What people see in religion

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-18 09:31am

Because I know if I open my k4w411 mouth here I'm going to unleash a string of unholy profanities longer than man's list of sins.

If you need to vent then please Vent, I don't think many of us would mind if you get a little anger out here

IDMR · Post by **IDMR** » 2002-07-18 10:21am

Iceberg wrote:
Durandal wrote:Buddhism is about the only major religion that I can think of that hasn't caused a whole lot of trouble.
Actually, Buddhism caused quite a bit of civil strife in Japan - there were a few minor wars and other such unpleasantness between Buddhist and Shinto samurai...

Well, many Buddhist sects (and I employ the term with some reservation) were responsible for peasant uprising all throughout the Far East, from the Red Scarves at the end of the Yuan dyanasty to the Ikko-Ikki during the Warring States.

Joe Richter · Post by **Joe Richter** » 2002-07-18 10:28am

Iceberg, I in no way mean to be confrontational or insulting but, after reading

Iceberg wrote:I'm religious (Catholic, to be exact) because it makes more sense to me than being non-religious.

I wanted to ask, WHY does it make more sense to you to be religious and specifically Catholic? I am genuinely interested as I am an Athiest and would like to understand your views better.

IDMR · Post by **IDMR** » 2002-07-18 10:37am

Smiling Bandit wrote:Mr Wong, this thread is so insulting, so disgustingly ignorance-filled, that I can stand it no more. I please ask you to lock despite your own proclivities.

I have just been insulted in every possible way, from my heart to my intelligence to the very wothwhileness of my existence, by people who apparently neither care nor realize it.

I am considering leaving the forum.

And that's noteven counting the complete historical innacuracies so mind-boggling that it is obvious to me *some* posters have hardly opened a history book, much less actualy comprehended the scale of interaction of religion on people and society. This entire thread appears to have become a huge "Bash Christianity and Religion" fest, if was not to begin with.

So far this thread is still on the 'full and frank exchange of views' level, so I should not feel justified to close it or delete it.

However, you are welcome to throw it your lot, point out the inaccuracies and lay out your view point (with... colourful epithets if necessary). I assure you that the majority here merely wish to *ahem* discuss the matter rationally and that any insults which had been inflicted were entirely unintentional.

IDMR · Post by **IDMR** » 2002-07-18 10:46am

Meghel wrote:Again. Who are the most advanced at the moment? Are it the Islamist nations, or the Budhist nations or the Hinduist Nations??

This is a commonly encountered mental block. It is a capital mistake to think of the present as the end of history. Western civilisation and capitalism may hold sway at the moment, but this is no more arguement for their inherent superiority* than the Mongol Empire is for the Mongol way of life (or death, as the case may be).

*Although, of course, English superiority is self-evident to even the most casual of observers.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-07-18 10:55am

I am a little disturbed by the anti-religious slant of this thread but by no means do I say lock it. Then I would be putting myself in the camp of Toquemada (Inquisition). The fundamentalist or far right Christains (and other religions) cannot stand to see their faith assualted or even questioned. Having been taugfht by Jesuits I can tell you that faith is NOTHING if it is not questioned.

How can you claim to believe in god if you can't defend that belief in a debate. Even if the other side seems right, if you feel that you can state clearly, without calling the other side heathen and whatnot then you have faith and faith is there for you when the answers are not.

Faith is a powerful things, boys and girls, it drives men to the heights of greatness OR the depths of depravity (see 9/11)

All I'm saying is that locking a thread because it bashes a religion only gives the bashers more ammunition because we feel then that our faith and religion can't stand the pounding. The Church has been around for millennia, it has been assaulted both intellectually and physically and she still stands. There's nothing said on an internet forum that will EVER change that. When we're long gone and dead, she will still be there. For good or ill, because man has a deep inherent NEED for spirituality.

I myself am not religious but I consider myself spiritual enough to believe that the wonders of the universe, which science continuaslly contnues to expose us to is in my view proof of something greater. Am I devout? Nope. I have a deep suspicion as well, that religion is our shamanistic equivalent of the caveman days. We need that somehow and it comforts us, because quite frankly, there is NOTHING to me more terrofying than the idea that after all this, there is NOTHING. Hitler and Mother Teresa get the same reward in the end. That scares the shit out of me so I look to the idea of a higher power as comfort.

