Say you believe, or ELSE!

[Airbrush]

There is a world-wide religious tyranny going on without most people aware of it. Atheists and agnostics must keep quiet while the religious spectacle is played out, over and over. People are forced into religion at birth. I remember Ronald Reagan saying "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion." Sounds like everybody should join some religion or not be a good person. Let me explain using my own experience with the religion of my birth, Catholicism. I was raised by good, devout Catholic parents who stayed together for 50 years until my mom passed away at age 86. In grammar school we learned the Catholic prayers. Among these prayers are the "creeds", such as the "Apostle's Creed".

 

These creeds are obvious methods of autoprogramming or brain-washing, having social and political implications. They are a long list of dogma that are officially deemed believable by the Church and so good Catholics should say these prayers to reinforce their belief. But I finally realized that TRUE belief is a feeling that comes from INSIDE of people, not something artificially imposed on them, to use "whistling in the dark". I was also taught that the Catholic church was the ONE, true religion. Something seemed fishy to me that so many people are following wrong religions, and I am supposed to try to convince myself of the Catholic dogma by reciting these prayers.

 

Does anyone notice this in their religion? Were you taught your religion is the one, true religion? Were you taught prayers to autocondition yourself to believe in things you really don't know anything about, so at best you WANT to believe these things? You were told to believe these things or else you may go to hell, or in my religion you go to LImbo. I suspect something like this happens in Islam, but I don't know for sure. Can any nominal Muslims out there confirm this? I think most people have doubts about their religion and are nominally religious for the social structure it provides. Religious zealots, however, are true believers beyond human reason and beyond science.

 

In school I learned about science and got an appreciation for knowledge that can be tested, so we KNOW it for certain. This cannot be done with religious beliefs. You are supposed to rely on "faith" and believe a set of doctrines that are supposed to be from God, but I suspect it is all from the minds of clever, "wise" men. Long ago, when faced with so many questions from their tribe members, the elders (the "wise men") needed to come up with some good, comforting stories to tell their members. These stories are the Bible, Torah, Quran, Vedas, Castaneda, etc. They are a mixture of human brilliance and lies, but we ignore what is stupid about them, the blatant lies about miracles, and blindly only focus on what is comforting (life after death, omniscient omnipotent God), whatever appears to be clever.

 

Are there scientists who are also VERY religious? Or do scientists have their doubts about their own religion? This should have been perhaps posted in the "Religion" discussions, except that religious belief, which is so devisive, has profound political implications.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Airbrush

[CharonY]

I am not quite sure what the main points are that you want to discuss. Yes, religion is mostly dogmatic and yes, it has been used as a manipulative tool. Its societal influence is widely known, though it does serve certain functions. It has been seen and discussed in a large variety of contexts.

As an example from Marx:

 

 

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

 

 

However, the impact, role and influence has changed over the centuries and individual religions have become interwoven with certain groups, ideologies and even nations. I do not think that your question can be answered in any breadth as it would be highly dependent on religion, region and year we are talking about.

 

But to provide alternative viewpoints, in many countries in which Christianity arrived via missionaries, the Christianity is often taught last dogmatic and sometimes even includes a mix of existing religious systems. Depending on the power the respective Christians wielded in, say Eastern Asia, Christians may continue worshiping sine local deities or have other beliefs mixed in. There are also interesting re-interpretation where Buddha and Jesus are kind of seen as equivalent entities in a broader religious tapestry.

 

I would also like to add that in science there is little that we know for certain. Rather we think of various degrees of accuracy and likelihood. A scientist should never be absolutely certain of anything. really.

 

But again, the discussion seems to be a general critique on modern religion (or religion in the modern world) but I am not terribly sure what the precise points under discussion are.

