Has Christianity harmed you personally?
There are many long raging battles over Christianity in America. Most people seem to say that it does more good than harm; that those who do harm are misguided; that the problem facing us to begin with is in our turning away from Christ. After you read this brief article
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pennsylvania-parents-20180425-story.html
about a devout couple who caused the death of their child by refusing her medical care, tell us if you think that it is time to recognize a real harm that Christianity is currently doing to America, and if so, do you have a personal story to share?
Tags
Who is online
175 visitors
From my perspective, Science saved my soul:
Fondest Regards to The Jackel, wherever you are, who turned me on to this.
Do atheists have souls?
Hi John, no, I don't believe so, but in the video (which I strongly urge you to watch, 15 m), Philhellenes says, "If I have something that could be considered like a soul, then I can assure you that science saved it!" (paraphrasing). Please tell me what you think, after watching it!
If you define a soul as the energy within a human, then we all have souls and the soul never dies, even for atheists. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes form. This means our bodies and the electrical energy within our brains merely changes form when we die, it becomes food for microbes, nutrients and nitrogen for plant life and gets spread out to create new life.
If you define a soul as a singular unique spirit being that is "created" at conception, then no, that would in fact be violating the 1st law of thermodynamics because that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. We are merely the energy gathered from other sources, first our fathers sperm and mothers egg and womb along with the food she takes in, to all the matter we consume through our lives, from conception to death.
Love your answer, emphasizing Knowledge, which is demonstrable, over belief, which is just a guess.
LOL.. you sound like my dad.
I think that there is something that makes us unique, more than just how the brain is wired. I don't know what happens to it after death. I would like to think that there was some purpose to our lives other than procreation. I think I hang with the Hindus with this. I think we are here to learn, wash and repeat.
I don't think we really come to know God's purposes.
People who want to disprove religious belief often talk about the existence of evil. How or why would "God" allow evil? To me this is an easy one. Without evil we could not experience "good" . This existence is based on our experience of duality, or opposites. If there was no "up", would down mean anything? Without the experience of opposites, or relativity, we would be frozen into inertia.
This existence is based on experiencing relativity. Therefore how could God get rid of evil? Evil provides the meaning for it's opposite quality.
I don't say my understanding of this fact should inspire me to believe there is no God, but it does make me think that we don't know God's purposes, nor can we.
Watched the video, and then another one came on that I didnt pay as much attention to.
I find Phil Hellenes too actively anti-religion. He has a point to make, but the attack on religion is not necessary.
Yes, I agree that we are all unique, as our biology confirms that. (you are close to your father? heehee)
Watch the Sagan video at the end, if you want to get his opinion of (higher) purpose.
As for me, isn't it amazing just to exist, especially as a human being who can reason and explore, at this stage of earthly development?
Does a puppy need purpose? Does a god need purpose? Somewhere in between is the answer, if there is a question.
You, and I, stepped out of a supernova. (Philhellenes video) You've already won the lottery - what you do with it will be your legacy. The Taoists will tell you that "knowing how to become free of blame is the highest good." Think about it - it's profound.
The problem I see with Christianity (for example), is that it substitutes emotional pleas for what is scientifically known. Where science contradicts church teachings, science is the bad guy, when science is just another word for "critical thinking." The rationalizations cause harm if they teach others that it is ok to deny reality and substitute wishful thinking and make believe.
According to the bible, humans were never intended to experience "evil" or "bad" since it claims we only came to know such things because our ancestors ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. So based on that, did the God of the bible intend on us experiencing relativity? And if he didn't, why allow us to? Or did he place the trees there in the garden with the express intent of man eating of the trees? If that's true, was it really a sin to do as God intended?
... and what if... the soul existed before birth, and was simply "imprinted" with at conception? I'm not sure the the laws of thermodynamics apply to souls - I've seen no studies of the topic. But it seems easy to get around your objection, here.
Reincarnation is one (IMHO excellent) answer to the equally excellent question, "What does a soul do to stay occupied during all of eternity??"
You should see me cut a rug.
They can only apply to the first "soul" definition I mentioned, that of the energy stored within a human body. We can test and study the electrochemical reactions occurring in our brains as well as measure the amount of carbon atoms that make up our bodies and can track much of that energy as it leaves our bodies upon death in the form of chemicals, microbes breaking down and consuming our tissue providing food for a plethora of life forms. On the other hand, there has been zero evidence of any "spirit being" soul that lives on after death, thus there can be no scientific studies done on it since the concept lacks even a single shred of empirical evidence.
One other thing that always bothered me about the concept of "spirit souls" was the idea that this "soul" would have all our memories, and not only that, it would apparently be able to feel pain, yet without a physical form with a nervous system, skin and damage receptors, that makes no sense. Why would a "soul" feel anything if sent to hell when it has none of those properties? It seems far more likely hell was invented to instill fear in people using very physical threats, nearly always including some burning and torture which would make no sense to a spirit being. If hell were real, wouldn't it mean all the pain and torture was in the mind? And if so, why couldn't there be those who put mind over matter and refuse to feel pain understanding that nothing in hell could be real. That and the idea that a loving creator would send immortal souls to a place of eternal torment for the few seconds (compared to eternity) that they were doing bad things on earth. Even for those like Hitler it would seem like an eternity of torment would still be unfair. At some point no matter what you did during the tiny amount of time you were on the earth, you would think a God of justice would recognize you'd paid your price. But I digress, one would have to have a spirit "soul" that could remember all the things we knew in life.
One other question for believers, if a person lives 70 years as one of the most noble, helpful, wonderful, caring persons on the planet, but then is affected by Alzheimer's, loses their sense of self, becomes violent and cruel with their caregivers and shoots a nurse who was trying to help them, are they still going to heaven? And from another angle, what if a young person has been dealing with mental problems, bi-polar or schizophrenia symptoms, finds a way to get a gun and shoots up their old school? Will the old person who committed murder due to mental issues be saved while the young person who did the same is damned?
(I missed your post yesterday. Sorry...)
I don't know the parameters of a soul. I don't think anyone does, since it isn't observable. The notion did not exist in Biblical times. The word that is sometimes translated as "soul" was closer to "spirit" and was not considered to outlast the physical body.
If such a thing exists, I see no reason to assume any particular set of characteristics. "It's anybody's guess."
Other religions - Hinduism comes to mind - suppose an eternal soul, but their perception of it is different.
Christian based anti-science hurts us all on a daily basis.
I think you're using the word "Christian" a bit too broadly. Not all Christians are fundamentalists.
cjcold yay!!!
Agreed, as the anti-science folks are arguing for irrationality and superstition, all while benefiting from the advancements of science.
True, but when 38% of Americans believe in Creationism, and another 43% believe in "theistic evolution," which is just another form of Creationism, I disagree, as 80% of Americans ID themselves as Christian.
Only 19% of Americans accept biological evolution, and that is strongly correlated to education - higher education that is.
Considering that 20% of Americans ID themselves as Nones, it seems Christianity by definition, is anti-science, which is hardly surprising, as it is irreconcilable with science.
