheran, believe(d) ( not saying I do or don't at this point ) in God, knew all the things that I was taught, and I have had to deal with depression ever since I was 12.

Maybe a whole lot of people are happier. I just happen to not be one of them.

That's sad.
Well, when I finally realized that accepting the Bible was just adding the Divine to the lessons I was taught before, it took me over a year of struggle before I prayed the first time, that I may believe. Oh my, I felt so crazy to speak to a person I could't see - but only a few days later, there were some street preachers on the shopping mile in my home town, and I went there with the intention to argue with them - like "only fools do believe etc". But like being a puppet on a string, my mouth spoke words I haven't planned to speak: I said there, in front of about of a dozen people including those street preachers that the Bible is the Word of God. I think this was my first testimony given. And for me this was a sign that suddenly I really had faith. Since then I've been visiting service meetings and I found a church where I felt home. Having struggled myself through the Bible in '91, I was baptized 25 years of age on July 4 1993, choosing this date because of my fav movie "Born on 4th of July" - so for me it was "Re-born on 4th of July", and that really was what I felt: like being re-born...
Since then, I really changed. I became more optimistic and - after my home country was destroyed by history to become a part of the united Germany, I got a new sense in live instead of mourning about the things lost...
For me, this has nothing to do with naivity or foolishness. There is a Higher Power, and I call this Higher Power God, and I adore God, always trying to understand Him more. And I learned from the Bible and from historic books I read that Jesus was a real person, and really did wonders - so there is for me no reason to not believe in Him.

---

Account frozen...

Unearthed coffin may hold St. Paul, but first things first

By Daniela Petroff
ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 12, 2006

VATICAN CITY – A white marble sarcophagus believed to be the final resting place of St. Paul has been unearthed from beneath the altar of Rome's second-largest basilica after centuries hidden from view, but those curious about its contents will have to wait still longer.

Vatican experts, announcing yesterday that the coffin had been unearthed, said they hoped to be able to examine it more closely and maybe even look inside.

Giorgio Filippi, a Vatican archaeologist, said researchers' first concern was to free the coffin from centuries of plaster and debris in the hope of finding other clues on the sarcophagus itself.

“Right now we can treat it as a symbol, regardless of its contents,” Filippi said.

St. Paul, also known as the apostle of the Gentiles, was beheaded in Rome in the first century during the persecution of early Christians by Roman emperors, according to tradition. Popular belief holds that bone fragments from his head are in another Rome basilica, St. John Lateran, with his other remains inside the sarcophagus.

The 8-foot-long coffin, which dates from at least A.D. 390 and was buried under the main altar of St. Paul's Outside the Walls Basilica, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and ended last month.

“These excavations give us the full certainty and knowledge that the sarcophagus is St. Paul's tomb, whether it contains his remains or not,” said Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, head of the basilica.

The cardinal said X-rays were unlikely to penetrate the thick marble, making it necessary to open the tomb to find out what is inside.

“It has never been opened or explored,” di Montezemolo said.

Filippi said the decision to unearth the sarcophagus was made after pilgrims who came to Rome during the Roman Catholic Church's 2000 Jubilee year expressed disappointment at finding that the saint's tomb – buried under layers of plaster and further hidden by an iron grate – could not be visited or touched.

The top of the coffin has small openings – subsequently covered with mortar – because in ancient times Christians would insert offerings or try to touch the remains.

Work in the small area under the altar, to clear the debris and insert a transparent glass floor for better viewing, unearthed new evidence of the authenticity of the sarcophagus, said Filippi, who led the project.

The basilica stands at the site of two fourth-century churches – including one destroyed by a fire in 1823 that had left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt. After the fire, the crypt was filled with earth and covered by a new altar. A slab of cracked marble with the words “Paul apostle martyr” in Latin was also found embedded in the floor above the tomb.

Paul, along with Peter, are the two main figures known for spreading the Christian faith after the death of Jesus Christ.

This is interesting. I just hope it is not the body of Jesus instead. If it were, then they would surely try to hush that up wouldn't they?
To announce to the world that Christ's body has been found, would be equivalent to saying there was no resurrection. Think of the eruptions that might cause in the Christian church.

