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.


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

Hambydammit wrote:

 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/

 

Thanks for the link.  I read your blog and I hope to read it again. Smiling


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

risingsun wrote:
thatonedude wrote:

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. 

thatonedude wrote:
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.

risingsun wrote:
We can find wisdom if the book if it 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.

 

thatonedude wrote:
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.

risingsun wrote:
That's true, and that's what I hope our conversation will be...neutral.  To me, there is no purpose in arguing over our respective positions unless we can find a middle ground where we can all agree.  Otherwise, there is only "I'm right and you're wrong" sort of debate.  This goes nowhere in my opinion, and I don't like wasting my time on anything that goes nowhere.  I'm sure you agree. 

What I mean by lies is all of the messages, religious or otherwise, that we were taught as young children.  These lies formed the structure of our belief systems.  I am not denying that religioun has played a part in this dynamic.  I do not agree with these messages, just as I don't believe in being brainwashed to believe I'm not smart enough, pretty enough, or good enough which comes from societal messages.  These are the lies I am referring to which prevent us from becoming whole human beings in our own right.

I think it's great that you were strong enough in your own resolve to critically examine your beliefs, and depending on whether they stood up against scrutiny, you had and have the option to 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.

 

thatonedude wrote:
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.

risingsun wrote:
Evidence based science has a place in how we find the truth, but this is not the only way to find truth.  I know I am going to upset all of those empiricists, but pure reason has a place in finding truth also.  The philosophy of science addresses this, but we are probably getting too deep for this discussion.  So you place your conclusions only on what is determined to be true from empirical data.  But not all answers are obvious through empirical data until many years later.  Should we not have faith that one day the proof will be shown to us?  This is where I side with religion in a way.  I don't trust the idea that 'seeing is believing'.  Sometimes 'believing is seeing' in the sense that faith comes first before it turns out to be true.  Should we not have faith in those things that we might not be able to prove right away, but nevertheless our intuition tells us are true? Who is to say we are wrong just because we can't yet prove them empirically?  What is it that gives people the strength to defend their philosophies if not for their belief that, in time, proof will be forthcoming?

risingsun wrote:
That's a broad statement which 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?

 

thatonedude wrote:
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.

risingsun wrote:
Of course there is a motive.  That's what motivated them to begin with...which is to be a part of something bigger than themselves.  The charity they were involved in served that purpose.  Your decision to only go with people who are not religious is your right.  But does that mean that the motive to convert people to their way of thinking is intrinsically wrong?  I don't know, I'm just asking.  I for one don't want people to convert me, but that's just me.  There are others who are searching for something to believe in.  Who am I to tell them they shouldn't, especially if no one is being harmed by the systemic problems inherent in some organized religions?


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

risingsun wrote:
nigelTheBold wrote:

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:

risingsun wrote:
You can't clump all religions together because they are all not the same.  Yes, their basic premise in the belief in a god is where the similarities end.  As to your second question, no one can claim that there is no intelligence guiding our universe in a conclusive way.  All anyone can do is form conjectures, logical theories, etc.  We obviously can't see this intelligence, just as we can't see the atom, but that doesn't mean it's not there.  I am not a believer in fairies, ghosts, goblins, heaven or hell, etc.  So please don't place me in this category just because I think there is something more to life than the obvious. 

nigelthebold wrote:
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.

risingsun wrote:
I think most people try to reconcile their contradictory beliefs so that they are not in a perpetual state of dissonance.  False beliefs eventually fade, but sometimes we throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Not all false beliefs end in certain death, and not all beliefs are false.

nigelthebold wrote:
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.

I guess it's the nature of the beast to get heated over one's philosophical or religious orientation.  I think both sides are determined to be right, and in this sense, they come off more self-righteous than they ought to be if they want to have an engaging debate.  I am sure when it comes to everyday life, atheists are no different than the religious.  We are all human, and in this sense, we are more alike than different.


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

EXC wrote:

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.

Good luck trying to eradicate all irrational fears.  You would be a rich man.  Irrational fear comes from many sources, not just religion.  Religion has its own brand of fear producing BS, to get people to adhere to the teachings and become passive followers.  This is based on pure manipulation.

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.

EXC wrote:
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.

risingsun wrote:
Nothing is gentle about the fear of hell.  And there is an element of greed that many 'apostles' are not above.  This would turn even the most faithful off, if they found out that their high priest was cheating his followers in some way.  Does every leader do this?  I don't think so, so you can't blame the tree because of a few bad apples.  When I say be gentle I just mean that serving lemonade is better than lemons. People will listen much quicker by being approachable, then accusing the religious for their stupidity and greed.
Quote:

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. 

EXC wrote:
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.

risingsun wrote:
Religion doesn't owe anything to anyone.  They don't have to prove their belief through the scientific method because they don't believe the scientific method is the only way to validate what is true.  This is an easy way to get off the hook of having to prove anything.  I can feel the frustration atheists feel, for good reason.  But in spite of this denial of science on the part of religion, believing something to be true often brings good results, whether it's health, peace of mind, or just plain joy of living.  That is why prayer often works, regardless of whether it is a placebo or not.  I don't pray because I don't believe in a personal god, but I can see where people can be helped if their faith is strong enough.

 

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.  

EXC wrote:
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'?

risingsun wrote:
We all make shit up.  It's just that their shit is more obvious.  I grew up with all kinds of errors in my thinking, and none of it gave me any peace.  I had to challenge those thoughts as I became aware of them.  Once I did, I began to remove the lies that I unconsciously agreed to because I didnt' know any better.  The most important consideration is whether religion helps or hurts those who believe.  In some ways, religion has caused fear of the devil, fear of hell, and fear of a punitive god.  In this sense, it has caused much harm.  But in another sense, it has done good because it gives people a reason to go on in the most difficult of times.  Most religions are about forgiveness.  You can't ask people to give that up especially if it has helped them regain a new sense of purpose.

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. 

EXC wrote:
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.

risingsun wrote:
That is unfortunate and I do realize how difficult it is once someone is indoctrinated.  I don't like this aspect of religion anymore than you do.  Evidence is a good thing as long as it doesn't make claims that are beyond its capacity to prove.  Wouldn't it be great if, in the end, faith and science could merge into a new paradigm that works for everyone?  I believe that day is coming.

I know I still don't have the quote function down right.  I'm really trying so please don't ban me.  I am at least trying to show who is speaking.  I will continue to work on this and reread the post that Susan offered.  Thanks so much Susan for your help.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:Good luck

Rising Sun wrote:

Good luck trying to eradicate all irrational fears.  You would be a rich man.  Irrational fear comes from many sources, not just religion.  Religion has its own brand of fear producing BS, to get people to adhere to the teachings and become passive followers.  This is based on pure manipulation.

I think giving in to irrational fears starts young. Children pick up this pattern early from parents/teachers.

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.

I tried that approach, but when faced with evidence, theists will lie and deny what is obvious. Then they still persist in selling lies to people. Society has contempt for snake oil salesmen that make false and unproven claims about their products, why have any for religionists?

 

risingsun wrote:
I don't think so, so you can't blame the tree because of a few bad apples. 

I thought Jesus taught people to "Judge the tree by it's fruit".

 

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. 

Would you prefer to fly in airplane where the designers based their design on hunches or experimentally verifyable facts? What kind of airplane would work better? What kind of society would work better?

Rising Sun wrote:

This also does not mean that our beliefs are false just because they have not met the criteria of the scientific method. 

In a complex world, the odds are any belief based on 'hunches' or faith are false. What is true is not a 50/50 proposition but more like finding a rare combination that works.

risingsun wrote:

Religion doesn't owe anything to anyone.  They don't have to prove their belief through the scientific method because they don't believe the scientific method is the only way to validate what is true.  This is an easy way to get off the hook of having to prove anything. 

How convienient. Their feelings are the ultimate validator. Isn't every thiests real god convienience? Dealing with one's own mortality is too difficult, so just pretend it won't happen and I'll live forever. I'm just tired of their phony act that they don't think anyone can see how obvious their phony beliefs are.

 

risingsun wrote:

 I still don't have the quote function down right.  I'm really trying so please don't ban me.  I am at least trying to show who is speaking.  I will continue to work on this and reread the post that Susan offered.  Thanks so much Susan for your help.

You need to avoid nesting quotes and use the preview function.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


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

risingsun wrote:
EXC wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

Good luck trying to eradicate all irrational fears.  You would be a rich man.  Irrational fear comes from many sources, not just religion.  Religion has its own brand of fear producing BS, to get people to adhere to the teachings and become passive followers.  This is based on pure manipulation.

I think giving in to irrational fears starts young. Children pick up this pattern early from parents/teachers.

Very true.

EXC wrote:
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.

I tried that approach, but when faced with evidence, theists will lie and deny what is obvious. Then they still persist in selling lies to people. Society has contempt for snake oil salesmen that make false and unproven claims about their products, why have any for religionists?

I don't think religionists are selling anything that they don't believe in themselves, therefore you can't compare them to snake oil salesmen who don't care about the product they are selling.  They just want to make a profit.  This doesn't mean that religionists are right because they believe in what they are selling.  It only means that their motives for spreading the 'word' are sincere, even if what they are spreading is mythical.

EXC wrote:
risingsun wrote:
I don't think so, so you can't blame the tree because of a few bad apples. 

I thought Jesus taught people to "Judge the tree by it's fruit".

Not if the fruit is rotten. Eye-wink

 

EXC wrote:
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. 

Would you prefer to fly in airplane where the designers based their design on hunches or experimentally verifyable facts? What kind of airplane would work better? What kind of society would work better?