ONE HUNDRED percent of fundamentalists believe in Creationism, so using that term is much more accurate than "Christian".
Why are you intentionally using a term that is not 100% accurate, when another word is available which is 100% accurate?
75-80% of Americas ID themselves as Christian.
19% of Americans accept biological evolution.
Anything not BE is not science, but just another unnatural form of Creationism.
The Young Earth Creationists are all Christian, and they make up about 10% of Americans.
Take it from there Bob.
You're dodging, Artie.
You can use "fundamentalists" and be 100% right, or you can use "Christian" and be "dunno %" right.
You choose to use the less accurate word. What is your agenda?
Sorry Bob, but I think what I offered conveys more detailed information, backed up by polling data.
Interestingly, the paragraph you cite mentions neither "fundamentalists" nor "Christians". It uses only "Americans".
Simple question for you, Artie: do you think that 100% of Christians are Creationists? That's what you are saying, and it's obviously false, on the basis of your numbers.
So.... again... what is your agenda?
Approximately 75-80% of Americans are Christian from polling.
Approximately 75-80% of Americans believe in the Bible from polling. There can be some Jewish and Muslim components, but they are in trace amounts.
Christians are all Creationists, believing in the supernatural. (Even "theistic evolution" is a form of Creationism - it is not science; please don't call it science.) There may be a few exceptions, like philosophical Christians who don't accept the supernatural part, but they then wouldn't believe in the existence of the Christian God of the Bible, and they likely accept biological evolution.
Approximately 20% of the country is non-Christian, and accepts biological evolution.
These are the facts. They speak for themselves.
Regards to Robin, who showed me Sagan's video, a must see:
What a voice. He is missed.
Artie! Heading to sleep but will enjoy this article tomorrow. It's great to see you.
Of course, you will now be called one of the "usual crowd" or whatever, since you're logical .. heh. That's quite a compliment.
Katrix!!! How wonderful. How's the geology coming?
Besides being indoctrinated into a Pentecostal household and being a 20 year old virgin when I got married to a gal raised the same way and also a virgin, after a little over a decade she fell in love with someone else but knew divorce wasn't an option so would cry herself to sleep every night wishing she were dead. I feel I saved her life by doing the one thing she wouldn't, accepting the shunning of all my friends and family by divorcing her and leaving the Church. It was the best decision I ever made, but it took a long time and was a lot of trauma not only for myself but for my family who still shun me to this day.
I also had an acquaintance who was a JW who's mother had been hit by a drunk driver and in the hospital she refused the blood transfusion on religious grounds and died. The drunk drivers attorney used that in his defense saying my friends mom wouldn't have died had she not refused blood and thus he shouldn't be held responsible.
So to answer the question, I think there are likely hundreds of denominations among the thousands that exist that can cause some serious bodily injury to their members, and many more than that who can cause serious mental health injuries doing far more harm than good. I will admit, this does not apply for all Christian churches, but many adopt practices that when strictly adhered to can seriously mess people and families up.
Thank you for sharing your story Dismayed. That took a great deal of courage. A very powerful warning for the community to bear in mind.
There are lots of branches of Christianity that are very good-I grew up in a church associated with American Baptist Convention. The church stressed learning and that not all discoveries are evil, my parents treated us with medinine when we were sick, no one shunned anyone if a divorce happened. When the opposite happens in various churches, I don't blame God, I blame them and their interpretation of the differences between right and wrong.
That was why I pointed out that even if there are hundreds of denominations that may cause harm, there are many others who are fairly innocuous. I think it's a shame that the difference can simply come down to human Church leaders interpretations of scripture. The fact that the bible can be interpreted in so many different ways is one of the major flaws I find with it. You would think if it was divinely inspired it would be very clear as to what the divine author was intending, or at least the divine author would be able to predict the huge differences that would occur when humans attempt to translate, interpret and then apply it to their lives.
I think we see the same thing in every area of humanity. I think it's becoming more true every day. You can find examples here every day of people jumping on board with something, without having read the something they are jumping on board with. Our legislature does it all of the time. I once had a senator friend stay with me during session. He brought stacks of bills home to read, but never read them. I know he didn't read them ever, because I called him on it one night, as he was walking in after midnight. His answer was simply that the various sponsors told everyone what was in the bills. Riiiiggghhhht! I doubt he was the exception.
Hello Artie! Welcome! I have been here since October 2017.
Dismayed. The 'problem' of unity I see along these lines lies with Christian message liberality. The fact that Christians are instructed to "Go ye into all the world. . . ." And so many myriads of believers go spirit-filled "proportionally," others go "half-cocked," another percentage go with "zeal, but not according to knowledge or understanding," and all of it is exaggerated and can be extremely exacerbated in the United Sates. Because here in our land spiritual liberality meets up and mixes in with constitutionally safeguarded freedoms, capitalism, and enterprise.
Liberality: noun - the quality of giving or spending freely ;
Hi Dismayed. Christian message liberty is a better fit for my comment. Thank you.
Wow. Props dude.
Somehow I ended up working with two members of the Christian Science (an oxmoron ) movement.
One was hit by a bat at a softball game and his pupil and iris were no longer round or "contained" he lost his sight in that eye but could tell light from dark - refused medical treatment based on their religion.
The other jumped off of a loading dock too close to an older car and the antennae caught him under the chin, entered beneath his jaw and exited near his eye. He calmly unscrewed the antennae (thankfully it was loose) and went home to pray for forgiveness and healing. He too refused any medical treatment, survived the infection, and has the scars to prove it.
SP!-!-!
Yikes, what horrific stories.
Christian Scientists seem to be living in "Opposite Land."
If I believed in a God, Supreme Being, FSM, I would say that those people SP talked about sinned because they didn't use the g-damn brains God gave them
I think God's trying to tell them something, and they aren't listening.
When I was 14 my mother died of cancer and at the funeral our pastor spent a fair amount of the service blaming her for her own death due to the fact she married outside the community and faith (Pentecostal).
Anyway although it hurt at the time the only long term result was that I began questioning and eventually abandoning religion in favour of science. All in all a good end result.
Once again, man trying to limit God's love. Pointless and stupid of the Reverend. Unfortunately, those that assume to speak for God don't always really follow God's word all that closely.....take the Al Sharpton as an example, millions of tax dollars in the hole......render unto Ceasar and all that.
Well, I already had my doubts by the time I was really hurt by the modern Christians, my sister Beth had been a Christian for many years, she was strong in her faith of Yahweh and, Jesus. She got conned, that's the only way I can describe what happened to her, by a guy that I had introduced her to, she moved away with him to Hannibal MO., then on one fourth of July she killed herself because he wouldn't let her leave him to return home, where she wanted to be because he was abusive to her. Her original pastor told us he wouldn't perform her funeral because she had committed suicide and, suicides always went to hell.
The judgmental and self-righteous brutality (and often the hypocrisy) of that all is appalling to anyone with a compassionate side. Such extremists should be denounced, and their victims cared for.
What I do find interesting is, I did find a preacher to give the service for her, he was a Mormon bishop who was ordained and, he was more than willing to oversee the service for her. I have respect for him to this day, I just can't believe the way he does. Oh well.
