Let's abolish religion!

[hossoso]

Originally Posted by mafoofan Jr.

Nietzsche said
pfffttt....This is just sad. Second post even! Goodbye stupid thread.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Dude, this is a discussion involving white highly educated atheists that hang out with other white, highly educated atheists. As long as we can make believe that all these unwashed and coloured masses share our ideas and hopes for the future by not hanging out with them we're golden. Stop messing it up!!
On a related note, have you ever noticed how people expect rationality from atheists? I've never noticed any sort of high correlation between the two in my personal travels, but really, really dumb atheists seem to hold their lack of faith up as proof that they are, as Sharon Stone would say, fiercely intelligent.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by iammatt

On a related note, have you ever noticed how people expect rationality from atheists? I've never noticed any sort of high correlation between the two in my personal travels, but really, really dumb atheists seem to hold their lack of faith up as proof that they are, as Sharon Stone would say, fiercely intelligent.

Well in theory removing an irrational area from your conceptions would make you more rational but in practice that's like saying removing a bucket of water from the sea will lower it's level.

 

[redcaimen]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Well in theory removing an irrational area from your conceptions would make you more rational but in practice that's like saying removing a bucket of water from the sea will lower it's level.

Like ruffage, rationality has its place in a balanced diet but aspiring to eat nothing but bran muffins is a costly mistake. Both for you and your loved ones.

How was the soup?

 

[SField]

Originally Posted by iammatt

On a related note, have you ever noticed how people expect rationality from atheists? I've never noticed any sort of high correlation between the two in my personal travels, but really, really dumb atheists seem to hold their lack of faith up as proof that they are, as Sharon Stone would say, fiercely intelligent.

I find most atheists as infuriantingly boring and pointless as "believers".

 

[eg1]

Originally Posted by SField

I don't necessarily agree. I am not proposing legislation against religion. Typically, legislations against issues which stem from such fundamental parts of humanity fail. Most cardinal sins like murder and theft are avoided by having a stable and balanced society, not only through legislation. It would also be un-american and completely undemocratic. We know that religion is most prevalent among less educated, low income groups of people. We know that in socities with high literacy rates, low unemployment and good median income have less tendancies towards a large religious complex.
I've seen more than enough examples of people living full, generous and balanced lives without religion, and I'm convinced that it can gradually go away as we improve ourselves as a society. Currently the disparity in wealth is far too wide a gulf, and our schools are far too poor. I see the disappearance of religion as a fringe benefit to becoming a more enlightened, advanced and civilized country. I don't want anything radical to happen, I want the process to be organic. People realize the stupidity of their chosen fairy tales as they begin to read more than just a bible verse every sunday. There remains no evidence whatsoever that religion makes one morally superior or even better equipped to be a moral person. The stupidity and gullability required to buy into religion is something that affects all things, and dumbs down the world in general.

The poor are always with us -- and trust me you want them to have religion, whether or not you want it for yourself.

As for stupidity and gullibility, the religious have no corner on this market -- it's just human nature, yours and mine both.

Originally Posted by iammatt

If this were true, how would you explain the fact that we hold on to, and develop, an awful lot of new fairy tales to hold dear as we become more and more educated?

Bingo. I believe it is a function of the human brain to manufacture myth, and in turn myth is the most powerful/useful force in mass human organization.

Originally Posted by nootje

My best guess is that when one abolishes any belief in a higher power the only thing that guides ones life is his or her own responsibility for it, which is an awesome responsibility that as far I can see not many people are prepared to deal with..

Precisely. It's all well and good for us egghead, philosophy-sated, hyper-rational on-line geeks to witter on about existentialism and the stupidity of the religious, but what good does that do for the rest of humanity among whom you must make your way in this life? What about all those other people who are too stupid to attain your level of intellectual sophistication?

Originally Posted by SField

Working absolutely great for quite a number of people.

You make this claim several times, but what percentage do you mean, globally?