[Sensei]

Today, couple hours ago, two young girls (20-25 y) visited me. They were from Jehovah's Witnesses. They gave me some bible ad.
I took it. Took couple empty piece of papers and pen. And we sit on the floors.
And asked them whether they "believe Universe was created by God?", obviously answered "Of course!".
So, I asked "then why do not learn about Universe?",
And started from pair production of electron-positron from high energy photon, wrote it on paper, wrote what is mass-energy of electron/positron, first I wrote 9.11*10^-31 kg, then I explained it's just round up, and exact value is 510998.928 eV/c^2
then I explained them what is proper speed of light (they didn't even knew 300,000 km/s), I explained them it's 299792458 m/s,
then I started explaining conservation of charge in pair-production (e=1.602176565*10^-19 C). And how light turns to matter and anti-matter.
And how to change from eV/MeV/GeV to Joules, and back. And from Joules to kg, and back.

Then continued to annihilation of electron-positron,
then to pair-production of proton-antiproton.

Then to fusion of protons.
Now girl surprised me,. She told me than Deuterium with charge +1e won't match with 2 proton also with charge +1e (I told her first that Deuterium is proton and neutron bound together). So she was actually learning/listening for real.
I obviously congratulated her for it, and explained that from fusion of 2 protons, there is produced also positron and neutrino and 0.42 MeV energy.

Then to how to create free neutrons..

Then to neutron capture, and radioactive decay...
I asked them to gave their smartphone, and went to YouTube to show Cloud Chamber videos of radioactive isotopes and explained the basic cosmic rays-atmosphere reactions, producing secondary rays, explained pion meson production, and muons, and showing them on videos how they look like/behave..

That was probably the longest talk with girl I had in the last 10 years

I will skip further details..
At the end, they knew how nuclear weapon and nuclear reactors (Uranium-235) do work..

She said something like "you made me feel like really stupid...",
"That was not my intention... Did you learn how Universe is working today?"
"Yes..."

Edited November 20, 2015 by Sensei

[Strange]

There is a world-wide religious tyranny going on without most people aware of it. Atheists and agnostics must keep quiet while the religious spectacle is played out, over and over.

 

Most people I know are totally indifferent to the idea.

 

Are there scientists who are also VERY religious?

 

What, you mean like priests?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

[Phi for All]

There is a world-wide [insert personal paranoia] going on without most people aware of it.

 

You start out like this, it's hard to go anywhere but conspiracy.

 

This reminds me of a Kevin Nealon bit, about how nothing good ever follows the phrase, "Now hear me out." Kind of the same thing here.

 

As far as I know, people have used litanies and chants outside of religion for teaching purposes. It's an effective technique, so I'm not sure I can fault the church for using it.

 

But I finally realized that TRUE belief is a feeling that comes from INSIDE of people, not something artificially imposed on them, to use "whistling in the dark".

I think you're misusing "artificially" in this context. Aren't your beliefs shaped by things you hear from others? Can you really develop your own belief system completely from within with no input in a modern society? And isn't that input obtained the same way you're claiming is artificially imposed?

 

I do agree that it's an unfair influence to hold someone's alleged immortal soul hostage in exchange for worship. If I caught someone in a position of authority over my child teaching her about how real the goblins in the garden are, and how they'll catch her and burn her in their ovens for eternity if she doesn't behave properly and gift them with a tenth of her allowance, I'm fairly certain I could have that person fired, maybe jailed, hopefully not hospitalized.

[overtone]

The French intellectual Chamfort wrapped this up in one little line, defining the "fraternite" of the French Revolution: "Be my brother or I will kill you".

 

It's not unique to theistic religion.

[Airbrush]

 

Most people I know are totally indifferent to the idea.

 

 

What, you mean like priests?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

This is the best example. We cannot know what people think, we can only guess based upon what they say or write. This priest, Fr. Lemaitre, first proposed the big bang theory. My guess would be that he was intelligent enough to be agnostic about his religion, but since he was a priest in the Church he did not express his doubts about the Bible to his superiors. In high school my ethics professor, a priest, expressed that the Bible is not a science book, but a book of human values.

