How long until the plague of religion goes away?

[LBlanc]

 

Sorry, you can't see me but I really am LMAO right now. This is exactly why debate with a person of faith is impossible, you have no concept of free thought outside of a doctrine, dogma, or whatever you want to call your "group" life code.

 

It is exactly the opposite. Their is only one atheist dogma: there are no gods.

 

 

 

...but isn't atheism itself a confined concept? By that I mean your belief/s (as you said) is set upon one basic foundation which you guys believe to be incontrovertibly true: the non-existence of God/s. That's not exactly free thought. "Free thought" should accept the all possibilities regarding the existence/non-existence of God/s and his/her/its nature.

 

in any case, i am of the opinion that atheism is a religion in itself (or at least akin to it) with its own version of zealots and extremists even.

 

...and while you guys have implied that atheism has not caused as much bloodshed as the old religions...well...atheism is quite young...give it a few hundred years, when atheism becomes more organized and established, you may end up doing your own version of the inquisition to root out all those people who still believe in the existence of gods...

 

that's not really so far fetch if you consider what happened to the pagans during the early christian times...

 

...all i can say is be careful what you wish for...peace

[jimloveslips]

...but isn't atheism itself a confined concept?

 

Aren't all words confined concepts? - defining something as a horse necessarily precludes it from being a penguin (assuming no cognitive impairment or comedic subtext).

 

So yes, it's limited by the dictionary.

 

"Atheist" is non-label, it tells you what I'm not, not what I am.

 

I much prefer naturist - but again "people" (do I need to say who?) choose to define it by what it is not - the antithesis of the supernatural (therefore giving it credence) - rather than what it is - "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature". (Audi via Schafersman - see Schafersman's Naturalism text - Steven Schafersman, "Naturalism Is Today An Essential Part of Science" - very interesting analogy to god using an alien encounter!)

 

"Free thought" should accept the all possibilities regarding the existence/non-existence of God/s and his/her/its nature.

 

Yes, if based on fact, truth, nature, not stories made up in the mind of self styled leaders.

 

Or do you mean if I say I saw a three headed T.Rex get on the bus we'd have to accept the possibility that it was true? Hmmm…

 

And do you accept Islam?*

 

We used to think the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the cosmos… just because we can make up a story to best fit our current knowledge, doesn't make it a contender for everlasting truth (or acceptance.*)

 

with its own version of zealots and extremists even.

 

To my knowledge, all atheists are human beings, with all the flaws inherent therein.

 

you may end up doing your own version of the inquisition to root out all those people who still believe in the existence of gods...

 

Not really. See I don't care what you believe, in fact I will defend your right to believe whatever you want, I think it's an intrinsic fundamental requirement, up their with Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

What I vehemently object to is religious indoctrination determining policy - who I can or cannot marry, what books are at school, at the library, what wording is on the currency I used, which country we invade...

 

...all i can say is be careful what you wish for...peace

 

Peace is all I wish for, but I don't think it will ever be achievable while factions seek to impose their supernatural doctrines on others.

[LBlanc]

...Not really. See I don't care what you believe, ...

 

...are you sure?...posted a lot for someone who doesn't care...

 

 

...Peace is all I wish for, but I don't think it will ever be achievable while factions seek to impose their supernatural doctrines on others.

 

...i could also say "Peace is all I wish for, but I don't think it will ever be achievable while factions seek to impose their... [natural] doctrines on others."

[LBlanc]

 

"Atheist" is non-label, it tells you what I'm not, not what I am.

 

.

 

...???...forgive me...english is not my first language ...but what the...???:confused:

 

...if [you] say [you] saw a three headed T. Rex get on the bus...

 

...well i won't say you're lying...maybe you did see something that looks like a three headed t-rex...that's the whole point of being open minded isn't it?

Edited December 19, 2013 by LBlanc
add

[jimloveslips]

...are you sure?...posted a lot for someone who doesn't care...

 

Did you read it all, or just cherry pick?

No I really don't care, except when you impact my freedom.

 

...i could also say "Peace is all I wish for, but I don't think it will ever be achievable while factions seek to impose their... [natural] doctrines on others."

 

Cos that happens… when?

Oh, do you mean like an election, and you don't win?

[LBlanc]

Did you read it all, or just cherry pick?

