[willed]

More and more people seem to say this these days - am I the only one who finds this annoying? These people obviously like the warm security blanket that religion offers (ie there's someone watching over you, there is life after death), but cannot be bothered to put any thought/effort into religion. It seems a by-products of the egocentric society we live in; people have faith that there is a supreme being infinitely more powerful than them, who takes a minute interest in their boring little lives, and yet they think they are so important that they don't even have to give him lip-service. Similarly with the equally fashionable 'philosophy', "I believe in God, but I'm not into organised religion". Such people are just lazy in my opinion; I know that there are people who hold these 'faiths' here, so what is their justification?

[Misanthrope]

Hmm, well, okay.

Opinion noted.

[Superchicken]

Gota agree it's not so much a logical choice as it is a product of everyone saying it thus everyone does it. It's the attitude of society it works with most other things, or so we tell ourselves, so why not have it work with God?

[Sherwin]

Californication.

[Mastrap]

On the other hand it might just be the realisation that all religions are nothing but a way to put the divine into terms which are accessible to humans.

No single religion has a monopoly on the truth�.

[nonhuman]

Is there something about spirituality that inextricably links it to religion? Can someone not have strong beliefs about the universe that are unrelated to any religion? If that's the case do you say they have their own religion even if they're the only person in it?

I think what the statement is intented to convey is that the person is not attached to or a member of any particular religion. They're not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, &c, but they still believe in something greater than the observable universe. The awkwardness of the phrase, I think, is not because of a problem with the person or their beliefs, but a lack of proper vocabulary in the language.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
On the other hand it might just be the realisation that all religions are nothing but a way to put the divine into terms which are accessible to humans.

No single religion has a monopoly on the truth?

The root of Theosophy?

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by willed:
More and more people seem to say this these days - am I the only one who finds this annoying? These people obviously like the warm security blanket that religion offers (ie there's someone watching over you, there is life after death), but cannot be bothered to put any thought/effort into religion. It seems a by-products of the egocentric society we live in; people have faith that there is a supreme being infinitely more powerful than them, who takes a minute interest in their boring little lives, and yet they think they are so important that they don't even have to give him lip-service. Similarly with the equally fashionable 'philosophy', "I believe in God, but I'm not into organised religion". Such people are just lazy in my opinion; I know that there are people who hold these 'faiths' here, so what is their justification?

No, the lazy people are the ones who follow religion blindly and refuses to look for answers by themselves. Spiritual doesn't mean believing in God. I'm spiritual, yet I don't believe God. You know what, I'm going to form my own religion. Anyone else who wishes to join may do so. I'm not going to force my religion on others since I'm not out their for money or power. So far, it's just me in my religion.

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by willed:
More and more people seem to say this these days - am I the only one who finds this annoying? These people obviously like the warm security blanket that religion offers (ie there's someone watching over you, there is life after death), but cannot be bothered to put any thought/effort into religion. It seems a by-products of the egocentric society we live in; people have faith that there is a supreme being infinitely more powerful than them, who takes a minute interest in their boring little lives, and yet they think they are so important that they don't even have to give him lip-service. Similarly with the equally fashionable 'philosophy', "I believe in God, but I'm not into organised religion". Such people are just lazy in my opinion; I know that there are people who hold these 'faiths' here, so what is their justification?

Actually, I've found the opposite to be true. It's those that blindly follow organized religions that don't put any thought into it and need the security blanket. Those that claim spirituality over organized religion have usually taken a pretty good look at what's being offered and find something lacking.

You're assuming way too much when you think just because somebody's not a Christian, that they don't know anything about Christianity.

Perhaps calling those that don't fall in line with organized religions thoughtless, egocentric and lazy is your security blanket? Is it easier to believe that to than to believe they may have an understanding that you've failed to grasp?

[hyteckit]

You know what bothers me more.

People who claim to be religious, but do many things that goes against their religion.

