vacuous rhetoric about atheists

[pianogeek_cz]

What I mean is:

A belief is personal. It's from an individual frame of reference. Each reference is subjective. Therefore, the only place one belief can hold merit over another is within the mind of the individual. People often use thing like social proof as validation of a belief and its merit, however what is acceptable socially is subjective, as it's based on the reference of the society.

I'd go more into this but I have to sleep (not doing another 24).

From what I can tell, the discussion on this forum (regarding religion) are not simply comparisons, but arguments and chess poundings. Discussion leads to progress. Arguing is what apes do when they shout at each other.

Discussion/Arguing: Okay, so that was a terminology thingy...

So, let's have a "society" frame of reference, which we would use to measure merit of belief, according to how beneficiary to the society it is..? I mean, it doesn't really matter if the society is treated like an individual in the sense that it is a frame of reference for belief validation and, therefore, subjective, because you wouldn't really need a larger frame of reference for - simply put - everybody to be in. That could work... Although, again, we need to know what's benefiting and what's not. Some cases are obvious, but it's kindda fuzzy on the edges.

And now, what the hell do we define as this society. It would be best to have -everyone- included, but that's kind of Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were nice... And when we take smaller societies, it works just fine inside the group, but what about when it interacts with the other ones?

I'd say that beliefs hold merit over each other also in the results they produce - that is, the actions they drive the individual to do, and that's -not- just inside the mind of the individual. (Hey, wouldn't these results be the inside of the mind of the up-one-level "Society the Individual"?) Back to the wahhabism/buddhism example: buddhism doesn't drive people to blow themselves up in the middle of the marketplace. Hmmmm?

See, what worries me is that this thing is dangerously close to saying that no belief/society/regime is actually better than any other. Which is obviously suicidal.

[prometheus]

Scientology is probably a joke between a SF-writer and a friend (Hubbard and Heinlein).


The bet was that the SF-writer claimed he could create a new religion. So that is what he did. But at some point he realized he could get a lot of power and money using his religion.


But maybe this is just a rumour. It seems quite believable that this has some core of truth.

[prongated]

I don't need Gary Graffman to tell me my technique is crap.

...awww

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I read a quote in my newspaper yesterday. It amused me considerably, so I'll repeat it 

"Freddie Ayer is so stupid to call himself an atheist - it implies you take religion seriously"

"Freddie" Ayer of course being the famous British philosopher A.J.Ayer.

[rimv2]

Discussion/Arguing: Okay, so that was a terminology thingy...

So, let's have a "society" frame of reference, which we would use to measure merit of belief, according to how beneficiary to the society it is..? I mean, it doesn't really matter if the society is treated like an individual in the sense that it is a frame of reference for belief validation and, therefore, subjective, because you wouldn't really need a larger frame of reference for - simply put - everybody to be in. That could work... Although, again, we need to know what's benefiting and what's not. Some cases are obvious, but it's kindda fuzzy on the edges.

And now, what the hell do we define as this society. It would be best to have -everyone- included, but that's kind of Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were nice... And when we take smaller societies, it works just fine inside the group, but what about when it interacts with the other ones?

I'd say that beliefs hold merit over each other also in the results they produce - that is, the actions they drive the individual to do, and that's -not- just inside the mind of the individual. (Hey, wouldn't these results be the inside of the mind of the up-one-level "Society the Individual"?) Back to the wahhabism/buddhism example: buddhism doesn't drive people to blow themselves up in the middle of the marketplace. Hmmmm?

See, what worries me is that this thing is dangerously close to saying that no belief/society/regime is actually better than any other. Which is obviously suicidal.

There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.

-William Shakespeare. 

[ramseytheii]

There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.

-William Shakespeare. 

Some thinking is better than others.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

Discussion/Arguing: Okay, so that was a terminology thingy...

So, let's have a "society" frame of reference, which we would use to measure merit of belief, according to how beneficiary to the society it is..? I mean, it doesn't really matter if the society is treated like an individual in the sense that it is a frame of reference for belief validation and, therefore, subjective, because you wouldn't really need a larger frame of reference for - simply put - everybody to be in. That could work... Although, again, we need to know what's benefiting and what's not. Some cases are obvious, but it's kindda fuzzy on the edges.

