[Polpolion]

1. Then it could still just be a system created by crazies that helps other crazies act crazier. That doesn't make it alright.

2. Regardless of its "higher purpose", it can still be hijacked to use its followers' blind faith to achieve murderous and horrible goals.

point is you're not `crazy' if you have prejudices , it's part of the human condition. if religion isn't the outlet then it will be something else. Also note that prejudice doesn't only mean intolerance. More generally, stereotyping is a fundamental (and useful) part of human psychology and both good and bad prejudices can come from them. There are bad outlets (killing people) and good outlets (arguing on the internet), and no outlet is really solely used by religions or any other kind of group. ergo, saying that religions should be banned because they make people intolerant and that makes them kill people is a bad argument because intolerance can't be cured by removing religion. (ignoring all other side effects of that argument...)

and this higher purpose hijacking thing, again, isn't just for religion. The state (or any group, really) can insert itself between you and just about anything (eg taxes, war, advertisements...). If this were a good argument you would need to get rid of a lot of things that you probably shouldn't get rid of.

[Beskargam]

pointing out that judaism, christianity, and islam are not uniform in their beliefs. there are many denominations in each branch too. (christanity I can attest to, islam a little, juadism I dont know that much about).  anyway the people you call fundamentalists as such are actually not that large a number as you imply. it has been made to sound that everyone who follows those religions is a fundamentalist. to many sweeping generalizations.

[sigtau]

*points to sig*

[achtung]

pointing out that judaism, christianity, and islam are not uniform in their beliefs. there are many denominations in each branch too. (christanity I can attest to, islam a little, juadism I dont know that much about).  anyway the people you call fundamentalists as such are actually not that large a number as you imply. it has been made to sound that everyone who follows those religions is a fundamentalist. to many sweeping generalizations.

You can't deny there are a large number of folks that do, and that there were even larger numbers in the past. It definitely doesn't help that they are the ones who scream the loudest.

*points to sig*

I would argue that there's a clear difference between saying a big man in the sky hates homosexuals, and calling the people who do just that delusional. I am also trying to avoid being an ass, there's really no need for it.

In their most literal forms, all three of the big Abrahamic religions require blind, unquestioning faith. I think the fact that a paramount doctrine of a system you are supposed to live by is that you shouldn't question it to be quite disturbing. I find it more disturbing that some of the rules in these religions dictate what most of the world now considers human rights abuses.

To reiterate, I am talking about fundamentalist followers, which there are plenty of. Try driving through the bible belt some day.

[karajorma]

That's a very fine distinction though between having reason (Which will be ignored) and not having reason to check.

So, no, I'd argue that it's not actually any worse.

Again, I have to disagree with you. Not only is it worse as is, the fact that you have a holy source to tell you it is that way means that it is much easier to find other people who share your fanaticism.

I'm not here to claim religion should be banned or any such nonsense but if you're going to claim that in it's worst form it's exactly the same as any other form of fanaticism then I will argue that you are wrong.

[sigtau]

*points to sig*

I would argue that there's a clear difference between saying a big man in the sky hates homosexuals, and calling the people who do just that delusional. I am also trying to avoid being an ass, there's really no need for it.

In their most literal forms, all three of the big Abrahamic religions require blind, unquestioning faith. I think the fact that a paramount doctrine of a system you are supposed to live by is that you shouldn't question it to be quite disturbing. I find it more disturbing that some of the rules in these religions dictate what most of the world now considers human rights abuses.

To reiterate, I am talking about fundamentalist followers, which there are plenty of. Try driving through the bible belt some day.

With all due respect, I was more or less referring to the calling of all religious people delusional, not just the fundies (perhaps I should have been more clear there)--and as a religious person myself, I agree that if certain people are trying to justify their religion as a basis for violating human rights, they need to carefully question their belief set.*

Also, I live in South Carolina, so I am well aware of how bad it can get down here. 

* in b4 "sigtau is a hypocrite"

[Dragon]

I found that the general purpose of any religion is to manipulate people. Those who actually believe it are just caught in that manipulation. Most modern systems are based on ancient principles, rules integrated into culture and passed down through generations. While this manipulation was originally necessary (and still is for stupid people), now it's mostly abused for profit or for the sake of the manipulation itself (people who do the latter are usually caught into it themselves, which happens when a person unable to understand the system gets elevated to a religious leader).

