Why is it wrong to have faith, even it it is faulty?

Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Why is it wrong to have faith, even it it is faulty?

I can't help but be perplexed by the anger that exists between believers and non-believers.  And I also can't believe that there is no middle ground.  We all have faith in something, even if it is faith that we can accomplish something without anyone's help.  But what bothers me is the anger that exudes the atheists, almost as if they are superior.  Okay, I said it.  I believe atheists think are better, smarter, and definitely more in charge of their lives than religious folk who depend on a higher authority.  I posed this question in an earlier thread, and got no results.  So I will ask again, why should anyone be so strong in their beliefs that they would blame and crucify those who don't believe as they do?  I am sure you remember a time that you believed something, and it turned out to be wrong, so you changed your ideas.  This is an ongoing evolution, and I believe ideologies have a place in the history of mankind.  I really don't believe this website is healthy because is a defense of one's worldview which can never be used to change everyone's thoughts about life.  It only brings anger and hatred.  Challenge me, I need help to reconcile the two opposing views.


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Dude you're like the biggest

Dude you're like the biggest attention whore on this site.

 


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:I can't

Rising Sun wrote:

I can't help but be perplexed by the anger that exists between believers and non-believers.  And I also can't believe that there is no middle ground.  We all have faith in something, even if it is faith that we can accomplish something without anyone's help.  But what bothers me is the anger that exudes from the atheists, almost as if they are superior.  Okay, I said it.  I believe atheists think they are better, smarter, and definitely more in charge of their lives than religious folk who depend on a higher authority.  I posed this question in an earlier thread, and got no results.  So I will ask again, why should anyone be so strong in their beliefs that they would blame and crucify those who don't believe as they do?  I am sure you remember a time that you believed in something, and it turned out to be wrong (that does not mean either side is wrong), so you changed your ideas.  This is an ongoing evolution, and I believe every single ideology has a place in figuring out what is true and what is not.  I really don't believe this website is a healthy discourse because is here to prove atheism right.   Therefore, it will only bring defensiveness from those who think otherwise.  Challenge me, I need help to reconcile the two opposing views.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
cervello_marcio wrote:Dude

cervello_marcio wrote:

Dude you're like the biggest attention whore on this site.

 


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun

Rising Sun wrote:

cervello_marcio wrote:

Dude you're like the biggest attention whore on this site.

 

You might be right. Sad

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Definition

The problem lies in those that rely on it so much that it clouds their judgement, to the point of hatred towards others that have less or no faith than they do. Extremists really. As well as those that cause the unnecessary death of others, like parents that rather pray to god than take their child to a doctor, you know someone that ACTUALLY knows how to help a sick child rather than pray to nothing in the hopes something happens.

Many people have issues with blind faith like this because in the end it causes more problems than it solves, and it doesn't help us advance as a society, it hinders us. When people rather follow the rules of an ancient outdated book, rather than look at the evidence that contradicts their rules or book, then there is a problem, when faith overrides logic and reason, that's a problem. I would reason that many everyday atheists don't have a problem with your averages everyday believer, one that believes yet still can use logic and reason. It is those extremists, those that faith blinds their judgement or those that use that faith to hate towards others.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

When "believers" stop taking my rights away and shoving pamphlets in my door regularly, as well as approaching me in public to try and shove their material at me and preach to me, let me know.

 

 

At that point it will only be the parts that get in the way of progress that irritate me. I couldn't care less what people do as long as it doesn't effect me.

 

 

 

I bought an ice cream cone at Dairy Queen. I couldn't even eat that in peace without someone coming up and dropping pamphlets on me, and trying to preach to me to let me know how evil I am and how they can redeem me through offering plates and church services.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:latincanuck wrote:The

latincanuck wrote:

The problem lies in those that rely on it so much that it clouds their judgement, to the point of hatred towards others that have less or no faith than they do. Extremists really. As well as those that cause the unnecessary death of others, like parents that rather pray to god than take their child to a doctor, you know someone that ACTUALLY knows how to help a sick child rather than pray to nothing in the hopes something happens.

latincanuck, I really appreciate your honesty, but now I am afraid to answer because of the anger from other members.  I am truly afraid to give my opinion on a subject that has two sides, but they will condemn me for giving my side.  This other person who said I'm a whore, really hurt me.

Quote:
Many people have issues with blind faith like this because in the end it causes more problems than it solves, and it doesn't help us advance as a society, it hinders us. When people rather follow the rules of an ancient outdated book, rather than look at the evidence that contradicts their rules or book, then there is a problem, when faith overrides logic and reason, that's a problem. I would reason that many everyday atheists don't have a problem with your averages everyday believer, one that believes yet still can use logic and reason. It is those extremists, those that faith blinds their judgement or those that use that faith to hate towards others.

I am in agreement that this is an outdated book, but there is wisdom that cannot be thrown out either.  I am not religious, but I have gained so much by trying to understand where religious folk are coming from.  This hatred of religion obviously comes from childhood where it signified control, punishment, and the wrath of a punitive god.  That is not what I think of when I think of trust in an intelligence governing even the worst of situations because, in the end, I believe we are evolving into a more compassionate, caring humanity.  It's true, my faith tells me this.  Eye-wink


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Read this.  All of it.

 Read this.  All of it.  It is the answer to this question, specifically.  When you're finished, read it again.

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/science-vs-religion/

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:I can't

Rising Sun wrote:

I can't help but be perplexed by the anger that exists between believers and non-believers.

I am not angered with belief. If my neighbor believes in Jesus, Odin, tooth fairies or garden gnomes, it is none of my business. AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT IMPACT ME! If he feels the need to dictate my behavior because he thinks it offends Jesus, or wants to teach my kids about his ideas, we have a problem. And this is the default mode of every religion I have come into contact with. They are actively trying to recruit people using shoddy arguments and emotional appeals. They attempt to pass laws to dictate my private actions. They want the tenets of their religion ingrained in law. I fight the imposition of intelligent design in high school biology courses all the time, for example. I have neighbors who cheered when Dr. Tiller was murdered. The local sheriff's office was looking into placing a child into protective custody not because the couple was harming the child, but because they thought the open marriage that they had was morally corrosive.

And irrational beliefs are like gateway drugs. In the people I know personally, there is a 100% correlation between the level of religious devotion and the level of belief in conspiracy theories, fake medicine, parapsychology and other irrational beliefs. Once you lower your standard of proof enough to allow for the belief in the various religions, you're likely to believe lots of silly crap. And that can impact me. If enough idiots quit getting immunized in my community, herd immunity drops and my family in more danger of disease, for example.

It's just dangerous. If it were neutered enough that I didn't have to deal with it, I would happily put up with it. As it stands, it is not and I cannot.

Quote:

And I also can't believe that there is no middle ground.  We all have faith in something, even if it is faith that we can accomplish something without anyone's help.  But what bothers me is the anger that exudes the atheists, almost as if they are superior.

Yeah, because we all know that religion doesn't engender rage. That was sarcasm, by the way. When I have to explain to my children that their teacher is a nutbag, I get angry. When I find that my rights are curtailed by religious laws, I get angry. When my country goes to war for stupid and irrational reasons, I get angry. When people are shot because they upset someone's religious beliefs, I get angry. When my tax money is used to promote someone's religion, I get angry. When I see politicians manipulate voters using religion, I get angry. When I see women raped and infected with AIDS because of irrational beliefs about disease, I get angry. When I watched the World Trade Center fall, I was angry. When I see all of the irrationality in this world, and know that it is leading to conflict and evironmental destruction, I get angry.

The question is not why I am angry. It's why am I not seething mad every second I am awake.

Quote:

Okay, I said it.  I believe atheists think are better, smarter, and definitely more in charge of their lives than religious folk who depend on a higher authority.

It's not that I'm better or smarter. It's that I'm not shackled with that irrational worldview, and therefore I tend to make better decisions. I deal with people every day who are profoundly ignorant and blindly trusting in everything they are told by the authorities they have accepted. There are real world consequences to the fantasy world people inhabit, and it's destructive.

Quote:

I posed this question in an earlier thread, and got no results.  So I will ask again, why should anyone be so strong in their beliefs that they would blame and crucify those who don't believe as they do?

Why don't you ask those whose religion dictates that I should be converted or killed? If you think that a couple of books, internet posts and such are a crucifixtion, then you are not even paying attention. Religious people are ACTUALLY KILLING people in the real world over differences in belief. Yet, somehow it's those nasty atheists who are the bad ones for not handling irrational thought with kid goves, and being mean to people. I suggest you need a reality check. 

Quote:

I am sure you remember a time that you believed something, and it turned out to be wrong, so you changed your ideas.

Yup. And that's when I became an atheist. After that, I refused to get sucked into irrational beliefs again, and so I demand proof for what I believe.

Quote:

This is an ongoing evolution, and I believe ideologies have a place in the history of mankind.  I really don't believe this website is healthy because is a defense of one's worldview which can never be used to change everyone's thoughts about life.

Are you also advocating for every other website promoting a worldview to be taken down? Or is it only the people who happen to disagree with you who have to be silenced?

Quote:

It only brings anger and hatred.  Challenge me, I need help to reconcile the two opposing views.

Anger is not bad. It drove the abolition. It drove women's sufferage. It drives the gay rights movement. And it drive atheists. 9/11 was a wake up call for atheists. We can't play the part of the happy little professor in the corner, chuckling at the foibles of his fellow man while studying. It taught us that if we don't stand up against the tyranny of irrational beliefs, they will destroy society.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun

Rising Sun wrote:

latincanuck, I really appreciate your honesty, but now I am afraid to answer because of the anger from other members.  I am truly afraid to give my opinion on a subject that has two sides, but they will condemn me for giving my side.  This other person who said I'm a whore, really hurt me.

You do realize that you are in the forum dedicated to unrestrained combat on the parts of the debater, don't you? There is another forum, Kill 'em with Kindness, which has rules against inflammatory posts. I've been called so many nasty names on debate forums that it rolls off my back. I don't care about the opinion of "random person on the internet." If they have good ideas, I'll consider them. If not, I ignore them. If they continually make stupid arguments, I may start laughing and just mock them. Paisley,for example, is now firmly in the last group.

Quote:

I am in agreement that this is an outdated book, but there is wisdom that cannot be thrown out either.  I am not religious, but I have gained so much by trying to understand where religious folk are coming from.

What wisdom did you find in the Bible(the outdated book I am assuming that everyone is referencing in this case) that cannot be found elsewhere where it's not bound up in horrible morality tales and silly myths?

Quote:

This hatred of religion obviously comes from childhood where it signified control, punishment, and the wrath of a punitive god.

Nope. I came into religion later in life, falling for some serious logical fallacies due to an emotional desire. I left it when I was forced to confront my own irrational beliefs. I wasn't angry until after that, as my "religious lens" fell away and I began to realize how much damage faith and religion had done to me, to my family and to the world in general. My hand is being forced.

