Religion... again...

[BHZA]

I know this path hath been walked many times before but I have a few things to say which I would like you guys to comment on.

Ultimately religion for me is a means to control the masses. Like always, throughout the ages people, cultures, groups do better when there is a system of rules and controls. My theory is that religion originated about at the same time we evolved from crudely put 'ape to man' - in other words when we according to scientists became sentient. Now just imagine when the first group of humans came together to form a culture or society. Who would they listen to; the strongest; the wisest or richest in the tribe? I could work but humans are humans and soon the strongest or wisest would misuse their powers - not that we dont have the exact same situation today. Where does religion come in then. As soon as the tribe realized their so called leader was misleading them he was out the door - or at least fed to the wild animals. So mister clever tribesman saw what happened to the last guy and disappear into the mountains for days to think. He then realizes that if he could make an idol of something bigger than him and make the other people believe the same and at least convince them that he has some sort of connection to the thing he could still have control over the tribe. Now the tribe kneels before the sun moon and mountains and coincidentally environmental conditions were favourable for the clever tribesman and plays along to his whims. Soon the people start to believe even more and the tribesman uses this opportunity to convince the tribe if they make offerings to the gods it is rewarded by food, rain, crops and plenty of children. On the other hand it is backed by threats of doom and exile from the tribe if certain rules are not followed.

The point is that more and more people could be controlled by the existence of religion - the few people that write the rules and the books of a given religion had the means of effectively exercising his wims at the expense of the people backed by the rules of the religion the group is excercizing.
You may say that people make up a religion but I think that it lies in the hands of a few powerful men who tries to bend and twist the rules to fit in with the times we are living in.
People need control, humans like to follow rather than lead; society would not exist if people had nothing to look forward too; now we have a system put in place that promotes the wellbeing of society, is a subtle means of control and serves a purpose for man - not for the gods. We are the ones that want a perfect controlled society; the gods want souls, not to control.

I know this is a highly debatable subject and my theory, or part of it is one of millions out there and is largely lacking in detail and resolve. I would like to hear your views on this post.

[jimkopelli]

http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8

Read ye this, if ye will, for in it reside some of what ye seek.

(I don't know why I did the Olde Speek... just felt like it.)

[Johnny]

"Old speak" (or King James speak) is kinda neat for its use of masculine and feminine indicators in old English, to compare to our modern English and see evolution in language and its potential impact on culture, worldviews, et al...

[booyalab]

People call the King James version Old English but it's technically 'Middle English". Old English is a whole other language.

[Boneca]

People call the King James version Old English but it's technically 'Middle English". Old English is a whole other language.
Old English is actually more understandable to me than Middle English. It's more like Swedish. :)

Eh, topic? I agree. Religion is too great a tool for controlling the masses for it to be coincidence. That has always been obvious to me.
What I find fascinating is why people believe in it.

[mgb]

I would say that the origins of religion are much more innocuous than you are suggesting. Mostly they worshipped rocks and such not because it gave on person control over the others but because they wanted the weather to be good or to have a good hunt.

As man evolved so did their religions. As agriculture developed "earth cults" developed. As agriculture was seen as "gathering" or "woman's work" most of the earth cults had female dieties.

Just after this you begin to see the development of the churches as you see them now. They were however extremely useful. They often occupied the highest caste and because of this were responsible for developing many scientific principles, community ideals (saving seeds for next year as a collective) and reading and writing. Each of these ideals are responsible for our consistant development even to today.

I agree that religions are still used for control. It would be hard not to. But traditionally this has been an effective way of corralling the unruly masses.

Also, I think we are living in a time where the Christian and Catholic church is in decline. I think this period started in the 1700s with the start of the enlightenment period.

Islam is certainly proving to be the replacement with growth far surpassing that of the Christian churches.

[Avengardh]

"Old speak" (or King James speak) is kinda neat for its use of masculine and feminine indicators in old English, to compare to our modern English and see evolution in language and its potential impact on culture, worldviews, et al...
You changed your freaking avatar...that scared me...O_O

Where is everyone? I mean, the old-everyone...I miss them...*fakes sniffle*

[booyalab]

Old English is actually more understandable to me than Middle English. It's more like Swedish. :)

Eh, topic? I agree. Religion is too great a tool for controlling the masses for it to be coincidence. That has always been obvious to me.
What I find fascinating is why people believe in it.

Really? Does Swedish have roots in Old English, then?

[booyalab]

Islam is certainly proving to be the replacement with growth far surpassing that of the Christian churches. Christianity might be declining in the U.S. (never does well in prosperity) but in China, for instance, there's a huge underground Christian movement developing. If more mosques are being built, it's probably because muslims are moving from Africa and Asia to Europe and North America. When Christian churches open up, it's usually outside the U.S. and not recorded because of the obscurity of the location or to hide from the government.

[Star Cannon]

I was just discussing this with someone tonight. I said: "Religion must be abolished. Humanity has misrepresented the great IT/Creator/God/Supreme Being for too long."

[mgb]

Christianity might be declining in the U.S. (never does well in prosperity) but in China, for instance, there's a huge underground Christian movement developing. If more mosques are being built, it's probably because muslims are moving from Africa and Asia to Europe and North America. When Christian churches open up, it's usually outside the U.S. and not recorded because of the obscurity of the location or to hide from the government.