There is no such thing as society, since society is just a collection of individuals.  The problem with religious rule is that it institutes a "society" where everyone has to follow the dictates of a holy book, except the organism known as society.  The individuals have to have their everyday lives policed, but the same rules never apply to the society as an organism.

This is one element which confirms the greatness of the US system and Constitution: it's a government subordinate to the people, a government which is held accountable for the same principles the individuals are.  A government that recognizes it is made up of individuals, each given equal rights, and barred from infringing on others rights.

Take a look at any ruling religious institutions, and you will find that the standards applied to the individual are never applied to the society as a whole.

And now, what the hell do we define as this society. It would be best to have -everyone- included, but that's kind of Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were nice... And when we take smaller societies, it works just fine inside the group, but what about when it interacts with the other ones?

Another issue is of course how much smaller groups are allowed to govern themselves.  Recently in Amerika a flak was raised over the biggest golf society, which didn't allow women into its ranks.  Somehow some legislation was proposed to force them to allow women, I don't remember the outcome, probably because it was terrible.  On one hand, a private society should be allowed to dictate its members; like Mormons not accepting blacks, or homosexuals.

On the other hand, a certain amount of policing is necessary: religious groups cannot be allowed to govern themselves in all things.  Look at the British Muslims, practicing female circumcision, mercy killings, and the like.  Those things are wrong no matter what.  As Salman Rushdie said back in the 80's, you can't use culture as a defense for killing or maiming people.  In his context, he meant the Muslim law wasn't a sufficient reason to justify killing him for writing a book, and that Western nations shouldn't tolerate such barbarism.

I'd say that beliefs hold merit over each other also in the results they produce - that is, the actions they drive the individual to do, and that's -not- just inside the mind of the individual. (Hey, wouldn't these results be the inside of the mind of the up-one-level "Society the Individual"?) Back to the wahhabism/buddhism example: buddhism doesn't drive people to blow themselves up in the middle of the marketplace. Hmmmm?

There are many things considered immoral in the religious mentality, that are not considered immoral anywhere else.  Many things can be rationally justified; many things cannot.  Let's say the religious band together to make homosexual acts illegal.  In their minds, they are working to eradicate a sin, or at least make it punishable, and fulfilling God's Word (no matter for now that they are doing it by force and coercion).  In a rational person's mind, there can be no immorality connected with homosexuality except from a religious standpoint.  It is not rationally immoral.  So the fruits of that law would be positive for religious, and negative for everyone else.

What I mean to say is that judging a tree by its fruit, or a belief by its result, depends so much on who is doing the judging.  Thank goodness in Amerika it is not the religious who judge for everyone else.

See, what worries me is that this thing is dangerously close to saying that no belief/society/regime is actually better than any other. Which is obviously suicidal.

Since there are certain values which can be shown to be true rationally, and don't need a Holy Book in order to be true, I think you are jumping way overboard with that last statement.  To equate atheism with complete subjectivity is just bad logick.   Belief in itself does not make something good - otherwise, it would be good for the Muslim world to assassinate Salman Rushdie; it would be good for them to practice female circumcision; it would be good for the Amerikan religious to criminalize homosexuality and a host of other things that the Holy Scrit holds as wrong - all because those people believe it to be right. 

No!  Stand up for rational values, values that may be present in holy books, but that can be just as real outside of them.

Walter Ramsey

[rimv2]

There is no such thing as society, since society is just a collection of individuals.  The problem with religious rule is that it institutes a "society" where everyone has to follow the dictates of a holy book, except the organism known as society.  The individuals have to have their everyday lives policed, but the same rules never apply to the society as an organism.

This is one element which confirms the greatness of the US system and Constitution: it's a government subordinate to the people, a government which is held accountable for the same principles the individuals are.  A government that recognizes it is made up of individuals, each given equal rights, and barred from infringing on others rights.

Take a look at any ruling religious institutions, and you will find that the standards applied to the individual are never applied to the society as a whole.


