alan jones wrote:
 >>>Were one to remove religion, the role would still need to exist in
 >>>society; in man. The perpencity towards those  functions fulfilled
 >>>by God, would still exist.
 >>
 >>No, it wouldn't. While this role may have been crucial in the ancient
 >>times when religion served as a de facto political, legislative and
 >>judicial system, this aspect of religion has been replaced by (much more
 >>effective secular) institutions. Any meddling of religion in these purely
 >>secular matters today is unhealthy and destructive for a society, as
 >>witnessed by the cancerous Islamic countries and their backward
 >>position on all sorts of civil liberties and freedoms.
 >
 > This statement makes clear how little is understood of religion. The
 > role religion fulfils is much much wider than those you've mentioned.
 > Religion goes beyond mere political, legislative or judicial.

Repeating this ad nauseam does not make it true. You keep making blank
statements and just when you're supposed to back them up with facts, you
stop. This is not a conversation - it is a monologue. For example, how
exactly does religion " go beyond mere political, legislative or judicial"?
By providing an avenue for people to feed their superstitious nature and to
satisfy their need for worshipping objects? Big deal, UFO's and Hollywood
celebrities provide the same function.

 > Indeed one could say much of those systems have religions values at the core
 > of their being. They exist as a result of the values that come from religion.

One could say that and one would be completely wrong. The systems exist no
thanks to religion that has consistently fought any progress in human rights
and civic liberties, from the church sanctioned slavery, to official
misogyny, torture, mistreatment and persecution of minorities, perpetuating
and celebrating ignorance, illiteracy, poverty, subservience to the ruling
caste, and so on...

Just because there are some areas in the judicial system that loosely
overlap with some aspects in religions, does not make religion the basis or
a norm for a civilized society. There are substantially more aspects of
religions that are in a direct violation of any norm of civilized behavior.

 > As for Islamic countries, One can not talk of these countries divorced
 > from their history. You talk of those countries being backwards, which
 > may be true if judged solely on a technological basis, however as a
 > society their culture is no worse than the worst the west has to offer.

Who cares about the history? How does history justify an uncivilized
behavior in this day and age? Also, stop throwing red herrings around -
technology was never considered. I am talking strictly about the widespread
violations of civic liberties and personal freedoms that is the direct
result of their church-state symbiosis.

 > You talk of the Cancer of Islam, but take a look closer to home and
 > what do you see.

No, I talk about the cancer of Islamic countries that is there because they
identify their religion with the state (society) and make no effort to
separate the two. That is why they're cancerous, much like the Western
Europe was in the medieval times when the Vatican pulled all the strings.
Nothing good can ever come out of such an unnatural order, as witnessed by
the Holy Roman Empire times, as well as by the Islamic countries today.

 > Wherever you may are in the western world, you'll find
 > something rotting amidst the urban splender. The absense of unequivable
 > value has lead to the moral decay in the heart of our cities. The inner 
cities grow with the true price of Democrasy, they lives
 > made crasy with
 > its routine schisms, the results is the attitude that anything goes. The rest
 > of society can only look on and wonder why they don't adhere to the rules.
 > Where's the soul in our inner cities? For all the money where is there
 > the peace of mind.

I will no longer respond to non-arguments such as this. Your poetic essays
with no facts are getting tired.

 >>There are some other so-called functions of religion in a today's society,
 >>but they are mostly irrelevant and self-serving, for example religious
 >>charity which is basically a legalized money laundering.
 >
 > And what of the general example of charity, where do you imagine those
 > values come from, if not the example of religion?

  From the idea of continuing and benefiting our species, our societies, our
countries, our families by helping out the less fortunate than us. Why do we
need a threat of God's vengeance or Hell fires before we see that it is only
human to feed a starving child?

 >>  > I am saying the Christian God so completely fulfills that role that
 >>
 >>>anything else would undermine the basis on which society is ordered.
 >>
 >>This is an old and tired argument which is unfortunately based on
 >>reality, because it is a well known fact that the first thing any dictator
 >>does is make sure that clergy is taken care of after the coup.
 >>Unfortunately for  your argument, there are numerous societies out
 >>there today where religion is completely marginalized and irrelevant
 >>as a factor. This is happening in Western Europe for example, and
 >>even in Canada.
 >
 > Again you talk of the institutions and not the people. If a dictator were
 > to do-away with the public face of the church, the belief would still
 > live on in the hearts of the people.

In some it would, in some it wouldn't. Then also in some, which
unfortunately seem to comprise the majority, the idea that would "live on"
in their hearts would be the idea that their leader told them to follow.
That's your religion that thrives on human stupidity and a need for shepherds.

 > There would still exist this greater
 > organisation of people with their ultimate allegiance to the idea of God.
 > Its this factor which transcends time and provides a society with stability.

Religion provides a society with stability? Awww, man... this is just sad.

 > Dictators come and go, but this bed rock of belief endures to anchor the 
best of the human spirit. Our idea of freedom needs the
 > unequivable
 > source for that idea, our ideas of compassion needs its reference.