 

Communism is always considered to be bad in the west and it is atheistic. Hitler was atheistic even though he was raised Catholic. So one does not become virtuous just by being atheistic or agnostic, just more honest in their own mind.

The French intellectual Chamfort wrapped this up in one little line, defining the "fraternite" of the French Revolution: "Be my brother or I will kill you".

 

It's not unique to theistic religion.

 

Yes, it is not unique to religion, but don't you think it was more common historically in religion, and now most common today in Islam?

Edited November 21, 2015 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

Yes, it is not unique to religion, but don't you think it was more common historically in religion, and now most common today in Islam?

 

 

This just confirms my initial thought when I read the OP; it’s just an ignorant rant.

 

Did you ever consider the word prejudice? It means to pre-judge as in judging without knowledge or thought.

[Strange]

This is the best example. We cannot know what people think, we can only guess based upon what they say or write. This priest, Fr. Lemaitre, first proposed the big bang theory. My guess would be that he was intelligent enough to be agnostic about his religion, but since he was a priest in the Church he did not express his doubts about the Bible to his superiors.

 

Are you guessing that "based upon what he said or wrote"? Or are you just making it up because it suits your world view? I assume the latter.

 

 

Communism is always considered to be bad in the west and it is atheistic.

 

1. Communism is not always considered bad.

 

2. Communism is not always atheistic.

 

3. Those who do consider it bad do not do all do so because it may be atheistic.

 

So this is just nonsense really.

[MigL]

True.

Cubans are fairly religious people.

And Commi-Pinkos ( in the immortal word of Archie Bunker )

[overtone]

The Christian religion, a monotheistic one, was founded in communism - it was the core of the religion for hundreds of years. The core practice of capitalism - loaning money at interest - was forbidden to Christians for even longer.

 

http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/1998_usury.htm

 

 

 

Despite its Judaic roots, the critique of usury was most ferverently taken up as a cause by the institutions of the Christian Church where the debate prevailed with great intensity for well over a thousand years[v]. The Old Testament decrees were resurrected and a New Testament reference to usury added to fuel the case[vi]. Building on the authority of these texts, the Roman Catholic Church had by the fourth century AD prohibited the taking of interest by the clergy; a rule which they extended in the fifth century to the laity. In the eighth century under Charlemagne, they pressed further and declared usury to be a general criminal offence. This anti-usury movement continued to gain momentum during the early Middle Ages and perhaps reached its zenith in 1311 when Pope Clement V made the ban on usury absolute and declared all secular legislation in its favour, null and void (Birnie, 1952).

 

Increasingly thereafter, and despite numerous subsequent prohibitions by Popes and civil legislators, loopholes in the law and contradictions in the Church's arguments were found - - - - As a result of all these influences, sometime around 1620, according to theologian Ruston, “usury passed from being an offence against public morality which a Christian government was expected to suppress to being a matter of private conscience [and] a new generation of Christian moralists redefined usury as excessive interest” (1993: 173-4).

 

Note that by "usury" was meant the charging of simple interest on a monetary loan, and then later (1500 years after the founding of the Christian Church) relaxed to the charging of "excessive" simple interest. The practice of compounding interest was of course much worse, not only usury but a species of fraud, until recently.

[waitforufo]

True.

Cubans are fairly religious people.

And Commi-Pinkos ( in the immortal word of Archie Bunker )

How may communist party members in Cuba or any other communist country practice a religion? Get real.

 

Note that by "usury" was meant the charging of simple interest on a monetary loan, and then later (1500 years after the founding of the Christian Church) relaxed to the charging of "excessive" simple interest. The practice of compounding interest was of course much worse, not only usury but a species of fraud, until recently.

Yeah, and then Christians decided they wanted to live in a modern world. The ability to borrow money has pulled more people out of poverty than any other financial policy change in history. How many people would own homes, cars, washing machines, etc, if it wasn't for the ability to borrow money?

 

Islam forbids usury for the same reason the feudal Europe did. Forbidding usury keeps you beholding to your feudal lords and masters. Sharia law is feudal. Muslims long for the days of the feudal caliphate under the Ottoman Empire.

