Koyaanisqatsi

There are also "moderate" branches of the KKK. That doesn't change the fact that the members are still members of the KKK.

moon

The KKK analogy is similar to the Hitler/Nazi analogy, in that when it is brought up, you can be fairly certain that the person bringing it up cannot back up his argument without recourse to these highly emotionally charged groups.

Of course, the KKK is an evil organisation. Duh. It is not justified because it gives mutual aid and support.

What I am saying is not that churches are justified in doing bad things because they give mutual aid and support. What I am saying is that there are many good things that churches do for society. Many charities and other relief organizations are run by churches, and churches do offer a place where people can get together and interact on a human level. Places where people can do this are not so easy to find in our capitalist system.

You should look at the good aspects of churches, as well as the bad. If you are so blinded by your hatred of religion that you can't see anything good that churches do, then you need to take a good look in the mirror.

Koyaanisqatsi

And you need to stop moralizing and address the arguments.

Case in point:

Childish false accusations like these carry no weight here.

Then neither is christianity. Do you seriously need a history lesson?

There are many good things that certain branches of the KKK do for society. Likewise with the "Hitler/Nazi" analogy you so casually dismissed without any kind of critical thinking.

The question is, do the "bad" things outweigh the "good?"

The christian cult in all of its various sects has been the cause of centuries of social divisiveness, victimization and bloodshed resulting in this country being founded on the deliberate separation of Church and State and yet we still swear on bibles in courts of law, spend millions every year to stop prayer in schools and our money still proclaims "In God We Trust."

The christian cult mentality is a slave mentality that willfully and shamelessly indoctrinates anyone it can into following the dictates of the cult; dictates that have put a fundamentalist into the White House, whose first action was to send billions of our taxdollars to Church coffers, and where you may see a temporary surcease of sorrow, I am asking at what cost on such deeply endemic levels that you couldn't possibly even begin to contemplate.

Our country's politics are entirely guided by manipulations of those "moderate" cult members precisely because they ignore the "nasty stuff" and still believe the lies. Why? Because they get temporary relief from their worries through organized denial and indoctrination; a promise of salvation once you're dead, so don't worry about your lives here on Earth, for you shall be rewarded in the Kingdom that doesn't exist. Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's and turn the other cheek while the shepherd's herd you into your pens for your shearing.

All of which is based upon fear and the deliberate manipulation of that fear. But I guess, in these "moderate" cults, not so directly anymore, right? That's the "nasty stuff" they all pretend doesn't exist in the same pack of lies they all worship gleefully without critical analysis or reason, right?

After all, these are just meeting halls where people can gather and sing and dance and praise Jeeesus without having to think about what it is they're doing or what it means to ritually sublimate their own intelligence in favor of supplanted beliefs, right?

Again, the exact same thing can be said of certain KKK branches, but more to the point, if charity and relief are their only concerns then great! Just leave out Jesus.

Oh, but they don't do that, do they, because that's the central theme; that's the reason for gathering and the reason for organizing and giving in the name of Jesus, and thus, the "evil" organization has a pretty face.

I have absolutely nothing against charity and giving and helping your fellow man. The question is in the way it is done, not that it is done and it is to this little knee-jerk naivete of your post that I was addressing my arguments. It's the propaganda that comes along with the check that is in question, not the check.

All the better to eat you with, my dear.

You should look at the good aspects of the KKK, as well as the bad.

Spoken like a good little troll. Now, if you're capable, kindly address the arguments instead of hurling these childish ad hominems, yes?

A cancer is a cancer, regardless of whether or not it brings cancer victims together for mutual aid and comfort.

Photocrat

This technique is called appeal to emotion and is a logical fallacy, Koy. It is up to you to demonstrate the "cancerous" nature & what he has presented is evidence contrary to that claim--you cannot just beg the question without addressing his points, as you do via this ad populum.