BTW I ascribe to the fact that the more educated you are the less religious you will be. Its natural because you are exposed to so much. 90% of Fundamentalists don't know that the bible is a collection of stories sacttered through the ages. If you tell them that they think you're going to hell. But there it is.

Sorry for being so long winded...

IDMR · Post by **IDMR** » 2002-07-18 11:10am

Stravo wrote:I am a little disturbed by the anti-religious slant of this thread but by no means do I say lock it. Then I would be putting myself in the camp of Toquemada (Inquisition). The fundamentalist or far right Christains (and other religions) cannot stand to see their faith assualted or even questioned. Having been taugfht by Jesuits I can tell you that faith is NOTHING if it is not questioned.

How can you claim to believe in god if you can't defend that belief in a debate. Even if the other side seems right, if you feel that you can state clearly, without calling the other side heathen and whatnot then you have faith and faith is there for you when the answers are not.

Laudable sentiments.

Stravo wrote:Faith is a powerful things, boys and girls, it drives men to the heights of greatness OR the depths of depravity (see 9/11)

So can many other emotions - love, patriotism, even hatred and greed... Please note that I am merely pointing this out, and that this is in no way intended as a retort.

Stravo wrote:All I'm saying is that locking a thread because it bashes a religion only gives the bashers more ammunition because we feel then that our faith and religion can't stand the pounding. The Church has been around for millennia, it has been assaulted both intellectually and physically and she still stands. There's nothing said on an internet forum that will EVER change that. When we're long gone and dead, she will still be there. For good or ill, because man has a deep inherent NEED for spirituality.

If we continue to see such coherent and level-headed posts there should be no need to lock it.

And to be fair, the Church's influence has rather waned of late, has it not? We have seen not a few schism in the church throughout the ages, though I am glad to say that there are signs of them mending.

Stravo wrote:I myself am not religious but I consider myself spiritual enough to believe that the wonders of the universe, which science continuaslly contnues to expose us to is in my view proof of something greater. Am I devout? Nope. I have a deep suspicion as well, that religion is our shamanistic equivalent of the caveman days. We need that somehow and it comforts us, because quite frankly, there is NOTHING to me more terrofying than the idea that after all this, there is NOTHING. Hitler and Mother Teresa get the same reward in the end. That scares the shit out of me so I look to the idea of a higher power as comfort.

Actually, I prefer that view simply because I can not allow my wishes and feelings of security to be the father of my reason. Of course, however, I understand your view point.

Stravo wrote:BTW I ascribe to the fact that the more educated you are the less religious you will be. Its natural because you are exposed to so much. 90% of Fundamentalists don't know that the bible is a collection of stories sacttered through the ages. If you tell them that they think you're going to hell. But there it is.

Sorry for being so long winded...

Quite alright.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-07-18 12:28pm

Smiling Bandit wrote:
I have just been insulted in every possible way, from my heart to my intelligence to the very wothwhileness of my existence, by people who apparently neither care nor realize it.

You know what? Boo fucking Hoo!

Why don't you try to step into our world for just a second. At least you don't have fucktards like Falwell, Robertson, and other similiar assholes attacking you on national television everyday. At least you don't have laws saying you can't hold public office because of your religion or lack thereof. At least you don't have the Vice President of the United States calling you unpatriotic and unworthy of citizenship. Why don't you try considering that before you start throwing a hissy fit like a little baby.

If you want to leave this board, fine. Nobody will lose any sleep over it. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-18 01:05pm

USAF Ace wrote:You know what? Boo fucking Hoo!

Why don't you try to step into our world for just a second. At least you don't have fucktards like Falwell, Robertson, and other similiar assholes attacking you on national television everyday.

Irrelevancy. This is not national television, this is an internet message board. If you can't behave, that makes you a wretched little fuckmonkey, and you shall be mocked as such.

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2002-07-18 01:53pm

I think you can have faith without necessarily being religious, just as you can behave religiously without having faith.
Did that make any sense? I think I've seen both kinds of folk in Christianity.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-07-18 02:23pm

I think you can have faith without necessarily being religious, just as you can behave religiously without having faith.
Did that make any sense? I think I've seen both kinds of folk in Christianity.

Totally agree with you on that point. I know precisely what you are saying.