I witnesses many such accusations, sadly my father was one of the Church leaders pointing fingers and spreading blame and guilt on others, eventually myself included. I can't apologize enough for being a part of that inhumane and uncaring religion and at one time enabling them.
We all have witnessed this, it's how many organizations including religion gain and maintain control.
Pfffft not necessary you were a product of your environment at the time and have worked to improve (imo) yourself since
It's all good.
I admire your deeply felt apologies for what is in the past, but most important of all, it is your penance - by sharing and explaining your experiences, you are helping to pull and protect others from such a trap - that is your salvation in this regard.
Thank you, and everyone, for your openness to sharing, for the benefit of us all.
...and what Freefaller said.
Love to read such comments.
I think it's disgusting when preachers use a funeral to condemn or evangelize. Whatever happened to just mourning/celebrating the deceased?
The catholic church taught me that I was born with sin on my soul ! What a sh*tty thing to tell a 6 year old !
Welcome to NT Artie !
Since I have been an adult and able to learn that there is an esoteric possibility for religion, I have had my own interpretation of original sin. Human beings are "fallen" creatures, in that there is an ideal for all of our lives that we can no longer reach. When spirit materialized, which took place at the stage of evolution when 'humans' attained self-consciousness, we became able to experience regret, hurt, disappointment, lack, etc. - in other words no longer in paradise. The ego which manifests as self-consciousness senses the "other" in ways that animals cannot. Animals cannot self-reflect. Self-reflection leads to comparison , which leads to perception of lack.
Original sin is the FALL into the material world of self-consciousness. Return to God involves overcoming ego.
Thanks Pat!
And yes, what a terrible thing to say. The biology tells us that we should be giving the credit of our existence and success to our ancestors - not a flawed god who supposedly created us inferior in our nature and then blames us for it, so that we come pleading for forgiveness. That's bound to mess kids up.
If you tell them that they are not deficient - that they come from the stars, being the best of the best, essentially that they belong here as they are - then they stand a chance of happily embracing life and exploring its mysteries with wonderment and respect, rather than living a life of irrational guilt and fear.
Well said !
I could never look at a glass milk bottle without looking for the sins floating within...
That's so fucking sick, I can't stop laughing.
Yup. Baptist guilt is a lot like Catholic guilt, and I was raised with a lot of Baptist guilt.
It could have been worse. My mom grew up Pentecostal.
Hi Sandy!
Wondering if you and your Mom are close, like Katrix is with hers?
My parents are devout and I'm not, but we are very close - seems genuine love and affection matters more.
Pretty close, yes. Maybe not as close as katrix and her mom, but my parents don't need caretakers yet, as katrix's mom does. They live 5 hours' drive away, but we get together as often as we can, and genuinely enjoy the time we spend together.
We just agree to disagree on religion. I know Mom would like to see me back in church, but she's accepted that it's not happening. Her own views have moderated over the years.
I'm not even sure what my dad's religious views are. I get the idea he's more on the skeptic side, but we don't discuss it much, and he only ever enters a church for weddings and funerals.
My Dad is more a social Christian, because he likes to chat and make new friends, so we can talk about it somewhat. My Mom, no way, because it would hurt her, and having her love is much more important to me. Religion isn't a part of our interactions together anyway, so why create hard feelings among family if there is no occasion for it. We live in different cities, and they love my kids. We mostly just share what's going on in our lives, which is interesting enough, because we share common principles.
I've noticed that most of my friends are Christian, and that they are really, really nice to me. I think they assume I am one too, lol.
Has Christianity Harmed You Personally?
NO but when a couple of church ladys came knocking at my door yesterday it get get my dogs riled up, a couple of them started fighting a little and one got a small bite on it. I'll bet that hurt.
But me hurt personally, NO ... (I didn't answer the door)
.
lol
true story
A Jehovah's Witness stopped by my house ago, and my dog peed on his shoes. I felt a little bad, but not too much. Stuff like that happens when you come calling uninvited.
Jehovah's Witnesses come down my street about once a year. I let them get out a sentence or two and then tell them "no thanks" I am a Catholic. They say ok and politely leave. I wish everyone were so peaceful as those people.
This one was polite and left when I said I wasn't interested.
Others I know have been rudely persistent. One couple finally threatened to meet them at the gate with a shotgun if they didn't stay away. They'd asked, and asked, and finally told them to keep off their property, and were ignored.
Same with me. However, I must tell you that when my brother was dying, I was there everyday and one day, I saw their literature on a side table. I asked him about it and he told me how pleasant it was to sit and visit with them. He had few comforts and this was one of them.
I studied with them after I left the Pentecostals and after studying many other denominations and other religions I have to admit, they were probably the friendliest, almost too friendly. They used to call almost every week for the few months I studied with them asking if they could give me a ride to their Sunday meeting, it got a little annoying but I know they meant well. They do have some major issues though, like not accepting blood transfusions, not voting, refusing military service and not allowing women to minister or pray aloud at their congregations (they have some strict headship rules) but they certainly do try to honestly live their faith. They also believe in a literal Genesis account and don't believe in evolution which simply doesn't add up with the overwhelming evidence we now have.
They also practice shunning.
We think of Quakers as "peaceful". But! They too practice shunning. it's about as violent, psychologically and morally, as anything I can think of.
I didn't realize that Quakers practice shunning. I learned something new
I don't know if they still do. They did in colonial times.
Good Dog. Give that dog a biscuit
In colonial times, they got their ears cropped for proselytizing in New England:
In New England Jesuits and Quakers were particularly feared as "blasphemous Hereticks" for their "devilish opinions" and were banished, with orders never to return. The penalties for coming back were ears cut off, tongues bored through with a hot iron, and whipping until the blood ran.
Church attendance was mandatory:
Virginia law in 1662 required everyone to resort "diligently to their parish church" on Sundays "and there to abide orderly and soberly," on pain of a fine of fifty pounds of tobacco, the currency of the colony.
And the contraptions of punishment were horrific: pillories, dunking chairs, and:
a "gossip's bridle" or "scold's helm." This was a sort of heavy iron cage, that covered the head; a flat tongue of iron, sometimes spiked, was thrust into the mouth over the criminal's tongue. Less sophisticated areas made do with a "simpler machine—a cleft stick pinched on the tongue." Either system pretty much insured silence.
Ahh, the good ole days, when we had real freedom of religion:
:/
Would make interesting research. I believe there are liberal Quakers and conservative Quakers.
Very true, in fact my friend told me that if a member is caught even associating with what they call a "dis-fellow-shipped" person they get reprimanded or possible shunned as well. He said they claim it is to keep their Church free from sin, but said it's mostly used as a punishment depriving the person of their friends and family so they will change their ways and become repentant. He used 2 John 1:9-11 to support their belief in shunning.
"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works."
Just another scripture that is open to interpretation and application. Some view this as applying only to those they consider "apostates" who oppose Christ's teaching's while others apply it to anyone who doesn't consider themselves a Christian. To me it seems like just another contradiction when compared to Mark 2:13-17 ;
"15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”.
