Give me an argument to end religion and I will respond to it
Offline GO!
- Login to post comments
Offline Wars are caused by politics. Religion is just a motivator, however if there was no religion, then the leaders will just use another excuse.
I did not say all wars are caused by religion, but you admit religion creates motivation for war. Was there really a good reason for fighting over the holy lands without religion?
There is an idea wars are only caused by perceive values of things. I think this would make sense as people would not put energy into something they didn't think would yield a return or did not have meaning. If that is the case we would need to explain the value of holy lands. If the only value is a religious or because of religious reason on then I can blame the conflict on religion. I doubt you really want to argue that something like the crusades wasn't religious.
You say that without religion leaders would just use some other excuse, but that is kinda like saying, “Lets not worry about burning fossil fuels because we'll have to burn something anyway.”
Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell etc....
As for the creationists, the moderates look down on them and sake their heads in disgust.
It would seem shaking heads doesn't work very well...
Is that the same video that said the Muslims were on the cutting edge of astronomy and mathematics?
It said the freedom of ideas created the environment for advancement. When the muslims ended this freedom the advancement stopped.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:Wars are caused by politics. Religion is just a motivator, however if there was no religion, then the leaders will just use another excuse.I did not say all wars are caused by religion, but you admit religion creates motivation for war. Was there really a good reason for fighting over the holy lands without religion?
There is an idea wars are only caused by perceive values of things. I think this would make sense as people would not put energy into something they didn't think would yield a return or did not have meaning. If that is the case we would need to explain the value of holy lands. If the only value is a religious or because of religious reason on then I can blame the conflict on religion. I doubt you really want to argue that something like the crusades wasn't religious.
There are many reasons for the crusades. The leaders wanted power and the best way to achieve this was to well... take the land by force. The more land the Pope had, the more powerfull he was.
Much like the Persian empire and the Romans, the goal was domination.
You say that without religion leaders would just use some other excuse, but that is kinda like saying, “Lets not worry about burning fossil fuels because we'll have to burn something anyway.”
No, it's not. The motive is still there (I want this land, I want to eliminate my enemies etc...) and the politicians will do anything to get achieve these goals.
Quote:Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell etc....
As for the creationists, the moderates look down on them and sake their heads in disgust.It would seem shaking heads doesn't work very well...
Alternatives?
Quote:Is that the same video that said the Muslims were on the cutting edge of astronomy and mathematics?It said the freedom of ideas created the environment for advancement. When the muslims ended this freedom the advancement stopped.
But we still have these ideas now. Obviously not everyone held to numbers=Satan.
- Login to post comments
Offline Do feel free to respond to my argument, Captain.
- Login to post comments
Offline Religion is servility to the charlatans who call themselves clergymen. While it might be true that the world is designed by a creator or that sacrificing to Asclepius cures disease, we will never know as long as we take the clergyman's word for it. Instead we should examine these beliefs critically. If it turns out that religious rites do benefit us, we simply cut out the middleman and continue practicing them on our own. This saves us some money which can be donated to a good cause.
This approach has numerous advantages:
1) If upon critical examination of our cult's beliefs we discover that, say, sacrificing to Asclepius is ineffective as a treatment, we can discontinue the practice and save money and effort.
2) It may turn out that in its dogmaticism, the cult has chosen a suboptimal way of performing the rites. For example, clinical trials might show that sacrificing chickens works better than sacrificing goats. We could then adopt the more efficient practice.
3) The clergy may be charging us too much for the rites. It may be more economical to perform them ourselves or to hire a freelance priest to perform them for us.
...just to mention a few.
Who said anything about chickens and goats? What are you talking about?
- Login to post comments
Offline Who said anything about chickens and goats? What are you talking about?
I use the sacrifice of chickens and goats as an example of a religious rite.
Belief in 'spooky' phenomena (like healing through prayer or through sacrifice) per se is not religion. One may entertain the notion of a deity or deities, or magic, without being religious. Religion is the blind acceptance of a doctrine concerning these (alleged) phenomena.
Instead of being religious (i.e. blindly believing what we are told by some charlatan) we should critically examine claims about these phenomena. If they turn out to be false, we can abandon practices based on them, saving time and money. If they turn out to be true, we can reap the benefits by believing them; only this time we believe them not because we have faith but because we have evidence.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:Who said anything about chickens and goats? What are you talking about?I use the sacrifice of chickens and goats as an example of a religious rite.