Quote:

That is not what I think of when I think of trust in an intelligence governing even the worst of situations because, in the end, I believe we are evolving into a more compassionate, caring humanity.  It's true, my faith tells me this.  Eye-wink

If we are, it's in spite of our religious baggage.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:ClockCat wrote:When

Quote:
ClockCat wrote:

When "believers" stop taking my rights away and shoving pamphlets in my door regularly, as well as approaching me in public to try and shove their material at me and preach to me, let me know.

 

 

At that point it will only be the parts that get in the way of progress that irritate me. I couldn't care less what people do as long as it doesn't effect me.

 I agree with you, but how is this any different from people bombarding you with phone calls advertising one thing or another?  At least these people mean well, even if it is misguided.

 

 

Quote:
I bought an ice cream cone at Dairy Queen. I couldn't even eat that in peace without someone coming up and dropping pamphlets on me, and trying to preach to me to let me know how evil I am and how they can redeem me through offering plates and church services.

I understand what you're saying.  Not too long ago I saw a woman standing on the street corner with a sign that said we better confess our sins before Judgment Day comes.  Another day a very old woman handed me a Jehovah's witnesses pamplet with the most earnest look on her face.  I think there is something sweet about these people trying so hard to help others, in the only way they know how.  That's why I posed this question because even though their thinking might be far from the truth, they mean well.  And, in turn, all I have to say when they approach me is 'no thank you'.  We all put our faith in something, and not everything we believe is true, but we seem to target the religious people because we think they are trying to impose their beliefs onto us.  The truth is, no one can impose anything on us, unless we let them.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:thatonedude

Quote:
thatonedude wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

I can't help but be perplexed by the anger that exists between believers and non-believers.

I am not angered with belief. If my neighbor believes in Jesus, Odin, tooth fairies or garden gnomes, it is none of my business. AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT IMPACT ME! If he feels the need to dictate my behavior because he thinks it offends Jesus, or wants to teach my kids about his ideas, we have a problem. And this is the default mode of every religion I have come into contact with. They are actively trying to recruit people using shoddy arguments and emotional appeals. They attempt to pass laws to dictate my private actions. They want the tenets of their religion ingrained in law. I fight the imposition of intelligent design in high school biology courses all the time, for example. I have neighbors who cheered when Dr. Tiller was murdered. The local sheriff's office was looking into placing a child into protective custody not because the couple was harming the child, but because they thought the open marriage that they had was morally corrosive.

I agree with you that religion should not be able to dictate their agenda in a school setting where your child, or my child, attends.  This would not be democracy, but a religious state.  Nor should religion become law.  Look what's happening in Iran?  We are lucky not to live in one of those backward countries.  Of course, to call our rebellion as sinful, is a way of putting guilt on people who are not in agreement with the religious views of that particular group.  This is the fallout that many children have had the burden to carry, and who still need therapy because of it. 

Quote:
And irrational beliefs are like gateway drugs. In the people I know personally, there is a 100% correlation between the level of religious devotion and the level of belief in conspiracy theories, fake medicine, parapsychology and other irrational beliefs. Once you lower your standard of proof enough to allow for the belief in the various religions, you're likely to believe lots of silly crap. And that can impact me. If enough idiots quit getting immunized in my community, herd immunity drops and my family in more danger of disease, for example.

It's just dangerous. If it were neutered enough that I didn't have to deal with it, I would happily put up with it. As it stands, it is not and I cannot.

Quote:

I agree with you for the most part, but not completely.  People who are fundamentalists may act like this, but not every person who is religious is wrong in believing that our medical system is something to be afraid of.  Who is to say that their beliefs are wrong just because they trust in God's (natures) healing power over the doctor, who has good intentions but may not have all the answers?  How can the AMA take responsibility for a parent's decision not to give chemo to their child, when there are no 100% guarantees that their protocol is better than a less risky therapy?  I wouldn't want that reponsibility.  It is also true that you cannot dictate whether an immunization is going to help rather than harm a child.  No government has the right to force mandatory immunizations on anyone.  We are becoming guinea pigs for every new vaccination.  Did you know that the vaccination schedule for infants is three times what it was in the 1980's? 

 

Quote:
And I also can't believe that there is no middle ground.  We all have faith in something, even if it is faith that we can accomplish something without anyone's help.  But what bothers me is the anger that exudes the atheists, almost as if they are superior.

Quote:
Yeah, because we all know that religion doesn't engender rage. That was sarcasm, by the way. When I have to explain to my children that their teacher is a nutbag, I get angry.

Why do you have to say anything about the teacher being a nutbag, unless your child goes to religious school.  Most schools in the US at least do not talk about religion.

Quote:
When I find that my rights are curtailed by religious laws, I get angry.

What religious laws are you talking about?  The blue laws allow people to shop on Sunday, so where are your rights being curtailed? 

Quote:
When my country goes to war for stupid and irrational reasons, I get angry.

What stupid reasons are you talking about?  Do you mean religious wars?  You say you get angry when your country goes to war for irrational reasons.  How can it be irrational when the fear of being attacked [whether the motive is religiously motivated or not] is everpresent?  Are you saying we should do nothing?  Of course you are upset over war, who isn't, but to blame everything on religion??  I am just wondering if that is fair.

Quote:
When people are shot because they upset someone's religious beliefs, I get angry.

Me too.  This is something that upsets me terribly.  To think that Netta, that poor girl who was shot in Iran just because she went to a peaceful protest, is unjustifiable. 

Quote:
When my tax money is used to promote someone's religion, I get angry.

No one should have to pay tax money for something they don't participate in.  But this has more to do with how government decides to use our taxes, then religion itself. 

Quote:
When I see politicians manipulate voters using religion, I get angry.

How do they manipulate?  Obama didn't manipulate voters.  I'm using him as an example.  I think he appealed to the masses because of his intellect, not because he is a Christian, although the question of his  his association with certain people in the church, did come up and could have changed the outcome of the election.

Quote:
When I see women raped and infected with AIDS because of irrational beliefs about disease, I get angry.

I'm not sure where rape should be blamed on religion.  And Aids?   Aids comes from dirty needles and from sexual contact.  Religion teaches abstinence until marriage, and encourages people not to take drugs.  So where is religion responsible for these afflictions? 

Quote:
When I watched the World Trade Center fall, I was angry. When I see all of the irrationality in this world, and know that it is leading to conflict and evironmental destruction, I get angry.

The question is not why I am angry. It's why am I not seething mad every second I am awake.

Quote:

When I saw the World Trade Center fall, I was angry too.  And when I see all the irrationality in the world, I am sad, but not all of the conflict and environmental destruction comes from religion; there are other factors, such as economics, that play a big part in what is going on in the world today.

Quote:
Okay, I said it.  I believe atheists think are better, smarter, and definitely more in charge of their lives than religious folk who depend on a higher authority.

It's not that I'm better or smarter. It's that I'm not shackled with that irrational worldview, and therefore I tend to make better decisions. I deal with people every day who are profoundly ignorant and blindly trusting in everything they are told by the authorities they have accepted. There are real world consequences to the fantasy world people inhabit, and it's destructive.

Quote:

I posed this question in an earlier thread, and got no results.  So I will ask again, why should anyone be so strong in their beliefs that they would blame and crucify those who don't believe as they do?

I understand your frustration.  To the extent that people give up their thinking ability, they are brainwashed.  But until the world changes for the better, religion is here to stay.  I don't think that if religion dies out, the world will suddenly have no more wars.  But I do agree with you that a lot of the teachings are manipulative and based on ignorance.   

Quote:
Why don't you ask those whose religion dictates that I should be converted or killed? If you think that a couple of books, internet posts and such are a crucifixtion, then you are not even paying attention. Religious people are ACTUALLY KILLING people in the real world over differences in belief. Yet, somehow it's those nasty atheists who are the bad ones for not handling irrational thought with kid goves, and being mean to people. I suggest you need a reality check. 

Quote:

I didn't mean crucify me in a literal sense.  I am on your side for the most part.

Quote:
I am sure you remember a time that you believed something, and it turned out to be wrong, so you changed your ideas.

Yup. And that's when I became an atheist. After that, I refused to get sucked into irrational beliefs again, and so I demand proof for what I believe.

Quote:

This is an ongoing evolution, and I believe ideologies have a place in the history of mankind.  I really don't believe this website is healthy because is a defense of one's worldview which can never be used to change everyone's thoughts about life.

Are you also advocating for every other website promoting a worldview to be taken down? Or is it only the people who happen to disagree with you who have to be silenced?

Quote:

It only brings anger and hatred.  Challenge me, I need help to reconcile the two opposing views.

Anger is not bad. It drove the abolition. It drove women's sufferage. It drives the gay rights movement. And it drive atheists. 9/11 was a wake up call for atheists. We can't play the part of the happy little professor in the corner, chuckling at the foibles of his fellow man while studying. It taught us that if we don't stand up against the tyranny of irrational beliefs, they will destroy society.

I thank you for taking the time to answer this post.  I see your side more clearly than ever.  I am playing the devil's advocate because I'm not religious either.  The one problem I see is that until man is delivered from evil (I understand that religion is part of the evil in your view), man will not be able to stand on his own.  He will continue to rely on a higher authority to help him during the darkest hours.  Need outweighs rationality, unfortunately.  So whether religion will be wiped out in your lifetime, I doubt it.  But it certainly is worth debating. Smiling


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote: I agree

Rising Sun wrote:

 I agree with you, but how is this any different from people bombarding you with phone calls advertising one thing or another?  At least these people mean well, even if it is misguided.

Because these people are keeping him from deciding who he wants to marry, if I recall. I'd like to say that I don't get calls from telemarketers trying to dictate social mores, but that is sadly not true anymore. They get even less of my time than the people offering loans.

 

Quote:

I understand what you're saying.  Not too long ago I saw a woman standing on the street corner with a sign that said we better confess our sins before Judgment Day comes.  Another day a very old woman handed me a Jehovah's witnesses pamplet with the most earnest look on her face.  I think there is something sweet about these people trying so hard to help others, in the only way they know how.  That's why I posed this question because even though their thinking might be far from the truth, they mean well.  And, in turn, all I have to say when they approach me is 'no thank you'.  We all put our faith in something, and not everything we believe is true, but we seem to target the religious people because we think they are trying to impose their beliefs onto us.  The truth is, no one can impose anything on us, unless we let them.

I am quite civil in person. The Witnesses were at my house just a few days ago, spreading the word about the end of the world. Again. They are a living example of the concept of memory modification that Orwell spoke of. I simply told them that I was an atheist, and they took off. Not sure why, as that is usually an invitation to have them bombard me for a while. I had a couple of kids come over and try to get my kids involved in their summer church camp a few days ago, too. Again, I didn't engage them or the father who was making them run down the street in over 100 degree weather while handing out pamphlets.

But, then, they weren't attempting to get a law passed, or telling my kids that they were going to burn in hell.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:So I will

Rising Sun wrote:

So I will ask again, why should anyone be so strong in their beliefs that they would blame and crucify those who don't believe as they do?

