Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Would you like to see the death of religion.
Options
Comments
-
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.stevejazzx wrote: »Drawing a line between psychopaths that are full of faith and 'regular' people who are full of faith is rubbish.
So it is rubbish to draw a line between Fred Phelps (a psychopath whose faith causes him to spew forth hatred) and William Wilberforce (a person whose faith caused him to bring about the end of the slave trade)? OK, if you say so. :rolleyes:It has been demonstrated that someone who follows the letter of their religous text becomes a fundamentalist and fundamentlaists carry out arocities in the name of their faith.
It has been demonstrated that someone who follows the letter of their religious text becomes a fundamentalist and fundamentalists feed the hungry and house the homeless in the name of their faith.
The statement I have just made is as every bit as illogical as your's (but no more so) - because both make blanket statements about fundamentalists that are only true of some fundamentalists.0 -
So it is rubbish to draw a line between Fred Phelps (a psychopath whose faith causes him to spew forth hatred) and William Wilberforce (a person whose faith caused him to bring about the end of the slave trade)? OK, if you say so. :rolleyes:
I think that is exactly his point.
Phelps believed that the Lord God had spoken to him through faith and that he should go forth into the world to help shape it the way that God wishes it should be. He does this out of a desire to please and worship God.
Wilberforce believed that the Lord God had spoken to him through faith and that he should go forth into the world to help shape it the way that God wishes it should be. He does this out of a desire to please and worship God.
The difference is what they each believe God wanted them to do, not how strongly they believed it.
You seem to subscribe to the idea that if the goal of this feverish faith is good then that isn't a problem, it only becomes a problem when the goal of this faith is bad.
Myself, and many atheists, disagree, because history has shown it is a very fine line between the two. A person with devout faith in a religion or idea can be directed to do bad in a much easier way than someone without this faith.
For example I consider the stance of a lot of regular Christians on this forum, based almost entirely on religious faith, towards homosexuals as "bad"
But because of their faith they have to accept this stance of the Bible that homosexual action is immoral and against God.
That is where the phrase "For a good man to bad thing it takes religion" comes from
You are a good person (I assume) but you believe (I assume) a bad thing, that being that homosexual acts are sinful and immoral, because of your religion.0 -
So it is rubbish to draw a line between Fred Phelps (a psychopath whose faith causes him to spew forth hatred) and William Wilberforce (a person whose faith caused him to bring about the end of the slave trade)? OK, if you say so. :rolleyes:
This is quite simple PDN summed up excellently here
With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion..or so goes the perhaps over simplified quote but nonetheless underscores my point. Faith is not a necessary ingredient in either a good or bad person.
Wilburforce is only good becasue of his obseesive faith, no I don't believe that. Was his faith the only thing that casued him to carry out his good deeds?
The liklihood is that he was quite simply a good man - was he really a fundamentalist, would he stone a sinner, refuse aid to a non believer? I don't think so.
A suicide bomber however usues faith to disguise fear and hatred.
The only thing I can think that would casue someone to carry out the murder of children is severe psychosis or extreme fatih.
Faith is too useful a tool in equipping the lost souls of this world and manipulating their minds into martyrdom.PDN wrote:It has been demonstrated that someone who follows the letter of their religious text becomes a fundamentalist and fundamentalists feed the hungry and house the homeless in the name of their faith.
The statement I have just made is as every bit as illogical as your's (but no more so) - because both make blanket statements about fundamentalists that are only true of some fundamentalists.
No you missed my point. I know not all fundamentalists go around carrying out atrocities, of course - but some fundamentals go around preaching the bible, doing no harm or so they think, firmly believe even, but who's to say they are not corrupting people with lies since all mainstream religons are unsubstaniated legends? Even the mildest or nicest action of the fundamental is corrupting.0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.stevejazzx wrote: »The only thing I can think that would casue someone to carry out the murder of children is severe psychosis or extreme fatih.
