Will religion ever disappear?

[cbayer]

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141219-will-religion-ever-disappear

19 December 2014

Rachel Nuwer


The lighting of a cross during the Christian Los Escobazos Festival in Spain, celebrating the conception of the Virgin Mary (Getty Images)

Atheism is on the rise around the world, so does that mean spirituality will soon be a thing of the past? Rachel Nuwer discovers that the answer is far from simple.

A growing number of people, millions worldwide, say they believe that life definitively ends at death – that there is no God, no afterlife and no divine plan. And it’s an outlook that could be gaining momentum – despite its lack of cheer. In some countries, openly acknowledged atheism has never been more popular.

“There’s absolutely more atheists around today than ever before, both in sheer numbers and as a percentage of humanity,” says Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California, and author of Living the Secular Life. According to a Gallup International survey of more than 50,000 people in 57 countries, the number of individuals claiming to be religious fell from 77% to 68% between 2005 and 2011, while those who self-identified as atheist rose by 3% – bringing the world’s estimated proportion of adamant non-believers to 13%.

While atheists certainly are not the majority, could it be that these figures are a harbinger of things to come? Assuming global trends continue might religion someday disappear entirely?

It’s impossible to predict the future, but examining what we know about religion – including why it evolved in the first place, and why some people chose to believe in it and others abandon it – can hint at how our relationship with the divine might play out in decades or centuries to come.

more at link

[Jim__]

1. Link? Looks like an interesting article.

[cbayer]

3. Added, sorry about that.

[Jim__]

147. Thanks.

[Goblinmonger]

4. Looks like it's

here

[Jim__]

148. Thanks.

[tradewinds]

2. Human evolution is a slow process.

But eventually it will happen. Unless religion destroys humanity first.

[cbayer]

5. Evolution depends on a random mutation allowing a species to adapt to a change in the environment.

What do you imagine the loss of religious belief would help humans adapt to?

Religion both destroys and creates. It provides some things to the most marginalized people in the world that no one does.

Unless there is a compelling reason for it to go away, I doubt it will.

But it will change, that is for sure.

[tradewinds]

7. Human evolution can also refer to advancements in understanding.

Reason will prevail...eventually.......one hopes.

[cbayer]

8. Actually evolution really doesn't have to do with advancements in understanding.

I don't hope it disappears at all.

If reason prevails, then those who wish for the disappearance of religion will become enlightened and understand that religion has always been here and does some very good and important things.

Perhaps they will evolve as individuals, and I mean evolve in the colloquial, not scientific, sense.

Welcome to the Religion group.

[tradewinds]

10. "if reason prevails, then those who wish for the disappearance of religion will become enlightened"

What a crock of crap. Living a life of delusion seems to have de-evolved your thinking. Good luck with that.

[cbayer]

12. What a crock of crap? Living a life of delusion?

Did your reason lead you to conclude that I was a believer just because I disagreed with you? Or did you base that on some faith driven belief system?

My thinking is just fine, thanks.

Your use of "de-evolved" is an indication of exactly how little you actually understand about evolution. Most religious people I know understand more than you apparently do.

[tradewinds]

17. ...

No

No

I think otherwise.


Whatever

[cbayer]

21. Does your reason lead to you draw conclusions about people's ability to think

based on just a scintilla of information about them?

If so, you might need to do some "evolving".

[tradewinds]

22. Yup. It does.

[cbayer]

23. Well, best of luck with that.

You might get it right once out of every 100 times just based on chance.

You've started out on a bad foot here. I hope you will stick around and keep your mind open to new ideas.

[tradewinds]

24. I'm better than 90%.

[cbayer]

26. See, around these parts we really like data.

Did you know that 73% of all statistical reports on the internet are made up on the spot?

Really, I know. I just made that up on the spot.

So, if you are going to claim that your ability to judge someone's ability to think based on an exchange of 2 posts exceeds 90%, you are going to have to provide some data.

Otherwise, I'm just going to have to assume that you made it up on the spot.

[tradewinds]

27. Seems I'm at 93% , now.

thanks!

[cbayer]

28. 93% of something, that's for sure.

See you around the campfire, with or without the snark.

[tradewinds]

30. With out the snark,......its just blather.

[procon]

162. Not again...

didn't you use this same tactic of intimidation on another new DUer yesterday... and the day before that as well, if I recall.

I don't mean to be repetitive since several people have already pointed out this predilection for bullying, but if you only want applause maybe you should just add that restriction at the start of the post and avoid all this rerun nonsense.

However, lacking that caveat, back to the topic; No, I don't want to see religions disappear because there are people who seem to genuinely take comfort from that sort of fellowship, and good on them. While it's not my cup of tea, it seems a fairly harmless pastime as as long as in doesn't spill over from an private, personal experience to gum up the public sector.

[Heddi]

163. a favorite phrase Cbayer likes to use is

"if everyone tells you you have a tail, maybe you should turn around and look"

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=155123

yet she never seems to turn around and see the tail that so many others point out to her. The "tail" being her constant intimidation and nannying of other posters. Recently, for some reason, she's gotten into the habit of making vague and creepy threats, urging people to "watch yourself" and "be careful" and other ominous warnings. But when confronted, she denies it all. She doesn't intimidate. She doesn't nanny. She doesn't threaten. She surely doesn't make personal attacks, or derail threads or any of the other horrible things SO MANY PEOPLE accuse her of.

turn around and look, indeed.

[notadmblnd]

195. ...

[Warren Stupidity]

151. Hi Tradewinds! Welcome to the Religion Forum Where ALL Opinions and Beliefs

on religion are allowed, by the rules.

Don't let the Self Appointed Hall Monitors chase you away for expressing your opinions. They love to pounce on new posters here who are non-believers, and act as if they are somehow in charge. They also like to direct veiled threats at new posters. Not to worry, you're doing fine.

In particular, noting that religious beliefs are delusions is a VERY BAD OPINION according them. But they have their own forum, the interfaithy forum, where they can be free from VERY BAD OPINIONS, so not to worry, post away!

They are very upset right now because yesterday they thought they had Achieved A Mighty Victory over the BAD ASHTEISTS!1!!!!!, and then, sadly, it crumbled before their eyes. Oh well, that's the way it goes.

Again, this forum is open to all opinions on belief and non-belief.

[arcane1]

13. You've been here for 24 hours and you're already insulting people?

[tradewinds]

15. I have removed the insulting smilie.

How long do I have to be here before i can use it ?

[cbayer]

18. I'm not sure you will be here long enough to find out.

[msanthrope]

37. 0-7 leave

On Fri Dec 19, 2014, 12:27 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I'm not sure you will be here long enough to find out.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=171118

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Seem calling out a poster for being new is against the rules. please make an example and hide this post.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 19, 2014, 01:04 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: meh.... back and forth antics, not worth an alert
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I would agree if the new poster hadn't thrown the first insult. Leave it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Jeebus...they will let anyone into the library, won't they!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a break.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cbayer]

39. That's two 0-7's in as many days, lol.

At least the alerter has their button turned off for awhile.

thanks for sharing.

[hrmjustin]

40. Someone can't alert for 24 hours now.

[rug]

46. The alerting brigade is feeling their oats.

[cbayer]

48. They may need to put a call out for mercenaries.

[rug]

56. Looks like there's a couple of fresh recruits already.

[hrmjustin]

57. .

[arcane1]

19. We're expected to be civil to one another.

[tradewinds]

20. Everyone, or just new people?

[arcane1]

25. Everyone, of course.

[Warren Stupidity]

153. There are no insulting smilies.

And there are no rules against using any of the smilies here. In fact your Chief Inquisitor is quite fond of them.

[longship]

179. Crop of crap?

I disagree with cbayer on this, but I would not call her opinion a "crop of crap". Nor would I say her opinion is de-volving (sic).

Argue the point, not the person.

Here's an argument.

cbayer, I disagree with you on this. Although I firmly agree that there may be elements of evolutionary psychology to religion, there is likely no evidence to support such claims, no matter how much Pinker speaks in support of it. Dawkins suggests such things, but argues for a more cultural (aka memetic) origin. Dennett supports the same. All suggest neurological origins, but the latter two arguments originate in software, not the hardware, (possibly unlike Pinker -- who, in spite of my disagreement, I still like).

Also, as you know, I hardily support Dennett in that we ought to study the religious experience in order to find out how it works, whether cultural or evolutionary. That is the way forward, for both theists, and non-theists. But it is admittedly a long look ahead. No better argument than to start looking now. As Dennett argues.

As always,
My regards.

That's how to respond to a post with which you disagree.

[cbayer]

191. As usual, you make a coherent and civil argument.

I will also note that you are much better informed than I on some of these matters.

There are a lot of studies from different perspectives and I'm not sure there is any way to draw a firm conclusion. More study is needed, I agree.