No I really don't care, except when you impact my freedom.

 

...you sound like you're imprisoned for being an atheist... but that's not the case is it....

 

...and i was not cherry picking...merely pointing out the inconsistency in your position that while you implied that you respect all types of belief yet at the same time you seem to insist yours should become the norm to which all others should follow...

 

 

Cos that happens… when?

Oh, do you mean like an election, and you don't win?

 

...i'm not in the US but i am under the impression that you guys have a separation of church and state...

[jimloveslips]

...you sound like you're imprisoned for being an atheist…

 

If you would like to have a debate, lets believe that we are both of moderate intelligence and that a word like freedom is not restricted to the incarcerated… when a science school book is eviscerated of all mention of evolution then that is a violation of my freedom to read the unexpurgated text.

 

...but that's not the case is it….

 

Not in Christian America, but can you say that about every other county? No!

 

you seem to insist yours should become the norm to which all others should follow…

 

Oh please, I've never ever said that… do I think we should have elections where religious indoctrination isn't part of the agenda - well, yes. Would that lead to a more humane (and less religious society) - yes. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Finland, France for example...

 

...i'm not in the US but i am under the impression that you guys have a separation of church and state...

 

Ha! In name only!

Edited December 19, 2013 by jimloveslips

[writergal]

By some estimates, mankind (Homosapien) is about 100,000 years old (give or take).

 

The Bible goes back approximately 5,000 years. New Testament about 2,000, the Koran about 1,500.

 

How long do you think it will take for mankind to undo the horrible harm that has been done to mankind by the Abrahamic religions over the past few milennia?

 

I don't mean rectifying the rapes, tortures, murders, genocide, incest, and slavery. Nor the wholesale genital mutilations or witch hunts (which still go on in Africa today) nor the numerous scientists who have sacrificed their lives to speak the truth to make the world a better place - to prove that the world is NOT flat, that it is bacteria that make us ill - NOT demons, etc.

 

I mean the effects of breaking our human reason and rationality. The centuries of indoctrination of children and the fear that still makes it virtually impossible to mount a defense against this insanity?

 

I have no idea, but I have given this honest though. If it took us arguable 2 thousand years to get here (on a widescale, Christianity has to be the benchmark) will it take as long to undo these crimes?

 

Unfortunately, Theism will rule the earth until humans no longer populate it. And they will continue their crusade ("they" applies to those religions whose goal is to convert others) to shove God down everyone's throat until their last breath.

 

The best thing you can do is try to find others who share your beliefs and avoid the religious zealots out there like the plague. My friend recently accepted a job in a small town that has over 15 churches. She's an Atheist too. So, religion is everywhere...unfortunately.

[LBlanc]

If you would like to have a debate, lets believe that we are both of moderate intelligence and that a word like freedom is not restricted to the incarcerated… when a science school book is eviscerated of all mention of evolution then that is a violation of my freedom to read the unexpurgated text.

 

 

well no one's preventing you (i hope) from seeking knowledge on your own...but if you take advantage of the services offered/provided by the government (like the infrastructures and education) you can't complain if they exercise some discretion on the policies and the manner in which those services are to be dispensed...

 

now you could argue that since your paying taxes (i hope) you should have a say on the formulation of those policies...and your right you have a say on those--but so does million of other taxpayers...and apparently those millions believe (assuming what you say is true) government policies are to be formulated in favor of some christian doctrines...

 

...but the thing is, i don't see the whole thing as a restriction on your or anybody's freedom. First, there is nothing preventing you or anyone else from refusing the things the government is providing and there is really nothing, as I said, preventing you from seeking knowledge on your own. That way, you don't have to take whatever the government is handing out to you. Second, as to being unable to make any changes on those policies even though you are a taxpayer yourself...well that cannot in anyway be construed as a restriction of freedom also. Your are just being overruled by the majority...

[jimloveslips]

well i guess you're also in favour of book burning if its government sanctioned...

 

There's not enough space here to go into the whole Texas Board of Education book panel here (although some recent good news - Evolution lessons will stay in Texas biology textbook, board says - U.S. News) but basically because of the size of Texas and it's buying power, the TBE would determine what would and what would not be printed in Science, math and other text books, and as the publisher also printed for ten other states those states would receive the "wisdom" of the TBE, even though those states had no vote on who would be on the panel. Look it up the history on google. Basically it's been a war between religion and science for several decades as to what children will be allowed to learn in school.

