I suspect that a decent minority of Greeks do not believe in god, or orthodoxy for that matter. Yet appear as orthodox, as it is perceived as integral to being a member of the Greek culture and community.
I myself am an Atheist and do not goto church, nor express any respect for the orthodox church - or any church for that matter. Whilst I find some ceremonies interesting, the overall beliefs of the religion I do not accept as anything but mere superstition.
To answer your question, I think my brand of Atheism would not be received well in Greece whereas the first form of soft-Atheism, that is disbelief whilst remaining 'orthodox', would go down fine.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Thank you for your very honest response. I face the same reaction from my fellow countrymen.
I gather you are a cultural "Orthodox" as I am a cultural "Catholic". (I also respect Christmas/Easter... but The Bible for me is nothing more than a piece of man-made/written literature.
Are you familiar with Hitchens's GOD IS NOT GREAT or Dawkins's GOD DELUSION for that matter?
World top sellers.
Have they been translated in Greece ?
If you have time please listen to the YOU TUBE version of ""God is not Great"" I gave in my previous post...
Secular and Balkan greetings,
Feral Tribune
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I would say that in Greece there is alot of admitted Agnosticism but the word ATHEIST has a bad connotation so people avoid using it or even thinking that they are that. The Greek Orthodox church has a good grip on the Greek psyche and tries to bully people around when it comes to expressing their true feelings about the church and the religion!
Yes, I have Christopher Hitchens book and have read some of it. Interestingly enough I agree with him in principle with his assertions of the role of religion throughout history!
Religions and especially the three of the main ones; that is Judaism,Christian,and Islam consider themselves as the inventors and keepers of morality.
The truth could not be further away than that assertion. Ethics and morality was thought, written and debated hundreds of years prior to Christianity and developed separately than Judaism totally devoid of religious influence. Ancient Philosophers wrote extensively about "Man's Correct Conduct" in this world!
However, I marvel at this Universe and its mechanics and laws. I am sure that inteligence and comprehension is embedded in its very atomic structure and therefore I intuitevely feel that we might not be totally left alone to our devices. There is the Natural Law and Order that it appears to be embeded in our genes that we recognize universally. I do not know what it is or where it comes from, but it is the basis of the springing forth of all religions. Couple this with our fear of death and the existence of charlatans and you have religion!
Later!
Kostas
Kostas the Macedon ("Always Guarding Thermopylai"- Kavafes).
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
expressing their true feelings about the church and the religion!
Will you please stop and just say whats on your mind, you are gay that is why you have no faith so this way you can go on living your sinning ways without fear of burning in hell. This is the problem with people like you. If you had any balls you would come out of the closet already. Hell if their is nothing wrong with it than just admit it!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I'm not culturally Orthodox, no. I find some of the traditions interesting, but I have no desire to be a part of them.
I am familiar with Hitchens' work - his books on the Parthenon Marbles and Cyprus are brilliant! ,
I am also aware of Dawkins and Sam Harris (whose book is probably my favourite).
The God Delusion is available in Greek, and has received some very interesting press. Not sure about the others though.
There are some good Greek atheist books, like the Great Lie by Michael Kalopoulos - available in English and Greek, which is much like Bart Ehrman's books which explain the history of "holy texts" and their non-divine origins.
It also dispels the nonsense that is "holy fire".
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Greetings from BiH destroyed by religion and nationalism
No score for this post
August 19 2008, 4:47 AM
Dear Kostas,
Thank you very much for your very honest and insightful response.
I accept and respect your somewhat Einsteinian view of the Universe so elegantly manifested in its all glorious life forms (including lethal cancer cells:-).
I think Mr amerinako is a classic example of a narrow minded religious fundamentalist we have to deal with in this day and age. Welcome to the 21 century.
His avatar also tells is it all.
I am sure that he is convinced that "god" is Serbian and Serbian people are the chosen ones.
I have the same problem dealing with Croatian nationalists, who claim that god (and Holy mary so called GOSPA in Medjugorje) also gave them that spiritual exclusivity (Germans claim the same : Gott Mit Uns, Americans: "God bless America" and it goes on and on......).
I am from Mostar and I have to tell you that the first thing Catholics, Orthodox and Muslim nationalists (?) did during that idiotic war in the 90's was to ......burn to the ground one-another's churches/mosques . They got their priorities right....Of course in front of the cameras they would say that their faith is a religion of PEACE and LOVE.
That bloody nationalistic/religious in former Yugoslavia war was the best lesson about life I have ever got.....but I do not wish it to anybody....
Secular , Balkan greetings,
Feral Tribune
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Listen nazi before you try to butter up to the Greeks remind them that YOUR people tried to kill them along with the Germans,Italians,Albanians and Bulgarians.
Now as for me thinking God is Serbien, no he was born to a Jewish woman making him a Jew. Do I believe ORTHODOX people are the new chosen ones YES.
Yes welcome to the 21st century where they show homosexual values on tv for our children to learn, where drugs are everywhere and kids are more vulnarable then ever. Also the 21st century where YOUR beloved Jugoslavija was torn apart by the hands of Your old friends the bastard Germans.
Who burned churches??? Do you even know how many ancient Monastaries the Serbiens lost in Kosovo to the hands of muslims?
Let me remind you way back even in the 1980's when some one was from Croatia and you asked them where they were from they would say Croatia not Jugoslavija, like they should have. Those bastards always counted themselves as Croations first and never Jugoslavijans, so to hell with them and you hrvatski ustac! Croation living in Mostar among muslims how fitting. Do us all a favor and hang yourslef from the bridge!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
They got their priorities right....Of course in front of the cameras they would say that their faith is a religion of PEACE and LOVE.
Let me remind you that the Orthodox have never ever tried to forcefully convert ANYONE unlike Catholics and Muslims! All we do and ever did is try to protect what is right, our Orthodoxy.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Thank you for your cultured and honest explenation reg atheism in 21 century Greece...
Now, look at our Balkan friend Mr Amerinako - a person chosen by "god" whoever he [she is for him)... I cannot read his sickening, primitive, nationalistic ultra-fundamentalist religious verbal diarrhea any more. So much for religious/christian values : hatred, violence, cult of death, vengeful attacks total lack of reason and common sense and finally last but not least a typical exhibition of pathological Balkan victimology (everybody in former YU claims to be an INNOCENT victim of their neighbours' aggression - contrary to the findings of the Hague Tribunal).