[TM99]

92. So from this exchange it seems you do have some faith based beliefs.

You express here a belief in social Darwinism. Of course, science and experimentation have yet to prove such a thing actually exists. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Evolution is not something seen in society or cultures. It has to do with much larger biological/chemical/physical systems over far greater periods of time than humans have even existed on this planet.

Belief in it, however, has been around for centuries even before Darwin. In fact many religions believe just this - that from alpha to omega humanity is evolving. Some Eastern traditions even say that this evolution occurs over multiple life-times.

So you are trying to convince us that reason will prevail while you put forth an argument based on faith in something that science says doesn't exist?

Yes, I think religion will be around as long as there are humans. Faith and reason have gone hand in hand for millennia.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Religion, and social mores evolve as well.

If you are interested Dan Dennett has done a lot of work in cataloguing the ways in which religions evolve.

[notadmblnd]

87. Peace

I think the loss of religion would help humans adapt to a world without war.

[cbayer]

90. How would it do that?

How do you explain wars without religious motivation?

I don't think there is any valid correlation here at all.

When the anti-war protests were in full swing in the US, in my community it was the churches and religious people that were front and center.

When the war against people of color was being waged in the US, in my community it was the churches and religious people that were front and center.

This may be what you wish, but I don't think you can support it.

[notadmblnd]

105. Be honest. You don't really want to know what I think

You are so certain in your beliefs that there would be no room for critical thinking if I were to explain how religion correlates to war throughout history.

You would ignore the The account of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites in the Book of Joshua, the Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries, and the Christian Crusades (11th to 13th centuries) and Wars of Religion (16th and 17th centuries) , you would ignore WWII and deny that Hitler had a religious motivation for his desire to eliminate the Jews. You would ignore past conflicts between protestants and Catholics in Ireland, You would ignore current conflicts between Israel and Palestine and other current conflicts in the Middle East and Africa.

One as to be open to more than a narrow view of the world around them in order to understand how religion throughout history has been detrimental to peace.

So no, I'm not going to explain it to you. It is obvious that your agenda is to feel perfect in your religious superiority as you've already indicated that you are certain that I can not support that without religion- there could be peace on earth.

[notadmblnd]

113. Some can't see past the end of their "church lady" noses.

Some cant see past the end of their street, church or community. Some can't see that religion is about power and control over others. On the other hand, there are those that embrace it. Because it's easier to be told what to think, than to ask questions that they may not really want to know the answers to. There is something to the old adage that "Ignorance is Bliss".

[cbayer]

117. Church lady? Is that what the kids are calling me these days?

Be careful about who you embrace and please consider directing remarks about me to me. I would greatly appreciated that.

Ignorance sometimes is bliss and we all have our ignorant corners, don't we?

[notadmblnd]

126. Wow! Was that a threat?

I'm only going to post one more thing to you and I hope you read it and understand it's implications.


James 1:26 ESV

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

Titus 3:2-7 ESV

To speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior

[tradewinds]

129. Wow

[cbayer]

131. A threat? You've been reading to many fantasy stories.

You still think I'm religious. You have made such a thick false assessment of me that you can not even read the words I am writing.

And you really haven't responded to any of the substantive questions I have asked you.

Make sure to tell everyone how you feel threatened by me. It is a rapidly growing meme that should last for years.

[notadmblnd]

137. You warned me to be careful. what do I need to be careful of?

"Be careful about who you embrace....." Those are your words to me, not my fantasy story.


As I said, you don't really want to know what I think. Trust me, you don't.

[cbayer]

144. I was giving you advice about this new member who appears to have it in for me personally,

and who is engaging you in his battle.

Those are exactly my words to you. You can take it or leave it. What would I be threatening you with? Typing your names in all caps or something?

I actually do want to know what you think. I would love to have a civil discussion with you about what you think. I know that we see things very differently, but I'm not at all afraid of your opinion.

BTW, you last line might be misconstrued as something threatening, don't you think? Actually if someone wants to see threats, they can probably find them in pretty much any post…..

if that is what they are looking for. I've never threatened anywhere here. It's a fable, a belief based on faith.

[notadmblnd]

152. So you have the inside scoop on this new member? Why should I not associate

with them? It's is you that is engaging me in this discussion (Battle? you see this as a battle?) And no, you do not want to have a civil discussion as you've just stated, you see this as a battle. And no, from the insults you have thrown, you do not like my opinion and I do think you are doing your best ( well maybe not your best, but you're trying awful hard) to shut me up.

[cbayer]

156. Suit yourself. I have no inside scoop, I've just been a part of this rodeo for a long time.

How am I trying to shut you up? I am encouraging you to speak.

And please read the post again. I referred to this new member as being engaged in a battle, not you. I don't see my interaction with you as a battle at all.

Which insults are you referring to? Threats, now insults? I do not like your opinion on some things, but I am not trying to keep you from saying them. I want you to say them so that I can challenge you.

[notadmblnd]

196. Yes, "His battle" those are your words. You defined his comments as a battle

and that tells me that you see this discussion as a battle.

[cbayer]

197. Well, your interpretation is incorrect.

I see him as waging a battle and a post specifically attacking me appears to have been hidden.

You then extrapolate that that word includes my discussion with you, which is not correct. I did not say nor do I think I am in a battle with you.

Twisting my words is sport. I am used to it, but I'm not going to let it slide.

[notadmblnd]

199. I suspect you'ld tell me the sky is not blue nor is water wet, too.

Last edited Sat Dec 20, 2014, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)

[cbayer]

200. Ooooo! Googly eyes!

The sky is not always blue and water is not always wet.

That was way too easy.

[notadmblnd]

205. See, I knew you would. However....

Water is always wet. Water is the liquid form of H20.

H20 is not always wet. H20 can also be vapor or frozen. When H20 is vapor or frozen most of us know it as steam or ice.

[cbayer]

224. But is the sky always blue?

Maybe we could talk about evolution?

[notadmblnd]

232. during the day, yes.

You are free to talk about what ever you like, just as I am free to reply if I so desire.

[cbayer]

233. Of course you are and I have not told you you couldn't.

But I will continue to challenge you, and if you see it as a battle, then that is how you see it.

What's the score?

[notadmblnd]

236. Onward Christian Soldier

You are the one who referred to the discussion as a battle. You alone own that one.

[cbayer]

239. I never really understood that song.

There was a member who participated here recently who had a whole fantasy about a Christian Army that was responsible for murders and other acts of mayhem.

I was able to find a clothing line with that name, but nothing else.

He has stopped coming around so much, but if I see him, I will ask him about this song.

[notadmblnd]

244. The meanings is plain and simple;

It honors Jesus’ soldiers who killed all who did not accept Jesus as their “savior;” (the infidels). And just who were these “infidels?” The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines infidel as:

1. One who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion
3. A disbeliever in something specified or understood

[cbayer]

246. Yeah, I get that part, it just never made sense to me because

I wasn't raised with the "one way" mentality.

There were not infidels in the church doctrine in which I was raised. I was raised to believe that there are many ways and people deserve respect for their beliefs if those beliefs do no harm.


So the song just doesn't ring true for me at all.

[notadmblnd]

247. Yet, you ridicule mine here.

Ironic, no?

[cbayer]

248. What exactly do you think I have ridiculed?

[notadmblnd]

251. your little arrow comment a few posts back is one example

of ridicule. But I'm not going to list all the rudeness and snark. Do your own homework, go back an reread what you've posted.

And if you can't see your own hostility, then perhaps you are the one who should not be posting in the religion forum?

[cbayer]

255. OH, please. You shot an arrow at me and it completely missed the mark.

You might be embarrassed that you were so completely wrong in your assumptions, but I did not ridicule you, I just pointed it out.

I have no homework to do. I'm fine posting here and not the one decrying all the snark and rudeness and outright hatred being aimed at me, though frankly I have much more cause to do that than you ever will.

Now, I suggest you start over….. or not. It's up to you.

[notadmblnd]

258. In my opinion, I am not wrong.

Last edited Mon Dec 22, 2014, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

you can claim that all you want. However, your defense of the christian religion says something entirely different.

I think you are a christian religious zealot, just as you claimed a few posts back. As you said you are a "religionist".

And even though you ridiculed my source as unreliable, the meaning of the word stands unless you are now prepared to call Webster's dictionary an unreliable source.

I think your little game is to try and trap those who disagree with you, and when it does not work, you feign ignorance or innocence, I think you have a very narrow world view of the negative implications of religion.

I don't think your only motive here is to support religion for religion's sake. I have not once seen you defend Judaism or Islam. However, you most certainly hop on the christian war wagon the second someone says something negative in regards to Christendom. As I said before, you do not want a discussion, you want a battle and when you can not win that battle with sound logic, you resort to snark and ridicule.