Smiling Bandit · Post by **Smiling Bandit** » 2002-07-18 02:31pm

Why don't you try to step into our world for just a second. At least you don't have fucktards like Falwell, Robertson, and other similiar assholes attacking you on national television everyday.

Now that one deserves comment.

I am Catholic. Let me share a little histopry of Catholicism in the US.

1776-JFK being elected = Catholics are considered one step up from blacks and Jews by the majority. The Irish in particular, are considered urban scum.

You know, about 30 miles from where I lived most of life relatives of mine had to hide behind the couch some days so the KKK wouldn't find them. Don't tell me about Pat Robertson. Descrimination isn't so bad now for anyone since the 60's, but you think I'm not insulted on various boards on a daily basis by goose-stepping atheist blockheads who can't tell the difference between one bad-seed minister and the entire whole of Christianity? Or people who blame every Christian, everywhere for their own failed lives? Or how about the politer ones who insist that I, personally, am responisble for the Crusades?

And what really gets my goat is they are almost always operating on some sort of flawed histotical perspective. They can get every event "right" in their own minds and never for once understand how things really came about.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-18 02:44pm

Nobody remembers what the terms "Know-Nothing" and "NINA" meant, in historical context.

The Know-Nothings were religiously motivated thugs that beat up Catholic businesspeople and damaged or destroyed their businesses. And everybody said "I know nothing!" when the police came around to try to investigate. NINA stood for No Irish or No Italians Need Apply - in other words, the business owner didn't want one of those evil Papists darkening their business's doorstep. In 1960, Jack Kennedy was elected on one of the slimmest margins in American electoral history, carrying the popular vote by a mere half-million votes.

So far, the ONLY Catholic to have executed the highest office in our land was a handsome, charismatic scion of one of our nation's wealthiest and most influential families. Nixon managed to make himself look like a huge schmuck in the Presidential debates, and he STILL came remarkably close to winning.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-07-18 02:56pm

Smiling Bandit wrote:1776-JFK being elected = Catholics are considered one step up from blacks and Jews by the majority. The Irish in particular, are considered urban scum.

That is just plain sick. How many Catholics were held as slaves? How many were lynched?

How many millions of Catholics were sent to concentration camps by Jews? Oh wait, I'm sorry, it was the other way around.

Don't tell me about Pat Robertson.

I sure as hell wish I'd didn't have to, but last time I checked he has not just his own TV show, but his own channel. Last time I checked he and Falwell were blaming athiest for the 9/11 attacks, not Catholics.

Descrimination isn't so bad now for anyone since the 60's

because of a rise in secularism and a decrease in religious fundalmentalism

but you think I'm not insulted on various boards on a daily basis by goose-stepping atheist blockheads who can't tell the difference between one bad-seed minister and the entire whole of Christianity?

Oh poor you. Exactly what state are you not allowed to hold public office in because you're Catholic?

Or people who blame every Christian, everywhere for their own failed lives?

Are you calling me a failure?

Or how about the politer ones who insist that I, personally, am responisble for the Crusades?

Of course you're not responsible, but the institution you are a part of is.

And what really gets my goat is they are almost always operating on some sort of flawed histotical perspective. They can get every event "right" in their own minds and never for once understand how things really came about.

I'll leave that to the audience to decide.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-18 03:08pm

USAF Ace wrote:That is just plain sick. How many Catholics were held as slaves? How many were lynched?

How many millions of Catholics were sent to concentration camps by Jews? Oh wait, I'm sorry, it was the other way around.

About three million Catholics (including around 4,000 priests) were sent to concentration camps by the Nazis from Poland alone. But if you actually did some historical research instead of acting like a dipshit and blaming all your problems on an easily-identified Other, you might actually know that already.

I sure as hell wish I'd didn't have to, but last time I checked he has not just his own TV show, but his own channel. Last time I checked he and Falwell were blaming athiest for the 9/11 attacks, not Catholics.

That's because now, unlike in times past, about 25% of the US population is Catholic, and pissing off about 70 million people in ANY country is a Very Bad Idea, Indeed.

Falwell's anti-Catholic prejudice is pretty easy to see. Until very recently, Falwell's Liberty University didn't accept Catholics, nor did his buddy Bob Jones's little bible school. Falwell's "Christian Coalition" doesn't much like Catholics, either.