ISLAMOPHOBIA

Bigotry toward Muslims is growing in the United States

By Salam Al-Marayati and Safiya Ghori

Al-Marayati is executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Ghori is the MPAC program director.

December 15, 2006

It is a sad day for Muslims in America. I woke up recently to hear radio host Jerry Klein suggesting that all Muslims in the United States should be identified with a crescent-shaped tattoo or a distinctive arm band – and then heard an hour of my fellow Americans agreeing with him.

Earlier this month, right-wing pundit Dennis Prager ranted that the first Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison, should not be allowed to take his congressional oath on the Koran. The week before it was the case of six U.S. imams being handcuffed, detained and thrown off a US Airways flight because they were praying their daily prayer at the gate before boarding the plane. The week before that, it was a Michigan man who was dragged outside of his home and beaten by a mob of 10 people who were shouting, “You're a (expletive) Muslim, you're not American, go back to where you came from”. Unfortunately, the list of incidents is extensive and American Muslims are beginning to feel the impact of Islamophobia.

In a post Sept. 11, 2001, world, perceptions of Muslims as terrorists or potential terrorists are not uncommon, yet in the last year there has been a growing amount of anti-Muslim sentiment. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that nearly 40 percent of Americans admit to harboring feelings of prejudice against Muslims. Furthermore, the hateful rhetoric that is spewing out of right-wing radio talk shows such as Prager's only adds fuel to the flame of Islamophobia, enhancing the fears of the public and perpetuating an image of a so-called “culture war.”

Klein eventually revealed that he had staged a hoax by stating that Muslims in the United States should be identified with a tattoo or armband. As an hour of callers congratulated Klein on his bigoted statements, one man specifically asked, “What good is identifying them? You have to set up encampments like during World War II with the Japanese and Germans.”

As an American Muslim, I can understand concerns about Islam and Muslims, but that should never be a pass for prejudice and bigotry. America stands for something better than this type of blatant racism.

America celebrated the victory of Ellison as the first Muslim congressman, but AM radio talk-show host Prager decided to impart his Islamophobic opinion by stating that Ellison should not be allowed to take his congressional oath on the Koran, because it “undermined American civilization.” He also stated that “America should not give a hoot what Ellison's favorite book is” and that “America is interested in only one book, the Bible. And if you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.”

Prager's intolerant and unbelievably erroneous comments clearly display his ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Based on Article VI of the Constitution, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. In addition, the establishment clause and free exercise clause of the Constitution mandate the equal treatment of people without regard to their religious beliefs. This unequivocally means that the government cannot dictate what a person uses as a religious book.

What Prager is trying to say is that Ellison is unfit for office because of his religious beliefs. His attacks are specifically targeted toward the fact that Ellison wants to use a Koran to administer his congressional oath. Why didn't Prager cry foul when Rep. Debbie Schultz, D-Fla., refused the Bible offered by Dennis Hastert and borrowed a Hebrew bible for her swearing-in ceremony? What about when Linda Lingle, the governor of Hawaii, took her oath on the Torah?

The reason there was no uproar over this matter was because Schultz and Lingle were merely practicing their constitutional right to swear on the books they believed in – not on the book society believes in. In the aftermath of this incident, Jewish groups around the country have also condemned Prager's bigoted comments in support of Ellison.

Simply put, there isn't one book that can encompass the beliefs of American society. What truly unifies Americans is a values system that is built on religious freedom as a fundamental and cherished right. The fundamental ideals of America are freedom and democracy, and this is achieved by celebrating religious and cultural diversity.

Similarly, a few weeks ago, CNN's answer to Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, challenged Ellison: “Sir, prove to me you are not working with our enemies” simply because he is a Muslim. These types of questions marginalize the majority of Muslim Americans who feel that their act of allegiance to the United States is always in question. When will we stop questioning patriotism a la McCarthyism?

Evicting six imams who had been cleared by the FBI from a US Airways flight will not create a safer America. Islamophobia is a growing reality of racism around the world. The only way to stop it is by embracing the greatness of America and respecting the religious diversity that is present in this country.

The Dennis Pragers and Glenn Becks of the world certainly have a right to free speech, but they are only a part of this increasing trend of widespread bigotry that is emerging as the ugly face Islamophobia.