I hope that the day will come that the humanity would transcend the need for such silly things as religion and follow common sense, reason and science instead.
I've personally managed to achieve that by asking "And what if it wasn't exactly true?" and similar questions about most things I was told (it doesn't stop at religion either, I'm going to study high energy physics to be able to understand and, perhaps, challenge the most complicated, advanced and fundamental theories in physics), using strictly logical reasoning and Occam's Razor. There's no way to empirically prove any religion, world could function just fine without supernatural beings existing and there's a psychological theory explaining why people create and worship such beings.

Also, I couldn't say that God doesn't exist, but it is a purely psychological phenomenon instead of anything that has any direct influence in physical world. Sort of a collective delusion, created for the purpose of collective manipulation. When you take a closer look at it (from the psychological standpoint), religion is a fascinating phenomenon.
I was also amazed that I was unable to disprove Christianity by "direct" logical reasoning (something I attempted on every single religion lesson ), most things in it can be explained without introducing any contradictions, especially if you know something about the Bible in original. If it wasn't for Occam's Razor, there would be no reason Christianity couldn't be true.

Concluding, Christianity could be the most brilliant manipulation ever created by intelligent beings. I didn't analyze other religions in such detail, but I might do that someday.
I should also note that the above (any below) doesn't apply to far eastern religions, like Buddhism or Hinduism, but these are more about certain philosophies and ways of life than about worshiping deities. Perhaps even my "philosophy of doubt" is similar to one of the Buddhist philosophies.

Considering all this, I find fanaticism very stupid. It's religion for the sake of religion, not serving any actual purpose. Originally, it was meant to make people behave in certain way that was beneficial to the community as a whole. Rituals and mythology was just to make it believable. Now, people are obsessed with these rituals and mythology, ignoring the actual meaning. Fanaticism, of course, is beneficial to the church, since fanatics are easier to manipulate.

[achtung]

*points to sig*

I would argue that there's a clear difference between saying a big man in the sky hates homosexuals, and calling the people who do just that delusional. I am also trying to avoid being an ass, there's really no need for it.

In their most literal forms, all three of the big Abrahamic religions require blind, unquestioning faith. I think the fact that a paramount doctrine of a system you are supposed to live by is that you shouldn't question it to be quite disturbing. I find it more disturbing that some of the rules in these religions dictate what most of the world now considers human rights abuses.

To reiterate, I am talking about fundamentalist followers, which there are plenty of. Try driving through the bible belt some day.

With all due respect, I was more or less referring to the calling of all religious people delusional, not just the fundies (perhaps I should have been more clear there)--and as a religious person myself, I agree that if certain people are trying to justify their religion as a basis for violating human rights, they need to carefully question their belief set.*

Also, I live in South Carolina, so I am well aware of how bad it can get down here. 

* in b4 "sigtau is a hypocrite"

Don't worry, I know you know about the bible belt, we both have to live through its more... colorful characters.

[G0atmaster]

Here is my summation of this forum based on this thread

Topic: blahblahblah crazy current event blahblah
Response: "wow dude, that's crazy."
"Yeah we should do something about that."

Topic: blahblahblah crazyevent blahblahpray
RELIGION SUXXORZ!!!a! Christians should die!!!!! Rahhh nutbagz!!
Kill em with fire! Make em beg to apologize! System of freaks supporting crazies! Gahhhhhh!!!!! !$#@

Absolutely rediculous. You all should take a long, hard look at yourselves.



You know why you think we're all crazy? Because the Media says we are.  The crazies are the ones that get you linking stories.  The crazies are the ones that get on the news.  The crazies are the ones that make movies that sell.  The crazies are almost all you ever see.


Let me just take a moment to show you a bit of the other side of things.

The Confessing Church stood up to Hitler in the 1940's when few else dared to.  Martin Luther King, one of the greatest Civil Rights activists of all time, was a Christian Reverend before he was an activist, and it was his view of God that stirred him to do what he did.

This video, skip to 1:27
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmOUAdLgN1A


See, what the news doesn't tell you, is that the Church is an organization that has hospitals, dental clinics, food closets, on every inhabited continent, often offering free healthcare and food in places of intense poverty.  The Church rallies support for the least, the lost, the lonely.  The Church gives hope to the hopeless.  Gives love to the unloved.  Takes care of the needy.  And unceasingly seeks drastic change in this very dark world.


Yet here you are, griping over a couple of people because they want to PRAY for a couple of people who are doing something against what they believe?

Really now.

[karajorma]

Maybe you should take a long look at your inability to read this thread instead.

[Mars]

Not one person has said anything of the sort "Christians should die"

I believe the general argument is that religion requires one to think in a certain way that cuts out any chance of self correction.

[WeatherOp]

Here is my summation of this forum based on this thread

Just now realizing this?

[achtung]

...

