Comments on: Religion: Merely a Socio-political Construct

By: nicko

nicko — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 04:32:41 +0000

there are some answer in this site..mcgi.org

By: believer501

believer501 — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:23:58 +0000

Antichristian sounds cool, they even talk a lot of thing that sometimes ordinary person doesn't absorb what they are talking about. They sounds intellectual person and even myself sometimes amazed of those topic they are discussing. One thing I observed they used a logo of INVERTED CROSS at the top of this site. Correct me if I'm wrong, that is what antichristian means for them. They inverted the cross to invert the word christian to antichristian because they thought that cross means christian or a logo of a christian.
For antichristian's info "real christian doesn't use cross as a logo". Who uses cross as a logo is "Catholic" and they are not christian because they doesn't understand "that cross is equivalent to an electric chair in our times" and even in the bible their using, cross does not a significant word it is a horrible word like an electric chair or a gas chamber. Therefore who uses cross for me is the antichristian because its against the christian's doctrine and if we inverted the cross? It seems to be christian.
Guys kindly checked your logo before you talk of something else, maybe you invert your inverted logo. How can we discuss something deep thought if we doesn't understand the basic thought. Just sharing.

By: Waldheri

Waldheri — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:09:34 +0000

Atheists don't "purely believe in Science [sic]". You are begging the question by asking "who created all these things in the world". The correct question is: "how did all the things in the world get here?". Do you see the difference? You are presupposing a being. And to be an atheist, you don't even have to know the answer, because it is an argument from ignorance that you are putting forward.

By: Maribeth M.

Maribeth M. — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:22:40 +0000

For Atheist, no God at all. They purely believe in Science but kindly explain who created all these things in the world? How this world evolve? But, I must admit that often times religion are being exploited in politics to gain the sympathy of people.

By: nazani14

nazani14 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:48:02 +0000

How about religion as a business or occupation? Think about that first man or woman who perhaps was a lousy hunter or gatherer, yet found a way to get the rest of the tribe to feed them in exchange for charms or talking to the spirits of animals. Of course, they might have been respected for actual knowledge, too, such as ability to predict animal migrations based on watching the movement of stars. Anyway, being a priest or shaman sure beats physical labor. I feel religion is based more upon gaining power and prestige for individuals, and the socio-political identity stems from that. Even the lowest individuals in the congregation derive some benefit- they can participate in a group identity in church, even if they are failures at finding good jobs or mates. So, both preachers and congregation can be desperate to preserve their religious group. As for the mega-church preachers, you could say they have had a revelation I call the Nostradamus affect: When a smart, manipulative person is struck by the realization that it is easier to gain income and prestige by fleecing the gullible than by working a normal job. No tedious exams or boards to pass, just learn your way around one book, and let the blarney roll. Look at the way preachers are treated in interviews vs. how scientists are treated, and you'll see that people are still a bit afraid of the shaman.

By: Waldheri

Waldheri — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:19:27 +0000

I wholly agree with db0's statements. I get a nasty itch whenever somebody claims that atheism is anything more than the disbelief in gods.

There are of course certain political actions associated with atheism, but they are not rooted in atheism itself. Example: in Iran, pork is banned because the Abrahamic god forbids it in the Qur'an (this concept is taken from the Old Testament) and because Iran is governed by Islamic law (Sharia). An atheist would find themselves robbed of the liberty to eat pork. If he should attempt to gain the freedom to eat pork (and drink alcohol, while he/she's at it) these actions are rooted in secular and/or libertarian political philosophy – not atheist philosophy, because it does not take any stance on any issues other than the acceptance of the existance of gods. (Note the difference between atheism and secularism!)

By: LeaT

LeaT — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:39:53 +0000

I am mostly talking about Atheism as a cultural movement. You can be Christian and believe in science over ID. There are certainly ideas in Atheism if you view it as a culture itself, and this is what I try to describe.

By: LeaT

LeaT — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:38:22 +0000

If you actually read the beginning where I said that religion is 1) a political contruct and 2) Atheism follows certain criteria to be classified as an anthropological view on religion, then it makes very much sense. It's easy to buy that animal rights activists might be religious in that sense, but Atheists are never religious even when I tried to put the word religion in a different context which has got nothing to do with theism.

By: LeaT

LeaT — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:36:19 +0000

What I am more trying to say is that's it a part of the Atheist's worldview, and that actually to declare yourself an Atheist in a context where such a thing like Atheism does not exist, it becomes meaningless. There are ideas and symbols behind Atheism just like there are with Theism, and people in general might associate Atheism with liberalism and social support, to be Atheist almost seems equal to believe in a secular society, or at least live in one.

I tried to give you an example of how religion in an anthropological sense does not only mean faith or lack of faith in a divine being, but it can be merely a strong idea of anything which is so prevalent within a specific culture that maybe yes, we can talk about it as a faith. I know that many Atheists try to declare there is no faith in science, but yet, Atheists believe more strongly in science than any other worldview. Yes, we can explain it with "science is more logical", but even if there would be a more correct alternative to science, would you still prefer science over this more alternative view, despite this view being more correct?

I can definitely feel a refusal with Atheists to admit that there might be any idea which correlates to faith in any sort of way, because "atheism is the lack of faith". or at least live in one.

By: db0

db0 — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:40:17 +0000

But that is the problem. Atheism is not a cultural movement. An atheist can have so many different views on life, economy or anyting, simply because "Atheism" has no cohesion.

It is like saying that people who do not play poker are a cultural movement.