Principia Discordia

I moved this from Apple Talk because I decided there were some interesting and knotty philosophical questions raised in this article.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2265395,00.html

It starts off as a fairly normal, if well written piece about newer Atheist books.  But it gets much more interesting and complex than your average newspaper article as you continue on, as you would expect from a philosopher of the ability of John Gray.  Here are some of the points I found fascinating:


A curious feature of this kind of atheism is that some of its most fervent missionaries are philosophers. Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon claims to sketch a general theory of religion. In fact, it is mostly a polemic against American Christianity. This parochial focus is reflected in Dennett's view of religion, which for him means the belief that some kind of supernatural agency (whose approval believers seek) is needed to explain the way things are in the world. For Dennett, religions are efforts at doing something science does better - they are rudimentary or abortive theories, or else nonsense. "The proposition that God exists," he writes severely, "is not even a theory." But religions do not consist of propositions struggling to become theories. The incomprehensibility of the divine is at the heart of Eastern Christianity, while in Orthodox Judaism practice tends to have priority over doctrine. Buddhism has always recognised that in spiritual matters truth is ineffable, as do Sufi traditions in Islam. Hinduism has never defined itself by anything as simplistic as a creed. It is only some western Christian traditions, under the influence of Greek philosophy, which have tried to turn religion into an explanatory theory.


In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes, vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection. He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education. From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this. Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.


Contemporary opponents of religion display a marked lack of interest in the historical record of atheist regimes. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, the American writer Sam Harris argues that religion has been the chief source of violence and oppression in history. He recognises that secular despots such as Stalin and Mao inflicted terror on a grand scale, but maintains the oppression they practised had nothing to do with their ideology of "scientific atheism" - what was wrong with their regimes was that they were tyrannies. But might there not be a connection between the attempt to eradicate religion and the loss of freedom? It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan "Religion is poison", would have agreed that his atheist world-view had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure - as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But in developing these cults, communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means.


Nowadays most atheists are avowed liberals. What they want - so they will tell you - is not an atheist regime, but a secular state in which religion has no role. They clearly believe that, in a state of this kind, religion will tend to decline. But America's secular constitution has not ensured a secular politics. Christian fundamentalism is more powerful in the US than in any other country, while it has very little influence in Britain, which has an established church. Contemporary critics of religion go much further than demanding disestablishment. It is clear that he wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions. Awkwardly, many of the concepts he deploys - including the idea of religion itself - have been shaped by monotheism. Lying behind secular fundamentalism is a conception of history that derives from religion.


But the belief that history is a directional process is as faith-based as anything in the Christian catechism. Secular thinkers such as Grayling reject the idea of providence, but they continue to think humankind is moving towards a universal goal - a civilisation based on science that will eventually encompass the entire species. In pre-Christian Europe, human life was understood as a series of cycles; history was seen as tragic or comic rather than redemptive. With the arrival of Christianity, it came to be believed that history had a predetermined goal, which was human salvation. Though they suppress their religious content, secular humanists continue to cling to similar beliefs. One does not want to deny anyone the consolations of a faith, but it is obvious that the idea of progress in history is a myth created by the need for meaning.


Belief in progress is a relic of the Christian view of history as a universal narrative, and an intellectually rigorous atheism would start by questioning it. This is what Nietzsche did when he developed his critique of Christianity in the late 19th century, but almost none of today's secular missionaries have followed his example. One need not be a great fan of Nietzsche to wonder why this is so. The reason, no doubt, is that he did not assume any connection between atheism and liberal values - on the contrary, he viewed liberal values as an offspring of Christianity and condemned them partly for that reason. In contrast, evangelical atheists have positioned themselves as defenders of liberal freedoms - rarely inquiring where these freedoms have come from, and never allowing that religion may have had a part in creating them.


Religion has not gone away. Repressing it is like repressing sex, a self-defeating enterprise. In the 20th century, when it commanded powerful states and mass movements, it helped engender totalitarianism. Today, the result is a climate of hysteria. Not everything in religion is precious or deserving of reverence. There is an inheritance of anthropocentrism, the ugly fantasy that the Earth exists to serve humans, which most secular humanists share. There is the claim of religious authorities, also made by atheist regimes, to decide how people can express their sexuality, control their fertility and end their lives, which should be rejected categorically. Nobody should be allowed to curtail freedom in these ways, and no religion has the right to break the peace.

The attempt to eradicate religion, however, only leads to it reappearing in grotesque and degraded forms. A credulous belief in world revolution, universal democracy or the occult powers of mobile phones is more offensive to reason than the mysteries of religion, and less likely to survive in years to come. Victorian poet Matthew Arnold wrote of believers being left bereft as the tide of faith ebbs away. Today secular faith is ebbing, and it is the apostles of unbelief who are left stranded on the beach.

Also did a blog entry on this article on Verwirrung (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/blog/cain/john-gray-kicks-up-a-storm-at-comment-is-free/).

Those are excellent points; they not only hit the things I was thinking about, but bring up some new ones, as well.

I especially liked the bit about Nietzche, how an honest look would critique atheism as well as theism.

I especially like the bit about religion's memetic nature / qualities. 

Gray's actually very critical of meme theory, but I believe his point on evolution/education/Dawkins is a killer blow.

And of course, this rattles the cage of traditional, positivist liberalism no end. 

one thing I would like to add (not to thread jack too much) is Im not overly convinced that religion is innate in people, even in an evolutionary sense
- before I continue I would like to point out (that most writers dont point out in their books but some reason point out in their talks) that there is a difference between spirituality and religion. Religion implys an explaination for the meaning or the creation of the cosmos, while spirtuality (trying not to sound too Buddist or New Age) tries to explain feelings of transcendence
Dawkins makes a sort of unfunny joke in passing (I never blame for his bad jokes cause he's a scientist and doesn't need to be funny ; in fact I would prefer him not to even try) and Hitchens talks at length that if we had the scientific explainations on the origins of life, and as I think more importantly the progresses we made in astronomy, from the beginning of humanity that religion might not have ever really became dominate enough to survive, at least in the same compacity as it does today. And if you seperate transcendence from belief (especially the belief in a cosmic superman) then that is an idea that deserves some thought

the rest of the discusion that happens on the topic of religious belief seems to always fall into the realm of the social ramifications or the politicial of aethism or of belief. Which although interesting I have very little to add other then I find it almost inapplicable (thats a big word for me  :D) cause if there is no cosmic superman... there is no cosmic superman. I noble lie is still a lie.

sorry about that thread jack
but it shit that wanted to start to organize for sometime just never had the chance or time

The problem is, there's too much Weird Shit (RAW calls them "Damned Things") out there that can't easily be explained through rational thought.

It really seems like Dawkins and Hitchens actually believe that the universe can be fully explained in a rational manner. 

Now, while I readily agree that there's a vast amount of stuff that can be explained rationally, there's an equally vast amount of stuff that can't.

One way or another, religion would creep back in.  Most likely something like Voodoo, if looked at as a collection of superstitions.

Dawkins doesn't say we can explain everything rationally yet, but it is defeatism to just say well "well god did it" and I do kind of agree with him on this point cause the supernatural kind of belittles curiosity

but to your point that religion would creep back in, I agree with that, but first  -
superstitions can more or less be debunked with time and exposure, and at heart of something like voodoo if you take out the superstitions and the zombies as that mixture of spirituality and religion, which is why i wanted to make that distinction before about spirituality and religion, maybe the religion would die but the spirituality would remain

now to completely contradict myself and agree with your point I do see the valitidy with the argument that something probably just as rediculas (maybe a strange political ideal) if not more so would definately evolve to fill the void if religion never took hold...
this point, as well as your point, brings me to the my major disagreement with Dawkins. At heart he is an optimist, and at heart I'm actually agree with LMNO's point as Im very pessimistic to my own outlook of the world
maybe I just disproved my orginal post, but either so I rarely agree with something 100 percent anyways

I think that the author is unworthy of the capacity of the man to decide that to believe, the point is not to see the religion in a political sense, or of free will catholic concept to give the illusion of which the punishment is not imposed and of which the minds are not handled. He(she) forgets that the principal point is that to have faith or is not a completely personal decision and that nobody needs to be inside a group to believe or not to forget that we are not flowed it(he,she) does not see the man as(like) the only(unique) and different and seeker of the perfection or overcoming without limits unput by religions.

(her,your) intentions had been the religion or the atheism, forgetting that it was a part(report) of a mental training to fix in the population ideal chords with his(her,your) interests of domain(control) of the world. The racism and the top race you design that they unify and the communism and the equality another idea that it(he,she) unifies and his(her,your) abstract form displaces any religion as consequence. The world without the absolute power of the classic religions is a degeneracy for those who not evolucionn and stick to concepts of correctly or incorrectly or well and badly(wrongly)
The fear of knocking down former schemes and of not knowing what will bring this new conception of the world for the man and his(her,your) freedom of believing in his(her,your) own(proper) ones and prsonales or not gods without this takes consequences as the burning d bewitching it is what makes cover the Sun with a finger and give him(her) importance to religions that in ralidad her(it) do not have mas that by means of washes of brain. The return to the former gods mas according to the human being or to a god thought(regarded) as a beginning(principle) almost impossible to conceive for the human ment it(he,she) is not acceptable for and because of it he(she) denies it. Very little I target what sorrow(sentence)

[attachment deleted by admin]

Dammit... he is right and I hate him for that.

I really think that RAW hit the nail on the head when he tied religion to a social evolutionary acceptance within the tribe. The individual needed the tribe for survival. The tribe believed that GREATBOB the lake demon watched over the harvest and needed sacrifices. People that could accept such nonsense, stayed in the tribe and survived. Those that, perhaps, said... "Umm, you snorted too much root bark" to the shaman, was prone to get tossed out on his ear... less likely to survive, less likely to breed.

Maybe not true, but a pretty interesting theory.

Jack Cohen put forth a similar theory.  Religion was to distinguish tribes from outsiders.  If you ate fish on a Friday, or couldn't make the sign of the cross etc....you are clearly an outsider and so potentially dangerous.  Religion allowed for people to recognize those beyond their immediate family/friend ties as part of the tribe and so not dangerous.

Quote from: Cain on March 18, 2008, 10:34:42 AMA curious feature of this kind of atheism is that some of its most fervent missionaries are philosophers. Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon claims to sketch a general theory of religion. In fact, it is mostly a polemic against American Christianity. This parochial focus is reflected in Dennett's view of religion, which for him means the belief that some kind of supernatural agency (whose approval believers seek) is needed to explain the way things are in the world. For Dennett, religions are efforts at doing something science does better - they are rudimentary or abortive theories, or else nonsense. "The proposition that God exists," he writes severely, "is not even a theory." But religions do not consist of propositions struggling to become theories. The incomprehensibility of the divine is at the heart of Eastern Christianity, while in Orthodox Judaism practice tends to have priority over doctrine. Buddhism has always recognised that in spiritual matters truth is ineffable, as do Sufi traditions in Islam. Hinduism has never defined itself by anything as simplistic as a creed. It is only some western Christian traditions, under the influence of Greek philosophy, which have tried to turn religion into an explanatory theory.

Well, I cant speak for any other atheists, but I dont have a problem with religion unless they try and dictate how other people should live their lives. If you want to do religion, thats fine with me, just dont try and make me do it. I have pretty much the same view of drugs. If you want to do crack and heroin and meth, thats your call, as long as you dont come near me while you're high.

Quote from: Cain on March 18, 2008, 10:34:42 AM
In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes, vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection. He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education. From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this. Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.

What Dawkins actually said about evolution and religion was that it was advantageous for young children to believe what adults told them without question. The value of this is pretty obvious (dont go out in the forest alone, there are saber tooth tigers), but it explains why religion has stuck around for so long. Also, humans have a natural need to explore and understand the things around them, which makes sense evolutionarily. Religion got started as a way to explain how the world worked before we could answer the question with science. However, there's no natural need for religion like there is for sex. If a child grew up never hearing about religion, chances are the idea wouldnt just randomly occur to them. The only thing that would make that happen is the question, "What happens after we die?" which is another example of the drive to explore and understand.