You can find heaps of interesting stuff on You tube or www.richarddawkins.com.
I recommend his fantastic debates ( as well as Hitchens's). They both possess that amazing ability of intellectually dismantling the religious myths and their narrow-minded protagonists.
I find Sam Harris very soothing but not aggressive enough....he is probably more suitable for the politically correct American audience.
Secular, Balkan greetings,
Feral Tribune
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Sam Harris I wouldn't call politically correct personally, but he does seem to be less aggressive than Dawkins and particularly Hitchens.
Harris interests me because currently he is looking at religion from a neurological stand-point, as in why some people have to believe and the circumstances of their; education, IQ, wealth, nationality etc which show correlation to belief.
He also addresses some points that other non-believers neglect. One of these points is how rational non-believers in Astrology do not need the name non-astrologer. Why then do rational non-believers in religious dogmatic mythology need the name Atheist?
I agree with this point and tend to avoid giving myself the name atheist, but rather offer rationalist if pushed for a title.
This is an interesting question Dawkins and Hitchens seem to ignore.
I do however enjoy Hitchens live, I saw him on Fox News regarding the death of a shout-n-holla evangelist and Hitchens said "if you gave him an enema, you could bury him in a match-box" this was not even 24 hours after his death. Whilst I see a need for fundamentalist faith-heads to be challenged and confronted. I also see a need for someone like Harris to try and persuade the moderates. Letter to a Christian Nation was a great book and it raises many valid points that believers could honestly not answer without concluding that their faith is equally as invalid as all the others.
Hitchens though has a way to anger people who I do not like, such as fundamentalist faith heads. So I always enjoy seeing a good Hitchens debate/interview.
Some catholic leader in America got angry at Hitchens and threatened to fight him outside in the car park after he wrote his book on Teresa.
I could not pick a favourite atheist figurehead, but as to which book I like most I lean toward End of Faith as I feel it covers a good number of topics and focuses on the ones that will persuade believers. Whilst the others do this, just not quite as eloquently.
I cannot recall who said this, but a Greek philosopher noticed how Greek gods looked Greek, Ethiopian gods looked as such and he then said, If horses made gods they would resemble horses.
Over 2000 years ago people noticed how each religion looks invented by people to suit their needs, yet in the 21st century people are honestly deluding themselves- ignoring the obvious non-divine origins of islam, christianity or judaism.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Hi Panos,
Congrats on a very well written and very insightful post.
I also enjoy debates in which Hitch, Rich and Sam intellectually shred into pieces their religious counterparts. Panos , sometimes you have to whack a religious fanatic with a sledge hammer in the head to bring him/her back to earth.
I find theologists very repetitive and nauseating. Their arguments alwys lead to a predictable dead end despite their desperate attempts to dilute luck of substance with some quasi-poetic parabolas and metaphors it just does not hold water. Poor souls choke themselves to death by their hopeless argumentative limitations. Rationalists/humanists ( I also avoid term "atheists") have a wealth of a new scientific evidence not every century but virtually every year now. The religious know they fighting the hopeless battle.
After one of the Richard's lectures I participated in (in London) one of the very intelligent Irish fellow science students burst into tears realizing that her feeble religious house of cards she grew up with was dismantled effortlessly by Dawkins just within the space of one hour. I really felt sorry for her.....
When I told my older brother that sad story he said that I cried uncontrollably for a few hours after he had told me that Santa Claus did not exist....well, I was 5 or 6...
I hope you find this embarrassing aspect of religion interesting :
I sympathise with your views. I too for a long time was nothing more than a nominal member of Orthodoxy. I tried very hard to understand the ceremonious custom of the church. I couldn’t make heads or tales of it. Eventually I moved away regardless of what others thought, family included. I subsequently became very critical to downright cynical about religion.
The downside was that I was overcome by a heavy sense of futility. An existentialist angst. What was the whole point of life? Well might the scientist argue that such questions about ‘why’ are anchored in the human psyche and have no logical basis, but I can’t change the fact that for this existence at least I will always be a human with human thoughts and concerns.
I turned to reckless hedonism and moved from one high to another. However as memory can not transcend death even this proved a futile and empty exercise: “what of all this will I take with me?” The thrill seeking spiralled into a darker reality. Ultimately my life led to drugs and eventually organised crime, especially with Asian based syndicates ironically known as Triads (from the Trinity to Triads).
In summary this biographical account sounds a little clichéd. I’m not attempting to link atheism with poor life choices and a debauched life. As an existentialist it may be argued there is no such thing as a poor choice. Nothing is recorded against your soul as there is no soul. You simply flow along a nihilistic river until you cease to be. Consequences schonsequences.
Eventually the descent into the dark recesses of society started to take on a spiritual significance. I became aware of secret fraternity practices which were logically inexplicable. A world of spirits and physical evil. And then on the verge of an initiation I had a revelation. An apocalypse which hurled me into a new life changing paradigm. For the first time a had a clear and empirical understanding of the Devil and hell. It therefore followed that if this world was real, God must also be true.
This story has a lot more twists and turns which I won’t go into. However one point I would like to make is ‘Church’ and ‘God’ are one and the same. The church is made up of humans with all their vices and deficiencies. Compounding this further the Orthodox Church is unfortunately stuck in some time bubble of the middle ages.
The Koine (common) language in which the New Testament was written was the vulgar language of the people. In other words it was written to be understood by all, not just a select few priests and theologians who pretend to channel God's energy through incantations uttered in Hellenistic Greek.
To understand how much some things have been stylised and ceremonialised take the Eucharist for example (which simply means ‘thank you’). The initial church (see Corinthians) starts with meetings of remembrance. Christians from the Church of Corinth gather to ‘eat’ together (usually on a Saturday – the 7th day of the week - and not a Sunday - which is the first day of the week) . They eat bread (representing the body of Christ) and drink wine (the blood of Christ). The whole idea of a Eucharist is a plain meal with banquet guests praising the bounty of God (the early Christians visualised Heaven as a big banquet).
Let’s take the same practice in the modern Orthodox and Catholic churches. Every Sunday the crowned and gilded priest (a hangover from Pharisaic times) mechanically and unemotionally reads (or should I say chants) a part of the gospel and some Psalms. The wine and bread are blessed and through the mystical process of transubstantiation the Holy Spirit (the body of Christ) enters into the chalice of wine and the bread. People who have fasted for half a week cannibalise the emblems of Christ and their sins are purportedly absolved.
