Do you ever wish religion just didn't exist?

[cynatnite]

Cartoon blasphemy uproar gathers pace

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060202/ts_nm/religion_denmark_cartoons_dc_14



Evangelical Filmmakers Criticized for Hiring Gay Actor

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/national/02spear.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Religious Groups Get Chunk of AIDS Money

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_he_me/aids_prevention_9

[MindPilot]

1. This would be the best of all possible worlds.... eom

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dem Agog]

2. Only every day of my life...

Religion is at the base of all the world's ills. Everyone's fighting over an imaginary god who hates the people who aren't just like them.

Imagine...

John Lennon was right. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion, too.

If there is a god up there, in the clouds, playing fairy tale Santa, and he's a decent god, he would be sickened by this earth.

[bliss_eternal]

8. I agree--

John Lennon got it right. Frank Zappa had some insightful comments about religion, too. Both were good men, intelligent and gave a damn about humanity.

I have yet to meet religious folk (other than some I've encountered on DU) that have the same values they showed...

[movonne]

15. You are right...

[malaise]

41. Ditto n/t

[smirkymonkey]

95. Yes - It is a plague upon humanity.

I believe that the level of one's religious fervor corresponds directly to their level of mental illness.

[jbnow]

117. Not all the world's ills

are due to religion, but religion most often leads to things that are very negative.

In fact the bible itself has a good quote that "love of money is the root of all evil" Now if you let that be money or power (those old languages can be tough to translate) you really have something.

And religion is a tool used for money and power. Not money/power for the masses, but stir up that religious fervor and get their money and power over them.

Religion is used to keep people away from spirituality itself...like a barrier to God/Spirit.

Though Jesus (man or myth) was a practicing Jew he didn't try to start a religion or mega-church. In fact he said "Whenever two or three of you are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of you" Two or three is not a huge congregation, does not require walls and buildings and cathedrals of riches.

He also talked a lot about not praying by rote, but let it come from inside you. But in churches they pray by rote. And so on....

[lvx35]

122. BS

Some of the world's top ill's:
famine
AIDS
Cancer
ethnic conflict
human trafficking
depression and suicide
substance abuse

Where is the religious basis for these?

[trotsky]

134. I'm not one to claim that religion is 100% worthless...

or that it causes ALL our ills, but I will say that cases (some weak, some strong) CAN be made for each item on your list.

If no other way but to point out how religion has been a retarding force throughout history, opposing cultural, scientific, and secular progress which may have gotten to a point today to cure all of those.

[greyl]

136. Which of those afflicted the Mbuti, Mentawai or Oneida?

(cancer doesn't belong in that list, and "ethnic conflict" isn't a descriptive enough term)

Famine, human trafficking, depression, suicide, and substance abuse are quite recent and are peculiar to one culture out of thousands; ours. It's no meaningless coincidence that overpopulation and it's effects are not found in cultures that are devoid of salvationist religion.

It's supremely important to recognize that the items on your list(other than cancer and forms of ethnic conflict) did not exist prior to our culture.

Since you mentioned AIDS, who is it that thinks condoms are wrong in the eyes of God?

[Inland]

145. Overpopulation is found in other types of societies.

Jared Diamonds' "collapse" has Easter Island, Southwest American Indians, and the Mayans as specific examples of societies that practiced unsustainable growth. I certainly would also cite the Mayans and Aztecs as having ethnic conflict, slavery, and human sacrifices. Just saying.

[greyl]

152. When I say "our culture" I don't mean the United States and Britain.

"Jared Diamonds' "collapse" has Easter Island, Southwest American Indians, and the Mayans as specific examples of societies that practiced unsustainable growth."
"I certainly would also cite the Mayans and Aztecs as having ethnic conflict, slavery, and human sacrifices."

Easter Island is a special case because the original population was finally decimated by disease and slavery from outsiders, and it's only 40 square miles of earth. However, the obvious human form idolotry and polynesian heritage indicates that they probably weren't atheists or animists. Also, the human inhabitants of Easter Island can't really be considered indigenous. Isn't it true that the first human settlements there occured only 2000 years ago?

The Aztec and Mayan religious beliefs are not interchangeable with Mbuti, Mentawai or Oneida. In fact, where they got the wherewithall to live - their food production - and the idea that they were "above nature" on divinely granted grounds, is more like us.

Ethnic conflict isn't the fault of religion, but a certain brand of religious beliefs lead to the extermination of competitors and "god willed" sacrifice of human life as being a matter of policy. Low level tribal warfare, similar to that between individual hummingbirds, is very different from the scope of a Holy War or genocide.

Btw, the Mayans and Aztecs weren't godless atheists. I'm pretty sure they weren't communists either.

[Inland]

158. It's this "certain brand" of religious beliefs you can't quite I.D.

I can't argue that religious beliefs calling for sacrifice or calling for overpopulation call for those things. It's a tautology.

But the Mayans, Easter Island natives, and SW American indians didn't have any connection the religious heritage of the religions you ID as "salvationist". When it comes down to it, your analysis is worthless.

The Mayans and Aztecs weren't godless atheists or communists, and I'm sure if I were doing what you are doing in advancing the thesis that religion is the sole determinant of good and evil, that would make a huge difference. All it means to me is that the godless atheists and the mayans both found their own reasons to kill people. Just saying.

[greyl]

163. Then maybe I've been giving too much credit to non-salvationist

religions. Thanks for making me more cynical. :P

[Donald Ian Rankin]

166. I disagree.

It's not even close to true that "Famine, human trafficking, depression, suicide, and substance abuse are quite recent and are peculiar to one culture out of thousands; ours. It's no meaningless coincidence that overpopulation and it's effects are not found in cultures that are devoid of salvationist religion."


Famine: has been around since biblical times (vide the seven thin cows). The worlds largest famines were probably the ones Russia and China in the first half of the 20th century.

Human trafficking: again, slavery has been around since time immemorial; modern western (and most non-western) culture is unusual in that it's abolished it, not in that it used to practice it.

Depression: the ability to recognise and treat depression is a point in favour of themodern age, not against it. Of course there are no records of it before fairly recently; that doesn't mean people weren't depressed, just that they weren't able to diagnose it.

Substance abuse: this didn't become available in major quantities until recently, but marijuana was in use in the Middle East the best part of a thousand years ago. The reason it's become more of a problem recently is the improvement in pharmaceutical technology, and the drug problem is a price well worth paying for better medicine.

Suicide: Ever read Romeo and Juliet? And suicide used to be a major element of Japanese culture, and is still more prevalent there than in Europe or the US, I believe.

Overpopulation: most a problem in China, that well-known hotbed of salvationism, and in largely Hindu India - do you class Hinduism as salvationist?


You do, at least, have a point concerning AIDS - the religious opposition to condoms and sex education is one of the larger contributing factors to the spread of it.

[greyl]

168. Biblical times ARE very recent

when looked at in perspective on the 3 million year time-line of human evolution.

Our culture is only 10,000 years old, and every item in your reply is a product of our culture.
The "our culture" I speak of doesn't mean The West at all. It describes the most profoundly basic aspects of the members of a society: Where they get the wherewithal to live, and their vision of man's place in the world.
It includes today's China, Japan, Iran, Canada, Australia, Iceland, Italy, Nigeria, Cuba...