"Yes, I'm Christian. Yes, I have pre-marital sex. But so what? God knows we are not perfect so he forgives me because I can't control myself."

Hmm... how many times I've heard that before from Christians. I find them really annoying. Maybe I'll become a Christian and go to church more so I can meet a nice girl and get laid once in a while.

[typoon]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
Actually, I've found the opposite to be true. It's those that blindly follow organized religions that don't put any thought into it and need the security blanket. Those that claim spirituality over organized religion have usually taken a pretty good look at what's being offered and find something lacking.

You're assuming way too much when you think just because somebody's not a Christian, that they don't know anything about Christianity.

Perhaps calling those that don't fall in line with organized religions thoughtless, egocentric and lazy is your security blanket? Is it easier to believe that to than to believe they may have an understanding that you've failed to grasp?

I agree with this.
One question I have found is why does someone need another person to tell them there is a "God" or what they should believe in? Are people who believe in say tree spirits or things like that any less spiritual or "religious" as someone who believes in Christ or Allah or whoever they want to believe in? I don't think so. When someone says they are more spiritual it means they believe in a "higher being" but not in a peticular "God" whose to say one god is right and the other one isn't?

For example I believe that there is a higher being a "God" if you will that watches over all over us but I don't need someone to tell me that I need to believe in this "God." Does it make me lazy because I don't attend a church or a Mosque or Synogue? Does it Make me anymore religious than the person who attends such institutions religiously? No.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
You know what bothers me more.

People who claim to be religious, but do many things that goes against their religion.

like all those "top manager/business types" who "engage" in buddhism to reach a higher "plane" of spirituality, and at the next opportunity back-stab their way up the corporate ladder! very fashionable these days... LOL

"i'm a buddhist daaaaarling"

[deekay1]

which kind of makes me think (just an observation for europe and the us though, i might be wrong):

working class / lower middle class = christian / muslim

upper middle class / upper class = atheist / agnostic / "buddhist" / jewish

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by deekay1:
i might be wrong):

You are. Sorry.

Class has no influence on religious affiliation in the way described by you.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
On the other hand it might just be the realisation that all religions are nothing but a way to put the divine into terms which are accessible to humans.

No single religion has a monopoly on the truth�.

Sorry Mas, but this is the one that gets me... There can be only one truth in simple matters... say I steel a cookie, the truth is, I stole it. Some may perceive it differently, and to their perception shapes what they believe but the truth is the truth...

Some things just are, wether we perceive the as truth or not, doesn't change what they are.

back on topic... I think religion has killed much spirituality. I am a Christian by faith, and a baptist by religion (which is a Christian denomination for those that live in a cave)... I've seen many very dedicated baptists that are the farthest thing from Christians... I don't think they are mutually exclusive, obviously, but I do think we've put the cart before the horse in a bunch of ways.

So being spiritual but not religious doesn't bother me. I think we were created with a spiritual component, created to search out our creator. "the greatest hindrance to Christianity are those who claim Christ with their mouths then go out and deny him with their lives", and that fact draws many people to fill that void with something else.

From my decidedly Christian perspective of course.

[11011001]

I am one of these people you are talking about.

It is not the case that I haven't put any thought into religion or am to lazy to get into it and commit myself to it. Rather the problem is that I actually took the time to think.

I was raised in Catholic schools, and was taught Roman Catholicism from an early age. My parents thought this was a good thing for me. To be exposed to religion. Well, it was fine. I didn't mind it. I prayed and all that, but I never stopped to question what I was being taught. I was too young. Heck, I didn't know anything about any of the other religions until I was entering junior high.

When I entered junior high I started thinking... and I started looking around at the people around me. I realized so many of them were hypocrites, my teachers for the most part taught us one thing, and did another. My classmates were anything but Christian. I also started questioning the validity of the statements being shoved down my throat.. even the validity of the statement that one should have complete and utter faith.. that somehow questioning my religion was a sin.