Nowhere in the Bible is this practice advocated. In fact Paul the Apostle is quite explicit on this point: Christ whom you have espoused as your Lord has already absolved you of sin. The whole point of Crucifixion was for a sinless God to die for you and in doing so take acquit you of judgement. So why all the shenanigans? Simple, it makes a priest appear a lot more significant than he really is and keeps him in a job.
Is God so small and finite that he requires the church's pigeon hole definitions for survival? I don't think so. God and Church are not one and the same. God can reveal Himself to anyone: in the Church or out, to Christian and non Christian alike.
Finally to call yourself an atheist is as much a leap of faith as to avow God. Scientists will say that the onus of proof rests with the Theologians. It is they that must demonstrate the existence of God. However this is more of a political standpoint (payback for medievil loftiness when the Western Church exercised absolute control of knowledge) than a logical one. Scientists can no more prove the non existence of God as theologians can prove the opposite. Agnosticism is therefore the natural refuge for most people: “show me and I’ll believe”. My advice: keep an open mind.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You've got my attention again little gnat! You still haven't given me your adress!!! You've pussied out (the women please excuse my French)again and again.
You!!!, that always has the word "gay" in you mouth, must be suffering of self-loathing. You have homosexuality constantly in your mind! (I hope the readers here go back and read some of our previous discources with Amerinaco who was trying to pass for a Greek Spartan. Now that was a lot of laughs. But the funniest of all was when I called him "butter-boy"="boutyropaido" that means mamas boy and he thought it was a homosexual slur). The little gnat is a well established comedian.
Oh by the way, before I forget Amerinaco, how did your operation for your hemorhoids go? Are you convalescing well? I would like to send you chocolate candy to make you feel better!
I would prefer that you stop un-healthy activities in general but if you don't at least use some type of a lubricant. Talk to your Doctor and he'll tell you! There is info all over the Internet!
Also, "quit using girbles" the Surgeant said. He had to remove eight out from you. What is wrong with you? Can't make an animal shelter out of your butt!
Anywho, I 've got to go now but Tyrone told me that he is waiting for you!
I hope this is Atheistic enough for you! Or Agnostic, or even Amerinostic who cares!
Toodles gnat,
Kostas
Kostas the Macedon ("Always Guarding Thermopylai"- Kavafes).
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Niklianos (Login Nikilianos) Greece Forum Mods Group
Re: Atheism in Greece
No score for this post
August 26 2008, 4:23 AM
Amerinako,
If you cannot refrain from insulting people or using derogatory terms then you will be banned for a week. After that even longer before the 3rd time which equals indefinite ban. I have been gone for a while and come back and start reading gay this and gay that, well that is uncalled for. If you cannot be civilized then we do not need you in here!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I sympathise with your views. I too for a long time was nothing more than a nominal member of Orthodoxy. I tried very hard to understand the ceremonious custom of the church. I couldn’t make heads or tales of it. Eventually I moved away regardless of what others thought, family included. I subsequently became very critical to downright cynical about religion.
The downside was that I was overcome by a heavy sense of futility. An existentialist angst. What was the whole point of life? Well might the scientist argue that such questions about ‘why’ are anchored in the human psyche and have no logical basis, but I can’t change the fact that for this existence at least I will always be a human with human thoughts and concerns.</indent>
I have no such angst with existentialism, a secular meaning of life to me is far greater than one whereby this life is only a test.
I might further add that hedonism, drugs and recklessness are not a function of disbelief.
I turned to reckless hedonism and moved from one high to another. However as memory can not transcend death even this proved a futile and empty exercise: “what of all this will I take with me?” The thrill seeking spiralled into a darker reality. Ultimately my life led to drugs and eventually organised crime, especially with Asian based syndicates ironically known as Triads (from the Trinity to Triads).
In summary this biographical account sounds a little clichéd. I’m not attempting to link atheism with poor life choices and a debauched life. As an existentialist it may be argued there is no such thing as a poor choice. Nothing is recorded against your soul as there is no soul. You simply flow along a nihilistic river until you cease to be. Consequences schonsequences.
Eventually the descent into the dark recesses of society started to take on a spiritual significance. I became aware of secret fraternity practices which were logically inexplicable. A world of spirits and physical evil. And then on the verge of an initiation I had a revelation. An apocalypse which hurled me into a new life changing paradigm. For the first time a had a clear and empirical understanding of the Devil and hell. It therefore followed that if this world was real, God must also be true.
This story has a lot more twists and turns which I won’t go into. However one point I would like to make is ‘Church’ and ‘God’ are one and the same. The church is made up of humans with all their vices and deficiencies. Compounding this further the Orthodox Church is unfortunately stuck in some time bubble of the middle ages.
The Koine (common) language in which the New Testament was written was the vulgar language of the people. In other words it was written to be understood by all, not just a select few priests and theologians who pretend to channel God's energy through incantations uttered in Hellenistic Greek.
To understand how much some things have been stylised and ceremonialised take the Eucharist for example (which simply means ‘thank you’). The initial church (see Corinthians) starts with meetings of remembrance. Christians from the Church of Corinth gather to ‘eat’ together (usually on a Saturday – the 7th day of the week - and not a Sunday - which is the first day of the week) . They eat bread (representing the body of Christ) and drink wine (the blood of Christ). The whole idea of a Eucharist is a plain meal with banquet guests praising the bounty of God (the early Christians visualised Heaven as a big banquet).
Let’s take the same practice in the modern Orthodox and Catholic churches. Every Sunday the crowned and gilded priest (a hangover from Pharisaic times) mechanically and unemotionally reads (or should I say chants) a part of the gospel and some Psalms. The wine and bread are blessed and through the mystical process of transubstantiation the Holy Spirit (the body of Christ) enters into the chalice of wine and the bread. People who have fasted for half a week cannibalise the emblems of Christ and their sins are purportedly absolved.
Nowhere in the Bible is this practice advocated. In fact Paul the Apostle is quite explicit on this point: Christ whom you have espoused as your Lord has already absolved you of sin. The whole point of Crucifixion was for a sinless God to die for you and in doing so take acquit you of judgement. So why all the shenanigans? Simple, it makes a priest appear a lot more significant than he really is and keeps him in a job.
Is God so small and finite that he requires the church's pigeon hole definitions for survival? I don't think so. God and Church are not one and the same. God can reveal Himself to anyone: in the Church or out, to Christian and non Christian alike.
