So much depends on specific circunstances... but if it must come to a simple (if unnatural) dichotomy, than we are probably better off without such a belief.
Lack of belief, after all, is not dangerous. Misguided belief is.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are we better off with or without belief in "God"?
- Thread starter Jeremiah
- Start date
So much depends on specific circunstances... but if it must come to a simple (if unnatural) dichotomy, than we are probably better off without such a belief.
Lack of belief, after all, is not dangerous. Misguided belief is.
CarlinKnew
Well-Known Member
:sorry1: but I have to ask what "overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection" exists? Theory, speculation, educated guessing and a vivid imagination are not "overwhelming evidence" IMO. I cannot subscribe to the mindless theory of evolution. (Adaptation within a species is not organic evolution) I am gobsmacked that intelligent people can swallow this nonsense.
Science should not be a substitute for God, though it can be described as a religion. It actually takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in intelligent design.
Have you never asked yourself, 'how does a group of cells decide that it would be a good idea to make themselves into a giraffe or a hamster? How do they, in the stream of evolving decide that it would be a good idea to produce eyes, when they have never seen....ears, when that have never heard? Then add to that the kinds of eyes that had to evolve...fish eyes, birds eyes, human eyes, cat's eyes...and all the different kinds of ears as well. What about the other senses? Smell, touch and taste? (none of them simple) What about the human brain? (mind bogglingly complex)
How does one find exquisite design in all things (even a snowflake) without a designer? That is a bit like saying that someone put a brick on a vacant lot and went back 50, 000 years later and found a skyscraper!! Do you have a wristwatch? What if I told you it had no maker, it just evolved and I found it in the woods. If something as relatively simple as a wristwatch had to have a maker, then what about the universe? It's laws are so precise, they are like clockwork!
If you had all the individual pieces of something as simple as a mouse trap and shuffled them together for a thousand years, would they ever come together in the precise order needed to make them into a mouse trap??" :no:
How can you call believing in evolution intelligent? How is it backed up by anything other than imagination and intellectual musing? (Not to mention peer pressure. Anyone who disagrees is howled down by the scientific elite and made to feel stupid.)
How come all the evolutionary links are still missing? (and there would have to have been many of them) Can you have a chain without links?
Scientific fact: "all life has to come from pre-existing life."
You see, it doesn't stand up to even the simplest scrutiny.
Deeje
I don't want to derail this thread too much. As a biologist painted wolf is more qualified than I am and is answering questions about evolution here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/79784-questions-about-evolution.html
Alceste
Vagabond
That's because they're too busy killing each other.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
nonsense.
given, people hear a lot about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have a hard time giving this issue a more comprehensive understanding. but to put it into cold statistics. the body count of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is hardly impressive compared to other armed strife around the world, historical and contemporary.
Do the Muslims and Jews who are citizens of Israel try to kill each other? hardly.
when all passions are put a side, at least from the Israeli perspective, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on politics.
Alceste
Vagabond
Let me get this straight: You believe religious differences are a trifling, insignificant factor in Middle Eastern violence? You can't be serious. Without religion there wouldn't even have been a "people" to "give a homeland" to in the first place. Without religion, there would have been no grounds for centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe, culminating in the Second World War. Without religion, how would the Israelis and their neighbours be able to tell who the enemy is? How would Al Qaeda know who the infidels are, and why they need killing?
"From the Israeli perspective", if this is about politics and not religion, why the reluctance to give up Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, which would go a long way toward achieving peace? Those people (the settlers) believe they are entitled to that land because they are the chosen people of God. Never mind the people who already live there. They're not the chosen people of God. If you can't see that, you're fooling yourself.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
This is a very simple view of the situation and lacks sophistication and a comprehensive understanding of the various elements in Israeli-Arab politics or middle eastern politics.
Of course there would be, belonging to the Jewish people is based on ethnicity and culture, not necessarily on religion, the creation of the state of Israel was a result of mainly secular Zionist labor.
Did we move a subject all of a sudden? but Ill indulge myself, the events leading to World War II cannot be possibly be 'dressed' on the skeleton of religion, in fact the secularization and liberalization (not necessarily the meaning of these terms in the contemporary sense) moved the background of European xenophobia on many occasions, away from religion and into racial and nationalistic elements.
