Religion is for cowards and pedophiles of childrens minds

Yeah, but probably nothing you'd appreciate. I doubt I could persuade you, for example, that the architecture of St Paul's cathedral was "worth it".

You think religion is the reason then, rather than the excuse?

Your description here is biased. Obviously only a person who believes in a deity will kill in the name of that deity. But people with faith and no faith have persistently killed in the name of ideology - another equally unprovable thing, but one you're fine with because, hey, it's not supernatural by your definition. Is killing in the name of Freedom, or dying for Your Country, really any more acceptable?

As to genital mutilation, I wish that you would take the time to look into religion before determining that an action can be attributed solely to its practice.

Blaming religion for these things is what those responsible want you to do, RD.

What does that have to do with anything?

I'm not. I'm defending people who believe in things that aren't true. That's a big difference right there. And I defend them because I see a value in believing in something which isn't true if doing so enables it to become true. If people hadn't believed in the idea of equality, in spite of increasing evidence that all men aren't created equal, then we wouldn't be demanding fair treatment for people now. And I know you think that that's just different, but so what?

I would, but not with you. I am sure you will assume that I'm not an atheist because I am trying to challenge your entrenched beliefs either way, and I don't see any value in giving you another excuse to make this about what I believe. You're the one on trial here

And this is why. You have no interest in knowing anything about religion that doesn't serve your argument or which might jar with your viewpoint. That you can actually make that claim in bold shows that you only care about decrying religion, to the extent that you'll make stuff up about what it is and how it operates in order to do so. I've met plenty of religious people, and I don't know of any who believe that they are incapable of happiness through anything other than religion. Wise up, please.

 

lulz

 

So are you saying that if enough people believe in the rapture for instance it will actually happen?

You defend peoples right to believe in things that are not true and are used to promote irrational thinking?

How noble of you to do such a thing, has it occurred to you that maybe telling them the truth about religion, that being, that it is proven to be man made might be a little more helpful to them?


The way to try to downplay the relationship between religious extremism violence,bigotry and superstition is embarrassing.

I don't blame you at all for wanting to keep you beliefs to yourself, I'm sure you have a very good reason to.

Religion is for fools and those who fool others.

 

Here in lies the problem, You continue to say that religion is proven to be man made when no such thing has ever been proven. When in fact, the “Truth” about religion very well may be that it is from God.

 

Rudenoodle , how can you condemn Religion as a whole based on the practices of some MEN using religion as an excuse to do all the messed up things they are doing ?
MEN made up the rules of their churches that they follow.
GOD never mentioned any one religious practice in the Bible and said , " Follow this."
All he said was , " believe in me and follow the example of my son Jesus, "

He didnt say what church to join or how to worship , MEN made up those things.....not Religions.

Anyway , thats just my belief anyway.

I know that Heavenly Father is real , that Jesus is his son , maybe Heaven isnt what people think , and Hell is different than we been led to believe , but , my faith is strong.

An gods going to love me no matter what.

Huggs Brother RN

 

No. Although I wouldn't be so arrogant as to presume that it wouldn't either.

Yes. Yes I do.

You, however, assail the right of a person to believe what they want to and to communicate their beliefs to others. (I fail to see how you would propose to stop religion; if you think that you'll "educate" the religious out of their beliefs, you might want to work on your persuasiveness.)

I have to say, I am intrigued. You seem to credit children with remarkable maturity. You believe that they will be able to understand (rather than merely accept) objective truths from infancy which a great many adults struggle with, to the extent where any deception on the part of the parent, even with the best will in the world, should be regarded as morally suspect.

So if a toddler is this rational and mature, why is it so terrible as to be regarded as child abuse for someone to lie to them? (I'm ignoring motive here, since you yourself have chosen to do so.) Why do you not credit them with the intelligence to be taught from the Bible or the Koran and take it with a pinch of salt? As an exponent of Science, presumably you would want them to take what you consider "the truth" with a pinch of salt, rather than just accepting that Mommy knows the laws of physics - the only thing a rationalist should ever really accept as "gospel" is that their own uncertainty.