Finally to call yourself an atheist is as much a leap of faith as to avow God. Scientists will say that the onus of proof rests with the Theologians. It is they that must demonstrate the existence of God. However this is more of a political standpoint (payback for medievil loftiness when the Western Church exercised absolute control of knowledge) than a logical one. Scientists can no more prove the non existence of God as theologians can prove the opposite. Agnosticism is therefore the natural refuge for most people: “show me and I’ll believe”. My advice: keep an open mind.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I sympathise with your views. I too for a long time was nothing more than a nominal member of Orthodoxy. I tried very hard to understand the ceremonious custom of the church. I couldn’t make heads or tales of it. Eventually I moved away regardless of what others thought, family included. I subsequently became very critical to downright cynical about religion.
The downside was that I was overcome by a heavy sense of futility. An existentialist angst. What was the whole point of life? Well might the scientist argue that such questions about ‘why’ are anchored in the human psyche and have no logical basis, but I can’t change the fact that for this existence at least I will always be a human with human thoughts and concerns.
I turned to reckless hedonism and moved from one high to another. However as memory can not transcend death even this proved a futile and empty exercise: “what of all this will I take with me?” The thrill seeking spiralled into a darker reality. Ultimately my life led to drugs and eventually organised crime, especially with Asian based syndicates ironically known as Triads (from the Trinity to Triads).
I have no such angst with existentialism, a secular meaning of life to me is far greater than one whereby this life is only a test.
I might further add that hedonism, drugs and recklessness are not a function of disbelief.
Also, the fact your belief improved your life is absolutely no evidence of anything greater out there.
In summary this biographical account sounds a little clichéd. I’m not attempting to link atheism with poor life choices and a debauched life. As an existentialist it may be argued there is no such thing as a poor choice. Nothing is recorded against your soul as there is no soul. You simply flow along a nihilistic river until you cease to be. Consequences schonsequences.
Eventually the descent into the dark recesses of society started to take on a spiritual significance. I became aware of secret fraternity practices which were logically inexplicable. A world of spirits and physical evil. And then on the verge of an initiation I had a revelation. An apocalypse which hurled me into a new life changing paradigm. For the first time a had a clear and empirical understanding of the Devil and hell. It therefore followed that if this world was real, God must also be true.
You did not have an empirical understanding of the devil and hell, no one does.
What you are telling me is that you know the christian version of hell is correct. You cannot possibly know that! It is a hypothesis, and a bad one at that.
This story has a lot more twists and turns which I won’t go into. However one point I would like to make is ‘Church’ and ‘God’ are one and the same. The church is made up of humans with all their vices and deficiencies. Compounding this further the Orthodox Church is unfortunately stuck in some time bubble of the middle ages.
The Koine (common) language in which the New Testament was written was the vulgar language of the people. In other words it was written to be understood by all, not just a select few priests and theologians who pretend to channel God's energy through incantations uttered in Hellenistic Greek.
In most christian societies, the bible could not be understood by anyone except a few priests. How can it be for the people if it wasn't until much later that it was translated into native tongue?
Further more how can the bible be true when it is clear that uneducated men decided which 'scriptures' would go in the bible and which would not.
Not to mention the Gnostic scriptures, the book of Judas and the fact the new testament borrows greatly from Greek mythology.
Also I might add, nothing you have said goes to prove or even suggest there is any truth in christianity, just that it is 'useful'.
Usefulness and truth do not overlap.
To understand how much some things have been stylised and ceremonialised take the Eucharist for example (which simply means ‘thank you’). The initial church (see Corinthians) starts with meetings of remembrance. Christians from the Church of Corinth gather to ‘eat’ together (usually on a Saturday – the 7th day of the week - and not a Sunday - which is the first day of the week) . They eat bread (representing the body of Christ) and drink wine (the blood of Christ). The whole idea of a Eucharist is a plain meal with banquet guests praising the bounty of God (the early Christians visualised Heaven as a big banquet).
Let’s take the same practice in the modern Orthodox and Catholic churches. Every Sunday the crowned and gilded priest (a hangover from Pharisaic times) mechanically and unemotionally reads (or should I say chants) a part of the gospel and some Psalms. The wine and bread are blessed and through the mystical process of transubstantiation the Holy Spirit (the body of Christ) enters into the chalice of wine and the bread. People who have fasted for half a week cannibalise the emblems of Christ and their sins are purportedly absolved.
Nowhere in the Bible is this practice advocated. In fact Paul the Apostle is quite explicit on this point: Christ whom you have espoused as your Lord has already absolved you of sin. The whole point of Crucifixion was for a sinless God to die for you and in doing so take acquit you of judgement. So why all the shenanigans? Simple, it makes a priest appear a lot more significant than he really is and keeps him in a job.
Is God so small and finite that he requires the church's pigeon hole definitions for survival? I don't think so. God and Church are not one and the same. God can reveal Himself to anyone: in the Church or out, to Christian and non Christian alike.
Finally to call yourself an atheist is as much a leap of faith as to avow God. Scientists will say that the onus of proof rests with the Theologians. It is they that must demonstrate the existence of God. However this is more of a political standpoint (payback for medievil loftiness when the Western Church exercised absolute control of knowledge) than a logical one. Scientists can no more prove the non existence of God as theologians can prove the opposite. Agnosticism is therefore the natural refuge for most people: “show me and I’ll believe”. My advice: keep an open mind.
I disagree, saying you know that christianity is right takes a far greater leap of faith than saying god does not exist.
For example, how can you know that transubstantiation is nothing more than a myth, which I dare say it is.
You cannot know the holy spirit exists; yet alone enters anything, wafers included.
I am in practice agnostic, in that I believe there could be a higher power out there.
The christian interpretation of it though is most likely wrong and the god that is out there is not a personal one, therefore my belief in or disbelief in such an entity is irrelevant - as my 'soul' will not be judged by my belief, so why live my life under the assumption that any god exists when it is apparent that belief is not required for anything?
I might also add that the arguments from believers just uses language and poetry, like transubstantiation etc, if you dig deep there is no real content.
You still have all your work ahead of you in proving how you know the bible can be trusted, how you know what the creator of the universe thinks and how you know your religion is the right one in a market place of thousands of other religions all making contradicting and equally ridiculous claims about metaphysics.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I found this thread very interesting. What a fascinating and intellectually engaging debate.
