Guff: Americans Drift From Organized Religion In Record Numbers

[mbws]

"I used to be Irish Catholic. Then I reached the age of reason." - George Carlin

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

According to Jesus, religion was never to be organized like it has for last 1,500 years. He was against the idea of having churches. Emperor Constantine erased very important parts of the bible (like science, equal womens rights) and cherry picked what stays in the book.

No! The Bible is the word of God. It isn't just a collection of letter written by men. They were tools of God. You want me to back that up??? Christianity says it's so. What gives Christianity the authority to make that claim? God!

[The 12th Commandment]

No! The Bible is the word of God. It isn't just a collection of letter written by men. They were tools of God. You want me to back that up??? Christianity says it's so. What gives Christianity the authority to make that claim? God!

[Shiv]

I'm a none. As in its noneofya damn business what I believe in.

[DaGoonie55]

Its really sad that a religion of love, tolerance, and understanding has done anything but that for the last 2000 years.

 

I can see why people are turning from it.

 

 

 

But maybe this is a good eye opener.  I think when church leaders learn how to walk the walk, people will be attracted back to Christianity.  It is a religion of love, people just can't realize it.

 

This is why I stopped going.  Who cares what I wear to church, or what car I drive, and why the dirty looks when I can only give $5 instead of $20?  The church is the worst thing to happen to religion.  People can destroy an anvil with a glass hammer.

[Bang]

I'm a total atheist. but a person from my past once said "God doesn't care if you're in church or in an organization. if youkeep it in your heart, it's the same as going to church whether you're at home on in the pews"

 

And if god were real, that seems to me to be about right.

 

However, i do see value in 'church'.. not THE church.. the leaders and actions of organizaed religion over the eons has been not much short of dominating by any means necessary, and that is saying it nicely.

 

But. in the 'good ol' days'..  that people always pine for .. in which you knew your neighbors and could sleep with your doors open..   church played a part, especially when towns were towns and not the spread out floods of development they are now.  In those days you lived in town and worked in town. Getting to the next town took a bit of doing, even when the interstates were built.

Nowadays people routinely commute 50 or 60 miles a day. Your "home town" isn't as meaningful a concept. Most of us live in places that some old guy would remember was the boonies not very long ago. Suburbs extend 60 miles..   shoot,, from New York to Richmond is practically completely developed in one way or another. One big megalopolis.

 

Church is important because of the community sense it can bring.

Know the people in your town, find out who they are. See them from a perspective of someone with which you have something in common.

So if we turn away from church, i'm OK with that.. from a personal standpoint, i would like humanity to leave the whole god thing behind..  outside of the individual, it causes a lot of trouble.

That said, those who will make that choice need to find something else to keep that sense of community,, or we get more and more segmented, xenophobic, angry, resentful. all the stuff that comes from isolating one's self from everyone else as a group.

Redefine community and establish things that embrace the diversity of our community. It's not like the old days when there was one church in town, there's still a lot of people of faith even if they are turning away from organized religion. And to restore that sense of community, and that good ol' days feel when you enjoyed the people around you, endeavor to find that thing that is something in common between us.

 

 

~Bang

[Destino]

If we ignore the "is there a God question" and look at it purely as philosophy, I stick with church because I see that advocated by those rebelling against "out dated moral codes" as little more than self serving nonsense and individualism. When there is an alternative to the oh so horrible religions that places altruism above self, and it becomes the dominant voice, I'll consider rethinking my beliefs.

Show me something that defines good as sacrifice. Show me something that sees pursuing your own happiness at the cost of turning away from those that need you as evil. Defining evil as directly damaging others is childish, might as well demand devil horns, a cape, and an evil laugh. Evil as I see it starts in turning away from good, from duty, from sacrifice. Systems matter to me because that's how people work, there is no freeing yourself from it. We exist in community and create cultures.

Note that the God question still matters to me, but for sake of argument those are my terms to consider a change.

[The 12th Commandment]

If we ignore the "is there a God question" and look at it purely as philosophy, I stick with church because I see that advocated by those rebelling against "out dated moral codes" as little more than self serving nonsense and individualism. When there is an alternative to the oh so horrible religions that places altruism above self, and it becomes the dominant voice, I'll consider rethinking my beliefs.

Show me something that defines good as sacrifice. Show me something that sees pursuing your own happiness at the cost of turning away from those that need you as evil. Defining evil as directly damaging others is childish, might as well demand devil horns, a cape, and an evil laugh. Evil as I see it starts in turning away from good, from duty, from sacrifice. Systems matter to me because that's how people work, there is no freeing yourself from it. We exist in community and create cultures.

Not to argue with any of your post, just to clarify - altruism and the rest of humanities finer impulses can be pursued outside of an organization.  You're not suggesting they can't are you?

[Elessar78]

Not to argue with any of your post, just to clarify - altruism and the rest humanities finer impulses can be pursued outside of an organization.  You're not suggesting they can't are you?