Of course I would choose the designer of the airplane that had verifiable facts.  In this situation there is a scientific standard that cannot be denied.  But we are entering into a gray area when we discuss god.  Some people feel that they have god (or the source of all that exists) within them and therefore are co-creators of the universe.  To say they are wrong and only evolutionary theory is the way to look at life, is being shortsighted.  These other spiritual paths do not conflict with evolutionary theory, they only add a spiritual dimension to it.  Or do you think that one way of thinking negates the other?  I am interested because I wonder how atheists deal with the ups and downs of life, and do they have any feelings of spirituality?  I happen to believe there is something underlying all creation and this is what I need to feel secure.  Maybe I should call myself an evolutionary theist. Smiling 

EXC wrote:
Rising Sun wrote:

This also does not mean that our beliefs are false just because they have not met the criteria of the scientific method. 

In a complex world, the odds are any belief based on 'hunches' or faith are false. What is true is not a 50/50 proposition but more like finding a rare combination that works.

Maybe it's not a 50/50 proposition but sometimes faith in something  turns out to be true.  Similarly, people have made hunches from clues that meant nothing to others, yet the hunches turned out to be important observations.  On a smaller scale, we all have faith to some degree.  Don't you have faith that you will get up in the morning and come home at night safe and sound?  Don't you have faith the minute you get in your car that you will not get in an accident as long as you follow the rules of good driving?  Don't you have faith that you will not get fired from work as long as you do your work well?  Don't you have faith that you will stay healthy as long as you do certain things to take care of yourself?  All of these things are contingent on your input to a certain extent.  Religionists have faith that by obeying god's commandments, they will have a happier life on earth and in heaven.  Maybe they are wrong, but they are giving it their best shot based on the bible.  Having faith that one day the world will be delivered from evil is where some of us get off the train, where the others continue on.  Whose to say they are wrong?  Maybe they know something we don't.  I am not talking about the obvious myths that go against scientific scrutiny.  I am talking about those things that science cannot entire explain, at least not yet.

EXC wrote:
risingsun wrote:

Religion doesn't owe anything to anyone.  They don't have to prove their belief through the scientific method because they don't believe the scientific method is the only way to validate what is true.  This is an easy way to get off the hook of having to prove anything. 

How convienient. Their feelings are the ultimate validator. Isn't every thiests real god convienience? Dealing with one's own mortality is too difficult, so just pretend it won't happen and I'll live forever. I'm just tired of their phony act that they don't think anyone can see how obvious their phony beliefs are.

I commiserate.  I don't believe that when we die we go to heaven and meet up with our relatives.  But maybe there is another explanation about death that neither science nor religion can answer.  And even though religion didn't get it all right, could it be that their faith that it's not the end when we die, will turn out to be right but in a scientific context?  That's what I mean when I say science and religion may come together in ways that we can't see right now.

 

EXC wrote:
risingsun wrote:

 I still don't have the quote function down right.  I'm really trying so please don't ban me.  I am at least trying to show who is speaking.  I will continue to work on this and reread the post that Susan offered.  Thanks so much Susan for your help.

You need to avoid nesting quotes and use the preview function.

I think I got the hang of it; at least it's better than it was before.  Thank goodness for the preview function.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:I don't

Rising Sun wrote:

I don't think religionists are selling anything that they don't believe in themselves, therefore you can't compare them to snake oil salesmen who don't care about the product they are selling.  They just want to make a profit. 

I don't really think the religionist really believe in what they're sell. When their sick they still go to the doctor, don't they? Except a few delusional ones, but even then if the pain is great enough they'll go to the hospital. And how is heaven less of selfish motive than money?

Rising Sun wrote:

Not if the fruit is rotten. Eye-wink

Don't remember reading that exception.

Rising Sun wrote:

 But we are entering into a gray area when we discuss god.  Some people feel that they have god (or the source of all that exists) within them and therefore are co-creators of the universe.

This a product of narcissism.

Rising Sun wrote:

  To say they are wrong and only evolutionary theory is the way to look at life, is being shortsighted.  These other spiritual paths do not conflict with evolutionary theory, they only add a spiritual dimension to it.  Or do you think that one way of thinking negates the other?  I am interested because I wonder how atheists deal with the ups and downs of life, and do they have any feelings of spirituality?  I happen to believe there is something underlying all creation and this is what I need to feel secure.

What does it mean to be spiritual? To me it just means living in a fantasy world, where one is special. Sure fantasy and fiction are important, but  humans need to seperate fact from fiction. So 'spirtuality' is a product of human insecurity. Isn't this a good reason to debunk? Most things that result from human insecurity in the long run are destructive.

Rising Sun wrote:

 Maybe it's not a 50/50 proposition but sometimes faith in something  turns out to be true.

Can you provide an example that can't be explained as coincidence?

Rising Sun wrote:

   Don't you have faith that you will get up in the morning and come home at night safe and sound?  Don't you have faith the minute you get in your car that you will not get in an accident as long as you follow the rules of good driving?  Don't you have faith that you will not get fired from work as long as you do your work well?  Don't you have faith that you will stay healthy as long as you do certain things to take care of yourself?

This is not faith. This is being conditioned by observation. Religious faith is being conditioned by the superstitious beliefs of others. If no one else in the world was 'spirtual', neither would you be. You've been conditioned to be this way.

 

Rising Sun wrote:

Religionists have faith that by obeying god's commandments, they will have a happier life on earth and in heaven.

They've been conditioned by fear and guilt to act in certain ways. They have no more 'faith' than a trained dog or programmed robot. 

Rising Sun wrote:

 Maybe they are wrong, but they are giving it their best shot based on the bible. 

 

Actually very few 'Christians' know that much about the bible. They are rarely versed enought to answer any of our objections. The all believe whatever is convienient. Even pastors can't give a rational reason for believing it.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
My Reasoning

I recently wrote an essay entitled "Why Even Moderate Religion is Dangerous" which explains the problems with faith even if directed towards decent morals.  You can read this at http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17936 though I should warn that it is in the Freethinkers Anonymous forum which theists are not supposed to post in.  Perhaps I ought to have posted it someplace more accessible.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


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

EXC wrote:
EXC wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

I don't think religionists are selling anything that they don't believe in themselves, therefore you can't compare them to snake oil salesmen who don't care about the product they are selling.  They just want to make a profit. 

I don't really think the religionist really believe in what they're sell. When their sick they still go to the doctor, don't they? Except a few delusional ones, but even then if the pain is great enough they'll go to the hospital. And how is heaven less of selfish motive than money?

I think the ones who hand out pamphlets and try to convert everyone do believe in what they are doing.  They don't think they are delusional.  Everything people do has an element of selfishness to it, otherwise they wouldn't do it.  Even altruism is selfish because it is motivated by what feels good even though it also helps other people.  The only difference between a religious person selling his gospel, and a salesman, is that a salesman does not believe in what he is selling, whereas a religionist does even if he is delusional.

Rising Sun wrote:
Rising Sun wrote:

Not if the fruit is rotten. Eye-wink

Don't remember reading that exception.

I was being facetious, but there is some truth in this.  Depending on what seeds a person plants will determine whether that seed grows into something fruitful or not.  Remember the movie The Bad Seed?  It was about a little girl who had evil motives behind everything she did.  In reality, I don't believe there is such a thing as a bad seed if it is given the right amount of sunshine and water.

EXC wrote:
Rising Sun wrote:

 But we are entering into a gray area when we discuss god.  Some people feel that they have god (or the source of all that exists) within them and therefore are co-creators of the universe.

This a product of narcissism.

I don't think this idea is anymore narcissistic than the idea that we are solely responsible for our own creation.

EXC wrote:
Rising Sun wrote:

  To say they are wrong and only evolutionary theory is the way to look at life, is being shortsighted.  These other spiritual paths do not conflict with evolutionary theory, they only add a spiritual dimension to it.  Or do you think that one way of thinking negates the other?  I am interested because I wonder how atheists deal with the ups and downs of life, and do they have any feelings of spirituality?  I happen to believe there is something underlying all creation and this is what I need to feel secure.

What does it mean to be spiritual? To me it just means living in a fantasy world, where one is special. Sure fantasy and fiction are important, but  humans need to seperate fact from fiction. So 'spirtuality' is a product of human insecurity. Isn't this a good reason to debunk? Most things that result from human insecurity in the long run are destructive.

A world without spirituality is a dull world.  I enjoy seeing the world with an element of mystery.  Not everything can be dissected into parts and viewed under a microscope.  I guess it can, but it needs to be balanced or else life becomes very mechanical.  You may call this way of living 'the good life'.  But I would rather look at life from both a scientific and a spiritual perspective.  It gives me comfort to see the world through both lenses, because they both have their places.  If  this is something you feel the need to beat out of me, it ain't going to happen because I believe there are other ways to see life in all of its majesty. 

EXC wrote:
Rising Sun wrote:

 Maybe it's not a 50/50 proposition but sometimes faith in something  turns out to be true.

Can you provide an example that can't be explained as coincidence?

I explained what I meant by faith.  It's the combination of having the belief that something good will turn out if one is willing to do the work.  It is contingent on the actions taken to produce the outcome that one has faith in.  A coincidence is when things fall into place, or something fortuitous happens for no apparent reason.

EXC wrote:
Rising Sun wrote:

   Don't you have faith that you will get up in the morning and come home at night safe and sound?  Don't you have faith the minute you get in your car that you will not get in an accident as long as you follow the rules of good driving?  Don't you have faith that you will not get fired from work as long as you do your work well?  Don't you have faith that you will stay healthy as long as you do certain things to take care of yourself?

This is not faith. This is being conditioned by observation. Religious faith is being conditioned by the superstitious beliefs of others. If no one else in the world was 'spirtual', neither would you be. You've been conditioned to be this way.