I suspect that you won't respond to this coherently, but here's hoping, eh?

Helpful towards what end? Making you happy?

Happiness is a tricky bugger, because it's hard to quantify. You appear to believe in valid and invalid forms of happiness. Since you appear to believe that the religious (who are, according to the only study I know of, considered happier than non-religious people by both themselves and their friends and family) need to be converted, I'm curious to know how you can consider yourself to be "helping" them.

The truth that you should be telling them, Rudenoodle, is that you have absolutely nothing to offer them. You would be taking away beliefs which you believe to be harmful, without evidence that their lives would be any better without them. And what would you give them in exchange?

If you can demonstrate a laudable reason to "free" people from religious beliefs (or even explain what you think you know that they don't already!), I will be impressed. So far, I have seen no evidence that you wish to liberate people for their own benefit, and reading between the lines it seems you are more interested in satisfying your own vanity than anything.

I don't see how it's "downplaying" it to mention that it is a statistically insignificant minority of religious people that will display attributes that you claim are characteristic of religion as a concept.

You've yet to provide any evidence that atrocities committed by religious people are any less likely to be committed by the non-religious. I would think, as someone who is rallying against religious belief because of its lack of basis in fact, you would want to support some of your claims. I appreciate that you are just relaying received wisdom, and that's not really your fault, but I would hope that, when asked, you would look into it and see if it's true, rather than merely making the same assertions over and over again out of habit.

So you presume that, because I do not want to disclose my beliefs to you, they must be both religious and foolish? What rational, objective basis do you have for arriving at this conclusion?

 

Who told you that?

I'm just curious.

 

HE told me that.

I pray , and he answers , and I know...its called Faith.

I know it doesnt sound real , because its not something you can see or touch...but its real.

 

Because we are on an atheist/agnostic thread, if we are going to speak about religion it may helpful to know where we both stand on the issue.

Why wouldn't you want to discuss it?

Do you believe it's foolish?

 

Does he have a male or a female voice?

Or are you not being literal?

 

Your assertion in the opening post was about religion in general, not the specific beliefs of one individual.

For the record, I am an atheist in the loose sense of not actively believing in a god. I used to think this meant believing in nothing but I've since learned that that was retarded. However, it is a moot point whether I believe in a god or not, since I am far more certain that any creator would be indifferent to my attention or lack of.

If the above "helps", then I'm not sure how you can claim to be making any para-objective argument.

 

I do not credit them with the ability to take the lies preached in nonsensical holy books "with a grain of salt" because in my opinion they have not developed critical thinking yet.

Lets put all lies and false claims in all holy texts you do or don't believe aside for just a moment.

Do you think it is morally right to lie to children?

Do you think it is morally right to lie to adults?

What purpose does magical thinking have in this day and age?

The illusion of immortality after death?

The burden of proof is on the believers in such nonsense, I simply state that I have seen no proof of any supernatural ghosts that have created anything.

What I do believe is that religion more often than not is used as a tool to rally armies proliferate wars and helps in selling the idea of genocide to other ignorant people who can be told to wipe out a belief just because it is a slight against a perceived god. Or way of life.

So how can religion be eliminated world wide?

Well for starters people can stop telling children to interpret religion literally.

To tell an innocent child that there is a possibility they may one day find themselves in a pit of fire and be sentenced to suffer there for eternity should be child abuse.

It is psychological trauma, and if I decide to have have children someday I will be more than happy to tell them there is zero proof that such a place exists.

 

When I hear him , its a male voice , very calming , very soft , soothing.
But , I think each person kinda hears him in their own way.
By the way , in keeping with the topic of this thread , I dont call myself a Christian, and I dont apply to any one religion.

I have a tiny problem with organized religion , only because it seems sometimes that it becomes more of man made church rules and less what was actually written in the Bible.

