Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

1) I never said Jesus being in more than one text makes anything more legitimate, you said something about jesus not existing (or no proof), and I posted other wise. I even said in my post that he probably wasn't a holy man, just a man that existed. Even some atheists acknowledge Jesus' existence
2) Easy there Darwin, I'm not even christian (or any religion I could put a name to, if you care to know). So before you try and be all high and mighty.


You responded with shit that had nothing to do what I said, all i responded to your post was saying.
- There is actual evidence that could point towards a "Jesus" existing.
- Any religious text wouldn't be any less credible if it was written by a mentally unstable person.


Good try though (Y)

Also, you are correct anyone could start a religion, Scientology is a great example.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

When it comes down to it, I think pushing any viewpoint to borderline extremism can be pretty unhealthy. These viewpoints can include Atheism, Islam, Christianity, a specific political affiliation, or otherwise.

Science, government, and political ideologies have all done the same things. Give me an old institution that has never had any corruption/bloodshed within it. Religion might have the most, but that's just because it's the oldest (if we include every religion that ever existed). It's had quite a lot of time to piss the world off.

I believe religion has helped alot of people, and it still continues to do so today. Some of the greatest minds in human history have been religious.

People who take these ideas to extreme lengths are the problem. They forget what their ideas/religion were meant to do, and start to put everyone else down as the result.

It's good that people have something to follow, and who cares if it's false? It helps them, and that's what matters in the end. Having faith in what you believe in can really make you achieve extraordinary things.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

I agree.

Except science, government and political ideologies all have tangible benefits for their adherents. All religion has is shaky promises of a better afterlife. Pair that with moral immunity since you are only following God's orders and it becomes a pretty serious problem.

The only thing that religion does that secular organizations couldn't is to make fancy promises of some better afterlife and to offer false hope and fairly tales. All of the charitable functions could be fulfilled much better by secular organizations who didn't feel the need to preach as part of their mission.

And jsut because many of the great minds in history were able to overcome that pparticular shortcoming doesn't mean anything. Many of the greatest minds in history were male. Does that mean being male gave them some advantage over females? Correlation does not equal causation

I agree. Though religion treats the putting everyone else down part practice
a commandment.


Because it is harmful. People are scared into spending their whole lives living up to the expectations of religion by the idea of hell and with the promise of a reward in the next life. They essentially throw away this life for a most likely imaginary reward. It's no different than if you told someone all they had to do was follow a strict set of arbitrary rules their whole life and they could be resurrected as one of Santa's elves.

Then there is the part where religion brainwashes children, promotes archaic bigotry because their magic book says so, corrupts education, stifles science and promotes violence among other things.

I mean, it's just like any other mental illness, they have to want to get better, but I would feel like a heartless human being if I didn't at least try to help.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

You sure about that? I find their "tangible benefits" are often very questionable much of time. Religion isn't much different in the end.

I wasn't correlating anything, just stating a fact.

Religion wasn't a shortcoming to them. It was a tool they used that helped them achieve what they wanted to achieve. In my eyes: Depending on the person, religion can either be a crutch, or a tool for their success. It's about how you use the belief to achieve your goals.
Going to disagree here. I'll argue that most religious communities aren't the way you're portraying them to be and pretty much everything you said here is false, to an extent. It seems like when people hear "religion," they think of the Westboro Baptist Church, or Scientology, and ignore all the rest.

Yes, religion has a bad side (it is an institution run by people, after all), we can all agree to that. But is it enough to completely abolish it? How prevalent is this "archaic bigotry" that you claim? Religion isn't the only thing that teaches this stuff, you know.

I went to Catholic school until high school, and I sure as hell was never taught to put down others.

And how is society any different? Every single one of us is forced to live up to certain expectations, whether those are religious or societal. One might be more practical, sure, but people do find mental stability and comfort in Religion. So why try to take that away?

And you honestly put religious people on the same level as the mentally ill? If that's all it takes to be mentally ill, then get ready to get a great majority of our population some help.

I'm tired of people saying "this" is right, or "that" is normal and anyone who disagrees needs to be helped (this leads to very questionable thinking). Maybe the person doesn't want help because they don't need it. They live their lives just great with their own beliefs.

I also want to note that I believe people do throw around their religious affiliations too freely at times. Someone may "claim" to be Christian, but doesn't do anything a Christian should do and completely disregards what Jesus taught. I've met Atheists who are better Christians.

On a very unrelated note, here is a stealing seagull.

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/752...g20seagull.gif
Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Love you too. :p

First, quickly: I made no comparison to politics, geography or human nature, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning them. The simple answer though is that those are things we cannot escape: we cannot help but be human, we cannot live on any other world (yet), and if we're to have any society at all we cannot escape politics. Certainly they do all cause harm in some ways, but that harm is unavoidable; these things simply cannot be helped. Religion is not similarly a mandatory part of our existence.

As regards my claim about religion being a blight on the world: I think you've challenged me on this once before, and I still say that there's no way I can do the subject justice in one forum post, or even many forum posts. If you like though, consider this a very, very abridged summary:

- Moderate religion does not generally provide any particular comfort that is missing for someone who has grown up outside religion.
- What good ideals are promoted by moderate religion are just as easily promoted by secular ideologies.
- Extreme religion is exceptionally damaging.
- The existence of moderate religion creates and protects extreme religion.
- Religion necessarily teaches people to be satisfied with claims unsupported or unsupportable by evidence.
- Institutionalized religion is a fiscal drain on society.