If you are using 'faith' in a purely religious sense then that statement is obviously false (Nazis & communists & atheists have, in large numbers, murdered children, yet many of them would not, by any medical definition, be diagnosed as having a severe psychosis).No you missed my point. I know not all fundamentalists go around carrying out atrocities, of course - but some fundamentals go around preaching the bible, doing no harm or so they think, firmly believe even, but who's to say they are not corrupting people with lies since all mainstream religons are unsubstaniated legends? Even the mildest or nicest action of the fundamental is corrupting.
"Who's to say?"
This argument only works on your assumption (which is of course, purely your own subjective & biased opinion) that the beliefs of fundamentalists are corrupting lies. So your argument is that fundamentalists are harmful because they disagree with the opinions of Stevejazzx. How enlightened of you.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
If you are using 'faith' in a purely religious sense then that statement is obviously false (Nazis & communists & atheists have, in large numbers, murdered children, yet many of them would not, by any medical definition, be diagnosed as having a severe psychosis).
The Nazi thing can be argued as extreme faith, if not you may add a third (no pun intended) of severe brainwashing and fear although thinking about that it roughly equates to extreme faith.PDN wrote:"Who's to say?"
This argument only works on your assumption (which is of course, purely your own subjective & biased opinion) that the beliefs of fundamentalists are corrupting lies. So your argument is that fundamentalists are harmful because they disagree with the opinions of Stevejazzx. How enlightened of you.
No it's not my biased opinion. If a science teacher teaches science based on the principal that what he/she teaches is subject to revision, examination and change by his/her peers then that is, in my opinion a logical and intelligible way to relay information. When a priest speaks about Jesus and the way people should live then that becomes his biased opinion based on nothing but unsubstaniated legend and is corrupting becasue it claims infallibility to people who may not ever question it. It's got nothing to do with anyone disagreeing with me it's all to do with people in positions of power preaching information that they have no way of knowing is true and that my friend, is corrupting, like it or not.0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.stevejazzx wrote: »No it's not my biased opinion. If a science teacher teaches science based on the principal that what he/she teaches is subject to revision, examination and change by his/her peers then that is, in my opinion a logical and intelligible way to relay information. When a priest speaks about Jesus and the way people should live then that becomes his biased opinion based on nothing but unsubstaniated legend and is corrupting becasue it claims infallibility to people who may not ever question it. It's got nothing to do with anyone disagreeing with me it's all to do with people in positions of power preaching information that they have no way of knowing is true and that my friend, is corrupting, like it or not.
lol0 -
-
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.stevejazzx wrote: »Yeah great putdown because I said people preaching about things they couldn't possibly know are true is corrupting particularly when those people hold certain powers and you said 'lol'. Fantstic, well nice debating with you.
I'm laughing because you start off by saying "it's not my biased opinion". Then, in the very first sentence of your explanation why it's not your biased opinion, you include the phrase "in my opinion". I can only conclude that you believe that your opinion is unbiased but that anyone who disagrees with you has a biased opinion. Classic stuff.
At least I'm honest enough to admit that I'm biased.0 -
I'm laughing because you start off by saying "it's not my biased opinion". Then, in the very first sentence of your explanation why it's not your biased opinion, you include the phrase "in my opinion". I can only conclude that you believe that your opinion is unbiased but that anyone who disagrees with you has a biased opinion. Classic stuff.
At least I'm honest enough to admit that I'm biased.
Well great to see your sinking your teeth into the essence of what I'm saying rahter than playing on the fringes with...hold on a second....
Lets clear this up - it is not my biased opinion that how scienece is thought in classrooms is logical and proper. It is the agreed method amoung peers and goes for the rest of the eduacational system and it's subjects..how well it is thought is another matter..the fact remains however that the information is relayed in respect of certain standrds of agreement organised by our eduacational systems. The information is open to scrutiny and even revision and change. I don't see how believing that that method of relaying information is my biased opinion seeing as I basing it on a scoietal and indeed worldly norm.