Yes, Hinduism is a salvationist religion. The focus of Hinduism isn't our shared world at large, it is a personal quest for divine immortality and divine transcendence of the "undesirable" natural state of humans. Salvation, iow.

Fact is, if you were to visit any indigenous culture today you wouldn't find people that are dissatisfied with their lives, depressed, suicidal, or looking to the sky for a way out of their "plight" from aliens or angels. They already know how to live. In contrast, depression, suicide, genocide, homicide, escapism, abuse of resources and general volatile instability are some of the first things noticed when looking at our culture - even from the inside of it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

169. Ah, sorry.

I misunderstood your point. I still disagree, though. Overpopulation is, regretably, a symptom of a good society - primitive humans/hominids avoided it not by deliberately living in harmony with their environment, but by dying all the time, espceially while infants.

And abuse of resources isn't a new thing - the Maori hunted the moa and elephant bird nearly to extinction, and were an extremely "primitive" culture.

Even very, very early, you'll find humans being buried with beads and tools. Religion focused on life after death is not a new thing at all, either.

[zonmoy]

171. he would be sickened the most by those

that most vehemently call themselves his followers.

[atreides1]

3. Religion

It was a good idea that became a belief. You can change an idea.

[donco6]

4. If only it did more good than harm.

Alas, that is not the case.

[tatertop]

5. Every day.

[Maat]

6. No, I don't.

Over 30 years ago, when I was 15, I left the Presbyterian church, telling my beloved grandmother that I had to leave because I was a feminist.

I stayed out of organized religion until about two years ago, when I found a church in which one could be both spiritual and progressively-minded, and that wasn't tied to a "holy text."

That works for me, and I'm one of the ones addressing the religious right by speaking out on behalf of the spiritual/religious left.

To each his or her own.

My atheist friend is advocating for nonbelievers.

And I honor that path also.

I'm also a part of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, because that's the point: true religious freedom means freedom to mock, speak, criticize or believe that there is no God, or anything else.

[jsamuel]

7. Do you ever wish Jesus was your savior?

Kinda the same thing. I think this belongs in the religion forum.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

62. That guy that helped me drywall my house? Why on earth?

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/galaxy.mp3

[jonnyblitz]

9. it's the cause of all our problems, wars, bigotry, etc.

I hate to say.

[nemo137]

36. Because class, race, nationalism and greed have no bearing on anything

That's really an abusurd reduction.

[Inland]

73. If Kim Jong Il would just stop going to church, his country would be fine.

And if France would stop requiring it's people to be catholic, they would stop having riots in Paris.

And if China didn't have an established religion, it wouldn't be having chem spills every other day. There wouldn't be global warming.

All I can say is, if the SU hadn't coverted to atheism and disbanded the Patriarch led government, and if Poland hadn't killed that traitor, they would still be in bad shape.

[enigma000]

96. That's funny. n/t

[ClayZ]

10. Imagine!

All the people living life in peace!

[ihaveaquestion]

11. The first step is to openly label it "magical" thinking

along the lines of the belief in wizards, witches, vampires, werewolves, demons, angels, numerology, tarot and astrology.

Personally, I think all of this is entertaining, but not enough folks lump religion in with these things.

[kath]

68. you left out Santa Claus --

which is what many people's conception of "God" closely resembles (and who most normal people quit believing in at about the age of 8).

[skids]

12. Ah... no, actually.

It's only the symptom, not the cause.

[grytpype]

13. Religion is a disorder of the mind.

Some people have it worse than others.

[BlueEyedSon]

64. A *socially sanctioned* mental disorder! nt

[ladjf]

148. Until the human race realizes and begins to treat religion as

the dangerous threat it is, we will continue to slide into the abyss of horror caused by mentally ill leaders.

[ladjf]

147. You are correct.

I posted that religion was a communicable disease and my post was deleted.

[enigma000]

14. More people died in the name of Karl Marx than Jesus Christ

The militant atheism of communism racked up a death toll far higher than Christianity ever did in 20 centuries. Replacing religious values with secular and humanist values won't guarantee peace on earth.

[tkmorris]

19. Not even close

Even if you choose to ignore that deaths "due" to communism had nothing to do with atheism, I'd say the total racked up by the Catholic church alone stands head and shoulders above.

[enigma000]

22. I don't know. I read statistics of 80 million dead from communism

Could Christianity have killed that many? That's a lot of dead. How many died in the Crusades and the 100 years war? Any system with that high a death toll would be seen as unredeemable.

[ZapaPaine]

37. Communism lasted at the most 80 years. Christianity

in full power, has lasted for about 1600, from Rome until now. Perpetual war in Europe (most of it religious based) and parts of the Middle East, plus the constant stream of persecutions and genocides against non-Christians, heretics, nonbelievers, not to mention the millions dead after Conquest in the Americas, most of whom died of as slaves to the Church (disease and exploitation), plus the devastation of believing in abstinence and in not using contraception (HIV/AIDS)and (overpopulation), plus the undereducation of people thanks to religion would probably put the figure of dead in the billions. Not even remotely close. More deaths from the Christian religion, not including all other forms of religion, than anything such as communism.

[Inland]

72. Yeah, but on an annualized basis, communism takes the cake.

Comparing apples to apples, communism managed to take a ideology based on scientific rationality and kill, kill, kill, and fuck up a pretty good section of the world economically.

And by the time communism died, the christian cultures had moved on. It's not entirely fair to compare the christians of 1500 to the marxists of 1914, the latter having had the benefit of three hundred years of progress in Europe.

Someone might think of what would replace religion. It isn't necessarily something nice.

[greyl]

116. It was salvationist religion that replaced something else

in our culture. And it was very nice indeed.
Humans as intelligent as we are lived as successfully, happily, and fulfilled as eagles for a few hundred thousand years before the very recent appearance of salvationist religion. Humanity at large seems to have made it fine through 3 million years of evolution without the "received wisdom" of prophets, kings, alien intelligence, psychics, or fundamentally prejudiced 'religious' leaders.

Salvationist religion wasn't an authentic response to the human condition in the world, it was a response to our particular misguided culture. Look at the world and notice how the addition of salvationist religion to destructive cultures has always resulted in an even more destructive culture.

(I can't believe someone in this thread is actually arguing degrees measured in millions of murders in order to show that salvationist religion has been a good influence in the world)

Evidence of the successful and more honest worldviews that salvationist religionists are trying to replace can still be found in the world. For now.

Of course, one would need to be predisposed to looking for answers in this world.

[Inland]

129. So you want a religion where people behave better. Good luck with that.

All I can say is that people should be better. You won't find me browsing in your shop, but good luck with it.

[greyl]

153. No, but you do, as far as I can tell.

I'm not sure where you got that from my post.
I take a more pragmatic and less utopian position than our culture and salvationist religions do.

I think it's better that written laws attempt to minimize the negative effects of occasional natural behavior rather than forbid behavior that we know damn well will take place.
It's the difference between recieved or divine wisdom and time tested wisdom.

[Inland]

160. I want people to behave better.

That's why I say good luck. I think you want a religion that makes people better. But the religion's not going to be for me, even if being better should be. That's all I'm saying.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

167. The romanticising of the past is foolish.

I don't know what you mean by "salvationist religion", but modern western society and culture is immeasurably morally superior to almost every other model that has ever been tried anywhere.