I highly recommend Sam Harris's bestseller THE END OF FAITH (2005).
That book had a profound effect on me and corroborated everything I had encountered during my humanitarian work all over the world (including the bloody Balkan conflict in the 90's for which religious leaders (Orthodox, Muslim and Catholic) have a lot to answer for. (I am not going to let the former Yugoslav communists off the hook either. They overnight became fierce nationalists setting the Balkans on fire).
I have been always intrigued by the strong solidarity between Greek and Serbian Orthodox Churches yet The Greek Orthodox Church shows very little understanding towards their Orthodox brethren in the FYR of Macedonia (whose etno-political identity was always supported by Serbs).
Can anybody explain to me this somewhat bizarre (for the outsiders like myself) situation ?
Cheers,
Carla
< Page: 1 of 1 > >>
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It is easy- corrupted politicians, corrupted priests that's it. I have seen Serbian priests and Croatian too supporting ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the Muslim imams were no better. I have seen priests living in huge houses and driving Mercedes while the people are starving. I think today the atheists are not respected enough. Even though there is a big percentage of them in every country. Just to be clear I respect all the believers no matter of which faith, it is the religious institutions that I can't stand.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Niklianos (Login Nikilianos) Greece Forum Mods Group
Re: Atheism in Greece
No score for this post
September 20 2008, 8:29 PM
The FYROM Orthodox Church is not recognized due to the simple fact it was a creation of a government and it replaced a recognized Orthodox church.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Let us put opportunistic politicians aside.
You guys pray to the same god. You have the same Byzantine spiritual/religious roots.
How can you justify this endemic inter-Balkan hatred before the God to whom you all pray ?
Could the Balkan Orthodox peoples and their religious leaders initiate movement for peace and understanding utilizing the common Christian (Orthodox) moral platform?
Cheers,
Carla
< Page: 1 of 1 > >>
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
No they can't because the Greek fanariot propaganda was started by the Greek church. The Greek church was never separated from the Greek state and the Greek nationalism. Our church is not recognised as a autonomous church, but it was not anathemised by the patriarch of the Constantinople. The issue between our and the Serbian church dates form 1967 and before, and it is so complexed that even I don't understand it fully, so stop using something you don't know well, just because it is against us. The Greek consulate refused to give visa to our Metropolits when they wanted to give tribute to the recently past away Greek patriarch, that certainly was not an act of good will or in the spirit of the Orthodoxy which biggest values are love and forgivingness. And let me say that the Ukrainian, Belorussian, Montenegrin and some others churches are also not recognised which proves that politics is far more important than faith when it comes about the Orthodox churches. I am not saying that is different with others, but I am pointing to this situation right now.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Niklianos (Login Nikilianos) Greece Forum Mods Group
Re: Atheism in Greece
No score for this post
September 21 2008, 5:10 AM
"Dear Nikilianos,
Let us put opportunistic politicians aside.
You guys pray to the same god. You have the same Byzantine spiritual/religious roots.
How can you justify this endemic inter-Balkan hatred before the God to whom you all pray ?
Could the Balkan Orthodox peoples and their religious leaders initiate movement for peace and understanding utilizing the common Christian (Orthodox) moral platform?
Cheers,
Carla"
=========================================================================================================
Carla I am not a religious person and do not support the church. I was just giving a single example of why they are not recognized. You must also remember that just because people are from the Balkans, a generic term used for the region, does not mean that the people are one in the same just because they are primarily Orthodox. Religion is just one tie-in factor, but there are many more that take precedence. Do you think that all the Catholic people are one in the same and therefore should give in to other Catholics just because they share the same faith?
Viktor,
of course it's all Orthodox politics and control just as it is with the Catholic church and their politics. It is entirely about control of the masses. If the churches lose control to some upstarts then they lose funding, parisheners and power. You are correct when stating that it is a very complicated issue.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Carla Del Ponte (Login CARLADELPONTE) Greece Forum Mods Group
Is it dead end ?
No score for this post
September 21 2008, 1:59 PM
"The Greek consulate refused to give visa to our Metropolits when they wanted to give tribute to the recently past away Greek patriarch, that certainly was not an act of good will or in the spirit of the Orthodoxy which biggest values are love and forgiveness."
How sad. This I find very disturbing and pessimistic statement.
Anyway thank you both for your attempt to clarify this complicated issue.
< Page: 1 of 1 > >>
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Makedonska Biblija......Alekasndar Veliki.....Tsarot na Grtsija
It's the Book of Daniel in the Bible, where Alexander is "the King of Greece".
Will Fyrom's Church come clean and educate it's people of this truth...If so then it may be recognised, because it will be in accordance with the rest of the Orthodox Churches and the Bibles teachings NOT the pseudo state it represents.
The church is not here to teach history, but to preach the Orthodox faith to the Orthodox people. And the pseudo state is recognised by all the countries in the world, and it is recognised by it's constitutional name from more than 120 countries, Chile recently did it too, including USA, Russia and China.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Who is talking about history in regards to the Church ?
Will Fyrom's Church come clean and educate it's people of this truth...If so then it may be recognised, because it will be in accordance with the rest of the Orthodox Churches and the Bibles teachings NOT the pseudo state it represents.
I was referring the Bible scriptures here. Yes and to teach the true Orthodox faith which recognises King Alexandros “King of the Greeks” achievements of spreading the Hellenic language which in turn made it possible for Christianity to spread due to a common "Greek" language around the then known world.
Only now am referring to history in the end of this message, to illustrate something.
This message has been edited by Arxileas on Sep 22, 2008 7:41 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The true Orthodox faith teaches that Alexander is burning in hell, so I don't see the connection. And yes, I never denied that Orthodoxy spread here thanks to Greek and Latin, but don't forget what the Thessalonian brothers have done.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Yes their father was Greek, but the point is that they spread Slavonic literacy, and fought for service in Old Church Slavonic to be allowed, so I wonder if you consider them traitors, since today it is forbidden in Greece.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Niklianos (Login Nikilianos) Greece Forum Mods Group
Re: Atheism in Greece
No score for this post
September 26 2008, 2:46 AM
Viktor,
No one would consider them traitors since they were sent out by the Greek church at the request of the Montenegrins to teach the non-Christian Slavic populations Christian Orthodoxy. They realized that the best way to do so was to create a written language. This allowed for easier spread of Orthodoxy throughout the region. So if you look at their purpose they were devout followers of the Patriarch and Orthodoxy and they just used the best available means to propagate their beliefs.