Of course, I'm probably the wrong person to point this out, since I'll likely be reminded that I'm a "cult member" again and I'll just have to watch the well be poisoned again... *shrug* You're welcome to check on these logical fallacies by referencing the SecWeb's section on logic, however.

sullster

What is going on here? Do us atheists have to have a monolithic viewpoint concerning how we feel about the existence of religion? I don't like it either and find its history appalling and many of it practitioners nasty.
But, hell, do we all have to want to burn down every church and rage against all theisms in order to be "atheistically correct". Pshaa! I say. I am atheist and I don't give a rat's ass if another athiest thinks religion does some good things. We are supposed to be infidels, not dogmatists!!

Arrowman

I agree with sullster - I could care less about trying to prove that religion is universally "bad for society"; although I do believe that its net effect is negative. Especially when one realises that the "good effects" of religion, as asserted by moon, can and would be equally found in a secular society, through other means.

Put very simply:
- Most humans are inherently good and compassionate towards their fellows (to differing degrees). (A fact denied by the Christian religion, of course).
- Many people put this compassion into practice through their church affiliation.
- If churches did not exist, service clubs such as Rotary, Lions, Kiwanis, Apex etc - would be much, much bigger. Simple.

critical thinking made ez

Having had my hand at politics, I disagree with moon on his conclusions. The church / members are not the political pull you seem to think they are nor are they some type of buffer. Rather they are a puppet for one party over the other party.

We approached the ministers to convey our message (political message) to their members. As a politician, we didn't give a rats ass about individual voters, they mean nothing. We always sought out the opinion makers for groups of people. Church ministers (thus churches) were but one small group we would skew the thinking of.

The church did what we wanted, not what they wanted. You have it backwards my friend, they are a control that the government has on the individual, not the other way around.

moon

That depends on a lot of things. It is doubtful that there are enough intermediate organizations in the U.S. to "take up the slack," as it were. Really, churches offer one of the very few places where people get together to interact on a human level, and to offer mutual aid and support in our society.

I fear that as churches tend to disintegrate, people will become ever more atomized, ever more dependent on the mass media to tell them what to do. I am glad that there are at least some places people can go to get some real human interaction.

I don't think your conclusion is a fait accompli. It could be that without churches many people would simply become more isolated and bitter, and even more disinterested in participating in society.

moon

I don't suppose you noticed the irony of complaining about ad hominems, directly after labelling me a troll?

Frankly, I find your rhetoric offensive. You are every bit as bigotted and dogmatic as the theists you so roundly abuse - more so.

I don't know what you are going to accomplish here. You think you are going to convince people by saying they are insane if they don't believe as you do? Do you know the beliefs of all theists? You paint with a pretty broad brush, there.

It might give you some sort of perverse pleasure to sit on a message board and complain about those "crazy theists." Maybe it makes you feel superior. It doesn't really do anything constructive, though.

Panta Pei

Moon, you assert that moderate churches are beneficial and then imply that society would be worse off without them as if humans have little to no other options for interaction.

What about nightclubs, gatherings at homes, malls, bookstores, coffeehouses, cybercafes, bowling alleys, sportspubs, parks, the Internet Infidels (shameless plug), etc.

As for this assertion:

"For one thing, churches in the U.S. are virtually the only "intermediate organisations" in our society. By intermediate organisation, I mean organisations between the individual and the government. Such intermediate organisations are abolutely essential to a healthy democracy, as they are the only real way that people can organize and have real political power."

I find this completely unsupportable. Churches, synogogues, temples are for religious practices (aka indoctrination) and not political groupthink. People from all political opinions attend for the required hour or so and happily go home to their lives apart from the gathered masses.

The recent mixing of politics and religion is a distasteful example of this position in my view and is not beneficial at all.

There are more connections between large groups and politics found at places of employment - no church required.

Also, I am not entirely clear regarding your sudden protest toward Koys posts, after all, you wrote:

"Usually this bashing is directed at the fundies, and in this I gladly join in, because they rightly deserve our scorn."

Shakespeare suddenly comes to mind

~ Steve

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Panta Pei ]</p>