[Phi for All]

Yeah, and then Christians decided they wanted to live in a modern world.

 

[snip]

 

Muslims long for the days of the feudal caliphate under the Ottoman Empire.

 

I'm not Christian, but I long for a modern world where people don't make incredibly ignorant statements about whole groups of people. Because it's just as bad as saying, "Believe or else!". It's saying, "All bad, no matter what!"

[dimreepr]

Islam forbids usury for the same reason the feudal Europe did. Forbidding usury keeps you beholding to your feudal lords and masters. Sharia law is feudal. Muslims long for the days of the feudal caliphate under the Ottoman Empire.

 

 

Islam forbade usury for the same reasons Christianity did; because its fraud at the most fundamental level, as in it takes advantage of the most vulnerable. The feudal system keeps one beholding for very different reasons, as in keeping slaves.

[waitforufo]

 

I'm not Christian, but I long for a modern world where people don't make incredibly ignorant statements about whole groups of people. Because it's just as bad as saying, "Believe or else!". It's saying, "All bad, no matter what!"

Quit hiding from the truth. There's a reason why ISIS attracts followers. They claim to be a caliphate.

 

 

Islam forbade usury for the same reasons Christianity did; because its fraud at the most fundamental level, as in it takes advantage of the most vulnerable. The feudal system keeps one beholding for very different reasons, as in keeping slaves.

There is a difference between a slavery and a serfdom.

[dimreepr]

If I claim to be god would you follow? How dare you hide from my truth.

There is a difference between a slavery and a serfdom.

 

 

No, there isn't.

[John Cuthber]

Quit hiding from the truth. There's a reason why ISIS attracts followers.

Yes, it's because they offer some sort of support to a group of people who see persecution from everywhere else.

[Sensei]

Quit hiding from the truth. There's a reason why ISIS attracts followers. They claim to be a caliphate.

 

These people are usually young lost male muslims from Europe that are feeling like 2nd or 3rd grade people in their EU country..

But what a surprise.. ?! They didn't learn in school. They didn't get to college, nor university...

It's easy to control such idiots (sorry, political correctness: humans with low IQ).. I could turn them to my own believers in few minutes. Showing them "miracles" of science..

What future they have? As building workers? Taxi drivers? And similar low-paid, low-quality, jobs...

They want money, and can't get it in EU, so they're upset and seeking for revenge for what they not get in Europe, and returns back with bombs and guns..

 

ps. It's yet another example that education must be free of charge..

Edited November 22, 2015 by Sensei

[waitforufo]

No, there isn't.

There are significant differences between slavery and serfdom. I will try to explain briefly.

 

When you are a slave you are owned by another person. Your owner can do with you as he or she wishes. Even to the extent of working you to death, beating you, or taking your life.

 

When you are a serf, you belong to the land you work or occupation that hold. A feudal lord administers the land that you occupy or your business where you work. That lord does this for the benefit of the feudal government. The head of this system is the king or sultan. The feudal lord that administers your land or business has an oath of fealty to those above him or her in the feudal chain, but he or she also has an oath of fealty to serfs that work the land or business they administer. The feudal lord can not evict serfs from the land to which they belong, or terminate workers from a business to which they belong without providing equivalent land or work opportunities. If another feudal lord wants to take over the administration of a land or business without taking on the serfs that belong to that land or business, a premium must be paid to the current administrator so that equivalent land or work can be found for the serfs impacted.

 

So a serf is not without the contract rights of their lord's oath of fealty, where a slave is without rights.