 

Well I respect you for saying what you really believe Ez unlike some people who would rather go off on tangents about the subjectivity of human language than discuss there beliefs.

Obviously I don't agree with you but that's no reason we can't be friends. iggy::Angel_anim:

 

None of us are born with the knowledge of the atom.

 

Good because you seem to be woefully ignorant of their content.

As I said: you're the one on trial here.

Why do you demand proof? I ask this not as an attempt to evidence the supernatural with uncertainty, but to enquire into the mind of the unquiet atheist. Why is important to you for proof to be provided to support beliefs that you do not hold?

You'd have been right if you hadn't said "more often than not". "More often than not" is a bold claim that you cannot support, and I suspect this is why we are at loggerheads here.

It can't, and that's a disgusting thing to say, regardless. Why should religion be "eliminated world wide? What else would you eliminate, while you're ridding the world of these unnecessary things?

Not really. As I've said before (to you?), you're talking about encouraging positive behaviour, and while you might fervently insist that we should never lie to children, would telling them the truth produce positive results?

I talked about this in non-religious terms, and someone (again, was it you?) declared that it was far more acceptable for me to tell a child that a bear would get her if she didn't make a clean plate than it would be for her to believe in Hell. That is just insane. Because yes, a bear is a real animal, but that's the only way in which that claim is less absurd, and if anything I'd say it's worse because I know full well that it's not going to happen.

I don't think I'll persuade you to stop banging your head against this, but believe me, what you are saying is, apart from anything else, a pretty grotesque middle-finger to children who actually have suffered child abuse. Hyperbole isn't the most biggest thing in the universe ever or the most cleverest thing in the universe ever.

What else will you tell them that there is zero proof of? Since you don't believe in lying to children, will you raise them with a "it's only wrong if you get caught" mentality, and then teach them how to avoid getting caught to the best of your ability? I would hope so, since you refute all lies.

At the end of the day, you seem incapable of understanding that something merely being supernatural does not differentiate it from anything else that is unprovable. A ghost is no different from mercy, when all's said and done. A ghost fulfills a psychological function that allows us to go on living our lives, and patches a hole in our thinking which none of us can fill, and which none of us really needs to fill.

Atheists who are all about Science being the way forward for mankind seem to neglect the fact that, without abandoning their own baseless morals, they can't simply change/get rid of people or behaviours who foul up their theories. You want to educate people out of being religious, because you think religion is for fools. Some day, you might open your eyes and see that these people and their motives can not rationally be dismissed like that. Either that, or you'll carry on telling people all kinds of fun facts about what religion is and what religious people are like, and you'll never have to worry about supporting those claims because the sad truth is, there'll always be a market for received wisdom, whether it's among the religious OR the atheistic.

 

Lol passive-aggressivism.

I've told you what my beliefs are, after you coaxed and cajoled and tossed out all kinds of misleading remarks, but only because it became clear that you were determined to drag the lives of individuals into a thread which, from its outset, has been about generalisation rather than specificity. That you now act as if I have not disclosed my beliefs is about what I would expect. If you can't understand why people would be cagey about revealing their personal beliefs, when you manipulate and butcher them so completely in your analyses, again, I think you know very little about people.

 

Can someone give me a accurate term for an agnostic lifestyle?

Would:

Belief in a sentient infinite power suffice, or maybe "personal god"?

I believe that atheist and agnostic views should have separate threads.

 

To indulge you on this (since I feel you'll act as if I've responded in the way that best suits you whether I do so or not)

I believe it is morally justifiable to lie to children if telling the truth is likely to cause them more harm. This is often true in situations where a child is likely to do something dangerous, but which they will not appreciate the real danger of until it is demonstrate.