Quote from: Cain on March 18, 2008, 10:34:42 AMContemporary opponents of religion display a marked lack of interest in the historical record of atheist regimes. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, the American writer Sam Harris argues that religion has been the chief source of violence and oppression in history. He recognises that secular despots such as Stalin and Mao inflicted terror on a grand scale, but maintains the oppression they practised had nothing to do with their ideology of "scientific atheism" - what was wrong with their regimes was that they were tyrannies. But might there not be a connection between the attempt to eradicate religion and the loss of freedom? It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan "Religion is poison", would have agreed that his atheist world-view had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure - as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But in developing these cults, communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means.

If atheism becomes a state project, it becomes just like any other religion, that can be used to manipulate people. The whole point of atheism is that it's nothing. If you never heard of religion, you would automatically be an atheist. If you turn atheism into something, it becomes just another religion, with beliefs, priests, sacred laws and the whole thing. Not that I dont think Stalin and co genuinely didnt believe in God, but for them, it was Atheism, whereas for us, it's atheism. The real point was Communism, of which atheism was just a part. Our atheism doesnt imply anything about our other beliefs and principles.

Quote from: Cain on March 18, 2008, 10:34:42 AMNowadays most atheists are avowed liberals. What they want - so they will tell you - is not an atheist regime, but a secular state in which religion has no role. They clearly believe that, in a state of this kind, religion will tend to decline. But America's secular constitution has not ensured a secular politics. Christian fundamentalism is more powerful in the US than in any other country, while it has very little influence in Britain, which has an established church. Contemporary critics of religion go much further than demanding disestablishment. It is clear that he wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions. Awkwardly, many of the concepts he deploys - including the idea of religion itself - have been shaped by monotheism. Lying behind secular fundamentalism is a conception of history that derives from religion.

A secular state in which religion has no role is two different things. Right now, we have one (sort of), but obviously not the other. If any atheist liberals do believe that religion will automatically decline in a secular state, they need to take a look at the numbers. America was founded by Puritans, and it would take another revolution to get rid of them.

Quote from: Cain on March 18, 2008, 10:34:42 AMBut the belief that history is a directional process is as faith-based as anything in the Christian catechism. Secular thinkers such as Grayling reject the idea of providence, but they continue to think humankind is moving towards a universal goal - a civilisation based on science that will eventually encompass the entire species. In pre-Christian Europe, human life was understood as a series of cycles; history was seen as tragic or comic rather than redemptive. With the arrival of Christianity, it came to be believed that history had a predetermined goal, which was human salvation. Though they suppress their religious content, secular humanists continue to cling to similar beliefs. One does not want to deny anyone the consolations of a faith, but it is obvious that the idea of progress in history is a myth created by the need for meaning.

Of course all civilizations fall eventually. What I would hope is that a civilization such as Dawkins and co describe would last long enough to get us past the point were we could easily blow ourselves up. It could last for 200 years, it could last for 200,000 years, as long as it lasts long enough to get us past the danger zone. Also, I'd kind of prefer it if it could last until after I'm dead.

Quote from: Cain on March 18, 2008, 10:34:42 AMBelief in progress is a relic of the Christian view of history as a universal narrative, and an intellectually rigorous atheism would start by questioning it. This is what Nietzsche did when he developed his critique of Christianity in the late 19th century, but almost none of today's secular missionaries have followed his example. One need not be a great fan of Nietzsche to wonder why this is so. The reason, no doubt, is that he did not assume any connection between atheism and liberal values - on the contrary, he viewed liberal values as an offspring of Christianity and condemned them partly for that reason. In contrast, evangelical atheists have positioned themselves as defenders of liberal freedoms - rarely inquiring where these freedoms have come from, and never allowing that religion may have had a part in creating them.

I havent heard this before. How did liberalism come from Christianity? Was it from some offshoot like Quakerism or something? Anyway, liberalism and atheism arent really connected for me. I'm an atheist because that's the logical conclusion of the scientific method, and I'm a liberal because I believe that people deserve to be free and able to make their own choices.

Quote from: Cain on March 18, 2008, 10:34:42 AMReligion has not gone away. Repressing it is like repressing sex, a self-defeating enterprise. In the 20th century, when it commanded powerful states and mass movements, it helped engender totalitarianism. Today, the result is a climate of hysteria. Not everything in religion is precious or deserving of reverence. There is an inheritance of anthropocentrism, the ugly fantasy that the Earth exists to serve humans, which most secular humanists share. There is the claim of religious authorities, also made by atheist regimes, to decide how people can express their sexuality, control their fertility and end their lives, which should be rejected categorically. Nobody should be allowed to curtail freedom in these ways, and no religion has the right to break the peace.

The attempt to eradicate religion, however, only leads to it reappearing in grotesque and degraded forms. A credulous belief in world revolution, universal democracy or the occult powers of mobile phones is more offensive to reason than the mysteries of religion, and less likely to survive in years to come. Victorian poet Matthew Arnold wrote of believers being left bereft as the tide of faith ebbs away. Today secular faith is ebbing, and it is the apostles of unbelief who are left stranded on the beach.

I dont want to repress religion, I just want religion to stop repressing me. Remember, there are more religious people who want world government than secularists. It's not an atheist thing. The only real thing standing in the way of world government is barriers of ethnic and religious hatred. Now, that's obviously a rather large roadblock, but if you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

Quote from: atrasicarius on April 15, 2008, 08:17:30 AM
If atheism becomes a state project, it becomes just like any other religion, that can be used to manipulate people. The whole point of atheism is that it's nothing. If you never heard of religion, you would automatically be an atheist. If you turn atheism into something, it becomes just another religion, with beliefs, priests, sacred laws and the whole thing. Not that I dont think Stalin and co genuinely didnt believe in God, but for them, it was Atheism, whereas for us, it's atheism. The real point was Communism, of which atheism was just a part. Our atheism doesnt imply anything about our other beliefs and principles.

This is an especially interesting rebuttal, and one I have to agree with.  However, I would point out that in most of those XTREME totalitarian communist regimes, the state because the religion.  So the idea isn't so much "Don't worship a god because that's silly.  Worship no gods", but more "Don't worship a god because the State IS the only god you need."  After all, you can't have people running around believing in things when you're trying to run such a tight ship.  It leads to all kinds of tomfoolery, and people not doing what they're told.

The distinction between capital-A and small-a atheism is also something to think about.  Thornley talks a little bit about the power that names can have in Zenarchy (http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/zenarchy.html).  He spends some time talking about the hippy generation, and mentions that it was "not the same" before and after the media "discovered" the hippies and named them.

Quote
In 1967 in California something existed that has since been characterized as the Love Generation, the Hippie Movement, the Counter-culture and Flower Power. But those were names given it by the media. Before then it was more or less unconditioned, and it consisted of people who believed in being unconditioned - in finding their faces before birth. They hadn't decided to be the Love Generation; they had decided to put aside striving for appearances.

...........

Becoming hung up on avoiding names, of course, can be as misleading as being named, classified and forgotten. We were not making an effort in either direction. We intended, however, to avoid abstractions that short-circuit thought. An unborn face entailed a naked mind.

Zen is called Zen, but when the monk asks the master, "What is Zen?" he does not receive a definition but a whack on the head, or a mundane remark, or a seemingly unrelated story. Although such responses might baffle the student, they did not en courage him to glibly pigeon-hole the Doctrine.

I found this quite fascinating.  "Atheist" and "Anarchist" both have connotations that are probably quite quite different from what many practitioners of both consider themselves to be doing.  For instance, in the bible belt of the south-east USA, I was once asked in all seriousness whether I was really an atheist, because I seemed like a nice guy and not somebody who worshipped satan.

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 15, 2008, 06:09:42 PM

I found this quite fascinating.  "Atheist" and "Anarchist" both have connotations that are probably quite quite different from what many practitioners of both consider themselves to be doing.  For instance, in the bible belt of the south-east USA, I was once asked in all seriousness whether I was really an atheist, because I seemed like a nice guy and not somebody who worshipped satan.

The choice of labels is that of the atheist, is it not? No one says "You are Atheist!!" rather people say "I Am Atheist"...  the individual chooses the label and wears it like a crown. I've debated several atheists on the topic. After all, they don't get all excited and say "I'm an Aunicornist" or an "Aleprechaunist" or an "Asaschquachist"... they specify a'theist'. Most of them, when pressed admit that its not a position of reason and logic (that position would be "I have not seen evidence for God"), but it is a position of Social Statement. 'We Atheists must stick together against 'Them'!"

The most dangerous thing, in my opinion, about people like Dawkins is that they provide the useless swarming masses with yet another Us vs Them fight with the flimsy veneer that its a logical and reasoned position. Pesudoskepticism in any form appears disingenuous and dangerous.

Quote from: atrasicarius on April 15, 2008, 08:17:30 AMWell, I cant speak for any other atheists, but I dont have a problem with religion unless they try and dictate how other people should live their lives. If you want to do religion, thats fine with me, just dont try and make me do it. I have pretty much the same view of drugs. If you want to do crack and heroin and meth, thats your call, as long as you dont come near me while you're high.

This atheist agrees.

QuoteWhat Dawkins actually said about evolution and religion was that it was advantageous for young children to believe what adults told them without question. The value of this is pretty obvious (dont go out in the forest alone, there are saber tooth tigers), but it explains why religion has stuck around for so long. Also, humans have a natural need to explore and understand the things around them, which makes sense evolutionarily. Religion got started as a way to explain how the world worked before we could answer the question with science. However, there's no natural need for religion like there is for sex. If a child grew up never hearing about religion, chances are the idea wouldnt just randomly occur to them. The only thing that would make that happen is the question, "What happens after we die?" which is another example of the drive to explore and understand.

I don't know if the child won't make up religious-like explanations though.  Without any explanation I'm fairly confident that an individual would start connecting unconnected phenomenon and attribute it to some "magical" power.

QuoteIf atheism becomes a state project, it becomes just like any other religion, that can be used to manipulate people. The whole point of atheism is that it's nothing. If you never heard of religion, you would automatically be an atheist. If you turn atheism into something, it becomes just another religion, with beliefs, priests, sacred laws and the whole thing. Not that I dont think Stalin and co genuinely didnt believe in God, but for them, it was Atheism, whereas for us, it's atheism. The real point was Communism, of which atheism was just a part. Our atheism doesnt imply anything about our other beliefs and principles.

Which is part of the reason I try hard to not self-identify as an atheist.  My lack of belief is not something I want to use to define myself.

QuoteA secular state in which religion has no role is two different things. Right now, we have one (sort of), but obviously not the other. If any atheist liberals do believe that religion will automatically decline in a secular state, they need to take a look at the numbers. America was founded by Puritans, and it would take another revolution to get rid of them.

There was a decline in religion during the 19th century, but then fundamentalist movements started up.  And during the Cold War it really entered into politics to 'defeat the godless commies.'

QuoteOf course all civilizations fall eventually. What I would hope is that a civilization such as Dawkins and co describe would last long enough to get us past the point were we could easily blow ourselves up. It could last for 200 years, it could last for 200,000 years, as long as it lasts long enough to get us past the danger zone. Also, I'd kind of prefer it if it could last until after I'm dead.

If there's nothing else humans are good at, it's killing each other.  Even without religion to incite conflict we'll find some other reason.

QuoteI havent heard this before. How did liberalism come from Christianity? Was it from some offshoot like Quakerism or something? Anyway, liberalism and atheism arent really connected for me. I'm an atheist because that's the logical conclusion of the scientific method, and I'm a liberal because I believe that people deserve to be free and able to make their own choices.

I just have to say that the Quakers aren't very Christian anyways, there are a good chunk of them who don't believe in a god.