I may be conditioned to be this way, but I like being this way.  I am not superstitious, and I'm not religious.  But I am spiritual.  I believe there is something more to life than what meets the eye.  This spiritual way of looking at the world gives me a good feeling regardless of whether it is an accurate view or not.  My spirituality does not rape, kill, or tell others what to do, so why condemn me? Sad

 

EXC wrote:
Rising Sun wrote:

Religionists have faith that by obeying god's commandments, they will have a happier life on earth and in heaven.

They've been conditioned by fear and guilt to act in certain ways. They have no more 'faith' than a trained dog or programmed robot.

I agree that children who grow up in strict religious homes are programmed.  And a lot of this programming is motivated by fear.  This, I believe, is what non- believers are so upset about because this kind of training takes away one's freedom to think for oneself. 

EXC wrote:
Rising Sun wrote:

 Maybe they are wrong, but they are giving it their best shot based on the bible. 

 

Actually very few 'Christians' know that much about the bible. They are rarely versed enought to answer any of our objections. The all believe whatever is convienient. Even pastors can't give a rational reason for believing it.

That's not surprising.  If they actually analyzed their religious beliefs in terms of logic, their life would feel like a sham.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:Is religion

Rising Sun wrote:

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. 

Here is the thing, using religion to hide behind so they can be bigots is very common because religion avails itself so easily to it, ancient texts from ancient times, which the world was more tribal, more divided by conquering nations, slavery was allowed throughout the known world, and lets admit many more barbaric traditions than we allowed today to occur. Now religion can be used in anyway or form, it's intention is to control people, that's what it has been doing for well since the beginning. Giving divine right to rules (everything from Egyptian Pharaohs to English Monarchs and dictators around the world), to simply giving a group of people (priests, imams, clerics, etc, etc, etc) power over society and to dictate moral view of society. Since the greatest fear many humans have is death. To threaten them with eternal punishment is a very common tactic among those in power.

As for Hitler, his hatred towards the jews was not a simple scapegoat. This started before hitlers rise to power, going way back the Martin Luther 1543 with the publication of his books, On Jews and their lies, and On his Holy Name and Lineage of Christ. This hatred of jews because they were not christians and did not accept christ, wasn't based on race, but on religious ideological differences, the acceptance of christ as the messiah.  Then for the National Socialist party, the treaty after WWI which basically crippled Germany, they blamed it on communists and Jews. With that said, many books written by the Nazi's always quoted Luther. Now there were other factors as well to include, but much of Germany and parts of Europe were already anti-Semite, and even though Luther was more on a religious view and not racial, his contributions to the hatred of jews is part of the history of Europe. After his death in 1546, there were riots in many Lutheran states, this is in 1580, which cause the expulsion of jews of those states.

Bigotry and racial hatreds will happen, however it is far easier to do so behind divine power and a holy book. Slavery was allowed to flourish in the south because it was allowed in the bible and many slave owners used the bible passages regarding slavery in justification of having slaves. Of course their is the justification for the hatred of gays as well, however you will also notice that those that hide behind the bible, just pick and choose which laws they wish to follow.

Now for example, the Koskovo, christians vs muslims and the Philippines muslims vs christians, they are the same people, born in the country, many of the same race, just different religious views. Somalia is the same, christians vs muslims but they are all the same people, not different racial background. Now Rwanda, they used it to hide behind so that the Hutus could kill of the tutsis, even though many tutsis were christians, however the catholic church, like many times throughout history, sided with those in power, the Hutus and bascially outed the tutsis that were hiding in the churches and helped the genocide continue.

To make everyone more tolerant to different religious views you have to change the teachings withing those holy books. Once you change them, is it the same? No of course not. If you changes the practices are you really following the religious teachings and views?no your not. If killing is justified in their holy books and it is part of their laws, you cannot remove the prejudice without removing the religion really. I mean they are one and the same, they are ancient texts that are outdated for our modern society. The views of it, many of the moral teachings, and even it's "scientific data" are completely outdated.

 


Mao4EverBadi
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-06-26
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 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.

I speak from a Maoist perspective on this which is out of line with most of the online atheist community I believe. I don’t blame people for being products of their environment (not even good ol‘ Pat Robertson, see my blog post). I understand that what a person believes is largely controlled by the public opinion-molding machine which is overwhelmingly controlled by the capitalist ruling class dictators of this society who use it to get the common people to work for their interests. I don’t “crucify” the theists, I concentrate on what makes them and that is rooted in class relations.

With a Maoist understanding one still looks at the world and sees the horrors brought about by religious beliefs that are held firmly in place by public opinion-molding machines in the hands of those who benefit from the psychological effects of religion on the masses and/or are wrapped up in it themselves. So rather than holding in contempt the people for simply believing things that are coming from the sources that they find most authoritative, Maoists try to gain control of the public opinion-molding machine ourselves. Doing so obviously creates conflict as the ones who control them use them to crush you before you can usually even mount a serious attempt to gain control of it, and even if you get close to having control of a public opinion-molding machine yourself (one that they don’t like) capitalist ruling class dictators will use their command of the armed forces to crush you and use the panic involved around the whole turbulence in society to instill fear into the masses and remind them what a mistake it is to ever challenge their dictatorship again. There are ways around this, if a 100% scientific approach is taken.

So, love the theist, love all poor people, hate the capitalist dictators…crucify them.  Why I feel strongly? Friends, there are children in Haiti eating cookies made of sugar, oil and dirt in an all-too-often failed effort to survive. I’m not comfortable living one second in this world in this condition, a condition in which we are far more than capable of producing food and shelter for all, yet the overwhelming majority of people are forced to enter into degrading and exploitative relationships in order to survive. My hatred towards the dictators that have led us to this horrendous condition comes from my scientific understanding of the nature of this system and my unshakable belief that there is nothing more important than humanity.

 


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:There are

Rising Sun wrote:
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?

Because the moderates, at best, stand aside and let the zealots do the things they're too afraid to do. Was it just the fundies in CA who passed Prop. 8? Hmm? Is there any non-religious reason for it passing? Answer: No. The non-religious reasons are weak, at best, and boil down to 'they can't biologically reproduce' (to which I say: appli-fucking-cator, sonny) or 'it's unclean' (which is another way of saying 'it's icky and I don't like it personally but I'm going to act like it's a universal truth.') So, yeah.

It's all part of the same problem: Anti-intellectualism. It is ENSHRINED in religious doctrine, 'shut the fuck up, mystery of god at work.' Whether they choose to focus on the 'positive' aspects of their religion (in Christianity's case, Jesus sacrificing himself to himself [god] because he was pissed off at the rules he'd created and wanted people to come to him of their own free will...and he made sure they'd have the free choice to do so by god giving them a binary choice between eternal bliss worshiping him or eternal torture for not doing what he said) or not, the base is the same. Any modern theologian is at least a century and a half behind; things just haven't been the same since Darwin's time, seriously.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


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

[latincanuck]

latincanuck wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

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. 

Here is the thing, using religion to hide behind so they can be bigots is very common because religion avails itself so easily to it, ancient texts from ancient times, which the world was more tribal, more divided by conquering nations, slavery was allowed throughout the known world, and lets admit many more barbaric traditions than we allowed today to occur. Now religion can be used in anyway or form, it's intention is to control people, that's what it has been doing for well since the beginning. Giving divine right to rules (everything from Egyptian Pharaohs to English Monarchs and dictators around the world), to simply giving a group of people (priests, imams, clerics, etc, etc, etc) power over society and to dictate moral view of society. Since the greatest fear many humans have is death. To threaten them with eternal punishment is a very common tactic among those in power.

I don't think the original intention of religion was to create bigots, and to justify behavior that is based on barbaric traditions.  But you are right in that religion avails itself of this kind of behavior.  It seems as if the ego that causes separation and division, will do whatever it takes defend itself, and this comes out most blatantly in religious wars over the desire for political, religious, and even economic control.

latincanuck wrote:
As for Hitler, his hatred towards the jews was not a simple scapegoat. This started before hitlers rise to power, going way back the Martin Luther 1543 with the publication of his books, On Jews and their lies, and On his Holy Name and Lineage of Christ. This hatred of jews because they were not christians and did not accept christ, wasn't based on race, but on religious ideological differences, the acceptance of christ as the messiah.  Then for the National Socialist party, the treaty after WWI which basically crippled Germany, they blamed it on communists and Jews. With that said, many books written by the Nazi's always quoted Luther. Now there were other factors as well to include, but much of Germany and parts of Europe were already anti-Semite, and even though Luther was more on a religious view and not racial, his contributions to the hatred of jews is part of the history of Europe. After his death in 1546, there were riots in many Lutheran states, this is in 1580, which cause the expulsion of jews of those states.

I am sure that the build up of anti-semitism came gradually through the negative influence of earlier writings.  Jews being made into a scapegoat then followed as everything that went wrong was blamed on them.  They became all that was wrong with the world, and it was fueled by religious hatred.  This exemplifies the epitome of what can happen when religious doctrine is used to justify hatred and genocide on a large scale. 

latincanuck wrote:
Bigotry and racial hatreds will happen, however it is far easier to do so behind divine power and a holy book. Slavery was allowed to flourish in the south because it was allowed in the bible and many slave owners used the bible passages regarding slavery in justification of having slaves. Of course their is the justification for the hatred of gays as well, however you will also notice that those that hide behind the bible, just pick and choose which laws they wish to follow.

Now for example, the Koskovo, christians vs muslims and the Philippines muslims vs christians, they are the same people, born in the country, many of the same race, just different religious views. Somalia is the same, christians vs muslims but they are all the same people, not different racial background. Now Rwanda, they used it to hide behind so that the Hutus could kill of the tutsis, even though many tutsis were christians, however the catholic church, like many times throughout history, sided with those in power, the Hutus and bascially outed the tutsis that were hiding in the churches and helped the genocide continue.

