My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Ghel]

And as we've kept pointing out, TRUE OR NOT IS NOT THE POINT. Even you're not arguing everyone should be an atheist because it's true.

Actually, I am arguing that everyone should be an atheist because it's true, by default, because theism is false. To quote (or perhaps paraphrase, as I'm quoting from memory) Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[Kelmon]

I've answered this in previous threads. Religion causes harm, both to non-believers (including followers of other religions) and to adherents of the religion. When believers stop enacting anti-abortion laws and anti-gay laws, when churches start paying taxes just like any other business, when being bat-shit crazy isn't a requirement for a Republican presidential nomination, when women are no longer jailed for being raped, when self-described "holy men" are no longer given automatic respect, when Joseph Ratzinger is charged with accessory after the fact for shuffling pedophile priests, when praying instead of seeking medical attention for a child is a crime in every part of the world, and when FGM and circumcision are eradicated from the world, then I'll leave them the fuck alone.

This. Exactly this.

[Rapscallion]

Let's just assume what you're saying is true. We're also biologically inclined to mate on the spot with any other human being that we find attractive. And yet you don't see a lot of people humping each other in the streets.

Well, I did until I signed the mortgage, at which point they suddenly vanished.

I should have read the fine print.

Rapscallion

[Duelist925]

You really think so? In this discussion, religion is equivalent to racism, homophobia, etc., and atheism is equivalent to tolerance, accecptance, etc. Atheists are the ones that are pointing out what's wrong with religion and the various things that it posits without evidence. Atheists are far more likely, on average, to be accepting of differences, as long as those differences have a rational basis.

Fair enough. Ok. WHY is religion equated to homophobia, racism, and the other evils? I seriously wanna know. Why is religion, in and of itself, the equivalent of racism?

Because people used it to justify such things? Hell, people have attempted to use the theory of freaking evolution to justify racism.

We call those people "idiots".

The evangelical part of the argument is convincing others that they're wrong. Not through threats or coersion, but through reasoned arguments.

You know, I have no problem with reasoned arguments. I have no problem with civil discourse, over the nature of reality, and whether or not there is a god, whether religion is evil, etc, etc.

Except I so rarely see it. I see logical fallacies, slandering, and an incessant refusal to concede even the best made point, from BOTH sides, theist and atheist, on this board and, well, everywhere else.

I mean, we're not the ones threatening people with eternal torture if they don't see things our way!

*slowclap* Gee, where'd you get the paintbrush? I didn't think they sold them that wide. I mean, it's not like thats simply a vocal minority made up of the most fundie morons of the group as a whole or anything.

And mostly as an aside, your 2.3% is low for an estimate of global non-religious. The current estimate is around 14% of people, globally, are non-religious. Granted, this likely includes many people who don't call themselves atheists, but it also excludes those who belong to atheistic religions. Not that it really matters, since an appeal to numbers of adherents does not tell us whether the underlying belief is true or not.

....What in the world is an atheist religion?

Unfortunately i was away from the discussion for a while so it would be kind of pointless to argue about things said on page 3. just let me say that so far no one brought forth any instance of anyone committing heinous acts because of atheism. As for Stalin... (Doing bad things for atheism =!= Being an atheist and doing bad things)

Ok. Its been said. over and over. Using religion as a justification for an evil act, does not make religion itself evil. Religion is a tool. Its a hammer. You can use it to build a house, or to cave someones skull in.

So what? Replace it with "Poverty", "Crime" or "Unemployment", and it becomes a good thing. Replace it with "Yellow rhubarb bubblegum", and it becomes something...weird.

I don't see a problem with the initial statement. Obviously one side of an ideological battle wishes the other side would cave in and join them. I don't think any athiest can think it's "great" that religion exists. Just as well as no theist can honestly say it's "great" that there are non-believers.