The claim that humans lived "succesfully, happily and fulfilled as eagles...before the very recent appearance of salvationist religion" presumably ignores all the killing of rivals, untreatable diseases, starvation in bad winters, etc, etc, etc.

Humanity made it through fine as a species, but not as individuals. It was precisely because of the social changes that also gave rise to kings, prophets etc that people started to come up with rules like "murder is bad" and ultimately "discrimination on grounds of gender is bad" and "freedom to speak without official sanction is good", "one man one vote" (incidentally, the last three arose solely in the modern western culture you so denigrate - if you'd said something unpopular in almost any tribal society, the headman would have had you dealt with severely).

The line about "salvationist religion being a product of our particular misguided culture" depends what you mean by "salvationist", but I don't think describing the Middle East in 4000 BC or Roman Jerusalem in 200AD as "our culture" fits the bill, and the difference in thought about salvation between modern Protestantism and early Christianity is small, and the difference between that and early Judaism far from large.

The claim about the addition of salvationist religion to destructive cultures resulting in a more distructive culture is too vague - what do you mean? Are you claiming that Roman society became more destructive post Constantine? If so, I'd disagree.

What "more successful and honest worldviews" are you refering too?

[Hamlette]

44. "statistic" of 80 million dead? Link? n/t

[enigma000]

97. Think I got it from the big black book of

communism. Sorry no link. I'll post in morning if that's ok

[enigma000]

132. link

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

[Bill McBlueState]

24. it's irrational belief that's the problem

Irrational allegiance to the state (Stalinism) is effectively the same as irrational allegiance to a god (religion).

When people think rationally, they don't embark on genocide.

[enigma000]

29. yes, but what was more rational than Communism?

It was scientific - thats what we were told anyways. Not disagreeing with you, irrational allegiance to any force tends to turn out badly.

[Inland]

81. It's the difference between calling oneself rational and being rational

As someone once said about Newt Gingrich, he believes in new ideas. He doesn't HAVE any, he just believes in them.

In the same way, one can't just be FOR rationality, one has to BE rational. Marxism was for rationality and science. But it was full of irrationality and unscientific blunders.

In this thread, there can be a lot of distinction between what people say they are FOR and the traits they are actually exhibiting.

[ihaveaquestion]

137. Stalinism does not equate to communism.

Stalinism was a fascist, totalitarian government run by a paranoid, probably schizophrenic, megalomaniac that passed itself off as a communist society. Personally, I don't think communism is a viable government model for human beings anyway, but to label the government in the USSR that killed millions as "communist" is to buy into their propaganda - no different from buying into the propaganda of The Third Reich that their government was a democracy.

Stalin is to blame for most of the millions supposedly killed by "communism."

[dad]

26. The Vatican's support of Hitler is also a matter of historical record.

The horrors of regimes supported by Christianity are written all throughout the history books.
Just because one is an atheist, it does not follow that one is a communist. How many atheists do you know who are also communists?
Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship, and he was against the church. However, did he commit his crimes in the name of atheism?

[enigma000]

32. Good point. Atheism and communism are separate

Did he commit his crimes in the name of atheism? Good question. I can only answer to say no moral code existed for Stalin to stop him from committing those crimes.

[Ariana Celeste]

53. I don't see how one needs

religion in order to have a "moral code".

:eyes:

[Inland]

69. What?

Marxism was officially atheistic. Is someone going to blame Stalin on religion again?

[trotsky]

102. A "moral code"?

Since when does a Christian's moral code automatically stop them from committing crimes?

What IS the Christian "moral code," anyway? Can you get an abortion? Yes or no. Are blood tranfusions and organ donations OK? Yes or no. Euthanasia acceptable? Yes or no.

Come up with a standard Christian "moral code" and maybe you can begin to bash atheists for supposedly not having one.

And by the way, my username is not related to the historical Trotsky so don't bother labeling me a commie.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ladjf]

150. If you are referring to the purges carried out by Stalin, I don't

think Karl Marx had much to do with those deaths. Stalin was for Stalin and everything he did was to secure his own power.

[KansDem]

16. I must admit I find it less and less beneficial of late...

Although I grew up attending church (somewhat) regularly, participated church youth groups in junior high and high school, sang in the church choir during my first year in college, I must admit I don't really miss it much these days, and wonder why it was ever so important in the first place.

[H2O Man]

17. No.

I often wish mean people would just knock it off, though.

[SoCalDem]

18. Devious men would always invent one..

Think about it.. Before people could read (in any real numbers), the "smartest" man in the cvillage was the cleris..he had all the religious texts..Monks used to literally copy the bible over and over..

Without much science known to common people,the world could look scary and hard to explain. People always wondered about things (look at all the questions kids ask), and religion served as an easy way to explain things to people.

Any problems that people had, were taken to these men for their "help", since they were smarter than most people and could read.. The "stories" needed to be easy to simple, and easy for the people to repeat to their children..and they needed to convey messages about how to live one's life..(made compliance to church easier). There had to be built in punishments so people would follow along..Is it any wonder that the "church" always managed to prosper, no matter how poor the congregants?

and for illiterate poor people, it was a "comfort" to know that God loved them and wanted them to be poor so they could truly appreciate how wonderful heaven would be..

[W_HAMILTON]

20. Of course I wish it didn't exist

It brings so many negatives in this world, under the guise that it's ok to hate because the book about the invisible man in the sky says it's ok...

And what positives religion brings, you shouldn't need religion for anyway, outside of maybe belief that there is something other than just this world, which would bring hope to people. I'm talking about positive tenets like "do unto others..." Do you really need a book written thousands of years ago to tell you to be nice to others? If so, I would worry about you.

So it brings far too many negatives into this world, and what few positives it brings, any compassionate, sensible person should be able to do on their own without guidance of a book.

[undeterred]

21. My faith is the reason I care about politics

and that is true for many people.

So no, I never wish it didn't exist.

I wish the people who use religion for political power and grossly misinterpret it would stop doing that.

I also wish the people who make broadbrush statements against all religion would realize that it is a mistake to do so, especially since nothing good ever comes of it.

[W_HAMILTON]

23. That's what I was talking about in my other post...

What do you mean your faith is the only reason you care about politics?

Do you mean that you care about the sick and the elderly, and the poor and underprivileged, and don't agree what this administration has done to those people?

If it's along those lines, you mean without whatever religion you practice, you wouldn't care about those people?

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. Oh for God's sake (literally), is it religion flamebait day on DU?

It's not even like Pat Robertson or the Pope did anything stupid today, either. I guess it's been too long since a good ol' religion flamewar, what with all the Alito flamewars of the past week.

[William769]

30. When all else fails

bash religion. You would think some people would have learned by now, but I guess not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. It's religion flamebait day today in the world

Threats against Europeans in Gaza; BNP leader acquited of some racial hatred charges in the UK for attacks against Islam (some charges undecided). Both are lead stories on UK TV news.

[Inland]

74. It's witchhunt day. Centrists, believers, are targets of a purge.

Can't find anyone good to blame for dem losses and the complete lack of a positive agenda, so it's burning believers as the fault of everything or at least to have that moment of unity.

[calico1]

76. You are right.

And I thought this place was tolerant and open minded. Not so sure anymore.

[Inland]

79. It's a mindless lashing out. It's a witch hunt.

People vent their belief on the single cause of the world's failures. Religion. Centrists. Not something like Bush, because he's kicking the shit out of us. Something close to home.

Traitors.