To make everyone more tolerant to different religious views you have to change the teachings withing those holy books. Once you change them, is it the same? No of course not. If you changes the practices are you really following the religious teachings and views?no your not. If killing is justified in their holy books and it is part of their laws, you cannot remove the prejudice without removing the religion really. I mean they are one and the same, they are ancient texts that are outdated for our modern society. The views of it, many of the moral teachings, and even it's "scientific data" are completely outdated.

I see your point and I agree that the Bible, if taken literally, can cause extreme harm.  The world is in its infancy as far as how far we have left to go to get to the point where the Bible is no longer used for convenience; and where certain passages are not misconstrued in order to permit the killing of those whose beliefs are different.  As to whether the Bible will no longer be considered the 'gospel', I believe that day is coming but not in our lifetime.  That doesn't mean the fight is not a worthy one.  Each person that is deprogrammed is a step in the right direction.  It's a valient fight that must be won.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:I don't

Rising Sun wrote:

I don't think the original intention of religion was to create bigots, and to justify behavior that is based on barbaric traditions.  But you are right in that religion avails itself of this kind of behavior.  It seems as if the ego that causes separation and division, will do whatever it takes defend itself, and this comes out most blatantly in religious wars over the desire for political, religious, and even economic control.

It justified behavior towards women, towards others outside of the tribe, of course it was created using those pre-existing hatred and bigotry. In the Torah (OT) women are the cause of sin, women are dirty and shouldn't be touched during menstrual cycle, and many take it literally, many orthodox jews will not touch a woman nor look at her into her eyes. Same goes for homophobic tendencies. If you look at the torah it pretty much sets up a US vs THEM mentality. That it's ok to have slaves, just not jewish slaves, it's ok to kill, just not to kill jews. I mean most of the laws in the OT is that, don't do it to jews, but it's ok towards others. Lets not forget we then have the quran which has it's own bigotry and views towards women, of course the bible, built on already existing book the torah, and various other religions throughout history use pre-existing bigotry or hatred towards women or other identifiable groups.

Rising Sun wrote:

I am sure that the build up of anti-semitism came gradually through the negative influence of earlier writings.  Jews being made into a scapegoat then followed as everything that went wrong was blamed on them.  They became all that was wrong with the world, and it was fueled by religious hatred.  This exemplifies the epitome of what can happen when religious doctrine is used to justify hatred and genocide on a large scale. 

The Nazi's really took it to the next level, but the nazi's antisemitic movement starts really back in 1500's. With Martin Luther trying to convert the jews to christianity, starting off with the idea of being nice to the jews because christ was a born a jew but tried to convert the jewish to chrsitianity, but since the jewish didn't accept the divinity of christ, his failed attempts made him bitter towards the jews. This bitterness resulted in his 2 books mentioned earlier, and many of his sermons he argued that the synagogues and the homes of jews should be destroyed or seized, their money confiscated, their rabbis forbbidden to preach, and their liberties to be curtailed, or they should be expelled from Germany for all of time or forced into hard labour. Now much of this occurred before his books, and then of course it got worse for jews after he wrote it, as he was one of the most popular writers of his generation. With this said, when Josel of Roshiem, a jewish spokesman asked the mayor of Strasbourg to stop the sale of the book, the mayor stopped, until a Lutheran priest urged people in his sermon to kill the jews. This is the justification, well the source for the antisemitic movement the Nazi's used extensively throughout their own propaganda, as it was already there and any good christian would have followed the Lutheran church founder (the Nazi's gained allot of votes from the Lutheran/Protestant areas). The odd thing is Luther was not really against Jews as a race, but as a religion, while the nazi's took it to the racial level, instead of the religous level.

Rising Sun wrote:

I see your point and I agree that the Bible, if taken literally, can cause extreme harm.  The world is in its infancy as far as how far we have left to go to get to the point where the Bible is no longer used for convenience; and where certain passages are not misconstrued in order to permit the killing of those whose beliefs are different.  As to whether the Bible will no longer be considered the 'gospel', I believe that day is coming but not in our lifetime.  That doesn't mean the fight is not a worthy one.  Each person that is deprogrammed is a step in the right direction.  It's a valient fight that must be won.

This will pretty much continue we will always have a us vs them mentality, just with religion I see it that tends to get much worse really. Well with any type of dogmatic belief system it can get far worse.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
risingsun wrote:Mao4EverBadi

risingsun wrote:
Mao4EverBadi wrote:

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 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.

Mao4everbadi wrote:
I speak from a Maoist perspective on this which is out of line with most of the online atheist community I believe. I don’t blame people for being products of their environment (not even good ol‘ Pat Robertson, see my blog post). I understand that what a person believes is largely controlled by the public opinion-molding machine which is overwhelmingly controlled by the capitalist ruling class dictators of this society who use it to get the common people to work for their interests. I don’t “crucify” the theists, I concentrate on what makes them and that is rooted in class relations.

Is the media another term for the public opinion-molding machine?  We are all products of the media to a large degree.  But I'm not sure how capitalist ruling class dictators, or the public opinion-molding machine, targets theists in particular.


Mao4everbadi wrote:
With a Maoist understanding one still looks at the world and sees the horrors brought about by religious beliefs that are held firmly in place by public opinion-molding machines in the hands of those who benefit from the psychological effects of religion on the masses and/or are wrapped up in it themselves. So rather than holding in contempt the people for simply believing things that are coming from the sources that they find most authoritative, Maoists try to gain control of the public opinion-molding machine ourselves. Doing so obviously creates conflict as the ones who control them use them to crush you before you can usually even mount a serious attempt to gain control of it, and even if you get close to having control of a public opinion-molding machine yourself (one that they don’t like) capitalist ruling class dictators will use their command of the armed forces to crush you and use the panic involved around the whole turbulence in society to instill fear into the masses and remind them what a mistake it is to ever challenge their dictatorship again. There are ways around this, if a 100% scientific approach is taken.

Do you really think that by taking over the public opinion-molding machine you can obliterate religion?  Public opinion has always influenced culture.  But you are making it sound as if the public opinion-molding machine is conspiring to control the masses through religion since those who benefit from religion psychologically are more easily controlled.  I'm not sure about that.   It seems like the Maoists don't believe that religionists have any mind of their own, and they need to be rescued from themselves.   What you describe seems more like it applies to a cult situation where public opinion is dominated by one religious figure, and where brainwashing has run rampant. 

Mao4everbadi wrote:
So, love the theist, love all poor people, hate the capitalist dictators…crucify them.  Why I feel strongly? Friends, there are children in Haiti eating cookies made of sugar, oil and dirt in an all-too-often failed effort to survive. I’m not comfortable living one second in this world in this condition, a condition in which we are far more than capable of producing food and shelter for all, yet the overwhelming majority of people are forced to enter into degrading and exploitative relationships in order to survive. My hatred towards the dictators that have led us to this horrendous condition comes from my scientific understanding of the nature of this system and my unshakable belief that there is nothing more important than humanity.

Believe me, I do not like the condition the world is in either, and it hurts me to think of all the suffering, but to put all the blame for all of the problems that exist in the world on religion alone, is pretty extreme.  I realize that there are many problems that stem from religious hatred, but there are religions that are trying to help the poverty stricken; the homeless, the downtrodden.  So how can you say that they are the cause of the world's problems, when they are doing everything to make things better?  I am not referring to the dictators who have control over the masses in order to have complete power.  I hope these regimes get overthrown once and for all.   

 


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

crazymonkie wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:
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?

Because the moderates, at best, stand aside and let the zealots do the things they're too afraid to do. Was it just the fundies in CA who passed Prop. 8? Hmm? Is there any non-religious reason for it passing? Answer: No. The non-religious reasons are weak, at best, and boil down to 'they can't biologically reproduce' (to which I say: appli-fucking-cator, sonny) or 'it's unclean' (which is another way of saying 'it's icky and I don't like it personally but I'm going to act like it's a universal truth.') So, yeah.

It's all part of the same problem: Anti-intellectualism. It is ENSHRINED in religious doctrine, 'shut the fuck up, mystery of god at work.' Whether they choose to focus on the 'positive' aspects of their religion (in Christianity's case, Jesus sacrificing himself to himself [god] because he was pissed off at the rules he'd created and wanted people to come to him of their own free will...and he made sure they'd have the free choice to do so by god giving them a binary choice between eternal bliss worshiping him or eternal torture for not doing what he said) or not, the base is the same. Any modern theologian is at least a century and a half behind; things just haven't been the same since Darwin's time, seriously.

I'm in agreement with you.  When religion starts to change laws to exclude a group of people based on a false interpretation of the bible, we are in trouble as a nation.  But this kind of bigotry cannot win.  The world is changing. People are becoming more tolerant and open-minded.  Even if they win this round, they aren't going to win the battle.   


Mao4EverBadi
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-06-26
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:risingsun

Rising Sun wrote:

risingsun wrote:
Mao4EverBadi wrote:

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 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.

Mao4everbadi wrote:
I speak from a Maoist perspective on this which is out of line with most of the online atheist community I believe. I don’t blame people for being products of their environment (not even good ol‘ Pat Robertson, see my blog post). I understand that what a person believes is largely controlled by the public opinion-molding machine which is overwhelmingly controlled by the capitalist ruling class dictators of this society who use it to get the common people to work for their interests. I don’t “crucify” the theists, I concentrate on what makes them and that is rooted in class relations.

Is the media another term for the public opinion-molding machine?  We are all products of the media to a large degree.  But I'm not sure how capitalist ruling class dictators, or the public opinion-molding machine, targets theists in particular.