People have more than religious characteristics, they have ethnic ones, cultural ones, social ones, and even political ones.
Al Qaeda has evolved from the Maktab al-Khidamat, a body who in the 80s focused on collecting American funds in the Afghan struggle against the Soviets. if we look beyond religion, we can see the hard cold politics, and political interests.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Oh, please.
Acknowledging that religion is a major factor is a far cry from stating it's the only factor. I am saying it is a major factor, you appear to be saying it is not a factor at all, which is just ridiculous. What is a "secular Zionist"?
Where do you draw the line between what you call "religion" and what you call "culture"?
What is an "ethnicity"?
Do you know how the Jews became the creditors of Europe? From 325 until 1545, it was illegal for Christians to charge interest. Therefore the Christian kings and queens of Europe became dependent on the Jews when they wanted to overspend, and periodically had them chased out of the country or slaughtered in order to evade repayment of their debts. The Nazis were continuing a lengthy Christian tradition: living on Jewish credit and killing the creditors when the going got tough.
After WWII, when it was decided the best thing to do for the Jews was to give them a place to live, why do you think the Middle East was chosen, rather than, say, Japan, or Germany? Politics? No: religion. The Christian victors of WWII whipped up the borders of Israel based on Bible stories.
Who said otherwise?
LOL, yeah, OK, the members of Al Qaeda are not motivated by religion. Too bad you weren't around to inform the ISI and CIA of this before they got together with Saudi Arabia and financed and supported the creation of Islamic extremist schools in Afghanistan in the hope of indoctrinating an army to chase out the Soviets. I suppose it was a waste of money, in your view. And the Taliban, well they weren't religious either, right?
I'm sorry, caladan, I know you're pretty well-informed, but you're on some shaky ground here. I can't imagine how anyone could dismiss religion as a major factor in the conflicts in the Middle East.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
OK, lets go back a bit, you focused on religion, and I feel I must point out that you dont take the full picture of this situation into consideration. for example, we cant take certain groups of the settlers who carry a certain ideology and project it on the rest of the Israeli public. I can tell you that the vast majority of IDF soldiers who served with me not only did not share the zeal of the people of certain hardcore settlements, but held a grudge for the politics behind sending troops into certain areas to secure a minority of settlers. so by who can we define the scenario as religiously motivated? by settlers of certain settlements who are practically exclaves, or by the general Israeli public who has supported a two state solution for many years?Oh, please.
the Zionist movement's core was secular. I think this should be understood from the basics, when such as a debate takes place.
The lines are mostly drawn by me to express where I personally stand. I am a Jewish person, but im not practicing religion, defining me as Jewish based on religion preferences doesnt cut it, im Jewish by my identity; I speak Hebrew, I live in Jewish culture, Im connected to Jewish history and realities.
Again this is a prime example that politics and interests are a prime motivator, while religion may be the tool, in the case of the Nazis it may be a different tool.
Several practical reasons. one of them is that Israel always had a Jewish population living in it, and on a large time span there were influxes of Jewish immigrants to the land. furthermore, Israel was NOT the only option. other places were discussed, including Uganda. given, Israel and Jerusalem have always played an important part in Jewish religion (and culture), but the physical actions are surrounded by practical politics.
The CT master minds should not simplify the situation like you just did. you ignored the simple point here, which was that even today's defined 'infidel' were legitimate source for funding on a different political arena, ergo, religion can be put a side for realism. I do not deny that these groups hold an extreme brand of Islam, im adding to this the dimension of realism and politics, which may very well override religious taboos.
Religion is a major factor, its not the kind of factor people believe it is when all other elements are taken into consideration. religion may be a much more primer factor in some of the Muslim lands, but Israel is a completely different game, where the debate between secularism and religion is lively, and where de facto on paper the state is defined as secular.
Alceste
Vagabond
Of course I focussed on religion. This thread is about whether or not we would be better off without certain religious beliefs. If this thread had been about something else, such as the geopolitical pragmatism of the ruling class, I would have focussed on that. But no, it's about whether or not we're better off without a belief in God.