Belief in 'spooky' phenomena (like healing through prayer or through sacrifice) per se is not religion. One may entertain the notion of a deity or deities, or magic, without being religious. Religion is the blind acceptance of a doctrine concerning these (alleged) phenomena.
Instead of being religious (i.e. blindly believing what we are told by some charlatan) we should critically examine claims about these phenomena. If they turn out to be false, we can abandon practices based on them, saving time and money. If they turn out to be true, we can reap the benefits by believing them; only this time we believe them not because we have faith but because we have evidence.
Okay, now I think I see what you're saying. Theist and atheist alike fall under this category, (Big Foot, Loch Ness monster etc..) of believing things that have no evidence.
As for prayer and sacrifices, these are more superstitions even for Christians , none of the Christians I know hold to praying and sacrficing the bad things away.
- Login to post comments
Offline Okay, now I think I see what you're saying. Theist and atheist alike fall under this category, (Big Foot, Loch Ness monster etc..) of believing things that have no evidence.
That is also true, but not quite the point I am making. Let me try to explain it once more:
In religion we are lead to believe the proposition P:
P = In order to achieve/attain X, one is to do Y.
The variables depend on the religion, but X is something desirable (like being cured of a disease, enjoying 'good luck' in life, or not being tortured for all eternity after one's death) and Y is usually something that benefits the church (donations of time or money, or dissemination of the belief system). Of course it is only in the most vulgar and crass forms of religion where a direct causal connection between Y and X is implied; in more sophisticated ones the connection is more subtle (e.g. "Good Hindus get X. Now let us do Y like the good Hindus that we aspire to be." )
It would be difficult for me to argue that we should give up religion because P is false; after all, there are so many religions around that I could not possibly disprove them one by one. Instead I argue that one should examine the P of one's religion critically and believe it only if there is sufficient evidence in its favour. I therefore needn't prove that every single religion on Earth got all of its dogma wrong. If it turns out that by some strange coincidence some religion somewhere got some of its dogma right, we should adopt those dogma (although not as dogma but as ordinary beliefs).
Why is this an argument to end religion? Well, if the believer takes my advice and examines the doctrines of his religion critically, one of the following will happen:
1) If P is unsupported by evidence: the believer stops believing and therefore becomes non-religious.
2) If P is supported by evidence (very unlikely but we must not rule it out a priori): the believer accepts P as a scientic finding, not as an article of faith, and therefore becomes non-religious.
- Login to post comments
Offline The Bible contridicts the evidence we see in science:
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
You can google Evolution
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:Okay, now I think I see what you're saying. Theist and atheist alike fall under this category, (Big Foot, Loch Ness monster etc..) of believing things that have no evidence.
That is also true, but not quite the point I am making. Let me try to explain it once more:
In religion we are lead to believe the proposition P:
P = In order to achieve/attain X, one is to do Y.
The variables depend on the religion, but X is something desirable (like being cured of a disease, enjoying 'good luck' in life, or not being tortured for all eternity after one's death) and Y is usually something that benefits the church (donations of time or money, or dissemination of the belief system). Of course it is only in the most vulgar and crass forms of religion where a direct causal connection between Y and X is implied; in more sophisticated ones the connection is more subtle (e.g. "Good Hindus get X. Now let us do Y like the good Hindus that we aspire to be." )
It would be difficult for me to argue that we should give up religion because P is false; after all, there are so many religions around that I could not possibly disprove them one by one. Instead I argue that one should examine the P of one's religion critically and believe it only if there is sufficient evidence in its favour. I therefore needn't prove that every single religion on Earth got all of its dogma wrong. If it turns out that by some strange coincidence some religion somewhere got some of its dogma right, we should adopt those dogma (although not as dogma but as ordinary beliefs).
People will usually use 'personal experience' as evidence for their believe in God.
Why is this an argument to end religion? Well, if the believer takes my advice and examines the doctrines of his religion critically, one of the following will happen:
1) If P is unsupported by evidence: the believer stops believing and therefore becomes non-religious.
2) If P is supported by evidence (very unlikely but we must not rule it out a priori): the believer accepts P as a scientic finding, not as an article of faith, and therefore becomes non-religious.
The problem with 1) is that religious people take things on faith and hence won't stop believing it. As for 2) many creationists say creation is supported by science. These creationists twist science to 'prove' their believes. This won't end religion.