It's not that they can't but, as a whole, they seem to not. And when they do, it smacks of the for publicity popular cause type. Someone's still got to the dirty work. 

 

Most of the atheists I know just want to be good people, hate on God and believers a lot, and not hurt anyone so they have a net impact of zero goodness on the world. 

[China]

 

I'd listen to a wise looking old guy like that.  And he has a cool hat.  Pope's got nothing on him.

 

 

[No Excuses]

If we ignore the "is there a God question" and look at it purely as philosophy, I stick with church because I see that advocated by those rebelling against "out dated moral codes" as little more than self serving nonsense and individualism. When there is an alternative to the oh so horrible religions that places altruism above self, and it becomes the dominant voice, I'll consider rethinking my beliefs.

Show me something that defines good as sacrifice. Show me something that sees pursuing your own happiness at the cost of turning away from those that need you as evil. Defining evil as directly damaging others is childish, might as well demand devil horns, a cape, and an evil laugh. Evil as I see it starts in turning away from good, from duty, from sacrifice. Systems matter to me because that's how people work, there is no freeing yourself from it. We exist in community and create cultures.

Note that the God question still matters to me, but for sake of argument those are my terms to consider a change.

This sounds more of an argument for self laziness and an inability to do without authority telling you what is right from wrong.

I'm fairly certain that dominant atheist and agnostic communities, especially in Europe, aren't falling apart because people are unwilling to sacrifice and give.

[The 12th Commandment]

pic

The Pope has more of them, I don't doubt it for second.

 

I'd still say Odin's are cooler though.

 

[The 12th Commandment]

It's not that they can't but, as a whole, they seem to not. And when they do, it smacks of the for publicity popular cause type. Someone's still got to the dirty work. 

 

Most of the atheists I know just want to be good people, hate on God and believers a lot, and not hurt anyone so they have a net impact of zero goodness on the world. 

Some people probably need to be in an organizational structure in order for the finer points to show through.  I'm glad that option is available to them and I'd fight for their right to participate.  

 

How well do you really know those people?  Maybe you know them inside and out, but I can say there are not that many people who I know deeply enough to start judging their motivations and what they amount to in life.  That sort of systemic arrogance (which I don't think you intend) is one of the things that keep me away from organized spirituality.  And that's what we're talking about I think, spirituality.  

Can you be a sound spiritual person without someone reminding you how every week and a book to refer to (a rather confusing one) in between visits?  I assure you, you can be and there are a lot more atheist/agnostic spiritually centered people who do all kinds of good, be it public or in private, than you want to admit.

 

Add: What's really the difference, if your motivation is to have God allow you through the pearly gates, or to get personal recognition or something like that, if the outcome is the same?  I prefer the understated but I'm not going to say it's without spiritual merit to give and get some recognition for it.

[alexey]

If we ignore the "is there a God question" and look at it purely as philosophy, I stick with church because I see that advocated by those rebelling against "out dated moral codes" as little more than self serving nonsense and individualism. When there is an alternative to the oh so horrible religions that places altruism above self, and it becomes the dominant voice, I'll consider rethinking my beliefs.

Show me something that defines good as sacrifice. Show me something that sees pursuing your own happiness at the cost of turning away from those that need you as evil. Defining evil as directly damaging others is childish, might as well demand devil horns, a cape, and an evil laugh. Evil as I see it starts in turning away from good, from duty, from sacrifice. Systems matter to me because that's how people work, there is no freeing yourself from it. We exist in community and create cultures.

Note that the God question still matters to me, but for sake of argument those are my terms to consider a change.

Sounds like you will have no problem letting God go, if you can achieve things you value in another way.

[Destino]

Not to argue with any of your post, just to clarify - altruism and the rest of humanities finer impulses can be pursued outside of an organization. You're not suggesting they can't are you?

I don't believe anything humans do collectively is ever truly free of structures. Culture and society itself is a pact we enter into together. Our collective view of ethics and morality exist outside the walls of any religious house but they exist as part of a mutual agreement between a people that share some connection. Organizations and people operating within out society can shape out collective views.

So with these new challengers growing in the moral arena it's fair to ask where they would lead us.

Sounds like you will have no problem letting God go, if you can achieve things you value in another way.

I've removed a stumbling block for the purpose of discussion. Nothing more.

[Destino]

This sounds more of an argument for self laziness and an inability to do without authority telling you what is right from wrong.

I'm fairly certain that dominant atheist and agnostic communities, especially in Europe, aren't falling apart because people are unwilling to sacrifice and give.

Who said anything about people falling apart? Is individual morality even required to keep it together? No, I'm certainly not saying any atheist out there is going to go mad trying to decipher simple right from wrong. Culture exists as a guide and a framework with or without religion.

I will add though that there is nothing lazy about following a code, doing so has proven extremely difficult throughout history. It's certainly harder than making the rules up as you go. Don't you agree?

[Corcaigh]

It doesn't take a religious organization to provide structure for community service. For younger adults about 75% of volunteer work is performed by secular organizations.