China has a long tradition of religion. Much older than Christianity. I don't see Christianity fully developing in China without some adaptation, namely being able to accept the idea of family. On the surface this seems easy as Christianity seems very family based. But Chinese have historically practiced more of a family worship (of past and present family). Buddhism adapted well to this because it came as a reaction to Hinduism, a very open and diverse religion.

Christianity is not an open and diverse religion and may suffer in order to be accepted by being bastardized by the locals as it was in South America.

Also the rise of Christianity is also a function of China opening its borders to foreigners and importing people and goods from new countries. One of the groups taking advantage of this is Christian missionaries seeing the same number of "consumers" as a business importing goods might.

It is harder to see this correlation in Muslim countries as they seem to be much less easy to convert. The statistics (by even Christian groups) are showing that Islam will become the largest religion in the world by about 2050 or so. Maybe earlier.

I can't say why. I believe it is actually easier to use as a form of control while still allowing forms of science and literature to co-exist with it (see Spain to 1400s). The control exerted is more of a "house hold" control than Christianity seems to have the ability to do. As well, there are much fewer sects of Islam and hence less division and in-fighting.

[mgb]

I was just discussing this with someone tonight. I said: "Religion must be abolished. Humanity has misrepresented the great IT/Creator/God/Supreme Being for too long."

It can't be abolished, the need for religion is too great. The best example of this would be Nazi Germany. Without the moral structure it provides people chaos ensues.

[Bad Christian]

It can't be abolished, the need for religion is too great. The best example of this would be Nazi Germany. Without the moral structure it provides people chaos ensues.

It can be abolished. The best example of this is modern Western Europe, which was fast becoming completely secular before the Muslims began invading. The fact that there are growing groups of non-religious people is proves this. The fact that they are not all amoral is another testament to this fact. Ideally, secular humanism will replace religion.

However, the only rational belief about God is agnosticism: we can't truly know whether God exists or not. You can logically say that an infinite being must exist, but that has its own problems.

[Sackanaka]

If you abolish religion, won't the consequential civil movement after that be a strong response from those who feel oppressed from the discrimination against Feeling types? Not trying to imply any personality-based slurs, but just that it will require a similar conceited contempt (or phear?) the religious have for non-religious now to pull the same trick in reversal. If there is no defined solution to this, history will continue to have a noticable sine-wave function of religiosity. If there is one at all. :p

[mgb]

It can be abolished. The best example of this is modern Western Europe, which was fast becoming completely secular before the Muslims began invading. The fact that there are growing groups of non-religious people is proves this. The fact that they are not all amoral is another testament to this fact. Ideally, secular humanism will replace religion.

However, the only rational belief about God is agnosticism: we can't truly know whether God exists or not. You can logically say that an infinite being must exist, but that has its own problems.

I disagree with the fact that modern western Europe was becoming a secular society. After looking at the CIA World Factbook it seems the only country that was even close was Germany and even then there were still more Catholics than non-religious people. It would also be difficult to say that although they were religious they acted in secular ways. When it comes down to it, they are religious.

I would say that non-religious people have always existed within a religious society but they are consistantly in the minority.

It would be difficult to say that secular humanism will replace religion as we watch Islam grow and spread.

I also would be careful to say use the word logic when describing people's beliefs about god. Since you found this site you were probably doing some research and found that no more than 10% of people are described as "rationals". Not that other people can't be rational they just don't share our inclination. That is where faith comes in. The world is full of it. People need it to go on living. They need to believe that there is something to look forward to because this world sucks. Without it I think you would see a much different world.

[mgb]

If you abolish religion, won't the consequential civil movement after that be a strong response from those who feel oppressed from the discrimination against Feeling types? Not trying to imply any personality-based slurs, but just that it will require a similar conceited contempt (or phear?) the religious have for non-religious now to pull the same trick in reversal. If there is no defined solution to this, history will continue to have a noticable sine-wave function of religiosity. If there is one at all. :p

I don't know if you can call it a sine-wave. I can't think of too many times in history where there was no religion. I can conceive of a vacuum without it, but I'm not that it wouldn't be quickly replaced with something else.

[Sackanaka]

Probably has to do with the non-religious didn't care to be so fanatic and publish billions of scripture about being nonreligious. That and being booed and executed off stage.

[mgb]

Probably has to do with the non-religious didn't care to be so fanatic and publish billions of scripture about being nonreligious. That and being booed and executed off stage.

I don't know, I am starting to see a lot more Darwin fish on the backs of cars.

I used to think that would be the next big battle, religious vs secular. But as Islam gets bigger, the rhetoric against it is too. I guess that one might get called Crusades II.

I agree that the non-religious aren't as feverent though. But every science textbook is a bible to someone.

[Arioch]

It can be abolished. The best example of this is modern Western Europe, which was fast becoming completely secular before the Muslims began invading. The fact that there are growing groups of non-religious people is proves this. The fact that they are not all amoral is another testament to this fact. Ideally, secular humanism will replace religion.