It's a purge. It's a witchhunt, with all the irrationality and hate that goes along.

[W_HAMILTON]

82. If Bush didn't try to play the Christianity card so much...

...I'm not sure he would be around for us to worry about.

There's alot of problems with the world, but that doesn't add to or detract from religion being part of the many problems as well. Even though I would prefer there to be no religions, obviously that is not going to happen, so I don't think people should be restricted in their practicing their religion, but I do think the problems that arise from religion need to be addressed somehow to make our world a better place.

Having said that, I have no idea how you would go about doing that.

[Inland]

83. Yes, you do. You really do.

It's the same values we always had. Secular state, religious tolerance, and not making up shit about a single group being the source of all the worlds problems.

But that's the negative side. The positive side is to call for good things, not just a purge.

If you want tolerance, be tolerant.

If you want civility, stop hating.

If you want justice, treat people justly.

If you want an end to bigotry, stop making bigoted statments.

And expect the same from everyone else.

[calico1]

84. Well said, inland. n/t

[W_HAMILTON]

85. Easier said than done

It's as if politicians have to pass a religious litmus test nowadays to get into (and stay) in office. I wouldn't say that's a secular state when you can win an election and point to religious beliefs (aka "morals") as the main reason why you won.

As for your points, you can expect the same from everyone else, but unfortunately in the world we live in today, if you expect as much, you'll be disappointed. If you're intolerant, but realize that many politicians have to cater to you if they want to remain in office, what's the motivation for those type of people to be tolerant and compassionate? Apparently there is no motivation, which is why all this intolerance and hateful rhetoric has seemed to be the "in" thing to do these last few years.

[Zenlitened]

86. Agreed.

And welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

[Inland]

87. Nobody said "easy". It's liberal democracy,

which, as we know, is only better than any other form of polity. Given that some is hard, some is easy.

Whether politicians react or not isn't the question. Some clearly feel that the way to fight is to pit religious vs. everyone else and see who wins, and the loser gets to suck gas for a while. After all, Bush believes that. So do lots of atheists here, particularly the ones who actually say that eliminating religion would eliminate evil. Why wouldn't they want that armageddon if they so believe.

I don't. For one, I believe in individual freedom and tolerance, not winner take all and fuck those in the minority.

For two, I don't believe either Bush or the fundie atheists who think that all you have to do is eliminate a few suspect kinds of thought, or at least shut them up, and the world gets better all by itself. Talk about magical thinking! I think that what happens is the fun of bashing and fighting, while the actual problems of the world wait while the "cause" is fought, and the world continues on the downward spiral.

I really do believe that liberal democracy shit. Unfortunately, too many don't think it extends to everyone.

[W_HAMILTON]

88. Maybe instead of easy I should have said impossible

I believe in individual freedom and tolerance too, but that doesn't mean some of the super-fundy types are going to come to their senses and allow everyone to live in peace without trying to dictate how they live their lives. It's just not going to happen that way. So that's what I meant when I said I don't know how you go about getting rid of the negatives that religion brings about. Those people aren't going to change, because they believe they are acting how their god wants them to act. Nothing I can say or do is going to change them.

That's why I do agree when people bring up the point that there are alot of Christian-types in the USA that are not as extreme as those guys, and I think those are the people that need to take charge of their religion. That's about the only way I see us becoming a true liberal democracy, instead of the almost-theocracy we have now where politicians are furthering their career, and getting their political careers started, by preaching "religion-based" hate speech.

[Inland]

90. Maybe fundies will be convinced, maybe they won't, and hardly the point.

This country isn't on a dichotomy of religious fundies vs. atheist fundies, although they, being fundies, think it so.

The vast majority is going along with diversity to get along, and they too believe in liberal democracy. All one has to do is put that group back into power. One doesn't put that group back into power by making it a fight between intolerant groups over religion, winner take all. We simply get a new set of masters distracting us from real solutions to real problems.

But suppose I'm wrong, and fundie christians are a majority. If a majority thinks that god has a specific plan for the US government, what is to be gained by abandoning liberal democracy now? This would be the worst time to suddenly make it a religious war, BECAUSE I WOULD LOSE. The funny thing is, the fundie atheists in this forum actually think there's some sort of ability for atheism or atheists or free thinkers to become a political force and win the war for lefties without liberal christians. Not this year there isn't.

No, there's only one way. Liberal democracy, for us all.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

103. Wow, Inland.

Wish you could take some of your own advice, instead of telling homosexuals and atheists to shut up and sit down. If you want tolerance, be tolerant - indeed.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

115. Psst. It's probably a bad idea to bring up Witch Hunts when

you've adopted the position that Christianity has been proven to help humans live better lives than they would without it.

[Goblinmonger]

128. Well, it certainly is ironic

and I think irony is funny, so I got a laugh out of that. Probably not what was intended though.

[Inland]

131. Actually, when told I have taken a position that I have not, it is.

Please don't make shit up about me. It's tiresome, and done for the purpose of shutting me up or wasting my time. Yeah, nobody's being burned per se, but the attempt to enforce some sort of anti christian orthodoxy with lies is a metaphorical whichhunt and mccarthysim.

[greyl]

154. Clear it up for me then, please.

From the posts of yours that I've read, I got the impression that you think Christianity has been proven to help humans live better lives than they would without it. In other words, that Christianity has been a positive addition to the global pool of human ideas and lifestyles, because it shows the right way to live.

[Inland]

161. Here's what you said I said:

"you've adopted the position that Christianity has been proven to help humans live better lives than they would without it."

I've said nothing of the sort. First, I've never said ANYTHING about christianity vis a vis other religions. Second, my claim is that religion isn't the sole cause of evil in the world and eliminating it isn't going to make everything hunky dory.

Partly, the nature of the OP is a childish wish which was elaborated on by people looking for "reasons" to wish away religion. I guess one can't just simply respond to the post by saying "I wish religion wasn't around because I don't believe in it," so it becomes "I wish religion wasn't around because it would solve all our problems."

If you look at my reply to the OP, I said that eliminating religion wouldn't be in my top ten wishes. And it wouldn't. I would wish away the intolerant, bigoted and hateful in our lives, and along with a number of churchmen that were Taken Away you would include a large number of posters in this thread. Just saying.

[greyl]

164. Ok, cool.

To clarify my position, sometimes I wish that religion didn't exist because of the horrible effects of it as noted in the OP. Religion in our real global lives definitely has it's downside. I believe that it's possible for religion to evolve, paradoxically, back into one that is compatible with critical thinking, science, and dynamic response to reality as opposed to dogmatic and irrelevant received wisdom.

[Goblinmonger]

98. You think the Alito issue

isn't a relgious one. He is crazy Catholic. Tell me that isn't the case. There is a majority of the SCOTUS that is Catholic. That's not scary? Look at catholic dogma: gays suck, women suck, heritics suck, pedophiles don't suck--not what I want in the majority of my SCOTUS.

[Goblinmonger]

130. Check out this cartoon

for what Alito and his fellow Catholics will probably bring upon us.

[ZapaPaine]

27. Imagine how much more enlightened we would be without it

Imagine how much better this world would be. Damn Mesopotamians had to go out and invent the genesis of the big three theologies!

[Ksec]

28. Yes. I get my spiritual fix when Im hiking

Or just checking out the greatness of Mother Nature when Im sitting by a lake or in the woods.