I realized, this is a religion that has been laid down and manipulated by hypocrites for a great many years. Yes, Jesus was a great man, I even believe what he taught to be brilliant, and something that we SHOULD strive for. I think the church that emerged out of his preaching was pure. But, after 2000 years of corruption, and politics, I can't help but think how much of what is being taught is heavenly, and how much is the result of evil people. The crusades are evidence of this. If people managed to go and slaughter countless others in the name of Christianity, might it not be possible that like minded people have tainted the original teachings? That not everything taught and believed is divine?

My problem is with the institution. It's outdated ideas, it's discrimination.. Woman cannot be priests, gay marriages are forbidden.. Darwinian evolution. Common..

It was at it's worst in high school. We were made to go to mass every once in a while. Serious, if you didn't go, you were considered absent from class, and marked down as so. Anyways, I absolutely loathed church. It was empty preaching. I looked at the people around me.. no one was paying attention. The preacher was shoving the stuff down our throats.. sometimes I just wanted to scream.

So, I started to look around, to read, and to form my own ideas. I want to discover things for myself, and in this way they will have more weight and impact upon my life. Perhaps I can even find a little faith. For this reason, I am finding the ideas of Buddhism appealing. I already find I can't accept lots of the things it teachers, however, this religion invites exactly this sort of criticism. It encourages one to discover to challenge the ideas. To learn and grow..

For the time being I don't know what I will do. I acknowledge the possibility that there is a God, but, I don't know where I want to stand on this. However, I will continue to lead my life in a moral manner, as has been taught to me by my Christian upbringing. Quite honestly, the life I live is a lot more moral than that lived by a lot of Christians I know.

Btw, I am not slandering everyone in the Church, and a lot of it's messages. However, I cannot overlook the corruption.. and such.

An example of someone I deeply respect is my religion teacher in grade 12, a wonderful person, a real Christian. I actually enjoyed his class. He taught us without preaching to us. He was going to become a priest, but something happened that prevented him from becoming so. Of all the individuals I have ever met.. he would be the most enlightened. I am truly grateful to him for opening my eyes, and for his direction.

So hey. Maybe these people who say that they are spiritual but not religious actually have a reason. Perhaps they aren't lazy, and looking for some sort of security blanket. I wouldn't be so annoyed by something so personal to someone. In many cases it might not just be a show.. or some fad phrase.

Just keep an open mind.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
You are. Sorry.

Class has no influence on religious affiliation in the way described by you.

oh, i wasn't talking about "influence", but rather about a correlation from my personal "observation".

i'm curious, have you made different observations? maybe other correlations?

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
Sorry Mas, but this is the one that gets me... There can be only one truth in simple matters... say I steel a cookie, the truth is, I stole it. Some may perceive it differently, and to their perception shapes what they believe but the truth is the truth...

Steeling a cookie? Wouldn't that make it incredibly difficult to eat?

What I mean by saying that no religion has a monopoly on the truth is that IMO all religion is an attempt to communicate with and express the divine. By its very nature this has to happen in a language and in ways that are accessible to humanity, leading to a whole plethora of expressions like Christianity, Buddhism etc, etc. The truth, or divine, underneath these different expressions might very well be the same. The human part of the bargain, which is the expression of the divine, differs from culture to culture.

From my decidedly Taoist perspective of course.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
[B] From my decidedly Taoist perspective of course.

And yet again, we agree to disagree

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by deekay1:
oh, i wasn't talking about "influence", but rather about a correlation from my personal "observation".

i'm curious, have you made different observations? maybe other correlations?

I have seen things very differently... here in the US I generally find most muslims to be in poor economic situations... Christians, from what I see, are scattered throughout the food chain... some very wealthy, other very poor... and frankly I know very few Buddhists in real life (you're all here).