QuoteI dont want to repress religion, I just want religion to stop repressing me. Remember, there are more religious people who want world government than secularists. It's not an atheist thing. The only real thing standing in the way of world government is barriers of ethnic and religious hatred. Now, that's obviously a rather large roadblock, but if you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

I wouldn't mind if it disappeared to be honest.  Holy books have been used too much as a basis for hate, anti-intellectualism, racism, misogyny. and genocide.  There may be some good stuff in there, but religion brings in a lot of sick shit.  But what do you expect when people try to apply social rules from the 1st century to our age?

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2008, 06:36:09 PMThe choice of labels is that of the atheist, is it not? No one says "You are Atheist!!" rather people say "I Am Atheist"...  the individual chooses the label and wears it like a crown. I've debated several atheists on the topic. After all, they don't get all excited and say "I'm an Aunicornist" or an "Aleprechaunist" or an "Asaschquachist"... they specify a'theist'. Most of them, when pressed admit that its not a position of reason and logic (that position would be "I have not seen evidence for God"), but it is a position of Social Statement. 'We Atheists must stick together against 'Them'!"

The most dangerous thing, in my opinion, about people like Dawkins is that they provide the useless swarming masses with yet another Us vs Them fight with the flimsy veneer that its a logical and reasoned position. Pesudoskepticism in any form appears disingenuous and dangerous.

There are idiots in any group.  As for myself, I did say earlier in this post that my atheism is not a core part of who I am.  I think the only reason that it's important to some people is because there are so many who are theistic.  I'd want to separate myself from the people that believe in unicorns too (incidentally, I've talked with a Christian who believes in unicorns because they're in the Bible).

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2008, 06:36:09 PM

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 15, 2008, 06:09:42 PM

I found this quite fascinating.  "Atheist" and "Anarchist" both have connotations that are probably quite quite different from what many practitioners of both consider themselves to be doing.  For instance, in the bible belt of the south-east USA, I was once asked in all seriousness whether I was really an atheist, because I seemed like a nice guy and not somebody who worshipped satan.

The choice of labels is that of the atheist, is it not? No one says "You are Atheist!!" rather people say "I Am Atheist"...  the individual chooses the label and wears it like a crown. I've debated several atheists on the topic. After all, they don't get all excited and say "I'm an Aunicornist" or an "Aleprechaunist" or an "Asaschquachist"... they specify a'theist'. Most of them, when pressed admit that its not a position of reason and logic (that position would be "I have not seen evidence for God"), but it is a position of Social Statement. 'We Atheists must stick together against 'Them'!"

The most dangerous thing, in my opinion, about people like Dawkins is that they provide the useless swarming masses with yet another Us vs Them fight with the flimsy veneer that its a logical and reasoned position. Pesudoskepticism in any form appears disingenuous and dangerous.

OFUK. Carl Sagan, come BAAAAAAACK! We've got another pseudo-something on the loose!

Quote from: Cainad on April 15, 2008, 06:51:56 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2008, 06:36:09 PM

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 15, 2008, 06:09:42 PM

I found this quite fascinating.  "Atheist" and "Anarchist" both have connotations that are probably quite quite different from what many practitioners of both consider themselves to be doing.  For instance, in the bible belt of the south-east USA, I was once asked in all seriousness whether I was really an atheist, because I seemed like a nice guy and not somebody who worshipped satan.

The choice of labels is that of the atheist, is it not? No one says "You are Atheist!!" rather people say "I Am Atheist"...  the individual chooses the label and wears it like a crown. I've debated several atheists on the topic. After all, they don't get all excited and say "I'm an Aunicornist" or an "Aleprechaunist" or an "Asaschquachist"... they specify a'theist'. Most of them, when pressed admit that its not a position of reason and logic (that position would be "I have not seen evidence for God"), but it is a position of Social Statement. 'We Atheists must stick together against 'Them'!"

The most dangerous thing, in my opinion, about people like Dawkins is that they provide the useless swarming masses with yet another Us vs Them fight with the flimsy veneer that its a logical and reasoned position. Pesudoskepticism in any form appears disingenuous and dangerous.

OFUK. Carl Sagan, come BAAAAAAACK! We've got another pseudo-something on the loose!

ROFL

Quote from: Vene on April 15, 2008, 06:50:54 PM
I'd want to separate myself from the people that believe in unicorns too (incidentally, I've talked with a Christian who believes in unicorns because they're in the Bible).

(http://www.carisaswenson.com/images/Narwhal%20unicorn.jpg)

!!!!!

Quote from: Vene on April 15, 2008, 06:50:54 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2008, 06:36:09 PMThe choice of labels is that of the atheist, is it not? No one says "You are Atheist!!" rather people say "I Am Atheist"...  the individual chooses the label and wears it like a crown. I've debated several atheists on the topic. After all, they don't get all excited and say "I'm an Aunicornist" or an "Aleprechaunist" or an "Asaschquachist"... they specify a'theist'. Most of them, when pressed admit that its not a position of reason and logic (that position would be "I have not seen evidence for God"), but it is a position of Social Statement. 'We Atheists must stick together against 'Them'!"

The most dangerous thing, in my opinion, about people like Dawkins is that they provide the useless swarming masses with yet another Us vs Them fight with the flimsy veneer that its a logical and reasoned position. Pesudoskepticism in any form appears disingenuous and dangerous.

There are idiots in any group.  As for myself, I did say earlier in this post that my atheism is not a core part of who I am.  I think the only reason that it's important to some people is because there are so many who are theistic.  I'd want to separate myself from the people that believe in unicorns too (incidentally, I've talked with a Christian who believes in unicorns because they're in the Bible).

There are idiots in any group (see 23FNORDOMGZPINEALETC)... and your position is, IMO, relatively sane. However, at least in my experience, it seems that the majority of people that proudly claim to be atheist, tend to have a very Us vs Them concept and often wear a communion wafer on their shoulder ;-) I am surprised at the sheer numbers of atheists I've talked with that think "flaw in Christianity= proof of no god". Certainly this isn't true for ALL atheists... but it seems to be a common 'feature' among most, but not all, of the ones I've met and talked with.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2008, 06:57:41 PM
There are idiots in any group (see 23FNORDOMGZPINEALETC)... and your position is, IMO, relatively sane. However, at least in my experience, it seems that the majority of people that proudly claim to be atheist, tend to have a very Us vs Them concept and often wear a communion wafer on their shoulder ;-) I am surprised at the sheer numbers of atheists I've talked with that think "flaw in Christianity= proof of no god". Certainly this isn't true for ALL atheists... but it seems to be a common 'feature' among most, but not all, of the ones I've met and talked with.

Militant Atheists are scary and bothersome.  I would like to point out that, at least in my opinion, the people who see "flaw in Christianity = proof of no God" are not really Atheist, but Anti-Christianists.  Personally, I find the spiritual aspects of religion in general pretty fascinating.  I just don't like Dogma which is, let's face it, both what religion shouldn't be about and what it normally devolves into eventually.  I read somewhere about the differences in Christianity when it was an "underground" religion, in the early Roman times, and after it had become the State Religion and widely accepted.  Fascinating stuff.

I try to classify myself as "areligionist" if absolutely pressed.  That or I tell people I'm a... Neo-Zen Discordian Anti-Radical-Post-Humanistic Taoist who is interested to know how much will fit in the religion slot on this form.

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 15, 2008, 07:02:08 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2008, 06:57:41 PM
There are idiots in any group (see 23FNORDOMGZPINEALETC)... and your position is, IMO, relatively sane. However, at least in my experience, it seems that the majority of people that proudly claim to be atheist, tend to have a very Us vs Them concept and often wear a communion wafer on their shoulder ;-) I am surprised at the sheer numbers of atheists I've talked with that think "flaw in Christianity= proof of no god". Certainly this isn't true for ALL atheists... but it seems to be a common 'feature' among most, but not all, of the ones I've met and talked with.

Militant Atheists are scary and bothersome.  I would like to point out that, at least in my opinion, the people who see "flaw in Christianity = proof of no God" are not really Atheist, but Anti-Christianists.  Personally, I find the spiritual aspects of religion in general pretty fascinating.  I just don't like Dogma which is, let's face it, both what religion shouldn't be about and what it normally devolves into eventually.  I read somewhere about the differences in Christianity when it was an "underground" religion, in the early Roman times, and after it had become the State Religion and widely accepted.  Fascinating stuff.

I try to classify myself as "areligionist" if absolutely pressed.  That or I tell people I'm a... Neo-Zen Discordian Anti-Radical-Post-Humanistic Taoist who is interested to know how much will fit in the religion slot on this form.

I find that people who tend to identify as 'discordian and atheist tend to hold a position similar to yours, which I think (personally) fits more closely with Model Agnosticism. I wonder how many self-identified atheists would actually consider themselves either Atheistic, Anti-Christian, Agnostic or Anti-Religion if not fur the current "Atheist is Cool" meme? ;-)

Warring factions within me argue for Primacy of Science (atheism) and Who The Fuck Really Knows (agnosticism).  Maybe I should just start identifying as a Sophist.  Then nobody would know what I was talking about anyway.  Hurrah!

Oh, and not to be left out: I wonder how many people would identify as Christian (or any other religion, for that matter) if their parents hadn't raised them that way?  :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

I used to post on a forum devoted to Sophistry.

It died tho.   :sad:

That is sad.  :sad:

I just had a revelation.  If I say I worship Science, does that make me... a Scientist?  8)

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 15, 2008, 07:10:40 PM
Warring factions within me argue for Primacy of Science (atheism) and Who The Fuck Really Knows (agnosticism).  Maybe I should just start identifying as a Sophist.  Then nobody would know what I was talking about anyway.  Hurrah!

I would argue that Primacy of Science would still argue an agnostic position... Science can speak only of observable, repeatable phenomena. It says nothing about non-observable, or non-repeatable phenomena. ;-)

Quote
Oh, and not to be left out: I wonder how many people would identify as Christian (or any other religion, for that matter) if their parents hadn't raised them that way?  :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

I think very few would be... I am of the opinion that baby humans tend to adopt the beliefs of the tribe that they are born into, be it Aztec or Anglican.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2008, 07:17:04 PM
I would argue that Primacy of Science would still argue an agnostic position... Science can speak only of observable, repeatable phenomena. It says nothing about non-observable, or non-repeatable phenomena. ;-)

Touché.  I guess I'll have to stop telling people I'm "essentially an atheist" then  :p

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 15, 2008, 07:23:33 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2008, 07:17:04 PM
I would argue that Primacy of Science would still argue an agnostic position... Science can speak only of observable, repeatable phenomena. It says nothing about non-observable, or non-repeatable phenomena. ;-)

Touché.  I guess I'll have to stop telling people I'm "essentially an atheist" then  :p

OSHI!!! I CONVERTED DE AFIEST!!!!  :wink:

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 15, 2008, 07:02:08 PM
I try to classify myself as "areligionist" if absolutely pressed.  That or I tell people I'm a... Neo-Zen Discordian Anti-Radical-Post-Humanistic Taoist who is interested to know how much will fit in the religion slot on this form.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2008, 07:24:46 PM
OSHI!!! I CONVERTED DE AFIEST!!!!  :wink:

;)

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2008, 07:07:13 PM

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 15, 2008, 07:02:08 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2008, 06:57:41 PM
There are idiots in any group (see 23FNORDOMGZPINEALETC)... and your position is, IMO, relatively sane. However, at least in my experience, it seems that the majority of people that proudly claim to be atheist, tend to have a very Us vs Them concept and often wear a communion wafer on their shoulder ;-) I am surprised at the sheer numbers of atheists I've talked with that think "flaw in Christianity= proof of no god". Certainly this isn't true for ALL atheists... but it seems to be a common 'feature' among most, but not all, of the ones I've met and talked with.