What makes you think that your own personal needs translate into the needs
for everyone, let alone the whole society? I don't see that need in myself,
and as I said, most of the people usually do whatever their leaders tell
them to do. That's how religion was almost non-existent in the USSR, for
example, and that's why it is back in business in today's Russia.

 > I acknowlge the role of tradition and conditioning has in maintaining
 > beliefs. I would also say that there is a need for hierachical structures,
 > as the basis of any organism; the basis of life; indeed basis of any
 > perpetuating system. The church adds an element of hierachy that has
 > proven necessary to human existance. The best of the church has evolved
 > to incorporate the element deemed by time as necessary adjucts to society.

What element does the church add here? I don't see that. If all the churches
were magically removed tomorrow and all the priests disappeared, the world 
would still function without a glitch. Priests, shamans, ayatollahs and 
voodoo practitioners contribute nothing to the society.

 >>A small correction: all the wars throughout human history were fought
 >>for economic reasons, i.e. plunder and land grab.
 >
 > A small correction to your small correction: all wars thoughout human
 > history have as their basis the fundamental question of population.

Population may be an elegant excuse, but the motivating factor is always the 
plunder of resources, whatever they may be: land, oil, gold, women... 
Mongolian raids into Europe were hardly due to the overpopulation of Mongolia.

[snip poetry]

 > As i've said there have been wars with their excuses based on religion.
 > Civil wars where religions are used to draw lines through population.
 > With or without these excuse, wars would exist.

Not nearly as many. What on Earth would motivate the medieval English 
peasant to go kill and get killed in Palestine for the person who steals his 
goods? But you throw in the promise of Heaven (or 90+ virgins, whatever 
works) and he's there sooner than you can say a Hail Mary.

 > Look closely at the
 > tradition of wars, and one sees the repetition as Country A, calls upon
 > the tradtional/plausible foe, Country B to 'help' to assist in their 
assertion
 > of order at home. Time shows both parties to profit from the game. A
 > mutually agreed decite, made invisible by the culture which talks of
 > heroes and duty. A culture that creates a taste for war, which grows
 > to dependent upon war to satisfy the culture's ecconomic craving for
 > war. Iraq wasn't fighting because Allah said so, neither was America or
 > the rest, fighting in the name of God.

I never claimed they were - just the opposite. However, both parties made 
repeated claims to God's assistance and cause.

 >>You talk a lot without saying anything.
 >
 > Then ask the question......

I'm asking and all I get in return is preaching the psalms.

 >>>Imagine if there were no Bible, no doctrines, no idea of what
 >>>God wants. Imagine if there still existed the belief in God, how
 >>>would you represent that belief.
 >>
 >>Uhm... exactly like it actually happened, with hundreds of widely
 >>different beliefs, gods and religions?

 > Never the less, these beliefs occupy a major part in man's existance,
 > the need arises for a reason.

Yes, and that reason is ignorance. Your religions are based on gods of the 
gaps. When we fill the gaps, the gods of thunder, fire, volcanos and 
creation disappear one by one. Yet you persist in your claim that this 
superstition is somehow useful.

 > As I've say, try looking beyond the cloaths
 > of words or various beliefs, man construsts, to give shape to this force.

What the fuck does this mean? Can you please speak English?

 >>For a person who believes in that particular god, yes. For everybody
 >>else who doesn't, his god is a figment of his imagination, a myth, a lie,
 >>a  wishful thinking, a bedtime story for children.

 > If one told a bedtime story to a child it would be done with a purpose.
 > The child would listen for a reason. With a sense for the effect the story
 > has upon the child. What exactly transpires between the teller and the told.
 > What is it that each finds in that transaction? Its is surely not just the
 > particulars of the story.

What the fuck does this mean? Can you please speak English?

 >>>God is a part of man, because we have always needed this force.
 >>
 >>I've never needed that force. I know some others who haven't either.
 >>Are we not men? (We are Devo)  If you prick us, do we not bleed?
 >>If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

 > You live directly and indirectly with the force. You are a product in a
 > system that exist by that force. The ways you are treated by others, is
 > itself a representation of the values that come via that force. The mind
 > is a powerful thing, the mind is a fragile thing, the difference is found
 > in the ideas that feed us. I feed you, will you not eat?

What the fuck does this mean? Can you please speak English?

 >>>A constant to account for the action of time. At the heart of
 >>>civilised values is this need which exist in both the individual,
 >>>and the group. As I've said a single point of certainty in a chaotic
 >>>system.  If we could exist without God, we would have.
 >>
 >>This argument makes as much sense as saying that if we could exist
 >>without vampires, we would have, based on the fact that most societies
 >>reported seeing blood-sucking creatures in the night.

 > I am trying to find the logic in this statement.

Now you know how I feel. I simply replaced your god with vampires - it is 
still your claim.

 > God, religion and a need
 > for beliefs have existed since time immemorial. The vampire tale is known 
to be a work of fiction, the tale exist and fulfils a
 > purpose.

The vampire tale is known to be a work of fiction? How is this different 
from gods? All the gods so far have been known to be a work of fiction, the 
present God, Allah and Yahweh included. Don't project your theist box 
premise onto the rest of the world.