Organised religion was organised by people. People have issues. If you seriously read both Testaments youll learn that wars, murder, rape, violence in many forms are the norm. If you wanna call yourself Christian then you better explain that book you believe in. Its chock full of insanity.

[ksilvas]

31. If religion didn't exist

Humanity would have invented it. Or mabey
it's the other way around.
Humanity has not evolved beyond the
need for religion or spirituality. Yet.

[RB TexLa]

33. No

[Book Lover]

34. Actually, no

I mean, if I could go back in time and find the first human who scared the rest of her/his group/clan into submission with threats that s/he could talk to the lightening and thunder and make it do whatever they wanted, and then beat that person up, yeah, I'd do that. But religion is full of everything, good and bad, and getting rid of it would be like getting rid of literature.

[ShadesOfGrey]

35. Yes, yes I do!

I feel that religion has done way, way, WAY more harm than good.

How in the hell can modern man continue to believe in these silly stories that condone destroying our earth and each other?

[Seen the light]

38. Of course not nt

[papau]

49. I agree :-) n/t

n/t

[Pastiche423]

39. Yes, very much so

[Celeborn Skywalker]

40. Nope.(nt)

[Nutmegger]

42. I just wish religion would be

kept out of the MSM and government. Only when they are introduced do we have problems like the so-called "War of Christmas".

[calico1]

43. No.

Religion is not the problem. Plenty of people go to church on Sunday and mind their business the rest of the week. The problem is fanatism. And you don't have to even be religious to be a fanatic about something.

[William769]

45. "And you don't have to even be religious to be a fanatic about something."

Amen Sister!

[W_HAMILTON]

47. Yes, but religions lend credence to the fanaticism

Fanaticism is a problem, but religion propping up the fanaticism is a problem too, because then "they" and their followers believe their fanaticism is validated because it is what their God wants. Then suddenly, irrational things like killing people for who they are, or what they believe -- it's all rationalized because it's what their God wants.

You remove religion from the equation, and you still have fanatics, but more people would probably be willing to go against them and speak out against them because then they're just your run-of-the-mill loonies. Add religion into the mix, and you have some of those people siding with the fanatics, because they get tricked into believing that yes, that is what their God wants.

[ShadesOfGrey]

54. Yep! Rationalized evil in the name of God!

All one has to do is read a little history (and the bible) to see where blind evil comes from.

[calico1]

65. I am not an evil person.

Nor a fanatic.

[ShadesOfGrey]

75. Ack! Please don't take it personally...

I wasn't referring to you. I'm an atheist but the people that I admire the most are believers. :hug: :hug:

I'm also a history buff. It's apparent to me that the most evil deeds thoughout history were done in the name of religion. I sure as heck wouldn't stretch that statement to mean "all believers are evil' though. Sorry if I offended you.

[calico1]

78. Thank you.

There was another thread earlier where all believers were thrown in together with fundie wackos and I didn't appreciate that. You are correct. A lot of bad things have been done due to fundie beliefs. :toast:

[Maat]

99. Well, heck yeah! I'm a person of faith.

And yet, I'm a proud member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Their executive director, Rev. Barry Lynn has a law degree, and is the most learned person I know when it comes to the related constitutional issues. Like Barry, I believe that true religious freedom means that the government NEVER sponsors a particular religion, or endorses religion over non-religion.

To summarize (I digress), I'm both a person of faith, and a person who is a monthly donor to, and proud, dedicated member of, A.U. As part of our AU activities, we counter the propaganda and intolerance of the religious hardright.

We practice our faith privately on private property; and, I honor all paths, including the one of nonbelievers.

[jane_pippin]

46. Yes, I do. n/t

[Batgirl]

48. Naw

We all have to figure out our own way for dealing with our terrible human vulnerability in a world that can be threatening and merciless. We're an intelligent species with a great capacity for fantasy and imagination. It seems perfectly natural that we'd come up with ways to explain what we don't understand, and ways to bolster ourselves to deal with whatever burdens we have to carry.

I'm not religious and wasn't raised in a churchgoing family, but I've been in circumstances where I realized the litany of panic and dread inside my head had unconsciously turned into a prayer of some kind. Maybe this comes from childhood, when our main coping mechanism is to cry out for mom or dad's help when we're hurt or scared.

I do have great fear and loathing of those who use religion as a tool to gain power and control over other human beings. Too bad they give a bad name to religion in general.

[ZapaPaine]

52. Religion truly is the opiate of the masses n/t

[bigmonkey]

59. Keep religion out of governance.

This was, as I understand it, the intention of the U.S. revolutionary leaders. It wasn't to destroy religion, it was to put the believer and the non-believer on the same footing socially - to keep religion a personal matter. My own feeling is that condemnatory statements about religion do more harm than good. As a Tibetophile, I find it interesting that the Chinese invaders felt so much zeal in destroying Tibetan temples and heritage. Can you imagine, carrying dynamite over Himalayan mountain passes just to blow up a remote monastery? Where does all that energy come from, except from fanaticism? A fanatical atheist does just as little good, in my opinion, as a fanatical Christian nationalist.

[barbtries]

55. ummm...

yeah

[jsamuel]

56. no

Religion unfortunately is used by people who want to distract us. But religion is not in itself a distraction. Just as a glass of wine with dinner is grand while being drunk in the streets is disorienting.

[ladjf]

58. Religion is a communicable disease. Those who have it should

be quarantined. Preaching by professionals should be illegal. And at the doors of churches there should be warnings about the dangers of practicing religion.

[More Than A Feeling]

92. Not a fan of the first amendment, I take it?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Inland]

135. It's so 1789! nt

[Ariana Celeste]

60. I'm not sure...

Part of me feels that we could be better of without it. That same part of me hates that there are some people out there that only do good for fear of burning in hell.

But at the same time, I think that religion is just a reflection of humanity. And in order to change the way some people act in the name of religion, we would have to change who we are as people. Taking away religion doesn't change the core of a person.

We as a society, rather than glorifying violence and teaching hatred, need to teach our children love. It doesn't matter whether you are an Atheist like myself, a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or insert whatever here; if we can all teach our children to love and respect others, to love and respect nature, to respect and maybe even (gasp) appreciate differences in others, then society will change, and people's actions will change.

It starts at home, and in school.

Unfortunately there will still be violence and a lot of aggression; some people are born that way chemically. Some become that way due to many different causes. And that has nothing to do with religion; religion just so happens to be an excuse for many- and some truly believe it.

Not sure where I'm going with this, but I hope it means something to someone.

[Inland]

162. I think you went to the heart of it. nt

[grace0418]

61. No, I just wish everyone could keep their faith to themselves.

Stop evangelizing where they're not wanted, stop insisting THEIR god is THE ONLY god, stop waging wars over it, stop wagging their fingers at everyone else who doesn't worship the same way. If people could do that I don't care what/who/how/when/why they worship. They could worship a fucking grilled cheese sandwhich for all I care... oh, wait.

[tblue37]

63. Yes. (eom)

[Pacifist Patriot]

66. I'd be out of a job.

:toast:

[Maat]

100. And that would be a shame, Pacifist Patriot!

Here to you, you UUer, you!

:toast:

[Inland]

67. It wouldn't be in my top ten.

I guess that I would sooner wish that there wasn't any aids then that religious groups didn't get any aids money. Or is religion being blamed for aids now too?