The Bible contridicts the evidence we see in science:
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
a) Not every religion believes the Bible
b) Not every religion that does takes it literally
You can google Evolution
Evolution doesn't disprove God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Kemono wrote:Cpt_pineapple wrote:Okay, now I think I see what you're saying. Theist and atheist alike fall under this category, (Big Foot, Loch Ness monster etc..) of believing things that have no evidence.
That is also true, but not quite the point I am making. Let me try to explain it once more:
In religion we are lead to believe the proposition P:
P = In order to achieve/attain X, one is to do Y.
The variables depend on the religion, but X is something desirable (like being cured of a disease, enjoying 'good luck' in life, or not being tortured for all eternity after one's death) and Y is usually something that benefits the church (donations of time or money, or dissemination of the belief system). Of course it is only in the most vulgar and crass forms of religion where a direct causal connection between Y and X is implied; in more sophisticated ones the connection is more subtle (e.g. "Good Hindus get X. Now let us do Y like the good Hindus that we aspire to be." )
It would be difficult for me to argue that we should give up religion because P is false; after all, there are so many religions around that I could not possibly disprove them one by one. Instead I argue that one should examine the P of one's religion critically and believe it only if there is sufficient evidence in its favour. I therefore needn't prove that every single religion on Earth got all of its dogma wrong. If it turns out that by some strange coincidence some religion somewhere got some of its dogma right, we should adopt those dogma (although not as dogma but as ordinary beliefs).
People will usually use 'personal experience' as evidence for their believe in God.
Quote:Why is this an argument to end religion? Well, if the believer takes my advice and examines the doctrines of his religion critically, one of the following will happen:
1) If P is unsupported by evidence: the believer stops believing and therefore becomes non-religious.
2) If P is supported by evidence (very unlikely but we must not rule it out a priori): the believer accepts P as a scientic finding, not as an article of faith, and therefore becomes non-religious.
The problem with 1) is that religious people take things on faith and hence won't stop believing it. As for 2) many creationists say creation is supported by science. These creationists twist science to 'prove' their believes. This won't end religion.
Dave_G wrote:The Bible contridicts the evidence we see in science:
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
a) Not every religion believes the Bible
b) Not every religion that does takes it literally
Quote:
You can google Evolution
Evolution doesn't disprove God.
It disproves the major ones.
- Login to post comments
Offline There are many reasons for the crusades. The leaders wanted power and the best way to achieve this was to well... take the land by force. The more land the Pope had, the more powerfull he was.Much like the Persian empire and the Romans, the goal was domination.
Did the pope own land? If they did wouldn't that mean the popes and kings might fight each other over this land? If my goal as pope was land I'd think the easiest way to get it would be to call a king or two evil and take over. I mean come on this land is close by the people won't revolt later on probably wouldn't take much fighting if the people are faithful.
No, it's not. The motive is still there (I want this land, I want to eliminate my enemies etc...) and the politicians will do anything to get achieve these goals.
The comparison includes motive. You say the motivation is still their with or without religion. "With or without fossil fuels we still need to burn something" is using the same logic.
Alternatives?
I don't really have alternatives for the religious, but it isn't my job to solve their dilemma between their religion and the nut jobs. I good start might be telling those people why they are wrong.
But we still have these ideas now. Obviously not everyone held to numbers=Satan.
But in that area those ideas were not welcome so advancement stopped in that area. Look at the dark ages look how much of a set back that was. This is the point if religion sets science back it hurts the world as a whole. Right now people are working to stop research on things that could save lives because a clump of cells is too big of a loss to them.
- Login to post comments
Offline The problem with 1) is that religious people take things on faith and hence won't stop believing it. As for 2) many creationists say creation is supported by science. These creationists twist science to 'prove' their believes. This won't end religion.
The goal posts seem to have moved since post 3 where you replied 'either one' to ParanoidAgnostic's question, 'What sort of argument do you want? A reason why ending religion would be a good idea or a demonstration of the falsehood of religion.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:There are many reasons for the crusades. The leaders wanted power and the best way to achieve this was to well... take the land by force. The more land the Pope had, the more powerfull he was.Much like the Persian empire and the Romans, the goal was domination.
Did the pope own land? If they did wouldn't that mean the popes and kings might fight each other over this land? If my goal as pope was land I'd think the easiest way to get it would be to call a king or two evil and take over. I mean come on this land is close by the people won't revolt later on probably wouldn't take much fighting if the people are faithful.