 

I don't see that government has any right to "exercise some discretion on the policies and the manner in which those services are to be dispensed..." when a panel of a dozen ultra religious zealots hold the education of children hostage to their principles.

 

Wasn't it you that brought up the supposed separation of church and state in the US...

[Weezy1973]

Unfortunately, Theism will rule the earth until humans no longer populate it.

 

Actually this is probably not true. Atheists and agnostics now are the second large group behind Christians on the planet. And younger generations (under 30) have an even higher percentage of non-religious people.

 

If you also take into account the trend that the highest educated people and cultures also have the highest rate of atheism/agnosticism, and the increasing availability of education to the poorest countries, you can see how the religious dominance will likely be over in a few generations.

[LBlanc]

...

 

I don't see that government has any right to "exercise some discretion on the policies and the manner in which those services are to be dispensed..." when a panel of a dozen ultra religious zealots hold the education of children hostage to their principles.

 

Wasn't it you that brought up the supposed separation of church and state in the US...

 

...no time to google so i'll just say

 

...exercise of discretion should (of course) be within the metes and bounds of the law...if what the Texas board did was legal then there's nothing to do except get out of Texas and/or the other states who were forced to use those books...there are always other options...it doesn't mean that what they did was right...just legal

 

...but if what they did violated the rule on separation of church and state then someone had to go up to your supreme court and have the whole thing stopped...

[strongnrelaxed]

Atheism is not a belief - it is the opposite. It is also not a bounded system of thought. Atheism is a word that defines people who do not believe in a deity.

 

To paraphrase a few famous Atheists - If Atheism is another religion, then abstinence is a sexual position" or "If Atheism is a belief system, then 'off' is a TV channel"

[Taramere]

This is an interesting thread in that the religious members seem to completely ignore every single point made. God and his followers advocate for and engage in slavery, genocide, rape, and murder throughout the entire old testament - and history subsequent to the editing of the bible has borne this out to the tunes of tens of millions of deaths and broken children - crusades (several of them), witch trials (in many countries, and still happening), and inquisitions (many of these too).

 

What is so stunning is how quick the Abrahamic religious zealots are to deny these things and point to atheist wrongs as a justification for the mass rapes of children, tortures rape and burning of innocent women and wars going back forever.

 

It is just stunning. If this were a court of law, the Christian churches would be found guilty of crimes against humanity and executed. Instead there are revered and worshipped.

 

How sad is this to say about humanity - with all we know now, we still need ghosts, myths, truth-speak, and hypocrisy in order to be okay with ourselves.

 

It's very easy for those of us who live in Western society to be atheists. Compared to the most troubled regions of the world, we're incredibly safe. We may complain about our governments, and about state interference in our lives - but really, we have no concept of live under real dictatorships.

 

The people who stand up and fight against dictators (and I'm not talking about professional fighters in the military here), against all the odds, tend to be people of faith. It's what they derive their courage from. That their faith is often stolen and distorted for malevolent use by dictator types is a commentary on the casual hypocrisy of the dictators. Think carefully before using it to attack or deride those of genuine faith who find, from that faith, the courage to stand up against genuine oppression and evil.

[down hearted]

By some estimates, mankind (Homosapien) is about 100,000 years old (give or take).

 

The Bible goes back approximately 5,000 years. New Testament about 2,000, the Koran about 1,500.

 

How long do you think it will take for mankind to undo the horrible harm that has been done to mankind by the Abrahamic religions over the past few milennia?

 

I don't mean rectifying the rapes, tortures, murders, genocide, incest, and slavery. Nor the wholesale genital mutilations or witch hunts (which still go on in Africa today) nor the numerous scientists who have sacrificed their lives to speak the truth to make the world a better place - to prove that the world is NOT flat, that it is bacteria that make us ill - NOT demons, etc.

 

I mean the effects of breaking our human reason and rationality. The centuries of indoctrination of children and the fear that still makes it virtually impossible to mount a defense against this insanity?

 

I have no idea, but I have given this honest though. If it took us arguable 2 thousand years to get here (on a widescale, Christianity has to be the benchmark) will it take as long to undo these crimes?