[kath]

70. A good book dealing with the issue of reason vs faith:

"The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason" by Charles Freeman.

Hubby is reading it and really enjoying it.
These two quotes on the frontispiece of the book were a large part of what drew him into reading it:

“Blessed is he who learns how to engage in inquiry, with no impulse to harm his countrymen or to pursue wrongful actions, but perceives the order of immortal and ageless nature, how it is structured.”
Euripedes, fragment from an unnamed play, fifth century B.C.

"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity... It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.”
Augustine, late fourth/early fifth century A.D.

Here's a review:
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume117issue4_more.php?...

[usregimechange]

71. Yes, but then I think of the good that takes place with religion.

[Straight Shooter]

77. Yes. Religious extremism is making me very very weary.

The scales have tipped too far.

Of course, if we did not have religion, we would have something else instead which would be just as divisive. Such is the nature of human beings. :(

[cynatnite]

80. To answer my own question ....YES ...YES ...YES!!!!

I'm sick of rationalizing hurting other people in the name of a god no matter which religion it is. Religion has been used to beat and kill women, wage war and oppress the weaker.

I feel discriminated because I get slammed for saying I don't believe in the god they want me to believe in. I hate being told I'll go to hell for not being the so-called fucking christian they think I should be. I hate the way religion is used as a weapon of fear and intimidation.

Every damn time someone believes something that's not right wing nutjob christian it's used as a fucking rallying cry to all the brainwashed freaks to be hateful and vile.

I'm like coca-cola. I want the world to live in peace and harmony.

Guess what folks, it ain't gonna happen with religions in the mix telling their brainwashed servants not to tolerate other people's beliefs.

I really really hate religion in almost all it's forms.

[samhsarah]

89. Always.

[More Than A Feeling]

91. No, I do not.

It is a source of great comfort and confidence to me. I'm not asking you to have any religion. I think its rude to say it is a mental disorder (they said the same thing about homosexuality until the early 70's), but I can't and won't stop you from criticizing it, even when I think you are being unfair and prejudiced.

Religion is bad when it is in power, and good when it speaks truth to power, in the finest tradition of the prophets, Jesus Christ, Dorothy Day, MLK, etc.

[trotsky]

104. But there is no independent way...

of distinguishing "bad" from "good" religion. No god ever speaks up to chastise one group for not being "good." And the "bad" guys and the "good" guys pretty much point equally to each other as being "bad."

[More Than A Feeling]

112. We aren't supposed to know who is absolutely right

and who is absolutely wrong. Absolute judgement belongs to God, and we won't find out until (naturally) judgement day, whenever that is. In the meantime, I think we are supposed to do the best we can, and trust that we are forgiven when we fail.

[greyl]

119. Ahh, but you're supposed to BELEIVE you are absolutely right.

Divinely, God Blessed right, in fact.
That's the fatal mistake. Literally.

That belief is behind the attacks on the US on 9/11 as well as being behind the attacks of our civil liberties in the US, as well as being behind the extermination of those that lived on this continent before "we" came here to save them.

Fact is, there is no One Right Way To Live.
There are ways that work, and ways that don't work.

How much evidence is sufficient to convince someone who puts faith in a divine position over evidence?
Kill them and let my God sort them out, that's how much evidence.

[More Than A Feeling]

121. Of course I believe that I am right, otherwise, I'd change my belief.

Comparing my belief to that of the 9/11 hijackers, the Worst President of All Time, and the European invasion of the Americas is a narrow view of the motivations for those people and events, as well as being unnecessary and inflammatory. You do yourself no credit.

There is One Right Way to Live, for me. What other people believe, and how they live, is not something I cannot consciously push them to change, and expect to have any success. I did not come to Jesus through the efforts of others, but solely on my own. Better that other people find their way, and anything I say or do that helps them along is purely incidental to trying to live my life according to what I believe.

I can't believe you are as nervous about religious people as your repeated mentions of killing for faith suggest, otherwise you'd never leave your house, for fear of being murdered because of "faith in a divine position over evidence." You don't make distinctions between different religious people (me versus Age of Discovery Catholics and protestants? versus radical islamist hijackers?:eyes:), so every religious person must present an equal threat, right?

That much fear is, dare I say it...irrational.

[trotsky]

124. "In the meantime..."

people continue to hate each other based on differing interpretations of god's word.

2000 years ago, if we are to believe the Christians, their god made it perfectly clear to everyone alive at the time (who happened to be living in close proximity to Jerusalem, at least) what the "truth" was. Pity he can't throw us a tiny bone today - it sure would end a lot of strife.

[catbert836]

93. I don't know.

It would be great if we didn't have it around. It divides people over the stupidest reasons, and it's killed more people than anything else. However, I don't think we're anywhere near that. In a perfect world, I have no doubt that religion would not exist.
It's like in the song: "Imagine there's no heaven/ it's easy if you try/ no hell below us/ above us only sky" and "Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too." Religion a root cause of the world's ills, and we would be much better off without it.
On the other hand, we have to face that religion gives people a purpose in life, and has done its share of good. Martin Luther King and Oscar Romero come to mind. Also, religions provide a great social structure to carry out these good works, which I think could be tapped into by us progressives.
In the end, I find myself agreeing with Marx: "Religion is the heart of a heartless world." If it were gone, the world would probably be better for it. But we have to face reality. Religion is not going anywhere, and we should try and use it to do some good.

[Orangeone]

94. Really

People would still be assholes. There are a lot of atheist assholes too.

[Evoman]

101. Uh huh

It is purely a intellectual exercise, however. Theres no way it could ever happen instantaneously. Do I think it would be neat to have all of the atheists in the world form some sort of atheist country, if for nothing else than to experiment? Yep. And I bet you no time at all it would become a scientific/medical leader among nations. It would be doing most of the significant science, and would probably have liberal christians and the like begging to be let in. That is, if the countries next to it didn't blow it up to kingdom come in the name of the lord, AMEN.

Please don't misconstrue this as some sort of attack on religious people. My girlfriend is christian, and I adore her hehe. But I honestly believe that wherever you have religion, you have crazies who are protected by the mainstream of that religion. In our atheist paradise, the crazies would have no way to justify their irrational opinions. If they did something, then said, "This is what god wants", we could just boot em out.

Like I said though, its not going to happen for a long time. Eventually, if we survive long enough, I think there will be a change to more secular beliefs. Despite some anomalies (like the U.S.) a lot of countries are becoming more secular (in Sweden, its hard to find a fundie). Even in the U.S and Canada, how many young people can you find that our extremely devout christians? Not many. The trend will continue. I just wish I could live to see that day when religion becomes a thing of the past.

[Inland]

106. An atheist country. We've had them, and it wasn't pretty.

As it's been beaten to death, the definition of atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a deity. Your theory that without religion, "the crazies would have no way to justify their irrational opinions" posits some sort of postive characteristic or value in it that is not in the definition. If there is one, nobody has really bothered to show what it is. As you imply, it seems popular to assume that it's simply good enough to assert atheism as a polar opposition to religion, religion has allowed bad things, ergo, atheism won't allow bad things. But we know better.

We've had atheist countries. All the commie countries were officially atheist, and certainly nobody was "protected" or allow to "justify" themselves with an appeal to religion. Others above have asserted that nobody killed to spread atheism, but even so, it's pretty clear that clearing the decks of religion didn't bring rationality or tolerance or freedom or even scientific advances. In fact, these were (and are) some of the nastiest places around.