This message has been edited by Nikilianos on Sep 26, 2008 3:00 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The Holy Bible is a collection of fairy tales. To some of us this is as obvious as the noses on our faces. In fact, to me it is one of the most amazing, mind boggling things about this world that millions of adults simply cannot see this obvious truth. True, the Bible begins with In the beginning rather than Once upon a time but not all fairy tales begin with those words, and the other parallels are just too striking to ignore.
Oxford Dictionary definition of "Fairy Tale":
1. A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures, usually intended for children.
2. A fictitious, highly fanciful story or explanation.
A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures? How about the creation of the universe in 7 days (oopsthe all powerful creator rested on the 7th day so call it 6)? How about a man walking on water and making food fall from the sky? How about a man curing illnesses and banishing evil spirits with the wave of a hand? How about making a staff turn into a snake? How about an invisible superhero causing plagues of locusts and other such vermin? Oh, and legendary creatures? Well how about witches, wizards, sorcerers, spirits, satyrs, demons, giants, ghosts, dragons, and unicorns? Yep, theyre all in there.
And you want fictitious, highly fanciful stories or explanations? How about a flood that covered the whole earth to the highest mountaintop, killing all creatures which hadnt been herded onto a single boat? How about a man with super strength which resided in his hair? How about a boy slaying a giant with a slingshot? How about a man hanging out in the belly of a giant fish for 3 days? How about 900-year old men and talking jackasses and bushes? How about a woman being convinced by a talking snake to eat the fruit of a magical tree? Yep, theyre all in there, too.
Please note that definition number one says, usually intended for children. Therein resides the problem. If children were not exposed to adults insisting year after year that these ancient fairy tales are true, who would believe in them? These stories are all scientifically impossible and are so far fetched that only ignorant, primitive desert tribesmen, uneducated children, and the thoroughly brainwashed could take them seriously.
Clearly the Bible is merely a collection of fairy tales and should be cataloged and shelved with the fiction section of the library. But not with the other fairy tales, because so many of the Bibles stories are too disgusting to be read by children (Abraham being ordered to kill his son, Lot lying with his daughters, etc.).
I am amazed that so many people really believe this crap!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I have very exciting and SENSATIONAL news to all fans of Mikaeel Jackson (formerly Michael Jackson).
In presence and with spiritual gudance of Yusup Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) Mikaeel converted to Islam accepting THE LAST AND FINAL god's ambassador to the planet Earth Muhamaad (blessed be his name).
On behalf of all believers in god we wish Mikaeel Allah's blessings and enlightenment.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Niklianos (Login Nikilianos) Greece Forum Mods Group
Re: Atheism in Greece
No score for this post
May 7 2009, 8:59 AM
So what are your beliefs Jasam? You mention Allah in your last post about Michael Jackson but yet you attack the Bible (Old and New). Do Muslims not believe in the Old Testament as well? Are not the Christians, Jews and Muslims all children of the Bible? I am not a Christian so I am asking you from an outsiders view. To me if you say that the Bible is a fairy tale then isn't the Quran and other religious text from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief system?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
When religion rears its ugly head in public matters; Abortion, abstinance, stem-cell research, endorsing political candidates, threatening politicians/business leaders to tow-the-line, etc
It goes from a private belief to a public belief and therefore is free to be critised to the full extent.
Religion does not deserve special treatment, ND supports critise PASOK and vice-versa. Religion does not deserve any less criticism than the normal discourse associated with politics or football.
However the power and corruption of religion has bullied others into believing it deserves to be left-alone, to go unscrutinised no mater what it does. This is not true, and this brain-washing must end.
People must not mistake respecting peoples rights to have beliefs versus respecting the beliefs themselves. No one belief deserves any respect more than another. But the right to free conscience does not entail non-questioning and non-criticism from others. Just because you believe your religion to be sacred does not mean I have to, or anyone else for that matter.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Niklianos (Login Nikilianos) Greece Forum Mods Group
Re: Atheism in Greece
No score for this post
May 24 2009, 10:30 PM
I agree with Panos. To have faith and religion in ones life is a personal issue and it doesn't matter to me what you believe in, BUT once you start to criticize others beliefs and religions and attempt to force them upon others through politics then you open up your own to counter-criticism and questioning. One can make their beliefs public without receiving criticism by just expressing your beliefs. The problem is that most do not do that, instead they attempt to manipulate the media and the government so that it is only their beliefs and religion which predominates PUBLIC life. I cannot and will not accept such a thing.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Dear Friends,
As a former Catholic I want to quote a very telling fragment from Richard DAWKINS's famous book "God Delusion".
On the surface it is funny and entertaining but deep down it makes me rather sad that this kind of medieval, infantile superstition (or rather nonsense - to be more accurate) is dressed up as something to be respected or even revered.
"Late John Paul II had a special affinity with the Virgin Mary. His polytheistic hankerings were
dramatically demonstrated in 1981 when he suffered an assassination attempt in Rome, and attributed his survival to intervention by Our Lady of Fatima: 'A maternal hand guided the bullet.' One
cannot help wondering why she didn't guide it to miss him altogether. Others might think the team of surgeons who operated on him for six hours deserved at least a share of the credit; but perhaps
their hands, too, were maternally guided. The relevant point is that it wasn't just Our Lady who, in the Pope's opinion, guided the bullet, but specifically Our Lady of Fatima. Presumably Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Medjugorje, Our Lady of Akita, Our Lady of Zeitoun, Our Lady of Garabandal and Our Lady of Knock were busy on other errands at the time."
Yasu
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Mark Twain's "Was the World Made for Man?
I came across an essay today that I throughly enjoyed. Its from none other than Mark Twain in response to Alfred Russell Wallace's revival of the theory that this earth is at the center of the stellar universe. Wallace, that whom had been a co-author of the theory evolution by natural selection, had become convinced that the world and the universe had been created for man. This is Mark Twain's written response:
Was the World Made for Man?
Mark Twain
1903
Alfred Russell Wallace's revival of the theory that this earth is at the center of the stellar universe, and is the only habitable globe, has aroused great interest in the world." -- Literary Digest
"For ourselves we do thoroughly believe that man, as he lives just here on this tiny earth, is in essence and possibilities the most sublime existence in all the range of non-divine being -- the chief love and delight of God." -- Chicago "Interior" (Presb.)