The pope was the leader of Christians. The more Christians, the more power the pope had. The kings, being Christian, were influenced by the pope. What power the pope would have if everyone was Christian.
Quote:No, it's not. The motive is still there (I want this land, I want to eliminate my enemies etc...) and the politicians will do anything to get achieve these goals.The comparison includes motive. You say the motivation is still their with or without religion. "With or without fossil fuels we still need to burn something" is using the same logic.
Leaders will lie and distort, and do anything to get the people behind them. No religion need apply. My point is what's the purpose of getting rid of religion if it won't stop these motives?
Quote:Alternatives?I don't really have alternatives for the religious, but it isn't my job to solve their dilemma between their religion and the nut jobs. I good start might be telling those people why they are wrong.
People DO tell them why they are wrong, they just don't listen. I can assure you me and all my other Theist friends hate the creationists and extremists as much as atheists.
Quote:But we still have these ideas now. Obviously not everyone held to numbers=Satan.But in that area those ideas were not welcome so advancement stopped in that area. Look at the dark ages look how much of a set back that was. This is the point if religion sets science back it hurts the world as a whole. Right now people are working to stop research on things that could save lives because a clump of cells is too big of a loss to them.
I'm sure there are atheists against embryonic stem cell research and abortion.
- Login to post comments
Offline What can religion do that cannot be done without it?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline What can religion do that cannot be done without it?
If you sacrifice an animal to god then your sins are forgiven. If you just kill an animal for the hell of it then you are a freak.
So religion gives us guilt free animal brutality.
- Login to post comments
Offline The pope was the leader of Christians. The more Christians, the more power the pope had. The kings, being Christian, were influenced by the pope. What power the pope would have if everyone was Christian.
I'm not going to claim that there is no corruption within churchs, we see it today. However when the holy books talk about committing violence and then followers of this book commit violence while saying they are doing it for their religion I'm going to think they are doing it because of their religion.
Leaders will lie and distort, and do anything to get the people behind them. No religion need apply. My point is what's the purpose of getting rid of religion if it won't stop these motives?
Because they can't say have faith and go nuts. Without religion it is harder for someone to get away with something that is not logically sound.
People DO tell them why they are wrong, they just don't listen. I can assure you me and all my other Theist friends hate the creationists and extremists as much as atheists.
The problem with trying to separate yourself from the creationalist or fundamentalist is that they use your position to support their own. They could use numbers to claim to be a voice for a sizable portion of the nation or use a religious community to get their idea out there, but the flaws for the fundy in those should be obvious. The problem is that because you have a faith in something you give a legitimacy to their faith.
I'm sure there are atheists against embryonic stem cell research and abortion.
It probably depends on what kind of abortion you are talking about, but stem cell research is not the same thing as abortion. Also I can't think of one atheist who makes some sort of claim against stem cell research, but if they did they can't just say god wants it way X they have to make a real argument.
If you sacrifice an animal to god then your sins are forgiven. If you just kill an animal for the hell of it then you are a freak.So religion gives us guilt free animal brutality.
wave I'm not sure you are helping your case :/
- Login to post comments
Offline GO!
The reason is simple. Religion provides no benefit that is not attainable through some other means. Religion holds the potential to do great harm.
Though the harm religion can do is by no means an inevitable product of religion, as long as religion removes the ultimate responsibility for humanity (society, whatever term you prefer) from humanity itself and places it in some outside superior eternal judiciary, it will always hold the potential to do harm that can not be equaled by any finite ethic.
A bomb that can destroy the entire planet is not a harmful thing in and of itself. It only becomes a harmful thing when placed in the hands of those who would use it as such. However, since such a weapon provides no benefit for humanity but definitely holds great potential to do harm, it would be ridiculous to support the existence of such a weapon. Such is the case with religion.
I have noticed that here and in other threads you have stated that it is not theism that is the problem, but greed and power and politics and, basically, the more unsavory qualities included in the nature of man. While this may be true it does not remove the problem with religion. Religion does not exist without man and therefor to attempt to separate religion from the men who use it is pointless in an attempt to justify the belief system. It ceases to exist in such a scenario and thus the point of arguing its benefit/harm becomes moot.