Is that a gospel or one of those Paul books? Because it sounds like something that would come from Paul and not Jesus.
It's in the epistles along with Paul's writing, not the gospels and there is some conflict as to authorship. Some believe it to be from John the evangelist, John of Patmos or John the elder who theologians believe wrote Revelation, others claim they are all one in the same as the apostle John who supposedly wrote the gospel of John. The only John not attributed by someone as its author is John the Baptist due to his losing his head.
Note that Richard Nixon was a Quaker. The conservative Quakers are nothing at all like the Quakers I know.
Well, since it's one of Paul's epistles, it can be dismissed.
Yes, he was a Quaker and that never seemed to fit since what I understand about Quakers is that they are pacifists and conscientious objectors. He sure liked war
Quakers also refuse to take oaths, which is also admirable.
I saw my grandmother get conned out of a lot of her belongings because of her preacher. She was actually sick and had a chemical imbalance, so until she got the meds she needed she handed over her TV and other valuables so that the preacher could have yard sales and keep the money for himself. Pissed my mother off bigly
That's terrible, I generally don't condone violence but I'm close to it on this one
Some people must be more susceptible to "harm" from religion than others.
I went to Catholic school from 1st grade through high school. We had religion class in every single one of those years, although in high school it was more like a philosophy class as it became less about doctrine and more about morals and ethics perhaps filtered through a Catholic perspective. I am quite sure none of this religious "indoctrination" negatively effected me a bit. Any mistakes and problems I have had in my life did not come from religion. As I got older I became less and less of a practicing Catholic, although I do still "practice" sometimes. I also over the years developed a familiarity with the concepts of eastern religion such as Buddhism and Hinduism, out of curiosity but also because I accepted some of the concepts of those religions as making sense.
Human religions are cultural expressions. If God exists it is far beyond the confines of any earthly "religion" as the one and only explanation of It's purpose and worth.
I feel sorry for those who felt or feel so dominated and put down by religion. I've never had to experience that and wouldn't have even if they tried.
Or were perhaps raised in more harmful religions.
Of course it helps being a white male practicing the "Golden Rule." (He who hath the gold, makes the rules.)
I would at least like to hear it from a woman's point of view before I drew any conclusions.
I would think that the difference between the male and female perspective would depend on the denomination. Some are more egalitarian than others.
The churches I was raised in taught that women were to submit to men. They didn't condone abuse by men, but women were not allowed to teach adult Sunday school classes or be ordained. I attended a lot of Sunday school classes led by barely-literate men, considered to be more knowledgeable than women just because of their sex. Their role in the church was to support, not lead. They could organize the Vacation Bible School, because the attendees were children, but they couldn't be deacons. They could act as secretary, taking attendance and counting the offering, but couldn't preach on Sunday.
Spousal abuse was not considered to be a valid reason for divorce. An abused woman might separate from her husband, but she shouldn't divorce him.
Women had to walk a fine line between being dowdy (not representing their husbands well) and too flashy (slutty).
I would say that aspect of Christianity didn't actually harm me. It annoyed me, but it might actually have been one of the reasons that I started questioning Christianity in general and found it to be sorely lacking, in both justice and rationality. If a man who could barely read was still going to be considered my intellectual superior just because he had a penis, well, I figured out pretty young that penises rarely do any quality thinking, so I was able to dismiss the misogyny as irrational, and followed suit with the rest.
I'm not sure all women are able to leave that behind, though. Some even embrace it and enforce it on other women, or attempt to do so.
The guilt, though. That hung with me. The idea that, just because I was born human, as God supposedly made me, that I was a terrible, sinful being (also as God supposedly made me?) - that took a long time to get out of my head. I thought humans in general were evil, because I'd been taught in church that we all are, and that even if we were "saved", it was God's forgiveness that made us not deserve death, not our own merit. I was taught that I was every bit as evil as a serial killer, that we were both born sinners worthy of eternal damnation. My normal squabbles with my brother and sister growing up were judged by those churches to be every bit as deserving of Hell as Ted Bundy's murders. "Sin is sin in the eyes of the Lord."
The guilt isn't gender-based, on the surface. But it always seemed to me that the rules were more strictly enforced for women than for men in those churches. Alcohol was verboten, but sometimes a man needs a beer after a long day. Women should deserve that white wedding dress, but a man needs to sew his wild oats.
Yes, I think everyone at least wants peace of mind and to be free of blame. To me, Christianity guilts us so badly that, in our desperation, we need that savior to free us. Of course if you take away the guilt of Original Sin, you take away the whole reason for a Christ to come and absolve you. Guilt is a powerful emotion, as is fear.
I do, as well, Mr. Russell.
The Baptist religion was not for me. So, I changed to Presbyterian.
Having grown up in N.O. there were not many Protestants around, mostly Catholics and I enjoyed so much going to Mass with them, doing the Way of the Cross, Midnight Mass, etc. They could never attend my church, however. Actually, I didn't want to attend my church! In my grammar school, Catholics, would get out of school early one day a week to attend Catechism class.
To conclude......I have never known anyone who has had a bad experience with being a Christian and, that includes me.
Did you read the article?
I don't think that religion itself is bad.....I do think that the way that some people interpret their religion is what is harmful.....My religion is perfect, your religion is evil......If you don't believe in my religion, you condemned to eternal damnation......If you hold certain beliefs you should not be allowed into this country.....If you don't believe, you shouldn't be allowed to hold office.......If you are LGBT-Q, you are an abomination.......None of these are religion, they are human interpretations of religion that are perverted. That is when religion harms.
I don't think religion itself can be easily split into the "harmful" and "not harmful" categories - too many complicated variables at play.
Sometimes it can be very harmful (case in point - the story you referenced), while other times its not harmful at all and plays a very positive role in someone's life (i have family and friends in this category). Of course, this all gets complicated further by human interpretation and the role it plays in interpreting the religion, which beliefs to dismiss etc - then how that religion is used by the person in any given situation.
This is just my personal opinion on the matter - i like the ask questions to find out how people come to believe, why they believe etc, and i've found that quite a few on here (not all) treat their religious beliefs as if it's some "big secret" that only "believers" have developed enough brains to even possibly understand and that the "non-believers" are just too dumb to figure it out - it just shows another way religion is harmful by dividing people (all under the mask of "unity"). And on the other side of the coin - a lot of "non-believers" (again, not all) feel that the "believers" are just holding on to imaginary nonsense - again, division.
There is even division within religion itself but i don't solely place the blame on religion itself - a large part of it also comes from the humans who partake in it (and even don't partake in it). As I said - i think it's a lot more complicated than just "harmful" or "not harmful" - but that's my opinion.
Great response.
Unfortunately, there are evangelicals and proselytizers who want to force their beliefs onto everyone else by manipulating mechanisms of government.
This includes everything from teaching Creationism in public schools to forcing religious worship, aka prayer, on people at City Council meetings or else reveal themselves as non-believers by not participating. That's not cool.