All the religious people I've ever encountered don't really believe. The only pretend to belive out of fear. To me, religion is a drug. How would you feel about tobacco companies adding addictive substances to make people more addictive and as a byproduct less rational and less intellegent? You get angry about advertisers making false claims about their products. Why give religion a free pass about their false claims? Why does a snake oil salesman go to jail, but a pastor selling 'healing miracles' get a free pass?

Rising Sun wrote:
  I am sure you remember a time that you believed something, and it turned out to be wrong, so you changed your ideas. 

 

No one threatened me with eternal torture if I changed my belief, except religionists.

Rising Sun wrote:

This is an ongoing evolution, and I believe ideologies have a place in the history of mankind. 

 

So did human sacrifice, slavery, forced marriages(i.e. rape), genocide, etc...

Rising Sun wrote:

 I really don't believe this website is healthy because is a defense of one's worldview which can never be used to change everyone's thoughts about life.  It only brings anger and hatred.  Challenge me, I need help to reconcile the two opposing views.

How is it possible to fix a difficult problem, if the problem doesn't bother someone? How is it possible to bring about justice if people don't get angry about injustice?  Admittedly there is anger, but I think much of this is frustration at not having any power and being 'demonized' for our non-beliefs.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:I agree

Rising Sun wrote:

I agree with you for the most part, but not completely.  People who are fundamentalists may act like this, but not every person who is religious is wrong in believing that our medical system is something to be afraid of.  Who is to say that their beliefs are wrong just because they trust in God's (natures) healing power over the doctor, who has good intentions but may not have all the answers?

It's simple. Medical science is called that because we study the effects of treatments, and ascertain whether they are effective for treating the particular ailment. I don't trust in gods or doctors, I trust in results. If the companies and groups that wish to promote "natural cures" would actually do double blind studies and demonstrate the efficacy of their products, I would have no problems with them. Hiding behind vague claims and wording while avoiding actual proof is the norm, however. Some protest that it is too expensive to perform proper studies while raking in millions in sales.

Quote:

How can the AMA take responsibility for a parent's decision not to give chemo to their child, when there are no 100% guarantees that their protocol is better than a less risky therapy?

You must be joking, right? I assume that you are referring to Daniel Hauser. The medical treatment in that case was somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% effective when administered at the stage that they caught the cancer. Yes, it's nasty. Yes, it's not fun. And, yes, it's highly effective and is curing the boy right now.

Secondly, the AMA didn't do that, a  local judge forced the issue. When a parent is needlessly endangering a child, the situation needs to be addressed. This is also the case with the Jehovah's Witnesses, who forbid blood transfusions to their children. If the therapy only offered a nominal chance of survival and was highly unpleasant, sure, let the kid die in dignity. When it's something as clear cut as Daniel's case or the JW's refusal of basic medical practices, there's no argument.

Finally, the "less risky therapy" that she was promoting had 0% clinical proof of efficacy.

Quote:

I wouldn't want that reponsibility.  It is also true that you cannot dictate whether an immunization is going to help rather than harm a child.  No government has the right to force mandatory immunizations on anyone.  We are becoming guinea pigs for every new vaccination.  Did you know that the vaccination schedule for infants is three times what it was in the 1980's? 

Have you also noticed the distinct lack of childhood disease epidemics which used to cripple and kill kids in this country? When's the last time a polio outbreak happened in your neck of the woods?

 

Quote:

Why do you have to say anything about the teacher being a nutbag, unless your child goes to religious school.  Most schools in the US at least do not talk about religion.

My kids go to a charter school run by the local school district. I have caught them teaching basic Protestant theology in some of the classes, with textbooks like "Understanding the Word of God" used in a 4th grade classroom. The local high school has teachers who occasionally spout off intelligent design nonsense. I haven't had the (dis)pleasure of finding out what the local middle school is like yet.

Quote:

What religious laws are you talking about?  The blue laws allow people to shop on Sunday, so where are your rights being curtailed? 

Blue laws are one example. There is no reason why I should be banned from buying a drink on Sunday. There are also laws which attempt to ban stores which sell sexually explicit items. If I chose to pursue a homosexual relationship, there are laws that forbid me from being able to assign legal rights and responsibilities to that person. Laws that forbid atheists from holding public office are still on the books in some states(though thankfully rendered useless by an intelligent SCOTUS decision). Basically, everytime a law is passed that has it's roots in religion without recourse to a valid rational grounding, I'm going to fight it. It doesnt' matter if I'm not gay, or don't go to porn shops or don't drink. These are irrational violations of my rights.

Quote:

What stupid reasons are you talking about?  Do you mean religious wars?  You say you get angry when your country goes to war for irrational reasons.  How can it be irrational when the fear of being attacked [whether the motive is religiously motivated or not] is everpresent?  Are you saying we should do nothing?  Of course you are upset over war, who isn't, but to blame everything on religion??  I am just wondering if that is fair.

No, I mean stupid and irrational reasons, like the attempt to tie Iraq to 9/11. Granted, it turns out that the defense department utilized Christian scripture and ideas in their internal documents and reports about these wars, so there's a religious angle, too.

Quote:

Me too.  This is something that upsets me terribly.  To think that Netta, that poor girl who was shot in Iran just because she went to a peaceful protest, is unjustifiable. 

I was referring to Dr George Tiller.

Quote:

No one should have to pay tax money for something they don't participate in.  But this has more to do with how government decides to use our taxes, then religion itself. 

No, this has to do with the government funneling my money into church coffers. At least in the other cases the money has only been wasted or gone to thieves. Allowing religious groups access to tax money is promoting an irrational view that I consider far more harmful.

Quote:

How do they manipulate?  Obama didn't manipulate voters.  I'm using him as an example.  I think he appealed to the masses because of his intellect, not because he is a Christian, although the question of his  his association with certain people in the church, did come up and could have changed the outcome of the election.

A good example from the last round of elections would be Elizabeth Dole's blatant attempts to smear her opponent with the the name "atheist." One of those ads is on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lf2vDk-4Ag

Quote:

I'm not sure where rape should be blamed on religion.  And Aids?   Aids comes from dirty needles and from sexual contact.  Religion teaches abstinence until marriage, and encourages people not to take drugs.  So where is religion responsible for these afflictions? 

I'm talking about the irrational myths being spread in various locations, especially Africa, that teach that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. The explanations I have seen for the myth are rooted in weird religious beliefs about viginity.

And I will be teaching my kids about birth control, especially condoms. I am not going to rely on religious indoctrination to oversome the basic biological desire to reproduce.

Quote:

When I saw the World Trade Center fall, I was angry too.  And when I see all the irrationality in the world, I am sad, but not all of the conflict and environmental destruction comes from religion; there are other factors, such as economics, that play a big part in what is going on in the world today.

My focus for environmental damage is irrational thinking, not religion alone. However, I've seen firsthand how it contributes. Many people simply sweep them under the rug because they believe that either that the world is ending anyway or that Jesus will magically make everything alright, or both. The World Trade Center is a smoking crater of a monument to the dangers of religion.

Quote:

I posed this question in an earlier thread, and got no results.  So I will ask again, why should anyone be so strong in their beliefs that they would blame and crucify those who don't believe as they do?

And I've answered that. This is not a crucifixion. I'm not even trying to condemn someone to eternal damnation.

Quote:

I understand your frustration.  To the extent that people give up their thinking ability, they are brainwashed.  But until the world changes for the better, religion is here to stay.  I don't think that if religion dies out, the world will suddenly have no more wars.  But I do agree with you that a lot of the teachings are manipulative and based on ignorance.   

Of course not. In case you haven't read more of my posts, I do not believe that religion is the sole problem with the world. It is a symptom of the underlying problem. And that problem is irrational thinking. Religion is just one facet.

Quote:

I didn't mean crucify me in a literal sense.  I am on your side for the most part.

If you want to see some venom, try posting on some of the Evangelical sites.

Quote:

I thank you for taking the time to answer this post.  I see your side more clearly than ever.  I am playing the devil's advocate because I'm not religious either.  The one problem I see is that until man is delivered from evil (I understand that religion is part of the evil in your view), man will not be able to stand on his own.  He will continue to rely on a higher authority to help him during the darkest hours.  Need outweighs rationality, unfortunately.  So whether religion will be wiped out in your lifetime, I doubt it.  But it certainly is worth debating. Smiling

You are welcome. And I agree that irrationality will be a fight to root out. But we are on the cusp of very dangerous times. We have built weapons that can level civilizations. Our industries have reached the point where they can inflict damage on the very earth. Our skyrocketing population is stripping the seas and plains for food. Now, more than any time in the past, we need people to put aside irrational thought, see the problems we face as a species with objective eyes and resolve them.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun

Rising Sun wrote:

latincanuck, I really appreciate your honesty, but now I am afraid to answer because of the anger from other members.  I am truly afraid to give my opinion on a subject that has two sides, but they will condemn me for giving my side.  This other person who said I'm a whore, really hurt me.

Why should some unknown person, who you have never met, type something like "your a whore" on one of most annoymous places in the world, hurt you? You gave those words the power to hurt you.  That's really your problem at this point. If you want to debate online, then take the good with the bad, I will answer as honest as I can, however should you make a statement of stupidity, I will call you on it, and only resort to name calling if you start with me.

Rising Sun wrote:

I am in agreement that this is an outdated book, but there is wisdom that cannot be thrown out either.  I am not religious, but I have gained so much by trying to understand where religious folk are coming from.  This hatred of religion obviously comes from childhood where it signified control, punishment, and the wrath of a punitive god.  That is not what I think of when I think of trust in an intelligence governing even the worst of situations because, in the end, I believe we are evolving into a more compassionate, caring humanity.  It's true, my faith tells me this.  Eye-wink

We are more loving and compassionate? or are we the same as always have been throughout our written history? Willing to slaughter each other for land, food, and ideologies? The only difference is now the global economy is more dependent of everyone behaving better towards each other, and if we don't then we all suffer, that's the major difference. Even then we have wars, racism, sexism, and our hatred towards those that are not part of our "group". We can start naming them right now, in the last 20 years lets say, rwanda, Somalia, Dafur, Koskovo, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afgahnistan, The Attacks on the US, Israel, Spain, France, Britian and the Philipines. All these countries are either at war, have been at war, have been attacked or have had civil war due to different ideologies held by the country and those attacking the country or it's citizens.

Be it Muslims vs Christians in somalia, Hutu vs Tutsis in Rwanda(which the catholic church had a helping hand in the genocide of the tutsis because they weren't christians), christians vs muslims in the Koskovo war, ideologies/race in sri lanka, religious ideologies in the US attack, France, Spain and britian, Mulsims vs Christians in the Philippines, Ethnic in Darfur (unlike the 1983 war which was religious). Religious/Ethnic in Israel, I mean the list can go on and on. We are only more "compassionate" not because we have followed the bible, but because we rely on each other more on a global scale, and yet even that doesn't stop wars and conflicts from happening. However a bunch of these conflicts may not have occurred if not for religious ideologies based on an outdated religion.


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun...watch.I want to

Rising Sun...watch.