I seem to be the only scientist and theologian still remaining to be heard from on this important matter of whether the world was made for man or not. I feel that it is time for me to speak.
I stand almost with the others. They believe the world was made for man, I believe it likely that it was made for man; they think there is proof, astronomical mainly, that it was made for man, I think there is evidence only, not proof, that it was made for him. It is too early, yet, to arrange the verdict, the returns are not all in. When they are all in, I think they will show that the world was made for man; but we must not hurry, we must patiently wait till they are all in.
Now as far as we have got, astronomy is on our side. Mr. Wallace has clearly shown this. He has clearly shown two things: that the world was made for man, and that the universe was made for the world -- to steady it, you know. The astronomy part is settled, and cannot be challenged.
We come now to the geological part. This is the one where the evidence is not all in, yet. It is coming in, hourly, daily, coming in all the time, but naturally it comes with geological carefulness and deliberation, and we must not be impatient, we must not get excited, we must be calm, and wait. To lose our tranquility will not hurry geology; nothing hurries geology.
It takes a long time to prepare a world for man, such a thing is not done in a day. Some of the great scientists, carefully deciphering the evidences furnished by geology, have arrived at the conviction that our world is prodigiously old, and they may be right, but Lord Kelvin is not of their opinion. He takes a cautious, conservative view, in order to be on the safe side, and feels sure it is not so old as they think. As Lord Kelvin is the highest authority in science now living, I think we must yield to him and accept his view. He does not concede that the world is more than a hundred million years old. He believes it is that old, but not older. Lyell believed that our race was introduced into the world 31,000 years ago, Herbert Spencer makes it 32,000. Lord Kelvin agrees with Spencer.
Very well. According to Kelvin's figures it took 99,968,000 years to prepare the world for man, impatient as the Creator doubtless was to see him and admire him. But a large enterprise like this has to be conducted warily, painstakingly, logically. It was foreseen that man would have to have the oyster. Therefore the first preparation was made for the oyster. Very well, you cannot make an oyster out of whole cloth, you must make the oyster's ancestor first. This is not done in a day. You must make a vast variety of invertebrates, to start with -- belemnites, trilobites, jebusites, amalekites, and that sort of fry, and put them to soak in a primary sea, and wait and see what will happen. Some will be a disappointments - the belemnites, the ammonites and such; they will be failures, they will die out and become extinct, in the course of the 19,000,000 years covered by the experiment, but all is not lost, for the amalekites will fetch the home-stake; they will develop gradually into encrinites, and stalactites, and blatherskites, and one thing and another as the mighty ages creep on and the Archaean and the Cambrian Periods pile their lofty crags in the primordial seas, and at last the first grand stage in the preparation of the world for man stands completed, the Oyster is done. An oyster has hardly any more reasoning power than a scientist has; and so it is reasonably certain that this one jumped to the conclusion that the nineteen-million years was a preparation for him; but that would be just like an oyster, which is the most conceited animal there is, except man. And anyway, this one could not know, at that early date, that he was only an incident in a scheme, and that there was some more to the scheme, yet.
The oyster being achieved, the next thing to be arranged for in the preparation of the world for man, was fish. Fish, and coal to fry it with. So the Old Silurian seas were opened up to breed the fish in, and at the same time the great work of building Old Red Sandstone mountains 80,000 feet high to cold-storage their fossils in was begun. This latter was quite indispensable, for there would be no end of failures again, no end of extinctions -- millions of them -- and it would be cheaper and less trouble to can them in the rocks than keep tally of them in a book. One does not build the coal beds and 80,000 feet of perpendicular Old Red Sandstone in a brief time -- no, it took twenty million years. In the first place, a coal bed is a slow and troublesome and tiresome thing to construct. You have to grow prodigious forests of tree-ferns and reeds and calamites and such things in a marshy region; then you have, to sink them under out of sight and let them rot; then you have to turn the streams on them, so as to bury them under several feet of sediment, and the sediment must have time to harden and turn to rock; next you must grow another forest on top, then sink it and put on another layer of sediment and harden it; then more forest and more rock, layer upon layer, three miles deep -- ah, indeed it is a sickening slow job to build a coal-measure and do it right!
So the millions of years drag on; and meantime the fish-culture is lazying along and frazzling out in a way to make a person tired. You have developed ten thousand kinds of fishes from the oyster; and come to look, you have raised nothing but fossils, nothing but extinctions. There is nothing left alive and progressive but a ganoid or two and perhaps half a dozen asteroids. Even the cat wouldn't eat such. Still, it is no great matter; there is plenty of time, yet, and they will develop into something tasty before man is ready for them. Even a ganoid can be depended on for that, when he is not going to be called on for sixty million years.
The Palaeozoic time-limit having now been reached, it was necessary to begin the next stage in the preparation of the world for man, by opening up the Mesozoic Age and instituting some reptiles. For man would need reptiles. Not to eat, but to develop himself from. This being the most important detail of the scheme, a spacious liberality of time was set apart for it -- thirty million years. What wonders followed! From the remaining ganoids and asteroids and alkaloids were developed by slow and steady and pains-taking culture those stupendous saurians that used to prowl about the steamy world in those remote ages, with their snaky heads reared forty feet in the air and sixty feet of body and tail racing and thrashing after. All gone, now, alas -- all extinct, except the little handful of Arkansawrians left stranded and lonely with us here upon this far-flung verge and fringe of time.
Yes, it took thirty million years and twenty million reptiles to get one that would stick long enough to develop into something else and let the scheme proceed to the next step.
Then the Pterodactyl burst upon the world in all his impressive solemnity and grandeur, and all Nature recognized that the Cainozoic threshold was crossed and a new Period open for business, a new stage begun in the preparation of the globe for man. It may be that the Pterodactyl thought the thirty million years had been intended as a preparation for himself, for there was nothing too foolish for a Pterodactyl to imagine, but he was in error, the preparation was for man, Without doubt the Pterodactyl attracted great attention, for even the least observant could see that there was the making of a bird in him. And so it turned out. Also the makings of a mammal, in time. One thing we have to say to his credit, that in the matter of picturesqueness he was the triumph of his Period; he wore wings and had teeth, and was a starchy and wonderful mixture altogether, a kind of long-distance premonitory symptom of Kipling's marine:
'E isn't one O'the reg'lar Line,
nor 'e isn't one of the crew,
'E's a kind of a giddy harumfrodite [hermaphrodite] --
soldier an' sailor too!
