You can't live without religion.

which seems to be a recurring theme in history regardless of the religion of the times.

 

Then surely providing a verbatim quote of anything I said against which your statement would militate should be child's play.

Of course you'll only make a damn fool of yourself in the attempt, but that's your lookout.

 

This is just classic denial, because you assume most blacks make a good living, but the discrepancies in wages between whites and blacks are pretty staggering. This ontop of a high percentage of children born out of wedlock among African Americans both show that a high percentage African Americans are, in fact, poor. You have to understand that blacks are still a minority. You can argue that there's more whites in poverty than blacks, but whites aren't a minority. If you had 100 white people and 25 of them were poor. If you compare 15 black people and 6 of them are poor, then you certainly have a serious problem, because the blacks by themselves have a large proportion that are poor. You won't get anywhere with just raw numbers, because blacks only make up 17.9% of the population. Let me recommend a video for you to watch, because this particular issue is an issue many whites refuse to acknowledge.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_wage_gap_in_the_United_States
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AMY2Bvxuxc

The ultimate point I'm trying to make by bringing you down this road is that having children out of wedlock poses as a problem, and sometimes simply "not having kids if you can't afford it" isn't as convenient as it sounds. It's also not a sound strategy to have when dealing with a fragmented group of people.

This is incorrect. Jesus did, in fact, exist. He is a real person, and he shows up on multiple historical documents that range from several sources outside of the bible,
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Everything you just said here is irrelevant.

Jesus is the founder of Christianity, believe it or not.

 

Jesus is the REASON for Christianity...NOT the founder.

 

This is incorrect.
Source: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/fastfacts.htm

 

This thread went off the wheels pretty fast.

The OPs assertion that humans can't live without religion was so weak that I guess supporters quickly switched back to, "My religion exists, therefor you suck ...".

 

I see what you're saying. You're saying that Christians are obsessed with sex. Don't you have bigger things to be 'moral' about?

 

I'm guessing someone in authority once told you that a marriage license has magical powers. Meantime, you should probably demure from commenting on sex and marriage until you've reached adulthood. At such time (and assuming you join the 21stC), you will see that many couples successfully raise very sound kids without that magical piece of paper. You will learn that good parenting has NOTHING to do with licenses, race, gender, sexuality, or wealth.

 

BINGO!

I'll wager our friend didn't think that one through

 

this one pulls the Wren party tricks when cornered. says "XXXXXX did XXXXXX" (which no one repeats or responds to in the same specifics), then says "so you think XXXXX did XXXXXX, then, how EVIL!"

 

it is not a FACT that a jewish man rose from the dead 2000 years ago, it is heresay.

many thousands of people have claimed divinity or to be the offspring of a deity. I guess you believe all of them, since your standard for belief is that someone once said it was so.

 

Actually it's VERY relevant. It's the stuff the church has tried to hide from believers for centuries. Apparently they've hidden it successfully, and probably recently, demonised it successfully - given your response.

It's relevant because it puts the genesis of Christianity into proper perspective by giving the FULL picture. Pretending that this crucial information is somehow extraneous to needs is like finding a million dollars in your previously empty bank account and deciding to spend it without bothering to find out how it got there.

 

Wow. Sometimes folks like you just slay me. Here's how this works. Everyone, theist or atheist has two tools to help recognize good from evil, a moral / ethical act and an immoral unethical act namely a mind and a conscience. Everyone uses reason, and a sense of empathy to sharpen and focus those tools. Everyone also needs outside help from time to time to gain different perspectives, to continue to learn, and to keep developing their 'moral' education.

They may use their parents, their clerics, some holy literature, some secular literature, their peers, philosophers, teachers, counselors, or just their wise old Aunt Petunia.

Some theists and atheists care a lot about keeping their moral education growing, their conscience strong, and their capacity to discern and analyze sharp and true. Some theists and atheists fake it instead. Some theists and atheists don't even bother to fake it. Its not so much about the sources people use when they are themselves confused or torn by issues of right or wrong, its about whether they know when to look elsewhere, troubling themselves to look elsewhere and listening loud and very intently to that inner voice ( the conscience) that is screaming , "your 'source' is selling you a pile of manure!. If it don't feel right, don't do it!"

Geez, there is nothing special out a religious source or a secular source, matter of fact both can be downright dangerous, if you don't stay balanced in the real world and pay attention to that conscience. Any act can look righteous and moral, if its observer is twisted by circumstance, or isolated from feedback, or blinded by self interest.

 

the problem is folk who are so complacent that they rest the matter entirely on a particular source. without even bothering to check that the source is sound - leaving such determinations to others before them. and even then, without checking that these others were morally concerned enough to consider the source.

 

So I guess this thread boils down to: You can't live without religion ... unless you do.

 

If the 'source' is big enough, broad enough and full enough of ambiguity, people who are not complacent, will still be looking for sources on the source. They will still look and think and weigh because its their nature and their character either way that is determinative. You will not be persuaded, but I don't sweat it. Theists and atheists can be lazy or not, they can care or not, and they can seek out other perspectives or not bother. That holy book will not constrain or illuminate a search for truth, unless its user wants it to and that same 'user' would do the same thing, go through the same process if he checked out Confucius, Sartre, Ann Landers, or Homer Simpson..