I have a problem with the initial statement because it treats religion as a disease, as something that should be culled, despite all the good that religion has done. Secondly, its offensive, because religion, as has been pointed out many times, is something that is crucial to many peoples self identities, theist or atheist. And treating something so integral to so many peoples self identity as something that should be gotten rid of smacks me dangerously similar to the arguments I've seen people make against homosexuality or atheism.

Not to mention, I hate when anyone states that there is One True Way! UND ONLY ONE!



Oh, and on a slightly different note, your right! I don't think "its great" that there are nonbelievers or atheists or whatever.

Know why I dont think that?

Because I couldn't give less of a fuck! The number of fucks I give is almost negative, there are so few! If you don't beleive the same as I do, or at all, GOOD FOR YOU. I could care less!

In fact, the majority of thinking theists really dont! It's only the moronic fundies that really give a shit! And guess what else--the rest of the religious world hates them even more than most freaking atheists! They give the rest of us a bad name.

It is even said this change should come about without force or changing of laws - again, obviously implying it should happen by reasoning with the other side.

Which is a patent impossibility.

Again, i fail to see where the problem is. Except in your head maybe, assuming the worst.

*slowclap*
Oh yes, there is quite a bit wrong with my head. Its such an odd shape, and a bit too big for my tastes. Im a bit self concious about it really. Inside? Well, I do suffer from depression, and possible other little ailments, I don't really know. Can't really afford to see a psychologist about it.

Oh, or were you implying that I'm mentally unstable and/or deficit? ^_^ Was this a personal insult?

[Andara Bledin]

In this discussion, religion is equivalent to racism, homophobia, etc., and atheism is equivalent to tolerance, accecptance, etc.

No. No it isn't.

If it has to do with religion, most of the athiests under discussion (and on this board, it seems) are unaccepting, intolerant, hypocritical bigots.

^-.-^

[Kelmon]

Ok. Its been said. over and over. Using religion as a justification for an evil act, does not make religion itself evil. Religion is a tool. Its a hammer. You can use it to build a house, or to cave someones skull in.

Yeah, it's been said. And as i have said before: Why not replace it with a tool that can build a house and can't be used for skullbashing?

I have a problem with the initial statement because it treats religion as a disease, as something that should be culled, despite all the good that religion has done.

That assumes religion has "done good". Has ist? If a person wants to do good, it will, regardless of faith. Religion can only do good, if it somehow changes people from not wanting to do good to doing good. I agree that it does that, but the important question is: How? If it all boils down to "Because god wants it" (or "Because god is watching you, and hell is quite hot"), then that is no good at all. That's a master-slave relationship.

Religion is not a disease as such (with the implied cured state being atheism), however it can be argued that many aspects of the spread of religion can be likened to that of a disease. But that's beside the point here.

Secondly, its offensive, because religion, as has been pointed out many times, is something that is crucial to many peoples self identities, theist or atheist.

Please explain how the disappearance of religion would be a bad thing for any atheist.

And treating something so integral to so many peoples self identity as something that should be gotten rid of smacks me dangerously similar to the arguments I've seen people make against homosexuality or atheism.

Please. All people are "strongly against" something in their lives. What does it matter if it is religion or "sex with shopping bags". (No, that is not a thing. I hope.) A large group of people offended does not make an opinion "wronger" to express.

Not to mention, I hate when anyone states that there is One True Way! UND ONLY ONE!

The "und" implying nazism? I'm afraid you're talking to a German, so such subtleties regarding the use of my mother tongue might be lost on me. Also, if so, Godwin'd.

However: There is neccessarily only one true way in this. Problem is, that both sides claim to know it.

Oh, and on a slightly different note, your right! I don't think "its great" that there are nonbelievers or atheists or whatever.

Know why I dont think that?

Because I couldn't give less of a fuck! The number of fucks I give is almost negative, there are so few! If you don't beleive the same as I do, or at all, GOOD FOR YOU. I could care less!