Another issue is of course how much smaller groups are allowed to govern themselves.  Recently in Amerika a flak was raised over the biggest golf society, which didn't allow women into its ranks.  Somehow some legislation was proposed to force them to allow women, I don't remember the outcome, probably because it was terrible.  On one hand, a private society should be allowed to dictate its members; like Mormons not accepting blacks, or homosexuals.

On the other hand, a certain amount of policing is necessary: religious groups cannot be allowed to govern themselves in all things.  Look at the British Muslims, practicing female circumcision, mercy killings, and the like.  Those things are wrong no matter what.  As Salman Rushdie said back in the 80's, you can't use culture as a defense for killing or maiming people.  In his context, he meant the Muslim law wasn't a sufficient reason to justify killing him for writing a book, and that Western nations shouldn't tolerate such barbarism.

There are many things considered immoral in the religious mentality, that are not considered immoral anywhere else.  Many things can be rationally justified; many things cannot.  Let's say the religious band together to make homosexual acts illegal.  In their minds, they are working to eradicate a sin, or at least make it punishable, and fulfilling God's Word (no matter for now that they are doing it by force and coercion).  In a rational person's mind, there can be no immorality connected with homosexuality except from a religious standpoint.  It is not rationally immoral.  So the fruits of that law would be positive for religious, and negative for everyone else.

What I mean to say is that judging a tree by its fruit, or a belief by its result, depends so much on who is doing the judging.  Thank goodness in Amerika it is not the religious who judge for everyone else.


Since there are certain values which can be shown to be true rationally, and don't need a Holy Book in order to be true, I think you are jumping way overboard with that last statement.  To equate atheism with complete subjectivity is just bad logick.   Belief in itself does not make something good - otherwise, it would be good for the Muslim world to assassinate Salman Rushdie; it would be good for them to practice female circumcision; it would be good for the Amerikan religious to criminalize homosexuality and a host of other things that the Holy Scrit holds as wrong - all because those people believe it to be right. 

No!  Stand up for rational values, values that may be present in holy books, but that can be just as real outside of them.

Walter Ramsey

You like to argue. Ah don't. But ah simply cannot ignore such a long post. Ah have nothing better to do.

Wrong and right are concepts created by/for man. All animals on this planet kill to live. Some animals kill to mate.

Are these animals wrong? Yes, no....

Irrelevant.

The answer to the question is based solely on the beliefs of who ever answers it.

And at it's basic core, regardless of how many manifesto you post, belief is irrational.

It varies from person to person, culture to culture, society to society.

Given that belief is irrational, to say one belief is better or worse than another is irrational because one if speaking from the frame of one's beliefs ie an irrational one.

The only real truths, one could say, are life and death. And on a personal level even death is a bit out there (no references).

At the end of the day, all we really have are irrationalities and tendency to push them on to other people.

Now excuse meh while ah go cut mah wrists 

The pointlessness of it all!!!!!!!!

On the next 24.....beep....beep.....beep...beep....

[pianogeek_cz]

Um, a bit of clarification for rameseytheii... I wasn't talking about belief as the religious identity of the individual, I was talking about any belief in general, such as the belief that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Since there are certain values which can be shown to be true rationally, and don't need a Holy Book in order to be true, I think you are jumping way overboard with that last statement. To equate atheism with complete subjectivity is just bad logick. Belief in itself does not make something good - otherwise, it would be good for the Muslim world to assassinate Salman Rushdie; it would be good for them to practice female circumcision; it would be good for the Amerikan religious to criminalize homosexuality and a host of other things that the Holy Scrit holds as wrong - all because those people believe it to be right.

No! Stand up for rational values, values that may be present in holy books, but that can be just as real outside of them.

I was never talking specifically about atheism/other religion. And "Belief in itself does not..." was exactly what I (thought I was) implying and warning against. But the problem is, the muslim world, or at least a considerable part of it, -is- convinced that murdering Salaman Rushdie would be good, and they just won't let themselves be convinced otherwise.

The troubling question is... are there any truly universal rational values?

There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.

-William Shakespeare.