I want to put the following as a quote: 123

I want to "reply" to that with: 456

I write $quote^ 123 $/quote^

456

Then I replace the $ with [ and ^ with ]

Quote:
123

456


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun

Rising Sun wrote:

...Challenge me, ...

After reading your thread's title, I was going to say you
are faulty, however, as your OP reflects the opposite, I've no interest in challenging what you said with respect to religious people that are not activists.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:Rising Sun

thatonedude wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

latincanuck, I really appreciate your honesty, but now I am afraid to answer because of the anger from other members.  I am truly afraid to give my opinion on a subject that has two sides, but they will condemn me for giving my side.  This other person who said I'm a whore, really hurt me.

You do realize that you are in the forum dedicated to unrestrained combat on the parts of the debater, don't you? There is another forum, Kill 'em with Kindness, which has rules against inflammatory posts. I've been called so many nasty names on debate forums that it rolls off my back. I don't care about the opinion of "random person on the internet." If they have good ideas, I'll consider them. If not, I ignore them. If they continually make stupid arguments, I may start laughing and just mock them. Paisley,for example, is now firmly in the last group.

Quote:

I wish I was less sensitive to name calling, but I am still hurt by it.  Do you think I should move to Kill'em with kindness?  I want it to be a free exhange and if this forum prevents that, I wouldn't go there, but if it just censors out the nastiness, that might be the place I should be. 

risingsun wrote:
I am in agreement that this is an outdated book, but there is wisdom that cannot be thrown out either.  I am not religious, but I have gained so much by trying to understand where religious folk are coming from.

thatonedude wrote:
What wisdom did you find in the Bible(the outdated book I am assuming that everyone is referencing in this case) that cannot be found elsewhere where it's not bound up in horrible morality tales and silly myths?

There is wisdom if the book is not interpreted literally.  For example, the Adam and Eve story could be interpreted to mean that eating the apple was the beginning of believing in lies.  I just read this book called The Tree of Knowledge.  It's about accepting the lies that form the structure of our belief system from an early age, and how we can unlearn what we were taught.  It's a different interpretation on an old story.  Have you ever read The Course In Miracles?  I don't believe in their underlying theory, but I love the way they use Christ as a symbol of the higher self.  In their teachings, the biblical words have a completely different meaning, one that is much more palatable to me.

risingsun wrote:
This hatred of religion obviously comes from childhood where it signified control, punishment, and the wrath of a punitive god.

thatonedude wrote:
Nope. I came into religion later in life, falling for some serious logical fallacies due to an emotional desire. I left it when I was forced to confront my own irrational beliefs. I wasn't angry until after that, as my "religious lens" fell away and I began to realize how much damage faith and religion had done to me, to my family and to the world in general. My hand is being forced.

I think it's great that you were strong enough in your own resolve to critically examine your beliefs, and depending  whether they stood up against scrutiny, change them, but for the majority of people religion gives them too much emotional support to question the logistics of whether there are angels, devils, hell, heaven, or a Jesus who was able to come back from the dead.  It's just too threatening.

risingsun wrote:

That is not what I think of when I think of trust in an intelligence governing even the worst of situations because, in the end, I believe we are evolving into a more compassionate, caring humanity.  It's true, my faith tells me this.  Eye-wink

thatonedude wrote:
If we are, it's in spite of our religious baggage.

That's a broad statement that needs careful evaluation.  Even though it is true that religion is irrational in many ways, there are many humanitarian efforts going on, especially in Christianity and Judaism.  These are action oriented religions.  They go out whether it's in the name of Jesus, or in the name of God commanding them to do so, to help the needy, and they do amazing charitable work.  So even though their object of faith might not meet scientific scrutiny, if their faith does good things (and there are many good things that come out of having faith as well as some bad, I am not denying this), for the individual (believing in god has helped people come back from the brink, which can't be denied) and for those whom religion has helped in a more concrete way such as financially, faith can be a positive thing which was my original question.  Can faith be helpful even if it is based on a faulty premise?

 


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
risingsun wrote:thatonedude

risingsun wrote:
thatonedude wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

 I agree with you, but how is this any different from people bombarding you with phone calls advertising one thing or another?  At least these people mean well, even if it is misguided.

Because these people are keeping him from deciding who he wants to marry, if I recall. I'd like to say that I don't get calls from telemarketers trying to dictate social mores, but that is sadly not true anymore. They get even less of my time than the people offering loans.

Just playing the devil's advocate again, but don't secular people try to pass on their beliefs to others?  The problem with your argument is that you don't call these attemps to influence one's beliefs 'social mores'.

 

Quote:

I understand what you're saying.  Not too long ago I saw a woman standing on the street corner with a sign that said we better confess our sins before Judgment Day comes.  Another day a very old woman handed me a Jehovah's witnesses pamplet with the most earnest look on her face.  I think there is something sweet about these people trying so hard to help others, in the only way they know how.  That's why I posed this question because even though their thinking might be far from the truth, they mean well.  And, in turn, all I have to say when they approach me is 'no thank you'.  We all put our faith in something, and not everything we believe is true, but we seem to target the religious people because we think they are trying to impose their beliefs onto us.  The truth is, no one can impose anything on us, unless we let them.

thatonedude wrote:
I am quite civil in person. The Witnesses were at my house just a few days ago, spreading the word about the end of the world. Again. They are a living example of the concept of memory modification that Orwell spoke of. I simply told them that I was an atheist, and they took off. Not sure why, as that is usually an invitation to have them bombard me for a while. I had a couple of kids come over and try to get my kids involved in their summer church camp a few days ago, too. Again, I didn't engage them or the father who was making them run down the street in over 100 degree weather while handing out pamphlets.

But, then, they weren't attempting to get a law passed, or telling my kids that they were going to burn in hell.

risingsun wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by 'memory modification' that Orwell talked about.  Could you elaborate?  Sometimes this whole argument feels artificial to me because we are all searching for the same thing, which is a happy life.  I know that happiness does not equate with the BIG 'LIE' OF RELIGION; nevertheless, this is an important aspect to be considered.  The means to this end is the problem here, and as such is it possible to be kinder to one another and to meet each other where we are at.  By clobbering those who are religious in the head will not get you the results you are aiming for.  Maybe you influence a few, but you won't be able to wipe out religion unless you express your case without attack.  I don't see that here.  I see name calling; I see the very thing religion abhors, for good reason.  Your strategy only incites the very thing you are trying to eliminate. Sad


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
rising sun wrote:EXC

rising sun wrote:
EXC wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

So I will ask again, why should anyone be so strong in their beliefs that they would blame and crucify those who don't believe as they do?

All the religious people I've ever encountered don't really believe. The only pretend to belive out of fear. To me, religion is a drug. How would you feel about tobacco companies adding addictive substances to make people more addictive and as a byproduct less rational and less intellegent? You get angry about advertisers making false claims about their products. Why give religion a free pass about their false claims? Why does a snake oil salesman go to jail, but a pastor selling 'healing miracles' get a free pass?

Who doesn't do things out of fear; tell me?  I do get what your saying in that religion threatens people to believe, or else.  But that is where your theory ends.  No one has added any additive substances to 'get' people to agree to religion.  But I do agree that we are all brainwashed to an extent.  Even non-religious people.  No one gets a free pass, and I'm glad this website exists.  But sometimes I think they go to far in their attack on believers.  It hurts those who are religious because they are not sensitive to the good parts of religion.  They condemn the bad, which is fine, but they fail to see the religious person as someone who is searching for answers just as you are.  No one has a monopoly on truth.

Rising Sun wrote:
  I am sure you remember a time that you believed something, and it turned out to be wrong, so you changed your ideas. 

 

Quote:
No one threatened me with eternal torture if I changed my belief, except religionists.

True, but why are you targeting Christianity as if this is the only religion that exists?  Other religions do not threaten torture, ie. Judaism.  Why are these religions left out?

Rising Sun wrote:

This is an ongoing evolution, and I believe ideologies have a place in the history of mankind. 

 

Quote:
So did human sacrifice, slavery, forced marriages(i.e. rape), genocide, etc...

I am not saying that these behaviors are good.  And I'm also not saying that your cause is unjustified.  But what I am saying is that though there is much dissention and anger, it is so important to be gentle with others not like you, if you truly want to further your cause.  I also want to add that not everything can be empirically tested, but this does not make a hunch or an assertion automatically unfalsifiable.  This also does not mean that our beliefs are false just because they have not met the criteria of the scientific method. 

Rising Sun wrote:

 I really don't believe this website is healthy because is a defense of one's worldview which can never be used to change everyone's thoughts about life.  It only brings anger and hatred.  Challenge me, I need help to reconcile the two opposing views.

How is it possible to fix a difficult problem, if the problem doesn't bother someone? How is it possible to bring about justice if people don't get angry about injustice?  Admittedly there is anger, but I think much of this is frustration at not having any power and being 'demonized' for our non-beliefs.

That's what I'm saying.  Obviously, there has to be opposition for a different result, and I give all of you credit here for standing your ground.  But you can't clump all religions together, nor can you claim absolutely that there is no intelligence guiding our universe.  Of course, you are basing these ideas on what exists.  But many times what exists does not give us the entire answer.  That is where belief or faith comes into the picture, and I envy those who have that kind of faith.  A lot of energy could be wasted believing in a falsehood, and not all religion is false just as not all atheist views are true.  I'm sure I will get a backlash.  Oh well.  Just omit the namecalling please.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:I wish I

Rising Sun wrote:

I wish I was less sensitive to name calling, but I am still hurt by it.  Do you think I should move to Kill'em with kindness?  I want it to be a free exhange and if this forum prevents that, I wouldn't go there, but if it just censors out the nastiness, that might be the place I should be. 

I would say so. I don't often post there, because I don't want to worry about offending someone, and challenging their most deeply held beliefs has that effect in the best of circumstances.

Quote:

There is wisdom if the book is not interpreted literally.  For example, the Adam and Eve story could be interpreted to mean that eating the apple was the beginning of believing in lies.  I just read this book called The Tree of Knowledge.  It's about accepting the lies that form the structure of our belief system from an early age, and how we can unlearn what we were taught.  It's a different interpretation on an old story.  Have you ever read The Course In Miracles?  I don't believe in their underlying theory, but I love the way they use Christ as a symbol of the higher self.  In their teachings, the biblical words have a completely different meaning, one that is much more palatable to me.

Even though I am not sure what exactly you meant about accepting lies, you were able to present the information in a way that didn't require my belief in the special creation of life. Any analogy you can draw using that source can be written to utilize something neutral.

Quote:

I think it's great that you were strong enough in your own resolve to critically examine your beliefs, and depending  whether they stood up against scrutiny, change them, but for the majority of people religion gives them too much emotional support to question the logistics of whether there are angels, devils, hell, heaven, or a Jesus who was able to come back from the dead.  It's just too threatening.

Indeed. That's one of the reasons why I say I do not choose what I believe. I follow evidence, and base my conclusions on that.