Mao4everbadi wrote:
With a Maoist understanding one still looks at the world and sees the horrors brought about by religious beliefs that are held firmly in place by public opinion-molding machines in the hands of those who benefit from the psychological effects of religion on the masses and/or are wrapped up in it themselves. So rather than holding in contempt the people for simply believing things that are coming from the sources that they find most authoritative, Maoists try to gain control of the public opinion-molding machine ourselves. Doing so obviously creates conflict as the ones who control them use them to crush you before you can usually even mount a serious attempt to gain control of it, and even if you get close to having control of a public opinion-molding machine yourself (one that they don’t like) capitalist ruling class dictators will use their command of the armed forces to crush you and use the panic involved around the whole turbulence in society to instill fear into the masses and remind them what a mistake it is to ever challenge their dictatorship again. There are ways around this, if a 100% scientific approach is taken.

Do you really think that by taking over the public opinion-molding machine you can obliterate religion?  Public opinion has always influenced culture.  But you are making it sound as if the public opinion-molding machine is conspiring to control the masses through religion since those who benefit from religion psychologically are more easily controlled.  I'm not sure about that.   It seems like the Maoists don't believe that religionists have any mind of their own, and they need to be rescued from themselves.   What you describe seems more like it applies to a cult situation where public opinion is dominated by one religious figure, and where brainwashing has run rampant. 

Mao4everbadi wrote:
So, love the theist, love all poor people, hate the capitalist dictators…crucify them.  Why I feel strongly? Friends, there are children in Haiti eating cookies made of sugar, oil and dirt in an all-too-often failed effort to survive. I’m not comfortable living one second in this world in this condition, a condition in which we are far more than capable of producing food and shelter for all, yet the overwhelming majority of people are forced to enter into degrading and exploitative relationships in order to survive. My hatred towards the dictators that have led us to this horrendous condition comes from my scientific understanding of the nature of this system and my unshakable belief that there is nothing more important than humanity.

Believe me, I do not like the condition the world is in either, and it hurts me to think of all the suffering, but to put all the blame for all of the problems that exist in the world on religion alone, is pretty extreme.  I realize that there are many problems that stem from religious hatred, but there are religions that are trying to help the poverty stricken; the homeless, the downtrodden.  So how can you say that they are the cause of the world's problems, when they are doing everything to make things better?  I am not referring to the dictators who have control over the masses in order to have complete power.  I hope these regimes get overthrown once and for all.   

 

 

It would have been helpful if you'd read the link, but I'll type here. The public opinion-molding machine is not just the media, it's everything that people look to when gauging what is normal behavior. A large part of this is schools and textbook writing, but the media is a huge part of course.


What it really boils down to is that those who have the most money in this society use money/control of the public opinion-molding machine and their control of the people's very ability to survive by them having ownership of the means to produce the goods we have to have to live -- and by them controlling the flow of those goods -- to mold the public's beliefs, ergo behavior. Poor people can't afford "free speech" to equally compete in the market to mold public-opinion. Most of humanity's daily existence is wrapped up in securing their survival, not in typing comments on Internet forums, voting in polls or spending time researching topics. Unless you've experienced real poverty you might have a hard time grasping this existence. If a common person in this society chooses not to enter into exploitative relationships with someone who has what they don't, ownership of the means to produce needed or desired goods, that person faces death or jail. In chattel slavery the slave owners had to provide the very basics that it took for the slave to be able to live to work another day and reproduce more slaves in their social situation. Today the whips they used on slaves have in large part been replaced by mind control brought about by the capitalist ruling class having overwhelming control of the public opinion-molding machine. They don't need the whips when they can simply form what you think is normal, and today for the large majority of humanity "normal" is entering into degrading and exploitative relationships with a capitalist who give wages that translate to being just enough to make it to work another week and keep your head above the water enough to reproduce more people in your condition for them to keep up the viscous cycle.

Theists aren't targeted with the public opinion-molding machine, theists are a product of this machine coupled with the environment they've experienced. At any time those who produce textbooks could start presenting atheism differently, media could, etc.. and this would drastically change the environment and within generations they'd be tremendous change, but they don't, they continue to prop up religion. The battle the "atheist movement" is facing is directly with the capitalist ruling class, but many choose to blame the people for simply doing what Dawkins said people are naturally inclined to do, and that's go to the sources that they find most authoritative to determine what is true/normal about the world. These sources are more authoritative because they have more funds backing them (humans likes shiny stuff it seems) and the ability to provide people with our survival needs.

And no, I don't think religion can be obliterated immediately by having control of the public opinion-molding machine. It'll be around for a few generations more and if the application of the public opinion-molding machine was a failure then I imagine religion could persist in very very small pockets, but could never ever return to anything like what we have today. Reason being, that scientific ideas have a different nature than religious ideas. Scientific ideas are born out of experiments and demonstration and having been demonstrated the truth of something in a scientific way makes it all but impossible to abandon your knowledge of that demonstration. Two generations of youth properly educated on matters of science and religion would be kind of like a nuclear bomb being dropped on a small island for religion, life could come back, but it'd have to start from scratch or blow over from somewhere else. By then there'd be plenty of means to combat it, such as the school history books that we've written explaining the horrors of what religion did to humanity in the past.


If you'd read my blog you’d know that you're far off target in your telling me that I think the masses, theists or otherwise, don't have a mind of their own. The public opinion-molding machine is not omnipotent by any means, it simply controls what is considered normal behavior in society and that is where mind control aspects that tie directly to our natural instincts are exploited most viscously. It's not that the theists are running around just eating up whatever TV/preacher person tells them, some certainly do out of fear, but more than anything they want to be included in and be at peace with the group they're around.

Okay you really misunderstand me if you think I blame religion. Religion is rooted in class relations as I've been making the case for here and on my blog. Religious beliefs most often aid the ruling class dictators (not a regime, these are the individuals who own the means to produce needed and desire goods and who don't have to sell their ability to labor in order to survive) ergo they use their resources to keep it going. Groups like the RRS are at the forefront of this major problem facing the ruling class. Because people have become educated enough through grassroots efforts, the ruling class is finding it increasingly difficult to prop up religion anymore, but at the same time they benefit from the "atheist movement" because it provides the essential fear it needs to get the masses to believe, ergo behave as they want. Money is flowing into the hands of the most evil people in our society because of the atheist movement. The situation now doesn't call for them to do so, but if you're truly challenging their dictatorship (the loss of religion to them a mere hindrance) they'll use their command of the armed forces to crush you and their public opinion-molding machine to disgrace you to the point that few later on will even bother to engage what you put forth no matter how true it may be..cough Smiling Thanks Rising Sun, I hope you're well.


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

latincanuck wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

I don't think the original intention of religion was to create bigots, and to justify behavior that is based on barbaric traditions.  But you are right in that religion avails itself of this kind of behavior.  It seems as if the ego that causes separation and division, will do whatever it takes defend itself, and this comes out most blatantly in religious wars over the desire for political, religious, and even economic control.

It justified behavior towards women, towards others outside of the tribe, of course it was created using those pre-existing hatred and bigotry. In the Torah (OT) women are the cause of sin, women are dirty and shouldn't be touched during menstrual cycle, and many take it literally, many orthodox jews will not touch a woman nor look at her into her eyes. Same goes for homophobic tendencies. If you look at the torah it pretty much sets up a US vs THEM mentality. That it's ok to have slaves, just not jewish slaves, it's ok to kill, just not to kill jews. I mean most of the laws in the OT is that, don't do it to jews, but it's ok towards others. Lets not forget we then have the quran which has it's own bigotry and views towards women, of course the bible, built on already existing book the torah, and various other religions throughout history use pre-existing bigotry or hatred towards women or other identifiable groups.

Rising Sun wrote:

I am sure that the build up of anti-semitism came gradually through the negative influence of earlier writings.  Jews being made into a scapegoat then followed as everything that went wrong was blamed on them.  They became all that was wrong with the world, and it was fueled by religious hatred.  This exemplifies the epitome of what can happen when religious doctrine is used to justify hatred and genocide on a large scale. 

The Nazi's really took it to the next level, but the nazi's antisemitic movement starts really back in 1500's. With Martin Luther trying to convert the jews to christianity, starting off with the idea of being nice to the jews because christ was a born a jew but tried to convert the jewish to chrsitianity, but since the jewish didn't accept the divinity of christ, his failed attempts made him bitter towards the jews. This bitterness resulted in his 2 books mentioned earlier, and many of his sermons he argued that the synagogues and the homes of jews should be destroyed or seized, their money confiscated, their rabbis forbbidden to preach, and their liberties to be curtailed, or they should be expelled from Germany for all of time or forced into hard labour. Now much of this occurred before his books, and then of course it got worse for jews after he wrote it, as he was one of the most popular writers of his generation. With this said, when Josel of Roshiem, a jewish spokesman asked the mayor of Strasbourg to stop the sale of the book, the mayor stopped, until a Lutheran priest urged people in his sermon to kill the jews. This is the justification, well the source for the antisemitic movement the Nazi's used extensively throughout their own propaganda, as it was already there and any good christian would have followed the Lutheran church founder (the Nazi's gained allot of votes from the Lutheran/Protestant areas). The odd thing is Luther was not really against Jews as a race, but as a religion, while the nazi's took it to the racial level, instead of the religous level.

Rising Sun wrote:

I see your point and I agree that the Bible, if taken literally, can cause extreme harm.  The world is in its infancy as far as how far we have left to go to get to the point where the Bible is no longer used for convenience; and where certain passages are not misconstrued in order to permit the killing of those whose beliefs are different.  As to whether the Bible will no longer be considered the 'gospel', I believe that day is coming but not in our lifetime.  That doesn't mean the fight is not a worthy one.  Each person that is deprogrammed is a step in the right direction.  It's a valient fight that must be won.

This will pretty much continue we will always have a us vs them mentality, just with religion I see it that tends to get much worse really. Well with any type of dogmatic belief system it can get far worse.