 

The above explains at the heart of Palestinian conflict. At the end of world war one, feudal lords became properly or business owners, and serfs became tenants farmers or employees. This change, administered by the United Kingdom by the way, eliminated the oath of fealty between lords and serfs. Property and business owners could now evict or terminate employment of former serfs. They could sell there land or businesses without concern for former serfs. At the same time Jews in Europe gained rights were they were allowed to invest outside of their national boundaries. This started the Zionist movement. Zionist started purchasing land in in Palestine from former feudal lords, now property owners. In most cases Zionists, in appreciation of the former feudal agreements between lords and serfs paid a premium to have the former serfs resettled. The former lords now property owners, now no longer legally required to resettle there former serfs, pocketed the premium. Due to this, the Zionist evicted the tenants of the former land owners. What Palestinians are complaining about today is that their former oath of fealty was not respected. They blame the Zionists because they were the purchasers. Why they don't blame their former feudal lords is a mystery. In many respects they should blame the UK for not making them land owners instead of tenants. Why didn't the UK make them owners? I guess that didn't sit well with a country that maintains its own royalty.

 

So today Palestinians long for their feudal rights.

Edited November 24, 2015 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

It very much depends when and where we are talking about.

 

The etymology of the word serf is:

 

The word serf originated from the Middle French serf and can be traced further back to the Latin servus ("slave"). In Late Antiquity and most of the Middle Ages, what are now called serfs were usually designated in Latin as coloni. As slavery gradually disappeared and the legal status of servi became nearly identical to that of the coloni, the term changed meaning into the modern concept of "serf". Serfdom was coined in 1850.

 

 

 

Also

 

The United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery also prohibits serfdom as a form of slavery.

 

[Airbrush]

 

 

This just confirms my initial thought when I read the OP; it’s just an ignorant rant.

 

Did you ever consider the word prejudice? It means to pre-judge as in judging without knowledge or thought.

 

My ignorant rant is all about prejudice, prejudice against the nonreligious. Even Trump claims membership to a religion because he, and many other candidates are compelled to. Religions all judge without knowledge or thought, it comes from dogmatic, blind-faith rote. Thanks for your agreement with me.

 

You start out like this, it's hard to go anywhere but conspiracy.

.......

As far as I know, people have used litanies and chants outside of religion for teaching purposes. It's an effective technique, so I'm not sure I can fault the church for using it.

 

I think you're misusing "artificially" in this context. Aren't your beliefs shaped by things you hear from others? Can you really develop your own belief system completely from within with no input in a modern society? And isn't that input obtained the same way you're claiming is artificially imposed?

 

Religions are all conspiracy, they are all massive intricate conspiracies. They are all conspiracies of the members to force others to join or die, or go to hell, or go to limbo.

 

I don't fault the church for using litanies, since the ends justify the means in all religions.

 

"Modern society" is not available everywhere, but that is changing with the internet. In many areas of the world the only info available is the local domineering religion. You better say you believe to the local religious hooligans or be ostracized. That is not a fair and balanced way of developing a personal belief system. Youths should be encouraged to know about MANY other religions, before they take the leap, so they can develop a balanced belief system. Then they will realize there is no BEST religion, only the most appealing to an individual. Then perhaps they may not take religion so seriously, and have a healthy agnosticism. Like the saying "you don't really understand your own language until you learn another".

 

Here is a nice quote from Thomas Jefferson from wikipedia:

 

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

 

When Ronald Reagan said "freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion" it made me think that no, BOTH freedoms are just as valid.

 

"Freedom of religion or freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.^[1] The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group—in religious terms called "apostasy"—is also a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.^"

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion}

Edited November 24, 2015 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

 

My ignorant rant is all about prejudice, prejudice against the nonreligious. Even Trump claims membership to a religion because he, and many other candidates are compelled to. Religions all judge without knowledge or thought, it comes from dogmatic, blind-faith rote. Thanks for your agreement with me.

 

 

Well at least we’re back on topic.

 

Religions may judge those that don’t share their beliefs but it’s not without a perceived knowledge or belief/thought. Understanding is much more than knowledge.

[Strange]

So a serf is not without the contract rights of their lord's oath of fealty, where a slave is without rights.

 

Slaves in Rome, for example, had quite a few rights. Including taking their masters to court for mistreatment.