 >>Look, alt.poetry is two blocks away, make a left and turn at the
 >>Starbucks. If you want to discuss facts, step away from the doobie.

 > It might read like poetry, but its purpose is to convey an idea for life
 > without this common theme.

Must... continue... fighting... feel... huge headache... setting in...

 > If you must, try to read without hearing
 > the music. Here, I am talking about the role fulfilled in the mind by God.
 > Again, a belief in God is also a belief in the believers of God.

What the fuck does this mean? Can you please speak English?

 > The idea is that we are less isolated if we have this shared and 
understood set of
 > values. In nature, where there are no such values, existance is about the
 > daily conflicts, about the constant negotiations.

A superstitious belief hardly represents a set of values. Maybe for a 
primitive Jewish tribe of goat herders 3000 years ago, but not anymore. Grow up.

 > The values that come from religion puts this need beyond our grasp. So
 > much of civilised life has a basis in this already negotiated set of values,
 > with values you now take it for granted. Where one sees the esculation in
 > crime, its because these values are no longer shared; the laws of nature
 > once again prevails.

Yeah, right, this is by far the stupidest theist argument: ah, the good old 
times where we all went to church and there was no crime. What you seem to 
be conveniently forgetting is that your good old times brought us such 
immortal hits as witch burning, slavery, persecution, the stake, religious 
wars, prevention of all kind of human progress, from medicine to law, etc.

 > The absense of religion doesn't not gaurentee a better system. You
 > are critical of what you see, but what about what you can't imagine.
 > Is it possible to say, X is bad, Y is better, where Y doesn't exist or
 > is taken as being -X?

What is possible is to take a look at the centuries of religious strife and 
realize it brought us nothing but misery, wars, poverty, ignorance, 
illiteracy, death and a few paintings.

 > Try and devise a system of respect, a system that also allows for the
 > minority influcence in society, and what do you come up with? The
 > alternative, a system predicated on fear, would be even more wasteful.
 > It would still lead to wars and the waste of intellectual resource, the
 > only influence in such a system would be the ruthless persuite of
 > power. Your arguments against religion have centered upon the uses
 > made of religion by the powerful. But what about the uses made of
 > religion, by the less advantaged? What alternative system would enable
 > their voices to be heard, or enable them the peace of mind in troubled
 > times?

What's their use? To fork out the last penny for the fat ass priests while 
swallowing fairy tales, to send their children to churches only to have them 
anally assaulted, to create a society based on a big lie, just so they can 
have a false hope, a false consolation, a false set of morals, a false sense 
of security? What price freedom of thought?

 > Lets say there where no religion, only politics. Would the vote be
 > enough to curve Man's worst excess in a system of greed? What force
 > would look out for the longer term, when the short term fixation was
 > only that of money. Is there a value in our system for spiritual wealth?
 > Watch as we pregress towards that uncertain end. Look at the environment 
we create for the mind. What kind of mind will thrive in
 > these times. Our belief in God receeds, only for a belief in Money to
 > come to the fore. Our sense of common bounds are severed, replace by
 > a selfish sense of the individual. The mind that might develop the gift
 > of empathy, is consumed by that empathy, the converse thrives.

You start from the wrong premise that religion actually offers something of 
value and then build your outlook on this. Yet, nothing is further from the 
truth. Religion is just an added value tax without value, a protection 
racket without protection, an emotional blackmail.

 > Take a good look at the new Religion. There is no bible, no doctrine
 > against which to measure our progress, there is only the creed, if it
 > makes a profit it can't be bad. So where will this creed take us. What
 > else will we do with money as its primary motif?

What's that got to do with anything? The alternative to religion is not 
money worship without restraint, so don't go creating straw men.

 >>>The need for God will exist whether we called it Christian
 >>>or something else......
 >>
 >>That's what they said about witches, demons and devils. After all, the
 >>family cow didn't just get sick on her own, did she? It could have only
 >>been a work of a witch who cast an evil eye, or maybe a demonic spell.
 >
 >
 > ????? - what?
 >
 > Man believes, because something in his nature predisposes him to
 > believe. Call it tradition, Conditioning, even a legacy of our genetic
 > disposition towards the herd. If it were not Christian [or Islamic] it
 > would be something else.

And that makes it OK? Not so long ago, man also practiced cannibalism, 
blood-letting, incest, human sacrifice, etc. Do we take a popular referendum 
and decide what's right with a simple majority?

 > Fascism, communism, Democracy? Do
 > away with God as we define that force, and it would still exist in some
 > other form, with a set of values which might not tolerate your protest.

The only, and I mean the only set of values for our species is "avoid 
unnecessary harm". That's it. No ten commandments, no moral standards, no 
magic tablets and no ghosts commanding obedience. Avoid unnecessary harm. 
The rest will take care of itself, because our species, much like the rest 
that survived for ages, is prone to co-operation and working together.







-- 
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, better than a cup of gold
See, only a Chocolate Jesus can satisfy my soul
When the weather gets rough and its whiskey in the shade
Best to wrap your Savior up in cellophane
He flows like the Big Muddy, but that's okay
Pour him over ice-cream for a nice parfait...
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, make me feel so good inside
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, keep me satisfied