It is telling that you have yet to actually address the shortcomings of how the church relays it's information. Perhaps you thought that you could just lol your way out of it... ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.stevejazzx wrote: »Well great to see your sinking your teeth into the essence of what I'm saying rahter than playing on the fringes with...hold on a second....
Lets clear this up - it is not my biased opinion that how scienece is thought in classrooms is logical and proper. It is the agreed method amoung peers and goes for the rest of the eduacational system and it's subjects..how well it is thought is another matter..the fact remains however that the information is relayed in respect of certain standrds of agreement organised by our eduacational systems. The information is open to scrutiny and even revision and change. I don't see how believing that that method of relaying information is my biased opinion seeing as I basing it on a scoietal and indeed worldly norm.
It is telling that you have yet to actually address the shortcomings of how the church relays it's information. Perhaps you thought that you could just lol your way out of it... ?
Societal and worldly norms vary from place to place. At one time it was the worldly norm to burn heretics. In some parts of the world it is societal norm to stone women to death. Come on, you'll have to better than that to convince me that your opinion is unbiased.
The Church relays its information by proclaiming what it believes to be true. People have the right to use their judgment whether to accept or reject that message. Sounds perfectly fair and reasonable, and not very corrupting at all, to me.
Atheists have the freedom to proclaim their beliefs as well. People have the right to use their judgment whether to accept or reject that message. Again, that sounds fair and reasonable to me.
I'm tolerant enough to accept that different people believe different things. To try to lump those who disagree with you (be they fundamentalists or atheists) as being dangerous, or corrupting, or prone to commit atrocities is, in my opinion, the mark of either a bigot or a fathead. And sadly, as these boards amply demonstrate, there are bigots and fatheads aplenty of both the theist and atheist varieties.0 -
Could the OP make this a vote for the sake of it, ~400 posts so far, would give a ~0.1% view of IRL (probably all middle class) population which wouldn't be too bad I suppose.
Anyway I would vote Yes.
PS: Make it so you don't have people asking 'well that depends on whether we have to wipe it out? etc., maybe state the natural death of religion or whatever needs to be done.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismTo compliment JimiTime's thread...
EDIT: This is a public poll - so choose your answer carefully!0 -
Yes - through natural causesYay, I posted before the poll existed!0
-
-
Yes - through natural causesMeh, the whole thing is a mess, people will believe what I tell them to believe.0
-
Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.No, but I voted no with the exceptions of fundamentalists,
I am an Athiest but I have no problem with people doing what they want as long as you hurt no one else in the process,0 -
To try to lump those who disagree with you (be they fundamentalists or atheists) as being dangerous, or corrupting, or prone to commit atrocities is, in my opinion, the mark of either a bigot or a fathead. And sadly, as these boards amply demonstrate, there are bigots and fatheads aplenty of both the theist and atheist varieties.
When was this argument ever about who disagreed with me? It was always about how the church operates. I'm not attacking people who disagree with me, I am attacking any institute which corrupts. It is unquestionable that in certain parts of Amercia for example church leaders have overstepped their role and are trying to run peoples day to day lives. My argument was that these people are fundamentalists who are corrupting their societies with their very own biased and predjudiced views. Their stance on homosexuality, women, what exactly is a sin and waht's not, all of it is their own small minded opinion becasue it's based solely upon ancient manuscripts. I'm not disagreeing with theese people based on a hunch, it's based on the fact that they go on tv or any media channel spouting their predjudices around and demanding that their flock do this and do that so it's no longer becomes a biased opinion, I am basng it on on their actions which they do not try to hide.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismIMO organised religion in general is a bad idea .
any religion that preaches a set of rules and says that someone who doesnt abide by these rules is evil,immoral or " going to hell " is a little bit crazy by my standards
0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.stevejazzx wrote: »I'm not disagreeing with theese people based on a hunch, it's based on the fact that they go on tv or any media channel spouting their predjudices around and demanding that their flock do this and do that so it's no longer becomes a biased opinion, I am basng it on on their actions which they do not try to hide.