In fact, the majority of thinking theists really dont! It's only the moronic fundies that really give a shit! And guess what else--the rest of the religious world hates them even more than most freaking atheists! They give the rest of us a bad name.

As someone before you - completely missing my point. To put it simply: People like having people around that belong to the same "group". While that does not preclude us from even actively seeking out our opposites for a myriad of good reasons - it is in our nature to not be "diverse".
I'm talking here about feelings, not reason.

Oh, or were you implying that I'm mentally unstable and/or deficit? ^_^ Was this a personal insult?

Ah...no. Not at all. General rule about me: You can take what i say always quite literally. If I had insulted you, you would not have to ask if I did.

As for the statement itself: This was not actually directed at you, but at "Gravekeeper", who went from something clearly implying discussion to "genetic culling" and "selective breeding". And i stand by that if this is what you're getting out of that paragraph, the problem is not with the statement itself.

[Duelist925]

Yeah, it's been said. And as i have said before: Why not replace it with a tool that can build a house and can't be used for skullbashing?

Such a tool doesn't exist, either metaphorically or literally. If something can be used positively, it can be used negatively. If something can be used to create, it can be used to destroy.

That assumes religion has "done good". Has ist? If a person wants to do good, it will, regardless of faith. Religion can only do good, if it somehow changes people from not wanting to do good to doing good. I agree that it does that, but the important question is: How? If it all boils down to "Because god wants it" (or "Because god is watching you, and hell is quite hot"), then that is no good at all. That's a master-slave relationship.

By the same logic, if a person wants to do evil, they WILL. the only way religion plays a role in it is as a convenient justification.

And its better for someone to do good because "god says so" or "I dont want to go to hell" than to do evil. How can you argue otherwise? Would you rather they do evil, than to do good in gods name? And why master slave? Why not "parental figure" kinda relationship? Why automatically jump to the absolute most negative way to describe it? Hell, I see it more as parental than master slave. But thats my opinion.

Religion is not a disease as such (with the implied cured state being atheism), however it can be argued that many aspects of the spread of religion can be likened to that of a disease. But that's beside the point here.

Much the same can be said of any widespread idea. But as you said, beside the point.

Please explain how the disappearance of religion would be a bad thing for any atheist.

I worded that poorly. I should have said "belief" or "religious stance" but my point stands. People strongly identify with their stance on religion. And having it described in the same way that people use to describe poverty or disease, things that need to be gotten rid of, offends people.

Are you not offended when findie assholes make the stupid claims that "atheism is why everythings bad now! Everything was better before these godless heathens showed up!" Are you not offended by people who claim atheism is something that should be gotten rid of?

People are hurt and offended when something that is a core part of themselves, something they define their identity with, is attacked, or someone claims it should be done away with. Thats why that statement offends me.

Please. All people are "strongly against" something in their lives. What does it matter if it is religion or "sex with shopping bags". (No, that is not a thing. I hope.) A large group of people offended does not make an opinion "wronger" to express.

What does that have to do with anything you quoted? I was stating that the previous statement smacked me dangerously of similar statements made by people against homesecuality, or atheism, or some such. What does "All people are strongly against" something have to do with that?

And sadly, it probably is a thing. The internet is a large, strange place.

The "und" implying nazism? I'm afraid you're talking to a German, so such subtleties regarding the use of my mother tongue might be lost on me. Also, if so, Godwin'd.

However: There is neccessarily only one true way in this. Problem is, that both sides claim to know it.

The "und" was meant to convey an overthetop kind of delivery. I think I failed. No godwin necessary. I try to steer away from invoke such.

And how do we know theres one true way? Hell, for all we know, everyone could be right. (personally, I'll be highly amused if Discordianism winds up being the one Truth}

As someone before you - completely missing my point. To put it simply: People like having people around that belong to the same "group". While that does not preclude us from even actively seeking out our opposites for a myriad of good reasons - it is in our nature to not be "diverse".
I'm talking here about feelings, not reason.