I think this perception has little do with reality though since I view such a small microcosm of the culture in which I live. I see Christians in all classes because I am around a lot of Christians, in a bunch of churches and so forth. I see fewer muslims, and such, and those that I do see, in my very small corner of the world seemed to be concentrated in that people group.

to make a general statement about these faiths globally from my limited experience would be a bit arrogant.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by 11011001:
I realized, this is a religion that has been laid down and manipulated by hypocrites for a great many years. Yes, Jesus was a great man, I even believe what he taught to be brilliant, and something that we SHOULD strive for. I think the church that emerged out of his preaching was pure. But, after 2000 years of corruption, and politics, I can't help but think how much of what is being taught is heavenly, and how much is the result of evil people. The crusades are evidence of this. If people managed to go and slaughter countless others in the name of Christianity, might it not be possible that like minded people have tainted the original teachings? That not everything taught and believed is divine?

Keep in mind you may be throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. Might I suggest you take some time to study the original languages and the some of the thousands upon thousands of fist generation copies of scripture that are available (not the sort of thing you can check out from the local library mind you).

You keep referring to the religion being corrupted... of course it is, people are involved! and some people are corrupt. People sometimes do bad things, but study the old stuff and you'll the margin of error in what we call the Bible today is frighteningly small. Modern translations (such as the New American Standard, or the Holman Standard) are even better than those translated just a few years ago because of the number of manuscripts we now have to translate from and the increasing understanding we have the original languages. I'm not a real fan of the Catholic church, but then I'm not a fan of the Baptists sometimes either... As I said, I am a Christian by faith, not a <insert religious tag here>.

Originally posted by 11011001:
My problem is with the institution. It's outdated ideas, it's discrimination.. Woman cannot be priests, gay marriages are forbidden.. Darwinian evolution. Common..

We could argue some points here, but there are reasons for all the stances you probably have a problem with. I would encourage you to pour the time and effort into understanding the writings of what you claim to be before you abandon it for something that better fits the opinions you've formed.

[engaged]

Willed, am I correct in thinking that you are studying theology? If my memory has served me well, then I'd guess that you are better versed on this subject and perhaps as a result have stronger feelings?

[willed]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
Actually, I've found the opposite to be true. It's those that blindly follow organized religions that don't put any thought into it and need the security blanket. Those that claim spirituality over organized religion have usually taken a pretty good look at what's being offered and find something lacking.

You're assuming way too much when you think just because somebody's not a Christian, that they don't know anything about Christianity.

Perhaps calling those that don't fall in line with organized religions thoughtless, egocentric and lazy is your security blanket? Is it easier to believe that to than to believe they may have an understanding that you've failed to grasp?

BZZZ! Wrong answer! I'm an atheist actually, not a Christian.

[benb]

Originally posted by willed:
Mure-a und mure-a peuple-a seem tu sey thees zeese-a deys - em I zee oonly oone-a vhu feends thees unnuyeeng? Zeese-a peuple-a oobfeeuoosly leeke-a zee verm secooreety blunket thet releegiun ooffffers (ie-a zeere's sumeune-a vetcheeng oofer yuoo, zeere-a is leeffe-a effter deet), boot cunnut be-a buzeered tu poot uny thuooght/iffffurt intu releegiun. Bork bork bork! It seems a by-prudoocts ooff zee igucentreec suceeety ve-a leefe-a in; peuple-a hefe-a feeet thet zeere-a is a soopreme-a beeeng inffeenitely mure-a pooerffool thun zeem, vhu tekes a meenoote-a interest in zeeur bureeng leettle-a leefes, und yet zeey theenk zeey ere-a su impurtunt thet zeey dun't ifee hefe-a tu geefe-a heem leep-serfeece-a. Seemilerly veet zee iqooelly fesheeuneble-a 'pheelusuphy', "I beleeefe-a in Gud, boot I'm nut intu oorguneesed releegiun". Sooch peuple-a ere-a joost lezy in my oopeeniun; I knoo thet zeere-a ere-a peuple-a vhu huld zeese-a 'ffeeeths' here-a, su vhet is zeeur joosteefficeshun?