I don't know what thread you've been reading, but I'm sorry it upset you.

[sigtau]

Just a liiiittle over the top there, G0atmaster.  While I do agree with you on the notion that not all Christians are equally as crazy as the Bible-thumping fundamentalist crowd, it needs to be said that the opinion you seem to be trying to counter hasn't actually been expressed in this thread.

Now, as for the rest of GenDisc...

[Mikes]

**** I'm the biggest ****ing atheist but I understand human cognition enough to know that you should never trust anyone's opinion unless they can argue both sides of an issue. There are just too many heuristic traps to rely on an assessment as simplistic as 'let's make a list of all the ways WE are better than THEM (they are all the same by the way guys)'

I do believe that as a human being you have every right to believe what you believe as long as a) you are allowed to make that choice for yourself and b) you do not infringe uppon the liberties of your fellow human beings.

The more prominent religions violate both of these beliefs: Does a child who gets his/her head preconditioned with religious dogma in early childhood really have a choice in what to believe? Overwhelming statistic evidence (correlation of religion of parent and child) would suggest the contrary.  And while, granted, not all religions infringe uppon the beliefs of others... the most prominent ones certainly do, to the point where, in the case of the US, you can see the blatant attempt to corrupt education to further infect future generations with their dogmatic worldview.

I really do respect your thoughtful viewpoint on such a delicate issue as Religion Battuta. It's not just rare but also refreshing. At the same time I am also curious how you stand on the issue of early childhood indoctrination which promotes, to some extent or the other, to quench the capacity for rational discourse and the desire for acquiring knowledge through dogmatic belief of some kind or the other.

I.e. Just going by the viewpoints both of us express it's easy to guess that you and be both were lucky in that we did have parents who did not ram religion down our throaths. Other people are not so lucky.

I would never go as far as proclaim "Religion" to be the root of all evil... but, the way religion perpetuates and reinforces arbitrary belief throughout our society does certainly not earn it any more respect from my side than say... some form of the common cold or flu "of the mind".

[Ravenholme]

**** I'm the biggest ****ing atheist but I understand human cognition enough to know that you should never trust anyone's opinion unless they can argue both sides of an issue. There are just too many heuristic traps to rely on an assessment as simplistic as 'let's make a list of all the ways WE are better than THEM (they are all the same by the way guys)'

The more prominent religions violate both of these beliefs: Does a child who gets his/her head preconditioned with religious dogma in early childhood really have a choice in what to believe? Overwhelming statistic evidence (correlation of religion of parent and child) would suggest the contrary.  And while, granted, not all religions infringe uppon the beliefs of others... the most prominent ones certainly do, to the point where, in the case of the US, you can see the blatant attempt to corrupt education to further infect future generations with their dogmatic worldview.

I'd disagree, because there are plenty of people raised in a religion who then go on to lose it

[Mikes]

I'd disagree, because there are plenty of people raised in a religion who then go on to lose it

The parent - child - religion correlation can hardly be dismissed by simply noting the possibility of breaking free.

It's an easy thing for an educated person to say that you can "just break free", but frankly quite ignorant to the realities of what indoctrination - of any kind, not just religious - does to a child.
(In that sense religion is no more or less institutionalized childhood indoctrination with some set of arbitrary parameters that vary by religious "flavor"...   having parents who are only mildly - if at all - religious and being able to enjoy an education with an at least mostly open mind is certainly a priviledge...   and hardly anyone who enjoys it realizes how precious it really is.)

Worst case scenario? Well seriously... why do you think young people put on a suicide vest and blow themselves up for their god? Is that just something that occurred to them suddenly and that overrides all hardwired self preservation reflexes or what? Along the same lines...  where does that obsession with wanting to prescribe to everyone what they can and can not do in the privacy of their own bedrooms come from? ... to the point of ostracising, hurting or even killing anyone who dares violate "gods holy law". Different flavors, same problem.

And while you can argue that the more moderate forms of religion are "harmless" I would rather point out that our societies acceptance of arbitrary childhood indoctrination, which is what pretty much any "mainstream" religion promotes (or it dies out/becomes a niche ... religious evolution at work, how ironic is that eh? ), is very much an enabler for the more fanatic excesses.

[Grizzly]

The more prominent religions violate both of these beliefs: Does a child who gets his/her head preconditioned with religious dogma in early childhood really have a choice in what to believe? Overwhelming statistic evidence (correlation of religion of parent and child) would suggest the contrary.

That is called growing up, the beliefs your parents tell you, and the apple does never fall far from the tree. There is no difference between being preconditioned with religious dogma or being preconditioned with ... anything else. Every parent in the world does that, except perhaps the neglicient ones. Off-course, they don't do it in a way you like, but if/when you have kids you are doing/will be doing something quite similar.

