Recovering from religion ?

Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Recovering from religion ?

   I was watching "The God Viruis" on YouTube,and I followed this link   recoveringreligionists.com/


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 I do agree with the

 I do agree with the principal that we atheists need to support each other and encourage others to leave and cope with leaving religion.  However, I think groups like this can cause more harm than good. When people gather around for a common cause, they can say and do some stupid things. I saw that on the site, and in Ray`s book.

 

Don`t tell Hamby this, but I agree with him when he says that we need to offer a social alternative to religion, but it shouldn`t be centered around atheism. There are tons of secular groups out there that have nothing to do with atheism, such as the local softball team, or the swimming club. The groups don`t need to focus on atheism, or a lack of belief, in fact they shouldn`t.

 

Religion will only become a non-issue, when we MAKE it a non-issue.

 

 


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:when we MAKE it a non-issue.

       Well,I would have to disagree with that sentiment,being a MILITANT Atheist.I see religion as the most absurd thinking out in society. However ! I think that if Humankind survives Global Warming he will still worship stupidity.I do however hope that all religion gets abolished,they destroy thinking skills. I believe in Freethought.

Signature ? How ?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I would agree we shouldn't

I would agree we shouldn't try and center any broader group intending to provide a secular alternative to religion around the specific idea of atheism, but rather around the grouping of rationalism/freethought/sceptic groups.

But hasn't this already been tried?

It seems that once you try to broaden it beyond atheism, it all gets very fuzzy, and even less clearly defined than "lack of God-belief".

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It seems

BobSpence1 wrote:

It seems that once you try to broaden it beyond atheism, it all gets very fuzzy, and even less clearly defined than "lack of God-belief".

Theirs little to organize around other than lack of belief. Atheists come in all shapes and sizes. Freethought groups etc bore me after a while because it seems all they talk about is religion... I like other stuff more than that, so I get bored and don't participate... RRS is enough for me.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

.... but I agree with him when he says that we need to offer a social alternative to religion,

 

Pineapple, are you suggesting we all throw our car keys on the table, kind of deal?

 

I'm in!

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
I will join your group if

I will join your group if there is a cheese plate. 

 

An ATHEIST cheese plate!  Laughing out loud

 

Robb

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I do

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 I do agree with the principal that we atheists need to support each other and encourage others to leave and cope with leaving religion.  However, I think groups like this can cause more harm than good. When people gather around for a common cause, they can say and do some stupid things. I saw that on the site, and in Ray`s book.

 

Don`t tell Hamby this, but I agree with him when he says that we need to offer a social alternative to religion, but it shouldn`t be centered around atheism. There are tons of secular groups out there that have nothing to do with atheism, such as the local softball team, or the swimming club. The groups don`t need to focus on atheism, or a lack of belief, in fact they shouldn`t.

 

Religion will only become a non-issue, when we MAKE it a non-issue.

 

 

I don't see religious people making it a non issue any time soon so as long as they make it an issue then we have an obligation to counter their superstitions.

Thats like if a group of people said, "The earth is flat"

And we said, "Whose it hurting if they want to believe the earth is flat"

The best that we can do, because religion isn't going anywhere any time soon, is to be it's vigilant counter part to prevent it from dumbing  down society in the classroom, and to prevent it from gaining absolute power in government.

If religion were treated like a favorite board game, or sporting team, and not the serious political power it always pushes for, then it would be a non-issue.

I think it would be unwise, for even the religious people to "make it a non issue" because as long as it is ignored the more potential for abuse there is. Just like in the early days of Hitler. He took a little at a time and after a while it was too late for any caring Jew or German to do anything about.

This is not a label issue, this is a human nature issue. As long as a political  and or religious body has enough power to push for more power there is the potential for absolute power, and the only way to counter this is to make their power and their claims they use to gain power, the issue. It is what maintains their freedom and ours.

I don't remember who said this  and I am paraphrasing, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

Checks and balances require making EVERY issue an issue. Without questioning the powers that be, REGARDLESS of label, you will give up your power to keep them in check.

I do agree that we need to push for a better society where our politicians are voted for, not based on religious or political label, but performance. But as long as someone goes around claiming absurdities, it is our duty to challenge those absurdities.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I noticed on that link there

I noticed on that link there is a picture of The Non-Prophets.

Captain,

I do get tired of people, being the "bad cop" myself, confusing blunt and harsh criticism as some sort of call to stick believers in ovens.

Malcolm X was the "bad cop" to Martin Luther King Jr. But in no way was he out to stick whites or non Muslims in ovens. He simply refused to "turn the other cheek".

It is not all or nothing, or right or wrong.

I think there are enough believing counterparts who are capable of separating debate from the individual. I know my mother and my co-workers would say "boy is he blunt about his position". But none of them for a second would say I am out to kill them because they believe.

This battle over god is needed, FOR BOTH SIDES, and I don't think we should avoid it. What we as a species, can do, is get people to the point of leaving it at words. You are not, not them, not us, going to be able to force politeness on all 6 billion people. What we as a species can do is agree, that no matter what is said, no one wants physical harm to come to themselves. THAT is the best we are going to get.

God as a concept, as a character as portrayed in the bible is an asshole. Even without a label, the concept of a brain with no brain or location or material, is an absurd claim. Being blunt about my position does not translate to wanting the physical harm come to those who do hold these claims I find absurd.

It is nice to want humanity to get along. But it is absurd to think people will always say nice things and only things you want to hear. Setting up taboos are the quickest way to fascism.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote : Setting up taboos

      The sweetest taboo - 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:      The

Ken G. wrote:

      The sweetest taboo - 

That's pronounced Say Dee.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: That's pronounced Say Dee

   I believe that you are wrong on that,but I could be wrong   . If I remember correctly,she takes the name Sade from her middle name Floasade,which is Nigerian for "honor confers your crown" -  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sade_Adu , the name in which she was born with is Helen Floasade Adu .  

Signature ? How ?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I don't see

Brian37 wrote:

I don't see religious people making it a non issue any time soon so as long as they make it an issue then we have an obligation to counter their superstitions.

Thats like if a group of people said, "The earth is flat"

And we said, "Whose it hurting if they want to believe the earth is flat"

The best that we can do, because religion isn't going anywhere any time soon, is to be it's vigilant counter part to prevent it from dumbing  down society in the classroom, and to prevent it from gaining absolute power in government.

If religion were treated like a favorite board game, or sporting team, and not the serious political power it always pushes for, then it would be a non-issue.

I think it would be unwise, for even the religious people to "make it a non issue" because as long as it is ignored the more potential for abuse there is. Just like in the early days of Hitler. He took a little at a time and after a while it was too late for any caring Jew or German to do anything about.

This is not a label issue, this is a human nature issue. As long as a political  and or religious body has enough power to push for more power there is the potential for absolute power, and the only way to counter this is to make their power and their claims they use to gain power, the issue. It is what maintains their freedom and ours.

I don't remember who said this  and I am paraphrasing, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

Checks and balances require making EVERY issue an issue. Without questioning the powers that be, REGARDLESS of label, you will give up your power to keep them in check.

I do agree that we need to push for a better society where our politicians are voted for, not based on religious or political label, but performance. But as long as someone goes around claiming absurdities, it is our duty to challenge those absurdities.

Godwin detected

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)