wildernesse

No, it does not. However, the reasons I do those things are part and parcel of my "brainwashing" and not separate from that.

Yes, this deals with intolerance and not religion per se, as not all religions promote intolerance and not all non-religious are tolerant. I would like you to point me to the Christian (or other believer) who does not construct their own religion piece-meal from scripture. As a theist, I have no problems with you discussing your beliefs or lack of them in any manner whatsoever.

People who believe don't believe because they want it to be true--they believe because what they believe is true to them. They may not even want it to be true.

Aha! Now this is what I was getting at. It's not the beliefs per se, but the actions that lead from those beliefs. What actions are believers taking (as a whole) that affect your existence negatively?

Speculation? Science isn't speculation based on observations of the natural world? That must be why it never changes. Science isn't just the data/observations--but the speculation of what that data means. Of course, sometimes this speculation is resolved, but in other cases ongoing. I would say that the science is in the speculation--the theorizing and questioning, the thinking and (indeed) the dreaming. Science isn't the natural world--it is the human method of understanding that natural world.

Anyway, religions relies on real methods--prayer, worship, behavior, etc.--to understand and connect to the supernatural.

They use the same methodology to reach their conclusions? Hmm. What methodology would that be, that is common to man who wishes to reach the supernatural?


I never said that I did have proof of the IPU's non-existence, or of the existence of the god I believe in.

Don't insult me with such patronizing information. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything--just asking some questions.

Thank you again for the patronizing tone. It is just this impossibility that makes me wonder why some people are so quick to state that such supernatural things are false.

Beliefs in themselves do nothing to people outside of the believer. It is the actions of those people that are positive and negative--and I ask which actions those are that affect your daily lives negatively that all theists perform that justifies getting rid of them.

Are you one of those people who thinks if religion were abolished, that there would be no evil?

--tibac

Virgil Tibbs

That's an awful shame, IMO. I'll grant you that if you remain pyschologically incapable of seperating the two, you are better off sticking with theism.

All true.

I was thinking of fundamentalists, but on second thought even they tend to discard what they dislike by "interpretting" passages in creative ways. I'm not sure why this method of finding truth is considered valid, however. I couldn't discard parts of chemistry book I did not like, lacking evidence to do so. Since religion is ultimately a theory on how the universe works, it deserves the same treatment as any other theory. I don't expect you to agree, just stating my opinion.

They believe because they believe? I don't follow.

Also curious... I've never heard (even as an unverifiable anecdote) of a supernaturalist who believed something he did not want to believe, with the exception of severe emotional scaring caused by very hardcore fundies. OTOH, if I were given satisifactory evidence my atheism was incorrect, I would abandon it without regret (granted I'd be very surprised).

The one thing all supernaturalists share as far as I can tell is their beliefs make then happier (again excepting people whose faiths scar them emotionally... but even they are more frightened of atheism than the faith that is hurting them). Of course, whether something makes a person happy has no bearing on its truth: there are many pleasant lies and unpleasant truths in this world.

People attempting the erode democratic institutions by attacking seperation of church and state comes to mind. That every supernaturalist does not do so is not relevant: it would not happen at all if no one held those beliefs because that is the only justification/excuse for it.

Speculation based on evidence and speculation without regard for evidence are two qualitatively different things. Specifically, the former gets observable results and the latter does not...

Prayer to god has never been shown to be any more effective than prayer to any other entity (or even lack of prayer, beyond the possibility of prayer as a placebo... and sugar pills make good placebos too). As for behavioral modifications induced by religion, this is indoctrination and is used in the secular world also (usually by groups with rather rotten agendas, for example stalinist nation-states).

Again: believing what one prefers to be true without regard for evidence. And again, how can you explain that many religions do not have a god? They are all wrong and you are right because...? What's the difference in your methodology in reaching your supernaturalist conclusion? If you and the adherents of other faiths reach mutally contridictory conclusions at least one of you must be wrong (or all could be wrong, of course).

Nothing I wrote was "patronizing," those were serious questions I'd need an answer to if I was to ever understand the theist mindset better. If you can give me some tangible reasons why belief in Zeus or the IPU is silly and belief in god is serious I'd love to hear them. Quite frankly it would give me some peace of mind.

You seem to think unfalsifiability is a good thing? There are an infinite number of unfalsifiable theories that can be constructed, none of which would by defintion have any predictive value (since predictions can be falsified). What makes one particular unfalsifiable theory true if none can be tested? How should one, for example, choose between christianity and islam (or even the olmypians) besides the criteria of which religion one finds most pleasant?