You might have explained that a bit better than. Seeing your exact words were,

I don't think any athiest can think it's "great" that religion exists. Just as well as no theist can honestly say it's "great" that there are non-believers.

And you seem to have missed MY point. You said, as I quoted above. I simply pointed out that for the most part, its because we don't care, and are more than willing to live and let live.

Ah...no. Not at all. General rule about me: You can take what i say always quite literally. If I had insulted you, you would not have to ask if I did.


As for the statement itself: This was not actually directed at you, but at "Gravekeeper", who went from something clearly implying discussion to "genetic culling" and "selective breeding". And i stand by that if this is what you're getting out of that paragraph, the problem is not with the statement itself.

My apologies for the misunderstanding on my part then. Easy to see how I made it, though, considering the post it's put in was, otherwise, directed at me up until that point, and there was no transition.

Incidentally, what, literally, did you mean by

Again, i fail to see where the problem is. Except in your head maybe, assuming the worst.

?

[siead_lietrathua]

Yeah, it's been said. And as i have said before: Why not replace it with a tool that can build a house and can't be used for skullbashing?

name any tool and i can name you a way to kill someone with it.

just a sidequestion to the people that are very anti-theist in this thread: what about the more peacekeeping religions? are all of them bad, or just those with abrahamic roots? only asking because i see alot of "religion is this" or "religions are like that" but its not offenses seen much outside of the jewish/christian/islamic casts.

[Hyena Dandy]

We think you're cute too.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way! Cute's really condescending, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was just replying to him saying that no theist could reasonably say they want there to be Atheists (or, in fact, people of faiths other than mine.) I totally do, because otherwise I wouldn't be able to learn anything from them, they wouldn't be able to learn anything from me. There would be no exciting dialogue. A lot of the atheists (Not you, but some others) on this forum get me really angry, but others I'm really happy to talk to, if I think we can do it reasonably and politely. It can be a truly enjoyable way to pass the time. I learn from them, they learn from me, and we all come out better off for it. I would be really upset if all the atheists disappeared or something.

The "und" implying nazism? I'm afraid you're talking to a German, so such subtleties regarding the use of my mother tongue might be lost on me. Also, if so, Godwin'd.

I assumed he was making a reference to Yahtzee, who tends to say "UND ONLY VUN!" whenever he's making a point about how there should be only one of something. Maybe Yahtzee's referencing Nazism?

I've answered this in previous threads. Religion causes harm, both to non-believers (including followers of other religions) and to adherents of the religion. When believers stop enacting anti-abortion laws and anti-gay laws, when churches start paying taxes just like any other business, when being bat-shit crazy isn't a requirement for a Republican presidential nomination, when women are no longer jailed for being raped, when self-described "holy men" are no longer given automatic respect, when Joseph Ratzinger is charged with accessory after the fact for shuffling pedophile priests, when praying instead of seeking medical attention for a child is a crime in every part of the world, and when FGM and circumcision are eradicated from the world, then I'll leave them the fuck alone.

'Kay.

Uh...

Care to mention something that's NOT an Abrahamic religion?

Edit: Or anything that a theist in this thread has actually advocated?

[Duelist925]

*snip*


I assumed he was making a reference to Yahtzee, who tends to say "UND ONLY VUN!" whenever he's making a point about how there should be only one of something. Maybe Yahtzee's referencing Nazism?


*snip*

That too!

[Gravekeeper]

Let's just assume what you're saying is true. We're also biologically inclined to mate on the spot with any other human being that we find attractive. And yet you don't see a lot of people humping each other in the streets.

We're biologically inclined to find the best mate, but it is an inclination that occurs later in life post puberty and its a very fundamental function. A base instinct. The perception that mind and body are separate is neurological and with us from birth ( Hence imaginary friends and imagination in general ). Unlike other animals, we evolved the ability to imagine and attempt to comprehend other beings, their thoughts and their feelings. As well as imagine the future and our own morality. This benefited us as a group by allowing us greater communication and understanding of each other as well as possibly police ourselves in a society using "divine" morality in a time before we had law and the means to enforce it. But we also began to look beyond ourselves for more answers then we could find right in front of us.