Given that atheism as defined is merely a lack of belief in a deity, and has no inherent systems of norms, it is not inherently scientific or rational: for there's no set reason for a lack of belief and even if it is "rationality" and "science" that causes the lack of belief, there's no reason to believe it carries over to anything else, as our the marxists showed us.

It's somewhat telling that the marxist countries were SUCH failures that they have largely disappeared or evolved into protocapitalist states. But ironically the effect seems to be, out of sight out of mind. But failures they were.

So there's no one thing that can determine crazies or not, and the atheist governments have been as bloody and stupid and destructive as the established church governemnts, and liberal democracies have outlived them both. Welcome to DU.

[greyl]

118. Name the country with the most longevity that was built upon

any salvationist religious ideals.

[Inland]

127. That's meaningless to me. Does it have something to do with my post?

If you have a point or a subject that you want addressed, you've lost me.

[trotsky]

123. Correction.

All the commie countries were officially atheist

Actually, only Albania was officially atheist in that it outlawed religion. The constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed freedom of religion.

And might I also point out that it's been liberal secular democracies that have survived.

[Evoman]

125. Okay

So if I took over the United States tommorow, and I stood on my pulpit and said, "THIS COUNTRY IS NOW ATHEIST" then it would actually be atheist? Thats not how it works. People were religious, despite what the leader says. A completely moderm atheist country has never been seen.

Furthermore, marxism/capitalism is another discussion entirely. Because all "atheist" countries were communist in the past, it does not mean it would or should be in the future. Is there something about atheism that demands we be marxist? Is that what you are honestly arguing? If I pointed to the past, and said that most christian countries have been historically bloodthirst monarchies/dictatorships, does that mean that is has to necessarily be so? Nope. I would hope that our atheist paradise would be democratic, or it wouldn't be worth living in to most of us atheists.

In shouldnt be a suprise to you that a lot of atheists tend to be scientists. When a people doesn't waste its time and resources on reading a 2000 year old book, and changes the focus of their society to the future, I think it would become more science focused. We would have a knew way of knowing and learning that didnt require religion or supersition. Besides a lot of scientific/medical progress (stem cells, cloning body parts, hell, even a scientific study of ethics) is being actively held back by religion.

Evoman

[Inland]

126. *sigh* They were precisely the example of what you described.

It was the perfect example of a country where people weren't allowed to appeal to religion for their craziness, as you put it. Yet it went really, really, really bad.

Proving that eliminating religion doesn't eliminate all craziness.

No, there's nothing about atheism that requires marxism. But there's nothing about atheism that requires anything besides not believing in god. An atheist country is not *necessarily* scientific, rational or very nice. The marxist experiment proves that, if not the posts by the fundamentalist atheists in this thread.

On the other hand, countries with relgious cultures or backgrounds provided, IMO, nicer places to live than the marxist states at the time of the era shared with marxism, and managed to survive long enough to become relatively calm places with more advanced science.

Instead of appealing to a false dichotomy, the fact is the one would hope the atheist country and the religious country both be democratic. There's nothing inherent that requires bloodshed or rationality just as there's nothing inherent that prevents bloodshed or rationality in either of these.

As long as people are being given a free wish, I would wish for the values of liberal democracy, or wish that poeple really were better in practice, and let the religious stuff sort itself out in the pamphlet war. Just saying.

[Evoman]

141. You do have a point

I know my fair share of atheists...and I was basing my assessment of our HYPOTHETICAL country on them. Most of the religious people I know seem to almost have a stunted or non-existant intellectual curiosity. Like I said, my girlfriend is a christian, so I would hate to leave her behind, anyhow.

What has been happening, and its quite obvious, is there has been a huge increase in secularity in most of the countries worth living. The more secular the people, and the more they leave that hardcore religion behind, the better the country gets. Wouldn't it make sense if it the world reached a point where it was completely secular (and it has to be gradual) that that is good thing? We've gone from being people that burn "witches" at the stake and believed the stars were paint on a sky tarp, to people who have discovered (at least mathematically) the atoms present in the stars core and to people who can study other cultures without destroying them . And reason is responsible for it. Not religion. How can you respect other cultures if you think they are going to hell? How can you discover the universe if your answer for everything is god?

I agree, I may have overstated the cause and effects of an atheist country. And you really do make some good points. But I'm still wishin I could see it happen someday. Pamphlets are annoying ;).

Evoman

[greyl]

156. Welcome to the DU, Evoman :) nt

[Inland]

159. I have such an incredibly small point. Yet it's so controversial.

When I argue that religious belief isn't the sole cause of all evil in the world, I get argument. Well, not argument, but declarations. I did pick yours because you overstated a case and called for an experiment. At least that is an actual appeal to empirical evidence, which I respect, and therefore can be met with an argument.

But being new, my warning is that you'll never see so much horseshit on DU as in the anti religion threads. It's the approved area to call a majority of DU members mentally ill, adhering to the source of all evil, enablers of conservatives, closet reactionaries. Suggestions to make a distinction between bad guys and the liberal christians here on DU are rejected. The suggestion of a "quarantine" camp goes pretty much unnoted. YOu can see almost all of it right in this thread. it's done in the name of science and rationality and tolerance.

[ihaveaquestion]

139. All the "commie" countries that suppressed religious expression...

.. which you are probably referring to, the USSR, Romania, Yugoslavia, etc, (you don't specify, actually) were really totalitarian governments - not communist or marxist. To believe they were communist is to believe their own propaganda - the same as believing the propaganda of the Third Reich that their's was a democracy.

[Inland]

140. They were at least officially atheist, and people couldn't use

religion to justify their craziness. Therefore for purposes of this thread, you could call them communist or whatever.

[ihaveaquestion]

143. Official, Offischlimisal !

Totalitarian regimes use whatever means necessary to bring the people under submission. Official atheism in "communist" countries was a tool - nothing more. Equating these regimes with atheism in order to show how bad an atheist leaning country can be is an argument that just doesn't hold up. These "communist" countries weren't bad because of the official embrace of atheism, but because they were evil in their pursuit of power over their populations.

Or are you saying that because they didn't officially believe in God, these "communist" leaders became power hungry?

:sarcasm: Oh yeah, that's never happened in a country that had an official religion!

Seriously - morals are not the sole proprietorship of religion or religious practice and moral relativism isn't dependent on a lack of religious belief. A good example of modern day moral relativism is how most Christians interpret biblical scripture in their lives. They pick and choose which scriptures are to be followed literally and which are to be interpreted as invalid in their modern world. Atheists on the other hand openly choose their moral convictions based on their life experience and what works for them and their loved ones - not on what some long dead religious philosopher thought God wanted from His followers.

[Inland]

144. I'd like to know who you are arguing with.

If you go back up the thread, the proposition was that a hypothetical atheist country, in which people couldn't use religion as an justification for craziness, would be a nice place.

All I said is that we already had countries where religion was not allowed as justification for anything, and they weren't sucesses.

I was careful not to equate all atheists with marxism or the regimes, and I didn't say that christian states were good. I sure didn't say that morals are the sole property of religion or religious. I was merely saying something to the effect that evil isn't solely caused by religion or religious and eliminating the same from public life, as they did in those countries, didn't save them from their own brand of crazies.