However, the only rational belief about God is agnosticism: we can't truly know whether God exists or not. You can logically say that an infinite being must exist, but that has its own problems.

One: Europe is far from secular.

Two: Muslims invading? Wth? Lets take the Netherlands for an example. Marocans and Turkish people didn't invade here. They were brought here because they were willing to do the jobs that nobody else wanted to do.
In fact next time I hear someone whining about something like this I'm going to tell him just that.

[Dunearhp]

I think religions evolved as a means to hold communities together. People like to form groups, but without a pre-existing culture it is hard to establish order. Religion has the advantage that it establishes a moral/ethical framework that a society can group to. The apparent ability to answer the big questions is just a carrot, and secondary to its purpose as a unifying force.

Early religions were fairly open. Greek and Roman paganism easily interacted with each other. The Gods themselves lived out a soap opera that made them like people, only more so. Romantic, heroic, loving, lustful, good and evil. The gods were sort of an embodiment of the cultures that they served. Religion served society.

Monotheism is viral. It cannot coexist with its competitors (There is only one god, and it is my god). Viral memes inevitably defeat other, more open types.

Most of the current major religions are monotheist. Most of them also claim that they are the true source of moral guidance. If you look closely however you can see that cultural "fashions" influence the values of society as much as scripture does. This is why in most countries, law is mostly independent from religion. Sure, not all laws are morally right, but at least we don't stone people for swearing. Law serves society. Law is fluid.

I think that religion was essential as we moved from tribal to national societies, but once you reach that point it becomes more of a liability. Villages warring with each other is one thing, but when nations and continents war with each other the risks are unnacceptable. The reason had better be better than who created the universe.

With our current level of communications technology, I think that a moral/ethical framework can survive quite well enough without the crutch of religion. Values reflect society.

[Bad Christian]

I'm too lazy to research anything right now. I do know that I don't know one Christian or even religious person at my current college. These days, it's not very trendy to be religious.

According to the stats I read church attendance was falling down there around %10. The last stat I read had %43 regularly attending church in the United States. The people attending are part of a different generation. The biggest group of Christians these days are Africans.

OK, I did the research. Took me an entire 5 seconds: search Google for church attendance western europe.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm
http://www.biblesabbath.org/bacchiocchi/europecrisisoffaith.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090210

Norway and plenty of others down there at %5. The true figures for the US somewhere down there at %20(my parents would probably lie to a poll).

"throughout much of Western Europe--with the unique exception of Ireland--churches are being turned into bars, discos, warehouses, and laundromats"

Just take a look at a few of those sites and then debate the issue. Give it 100 years. Hell, give it 50.


Since you found this site you were probably doing some research and found that no more than 10% of people are described as "rationals". Not that other people can't be rational they just don't share our inclination.

Indeed, but most of these people can live without thinking about religion or some greater meaning. As the majority turns to secularism, these people will follow. Greater meaning only becomes a need when you make it one, in my experience. We can answer the questions that needed answering through religion earlier with science today.

You also put too much emphasis on typology here.

[synchronous]

"throughout much of Western Europe--with the unique exception of Ireland--churches are being turned into bars, discos, warehouses, and laundromats"

What is the source of this quote? I spend most of the year in Austria, and I've visited many Austrian villages, towns and cities. I also travel to various countries in Western Europe. One of my travel activities is visiting churches and cathedrals for their beautiful art and architectural qualities. In fact, churches are the highlight of many European travel excursions. I can guarantee you first hand these places are NOT turned into bars, discos, warehouses and laundromats. If anything, they are often preserved for architectural or historical purposes. I have yet to see a church that has been converted.

Doing a 5 minute google search and extracting information from an unknown source does not make it fact.

[Bad Christian]

It's on the third website that I copied/pasted. Stating something most certainly doesn't make it fact, and in fact I am more trusting of that website than your personal experiences.

Do Protestant countries even have many cathedrals?

[synchronous]

It's on the third website that I copied/pasted. Stating something most certainly doesn't make it fact, and in fact I am more trusting of that website than your personal experiences.

Do Protestant countries even have many cathedrals?

Yes, and here is the full quote:

"The last time I was in Europe, I was told by two different sets of friends that we would be "going out to the church" for the evening. In both cases (one in Oban, Scotland, and the other in Cologne, Germany) the churches turned out to be religious institutions in facade only; both were former churches that had been gutted and turned into popular pubs and night clubs. Indeed, throughout much of Western Europe--with the unique exception of Ireland--churches are being turned into bars, discos, warehouses, and laundromats. Not only is church attendance way down, but so is religious belief."

In essence, the author extropolates based on two separate experiences with two separate sets of friends. And this is fact for the entire Western Europe???? Yah, right pal. lol.

[synchronous]

Let me ask you this - the quote above comes from Skeptical Inquirer. So, you are a skeptic by nature, and this journal caters to skeptics. Do you think that because they are skeptics, they are bearers of the ultimate truth?? Do you automatically believe the contents blindly? Do you think maybe they skew/bias their articles in favor of the skeptic perspective?? (I'll add: for reasons other than objectivity and truth?)

[Bad Christian]

In essence, the author extropolates based on two separate experiences with two separate sets of friends. And this is fact for the entire Western Europe???? Yah, right pal. lol.