Militant Atheists are scary and bothersome.  I would like to point out that, at least in my opinion, the people who see "flaw in Christianity = proof of no God" are not really Atheist, but Anti-Christianists.  Personally, I find the spiritual aspects of religion in general pretty fascinating.  I just don't like Dogma which is, let's face it, both what religion shouldn't be about and what it normally devolves into eventually.  I read somewhere about the differences in Christianity when it was an "underground" religion, in the early Roman times, and after it had become the State Religion and widely accepted.  Fascinating stuff.

I try to classify myself as "areligionist" if absolutely pressed.  That or I tell people I'm a... Neo-Zen Discordian Anti-Radical-Post-Humanistic Taoist who is interested to know how much will fit in the religion slot on this form.

I find that people who tend to identify as 'discordian and atheist tend to hold a position similar to yours, which I think (personally) fits more closely with Model Agnosticism. I wonder how many self-identified atheists would actually consider themselves either Atheistic, Anti-Christian, Agnostic or Anti-Religion if not fur the current "Atheist is Cool" meme? ;-)

Atheist is Cool?  Not in the States it's not.

And I do tend to tell people I'm an atheist other than Discordian, because nobody knows that the fuck "Discordian" means.  And I really don't feel like trying to explain it.

I think the "Atheist is Cool Meme" is a reference to the (albeit controversial) popularity of books like Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Hitchens' "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" which in certain circles have been widely popular and "cool".  So I guess he meant "Cool in the sense that Hot Topic is Cool"

Religion is bollocks. Whether there is a 'supernatural world' or not might be questionable (for now), but Religion, which is any system of political manipulation whose authority and validity is in unfounded declarations about unprovable ideas, is absolute and complete bullshit. So while I do not advocate atheism, because it lends itself to premature conclusions just as well as religion does, I would not oppose enforcing agnosticism on the masses, where there is a very strict system designed to eliminate religion as a motivating factor in any interpersonal relationships, public or otherwise.

You mean as in going against the mainstream, who seem to be caught up in a Christian/Muslim spag-fight/hissy fit of epic proportions?

Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 15, 2008, 07:34:31 PM
I think the "Atheist is Cool Meme" is a reference to the (albeit controversial) popularity of books like Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Hitchens' "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" which in certain circles have been widely popular and "cool".  So I guess he meant "Cool in the sense that Hot Topic is Cool"

That makes more sense.  I don't doubt the existence of atheist in-groups.

Quote from: vexati0n on April 15, 2008, 07:37:04 PMSo while I do not advocate atheism, because it lends itself to premature conclusions just as well as religion does, I would not oppose enforcing agnosticism on the masses, where there is a very strict system designed to eliminate religion as a motivating factor in any interpersonal relationships, public or otherwise.

Weak atheism is agnosticism where the individual doesn't believe.  It's the strong atheists that are nuts.

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:37:53 PMAtheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

I think I may have to steal this line from you.

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:37:53 PM
You mean as in going against the mainstream, who seem to be caught up in a Christian/Muslim spag-fight/hissy fit of epic proportions?

Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

Except there really is restriction, if not outright oppression, that stems from nothing but the religious superstition of the stupid.

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:37:53 PM
Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

:mittens:

Errr...  Does that mean that emo was originally there so intelligent and well-educated people in first world countries could feel oppressed?  :?

Yes.

Emo started out as the Emotionally vulnerable hardcore kids.

Society hated them and they got beat up by Agnostic Front fans.

So then, in the future...

"Shut up, you athefag." and "Don't be such an athe" will become common phrases of derogatory import?!

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 15, 2008, 07:41:06 PM

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:37:53 PM
Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

:mittens:

Errr...  Does that mean that emo was originally there so intelligent and well-educated people in first world countries could feel oppressed?  :?

No its so middle class suburban kids can feel marginalized and rejected by the world.

But its the same sort of 'fashionable persecution complex' which seems to be the meta-meme the world is buying into right now, be the bearers Christian, Muslim, Liberal, Conservative or Atheist.

Quote from: vexati0n on April 15, 2008, 07:40:35 PM

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:37:53 PM
You mean as in going against the mainstream, who seem to be caught up in a Christian/Muslim spag-fight/hissy fit of epic proportions?

Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

Except there really is restriction, if not outright oppression, that stems from nothing but the religious superstition of the stupid.

Which could be solved by secularism, which does not rely on atheists to flourish.

Of course, the US is a different case to the UK, but over here, the religious nutters are just another small lobby with a big mouth, no different to the arms industry or pharmaceuticals.

Quote from: vexati0n on April 15, 2008, 07:40:35 PM

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:37:53 PM
You mean as in going against the mainstream, who seem to be caught up in a Christian/Muslim spag-fight/hissy fit of epic proportions?

Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

Except there really is restriction, if not outright oppression, that stems from nothing but the religious superstition of the stupid.

I still wouldn't call it oppression.  We can still vote, hold office (for the most part), and live peacefully.  Yes, it is hard for an atheist to get elected, but it's not the system that's at fault for this, it's the overly-religious fuckwits.  It'd be better for the atheists that don't just rally against religion be known as atheists.  Right now the people that are known to the public to be atheists are all vehemently opposing religion.  There needs to be a balance (after all, religious dogma is bullshit).

And it's not nearly as bad as the persecution complex that you see in fundamentalist Christians.

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:48:19 PM

Quote from: vexati0n on April 15, 2008, 07:40:35 PM

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:37:53 PM
You mean as in going against the mainstream, who seem to be caught up in a Christian/Muslim spag-fight/hissy fit of epic proportions?

Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

Except there really is restriction, if not outright oppression, that stems from nothing but the religious superstition of the stupid.

Which could be solved by secularism, which does not rely on atheists to flourish.

Of course, the US is a different case to the UK, but over here, the religious nutters are just another small lobby with a big mouth, no different to the arms industry or pharmaceuticals.

I support secularism a lot more than an atheist state.  But, sometimes it's hard not to when jackasses like Pat Robertson have so much political sway.

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:47:16 PM
But its the same sort of 'fashionable persecution complex' which seems to be the meta-meme the world is buying into right now, be the bearers Christian, Muslim, Liberal, Conservative or Atheist.

That makes sense to me.  Underdogism has reached new highs.  I blame Walt Disney.

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:48:19 PM
Of course, the US is a different case to the UK, but over here, the religious nutters are just another small lobby with a big mouth, no different to the arms industry or pharmaceuticals.

I love the Church of England's take on itself.  I once read a quote by the head of it who compared the Church to a "doddering old woman in the corner who just rambles to herself all the time and everybody politely ignores".

They're actually fairly vocal now.  They forced a couple of issues on Parliament recently....but I don't feel especially under threat from them, because the Commons is made up of people used to getting their own way, and because no-one in the UK besides a few BNP-esque nutters and a few Muslims wants religion to have anything to do with politics.

Sure, in cases there are problems where religious people want to try and force their inanity on everyone else.  And they should be stopped.  But many of the ethnocentric Atheists, such as Sam Harris, seem to feel the existence of religious people is de facto a threat to their personal well-being, regardless of their beliefs.

Of course, I also find their 'skepticism' annoying, since it only seems to extend to dismissing the easiest and most facile philosophical arguments ever.  Hume and Nietzsche were skeptics, many of these guys are clowns who have no interest in the truth, only of proving their own superiority over/persecution at the hands of the 'religious people'.

And those are the sort that annoy me.

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:56:42 PM
Sure, in cases there are problems where religious people want to try and force their inanity on everyone else.  And they should be stopped.  But many of the ethnocentric Atheists, such as Sam Harris, seem to feel the existence of religious people is de facto a threat to their personal well-being, regardless of their beliefs.

Of course, I also find their 'skepticism' annoying, since it only seems to extend to dismissing the easiest and most facile philosophical arguments ever.  Hume and Nietzsche were skeptics, many of these guys are clowns who have no interest in the truth, only of proving their own superiority over/persecution at the hands of the 'religious people'.

And those are the sort that annoy me.

Definitely.  They don't seem to realise (or perhaps just don't care) that what they're doing is the exact same thing as the extremist religious crazies. 

Then again, they're probably only in it because publishing controversial books that piss people off is a great racket.

Its what I plan on doing.  I'm going to take skepticism to its ultimate conclusion and apply it to everything that is popular.

Cain,
will piss off everyone.

Quote from: Vene on April 15, 2008, 07:31:36 PM

Atheist is Cool?  Not in the States it's not.

I think the other posters addressed this... It's cool to be anti-establishment, at least among the 30 and under crowds that I've been wandering about in.

Quote
Of course, I also find their skepticism annoying, since it only seems to extend to dismissing the easiest and most facile philosophical arguments ever.

That's a Skeptical Motorcycle you're riding there, Cain! :)

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 08:00:28 PM
Its what I plan on doing.  I'm going to take skepticism to its ultimate conclusion and apply it to everything that is popular.

Cain,
will piss off everyone.

possible chapters:

"Reality Shows cannot exist in reality, since they are only ever in their final form after many hours of tedious editing and occasional re-shoots."

"Atheism and Religion of any sort are identical."

"Neither free sex, one-partner-only sex, nor a lack of sex at all are good"

"Why Communists, Liberals, Conservatives, Nationalists, Socialists, Anarchists, Fascists, Greens and Centrist parties are ruining YOUR LIFE"

but .. but .. some of my best friends are fascists!

Quote from: triple zero on April 15, 2008, 08:13:56 PM
Some of my best friends are fascists!

Actually sounds like a pretty good book title for this category too.

Man, I checked this thread like 4 or 5 hours ago and there was only 1 page.

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:37:53 PM
You mean as in going against the mainstream, who seem to be caught up in a Christian/Muslim spag-fight/hissy fit of epic proportions?

Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

:cry: :emo:

I do think thats a little unfair, though. I mean, do you want your kids (if you had kids) being taught "intelligent design"? Not that it's a lot worse than some of the other shit that gets taught in school, but that doesnt mean we should just ignore it.

QuoteThey're actually fairly vocal now.  They forced a couple of issues on Parliament recently....but I don't feel especially under threat from them, because the Commons is made up of people used to getting their own way, and because no-one in the UK besides a few BNP-esque nutters and a few Muslims wants religion to have anything to do with politics.

Sure, in cases there are problems where religious people want to try and force their inanity on everyone else.  And they should be stopped.  But many of the ethnocentric Atheists, such as Sam Harris, seem to feel the existence of religious people is de facto a threat to their personal well-being, regardless of their beliefs.

Of course, I also find their 'skepticism' annoying, since it only seems to extend to dismissing the easiest and most facile philosophical arguments ever.  Hume and Nietzsche were skeptics, many of these guys are clowns who have no interest in the truth, only of proving their own superiority over/persecution at the hands of the 'religious people'.

And those are the sort that annoy me.

Agreed. An enforced atheist state is just as retarded as an enforced religious state. What it's about is freedom. The reason I call myself an atheist is because I want to let people know were I stand without having to go through the whole, "I'm an agnostic, but..." thing. In terms of the Christian old man in the sky god, I'm agnostic in the same way I'm technically agnostic about Russel's Teapot, lizard Jew people, and the Matrix. In terms of a deist type god who doesnt interfere with the universe after he creates it, I have to say I'm agnostic, since we dont really have any way to know what happened before existence. I do think M Theory has some pretty interesting ideas, and I lean towards that more than some creator, but we really have no way to know. Of course, at that point it's all philosophical, since the whole point is God doesnt interfere. Which is why I call myself an atheist.

Quote from: atrasicarius on April 15, 2008, 10:52:17 PM
Man, I checked this thread like 4 or 5 hours ago and there was only 1 page.

Quote from: Cain on April 15, 2008, 07:37:53 PM
You mean as in going against the mainstream, who seem to be caught up in a Christian/Muslim spag-fight/hissy fit of epic proportions?

Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

:cry: :emo:

I do think thats a little unfair, though. I mean, do you want your kids (if you had kids) being taught "intelligent design"? Not that it's a lot worse than some of the other shit that gets taught in school, but that doesnt mean we should just ignore it.