---

me@rescam.org

Taking Christianity out of Christmas

By Linda Chavez; a nationally syndicated columnist, is the author of “An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal.”

December 15, 2006

The Christmas trees are back up at Sea-Tac Airport in Seattle after they were taken down in response to a threatened lawsuit. But that doesn't mean the bah-humbug season is over yet.

Every Christmas, the politically correct and anti-religion crowd gets into Scrooge mode, trying to deprive the great majority of Americans from celebrating Christmas in traditional fashion. The American Civil Liberties Union files lawsuits demanding creches be removed from public property. School districts change Christmas vacations into winter breaks and ban carols from holiday assemblies. Even some retailers have gotten cold feet about mentioning the holiday, with Wal-Mart instructing its employees that “Merry Christmas” should be replaced with “Happy Holidays.” It would be laughable if it weren't so offensive.

This year's “war on Christmas” story had an unlikely genesis. A Seattle rabbi simply asked Sea-Tac Airport to display a Menorah to celebrate Hanukkah, which begins at sundown. But the Port Authority, which runs the facility, got nervous, worrying that displaying the symbol that celebrates the Jewish victory over the Seleucid king of Syria in 200 B.C. would somehow be a government endorsement of religion.

Nonsense. The story of the Maccabees' revolt against Antiochus IV – who persecuted the Jews and looted the temple – is a cultural and historical celebration as well as a religious one. The airport could easily have accommodated the rabbi's request, but chose instead to panic and remove the Christmas trees, which are certainly a secular, not religious, symbol. And the rabbi didn't exactly help the matter by threatening to sue the airport if it didn't display the 8-foot lighted candelabra.

Many of us grew up in a different time, when civic centers and public buildings routinely featured not just trees, snowmen and Santa Claus, but Nativity scenes that depicted Mary, Joseph, the Baby Jesus and the Three Wise Men. No one was being asked to subscribe to belief in the divinity of Christ because of these displays, but it was an acknowledgment that the overwhelming majority of Americans celebrated the birth of this man.

Should non-Buddhists be offended when cities build pagoda structures with public money, since these buildings are simply replicas of shrines to honor Buddha? Should Christians, Jews and Moslems take offense when Chinese restaurants feature statues of Buddha at their entryways? Should public buildings be forced to remove any Persian rugs that feature the prayer rug design, in fear that not doing so is somehow an endorsement of Islam?

Should public museums remove any paintings that depict religious figures or themes? Should public orchestras and choruses be forbidden from playing “The Messiah” this year? Should corporations similarly worry that they shouldn't be making donations that would be used to promote cultural celebrations of religious themes, in fear they will antagonize nonbelievers or those of different religious faiths?

Some people, no doubt, would answer yes to all these questions. But imagine life in such a society. Instead of a nation that celebrates religious freedom, we would become Taliban-like, banning all expressions of religion in the public square.

Surely common sense should prevail here. The First Amendment, of course, guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The Supreme Court bears much of the fault for taking us down this path over the last several decades. We have become such a litigious society that anyone who feels slighted in any way rushes to court to settle his grievances.

Thankfully, Sea-Tac came to its senses and put back the 14 trees it unwisely took down. And Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky withdrew his threat to sue, opting, wisely, to work with the airport to get the Menorah put up for next year's Hanukkah celebration. Wal-Mart still encourages its employees to wish everyone a Happy Holidays, but it fired a customer service representative who sent e-mails telling those who complained that Christmas has its roots in “Siberian shamanism.”

The United States may be increasingly religiously diverse, and we should be respectful of minority religions and of those who have no religious affiliations or beliefs. But those who do not share the religious views of the majority are not entitled to ban Christianity from the public square.

If they succeed, what will happen next? Remember the Taliban blowing up the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan? Will we see the anti-religion police roaming our museums and concert halls on some future crusade? This, not a few Christmas trees or even creches on public property, could become the true threat to the First Amendment.

---

me@rescam.org

Taking Christianity out of Christmas

By Linda Chavez; a nationally syndicated columnist, is the author of “An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal.”

December 15, 2006

The Christmas trees are back up at Sea-Tac Airport in Seattle after they were taken down in response to a threatened lawsuit. But that doesn't mean the bah-humbug season is over yet.

