[QUOTE=choco cookie;35409207]I don't think you guys understand religion at all. Only the people who use it.[/QUOTE]
No matter how you spin it, Plot holes makes bad fiction and even worse "reality".
Well, most religions you follow the philosophy so I don't see how plot holes effect the value and use of religion back in the development of civilization and in some cases even now. To just dump and forget it all is dumping history of our civilization as a whole and our social evolution.
[QUOTE=choco cookie;35411258]Well, most religions you follow the philosophy so I don't see how plot holes effect the value and use of religion back in the development of civilization and in some cases even now. To just dump and forget it all is dumping history of our civilization as a whole and our social evolution.[/QUOTE]
Social evolution IS moving away from gods. We've gone from many gods, to few, to one, and now we're on the precipice of none. It's not dumping history, it's all recorded as another chapter of human ignorance. We now know enough to reject these simple minded notions and we should move on.
Was religion ever useful? yes, sure, and it's also very useful to fascists here in America. It's also used by the people who preach it to cause human suffering. Just look at all the child abuse scandals, and the pope advocating a [b]CONTINENT RAVAGED BY AIDS TO NOT USE CONDOMS[/b]. The latter may not be a direct cause, but it's extremely irresponsible and despicable. Religion really is just another tool to manipulate people. Remove that tool and you can focus on the other tools. The less authority people have over another, the better off society is if you ask me. (and no I'm not a libertarian)
"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
That's pretty much it, yeah. Western society is just as insane as we claim Eastern and Middle-eastern to be. Especially when you look at 'Merican politics: "I'm dumber than santorum, now VOTE FOR ME!"
[QUOTE=fox '09;35407722]Sorry, I have little respect for ancient ignorant beliefs. When someone tells me about a man walking on water, I respect it no different than a story from a children's book. Perhaps I am elitist in the sense that I believe that science is higher than a plagiarized book that directly conflicts with scientific conclusions and evidence.
Putting the two on the same level is despicable. I'm not saying you're "HITLER!11!" but when you put facts, lies, and ignorance on the same playing field you're just another tool of human regression and enslavement of thought.
I'm not in the camp that all bad in the world comes from religion, but I think it's a horrible influence on society over long periods. Religion makes otherwise intelligent people stoop to ignorance of thousands of years ago.[/QUOTE]
I completely respect your opinion but disagree wholeheartedly. I agree that religion has done quite a bit of bad for society, but the simple fact remains that people want someone they can talk with that agrees with them. Those who appreciate a disagreement are few and far between. I can't say I like always having to argue with someone but it is entertaining on many occasion (generally when I know I am right), but even when there is no clear answer (like right now), debate can be amusing. But, I digress. Back to the whole religion thang. We can't really tell if the future world would be better with out religion. We know that there are many events in history that would point to a world without religion may have been better, but we can never know a world other than our own. So, this is essentially an ongoing experiment. People are beginning to try the idea of not belonging to a particular theist faith. Instead, they are moving to this "Athiest community". Is it good or bad? Only time will tell. So, really just let people decide for themselves. Ultimately they will choose the clan most beneficial to themselves and those they appreciate.
If that makes any sense.
Ahaahhahaha oh wow it's incredible how much the two words "religion" and "America" can be distinguished as one hell of an argumentative thread
[QUOTE=Dead Madman;35416858]Ahaahhahaha oh wow it's incredible how much the two words "religion" and "America" can be distinguished as one hell of an argumentative thread[/QUOTE]
It's because the sum of those, are volatile amounts of socially acceptable stupid. If people would be more abusive towards "i'm dumb and i'm proud" persons... One thing is to take pride in what you can't help, Like sexuality or skin colour. But to make stupidity a competitive goal to strive for is just... STUPID! Shutting your ears and screaming "I'M RIGHT!" shouldn't be an acceptable argumentative response, yet in America, it is! The press not only accepts such responses, they laud and praise the people who deliver them. Fail much?
[QUOTE=The Last Man;35416781]I completely respect your opinion but disagree wholeheartedly. I agree that religion has done quite a bit of bad for society, but the simple fact remains that people want someone they can talk with that agrees with them. Those who appreciate a disagreement are few and far between. I can't say I like always having to argue with someone but it is entertaining on many occasion (generally when I know I am right), but even when there is no clear answer (like right now), debate can be amusing. But, I digress. Back to the whole religion thang. We can't really tell if the future world would be better with out religion. We know that there are many events in history that would point to a world without religion may have been better, but we can never know a world other than our own. So, this is essentially an ongoing experiment. People are beginning to try the idea of not belonging to a particular theist faith. Instead, they are moving to this "Athiest community". Is it good or bad? Only time will tell. So, really just let people decide for themselves. Ultimately they will choose the clan most beneficial to themselves and those they appreciate.