The federal government has proclaimed everyone's own religious faith for them by plastering "In God We Trust' on our money, an obvious violation of the 1st Amendment.
Add the laws against women's rights to determine their own reproduction...along with the general treatment of women and their grievances, which is finally starting to change, thanks to the protests of women and the younger generation(s) nationwide.
Note that non-believer service personnel cannot have humanist chaplains.
There are bigtime attacks on science, especially evolutionary science and geology, and yet everyone benefits from such scientific knowledge in ways they are completely ignorant of.
Look around, and it's easy to see the harm done throughout our society, and the younger ones get this as the number of "Nones" is on the rise.
The so called "culture war" started in the '60's alright - the 1660's and the colonial America that was resisting the enlightened form of government to come, brought by the future founders of a secular nation.
My son, who is a believer, got into an argument with his classmates last week. I'm not sure how it came up, but they were discussing whether or not the existence of God has been proven. Even though he believes, he knows there has never really been proof, and said as much. And then got some blowback, of course from kids who couldn't produce the "proof" they were certain exists.
He made the mistake of asking his math teacher if there had ever been proof. The teacher said there hadn't, but my son said he seemed angry at the question. I explained that asking a teacher such a question puts him or her in an awkward position.
My son has a reputation as being a bit...argumentative. I'm sure I don't know where he gets it
But yeah, just for stating the truth about the lack of evidence for the existence of God, he got yet another ding (or notch?) in his reputation for being difficult (I like to think of it as intellectually honest).
I'd be very proud of a son like that. If he is old enough, I recommend a geology class. He will find oodles of answers "how," which one by one, will eliminate the unwarranted religious speculations of "why."
When kids stop asking questions, they become clones like those who tire of answering them.
Thanks. I am proud of him. He's always been a critical thinker. He does need to learn to deliver his opinions with a bit more tact, but they're generally good opinions, held for good reasons.
He's 13, and just over the course of this school year, we've had some really good conversations about what he believes about politics, religion, society, etc. Many are carry-overs from his civics class. I just wish his civics grade reflected the ability he's shown me.
Cool story.
Your son got a solid reinforcement for his skepticism... and a useful lesson on diplomacy among adults.
Very good conversation, partly (I think) because the question in the title is brutally loaded. Each word in that question needs to be clarified before an answer may be reasonably given, so participants here have had multiple, very divergent approaches.
Has " Christianity" " harmed" " you personally" ?
What is "Christianity"? Is it an umbrella term for all who claim to follow Christ? Is it a particular organized religion, and if so, which one? From Crusader to Quaker, there's quite a spectrum, there!
What kind of "harm"? Physical? Mental? Social? Causing harm at one moment does not preclude giving benefit at another... but the title question does preclude any mention of benefit...
Since "no man is an island", is it reasonable to limit the question to "you personally"?
My own reflex Reply would have been, "Of course not! 'Religion' doesn't / cannot hurt anyone! People may hurt other people 'in the name of religion', but that's abuse of the religion!"
Then I thought, "That sounds an awful lot like 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'."
Good conversation!
Thanks Bob!
My concern, when we boil it all down, is that religion (Christianity, in our case, as 75% of Americans ID themselves) can affect critical thinking. It relies on emotional appeals, and supernatural faith. Much of what Christianity presents has already been debunked by science, but people still strongly believe, in order to maintain emotional coherence and pursue subjective goals of happiness, commonly based on wishful thinking and denial. My beef is when such beliefs form the basis for political discussion and the determination of our laws (as in Colonial times). I really don't mind what people believe, as long as it does no harm to others, they keep it out of government, and they don't call it science.
Bingo.
Yes. In fact, it necessarily relies on faith, since physical evidence is (to be polite) rare. And also, yes, an abuse of faith can affect critical thinking.
Pastors/priests/whatever should be trained to navigate these tricky waters, but they rarely are. If faith is restricted to spiritual affairs (and not allowed to trespass into the physical world) ... and inversely tbe scientific method is restricted to the physical world (and not allowed to trespass into the spiritual world), there is no conflict.
Perhaps scientists would profit from the same training...
But it relies on supernatural religious faith, which is a spiritual conviction that does not rest on physical evidence or logical proof. That is quite different from natural faith, which holds to natural explanations of physical phenomena, based on what is demonstrable, and not speculated.
Since you put it that way, I would say that supernatural faith = abuse of critical thinking, or more correctly, supernatural faith represents the absence of critical thinking.
They should preach that all they have is their religious faith. There is no objective evidence - looking for it is a fool's errand, and ironically, a display of lack of religious faith. They should also recognize that science and supernatural religion are irreconcilable.
...then amongst themselves, out of government, out of the schools, beyond earthly matters...
Uhm, Bob, the scientific method is restricted to the physical world.
The spiritual world most likely does not exist, but when a Christian claims humans exist as they do per God's Plan, then I have every right - even responsibility - to cite the science that contradicts such a warrantless claim.
Ever been to a Natural History Museum? One quick scan of the fossil record, with its parade of freakish and bizarre creatures, conclusively demonstrates that life improvises - it makes it up as it goes along, which is the exact opposite of planned. No Plan - No Planner.
Does Christianity explain why children are born malformed and diseased? Original sin, is it? That's just mean-spirited and cruel.
The science is that humans (and all life on the planet) are the products of biological evolution, and as such, those children (as well as the rest of us) represent life's expression of biological diversity in order to adapt to changing environments through random genetic mutations.
How do we know they are random? Note that some are advantageous, most are neutral, while some are harmful. If they were all helpful, and they didn't result in the freak show that is the fossil record, then you might have evidence that they were directed.
The science is that life evolved through natural selection, which is a default mechanism - there is nothing for it to do really, just nature letting genetic mutations determine winners and losers as environmental changes come and go.
Perhaps it is the theists who should learn to accept what science knows, and leave their wishful thinking, make-believe and denials behind - before somebody gets hurt.
I think you're taking this a step too far. Faith, by definition, is not rational. Nor is it irrational. Faith just is. It has nothing to do with rationality, one way or the other. At the same time, some of the finest minds in history have dedicated themselves to thinking... very rationally... about the consequences of faith.
Why do you say "all they have"? For someone who has faith, it is precious. You are in the position of a blind man talking about sight.
There's nothing ironic about it Faith does not need physical evidence. I'd go further: attemptingto "prove" the validity of faith is a demonstration of.. a lack of faith.
We've seen attempts to impose the scientific method on faith.
I think you're mixing up some notions that should be kept distinct. If you do not believe that a spiritual world exists, then for you it doesn't. I'm not sure what "likelihood" can be assigned.
"As per God's plan" is a further subject, I have yet to meet anyone who can take that idea very far before slamming into logical contradictions. IMHO, it's a tactical error to try to use science here. When chatting with a Creationist, you know before starting that the person has not been thinking in that framework. So it's more effective to stay within that person's framework, and lead them to see the inevitable contradictions.
I wouldn't dare speak for "Christianity", which has proposed many different answers. Personally, I don't think God is involved in any way.
I agree with everything you say about evolution. And therefore, I do not think God is involved in malformations.
Bingo!