[Fumesucker]

268. Would that comment also apply to people who talk about the chips on other's shoulders?

Because I recall you discussing my attitude with another poster here..

I would greatly appreciate it if you would address remarks about me to me.

I'm once again reminded that the sin Jesus the Christ most frequently and forcibly condemned was that of hypocrisy.

[cbayer]

271. I don't recall speaking about you to another member and I try to avoid doing that.

But if I did I apologize and I will make an effort to not do it in the future.

In return, I will ask that you not call me a hypocrite without giving me the opportunity to see and correct behavior that might be hypocritical.

[cbayer]

272. Just FTR, I just did a search to look into this.

I have on two separate occasions said something directly to you about having a chip on your shoulder, but find nothing that I said about you to someone else regarding that.

Not saying it didn't happen, but you may want to check and see if your memory is correct.

[tradewinds]

119. Yup, cliquish and controlling. Very "Church Lady" like.

[Bryce Butler]

193. 3-4 Leave

On Sat Dec 20, 2014, 07:24 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Some can't see past the end of their "church lady" noses.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=171278

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The entire thread is a flame party, this post is full of passive/aggressive little knocks that are personal and not on topic. Since when is using a female image as an insult tolerated here? For the record I am not cb.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 20, 2014, 07:29 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This particular post raises valid points for discussion. STOP TRYING TO SILENCE SERIOUS DEBATE.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just not enough of a personal attack to hide.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: After rereading the alert and some of the comments, I am going with a lock.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not worth a hide
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Rude and inappropriate..

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[notadmblnd]

194. ....

[cbayer]

109. No, I do want to know what you think.

What do you imagine my beliefs are that I am so certain about?

Of course there is a correlation between religion and war. There is also a correlation between money and power and land and slavery and oil, and war.

The idea that the world would be happily peaceful if religion just went away is a fantasy without any backing. Not believing is not correlated with being a pacifist. On the other hand, being a Quaker is.

I think I have already told you this, but your assumptions about my religious beliefs are entirely wrong. They are based on your own privileged perspective and narrow view that if someone disagrees with you in this area, they must be a believer. It is based on a belief you hold that is entirely faith based, because there is no evidence to support your conclusions about me.

I would love to see a world at peace. Eliminating religion might eliminate some drivers for war, but it would also eliminate the the religious peacekeepers. Be careful what you wish for.

[Leontius]

159. If you put down the comic books you'll find history much more interesting and complex.

[notadmblnd]

161. really? what part of my post came from a comic book?

please elaborate.

[okasha]

184. Sorry to break this to you,

but the Holocaust and the Axis war of conquest were two different things.

[notadmblnd]

192. Really? Is that all you had to nit pick out of that?

Do you honestly think that there would have been a WWII and an Axis alliance if Hitler had not come to power?

Do you really believe his motives for conquering Europe did not stem from his sense of superiority and his hatred for those whose religion was different from his?

[Leontius]

206. I'll take a shot

Question 1: Yes maybe not in the form it took but still a likely outcome. Question 2: No.

[okasha]

207. Leontius sums it up well.

To which I will add:

1. It was Germany's humiliation in WWI and the resultant disarmament that fueled its drive toward a rematch with the nations that had defeated it. If Hitler had not come to power, someone similar would have, with the same mandate for conquest.

2.Most of conquered Europe was Christian, not Jewish. Hitler's own religion remains debatable. Just about everything, from Catholicism to ancient Germanic paganism, has been attributed to him.

[notadmblnd]

208. I think that's boloney

Number one is Leontius' opinion, not an established fact.

Number 2. Yes at the time many cities were very diverse and Jewish people lived among Christians. However, it was not Christians whose assets were seized, nor was it Christians who were tattooed with numbers, forced to wear identifying markers on their clothes, nor was it the Christians who were loaded into boxcars like cattle and shipped off to the death camps to be used as slave labor until dead.

I'm not here to debate Hitler's religion. I never claimed that the Nazis committed their atrocities in the name of their religion. I said that it was Hitler's sense of superiority and hatred for those whose religion was different from his.

[okasha]

209. And I think that's salami.

1. It was German crowds shouting "Wir wollen wieder Waffen" that brought down the Weimar Republic and cleared the way for Hitler's rise to power. They wanted a war leader, and the Nazis gave them one.

2.It was Christians whose countries were seized and whose citizens were terrorized by German troops, Their assets were indeed confiscated, from foodstuffs to feed the occupying troops, to art for Hitler's own future museum. Granted, that wasn't genocide, nor was the suffering on a par with the death camps. But if you think Hitler was going to retreat from occupied Europe once he'd done murdering Jews, you're fantasizing.

[notadmblnd]

211. there you go, making rude remarks and assuming

things that I have not said.

But I guess if that is what you need to do in order to keep your feeling of self righteous superiority, then have at it.

[Leontius]

212. And exactly what would be your FACT based alternate history of the events

leading up to WWII? One other point millions of Poles Russians and several other nationalities would disagree with you description of their fates in the Nazi death camps and slave labor programs.

[notadmblnd]

215. Boy, you guys love to move the bar don't you?

Last edited Sun Dec 21, 2014, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

the OP asked what possible good could evolve out of the elimination of religion. I reply that perhaps peace could be possible. The OP then denies that religion has anything to do with war throughout history. Then when I post a list of conflicts that were/are based in religion, instead of admitting that religion has played a huge role in conflicts over the centuries, your pals turn it into a discussion of WWII and how not only the Jewish people suffered. Yes, others suffered, but not for the same reasons nor to the same extent that the Jews were persecuted and to say different is shameful.

I agree, Hitler had plans for more than just the Jewish people. But they were his jumping off point and his persecution was based on the Nazi sense of superiority over others and that sense of superiority was based on hatred of others because of their religion and who they were as a people. And for you and your pals to ignore it is disingenuous at the very least.

And no, you can not state your opinion as certainty and say if it hadn't been the rise of the Hitler and the Nazis that history would have taken the same course.

[Leontius]

217. No bar movement

Last edited Sun Dec 21, 2014, 03:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Religion as a motivation not all that common as a justification quite often. Of course it's my opinion of what the outcome would have been without the rise of the Nazis but it is based on my understanding of all of the related movements of the principles involved even with the absence of Hitler other world powers were dead set on expansion and dominance if not of the world at least as much as they could conquer just as it is your opinion of a world of peace . The Jews as a race was the underpinning of Hitler's anti-Semitism not their religion so much as his belief they were an alien race to Germans just as Slavs were not really human but sub-human beasts fit only for extermination or labor exploitation. For the record you turned to Hitler and WWII not my "pals".

[notadmblnd]

259. I won't deny it, I did turn to Hitler and WWII

And I do stand by what I said, the persecution of the Jewish peoples during WWII was the continuation of Crusader heritage.

[Leontius]

262. As you say that's just your opinion and one based on no facts and poor knowledge of history.

[notadmblnd]

263. There ya go! I swear, I should have played the lotto.

You three always got to get your little personal digs in there don't ya? You couldn't just leave your response to me at "that's just your opinion"? You just couldn't resist making a comment disparaging my intelligence.

And to think, in my mind I had given you "props" for not resorting to snark, ridicule and hatefulness.

Ah, well

[Leontius]

264. No I'm not disparaging your intelligence

I just don't think you have done enough reading of history to support the conclusions (opinion) you have reached. Try to explain the relation of "Crusader Heritage" to the conflicts of WWI and WWII other than the propaganda imagery of the combatants, their real and tangible connection is what. Again for the record the first use of trying to belittle was yours in your reply to Okasha in her post agreeing with my original statements.

[notadmblnd]

265. Sure you did. You implied that my mind was weak

because it is your opinion that I have poor knowledge. What is it with you guys?

[Leontius]

266. Knowledge is not intelligence

I apologize if that was the way my post seemed to you it was not the intent. There are many areas in which my knowledge of them are small at best some even less than that. Not a question of intelligence more a question of information .

[cbayer]

227. As the OP, I ask you to provide the quote in which I denied that religion has anything to

do with war throughout history. You can not just make stuff up. The people you see as "pals" who are posting here are just not that stupid, nor are they indigenous. Well, I think okasha is, but I'm pretty sure the rest of the "gang" isn't.

[notadmblnd]

230. I meant disingenuous

spell check sometimes puts in the wrong word. But thanks for pointing that out. Now I know that that is exactly the sort of tactic you use when you really have no argument left. Again changing the argument to be about a stupid spelling error than whether or not the elimination of religion could possible bring about peace.

I suggest you do your homework and re-read your posts, you may not have said explicitly- but you have implied all along that religion and war through out the centuries have no connection.

[cbayer]

231. Oh, c'mon. It was a little humor. So where is the quote, notabmbind?

I don't believe that and I never said that. You made it up.

I know for a fact that religion and war have a very strong connection and I challenge you to find a single instance where I have said or implied otherwise.