Intelligent design was unintelligently designed.  It's had no success so far in becoming part of the public school's curriculum.

If you wanted to point out anti-atheist tripe I think that this (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm) is a better example.
For those who don't click the link it's a list of the states that require a belief in a god to hold office.

My favourite dumb fundy quote was from a mississippi statesman (I think) actually an urban legend, oh well :(

Quote from: snopes forum
Coincidentally, Brian Chapman has found what's certainly a very early telling (the earliest found so far, I think) of "If English was good enough for Jesus . . . " in the 4 December 1926 issue of The New Yorker (Talk of the Town, Pg. 27),

    A gentleman connected with the Rockefeller Institute discloses that, among hundreds of letters of denunciation received by the institution during the past year was one from a man in Arkansas who took the view that all this modern education is dangerous and that the new-fangled practice of grounding preachers in Latin and Greek is especially pernicious. They ought to be taught in English, and only English, he said, adding in conclusion, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 16, 2008, 12:18:14 AM
My favourite dumb fundy quote was from a mississippi statesman (I think) actually an urban legend, oh well :(

Quote from: snopes forum
Coincidentally, Brian Chapman has found what's certainly a very early telling (the earliest found so far, I think) of "If English was good enough for Jesus . . . " in the 4 December 1926 issue of The New Yorker (Talk of the Town, Pg. 27),

    A gentleman connected with the Rockefeller Institute discloses that, among hundreds of letters of denunciation received by the institution during the past year was one from a man in Arkansas who took the view that all this modern education is dangerous and that the new-fangled practice of grounding preachers in Latin and Greek is especially pernicious. They ought to be taught in English, and only English, he said, adding in conclusion, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

That's ok, there are plenty of real ones.
For example:
(http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232)

QuoteOne of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

[/url]
or this:
(http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=1060867&postcount=72)

QuoteGravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.

Evolution: Very obvious, first of all we know that a "change in allele frequency" doesn't exist, and furthermore that humans cannot possible come from "Apelike" anscestors.

Global Warming: 30 years ago, evolutionists were saying "global cooling", they're just flip flopping again. They don't know what's going on with the climate. Reality is that it is quite stable, and has remained the same since the past 6000 years of its existance.

Plate Techonics: Continents do not move. The earth has only been in existance for roughly 6000 years, this is another one of the "package theories" that evolutionists try to have us believe. Its really simple. If you accept Evolution, then you must accept an old earth. If you accept an old earth, then you must accept an old universe. Before you know it, you're waste deep in nonsense without any empirical evidence to support any of it. You end up with this: (1)evolution-->(2)plate techtonics-->(3)big bang

Atomic Theory: We are simple unable to manipulate objects that are so small. Physics in of itself is a very sketchy field of "science", because its so uncertain of itself and always incapable of replicating their hypothesis or experimentation.

[/url]

QuoteThat just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Ever heard of THE SUN?

Then again, judging by the "earth was made 6000 years ago" argument, God is younger than our sun! :fap:

Wait wait wait, what the flying fuck?

Quote
Physics in of itself is a very sketchy field of "science", because its so uncertain of itself and always incapable of replicating their hypothesis or experimentation.

:x

I love the idea that plate tectonics proves the big bang, too.

Can I ask where you're getting those from?  They just seem too... blatant to accept. :(

Sorry, I tried to post the url in for the quotes.
The first one (http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232)
The second one (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=1060867&postcount=72)
And I found them here. (http://fstdt.com) (along with a shitload of similar quotes)

And yes, those people are being completely and totally serious.

FIRST THERE WAS NOTHING

AND THEN THAT NOTHING...

EXPLODED!

what someone should do is write a atheistic book debunking discordism

Quote from: Vene on April 16, 2008, 01:15:56 AM
Sorry, I tried to post the url in for the quotes.
The first one (http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232)
The second one (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=1060867&postcount=72)
And I found them here. (http://fstdt.com) (along with a shitload of similar quotes)

And yes, those people are being completely and totally serious.

I hate to be a lulzkiller, but a lot of the quotes that end up on fstdt are actually from trolls. I, myself, had two quotes put up there after I went trolling on Rapture Ready. My guess is that those two are both trolls. They're just TOO loaded with irony.

Quote from: atrasicarius on April 16, 2008, 02:52:52 AM

Quote from: Vene on April 16, 2008, 01:15:56 AM
Sorry, I tried to post the url in for the quotes.
The first one (http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232)
The second one (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=1060867&postcount=72)
And I found them here. (http://fstdt.com) (along with a shitload of similar quotes)

And yes, those people are being completely and totally serious.

I hate to be a lulzkiller, but a lot of the quotes that end up on fstdt are actually from trolls. I, myself, had two quotes put up there after I went trolling on Rapture Ready. My guess is that those two are both trolls. They're just TOO loaded with irony.

QuoteCan you get pregant from a toilet seat?

How long does semen last when not inside a woman? Does it die instantly? I get worried I may have gotten my sister pregnant if any of my sperm got on the toilet seat we share. I did not mean to do this, and know to be more careful next time. I am not ready to have kids, and I don't want to go to jail.

tell me thats not a troll
the fact that many of these (i dont want to say it but I will) so called skeptics are falling for it makes it all the more interesting

I doubt that's a troll. If something sounds ironic beyond belief, then chances are it is, but if it's just stupid/clueless/bigoted, it's probably genuine.

As has already been said in this thread, a lot of "skeptics" arent really thinking for themselves; they're just blindly buying into a different story. See also: ZOMG23PINEALFNORD

Quote from: atrasicarius on April 16, 2008, 02:52:52 AM

Quote from: Vene on April 16, 2008, 01:15:56 AM
Sorry, I tried to post the url in for the quotes.
The first one (http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232)
The second one (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=1060867&postcount=72)
And I found them here. (http://fstdt.com) (along with a shitload of similar quotes)

And yes, those people are being completely and totally serious.

I hate to be a lulzkiller, but a lot of the quotes that end up on fstdt are actually from trolls. I, myself, had two quotes put up there after I went trolling on Rapture Ready. My guess is that those two are both trolls. They're just TOO loaded with irony.

I'm sure there are trolls, but there are some people that are very much for real as well.  With a good troll it can be hard to tell which is which.

I must admit i never really ever checked at this site
im going to be laughing myself to sleep tonight

Quote from: Vene on April 16, 2008, 01:15:56 AM
Sorry, I tried to post the url in for the quotes.
The first one (http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232)
The second one (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=1060867&postcount=72)
And I found them here. (http://fstdt.com) (along with a shitload of similar quotes)

And yes, those people are being completely and totally serious.

Oh, well.  forums. Thank goodness for that.  I was afraid they'd been said by real people.  :lol:

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 16, 2008, 03:43:23 AM

Quote from: Vene on April 16, 2008, 01:15:56 AM
Sorry, I tried to post the url in for the quotes.
The first one (http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232)
The second one (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=1060867&postcount=72)
And I found them here. (http://fstdt.com) (along with a shitload of similar quotes)

And yes, those people are being completely and totally serious.

Oh, well.  forums. Thank goodness for that.  I was afraid they'd been said by real people.  :lol:

This is true, the internet attracts all kinds of stupid.  Thankfully, they have little influence.

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 16, 2008, 03:43:23 AM

Quote from: Vene on April 16, 2008, 01:15:56 AM
Sorry, I tried to post the url in for the quotes.
The first one (http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232)
The second one (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=1060867&postcount=72)
And I found them here. (http://fstdt.com) (along with a shitload of similar quotes)

And yes, those people are being completely and totally serious.

Oh, well.  forums. Thank goodness for that.  I was afraid they'd been said by real people.  :lol:

hell yah

QuoteIf you think slavery is wrong, then are servants wrong? Are workers for a shop wrong? A slave is just the same as an empolyee at Walmart, they are working for someone.

remember
these people vote
:lol:

and yes im loving every minute of it

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 16, 2008, 03:43:23 AM

Quote from: Vene on April 16, 2008, 01:15:56 AM
Sorry, I tried to post the url in for the quotes.
The first one (http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232)
The second one (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=1060867&postcount=72)
And I found them here. (http://fstdt.com) (along with a shitload of similar quotes)

And yes, those people are being completely and totally serious.

Oh, well.  forums. Thank goodness for that.  I was afraid they'd been said by real people.  :lol:

Some of them have.

QuoteJust like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.

Pat Robertson

QuoteOne theory is that the pre-Flood Earth had a canopy of ice above it that squeezed the atmosphere down to, say, 15 miles [...] If you squeezed the air down to 15 miles - instead of 100 - it would be more clear because there would be less distortion - atmospheric twinkle it's called. And probably this canopy of ice would act as a photo-amplifier where you would actually see things much more clearly. That's one theory that [in] the pre-Flood world you don't need a telescope - you could see incredibly well.

Kent Hovind

Scary shit.

QuoteJust like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.

Pat Robertson

Lawl! Having the ash of burnt friends and family members rain down on you as you collapse of cold and starvation cannot compare to the mild disdain we have put up with!
      \
:mullet:

hey... it isn't just mild disdain. they're not that petty. what they have to put up with is far, far worse than a little disdain. do you realize there are, literally, millions of people out there who simply refuse to let Christians tell them who to be and how to behave? I mean... sure, kill a few million Jews... no big loss, right? But there are whole churches full of people who are being deprived of their inalienable right to absolutely control the world!

I think the crazy sect of Mormonism that's getting in trouble now for, you know, raping little girls is trying to use the nazi/jew comparison as well.

Because clearly, Hitler didn't like the Jews because they were raping girls.  And he took those Jews away that he did take away for a good reason, like they were being raped.  :fap:

(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/roflbot-QRMH.jpg)

*sniff*  The poor, poor Christian majority.  It's just not fair they've endured all this freebased hatred from a scattered bunch of homosexuals, atheists, communists and others of their ilk.  Not to mention Nazi, genocidal hatred.  I mean, when 80% of a country's citizens are being persecuted like those in Nazi Germany, someone is using a really pathetic comparison!

It is, in theory, possible.

See: South Africa.

And of course, Christians have been persecuted in the former Soviet Union, China and the Islamic world.  But last time I checked, a government that enshrines freedom of religion as one of its highest laws, and actually bends over backwards to accomodate some faiths is probably not all that dangerous.  Its like Christians in the UK who whine because the laws dont allow them to discriminate against gays, Jews or Muslims.  Apparently, that is persecution or soemthing.

Lol  Good point (although, Christians in US are not just majority in #'s but also in terms of power).

Really?

Last I heard, 78% or so of the US population called itself Christian.  No denomination had an absolute majority though...

Actually, I have decided to let the lovely Violent Acres to make all my decisions for me from now on, since she has made me nod my head in agreement far too many times already, and I just read this gem

http://www.violentacres.com/archives/352/atheists-are-snobs

The problem with Atheists is most of them are snobs.

Atheists think they're being clever with their spaghetti monster analogies and fairy tale rhetoric, but at the end of the day, they come off sound like condescending pricks.

Furthermore, any group of people claiming superior intelligence that willingly engages in the fight of a losing battle automatically loses credibility. However, Atheists are too dumb to realize they're fighting a losing battle, so they persist with the lecturing and the withering stares. Atheists have singled handedly ruined coffee shops with this crap.

I, myself, have not been able to claim belief in a higher power for many, many years. However, I can still see the value in Religion. Perhaps growing up without a strong parental figure in my life made me recognize the possible value of a loving Father figure up in the sky watching out for me. And hey, I try my best not forget that sometimes we all need something to believe in.

Most Atheists have the tendency to thumb their noses at Jesus, and then log onto World of Warcraft so they can pretend to be an orc for a couple of hours. They sneer at the Bible, but have no problem playing endless hours of vampire role playing games. The message is clear. Fantasies are OK as long as they include gratuitous violence and some sort of porn.