"Getting rid of them" is a trifle extreme phrase, I just try to discourage theism by reasoning with people. Anything more direct would either be unethical (like athesim through indoctrination or even smiting the non-non-believers! ) and/or violate the all important church/state seperation (by having the gov't single out theists some how).

And I don't see the need for why I have to prove "all" theists do harmful things for theism itself to be harmful: not all racists do overtly harmful things, but racism is still bad. Of course, theism is no where near as awful as racism, I'm just using an anology.

Obviously, people can still find plenty of other reasons to harm each other: racism, facism, greed, what have you. However, without religion (including its shakey premises, see below) there would be a lost less evil in the world, as far as I can see.

Certainly, people do use their supernaturalism to justify being nice, however I maintain this would be unnecessary if people were not indoctrinated to believe the odd (to say the least!) premise that supernaturalism is the only/best justification for moral behavior. OTOH religion is used as a justification for many evil acts that would have no basis otherwise, or have a less appealing basis (for example, if islamic fundamentalist terrorists were instead motivated solely by politics or racism, they would I imagine find greatly diminished support).

Tibbs

Rusting Car Bumper

Most all dictionary definitions of religion are inadequate as there are things regarding as religion that do not fit these terms.

Many forms of Buddhism, UU, Church of Freethought, Fellowship of reason, Ethical Culture can be (and are) regarded as religion without need for the supernatural.

DC

Marduk

DC is right, why do you ask to get rid of religion when what you really mean is to get rid of Fundamentalists (be they Christians, Muslims or even Saffron Hindus) these are the ones doing all the damage, lobbying for their nutbar theocracy, persecuting neighbors & various minorities and scaring little children.
Many aspects of religion really aren’t all that irrational, observing a vast and complex universe and assuming there was a creator with a purpose may not be correct but it is hardly irrational. The same for pondering the question of life; going from nothingness to being and to what? Speculative perhaps, but not really irrational.
And unless you are a YEC science has nothing to do with religion, it could be argued that understanding how God does things does not dispute his existence.
Even the issue of ‘faith’ whether it is based on an actual ‘supernatural’ entity is almost irrelevant compared to the things people have accomplished with this mental power; the 7 wonders of the ancient world and civilization itself were built with faith

“on we sweep, with threshing oar
our only goal will be the western shore
the hammer of the Gods, drives our ships to new lands
fighting the hoards, laughing and crying
Valhalla I am coming!”
:notworthy

McFish

Super-Best-Friends: "Moses! How can we defeat a giant stone Abe Lincoln?"

Moses: "Hmm...Giant stone John Wilkes Booth?"

I suggest you pray for the end of religion...

I am positive the results will eventually prove out.)

sodium

To a certain extent this is true, and I think it's important that we shouldn't unfairly categorize all religionists as equal. But I think there are some problems with wishy-washy moderate religion as well.

1) It encourages a magical worldview in which Fundamentalism thrives. If children are brought up to believe that supernatural entities exist, and the Bible or the Koran is God's word, then every Fundamentalist or Cult leader has half his job done for him. Sometimes it can be as simple as showing the new recruit the parts of scripture that liberal believers don't read.

2) It encourages a political system in which people who profess strong religious faith are more likely to be elected, and atheists are unelectable. I think that severely reduces the quality of people in government.

But actually, I think that moderate religion is going to collapse anyway, and that our goal should be that those people choose naturalism over fundamentalism.

Rational BAC

Moderate religion is NOT going to collapse. The strength of fundies will ebb and flow depending on world circumstances and what they ate for breakfast this morning. The strength of atheism will also ebb and flow for the same reason.

Moderates in all things will always win over the extremists of all kinds in the long run.

Make fun of wishy-washyness if you like----but that is what keeps civilization going. That is what has always kept our civilization on balance between the nut cases at the extremes.

Jinto

So you think atheists are nut cases?

Rational BAC

Sorry about that. Did not mean all atheists were nut cases. Just those who think it is somehow necessary to do away with religion.

goat37

I think the problem with growing our numbers (atheists that is), is that atheists don't breed enough...

I love the Harvey Danger lyric "I've been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding"

well that and "I had a lovely brunch with Jesus Christ, he said two words about inanity: fundamental christianity"


Seems to be that atheists tend to have higher intelligence than religious folk (maybe because we tend to focus on our own research and fact finding rather than saying 'goddidit') and it seems that those of lower intelligence tend to breed more. I know that was a rash generalization, but it sounds pretty good to me.