The entire point is moot. It doesn't matter whether they're being used or not - they're not being attended. Why are you even arguing this? I still believe this guy more than you.

We also should distinguish between modern churches and ancient cathedrals here, heh. Much of Western Europe(especially the places he referred to) are Protestant. They don't have cathedrals.

Regardless, your argument is a straw man.

I find the entire argument that "organized religion is essential and not going away" to be terribly ludicrous, and I find it rather sad that so many people support it here.

I tend to think that if something is possible on an individual scale then it is possible on a larger scale. Many, many people live happily without any religion. Hell, most Christians give hardly more than a thought or two to God every day, or for some, every week. It's fake. It doesn't really hinder them, and it's not really necessary.

Some people also make the assertion that if people don't have God in their life, or some sort of meaning, they'll go crazy and start shooting people. But they'll only worry about the greater meaning if you push them to, or expect them to.

[Johnny]

You changed your freaking avatar...that scared me...O_O

Where is everyone? I mean, the old-everyone...I miss them...*fakes sniffle*LOL. When the site went down again I lost my avatar again and went on a hunt for a new one that would give me another chuckle.

Glad to see you're still hanging with the changes.

:sombrero:

[Bad Christian]

Oh, and here's something I found in a couple seconds.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0501/p11s01-lire.html

"Ensuring the survival of out-of-use churches also often requires a clever balancing act - between historical use and current practicality. With dwindling congregations increasingly forcing old churches across Britain to close, new uses, such as schools for circus training or bagpipe playing, may prove surprising keys to the salvation of some"

"But many other churches fall through the net. They end up being converted into all kinds of things: houses, theaters, offices, restaurants, art galleries, exhibition spaces, performance venues, museums, nightclubs, even climbing centers. Brighton has pubs, Ipswich a tourist Information center, and Glasgow a bagpiping school, all in ex-churches."

This is about Britain, one of the more religious places in Western Europe.

[synchronous]

The entire point is moot. It doesn't matter whether they're being used or not - they're not being attended. Why are you even arguing this? I still believe this guy more than you.

We also should distinguish between modern churches and ancient cathedrals here, heh. Much of Western Europe(especially the places he referred to) are Protestant. They don't have cathedrals.

Regardless, your argument is a straw man.

I find the entire argument that "organized religion is essential and not going away" to be terribly ludicrous, and I find it rather sad that so many people support it here.

I tend to think that if something is possible on an individual scale then it is possible on a larger scale. Many, many people live happily without any religion. Hell, most Christians give hardly more than a thought or two to God every day, or for some, every week. It's fake. It doesn't really hinder them, and it's not really necessary.

Some people also make the assertion that if people don't have God in their life, or some sort of meaning, they'll go crazy and start shooting people. But they'll only worry about the greater meaning if you push them to, or expect them to.

Your right, the point is moot, and I certainly wondered why YOU initially inserted the quote within YOUR argument. It has no real relevance to YOUR argument. lol. This is your baby, not mine. I'm just interested in clarify inaccuracies. And, I don't really give 2 sh*** whether you trust my observations or not.

[Bad Christian]

:lol:

Yay, I win.... but you make it sound so meaningless. <_< (why doesn't this emoticon work anymore?)


One: Europe is far from secular.

That little comment just kinda set me off. :p

[synchronous]

Ah, you're such a cutie. Seriously though, just because some churches are being converted, doesn't necessarily imply that religion or christianity is dying. And, whether Anglicans or Protestants are experiencing this trend does not make it so for the entire Christian population. People choose to observe their religion in different ways other than the traditional church attendance. Fewer new religious leaders step into the fray, but, all it takes is a bit of tweaking of religious interpretations (ie allowing Catholic priests to marry for example) and the lovefest with Christianity returns. Support for religion historically waxes and wanes. I doubt religion will ever disappear.

[Boneca]

Really? Does Swedish have roots in Old English, then?
I've forgotten what this had to do with the topic, but no. Old English and Old Norse come from the same root (some Indo-European language), and were similar enough for the Vikings to understand the people in Britain. Since those times, English and the Scandinavian languages have continued to develop in different directions, so Swedish and English are much more different today.

On topic, then.

I would say that the origins of religion are much more innocuous than you are suggesting. Mostly they worshipped rocks and such not because it gave on person control over the others but because they wanted the weather to be good or to have a good hunt.
You are right. I was being very imprecise in my statement - I should have included that I meant dogmatic religions such as Christianity and Islam, since that is what we are usually ranting about.
Religion as a general phenomenon does not equal power abuse. I don't think Zen buddhists will take over the world any time soon.

About Europe and secularism.
I can tell you that Sweden is indeed very secular. Statistics may show otherwise though, because up until 1999 (or around there, can't remember exact year), children born in Sweden were automatically taken up into the Swedish state church (something lutheran) if their parents were members. That way, a lot of people were church members just because they were too lazy to contact the authorities about it, not because they were religious.
Now we don't have a state church anymore, so any children born after 1999 won't be "Christian by default".
I was told that Germany had a similar situation, but the state/church split happened a little earlier.
I have also lived in Ireland, that is supposed to be one of the most religious countries in Europe, but although I found it very different from Sweden or Germany, I'd still say that the trend is towards secularism there too. Most young people I met weren't that religious at all.