Hope I'm not too disindigenous, lol. I am, basically, a euro-mutt.

[notadmblnd]

235. You are so clever. Rudness, snark and now ridicule. Have those traits been adopted by those who

call themselves Christian?

I was raised in a Christian church. There were times we were there 7 days a week both morning and night. I always believed that one went to church to learn to become more Christ like.


However, I can see from you and your friends what the Christian church has evolved into.

I hope your rude, snark filled and hateful posts to me, fulfill what ever need it is you have to feel superior.

BTW, shouldn't you bee in church?

[cbayer]

238. First off, I don't call myself a christian and I don't go to church so your arrow landed in the mud.

You are making a ton of false assumptions about the religious affiliation of those that you are engaging. The only reason I can see for this is that when someone disagrees with you about religious matters, your only conclusion is that they are christians. Not just any christians either, bad christians.

I feel no hate towards you, but I am clearly pushing your buttons and will back off.

I hope there are no bees in your church, lol! (This is meant as a joke in response to a harmless typo).

[notadmblnd]

241. Then why so hostile towards those who disagree with the Christian religions?

You and your pals have been very hostile towards me. You say you are not Christian yet you defend it almost militantly. The snark, rudness and down right hatefullness I have observed here towards me and others who feel religion has a negative effect is undeniable.

For someone who claims they have no horse in the race, you are certainly passionate about defending it. Why?

[cbayer]

245. No one here has been hostile towards you at all.

They have merely disagreed with you and challenged you.

I have lots of people I get along with in this group. Some are believers and some are not.

To be very honest, I think you may not have a thick enough skin for this group. If you feel that what has been said to you is downright hateful, then your bar is really pretty low.

I never claimed I had no horse in the race. I am a religionist in the way a man can be a feminist. I am a faitheist in the way Chris Stedman defines faitheism.

I know that the democratic party is chock full of believers of all stripes and non-believers, and I am adamantly opposed to those that want to destroy or run off any of those groups based on the sole criteria that they are or are not religious.

I am passionately opposed to anti-theists and anti-atheists and the religious right. I am able to discern that there are good and bad things about theism and atheism, and I choose to support the good while challenging the bad.

Not sure what kind of response you were expecting, but I gather this wasn't it.

There is a group where you can bash religious believers without ever being challenged, but this isn't it.

[notadmblnd]

250. you certainly have.

your snark, your ridicule, your belittle-ing of what I have posted certainly is hostile.

You want me out, that is plain to see. "my skin is not thick enough for your group" lol. I'm not the one alerting on any of you nor your pals posts unlike those who have alerted on mine.

A religion-ist? I admit I had to look that one up, but it sounds about right.

Religionist
An arrogant, prideful, egoistic, religious person who believes his/her religion is the only true religion. They are deeply religious in their dogma/religion to such an extent they believe that is who they are. They are often times very legalistic and think they are better than others, especially other people who aren't members of their particular religion. People who are religionists are usually the biggest hypocrites.
Religious people are often times religionists due to the effect their religion has had on them over the years.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Religionist

[cbayer]

252. Again, your bar is very low.

I don't want you out at all. I want you to defend the positions you take.

And I've not alerted on a single post of yours, or your new buddy, as a matter of fact.

Yes, the urban dictionary is such a fine source of information! Good choice.

In case you missed it here is the second definition at that site, and it even got more votes.

religionist
someone who is biased against another religion.
I strongly dislike the religionist Christian Right scum who are antisemitic anti-Jewish.

Now, since neither of those are accurate definitions and neither is anything like me, let me tell you what I mean when I use the term.

Like I said, I am a religionist in the same way a man can be a feminist. While not personally religious, I support the rights and beliefs of religious people with whom I share a political/social agenda and whose beliefs do no harm.

What do you consider yourself when it comes to religion.

[notadmblnd]

254. that's your opinion, but then I guess making personal disparages is all you got left

in your arsenal, huh?

[cbayer]

257. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to cut you loose for now.

You have repeatedly found reason to take offense when there was no offense in evidence.

I don't think there is a single thing that I could say to you that you would not feel offended by.

So you are correct, I've got nothing left.

See you around the campfire for kumbayah and all that.

[notadmblnd]

256. Would Merriam Webster's definition work better for you?

or do you consider it a unreliable source too?

e·li·gion·ist
noun \-ˈli-jə-nist, -ˈlij-nist\
Definition of RELIGIONIST
: a person adhering to a religion; especially : a religious zealot .

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionist


I would call myself a very skeptical deist.

[notadmblnd]

253. I have'nt bashed religion. I expressed that perhaps without religion there could be peace

From there this conversation has devolved with yourself primarily doing the bashing of what I have written.

[cbayer]

226. I've read her post 3 times and I can't see anything rude at all.

Yours, on the other hand, is quite rude.

[notadmblnd]

234. Of course not you don't see anything rude.

I'm sure it must be the color of glasses you wear when posting here that prevents you from seeing all the rude, snarky and hateful comments by those who would call themselves christian- towards those who disagree with them.

[cbayer]

237. First off, she's not a christian.

Secondly, could you please tell me exactly what you found rude about her post?

I am beginning to see your pattern, and it is all about how you respond to people who disagree with you.

[cbayer]

225. You most surely did claim the Nazis committed their atrocities in the name of religion.

You did so to me just upthread:

you would ignore WWII and deny that Hitler had a religious motivation for his desire to eliminate the Jews

[Dont call me Shirley]

176. I think war is caused by the economic royalists and always has. Religion is a tool, it can be used

to do good, for healing, or to harm.

[rug]

49. More baseless hope.

[safeinOhio]

6. I tend to doubt that.

Seems any trait that is found in every culture across history has a genetic base. While the individual religion is culture, the general practice and belief in a life after may be more nature than nurture. Like any gene, some have it some don't and there can be variations to it. I don't think I have it.

[cbayer]

9. I tend to agree with you.

I do think there is a genetic base and I don't see incentive for that particular trait disappearing.

I have made the case you are making before. I don't think most people can choose to believe or not believe. They just do.

[safeinOhio]

14. A lot of people that once believed, no longer.

I think it can be changed with knowledge. I think the gene to believe is just a tendency to believe. Much like one might have a gene that leads to type 2 diabetes. However if one eats right it may not happen.

[cbayer]

16. I agree. I don't think it's a simple gene, but one that has influence.

There are nonbelievers that become believers as well, and that is also a change due to knowledge or experience or who knows what.

But I do think that most people do not experience it as a choice.

[notadmblnd]

91. Much like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

[cbayer]

95. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the belief in those things also has a genetic determinant...

one that is so rare that one literally never sees it in grown adults.

Unfortunately, the baseless and facile argument that belief in god is the same thing as belief in the easter bunny, santa claus and the tooth fairy is too often seen coming from what I assume are grown adults. Perhaps that has a genetic determinant as well.

[notadmblnd]

107. What I was trying to say, is that when we grow, mature, or when an individual such as our parents

enlighten us, our belief in non existent entities fade or disappear. It has nothing to do with genetics.

[cbayer]

112. And while you are correct about beliefs in some things disappearing,

you are entirely wrong about religious beliefs.

The comparison is false and can not be made with reason.

Actually, there is a great deal of data available concerning the possible genetic underpinnings of religiosity.

There is really none that I am aware of that would support a genetic underpinning for the other things you talk about. Probably because there really isn't a population to study.

[notadmblnd]

118. Oh yeah, the God Particle

I read that article in Readers Digest a few years back also. While RD can be entertaining, one really can't take what is printed in it as Gospel now, can one?

[cbayer]

123. I have no idea what you are talking about and I am guessing the RD comment is just snark.

When there is no reasonable response, post snark….. I guess.

[trotsky]

11. True, lots of human traits you'd think we might get over are still around and going strong.

Racism, sexism, tendency toward violence, etc.

[tradewinds]

29. So many of the "traits" you list are often fanned by religion.

No coincidence there.

[rug]

52. So are persistent antagonism and passive-aggresion.

[msongs]

31. relligion is learned behavior, not inherent. as long as there are gullible people the

current popular religions will stick around. one can belong to a religion one second and not belong one second later, it is a matter of choice. learn a new belief system and the old one becomes invalid. of course there is the matter of social and cultural baggage that must be abandoned during the process and adapting to the new belief system.

[cbayer]

32. You have anything to substantiate that?

Or is it just your belief and based on faith?

Since it's been around since recorded history, I'm pretty sure we can hypothesize that it is more than just a learned behavior.

If it's learned, why didn't you learn it?

[tradewinds]

34. I'll answer that.

It is learned. I DID learn it, then I learned better.

[cbayer]

36. You are again throwing things around as fact based on anecdote and not data.

That's not very reasonable.

Could you choose to be a believer, BTW?