It's no wonder Religious folks don't take them too seriously. Even the Quiet Intellectual Atheist comes across as if he's only denying belief to be aversive. It's hard not to pity the guy addicted to nonconformity like an addict to a needle.

Personally, I don't mind Religion. Religious leaders, on the other hand, really get my goat. But in my experience, when you approach someone by saying, "Hey. I don't mind Catholicism. It's just the creepy priests fucking altar boys that gross me out," members of the congregation are more apt to listen.

My only real issue with Religion (and ultimately, it's a fairly small issue) is that it teaches people to be good for all the wrong reasons. Whether it's the fear of a vengeful God and eternal life spent in the flames of Hell or the possibility of winning a ticket into Heaven accompanied by a boat load of virgins, people are still behaving well to escape punishment or to win everlasting life.

Ideally, people would be good because it's the right thing to do. Not because they want good Karma to come back on them and not because they're hoping for a personal cloud to lounge on in the sky, but because doing the right thing is its own reward. I'd like to live in a world where people aren't secretly hoping for a payoff for every single good dead they've ever done.

But then again, most of society today seems almost completely lacking in any moral compass whatsoever. So if 'God' does his part to scare some little bastard out of stealing my fucking car, I guess I can't complain too much.

Any Atheist who does seriously needs to reevaluate his priorities.

Quote from: Cain on April 17, 2008, 06:05:33 PM
Actually, I have decided to let the lovely Violent Acres to make all my decisions for me from now on, since she has made me nod my head in agreement far too many times already, and I just read this gem

http://www.violentacres.com/archives/352/atheists-are-snobs

The problem with Atheists is most of them are snobs.

Atheists think they're being clever with their spaghetti monster analogies and fairy tale rhetoric, but at the end of the day, they come off sound like condescending pricks.

Furthermore, any group of people claiming superior intelligence that willingly engages in the fight of a losing battle automatically loses credibility. However, Atheists are too dumb to realize they're fighting a losing battle, so they persist with the lecturing and the withering stares. Atheists have singled handedly ruined coffee shops with this crap.

I, myself, have not been able to claim belief in a higher power for many, many years. However, I can still see the value in Religion. Perhaps growing up without a strong parental figure in my life made me recognize the possible value of a loving Father figure up in the sky watching out for me. And hey, I try my best not forget that sometimes we all need something to believe in.

Most Atheists have the tendency to thumb their noses at Jesus, and then log onto World of Warcraft so they can pretend to be an orc for a couple of hours. They sneer at the Bible, but have no problem playing endless hours of vampire role playing games. The message is clear. Fantasies are OK as long as they include gratuitous violence and some sort of porn.

It's no wonder Religious folks don't take them too seriously. Even the Quiet Intellectual Atheist comes across as if he's only denying belief to be aversive. It's hard not to pity the guy addicted to nonconformity like an addict to a needle.

Personally, I don't mind Religion. Religious leaders, on the other hand, really get my goat. But in my experience, when you approach someone by saying, "Hey. I don't mind Catholicism. It's just the creepy priests fucking altar boys that gross me out," members of the congregation are more apt to listen.

My only real issue with Religion (and ultimately, it's a fairly small issue) is that it teaches people to be good for all the wrong reasons. Whether it's the fear of a vengeful God and eternal life spent in the flames of Hell or the possibility of winning a ticket into Heaven accompanied by a boat load of virgins, people are still behaving well to escape punishment or to win everlasting life.

Ideally, people would be good because it's the right thing to do. Not because they want good Karma to come back on them and not because they're hoping for a personal cloud to lounge on in the sky, but because doing the right thing is its own reward. I'd like to live in a world where people aren't secretly hoping for a payoff for every single good dead they've ever done.

But then again, most of society today seems almost completely lacking in any moral compass whatsoever. So if 'God' does his part to scare some little bastard out of stealing my fucking car, I guess I can't complain too much.

Any Atheist who does seriously needs to reevaluate his priorities.

(http://fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/67.jpg)

Quote from: Cain on April 17, 2008, 06:05:33 PM
the possibility of winning a ticket into Heaven accompanied by a boat load of virgins

I want me that boat load of virgins.

Quote

But then again, most of society today seems almost completely lacking in any moral compass whatsoever. So if 'God' does his part to scare some little bastard out of stealing my fucking car, I guess I can't complain too much.

Any Atheist who does seriously needs to reevaluate his priorities.

Good point, man.  I couldn't agree more with this post.  I've been finding all the atheist humor I stumble onto to be regurgitated crud based off the same tired jokes.  Maybe people should be judged for who they are instead of what they believe in?  I dunno.

When people say "religion has caused more wars than anything else," I tend to disagree.  I doubt anyone would seriously start a war to "convert the heathens."  I'm guessing religion was the card played by the ruling elite to manipualte the people into fighting (with the possible exception of the Crusades, but I'm no historian). 

Quote from: atrasicarius on April 17, 2008, 06:43:16 PM

Quote from: Cain on April 17, 2008, 06:05:33 PM
Actually, I have decided to let the lovely Violent Acres to make all my decisions for me from now on, since she has made me nod my head in agreement far too many times already, and I just read this gem

http://www.violentacres.com/archives/352/atheists-are-snobs

The problem with Atheists is most of them are snobs.

Atheists think they're being clever with their spaghetti monster analogies and fairy tale rhetoric, but at the end of the day, they come off sound like condescending pricks.

Furthermore, any group of people claiming superior intelligence that willingly engages in the fight of a losing battle automatically loses credibility. However, Atheists are too dumb to realize they're fighting a losing battle, so they persist with the lecturing and the withering stares. Atheists have singled handedly ruined coffee shops with this crap.

I, myself, have not been able to claim belief in a higher power for many, many years. However, I can still see the value in Religion. Perhaps growing up without a strong parental figure in my life made me recognize the possible value of a loving Father figure up in the sky watching out for me. And hey, I try my best not forget that sometimes we all need something to believe in.

Most Atheists have the tendency to thumb their noses at Jesus, and then log onto World of Warcraft so they can pretend to be an orc for a couple of hours. They sneer at the Bible, but have no problem playing endless hours of vampire role playing games. The message is clear. Fantasies are OK as long as they include gratuitous violence and some sort of porn.

It's no wonder Religious folks don't take them too seriously. Even the Quiet Intellectual Atheist comes across as if he's only denying belief to be aversive. It's hard not to pity the guy addicted to nonconformity like an addict to a needle.

Personally, I don't mind Religion. Religious leaders, on the other hand, really get my goat. But in my experience, when you approach someone by saying, "Hey. I don't mind Catholicism. It's just the creepy priests fucking altar boys that gross me out," members of the congregation are more apt to listen.

My only real issue with Religion (and ultimately, it's a fairly small issue) is that it teaches people to be good for all the wrong reasons. Whether it's the fear of a vengeful God and eternal life spent in the flames of Hell or the possibility of winning a ticket into Heaven accompanied by a boat load of virgins, people are still behaving well to escape punishment or to win everlasting life.

Ideally, people would be good because it's the right thing to do. Not because they want good Karma to come back on them and not because they're hoping for a personal cloud to lounge on in the sky, but because doing the right thing is its own reward. I'd like to live in a world where people aren't secretly hoping for a payoff for every single good dead they've ever done.

But then again, most of society today seems almost completely lacking in any moral compass whatsoever. So if 'God' does his part to scare some little bastard out of stealing my fucking car, I guess I can't complain too much.

Any Atheist who does seriously needs to reevaluate his priorities.

(http://fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/67.jpg)

Well yes.

I just felt annoyed I made serious arguments and hers was shorter, and funnier.

Quote from: Cain on April 17, 2008, 06:05:33 PM
Most Atheists have the tendency to thumb their noses at Jesus, and then log onto World of Warcraft so they can pretend to be an orc for a couple of hours. They sneer at the Bible, but have no problem playing endless hours of vampire role playing games. The message is clear. Fantasies are OK as long as they include gratuitous violence and some sort of porn.

I can't decide if this is a valid argument or not.  I want to say "Yes, but they don't believe that when they die some big orc/vampire in the sky is going to take them away to magical happy-land where everyone will be REAL vampires and orcs!"  But uh... I bet a lot of people who play WoW and WoD really DO think that. :(

Anyway, I'm sure that article is trying to be "humorous" but it seems pretty spurious to me.  Random horribly-made analogies that don't actually work when you look at them in depth coupled with just the sort of haughty sneering she's complaining about make for bad argument.  Actually, it's more like a rant than an argument, so I guess that's okay: ranting's never made sense, logical or otherwise.

The only other thing is the statement that atheists are "fighting a losing battle".  I can't follow the logic here unless it's a "Because religious fundies have been arguing for stupid things for centuries longer and they're better at it than the militant atheists are".  Some sort of example as to why it's a losing battle would be nice.

I'm also pretty sure that going to a Catholic congregation and saying "I don't mind Catholicism, but I don't like how your priests fuck altar boys lolol" will not, in fact, get you congregation members who are "more apt to listen".

Pretty much the only point I agree with (and in fact one of the only points I can actually see as having been made in this) is

QuoteIdeally, people would be good because it's the right thing to do. Not because they want good Karma to come back on them and not because they're hoping for a personal cloud to lounge on in the sky, but because doing the right thing is its own reward. I'd like to live in a world where people aren't secretly hoping for a payoff for every single good dead they've ever done.

The rest just reads like somebody masturbating to her own internet popularity (but then, it is from a blog!)

Quote from: Cain on April 17, 2008, 06:05:33 PM
Most Atheists have the tendency to thumb their noses at Jesus, and then log onto World of Warcraft so they can pretend to be an orc for a couple of hours. They sneer at the Bible, but have no problem playing endless hours of vampire role playing games. The message is clear. Fantasies are OK as long as they include gratuitous violence and some sort of porn.

I've met some really fundamental types who do essentially the same thing.

C.S. Lewis - Good, healthy reading material for a child
J.K. Rowling - TRAP SET BY SATAN!!1!
(I asked them about Tolkien; they were still on the fence about LoTR.)

Role-playing characters in a production of A Christmas Carol - A good use of God's acting gifts
Role-playing characters in Dungeons and Dragons - OMG TEH SATAN!!!1

Moral: every group is capable of hypocrisy.

Tolkien and Lewis were buddies to a certain degree so I think he gets a pass. 

Tolkien was also a devout Catholic.  He got a voice recording machine and said 100 "hail mary"s into it before he would use it to make sure the devils was out.

That's kind of why I was confused when they said they were were undecided about him.  Maybe they didn't believe someone could be a Christian and still have a protagonist be a wizard?  My guess is that they knew that the high fantasy genre and the roleplaying games he inspired were satanic but were confused by the lack of un-Christian thought in his actual works, (or more probably the lack of sermons specifically against him, since I suspect they got most of their opinions from the pulpit rather than doing their own reading.)

This atheist is just fine with religion as long as people keep it the fuck away from me.  As long as I can live my life without laws being made from [insert holy book here] I really don't give a shit what they do.  Go pray to your zombie savior or L. Ron Hubbard or whoever, I don't care.  Just don't expect me to abide by your rules.  I don't care if it's prohibiting gay marriage because Leviticus says it's wrong or trying to teach creationism instead of evolution, stay the fuck out of the government.

Quote from: BootyBay on April 17, 2008, 07:00:06 PMWhen people say "religion has caused more wars than anything else," I tend to disagree.  I doubt anyone would seriously start a war to "convert the heathens."  I'm guessing religion was the card played by the ruling elite to manipualte the people into fighting (with the possible exception of the Crusades, but I'm no historian). 

Well, thats the point. They needed some excuse to fight the war, and religion was handy. The war in Iraq isnt actually about terrorism, that's just the excuse. The main problem with religion is that it suppresses individual thought, making people much easier to manipulate. It's not by any means the only method of brainwashing people, but it is the oldest, and arguably the most successful.

Quote from: atrasicarius on April 17, 2008, 11:09:25 PM
[religion is] not by any means the only method of brainwashing people, but it is the oldest, and arguably the most successful.

