religion

[paulgiamatti]

I guess the distinction I'd like to see made is between things that are simply religious and religion itself. Just because something can be religious, doesn't mean it is therefore a religion.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ah. So that means none of it actually happened.

No, it did, and it was a legitimately horrible movement run by legitimately horrible people. The key is to recognize a few things.

First and foremost, they didn't even last twenty-five years, which is part of why I'm dismissing the movement as something significant since it doesn't exist today every single group I posted about above still does exist with the sole exception being the literal stake burning inquisitorial branch of the mentioned religions. Even then, today you have the suppression of knowledge and the bastardization of education (Kentucky/Tennessee).

Secondly, and this is obviously more important in a general sense but second in the context of your response. You need to look at the movement's roots. It's a movement that rose out of an intellectual class that was involved neck deep in a regime that has committed arguably more heinous acts than even Nazi Germany, a regime who's motives were 100% based on the accumulation of power, a regime who's stance on religion was literally beside the point.
In short, regardless of what they claimed or espoused to officially, they were still a morally bankrupt group born from a morally bankrupt group using a twisted ideological system in an attempt to rationalize their own actions. If you must insist on comparing Atheism a religion, I'd argue that you should compare LoMA to a cult.

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I like how that works.

Context is king after all. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It would be nice if the ones here who are vocally pro-religion would understand that the majority of anti-theists don't believe that non-religion by itself is inherently good, it is in fact neutral. The intellectual view of religion overall in today's society is a clear net negative. Removing the negative always results in a closer to positive number, even zero is an improvement over a negative in this case.

Can I "prove" to you that religion is a net negative in society today? No. At least no more than I can "prove" to you that gravity exists. All I need to do though, is drop an object to show you the overwhelming evidence that gravity is there. All I need to do though is point you towards the middle east, the Catholic Church, Ken Ham, or any other religious affiliation with significant influence/resources.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Archalen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You could go back and forth on the "this atheist did this, this religious person did that" debate for a long time and get nowhere.

There is nothing inherently good about atheism, but there is nothing inherently bad either. If you suspend logic to become religious, you are in danger of believing other myths also not founded on reason. You can, at your own discretion, run errands for your god that are good for society only if your particular religious worldview happens to be true.

To clarify, I've seen atheists who are uber-rational when it comes to religion, but then suspend logic to believe in the religion of self-correcting free markets. Or believe in the religion of the state (stupidly defend everything their political party does). So my argument is not for atheism, it is for rationality in general.

I agree my point in posting that was in reference to the picture that Kaga posted. It would be irrational to say that extremism only comes from a religious background. It's not a problem inherent in religion, but in humans in general. We are creatures of extreme habits. We rationalize things according to our own perspective despite the harm that may cause others. Most people are really moral and check themselves before they do this, but there are those who do not despite their religious or non-religious background. I guess I was just showing some context to his antidote.

That being said. I do feel that it is much easier of a leap for religious individuals to become extremist and radical. This is due to the fact that people feel that they can self-interpret the scriptural doctrines that they feel support their ideologues while ignoring the fact that it goes against the core of their religion's beliefs.

[Yumyums Inmahtumtums]

TLDR

[myriverse]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

QFT!

I have to reiterate, I just think it's incredibly silly that atheism has become a "movement". I think it's absurd to proclaim, "I am an atheist!". What are you atheistic about? Thor? Zeus? The tooth fairy? Everyone is an atheist when it comes to some deity or another, just as agnosticism is atheistic by definition - it's still the unbelief in deity.

In order to be an atheist, you cannot accept any of them. The term is absolute, not relative. Also, belief in spirits (like fairies) is not theism, and the tooth fairy was never deified. It's only a silly (ahem) fairy tale that parents used upon their children to make life fun. <-- spoilers

Agnostics accept the possibility, which is different quite from atheism.

I do have to differ on calling statism a religion though, even though I know that's a point that's often made by many leftist public intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky. It doesn't make sense in my mind to suddenly start calling a whole bunch of different things "religion" when we all know exactly what religion is and what religion means. Just because I religiously brush my teeth in the morning doesn't mean I am now devoted to the religion of dental hygiene.

Indeed.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by Archalen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You could go back and forth on the "this atheist did this, this religious person did that" debate for a long time and get nowhere.