I'm not sure how I could have been any more clear in how I was limiting my assertion to the argument that atheism was a cure all. Fucking ay.

[PassingFair]

165. Welcome to DU, Evoman!

Count me in your first census!

[dchill]

105. Only when I think.

[greyl]

107. Salvationist organized religion, absolutely yes. nt

[Zhade]

108. No, I just wish that critical thinking was in better supply.

That would take care of the need to believe in myths for which there is no evidence.

[greyl]

113. Yep, that's something I ALWAYS wish.

"That would take care of the need to believe in myths for which there is no evidence."

One would hope so, wouldn't one? ;) I hope I live to see the day that Logic and Critical Thinking are taught in our schools. But of course if that happened, the students would take over the schools. And we can't allow that because school isn't a place to learn. It's a place to get taught. (and keep minors out of the job market)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

111. No, it has been the source of some of the greatest experiences of my life

And the kind of blanket bigotry expressed on some of the posts above is really tiresome and annoying. (No, I'm not claiming persecution, just...annoyance.)

I know that some of you have had really bad experiences with religion, but yeesh, your fellow DUers were not the cause of them.

[greyl]

114. Do you really mean religion? Or

do you more precisely mean your personal spiritual awareness?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

138. Both

:-)

My spirituality has been enriched in community, and being in community has allowed me to do things with others that would have been difficult or impossible by myself.

[NMMNG]

120. I Imagine it sometimes

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

[Festivito]

133. Would you hold to a lack of religion, religiously?

If you did, there would be no lack of religion.
If you did not, there probably would be religion.

Hmmm.

LOSE, LOSE.

Your idea, not mine.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

142. RELIGION? No. Organized religion?

Every fucking day.

:grr::grr:

[ladjf]

146. All of these criticisms of religion were allowed.

My post was deleted. I said that "Religion was a communicable disease. That professional preachers should not be legal. That churches should have warnings about the dangers of religion. That religious people should be quarantined"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

149. And that doesn't strike you as being the least bit bigoted?

:shrug:

Suppose I said, "Liberalism is a communicable disease. Democratic politicians should not be legal. Democratic party headquarters should have signs warning people against the dangers of liberalism. Democrats should be quarantined."

Do you really want to "quarantine" me, Rev Cheesehead, Rabrrrrr, Elshiva, Lynne Sin, CBHagman, TrogL, ayeshahaqiqqa, Matilda, Talahassee Granny, Maat, and countless other DUers simply because you've had some bad experiences?

[ladjf]

151. I stated my opinion. You are free to judge it as you wish. But,

my point was that my statement was deleted. Therefore my idea was not given a chance.

If you wanted to say that Democrats or Republicans should be guaranteed, it would be OK with me. This board should be an open forum for ideas.

If you were interested in why I said what I said about religion, I would be happy to explain. However, it looks as though you are more concerned by what you perceive to be narrow minded bigotry.

By the way, history has included the lives of many wonderful men and women "of the cloth". Yet, overall, it seems that the clerics are leading their flocks over the cliffs of annihilation.

[greyl]

155. I think "quarantined" is what did it.

If you really believe that, I think that's pretty damn fucked up. Rationally think of the implications.
I'd bet, with hope, that you were just being over-the-top a la George Carlin.
If it was a serious opinion, it doesn't exactly fit well with progressive ideas.

[ladjf]

157. I believe that the practice of religion is a byproduct of human's

natural survival process. It is beneficial to understand cause and effect as it relates to quality of life. That understanding is mainly achieved through accurate observation. But, causes are complex and largely hidden from the observer. Therefore, one must resort to hypothesis in the absence of tangible evidence. An educated hypothesis is one thing. A fabricated theory is quite different.

Religion, in my opinion, is predicated on sets fabricated theories. To base survival and quality of life on ideas that have no factual basis is a dangerous practice. However, despite the death and suffering caused by religious practice,the human race is still here.

So far, religion has not been able to "wipe out" the human race. But, the situation has changed rapidly to the degree that certain power groups, the current U.S. administration in particular, have the physical capability to annihilate life on Earth. This has been true since the acquisition of thermo-nuclear weaponry. During those 50 or so years, the idea that the weapons would be used in a way that would be "terminal" was always thought to be very unlikely to happen.

Multinational corporate interests have long been plundering the Earth and enslaving it's inhabitants to satisfy their raw greed. That's not new either. They have used the fears and philosophies of religious groups to join with them in their quest for power and money. This isn't new either. The rise if Hitler in the 1930's was a clear example of exploiting religious people for ulterior purposes.

The American Presidential election of 2000 appeared to have decided through fraud and subterfuge. Shortly thereafter, the 9-11 attack on NY "sealed the deal" for the illegal Bush administration.
Although the fascist business interests were calling the shots, it was the religious base that gave them the necessary mechanisms of support that they had to have in order to consolidate the coup d'etat. The religious people gave America to the fascists on a silver platter. "Here, take our Country. Bankrupts us, lower our standards of living, put us a grave peril from other entities who are likely to exploit the weakness. Do all that, but by God, let us pray in the schools, let us have family values, don't let same sex happen and don't allow women to decide for themselves about abortion. Give us these meaningless trinkets (because nothing will change anyway) and you can steal and plunder all you wish."

The fact is that it is the religious fundamentalism, mostly in the Southern U.S. that is allowing catastrophic policies to be carried out by the Bush administration. These same people that initiated the American Civil War have literally risen again and this time appear to have won.

Philosophy is the science of determining values about the conduct of life. And philosophy, as a science, has fallen into shambles. Universities only teach the history of philosophy. Parents neglect teaching the skills and methods of philosophy to their children for a variety of reasons. The only systematized attempts at teaching philosophy is by the churches. That could be beneficial if they stuck to ideas about morality and love as is clearly shown in the teachings of Jesus. There is plenty of substance there to suffice, in the absence of any scientific approach to philosophy.

But, the fact is, those in power, who couldn't care less about theological thought, play of the fears and superstitions of those who practice religion. The final results may well be too awful to even contemplate.

Religion is not a disease. It's a system of thought.

The practitioners of religion could not and should not be quarantined.

Preaching need not be outlawed.

But, religious people and the world in general needs to be aware that when survival isn't based on objective observations, there will ultimately be fatal consequences.

Religious practice, when carried to extremes is as serious threat to the human race. We would be better off without it.

Thanks for your thought provoking followup to my previous post.

[zonmoy]

170. evey sunday

that my family uses the excuse of building coping skills to drag me to their church in their misbegotten attempts to brainwash me into their fundamentalist beliefs once again.

[beam me up scottie]

172. You seem to have

survived.

Kudos to you for resisting fundamentalism.

Do you have to go with them?

How about joining another church, do you think they would agree to that?

[zonmoy]

174. I doubt they would allow me to go to a church that I could

agree to. Then again are there any churches for people who believe god is evil.

[beam me up scottie]

175. I'd be the wrong person to ask.

I don't believe in any gods.

It might make an interesting thread, though.

If you need support, you've got plenty here; all of us, atheists and believers alike, recognize the threat of fundamentalism.

And we encourage and applaud anyone who decides to stand against it.

Many DUers have escaped the fundies' clutches and their stories are nothing short of inspiring.


Seriously, start a thread asking about how they were the ones that got away.

[arwalden]

173. Constantly.

[Strong Atheist]

176. Of course. nt.