seebs

A desire for "all of us to get along" that starts with trying to eliminate the right to freedom of personal beliefs for a billion or more people is not a well-considered one.

You wanna get along? Get over it. Forgive the bastards who are all in your face about your personal philosophy. Acknowledge that, however much they may be jerks about it, they're entitled to their *own* personal opinions and philosophy. And start getting along with 'em.

That's the only way for us to all get along. Your plan of "eliminate every personal philosophy which differs from mine" is the plan that caused the problems in the first place.

seebs

Looking back over what I posted, it was not adequately qualified. As long as you're agitating to "eliminate religion", you are indeed contributing to the intolerance problem, same as everyone else who wants "false" beliefs eradicated.

I think you as a person are probably an okay guy, and I suspect a lot of your anger is a result of specific people being jerks to you.

Starboy

Again straw man arguments. I only advocate the elimiation of supernatural religion in the case where it does not allow the world to get along in peace and harmony. Something that is clear for all to see is how such religions are not letting the world exist in peace and harmony. I do not advocate the elimination of philosophies. I advocate the creation and adoption of a more effective and fitting ethos for this day and age. Something that reflects our current understanding of our surroundings. That we adopt our ethos to server our needs not an ethos for us to serve at great cost in pain and suffering. I do not know if this is possible. Perhaps culture is too strong a force in the affairs of man. I hope it is not for all our sakes.

Starboy

Asha'man

What if, instead of saying "eliminate religion," we made our goal to "eliminate superstition and ignorance?" Our method is education and critical thinking. Is that intolerant? Do people have a right to remain ignorant?

seebs

But you generally don't qualify it this way.

"Such" religions? Which, intolerant people trying to push their personal beliefs on others?

I still don't know what you think the word "ethos" means; you seem to be using it more broadly than I would have expected.

Adopting an ethos to serve your needs is meaningless; your basic philosophy *defines* your needs, you can't adjust it to meet them. Furthermore, you'll have to confront the fact that most people of any religious affiliation believe that religion to be *true*. Your belief that they're wrong is hardly an improvement; you're making the same class of assertions about untestable things that they are.

So far as I can tell, you're lumping every Christian in the world together into a bin labeled "just like Jerry Falwell, burn 'em". Bad start.

If your objection is to people pushing their beliefs at you, it's a good objection - start focusing on that, instead of red herrings like the specific beliefs they're pushing.

seebs

I am all for eliminating ignorance. As to superstition, I probably think of that word much differently than you do. Basically, insofar as we're talking about philosophical questions like "do you think people have souls", it seems to me that trying to eliminate disagreements is intolerant; none of us can "prove" our cases right now, and until we can, we are obliged to be polite about it.

Critical thinking is good. Education is good. However, these don't eliminate religion; they just tend to make people more tolerant of disagreements. That's a *good* thing. And it goes both ways, I think.

My idea of an "ideal" outcome would be that people would be educated such that they'd be equipped to form opinions on philosophical issues, and that people who enjoy debates would be able to debate them, and no one would be harassed for believing, or not believing, anything in particular. In such a world, I would expect to see a number of religions survive just fine, and I'd expect religious people of various sorts, and atheists, to get along pretty well. That, to me, sounds like a win.

The problem isn't the existance of people who believe that there's a God. The problem is the belief that people who disagree with one are somehow Bad People for it. This manifests in people on both sides of that debate.

Asha'man

I’m not sure about that outcome. In participating in the Evolution/Creation debates, I have discovered that the only objection to Evolution is based on ignorance and lies. With education instead of ignorance, that objection would disappear.

Many people believe in religion because they need an explanation for the world. When they discover that science has a perfectly valid explanation, their faith may shrink.

Prayer is another good case. With critical thinking, people may notice that prayer doesn’t actually accomplish anything. Again, this may lead to a reduction in faith.

So I’m perfectly happy to combat religion using non-aggressive education and critical thinking, and let people figure things out for themselves. In the long run, I think religion would die, and nobody would feel “oppressed.”