We are curious, we are imaginative and we perceive by default that there may be more to the world than that which we see in front of us. Arguably these traits lead to both science and religion, seeing as they both manifested as attempts to explain the world and find answers.

Yet, oddly enough, no one yells at scientists and calls them idiots because of what some other scientists said a 1000 years ago. -.-

I'm afraid it is you that muddles the definition of the term if you only want to include those that are verbal about their non-belief.

China has gods whose entire realm is just making sure you turned off the stove. The majority are not Atheists in any sense of the word. The term in the middle of Atheist and non-religious is more likely Agnostic. Also, the entire point of polling is to verbally identify your belief or lack there of. Neither side gets to automatically claim the ones on the fence just because they didn't definitively say atheist or theist.

Frankly, i have no idea what you're actually addressing here. He is completely right in pointing out, that "out there" are plenty of fire-and-brimstone christians. Even without entering your country I encountered plenty of them in online communication. This is quite far from being a mere stereotype. The fact that allegedly none of them are here does not change this.

The problem, is as stated several times so far, is painting the majority of the world's population with the brush of a statistical handful of vocal ass hats. You. Can. Not. Do. This. It is illogical, irrational and honestly kind of offensive. It's also remarkably stupid coming from the side of the debate that's suppose to be championing reason and logic.

Wrong. It does work. The largest growing segment of the population is the "nones." As in, those that follow no religion. More and more people are embracing reality every day.

Yeah, only in America. Extremely important distinction. Also, yet again, not being religious does not automatically mean those are all atheists either. In fact, here, let me quote the introduction of the exact friggan report you likely got that tidbit from seeing as you didn't read it apparently:

"Who exactly are the Nones? “None” is not a movement, but a label for a diverse group of people who do not identify with any of the myriad of religious options in the American religious marketplace – the irreligious, the unreligious, the anti-religious, and the anti-clerical. Some believe in God; some do not. Some may participate occasionally in religious rituals; others never will.

Nones are easily misunderstood. On the one hand, only a small minority are atheists. On the otherhand, it is also not correct to describe them as “unchurched” or “unaffiliated” on the assumption that they are mainly theists and religious searchers who are temporarily between congregations."

But because we are thinking, social, empathetic animals, we can and often do overcome our biology.

It is because we are thinking, social, empathetic animals that we have religion to begin with.

Your priveledge is showing.

My "priveledge"? Wanting the world to get along and everyone not to fark with each other and leave people who are different to live as they want too is "priveledge"? Excuse me?

I've answered this in previous threads.

As have I. Religion is so damn low on the totem of stuff that has harmed humanity that starting with it as suspect number one is ridiculous. All of the shit you rant about has, statistically speaking, harmed so few people compared to everything else we as a species pull on each other that its not even funny. Yet you rant incessantly about it like its happening in every single house in the world at the hands of every single theist in the world. It's not. If you want to champion a cause for the betterment of humanity, pick one that's actually doing a fuck ton of damage like power mongering, greed or racism. Something that's actually hurting and killing thousands and thousands of people a day through out the world.

You're suppose to be the side with reason, logic and facts. Yet you're making emotional claims for sensationalism.

IIRC, you've said before that you believe in reincarnation, which is a supernatural belief.

I also said before that it's a belief that can, has and is being scientifically studied and has demonstrated evidence that something odd is afoot.

I'm only responding when I see something wrong with what someone has posted. And maybe by saying the same things over and over again, some of it will finally start to sink in.

Nothing you say is going to affect anyone here or anywhere else for that matter unless you learn to say it in a respectful manner that doesn't immediately set them on the defensive and attack a core aspect of their lives.

I'm more interested in this claim that there's biological reason for faith - got any links? Am curious.

All has to do with the Theory of Mind. Basically the most recently evolved bits of our brains, the ones we evolved to better understand each other and the world, are the same ones that allow us to conceive of the supernatural. Essentially by evolving to understand one another and the world more, we also evolved to conceive of abstract ideas and attribute "human" characteristics to them. When we evolved to understand, we ironically evolved to believe too. The same software that gives us compassion, empathy and imagination also gives us the capacity to conceive of the supernatural. Likely gave us science too.

If you want to get down to brass tacks, an atheist position doesn't mean someone is specifically 'good'.

No, but the moral high ground is often claimed by the Atheist camp because they can do "good" without a belief in something higher. It crops up quite a bit here. Arguing that theists only do good because of theism, whilst atheists do good despite it. Therefore atheist good > theist good. Which is a painful fallacy on many levels.

I was more thinking that it has these commands and instructions in a holy book and a bigot will teach those aspects. The next generation of believers will follow on because it was what they thought, not because they necessarily are bigots at heart. It's what they've been taught.

Me thinks its environment more than anything else. Which is why old prejudices eventually die out. If as a kid they teach you gays are bad, but you actually meet some gays and they're pretty cool, you will question the teaching. If you're raised in a bubble ( as many of these backwoods fundie towns are in the US ) you've never seen a gay person in your life, you just know they're bad because everyone tells you their bad.

But technology has led to ever increasing amounts of global interaction making it harder and harder for cockroaches to hide in the bubble. Humans are tribalistic, yes, but it cuts both ways too. If you hate gays, but are surrounded by a tribe that doesn't, you're not going to perpetuate the belief. You're going to bury it so you can belong to the tribe. Hence whenever you see a fundie prick on TV, they're often blissfully unaware that the rest of the tribe thinks they're a prick. Because they convince themselves the rest of the world really thinks like they do and anyone that says otherwise is in on the conspiracy. They fall pray to confirmation bias.

Meanwhile, in the US, networks like Fox specifically peddle to that confirmation bias for profit. Which extends the problem further than it might have gotten by itself to be honest. It helps them maintain the bubble and rejection exterior thought from the rest of the global tribe.

I don't agree. Religion in the christian sense, and one or two other related faiths, is about obedience to ancient rules on the apparent sayso of an unprovable being who never shows up. In fact, the logic of christianity is that if you don't follow the rules and believe as a follower is told to believe, they're going to suffer hugely, so it's logical to avoid that.

But again, this is the pitfall I keep seeing on the Atheist side of things. The assumption that a religion cannot and has not evolved from its inception hundreds or thousands of years ago. Once you get out of fundie territory, you're not going to find many people that actually adhere absolutely to said ancient rules because they understand the time period said rules were written in is no longer relevant. Only fundies believe said ancient rules are absolute and every single word is direct from <insert god here> to the paper and hasn't change in hundreds of years.

You're dealing with a small group of twits that think the Bible was written in English and Jesus was a white guy. Everyone else is smart enough to realize what is and isn't relevant anymore and that Jesus was a brown dude who didn't speak English. ;p

But this is why these arguments are so mind numbing. Atheists oddly insist that the Theists adhere even more fundamentally to their religion than the Theists do. I do not understand why one camp doesn't think religion evolves just like everything else does. There's no religion around today that's actually still in its original format from its inception save maybe Scientology. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah, it's been said. And as i have said before: Why not replace it with a tool that can build a house and can't be used for skullbashing?

Such a tool does not exist.

If it's strong enough to build a house, it's strong enough to be abused for much darker purposes. Anything that is restricted enough to not be used for ill will only be useful in rather limited ways.

Cars are for travel, but people have used them as tools for terror and murder, and yet we don't call for all automobiles to be banned. Rather, we lay fault where it belongs - at the door of the people who misused them for such.

And why master slave? Why not "parental figure" kinda relationship? Why automatically jump to the absolute most negative way to describe it? Hell, I see it more as parental than master slave. But thats my opinion.

How about master and student. Isn't the whole point of the exercise to learn? Hell, the early philosophers and scientists learned about how the world works as a way to learn more about the creator - to know him by knowing his works.

^-.-^

[Panacea]

Panacea, did you read the same article I did? Christina even said, "We don’t want to see this happen by law or violence or any kind of force, of course." Which I quoted.

All your talk of "arrogance" and "dickery" is exactly what Christina was addressing in her post. I agree with her that a "live and let live" attitude isn't going to get us very far.

Unfortunately, Ghel, you didn't read the whole post in context to see the logical Gordian Knot Ms. Christina tied herself into.

While disclaiming violence on the one hand, she advocates for a world without religion on the other . . . and advocates a proactive approach to removing religion from the world. Her claim that religion is "inherently harmful" ignores the complicated history of religion and faith, and the good that it has brought into the world along with the bad. She doesn't get to cherry pick her facts; if she wants to talk about the bad parts of religion, she also has to talk about the good.

Her views match those of a religious zealot in their fervency. Given how unlikely it is she will ever be able to persuade people with logic and reason (she certainly can not convince me, and I'm as smart and well educated as she is and she has no chance against a person who does not use reason at all, educated or not) the ultimate solution is either to concede the futility of the goal or embrace aggression.

The Humanists among atheists (not all atheists are humanists) are unlikely to do this, though it's not impossible of course. I'm not worried about atheistic terrorist groups running around because the vast majority of atheists I know are independent minded folks who just don't give a crap about other peoples beliefs as long as they are left alone. But that's what it would require: a forced "conversion" by the sword, which places them on the same moral plane as the people they condemn, IMHO.

But that you agree that a "live and let live" attitude is not going to get you very far is a bit troubling to my mind. Very sad.

Wrong. It does work. The largest growing segment of the population is the "nones." As in, those that follow no religion. More and more people are embracing reality every day.

You're taking that out of context. The "nones" doesn't mean atheist. It means no religion. Most of the nones are folks brought up in a religious background who simply do not practice their faith, usually because they don't like what they see in organized religion. It has nothing to do with what they think about the existence or non-existence of God in many cases.

"These people aren't secularized. They're not thinking about religion and rejecting it; they're not thinking about it at all," Kosmin says

Religion causes harm, both to non-believers (including followers of other religions) and to adherents of the religion. When believers stop enacting anti-abortion laws and anti-gay laws, when churches start paying taxes just like any other business, when being bat-shit crazy isn't a requirement for a Republican presidential nomination, when women are no longer jailed for being raped, when self-described "holy men" are no longer given automatic respect, when Joseph Ratzinger is charged with accessory after the fact for shuffling pedophile priests, when praying instead of seeking medical attention for a child is a crime in every part of the world, and when FGM and circumcision are eradicated from the world, then I'll leave them the fuck alone.

I'll grant you some very bad things have happened under the cover of religion. However, it is not the faith that is at fault, but the very human people who have individual goals and are willing to use any tool at their disposal to achieve.

Homophobes and pro-lifers are willing to twist religion to stop practices they find disgusting. His Holiness the Pope worried about the political, legal, and social costs
pedophile priests brought to the Catholic Church . . . but may have been helpless to do anything in the way of prevention (we don't really know for sure what he knew or when he knew it, it's all allegations right now).

Female genital mutilation is a horrible offense to my eyes. But I've met women who've begged for a reduction (repair of the circumcision, make it "whole again") after childbirth so they can remain pure within their religious communities--I feel compassion for them, not disdain.

As a person of faith and compassion, I condemn those things. I would work with any person, atheist or religious, to fix them. I'd rather see people of conscience work together to remedy those problems than divide themselves because they want to paint everyone with the same brush.

The Catholic Church is, by a twist of history, an independent nation. It's hard to bring a nation to account short of war, and that's not a war I'd like to wage. But I would LOVE to see the Church take accountability for the pedophile priests and make real reforms to fix the problem and heal the victims. I know a lot of Catholics who'd like to see the same thing.

I'd like to see FGM wiped out through changing laws and attitudes. And there are people working on that issue, and I think eventually the practice will go away.

I'd like to see an organization of moderates from religious groups organize to defeat the rabid fanatics who twist the Bible in such hateful ways. But like most of Mainstream America, there's too much apathy right now. The partisans win almost by default. I argue, and write letters in support of moderate laws that respect the rights of all people often . . . but I'm the voice in the wilderness compared to the hateful folks who outnumber me.

I do wish you'd look at some of the positives. I have a hard time meeting people in the middle when they won't even look at my point of view.

I'm not the one starting these threads. I'm only responding when I see something wrong with what someone has posted. And maybe by saying the same things over and over again, some of it will finally start to sink in.

I've had the same hope. Alas, I do not seem to be getting very far. Look in the mirror, Ghel.

Actually, I am arguing that everyone should be an atheist because it's true, by default, because theism is false. To quote (or perhaps paraphrase, as I'm quoting from memory) Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Sure . . . if we're talking science. Religion is not science, and science does not deal with the supernatural. You cannot apply scientific rules to something that is not scientific to begin with.

Mr. Hitchens argues from incredulity. It is similar to the argument from ignorance fallacy. He assumes that because someone does not present evidence that there is no evidence, and that may or may not be the case. He can require someone to provide evidence if they are making a statement of fact . . . but he cannot dismiss it out of hand.

Well, I did until I signed the mortgage, at which point they suddenly vanished.

I should have read the fine print.

Rapscallion

I could not stop laughing for several minutes. Oh, my sides ache. That is just the funniest thing I have heard all week.

Yet, oddly enough, no one yells at scientists and calls them idiots because of what some other scientists said a 1000 years ago. -.-

No, but someone who today tried to say Euclidian geometry was the only geometry would be laughed out of the room. Ditto for Newtonian physics.

In spite of all the problems with religion and faith that have come down through the years, there have been improvements and changes in our understanding of it that have brought with them betterments and new problems.

Catholics no longer argue the infallibility of the Pope. Women can become priests and ministers in most Christian denominations (and will eventually in Catholicism, but it won't be in our life times). People are freer to debate religion; in Western countries we can have debates like this free from any worry about ecclesiastic authorities bursting down the door and hauling us off to the Inquisition.

I think people will eventually learn to tolerate the beliefs of others, and organizations within the major religions (including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) are already working towards this end. In a hundred years, people of faith will look back at all the fuss and wonder what all the screaming and yelling was about. Religion evolves too, and it's a slow and painful process.

The problem, is as stated several times so far, is painting the majority of the world's population with the brush of a statistical handful of vocal ass hats. You. Can. Not. Do. This. It is illogical, irrational and honestly kind of offensive. It's also remarkably stupid coming from the side of the debate that's suppose to be championing reason and logic.

Thank you.

[Gravekeeper]

Sure . . . if we're talking science. Religion is not science, and science does not deal with the supernatural.

Ironic part is, religion invented a fair amount of science. Yet we're brushing that under the rug in favour of sensatializing Bad Things(tm) religion has apparently done. Math, astronomy, medicine, physics, chemistry, geography, sociology, you name it, religion had a part in there somewhere. Islam especially invented, refined or discovered a crazy amount of math and science. Hell, they came up with coffee. For that alone religion should be praised. >.>

Its amazing that Islam gets such a bad rap in the western world these days considering all they've contributed.

[Rapscallion]

Working from memory of an older discussion from years ago, islam actually maintained a fair amount of knowledge such as algebra and the like, also that zero was also a number, but they didn't invent it. That came from the Hindus of the Kush Valley.

However, this is something I read on the Internet, over a decade ago, and therefore it must be true.

Rapscallion