[tradewinds]

38. when someone defending the reality of religion whines about lack of "data" , I can only laugh.

The ONLY way one can be a "believer" is to make that choice. There certainly is NO supporting DATA !!

now I must ROTFL

[cbayer]

43. Religion is real. I suspect what you meant to say was that it would be funny if someone

defending their faith based beliefs asked for data.

But since I'm not doing that, you had to create a mighty pretzel to merit 5 rofl's.

Again, you are making unsubstantiated claims. There is actually data to support that religiosity may have some inborn or genetic component.

Here's a rather definitive article, but if you google it, you will find dozens.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921867

Just a heads up, I'm engaging with you now because I'd like to think that you could get off the floor long enough to engage in a civil conversation. We might both learn something if that were to occur.

But if you continue to make outrageous claims and refuse to back them up with anything significant, you will not be taken seriously by many.

[tradewinds]

50. Your "study" calls it "religiosity". It could also be refereed to as "gullibility"

I concede that there may be some genetic link to "gullibility" much as there is to intelligence. But it is a loooonnnnggg stretch to call it "religiosity", unless you BELIEVE in such. Sorry your little "study" is greatly flawed. It assumes too much. FAIL.

[cbayer]

59. If you think they were studying gullibility, then you clearly did not read the study.

Not that I truly expected you too.

I'm going to cut you loose now.

[tradewinds]

63. Like I said, gullibility. Just because you call it something else, it does not change the fact.

"Cut me loose"?? That assumes you had a hold. Of. course, you did not.

[ismnotwasm]

66. Faith is a real phenomena

Personally, I'm not religious, but billions of people are. The doesn't make me wrong and them right, but here's the thing;

Faith, by definition, needs no proof. It's a deeply personal and varied human response. People of faith are doing what people of no faith do-- there's little difference, other than one has a belief system requiring faith, and the other doesn't . So people in every profession or trade or job, people in different cultures and people who live in widely different circumstances, people with different socio-economic backgrounds, in other words people as varied as possible-- share the quality of faith in some sort of deity. People have left faith, and people have come to believe.

I don't waste my time with ridiculous and hurtful comments-- except in areas where people use their belief, or lack of it to cause harm or pain then I speak my mind to the quality of the human being, or the hypocrisy of not following the tenants of their own dogma. Or where there are human rights violations.

I suggest reading Carl Jungs "Answer to Job" he discusses the nature of faith in the Christian religion at least.

[tradewinds]

70. Lack of intelligence is also a real phenomena, as is sociopathy and schizophrenia, what's your point?

[ismnotwasm]

75. I made my point.

You missed it

Love, kindness and respect are also real qualities. As is courtesy in conversation

[tradewinds]

80. Sorry , your point relied on faith.

Didn't miss it. it just was not there.

[ismnotwasm]

86. Sure it was

You missed it.

[hrmjustin]

72. Hey good to see you here!

[ismnotwasm]

76. You too

[ismnotwasm]

85. We know

[rug]

61. When you learn more, I'll expect another course correction.

[tradewinds]

65. Please be more coherent when you post to me.

Your inane rambles are undecipherable.

[rug]

71. If you like, I'll put it in smileys.

If necessary, finger paint.

[tradewinds]

73. Anything is better than your usual word salad.

[hrmjustin]

74. Usual? are you familiar with his work?

[rug]

77. A very good question.

[Leontius]

214. Word salad is the new standard from the group mind.

[tradewinds]

78. Sure

?version=164

[hrmjustin]

81. How nice for you.

[tradewinds]

82. Not familiar with the Uzual Suspects?

Your post led me to BELIEVE so.

[hrmjustin]

83. Did i hit the Mark?

[tradewinds]

94. Who is Mark?

[hrmjustin]

97. No one of importance. So how did you find us?

[tradewinds]

99. How did I find you?

Why , "very cliquish" comes to mind, why?

[hrmjustin]

100. Just curious.

Your making a big splash here.

[Goblinmonger]

110. Skinner has said that socks are OK

as long as they aren't being used to avoid an enforced time out.

So why are you so curious. Why weren't you curious when the Ohio Pepper Farmer came right here and pushed the right atheist buttons and then, magically, disappeared? Or our new friend the deer tanner who seemed to show up right after the pepper farmer. How about stone space who has Poe written all over him? There are others, too. Why this particular one? I wonder....Actually I don't. I know why this one bothers you more than the others.

[hrmjustin]

111. When did Ohio show up?

[Goblinmonger]

114. I don't remember. It was a very short stay.

But it was pretty strange that a Mexican Catholic feminist showed up and tumbled into all the right places, too. Frankly, I don't give a crap. Obvious socks are obvious and you either decide to play with them for a bit or you don't. No skin off my back.

[hrmjustin]

115. Mexican catholic?

Why is that interesting?

[Goblinmonger]

121. Because, IIRC, it was exactly what we were talking about.

And I'm just guessing here, but I would put the over/under on the number of female, Mexican, feminist pepper farmers in Ohio in the the low double digits or high single digits.

But again, I don't care. And I could very likely be wrong. It is just kind of odd that the MIRT hackles go up only when it is a new atheist that is in here holding their own against one of the annointed.

[hrmjustin]

122. I am not mirt. was ohio banned and how many posts did the poster make?

[tradewinds]

125. So this is just a Jets v Sharks thing? How quaint.

[Goblinmonger]

136. Yeah. Pretty much

It gets old at times. Things are especially tense right now, FWIW.

[cbayer]

127. Yeah, that's because MIRT has a strong anti-atheist prejudice.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Goblinmonger]

135. Not saying that at all.

But in this specific case it seems weird that you yesterday and justin today are only making the sock comments about a low-count atheist who is giving you a run for your money and not the believer low-count users that come in here with the same knowledge. MIRT only gets to deal with what gets sent to them. And if you are just giving them heads up about atheists on here, then that's who they are going to look at.

I have no problem whatsoever with MIRT. I don't believe they have an anti-atheist prejudice.

Heck, I don't think justin does either. He seems like a pretty good guy. In his case, I think it's just a perception issue. He only sees the bad when it comes against someone he likes. That's even kind of admirable.

[hrmjustin]

141. The ohio thing your talking about, i think I caught it when it was over.

I think it was November.

[cbayer]

154. I didn't make a sock comment at all.

The only comment I made to him was that he might not be around long enough to find out what the rules are.

He's not giving me a run for my money. You can not be serious? I cut him loose long ago.

I'm not currently participating in MIRT and even if I was, I would completely refrain from comment on this particular person.

MIRT deals with all kinds of things that are not sent to them. Have you been on MIRT? The bulk of what they do is self-referred.

I'm not giving them heads up about anything. I have contacted no one on MIRT nor have I made a comment in the group. You are again falsely accusing me. What is your problem?

If you think this guy is a-ok, it is perhaps you that is having the perception issue.

[Goblinmonger]

155. Not about him.

The "are you related because your posting styles are similar" comment.

I know, I know. You weren't saying that that person was a sock. You just thought writing style was genetic.

[cbayer]

157. Rolly eyes = I think you are just lying through your teeth.

You really don't know me at all. All you can see is the caricature that has been created.

I wasn't calling the member a sock. I have ongoing conversations with edhopper frequently. We disagree, sometimes strongly, but we are generally civil. He likes to post what he considers provocative OP's that I think are just opportunities to show how believers are wrong. I felt the same way was being done by this member and made an offhand comment about them being related.

It is utter bullshit that you accuse me of lying about that. I ask again - what is your problem?

[cbayer]

120. Please tell me you are not accusing me of having created a sock.

I created a sock twice in my time on DU. Both times it was because I had accidentally nuked myself in the mod forum. I needed to get the attention of a mod who could reinstate me.

I have never, ever has another account here. Never.

You are really going over the line with your most recent accusations and distortions of me. I am not surprised that you haven't responded to my post to you in the meta thread. Frankly, what could you say?

[Goblinmonger]

124. Nope. Not at all.

I really don't know why you would think I was talking about you creating a sock. If I were being more snarky today rather than exhausted after a week of crazy high school kids itching for winter break, I might make a projector comment.

Anyway, no. You didn't even enter into the realm of who might be socking it up.

I have no idea which response in the meta thread. I'm usually pretty good at keeping multiple threads in my head at the same time. Had to be able to seriously and critically read more than a handful of novels at one time in college, but, as noted above, it's been a long week. I'll go check.

[cbayer]

140. Gee, I don't know why I might think that.

You have accused me of some kind of complicity in the locked thread fiasco, which is completely false and completely unfounded.

Then you talk about a sock being a feminist from Mexico who "knows all the right places" and is apparently defending catholicism.

Sure, that's just projection. No reason to think you would falsely accuse me of something. It's not like you have ever done so before….. as recently as today.