I have no doubt that the leaders of nations are mainly concerned with increasing their own power, wealth and influence regardless of their respective religious beliefs. But how do they talk the ordinary people who have to do all the killing and dying to advance these goals into it? Religion, like it or not, is one of the main offenders. And not just any religions: Abrahamic religions in particular, with their violent and punitive god who condemns everyone who doesn't believe in him to eternal torment. Humans emulate their Gods. Yahweh is a psychopath. We would certainly be much better off without him. It wouldn't leave our ruling classes with no method of convincing the rest of us to kill and die to enrich them, but it would remove one major propaganda tactic from their arsenal.
I'm sorry, Caladan, but until the "secular" Israelis rise up and remove the zealots from their settlements, and remove the leaders who send you to protect them from their positions of power, a few grudges don't impress me. I sympathize, but I believe your country is run by religious lunatics who think God gave them the Holy Land. I know you have to fight for their religious ends - you don't have a choice - but you live in a democracy, no? You don't have to elect Zionists.
I think we are looking at this from very different perspectives. I don't believe in race or ethnicity myself. They're figments of our xenophobic imagination. IMO, we have nothing but culture to distinguish us from one another, and culture and religious belief are inseparable.
From this perspective, a "secular" state is simply a state where the religious background of many of its laws, policies and social norms are not overt. For example, Canada is a secular country, and yet homosexuals still had to fight to be allowed to marry here. Likewise, Zionism might be a nominally secular movement, but the belief that there is any such thing as a "Jew" to begin with is religious.
Great! Then we agree.
Yeah, a lot of deeply religious states and governments are defined as secular on paper. The USA for example. It doesn't mean much, apart from the fact that their religiously motivated policies need to be (at least superficially) justified on the basis of something other than their holy books.
Last edited:
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
Well, WIllamena it won't let me frubal you, at this time. But whether or not it was a mistake this question, "What is "the authentic spiritual path", please?" is a very good question.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Sure and you pointed the religious animosity between Jews and Muslims, and I feel compelled to point the lack of proportions of this notion. I dont know, maybe I am the mythological target of many Imams and even hadiths, but I have no religious motivation for animosity with Muslims, the way I interpret Jewish tradition doesnt make followers of the other Abrahamic faiths my arch nemesis.
No Israeli PM has ever asked me to kill in the name of the prophets of Israel :areyoucra
I think that is another single dimensional observation on your part. Judaism of the Abrahamic faiths is a comprehensive field just like capitalism, liberalism, communism, democracy, etc. you may point to historical forces who have overdosed on the wrong brand of religiosity, like some elements of the crusaders, however if we look at Judaism for example, its hard to erase the role it has played on world stage through out history. and I'll bring one point of this from the BBC homepage about Judaism:
"Someone who reads the Old Testament list of 36 capital crimes might think that Judaism is in favour of capital punishment, but they'd be wrong. During the period when Jewish law operated as a secular as well as a religious jurisdiction, Jewish courts very rarely imposed the death penalty. The state of Israel has abolished the death penalty for any crime that is now likely to be tried there.
The classic Old Testament texts quoted to justify capital punishment are these:
... life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth ...
Exodus 21:23-24
A man who spills human blood, his own blood shall be spilled by man because God made man in His own Image.
Genesis 9:6
Although they seem clear these texts are commonly misunderstood.
To really understand Jewish law one must not only read the Torah but consult the Talmud, an elaboration and interpretation by rabbinical scholars of the laws and commandments of the Torah.
The rabbis who wrote the Talmud created such a forest of barriers to actually using the death penalty that in practical terms it was almost impossible to punish anyone by death.
The rabbis did this with various devices:
interpreting texts in the context of Judaism's general respect for the sanctity of human life
emphasising anti-death texts such as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill'
interpreting texts to make them very narrow in their application
refusing to accept any but the most explicit Torah texts proposing the death penalty
finding alternative punishments, or schemes of compensation for victims' families
imposing procedural and evidential barriers that made the death penalty practically unenforceable
The result of this is that there are very few examples of people being executed by Jewish law in rabbinic times.
Israel
In 1954, Israel abolished capital punishment except for those who committed Nazi war crimes.