[mgb]

I'm not sure I can deal with this all at once...

I think its actually Protestantism that has drawn people away from religion while keeping them fundamentally religious. I'll explain. Protestantism preaches that life on earth is hell. But if you can bear down and put up with that hell and live a pious life you will get into heaven. To help people live this pious life the Protestant work ethic evolved. Essentially, you should be working because if you are not you might be committing a sin so get back to work. Idle hands are the devils workers I guess. This lead to people that used to have many days off every year working 6 days a week and resting on the seventh. Now we see a world where everything is open pretty much all year. Stores where I live are even open on Easter now and its just Christmas that they are closed. Commerce, 364 days a year. So I think people will begin to spend less time at church. Why spend your day off (if you get one) at church? Why not sleep in. Churches become under utilized. The more you work though the more money you have. The more money you have the less you need to work. The less you work the more trouble you get into. The more trouble you get into the guiltier you feel. The guiltier you feel the more likely you are to go to church.

So I think that this is a cyclical cycle. I think that people will continue to go to church. As the baby boomers get older I think you will see a lot of them return to their churches looking from something that money can't buy. Also, I think a lot of young kids are going to church without their parents. Maybe because everyone else is doing it, but I think there is a youth revival out there.

As for you Bad Christian, you live in Oregon, not the Bible Belt so its no wonder you don't know a lot of Christians. But you can bet there is someone praying at your school right now.

[Dman]

I don't believe religion was originally a ruse to keep the masses under control. Rather, I believe it was a way for humans to try to understand our universe. That being said, I think we would all agree that religion has been USED to control the masses.

That's the simple version. There is obviously much more to religion than that, such as a search for the meaning of life. Most people need a sense of purpose in their lives that transcends material aspirations and social relationships. Those of us who do not subscribe to a particular religion (usually of the INTP persuasion, eh?) still desire a higher sense of purpose, it's just that our logical side cannot bear to accept faith and silly, unproven stories as our "guiding light". That does not, however, mean that we can't logically accept the possibility that there is a "creator".

[mgb]

I've forgotten what this had to do with the topic, but no. Old English and Old Norse come from the same root (some Indo-European language), and were similar enough for the Vikings to understand the people in Britain. Since those times, English and the Scandinavian languages have continued to develop in different directions, so Swedish and English are much more different today.


I think they are still pretty close. I tend to watch a lot of foreign movies because domestic movies get so boring after a while. Sweden has a pretty booming film industry so I have had a chance to see a few Swedish movies. Even though I can't understand what they are saying when I stop reading subtitles I find the words are very similar to the English words especially compared to a lot of other European language movies. I have no clue how they relate grammatically, you might be able to tell us. From what I know about English its pretty hard to learn because the rules are so inconsistant.

[Boneca]

I think they are still pretty close. I tend to watch a lot of foreign movies because domestic movies get so boring after a while. Sweden has a pretty booming film industry so I have had a chance to see a few Swedish movies. Even though I can't understand what they are saying when I stop reading subtitles I find the words are very similar to the English words especially compared to a lot of other European language movies. I have no clue how they relate grammatically, you might be able to tell us. From what I know about English its pretty hard to learn because the rules are so inconsistant.
English is a compound language, about 50% germanic and 50% roman (there's some celtic stuff as well, but let's forget that). Swedish is a germanic language, and therefore a lot will appear familiar to you. Swedish may also seem easier than French f.ex. (a roman language), because a lot of the everyday words in English have germanic origin, while the roman part of the language is mostly the more fancy words.
Aw, I feel sorry for this thread. You shouldn't get me to start talking about languages...:whistle:

[Niflheimian]

Roman? I didn't know that was a language. Don't you mean Latin?
(Or perhaps they're the same.)

[Boneca]

Roman? I didn't know that was a language. Don't you mean Latin?
(Or perhaps they're the same.)
Roman is a language group. Latin is a roman language. :)

[mgb]

English is a compound language, about 50% germanic and 50% roman (there's some celtic stuff as well, but let's forget that). Swedish is a germanic language, and therefore a lot will appear familiar to you. Swedish may also seem easier than French f.ex. (a roman language), because a lot of the everyday words in English have germanic origin, while the roman part of the language is mostly the more fancy words.
Aw, I feel sorry for this thread. You shouldn't get me to start talking about languages...:whistle:

At the risk of hijacking the thread...oops...I would like to know more about languages. I am slowly getting a good idea of the geography and history of North Europe but not totally. I wonder how the Norse languages escaped roman influence? I can see the Germanic link to English, and the roman link to English, and I understand the breadth and width of the Roman Empire, but how did they not pick a lot of that stuff up?

[mgb]

Also, maybe we should talk about religion in Sweden. So what happened to the pagan religion of the Vikings? If I remember the religious wars the Norseman, had a pretty grave effect with their "new" style of army. Why has Sweden become so secular given its long religious history?

[SheepDog]

Can a country be "secular" or "religious"?