Nope, you are confusing religious faith with faith, definition 1, meaning trust or confidence:
Faith, def. 1: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust · belief · confidence · conviction · credence · reliance
(religious) faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion · church · sect · denomination · persuasion · [more]
a system of religious belief.
"the Christian faith"
synonyms: faith · religion · religious belief(s) · religious persuasion ·
Natural faith - as opposed to religious faith - is entirely rational, as it is demonstrable. I have natural faith that the Earth revolves around the sun because it is a demonstrable fact. Science is based on natural faith. Religious faith, however, is entirely speculative, as there are no object, demonstrable facts to support the existence of the supernatural.
Examples? Let's review just how rational their positions are...
Because there is no objective evidence to support their religious faith, and to claim otherwise is contradicted by abundant evidence from nature.
Yes, both religious- and natural-faith belief.
? My natural faith is just as precious to me Bob, so please don't project onto me the lack of knowledge that your comment reveals.
See faith, def 1. Why coopt the word faith to only mean religious faith? That is a narrow view, commonly held by theists, and contrary to the 1st dictionary definition of faith.
Yes, that was my point, as it applies to religious faith, whereas natural faith is demonstrable, eg., I have natural faith that the earth revolves around the sun.
Yes, science has debunked all the claims of the Creationists. Furthermore, science, which depends on natural faith, is irreconcilable with supernatural religious faith. Is that now obvious to you?
Then you agree that humans exist as they do unplanned - as a naturally determined biologically , rather than as supernaturally determined (?)
I see no practical difference, as a thought process. "No evidence needed" when faith is involved. We have a formidable example in American politics these days, with millions of Americans having faith in Donald Trump, not only without evidence, but against the evidence.
--
Two points, here. Your phrase, "all they have" was demeaning, and therefore deserving to be questioned. Now you say "lack of knowledge", which is a direct insult. That's not the best way to encourage dialog...
--
You're being unpleasant, and you're losing track, Artie...
The scientific method debunked Creationism. It did not, has not, cannot, never will debunk faith.
For that matter... if someone says, "God created the universe six thousand years ago, complete with a 13 billion year historical record" there is absolutely no way for the scientific method to prove otherwise.
As I said earlier, science is not the best method for discussing Creationism with Creationists. OTOH, and IMNAAHO, a God who would perpetrate such a fraud would not be worthy of our respect, much less our worship. And THAT is a much better argument against Creationism, because it engages the Creationist's... faith . Is that now obvious to you?
Demonstrable: adjective - clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved.
I think you may be mixing up the terms "scientific theory" vs "religious theory" with "religious faith" vs "natural faith" which I'm not sure is even a definable thing.
Scientific theory: A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. For example, gravity is still a theory, but it's well defined and repeatedly tested.
Religious theory: A religious theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world (or unproven spirit world) that can't be repeatedly tested, in accordance with any sort of definable method, without using any predefined protocol of observation and experiment, it's simply an unproven expectation for things hoped for. For example, God is a theory that can't be tested, has never been measured, is impossible to quantify but many people still hope and expect it to exist.
To say I have "faith" that the brick will fall from my hand due to gravity when I let it go isn't truly "faith", it's a tested, repeatable aspect of the physical universe we find ourselves in. It's not really "faith" that makes me believe the sun will rise tomorrow, it's the fact that our earth is spinning around a star and has been for 4.5 billion years that makes me believe it. It would take faith to believe it wasn't going to come up, like the many religious who have predicted the end of times over and over and over again.
I Googled "natural faith". I found no "dictionary definition". There are lots of articles that use the term... but apparently in widely varying ways. It seems to be found primarily in fundamentalist writing.
So, there is no difference in the thought process of a natural scientist, who has natural faith that the universe is naturally determined, and a priest, who has religious faith that the universe is supernaturally determined by God? Not buying it.
Trump has a record - a factual, demonstrable record - including nominating Neil Gorsuch and having the EPA gut environmental regulation. His supporters agree with his agenda. They have faith, def 1, meaning confidence.
Ok, I'll say it the way you did: "You are in the position of a blind man talking about sight." The point remains: My natural faith is just as important to me as your religious faith is to you.
Uhm, people can and do change their mind, based on new evidence that they find more compelling. The number of Nones is on the rise, and the country is becoming increasingly secular.
That is incoherent. It is up to the claimant to demonstrate their claim, and they need to demonstrate how nuclear decay models are wrong. See how that works? In science, you've either got to scientifically support your claim with evidence, or you have to rule out the leading theory with evidence - physical, measurable, demonstrable, empirical evidence, so no, you are mistaken. Last time I checked, science has demonstrated otherwise.
I am not trying to reach Creationists. They are not influenced by logic and physical evidence. They live in denial and wishful thing. I am looking for people who want to engage in a rational discussion.
They say it is a test of faith, that God is a trickster and has manipulated the fossil record. it's an exercise in futility.
So, from the previous, you accept evolution, and that we exist as we do unplanned. I wonder why anyone who shares that belief would worship and pray to an impersonal god, one who did not intend for us to exist, one who does not intervene on our behalf to save us from childhood diseases?
Yes, for example, knowledge is demonstrable - that is what separates it from belief.
I hereby define natural faith as 1) confidence or trust that the observable universe is naturally determined. A more general definition 2) is a conviction that all that exists is naturally-determined.
You are expressing your natural faith, def 1, that the mechanisms that operate have natural explanations, rather than a supernatural explanation.
Digging deeper - bear with me from the skeptic's pov - even scientific knowledge can be called opinion or belief on some level, as science offers probabilities - not proofs, or absolutes, in order to maintain objectivity and falsifiability (which are very important aspects of the philosophy of science). Even scientific facts are not claims of absolute truth or certainty, but only that each time we do an experiment, we get the same results, to the point of calling the observation a scientific fact, and, part of scientific knowledge, because it is demonstrable. A skeptic could claim that because science doesn't prove anything or claim absolute certainty, that what we have instead is a professional, well-reasoned opinion, (a belief) based on empirical evidence, but that we don't really know.
I would offer that it is my natural faith that leads me to accept that life evolved from bacteria, and before that, even more primitive forms, based on The Theory of Evolution. My atheism/pantheism is the result of my natural faith, def 2.
Yes, it would take religious (supernatural) faith to belief that the universe is supernaturally determined, rather than natural faith, which holds that the universe is naturally determined.
Yeah, I've seen that too. I thought it was a bastardization of the term, so I am reclaiming it for naturalists - those who hold to natural-faith belief, the belief in natural determinism.
Artie,
You're reformulating my words without my approval. That's... not a good thing to do in a conversation. There's a VERY big difference between "Are you saying that XXXXX? and "So what you're saying is YYYY!" You have the right to ask (open) questions, but you do not have the right to reinterpret what someone else says.
--
I'm still not sure what you mean by "natural faith".
It seems to me that, logically, one may operate on the presumption that the universe is a chaos engine within various forces which science attempts to understand, with no supernatural oversight. Unless / until some trace of supernatural oversight is found, is is reasonable to presume that there is none.