There is nothing inherently good about atheism, but there is nothing inherently bad either. If you suspend logic to become religious, you are in danger of believing other myths also not founded on reason. You can, at your own discretion, run errands for your god that are good for society only if your particular religious worldview happens to be true.

To clarify, I've seen atheists who are uber-rational when it comes to religion, but then suspend logic to believe in the religion of self-correcting free markets. Or believe in the religion of the state (stupidly defend everything their political party does). So my argument is not for atheism, it is for rationality in general.

My entire argument is for rationality.
1. How is it rational to judge other people? If anyone is honestly arrogant enough to believe that they have this life figured out, then I feel sorry for them. Let people choose their own beliefs.
2. You said markets don't self-correct. I'm not going to debate that, but what would you advocate in their place? Communism? I'm not going to make that leap without you stating it, but I'd ask for clarification. To me, that statement, which sounds like a critique of capitalism, sounds entirely irrational.
3. I believe that my religion is rational for several reasons. Why would it be rational to hurt my mother? She's deeply religious, and if her children became agnostic / atheist, it would destroy her. Hurting one's mother is not a rational course of action. In addition, I already talked about Seventh Day Adventists and how their religion helps them to become healthier. Mormons have BETTER FAMILY STRUCTURES than everyone in the US. Their religious beliefs are very rational compared to so many one parent households in the US. Don't believe me? Look at how many criminals come from households from single mothers. Let me be clear, Mormonism and a two parent household does not preclude poverty, and it certainly isn't the only path to success. I'm just saying, as someone rational, you should take data and statistics for what they say. Strong families produce children that are more likely to become productive members of society.

All of that is to say, rationality isn't as objective as you think. I just gave you my interpretation of statistics, conditions, and the social milieu. If you're telling me that 2 + 2 = 4, then sure, I agree with you. If you're telling me that religion automatically leads to a gullible populace likely to believe in the persecution of gays or lesbians, for example, I don't agree. I believe in God. I don't hate gays. In fact, I support gay marriage. I also thing that a strong two parent household, gay or straight, is much better than a single parent home. Am I unequivocally wrong, and if you believe I am, do you have objective proof of your assertion, or are you, like me, bringing your own biased interpretation of statistics, facts, and life experiences that no human being can separate from judgments that they make every day?

I don't see the arguments against religion, presented in this thread, as being rational at all. Basically, you guys are assuming a lot about religious people, which makes your arguments anything but logical. Logic isn't based on assumption.

Finally, I would like to say that I at elast consider you to be someone who doesn't seem like a bigot. When I hear Kagatob talk about 80% of Christians being trash (2 billions christians meaning ~1.6 billion people are trash in his estimation when he almost certainly hasn't met these people), I really can't even fathom how someone could be so ignorant. At least when you present a point, I see where you're coming from. You sound like many of my friends who don't understand my beliefs. And yes, shocker, I have atheist friends. I think the biggest issue here, is that a lot of people can't agree to disagree. Let me be clear, I do not care whether you believe in my religion. I don't preach it, I don't hand out pamphlets... I am no evangelist. At the same time, I don't appreciate being mocked or derided because I see value in morality and belief in God. I am a rational human being who doesn't take persecution of others lightly. I wish some of you could see that the things you say are:
1. Deeply offensive
2. Based upon crude assumptions of religious people, most likely caricatures of Al-Qaeda and the Westboro Baptist Church. Most religious people are neither them nor saints; most lie somewhere in the moral gray area, like most atheists / agnostics I might add.

I won't claim to be offended; I'm not. But I honestly don't understand how bigotry, even if its against a religion that you believe is vile, is anything other than pure irrationality.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can I "prove" to you that religion is a net negative in society today? No. At least no more than I can "prove" to you that gravity exists. All I need to do though, is drop an object to show you the overwhelming evidence that gravity is there. All I need to do though is point you towards the middle east, the Catholic Church, Ken Ham, or any other religious affiliation with significant influence/resources.

Richard Dawkins advocates aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome. Please explain how that is worse than Ken Ham?

Also, the Catholic Church is a large organization rife with corruption. It's also the single largest charitable organization in the history of the planet. You are so biased its not even funny.