Much better!

But yea, in all seriousness, it irks me too.

[kindbud]

How can somebody take such a great interest in religion - to the point of posting in internet forums - yet simultaneously claim to be non-religious?

It flies in the face of common logic.

You would HAVE TO believe in a 'higher authority' in order to have any interest in religion. Otherwise it would be a pointless uninteresting endeavour.

It's my opinion that the folks who claim to be non-religious are far more religious than most clergy.

A true athiest would have no interest whatsoever in the thoughts and feelings of religious people.

[RooneyX]

Where's my medication? The news said I might suffer from an Islamic attack.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by kindbud:
How can somebody take such a great interest in religion - to the point of posting in internet forums - yet simultaneously claim to be non-religious?

It flies in the face of common logic.

You would HAVE TO believe in a 'higher authority' in order to have any interest in religion. Otherwise it would be a pointless uninteresting endeavour.

It's my opinion that the folks who claim to be non-religious are far more religious than most clergy.

A true athiest would have no interest whatsoever in the thoughts and feelings of religious people.

Would you have to believe in dragons to have any interest in reading myths and fantasy? Would you have to believe in UFOs to enjoy a science fiction movie? Religion is part of our history, and there are some very interesting stories and ways of thinking about things. There are also societal references to scripture all the time, whether in books, movies, shows, etc. etc. A lot of good classics (and more modern work) also require you to know quite a bit about religions, whether Greek or Roman mythology or not-yet-dead Christianity.

You can be interested in something and not believe in it. There are plenty of religion classes that people take in high school and college, whether about Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, et cetera, and most of the students taking it not practicing it are merely interested, but not in a way to be converted.

Lastly, a lot of religions have interesting things to say about morality and other concepts aside from their mythological and fictional backgrounds (which are interesting at times, as well)

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by willed:
More and more people seem to say this these days - am I the only one who finds this annoying? These people obviously like the warm security blanket that religion offers (ie there's someone watching over you, there is life after death), but cannot be bothered to put any thought/effort into religion. It seems a by-products of the egocentric society we live in; people have faith that there is a supreme being infinitely more powerful than them, who takes a minute interest in their boring little lives, and yet they think they are so important that they don't even have to give him lip-service. Similarly with the equally fashionable 'philosophy', "I believe in God, but I'm not into organised religion". Such people are just lazy in my opinion; I know that there are people who hold these 'faiths' here, so what is their justification?

Religion usually includes spirituality, but spirituality does not necessarily include religion. People don't claim to be spiritual in order to have a security blanket because many "spiritual" atheists and agnostics make no claim to believe in life-after-death, et cetera. Spirituality doesn't have to do with the beyond, it can have to do with yourself or others you make connections with.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by engaged:
Willed, am I correct in thinking that you are studying theology? If my memory has served me well, then I'd guess that you are better versed on this subject and perhaps as a result have stronger feelings?

Theology != Spirituality.

[Spheric Harlot]

I just prefer to talk with God on my own terms, rather than being strapped into the regulated traditions prescribed by the institutionalized churches.

-s*

[willed]

Originally posted by kindbud:
How can somebody take such a great interest in religion - to the point of posting in internet forums - yet simultaneously claim to be non-religious?

It flies in the face of common logic.

You would HAVE TO believe in a 'higher authority' in order to have any interest in religion. Otherwise it would be a pointless uninteresting endeavour.

It's my opinion that the folks who claim to be non-religious are far more religious than most clergy.

A true athiest would have no interest whatsoever in the thoughts and feelings of religious people.