Good or bad? Possibly. Right or wrong? Hardly.

Good or bad is indeed individual, because the final evaluation is always done by the individual who acted. If someone else tries to evaluate, their view the individual either will, or will not accept.

Right or wrong, however, starts taking other people and facts on the ground into the equation.

Example: Hiroshima. Obviously, it's a bad thing to kill a score of civillians. At the same time, it was obviously the right thing to do - it ended the war with the least total number of casualities, even civillian. Plus, responsibility comes into play big time, too - you have definitely more responsibility to your soldiers, who would have died in scores, had the US invaded Japan, than to the enemy.

By the way, W. R., I still didn't get an answer to that rocket launcher question I asked earlier. Does that mean you don't have an answer you'd be willing to post?

Wrong and right are concepts created by/for man. All animals on this planet kill to live. Some animals kill to mate.

Are these animals wrong? Yes, no....

Irrelevant.

The answer to the question is based solely on the beliefs of who ever answers it.

And at it's basic core, regardless of how many manifesto you post, belief is irrational.

It varies from person to person, culture to culture, society to society.

Given that belief is irrational, to say one belief is better or worse than another is irrational because one if speaking from the frame of one's beliefs ie an irrational one.

The only real truths, one could say, are life and death. And on a personal level even death is a bit out there (no references).

At the end of the day, all we really have are irrationalities and tendency to push them on to other people.

Now excuse meh while ah go cut mah wrists 

The pointlessness of it all!!!!!!!!

On the next 24.....beep....beep.....beep...beep....

The animal example is a bad one. Animals lack will. Right and wrong are related to will, so it's indeed irrelevant, but not because the beliefs of the answering person, rather because right and wrong cannot be applied to acts that lack the conscious will to act.

"Given that belief is irrational, to say one belief is better or worse than another is irrational because one if speaking from the frame of one's beliefs ie an irrational one." Again, it's a matter of good/bad vs. right/wrong. As far as beliefs about good and bad go - I agree. Right or wrong, though, can be measured to how benefiting they are to the sum of individuals involved...

Right and wrong, even if created by man and for man, contain the keyword FOR.

[Experiment: think (crude, but maybe illustrative) maths: set S of individuals involved (let's name this set "Immediate Society"), action A and effect e, which falls into <-1;1> interval. To each individual I_n of the set S, ascribe e_n, which says how benefiting the action is to the individual. Let's say -1 is murder, +1 is saving life. Now, to each I_n there is a coeficient of responsibility r > 0, by which you multiply e_n. Now, an average of all the e_n x r_n gives how benefiting to society S action A is. The one with the highest benefit is the right one. What say you?]

Let's accept that belief is irrational... But what is there when you decide, besides belief?

The realities are life and death. Is that enough?

Dunno. Meh is a bit worried.

[rimv2]

Um, a bit of clarification for rameseytheii... I wasn't talking about belief as the religious identity of the individual, I was talking about any belief in general, such as the belief that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.

I was never talking specifically about atheism/other religion. And "Belief in itself does not..." was exactly what I (thought I was) implying and warning against. But the problem is, the muslim world, or at least a considerable part of it, -is- convinced that murdering Salaman Rushdie would be good, and they just won't let themselves be convinced otherwise.

The troubling question is... are there any truly universal rational values?

Good or bad? Possibly. Right or wrong? Hardly.

Good or bad is indeed individual, because the final evaluation is always done by the individual who acted. If someone else tries to evaluate, their view the individual either will, or will not accept.

Right or wrong, however, starts taking other people and facts on the ground into the equation.

Example: Hiroshima. Obviously, it's a bad thing to kill a score of civillians. At the same time, it was obviously the right thing to do - it ended the war with the least total number of casualities, even civillian. Plus, responsibility comes into play big time, too - you have definitely more responsibility to your soldiers, who would have died in scores, had the US invaded Japan, than to the enemy.

By the way, W. R., I still didn't get an answer to that rocket launcher question I asked earlier. Does that mean you don't have an answer you'd be willing to post?

