Thoughts on Religion and the State

[Ninja_Khorin]

Agnosticism doesn't necessarily believe in a higher being either, but it doesn't claim with certainty that something like that might not exist, unlike atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

You can try to justify atheism, it doesn't change the fact, that it claims something, that cannot be proven nor disproven. Hence, not a fact.

Hell, maybe i was a bit hasty claiming to be an atheist.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

They aren't mutually exclusive, since one addresses knowledge and the other belief.

[BlindGuy]

I don't think this even deserves discussion, outside the U.S. It's asking "should there be a separation between an organization full of delusional people that believe in a fairy tale and the state?" It's not a question that requires discussion.

Nailed it.

BTW. Im an atheist. I worship at the altar of science and humanity. I personally cannot prove that world is round, except that I believe it is, it makes logical sense, and when flying or on a high mountain or atop a mast at sea, you can SEE the curvature. BUT I CANNOT PROVE IT, so I take on faith what men who dedicate their lives to understanding it have told me. What makes me value science above religion is that sciencetists, on the whole (there are always exceptions), will happily give up a theory that is disproven, when you give them enough evidence, and godbothereres will not. They are dogmatic, and that is dangerous.

But I was raised in rural spain, where the Catholic Church and the socialist party still fight on. I was raised a Catholic. But even as a child I remember taking the host in my mouth and feeling NOTHING except drymouth. I sat and prayed but nothing changed. Then I realised: praying is just hoping, and hoping for change does nothing. But besides that, there are other parts to Christianity that I cannot support. Let's not get into the mass extinction of millions of people that the US side of christianity is directly responsible for, lets stick to what all cristians believe:

Jesus did NOT die for MY sins. Those sins are MINE, I take full responsibility, and if I am WRONG and there is an afterlife, I will continue to take responsibility. As an adult, I CANNOT accept that Jesus died for my sins. It's not fair. If he was the son of god, or even if he was just a nice guy trying to make people be nice to one another, he did live once. And he died. ONCE. One time. He was born among men and was killed by men. But I did not do that. Eve went against the orders of god. BUT I DID NOT DO THAT. If God loves man, then I was born perfect. There is no sin from before my birth that is mine. I WILL NOT take responsibility for what others did. I will punish them if I can, I will protect the weak. I will help anyone who asks. But I will not take the blame for something I didn't do.

I don't feel responsible that millions of africans where made into livestock. I did not do that. I will not take the blame for that. Africans and Europeans from that time did that. I did not. I will not take responsibility for all those who live in the 3rd world as slaves today. Millions do, and that's why we in the west enjoy games and TV and microwave meals. I hate it. I hate that we as a species are destructive and have to have at least half the population in distress all the time so that a tiny % can live in excess. It literally makes me cry when I think of what we do, in the name of progress or science or religion, BUT ITS NOT MY FAULT.

If again a situation arose like that of the 1900-1940's, where socialism came close enough that some could even smell it, I would fight and die for it. Not even a doubt in my mind. I would DIE for it. But it lost, right wing politics won, and we live in a very right wing world, and that is why religion is even still a reality, instead of a silly idea that children are taught about in history class: "Humans used to believe that invisible men always watched them, judging there actions, and that this ONE life, this beautiful, unlikely, amazing thing that is their ONE life, was actually just a test before the real deal, so it was best to spend it in drudgery and worry. Long since we have learnt that it is infact a control mechanism and an escape for those not brave enough to face the world as it is". But we have religion, the weak hide in it, the strong use it to achieve their personal goals, and everyone has to respect it.

NO.

No God, not even one god, ever. Not a single one. NONE.

Us, humans, without god. But we are not alone. The smarter Apes are as self aware as you or I. Are they not people? They have worries and cares and family they love. The only barrier between humans and apes communicating is a language barrier. Teach a gorrilla sign language and they can speak with us just fine. So...are they not perfect also, like man? They do less harm, always want to live in peace, and are loving family members. So, do they get to go to heaven? No? No heaven for orangutangs, who do nothing negative to anyone or anything? Why? Because ignorant fools from long ago wrote it in a book.

I refuse.

My sins are mine.

There is no God.

When a state uses faith a bases for ANYTHING, then they are lying fucking cunts using people. By polititian is, when used in its FIRST definition, a very dirty word. Nothing a politian can do, from the worst sex scandal and drug bust to the most fascist control mechanism disguised as protective measures, can surprise me: They are humans, same as me. They are flawed, more so since they seek popularity and power solely by taking advantage of others. No polititian, from ANY state, can EVER try to tell me what is morally right.

A state representative wouldn't recognise God if he popped round for tea and left his fucking calling card.