I would have to say that the most successful is probably offering people free food.  Religion comes a close second, though.

Yeah.  Hamas and Hezbollah get alot of their support from their poverty outreach programs, where they feed and clothe the poor.

Of course, it could be that in many cases a religious impulse is often the reason one goes out giving masses of food to the poor...but then we get into an argument about first causes and psychology that will likely never be resolved.

"Which came first, the religion or the free food?"

(Also, "a lot is two words" (http://overcompensating.com/posts/20060206.html))

Not any more!

Oh, internet  :sad:

Quote from: Cain on April 18, 2008, 09:02:08 AM
Of course, it could be that in many cases a religious impulse is often the reason one goes out giving masses of food to the poor...but then we get into an argument about first causes and psychology that will likely never be resolved.

I kinda doubt it's a religious impulse.  I believe Hamas/Hezbollah function in a way similar to the mafia when it first started out.  That is, in a way to benefit the people directly and not be held accountable to any external regulatory systems.

On a different topic, I don't understand why I'm supposed to condemn the Palestinians for electing a terrorist group into power.  They wanted them to be their leaders, so why is that such a bad thing?  And it's understandable, too.  After facing more than a half-century of hostility from their closest neighbor, wouldn't they want to have leaders willing to defend their territory?  And why should I think Israel is a hopeless victim in the Middle East when they continue to pursue acts of aggression on their muslim neighbors?  Are they (the other countries in the mid-east) really so naive as to be totally off-base about Israel's intolerance for coexistence?  Maybe the rational thing to do would be to relocate the people of Israel yet again seeing as how a) the Allies after WWI destroyed the stability of the region with the Treaty of Versailles and b) they then seized land for the Jews as repairations for the Holocaust after WWII.  I can see why so many people are so pissed off at the US and Israel.

Quote from: BootyBay on April 19, 2008, 11:32:13 PM
On a different topic, I don't understand why I'm supposed to condemn the Palestinians for electing a terrorist group into power.  They wanted them to be their leaders, so why is that such a bad thing?

You should know by now that it's only democracy if America likes it.  I tell you, when France wasn't all for sending all of its troops down to Iraq to fight the evil terrorist regime, I saw a couple of bumper stickers on people's cars in the deep south-east of the US which said "BAN FRANCE" on them.  Because you know, nothing says democracy like immediately trying to boycott everything from a country that doesn't agree with you on everything.

So we should punish innocent Israelis for the actions of their democratic government....but not innocent Palestinians for the actions of their democratic government (ignoring the for moment that Hamas' military arm is in fact more of a private militia attached to a political party)?

GREAT IDEA!

Incidentally, I believe the large scale forceable movement of people based on nationality is known as ethnic cleansing and is an international war crime for which you can be tried by any country in the world.

There are Israelis who have been born and lived in Israel all of their lives, just as their are Palestinians who have been born and raised in Palestine all their lives.  Should the Israelis stop being dicks, disband the settlements and not resort to military incursions everytime someone in the Occupied Territories sneezes?  Sure.  Equally, should the supposed Palestinian nationalist movements try not killing innocent civilians, promoting Sharia law and taking handouts from Israel's military enemies?  Again yes, unless they want to be seen as proxies for its eventual destruction.

As it happens, I condemn Palestianians for voting Hamas in, in the same way I condemn Israelis for voting for Sharon or Americans for Bush or Brits for Blair.  Because these people and their political programs are fucktarded in the extreme.  They're free to chose and I'm free to call bullshit on their choices.

As an aside, it was the dissolution of the Caliphate by Kemal Ataturk which really screwed up the Middle East.  That was the regional hegemon, and the Turks were good at enforcing order.  He decided the costs of empire were greater than the benefits and so cut loose much of the Middle East, dumping the mess into the lap of the victors, who obviously had no clue as to what sort of shitstorm they had inherited.

Quote from: Cain on April 19, 2008, 11:56:05 PM
So we should punish innocent Israelis for the actions of their democratic government....but not innocent Palestinians for the actions of their democratic government (ignoring the for moment that Hamas' military arm is in fact more of a private militia attached to a political party)?

GREAT IDEA!

Incidentally, I believe the large scale forceable movement of people based on nationality is known as ethnic cleansing and is an international war crime for which you can be tried by any country in the world.

There are Israelis who have been born and lived in Israel all of their lives, just as their are Palestinians who have been born and raised in Palestine all their lives.  Should the Israelis stop being dicks, disband the settlements and not resort to military incursions everytime someone in the Occupied Territories sneezes?  Sure.  Equally, should the supposed Palestinian nationalist movements try not killing innocent civilians, promoting Sharia law and taking handouts from Israel's military enemies?  Again yes, unless they want to be seen as proxies for its eventual destruction.

As it happens, I condemn Palestianians for voting Hamas in, in the same way I condemn Israelis for voting for Sharon or Americans for Bush or Brits for Blair.  Because these people and their political programs are fucktarded in the extreme.  They're free to chose and I'm free to call bullshit on their choices.

As an aside, it was the dissolution of the Caliphate by Kemal Ataturk which really screwed up the Middle East.  That was the regional hegemon, and the Turks were good at enforcing order.  He decided the costs of empire were greater than the benefits and so cut loose much of the Middle East, dumping the mess into the lap of the victors, who obviously had no clue as to what sort of shitstorm they had inherited.

Well said.

Quote from: Cain on April 19, 2008, 11:56:05 PM
So we should punish innocent Israelis for the actions of their democratic government....but not innocent Palestinians for the actions of their democratic government (ignoring the for moment that Hamas' military arm is in fact more of a private militia attached to a political party)?

GREAT IDEA!

Incidentally, I believe the large scale forceable movement of people based on nationality is known as ethnic cleansing and is an international war crime for which you can be tried by any country in the world.

There are Israelis who have been born and lived in Israel all of their lives, just as their are Palestinians who have been born and raised in Palestine all their lives.  Should the Israelis stop being dicks, disband the settlements and not resort to military incursions everytime someone in the Occupied Territories sneezes?  Sure.  Equally, should the supposed Palestinian nationalist movements try not killing innocent civilians, promoting Sharia law and taking handouts from Israel's military enemies?  Again yes, unless they want to be seen as proxies for its eventual destruction.

As it happens, I condemn Palestianians for voting Hamas in, in the same way I condemn Israelis for voting for Sharon or Americans for Bush or Brits for Blair.  Because these people and their political programs are fucktarded in the extreme.  They're free to chose and I'm free to call bullshit on their choices.

As an aside, it was the dissolution of the Caliphate by Kemal Ataturk which really screwed up the Middle East.  That was the regional hegemon, and the Turks were good at enforcing order.  He decided the costs of empire were greater than the benefits and so cut loose much of the Middle East, dumping the mess into the lap of the victors, who obviously had no clue as to what sort of shitstorm they had inherited.

Well, I certainly don't want to punish innocent Israelis (I suppose their government is similar to ours in terms of their imperialistic-ness).  I'd like to see a cease to the fighting.  I'm really not sure who or what instigated the violence in the first place but it's gone on long enough.  True, I should have thought out the Hamas being elected a bit more (a terrorist organization is not exactly helping anything).  If there was any way to resolve this bloodshed, I'd be all for it (I'm sure 99% of people would be, too). Like Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I do wonder why we care so much about the fighting going on between those two countries but ignore (for the most part) serious events happening in Africa.

Really what needs to happens is the rounding up and shooting of all politicians.   (OH NOES!  I just mixed politics with religion!! :( )

Quote from: BootyBay on April 20, 2008, 12:25:10 AM
Well, I certainly don't want to punish innocent Israelis (I suppose their government is similar to ours in terms of their imperialistic-ness).  I'd like to see a cease to the fighting.  I'm really not sure who or what instigated the violence in the first place but it's gone on long enough.  True, I should have thought out the Hamas being elected a bit more (a terrorist organization is not exactly helping anything).  If there was any way to resolve this bloodshed, I'd be all for it (I'm sure 99% of people would be, too). Like Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I do wonder why we care so much about the fighting going on between those two countries but ignore (for the most part) serious events happening in Africa.

What started the fighting was the fact that a bunch of Europeans came in and said, "We're taking your holy land and giving it to a different country with a different religion. Hope you dont mind." Then they gave a shitload of guns to the new nation they just created, which proceeded to fight and win seven wars with neighboring countries.

Quote from: atrasicarius on April 21, 2008, 03:34:34 AM

Quote from: BootyBay on April 20, 2008, 12:25:10 AM
Well, I certainly don't want to punish innocent Israelis (I suppose their government is similar to ours in terms of their imperialistic-ness).  I'd like to see a cease to the fighting.  I'm really not sure who or what instigated the violence in the first place but it's gone on long enough.  True, I should have thought out the Hamas being elected a bit more (a terrorist organization is not exactly helping anything).  If there was any way to resolve this bloodshed, I'd be all for it (I'm sure 99% of people would be, too). Like Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I do wonder why we care so much about the fighting going on between those two countries but ignore (for the most part) serious events happening in Africa.

What started the fighting was the fact that a bunch of Europeans came in and said, "We're taking your holy land and giving it to a different country with a different religion. Hope you dont mind." Then they gave a shitload of guns to the new nation they just created, which proceeded to fight and win seven wars with neighboring countries.

So?  Are we supposed to suddenly start giving a fuck about two groups of people that REFUSE to get along?

Fuck them.  Fuck them right in their fanatical ears.  If they had ANY sort of consideration for the rest of us, they'd have KILLED EACH OTHER OFF, so the rest of us could GET SOME FUCKING SLEEP.

So stop whimpering that one of the groups is somehow morally superior to the other.  They are fucking monkeys, and monkeys are all the same.

Quote from: BootyBay on April 20, 2008, 12:25:10 AM
I do wonder why we care so much about the fighting going on between those two countries but ignore (for the most part) serious events happening in Africa.

Because that is what you've been TOLD to give a shit about.

Quote from: BootyBay on April 19, 2008, 11:32:13 PM

On a different topic, I don't understand why I'm supposed to condemn the Palestinians for electing a terrorist group into power. 

That's not why you're supposed to be pissed at them.

Dumbass.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 21, 2008, 03:38:21 AM

Quote from: atrasicarius on April 21, 2008, 03:34:34 AM

Quote from: BootyBay on April 20, 2008, 12:25:10 AM
Well, I certainly don't want to punish innocent Israelis (I suppose their government is similar to ours in terms of their imperialistic-ness).  I'd like to see a cease to the fighting.  I'm really not sure who or what instigated the violence in the first place but it's gone on long enough.  True, I should have thought out the Hamas being elected a bit more (a terrorist organization is not exactly helping anything).  If there was any way to resolve this bloodshed, I'd be all for it (I'm sure 99% of people would be, too). Like Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I do wonder why we care so much about the fighting going on between those two countries but ignore (for the most part) serious events happening in Africa.

What started the fighting was the fact that a bunch of Europeans came in and said, "We're taking your holy land and giving it to a different country with a different religion. Hope you dont mind." Then they gave a shitload of guns to the new nation they just created, which proceeded to fight and win seven wars with neighboring countries.

So?  Are we supposed to suddenly start giving a fuck about two groups of people that REFUSE to get along?

Fuck them.  Fuck them right in their fanatical ears.  If they had ANY sort of consideration for the rest of us, they'd have KILLED EACH OTHER OFF, so the rest of us could GET SOME FUCKING SLEEP.

So stop whimpering that one of the groups is somehow morally superior to the other.  They are fucking monkeys, and monkeys are all the same.

:mittens: QFT

Quote from: Cain on April 19, 2008, 11:56:05 PM
So we should punish innocent Israelis for the actions of their democratic government....but not innocent Palestinians for the actions of their democratic government (ignoring the for moment that Hamas' military arm is in fact more of a private militia attached to a political party)?

GREAT IDEA!