From this time onward for nearly another thirty million years the preparation moved briskly. From the Pterodactyl was developed the bird; from the bird the kangaroo, from the kangaroo the other marsupials; from these the mastodon, the megatherium, the giant sloth, the Irish elk, and all that crowd that you make useful and instructive fossils out of -- then came the first great Ice Sheet, and they all retreated before it and crossed over the bridge at Behring's strait and wandered around over Europe and Asia and died. All except a few, to carry on the preparation with. Six Glacial Periods with two million years between Periods chased these poor orphans up and down and about the earth, from weather to weather -- from tropic swelter at the poles to Arctic frost at the equator and back again and to and fro, they never knowing what kind of weather was going to turn up next; and if ever they settled down anywhere the whole continent suddenly sank under them without the least notice and they had to trade places with the fishes and scramble off to where the seas had been, and scarcely a dry rag on them; and when there was nothing else doing a volcano would let go and fire them out from wherever they had located. They led this unsettled and irritating life for twenty-five million years, half the time afloat, half the time aground, and always wondering what it was all for, they never suspecting, of course, that it was a preparation for man and had to be done just so or it wouldn't be any proper and harmonious place for him when he arrived.
And at last came the monkey, and anybody could see that man wasn't far off, now. And in truth that was so. The monkey went on developing for close upon 5,000,000 years, and then turned into a man - to all appearances.
Such is the history of it. Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; and anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would, I dunno.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Niklianos (Login Nikilianos) Greece Forum Mods Group
Re: Atheism in Greece
No score for this post
October 1 2009, 8:12 PM
That was a great response by Twain! It really all comes down to a matter of perspective, doesn't it!?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
This guy, Pat Condell, is excellent. If you're not familiar with him, he does videos on youtube on the issue of atheism and democracy. I recommend that you all subscribe to his channel.
This video talks about the spineless and anti-democratic resolution of 'Islamic Human Rights'. He aptly points out that the nations who are proponents of this bill (Saudi Arabia mainly) know nothing of human rights and should not be granted their own special conditions. They must obey the existing UDHR as Sharia law is barbaric. It is not the law of God, it is the law of cruel and twisted human-beings.
It's high time that the West cared more about truth and freedom instead of group cohesion. These Islamic extremists do not belong in the group, the West should be aiming to crush them - not include them. Sharia law is the antithesis of freedom and therefore deserves no respect. It's time to call it what it is, the law of cruel men who lie that it is the law of God.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
There is a new convert on the religious scene who caught attention of international media.
His name is Hamza Andreas Tzortzis.
He is considered as one of the most prominent contemporary Islamic theologians and philosophers.
He attracts huge numbers of followers and his debates are renown for zealous and devastating arguments against non-believers .
I found a very lengthy one quite recently on the You TUBE.
"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, a convert to Islam, is an international public speaker, author, lecturer and intellectual activist. He is particularly interested in Islam, politics and philosophy. Hamza has debated prominent academics and intellectuals on various topics; including the existence of God, political philosophy and society. He delivers presentations across the world on various topics including the Qur'an, the mechanisms of the Islamic way of life, the philosophy of religion and more. "
Do you know anything about this misterious guy who makes waves in the West big time ?
Is it possible he is Greek ?
< Page: 1 of 1 > >>
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Portuguese 1998 Nobel literature laureate José Saramago has openly criticized Catholic Church describing The Bible as "a manual of bad morals," and a "catalogue of cruelties and of the worst of human nature."
"He says in his latest book "Caine": read the Bible and you'll lose your faith,
there is nothing "divine" in the Bible. It depicts a "cruel, spiteful, vengeful, jealous and unbearable God. Without the Bible, we would be different, probably better, people," and that he could not understand how the Bible became a "spiritual guide, when it's so full of horrors, incest, betrayals and slaughter."
He states : "the human brain is a great creator of absurd notions, and God is the most absurd one of all."
He openly attacks Pope Benedict XVI, for invoking God to reinforce his universal neo-medievalism and the accumulation of wealth "in the name of the Lord.
His 181-page book "Cain", which he wrote in four months is according to Saramago, is "an insurrection, an exhortation for everyone to dare to look for what is on the other side of things," aimed at getting readers to think and reflect, because "we are manipulated all the time. We have to fight against that."
Saramago responded to his religious critics by saying he was surprised by "the superficiality of the gentlemen of the Church, who did not read the book, but with unusual speed began to spread opinions and dismissive insults about it and its author. "In terms of a lack of intellectual rigor, you could not ask for worse answer" said the writer.
At the same time, Saramago said it is not against God that he is writing, "because he does not exist," but that his stance is against religions, "because they do not, and have never, helped bring people together."
In the writer's view, "God only exists in our minds."
His book points out that in the Old Testament, Cain killed his younger brother Abel in a fit of jealousy after God preferred his brother's sacrifice of sheep to his.
"None of that happened, it's obvious that they're myths invented by man, just like God, a creation of men. All I do is lift up the stones and show the reality hidden beneath them," said Saramago.
He said that the book is "against any and all religions," because throughout history, "all religions, without exception, have done humanity more bad than good."
"Cain" points to injustices, cruelties, limitations of free will and incongruities in the book of Genesis. Saramago concludes: "Yes, reader, that's what it really says. The Lord ordered Abraham to sacrifice his own son, as casually as someone asking for a glass of water when they're thirstyThe logical, natural or simply human thing would have been for Abraham to tell the Lord to go to hell."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Just 14% of Estonians answered positively to the question: "Is religion an important part of your daily life?", according to a poll, released byGallup.
Estonia is followed by Nordic countries Sweden and Denmark, where 17 and 18% of those asked answered positively to the same question, reports EU Observer/LETA.
The Czech Republic comes fifth at 21%, just after Norway (20%), while France is ninth with a quarter of French people declaring religion important in their daily life.
The UK, Finland, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Latvia and Bulgaria were also among the countries where most people did not consider religion to be such an important part of their lives.
Among the countries "commonly seen as part of the developed world," some 38% consider religion important in their daily lives, while on the other hand, "eight of the 11 countries in which almost all residents (at least 98%)" replied positively to that question, "are poorer nations in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia."
The US, where two thirds of those asked replied positively, is the most religious "rich-world" country, with Mississippi being its most devout state (85%) and Vermont the least so (42%).
Interestingly enough : more civilized and economically developed countries declare less reliance on religion and a concept of god.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