I realize that there are other beliefs and dogmas that hold harmful potential as well (though I can not see any that could possibly compare to a promise of eternal life for unquestioning loyalty and reverence) but this also does not justify allowing religion to continue unchallenged. Because people die of many different diseases is not a reason to abandone research for a cancer cure. We should not simply allow potential dangers to flourish. We should do every thing we can to eradicate all of them we can to the best of our ability, if we care to live in a society conducive to the safety and survival of those we love.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
- Login to post comments
Offline The problem is that because you have a faith in something you give a legitimacy to their faith.
This is not logical. The most you can claim is that by having faith it legitmizes others also having faith. But that in no way determines what that faith is whether any particular faith is legitimate.
- Login to post comments
Offline This is not logical. The most you can claim is that by having faith it legitmizes others also having faith.
Thats kinda what I said dude.
But that in no way determines what that faith is
Right to understand a sentence you must understand what the words mean and that particular sentence does not define anything.
whether any particular faith is legitimate.
That would be a problem with the religious, but as I don't have faith I'm thinking its all illegitimate.
- Login to post comments
Offline wavefreak wrote:This is not logical. The most you can claim is that by having faith it legitmizes others also having faith.Thats kinda what I said dude.
Quote:But that in no way determines what that faith isRight to understand a sentence you must understand what the words mean and that particular sentence does not define anything.
Quote:whether any particular faith is legitimate.That would be a problem with the religious, but as I don't have faith I'm thinking its all illegitimate.
If faith is intrinsically illegitimate than it follows that all faiths are illegitimate as well. On what basis to you claim that faith itself is illegitmate? Not faith in god, but faith in anything.
- Login to post comments
Offline If faith is intrinsically illegitimate than it follows that all faiths are illegitimate as well. On what basis to you claim that faith itself is illegitmate? Not faith in god, but faith in anything.
First, lets clarify what we mean by faith, otherwise you'll pull the equivocation trick on is.
There are 4 meanings we could use.
1) Belief with a total lack of evidence,even in the face of contradictory evidence. (Faith in God, fairies, unicorns etc.)
2) A Religion (The Christian faith)
3) Trust (Faith in people)
4) Expectations based on past experience (Faith that your car's breaks will stop you in time)
We are most certainly not talking about 3 and 4, and in the context I don't think we're talking about 2.
That leaves 1. That faith is illigitimate by definition. It is believing something that you have no reason to believe and often have good reasons to not believe.
That sort of faith is illigitimate because it's the same mental process that would allow me to insist that there is a race of super-intelligent leprechauns living on pluto.
Claims that are not based on evidence and contradict things we already understand are illigitimate. Belief in those claims is too.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline wavefreak wrote:If faith is intrinsically illegitimate than it follows that all faiths are illegitimate as well. On what basis to you claim that faith itself is illegitmate? Not faith in god, but faith in anything.
First, lets clarify what we mean by faith, otherwise you'll pull the equivocation trick on is.
There are 4 meanings we could use.
1) Belief with a total lack of evidence,even in the face of contradictory evidence. (Faith in God, fairies, unicorns etc.)
2) A Religion (The Christian faith)
3) Trust (Faith in people)
4) Expectations based on past experience (Faith that your car's breaks will stop you in time)
We are most certainly not talking about 3 and 4, and in the context I don't think we're talking about 2.
That leaves 1. That faith is illigitimate by definition. It is believing something that you have no reason to believe and often have good reasons to not believe.
That sort of faith is illigitimate because it's the same mental process that would allow me to insist that there is a race of super-intelligent leprechauns living on pluto.
Claims that are not based on evidence and contradict things we already understand are illigitimate. Belief in those claims is too.
From Wikipedia:
On one extreme is logical positivism, which denies the validity of any beliefs held by faith; on the other extreme is fideism, which holds that true belief can only arise from faith, because reason and evidence cannot lead to truth.
You are a logical positivist?
- Login to post comments
Offline From Wikipedia:On one extreme is logical positivism, which denies the validity of any beliefs held by faith; on the other extreme is fideism, which holds that true belief can only arise from faith, because reason and evidence cannot lead to truth.
You are a logical positivist?
You might want to be careful about the use of wiki. I'ved used it before, but its probably better to find a better source for things. If its something for school or a paper never use wiki.
Now you say a logical positivist means someone which denies the validity of any beliefs held by faith. ParanoidAgnostic said he thinks of faith as "Belief with a total lack of evidence,even in the face of contradictory evidence." That might be a little strong. The "aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason" (carm.org) is probably a nicer way to put it.