 

I do think everyone has their own ways of seeing things and honestly sometimes people don't need science but hope that things will get better, honestly we need hope, religion to some means hope for them no matter how small. When a family member close to you is dying no matter how you feel at that moment we automatically are desperate for an answer in our despair and we just want to so much for that person to just get up and walk again even if we already know that may not happen but we still hope and wish for it.

I do not consider myself religious, but i do respect those who have their faith even if its on a potato (just saying) because that's what keeps their hope alive and no one can take that from someone. in whatever it is, somehow we have to believe in something, even if its in science as you say, others believe in faith, or god, but religion will always be there because some people need something to hold on to their hope that things will get better, that people will change, etc. With no religion, people will still create one in order to not be scared of things anymore. Its just a mind, spiritual thing, i highly doubt it will disappear. When you are in despair the last thing you will think about is the deaths caused by religious people in history from the religion you believe in and who did what, trust me, in desperate times you will think on anything even if its on a potato just to get you through it mentally.

[littlejaz]

Originally Posted by hellneaux

This is an interesting thread in that the religious members seem to completely ignore every single point made. God and his followers advocate for and engage in slavery, genocide, rape, and murder throughout the entire old testament - and history subsequent to the editing of the bible has borne this out to the tunes of tens of millions of deaths and broken children - crusades (several of them), witch trials (in many countries, and still happening), and inquisitions (many of these too).

 

What is sad is how few people understand the true principles of Christ. I am in no way a Bible scholar and will never claim to be, I don't need to be to be a person of faith. I am also not a history scholar nor a scientist but again I don't need to be for this discussion.

 

You claim that the believers seem to completely ignore every single point made by the non-believers, yet to others it seems that the non-believers completely ignore every single point made by believers. Both make these claims on what they believe to be the truth. Non-believers base their beliefs on science, while believers base their beliefs on faith. But I make the argument that they are not mutually exclusive.

 

Non-believers want proof that God exists same as scientists want proof of whatever they believe. In science you begin with a hypothesis, an unproven explanation of a phenomenon. You then test that hypothesis to determine if it can be proven. Throughout history there have been many hypothesis which have seemingly been proven then later rebuked, and there have been many that have taken years to prove. Take Global Warming - if you are honest - the scientific community as a whole does not agree on the existence, the causes, the effects or the remedies if any. My point is that even in the scientific community just because you cannot prove something at the moment does not mean that it is not true. The scientist has faith that his hypothesis is true while he is trying to prove it, same as the believer has faith that God exists while waiting on his unveiling to the whole world.

 

What is so stunning is how quick the Abrahamic religious zealots are to deny these things and point to atheist wrongs as a justification for the mass rapes of children, tortures rape and burning of innocent women and wars going back forever.

 

What is so stunning is to think it is fair to hold believers responsible for everything that has happened in the past in the name of God or religion but then not to hold non-believers responsible for the same types of atrocities that have been committed by non-believers. As a believer I accept that many before me have perverted God's word to justify their actions, the same as many non-believers have justified their evil deeds with BS.

 

It is just stunning. If this were a court of law, the Christian churches would be found guilty of crimes against humanity and executed. Instead there are revered and worshipped.

 

Again this is being misconstrued. First you must understand the difference in the old and new covenants. Under the new covenant, you are correct that many of the churches would be found guilty of crimes against humanity but what you are leaving out is that they would also be found guilty of not following the teachings of Christ and as such they are not revered and worshipped. True believers admit and accept our short comings. We do not claim to be perfect but we continue to strive for perfection.

 

How sad is this to say about humanity - with all we know now, we still need ghosts, myths, truth-speak, and hypocrisy in order to be okay with ourselves.

 

How sad is this to say about humanity - with all we know now - whether you are a believer or a non-believer - evil exists and is perpetrated by the human race. What you as a non-believer and me as a believer should focus our energy on is stamping out evil wherever it exists. And arguing over the existence of God and whether he created evil is a waste of time because no matter who is right on the subject - evil is still here and we all are diminished by it.

 

It is not imperative for me as a believer to understand or explain God's actions under the old covenant. God will do that when the time is right. Just as it is not imperative for a scientist to be able to understand or explain every single aspect of the natural world for me to believe what has seemingly been proven.

[Robert Z]

A quick note regarding scientific "proof". Hypotheses can be falsified but never proven. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified and there is scientific evidence supporting it, then it may eventually be elevated to the status of theory.