The animal example is a bad one. Animals lack will. Right and wrong are related to will, so it's indeed irrelevant, but not because the beliefs of the answering person, rather because right and wrong cannot be applied to acts that lack the conscious will to act.

"Given that belief is irrational, to say one belief is better or worse than another is irrational because one if speaking from the frame of one's beliefs ie an irrational one." Again, it's a matter of good/bad vs. right/wrong. As far as beliefs about good and bad go - I agree. Right or wrong, though, can be measured to how benefiting they are to the sum of individuals involved...

Right and wrong, even if created by man and for man, contain the keyword FOR.

[Experiment: think (crude, but maybe illustrative) maths: set S of individuals involved (let's name this set "Immediate Society"), action A and effect e, which falls into <-1;1> interval. To each individual I_n of the set S, ascribe e_n, which says how benefiting the action is to the individual. Let's say -1 is murder, +1 is saving life. Now, to each I_n there is a coeficient of responsibility r > 0, by which you multiply e_n. Now, an average of all the e_n x r_n gives how benefiting to society S action A is. The one with the highest benefit is the right one. What say you?]

Let's accept that belief is irrational... But what is there when you decide, besides belief?

The realities are life and death. Is that enough?

Dunno. Meh is a bit worried.

What if, to another individual, -1 is saving life, +1 is taking life.

[G.W.K]

For a while I believed I was an Atheist. Now I have found out I am actually Agnostic. But I find that Agnostic and Atheisim are very similar. So...I suppose in a logical way, you could argue that I am both.

I know this is a confusing answer! 

G.W.K

[prometheus]

You can be both.


Do you have a belief in gods? If not then you are an atheist.


Do you belief that it is possible to know if god exists or not? If not then you are an agnostic.




I don't know how you can know you can't know if god exists or not if you can't know anything about god. I mean, what is god?



Personally I am a weak atheist to the concept of 'god' in general. I don't know what it means. So how do I know what position to take on the existence of this something about which have no idea what it is?

It's like asking you if tanar'ri exists, assuming you don't know what it is and assuming I don't tell you.
Maybe they are a type of chicken on Madagascar. Maybe not. Maybe it means nothing and I just made up the word.
But if you don't know they are a race of demons in a fictional fantasy universe you don't know to belief or disbelief them. But until you know you have a passive disbelief. You don't know what they are, but you don't belief they exist. So atheism towards tanari'ri.
Are you an agnostic towards tanar'ri? You might be. But a simple google search will proof this position wrong as it is very well possible to find out of tanar'ri exist.

Then when you learn about what it is you will have to switch to active disbelief. You have learned they are fictional. So now you belief they don't exist for the first time, in contrast with disbelieving their existence.

So could you propose that you can never be sure that tanar'ri do not exist by pure coincidence somewhere where no one has ever looked, even though they are also fictional beings in a fantasy universe?

No, you can never be sure of this. But this is not agnosticism. If you do take this position and if you belief that you can never be sure something doesn't exist or is not possible before you check all imaginable positions, and even those not imagined but possible, then you will end up being an 'agnostic' about everything and you can't have a single thought. You will go nuts.



I am a strong atheist when it comes to gods like Zeus and Yahweh because they are much more specific about that what I should belief or not when it comes to those gods.

I am also an anti-theist. I belief having faith in things is a bad idea. Especially when they are so far-reaching as monotheism. So I think religion is bad.

[G.W.K]

OK...that was a slightly confusing explanation but I think I may be both. I accept people have different beliefs...so I will not become agnostic to everything. I accept there may be things I do not know...but where God is concerned...I do not believe in him/her.

What is Monotheism?

G.W.K

(I always find religious topics confusing because they are end-less...)

[wotgoplunk]

OK...that was a slightly confusing explanation but I think I may be both. I accept people have different beliefs...so I will not become agnostic to everything. I accept there may be things I do not know...but where God is concerned...I do not believe in him/her.

What is Monotheism?

G.W.K

(I always find religious topics confusing because they are end-less...)

Monotheism is a religion that believes in one god.