That is NOT to say that is is logically permissible to state unequivocally that there is no supernatural oversight.
Throughout the history of science, "truth" has constantly evolved as more and better data and analysis is obtained. No decent scientist would ever state anything "unequivocally".
The only way to be unequivocal is... on faith... which is exactly the same thought process as that of "faith in God".
--
That's cherry-picking. One can prove anything and its opposite through cherry-picking. A rational approach requires considering all the available data.
This is, in fact, how many people operate... and it is not legitimate, IMHO. If I have faith in X, it is (by definition) independent of evidence. It is illogical to then go cherry-picking this or that datum to "prove" X.
--
As I said, I still do not understand your term, "natural faith". As you use it here, it sounds very much like religious faith... which is not at all what you desire. I'd appreciate more explanation of "natural faith".
--
That's an entirely different thing! Science can "prove" something quite well... but people refuse to "believe" it. AGW and Evolution, for example. Science operates on evidence; faith does not operate on evidence. Never the twain shall meet.
--
Why is it up to the claimant do demonstrate? The Creationist will say, "It's my belief. If you do not want to believe it, that's your problem." So... at that point, you either break off the conversation, or you go onto the Believer's playing field and play with her rules.
Again, Artie... You are not listening. I said "complete with a 13 billion year historical record"... which of course includes isotopes already decayed to the appropriate percentage...
You need to decide what you're trying to do, here. Are you trying to persuade? Are you trying to demolish? Are you trying to learn?
For example... My own thinking on the vast topic of God and souls and eternity and omniscience/omnipotence and... all that stuff... is still very unfinished. I always hope to encounter new approaches that will help me advance. That is what I am looking for. Therefore, I want to understand that Creationist! I very much doubt that I will ever agree with her... but I want to understand how an intelligent person can believe something that seems absurd to me. To learn that... I must at least take the risk of listening carefully to her arguments.
--
So... Is all you want is to trade war-stories with other anti-Creationists? That's all? Sounds like listening to the crickets...
--
Perfect! Do they then agree that they are worshiping an entity whose behavior would deserve a fist in the teeth if it was done by a person? Once they agree on "trickster", the conversation can get truly interesting!
--
Who said I "worship"? Who said I "pray"? For the third time, Artie... you are not listening! You are making unjustified assumptions, without even the courtesy to ask if they are applicable.
Earlier, I said very clearly that I do not believe that God is involved at all in the unfolding of our lives. Or rather... God is involved to the degree that we heed His call to "love one another". We cause God to be involved, not the other way around.
If you want to know what I think, please ask. Please do not make assumptions. Thank you.
Natural faith, def 1, Trust or confidence that the observable universe is naturally determined.
...which is taken on faith.
Yes, natural faith is rational, based on physical evidence from nature.
it is also a matter of natural faith, def 2, to hold that existence (beyond the observable) is naturally determined.
Science does not declare "truth," only probabilities of what is most likely to be true at the time, based on the available evidence.
Except there is no physical evidence of a supernatural God, making supernatural faith irrational.
There is a preponderance of evidence that asshat Trump is trying to do exactly what he said he would - no "cherry picking" needed. If you don't know that, then you haven't been paying attention.
Religious faith is independent of physical evidence. Natural faith is backed up by a preponderance of evidence from nature, namely, that the universe is naturally determined. Otherwise, we natural scientists would be wasting our time.
Science doesn't prove sh!t. See above. (hint: probabilities)
Yes, as they have religious faith to the contrary that they find more compelling.
Natural faith and science operate on evidence; religious faith does not operate on evidence.
Agreed, natural science and religious faith are irreconcilable, which is why Christianity is so harmful - it obliterates critical thinking. Immaculate Conception, really?
Rules of debate Bob since the dawn of civilization. Furthermore, if you want others to consider your position as realistic, you have to defend it as such.
Creationists are some of the most notorious proselytizers, being evangelical, so no, they care if you believe them or not.
Go back and read my comment, this time with comprehension. I said: "I wonder why anyone who shares that belief would..." Notice how I did not name you? Notice how I was seeking to understand? It seemed illogical to me that anyone who shared your belief would worship and pray, so get off my case for already giving you the credit that you've been screaming at me about, with all caps and bold. S-l-o-w down, and read what I wrote - not what you project, so we don't waste words and foolish emotion.
You're trimming the truth, Artie... You're quoting only partially, omitting the essential opening sentence: "So, from the previous, you accept evolution, and that we exist as we do unplanned. I wonder why anyone..." In that first sentence, you clearly address me directly. The second sentence is not directly addressed at anyone, so there's no reason for the reader to imagine that you have changed addressee.
Any basic training in communication will incude the idea that the emitter is responsible for avoiding ambiguity. Having opened with a direct address "you", you must explicitly change addressee if that's what you want.
So.. I was reading s-l-o-w-l-y... what you wrote . Perhaps you could re-read what you write, from your reader's perspective.
Other item from Communication 101: quotation marks are often used to signal that a word is being used slightly off its usual meaning. That's what I did with both "truth" (do you really think I don't know about "scientific truth"?
) and "prove" (do you really think I don't understand the history of science? 
). In both instances, I was assuming that I could avoid a long paraphrase because you and I both know the strict meanings of both words.
..
I appreciate your having attempted to clarify "natural faith"... but I'm afraid that I still see no difference between it and religious faith.
As I said, it is reasonable to assume there is no "supernatural overseer", in the absence of evidence of that entity. That approach requires no faith. It is strictly rational.
OTOH, since the absence of proof is not the proof of absence... it would be irrational to go further and consider the non-existence of the overseer to be proven . Taking that further, irrational step requires faith: "belief without proof"... just like religious faith. If you want to see a difference because you apply it to a different domain, that's ok, but it's just semantics. Functionally, I see no difference.
I've made it clear to you that I was not including you. You are so defensive - what happened to "In good faith"?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
It is a reasonable probability because of the abundant evidence to the contrary - that natural mechanisms rule. Of course, how would we know what is and isn't natural? That requires faith - natural faith in the case of the naturalist, and supernatural faith in the case of the theist. The skeptic's or the agnostic's position may ultimately be the most rational to hold, however, they are limiting in practice. One would never fly in an airplane or go mountain climbing with a rope.
Strictly? Not from the agnostic's or the skeptic's pov - even scientific knowledge can be called opinion or belief on some level, as science offers probabilities - not proofs, in order to maintain objectivity and falsifiability. Even scientific facts are not claims of absolute truth or certainty, but only that each time we do an experiment, we get the same results, to the point of calling the observation a scientific fact. A skeptic could claim that because science doesn't prove anything or claim absolute certainty, that what we have instead is a professional, well-reasoned collaborative opinion, (a belief, a faith in the natural mechanisms of existence, aka natural faith) that is based on empirical evidence, but we really don't know. I would offer that it is my natural faith in the reality of natural mechanism that leads me to accept that life evolved from bacteria, and before that, even more primitive forms, based on The Theory of Evolution.
It would take natural faith - which is secular, and based on physical evidence from nature; hence it is different from religious faith. Again, there is a high probability based on the physical evidence, whereas religious faith cannot cite any such evidence - there is only faith.