If that makes any sense.[/QUOTE]
You mean like talking to god? I find it frightening if anything, I'm a little tired of the terrorist attacks in this country. We just had a terrorist attack a couple days ago outside a goverment building, this is serious shit and because of religion nobody is talking about it. Yes, I'm talking about the planned parenthood terrorist attacks.
Secular morality has been around forever, religion just borrowed it and changed it a little. Society doesn't need a man in the sky to get together and say "Hey, let's not kill each other, or take people's shit without permission." Society does not need religion for morality, and never has. Given this, and the overwhelming evidence that contradicts most religious texts, why do we need it? I'd like to see your response. For the sake of argument, let's not take into account the motivation religious people get from having a deity on their side.
As for atheist 'communes'. I don't really see churches as places of worship so much as places of meeting and socializing. Why can't atheists have the same form of organization, where they can discuss things important to atheists and the cause of secularism? I think it's a great idea.
We're in agreement with your last sentence. Let me know if I'm too hostile, I mean not to come off that way. I don't know if you know this but I'm the most reasonable man in America.
I think debate and dialog is important, so long as it does not interfere with education and public policy. It's like having a geologist debate a flat earther, , it's irresponsible to give them equal recognition and platforms.
Wow, I knew Facepunch was full of atheists, but I didn't know they were the "EVERYONE WHO IS RELIGIOUS IS MADE OF DILDOS" type atheists. I know this is cliched, but for a forum of people who say "believing in death penalty degrades you as much as them". You sure like degrading yourselves as much as the people you oppose.
Sorry to break it to you guys but taking religion out of the equation doesn't fix squat.
It's stupid to believe religion is the source of humanity's conflicts and stagnation. It's merely an excuse for us to keep fighting/going against eachother because that's just how we work, if the fight isn't about religion then it'll be over something else. Take this very forum for example, people here will fight over almost every thing no matter how petty or insignificant it may seem. It's how people work.
That said, people should be able to believe in whatever they want to believe in without fear of being ridiculed or prosecuted, be it a religious belief or not.
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;35419178]Sorry to break it to you guys but taking religion out of the equation doesn't fix squat.
It's stupid to believe religion is the source of humanity's conflicts and stagnation. It's merely an excuse for us to keep fighting/going against eachother because that's just how we work, if the fight isn't about religion then it'll be over something else. Take this very forum for example, people here will fight over almost every thing no matter how petty or insignificant it may seem. It's how people work.
That said, people should be able to believe in whatever they want to believe in without fear of being ridiculed or prosecuted, be it a religious belief or not.[/QUOTE]
No shit getting religion isn't a solve all, or the single cause of human stagnation. Sorry, I'd rather "fight" about important issues instead of whether we should treat certain groups as second class citizens in their own country. Fascism and those who wish to turn this country into a theocracy are not something to take lightly, but that's my two cents.
I would also disagree with the premise that fighting / competition is genetic or "natural", it's your environment that fosters that mentality, but that's for another debate.
I still do not understand why on earth people keep bringing up prosecution as if athiests are about to ban churches or some bullshit. Perhaps I'm reading too far into it, but if you ask me you're trying to convince readers into thinking the two sides are equal. Fact is not the same as superstition, putting the two in the same bucket is irresponsible.
That's not what I meant at all, perhaps I could've worded it better.
I'm saying that it would be best if we could all learn to respect eachother's beliefs as long as said beliefs don't prohibit co-existance. Imposing a single point of view no matter how logical it may be will always cause stagnation and lack of diversity, which is, in my opinion, what makes us special and remarkable as a people.
Sure, it'd be a difficult and slow as fuck process, but in the end it would be infinitely more beneficial.
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;35419985]That's not what I meant at all, perhaps I could've worded it better.
I'm saying that it would be best if we could all learn to respect eachother's beliefs as long as said beliefs don't prohibit co-existance. Imposing a single point of view no matter how logical it may be will always cause stagnation and lack of diversity, which is, in my opinion, what makes us special and remarkable as a people.
Sure, it'd be a difficult and slow as fuck process, but in the end it would be infinitely more beneficial.[/QUOTE]
I still don't agree, unless you mean to respect other peoples' right to beliefs, then of course. But not all beliefs and cultures are equal. I have little respect for the Saudi & Iranian culture, i think it is despicable and inhumane, especially in the year 2012. I don't think "unbelievers" in general are striding to impose their unbelief on others by force, as you implied.
What I'm getting at is that unbelief, by its own definition, does not contain any scripture, dogma, or what have you, driving or outright advocating for the imposing of their views on others. Most religions on the other hand..
Again, I agree with you, my problem is it is one sided, and it's not the unbelievers who are doing it. Are there nuts who will advocate for it on the agnostic/atheist side? sure, but it's not "built into" unbelief.
I would love to come out here and talk about how religion and science/facts have coexisted, but the facts of history certainly do not point to this.
[QUOTE=Laferio;35402630]While I agree with you, the whole, "religion is bad kthx" is ridiculous. Its just people who typically making dumb statements like, "It's a shame that the eradication of religion won't be in my lifetime.". People who go out of their way just to say the other side is dumber and etc. I'm not trying to imply that there aren't religious people who don't do the same, but holy shit.[/QUOTE]But it is a shame that religion won't disappear in my lifetime.
It is a shame that I have to fight to have evolution taught as it should be in my own school districts. It is a shame that televangelists have any influence whatsoever. It is a shame that people go about all drugged up on this bullshit and never doing something with themselves.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;35421233]But it is a shame that religion won't disappear in my lifetime.
It is a shame that I have to fight to have evolution taught as it should be in my own school districts. It is a shame that televangelists have any influence whatsoever. It is a shame that people go about all drugged up on this bullshit and never doing something with themselves.[/QUOTE]
I'm not as cynical as you are but it is a shame. I don't think people outside the US in what seems like a mostly secular Europe understands what we're facing here. We had an entire presidential campaign almost based upon hating a minority on religious grounds in 2004.
[QUOTE=fox '09;35420987]I still don't agree, unless you mean to respect other peoples' right to beliefs, then of course. But not all beliefs and cultures are equal. I have little respect for the Saudi & Iranian culture, i think it is despicable and inhumane, especially in the year 2012. I don't think "unbelievers" in general are striding to impose their unbelief on others by force, as you implied.
What I'm getting at is that unbelief, by its own definition, does not contain any scripture, dogma, or what have you, driving or outright advocating for the imposing of their views on others. Most religions on the other hand..
Again, I agree with you, my problem is it is one sided, and it's not the unbelievers who are doing it. Are there nuts who will advocate for it on the agnostic/atheist side? sure, but it's not "built into" unbelief.
I would love to come out here and talk about how religion and science/facts have coexisted, but the facts of history certainly do not point to this.[/QUOTE]
How can we say that their culture is worse than ours?
You're basing the worth of those cultures on your own beliefs. We say it sucks over there, cause they are not as free as we are. Who are we to say that more freedom equals better? It's our opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right.
(I'm just using freedom as an example, there are many other factors in a society)
Nobody can judge a culture they are not a part of, hence you can't compare two of them.
And religion and science have definitely coexisted, science started as a part of religion after all. The only problem is, that when people wanted the separate the two, organised religion shat itself, thinking they would lose power.
[QUOTE=judgeofdeath;35426598]How can we say that their culture is worse than ours?
You're basing the worth of those cultures on your own beliefs. We say it sucks over there, cause they are not as free as we are. Who are we to say that more freedom equals better? It's our opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right.
(I'm just using freedom as an example, there are many other factors in a society)
Nobody can judge a culture they are not a part of, hence you can't compare two of them.
And religion and science have definitely coexisted, science started as a part of religion after all. The only problem is, that when people wanted the separate the two, organised religion shat itself, thinking they would lose power.[/QUOTE]
I base it off of the treatment of women, honor killings, & capital punishment. I never said their culture is worse than "ours" but rather that it is inhumane. Just because the people in that culture like the way things are, doesn't mean I have to respect their beliefs.
Can you use another analogy perhaps? I'm still not getting what you're saying. What do you mean by "It's our opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right.". If you think I'm wrong, or you're wrong, then what do you think is right? All cultures are not equal, and I'm not going to treat them as so, because I don't agree with some of them. If I agreed with ALL cultures everywhere all the time, then sure, but I don't. I understand it's not a right or wrong question, but you seem to be saying we're wrong, and I'd like to know what you mean by that.
Religion and science have coexisted in some form, it's just religion doesn't like when it's challenged as you said. Science CHALLENGES old ideas and religion, therefore it CANNOT coexist with religion so long as religious people wish to spread information contrary to scientific conclusions. Many of the great scientists of history have been persecuted or exiled for their work. A good example is persecution of scientists who found out that the earth is round and is tilted on an axis.
Eventually the two will come back into equilibrium because religion ultimately will lose to facts and be unable to convince the population of their myths, sure, but once science challenges religion again, religious people will fight it.
[QUOTE=Rebi;35418643]EVERYONE WHO IS RELIGIOUS IS MADE OF DILDOS[/QUOTE]
what does that even mean?
[QUOTE=judgeofdeath;35426598]How can we say that their culture is worse than ours?
You're basing the worth of those cultures on your own beliefs. We say it sucks over there, cause they are not as free as we are. Who are we to say that more freedom equals better? It's our opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right.
(I'm just using freedom as an example, there are many other factors in a society)
Nobody can judge a culture they are not a part of, hence you can't compare two of them.[/QUOTE]
I completely disagree. I can say with full confidence that a culture of cannibals in which daughters loose virginity to their fathers at the age of 7 and then are sold to "marry" old men, where people from outside that culture are kidnapped, raped and eaten or given in sacrifice for gods, etc, etc is worse than some other culture where that shit doesn't happen or happens many many times less frequent. I don't have to live in that culture to make that assessment. I mean fuck, it's like saying "who are we to say that abolition of slavery equals better? it's our opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right". Bullshit.
[QUOTE=judgeofdeath;35426598]And religion and science have definitely coexisted, science started as a part of religion after all. The only problem is, that when people wanted the separate the two, organised religion shat itself, thinking they would lose power.[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of Galileo? It's not that people wanted to separate the two, they started proving that reality and religion are separate. Which was heresy by the way.
[quote=fox '09]I still don't agree, unless you mean to respect other peoples' right to beliefs, then of course. But not all beliefs and cultures are equal. I have little respect for the Saudi & Iranian culture, i think it is despicable and inhumane, especially in the year 2012. I don't think "unbelievers" in general are striding to impose their unbelief on others by force, as you implied. [/quote]
That's pretty much what I meant, that's why I said we should respect them unless those cultural traits prohibit peaceful coexistance, such as the Saudi/Iranian culture example you mentioned in your post. Intolerance is deeply ingrained in those cultures and they are a perfect example of beliefs that [b]should[/b] be eradicated.
Also, by 'imposing' i didn't mean the use of force, but rather to the fast, sudden removal of religion that a lot of people in this thread seem to want.
[QUOTE=fox '09;35417987]You mean like talking to god? I find it frightening if anything, I'm a little tired of the terrorist attacks in this country. We just had a terrorist attack a couple days ago outside a goverment building, this is serious shit and because of religion nobody is talking about it. Yes, I'm talking about the planned parenthood terrorist attacks.
Secular morality has been around forever, religion just borrowed it and changed it a little. Society doesn't need a man in the sky to get together and say "Hey, let's not kill each other, or take people's shit without permission." Society does not need religion for morality, and never has. Given this, and the overwhelming evidence that contradicts most religious texts, why do we need it? I'd like to see your response. For the sake of argument, let's not take into account the motivation religious people get from having a deity on their side.
As for atheist 'communes'. I don't really see churches as places of worship so much as places of meeting and socializing. Why can't atheists have the same form of organization, where they can discuss things important to atheists and the cause of secularism? I think it's a great idea.
We're in agreement with your last sentence. Let me know if I'm too hostile, I mean not to come off that way. I don't know if you know this but I'm the most reasonable man in America.
I think debate and dialog is important, so long as it does not interfere with education and public policy. It's like having a geologist debate a flat earther, , it's irresponsible to give them equal recognition and platforms.[/QUOTE]
This is fun, first time I have had a reasonable discussion on the internet! Anyway, basically what I mean is that people generally don't appreciate being around someone who disagrees with them. They want to communicate with like-minded people because they just don't want the stress of religious belief to be part of their everyday life. So yes an easy answer would be for them to just say, "Hey! I am atheist, religion doesn't matter to me!" but then there is the societal persecution entailed. So the average joe will stick around those who are like-minded. Its the same reason I tend to not go out to eat with a vegetarian, or go to the gym with a cross-fit guru. I want to do things my way.
Yes, I agree that you could say arguing religion and atheism is analogous to a geologist and and a flat-earther, except for the fact that religion has been so deeply seated in society for such an extensive period of time that you can not just flush the toilet and have it be gone. You have to be diplomatic, you have to be reasonable. I would not be surprised if in the next few decades you find that religion means less to most people in first world nations, but remember that religion is the opiate of the masses. An easy way to control people is to tell them that if they live a certain lifestyle then, while they may not have it easy on Earth, there is something better waiting for them in death. This can be used for moral or immoral purposes and in many cases immoral. But, for many in the third world nations of this Earth, there is no hope for them other than the idea of an afterlife. So realize that in eradicating religion you are removing this hope for many millions, possibly even billions, of people.
You could argue that the truth is better than blissful ignorance, but to be honest I have seen quite a bit of truth in this world and its ugly. I was sued and nearly lost for something I didn't do, I have seen politicians for the scum they are, people vote for needless pieces of municipal equipment because it is just new and shiny. I have seen supposedly "good Catholics" turn into utter demons when they did not get exactly what they want and the clergy refuse a dying woman her last rights because she could not pay enough.
Frankly, sometimes I wish I hadn't taken the red pill.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35430718]what does that even mean?[/QUOTE]
Got it from Metalocalypse, I think Swiisgar or however his name is spelled, says that.
[QUOTE=The Last Man;35434072]This is fun, first time I have had a reasonable discussion on the internet![/QUOTE]
It is fun, and sometimes you live in your own bubble. It's good to get out of that bubble once in a while and defend your positions against opposing views.
I'll start using quote tags as the discussion becomes longer, keeps things easier for you and I.
[quote]Anyway, basically what I mean is that people generally don't appreciate being around someone who disagrees with them. They want to communicate with like-minded people because they just don't want the stress of religious belief to be part of their everyday life. So yes an easy answer would be for them to just say, "Hey! I am atheist, religion doesn't matter to me!" but then there is the societal persecution entailed. So the average joe will stick around those who are like-minded. Its the same reason I tend to not go out to eat with a vegetarian, or go to the gym with a cross-fit guru. I want to do things my way.[/quote]
I see this as the status quo, and how we are conditioned. Seems like too often we talk at each other, and not with each other. A failing of modern language & societal conditioning perhaps, but I'm merely pointing this out, not offering a solution. We're in agreement, I just don't think it necessarily has to be this way. Full disclosure, I'm a fan of the venus project. But as I said earlier, that's another debate.
[quote]
Yes, I agree that you could say arguing religion and atheism is analogous to a geologist and and a flat-earther, except for the fact that religion has been so deeply seated in society for such an extensive period of time that you can not just flush the toilet and have it be gone. You have to be diplomatic, you have to be reasonable. I would not be surprised if in the next few decades you find that religion means less to most people in first world nations, but remember that religion is the opiate of the masses. An easy way to control people is to tell them that if they live a certain lifestyle then, while they may not have it easy on Earth, there is something better waiting for them in death. This can be used for moral or immoral purposes and in many cases immoral. But, for many in the third world nations of this Earth, there is no hope for them other than the idea of an afterlife. So realize that in eradicating religion you are removing this hope for many millions, possibly even billions, of people.[/quote]
Again even if we wanted an abrupt change, it just wouldn't happen, it's not possible. We're in agreement until the last part. Are we removing hope for the most afflicted/poorest members of society? absolutely. It would be hard for me to tell a starving African that there will be no afterlife. I probably couldn't do it. Personally, the lack of evidence pointing to an afterlife is precisely what motivates me to do good. Knowing that life will end makes me not want to squander life, but try my best to make it a long and good life. I tell other people this, but It's not at the top of my list.
[quote]
You could argue that the truth is better than blissful ignorance, but to be honest I have seen quite a bit of truth in this world and its ugly. I was sued and nearly lost for something I didn't do, I have seen politicians for the scum they are, people vote for needless pieces of municipal equipment because it is just new and shiny. I have seen supposedly "good Catholics" turn into utter demons when they did not get exactly what they want and the clergy refuse a dying woman her last rights because she could not pay enough. [/quote]
You missed war on your list. Sometimes the truth is hurtful, but it's also necessary if you want to improve life for others, or even your own life.
That aside, I don't think that's too relevant to the context of my post, I meant as far as science goes, the difference between "flat earth theory" and "round earth theory", not the difference between suffering from truth and the joy from ignorance.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