[mgb]

Can a country be "secular" or "religious"?

Sure, Iran is a theocracy and Boneca described Sweden as being more secular.

I think its more a description of the population than the form of government.

[Arioch]

Can a country be "secular" or "religious"?

Sure it can.... just don't try baptizing it [remembers "the Flood"]

[Bad Christian]

I think its more a description of the population than the form of government.

Can easily be both. The first truly secular governmet was the United States, I believe. These days, few truly religious governments exist - Iran is one of them.

[mgb]

Can easily be both. The first truly secular governmet was the United States, I believe. These days, few truly religious governments exist - Iran is one of them.


Or Ancient Greece. The city states were tied to Gods but it was truly one of the first times where science and philosophy were studied for their own sakes and not for practical reasons. Most of the ideas that the founders of the US used were from Ancient Greece.

In fact, America was founded as a retreat for lunatics escaping their own countries for fear of religious persecution. Evidence of religion can be found all over American society. Pledge of alligence, In God We Trust, swearing on the Bible, the list goes on. Every US president has been part of one church or another.

[Bad Christian]

Or Ancient Greece. The city states were tied to Gods but it was truly one of the first times where science and philosophy were studied for their own sakes and not for practical reasons. Most of the ideas that the founders of the US used were from Ancient Greece.

Secular humanism does have its roots in Ancient Greece.... but no. The Greeks were very much still religious. They had philosophers that denied the traditional gods, but the traditional gods were still respected and followed. They didn't form a certain government, but they were still integrated into society and its laws.

Remember, Socrates was sentenced to death for not respecting the gods and the traditions(though more likely for political reasons).


In fact, America was founded as a retreat for lunatics escaping their own countries for fear of religious persecution. Evidence of religion can be found all over American society. Pledge of alligence, In God We Trust, swearing on the Bible, the list goes on. Every US president has been part of one church or another.

Heh, except for some of the Founding Fathers, notably Thomas Jefferson. Abe Lincoln is considered theistic. I haven't studied it deeply, but I'm sure that many of the older Presidents leaned more towards secularism than religiousness. I blame the religiousity of the United States on the huge immigration, but I can't be sure about the cause. The Colonial United States was notably secular or theistic and dubious about organized, especially its leaders.

[Arioch]

Secular humanism does have its roots in Ancient Greece.... but no. The Greeks were very much still religious. They had philosophers that denied the traditional gods, but the traditional gods were still respected and followed. They didn't form a certain government, but they were still integrated into society and its laws.

Remember, Socrates was sentenced to death for not respecting the gods and the traditions(though more likely for political reasons).



Heh, except for some of the Founding Fathers, notably Thomas Jefferson. Abe Lincoln is considered theistic. I haven't studied it deeply, but I'm sure that many of the older Presidents leaned more towards secularism than religiousness. I blame the religiousity of the United States on the huge immigration, but I can't be sure about the cause. The Colonial United States was notably secular or theistic and dubious about organized, especially its leaders.

I went a bit deeper into it (just a tad really) and I believe that part of the reason Socraties was put to death was bad timing. They had just had a moment of strife and really wanted some peace. Dear old Sock was just too much the trouble maker for the times.

I still think that part of the reason of the religious state of the USa is that it's original colonists were religious themselves.

[mgb]

Secular humanism does have its roots in Ancient Greece.... but no. The Greeks were very much still religious. They had philosophers that denied the traditional gods, but the traditional gods were still respected and followed. They didn't form a certain government, but they were still integrated into society and its laws.

Remember, Socrates was sentenced to death for not respecting the gods and the traditions(though more likely for political reasons).

Socrates was sentenced to death for poisoning the minds of youth and generally just being annoying. Now they have places like Venice Beach for people like him but before, not so much.

And while religion was part of their society it wasn't the foundation for their government. If you judge Ancient Greece by the same standards that you are judging the US you will see that their Democracy far outdates your own.




Heh, except for some of the Founding Fathers, notably Thomas Jefferson. Abe Lincoln is considered theistic. I haven't studied it deeply, but I'm sure that many of the older Presidents leaned more towards secularism than religiousness. I blame the religiousity of the United States on the huge immigration, but I can't be sure about the cause. The Colonial United States was notably secular or theistic and dubious about organized, especially its leaders.

In reality you could not get elected as a US president without have a religious affiliation. That is a problem with the electorate, which is very much religious.

Which immigration? The one that started when the US was a British Colony? Religion is fundamental to the US. It might not be to you but it is well ingrained in the society.

[Boneca]

At the risk of hijacking the thread...oops...I would like to know more about languages. I am slowly getting a good idea of the geography and history of North Europe but not totally. I wonder how the Norse languages escaped roman influence? I can see the Germanic link to English, and the roman link to English, and I understand the breadth and width of the Roman Empire, but how did they not pick a lot of that stuff up?
....
Also, maybe we should talk about religion in Sweden. So what happened to the pagan religion of the Vikings? If I remember the religious wars the Norseman, had a pretty grave effect with their "new" style of army. Why has Sweden become so secular given its long religious history?
Alright.
Scandinavia was never (not even close to be) occupied by the Romans, which at least part of Britain was. Also, Britain had much more contact with France than Scandinavia had. Of course there are words in Swedish with French origin, but they are newer - imported in the 1700's when it was fashionable to speak French. The grammar of the Scandinavian languages, however, developed together with German without much influence from Latin.