Every Christmas, the politically correct and anti-religion crowd gets into Scrooge mode, trying to deprive the great majority of Americans from celebrating Christmas in traditional fashion. The American Civil Liberties Union files lawsuits demanding creches be removed from public property. School districts change Christmas vacations into winter breaks and ban carols from holiday assemblies. Even some retailers have gotten cold feet about mentioning the holiday, with Wal-Mart instructing its employees that “Merry Christmas” should be replaced with “Happy Holidays.” It would be laughable if it weren't so offensive.

This year's “war on Christmas” story had an unlikely genesis. A Seattle rabbi simply asked Sea-Tac Airport to display a Menorah to celebrate Hanukkah, which begins at sundown. But the Port Authority, which runs the facility, got nervous, worrying that displaying the symbol that celebrates the Jewish victory over the Seleucid king of Syria in 200 B.C. would somehow be a government endorsement of religion.

Nonsense. The story of the Maccabees' revolt against Antiochus IV – who persecuted the Jews and looted the temple – is a cultural and historical celebration as well as a religious one. The airport could easily have accommodated the rabbi's request, but chose instead to panic and remove the Christmas trees, which are certainly a secular, not religious, symbol. And the rabbi didn't exactly help the matter by threatening to sue the airport if it didn't display the 8-foot lighted candelabra.

Many of us grew up in a different time, when civic centers and public buildings routinely featured not just trees, snowmen and Santa Claus, but Nativity scenes that depicted Mary, Joseph, the Baby Jesus and the Three Wise Men. No one was being asked to subscribe to belief in the divinity of Christ because of these displays, but it was an acknowledgment that the overwhelming majority of Americans celebrated the birth of this man.

Should non-Buddhists be offended when cities build pagoda structures with public money, since these buildings are simply replicas of shrines to honor Buddha? Should Christians, Jews and Moslems take offense when Chinese restaurants feature statues of Buddha at their entryways? Should public buildings be forced to remove any Persian rugs that feature the prayer rug design, in fear that not doing so is somehow an endorsement of Islam?

Should public museums remove any paintings that depict religious figures or themes? Should public orchestras and choruses be forbidden from playing “The Messiah” this year? Should corporations similarly worry that they shouldn't be making donations that would be used to promote cultural celebrations of religious themes, in fear they will antagonize nonbelievers or those of different religious faiths?

Some people, no doubt, would answer yes to all these questions. But imagine life in such a society. Instead of a nation that celebrates religious freedom, we would become Taliban-like, banning all expressions of religion in the public square.

Surely common sense should prevail here. The First Amendment, of course, guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The Supreme Court bears much of the fault for taking us down this path over the last several decades. We have become such a litigious society that anyone who feels slighted in any way rushes to court to settle his grievances.

Thankfully, Sea-Tac came to its senses and put back the 14 trees it unwisely took down. And Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky withdrew his threat to sue, opting, wisely, to work with the airport to get the Menorah put up for next year's Hanukkah celebration. Wal-Mart still encourages its employees to wish everyone a Happy Holidays, but it fired a customer service representative who sent e-mails telling those who complained that Christmas has its roots in “Siberian shamanism.”

The United States may be increasingly religiously diverse, and we should be respectful of minority religions and of those who have no religious affiliations or beliefs. But those who do not share the religious views of the majority are not entitled to ban Christianity from the public square.

If they succeed, what will happen next? Remember the Taliban blowing up the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan? Will we see the anti-religion police roaming our museums and concert halls on some future crusade? This, not a few Christmas trees or even creches on public property, could become the true threat to the First Amendment.

I could understand if this BS would have happened in countries claiming themselves as atheistic, like the late Soviet Union, or old East Germany or other East Block countries - and even there Christian holidays were celebrated because of tradition (though they were not free days, except Christmas Day). What happens there in the US is not only in opposite to their First Amendmend (freedom of religion), but also a heavy insult against the vast majority of the US-Americans, against their traditions, beliefs and feelings. Imagine the feelings of children singing their carols and being stopped by some of such over-zealous folk - what will they think of their beloved home-country?
I can't understand that in "God's Own Country", in the "Land Of The Free" the performance of religion in public shall be forbidden.