[prometheus]

OK...that was a slightly confusing explanation but I think I may be both. I accept people have different beliefs...so I will not become agnostic to everything. I accept there may be things I do not know...but where God is concerned...I do not believe in him/her.

What is Monotheism?

G.W.K

(I always find religious topics confusing because they are end-less...)

Ooh, my messages on most subjects are long.

Important is active and passive belief in a non-existence of god. So actively believing , lacking the faith.


You don't specify either of them. Everything you said I could agree with. I also accept that people have different beliefs. But I just think beliefs should be criticized and examined.
This is different from a lot of people because they think beliefs regarding politics or economics should be criticized and examined but not religious beliefs because they are sacred.

So apart from the negative connotation atheism still has to a lot of people, it seems you are an atheist to me. But wheneter you are a strong or weak one, I don't know.


Anyway, maybe this is confusing because sometimes an agnost is described as someone who is not sure yet. Many people that describe themselves as agnostics may also be 'closet atheists' or 'fence sitters' or people that just refuse to take a position for whatever other reason.

Waiting for more evidence is not reasonable and many of these people don't follow the idea that it is fundamentally impossible to find out if god exists or not.

[johnny-boy]

"Atheists should say that we don't know how and why the universe came forth out of the big bang process. But they should also say that the universe coming from nothing is much much much more probable than god coming from nothing"- Promey

You shouldn't believe everything you read in those scientific journals Promey

The big bang theory is scientific hogwash - created by brainwashed individuals. Hell, society can't get a straight handle on what happened a week ago, yet billions of years ago. But then that’s how scientific theory is established - by starting with a false premise and adding manure to the concoction. Bullshit I say, bullshit!

John

[pianogeek_cz]

Hell, society can't get a straight handle on what happened a week ago, yet billions of years ago.

This is the point where the History Monks come in.

[G.W.K]

prometheus - I was always under the impression that Atheists just didn't believe in God...sort of thought "We live, we die and thats that"...as agnostics believed in an afterlife or resurrection...something that might be possible but has no proof.

I don't know if you explained Monotheism in your explanation...could you point it out please? As for me being a strong or weak atheist agnostic...I am not sure.

G.W.K

[prometheus]

Someone else did.

Monotheism is one god. Polytheism is more than one god.


Islam and Judaism are clearly one god so monotheistic.

Christianity has a trinity, which is something that contradicts itself. There is only one god, but it has three parts, but it is still one.
Plus, you worship the saints too in Catholicism. You aren't supposed to worship angels either. So this is also not monotheistic. But generally all Abrahamic religions are seen as monotheistic,

Also note that earlier books of the bible were written by people that did have polytheistic views.



An atheist may believe in an afterlife. Just as long as there are no gods. Just as atheists can believe in fairies and ghosts.

You seem to describe 'somethingism'. Actually, this is called by the Dutch word: 'Ietsism' even in English. It's a very Dutch thing. Many people here believe that all those religions are crazy. But still they do think there is 'something'. A very ambiguous position.

It's like accepting that there is no evidence for gods and accepting that all our established religions are made up by ignorant people in more primitive times..
But at the same time refusing to draw all the consequences that follow this. So I would say that these people are atheists desperately looking for something spiritual reasonable to belief in. And the fact that we can't exclude anything is something they cling on to.


It's an extremely ambiguous position that I find very strange. But one poll showed that 40% of the people in the Netherlands hold this view. That's probably a majority of the religious people in the Netherlands.


While it seems to be similar to agnosticism and while Ietsisten may actually identify themselves as agnostic they are really opposites on some points. While agnostics hold the position: "If you don't know then do not belief." Ietsisten say: "I don't know but still I belief." or even "I don't know and that' i why I belief."


Sounds like you may be one. I find it intellectually an extremely unsatisfying position.

[G.W.K]

So in other words...I'm more of an atheist than agnostic?

G.W.K

P.S.  I'm sorry, I struggle to understand your paragraphs...you said "Sounds like I many be one" One of what?

[prometheus]

Most agnostics are also atheists. Some agnosts are still theists though.

I have given you the definitions. Now you can decide, or refuse to decide, for yourself.


And you sound like an ietsist. You believe in something but not in anything that can be defined or described. So not the gods and religion we already know. If this is correct you are an ietsist or somethingist.

[G.W.K]

Thank you.

G.W.K

[valor]

Why are there so many biblical discussions on this forum?

 In my opinion Atheists aren't any more pathetic than believers, even if there arguments are weak. Its easy for a believer to make a "better" argument, pull out a few sentences from the bible and bam, you have an argument.

[wotgoplunk]

Because religion is one of the most important decisions in a a person's life. Most religions give you a way you must live your life, and sometimes ideas between them conflict.

Thus leading to the amount of discussion.

[Derek]

Why are there so many biblical discussions on this forum?

 In my opinion Atheists aren't any more pathetic than believers, even if there arguments are weak. Its easy for a believer to make a "better" argument, pull out a few sentences from the bible and bam, you have an argument.

I agree: atheists and believers are both kinds of humans, and humans are often pathetic. The only reason I started this thread was to counter the 'Christianity: Plague of the MIND" thread with equally vacuous rhetoric. I then proceeded to create some posts which were more thoughtful. 

[rimv2]

I agree: atheists and believers are both kinds of humans, and humans are often pathetic. The only reason I started this thread was to counter the 'Christianity: Plague of the MIND" thread with equally vacuous rhetoric. I then proceeded to create some posts which were more thoughtful. 

You're a part of the problem

[prometheus]

Maul bluntly and wildly attacked Christianity.


You should have said: "atheism is pathetic."




Generally Christians see more wrong with antitheists, then with antitheism, then with atheists and only then with atheism.

[pianolearner]

Because religion is one of the most important decisions in a a person's life. Most religions give you a way you must live your life, and sometimes ideas between them conflict.

Thus leading to the amount of discussion.

For many (MOST!) people religion is not a decision. It is an indoctrination which begins in the formative years of a person's life.

[thalbergmad]

For many (MOST!) people religion is not a decision. It is an indoctrination which begins in the formative years of a person's life.

Indeed it is.

Perhaps it should be banned, as it does more damage than spanking ever could and that is now against the law in the UK.

I will write to Gordon Brown.

Thal

[prometheus]

Yes, it is damaging to a child.

But here the government actually subsidises it. It is part of the constitution, if you interpret it the way it is interpreted.

[thalbergmad]

Yes, it is damaging to a child.

When i was at school, i had to take Religious Education as a subject, i had to say prayers at assembly, sing hymns and listen to boring preaching.

I think/hope that things have changed now. I did read that Religion can no longer be taught as a 100% positive thing and the sylabus must be more balanced.

To force feed a childs brain with this poison at an early age is a form of abuse and i do feel that any kind of religious education should be illegal to pre teens, to ensure that it is only taught at an age when a child is capable of making an informed decision whether to accept or reject.

Thal

 

[rimv2]

When i was at school, i had to take Religious Education as a subject, i had to say prayers at assembly, sing hymns and listen to boring preaching.

I think/hope that things have changed now. I did read that Religion can no longer be taught as a 100% positive thing and the sylabus must be more balanced.

To force feed a childs brain with this poison at an early age is a form of abuse and i do feel that any kind of religious education should be illegal to pre teens, to ensure that it is only taught at an age when a child is capable of making an informed decision whether to accept or reject.

Thal

 

Come on now.

If they did that who would ever choose to have a religion.

PS the culture in which you live is a form of religion. Might wanna take your kid out into the wilderness then let them decide whether or not to join society when they come of age.

[rc]

People grow up with some form of brainwashing or another.  If not religion then TV.  In any case, the children accept whatever beliefs the parents hold.  If someone wants to carve their own path, it's their duty to examine their beliefs and decide what to keep and what to get rid of.  The very act of moving towards a goal requires the beliefs in line with the objective, or they are created in the process...  So that's how I think that action is more effective than mental gymnastics.  Simplify.

Some thinking is better than others.

Walter Ramsey

Depends on what you want to do.

[thalbergmad]

Come on now.

If they did that who would ever choose to have a religion.

I have no idea, but having a choice is important.

Thal