TL:DR = God is not real, and everyone knows it. Some are scared to admit it themselves because of indroctrination there whole life. Any choice made because of faith is wrong. When a state makes a descision based on Faith, it is already morally bankrupt, since those making the choice are not believers, they are decievers, else they would not hold political power. So when a state makes ANY mention of faith in its priorities, then it is using it as an opiate to sooth over a rough deal some poor shmuck is getting as a result of the States choice.

[Yazid]

You're all missing the point, it's in the first line of the Tao te Ching.

'The Tao that can be told/explained/mentioned is not the eternal Tao, words are the source of all particular things.'
Words are a burden and hindrance to this life, we'd all be much happier without them, however the Taoist is not burdened by them and can use them freely/wisely.
Then why does the Taoist talk, as opposed to the Zen monk? It's like fingers pointing at the moon, if you pay close attention to the fingers, you'll miss the moon.

Man's world is made of words/shapes/symbols/experiences/inexperiences/ignorance/no end to ignorance/life/death/molecules/atoms everything we can see or imagine. The Buddhist are concerned with aiding this, Scientists are concerned with controlling/explaining/predicting natural phenomena and the Abrahamic religions are very concerned with making the Earth the Kingdom of God, or postponing life till the afterlife, and destroying the world in the process. But by their insistence on 'action' or 'doing' they fail every time.

The Taoist values non-action, which is not to be confused with passivity, non-action is the often the strongest perceivable thing you can do, like a person standing like a stone wall in a dance floor, it will attract attention. But also non-action can mean, allowing yourself to understand the flow of every situation, emphasis on 'allowing' instead of 'doing' like allowing yourself to remember others names instead of forcing it. By allowing ourselves to experience, we naturally put an end to it, when the time arises.

The world of the Tao is one of  pattern/harmony/ like the universe is in relative harmony in it's chaos, it's not a contradiction, it's the way it works, the ying and yang are both so different but are united as one, so in it's oppositeness they are one, the oceans and shore as well, this is why Lao Tzu said the water is closest conceivable thing to the Tao, it nourishes all things, yet asks for nothing in return, it dwells in the lowliest of places that men disdain. The point of the Taoist is to carry yourself as if you just set a sail on your body so that it's not you who's making the effort but you're allowing the wind to carry you, or to swim with the current of the river and acquire the power of the current, instead of swimming against it. Taoist find that many people attempt to swim against the current, yet they find themselves dragged by it you can tell by the way they react to life, they treat it as a curse and that their bodies are simply something to carry their head around from place to place.. This analogy is called 'The raging river of the Tao'. This results in ease of movement, grandfatherly kindness and an eventual sage like appearance and its called 'embodying the light'. This is why the sages look the way they do in ancient Chinese painting, it was the only way to describe them.
A Taoist leader of men should be like this, it's possible he may not want to ever become a leader, but if the time arises he will know how to lead.

This is not mystical Taoism, this is not folk Taoism, it's not ancient master in a mountain in China mocked by western society Taoism.
It's not the Taoism you learn at a McDojo from your McSensei.
it's what's in the Tao te Ching, Taoism. What Lao Tzu wanted us to know in his lifetime,
what he gathered from a lifetime of observing the world of men and that of the Tao.
He had no better word to call it other than the 'Tao' others confuse it with God, but Lao Tzu said it was older than God.
His philosophy is closer to the way our world works than asceticism or Hinduism or Janism, or all the Western isms combined,
yet it is the hardest to enact it is hardest to truly comprehend, it is the most obscure, vague, smallest, feminine, coward-like, immoral, infantile, weak, useless
yet poetic, and at the same time bland.
because the Tao loves the dark, yet its constantly seeking the light... 
Some days you can grasp it with your hands some days it leaves you in the dust.
The Tao grasps and then lets it go, doesn't not hold on to or own anything or anyone.
Like an infants hand, or it cries and then laughs,
it allows itself to experience this is why we think it perfect and pure.
If you have to strap cathodes to a mother and sons brains to understand this, then you're missing the point.
It gets better with time, patience, practice and adherence.
This is why it will never reach the mainstream, not the way things are going.

If I have to explain that to you then you just wont get it, like Jazz,
if I gotta tell you what it is then you're just as stiff as a breadstick
and nothing will satisfy you until you snap out of it, or come out of it.

[BlindGuy]

Now while I think your analogy is nice, it hasnt much reflection Church and State.

[Falka]

I have chosen to *believe* in atheism,
but i still realize that is merely a belief, rather than a fact. Claiming otherwise would be dishonest and similar to being a religious nut.

Agnosticism doesn't necessarily believe in a higher being either, but it doesn't claim with certainty that something like that might not exist, unlike atheism.

You can try to justify atheism, it doesn't change the fact, that it claims something, that cannot be proven nor disproven. Hence, not a fact.