Calling something a religion still implies some claim about a deity or supernatural force, which means it's still at least indirectly advocating acceptance of something without evidence, which I unequivocally object to. So, "God wants only for us to love and be at peace", admittedly a very minimalist religion, I would object to on those grounds. "We should all love and be at peace" is something I have no objection to, but that would be called an ideology, not a religion.

You've made this argument before, and I have the same response: being unfalsifiable is not a point in favour of a hypothesis. If we're to be technical, I suppose we should say that the lack of evidence for unicorns is a reason to doubt that they exist, but the impossibility of evidence against Yahweh is reason to not even take the claim seriously in the first place.

Secondly, while there is no physical description of Yahweh in the bible, there are descriptions of his character that are entirely human, and descriptions of actions said to have been taken by him which can be shown to not have happened (the Flood comes most immediately to mind). Finding that there was no global flood a few thousand years ago is akin to finding that there in no pantheon on the crest of Mt. Olympus. Sure, it could just mean that Zeus and friends are elsewhere, but that's ad hoc reasoning.

I have no doubt that Christianity will outlive me, to be sure, but I'm quite confident that Jesus will one day take his place beside Zeus and Thor.

None of those are reasons to think that religion is causing good in the world unless there are reasons to think that those things wouldn't exist without religion. People who give to charity and help the homeless would still do those things if they were not religious. The things you describe are as they are because our entire society was Christian until very recently.

Yes, people have the right to believe what they like. You'll note I'm not advocating making religion illegal. Certainly there are intelligent religious people and there are dumb atheists, but overwhelming I find that atheists tend to be better educated and more intelligent/intellectual as a group than the religious. As for humanity needing punishment; I pity you. I think that would be a very depressing mindset with which to live.

This seems to be a common misunderstanding, but an attack on religion is not the same as an attack on religious people. I completely agree with him that religion stifles progress and reasoning. That doesn't mean that all religious people are incapable of reasoning well, it means that those who do, do so in spite of their religion. "I think religion is evil" and "I think the religious are evil" are not the same statement. I know many atheists who say the former, or some version similar, but I know almost no one who seriously claims the latter.

I'm not being sarcastic. From where I sit, these things are more or less equally fictional. You yourself point at all these things and say "These are just from folk tales, myths and stories", and yes, that's my point! Thank you for understanding. Yahweh is also just a myth, albeit one that has tragically outlived its stay. The only importance difference between Yahweh and Zeus is the era in which they were each taken seriously. These are all things that were written in stories by people.

Forgive me for being flummoxed by this, but I don't understand how you can be making that accusation. I've deliberately gone out of my way to differentiate between attacking religion itself and attacking religious people. As I keep saying, hating religious does not mean hating religious people. "Hate the sin, not the sinner," as the saying goes. And while I really don't like pointing fingers, I don't see how you can reasonably claim that I've been uncivil, particularly considering how you've been speaking yourself. In one post you've managed to accuse me of being (very) narrow-minded, retarded, petty, and of having my head firmly planted within my buttocks. How am I the uncivil one?

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Science and government both have very real tangible benefits.

I could list all of the scientific discoveries and innovations that are beneficial to human quality of life, but I don't think either of us have time for a list that long.

Government provides order and structure for society. Do most governments have a variety of flaws? Of course. But I don't think you actually believe anarchy would be better?

Political ideologies vary widely and many of them don't have any great benefit, but that's not really what this topic is about.



I'm curious if you could point out a specific example where religion helped a 'great person' to achieve their goals in a way they couldn't have done through secular means.


Westboro Baptist Church and Scientology are both great examples of why religion is a bad thing, but far from the only ones.

Let's start with archaic bigotry. Here in America we have conservative Christians who demonize gays and do everything they can to deny them equal rights. Or there is the lack of womens' rights in most Muslim countries.

Then there is the negative effect religion has on education. At least here in America, religious conservatives prevent many kids from getting a proper sexual education. This often leads to unwanted pregnancies since a lot of kids aren't up for listening to the 'abstinence only' junk that is preached at them.

Many of the unwanted children are brought into a world where no one wants them because religion is also convinced that abortion is evil. Seems to me that bringing someone into a world where they aren't even wanted is pretty cruel.

I could go one and on about the other problems I see with religion, but I think Fletcher covered most of my other points in his post above.

And, yes, religion is not the only one at fault for prejudice and stupidity, but it is a large part of the problem. Just because it isn't the only one at fault doesn't absolve it of any responsibility for the problems it causes.


Because religion is imaginary and has no tangible benefits, as discussed above. Living up to society's expectations generally does have obvious tangible benefits. Furthermore, society's expectations aren't based on some guy's interpretation of a 2000 year old fairy tale, they are based on what is good for society as a whole. As a member of society, one benefits indirectly from doing things that benefit society.

People can have those very same things without religion. At this point in my life, I'm fairly comfortable and mentally stable without religion.

Admittedly, my wording may have been a bit strong, but it's really an insane, destructive mindset. If someone told you that they prayed to the tooth fairy everyday, justified their actions based on what the 'tooth fairy told them' and based their happiness and mental stability on how the tooth fairy (in their mind) judged their actions, would you not say they were mentally ill? Religion is no different, it's just more accepted because many people suffer from it.


I agree.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Warning: here be many words...

The comparison was one I introduced, mainly because they are the primary causes of all human division and conflict. My question was why religion should be held as being particularly worse than these others as a source of hatred and division. I would also dispute quite strongly that human nature or geography inevitably lead to such hatred and division, or that society naturally begets politics. That seems more a convenient fiction. In any event, such harms can just as easily be addressed as those caused by religion if one is willing to address them, and with all four areas I fear that is the real problem.

In the spirit of the above, consider these very, very abridged responses:

- This presupposes that the sole purpose of religion is providing comfort, for which you have no evidence at all.
- Secular ideologies have by and large originated in countries in which religion and society have been intertwined (for good or ill) for thousands of years. One has quite clearly influenced the development of the other. To claim therefore that the same ideas would originate without religion is an argument with, again, no evidence for its support - and if you consider how pre-Christian Celtic and Roman societies conducted themselves, perhaps evidence against it if anything.
- This is not disputed, but anything in extremes is damaging. Extreme political views, extreme sports, extreme speculation in investments - I could even throw in extreme dieting. Judging anything by reference to its extremes is not particularly rational to my mind.
- Highly debatable: would you make the same claim about moderate politics?
- Again highly debatable: I for one must have missed that particular Sunday school class.
- The same could be said of any charitable organisation, or any kind of state-administered welfare system (or indeed the state itself), so that isn't the strongest argument.

If you'd like to go into this in more detail feel free to PM me.

Slightly left-field question: do you accept the elements of quantum theory concerning the Higgs boson? That after all has no evidence for its existence (and if you take the argument of one of my friends who studied physics at Oxford and visited CERN, it can't because the maths is flawed), yet it is currently accepted as the best explanation for problem areas in the theory. I acknowledge that doesn't address your objection, onto which I will now move, but I am interested in your response nonetheless.

Anyway, whether or not it relies upon "acceptance of something without evidence" depends entirely upon how you treat the writings which underpin various religions. If, as seems to be your want, you dismiss them entirely out of hand simply because they make reference to a deity that you cannot imagine existing, then there is obviously going to be an evidential problem which cannot be overcome. It would be like trying to argue that murder is unlawful while discounting all case law and statute on the subject. If on the other hand you approach them from a neutral perspective, neither accepting unequivocably nor dismissing unequivocably, then you may well find evidence which supports the hypothesis. It will however depend entirely on what weight and interpretation you give the evidence, and I feel you are depicting this as a purely objective enterprise when quite frankly it is anything but. The fact that the debate over whether God exists or not remains a topic at all should suggest it is anything but a done deal and that some evidence has at the very least been adduced, or else why bother expending time and energy on the question?

You will note that I acknowlegded that very point regarding it not supporting the existence of God in my last sentence. My attack was more directed at the format of your analogy as a comparison. On a different note, evidence against Yahweh is not impossible - it is merely beyond our current capabilities. The two are not one and the same and it is presumptuous indeed to argue that the Universe can only function according to our criteria. Were one able to move outside the Universe, evidence for or against his existence would become apparent quite quickly.

Character is again not an observable or testable characteristic, so that is not a particularly strong ground for discounting God's existence. The Flood is a more credible one and I will grant you that, but your vague "few thousand years ago" is perhaps not the most advisable. As this Wikipedia article points out, there are events in history which could explain accounts of a "flood which covered the land". You could also point to the fact that such "flood myths" have appeared in a diverse range of cultures over a range of tens of thousands of miles, which at the very least requires some explanation as to how cultures with little-to-no contact settled upon the same metaphor despite differences in thought process, language and imagery. That is perhaps a matter for another time, however.

I can't help but notice you've gone back to Jesus rather than God, despite my recollection that in another thread you accepted the historical existence of Jesus even if you disputed in no uncertain terms claims of his divinity.

Again, I would question how you can say with any certainty that charitable obligation would still exist in a world where religion had not. A quick glance at the history of charitable obligation would show that Christianity has played quite a fundamental role in this (to take but two examples, Barnardo's childrens charity in the UK and the abolition of the slave trade were both spearheaded by Christians), and it continues to do so to this day even if society has become more secular. The only reference point we have to go by is how society was pre-Christianity, and that does not give much support to your argument. I use Christianity as an example but others could easily fit the mould.

Science, government and politics are all tools like any other - it is how one uses them that provides benefit or detriment. To take a scientific example, one could either view the splitting of the atom as providing a positive contribution to energy generation or the cause of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Japan. You could also point to science underpinning the development of chemical weapons, napalm and cluster bombs, or you could point to it developing vaccines and other medical advances. At face value, science really is a neutral-value tool. Governments can likewise provide benefit to any number of their citizens, or exclude and demonise any number of their citizens with dramatic consequences (as both past and recent events demonstrate). How "good" or "bad" anything is really comes down to the homo sapiens sapiens trying to use it, and there's the rub.

Martin Luther King Jnr springs to mind. He drew upon his religious beliefs and experiences as a pastor throughout his activist career, and was unable to do so in the secular arena because he was not recognised as having equal rights and could not participate fully in secular society. If you would care for other examples I can provide them.

I could point to a quite well-known example of why politics is a bad thing, but that would be in breach of Godwin's Law. As I said above in reply to Fletcher, arguing from extremes is not particularly rational.

You imply both arise from the requirements of their religion as opposed to entrenched societal norms. That is without evidence and quite spurious to boot.

Again, see the above.

Without trying to turn this into an abortion debate, I would say that says more about the behaviour of individuals and the nature of the world at present than religion.

I would ask for evidence that religion is "a large part of the problem" compared with other contributing factors, but I'm sceptical as to whether any is available. The fact that it is one factor among others does not absolve it, as you say, but nor does it make it a suitable scapegoat for the ills of the world - particularly as such attempts, more often than not, seem to be attempts to excuse general screw-ups of our own doing.

I suspect I have may missed such discussion on the absence of tangible benefits from religion, as I cannot find one above. Assertion is not discussion, after all. From my own experience, I would argue that religion can provide, among other benefits, sense of community, promotion of compassion and support for those less fortunate, a moral compass and inspiration for people to attempt to set right the wrongs of life without requiring reward. All of those could be considered benefits. It is a mistake to presume that the only benefit religion can possibly provide is a post-death promise.

If you would like to look back at my response to Fletcher's similar appeal to fiction argument, you would perhaps appreciate the glaring flaw in that argument. We know quite well that the tooth fairy is actually a "fairy tale" (pardon the pun) and that it's really just your parents taking your teeth and slipping some change in in its place. I also don't recall the tooth fairy coming with a life philosophy, so on a number of levels that really does fall apart. On a more personal note, I don't take particularly kindly to being called "mentally ill", particularly as I have had experiences with people who were suffering in that way and it's not particularly pleasant. Please be more careful with your choice of words in future.

Man, that was a long post. Think I need a lie down...

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one.
It's fine to be proud of it.
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.
And PLEASE don't try and shove it down my throat.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

But...

But...

Awww.

:(

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

On a potentially more serious note -

I genuinely think that believing there is a man in the sky controlling your life etc etc is some kind of psychosis.
Not that I would openly share that with religious communities, because I do find religion fascinating. Not so much Christianity which in the grand scheme of religions is kind of dull - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism - all amazing religions and so although I cannot even begin to comprehend how someone could believe what these religions state, in some ways I'm envious that the follows are able to just commit themselves so completely. I'd love to have a faith that allowed me to genuinely believe someone had my back, had a plan for me. Or would I? Sometimes yes, sometimes it's nice to know that it's me that determines my future.

So for the large part I respect people's belief system and will endeavour to understand it as much as possible.

I get angry when people try and use religion to influence politics and law. No.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/l.../religion2.jpg

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

There are two good reasons to not attempt to get rid of severely harmful things: either we are powerless to do so, or their existence is necessary for a greater benefit. Geography and human nature fall into the former category, and politics into the latter. I suppose you could argue that anarchy wouldn't devolve into chaos, but that would need a whole other thread. Religion doesn't seem to fall into either of these categories.

If I ever do find the time and inclination, it won't be in a PM. You will be the first to hear though, if you like. I will comment on one of your replies though: "This presupposes that the sole purpose of religion is providing comfort, for which you have no evidence at all." Inferring things I haven't said is bad form. Why does a claim that religion gives no significant comfort necessarily imply a claim that religion could not provide any other benefit?

I don't think one way or the other. I find it the height of arrogance to pretend to have a meaningful opinion on something about which I am almost completely ignorant. In general though, a new idea which happens to fit the facts is exactly that; it seems silly to think strongly one way or the other until either evidence turns up or sufficient testing fails to turn up the expected evidence.

The last part is unconvincing; there's still a debate over evolution in the US and that's absolutely a done deal. Also, whether or not god exists and whether or not Christianity is true are hugely different questions. Otherwise, the way you word this objection seems dishonest; there are many more good reasons than a simple lack of imagination to dismiss the bible as reliable evidence. I'm hardly a scholar on the subject, but there's plenty of literature about it. Everything I have ever read about the origins of Christianity and the bible lead me to believe that it is no different than any other religion; the attempts of young civilizations to explain that which was beyond their grasp.

Why so? It is always possible to simply say "He exists; he only exists outside of our reach." It's been done for millenia, after all. God used to be beyond the sky; when finally we ourselves reached beyond the sky we found no god. In any event, "we could find evidence if only we were able to look outside the universe" is no better in terms of falsifiability than Descartes' demons. Outside the universe isn't just beyond our abilities; it's so far beyond them as to be laughable as defense of an argument. It is essentially saying "It's possible to find evidence if it's possible to find evidence." Sure, technically true, but hardly useful.

Descriptions of character aren't testable, but a god that seems so human in mannerisms - like most other gods - seems that much more likely to have come from human imagination. That was my point. Those speculated origins for the flood myth are just that; origins for a myth. These are things that we would expect of writings from early tribes; a local flood described as "the entire world drowned". These things all make sense of the bible as a record of myths, not as a record of the divine.

Another example, perhaps much more convincing: the entire story of Exodus seems to be almost completely false.

Jesus is the defining figure of Christianity; it would have made no sense to say "Zeus, Thor, and God".

Is there any reason to think that these things would not remain? Pointing to the role of Christianity in our society in the past is as senseless as pointing to the dominance of men in science in the past; of course they were dominant, there were simply no other options. Once upon a time religion was the driving force behind education as well, but this has since ceased to be true. We do know however that being religious doesn't particularly alter people's character; people who are inclined to be charitable will be charitable whether they're religious or not.

That's ridiculously monochromatic reasoning; the same can be used to justify anything that has an iota of positive value. What's pertinent is how good and how bad things are. Of course everything will seem neutral-value if you totally omit any measure of value.

Yes it is. Arguing only from extremes and ignoring the rest isn't rational, but neither is claiming that the extremes don't count. The possibility of dictatorships is extremely relevant to discussions of government, just as the existence of WBC and their ilk is relevant to discussions of religion.

Leviticus 18:22. 1 Timothy 2:12. Certainly doesn't help, does it?

Correlation doesn't imply causation, I grant you, but it's a hell of a strong correlation. What explanation would you offer for it?


You seem to continue dancing around the point. Yes, religion can have some small benefits. No, religion is not the only evil in the world. Yes, most religious people are not bad. These are not adequate defenses to the accusation that religion does significantly more harm in the world than good. Of course you can only be expected to address one point at a time, but you shouldn't conclude at the end of each of them things like "but nor does it make it a suitable scapegoat for the ills of the world" as though the point were meant to stand alone.

I'm sure religion does provide these things for the religious, but that's only a tangible benefit if those things are notably less present in the non-religious.

A great deal of your faith in Christianity seems to rest on the bible being somehow special among ancient religious texts; if this is so, I might suggest that you do some significant research into the origins and writing of the bible.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

I don't hate religion, I hate the effect it has on those who are weak and easily led. People who can't form an opinion of their own or who refuse to accept blatant facts and cover over their lack of information with an over reliance on the bible irritate me beyond belief.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

I feel like I'm correcting people on this multiple times every day.

Just because I don't respect Christianity doesn't mean I don't respect you. You are much more than just the sum of the ideals you subscribe to. Hating Christianity is not the same as hating Christians, just as hating mathematics isn't the same as hating mathematicians. They're not even similar things. This attitude that an attack on your beliefs constitutes an attack on you is not only wrong, it's damaging. Ideas need to be discussed; it's the only good way to separate good ideas from bad ones. Getting offended by criticism of your ideas shuts down honest and open discussion and ultimately benefits no one. This notion that some ideas should be beyond the realm of open criticism is incredibly insidious, and ultimately constitutes little more than a shield behind which bad ideas can hide.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

quoted for truth

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Geography on its own does not account for the almost obsessive attitude we appear to have over lines on a map and who controls them, or else you would have no explanation for the existence of nomadic peoples or communes. It also fails to account for the fact that humans had little interest in land ownership as such until the Neolithic period. Likewise, human nature is a smorgasbord of different traits both positive and negative which make the occurrence of harm hardly inevitable or beyond our power to control - otherwise the human race would be in a constant state of orgiastic copulation and destruction. The extent of benefit provided by politics depends on what utilitarian measure you use and whether you class certain traits as positive or negative, but again that categorisation does not automatically follow. Also, an absence of politics does not equal anarchy - politics and governance are not one and the same, however much some may claim otherwise.

"Inferring things you haven't said" is not bad form if they form a logical part of singling out lack of "particular comfort" as a significant criticism of religion. Otherwise, singling out that trait above all others would seem somewhat perverse. If expressed solely in the context of an argument about whether religion provides comfort or not I would refrain from making such an inference, but in the context of "religion being a blight on the world" in general terms it is natural to assume you made reference to that trait over all others for a particular reason. If that assumption was too bold I apologise, but in the context of that argument the implication is that religion could only justify its existence in the face of your other points if it provided comfort, and that as it does not it is thereby a blight. Were that not the case, benefits in other areas would negate that criticism.

That is fair enough. I suppose it was a slightly roundabout way of demonstrating that science is just as capable as other fields on relying on theories without necessarily having the evidence to back them up. Dark matter is another good example.

The debate over the existence of God is, I would contend, a bit more comprehensive and complicated than the creationist-evolution debate in the USA. For one thing, it's actually taking place within academia rather than a group challenging academic consensus, and were God's non-existence "a done deal" (to use your phrase) then some people really are wasting a lot of time and energy, ourselves included.

I'm not talking about Christianity, and I find your attempts to pigeonhole me into the mould of "Christian apologist" both amusing and frustrating in equal measure. My point was that in order for the debate on God to have perpetuated for as long as it has done, both in academia and wider society, in the face of evidence you and fellow atheists would deem incontrovertible proof that God cannot exist or that his existence is highly unlikely, you would have to concede that either (a) there may well be something of substance upon which to form an argument or (b) there is a phenomenon which requires explanation. Thus far, the only explanations advanced have taken the form of widespread delusion, abrogation of rational thought or stubborn ignorance, none of which are particularly meritorious or scientific in their analysis.

Did I actually say that? No. What I actually said, part of which you seem to have ignored altogether, is that evidence which would confirm or refute the existence of God pretty categorically does exist even if at present it is not within our capabilities to reach it. If anything, I was arguing for agnosticism being the most sensible outlook, which doesn't reflect well on either of our positions when you think about it.

It suggests nothing more than that humans have a tendency to define everything in relation to themselves. You could adduce it as evidence that we're quite self-centered as a species, but that's about it.

If you would look at your previous post again, you will note that you said that a flood as described did not happen. My response was to point out that it may well have done, not that "the entire world drowned" or that God's hand was behind it. In light of your objection to my inference into your "particular comfort" statement I find these inferences into mine quite ironic. If a flood which covered a significant portion of the known world at the time - which would limit itself more or less to the current Middle East - did occur, the credibility of the Bible as a record of historical, if not theological, events would be strengthened. You however seem to rule that out altogether which I find intriguing.

You will forgive me if I do not find the statement of "seems to be almost completely false" to be that convincing. There's enough uncertainty in there to drive an 18-wheeler through.

In that case, I would ask that you nail your colours to the mast on one side of the "historical Jesus" debate or the other.

The fact that they may remain after secularisation provides no more evidence that they have their root in secularism than the fact that trees may remain in cities proves that trees have their root in cities rather than forests. It is not a given that Christianity had to develop in Roman civilisation or Celtic, Germanic or any other society it became a part of - that was by no means a foregone conclusion in c.30 AD. There were other options in quite numerous quantity; the question becomes more one of why Christianity as opposed to others, and that is a much more complicated question. Your last point meanwhile appears to discount the role that religion may have played in a person's early development, even if they may subsequently abandon religion - principles and values learned at a young age tend to be most ingrained in a person and continue to influence their outlook and behaviour even if on a subconscious level.

With respect, you have completely and utterly missed the point. Science, government, politics and religion/philosophy are incapable of being objectively good, bad or indifferent because they rely upon humans to put them into effect. It makes about as much sense as claiming a spanner is objectively better than a pneumatic drill - outside of context of use, it's a completely banal statement. You cannot judge something as being "good" or "bad" without reference to its context, and on that basis all of the examples raised to date - religion included - come out with mixed results at best. All have blood on their hands, both metaphorical and literal in some cases, and to gloss over that fact with regard to science, government and politics yet snap back onto it in the case of religion is hypocrisy in its highest form.

Again with respect, this is not Wonderland - simply saying something is such does not make it so. I never claimed that the extremes do not count, but if you would look at Cody's post he referred only to extremes. However you try and frame it, that is not a rational approach any more than judging the merits of government solely based on their ability to result in dictatorships is a rational approach. It is relevant but by no means conclusive, and arguing otherwise is bordering on absurdity.

Cody was referring to oppression in Muslim countries, so referring to St Paul on that topic is a bit of a fail I'm afraid. A verse from the Qur'an would have been more applicable. Leaving that aside, if you truly wish to play the "quote the Bible" game I could direct you to Michael, but as a starter for ten I could throw in Matthew 7:1 and John 8:7. On a more general level, I could point to the acceptance of gays within the Anglican Communion and the following passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church as negating the quote from Leviticus:

On the subject of lack of women's rights in Muslim countries, were it a product of religion rather than societal structure you would expect that to apply to all Muslims regardless of location, which I can confirm from personal experience (having Muslim friends and lived in a city with a large Muslim population) is false.

In such circumstances, human stupidity, ignorance and fear of the unknown or different are good explanations, and none of them are confined to religion.

There appear to be at least two unproven assumptions in that statement: that the benefits from religion are limited to the small, and that religion is inherently evil. Both of those have no basis beyond your personal opinion at present, and in the absence of provision of evidence to support the claim that religion causes significantly more harm than good - or, to use your earlier wording, a "blight on the world" - there is really quite little for me to address. To put it in the context of a debate, I am waiting for the opening argument rather than the skeleton. In any event, I was not "dancing around the point" as you rather uncharitably put it - the claim was that religion is a "large part of the problem" insofar as ignorance and stupidity is concerned, and I responded that in the absence of evidence to support this, the mere fact that it can be a contributing factor to both is not reasonable grounds to make it the scapegoat, which is how religion is increasingly portrayed and is something I find intellectually dishonest in the highest degree. By all means make whatever claims you like about religion or anything else in life, but you'd best be able to back them up.

Not necessarily - there may well be an alternative for the non-religious which provides the same function. That will vary from person to person and the mere fact that something may provide a similar benefit does not mean that religion cannot provide a tangible benefit at all. Tangible refers only to its observability and impact on the person.

It is somewhat arrogant to presume, without asking, that I have not done "significant research" into the origins and writing of the Bible. I am fully aware both of the chronology and multiple authorship of the Bible, and of the process of compilation into a settled canon hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. As such, I would respectfully ask that you decline from making further assertions of ignorance. I would also again ask that you refrain from trying to pigeonhole me into the "Christian" box, as my arguments tend to come more from philosophy and the wider world rather than one book or religion. I would also ask what your response has to do with my objection to Cody's comparison to the tooth fairy or implications of mental illness on my part - or indeed the flippant use of such terminology. If you really wish to understand my rationale for believing in God and being a Christian I would be quite happy to explain this to you, albeit with the warning that the length of the explanation may well cure any insomnia that you may be suffering from. In the absence of such explanation, however, I would ask for a little more decorum in debate. I have not attacked your intelligence or views on this topic - at least not knowingly - and would ask only for the same in return.

This is true up to a point; however, mathematics as far as I am aware does not bring with it a life philosophy or set of principles by which people live their lives. It can be a vocation or calling by any means, but I have yet to see it being used in an attempt to determine morality or ethics. Christianity, and other religions or life philosophies, is something which by definition plays a more substantial role in a person's life or at the very least reflects on them as a person, so in throwing around terms such as "evil", "delusional" or "blight on the world" there is an element of guilt by association, however unknowingly.

To paraphrase Babylon 5, "On that, Fletcher, we can at least agree." Not sure whether you'd prefer to be Londo or G'Kar mind you - I leave that one to you as I'm off to bed, particularly as my desk nearly just collapsed on me. Say whatever you like, but I can take a hint. :p

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

It's bad form to simply vanish during a debate without so much as a tip of the hat, so consider this my proverbial towel. I think we've made nearly two full laps of most of the major arguments, and at this point things are devolving into games of "that's not what I/he/you said." If we don't understand one another at this point I doubt that a third revolution would do much to help.

Cheers!

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

I have a strong dislike for it, yes.
I feel like it really does stop some people from thinking for themselves.
Plus, I have a VERY strong respect/desire for the truth, and religion stands in the way of that.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

I know someone else replied, but I have somewhat different answers. Sorry, not around comp too much on weekends.

You could also make just as long a list that has degraded human life and caused suffering. And I actually disagree that government offers tangible benefits. Is it more tangible than religion? Sure, but it's not much better. We had Obama yelling around "Change" and people took that at face value with no cause behind it. It's a minor example, but I'm sure we can find points in history where government promised benefits that just weren't possible and people ate it all up.

In addition to what mIssing.n0 said (science isn't exactly an innocent pure puppy), people often forget that science and society often get intertwined. It's very uncommon for the two entities to be completely separate. In an perfect world, science would be completely separate, but it isn't here. We try to find things in science that justifies our way of life (eugenics and racism come to mind). It's very easy to forget who is behind the science that is done.

I'm not sure if I'm clear with this or if I wrote it the best way, but it's a bit hard to explain.

Anarchy wouldn't be better. I agree.

I'm drawing a comparison between religion and political ideologies. While they're not exactly the same, there are certainly many similarities.

The point isn't that it couldn't have been done another way. The person chose that way and it resulted with astonishing results. If the person had unrealistic goals behind their actions, does it make their work any less legitimate? I don't think so (MLK, Ghandi, Newton to name a few).

Just like there are some political ideas that are quite questionable, religion has it's sects that are pretty douche-y.

I think killing off a life before he/she is even given the chance to live is pretty cruel too. But, this isn't an abortion debate...

Is religion part of the problem? Absolutely. A large part? Not any worse than other aspects of society that cause harm, in my opinion. Remember recently those kids that sang for Obama? Using kids to produce political propaganda is pretty questionable, and that isn't religious. Even now, I also take classes that spout extreme political nonsense, but at least I see through it.

Also take into consideration not just religion, but the norms that the society abides too. Denying women's rights didn't start with Islam in that area. It's been that way in the area for...Quite a long time. I think people just use their religion to justify thinking in ways that they would be thinking in the first place. Take Christianity, for example. The Bible does have some questionable segments about homosexuality, but it also says we must do unto others as we would do to ourselves. I wonder why they ignore this....

I just think religion gets way too much flak because people often forget about other aspects of society that cause these troubles.

But it isn't imaginary to them. And I disagree that religion offers no tangible benefits. You're only thinking in a practical way, not an emotional or mental way.

This might be a bad analogy but here we go: Let's think of how a "lucky charm" works in sports. Let's say this hockey player must where this bracelet every match, or he won't play well. The bracelet has strong sentimental value to this guy for whatever reason. He knows if he doesn't wear it, he won't perform optimally. He forgets the bracelet at home one day, and performs horribly....Now, does this bracelet scientifically boost this guy's performance? Probably not, it's just a piece of fabric on his wrist. Logically, how could this piece of fabric boost his performance? In his mind though, he makes the bracelet work. Religion can work in a very similar way, I think.

But others like religion and find comfort in it. You don't. It doesn't make you any better them. They chose their own way to find comfort and stability, and I think we all have our own ways, whether rational or irrational. It doesn't matter in the end. To each his own. But if you, or the other person starts shoving ideas down my throat and hurts people over it, then we have problems.

I would say this person was odd, but as long as he/she worked, paid their bills, didn't hurt anyone, etc I wouldn't change this person. If the tooth fairy really makes them that much happier...Then hey, fuck it. It works for them and I wouldn't ruin the way this person chose to live his/her life.

I think the argument "there are other ways" doesn't fly too much. Why should there be only one way to think? One way to do things? People will find their own ways to live their life. It's not your place to tell them what's the wrong way.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

I acknowledge this in the spirit it is made, and will agree to leave it there. As a closing statement, if you do wish to discuss anything further feel free to contact me via the usual channels. Apologies also for any potential offence caused.

Cheers. :)

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

To just throw my two cents in (without getting into the argument going on) I'm an Atheist who doesn't hate religion.

I understand hating religion as an institution/institutions because I can see it's done a lot of harm. It's just my opinion though that religion has been a fairly handy tool throughout history. Greed, control, power... they're the real motivators. I think religion provides a nice framework for those in power to take what they want for a 'righteous cause'. I strongly believe that if it hadn't been religion it would have been something else (communism for example).

One thing that annoys me though about some Atheists is they say they hate 'all religion equally' but more or less it comes down to hating Christians and Christianity. The same people who would hack off your head if you dare say something negative Islam. The general consensus is that you can't blame all of Islam for something a minority of people have done. Oh, but that doesn't go for Christianity... It is liable for everything any extremist has done in the present, hundreds of years ago and probably future misteps too.

Also people that say they hate religion because people try to push it down your throats, but will take any opportunity to convince someone they're wrong for being religious. Not to mention how intolerent to other beliefs those stupid, ridiculous Christians are.

Hey, Christians can certainly be accused of being hypocritical too, it just seems like in recent times being an Atheist has become the trendy thing to do. There also seems to be an air of moral superiority that comes with calling yourself an Atheist (and can I say I spent a lot of time making fun of Christians when I was younger). All I'm saying is that religion doesn't determine whether you are a dick or not.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

I agree with you that such a viewpoint would set a perplexing double standard, but I've also never met an Atheist who argued that. If anything, I would say the bias is more likely to be in the other direction, if only by a little. The Abrahamic religions are all pretty similar in spirit, just differentiated by the societies around them; Islam is now more or less what Christianity was a thousand years ago. I think it would be more reasonable to use Buddhism or similar religions as a counterpoint to the "hate all religions equally" standpoint. I do oppose all religions, but the fervor depends on what exactly it is the religion teaches.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

I'm not an atheist, but this thread intrigues me.

I've always viewed it as somewhat difficult to hate Christianity, simply because there is no single Christianity. There's Catholic Christianity, Eastern Christianity, Protestant Christianity, and others, and, to me, most hate what they perceive as Christianity. I, for example, perceive it as Roman Catholicism, but my girlfriend perceives it as some fringe Southern Baptist church. As a result, I am pretty neutral towards Christianity, and She's fairly hostile towards it.

Of course, one's experience with those groups also affects their views. In fact, one's experiences and own convictions usually influence how they view others, but I think the phrase "(insert object, belief, etc.) doesn't/don't kill people, people kill people" works in this situation.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Religion is a...horrible thing to me. more blood has been shed over God than anything else in the history of mankind. The idea of a God initially created to explain the unknown went on to define morality, wrong and right, and became a method of control.
I don't hate the point behind modern religions; they essentially try to help make a better world, even if it is entirely twisted.
But I absolutely despise the corruption. The taking that power and using it to ruin peoples lives, torment people who are different and don't adhere. Religion has become an extension of hate far too many times.

Yet religion has helped individuals, there is no denying that, but personally I believe that it's done more harm than good. I don't feel like getting too into this aspect, so lets just say that I despise religion but not it's most basic teachings of peace and love, teachings that have far too often been ignored or trampled.

But, your second question is more interesting. If I had the power, would I get rid of religion.
I must answer that 2 separate ways.
If somebody came up to me today and said, Dan, you have this power, you alone. Would I use it? No. I believe completely in the power of freedom and of choice. Which I suppose separates me from religion but let's not go there either. Basically, if people want to believe in a God, if it gets them through their day or life, then sure, they can. As long as they have the option to or not to, let them do what they please.
But I lived before religion (if there was such a time) and had the choice to stop it from happening, I just might because it would save so many lives.
-Dan

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

If I had a pound for every time someone has rolled out that claim, I would be laughing all the way to the bank now. Regardless of the interpretation you apply to history, that simply is not true. The First and Second World Wars killed more people than any other conflict in human history and had nothing at all to do with religion, as did the overwhelming majority of European conflicts which were mostly down to who insulted who in which court and monarchs using their armies in retaliation. Break the causes down to their most basic and you come up with human greed and lines on a map, which would only really be resolved if you remove the notion of land ownership or possession altogether. In any event, it's not God that has inspired such violence - it's simply a convenient excuse, and if we humans are good at anything it's finding convenient excuses.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

It depends somewhat on how you define the cause of a war. On a political level, I agree with you. History pretty definitely shows that kings and emperors who go to war for religious reasons are relatively few compared to those who do so out of sheer greed. Wars aren't fought by monarchs and politicians though; the fighting is done by masses of average people. To you and me and most people throughout history, the lines on the map don't mean much. They have no reason to; whether or not my country's border encompasses a particular hill or valley has very little effect on my ability to put food on the table. The accusation is not so much that religion inspires the leaders who ignite war - though it does sometimes do that - but that religion is a tool used by those people to gather willing armies. It's hardly the only one, I grant you, but it definitely is one. Anything that calls people to have unquestioning and unearned devotion to or trust in any figure, whether it's a literal god or a monarch/leader or the country itself, is incredibly dangerous.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Nope. While I can't agree with religion, a lot of the morals which people uphold because of it are undoubtedly something we should strive to keep in society. Besides, if I were to hate religion then I'd become something of a fundamentalist, which as an atheist I think it would be slightly hypocritical to do. My priority is tolerance. To everybody.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

i think most people see religious people as hypocrites. so there fore they are against it. i myself are very religious however i try to use what the bible says to help otther people. i am not shoving it in their face. I am glad on what you said about keeping religion. it is how this country started

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Much obliged. :) I also have a name which you're welcome to use but I'll let you off that one. :p

In a statement which may seem ironic given my position on the religion spectrum, I feel you are overstating the effectiveness of religion, at least as a rallying call in time of war. A monarch's ability to raise armies relied very little on religion and much more on the feudal system and a monarch's ability to pay those who fight for him (e.g. mercenaries) or promise rewards to them for loyal service (e.g. titles and land). To take your analogy, being a loyal Christian/Jew/Muslim etc. will not affect your ability to put food on your table, but the favour of your lord and master in such times would and his position owed more to the sword than divinity in such times. Religion could be used as a rallying call and on that I would agree, but its effectiveness is nonetheless debatable - the Crusades were rife for infighting between factions both in the Christian and Muslim camps, again primarily because of self-interest and opportunities to seize power or the initiative. Those are the real culprits in determining the causes of war, and while there are a number of contributing factors were I to draw up a list of the most prevalent ones religion would be a fair way from the top. That isn't because of any apologist tendencies on my part, it's simply because as an actual root cause of or motivating factor towards conflict religion has a fairly limited role, with some very notable exceptions (Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine and so on) which nonetheless have their foundations in more than one cause. My objection was to the claim that more blood has been spilled as a result of religion than anything else, and I still find that claim to be much unwarranted.

Re: @Atheists: Do you hate religion?
 

Which country would that be? Certainly not the USA. Despite having the "in god we trust" on the dollar bills, the Founding Fathers were against religion, such as Christianity. http://zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/FoundingFathers/

Many were not religious at all, rather they were deistic. Some of them were of various Christian denominations, such as Roman Catholicism, Anglican, Methodists, etc... . Despite this, they clearly separated church from the state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundin...tates#Religion