[PeterMP]

Emperor Constantine erased very important parts of the bible (like science, equal womens rights) and cherry picked what stays in the book.

The cannocial gospels that we have today are all recognized to be very old.

The latest is John and it is believed to taken on the form it does today by 100 AD and its origin even older.

There is little evidence of significant edits from those times.

If you actually read the Bible and look at the actual facts presented Misquoting Jesus is actually a useful book written by a nonChristian.

The other "gospels" all come along much later. For example "the gospel of Mary" is commonly dated into the 2 nd century.

 

The current Bible based on non-Christian researchers contains the earliest accounts of Jesus, his ministry, and his followers' lives, while leaving out stories that came later.

 

And while there appears to have been some editing, there's nothing that significantly alters the message of Jesus in the Bible.

[Destino]

It doesn't take a religious organization to provide structure for community service. For younger adults about 75% of volunteer work is performed by secular organizations.

In case that was targeted at any of my posts, I've never said it did. Community service has never been limited to religious service or religious institutions.

[pjfootballer]

Grew up baptized a practicing Catholic. Religion got boring for me and I got away from going about high school. Tried to go back a couple of times, but...nothing. I feel nothing when I go to church. Looks like a bunch of sheep or simon says game.

I'm agnostic right now. God hates me and has made my life difficult without any reward for about 25 years now, so I just have basically told God and religion to go to hell. I think religion is a joke and people are suckers for anything.

[PeterMP]

But religious texts are not a good source of information for building a model of the modern world and dealing with its problems.

I disagree 100%.  Having compassion for others, sharing with one another, being slow to judge one another, and the Golden Rule are all great ideas in dealing with the modern world and its problems.

[alexey]

I disagree 100%. Having compassion for others, sharing with one another, being slow to judge one another, and the Golden Rule are all great ideas in dealing with the modern world and its problems.

I'm talking about building a model of the world, not picking out things that modern models show to work.

[PeterMP]

I'm talking about building a model of the world, not picking out things that modern models show to work.

 

How has the modern model shown those ideas to work?

 

Putin doesn't seem to think they work, and realistically neither does the US political establishment.

 

I see large scale rejection of them by the "modern model".

 

Can you point out the last time outside of religion a modern leader has "washed feet"?

 

"So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13“You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am.14“If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15“For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. "

[s0crates]

"Modern science is an unconscious derivative of medieval theology. . . the laws of physics are the decrees of fate." - Whitehead

Consider two authors of the modern worldview's predominate models: Isaac Newton and John Locke. Newtonian physics is based on the idea that the universe is rationally ordered, and we might well suppose Newton's devout belief that the universe had a rational creator played a role here. As with Newton's physics, so also with Locke's politics, from which we get ideas like natural rights to life, liberty, and property. I think it is important to realize that for Locke (and Jefferson) these human rights were God-given and thus unalienable.

So now consider: What exactly is a law of nature? Can there be laws without lawmakers?

So there's that. Now consider also this: While modern science is excellent at tellling us what is, what was, what will be, even what can and cannot be, it is also notoriously unable to speak about what should or should not be. Consider for example eugenics and other such "terrorism of the laboratories." Science describes but it cannot and should not prescribe, for that we need something else.

[alexey]

How has the modern model shown those ideas to work?

Putin doesn't seem to think they work, and realistically neither does the US political establishment.

I see large scale rejection of them by the "modern model".

Can you point out the last time outside of religion a modern leader has "washed feet"?

...

There is plenty of research on happiness that shows why we are justified in saying that good parts of the bible are actually good.

And yes, our world would be a better place if more people followed good parts of the bible.

"Modern science is an unconscious derivative of medieval theology. . . the laws of physics are the decrees of fate." - Whitehead

That is one way of looking at it. I think the "unconscious" part is misleading though.

Consider two authors of the modern worldview's predominate models: Isaac Newton and John Locke. Newtonian physics is based on the idea that the universe is rationally ordered, and we might well suppose Newton's devout belief that the universe had a rational creator played a role here. As with Newton's physics, so also with Locke's politics, from which we get ideas like natural rights to life, liberty, and property. I think it is important to realize that for Locke (and Jefferson) these human rights were God-given and thus unalienable.

I am not sure how to address an argument that limits the modern model of the world to 2 people who lived 300 years ago. I am taking a much wider view here. Social sciences, for example, made huge progess recently.

So now consider: What exactly is a law of nature? Can there be laws without lawmakers?

This question answers itself if you define "law of nature" and "lawmaker".

So there's that. Now consider also this: While modern science is excellent at telling us what is, what was, what will be, even what can and cannot be, it is also notoriously unable to speak about what should or should not be. Consider for example eugenics and other such "terrorism of the laboratories." Science describes but it cannot and should not prescribe, for that we need something else.

I do understand the traditional is-ought perspective... but I think it is good enough for science to tell us what we value (e.g. happiness research) and how to get it...