 

 

Bottom line: No theory or hypothesis is ever proven to be correct. They can only be proven to be incorrect.

[Robert Z]

How sad is this to say about humanity - with all we know now - whether you are a believer or a non-believer - evil exists and is perpetrated by the human race. What you as a non-believer and me as a believer should focus our energy on is stamping out evil wherever it exists. And arguing over the existence of God and whether he created evil is a waste of time because no matter who is right on the subject - evil is still here and we all are diminished by it.

 

 

 

Don't you see the bias in your comment here? Why would a non-believer believe in "evil"? I am far more inclined to believe in faulty brain chemistry than I am evil.

 

 

People were once executed for being evil because they had convulsions or some other medical condition. The mentally ill have been executed and assumed to be evil because they acted oddly; later, if they committed some terrible crime because of their illness. So where do we now draw the line? Your goal of stamping out evil speaks to the same primitive impulses that have led us to execute sick people.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Robert Z

[Mr Scorpio]

Don't you see the bias in your comment here? Why would a non-believer believe in "evil"? I am far more inclined to believe in faulty brain chemistry than I am evil.

 

This is an issue that will become very interesting over the next decade or so, as neuroscientists continue to unravel the mystery of psychopaths. Legal-philosophers, and the criminal-justice system at large, will likely face some vexing questions.

 

As it relates to this forum, I believe that it will raise the quandary of why God would create such evil. I assume that some Christians believe that homosexuality is a choice on the basis that God would not create a person so predisposed to sin, although I could be wrong.

[Robert Z]

This is an issue that will become very interesting over the next decade or so, as neuroscientists continue to unravel the mystery of psychopaths. Legal-philosophers, and the criminal-justice system at large, will likely face some vexing questions.

 

 

Indeed, I fully expect this to be the case. One can imagine the entire concept of "criminal justice" eventually coming into question.

 

As it relates to this forum, I believe that it will raise the quandary of why God would create such evil. I assume that some Christians believe that homosexuality is a choice on the basis that God would not create a person so predisposed to sin, although I could be wrong.

 

It will likely be seen as just another wheat and tare problem - Matthew 13:24-30

[Taramere]

This is an issue that will become very interesting over the next decade or so, as neuroscientists continue to unravel the mystery of psychopaths. Legal-philosophers, and the criminal-justice system at large, will likely face some vexing questions.

 

There's nothing like a psychopath - whether the lone serial killer or the dictator with an entire army at his disposal - to make even the most fervent non believers mentally make the sign of the cross. And with good reason. Fearlessness and absolute lack of empathy/conscience mark the psychopath out as a formidable enemy.

 

The scientific community is, as you say, always on the search for answers. Looking for ways to understand (and by definition treat or even cure) the psychopath. So far they've always been stumped. Robert Hare, generally regarded as a leader in this area (and the one who devised the psychopath test) doesn't see it as curable. Why would the psychopath want to be cured when when there are so many advantages to be gleaned from psychopathic fearlessness and absence of conscience?

 

I don't think the scientific community is any closer to understanding psychopathy than were the preachers of old who would regard them as being possessed by the devil. Nor do I think they're any closer to dealing effectively with them.

[JamesM]

Atheism is not a belief - it is the opposite. It is also not a bounded system of thought. Atheism is a word that defines people who do not believe in a deity.

 

Actually, one doesn't need a doctrinal statement to have a belief. I believe that there is a sun. I don't believe that the earth is flat. Those are beliefs. I believe that the.... etc.

 

So to believe that there is a God or not to believe is a belief. Atheism is not a lack of a belief as in "I don't believe either way." Instead, it is..."I believe there is no God."

 

If I say that I don't believe in Santa Claus, then that is a belief...not just a lack of a belief.

 

To paraphrase a few famous Atheists - If Atheism is another religion, then abstinence is a sexual position" or "If Atheism is a belief system, then 'off' is a TV channel"

 

Poor analogy in an attempt not to have to rationalize a belief.

 

Atheism ends in "ism" which means....

-ism is a suffix in many English words, originally derived from Ancient Greek; reaching the English language through Latin, by medium of the French. It is commonly used in philosophy and politics, pertaining to an ideology of some sort.

 

Just a thought.