As engaged has rightly pointed out, I'm actually in the second year of a theology degree at Oxford University So don't tell me that I "HAVE" to believe to have an interest in religion. I did believe went I arrived, but one of the purposes of me taking this degree was to find out for myself whether I could put faith in religion. It still interests me immensely... which is why, I suppose, it annoys me when people don't even think about it but just claim to be 'spiritual'. Granted there are people that have given thought to the matter and have concluded that, as someone mentioned above, no one religion has a monopoly on truth; at least they have thought things through.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by willed:
More and more people seem to say this these days - am I the only one who finds this annoying? These people obviously like the warm security blanket that religion offers (ie there's someone watching over you, there is life after death), but cannot be bothered to put any thought/effort into religion. It seems a by-products of the egocentric society we live in; people have faith that there is a supreme being infinitely more powerful than them, who takes a minute interest in their boring little lives, and yet they think they are so important that they don't even have to give him lip-service. Similarly with the equally fashionable 'philosophy', "I believe in God, but I'm not into organised religion". Such people are just lazy in my opinion; I know that there are people who hold these 'faiths' here, so what is their justification?

There are so many flaws and hypocrisies in this post I cannot be bothered to respond to each of them. I can only expect that you are a troll or a simpleton. In either case, I'll keep it short:

You argue that spiritual perspectives that refuse to recognize formal religious "authorities" are a byproduct of an egocentric society. However, with an air of pure condescension you want spiritually minded people to justify their 'faiths' -- to you.

Is there anything more egocentric than that?


wolfen

[g. olson]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
You are. Sorry.

Class has no influence on religious affiliation in the way described by you.

Class may not, but education certainly does. Higher education is highly correlated with agnosticism and atheism. Not surprising in my opinion.

[g. olson]

Originally posted by kindbud:
How can somebody take such a great interest in religion - to the point of posting in internet forums - yet simultaneously claim to be non-religious?

It flies in the face of common logic.

You would HAVE TO believe in a 'higher authority' in order to have any interest in religion. Otherwise it would be a pointless uninteresting endeavour.

It's my opinion that the folks who claim to be non-religious are far more religious than most clergy.

A true athiest would have no interest whatsoever in the thoughts and feelings of religious people.

I am a strong atheist (I believe there is no god) but have always maintained an interest in religion. For one thing, to ignore religion and the religious impulse would be to write off, as it were, 80% of the world's people. Just answering the question, "Since there is no god and no evidence for the supernatural, why do so many people claim to believe and even base their lives on what appears to be pure superstition?" is an interesting question. It is clear that humans are predisposed to seek supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

Further, my familiarity with religion, particularly Christianity and Judeo-Christian theology makes it perfectly clear that most practicing Christians either don't really believe what they say they believe or don't understand the fundamental teachings of their faith.

Finally, I don't think anyone really chooses their beliefs. Experience may alter it, but in the end it is not a choice. Therefore, I am not in a position to look down on those who hold a particular belief unless they are hypocrites.

[aleph_null]

"Institutional religion" is a fantastic phrase. Think "institutional food" and it's pretty much the same deal. If the path to spirit is food, most organized religion serves it on plastic trays in gloppy heaps that are of indeterminate origin and smell funny.

Oh sorry � I meant sells, not serves. Sells.

Institutions exist to continue to exist. What they do on the side is incidental. The church is no different.

[benign]

You are a non-conformist conformist.

Like to be fathered but not by a legitimate
father figure - rather make-up your own
prison than have someone else's.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by benign:
You are a non-conformist conformist.

Like to be fathered but not by a legitimate
father figure - rather make-up your own
prison than have someone else's.

So, according to your rationale, Atheists
are institutionalized in a prison without
walls?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by g. olson:
Class may not, but education certainly does. Higher education is highly correlated with agnosticism and atheism. Not surprising in my opinion.

With 10 years of college, I would have to disagree with that statement.