In the 61 years that Israel has existed as an independent state, only one person has been executed. This person was Adolf Eichman, a Nazi war criminal with particular responsibility for the Holocaust."
what are 'seculars'? are you questioning how secular Israelis or Jews in general may be? are they secular only when we feel they have something to contribute to our debate? many Israelis are as secular as Noam Chomsky is.
Then you need to educate yourself on the history of the modern state of Israel. sure the current coalition of the Israeli government has the strongest religious elements probably the state has ever known, but the vast majority of the votes went for two parties: Kadima and Likud, none of which are religious parties. further more for the most part of the history of the state of Israel, it was ruled by the labour, which was also behind the founding of the nation.
What religious ends? and whos? did the Israeli soldiers who took part in the evacuation of the Gaza strip from Jewish settlers took part in a religious crusade?
Sure, I can go with culture. however, many members of various cultures or societies are not religious, their societies may the historical background of Christianity, Judaism or other religion in a sense, but times have changed in the last few centuries.
I disagree. being Jewish for me is cultural. there have been many prominent figures on the Israeli and Jewish landscape through the last decades who have been very culturally motivated but not religiously motivated.
I agree that the US is a pretty religious nation by culture, however many topics are subject for change through an ongoing debate between religious elements and secular elements.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
OK, but I hope you realize I'm talking about the big picture here. Not you, personally, or your individual non-fanatical friends and family.
Belief in the the Abrahamic god has brought us the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the witch trials, numerous routings and slaughters of Jews throughout the history of Europe, the horrific, murderous colonial doctrine of manifest destiny, centuries of violence over who gets dibs on "the Holy Land", al Qaeda, the Taliban, and George W. Bush (not to mention Sarah Frickin Palin.)
So do you or do you not think humanity as a whole would be better off without Yahweh? Maybe some good has come out of Abrahamic monotheistic religions, but is it enough to outweigh the bad?
I don't think you spotted the part in my post where I said a "secular" state must try to justify its policies using something other than religion. So I'm not surprised.
Sorry, are you still explaining how the secular state of Israel is not founded on religious beliefs? What do the Talmud, and the Torah, and rabbinical interpretations have to do with secular law?
Apparently, so do you.
I can't help noticing the settlers are still there. I realize there's a political tug-of-war going on about the whole settlement issue, and the Israeli army is "just following orders". So here's the general rule: When you defend the settlers, and fail to arrest and prosecute them when they assault and murder Palestinian farmers, you're participating in a religious crusade. When you escort them from the Gaza strip you're participating in the enforcement of a secular policy. Fair enough?
Imagine for a moment that nobody ever came up with the idea of Yahweh. There would be no Torah, no Talmud, no New Testament, no Koran, no priests, no rabbis, no imams, and no Christians, Muslims or Jews. You wouldn't have a culture if it wasn't for the religiousness of your distant ancestors.
Oh yeah, I probably should have mentioned that earlier: I'm thinking of what the world would be like if Abrahamic monotheism had never occurred. Not so much what it would be like if we got rid of it now. Obviously if we got rid of it now, there would still be people who think of themselves as Jews.
If there needs to be a debate between secular and religious factions in any country, that country is not secular by my definition.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
So am I. lets remember that the biggest supporters of American liberalism and democracy are traditionally American Jews.
I dont think the Abrahamic god is responsible for that, political interests and the manipulation of passions are at play here. and I'll expand a bit further up.
No I dont. Im not Arthur C Clarke, and perhaps I lack his grand vision of imagining history without Christianity halting us back as it were, but for me Judaism, historically, has expanded our religious and philosophical horizons. the Judean faith has fought child sacrifice and mindless idolization, if we look thousands of years into the past and compare it to our secular and liberal life, then indeed we can find the faith and culture incapable of matching our standards, but the very fact that we do this speaks volume of the vast role it has played in our history, and the legacy it has left.
This part of my post addressed your position on the role of religion in Israeli politics. in which I need to explain, that secular Israeli leaders have to bend over on certain issues to religious sectors, however the prime political decisions are derived by the realities of Israel and the middle east, given the religious sector may come to play as it is a part of the general Israeli public.