The response was where I corrected all your false assumptions about my role in the locked thread issue.

You don't have to respond, but you can stop making false accusations.

[Goblinmonger]

145. Oh, I see it now.

Not being snarky. Really. I wasn't even thinking of the Mexico thing. But now that you mention it... Just kidding.

No, I wasn't saying you were the one that created the sock. Sorry for being so obtuse about what I wrote.

As to your part of that thread. Yeah, I still stick by that. If you didn't know why or how it derailed, how did you know to post your apology to the OP? And by the time stamps, pinto came in with his "mash up" comment less than 15 minutes before he locked it. Coincidence is possible, yes, but when you stack a bunch of them up.... Perhaps I'm wrong and you and/or your friends had nothing to do with the whole thing getting lock when it was blowing up in your face, but that would be a pretty strong test of verisimilitude if this were a short story.

[cbayer]

158. OMG!! I posted an apology to the OP because I had changed my POV on what he was doing.

I had NO IDEA what was going on in that thread. None. Nothing was blowing up in my face at all. I was having reasonable and civil interactions with others, including you. What ever you saw that you interpret that way, I never saw and I still have not seen. Why would I want to look at people who live to throw shit at me?

Now, you can call me a liar again, since you seem absolutely convinced that that is what I am.

But you couldn't be more wrong. You have developed some kind of theory based on creative speculation. It is not rational and it is not reasonable and it is grossly unfair.

It is fantasy perpetuated by a band of brothers and you are right smack dab in the middle of it.

Someday you might recognize the role you have played in this and you might have some regret. I'm not counting on it, but I can always hope.

[tradewinds]

116. Please , clue me in.

FYI, not a sock.

[Goblinmonger]

130. Yeah. Sorry you are in the middle of this.

This goes back years.

justin thinks you are a sock puppet account of some other atheist on here. I don't know who he thinks it might be. He may not even have a specific person in mind. He thinks it is pretty odd that with this low of a post count and little time on here that you found the religion forum and are going after the people that are usually the people atheists but heads with.

Anything else not clear. It's been a long week so I may be short selling the importance of something.

[tradewinds]

133. I just dived into Latest Threads.

Is that bad? To whom must I pay homage?

[Goblinmonger]

138. That makes sense to me.

I think you have grasped pretty quickly the ones that feel they need the appropriate homage before they allow you to post.

I mean, hey, you can pay some homage to me, too, but it doesn't really matter all that much for me.

[cbayer]

146. You are one of the primary gatekeepers in this group.

This post is absolute and total fantasy on your part. If you think that challenging someone's POV and then objecting when they attack me is feeling that I need appropriate homage, there is seriously something wrong with your idea formation.

My interaction with this member has been completely appropriate.

Every time I think you might be listening to your better angels, I fine out that that couldn't be further from the truth.

[ismnotwasm]

98. It was a idiom

"Did I hit the mark" does it have to be someone?

[tradewinds]

101. "Mark" was capitalized, hence the confusion.

carry on.

[ismnotwasm]

103. I see.

[rug]

88. 38 posts in 23 hours. Are you in a hurry to get to 100?

[cleanhippie]

102. Says the guy with a 32 post per day average.

[tradewinds]

106. What's with these folks?

Are all forums as cliquish as this one seems to be? Man, just poke 'em a little and they dog-pile. Very unfriendly.

[Heddi]

132. No, actually. This place is particularly rabid at times. Come to the Atheist forum

I think they're putting it in the rules that you hvae to have a sense of humor to post there, so you'll find yourself quite welcome there. And you won't get the heat you're getting here for daring to question her majesty

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1230

[tradewinds]

134. Thanks.

[Major Nikon]

143. Results...

What's with these folks?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=171265

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

New poster comes in here and starrts in and then calls us vile.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 19, 2014, 04:12 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pfft! Please. I have seen vile posts from the Religion regulars with a LOT of posts on a regular basis. I don't see any reason to hide.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not a great way to make friends and influence people.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The truth hurts sometimes and is not always unidirectional.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[rug]

128. 100 is the relevant number.

[tradewinds]

139. Why?

[Goblinmonger]

149. Just ignore him.

It's a never ending death spiral of futility.

[Rob H.]

150. The malicious intruder removal team (MIRT)

deals with people under 100 posts. It was probably his way of implying you're a troll or disruptor without coming out and saying it directly, because him doing so would be in direct violation of DU rules.

Edit: I second Goblinmonger's recommendation, ftr.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Predisposition to belief is a measurable, inherent thing for a large percentage of the population.

Any specific religion that an individual can be a member of, is not. So, what MSongs said is painfully self-evident.


How can I say that? Simple, i'll use your words: "Since it's been around since recorded history, I'm pretty sure we can hypothesize that it is more than just a learned behavior. "

"It" hasn't. There is no single religion that humans broadly accept that has been around since recorded human history. None. And that is not what MSongs was implying, if you actually read past the subject line of the post.

MSongs didn't specify 'faith', but rather 'religion' which is indeed a culturally transmitted meme.

[AuntPatsy]

64. Truth, it cannot be denied but after reading this thread its apparrent it can be ignored

[Dont call me Shirley]

178. Religion is both genetic and learned.

As our parents attend church, those experiences are recorded in their DNA and passed onto their children.

Then the children go to church and learn religion.

It's never one or the other, as with the yin-yang, it is a balance of both forces.

[Arugula Latte]

186. Hmm, I don't think that "genetic" thing holds water in terms of church attendance.

[Dont call me Shirley]

189. Not in terms of church attendance but in being more driven to be drawn into that world.

In terms of repeating your parents past, if we become parents especially, we have feelings and actions of following in our parents footsteps.

[Warren Stupidity]

210. Are you withdrawing your DNA claim?

'cause that was freaking uninformed. We "have feelings and actions of following in our parents footsteps" because they raised us. You can take adopted kids with no genetic material shared with their adoptive parents and they to will "have feelings and actions of following in" their adopted parents footsteps. They will at the same time exhibit the heritable genetic traits of their birth parents.

[Dont call me Shirley]

213. No, I am not withdrawing the DNA claim.

Maybe I didn't word what I said in a scholarly manner. I am not a scholar, just a self-learner. I try to word things in a clear manner, but it comes out more crude than clear.

Behavior is genetically transferred and learned both. Behavior is preceded by thought, whether the thought is conscious or not. I'm not sure yet whether thought precedes feelings or feelings precede thoughts. I suspect feeling initiates thought, then thought initiates behavior.

I suspect that we have fragments of feelings, thoughts and actions of our parents in our DNA which we could experience in our own lives (like we have the trait for a specific disease but may or may not manifest it). These fragments may not be like flashbacks of theirs, or possibly perhaps could be, but as reflected in our own ways in concert with what is currently happening in our life.

Kids learn some behaviors of their adoptive parents, and show inherent behavioral traits of their biological parents.

[Warren Stupidity]

220. So your evidence for the genetic transfer of religion is?

[Dont call me Shirley]

221. Experience.

[Warren Stupidity]

198. while tansgenerational epigenetics exists, it is not "recorded in their DNA".

Nor is there any evidence that religion has transgenerational epigenetic properties.

[Dont call me Shirley]

216. The word recorded was a simple term I used to explain epigenetic marks

"For some epigenetically influenced traits, the epigenetic marks can be induced by the environment and some marks are heritable, leading some to view epigenetics as a relaxation of the rejection of soft inheritance of acquired characteristics."


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetics

[Warren Stupidity]

219. DNA has nothing to do with epigenetics, you had no clue until I mentioned it.

[Dont call me Shirley]

222. Right on both accounts.

Your intelligence is over my head. But i am always willing to learn.

[hrmjustin]

41. Hopefully religion never disappears.

Cpuld use some reforms though.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Why?

I'll serious-post for a second and say, I don't actually hope it does, I just want it small enough OR detached/firewalled enough that it no longer drives politics around the world. But I don't care if it exists on some level, otherwise.

But why would you hope it never disappears?

Is there something wrong with the disappearance of all the thousands of religions that have fallen out of vogue?

[hrmjustin]

45. It is a comfort for billions.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. One might presume

That remaining/current/future religions would fall out of vogue as they are supplanted by something else that supplies comfort for said billions.

Clearly, forcing people not to believe in XYZ does not work, and in fact, has the entirely opposite effect.

[hrmjustin]

51. what will be will be. Things will change.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. I suspect 'understanding' and the shrinking unknown will produce it.

It's an effect I've witnessed on a smaller scale that seems to map to the overall trend, but, hope springs eternal.

[Cosmic Kitten]

104. Maybe "Religion" is a stage of cognitive development?

As a child who has no concept of object permanence...
are adults who have no concept beyond established religion?

Perhaps Post-formal Operations?

[AtheistCrusader]

142. Entirely possible.

I tend to view it as a substitution for the unknown, or for the authority over the unknown that, for instance, parents represent to a small child.