I would rather live in a world of all Catholics than a world of all Kagatobs. I'm sure you feel a strong opinion towards me as well, but honestly, you sound like a caricature of a human being. How a person could grow up in the United States, surrounded by diversity, and be so opinionated is beyond me. You're a child.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by myriverse [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In order to be an atheist, you cannot accept any of them. The term is absolute, not relative. Also, belief in spirits (like fairies) is not theism, and the tooth fairy was never deified. It's only a silly (ahem) fairy tale that parents used upon their children to make life fun. <-- spoilers

Agnostics accept the possibility, which is different quite from atheism.

Excellent points. I still feel like it's a non-statement to say you don't believe in deities though. Most religious people don't believe in the thousands of gods that have been invented throughout history, but make an exception for one. They are mostly atheistic - almost as atheistic as I am, I just take it one god further.

I am willing to accept that when talking about atheism in this context, it can be assumed that the terminology is absolute. Just like when we say someone is "religious", we know we aren't talking about people who brush their teeth every morning.

Agnosticism, however, is very much atheistic by definition. The moment you go from believing in a god to only believing that it could be a possibility, you become an atheist. I believe it could be a possibility - I think it's highly unlikely, and all scientific evidence shows us just how unlikely it is, but if Jesus descends from the heavens tomorrow and raptures every believer into an eternity of praise and worship, I will then have to become a believer. It's not a linear scale of atheism -> agnosticism -> believer. Agnosticism is atheism.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I believe that my religion is rational for several reasons. Why would it be rational to hurt my mother? She's deeply religious, and if her children became agnostic / atheist, it would destroy her.

This is not a reasonable basis for rationality. Something is either true, or it isn't. It doesn't matter how much you would like for something to be true, or how much it would hurt your mother for something to not be true - these things just simply do not matter. The universe doesn't care about you, or me, or anyone else. We are a speck of dust that could be wiped out of existence in a cosmic millisecond, and the universe wouldn't even blink an eye. This is not rationality is any sense whatsoever.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Excellent points. I still feel like it's a non-statement to say you don't believe in deities though. Most religious people don't believe in the thousands of gods that have been invented throughout history, but make an exception for one. They are mostly atheistic - almost as atheistic as I am, I just take it one god further.

I am willing to accept that when talking about atheism in this context, it can be assumed that the terminology is absolute. Just like when we say someone is "religious", we know we aren't talking about people who brush their teeth every morning.

Agnosticism, however, is very much atheistic by definition. The moment you go from believing in a god to only believing that it could be a possibility, you become an atheist. I believe it could be a possibility - I think it's highly unlikely, and all scientific evidence shows us just how unlikely it is, but if Jesus descends from the heavens tomorrow and raptures every believer into an eternity of praise and worship, I will then have to become a believer. It's not a linear scale of atheism -> agnosticism -> believer. Agnosticism is atheism.

God doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with deities. This is about historical and sociological movements that today are known as "religion". Why didn't Jews eat pork? Because pigs destroy soil, and they didn't have a great deal of agricultural rich land. Enter today, when you guys say "wow the Jews pork tastes great ignorant fucks." Just because you miss the connection, religion doesn't become irrelevant. I'm tired of pointing out certain religious beliefs and their connection to moral virtues. I'm tired of explaining that religious people aren't guaranteed to be good nor are atheists guaranteed to be evil.

I believe in God. Am I 100% certain of his existence? Fuck no, how could I be.

I am 100% certain that if I weren't raised with values, that came from my religion, that have TANGIBLY helped me throughout my life, I wouldn't still be religious. You believe that people who believe in God are a bunch of morons who believe in an infallible scripture that's thousands of years old. No mother fucker, I believe that THOUSANDS OF GENERATIONS of my ancestors, whose advancements led to the life that I A) enjoy today and B) had zero part in developing (I am not responsible for Western culture, but our collective ancestors are), have certain valuable lessons to impart to me. When I see how Kagatob feels about his fellow man, and compare that to how my mother would give her last meal to a hungry person, I feel that I've made the LOGICAL assessment.

And I realize I expressed anger here, its not at you PaulG. It's frustrating reiterating the same point and seeing no baseline level of udnerstanding from the other side.