Ok so lets put those ideas together.
Someone who "denies the validity of any beliefs" "which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason."
I'd agree with that. ParanidAgnostic?
Before we get to far lets look at what validity means.
Now we aren't talking about legal force or healthy so we are probably talking about the idea being valid or rigorous.
Not basing what you think is true on reason doesn't seem very rigorous to me...
- Login to post comments
Offline You are a logical positivist?
I accept that underlying all of our knowledge are certain assumptions. eg. I assume that what I see, hear, smell, taste, touch are accurate representations of the pshysical reality I find myself in.
I suppose you might call these assumptions faith but the difference is that those I recognise what assumptions I have built my knowledge on and do not hold them as absolutes.
I recognise that some assumptions are more certain than others. I can be pretty sure of my assumption that I can trust my senses as a link to phsyical reality, I'm less sure of my assumption that the author of a newspaper article isn't just making things up.
I try to build my knowledge on the absolute minimum of assumptions and make sure that those assumptions are the ones I'm most cetain of by testing them against eachother, logic and reality.
Faith, on the other hand, is knowledge built on far more assumptions than nessesary... and those assumptions are far less certain than they should be.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:The pope was the leader of Christians. The more Christians, the more power the pope had. The kings, being Christian, were influenced by the pope. What power the pope would have if everyone was Christian.I'm not going to claim that there is no corruption within churchs, we see it today. However when the holy books talk about committing violence and then followers of this book commit violence while saying they are doing it for their religion I'm going to think they are doing it because of their religion.
If the Bible tells all follows to commit acts of violence, then why aren't modern Christians going on Crusades? They read the Bible, right?
Quote:Leaders will lie and distort, and do anything to get the people behind them. No religion need apply. My point is what's the purpose of getting rid of religion if it won't stop these motives?Because they can't say have faith and go nuts. Without religion it is harder for someone to get away with something that is not logically sound.
Tell that to all the secular brutal regimes. Swaying people is suprisingly easy and has been done through out history.
Quote:People DO tell them why they are wrong, they just don't listen. I can assure you me and all my other Theist friends hate the creationists and extremists as much as atheists.The problem with trying to separate yourself from the creationalist or fundamentalist is that they use your position to support their own. They could use numbers to claim to be a voice for a sizable portion of the nation or use a religious community to get their idea out there, but the flaws for the fundy in those should be obvious. The problem is that because you have a faith in something you give a legitimacy to their faith.
No, the fundies scorn and other Christians saying that they are not TRUE Christians, and their church is the one and only. They are doing it on their own, no outside help. Of course, their isolation may contribute to their believes.
Quote:I'm sure there are atheists against embryonic stem cell research and abortion.It probably depends on what kind of abortion you are talking about, but stem cell research is not the same thing as abortion. Also I can't think of one atheist who makes some sort of claim against stem cell research, but if they did they can't just say god wants it way X they have to make a real argument.
And that argument could be flawed. Doing real research into a subject does not promise excellent results. Otherwise their would be across the board agreements in Congress. Their will be no Democrats or Republicians.
- Login to post comments
Offline If the Bible tells all follows to commit acts of violence, then why aren't modern Christians going on Crusades? They read the Bible, right?
I honestly don't know if they read the bible. Christians probably wouldn't want to go on a crusade today main because of PR. In today's world violence isn't exactly good for that. Some like to argue that these verses don't apply to them for some reason. The idea that violence in the bible is actually surprising to some though so it could mean some don't read it.
I'd kinda think people would want to shy away from the term crusade as for people who don't like the idea of religious war wouldn't like it much. However that doesn't stop groups like http://www.uscm.org/, people using the term in politics (talking about war none the less...), or kids looking up the the leaders during the time.
Tell that to all the secular brutal regimes. Swaying people is suprisingly easy and has been done through out history.
I did claim it would be impossible to sway people, but its harder if you can't use faith.
No, the fundies scorn and other Christians saying that they are not TRUE Christians, and their church is the one and only. They are doing it on their own, no outside help. Of course, their isolation may contribute to their believes.
Fundies scorning others faith in other things or how people worship does not take away the idea of legitimacy.
Random Theist: I think its wrong that you are doing X and using your religion to justify it.
Fundy: Do you have faith in something?
Random Theist: Well, yes, but --
Fundy: Well then how can you say my faith is wrong?