Bah, it's bullshit. You also can not prove that tooth fairy, santa claus or Russels's teapot don't exist. Following your line of thinking noone could deny their nonexistance and, leading this way, say about himself as "atheist" on this subject. Which is plainly ridiculous. There's no proof that tooth fairy doesn't exist - and such proof just can not exist, so any person who wouldn't want to base his opinion on "belief" should say that he's "agnostic" in this matter.

Your statement is based on logical error, lack of evidence that some ridiculous claim is false can not stop me from saying it's false as long as evidence proving otherwise won't be shown.

Hah, even found what's the name of this fallacy Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).

[Segd]

Meanwhile in Russia:
"A couple in Russia face jail after their religious zeal compelled them to drive their child, injured in a car crash, to church for an urgent baptism rather than to hospital.
The worried parents sped him up to the church because “otherwise he would be denied the Kingdom of Heaven."
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20131125/184966751/Baby-Dies-After-Parents-Trade-Hospital-For-Church-After-Crash.html

Center left MP Yelena Mizulina, known for her pro-life stance and conflicts with leaders of the LGBT community, has suggested amending the constitution emphasizing the exclusive role of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Mizulina said at the Friday session of the parliamentary group for the protection of Christian values, that the Russian constitution should include a preamble saying that “Orthodox Christianity is the basis of national and cultural originality of Russia”.

The move gained support from other participants in the session who represented the majority caucus of United Russia and the Communist Party caucus.
http://www.dailystormer.com/russia-mp-wants-christianity-as-basis-of-constitution/comment-page-1/

[[ptx]]

That is not how it works, Falka. Appeal to ignorance doesn't apply here in any form whatsoever. Try again.

[Falka]

Try again.

Why should I?

[[ptx]]

Or, well, back out and don't. Your choice.

[BASNAK]

Totally related.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Xant]

You proclaim yourself to be an atheist, yet apparently subscribe to the scientific method. Find the contradiction!

I trust you've found out that it was no contradiction already, or do I need to further elucidate the point?

Also: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[BlindGuy]

There's no proof that tooth fairy doesn't exist...

Mate, WHERE DAFUQ DOES HE SELL THE TEETH? He/she MUST be selling them to be able to pay the kiddies, so, if the Tooth Fairy is running an international tooth retail business, he/she HAS to be employing a whole horde of fairies, there must be a payroll for that too. Your trying to tell me that single biggest dental retailer doesnt pay tax to anyone? Not in this economy, bud.

[kinngrimm]

Overall i like what you write Muhammad.
You are correct that not everything can be put in words, still we can narrow things down and try to get a mutual understanding wich goes beyond handsigns. Your analogies are a good example for that.
As there is no evidence for a telephatic organ i know of, we need to communicate somehow and with your last post you have shown me some aspects of Tao, wich seem to be familiar to me while i never read about them. I do have the yinyang symbol in my room, the only visible symbol, that now for nearly 14 years. For me it was always about harmony and a combined wish to live in peace without agression and ... more. Anyways your words about Tao spiked some interest and i will sooner or later get into that religion, to deepen my understanding or if only to broaden my views.

You're all missing the point, ...

It is not my wish to critisize you, nevertheless when you look at the topic and what you sofar wrote, not sure you should make this claim. I would rather say, you tried giving us an excursion into Taoism.

Then again to judge wich religion would be perhaps less destructive as a states religion, you would need first to have some more understanding about it. Sofar i am against any combination of state and religion, as the state consisting of people who often are after the inherent power of positions within the state, a career ^^ the more influence a religion would have then onto the state, the more the people would be also being influenced by religious phrases by whom they are manipulated(see first post of me). While i have no problem with politiicans being privatly religious, i do mind them using religion to their own means to get into power, make legislations, form support for any kind of law(this is still done in all the so called sekular states). If i would have a say, the foundation of a political party shouldnt even be including religion. In germany we got the CSU(Christian Social Union and Christian Democratic Union) these are basicly the center-rightwing parties of germany, similar to the Repulicans of the USA. I'd rather see none of these strings attached, the focus still on the needs of the people, not first on the needs of the top %. The argumentation that if the top % is satisfied they would trickle down the wealth is flawed. Still people vote for the rightwing christians, repetition of religious phrases in the constant news BS, the makebelieve that Republicans & CSU/CDU mainly would have the interest of the people in mind ... anyhow not wanting to go into a fight over wich party is best or not, just showing that the parties within the state are far of from being sekular in our enlightened democrazies ^^

[Kafein]

Totally related.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

I can already tell you how they proved it

[_schizo321437]

Mate, WHERE DAFUQ DOES HE SELL THE TEETH? He/she MUST be selling them to be able to pay the kiddies, so, if the Tooth Fairy is running an international tooth retail business, he/she HAS to be employing a whole horde of fairies, there must be a payroll for that too. Your trying to tell me that single biggest dental retailer doesnt pay tax to anyone? Not in this economy, bud.

Flat tax is fair tax

visitors can't see pics , please register or login