So you're saying that you disagree with anyone who goes on TV and demands that their flock does something. Well that covers less than 1% of fundamentalists. So, do you have any better basis for arguing that all fundamentalists are bad or corrupting?
For example, I believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I am a preacher who teaches the Bible and demonstrates what I understand to be the correct interpretation of the text using standard historical-grammatical hermeneutical principles. I don't demand that anyone does anything. People join our church of their own free will and, in doing so, state that they agree with our beliefs and moral standards. If they decide they no longer want to adhere to such beliefs and standards then they are free to resign their membership with no hard feelings on either side.
Could you please explain what this has to do with fundamentalists committing atrocities or corrupting anyone? So far you have ranted about fundamentalists making demands on their flock via TV (which I have never done) and made overblown claims about atrocities and murdering children (my memory is not what it used to be, but I'm sure I haven't murdered any children or committed any particularly bad atrocities recently). The only reason I'm hearing from you is that I am corrupting people because I hold different opinions to yourself.0 -
Advertisement
-
So you're saying that you disagree with anyone who goes on TV and demands that their flock does something. Well that covers less than 1% of fundamentalists. So, do you have any better basis for arguing that all fundamentalists are bad or corrupting?
Sigh...you want an argument as to why reliogus fundamentalism is bad?PDN wrote:Could you please explain what this has to do with fundamentalists committing atrocities or corrupting anyone? So far you have ranted about fundamentalists making demands on their flock via TV (which I have never done) and made overblown claims about atrocities and murdering children (my memory is not what it used to be, but I'm sure I haven't murdered any children or committed any particularly bad atrocities recently). The only reason I'm hearing from you is that I am corrupting people because I hold different opinions to yourself.
Let me firstly say this is not personal, I'm not attacking you personally. Ranting? Well if it helps you deal with this to see me as a mad ranting lunatic so be it. You are corrupting becasue what you teach you couldn't possibly know to be true. It doesn't matter that you're a really nice moderate bloke it only matters what you relay to others and why and how you do that. I'm not biased when I say that the information in bible is highly dubious, questionable unquantifiable unknowable and altogether untrue. There is no proof no evidence, nothing just ancient manuscripts and yet different religons all over the world preach that they alone are true.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularism....my memory is not what it used to be, but I'm sure I haven't murdered any children or committed any particularly bad atrocities recently...
I find that as I get older it's increasingly difficult to remember every little atrocity, though.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.stevejazzx wrote: »Sigh...you want an argument as to why reliogus fundamentalism is bad?
Let me firstly say this is not personal, I'm not attacking you personally. Ranting? Well if it helps you deal with this to see me as a mad ranting lunatic so be it. You are corrupting becasue what you teach you couldn't possibly know to be true. It doesn't matter that you're a really nice moderate bloke it only matters what you relay to others and why and how you do that. I'm not biased when I say that the information in bible is highly dubious, questionable unquantifiable unknowable and altogether untrue. There is no proof no evidence, nothing just ancient manuscripts and yet different religons all over the world preach that they alone are true.
Just to help you understand why I am keeping on at you about this, our little exchange of views occurred because you made the following statement:Reminds me of Hitchins phrase that we are created sick and commanded to be well. Drawing a line between psychopaths that are full of faith and 'regular' people who are full of faith is rubbish. It has been demonstrated that someone who follows the letter of their religous text becomes a fundamentalist and fundamentlaists carry out arocities in the name of their faith. Whether that person is corrupting innocence around them or a suicide bomber is immaterial. They are both deluded in thinking that ultimately whatever they do they do in the name of religon and God. This is biggest incentive for thier recruitment and action. Reminds me of the the line 'it takes religon to make good people do bad thigs'.