You know so much about history which is not easy reading.  I appreciate your hard work to understand why we are the way we are.  But even with knowledge of our ancestors and their fight for freedom, I don't think anyone has a crystal ball.  All we can do is respond in a kind way to others who may not know what we know.  Kindness breeds kindness, and anger breeds anger.  That's one aspect of the bible I believe is true. Eye-wink


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Mao4EverBadi wrote:Rising

Mao4EverBadi wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

risingsun wrote:
Mao4EverBadi wrote:

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 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.

Mao4everbadi wrote:
I speak from a Maoist perspective on this which is out of line with most of the online atheist community I believe. I don’t blame people for being products of their environment (not even good ol‘ Pat Robertson, see my blog post). I understand that what a person believes is largely controlled by the public opinion-molding machine which is overwhelmingly controlled by the capitalist ruling class dictators of this society who use it to get the common people to work for their interests. I don’t “crucify” the theists, I concentrate on what makes them and that is rooted in class relations.

Is the media another term for the public opinion-molding machine?  We are all products of the media to a large degree.  But I'm not sure how capitalist ruling class dictators, or the public opinion-molding machine, targets theists in particular.


Mao4everbadi wrote:
With a Maoist understanding one still looks at the world and sees the horrors brought about by religious beliefs that are held firmly in place by public opinion-molding machines in the hands of those who benefit from the psychological effects of religion on the masses and/or are wrapped up in it themselves. So rather than holding in contempt the people for simply believing things that are coming from the sources that they find most authoritative, Maoists try to gain control of the public opinion-molding machine ourselves. Doing so obviously creates conflict as the ones who control them use them to crush you before you can usually even mount a serious attempt to gain control of it, and even if you get close to having control of a public opinion-molding machine yourself (one that they don’t like) capitalist ruling class dictators will use their command of the armed forces to crush you and use the panic involved around the whole turbulence in society to instill fear into the masses and remind them what a mistake it is to ever challenge their dictatorship again. There are ways around this, if a 100% scientific approach is taken.

Do you really think that by taking over the public opinion-molding machine you can obliterate religion?  Public opinion has always influenced culture.  But you are making it sound as if the public opinion-molding machine is conspiring to control the masses through religion since those who benefit from religion psychologically are more easily controlled.  I'm not sure about that.   It seems like the Maoists don't believe that religionists have any mind of their own, and they need to be rescued from themselves.   What you describe seems more like it applies to a cult situation where public opinion is dominated by one religious figure, and where brainwashing has run rampant. 

Mao4everbadi wrote:
So, love the theist, love all poor people, hate the capitalist dictators…crucify them.  Why I feel strongly? Friends, there are children in Haiti eating cookies made of sugar, oil and dirt in an all-too-often failed effort to survive. I’m not comfortable living one second in this world in this condition, a condition in which we are far more than capable of producing food and shelter for all, yet the overwhelming majority of people are forced to enter into degrading and exploitative relationships in order to survive. My hatred towards the dictators that have led us to this horrendous condition comes from my scientific understanding of the nature of this system and my unshakable belief that there is nothing more important than humanity.

Believe me, I do not like the condition the world is in either, and it hurts me to think of all the suffering, but to put all the blame for all of the problems that exist in the world on religion alone, is pretty extreme.  I realize that there are many problems that stem from religious hatred, but there are religions that are trying to help the poverty stricken; the homeless, the downtrodden.  So how can you say that they are the cause of the world's problems, when they are doing everything to make things better?  I am not referring to the dictators who have control over the masses in order to have complete power.  I hope these regimes get overthrown once and for all.   

 

 

It would have been helpful if you'd read the link, but I'll type here. The public opinion-molding machine is not just the media, it's everything that people look to when gauging what is normal behavior. A large part of this is schools and textbook writing, but the media is a huge part of course.


What it really boils down to is that those who have the most money in this society use money/control of the public opinion-molding machine and their control of the people's very ability to survive by them having ownership of the means to produce the goods we have to have to live -- and by them controlling the flow of those goods -- to mold the public's beliefs, ergo behavior. Poor people can't afford "free speech" to equally compete in the market to mold public-opinion. Most of humanity's daily existence is wrapped up in securing their survival, not in typing comments on Internet forums, voting in polls or spending time researching topics. Unless you've experienced real poverty you might have a hard time grasping this existence. If a common person in this society chooses not to enter into exploitative relationships with someone who has what they don't, ownership of the means to produce needed or desired goods, that person faces death or jail. In chattel slavery the slave owners had to provide the very basics that it took for the slave to be able to live to work another day and reproduce more slaves in their social situation. Today the whips they used on slaves have in large part been replaced by mind control brought about by the capitalist ruling class having overwhelming control of the public opinion-molding machine. They don't need the whips when they can simply form what you think is normal, and today for the large majority of humanity "normal" is entering into degrading and exploitative relationships with a capitalist who give wages that translate to being just enough to make it to work another week and keep your head above the water enough to reproduce more people in your condition for them to keep up the viscous cycle.

Theists aren't targeted with the public opinion-molding machine, theists are a product of this machine coupled with the environment they've experienced. At any time those who produce textbooks could start presenting atheism differently, media could, etc.. and this would drastically change the environment and within generations they'd be tremendous change, but they don't, they continue to prop up religion. The battle the "atheist movement" is facing is directly with the capitalist ruling class, but many choose to blame the people for simply doing what Dawkins said people are naturally inclined to do, and that's go to the sources that they find most authoritative to determine what is true/normal about the world. These sources are more authoritative because they have more funds backing them (humans likes shiny stuff it seems) and the ability to provide people with our survival needs.

And no, I don't think religion can be obliterated immediately by having control of the public opinion-molding machine. It'll be around for a few generations more and if the application of the public opinion-molding machine was a failure then I imagine religion could persist in very very small pockets, but could never ever return to anything like what we have today. Reason being, that scientific ideas have a different nature than religious ideas. Scientific ideas are born out of experiments and demonstration and having been demonstrated the truth of something in a scientific way makes it all but impossible to abandon your knowledge of that demonstration. Two generations of youth properly educated on matters of science and religion would be kind of like a nuclear bomb being dropped on a small island for religion, life could come back, but it'd have to start from scratch or blow over from somewhere else. By then there'd be plenty of means to combat it, such as the school history books that we've written explaining the horrors of what religion did to humanity in the past.


If you'd read my blog you’d know that you're far off target in your telling me that I think the masses, theists or otherwise, don't have a mind of their own. The public opinion-molding machine is not omnipotent by any means, it simply controls what is considered normal behavior in society and that is where mind control aspects that tie directly to our natural instincts are exploited most viscously. It's not that the theists are running around just eating up whatever TV/preacher person tells them, some certainly do out of fear, but more than anything they want to be included in and be at peace with the group they're around.

Okay you really misunderstand me if you think I blame religion. Religion is rooted in class relations as I've been making the case for here and on my blog. Religious beliefs most often aid the ruling class dictators (not a regime, these are the individuals who own the means to produce needed and desire goods and who don't have to sell their ability to labor in order to survive) ergo they use their resources to keep it going. Groups like the RRS are at the forefront of this major problem facing the ruling class. Because people have become educated enough through grassroots efforts, the ruling class is finding it increasingly difficult to prop up religion anymore, but at the same time they benefit from the "atheist movement" because it provides the essential fear it needs to get the masses to believe, ergo behave as they want. Money is flowing into the hands of the most evil people in our society because of the atheist movement. The situation now doesn't call for them to do so, but if you're truly challenging their dictatorship (the loss of religion to them a mere hindrance) they'll use their command of the armed forces to crush you and their public opinion-molding machine to disgrace you to the point that few later on will even bother to engage what you put forth no matter how true it may be..cough Smiling Thanks Rising Sun, I hope you're well.

I still don't understand the connection between mind control and slavery.  Mind control might be a consequence of our culture where those on the top echelon influence the masses.  But I don't think that this is similar to slavery which justified harsh treatment of people who were not considered human beings.  And I also have a problem with blaming religion for everything.  Yes, there are despots in every part of the world who use religion to manipulate the masses.  But this is not what all religion is about.  Yes, it is true that some of the teachings of religion are not based on science, but the messages that are shared are based on love and forgiveness.  If this is a means to an end, even if the story behind the message is not completely accurate, so be it.  If people are helped by these teachings even if Jesus is not a true figure by scientific standards, so be it.  If Jesus never rose from the dead, but the belief that he did helps to give people a second chance at life, so be it.  Where does science come off to take away the one thing that has helped to heal the broken, the needy, the poor, and the dying?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:You know so

Rising Sun wrote:

You know so much about history which is not easy reading.  I appreciate your hard work to understand why we are the way we are.  But even with knowledge of our ancestors and their fight for freedom, I don't think anyone has a crystal ball.  All we can do is respond in a kind way to others who may not know what we know.  Kindness breeds kindness, and anger breeds anger.  That's one aspect of the bible I believe is true. Eye-wink

So does buddhism, Hinduism and various other religions. However it is the other teachings that cause the problem

The one statement from buddha that I loved is this one "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Education is paramount for me, and I try to learn everyday something new, that's it that's all. To hide behind the ignorance of ancient texts that people try to pass off and great books of wisdoms, like the bible, the quran, the torah and various other ones, without truly looking at those books for what they are, and what they teach, is probably the biggest problem he have in our society in regards to moving forward and having a better society over all.


Mao4EverBadi
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-06-26
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun

Rising Sun wrote:

Mao4EverBadi wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

risingsun wrote:
Mao4EverBadi wrote:

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 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.