---

Account frozen...

[quote][quote][quote]This is a question I actually can answer. As I mentioned before, I grew up as a atheist before and experienced faith when I was not younger than 25. My grandparents and my parents were (are) lefties, denying any idea that there may be a god. So I grew up god-less. But: According to the ethic rules of the party they were in, and of which I learned in school and in the youth organization, there was most of the Commandments (just without anything quoting god) So: honesty against anybody and against the country were the main principles I learned in past.
When I learned about the Bible, and read the 10 Commandments, and compared them to what I had learned, I experienced that I only had to add the "divine factor" to what I knew before - so little was the difference. I even dare to say, there are atheists who act even more Christian than some of the Christians themselves - depending on their own behaviour. So Ethics is not a matter of belief. Not always at least. Though those who are behaving unethically are mostly found among atheists and agnostics...

The problem with leaving out the divine is that children do not learn that they will need to account for their entire lives to someone who cannot be lied to, cannot be fooled, cannot be distracted. In my experience, this precept provides a powerful moderating influence on people for the same reason that children do not misbehave when an adult is present.

The kids I knew who were not taught this lesson while growing up tended to get into trouble because they were able to rationalize and convince themselves that doing {whatever this wrong thing was} would be OK because nobody would ever find out. For kids, especially adolescent boys, the lesson seems to be "I'ts OK if you don't get caught!" not "Don't do it bacause it's wrong!"

I strongly believe that faith in a "higher power" or being accountable to such an entity has nothing what so ever to do with instilling sound behaviour and ethics in an individual. In fact it is a bit of a parental cop-out. Like if you do bad, it will catch up with you in the end (not now mind you or by my hand etc). Furthermore in my experience (especially in business) those individuals of strong faith are exceptionally unethical and corrupt. In fact they use their faith as a tool to manipulate (gullible) people.

I also cannot fathom the value in faith as a boost to self esteem. This is quite ridiculous in my opinion. It does provide a nice crutch for certain types of individuals or entire populations that are suppressed and live in poverty. However as a crutch, it is like a "permanent illness" rather than face the issues at hand, they turn to the crutch and are 'forever' trapped while the "organised religion" is exploiting the population at hand. Look at the Spanish conquest of Central and South America for example. Some 500 years later, this organised religion still has literally a strangle hold on these impoverished people.

This is a question I actually can answer. As I mentioned before, I grew up as a atheist before and experienced faith when I was not younger than 25. My grandparents and my parents were (are) lefties, denying any idea that there may be a god. So I grew up god-less. But: According to the ethic rules of the party they were in, and of which I learned in school and in the youth organization, there was most of the Commandments (just without anything quoting god) So: honesty against anybody and against the country were the main principles I learned in past.
When I learned about the Bible, and read the 10 Commandments, and compared them to what I had learned, I experienced that I only had to add the "divine factor" to what I knew before - so little was the difference. I even dare to say, there are atheists who act even more Christian than some of the Christians themselves - depending on their own behaviour. So Ethics is not a matter of belief. Not always at least. Though those who are behaving unethically are mostly found among atheists and agnostics...

The problem with leaving out the divine is that children do not learn that they will need to account for their entire lives to someone who cannot be lied to, cannot be fooled, cannot be distracted. In my experience, this precept provides a powerful moderating influence on people for the same reason that children do not misbehave when an adult is present.

The kids I knew who were not taught this lesson while growing up tended to get into trouble because they were able to rationalize and convince themselves that doing {whatever this wrong thing was} would be OK because nobody would ever find out. For kids, especially adolescent boys, the lesson seems to be "I'ts OK if you don't get caught!" not "Don't do it bacause it's wrong!"

I strongly believe that faith in a "higher power" or being accountable to such an entity has nothing what so ever to do with instilling sound behaviour and ethics in an individual. In fact it is a bit of a parental cop-out. Like if you do bad, it will catch up with you in the end (not now mind you or by my hand etc). Furthermore in my experience (especially in business) those individuals of strong faith are exceptionally unethical and corrupt. In fact they use their faith as a tool to manipulate (gullible) people.