Originally Posted by SField

I don't think that you're understanding me. I have no agenda or goal of specifically making society less religious. My priorities as a voter and as a person are to simply have a more educated, cultured, and healthier population. None of my ideals have anything to do with a political usurpation of religion. I don't think that's possible, as I've said. Again, I will say that if the United States can build a stronger middle class and have better schools, I think it's quite likely that we'd have far less religious people. It's a different mode of thought than what I think your idea of my concept is. I'm not proposing a method, I'm suggesting a likely effect of a vastly improved education system and economy.

Why do you believe this to be true?

Oh, and do you know what the longest-running, most successful teaching organization in the Western World happens to be?

Originally Posted by SField

I think that I'm more subtle and cowardly of my disdain for religion. I think overt interventionism will not work in the United States, and will only serve to further polarize the political spectrum. Great education and a strong economy (one that includes a large, and strong middle class) is something that benefits everyone on every level which is why I'm interested in those goals. They're obviously not going to happen in a generation. But, I do think that the cause and effect is more linear than you think. Once people become more capable of independent thought, and are granted greater economic agency, people tend to have less of a need for religion. Faith, I'm sure, endures to an extent, but the pagan rituals and bedtime stories start to take on less significance. I do not think there is any way to do this invasively. It cannot be cut out like a tumor.

Just like there is no miracle drug for obesity, we'll have to create a culture of more active living and better eating. We cannot simply perform gastric bypasses en masse. I agree with you that having religion be such a significant part of public life is an absolute malignance, but I cannot see any way to get rid of it besides the one that I am proposing. Intervention and legislation in this regard would be unamerican and undemocratic. Let the free market of ideas change it and evolve it.

The free market of ideas has led us to precisely where we are now, with the vast majority of human beings clinging to their religious beliefs. I see no evidence that the trend will move toward less religion -- in fact, the West may well have seen its nadir already.

 

[gentleman amateur]

Some of my response may have already been covered, but there are too many posts for me to read all of them in a timely fashion.

I'm an atheist, too. Yet, ironically to some, after getting a BA and MA in Philosophy, focusing on Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger (the first 2 atheists) and Zen, I studied for an MA in Religion, again focusing on Zen. I don't find your argument sound. Immoral and corrupt acts in the name of religion and by religious professionals, such as priests, do exist, but religion has also been responsible for great ideas, literature, music, architecture, and provided moral codes. Your belief in morality is nonsense--and I don't mean this as an insult; it makes no sense. Individual moral choices and interpretations do exist, but I doubt you have one moral idea that wasn't handed down to you by posterity. Thus, for example, if you consider it immoral for bourgeois pigs to exploit the proletariat, guess what? While you may chose to hold this view, you did not create it. You may argue Marxism is not a religion, while I would not be the first to argue otherwise. Most certainly Stalinism and Maoism were state religions based on a cult of personality. And were we to eradicate all religions, they would be replaced by state cults and individual mystics, the latter would gain followers, like or not. Finally, might you be guilty of turning science into religion. While you have good motivations for abolishing religion, your views are naive. Again, no insult intended.

 

[bluemagic]

Originally Posted by gentleman amateur

Some of my response may have already been covered, but there are too many posts for me to read all of them in a timely fashion.

I'm an atheist, too. Yet, ironically to some, after getting a BA and MA in Philosophy, focusing on Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger (the first 2 atheists) and Zen, I studied for an MA in Religion, again focusing on Zen. I don't find your argument sound. Immoral and corrupt acts in the name of religion and by religious professionals, such as priests, do exist, but religion has also been responsible for great ideas, literature, music, architecture, and provided moral codes. Your belief in morality is nonsense--and I don't mean this as an insult; it makes no sense. Individual moral choices and interpretations do exist, but I doubt you have one moral idea that wasn't handed down to you by posterity. Thus, ifor example, if you consider it immoral for bourgeois pigs to exploit the proletariat, guess what? While you may chose to hold this view, you did not create it. You may argue Marxism is not a religion, while I would not be the first to argue otherwise. Most certainly Stalinism and Maoism were state religions based on a cult of personality. And were we to eradicate all religions, they would be replaced by state cults and individual mystics, the latter would gain followers, like or not. Finally, might you be guilty of turning science into religion. While you have good motivations for abolishing religion, your views are naive. Again, no insult intended.