[tradewinds]

53. You say "comfort" I say destructive crutch.

[hrmjustin]

54. Ok, i disagree.

[tradewinds]

58. Or at least, you BELIEVE you do.

[hrmjustin]

60. whatever.

[rug]

62. When you finish rolling around the floor, look up non sequitur.

[tradewinds]

67. Sorry Jr. But my logic tracks just fine

Unlike this:

[hrmjustin]

69. Not really funny.

[Leontius]

160. But rug's post was spot on.

[AtheistCrusader]

164. 6-1 the Jury disagrees.

[hrmjustin]

165. I am so sorry to see he got that hide.

[Heddi]

166. Why? He broke the rules

I know that "fuck off, you fucking fucker" is an acceptable slur to be hurled at others in your precious interfaith forum, but calling another poster "stupid" really is frowned upon throughout the rest of DU.

Rather than being sad, you should remind your friend what the rules of DU are, especially the part about personal attacks. That was his 4th hide, so you'd think he'd know by now.....

Here's the link to "fuck off, you fucking fucker" http://www.democraticunderground.com/12643825#post37 for those who may be called to a jury for this thread.

[hrmjustin]

167. Because I am sorry he got it.

He took his chances and lost.

And if you have a complaint about how I or the other hosts deal with Interfaith you can always bring it to skinner.

[Heddi]

168. Oh, that Interfaith Hosting bullshit ship sailed long ago, Justin

Your group's rules are shit, and hypocritical. You block atheist posters just because their mere EXISTENCE is offensive, yet another poster can say "fuck off, you fucking fucker" and is allowed to stay. Not only allowed to stay, but coddled like an infant. He was baited. He was trolled. HE WAS FORCED TO SAY THAT.

THat's fine. Not my monkey, not my zoo.

But to hold yourself, and your group, as some being some high standard of moral forthrightness is laughable. You (and your fellow Interfaith hosts) host hypocritically. Your SOP is full of shit and you don't even adhere to it yourselves, so I can see how this whole kerfluffle with pinto was so confusing since you're used to hosting a forum where SOP is just a quaint acronym for who knows what and has no impact on who you ban and who you allow, what you consider on topic and what you consider disruptive.

But to pretend that this personal attack is SO SAD when your general rule is that personal attacks against atheists are always deserved, and hides against your friends are just so unfortunate is really silly. Just be honest. Rug didn't deserve a hide because he's Rug, and he's your friend. You believe he should be able to say whatever he wants to whomever he wants, and the rules don't count for him.

What is it you always say...you give what you get? That sometimes people who are always nasty get the nastiness thrown back at them? Looks like that happened to rug.

No reason to be sad. This is a teaching moment. Or should be. It would be for most people

[hrmjustin]

169. You know you spend a lot of time worrying about our group.

And when you start admonishing your friends about their behavior, then I might care what you have to say.

[Heddi]

171. This is an act, isn't it?

I'm not the host of a group that welcomes with open arms a poster who told another poster to fuck off, you fucking fucker, and then BLAMED OTHER PEOPLE FOR THE POST. I mean, what, did we go to his house and type it out on his keyboard? Tie him up, drug him, and give him hypnotic suggestion to post that?

Your unwillingness to address anything that I posted is, well, something we've all come to expect. I'm actually surprised I got more than a subject-line response from you. I feel so honored. I think I'll go buy a lotto---today must be my lucky day!

Sweeney

[hrmjustin]

172. I don't answer to you.

And the hosts did address the poster through pms.

[Heddi]

173. Well you kind of *did* answer to me

by responding to my thread. I mean, it was an answer.

I know you were trying to sound very authoritative. You just missed the mark. That's okay, I'll keep pointing out your hypocritical behavior so maybe you'll have another chance in the future

Maybe one day you'll give me the patented GOOD DAY SIR! Although when I see you type that I just think of Gene Wilder as Willie Wonka.

Don't know if that's the effect you're going for, but that's how it comes across. On a computer screen at least. I mean, I know the internet leave a lot to be desired in form and tone, etc. etc.

[hrmjustin]

174. Good night!

[Heddi]

175. GOOD DAY SIR!!!11!!

[Leontius]

182. Some of the jury should probably take the same advice.

[hrmjustin]

183. Well they use their best judgement but they don't get it right always.

I don't get every jury right either.

[cbayer]

44. It has always and will continue to change.

That's a good thing. Much of the change is way too slow and much damage can be done while waiting for it to catch up, but it either changes or is replaced.

[Mariana]

185. Religions don't always get better with time.

Sometimes they change for the worse.

[cbayer]

190. Agree. That is why I think it's important that people be able to distinguish

and stand with those that are doing the right thing and against those that are pursuing agendas that are harmful.

[nichomachus]

84. Religion will not disappear

As long as some people can use it to control large groups of other people -- and people can make money off of it.

Religion was invented centuries ago as a way to control the population. If the king said it, he could be challenged. If "god" said it, then game, set, match.

[cbayer]

89. It will also not disappear as long as it provides the essential

goods and services that the poorest and most disenfranchised in this world rely on.

While there is no doubt that religion is and has been used to control people and make money, most of the boots on the ground are doing exactly the opposite. They are doing what they can to free people from what amounts to slavery and not making a dime.

Neither you nor I know how or why religion came to be, but it's been here throughout recorded history in every corner of the planet.

The real key is in being able to see the nuances and shades of grey when it comes to religion, as opposed to only seeing black and white and writing a fabricated historical narrative that only suits ones agenda.

[nichomachus]

93. "fabricated historical narrative" -- and you just described religion n/t

[cbayer]

96. I think I agree with you to a large extent on that.

I think that actual events became huge historical stories and many lost all resemblance to the the event along the way.

But is the corollary also true? Is your fabricated historical narrative a religion or similar to a religion?

[digonswine]

170. This thread turned into a pile of crap

the newbie turned what could be a decent opportunity for discussion into a shit-flinging fest. Arrogance is most ugly. I don't like that the non-believers here I normally enjoy support this shit.

And everybody got to join in--what a waste.

[BlueJazz]

177. I think?..that belief in Religion is partly determined by your genes/brain makeup.

If that is true, then it may be around for a long time. Being an Atheist, I'm quite happy to live a little bit of heaven on earth. Being a Physicist, I also believe we are probably just holograms. But..if you go out and get hit by a truck, it still hurts.

[Mariana]

187. It would be interesting to see how a population of children

who received zero religious indoctrination would turn out. Would they spontaneously create religion on their own? I wonder what form it would take if they did. It's interesting to speculate about.

I wonder if religion may have come about more like writing. Writing was invented independently in a only a few places, but once one group began to use writing, it tended to spread to other populations.

[Humanist_Activist]

180. Religion will lose influence in areas of the world that are economically and politically...

stable, with robust social services to give an almost post-scarcity access to essential resources, along with free access to education, the internet and affordable if not free access to health care.

We can actually see this happening in much of Europe and North America, even in a bit of South America and Asia as well. Basically, religions thrive and retain relevance where suffering and lack of resources exist. It gives a temporary and false comfort, but alone can't effect large scale change necessary to alleviate poverty. Indeed, some religions actually can hinder the process of reducing suffering due to their influence in certain areas of the world. For example the Catholic Church interfering with contraception education and access in Africa.

This is short term, of course, assuming global society develops in ways to maximize and strengthen human rights, reduce conflict, and find mechanisms to enforce this globally if not beyond, then long term, I don't see religions surviving in their current forms. Thinking decades from now, if the rest of the world becomes both politically and economically stable, then I can see them losing much of the religiosity, to be on par with much of Western Europe and the Americas.

This is assuming we don't suffer some type of catastrophe, man made or natural, that causes hardship on current global civilization. Doesn't have to hit Mad Max levels of collapse, but such disasters can hinder societal development.

In centuries, I will make a couple of assumptions, we don't kill ourselves, and society doesn't collapse. I would imagine that by this point, people will live both on and off Earth, possibly colonizing the rest of the solar system and exploiting the resources available. Not sure how relevant religions will seem to most people in the societies of this time. New ones may crop up, but the ideas that many religions of today have will seem quaint or extremely tribal. I would imagine some of those religions would develop new beliefs, or adapt old ones, to try to remain relevant. But I would see truly devout people being a small minority of the population.

[Arugula Latte]

201. There's another factor at work, even in "advanced" places.

Death and accidents and disease are not limited to the developing world, and a lot of even affluent, educated people just want to believe that everything happens for a reason, there's a great plan, and that it is all the work of some great supernatural power/being. It's just easier to get through life that way and to deal with suffering and grief. Part of it has to do with the egotism of humans, that we are a special species who is monitored carefully by the ruler of the universe, who watches our lives as we carry them out on this little planet situated amongst billions of galaxies...Heck, I kinda wish I could buy into that line of thinking!