Incidentally, I believe the large scale forceable movement of people based on nationality is known as ethnic cleansing and is an international war crime for which you can be tried by any country in the world.

There are Israelis who have been born and lived in Israel all of their lives, just as their are Palestinians who have been born and raised in Palestine all their lives.  Should the Israelis stop being dicks, disband the settlements and not resort to military incursions everytime someone in the Occupied Territories sneezes?  Sure.  Equally, should the supposed Palestinian nationalist movements try not killing innocent civilians, promoting Sharia law and taking handouts from Israel's military enemies?  Again yes, unless they want to be seen as proxies for its eventual destruction.

As it happens, I condemn Palestianians for voting Hamas in, in the same way I condemn Israelis for voting for Sharon or Americans for Bush or Brits for Blair.  Because these people and their political programs are fucktarded in the extreme.  They're free to chose and I'm free to call bullshit on their choices.

As an aside, it was the dissolution of the Caliphate by Kemal Ataturk which really screwed up the Middle East.  That was the regional hegemon, and the Turks were good at enforcing order.  He decided the costs of empire were greater than the benefits and so cut loose much of the Middle East, dumping the mess into the lap of the victors, who obviously had no clue as to what sort of shitstorm they had inherited.

Troof

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 19, 2008, 11:52:36 PM
I saw a couple of bumper stickers on people's cars in the deep south-east of the US which said "BAN FRANCE" on them.  Because you know, nothing says democracy like immediately trying to boycott everything from a country that doesn't agree with you on everything.

I loved this shit.

I actually started liking France because of this nonsense.
Then I remembered that's where the French live.

I spent my tender elementary school years hearing how France helped us fight off Big, Bad Britain all those years ago.

Then my school went and served "Freedom Fries" one day :?

To be fair, the French Republic has done nothing for us except surrender to Germany twice and allow us a foothold into the world of Big Powerful Nations. It was King Louis who supported the Revolution.

France is cool, it's just Paris you gotta watch out for.  Buncha jerks.

Also, France conquered most of Europe at one point.  People always seem to ignore Napoleon in their claims of France-never-done-nothin' for some reason.

It's because Napoleon was a short man who liked to dress in women's underwear -- which, curiously, is also why French women do not wear underwear to this day.

Is that also why there are no French Discordians that we know of?

no, the French are Discordian by nature. imagine an entire nation populated by the personality types we find represented by this board, and led by a government that is incapable of doing anything except hosting the Olympics every 24 years, and you have France.

Quote from: Cain on April 19, 2008, 11:56:05 PM
As an aside, it was the dissolution of the Caliphate by Kemal Ataturk which really screwed up the Middle East.  That was the regional hegemon, and the Turks were good at enforcing order.  He decided the costs of empire were greater than the benefits and so cut loose much of the Middle East, dumping the mess into the lap of the victors, who obviously had no clue as to what sort of shitstorm they had inherited.

The ungrateful inhabitants of the former Ottoman territory maintain that before they were treated to several centuries of competently enforced order they had been as peacefully bashing each others heads as humans everywhere else. However, the view that what the Middle East *needs* is military competence has the advantage that it treats all sides as hopeless braindeads and I´d hate to be pedantic in the face of so much realism.

Quote from: Cainad on April 21, 2008, 06:55:38 PM
Is that also why there are no French Discordians that we know of?

No, that is because they do not even pretend to be speaking English.

Quote from: Cainad on April 21, 2008, 06:55:38 PM
Is that also why there are no French Discordians that we know of?

i know a french discordian. Breton, actually. though he lives in Dublin now (last i've heard of him).

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 21, 2008, 06:52:15 PM
France is cool, it's just Paris you gotta watch out for.  Buncha jerks.

Sez you.

The last Frenchie I hated was actually not even French, but a French speaking Swiss girl. Apparently just learning that language makes you an asshole.

Could be, could be. 

TheStripèdOne: used to be an asshole in high school but forgot it all since then because he hasn't used it since.

We have enough evidence to start a research project.

Call the White House, get us a grant. I'm thinking we might actually get one, because if my theory is correct, the information could be used in the administrations War on France.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 21, 2008, 03:38:21 AM

Quote from: atrasicarius on April 21, 2008, 03:34:34 AM

Quote from: BootyBay on April 20, 2008, 12:25:10 AM
Well, I certainly don't want to punish innocent Israelis (I suppose their government is similar to ours in terms of their imperialistic-ness).  I'd like to see a cease to the fighting.  I'm really not sure who or what instigated the violence in the first place but it's gone on long enough.  True, I should have thought out the Hamas being elected a bit more (a terrorist organization is not exactly helping anything).  If there was any way to resolve this bloodshed, I'd be all for it (I'm sure 99% of people would be, too). Like Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I do wonder why we care so much about the fighting going on between those two countries but ignore (for the most part) serious events happening in Africa.

What started the fighting was the fact that a bunch of Europeans came in and said, "We're taking your holy land and giving it to a different country with a different religion. Hope you dont mind." Then they gave a shitload of guns to the new nation they just created, which proceeded to fight and win seven wars with neighboring countries.

So?  Are we supposed to suddenly start giving a fuck about two groups of people that REFUSE to get along?

Fuck them.  Fuck them right in their fanatical ears.  If they had ANY sort of consideration for the rest of us, they'd have KILLED EACH OTHER OFF, so the rest of us could GET SOME FUCKING SLEEP.

So stop whimpering that one of the groups is somehow morally superior to the other.  They are fucking monkeys, and monkeys are all the same.

Yep, fuck the both of them.  There's no reason that the US should even be involved.

My last girlfriend was half-French.

I suspect the problem was TOO MUCH AMERICANISM, NOT ENOUGH FRENCHISM IN THE PD.

Because France, like America/China/Russia/the UK/Germany/Italy is tEh gReAtEsT nAtIoN eVeR!!121!2

Italy?

I think the only people that think that Italy is the greatest are Americans.

In America, anyone with a single drop of Italian blood in their veins feels a drive to  convince you they have mafia connections.

Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 22, 2008, 01:41:34 PM
Italy?

I think the only people that think that Italy is the greatest are Americans.

In America, anyone with a single drop of Italian blood in their veins feels a drive to  convince you they have mafia connections.

Or that they are master chefs because they can boil water. 

 :lulz:

Yeah, that's the other specialty

Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 22, 2008, 01:41:34 PM
Italy?

I think the only people that think that Italy is the greatest are Americans.

And Mussolini fans.

Quote from: Cain on April 22, 2008, 02:21:19 PM

Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 22, 2008, 01:41:34 PM
Italy?

I think the only people that think that Italy is the greatest are Americans.

And Mussolini fans.

Thats rude. Germans only think that Italy is TGE because they love latte macchiato.

Wasn't Italy the one that lost a war to a bunch of africans?

Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 21, 2008, 07:59:46 PM

Quote from: TheStripèdOne on April 21, 2008, 06:52:15 PM
France is cool, it's just Paris you gotta watch out for.  Buncha jerks.

Sez you.

The last Frenchie I hated was actually not even French, but a French speaking Swiss girl. Apparently just learning that language makes you an asshole.

i have thought much on this topic (i know a few languages - ooh go me=P)... the associations in language are very real for those that 'live' inside the framework, and come to the conclusion that yes. this is true.

people who are inside french are indeed assholes!

Cain = half asshole then.

Just half?

I'm kind of worried about what that other half is, actually.

Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 23, 2008, 08:28:21 PM
Just half?

Well, he was inside a half-French girl....

Quote from: Cain on April 04, 2008, 05:01:19 PM
Jack Cohen put forth a similar theory.  Religion was to distinguish tribes from outsiders.  If you ate fish on a Friday, or couldn't make the sign of the cross etc....you are clearly an outsider and so potentially dangerous.  Religion allowed for people to recognize those beyond their immediate family/friend ties as part of the tribe and so not dangerous.

thats the problem with religion IMO
you're not christian you go to hell
you don't believe in hell you're not christian

the only thing is this separation, lopping eternal suffering on people jesus supposedly loves.
its pretty simple, that's as deep as i need to go

Religion is the expression of a group's collective fear of the unknown. It is this fear that drives both belief in asinine propositions (because any explanation, no matter how ridiculous, is better than no explanation at all), and the tendency to restrict and tear down individualism and personal liberty (such things can only add to the number of unknowns in the society).

Outlawing religion is pointless. If you outlaw one religion, or even an entire order of religions, it will simply be replaced by some other convenient superstition. Militant atheism, ironically, seems to believe that Religion is its own cause. But religion stems from an individual's fear of the unknown, which is translated and magnified through a larger group or society. It will exist, and be just as violent and oppressive as it is now, until people in general are able to accept the unknown without the fight-or-flight response, and that is probably never going to happen.

Quote from: vexati0n on April 29, 2008, 08:20:12 PM
Religion is the expression of a group's collective fear of the unknown.

Mine isn't.

Must just be me.

Go on, you were saying something about the inner working of 5 billion or so brains...

6.66 billion actually.

I don't know how many are actually religious.

Everyone on this board is being annoyingly didactic today.

Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 29, 2008, 09:14:30 PM
I don't know how many are actually religious.

Everyone on this board is being annoyingly didactic today.

Not everyone, right?

Exactly.

(http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif)

So like 5.6 billion.

Quote from: vexati0n on April 29, 2008, 08:20:12 PM
Religion is the expression of a group's collective fear of the unknown.

It would be more accurate to say that religion is an expression of or reaction to the belief that there is something 'more' to this world than the obvious physical bit.  Some religions do react with fear, but I think most don't.  Most of the religious people I've met fall into the latter category.

It seems kind of odd to say that Buddhists meditate only because they are afraid of something, doesn't it?

Supernatural religions aren't the only religions. A religion can be anything that gives people a sense that they can reliably predict what's going to happen next. Whether that means what is going to happen after death or what is going to happen if somebody makes a gaffe at a dinner party, the basic mechanism is the same. People cling to the familiar, and tend to deal with the "unknown" only when forced to do so.

Buddhists meditate because they seek peace, they seek peace because they do not have it, and they do not have it for a lot of reasons, all of which boil down to the fact that they feel threatened by forces and factors outside of their control, which are themselves spurred on by still more forces which are not only out of their control but outside their very awareness of them. They meditate for the same reasons that Christians pray for God to cure their sister's cancer. Simple lack of control over one's situation.

Life can be too complex and nuanced to approach without any kind of system. Religion, through repetition and meditation can effectively create the illusion that you have control over things you do not have control over -- even if you are still threatened, the fear is relieved, because once you are aware of something you can at least take it into account. Humans think that if they know what is going on, even if they can't control something, they can avoid disaster -- which isn't true, but that doesn't stop them from thinking it is.

Fear is so clearly the most effective and most common motivator of almost all human activity, and religion (even Buddhism, which isn't as 'enlightened' as it would like you to believe) so easily devolves into fear-based violence and exclusion, that I cannot see how fear is not one of, if not the most important factor in the formation and propagation of large religions.

There is actually a Buddhist meditation where you are to imagine yourself being killed in various horrific ways.

to desensitize you to the fear of your own death, maybe?

I guess I've just seen to many people who express their religion with love to believe that it all boils down to fear.

Out of curiosity, what fear would you say prompted Discordianism?

The fear of being like them, of course.

Quote from: vexati0n on April 29, 2008, 09:55:12 PM
to desensitize you to the fear of your own death, maybe?

When asked, I was told it was "for the lulz"

"to demonstrate the transient nature of both life and death, and to prepare the initiate for his eventual flaying at the top secret Mormo-Buddhist Temple of Gutting"

Where the Buddha will EAT HIS SOUL

Quote from: Cain on April 29, 2008, 10:21:03 PM
Where the Buddha will EAT HIS SOUL

So that's why we're supposed to kill the Buddha if we met him.

Oh, now I get it.
I always thought the reason I don't understand all that zen and buddhist stuff is because I'm a j00.
Thx, Vene.