The religion of the Vikings, asatru, pretty much died out in the thirteenth century. There are a few lunatics (my opinion! :D) who have taken it up, much like the "neo-pagans" in the UK, but to the majority of us it is a myth. But it is a myth that we all know about and read about in school, along with the history of Christianity. And here is why I think Sweden is as secular as it is - we had three different religions in less than a thousand years. First asatru, then catholicism (officially from year 1000, but then it was only the king and a bunch of priests...more realistically the country was catholic from about 1200 and onwards), and then protestantism in the 16th century (and that too only because the king said so).
It doesn't take a very bright kid to realise that the religion in Sweden served the state, not the people.
Now I'm not saying the all customs of the asatru died out completely. A lot of our traditions today; Yule, Midsummer, Walpurgis etc. stem from that time. And we even lent you some...ever wonder what the name "Thursday" means? ;)

It is also interesting to compare this to Ireland (naturally I could not help wondering about this while living there). Ireland started to be converted to Christianity in the 5th century, with St. Patrick who died around 460 AD. That's a whooping 500 years before the first missionary set foot in Sweden! Therefore there is much less left of the pagan religion in Ireland, and much more traditions are linked to Christianity (with the notorious exception of Halloween!).
This is my own theory, based on my limited knowledge and a lot of thinking, so you are very welcome to argue with me. ;)
In Swedish we have a word that roughly translate to "folk memory" - this is a sort of collective memory of ancient times, based on language, tradition and stories, something that all cultures have. What I think is that the "folk memory" of the Irish barely remember anything else than Christianity, and therefore the idea of denouncing God seems strange. The Swedish, on the other hand, "remember" that people survived before they were Christians too, so to us Christianity is just another religion, not the only one.

Congratulations, you made me talk about two of my favourite subjects in the same post. I hope you haven't all fallen asleep yet. :rolleyes:

[Bad Christian]

Which immigration? The one that started when the US was a British Colony? Religion is fundamental to the US. It might not be to you but it is well ingrained in the society.

The flood of poor, hardworking Germans, Italians, and English who came after the United States had been fully established.

If you read quotes from the Founding Fathers, you can easily see their general disdain for organized religion. I believe the tide was turning. The leaders tend to influence their populations.

Unfortunately, after the Founding Fathers died, their secular influence diminished and the religious fervor of the new immigrants stirred more religion in the United States. I can't be too sure about that.

But why else could Europe be so much more secular than the United States, which started the secular government movement?

[HeyBooU]

If you read quotes from the Founding Fathers, you can easily see their general disdain for organized religion. I believe the tide was turning. The leaders tend to influence their populations.
This makes me wonder. Are you against organized religion or simply religion in general?

[Zero Angel]

Most religion is self-serving and a liability. I used to think that religion was useful in a sense that it instills moral values in people, but I've seen too many hypocritical people who act against the principals of their religion, or those who try to champion their religions 'morals' (ie: modern day crusades) without looking at the larger picture.

Also, I think one reason why people may enter into some religion is so they can have the security blanket of 'understanding' the fundamentals of creation (and their place) without really having to work at discovering it on their own. To their benefit, a few hardcore christians I know on the net are quite intellectual and will defend their faith with the most witty comments.

Taoism and certain other non proselytizing (self-serving) religions hold a certain fascination though.

[Werdna]

The flood of poor, hardworking Germans, Italians, and English who came after the United States had been fully established.

If you read quotes from the Founding Fathers, you can easily see their general disdain for organized religion. I believe the tide was turning. The leaders tend to influence their populations.

Unfortunately, after the Founding Fathers died, their secular influence diminished and the religious fervor of the new immigrants stirred more religion in the United States. I can't be too sure about that.

But why else could Europe be so much more secular than the United States, which started the secular government movement?Wasn't it really the french revolution that started that movement? And the founding fathers who were heavily influenced by those ideas?:unsure:
Many people moved to the US because they were persecuted in their home countries because of their beliefs. Perhaps there are genes for religiosity (I think I read an article about this somewhere) and a lot of people with those genes ended up in the US?
Or perhaps it's just ignorance due to a lack of a decent public school system :D

Oh, and organized religion is far more trouble than it's worth. Too easily abused by deluded madmen.

[mgb]

The flood of poor, hardworking Germans, Italians, and English who came after the United States had been fully established.

If you read quotes from the Founding Fathers, you can easily see their general disdain for organized religion. I believe the tide was turning. The leaders tend to influence their populations.

Unfortunately, after the Founding Fathers died, their secular influence diminished and the religious fervor of the new immigrants stirred more religion in the United States. I can't be too sure about that.

But why else could Europe be so much more secular than the United States, which started the secular government movement?

Quotes from Founding Fathers:


"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." --- Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728


"There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them. " Thomas Paine -from a pamphlet.

I'll give you John Adams.


"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." --- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

And Madison.

While not really religious Washington seemed to attend church:

"It was somewhat of a shock, therefore, to the people of Philadelphia, when the reverend Dr. Abercrombie, Washington's pastor, criticised him from the pulpit. He told him that as President, he should not belong to a church unless he could set a good example to others. He reminded Washington that he never took communion, and in short, that his example was bad."

Its pretty difficult to say that they completely rejected the church. They couldn't and be successful. They were polictians. And the fact that secular humanism didn't outlast their deaths is a pretty clear indication that they had missed something when founding the US.

[Bad Christian]

And while religion was part of their society it wasn't the foundation for their government. If you judge Ancient Greece by the same standards that you are judging the US you will see that their Democracy far outdates your own.

The Greek government did not enforce a separation between church and state. It stood for its religion and its gods. It was not truly secular. Of course the Greeks came up with democracy before the United States, but it was called pure democracy, and it was very different from our democracy.


This makes me wonder. Are you against organized religion or simply religion in general?

Neither. I'm against the majority of organized religious around today.


Wasn't it really the french revolution that started that movement? And the founding fathers who were heavily influenced by those ideas?

No. It doesn't take much research to know that the French Revolution happened after the American Revolution. Both were heavily influenced by the secular ideals of the Enlightenment, of course.

[mgb]

So, Bad Religion, do you now think that the US is a secular country now?

[Bad Christian]

mgbradsh.... are you defending your point or are you supporting mine?



"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." --- Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728

That leans Deist right there. God doesn't want people to worship or praise him? And that's the best defense you can muster? Makes sense, considering that Franklin is considered to be one of the more atheistic Founding Fathers. Read that quote carefully, and tell me isn't an attack on organized religion.

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
-Benjamin Franklin

"He [the Rev. Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard."
-- Benjamin Franklin, from Franklin's Autobiography

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle."
-- Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)

I will admit that Franklin, like all of the Founding Fathers, was political enough not to be too outspoken in his views.


"There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them. " Thomas Paine -from a pamphlet.

Thomas Paine wrote The Age of Reason and received quite a bit of flak. It was a book completely denouncing religion.

On Thomas Jefferson:

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.
-- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, 11 January 1817, in Lester Cappon, ed."

"I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know".
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely (June 25, 1819), quoted from Dickinson W. Adams, ed,

"What all agree upon is probably right; what no two agree in most probably is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Axiom, in a letter to John Adams, 11 January 1817

"Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson, considering three different explanations for why sea shells would be found at higher elevations than one should reasonably expect an ocean to have existed, in Notes on the State of Virginia ††

Jefferson was a deist, and definitely not a fan of organized religion. I kept the longer quotes out, but there a few more critical ones.

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

You have no quote from John Adams. Him and Washington were two of the more open believers in organized religion.

[mgb]

Yeah, ok didn't read the quotes that much, saw God and jumped. I would still consider Deism to be a concession on religion and the admission that there is a god.

But really, quotes aside, do you think that then and now politicians can gain support in the US without at least admitting they go to church.

I think the public is just as important as the people who lead them.

[Bad Christian]

Yeah, ok didn't read the quotes that much, saw God and jumped. I would still consider Deism to be a concession on religion and the admission that there is a god.

Certainly. I believe its likely that there is a god. After all, how can there can be an infinite chain of events? There has to be one infinite source of time and space.


But really, quotes aside, do you think that then and now politicians can gain support in the US without at least admitting they go to church.

Certainly. They can at least pretend to go to the church. I'm reminded of the movie Spartacus , in which one of the Senators says, "Publically, I am faithful to the gods. Privately, I believe in none of them." Or something like that.

It's unlikely that our current leaders are like that, but I'm suspicious. Obviously Bush doesn't believe in the true precepts of Jesus Christ, and it seems to be more a political facade and excuse than anything else, to be honest.


I think the public is just as important as the people who lead them.

Perhaps. The masses are very stupid, there's no doubt of that. But we have a moral obligation to consider their fallacious views, eh? Probably.

[mgb]

There has to be one infinite source of time and space.


Why does there have to be?

Is this source now dead?

[Bad Christian]

Why does there have to be?

Because time and space have a beginning. An infinite chain of events is incomprehensible. It leads to the concept of infinite reoccurence - our lives would be repeated over and over again in the infinity of time. *shrugs*

It's hard to explain exactly. You can argue that the universe has no beginning, and that it was just caused by an event, which was caused by an event... for infinity. Such an argument is unsatisfying.


Is this source now dead?

I never said that the infinite source of everything has to be omniscient, omnipotent, and intrinsincilly good. The motives of such a being are unknowable. It's likely that such a being wouldn't care about humanity.

[cjs55]

I don't see enough difference between christianity and secular humanism to even give a shit.

Secular Humanism is just as much of a religion, and it seems to based almost directly on Christian moral systems. I.E. Everyone has a soul, a duality between that soul and body (so retarded children are allowed to be born and even breed). A Platonic soul = Secular Humanisms value on human life being sacred.

Humanity is getting weaker and weaker day by day, and it won't make the slightest difference whether we are all christians or secular humanists, because there isn't much difference between the two in the first place.

Fuck Humanism.

[Bad Christian]

there isn't much difference between the two in the first place.

Good point.