If I have bleach under the sink, what do I do? Commit the cardinal sin of OH NOES lying and maybe telling the kid "don't go under there, there's a monster that will BITE YOU! "? Or do I do the apparently morally right thing of explaining to the child exactly what bleach is in purely scientific terms, explaining its effect on human biology (which I'll straight up admit I don't know), and then hope that the kid a) was paying attention, b) understood, and c) won't just try it out for themselves anyway?

Under circumstances such as these, I think it would be extremely suspect morally to stick to only telling the child what can be proved (by you, to a child) and hoping that's enough.

Again, it's morally justifiable. Different lies are applicable, obviously. The one I herald is the racial equality lie. The truth is, there probably are statistics to show that one race is, on average, a little less intelligent than another. Regardless of whether it's true, you find a racist who is just dying for something to justify his prejudices, and I dunno, would you feel that telling them a truth like that is justifiable? Do you think that, when you explain afterwards that the difference is statistically insignificant and that averages do not reflect accurately the individual members of a sample group, he's going to be listening attentively for reasons why he shouldn't prejudge other races?

This is an overt example. There are hundreds of other small lies though. Property is a lie - we collectively decide to believe that ownership is possible, and within years someone owns everything that exists. Because of this, we can have a system where people are rewarded for their work, and theoretically people shouldn't have to fight over food. Can you prove to someone who is not weak and is pretty speedy on his feet that there's a good reason not to just steal from anyone who lacks the power to stop him? Because I can't. I have to rely on these unprovable beliefs and values that, I hope, we both share, in order to appeal to drives which will remind him that the right and wrong society believe in do exist. You can't prove that thing, and if you rely solely on proof then he's stealing stuff from you that you put work into gaining, and you shouldn't even be able to feel bad about that.

You'll insist that this is Different because these values are not supernatural, but they are, really. The evidence for them is circumstantial - even if there is a LOT of it! - and their

I am not clear on what you mean by "magical thinking". I don't think we're going to be able to discuss this one for that reason, to be honest. You seem to only be concerned with damning literal interpretations of fables anyway. I'd say that what "magic" in religious fables represents is the need to instill a belief beyond proof. When you're in a situation where a behaviour is desirable, you need some impetus for people to take it up. And there are behaviours which are desirable beneficial in the long term, but which in the short term can seem to be detrimental to the individual. The kid wanting to play Drink The Bleach is experiencing a short-term detriment to his freedom to do so, but the long-term benefit of him NOT drinking the bleach - i.e. he gets to keep on living - is so much greater that any responsible parent will want to instill a belief that drinking bleach is bad as quickly as possible. Maybe he'll find out later that there's no monster under the sink, but he'll do it from a position of being alive. Maybe he'd grow up to be a genius ten times quicker if Mummy had taken two hours out to explain to him the molecular structure of bleach and how it affects the human body. But maybe he wouldn't grow up at all. In the end, it is always easier in the short term to just let people do what they want, but in the long term, you forsee benefits. Magic comes in, in these stories, as a way to clearly relate two things which might not otherwise be so interrelated.

If, as a crass example, someone proved that there was nothing wrong with killing people, would the world be a better place for being rid of the lie that there was something wrong with it?

Aside from the fairly obvious response to this - how can you claim that immortality after death is an illusion when you are very much alive? - I would say that the benefits to the belief that one may be rewarded for good behaviour are obvious, and the benefits of that reward coming a definite but non-specific point in the future are equally obvious. If you tell people that, if they behave themselves, they'll be rewarded in a week, they might do it, but chances are they won't try very hard, and the first time the reward is not what they feel their good behaviour deserved, you've lost them. Material rewards often fail as impetus compared to metaphysical ones, and this is fairly well-documented.

So in this case, its place "in this day and age" is precisely where it was in previous ones.

 

As I understood it, an agnostic does not believe that there is a god, and an atheist believes that there is no god. It's kind of the difference between holding a position (the atheist) and simply observing inconclusive evidence (the agnostic). So I'd say there's a fairly significant amount of crossover between the two that would preclude any necessity for separation (other than for convenience).

Then again, I've been wrong before.