Now, I could equally make the allegation that some atheists carry out atrocities due to their ideology. But I would never use that as an argument for attacking all atheists. Imagine if I made the claim that Richard Dawkins is as bad as Chairman Mao, and that I were to say, "drawing a line between psychopaths who were atheists and 'regular' people who are full of atheism is rubbish." Such an extraordinary claim would need some pretty strong evidence for it be considered a rational argument rather than just the ranting of a religious bigot.
So, Steve, put up or shut up. Don't give me that "I'm not attacking you personally" crap. I am a 'regular' person that is full of faith. I've asked you repeatedly to provide some logical argument that demonstrates that it is rubbish to draw a line between me and someone who commits atrocities. I've asked you to explain why it is immaterial that I am blowing people up or corrupting innocence - or indeed to demonstrate how I am corrupting innocence. So far you've waffled about TV preachers and science classes. You've also mentioned societal norms (rather a incomprehensible argument since any atheist is arguing a minority point that goes against the societal norm). Your assessment of my beliefs as 'lies' and 'highly dubious' are your subjective opinion, nothing else.
So come on, Steve, why not have another try at presenting one coherent explanation or reason why I, as a 'regular' person of faith, as am bad as a suicide bomber?0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.I find that as I get older it's increasingly difficult to remember every little atrocity, though.
cordially,
Scofflaw
You can use this handy equation to determine some of the bigger ones:
X * Y = Z
Where:
X = your age;
Y = the number of babies you eat in a year;
Z = the number of babies eaten over your life time.0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismFanny Cradock wrote: »You can use this handy equation to determine some of the bigger ones:
X * Y = Z
Where:
X = your age;
Y = the number of babies you eat in a year;
Z = the number of babies eaten over your life time.
I was drunk a lot when I was younger though. You know how it is - you'd wake up on a pile of half-eaten babies and/or defiled nuns, and you wouldn't bother to count them or anything.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Yes - through natural causesI've asked you to explain why it is immaterial that I am blowing people up or corrupting innocence - or indeed to demonstrate how I am corrupting innocence. So far you've waffled about TV preachers and science classes. You've also mentioned societal norms (rather a incomprehensible argument since any atheist is arguing a minority point that goes against the societal norm). Your assessment of my beliefs as 'lies' and 'highly dubious' are your subjective opinion, nothing else.
So come on, Steve, why not have another try at presenting one coherent explanation or reason why I, as a 'regular' person of faith, as am bad as a suicide bomber?
Firstly, I do not agree that you cannot draw a line between the bombers and the emancipators of slaves. One is a bad effect, one is good. But the argument about religion causing good people to do bad things still stands (moreso on the level of people being intolerant of homosexuality, etc. than on the global evil scale of things).
The basis for arguing that fundamentalist religion is undesireable in society comes from the fact that, when someone has what would commonly be viewed as a fundamentalist belief, they are putting more faith in the actual word of God (or prophet, or spaghetti monster, or whatever) than the more moderate "believers", who tend to interpret selected sections of scripture based on what they believe (independantly of religion).
From the point of view of a non-believer, we only see the effect of what believers do in reality - we are not concerned with their post-mortem passage (or our own) to paradise, as we do not believe in one. For this reason, we hope that the things that dictate the behaviour of our fellow humans would be logic and psychological/sociological benefit to the individual/mankind. The fact is that most moderate "believers" actually do develop their belief system by those criteria (i.e. they are influenced by logic and the society in which they live), and then tack their beliefs onto an inherited religious framework. Even with their a la carte religion, they are more like atheists in how they form their morals, etc.
Not so the fundamentalist. If a fundamentalist believes truly that what is written in an ancient scripture is sourced from an omnipotent and omniscient being, he/she will probably not allow a great enough leeway in their reading of it for the possibility of error or influence of archaic philosophy that would be irrelevant in today's society. This means that the fundamentalist will introduce into society less than optimum criteria for making their decisions (effectively stunting their sociological maturity at the level of the writers of the book - that could be anything from decades ago to millenia).