In my experience, people who are areligious, are people who have had bad experiences with people who claim to be of a religious nature. Their "beef", at the core, isn't typically with religion itself.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
In my experience, people who are areligious, are people who have had bad experiences with people who claim to be of a religious nature.

how does this "discredit" or go against the passage you quoted?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by g. olson:
Class may not, but education certainly does.

and there is absolutely nobody who can tell me that there isn't a very strong correlation between class and education! (no pun intended *g*)

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by willed:
More and more people seem to say this these days - am I the only one who finds this annoying? These people obviously like the warm security blanket that religion offers (ie there's someone watching over you, there is life after death), but cannot be bothered to put any thought/effort into religion. It seems a by-products of the egocentric society we live in; people have faith that there is a supreme being infinitely more powerful than them, who takes a minute interest in their boring little lives, and yet they think they are so important that they don't even have to give him lip-service. Similarly with the equally fashionable 'philosophy', "I believe in God, but I'm not into organised religion". Such people are just lazy in my opinion; I know that there are people who hold these 'faiths' here, so what is their justification?

Some people simply don't want to congregate with others when they're practicing their religion/spirituality, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. That said, I typically attend two churches on a semi-regular basis; a Coptic Orthodox and a Unitarian Universalist (some might see them as being on opposite ends of the spectrum). Neither is a definition of what I wholey believe, but together, they're pretty darn close. Also, I have affiliations with a hermetic temple, though it's core belief structures aren't what most people could or would identify with "religion". There are no hard and fast rules in relation to any person's ideology.

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by deekay1:
and there is absolutely nobody who can tell me that there isn't a very strong correlation between class and education! (no pun intended *g*)

There is a high correlation between class and education. The higher up the social class, the more educated they are, but not necessarily smarter.

But the thing is, people in power or in higher social classes want to control those who are less educated and poor. They go about this through religion.

Those who are poor and in lower social classes want something to believe in and hope their lives will be better. Those who are in despair, often find comfort in religion, thus they tend to put more faith in religion.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by deekay1:
how does this "discredit" or go against the passage you quoted?

It wasn't. The first statement was in reply to what g. olson said. My second statement was just a general comment.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
But the thing is, people in power or in higher social classes want to control those who are less educated and poor. They go about this through religion.

Just because some people are greedy, power-hungry bastards, doesn't mean religion is at fault. Blame the individuals, not the things they wrongfully use as tools. The same can be said for politics, financial manipulation, and friendships.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
You know what bothers me more.

People who claim to be religious, but do many things that goes against their religion.

"Yes, I'm Christian. Yes, I have pre-marital sex. But so what? God knows we are not perfect so he forgives me because I can't control myself."

Hmm... how many times I've heard that before from Christians. I find them really annoying. Maybe I'll become a Christian and go to church more so I can meet a nice girl and get laid once in a while.

hate to break it to you but normally these people aren't really what the overall body at large would accept as Christian. And can I say that? Yes the African church is very much so more conservative than the american church and is a LOT bigger, and most of them realize how pathetic the state of the people who claim to be Christians is.

[benign]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
So, according to your rationale, Atheists
are institutionalized in a prison without
walls?

No, the superstitious are all self-
institutionalized children looking
for safety and support.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by benign:
No, the superstitious are all self-
institutionalized children looking
for safety and support.

and some people couch their
superstitions in the vain concept
that they need no "God" or soul.
Much to their dismay, they have
both whether they like it, or not.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and some people couch their
superstitions in the vain concept
that they need no "God" or soul.
Much to their dismay, they have
both whether they like it, or not.

Ooo you essentially said "Everyone has a God sized hole" but with a lot more flair. I love when people can make basic concepts sound as if they're more intellectual than they are so that people who think they're more intellectual than they are can understand if not heed.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Much to their dismay, they have
both whether they like it, or not.

show me the person who wasn't taught religion, and believes. show me the fellow who has never heared of a "divine being", but knows of it...and we'll see "what we have"!

[kindbud]

Originally posted by deekay1:
show me the person who wasn't taught religion, and believes. show me the fellow who has never heared of a "divine being", but knows of it...and we'll see "what we have"!

< you'd have me.