Puck

seebs writes:
In the end, morality comes down to the question "Do I care?", and science cannot answer that kind of question.

I think morality can be measured scientifically. Because morality is based on what works for the best for the most. One who acts immorally hurts themselves and others, a negative. One who acts morally is a positive. Okay, I'm definatley not a scientist, but I think morality could be measured in such a way as to prove it's worth without a heaven or hell to encourage one to apply it to their life.

It's my take that as long as there are very vocal supposed christians who are using the belief to cause harm to non-belivers, there is a need for very vocal non-belivers. Not every non-beliver will choose to be active in this way, but the vocal ones will make it easier for the rest of us to remain free and safe to speak out about how we feel. And speaking out when you are a minority is necessary lest the majority thinks you are fine with what they choose for you.

When our goverment crosses the line and promotes religion in any way, it's frightening to a non-beliver, bad shit can come from such things. Us humans still have traces of the mob mentality within us. If the majority of the people all think the same, they are apt to throw stones at any disenters at the most, to be afraid to yell STOP at the least.

The minority must remain vigilent, sitting on our arses could cost us our lives. That's why the falwells, etc., are so troubling, not only are they robbing the gullible, they are a threat to our very freedoms if too many gullible ones take up their banner. People like that MUST be kept at bay, because their utmost desire is to impose what they want everyone to belive on every last person.

I have no problem with the kind of religion that the older folks practice/d. It's this newer radical fundamentalist charismatic hoo-haw shit that I find frightening. Have you seen the kind of movies/plays they show to small children? That shit is EVIL.

For me personally, I will probablly always see a need for religion as something to hold up those who are scared of reality. No insult meant to our religious members, just saying how I see it; if it works for you then I am all for it as long as I can trust you to be willing to stand up for me if your buds get too wacky. Just as I will never let starboy actually go through with abolishing religion. I've seen religion be a good thing in peoples lives, I've seen more damage because of it, but I'm not god, so I'm not going to impose anything on anyone.

You go tdekeyser, jsut remember that in slaying monsters, you do not become one yourself. Fight the good battle, we do need you. If you can get the IGWT crap off of our money, you will have my undying respect and admiration. You will be a positive force for good in the world. Just don't forget to stop and smell the roses along the way.

wildernesse

And IMHO, you're Amish.

I don't know why you think that you have the right or the ability to tell me what I believe. I also don't know how you think I don't subscribe to Christianity or practice Christian teachings from the Bible.

And of course, if you define "Christian" as someone who is a racist bigoted aggressive person, then of course I'm not Christian. But if we're getting to make up new definitions of words then you're definitely "Amish".

--tibac

Starboy

A religion is composed of two components, a way of understanding ones surroundings and ones role in those surroundings, and then a set of guiding beliefs or ethos.

The religions that I am concerned with are supernatural religions, so their primary model for understanding our surroundings is by supernatural explanations. As I have pointed out before, that is not how it is done in this day and age. Be that as it may, it does not concern me. You may believe that we all reside inside a giant peanut if you like. That is your choice. I would like to point out though that if you rely on the predicitive power of your understanding of your surroundings to survive, you might want to give science a try. It works so much better than supernatural explanations.

It is the second part that I am concerned about. The ethos of Christianity. As I have stated before from what I have seen it doesn't appear to work all that well. Most of the Christians I know are no better at getting along with one another and living their lives well than the atheists I know. As guidance for how to live ones life it appears to be no better than no guidance at all. As I have stated before, the specific values arn't of great concern to me. What concerns me is that such an ethos is not good enough for this day and age. It is too crude and useless a guide for a planet of six billion and growing. Again, you can cling to it if you like, but please do not try to convince me that it is anything special. I view this whole mess as an experiment in progress. A real cliff hanger. Will humanity figure out that the supernatural mumbo jumbo of the first century is not going to take it into the third millenium? Stay tuned. However it turns out, it is quite a show.

Starboy