Quote:

That's a broad statement that needs careful evaluation.  Even though it is true that religion is irrational in many ways, there are many humanitarian efforts going on, especially in Christianity and Judaism.  These are action oriented religions.  They go out whether it's in the name of Jesus, or in the name of God commanding them to do so, to help the needy, and they do amazing charitable work.  So even though their object of faith might not meet scientific scrutiny, if their faith does good things (and there are many good things that come out of having faith as well as some bad, I am not denying this), for the individual (believing in god has helped people come back from the brink, which can't be denied) and for those whom religion has helped in a more concrete way such as financially, faith can be a positive thing which was my original question.  Can faith be helpful even if it is based on a faulty premise?

I have never seen a religious charity or mission which did not have the underlying motive of conversion. Remember, I was a Christian for many years, and a lot of my money went to such things, with the result that I was also presented with reports of how they spent my money. And look at the results. The Catholic church has made a lot of converts on the African continent. And the rigid stance of the church on condoms(including flat out lies about the efficacy of condoms in reducing the spread of AIDS) has helped AIDS spread. It's really quite sickening. I would prefer giving my money to a secular group who is going in there with a single motive: to help. No conversions necessary or suggested.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:But you

Rising Sun wrote:

But you can't clump all religions together,

Why not?

Quote:

nor can you claim absolutely that there is no intelligence guiding our universe.

Again: why not?

Quote:

Of course, you are basing these ideas on what exists.  But many times what exists does not give us the entire answer.  That is where belief or faith comes into the picture, and I envy those who have that kind of faith.  A lot of energy could be wasted believing in a falsehood, and not all religion is false just as not all atheist views are true.  I'm sure I will get a backlash.  Oh well.  Just omit the namecalling please.

There is no such thing as an atheist "belief." There is only atheist disbelief. The disbelief in a god. That's it.

Otherwise, what you say is true.

Many religious folks believe good and correct things, sometimes even because of their beliefs. Sometimes atheists think incorrect things. All of this falls under the umbrella of "being human."

We're pretty fucking smart, us humans. We're also dismayingly stupid. We can hold contradictory beliefs, and still manage to survive this inemical universe. Our false beliefs do not always lead to certain death.

None of this rationalizes the false beliefs. All it does is explain that we're here in spite of our false beliefs. Not because of them.

I'm not sure where you get the "atheists are angry" meme. Some of us here can be angry. We can say mean things. But that a personal thing. It has nothing to do with atheism. Christians also get angry. Imagine Sally Kern (R, OK) getting so upset she wrote and submitted a resolution declaring Oklahoma, well, Christian. And declaring that the United States is a leader of immorality, starting with its President.

You might be able to imagine why we get a tich upset once in a while.

But really, atheists are a pretty easy-going lot, for the most part. Sure, we can sound heated in debate, but really, all we want is intelligent, engaging conversation; good beer; and regular sex. So we're not that different from most other folks.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:Just

Rising Sun wrote:

Just playing the devil's advocate again, but don't secular people try to pass on their beliefs to others?  The problem with your argument is that you don't call these attemps to influence one's beliefs 'social mores'.

I do. When secular individuals are attempting the same manipulations as I've described, I fight it. For example, there are secular groups around here which use fear to drum up money and support for stronger drug laws and more intrusive police activity. The difference is that most secular groups who are politically active are arguing for an increase in some facet of personal freedom. The right of one group to be married does not affect the rights of another group to be married, for example.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'memory modification' that Orwell talked about.  Could you elaborate? 

In George Orwell's book 1984, the people were taught to constantly rewrite their own memories as the official history from the state was altered. The Jehovah's Witnesses are taught to do this when new doctrines are passed down. It was necessary for the church to develop this, as they keep getting caught proclaiming a certain date as the end of the world and having it not happen.

Quote:

Sometimes this whole argument feels artificial to me because we are all searching for the same thing, which is a happy life.  I know that happiness does not equate with the BIG 'LIE' OF RELIGION; nevertheless, this is an important aspect to be considered.  The means to this end is the problem here, and as such is it possible to be kinder to one another and to meet each other where we are at.  By clobbering those who are religious in the head will not get you the results you are aiming for.  Maybe you influence a few, but you won't be able to wipe out religion unless you express your case without attack.  I don't see that here.  I see name calling; I see the very thing religion abhors, for good reason.  Your strategy only incites the very thing you are trying to eliminate. Sad

You must remember that this is a combative website. The whole point of it is to demonstrate the failings of religion. It would be like signing onto "Focus on the Family" and expecting to hear a civil debate about whether Jesus was god. There are other forums and groups which advocate a moderate and kinder response on both sides of the issue. But, you would actually be surprised how often a vigorous and spirited debate shocks someone into thinking. I've gotten private messages from people who were reconsidering their beliefs after reading my arguments, but didn't want to incur the wrath of their fellow posters for admitting that.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:But

nigelTheBold wrote:

But really, atheists are a pretty easy-going lot, for the most part. Sure, we can sound heated in debate, but really, all we want is intelligent, engaging conversation; good beer; and regular sex. So we're not that different from most other folks.

Sorry, Nigel, but I'm going to have to disagree. I like my sex frequent, but very irregular Eye-wink

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:Sorry,

thatonedude wrote:

Sorry, Nigel, but I'm going to have to disagree. I like my sex frequent, but very irregular Eye-wink

Snap!

Or *rimshot*

Whichever you prefer. I bow in your general direction.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:Rising

Balkoth wrote:

Rising Sun...watch.

I want to put the following as a quote: 123

I want to "reply" to that with: 456

I write $quote^ 123 $/quote^

456

Then I replace the $ with [ and ^ with ]

Quote:
123

456

What you just said sounds Greek to me, but I'm trying to get it right.  I'm sorry if I have put my answer into a quote box that belonged to someone else.  Hopefully I will get this right, in time, but your answer did not help me.  It only confused me more.  Sorry. Sad


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:True, but

Rising Sun wrote:

True, but why are you targeting Christianity as if this is the only religion that exists?  Other religions do not threaten torture, ie. Judaism.  Why are these religions left out?

Just going to comment on this. Christianity is the most prevalent religion for most of the posters, and thus they respond to it the most. However, it is not the only one we debate. You want to read some odious crap from a Jew, for example? Try this asshat on for size: http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/

On his front page right now, you can read such lovely quotes as:

Jewish Asshole wrote:

First of all, he must be hated. We pray constantly for his complete destruction. When he dies, his relatives celebrate his death (Yoreh De'ah , 345, 5) . He may not read from the Torah in the synagogue or lead communal prayers. If he pours wine, a Jew may not drink it . I think this helps us to understand why it is imperative to identify such people and purge them from the community.

As far as the afterlife is concerned, the Talmud (Rosh haShanah 17a) makes their fate clear: They will be punished in hell forever.

It's not only Christians that are infected with that brand of crazy.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

risingsun wrote:
thatonedude wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

 I agree with you, but how is this any different from people bombarding you with phone calls advertising one thing or another?  At least these people mean well, even if it is misguided.

Because these people are keeping him from deciding who he wants to marry, if I recall. I'd like to say that I don't get calls from telemarketers trying to dictate social mores, but that is sadly not true anymore. They get even less of my time than the people offering loans.

Just playing the devil's advocate again, but don't secular people try to pass on their beliefs to others?  The problem with your argument is that you don't call these attemps to influence one's beliefs 'social mores'.

 

What secular organisation proposed and heavily pushed banning gay marriage? When you find out, let me know, and I will dislike them as well.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:Rising Sun

thatonedude wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

I agree with you for the most part, but not completely.  People who are fundamentalists may act like this, but not every person who is religious is wrong in believing that our medical system is something to be afraid of.  Who is to say that their beliefs are wrong just because they trust in God's (natures) healing power over the doctor, who has good intentions but may not have all the answers?

thatonedude wrote:
It's simple. Medical science is called that because we study the effects of treatments, and ascertain whether they are effective for treating the particular ailment. I don't trust in gods or doctors, I trust in results. If the companies and groups that wish to promote "natural cures" would actually do double blind studies and demonstrate the efficacy of their products, I would have no problems with them. Hiding behind vague claims and wording while avoiding actual proof is the norm, however. Some protest that it is too expensive to perform proper studies while raking in millions in sales.

Results don't always pan out.  It seems that you do believe in doctors because the medical profession represents, to you, a rational approach to health.  Doctors are trying to earn a living just like the rest of us, so they may unconsciously support a drug or a surgery because there is a profit motive.  No one is above this, not even doctors.  What we don't know is the short and long term effects of a drug, for example, even though doctors give their approval.  The FDA gives the okay for certain drugs to go on the market, with many drugs not going through careful research; the kind of research that would guarantee safety and efficacy.  But the public doesn't know this, so they accept the recommendations of the doctors.  Even with double blind studies, the results can be misleading.  Safety and efficacy are the goal, of course, but these standards are not always met due to the time and cost it would take to know whether there is a serious risk.  So we become the guinea pigs.  This goes for natural cures too, but please do not give the FDA a free ride just because they are a 'scientific' entity' looking out on our behalf.

 

thatonedude wrote:
How can the AMA take responsibility for a parent's decision not to give chemo to their child, when there are no 100% guarantees that their protocol is better than a less risky therapy?

 

You must be joking, right? I assume that you are referring to Daniel Hauser. The medical treatment in that case was somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% effective when administered at the stage that they caught the cancer. Yes, it's nasty. Yes, it's not fun. And, yes, it's highly effective and is curing the boy right now.

I am not joking.  I am referring to Daniel Hauser but there are many others in similar situations.  One such situation killed a child because they forced chemotherapy on a brain tumor knowing that the therapy was ineffective for that kind of tumor.  The child died, of course.  That is government intrusion of the worst kind.  Even in the case of Daniel, how do they know whether the judge's order wouldn't hurt this child in the longrun.  These decisions are conjecture only; and to take away the rights of parents is outrageous to me when the parents care the most.  No one is god, not even the government who sets these guidelines.  Talk about taking away our rights.  You should be outraged as well especially when you believe in freedom.  

thatonedude wrote:
Secondly, the AMA didn't do that, a  local judge forced the issue. When a parent is needlessly endangering a child, the situation needs to be addressed. This is also the case with the Jehovah's Witnesses, who forbid blood transfusions to their children. If the therapy only offered a nominal chance of survival and was highly unpleasant, sure, let the kid die in dignity. When it's something as clear cut as Daniel's case or the JW's refusal of basic medical practices, there's no argument.

It is not clear-cut at all.  That's where you are in error.  There is no way a parent's rights should be taken away.  No judge or government should get involved in this very personal choice.  Obviously our beliefs dictate our decisions, but no one, not even doctors, have all the answers in a medical situation.  What if Daniel dies, then what?  Are the parents supposed to accept the forced decision that was thrust upon them, when there is a possibility the therapy itself did more harm than good?  What if the child could have been helped by alternative therapies?  Didn't Hippocrates say:  First, do no harm?  How do they know their protocol is not doing harm in some cases?  Everyone is different to a degree and not every therapy works for everyone.  That's why we have no right to tell parents what to do.  This is a private decision, and it's hard enough without government interference.

thatonedude wrote:
Finally, the "less risky therapy" that she was promoting had 0% clinical proof of efficacy.