I also cannot fathom the value in faith as a boost to self esteem. This is quite ridiculous in my opinion. It does provide a nice crutch for certain types of individuals or entire populations that are suppressed and live in poverty. However as a crutch, it is like a "permanent illness" rather than face the issues at hand, they turn to the crutch and are 'forever' trapped while the "organised religion" is exploiting the population at hand. Look at the Spanish conquest of Central and South America for example. Some 500 years later, this organised religion still has literally a strangle hold on these impoverished people.

So you are agreeing with that what W. I. Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, said a hundred years ago?
"Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."

Well, as I mentioned several times before, I was not taught religion before my own quest. And I can't say to have felt impoverished or surpressed. There have been only some too many unexplainable coincidences to begin to doubt the pure materialistic, scientific view on life - and when people told me about God, I searched everywhere about religions, what they believe why and how, and I read religious books and books about religion, pros and cons, until I found out that the Bible was the one truth for me. It was not just replacing one conviction with another or being pressed into a religion. It was struggle - with the matter itself, and with what I believed to be true before. I myself converted because of my own will and my own efforts. If you had read my part of the thread, you could have read that I was treated as a traitor by my family after my baptism.

That there are people who hide their particular interests behind the coat of religion, that's clear and unfortunately not changeable. I mentioned before that you can't mangle them all together. There are others, honest ones.
But unfortunately those people, you, @Enigma, have experienced, don't mention that they should be the "light of the world" as preached in the New Testament, instead they are themselves the "scribes and Pharisees" Jesus mentioned with: "...whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do, but do not ye after their works, for they say, and do not." Because that is what I do: I judge people by their doing, but what a single person does tells me only about that person, not about the organizations/ parties/ churches behind - even if he or she is the only representative available.
I judge a church/religion whether or not they themselves teach according to their Scriptures and whether or not they act according to what they are teaching.

---

Account frozen...

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=35148&nowrap=true#480920

It is an archaic invention of ancient societies to explain the natural world which was unexplainable and to control populations through fear of retribution...it was about power over people, nothing more or less..

Now, here's something amazing!
Statements such as this can be traced back to similar statements like those made by Karl Marx, at the least. Now, not discounting that there was some validity to such statements from Marx, why is it that the statement is repeated so much in what appears to be an uncritical fashion? Sounds like more of the same ... DOGMA!
Why is it that even those interested in science or are in fact scientists swallow a simple story as easily as others? Why is it you are not looking for a complete picture of understanding?
Case in point: the medulla oblongata. We have it as a result of evolution. If memory serves me correctly, it is a/the center for aggression in the brain. The aggressive tendencies we carry within us as a result of evolution could explain as much or more of the problems in the world that others blame on religion. Furthermore, the medulla oblongata has been around a lot longer than religious/spiritual feelings/thought.
Sorry, folks, but your observations/statements/rehash of the ideas of others does not completely describe the phenomena. You make these statements about religious people as if it covers all of them. So many of them are so easy to tear apart and I have done that for some of them in another thread. So, if your statements do not cover the whole picture, it's time to perform more observations and develop a theory that fits the whole, complex, situation much better.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Once upon a time, an astronaut and a brain surgeon were having a discussion.
The astronaut said: "I have traveled in the orbit and a thousand times around the Earth, and having explored each square mile of the athmosphere and having watched the entire solar system I found no evidence of your God."
The brain surgeon replied: "I have looked in so many skulls, saw and explored so many brains - do you think I ever saw any intelligent thought in there?"

I hope it's understandable even if there be mistakes in translation. Everyone who sees a mistake may keep it! I don't need it anymore, because I have enough of them myself

---

Account frozen...

Enigma posted in part:

Furthermore in my experience (especially in business) those individuals of strong faith are exceptionally unethical and corrupt. In fact they use their faith as a tool to manipulate (gullible) people.

I wouldn't call that faith. Around here we use the term "Sunday Christians" to describe those who put forward a pious appearance but in fact are hypocrites. Appearance of being "faithful" outside is not conclusive of being so inside. I can go to any used car lot and find folks that will act as though I'm their best customer and they will do right by me but in reality "caveat emptor" when it comes to the contract and if there are any hidden problems with the car that should've been fixed before unscrupulously being put up for sale.