 

it's constant and evolving. resting at point A is complacent. I'm not convinced that all theists seek answers, once on board. not in the sense that I mean, anyway. they may ask questions, but they'll be questions like "why does god love me?", not "how might the pre-history of the region have influenced the original bible stories?" or "given there is so much evidence of shared myths from the region, perhaps I ought to consider if the bible isn't just a cobbled together rehash of same?"

 

Yes, and by the definition in the OP, obedience to conscience, or to its evil twin, "social conscience", is a religious act.

Conscience is not a "tool", and it sure as Hell doesn't need "sharpening" by any human agency.

Assuming the underlined refers to other people, as Orwell might have said, the best counselors only tell you what you already know; so the need for "outside help" is inversely proportional to the strength of the connection with conscience.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why the egotistically inclined wouldn't feel right about doing wrong and vice versa.

More to the point, by what I suspect is your definition of the term, there isn't a dime's worth of difference.

 

I could care less if they ask either of those questions. None of that stuff matters to the real moral and ethical questions they face. If they want to know whether or not to tell their sister Sally that Jeff is cheating on her, or whether they should try to put Mother in a nursing home. they will 'pray', they will look for scripture, they will ask others for advice and when they will find conflicting ideas of right and wrong among these sources, they will weigh and measure or keep on searching. If certain advice or scriptures don't feel quite right, they will 'pray' some more, they will find some other advice and other scriptures that feel more right for the question at hand , just like an atheist does on the outside.

 

yes, of course. my point was that it's best to consider the source. our instinct is to accept that which soothes the most, but the brave/wise will want 'truth', even if it's momentarily uncomfortable. I don't claim to be that wise and/or brave, but I'm aware of the deficit and seek to be so - it's a work in progress. the first steps were made via the study of religions (I spent roughly equal amounts of time on Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity). at the time, I was quite open to the possibility that one or more might contain pearls of wisdom, or 'truths', but I found most were ultimately anti-human, and gave away their prosaic origins in spectacular fashion.

 

Geez, there is nothing inherently that constraining about Christianity or theism. They still consider 'sources', and they are often brave/ wise and want/ seek the truth, and they face plenty of uncomfortable truths in their growth, just as you do. if that is their nature They are also as aware of the same deficits in human frailty as you are, and they work hard to combat those frailties just as you do if that is their nature. Its really the same basic process regardless. Your problem is that you are hung up on a 'truth' that they have to see your way for them to grow your way.

 

again, I disagree. and I said nothing about PARTICULAR truths, only the active seeking of them.

the reason I disagree is that implicit in many theistic dogmas is the message that no further seeking need be done, as all the answers are to be found within said dogma. some take it even further and demonise the seeking of knowledge (outside of the dogma). if this is accepted at face value, it's going to impact on SOME people's likelihood of obtaining useful knowledge. useful in the psychological or 'spiritual' sense. if, for example, a book on poetry came with the proviso that no other source of information on poetry should ever be considered (which is precisely the way some Christians feel about their bible), the obedient reader will end up a poetry savant, or worse. of course the same applies to the atheist who refuses to consider religious texts. I've met a few atheists who feel that way, it must be said, but met a lot more Christians who won't consider any source of 'spiritual' knowledge but the bible.

 

The way I see it, the 'seeking' done within most major religions can be virtually as broad and deep those without. These are some very huge tents. I'll let you in on a secret. Whatever may be implicit in any particular theistic dogma, if you ever see curious minds, or questioning souls, they just can't seem to stop themselves. That search for knowledge or a 'deeper' understanding of the same knowledge just plows forward. If they find one dogma constraining enough, they will tear its seams apart and get a new one! 'Obedient' readers are such because their nature is such and disobedient reader are as well.

 

On the basis that this isn't what people usually mean when they say "religion". While you're not disallowed to do so, it's like if I said that religions are yellow, because I use the word "religion" to mean banana. That's not going to give any interesting statements about the classical interpretation of religions.

 

Now you're just being silly. I cited a scripture as an example, you claimed I missed the "message," to which I asked you to share the message and you refused. I can only surmise that your refusal, and subsequent statement that my post was a "mystery" are poor attempts to deflect from your inability to answer. Since anyone with a lick of historical knowledge would understand the content of the issue at hand, my comment that to the "cretinous and uncultured" it might certainly seem to be a mystery, is more than valid.

If you want to sincerely discuss issues - I would suggest you get down off that high horse and answer questions put to you. If you prefer to play games, that's fine - your call. But let me make one thing perfectly clear -- I am not impressed by those who hide behind a Thesaurus, choosing words they think make them look smart and then making grammatical mistakes in their sentences.

After your OP, you've added nothing of substance. You've flung some one-liners around but you have not honestly addressed the comments inspired by OP.

Qchan, although he/she has less understanding of the issues, is a much more honest conversationalist.

Either you want an sincere discussion - or you want to play games. Do us all a favor - belly up to the bar and let us know which one it is so we don't have to keep going through this.