So on the one hand, fundamentalists are responsible for the more illogical and societally detrimental elements of religious influence on everyday society (examples on request), while on the other hand, the indoctrination of people into the belief that faith is the ultimate good leaves the affected minds more open to corruption by those who would use them for extreme violence in the name of God. I know that this is not an indoctrination unique to religious fundamentalists, but I am not looking to say that all blame lies in any one place.
Hamiltron
Currently sigless0 -
Yes - through proactive secularismNow, I could equally make the allegation that some atheists carry out atrocities due to their ideology........
What is the Atheist Ideology??? i'm atheist as i do not follow any religeous faiths. I do believe that there could be a god with all the beutifull things in the world, but the knowledge of that and my compassion towards humanity is all that i need to live a happy life. I see Atheism as being neutral to all of the religious beliefs out there but maybe my definition of atheism is wrong making me something other than an atheist.
The biggest obvious problem with religions is that they root in Societies so firmly that children growing up get brainwashed into believing that religious Ideology as the norm which does (and i have witnessed it) cause serious friction when trying to accept others points of views and beliefs about life and why we are here.
I'm only 22 and i remember being at mass a couple of weeks ago with my lovely Christian parents. I didn't mind going to the church as it was what my parents usually did on a sunday and sure i thought what the harm. But my my i got so upset when the priest was going on about homosexuals in society. I had not been to mass in many years but i could see a very aggressive approach from this priest in trying to convince everyone in that church that something had to be done......and so on.....I asked my parents if they agreed with what the priest was saying and of course they did not.....i don't think anyone did. So i asked my parents why they go to church to listen to this man incite hate on other human beings (gays etc) My parents are lovely people and they honestly could'n give me an answer but still they will continue going to church. they will still keep going to church???
i think the problem here is psychological and something to do with the conditioning of the mind. And please no1 say that it is the true belief in god that keeps bringing them back to the church. Its a lovely thought but silly. The way my parents were taught and brought up is why they are christians, i don't think they have ever questioned christianity because of fear and i dont think they even understand what christianity is about (something tells me that it isnt just them). Who is a real christian and who isn't? A real christian is someone who completely understands their religion and chooses that path, not the other way around (your path gets chosen and then you understand). It is somewhat suppressive what religion does to humanity. A human is a human and the world is full of them. We are no different Physically and emotionally, all that is different is our social conditioning. Some humans are smart and capable of manipulation of the not so smart, this is how religion was formed. People are not meant to be controlled both physically and mentally. But control the mind and effect society is exactly what religion does. It has a negative effect though it is not obvious.
Children should be able to grow up not being apart of any religion but being taught of all the different kinds of religions.Then the child when older can decide from a neutral perspective which religion to follow. This should be the way.0 -
Yes - through natural causesI'm tolerant enough to accept that different people believe different things. To try to lump those who disagree with you (be they fundamentalists or atheists) as being dangerous, or corrupting, or prone to commit atrocities is
What of they are dangerous, corrupting or prone to comitting atrocities?0 -
Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.What of they are dangerous, corrupting or prone to comitting atrocities?
Funnily enough, that's pretty much word-for-word the same response I got last week when I rebuked a guy in the US for talking about homosexuals as if they were dangerous, corrupting and prone to paedeophilia.
I guess different kinds of intolerance distort minds in the same ways.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes - through natural causesYes but you didn't answer the question. What if they are?
You seem to be proposing a world where we can't call anyone on their evil deeds, even if they're evil, simply because we can never be 100% of anything.
If I'm 99.99% sure that someone is a rapist, I'll treat them like a rapist.
I can see why you as a Christian might like a world where our ability to criticise bullshit when we see it is reduced though...0
Advertisement