Theists of all kinds like to argue atheists have faith to justify theirs. If people didn't think other's faith mattered I'd doubt this would be an argument let alone a common one.
And that argument could be flawed. Doing real research into a subject does not promise excellent results. Otherwise their would be across the board agreements in Congress. Their will be no Democrats or Republicians.
A lot of the things that separate Democrats and Republicans deals with policy or ethics. Even if they are both doing research on issues it doesn't mean they are going to reach the same conclusion. I would also like to point out a good number of right wing christians like to attach themselves to the Republican party and some people like to write books like Godless.
- Login to post comments
Please clarify.
By religion do you mean all belief in the supernatural and afterlife, structured beliefs, monotheism or christianity?
What sort of argument do you want? A reason why ending religion would be a good idea or a demonstration of the falsehood of religion.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Pretty much. Christianity Islam, Hinuism whatever....
Either one.
I'm still looking. When I find it, you'll see me on international TV, destroying religion.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
religion is already on it's way to self-destructing. groups like the RRS are just nudging it along. privately practiced religion will always exist.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
Ok, why ending structured religion would be a good idea.
Religion limits the experience of life. Religion closes off the mind from questions and arbitarily denies the individual certain actions.
If your world is completely defined by what is heard in church and read in the bible then how can you wonder at all the unknowns in the universe and appreciate that amazing complexity that can be produced by nature.
How can you honestly consider other opinions when yours is absolute? One of the best feelings is to understand a new way of thinking about things.
Consider how many people never get to taste bacon. How many men have felt atracted to another man but denied themselves that. How many are afraid to read certain books for fear it will condem them to hell.
Mow much of your life is wasted in church or on other religious activities.
As an atheist I approach this from the point of view that these 80 (sometimes more sometimes a lot less) years are all we get. To limit your experience of them based on lies is such a horrible waste.
If we consider the point of vierw of a religion other than the one you follow then you have wasted the time too, and if it's a religion that includes eternal damnation then you've not only wasted your life but you'll pay for it for eternity.
So we are just left with the minute possibility that there is a god and you've picked the right one. even then I'd think he gave us life to be experienced to it's fullest. He's perfect and therefore quite secure in his greatness. There's no need to suck up to him. Infact I'd expect that he would take it as an insult that you are not doing your best to fully enjoy the life he gave you.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
This is a good argument to end forcing religion on people.
The forcing of religion limits people, but the willful choice of it does not. For example, if you a forced to be orthodox Jewish, then yes, bacon is out of the question, however, what if people were to choose their religion? That is they choose to be orthodox Jewish?
You're disregarding the element of social coercion that accompanies many religions. Sometimes choosing secularism means giving up the religious social bonds that have sustained you for your whole life.
I just finished watching the documentary "The Devil's Playground" about Amish kids and how they're allowed a period of wildness (driving cars, drinking, smoking, dating, sometimes drugs) between the age of 16 and when they decide to join the church. For all the kids featured in the film, it was a huge struggle to choose between the temptations of consumer culture and the social bonds that were the only thing they had known in their lives to that point. Some of the kids interviewed honestly believed what they'd been taught--that they could not survive in the world without the support of their extended families. With no education, no experience, no job skills except 19th century farm skills, most of them wind up going back to the church.
Amish church members who deconvert are shunned--their families pretend they don't exist. Mormons and some Jewish groups do the same thing--and I'm sure there are others.
If it were a fair choice, then I'd agree with you, Capt. But social coercion stacks the odds in favor of the church in too many cases.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
I don't think there is an arguement that will end religion, there are arguements as to why it should be banned, taken out of society, ended etc. But since it requires faith, and faith does not require proof, there really isn't an arguement that a believer would believe. The real question i would say is what does a believer need to disbelieve? To end religion as good as it would be, since it does create a atmosphere poisoned by those in temporal power to control the masses in all aspects of life, there is no one arguement that could be used to end religion, if that arguement existed.....wouldn't religion already ended?
Just think how much you could sock into your retirment account if you didn't give money to the church.
Hence, less stress on the welfare system because Social Security is probably going to go belly up.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I think religious wars are a pretty good reason to put a to it. A number of groups who are apart of mainstream religions have done such things and have the ideas within their holy texts. However there is more to damages of religion then just open destruction or violence.
Religion has been used to limit science in the past a we are seeing it begin/continue today. That is a bigger problem then open warfare. War can destroy lives and nations, but it can't destroy the future very easy. I can deal with a person trying to kill me with a bullet, but it is obvious that it would be wrong to use one when someone is simply talking.