[Humanist_Activist]

218. What you say is true, but even those fears may be rendered irrelevant due to technology...

in as little as a century, perhaps a little more than that.

Imagine a society, a few centuries from now, where people are implanted with wetware interface communication devices at birth that allow for wireless communication, brain to brain, or brain to computer. This isn't far fetched, we already have such devices today, limited though they are.

But, in a century or two, I could easily imagine our computers being able to match, if not exceed, the human brain's capabilities, perhaps even developing true sapience. But, combine that with communications devices, creating, in essence, a type of global neural network of brains, and you could have, for example, ever person alive then having a ghost of the current state of their brain stored in servers around the world. Every day, by choice or scheduled, these digital backups of our brains and minds would be updated with what new experiences we had at that time.

These digital ghosts would be inert, of course, until such time that your physical brain died, accident, disease, etc. At that point, the digital brain becomes active with the latest update on your experiences. Now, the philosophers of the group may argue this digital copy isn't you, and I'm sure that debate would rage for years, and indeed it does in certain circles today. However, to everyone around you, friends, family, etc., it would seem irrelevant, all they can go on is that there is a digital version of you that thinks like you, feels like you, and talks like you, and shares all your memories. Your family and friends can still talk to you after death, for to them, there would be little to no difference outside of form, and even that could be alleviated, having a digital mind downloaded into a physical body would certainly be possible.

Am I saying this is a future that will happen? No, but there's nothing we know of that would be violated by such a possible future, there may be technical limitations we aren't aware of yet that prevent us from being able to do as I describe. But what I find interesting is we may be able to do something that all of mythology's gods failed to do, create an afterlife that the living could visit and the dead can leave. Its an interesting thought.

[Agnosticsherbet]

181. Religon has existed for at least 70,000 years.

Last edited Fri Dec 19, 2014, 11:13 PM - Edit history (1)

World’s oldest ritual discovered. Worshipped the python 70,000 years ago


A startling archaeological discovery this summer changes our understanding of human history. While, up until now, scholars have largely held that man’s first rituals were carried out over 40, 000 years ago in Europe, it now appears that they were wrong about both the time and place.

Associate Professor Sheila Coulson , from the University of Oslo, can now show that modern humans, Homo sapiens, have performed advanced rituals in Africa for 70,000 years. She has, in other words, discovered mankind’s oldest known ritual.

The archaeologist from the Department of Archaeology, Conservation, and Historical Studies, made the surprising discovery while she was studying the origin of the Sanpeople in cooperation with the University of Tromsø, Norway, and the University of Botswana. A group of the San live in the sparsely inhabited area of north-western Botswana known as Ngamiland.

Religon evoled with us, and is likely to stay around for a long time.

Wat difference does it make if some humans are religous?

[Arugula Latte]

203. "What difference does it make if some humans are religious?"

Last edited Sat Dec 20, 2014, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

It does make a difference, because it affects everyone. There is the imposing of it on others, the anti-choice, anti-birth control zealots, overpopulation, the repressing of women and gays, the wars fought over it, the denial of science and reason, and so on ...

[cbayer]

204. It does affect a lot of things.

There are the homeless shelters, the halfway houses, the groups fighting FGM, those that are invested in eliminating the death penalty, the safe houses for women with AIDS in africa, the GLBT advocacy groups, Moral Mondays, peace activists, food pantries and so on...

If you can only see the bad and never the good you are going to have a very distorted picture of things.

[Agnosticsherbet]

223. You paint all religous people with a single brush, and contend they do not have a right to exist.

You confuse the religious right with all religious people. You appear to agree with the religious right that tolerance is not to be tolerated. You only disagree on what aspects of human experience and human opinion should not be tolerated.

We agree that the religious right, or any religious group, should not have the power to force their views on others.

What we do not agree on is that non-religious folk should not have the power to force our views on everyone else.

And please, your comment "wars fought over it."

Wars are fought for three primary reasons: Resources, Power, and Property.

Religion in any culture is one of the first thing those wanting control of resources, power, and property use to get their population to support a war. Religion is not the cause of wars.

The major wars of the last two centuries, especially the War on error, the Afghan War, the Iraq war, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, world War II, World War I, the American Civil War (and many others) were not fought over religion.

Even the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has never been over religion. It has been fought to control that narrow piece of land, it's people, and resources. Religion is just the dog they goad into barking to keep people willing to fight.

[Arugula Latte]

240. I never said they didn't have a right to exist!

I said their being religious has profound negative impacts on others. I didn't outline any plan to stop them from being religious, or harm or kill them in any way, and I didn't say "they shouldn't be tolerated." I'm pointing out religion has been a terrible thing for most of humanity for thousands of years. It doesn't occur in a vacuum -- it harms society. Look at those asshole religious men testifying against birth control -- birth control in the fucking 21st century!!! -- in front of the U.S. Congress recently. Yes people have the right to be religious, but I have the right to speak out against the harmful effects of religion.

[cbayer]

242. What about the profound positive effects?

Why are you unable to see a more rounded picture?

A terrible thing for most of humanity? While certainly it has been a terrible thing for some at some times, that is a blanket statement without substance.

There are asshole religious men testifying against birth control. There are also those religious folks that are testifying against them.

You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater with this extreme anti-theism.

[Arugula Latte]

243. The three Abrahamic religions were primarily created as a means of societal control.

That was at the very heart of their origin. Guess who has been repressed and stomped down by these religions for eons? Women.

[cbayer]

249. That is your belief, but it's not a fact.

There is much debate about that. Religion has been used as a means of societal control, no doubt.

But I would not concede that those three were created for that.

And, even if they were, that doesn't obliterate the good things that they do.

Guess who is doing the majority of the work to help women and girls who are the most marginalized on this earth?

Have you seen Half the Sky? Again, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let's fight against the evil that religion can perpetrate and support those within religion who share the same goals.

[Agnosticsherbet]

260. All religions, not just those you mentioned, have been used by states for various purposes.

How they are used by those in power in not at all the same as the reason they were created.

Except in relatively recent historical time, religions could be better described as evolving rather than being created. Hinduism evolved enormously over its more than 4000 year history. Buddhism evolved out of Hinduism, just as Christianity evolved out of Judaism, and Islam evolved out of Judaism and Christianity.

One reason religion evolved and changed was to promote social identification of a group and to provide a structure for the societies they evolved in.

People living 70,000 years ago must have benefited greatly for them to dedicate the time and energy to creating and maintaining a ritual site over generations.

[Agnosticsherbet]

261. You answered my question "Wat difference does it make if some humans are religous? "

with a statement against people being religious, in a thread that openly discusses the end of all religion. Yes, you are championing the disappearance of religion.

[Arugula Latte]

267. Championing the disappearance of religion is a lot different than championing the disappearance of

the religious.

People can change their beliefs. I did not call for a culling of religious people.

[Agnosticsherbet]

273. Why should they be required to change their beliefs? That is tyrany. Work to remove the influence of

religious organizations from our government. That is a laudable action. Freedom of religion is one of our essential liberties. It should be made real for everyone, religious and non religious alike.

Also, by championing the disappearance of religion, you champion the removal of something that provides joy and comfort to billions of people.

[Prophet 451]

188. I doubt it will disappear entirely

Over time, I suspect that more people will become atheists but that's fine, free market of ideas. As it becomes less common for people to be raised as religious, more will remain atheists but some will still convert to whatever faith.

[easychoice]

202. as soon as sci/fi does

or when the species does.

[Feral Child]

228. Atheists are certainly more noticeable

because there's less fear of reprisal or oppression/suppression in today's more enlightened climate. "Less", not "no", I'll hasten to add.

I don't think there's need to fear a waning lack of enthusiasm for religion. H sapiens sapiens has evolved about as far as it will, I'm afraid.

[Peacetrain]

229. Not for me..

But the interesting concept is religion vs faith.. Anything can be a religion my friend.. Greed is one of the largest organized religions going.. Making a God out of the almighty dollar as they used to say.

Faith I think will be with us always.. I know it will be for me.. in my finite life. I live in my own end times.. we all do.. we are all finite creatures.

So for me, it never ends.. who knows what 3 centuries from now will bring..

[Prophet 451]

269. No, I have to disagree with that

This is the fundie trick of redefining a word so widely as to make it meaningless so they can claim people worship money, sports stars, evolution, etc. People might like to have money, they might devote much time and energy to it's acquisition, but no-one gets down on bended knee and worships the almighty dollar (at least, not since Ayn Rand died). For it to be a religion, it has to come with a code of ethics or, at least, actually worship something.

[EvilAL]

270. No.

There's no way it will ever disappear completely. One can hope that it will lose it's power over people and their ways of life in regards to crime and punishment, sex and whatever else people want to do in a free society.