And while, granted, not all religions infringe uppon the beliefs of others... the most prominent ones certainly do, to the point where, in the case of the US, you can see the blatant attempt to corrupt education to further infect future generations with their dogmatic worldview.

The problem with this argument is that you see 'religion' as a massive sentient body with massive power,  that infringes upon the rights of others. In the US this certainly is not the case (the only 'massive sentient body with massive power' I can think of is the Catholic Church, which is not very prominent in the US). It is more a lot of closed-minded individuals who happen to band together ocasionally, who just happen to be religious (atheïsts can be just as bad, and, arguably, distinctive atheïst groups have been worse).

[Mikes]

The more prominent religions violate both of these beliefs: Does a child who gets his/her head preconditioned with religious dogma in early childhood really have a choice in what to believe? Overwhelming statistic evidence (correlation of religion of parent and child) would suggest the contrary.

That is called growing up, the beliefs your parents tell you, and the apple does never fall far from the tree. There is no difference between being preconditioned with religious dogma or being preconditioned with ... anything else. Every parent in the world does that, except perhaps the neglicient ones. Off-course, they don't do it in a way you like, but if/when you have kids you are doing/will be doing something quite similar.

Every parent teaches their childs to blindly believe even when they have evidence to the contrary? Luckily not... although of course some do, as evidenced by the Darwinism vs. Creationism idiocy going on.

Every parent teaches their child... true enough, but certainly not every parent indoctrinates their child with dogmatic belief... and that makes quite a huge difference when you do grow up.

The problem with this argument is that you see 'religion' as a massive sentient body with massive power,  that infringes upon the rights of others. In the US this certainly is not the case (the only 'massive sentient body with massive power' I can think of is the Catholic Church, which is not very prominent in the US). It is more a lot of closed-minded individuals who happen to band together ocasionally, who just happen to be religious (atheïsts can be just as bad, and, arguably, distinctive atheïst groups have been worse).

The problem with your argument is that you put words in my mouth.

Religious belief, from my viewpoint, is no more sentient than a virus... but just as effective in perpetuating itself and, just like a virus, for no other purpose than perpetuating itself.


As for the prominence of religion in the US i would encourage you to do some research on what is actually going on. I would worry quite a bit less about the Catholic Church than about the widespread radical Christian groups that do run rampant.  I would also encourage you do take a look at the number of Christian vs. Atheists politicians in office. (Hint, there aren't any atheists, as atheism is de facto political suicide...)
Let that sink in... despite merely numerically being a huge group, as large as the largest single religious group, admitting that you are an atheist would kill any political campaign. If that does not tell us something about the prominence of religion in the American electorate and "religious" tolerance in America, then what does? A former elected president that claimed to commune directly with god?

As for your claim that Atheism can be just as bad... isn't that kinda paradox? You can certainly make a case for intolerance, hate, ostracism etc. being universal problems but...  as for Atheism being some kind of ideal that people would elevate over reason and scientific evidence and even die, kill or go to war for? Don't confuse Atheism as another religion, the whole notion is idiotic.

I mean seriously, Atheism, by definition, doesn't even have some universal group dogma. The whole ingroup/outgroup thinking is the providence of Religion... and maybe blind patriotism, which is the one thing that *I* can think of that really does have the potential for being "just as bad" as religious dogma... i.e. the potential to delude yourself into believing a fiction even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Finally, I also gotta admit that if it was just moderate Catholicism and similar religions most people would propably care less. Live and let live, right? But the fact that we have a growing number of groups in the US that do take the bible as literal truth again worries pretty much anyone who has actually read the bible, including most catholic priests and scholars.

[Luis Dias]

Oh look another religion thread.

I love the cluster**** that religion threads bring about .

And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical  "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card while all the others exchange mortars and missiles of Godwinnian arguments all over the place.

In this particular case, "religion" is obviously to be blamed. Religious people will disagree, and we could settle then for a rephrase. Let's adopt the christian talking points, for instance, and declare that what this awkward group has done is a sort of a "pagan" exercise. By declaring it "pagan" we can excuse religion of this ****hole demonstration of ignorance and descrimination, and perhaps unite a whole bigger bunch of reasonable people against this "pagan" sort of thinking.

We could use this "rephrasing" technique to whatever the most civilized bunch of religious people feel where their own religion could be "upgraded", and let the cluster****ing mess that is debating religion to its own messy corner and actually solve a real problem of discrimination and hurt.

Kumbayah?