Not at all, Im addressing your consistent battle against the windmill called Yahwe, its not my place to be an advocate of all Abrahamic faiths, but the least I can do is post relevant information about Judaism and its history. while also finishing it up by illustrating how Israel is a nation which has advocated moderation (in the example of no capital punishment) over religious zeal.
And many of them may always will be where they are, its highly irrelevant to paint all settlements and settlers with the same brush, some settlements have been created by groups of people with a very political agenda in strategic territories, while others are the product of growth in areas closer to the Israeli core urban areas, and are filled with people with no political motivation other than commodity in attractive prices. furthermore, it is simply unreasonable to ignore the large scale and sensitive operation which Israel undertook to evacuate the population of 21 settlements in the Gaza strip and four settlements in the WB.
No. I completely agree that there is an unbalance here with the lack of strict approach by Israeli soldiers to the settlers, the fact that we are talking about citizens of the same nation should be taken into account, not as an excuse, but as a fact of reality. this is not taking part in a religious crusade, it is flawed and unsolved approach by the Israeli security forces under the Israeli government in dealing with problematic elements of the settlers.
a Culture is not measured by its religious background. should the ancient northern kingdom of Israel be separated from Jewish history because it has known cosmopolitical eras immersed in polytheism?
A society and a culture are more than a religious element.
Let me put it this way. the world will not allow me to stop being a Jew even when I have stopped demonstrating any aspects of Jewish tradition.
The term 'Jewish' technically stems from Judah, we can track it back to the kingdom of Judah (Judah also the 'leading' tribe of Israel), the Romans called Jews, Judeans, because they came from the area of Judea as they called it, which is rooted in the kingdom of Judah.
A country may be secular, but may still host religious sectors. for example, France, a secular nation is now debating about further bans of religious dress.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Caladan, I think we're talking about two completely different topics. I've never said there were no other factors than religion at play, just that religion is a major factor in violent disputes between monotheistic factions.
You appear to be saying it's either not a factor, or that it's an insignificant factor if we're only talking about the Jews living in Israel and America today. But I'm not only talking about Jews in Israel and America. Yes, Jews and the Muslims are killing each other to some extent over religious differences. Of course there are sane people in both cultures, but there are also religious factions that need to be appeased in both cultures, and sometimes appeasing them costs lives.
Anyway, I'm looking at a picture that includes a whole shwack of other parts of the world, and the whole sweep of European history. We could focus on Northern Ireland instead if the issue of Israel and Palestine is too personal for you to be able to see any connection between monotheism and violence, or the crusades, or residential schools in Canada and Australia, or the conflict in Bosnia.
BTW, I am not by any means discounting the contribution of people like Noam Chomsky or Jon Stewart, but I'd remind you that they are both secular humanists, not monotheists. We are all better off with them, because they are better without God.
You appear to be saying it's either not a factor, or that it's an insignificant factor if we're only talking about the Jews living in Israel and America today. But I'm not only talking about Jews in Israel and America. Yes, Jews and the Muslims are killing each other to some extent over religious differences. Of course there are sane people in both cultures, but there are also religious factions that need to be appeased in both cultures, and sometimes appeasing them costs lives.
Anyway, I'm looking at a picture that includes a whole shwack of other parts of the world, and the whole sweep of European history. We could focus on Northern Ireland instead if the issue of Israel and Palestine is too personal for you to be able to see any connection between monotheism and violence, or the crusades, or residential schools in Canada and Australia, or the conflict in Bosnia.
BTW, I am not by any means discounting the contribution of people like Noam Chomsky or Jon Stewart, but I'd remind you that they are both secular humanists, not monotheists. We are all better off with them, because they are better without God.
HouseofIsrael
Member
What might this imply?
Alceste
Vagabond
It doesn't imply anything - it's pretty clear. He's talking about belief in god, not the existence of god. What are the real world effects of believing in god on the believer, and on society. It's not necessary to consider whether or not any god/s exist to discuss this question.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Perhaps, we should leave it for a future thread, because I have much to say about it, and it involves many things which are unrelated to the OP.
I pointed Chomsky, because I was puzzled as to why you used the word secular in brackets.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Since you don't believe in your concept of this deity could it possibly be otherwise?