In the area of my home town, there is even a worse term than "Sunday Christians" - "Advent Christians": people who only remember to have been baptized when there are Christian holidays.
But here in Germany, many people are leaving churches anyway because they want to keep the "church-tax" which is 9% of the salary tax.

BTW: I once asked a evangelic pastor why their church didn't insist on the tithing (according to Malachi 3:10) - She told me that if they did this, hardly one percent of the church-goers would remain in her branches.
But there you can see who goes to church because they believe, and who goes there because of a tradition. And those who would stay away if tithings were obligatory could absolutely be called "Sunday Christians" who only are pretending to be good Christians.
Others, who never joined a service except at their own baptism or wedding, are calling themselves Christian ("I am member of a church that's why I can be called a Christian") and point this at every opportune chance to get advantage from it.
But I don't call these ones believers. IMHO believers stay put no matter which offers are to make, because faith is not only admitting by words, but also by deeds. Sitting there to have sb. entertain you is no sign of faith. But to follow the teachings and preachings, that shows faith.

---

Account frozen...

For those viewers in the UK there is a good programme on Monday about the subject of atheism. As quoted here, the programme is called, 'The Trouble with Atheism.'
'In this intelligent dissection of atheism, Rod Liddle, a man never afraid to say what he thinks, challenges the idea that nonbelief is really "the answer to our prayers." Is it, instead, just another form of dogma? In his quest he confronts controversial figures, such as an 'atheist Messiah,' who changed his name to Darwin. Yet, although Charles Darwin has been used as atheism,s trump card, some of his findings are being contested. For Liddle, the real question is - if religion is removed, what happens to morality?

The above quote by a commentator suggests they may have already seen the programme, but for anyone interested, it could make interesting viewing.

'The Trouble with Atheism.' Channel Four, Monday, 18th, Dec. 8.00 p.m.

IMHO believers stay put no matter which offers are to make, because faith is not only admitting by words, but also by deeds. Sitting there to have sb. entertain you is no sign of faith. But to follow the teachings and preachings, that shows faith.

A statement of faith is all well and good, but actions always speak louder than words. As is noted in the Book of James, faith without works is dead.

And I find it very hard to trust someone who is always trumpeting about and wearing his faith on his sleeve. It's like the businesses with "Honest" in the name (Honest Bob's Used Cars). If he has to tell you he is honest, he probably isn't.

Separate the message from the hypocrytes. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens, it makes on sense to condemn someone because of his religion when there are so many perfectly sensible reasons to hate him on an individual basis.

IMHO believers stay put no matter which offers are to make, because faith is not only admitting by words, but also by deeds. Sitting there to have sb. entertain you is no sign of faith. But to follow the teachings and preachings, that shows faith.

A statement of faith is all well and good, but actions always speak louder than words. As is noted in the Book of James, faith without works is dead.

And I find it very hard to trust someone who is always trumpeting about and wearing his faith on his sleeve. It's like the businesses with "Honest" in the name (Honest Bob's Used Cars). If he has to tell you he is honest, he probably isn't.

Separate the message from the hypocrytes. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens, it makes on sense to condemn someone because of his religion when there are so many perfectly sensible reasons to hate him on an individual basis.

Thank you, Bill. I just had some difficulties to explain in English what I meant and didn't want to post it in German :-)

---

Account frozen...

IMHO believers stay put no matter which offers are to make, because faith is not only admitting by words, but also by deeds. Sitting there to have sb. entertain you is no sign of faith. But to follow the teachings and preachings, that shows faith.

A statement of faith is all well and good, but actions always speak louder than words. As is noted in the Book of James, faith without works is dead.

And I find it very hard to trust someone who is always trumpeting about and wearing his faith on his sleeve. It's like the businesses with "Honest" in the name (Honest Bob's Used Cars). If he has to tell you he is honest, he probably isn't.

Separate the message from the hypocrytes. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens, it makes on sense to condemn someone because of his religion when there are so many perfectly sensible reasons to hate him on an individual basis.

Thank you, Bill. I just had some difficulties to explain in English what I meant and didn't want to post it in German :-)

Warum nicht?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.