OK, Artie. We've reached a point where we're just doing semantics, of no great interest.
I'm done here. Good night.
OK Bob, thank you for your comments.
While I agree, I cringe at using the term "faith" in both cases because the usage doesn't mean the same thing to each party. It gives religious faith the impression of being equal to what you're describing as natural faith. Like I said, it seems almost indistinguishable from the use of the word "theory" by both groups. Most religious persons equate religious theory with scientific theory but that completely obfuscates the worlds of difference between the two words, one being rigorously observed and tested while the other is something that has zero solid evidence and must just be believed absent of evidence.
Maybe we can use the term theorem vs faith to simplify. Natural theorem vs Spiritual faith.
I get that. We were taught that science doesn't involve belief, much less faith, lol. But faith, def 1, merely means trust or confidence. I got tied of hearing theists tell me that we scientists exercise faith - faith in our equipment, faith in our colleagues, faith that physical phenomena are scientifically understandable, or at least have that potential. So yes, one does not open their eyes and get out of bed in the morning without exercising faith - faith that my truck will operate properly, faith that people will stop for red lights, faith that a dollar is worth a dollar...on it goes. So we need to get used to the term "faith," knowing that it simply means confidence or trust.
It is the polar opposite. Actually, the way I define it, natural faith is the opposite of supernatural faith = religious faith, a spiritual conviction that does not rest on material evidence or logical proof. We all must have faith of some kind to get through our day, and because there are those who do not have supernatural/religious faith, I coined the term natural faith for those who are the naturalists amongst us, those who have confidence that the universe is naturally determined. Now, atheists, pantheists, and even deists to some degree can cite their natural faith, just as theists cite their supernatural/religious faith. Now the word faith has been expanded to mean new things. On behalf of the naturalists of the world, I am reclaiming part of the meaning of the word "faith."
A theory is an explanation of facts, while faith means confidence or trust. One can have faith in a theory, just as I described above.
Totally agree.
A theorem is like a rule that is proved or a proposition that can be logically deduced. Again, one can have faith in a theorem.
Think: What kind of faith do naturalists have? Natural faith, naturally
Natural faith is the opposite of supernatural faith.
And then there are those with no faith - the skeptics.
My mom, two sisters and I rarely missed a Sunday service until I was 12 or 14. Then we just stopped going to church. 45 years later when questioned about it, my mom admitted that we stopped going when the preacher hit on her. Thanks to the extracurricular activities of a horndog preacher, fake christianity wasn't able to harm me and freed up my Sunday mornings.
I'd love to see the CBO numbers on how much religion costs taxpayers every year.
Has Christianity harmed you personally?
No
hmmmm....
My answer regarded physical harm, after eight years of Nuns and four years of Brothers I am sure that my psyche is in some form of disarray or another
I have always rebuffed the attempts to manipulate and therefore harm me, the greatest difficulty is the legal elements that have been put in place to further their attempts at control.
I was brought up Catholic. I was never "harmed" by the faith, but was always uncomfortable with it. I asked too many questions that never had answers except for "take it on faith". I moved away from Christianity and towards paganism (namely Wicca) and feel more at peace with myself.
I feel for those that have suffered under the tenets of any religion.
Depending on how old you are you very likely were harmed by Catholicism at least indirectly given that the RCC and the National Council of Catholic Bishops are two of the main reasons why marital rape was exempt from legal consequence until very recently, why contraception and abortifacients only became legal after 1963, and why coverture laws persisted until at least the mid 1980s. Of course other Christian sects were involved too but the RCC was by far the worst and the most influential on these issues, including things like the traditionally high tolerance for domestic abuse.
I would agree with what you stated. I was thinking along the direct harm front. But I have to say some of the issues that concern women in the Church was another reason I left.
I was born an atheist (like 100% of humanity), and despite many attempts from others to change that I have never even had an inkling that there could possibly be a god. You can argue 24/7/365 for the existence of god, but it always comes down to one question - who created the creator? The answer is obvious - god was birthed the same way every other figment of the imagination is birthed.
The notion that a creator created itself and everything in existence from nothingness, and has always been and will always be, and yet cannot demonstrate that it actually exists under any circumstances, is beyond nonsensical. But somehow an inexplicably significant portion of humanity is gullible enough to accept it with a deer-in-the-headlights look on their faces.
Like you I was born without the superstition gene but it took me a few years to figure that out because my mother was very religious (although in a good way).
Well said.
I find it hard to understand how, if one claims there is a god, then why not consider all of existence God? Any sentient god is but a part of the whole, which is limiting.
Considering the wondrousness of existence, given our knowledge of it, I think God = Existence is the most coherent of the religions (eg, pantheism). Then we can step back a bit and see things like good and evil as the wildness of nature playing itself out, whereas we as a society and individuals try to improve on our basic nature as we reap the benefits of our cultural advancement. If you want purpose, then that one's not half bad.
Of course equating dog poop and dust bunnies with God is a stretch, but considering that those atoms formed in a supernova (the death throes of a star, maybe 10 billion years ago), and that dog poop is a sign of life, which we have come to understand is rare and special, then suddenly our awareness of God, and what to treat with profound appreciation, seems greatly increased.
wasted a lot of my time when I was a kid
I was made to go to church every Sunday up until high school, and then the parents sent me to a Jesuit high school. Sunday school, choir, volunteering, summer camp - the works - as an atheist. It was cruel and unusual punishment, since I made it no secret that I was godless.
The funny thing is, hanging out with kids my age on a church travel trip wasn’t that much different from hanging out with my friends. Some of them were already my friends, and we all talked about and did stuff that wasn’t even legal, much less moral. Church was more of a community thing, where you were forced to hang out with the nerds that you otherwise wouldn’t be caught dead with. It didn’t harm me, but I sure didn’t jam that kind of life down my own kids throats. What a waste of time.
I had an acquaintance years ago who would get his weed from this guy (who also sold much harder things). He said you can’t get anything from the guy until after two on Sundays, because he’s in church. That always cracked me up.
6-Year-Old Boy Says His Dad Beat and Starved Him for Religious Reasons
“A six-year-old child was taken to the hospital when his teachers noticed he had numerous unexplained bruises and was sent to school without little or no lunch. The young boy said his dad restricted their diets due to religion, and that he was beaten for violating that code.
The young boy also said going to the hospital was against his faith, but he went anyway and the doctors discovered more bruising, including “defensive” markings. They discovered he was only allowed to eat food from the ground, as well as some seafood without scales, and he was often beaten if he broke those rules.
Thanks to the awareness of some of the boy’s teachers, his abusive father was ultimately charged with second-degree child abuse .
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen child abuse in the name of religion. As we have pointed out before , there are passages in the Bible that seem to justify such behavior, including Proverbs 22:15 , which says “ Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far away .” If you’ve ever heard the phrase, “Spare the rod, spoil the child,” that comes from Proverbs as well.
The Bible also has some contradictory passages (crazy, right?) but Bible bashers who also beat their children typically ignore those.”