Why do you consider yourself an atheist, and not an agnostic?

 

[gentleman amateur]

Originally Posted by bluemagic

Why do you consider yourself an atheist, and not an agnostic?


Good question. I thought an agnostic simply admits ignorance of God's existence. While I can't prove one way or another the existence of God, for my part, I do not believe in a trascendent, eternal deity. In my studies of Buddhism, I have come closer to a pantheistic view, but haven't converted to either such a view or to Buddhism.

Btw, I hate many atheists whom I consider fundmatentalist atheists. They act like they know that either God doesn't exist or that no gods exist, as if they are so superior, as if they are enlightened amongst the ignorant masses who do believe. Everything for them has to be scientific. For the record, Einstein and David Bohm were great physicists, but hardly atheists.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by gentleman amateur

Some of my response may have already been covered, but there are too many posts for me to read all of them in a timely fashion.

I'm an atheist, too. Yet, ironically to some, after getting a BA and MA in Philosophy, focusing on Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger (the first 2 atheists) and Zen, I studied for an MA in Religion, again focusing on Zen. I don't find your argument sound. Immoral and corrupt acts in the name of religion and by religious professionals, such as priests, do exist, but religion has also been responsible for great ideas, literature, music, architecture, and provided moral codes. Your belief in morality is nonsense--and I don't mean this as an insult; it makes no sense. Individual moral choices and interpretations do exist, but I doubt you have one moral idea that wasn't handed down to you by posterity. Thus, for example, if you consider it immoral for bourgeois pigs to exploit the proletariat, guess what? While you may chose to hold this view, you did not create it. You may argue Marxism is not a religion, while I would not be the first to argue otherwise. Most certainly Stalinism and Maoism were state religions based on a cult of personality. And were we to eradicate all religions, they would be replaced by state cults and individual mystics, the latter would gain followers, like or not. Finally, might you be guilty of turning science into religion. While you have good motivations for abolishing religion, your views are naive. Again, no insult intended.
Great post.

 

[gentleman amateur]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Great post.


Thanks

Btw, I have learned from many of your posts and your dialogues with others on this forum.

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by SField

Just because things have developed through "religion", (but moreso the power structure thereof - not the actual faith), doesn't mean that we need these things anymore. We have proof that all the social and infrastructural elements you mentioned can exist quite well without fairy tales.
Who says they're fairy tales? And what do you mean by "fairy tales?" I'm sure there is much that is not 100% literally true, but much is. And what isn't literally true contains deeper, more important truths. But discovering these truths is difficult.

Originally Posted by Sucrose

This is the "Appeal to Consequence" fallacy. See http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html...

In other words, even if the above assertions are correct, the real question remains unaddressed, i.e., is religion true? Arguing for (or against, as seemingly does the OP) religion based on the consequences of religious belief fails to address the question of whether religion is true.
I don't think I was at all saying religion is true because it has good consequences, but pls feel free to show me I was. My point was that religion has good consequences, and thus abolishing it would not merely have good consequences, as the op seemed to indicate.

 

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by emptym

I don't think I was at all saying religion is true because it has good consequences, but pls feel free to show me I was. My point was that religion has good consequences, and thus abolishing it would not merely have good consequences, as the op seemed to indicate.

As the site notes, "Generally, if someone argues that you should believe something, that's equivalent to arguing that it's true." Your argument seemed to me to be an advocacy of belief in religion, and I wouldn't really expect someone to argue in favor of religion if they believed religion was not true. Perhaps you could clarify your position? Do you think the truth of a belief is more important than the consequences of a belief? If a belief is false, shouldn't we abandon that belief regardless of the consequences?

 

[Bruce9241]

Without religion I would have no excuse to touch little boys. So lets keep it.

 

[rxcats]

Originally Posted by Bruce9241

Without religion I would have no excuse to touch little boys. So lets keep it.

You have nothing to fear Your Holiness.