Oh really?  Show me the proof of this. 

risingsun wrote:

I wouldn't want that reponsibility.  It is also true that no one knows 100% whether an immunization is going to help rather than harm a child.  No government has the right to force mandatory immunizations on anyone.  We are becoming guinea pigs for every new vaccination.  Did you know that the vaccination schedule for infants is three times what it was in the 1980's? 

thatonedude wrote:
Have you also noticed the distinct lack of childhood disease epidemics which used to cripple and kill kids in this country? When's the last time a polio outbreak happened in your neck of the woods?

I'm not saying that there is no benefit to certain vaccinations, but it has gone too far.  In other countries, the vaccination schedule is much less than what we give our newborns.  Even the AMA admits that infants do not need the hepatitis vaccine at 2 days old.  We don't know the effect this will have on their nervous system.  Let's admit that we don't know.  American born infants are becoming the guinea pigs.  Would you want your baby to be a guinea pig?  None of these vaccinations have withstood the test of time.  I am outraged by these recommendations.  We also have seen less illness due to other factors such as clean water and a clean environment. 

 

Quote:

risingsun wrote:
Why do you have to say anything about the teacher being a nutbag, unless your child goes to religious school.  Most schools in the US at least do not talk about religion.

thatonedude wrote:
My kids go to a charter school run by the local school district. I have caught them teaching basic Protestant theology in some of the classes, with textbooks like "Understanding the Word of God" used in a 4th grade classroom. The local high school has teachers who occasionally spout off intelligent design nonsense. I haven't had the (dis)pleasure of finding out what the local middle school is like yet.

I never experienced that in the Maryland school district.  Religion is never discussed unless it's a private religious school.

risingsun wrote:

What religious laws are you talking about?  The blue laws allow people to shop on Sunday, so where are your rights being curtailed? 

thatonedude wrote:
Blue laws are one example. There is no reason why I should be banned from buying a drink on Sunday. There are also laws which attempt to ban stores which sell sexually explicit items. If I chose to pursue a homosexual relationship, there are laws that forbid me from being able to assign legal rights and responsibilities to that person. Laws that forbid atheists from holding public office are still on the books in some states(though thankfully rendered useless by an intelligent SCOTUS decision). Basically, everytime a law is passed that has it's roots in religion without recourse to a valid rational grounding, I'm going to fight it. It doesnt' matter if I'm not gay, or don't go to porn shops or don't drink. These are irrational violations of my rights.

I'm in complete agreement.  These are civil rights issues.  How dare any religion tell someone else how to live their life.  Morality cannot be legislated or dictated by religion, which is part of the reason religion believes it has the right to boss people around.  They don't think we have a moral compass without their dogma.

risingsun wrote:

What stupid reasons are you talking about?  Do you mean religious wars?  You say you get angry when your country goes to war for irrational reasons.  How can it be irrational when the fear of being attacked [whether the motive is religiously motivated or not] is everpresent?  Are you saying we should do nothing?  Of course you are upset over war, who isn't, but to blame everything on religion??  I am just wondering if that is fair.

thatonedude wrote:
No, I mean stupid and irrational reasons, like the attempt to tie Iraq to 9/11. Granted, it turns out that the defense department utilized Christian scripture and ideas in their internal documents and reports about these wars, so there's a religious angle, too.

risingsun wrote:

Me too.  This is something that upsets me terribly.  To think that Netta, that poor girl who was shot in Iran just because she went to a peaceful protest, is unjustifiable. 

thatonedude wrote:
I was referring to Dr George Tiller.

I know that.  I was just giving another example.  To think the religious activists justified his death because they believe he was a murderer of unborn children.  This is based on ignorance, for sure.  Legislation to indict these people is the only answer.  But whether this will change their beliefs on the subject, I doubt it.  Until then, there will probably be more George Tiller's.

risingsun wrote:

No one should have to pay tax money for something they don't participate in.  But this has more to do with how government decides to use our taxes, then religion itself. 

thatonedude wrote:
No, this has to do with the government funneling my money into church coffers. At least in the other cases the money has only been wasted or gone to thieves. Allowing religious groups access to tax money is promoting an irrational view that I consider far more harmful.

I agree.  Religion is a private matter and needs to be kept private.  This should not involve government money in any way, shape, or form.

risingsun wrote:

How do they manipulate?  Obama didn't manipulate voters.  I'm using him as an example.  I think he appealed to the masses because of his intellect, not because he is a Christian, although the question of his  his association with certain people in the church, did come up and could have changed the outcome of the election.

 

thatonedude wrote:
A good example from the last round of elections would be Elizabeth Dole's blatant attempts to smear her opponent with the the name "atheist." One of those ads is on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lf2vDk-4Ag[/quote]

I will check it out.  It doesn't surprise me.  People will resort to whatever will help them win, whether it has true legitimacy or not.  That politics for ya.

risingsun wrote:

I'm not sure where rape should be blamed on religion.  And Aids?   Aids comes from dirty needles and from sexual contact.  Religion teaches abstinence until marriage, and encourages people not to take drugs.  So where is religion responsible for these afflictions? 

thatonedude wrote:
I'm talking about the irrational myths being spread in various locations, especially Africa, that teach that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. The explanations I have seen for the myth are rooted in weird religious beliefs about viginity.

Maybe so, but the truth is that sex with a virgin, as long as both are virgins, would immediately bring the Aids epidemic to a major halt.  Again, this truth could lead into weird religious beliefs and practices, but that doesn't falsify the original premise that having sex with a virgin would help in this fight.

thatonedude wrote:
And I will be teaching my kids about birth control, especially condoms. I am not going to rely on religious indoctrination to oversome the basic biological desire to reproduce.

I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand the religious point of view.  So many of our children are being hurt by indiscriminte sex.  The parent's point of view doesn't mean anything in our society anyway, because the culture wins out.  This is worrisome, as I have seen so many sexually active young people suffer later on, if only because they thought this was the one, and when they offered themselves, they were eventually rejected.  Why shouldn't they be rejected, there was no commitment. Sad

risingsun wrote:

When I saw the World Trade Center fall, I was angry too.  And when I see all the irrationality in the world, I am sad, but not all of the conflict and environmental destruction comes from religion; there are other factors, such as economics, that play a big part in what is going on in the world today.

thatonedude wrote:
My focus for environmental damage is irrational thinking, not religion alone. However, I've seen firsthand how it contributes. Many people simply sweep them under the rug because they believe that either that the world is ending anyway or that Jesus will magically make everything alright, or both. The World Trade Center is a smoking crater of a monument to the dangers of religion.

It's very easy to put the blame on a particular group.  Maybe religion does play a part in environmental apathy.  I do know some religious people care less about animal rights probably because they believe animals are not the center of the universe.  This upsets me because I can't stand to see animal's abused in any way.  As far as the World Trade Center, it is a sad state of affairs, but this is not all due to religious irrationality.  I believe it has to do with the world economy, which then uses religion as a justification to kill, in the name of Allah.  I'm mentioning Islam because it teaches that when people don't abide by the tenets of Islam, war is justified, whereas Christianity teaches us to 'turn the other cheek' and to forgive those who know not what they do.

risingsun wrote:

I posed this question in an earlier thread, and got no results.  So I will ask again, why should anyone be so strong in their beliefs that they would blame and crucify those who don't believe as they do?

thatonedude wrote:
And I've answered that. This is not a crucifixion. I'm not even trying to condemn someone to eternal damnation.

I feel better sharing my thoughts then, because bias is often hard to see in ourselves, but so easy to see in others.

risingsun wrote:

I understand your frustration.  To the extent that people give up their thinking ability, they are brainwashed.  But until the world changes for the better, religion is here to stay.  I don't think that if religion dies out, the world will suddenly have no more wars.  But I do agree with you that a lot of the teachings are manipulative and based on ignorance.   

thatonedude wrote:
Of course not. In case you haven't read more of my posts, I do not believe that religion is the sole problem with the world. It is a symptom of the underlying problem. And that problem is irrational thinking. Religion is just one facet.

If it is a symptom, then it's important to get to the root of the problem not focus so much on the manifestation of a world gone mad.  And the world has gone mad, in my opinion, but there is a lot of hope too.

risingsun wrote:

I didn't mean crucify me in a literal sense.  I am on your side for the most part.

thatonedude wrote:
If you want to see some venom, try posting on some of the Evangelical sites.

Thanks but no thanks.

risingsun wrote:

I thank you for taking the time to answer this post.  I see your side more clearly than ever.  I am playing the devil's advocate because I'm not religious either.  The one problem I see is that until man is delivered from evil (I understand that religion is part of the evil in your view), man will not be able to stand on his own.  He will continue to rely on a higher authority to help him during the darkest hours.  Need outweighs rationality, unfortunately.  So whether religion will be wiped out in your lifetime, I doubt it.  But it certainly is worth debating. Smiling

thatonedude wrote:
You are welcome. And I agree that irrationality will be a fight to root out. But we are on the cusp of very dangerous times. We have built weapons that can level civilizations. Our industries have reached the point where they can inflict damage on the very earth. Our skyrocketing population is stripping the seas and plains for food. Now, more than any time in the past, we need people to put aside irrational thought, see the problems we face as a species with objective eyes and resolve them.

I agree with you on the most part, but I still have a problem with the focus on religion as the main culprit.  It seems that people are pointing to religion as if this IS the main culprit.  Rational thinking is important without a doubt, but some irrationality thrown in will not be the catalyst that destroys our earth.  It will be the unforgiveness that we all hold in our hearts because when people are unforgiving, we judge.  And when we judge, we feel justified in our anger.  And when we are angry, we invite retaliation.  As long as there is blame, retaliation will follow, and the solution to the problems plaguing mankind, will remain elusive.


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:What you

Rising Sun wrote:

What you just said sounds Greek to me, but I'm trying to get it right.  I'm sorry if I have put my answer into a quote box that belonged to someone else.  Hopefully I will get this right, in time, but your answer did not help me.  It only confused me more.  Sorry. Sad

[ quote ] Good morning! [ /quote]

Good afternoon.

 

Now, take out the spaces between the [ and quote and ] and you get...

 

Quote:
Good morning!

Good afternoon.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote: What you

Rising Sun wrote:

What you just said sounds Greek to me, but I'm trying to get it right.  I'm sorry if I have put my answer into a quote box that belonged to someone else.  Hopefully I will get this right, in time, but your answer did not help me.  It only confused me more.  Sorry. Sad

I posted a link to a page teaching you how to use the quote function on two other threads, and I showed you this once on a third thread. 

Here it is again.

Quote Function

To quote a piece of text, put the word "quote" in square brackets before and after the text you're quoting. Put a backslash after the left square bracket at the end of the text. Like this:

[quote ]Hello[ /quote]

Only, without the spaces.

Quote:
Hello

If you want to refer to the specific person, type a "=" and the username after the word quote at the beginning. Like this:

butterbattle wrote:
Hello[ /quote]

But, without the spaces.

butterbattle wrote:
Hello

That's pretty much it.