Are you calling me a failure?

Hey, if the shoe fits...

Of course you're not responsible, but the institution you are a part of is.

WAS. Past tense. If you can't figure out the difference between past and present, kindly blow me.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-07-18 03:10pm

RadiO wrote:I think you can have faith without necessarily being religious, just as you can behave religiously without having faith.
Did that make any sense? I think I've seen both kinds of folk in Christianity.

About the behaving part anyway, isn't that secular humanism then? Because nowadays christianity, or atleast part of it, tries to model itself on a merge between the new testament and it, right?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-07-18 03:19pm

Iceberg wrote:WAS. Past tense. If you can't figure out the difference between past and present, kindly blow me.

Isn't homosexuality a sin?

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2002-07-18 04:35pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
RadiO wrote:I think you can have faith without necessarily being religious, just as you can behave religiously without having faith.
Did that make any sense? I think I've seen both kinds of folk in Christianity.
About the behaving part anyway, isn't that secular humanism then? Because nowadays christianity, or atleast part of it, tries to model itself on a merge between the new testament and it, right?

Gosh. I wish I knew gow to answer that one.

I just see people who are obstensibly Christian going though the motions of religion - the services, the ceremonies, the retoric - while behaving in ways that cannot really be wholly Christian. Obviously, you have the extremists - those happy folk looking forward to The Rapture, so they can piously watch the unbelievers burn and suffer from on high; all the evil, wicked people hroughout history who broke every tenet of the New Testament in the name of God. But we're talking really basic stuff - like the bigmouths, the blowhards, and the ones who expect the same three churchmembers to always make the tea, or expect everybody else to serve as their personal taxi service. It's selfish. I know that Christians are people too and can thus have the same chance of being assholes, but I cannot see how you can act like a spoilt little kid and claim to be a paragon of virtue and good. Yet I also see people in the same congregarion who quietly believe. They're not ordering people about, or making hateful statements that are blatantly at odds with the teaching of the Bible. They BELIEVE. They're not in it for insurance, or because of peer pressure, or because they're stupid, or because they're personality-plus egomaniacs with a hunger for control over others. They're in it because they believe. For themselves, I suppose, but without the selfishness of those who act Christian to sate their need to domimate. And I can't really fault them for it.
I suppose that faith and religion are two interelated but seperate concepts, in that you can have one, both or neither of the two. I have the suspicion that religion without faith is basically meaningless, but I could so easily be wrong.

Antediluvian · Post by **Antediluvian** » 2002-07-18 05:48pm

Falwell's anti-Catholic prejudice is pretty easy to see. Until very recently, Falwell's Liberty University didn't accept Catholics, nor did his buddy Bob Jones's little bible school. Falwell's "Christian Coalition" doesn't much like Catholics, either.

It isn't just Catholics that they attack, they attack other Protestants as well.

Anyone ever heard that infamous line from Falwell regarding Billy Graham?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-18 07:26pm

I could quote Stravo enitre post but I won't because I half to say I agree wih 80% of it and that which I don't I've always been up in the Air about

Well said Stravo, could not have done better myself

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2002-07-18 09:56pm

To be honest, I don't mind Catholics much at all. I mean, any failings are true of most Christian churches and suprisingly they are more progressive than most "progressive" churches.

That being said...

Religion as a whole bothers me. Say you have a guy. He lives in his house. And in his attic, he claims, is a big dragon. This dragon runs everything, he claims. It makes laws and stuff, and must be obeyed. He even occasionally hears the dragon talking to him. He will reflexive, even violently, defend the idea that this dragon lives in his attic, even though he's never seen the dragon or has any evidence of its existance. Anything you say won't convince him because he has faith that the dragon is there.
Most people here would agree, that the man, who claims there is a dragon in his attic is probably delusional. Right? There are even drugs called "anti-psychotics" like Thorzine which are used treat such men.
What is the difference between the big dragon in his attic and a diety?

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-07-18 09:59pm

As Mr Wong said in not so many words, The Less intellgant you are the more likely you are to be Religious,
I bash on all religions Equaly BTW - Mr Bean

I'm not sure what to make of that exactly. Are you qualifying "intelligent" strictly by educational background? Can you please prove that assumption?
- XPViking

Who said anything about Educational Background?
I ment in general Religious people have a lower overal intellgance than say non-Religious or heck even Intellgance specfic religions(Taosim, Buddism)

To look at say Caltholisism
All your answears are provided for you
Have a problem? Go to the minister he has all the canned answears you could want

General "smart" people rarly take things at face value
And most religions can not provided anything beyond face value thus my comment of intellgance is not normaly a thing religions are overflowing with
Oh and in case you acutal read what I said instead of neah-jerk reaction
I was paraprashing what Wong Said

If you want a fuller more detailed explination then I'm willing to give at six in the morning PM him - Mr Bean

Wow Mr. Bean. Is supporting your assumptions something new for you? The reason why I asked if you are qualifying "intelligent" relating to "educational background" is because I wanted clarification. People can define "intelligent" in a number of different way. Is that so hard to understand? My response is hardly "knee-jerk", but rather I'm asking you to back up your words. Can you do it? Besides which, I don't care if you are merely rephrasing what Mr Wong said. I'm directing my comments to you.

XPViking

[/quote]

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-18 10:13pm

You want Direct Proof?
Yale Unviersity Study Circa June 1983 Religion and IQ
Columbia Unveristiy Study 1997 IQ and Hobbies(Not sure if thats the name it was a study designed to find out what high IQed people do in there spare time and inculded information on thier religions)
Informal End of the Year Polls by Time, Every year

The American Census Beuro(sp?) might have additnal information if you give them a call

Happy?

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-07-18 10:20pm

Thank you for the information. I'll see what I can dig up.

XPViking

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-07-18 11:14pm

Mr. Bean,

Well, I just conducted a quick search and here's what I came up with.

http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/McDNLArch7.htm
(see below)

Race, Religion and IQ
A league table listing the intelligence of the brighter religious-ethnic groups
in the USA has been published by researcher Arthur Hu (http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/edreform.htm).
Wh = White, Af = Black, As = Asian {including Indian, evidently}, Al = ALL
Race Religion Number tested Math + Verbal SAT
Wh Unitarian 1,745 1073
Wh Judaism 25,600 1030
Al Quaker 1,009 1029
As Hindu 4,138 1029
Al Judaism 27,374 1026
As Presbyterian 3,195 1022
Al Hindu 4,741 1012
As No Pref 17,987 1001
Wh No Pref 99,076 979
Al Mennonite 1,063 974
As Methodist 1,108 973
Wh Mormon 6,400 972
Wh Episcopal 19,555 970
Af Unitarian 64 [NB small N] 966
Al No Pref 137,305 963
Wh Luth Missouri 8,038 963
Wh Un Church of Christ 7,066 962
Al Luth Missouri 8,624 959
Al Episcopal 22,109 957
Wh Presbyterian 32,019 956
Wh Anglican 1,765 956
Al Presbyterian 37,353 955
Al Un Church of Christ 7,826 951
Wh U Methodist 23,470 949
Al Mormon 7,594 948
{It is good to see intelligent support for Hinduism, the world's only race-sex-and-IQ-realistic religion that has kept a substantial society going for any length of time. Supporters of Hinduism in India are usually thought to have a singularly wide range of IQs. Despite centuries of subjugation to the Muslims and the British, Indian Hindus now have nuclear weapons.}

For some reason, the link to Arthur Hu didn't work and susequent attempts just by searching "Arthur Hu" only turned up http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/race.html

Columbia University publishes a whole slew of articles and I couldn't find the articles you mentioned Mr. Bean. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they seem to be beyond my reach. Perhaps if you could provide the exact name or even author would be beneficial.

I did find two articles that look interesting based on their abstracts:

Hobbies
Leisure and the Culture of Work in America
Steven M. Gelber

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/ ... 113927.HTM

The Making of Intelligence
Ken Richardson

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/ ... 120044.HTM

I also checked the time website and could not find those "informal polls" that you are referring to. Again, not saying that they aren't there but I just couldn't find them. As well, the title "informal" causes me to question the reliability of such polls.

The American Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/ is a massive organization with several articles. I'm trying to find out some information regarding IQ and religion. Probably an email request will help expedite the search.

Perhaps Mr. Bean, I should say why I am asking you to actually prove your assertations is because we all can be guilty of making judgements based purely on speculation or from our own experiences.

XPViking