The Root of All Evil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y"]The Real Cost Of Religious Faith - Atheist Experience 696 - YouTube

 

As usual, I'm a little put off by the label: The Real Cost of "Religious" Faith. What the video is really about is the divisiveness caused by a certain brand of religious faith-- fundamentalist Christianity, which I regard as a mind-crippling disease. Whether the hapless young man who happened to call The Atheist Experience to "witness" his faith was intellectually damaged before he joined his church or whether that happened to him as a result of his membership we don't know. He's obviously dumber than dirt, and the atheist duo have an easy time tangling him up in knots. I know of worse horror stories in which intelligent kids grow up thinking that there are demons everywhere out to get them, and that a wrathful God is just waiting to throw their worthless souls into hell. I remember a chilling statement by a young man on another forum who concluded Satan must have made him because He was gay and "God doesn't make mistakes." I thought to myself "Where is Richard Dawkins when you really need him." If the Atheist Experience helps liberate such people, I'd say Go for it! But I prefer real Christianity.

 

The essence of real faith is a genuine subjective experience of the living God. This kind of experience comes to any who have an open heart and are willing to receive.

Religion has replaced this vital experience with empty ritual and wasted effort, issuing from traditional values, passed down by religious leaders and assimilated by the religious mind.

The real God doesn't need sacrifices and offerings, and good works. He requires only our co-operation.

 

If you two don't believe that the bible is the literal word of God then why bother with Christianity at all. You need a sick hateful book of demon stories to feel good and teach morality? The fact is the God of the bible is more of a devil and if you believe the bible then you must believe I'm going to eternal hell for simply not believing, it's in the bible. The essence of faith is blind ignorance derived from hateful old books written by hateful men. Anyone who believes faith is a virtue needed for good morality is living a false morality.

"What kind of God requires faith instead of evidence? ... Faith is not a virtue, faith is gullibility."

 

Yeah, one thing I've always wondered is how someone could hold two ideas which are so diametrically opposed to each other. The one idea is that God loves you. The other idea is that God will burn you alive forever if you don't accept his love or fail to love him back in like measure.

For I say unto you: is it really possible to love what you fear, or to fear what you love? Let's be honest with ourselves?

 

Most Christians, and most Jews, don't believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. That strange notion is a product of Protestant religious fundamentalism, particularly as it developed in the nineteenth century. I use the historical-metaphorical approach in interpreting the Bible. The Old Testament has historic significance in helping us understand the tradition of the Jews, one of the two great traditions shaping western civilization--the other being the Greco-Roman. I think it's impossible to understand Genesis, the Book of Job, Jonah, and so many other parts of scripture by taking it literally. It's the context and Spirit, not the letter, that's important.

I see faith as trust in a set of postulates and assumptions that are necessary to make sense out of the ambiguous set of experiences confronting all of us. Do we trust our senses? We know they aren't always reliable. Do we adhere to Occam's Razor and prefer the simplest solutions? Life may not be that simple. Do we assume naturalistic explanations and reject the supernatural out of hand? I think we need to insist on substantial evidence for our beliefs, and reject those that are contrary to reason, evidence and science. But I can't prove it. I simply bet my life on it. I follow Luther's concept of faith as a "joyful bet", but I try to improve the odds by letting experience, logic, science, evidence, and intuition inform the bet. As for hell, I'm betting it's a metaphor for a bad attitude, in which a person locks himself or herself into a state of personal torment which can't be relieved because (s)he refuses to take personal responsibility for it. [/QUOTE]

 

I like what you said, about Luther calling faith a "joyful bet". It's that way with me as well.

Science, and scientific pursuits have always interested me. I consider my whole life to have been a scientific pursuit, of truth, reality, and reason. I only incorporated the element of faith into the equation after many years of "experimentation" (otherwise known as "life"), when I traded off using parameters based on "feelings of faith", as a barometer, with the other extreme of strict adherence to "scientific rigor".

It has become my understanding, through trial and error, that the so-called "rigors" of what may be called "the scientific method", at times only serve to exclude that which may be presently "unknown", which mysteries change with the age, as science catches up with itself, and new discoveries are made.

What has been known as "science" has always been in flux, and changing from one decade to the next. As far as "bets", I believe the "joyful bet" of faith to be sound, as long as it is not made in exclusion, without a proper balance of a reasonable community of understanding. Faith is not "blind", but does have some genuine parameters, which seem to indicate whether that faith is "genuine", or imaginary.

 

It is curious to me this idea of wagering ones life. There is no gamble on my part. Cautious by nature, it is success with the practical nature of a teaching which instills confidence on my part.

Do mean to say with, "I bet my life", that you are willing to invest yourself in a certain direction?

 

I agree. Science is the gold standard, but some questions aren't amenable to scientific inquiry--at least in our lifetime. One solution is the agnostic one of suspending judgment until the facts are in. If we took that approach on how to vote or what economic or foreign policies to support, we'd be effectively disenfranchising ourselves. I rely on reason, intuition, street smarts, experience in sizing up people, and whatever evidence is available. Sure I'll make mistakes, but it's the best that can be done under the circumstances. I do insist on substantial evidence--enough to convince a reasonable person even if another reasonable person could come to a different conclusion. And I hold my beliefs tentatively, pending additional evidence. No Kierkegaard "leap of faith" for me.

It's a figure of speech. I try to operate on the best available evidence, but if none is available I use my best judgment and decide rather than sit on the sidelines waiting for science to come to the rescue. I commit my energy and resources to a course of action, while continuing to test its validity on the basis of new evidence. For example, I bet on Jesus to give meaning to my life. I could bet on Dawkins, Sam Harris,the Pope, Al Qaeda, or Sarah Palin. But Jesus gives me more confidence. Faith is trust, but I follow Reagan's maxim: "Trust but verify".

 

the real root of evil, actually evil itself, is aggressiveness, and the romanticizing of aggressiveness; of which greed, ostentation and the pseudo-sophistries of excitement addiction are but a few of its outward embodiments. tyranny certainly is the dominance of aggressiveness, regardless of ideology, form of governance, economic mumbo jumbo, or belief in any form either, or even its abscence. masculinity is a most singularly infantile form of ostentation.