Below is a video that makes the argument about how religion can be dangerous to science fairly well using Islam as a case study.
This is from Beyond Belief 06, speaker Neil DeGrase Tyson
Religion is servility to the charlatans who call themselves clergymen. While it might be true that the world is designed by a creator or that sacrificing to Asclepius cures disease, we will never know as long as we take the clergyman's word for it. Instead we should examine these beliefs critically. If it turns out that religious rites do benefit us, we simply cut out the middleman and continue practicing them on our own. This saves us some money which can be donated to a good cause.
This approach has numerous advantages:
1) If upon critical examination of our cult's beliefs we discover that, say, sacrificing to Asclepius is ineffective as a treatment, we can discontinue the practice and save money and effort.
2) It may turn out that in its dogmaticism, the cult has chosen a suboptimal way of performing the rites. For example, clinical trials might show that sacrificing chickens works better than sacrificing goats. We could then adopt the more efficient practice.
3) The clergy may be charging us too much for the rites. It may be more economical to perform them ourselves or to hire a freelance priest to perform them for us.
...just to mention a few.
Mr. Pineapple are you attempting to try to paint us as wanting to use government force to put an end to religion?
There might be some nuts that would buy that tactic, but the vast majority of people here would not. So I dont understand why you are bringing up this topic with seemingly no clarification.
"What would the end of religion cause?" Humans having one less excuse to kill.
That is a seprate issue than how one goes about ending religion. Our tactic is to inform and educate and provide humanity with a better alturnitive. We may never acceave that goal, but it is not in any way Hitleresque in tactic.
It would increase benifit to humanity by removing the artifical labels so that humans can focus on issues that affect all humans. It would allow us to focus on desease, famine, war, poverty environment.
The goal is not to force anyone to do anything. It is to maximize benifit and reduce harm. I see humans needlessly stuck in superstition no matter how much they think it is real. Because they seek to implement this belief on their respective governments(all over the world) this causes division wich is a waste of energy when every country has poor and sick. Fighting over fictional beings distracts humanity from real problems.
"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
Then end this social coercion not religion.
I've never seent the documentry so I can't comment on it.
replace church with big screeen TVs, surrond sound, fancy cars etc....
Wars are caused by politics. Religion is just a motivator, however if there was no religion, then the leaders will just use another excuse.
Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell etc....
As for the creationists, the moderates look down on them and sake their heads in disgust.
Is that the same video that said the Muslims were on the cutting edge of astronomy and mathematics?
No.
See my first point
I never said anything about Hitleresque tactics.
Then keep the government secular and keep religion
The Rapture
Theism should end because it exploits weaknesses in human thought processes to incite people to subservience, self-deception, uncritical, often magical thinking, and in some cases violence on the basis of dubious theological claims, rigid, unwavering dogma, and promises of rewards which it cannot deliver. It is utterly tragic.
These problems are inherent in all forms of theism.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Without the promise of an afterlife I think people would be much less prepared to die for their leaders. Sure they will still be prapared to go to war but they will set the standards of what is worth dieing for much higher.
correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't most of the work in science and mathematics done by Arabs before islam became dominant in that area?
One less reason is still a start. Especially if it's a completely made up reason. Atleast with land or oil you get something if you win. when you fight over faith you get nothing.
Unfortunately the nature of religion (particularly islam and chistianity) is that in general one of the core beliefs is that everyone should live by the rules of that religion. Large groups of muslims have the goal of a worldwide islammic theocracy. Christians regularly push for their beliefs to be forced on everyone else by law, and often succeed. Even if a believer respects secular society they still force their faith onto their children, for their own good naturally.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
This would by no means stop the leaders.
During the cold war, Russia hated America and vic versa. In order for the Russian and American leaders to get the people to follow them they exagerated the short comings of the other side or just plain made shit up.
An oldie but a goodie: A politican can tell you to go to hell in a way that you will look forward to the trip
correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't most of the work in science and mathematics done by Arabs before islam became dominant in that area?
I wouldn't know.
I think wars are justified for made up reasons "Hussien has ties to 9/11" Sound familar?
The nature of political parties is for the views of that political party be made law. The point is anybody can think that their beliefs should be made into law. The only solution is to make the government secular.
As for children, parents can teach their children whatever they want. However, they should not force the religion on them.