Rising Sun wrote:
True, but why are you targeting Christianity as if this is the only religion that exists?  Other religions do not threaten torture, ie. Judaism.  Why are these religions left out?

I'll answer this too, for emphasis.

We target Christianity more than other religions simply because it is the religion that we are most familiar with. You'll undoubtedly see this bias on most other atheist forums as well. It's because everyone grew up being surrounded by Christianity, not because Christianity is the sole perpetrator or something. Personally, the religions at the top of my list are Scientology and Islam.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:The

latincanuck wrote:

The problem lies in those that rely on it so much that it clouds their judgement, to the point of hatred towards others that have less or no faith than they do. Extremists really. As well as those that cause the unnecessary death of others, like parents that rather pray to god than take their child to a doctor, you know someone that ACTUALLY knows how to help a sick child rather than pray to nothing in the hopes something happens.

Many people have issues with blind faith like this because in the end it causes more problems than it solves, and it doesn't help us advance as a society, it hinders us. When people rather follow the rules of an ancient outdated book, rather than look at the evidence that contradicts their rules or book, then there is a problem, when faith overrides logic and reason, that's a problem. I would reason that many everyday atheists don't have a problem with your averages everyday believer, one that believes yet still can use logic and reason. It is those extremists, those that faith blinds their judgement or those that use that faith to hate towards others.

There are people in every walk of life who take things to the extreme, but these are few and far between.  If these fundamentalists are in the minority, why the fuss?  They will not have enough manpower to takeover the government, or change the laws.  I don't think the majority of these fundamentalists are hateful people.  They are the least we need to worry about.  In my opinion our focus needs to be on the economy.  We need to give everyone the chance to earn a decent living.  We also need to continue the effort to get fathers involved in their children's upbringing.  We need to get children involved in after-school activities so they are supervised.  This will cut down on gang activity.  We need to offer love wherever we see a lack of it.  Love, which comes in many forms, can move mountains.  Hate, in any form, can only create more hate.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Rising Sun wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

The problem lies in those that rely on it so much that it clouds their judgement, to the point of hatred towards others that have less or no faith than they do. Extremists really. As well as those that cause the unnecessary death of others, like parents that rather pray to god than take their child to a doctor, you know someone that ACTUALLY knows how to help a sick child rather than pray to nothing in the hopes something happens.

Many people have issues with blind faith like this because in the end it causes more problems than it solves, and it doesn't help us advance as a society, it hinders us. When people rather follow the rules of an ancient outdated book, rather than look at the evidence that contradicts their rules or book, then there is a problem, when faith overrides logic and reason, that's a problem. I would reason that many everyday atheists don't have a problem with your averages everyday believer, one that believes yet still can use logic and reason. It is those extremists, those that faith blinds their judgement or those that use that faith to hate towards others.

There are people in every walk of life who take things to the extreme, but these are few and far between.  If these fundamentalists are in the minority, why the fuss?  They will not have enough manpower to takeover the government, or change the laws.  I don't think the majority of these fundamentalists are hateful people.  They are the least we need to worry about.  In my opinion our focus needs to be on the economy.  We need to give everyone the chance to earn a decent living.  We also need to continue the effort to get fathers involved in their children's upbringing.  We need to get children involved in after-school activities so they are supervised.  This will cut down on gang activity.  We need to offer love wherever we see a lack of it.  Love, which comes in many forms, can move mountains.  Hate, in any form, can only create more hate.

 

And banning gay marriage right? Have to punish them, because bible says they are immoral. The religious obviously aren't a minority, because otherwise IT WOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:Rising Sun

thatonedude wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

True, but why are you targeting Christianity as if this is the only religion that exists?  Other religions do not threaten torture, ie. Judaism.  Why are these religions left out?

thatonedude wrote:
Just going to comment on this. Christianity is the most prevalent religion for most of the posters, and thus they respond to it the most. However, it is not the only one we debate. You want to read some odious crap from a Jew, for example? Try this asshat on for size: http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/

On his front page right now, you can read such lovely quotes as:

Jewish Asshole wrote:

First of all, he must be hated. We pray constantly for his complete destruction. When he dies, his relatives celebrate his death (Yoreh De'ah , 345, 5) . He may not read from the Torah in the synagogue or lead communal prayers. If he pours wine, a Jew may not drink it . I think this helps us to understand why it is imperative to identify such people and purge them from the community.

As far as the afterlife is concerned, the Talmud (Rosh haShanah 17a) makes their fate clear: They will be punished in hell forever.

 

It's not only Christians that are infected with that brand of crazy.

I'm the first one to be utterly amazed by some of the rituals in the Jewish religion, as all religions have their own strange brand of crazy, and Judaism is no different.  In fact, most Jews don't believe in hell, but there are different sects, some of which I never knew existed and each one has their own set of beliefs.  That being said, the Jewish people have also been responsible for many amazing discoveries.   I wish I kept the email I received recently that listed all of the inventions that we use everyday which is the brainchild of a Jew, including the MRI.  

 

I happen to be Jewish, but thank goodness my parents never pushed religion on me.  I remember I hated Hebrew school, and as I grew older going to synogogue became very distasteful, especially going to an orthodox service since I had no idea what they were saying (the service was in Hebrew), and I could not stop from yawning.  Sometimes though I feel isolated as a result of my decision to opt out because there are social activities that I am not a part of since I made this decision.  There also the religious holidays that bring families together, which I long for. 


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Rising Sun

ClockCat wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

The problem lies in those that rely on it so much that it clouds their judgement, to the point of hatred towards others that have less or no faith than they do. Extremists really. As well as those that cause the unnecessary death of others, like parents that rather pray to god than take their child to a doctor, you know someone that ACTUALLY knows how to help a sick child rather than pray to nothing in the hopes something happens.

Many people have issues with blind faith like this because in the end it causes more problems than it solves, and it doesn't help us advance as a society, it hinders us. When people rather follow the rules of an ancient outdated book, rather than look at the evidence that contradicts their rules or book, then there is a problem, when faith overrides logic and reason, that's a problem. I would reason that many everyday atheists don't have a problem with your averages everyday believer, one that believes yet still can use logic and reason. It is those extremists, those that faith blinds their judgement or those that use that faith to hate towards others.

There are people in every walk of life who take things to the extreme, but these are few and far between.  If these fundamentalists are in the minority, why the fuss?  They will not have enough manpower to takeover the government, or change the laws.  I don't think the majority of these fundamentalists are hateful people.  They are the least we need to worry about.  In my opinion our focus needs to be on the economy.  We need to give everyone the chance to earn a decent living.  We also need to continue the effort to get fathers involved in their children's upbringing.  We need to get children involved in after-school activities so they are supervised.  This will cut down on gang activity.  We need to offer love wherever we see a lack of it.  Love, which comes in many forms, can move mountains.  Hate, in any form, can only create more hate.

 

And banning gay marriage right? Have to punish them, because bible says they are immoral. The religious obviously aren't a minority, because otherwise IT WOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED.

I agree that the majority of the people living in the U.S. [I mention the U.S. only because I live here] are right wing zealots.  This is where political activism makes a difference.  Crying about the unfairness of it all won't do a darn thing, but making your vote count will change the political tide slowly but surely.  Look at the strides we have made in the last election?  Freedom for all people will win in the end because freedom is a value that all people hold even if there are still dictatorships in the world.  This freedom includes the blacks, the gays, and all minorities who, once upon a time, had no control over their destiny. 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
No offense but your posts

No offense but your posts are unreadable. Why don't you stop using quotes and just say the name of the person you're addressing? In this manner:

Well Gauche, I think ...

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Rising Sun, I can't even

 Rising Sun, I can't even read this thread.

Look, this is very simple.  Take your mouse and highlight a small part of what you're responding to, perhaps two or three sentences.  Hit "Copy" in the "Edit" menu, or with the right mouse button, or with the "Control" button and "C" simultaneously.  Any of those three options do the same thing.

Go to your response in the comment editing window.  Type [ quote] without the space between the left bracket and the q.  Hit "Paste" in your edit menu, or type "Control" and "V" at the same time, or use your right mouse button to get to the Paste option.  At this point, your text should look like this, except without the space between the bracket and the q:

[ quote]This is the relatively short text I want to copy that lets the reader know who I am addressing and essentially what they were talking about.

 

Now, finish the quote by typing [ /quote] except without the space between the [ and the /.  Your text will look like this:

[ quote] This is the same text as above.[ /quote]

 

The reason I can't type exactly what you should type is that it would trigger the quote function.  You're going to have to just figure it.  In the entire time I've been here, I've never had someone whose threads were as unreadable as yours.  From now on, either learn to use the quote, and quote only small portions of text, or stop trying to use the quote function and just type the name of the person you're addressing.  I'm not going to go back and fix this monstrous thread for you, and if I have any more problems with gigantic bandwidth hog threads from you, I might have to make you the first person banned for computer incompetence.

Get it together, dude.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:latincanuck

Rising Sun wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

The problem lies in those that rely on it so much that it clouds their judgement, to the point of hatred towards others that have less or no faith than they do. Extremists really. As well as those that cause the unnecessary death of others, like parents that rather pray to god than take their child to a doctor, you know someone that ACTUALLY knows how to help a sick child rather than pray to nothing in the hopes something happens.

Many people have issues with blind faith like this because in the end it causes more problems than it solves, and it doesn't help us advance as a society, it hinders us. When people rather follow the rules of an ancient outdated book, rather than look at the evidence that contradicts their rules or book, then there is a problem, when faith overrides logic and reason, that's a problem. I would reason that many everyday atheists don't have a problem with your averages everyday believer, one that believes yet still can use logic and reason. It is those extremists, those that faith blinds their judgement or those that use that faith to hate towards others.

There are people in every walk of life who take things to the extreme, but these are few and far between.  If these fundamentalists are in the minority, why the fuss?  They will not have enough manpower to takeover the government, or change the laws.  I don't think the majority of these fundamentalists are hateful people.  They are the least we need to worry about.  In my opinion our focus needs to be on the economy.  We need to give everyone the chance to earn a decent living.  We also need to continue the effort to get fathers involved in their children's upbringing.  We need to get children involved in after-school activities so they are supervised.  This will cut down on gang activity.  We need to offer love wherever we see a lack of it.  Love, which comes in many forms, can move mountains.  Hate, in any form, can only create more hate.

I have to say that even the moderates they can take things to the extreme, or promote irrational ideas, racism or sexism based on their beliefs, be it Jewish, Muslim, Christan, Hindu etc, etc, etc. Prop 8 is one example, what great logical argument can one make that same sex marriages will destroy the sanctity of marriage? If you really really want to get into this type of debate, you have to look at all the problems that lies in believing or following the rules of an outdated religion/book. Slavery is ok, forcing your wife to have sex with you is ok, killing someone wearing two types of cloths is ok, working on Saturday is a reason to kill someone. If you child decides to disobey your direct orders you are to kill the child for not honoring his parents. So are you to pick and  choose which ones you want to follow? If that is the case why bother with the book in the first place?