Mao4everbadi wrote:
I speak from a Maoist perspective on this which is out of line with most of the online atheist community I believe. I don’t blame people for being products of their environment (not even good ol‘ Pat Robertson, see my blog post). I understand that what a person believes is largely controlled by the public opinion-molding machine which is overwhelmingly controlled by the capitalist ruling class dictators of this society who use it to get the common people to work for their interests. I don’t “crucify” the theists, I concentrate on what makes them and that is rooted in class relations.

Is the media another term for the public opinion-molding machine?  We are all products of the media to a large degree.  But I'm not sure how capitalist ruling class dictators, or the public opinion-molding machine, targets theists in particular.


Mao4everbadi wrote:
With a Maoist understanding one still looks at the world and sees the horrors brought about by religious beliefs that are held firmly in place by public opinion-molding machines in the hands of those who benefit from the psychological effects of religion on the masses and/or are wrapped up in it themselves. So rather than holding in contempt the people for simply believing things that are coming from the sources that they find most authoritative, Maoists try to gain control of the public opinion-molding machine ourselves. Doing so obviously creates conflict as the ones who control them use them to crush you before you can usually even mount a serious attempt to gain control of it, and even if you get close to having control of a public opinion-molding machine yourself (one that they don’t like) capitalist ruling class dictators will use their command of the armed forces to crush you and use the panic involved around the whole turbulence in society to instill fear into the masses and remind them what a mistake it is to ever challenge their dictatorship again. There are ways around this, if a 100% scientific approach is taken.

Do you really think that by taking over the public opinion-molding machine you can obliterate religion?  Public opinion has always influenced culture.  But you are making it sound as if the public opinion-molding machine is conspiring to control the masses through religion since those who benefit from religion psychologically are more easily controlled.  I'm not sure about that.   It seems like the Maoists don't believe that religionists have any mind of their own, and they need to be rescued from themselves.   What you describe seems more like it applies to a cult situation where public opinion is dominated by one religious figure, and where brainwashing has run rampant. 

Mao4everbadi wrote:
So, love the theist, love all poor people, hate the capitalist dictators…crucify them.  Why I feel strongly? Friends, there are children in Haiti eating cookies made of sugar, oil and dirt in an all-too-often failed effort to survive. I’m not comfortable living one second in this world in this condition, a condition in which we are far more than capable of producing food and shelter for all, yet the overwhelming majority of people are forced to enter into degrading and exploitative relationships in order to survive. My hatred towards the dictators that have led us to this horrendous condition comes from my scientific understanding of the nature of this system and my unshakable belief that there is nothing more important than humanity.

Believe me, I do not like the condition the world is in either, and it hurts me to think of all the suffering, but to put all the blame for all of the problems that exist in the world on religion alone, is pretty extreme.  I realize that there are many problems that stem from religious hatred, but there are religions that are trying to help the poverty stricken; the homeless, the downtrodden.  So how can you say that they are the cause of the world's problems, when they are doing everything to make things better?  I am not referring to the dictators who have control over the masses in order to have complete power.  I hope these regimes get overthrown once and for all.   

 

 

It would have been helpful if you'd read the link, but I'll type here. The public opinion-molding machine is not just the media, it's everything that people look to when gauging what is normal behavior. A large part of this is schools and textbook writing, but the media is a huge part of course.


What it really boils down to is that those who have the most money in this society use money/control of the public opinion-molding machine and their control of the people's very ability to survive by them having ownership of the means to produce the goods we have to have to live -- and by them controlling the flow of those goods -- to mold the public's beliefs, ergo behavior. Poor people can't afford "free speech" to equally compete in the market to mold public-opinion. Most of humanity's daily existence is wrapped up in securing their survival, not in typing comments on Internet forums, voting in polls or spending time researching topics. Unless you've experienced real poverty you might have a hard time grasping this existence. If a common person in this society chooses not to enter into exploitative relationships with someone who has what they don't, ownership of the means to produce needed or desired goods, that person faces death or jail. In chattel slavery the slave owners had to provide the very basics that it took for the slave to be able to live to work another day and reproduce more slaves in their social situation. Today the whips they used on slaves have in large part been replaced by mind control brought about by the capitalist ruling class having overwhelming control of the public opinion-molding machine. They don't need the whips when they can simply form what you think is normal, and today for the large majority of humanity "normal" is entering into degrading and exploitative relationships with a capitalist who give wages that translate to being just enough to make it to work another week and keep your head above the water enough to reproduce more people in your condition for them to keep up the viscous cycle.

Theists aren't targeted with the public opinion-molding machine, theists are a product of this machine coupled with the environment they've experienced. At any time those who produce textbooks could start presenting atheism differently, media could, etc.. and this would drastically change the environment and within generations they'd be tremendous change, but they don't, they continue to prop up religion. The battle the "atheist movement" is facing is directly with the capitalist ruling class, but many choose to blame the people for simply doing what Dawkins said people are naturally inclined to do, and that's go to the sources that they find most authoritative to determine what is true/normal about the world. These sources are more authoritative because they have more funds backing them (humans likes shiny stuff it seems) and the ability to provide people with our survival needs.

And no, I don't think religion can be obliterated immediately by having control of the public opinion-molding machine. It'll be around for a few generations more and if the application of the public opinion-molding machine was a failure then I imagine religion could persist in very very small pockets, but could never ever return to anything like what we have today. Reason being, that scientific ideas have a different nature than religious ideas. Scientific ideas are born out of experiments and demonstration and having been demonstrated the truth of something in a scientific way makes it all but impossible to abandon your knowledge of that demonstration. Two generations of youth properly educated on matters of science and religion would be kind of like a nuclear bomb being dropped on a small island for religion, life could come back, but it'd have to start from scratch or blow over from somewhere else. By then there'd be plenty of means to combat it, such as the school history books that we've written explaining the horrors of what religion did to humanity in the past.


If you'd read my blog you’d know that you're far off target in your telling me that I think the masses, theists or otherwise, don't have a mind of their own. The public opinion-molding machine is not omnipotent by any means, it simply controls what is considered normal behavior in society and that is where mind control aspects that tie directly to our natural instincts are exploited most viscously. It's not that the theists are running around just eating up whatever TV/preacher person tells them, some certainly do out of fear, but more than anything they want to be included in and be at peace with the group they're around.

Okay you really misunderstand me if you think I blame religion. Religion is rooted in class relations as I've been making the case for here and on my blog. Religious beliefs most often aid the ruling class dictators (not a regime, these are the individuals who own the means to produce needed and desire goods and who don't have to sell their ability to labor in order to survive) ergo they use their resources to keep it going. Groups like the RRS are at the forefront of this major problem facing the ruling class. Because people have become educated enough through grassroots efforts, the ruling class is finding it increasingly difficult to prop up religion anymore, but at the same time they benefit from the "atheist movement" because it provides the essential fear it needs to get the masses to believe, ergo behave as they want. Money is flowing into the hands of the most evil people in our society because of the atheist movement. The situation now doesn't call for them to do so, but if you're truly challenging their dictatorship (the loss of religion to them a mere hindrance) they'll use their command of the armed forces to crush you and their public opinion-molding machine to disgrace you to the point that few later on will even bother to engage what you put forth no matter how true it may be..cough Smiling Thanks Rising Sun, I hope you're well.

I still don't understand the connection between mind control and slavery.  Mind control might be a consequence of our culture where those on the top echelon influence the masses.  But I don't think that this is similar to slavery which justified harsh treatment of people who were not considered human beings.  And I also have a problem with blaming religion for everything.  Yes, there are despots in every part of the world who use religion to manipulate the masses.  But this is not what all religion is about.  Yes, it is true that some of the teachings of religion are not based on science, but the messages that are shared are based on love and forgiveness.  If this is a means to an end, even if the story behind the message is not completely accurate, so be it.  If people are helped by these teachings even if Jesus is not a true figure by scientific standards, so be it.  If Jesus never rose from the dead, but the belief that he did helps to give people a second chance at life, so be it.  Where does science come off to take away the one thing that has helped to heal the broken, the needy, the poor, and the dying?

You've said that you at least have some understanding of the effects of the public opinion-molding machine on people's beliefs. With that understanding please watch this video that I compiled addressing the issue of slavery.

If you're looking at problems with the approach of what's best for the individuals, then you're doing it wrong, start asking and answering questions in terms of what's best for humanity and it's clearly and horrendously bad for us to have a psychological belief on hold with a large portion of the masses that there is indeed something more important than humanity (gods/religious beliefs) and this life (next one). These beliefs make many people very mentally lazy and provides the psychology that it's okay to be exploited because that's god's plan and all will be okay when I die anyway, it encourages anti-scientific thought (and scientific thought is essential to break this dictatorship)..on and on. I'm sure you can find many extensive writings on the unhealthiness of Christianity to humanity on this site.


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

latincanuck wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

You know so much about history which is not easy reading.  I appreciate your hard work to understand why we are the way we are.  But even with knowledge of our ancestors and their fight for freedom, I don't think anyone has a crystal ball.  All we can do is respond in a kind way to others who may not know what we know.  Kindness breeds kindness, and anger breeds anger.  That's one aspect of the bible I believe is true. Eye-wink

So does buddhism, Hinduism and various other religions. However it is the other teachings that cause the problem

The one statement from buddha that I loved is this one "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Education is paramount for me, and I try to learn everyday something new, that's it that's all. To hide behind the ignorance of ancient texts that people try to pass off and great books of wisdoms, like the bible, the quran, the torah and various other ones, without truly looking at those books for what they are, and what they teach, is probably the biggest problem he have in our society in regards to moving forward and having a better society over all.

I am in total agreement.  Eye-wink  If you would like to read a book that has had a major impact on my life, I will link you to it.  It is not a religious book, so don't worry.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Thank you Mao4everbadi

Thank you Mao4everbadi for the link.  I went to it but it kept cutting off.  I will try to listen to the rest tomorrow.  I'm on the part about feudalism.  Are you a professor by any chance?  The way you speak on the video is very professional and engaging. Smiling


Mao4EverBadi
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-06-26
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:Thank you

Rising Sun wrote:

Thank you Mao4everbadi for the link.  I went to it but it kept cutting off.  I will try to listen to the rest tomorrow.  I'm on the part about feudalism.  Are you a professor by any chance?  The way you speak on the video is very professional and engaging. Smiling

I'm a professor, very unorthodox, but yes a professor of sorts. But no, that is not me on the video. That is Bob Avakian, as noted at the start. I don't support the RCP as I've repeatedly stated on here, but I do think Bob Avakian is one of the best teachers who's ever walked the planet. I selected that section out of a 3 hour or so talk to address what you were putting forth. There does appear to be issues with the embedded player there, but if you just click the link above you can download the 30mb or so file and play it locally on your computer.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:[I am in

Rising Sun wrote:

[

I am in total agreement.  Eye-wink  If you would like to read a book that has had a major impact on my life, I will link you to it.  It is not a religious book, so don't worry.

sure send it along


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
risingsun[quote=latincanuck

risingsun[quote=latincanuck wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

 

I am in total agreement.  Eye-wink  If you would like to read a book that has had a major impact on my life, I will link you to it.  It is not a religious book, so don't worry.

sure send it along

Thanks for your interest latincanuck.  I think I will start a new thread so people, who don't read this one, will have the link to it.  I will let you know where I posted it. 

 

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote: This

Rising Sun wrote:

 This spiritual way of looking at the world gives me a good feeling regardless of whether it is an accurate view or not.

OK doesn't this show that religion is a drug? When the world has a better drugs than religion against depression and anxiety, religion will die out.

 

 

Rising Sun wrote:

My spirituality does not rape, kill, or tell others what to do, so why condemn me? Sad

I can't condemn you, remember there's no hell to condemn you to go.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


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

risingsun wrote:
EXC wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

 This spiritual way of looking at the world gives me a good feeling regardless of whether it is an accurate view or not.

OK doesn't this show that religion is a drug? When the world has a better drugs than religion against depression and anxiety, religion will die out.

I don't believe you can compare religion to a drug because religion brings comfort to those who are searching for meaning when there is so much suffering in the world.  Drugs cannot fill that void.

 

 

risingsun wrote:
Rising Sun wrote:

My spirituality does not rape, kill, or tell others what to do, so why condemn me? Sad

I can't condemn you, remember there's no hell to condemn you to go.

I didn't mean condemn in the sense of being condemned to hell, but you still might condemn me for being spiritual which does not cause religious wars, hatred, or killing.  I wonder if atheists are spiritual which is not the same thing as being religious.  I really hope so because without experiencing the wonder of consciousness itself, we could lose our appreciation for being here on earth, and life could become pretty mundane.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote: I don't

Rising Sun wrote:

 I don't believe you can compare religion to a drug because religion brings comfort to those who are searching for meaning when there is so much suffering in the world.  Drugs cannot fill that void. 

Have you ever been around a drug or sex addict? Drugs become the meaning of life. Everything starts and ends with drugs. There is no life that can be imagined without them. Isn't this the reason why moralists tell us drugs must be illegal? I don't see how religion is all that different.

And why can't man live without a meaning for life? Why must not having a meaning cause depression? How does life with a deity give life more meaning than one without a deity? Religion tells us this life doesn't matter except to get into heaven.

Rising Sun wrote:

you still might condemn me for being spiritual which does not cause religious wars, hatred, or killing. 

Suppose we wanted to design a society without wars, crime and poverty. One where people could pursue happiness and pleasure. How could this be done?

How do we design airplanes that don't crash? How do we design medicine that cures and does no harm? By going with hunches and feelings? By saying this life doesn't matter, all that matters is heaven? By praying that something will work?

No! It's by following a logical process where the only thing scientists and engineers believe is what can be empirically verified. Hunches and intuition are tested for their validity.

You only want to fly in airplanes proven to work through a rational/scientific method. So, why don't you only want to live in a society designed to work through a rational/scientific method?

Rising Sun wrote:

 I really hope so because without experiencing the wonder of consciousness itself, we could lose our appreciation for being here on earth, and life could become pretty mundane.

Why does it require a deity to experience "the wonder of consciousness"? Religion teaches us that life here on earth sucks, just suffer through it to get to heaven.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


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

risingsun wrote:
EXC wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

 I don't believe you can compare religion to a drug because religion brings comfort to those who are searching for meaning when there is so much suffering in the world.  Drugs cannot fill that void. 

Have you ever been around a drug or sex addict? Drugs become the meaning of life. Everything starts and ends with drugs. There is no life that can be imagined without them. Isn't this the reason why moralists tell us drugs must be illegal? I don't see how religion is all that different.

Yes I have, my son was on drugs after his friend commit suicide.  He is better now, thank goodness, and part of his recovery was his study at a yeshiva in Israel.  I don't have the same commitment as he does, but it has helped him and if you are a parent you don't care what helps, just so your child gets well.  I don't know if the reason moralists tell us that drugs should be illegal is because people who are hooked can't believe life can be lived without them, or because the moralists believe there is a better way to live.  And they might be right because drugs are a temporary fix at best, and can kill you.  For those who are suffering so badly that they need something to believe in, religion often comes to the rescue when suicide looks like the only option.  If someone is helped through religion, how can anyone begrudge this, even if the storyline is not completely accurate?  Who cares, if it can save a life from destruction.

EXC wrote:
And why can't man live without a meaning for life? Why must not having a meaning cause depression? How does life with a deity give life more meaning than one without a deity? Religion tells us this life doesn't matter except to get into heaven.

You have four questions.  Kind of sounds like Passover with the four questions at the Sedar table.  Eye-wink  Why can't man live without meaning?  Why does this cause depression?  How does life with a deity give life more meaning than without one?  And if this is so why does religion make life seem so unimportant next to heaven, which is the ultimate reward?

I don't have all the answers but what I believe is that man can easily live without meaning, but he won't live a fulfilled life.  There has to be a feeling of purpose in one's life, otherwise one will exist, not live.   Depression could be the result of a life that feels insignificant, without meaning or purpose.  When a person suddenly finds a purpose, depression often disappears.  Life with a deity gives hope to people suffering from so many ailments.  It is the hope that things will be better that keeps people afloat.  The source of this hope comes from something bigger than all of us, and people call this entity god. 

It is true that when people are not suffering, they don't need to believe because they are not struggling.  It is only when someone is brought to his knees that he truly reaches out for help and often it takes the form of the belief in a higher power.  Not all religions use threats of going to hell to get people to conform.  In fact, many religions are not fear based.  I believe this is an important difference, and your objection to this type of manipulation is well founded but it doesn't negate the good that religion can offer when there is nothing left to hang onto especially when life doesn't make sense.

 

Rising Sun wrote:

you still might condemn me for being spiritual which does not cause religious wars, hatred, or killing. 

EXC wrote:
Suppose we wanted to design a society without wars, crime and poverty. One where people could pursue happiness and pleasure. How could this be done?

How do we design airplanes that don't crash? How do we design medicine that cures and does no harm? By going with hunches and feelings? By saying this life doesn't matter, all that matters is heaven? By praying that something will work?

No! It's by following a logical process where the only thing scientists and engineers believe is what can be empirically verified. Hunches and intuition are tested for their validity.

I agree with you that it takes more than prayer to achieve true breakthroughs.  But some of our biggest questions cannot be answererd by science, at least not yet, so we must have hope that the answers will come.  To say that this hope is pie in the sky, is not completely accurate.  There are many times hope is not in vain.  I can hope that I will get well from a serious illness that no medicine can cure, and when i do get well i attritute it to god.  Some might call it nature.  By the same token, having hope through religion does not mean that science and religion can't work together. One does not necessarily exclude the other.

 

 

Rising Sun wrote:

 I really hope so because without experiencing the wonder of consciousness itself, we could lose our appreciation for being here on earth, and life could become pretty mundane.

EXC wrote:
Why does it require a deity to experience "the wonder of consciousness"? Religion teaches us that life here on earth sucks, just suffer through it to get to heaven.

That is the Christian experience.  But as I just mentioned not all religions use this tactic to get people to conform to the practices of a particular religion.  In fact, Judaism teaches that it is here on earth that we need to concentrate our efforts.  It seems that the word religion, in the context of this forum, is mainly the orthodox religions that have pushed their ideas on everyone else, and have used fear tactics as a means to an end.  I applaud you for condemning this type of bullying, but you can't throw out the baby with the bathwater.  That's all I'm saying.

 

EXC wrote:
You only want to fly in airplanes proven to work through a rational/scientific method. So, why don't you only want to live in a society designed to work through a rational/scientific method?

The scientific method has a very important place in our world, but to exclude all things spiritual is cutting off an important part of what makes life full of wonder.  Religious doctrine, on the other hand; the kind the threatens people with the wrath of god, will die a natural death when it is no longer needed.  Until then, the atheists are fighting an uphill battle.  


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:I don't

Rising Sun wrote:

I don't have all the answers but what I believe is that man can easily live without meaning, but he won't live a fulfilled life.  There has to be a feeling of purpose in one's life, otherwise one will exist, not live. 

Well, that why my brand of atheism is unabashed hedonist. The goal of life is to achieve 'sustained unipolar euphoric mania'. I think other types of atheist can fall into this nihilist trap.

 

Rising Sun wrote:

 Religious doctrine, on the other hand; the kind the threatens people with the wrath of god, will die a natural death when it is no longer needed.  Until then, the atheists are fighting an uphill battle.  

Yes, God is becoming more user friendly(God 2.0). But the truth and technology are on our side, so it's just a matter of time.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen