[Kapanda]

ComradeTim, you're always going to be a SOB to me, but you're my SOB.

[ComradeTim]

ComradeTim, you're always going to be a SOB to me, but you're my SOB.

Heres to that, my man!

[Pants-of-dog]

Well said, ComradeTim.

[ComradeTim]

Thank you, sir! I do my best.

[Political Interest]

Religion is not slavery. How can a belief be slavery? Slavery is something enforced upon people by others in the physical realm. Religion is like a philosophy or political ideal, it is not enslaving but there for anyone to embrace.

[ComradeTim]

Another victim of my poor titling! Here is the correct rendering. "Can the worship of a monotheistic creator God be reconciled with human liberty?"

[Drlee]

I've come to the tentative conclusion that religion is a necessary part of a fulfilled human life for all but the finest minds.

'Did you think we might not notice this Tim? That you relegated all religious people to that subset -"not the finest minds"?

Really Tim. Do you want us to take this so-called confession of yours seriously? You are allowing that irreligion has some negative effects that you seem to think you have observed. So let me ask you a more important question before we get down to the liberty question. What are the things, that the irreligious lack, that you believe they should get from religion?

Once we are reassured that you do not think we are in that category of "not the finest minds" and that you are able to articulate what you find lacking in irreligious people, we can move on the peripheral question about the doctrine of free-will. For that is what we Christians call the subject of your question.

[Kapanda]

'Did you think we might not notice this Tim? That you relegated all religious people to that subset -"not the finest minds"?

Really Tim. Do you want us to take this so-called confession of yours seriously? You are allowing that irreligion has some negative effects that you seem to think you have observed. So let me ask you a more important question before we get down to the liberty question. What are the things, that the irreligious lack, that you believe they should get from religion?

Once we are reassured that you do not think we are in that category of "not the finest minds" and that you are able to articulate what you find lacking in irreligious people, we can move on the peripheral question about the doctrine of free-will. For that is what we Christians call the subject of your question.

No, that part didn't catch my eye. I'm allowing Tim to make a complete fool of me.

[spodi]

I'll go real philosophical and deep on this one and say only you can enslave yourself. Forget religion, the state and others. But yeah I'm full of shit lol, or am I?

[layman]

Did you think we might not notice this Tim? That you relegated all religious people to that subset -"not the finest minds"?

This is frankly an embarassing argument from athiests. I am not religious but I would be stupid to not realise that there have been countless religious people who are 20x smarter than I am.

Dawkins really makes an idiot of himself when he implies similar things.

Linking the holocoast to religion is absurd also. There are practically zero examples of genoocide that have religion as the primary factor.

[ComradeTim]

I've come to the tentative conclusion that religion is a necessary part of a fulfilled human life for all but the finest minds.

Did you think we might not notice this Tim? That you relegated all religious people to that subset -"not the finest minds"?

I think the problem we have here is a simple matter of emphasis. While I would have (if I was speaking to you now), put the emphasis on the word "necessary". You (innocently enough) have put it on the "all but". Do you see the problem? The point I was trying to make, was that everyone apart from the finest minds NEEDS religion, so the idea that the finest minds may have religion is not ruled out. This while dilemma is tied into my experience of it religion amount the less intelligent/educated/cultured. My point is that from what I have observed, while the most intelligent seem to be able to create their own morality or at least seem to accept the need for a common moral standpoint in the presence of irreligion, the less intelligent seem unable to do so, causing the moral nihilism and high crime seen among the aforementioned groups in generally irreligious society's. Thusly, my previous position, that religion was unnecessary for all people in society, regardless of status, has changed.

I hope that cleared things up and dispelled some of the animosity. Peace to all.

[quetzalcoatl]

Religion isn't slavery, it's just false consciousness, superstition and backwardness.

All consciousness is false consciousness, and that includes class consciousness.

Consciousness is a construct formed through social interactions and individual reaction. That it is "freely" chosen does not affect its falsehood, nor the fact it may be based on a Marxist analysis of history.

The only saving grace of anyone's consciousness is a "conscious" rejection of arrogance and dogmatism.

[ComradeTim]

We can move on the peripheral question about the doctrine of free-will. For that is what we Christians call the subject of your question.

I am prepared.

[Drlee]

OK. Though I am still reluctant to believe you are not attempting another of your ruses here goes.

There are centuries of discussion on this subject. They range in scope from those who believe that God knows the future and the past so that the actions of individuals are predetermined, so to speak, to those who believe that God allows the world to progress as its inhabitants wish only pausing to intervene when it suits His purposes. There are those who believe that all of God's work was finished with Jesus and that from then on we are free to win or lose based upon our own free decisions.

MY belief is that most Christians believe that they are free to make bad or good decisions. We believe that we start off with the tendency to follow our baser instincts and that our religious convictions temper those instincts. Because we believe that we have and will always tend to violate the perfect vision for human behavior that God has presented us with and that we must ultimately rely on the fact that God knows we are weak that he will make allowances for our weakness. In other words we fear His judgment but we hope and rely on the mercy which He has promised to us.

We also believe (and most religious texts teach) that not all people are called to the same standard. Some, like a Franciscan Friar friend of mine hold themselves to a very high standard indeed. He has taken a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience to the rule of St. Benedict and his superiors and takes a very literal and comprehensive view of those rules. For example he leads a very austere life and as a reminder to himself that there are homeless in need of his (our) help, sleeps on the floor without a mattress to be in solidarity with them.

So the question is, "Is this necessary for him to achieve God's favor and reach eternal life in unity with Him?" I would say that this is at the very essence of free will for me. My friend does this because he believes that God calls him to do it but that in the end it is his own decision based upon his own free will. I believe that even absent these extraordinary actions my friend has to rely on God's mercy just as much as I do. And my efforts to live a Christian life are insignificant compared to his.

As I exercise my free-will am I aware that I am breaking the rules that God has set as the ideal standard? Of course. Do I do it deliberately? Of course. How could I claim otherwise. I could fry for all eternity just for coveting my neighbor's ass, so to speak. So knowing that I, as all humans are, weak by God's standards, I and my sainted friend both rely on God's mercy for both our hope and our inspiration.

So is this slavery? Not at all. It is the very opposite. It is, if you really think about it, for a believer, the assertion that we have freedom to behave as we please in the very face of the Creator and Ruler of the universe. God is not my master. Think about that. Not my master.

In one of the most important verses in the Bible, Jesus says:

"Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.

Father. Not master.

Then Paul tells us:

So you have not received a spirit that makes you fearful slaves. Instead, you received God's Spirit when he adopted you as his own children. Now we call him, "Abba, Father."

A child is not enslaved by his/her father. Taught, chastened, admonished, loved, but not enslaved.

So. Sometimes institutions claiming to hold the proverbial Keys to the Kingdom wish to control the behavior of their congregations. We see this is the history of Churches. We see it in writ large in much of Islam today. But speaking for Christianity (with apologies for my arrogance) we do not see this as necessary or even preferable for our salvation. As much as some church leaders might wish to force-feed us righteousness, in the end we all rely solely on the mercy of God. And we need no interlocutor between us individual and Him. That is a very naïve (on my part I am sure) view of the most commonly held view.

[Gletkin]

Personally, I still kind of agree with Marx's appraisal of religion, that they're "opiates".

But whereas he likely meant it derogatorily, I mean it in a more neutral sense. Despite the long history of people abusing them, opiates were intended to be medicine.

So just like medicine/drugs, if people "use" religion responsibly, I don't have a problem with that. I've met a couple of people who were "born again" and for what it's worth, it did seem to change them for the better. It probably helped though that they respected unspoken truces with me: they didn't try to "save" me and I didn't try to cast doubt on their beliefs.

Likewise, if religious "believers" act like dope peddlers and crackheads, by all means drop the antitheist hammer on them.

[PhiloChan]

As an anti-theist I have always felt that anti-theism is a natural response to the absurdity of religion. I moved to the position of anti-theism when I tried observing my previous faith in Islam and dived into Islamic fiqh again. I find that religion as a default will always be violent and obstructive in the lives of humans and more so in international settings. Religions are like any other form of superstition, they have gone on long enough and have been exposed as quackery.
The best way to handle religion and maintain peace is by opposing religion and its foundations in modern society. Indeed many religions seek to benefit the people but much of it only serves to obstruct progress in the modern era. Man has outgrown religion and by default outgrown its absurdity.

[ComradeTim]

I find that religion as a default will always be violent and obstructive in the lives of humans and more so in international settings. Religions are like any other form of superstition, they have gone on long enough and have been exposed as quackery.

Does that statement encompass all religions, or just the Theistic or Abrahamic ones? You say that your background was in Islam before becoming an anti-theist, what particular features of Islam did you find to be unacceptable?

[PhiloChan]

Does that statement encompass all religions, or just the Theistic or Abrahamic ones? You say that your background was in Islam before becoming an anti-theist, what particular features of Islam did you find to be unacceptable?

I mean that to all religions and I am not leaving out Buddhism and Hinduism which I graciously explored after Islam.
What I find unnaceptable about Islam is its usage of fiqh. Islamic is entirely legalistic and promotes very negative social qualities on people.

• It promotes the notion that an infidel is someone who knows who Allah is but denies it. So an infidel is henceforth a liar. Which makes Muslims hold negative opinions about their kafir neighbors.

• It promotes the concept of Ibadah or divine enslavement.
  Surat ad-Dhariyat, Ayat 56 "وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ" / "Did I not create the jinn(genies) and mankind except to worship me.
  The highlighted word is la-abadoon. This is the concept of worship known as Ibadah or divine enslavement. This is why Muslims take pride in being the abd al-Allah and despise the uhkila (intellect).
  The most praise theologian in Islam is Abu Hamid al-Ghazali who despised sciences and philosophies and wrote lengthy works about this. The usage of the intellect is literally despised.

• It scripturally mandates a khalifa and the subjugation of others by force.

• Muslims must abide by the Sunnah, which is the practices of Muhammad. So they must form necro-dictatorial-fascist state. Muslims will only cut their beards in proportions to hoe Muhammad did it which he measures his beard by hand.

From here on I can rant for eternity. Most of what you see in the news is exactly how Muslims behaved. The issues in Israel over the Filistiniyyah and the fact that the Jews were persecuted in or outside of Israel historically. I can go on for eternity.
There are many wonderful things about Islam and its contributions to the world such as the creation of Fulsafa and contributions to medicine but it is always going to be overshadowed by the mainstream Islamic norms which are barbaric.

[ComradeTim]

I mean that to all religions and I am not leaving out Buddhism and Hinduism which I graciously explored after Islam.

Firstly, thank you for explaining your objections to Islam so clearly. However, I would like to know in more detail your objections to the very different doctrines of Buddhism and Hinduism, (and any other religions you have also explored if it's not too much trouble).

[PhiloChan]

Firstly, thank you for explaining your objections to Islam so clearly. However, I would like to know in more detail your objections to the very different doctrines of Buddhism and Hinduism, (and any other religions you have also explored if it's not too much trouble).

I have many objections to them and they are more general as opposed to being specific like Islam. I know how to quote the qur'an in Arabic clearly and can go very in depth about it but Buddhism and Hinduism are more complex and different because they lack legalism and structure.

If you want to make a thread about it go ahead, I will keep a look out. I do admit religion is not my favorite subject.