At what point to we say to ourselves, ok this book worked for it's time, but now, no longer needed, I don't need it, I can follow the rules of society, look at the changes wanted by society and determine if they are good or not?

The same sex marriage part. For thousands of years marriage was not about love, but about financial/political gain. Only in the past 200 years has it been truly about love. Even more so in the last 60 years, has it been about equality in the marriage. Before that it was common for the woman to have to obey what the man said, shit it still happens today in some theocracy countries, and societies (some sects of Mormons for example). Yet also in all this time, thousands of years, there has been infidelity, abuse, marriage just for financial/political benefit, and now same sex is going to destroy the sanctity of marriage? Do people really believe this? No they believe that they are following the rules of an outdated book, that this book is the foundation of their morals, this is how they can justify their bigotry, hatred, racism etc, etc, etc. It wasn't the extremist that got prop 8 pass it was the moderates, who now have to follow the extremist amongst them unless they get labeled as unbelievers.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:So I will

Rising Sun wrote:

So I will ask again, why should anyone be so strong in their beliefs that they would blame and crucify those who don't believe as they do?

All the religious people I've ever encountered don't really believe. The only pretend to belive out of fear. To me, religion is a drug. How would you feel about tobacco companies adding addictive substances to make people more addictive and as a byproduct less rational and less intellegent? You get angry about advertisers making false claims about their products. Why give religion a free pass about their false claims? Why does a snake oil salesman go to jail, but a pastor selling 'healing miracles' get a free pass?

Rising Sun wrote:
  I am sure you remember a time that you believed something, and it turned out to be wrong, so you changed your ideas. 

 

No, of course they don't get a free pass, but it's not that simple.   Some people are truly helped by religion, so you can't use the 'false claim' argument completely.  And when you talk about snake oil salesmen, it implies that there is a motive to sell a product (in this case Jesus) for some personal gain, and that the salesman knows he is pulling the wool over the buyer's (parishioner's) eyes.   Yes, there are charlatans in every field, even religion, as well as those who turn out to be liars, cheats, and molesters.  But this is not the fault of the teachings; it is the fault of the person who is taking advantage of a high position, which is deplorable.

EXC wrote:
No one threatened me with eternal torture if I changed my belief, except religionists.

True, and this fundamentalism is based on fear, and is used to manipulate and control the 'flock'.  This fear of punishment or damnation is a terrible thing to put in the head of a young child.

Rising Sun wrote:

This is an ongoing evolution, and I believe ideologies have a place in the history of mankind. 

 

EXC wrote:
So did human sacrifice, slavery, forced marriages(i.e. rape), genocide, etc...
Quote:

That's true, but religion is a little different in that, depending on what religion you are talking about, they are not all alike, nor are they all bad.  As long as having faith in a god serves a purpose, religion will continue on because some of the teachings do help people.  It is the superstitious and punitive aspect of religion that needs to change, and if human sacrifice, slavery, forced marriages, or genocide are part of a religion, then it is not a true religion, it is a cult. 

Rising Sun wrote:

 

 I really don't believe this website is healthy because is a defense of one's worldview which can never be used to change everyone's thoughts about life.  It only brings anger and hatred.  Challenge me, I need help to reconcile the two opposing views.

EXC wrote:
How is it possible to fix a difficult problem, if the problem doesn't bother someone? How is it possible to bring about justice if people don't get angry about injustice?  Admittedly there is anger, but I think much of this is frustration at not having any power and being 'demonized' for our non-beliefs.

Being demonized because of your non-beliefs is the part that bothers me the most.  I believe people are so enculturated with religious dogma that when they hear the word 'atheist', they have a hard time because it sounds so sacriligious.  I believe this is slowly changing.  Our entire culture is changing for the better in that there are different types of families, there are mixed races (not long ago a black man seen with a white woman would have been condemned) , there are a growing number of spiritual paths (including Buddhism, Taoism, and the Toltic), and there are the non-believers, who have every right to be included in the make-up of society.  It's only when we impose our ideas onto others that it becomes a problem, or when religion is not separated from state affairs. 


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:Rising Sun

Rising Sun wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

cervello_marcio wrote:

Dude you're like the biggest attention whore on this site.

 

You might be right. Sad

 

Hell no.

I am.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:No offense but

Gauche wrote:

No offense but your posts are unreadable. Why don't you stop using quotes and just say the name of the person you're addressing? In this manner:

Well Gauche, I think ...

I can do that, or I can try to follow the instructions I was given today.  Didn't the last post come out okay?  I thought I did a good job. Smiling


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Rising Sun

treat2 wrote:
Rising Sun wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

cervello_marcio wrote:

Dude you're like the biggest attention whore on this site.

 

You might be right. Sad

 

Hell no. I am.

I have no idea why you are picking on me.  I am not trying to get attention.  I'm giving my opinion on topics that mean something to me.  Because of you my next post will be in the 'kill um with kindness' forum so I won't have to hear your nasty comments. 


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Treat2 is a jerk to

Treat2 is a jerk to everyone, don't take it personally.  And I mean everyone.


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Rising Sun

treat2 wrote:
Rising Sun wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

cervello_marcio wrote:

Dude you're like the biggest attention whore on this site.

You might be right. Sad

Hell no. I am.

How could I possibly have forgotten you, dear treat? My sincerest apologies. You are indeed the biggest attention whore on this site.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:Rising Sun

Balkoth wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

What you just said sounds Greek to me, but I'm trying to get it right.  I'm sorry if I have put my answer into a quote box that belonged to someone else.  Hopefully I will get this right, in time, but your answer did not help me.  It only confused me more.  Sorry. Sad

[ quote ] Good morning! [ /quote]

Good afternoon.

risingsun wrote:
That's what I've bee doing, but I'm having a hard time using the quotes when it's from a previous post, combining the first author, then the next, and finally responding outside of the box to indicate it is the latest post.  It's okay, I will figure it out; the main thing is that people know who is speaking.
 

 

Now, take out the spaces between the [ and quote and ] and you get...

 

Quote:
Good morning!

Good afternoon.

Thanks again!  I hope I get it right from now on. Smiling


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:Who doesn't

Rising Sun wrote:

Who doesn't do things out of fear; tell me?  I do get what your saying in that religion threatens people to believe, or else.  But that is where your theory ends.  No one has added any additive substances to 'get' people to agree to religion.  But I do agree that we are all brainwashed to an extent.  Even non-religious people.  No one gets a free pass, and I'm glad this website exists.  But sometimes I think they go to far in their attack on believers.  It hurts those who are religious because they are not sensitive to the good parts of religion.  They condemn the bad, which is fine, but they fail to see the religious person as someone who is searching for answers just as you are.  No one has a monopoly on truth.

The goal should be to have no irratonal fears. My problem with 'believers' is that they are not really believers every religious person I've ever encountered always demonstrates at some point they don't really believe. So I understand why people turn to religion, science and atheism hasn't yet come up with a positive alternative. Religion claims to have a monopoly on the truth.

Rising Sun wrote:

I am not saying that these behaviors are good.  And I'm also not saying that your cause is unjustified.  But what I am saying is that though there is much dissention and anger, it is so important to be gentle with others not like you, if you truly want to further your cause.

What is gentle about the fear of hell? Sure religion often puts on a gentle front, but at the end of the day it's about greed for extreme pleasure and fear extreme pain. There is nothing gentle about what we're fighting.

Rising Sun wrote:

  I also want to add that not everything can be empirically tested, but this does not make a hunch or an assertion automatically unfalsifiable.  This also does not mean that our beliefs are false just because they have not met the criteria of the scientific method. 

Religion deliberately tries to avoid "the criteria of the scientific method".

However, some of it can be tested for scientific validity. The bible's accounts of the history of the world have been proven dead wrong. Christians claim prayer can heal people. But the scientific tests show it has no effect except a plecebo effect.

Rising Sun wrote:

 Of course, you are basing these ideas on what exists.  But many times what exists does not give us the entire answer.  That is where belief or faith comes into the picture, and I envy those who have that kind of faith.  

How can something that does not exist cause any belief? So you envy people that yield to social preasure to believe something without evidence. Why not envy people that don't 'make shit up'?

Rising Sun wrote:

A lot of energy could be wasted believing in a falsehood, and not all religion is false just as not all atheist views are true. 

But with evidence, our views will change to what truths the evidence leads us to conclude. We don't have to make shit up. Religion is set up so that fear prevents any change of view. So whatever one is indoctrinated with a child becomes one's truth for life.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Whoa. Did I screw up the

Whoa. Did I screw up the quote function while trying to demonstrate how the quote function worked?

Oops.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:We are

latincanuck wrote:

We are more loving and compassionate? or are we the same as always have been throughout our written history? Willing to slaughter each other for land, food, and ideologies? The only difference is now the global economy is more dependent of everyone behaving better towards each other, and if we don't then we all suffer, that's the major difference. Even then we have wars, racism, sexism, and our hatred towards those that are not part of our "group". We can start naming them right now, in the last 20 years lets say, rwanda, Somalia, Dafur, Koskovo, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afgahnistan, The Attacks on the US, Israel, Spain, France, Britian and the Philipines. All these countries are either at war, have been at war, have been attacked or have had civil war due to different ideologies held by the country and those attacking the country or it's citizens.

Be it Muslims vs Christians in somalia, Hutu vs Tutsis in Rwanda(which the catholic church had a helping hand in the genocide of the tutsis because they weren't christians), christians vs muslims in the Koskovo war, ideologies/race in sri lanka, religious ideologies in the US attack, France, Spain and britian, Mulsims vs Christians in the Philippines, Ethnic in Darfur (unlike the 1983 war which was religious). Religious/Ethnic in Israel, I mean the list can go on and on. We are only more "compassionate" not because we have followed the bible, but because we rely on each other more on a global scale, and yet even that doesn't stop wars and conflicts from happening. However a bunch of these conflicts may not have occurred if not for religious ideologies based on an outdated religion.

Is religion the cause of these conflicts, or is religion being blamed for all of the conflicts without just cause?  Religious conflict, just as any conflict, can lead to fighting and war, but one's religion has also helped relieve the pain of those who have been become the victims of war.  A lot of these conflicts are not religiously motivated, but some are.  I think that Hitler, for example, used the Jews as a scapegoat for all the political and economic problems of that time period so religious hatred then became the focal point which fueled the war.  Another question:  Even if some are motivated by religious hatred, is it the religion causing the problem or is it the people who are using their religion in a way that was not intended.  To draw up an analogy, if whites hate blacks, any intelligent person wouldn't say the solution is for blacks to leave and go back to Africa, unless you are a white supremicist.  The answer is for whites to change their views toward blacks so the prejudice is gone.  This is what is happening today, and even though racial prejudice is not completely gone, it's wonderful to see how we've progressed.  By the same token, does religion need to be wiped out to remove the prejudice, or do we become more tolerant of other people's views so that everyone can have religious freedom?  Of course I am not condoning any religious practices that justify killing, raping, sacrificing, or coercing because this type of behavior is hurtful and gives religion a bad rap. 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline