Would you like to see the death of religion.

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

Conar wrote: »

Exactly, the demise of the Egyptians didn't exactly stop us from appreciating the pyramids and their culture etc.
Religion has played a large enough part in our history to not be completely forgotten.

It'll never be forgotten, but thats not the question. the pyramids etc are appreciated as part of 'history', but the religions they represented are long since dead. Religions demise, does not mean that its a 'burn all the churches down and never speak of it again'. Its the gradual fizzeling out of belief in God. Not ignoring its historical signifigance. So would you like to see it fizzle out? Merely to be a 'pyramid' in our history?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I know a Mormon who believes the most fantastic things, but he is extremely humble. He may believe that I am wrong in my beliefs, but he is happy to discuss our differences as equals.

Well thats what I mean.

The belief that Kennedy was shot by aliens is not an equal belief to the belief that Kennedy was shot by Oswald. The more fantastical a belief the less equal it is to a less fantastical belief.

If I was discussing the Kennedy assassination I wouldn't view someone who believes the former as an equal in terms of the discussion. I would strongly question why he believes that Kennedy was shot by aliens, why he refuses to accept that he was most likely shot by Oswald, and I would question his ability to put forward a rational argument worthy of consideration.

At the end of the day it is always healthy to examine not just what people believe, but why they believe what they believe.

Now you might say that makes me arrogant, that I have a falsely inflated idea of the correctness of this course of entering a discussion.

But TBH this idea that the theist world seems to be awash with these days that every believe is equally valid as every other belief just because someone believes it, is in my opinion a way of retreating away from having to seriously justify why someone believes what they believe.

I don't hold all views and beliefs as equal just because someone believes them. I look for the argument behind the belief. And I suspect neither do you (observe how much of an equal you treat someone who comes onto the Christian forum and says that Christianity is a religion obsessed with sex, for example ).

But there seems to be this kind of cold war when it comes to issues of religion. Religious ideas are given a kind of free ride that you wouldn't get in any other area of discussion, because there is this idea that if you say "That is nonsense" to someone in relation to their religious beliefs you are some how insulting their beliefs by questioning them.

This seems to have been propagated by the various religions, possibly do to the sub-conscious recognition that each is as ridiculous as the other, and the hypocrisy of calling one ridiculous while not applying the same logic to ones own religion.

And for some bizarre reason atheists, who view all religion is equal ridiculous, are supposed to continue on with this "cold war", they are not supposed to say any religion is ridiculous.

This probably comes from the theist idea that atheism is simply another religion, so they see atheists as breaking the unwritten rules. You can't say Christianity is ridiculous! If you do we will say that your religion, atheism, is equally ridiculous!

The whole thing, how theists process atheism into their particular world framework, is quite fascinating to watch TBH.

karen3212

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote: »

That pretty well describes this forum doesn't it?

Atheists believe that they are right and that all the religions are wrong. Therefore they are just as arrogant as any theist who thinks he/she is right and all other religions are wrong. Agnostics, of course, are able to say, "Who knows?".

So, if I read you correct, Karen, you are saying that we all need to be a bit more agnostic and that religious certainty (including atheism) is arrogance?

I certainly agree with you that criticising another religion's teachings doesn't work - in fact it almost invariably puts people on the defensive and makes them more entrenched in their opinions. This whole thing came up on another thread here on the A&A forum recently (the one on respecting people's beliefs). Some posters were arguing that you should have no respect for other's beliefs. Indeed religious people were accused of being too respectful to one another.

Yes Pdn, the interpretations you all have from books that are very old, might all be right, without a lot of evidence, you have to say 'it's a matter of faith, who knows?'.
I can't wait for the day when a pastor like yourself posts, 'I don't respect the beliefs of Catholics, but I think they are fine people, and they could be right, but in my considered opinion, only God knows.'

Atheists don't have god to back them, so they obviously can disrespect all beliefs in gods, at the same time respecting the person with said beliefs. I think if religious people continue to divide the world between them, and deride people of other beliefs, then I would rather see religion disappear. I don't think it will go away, I think it will change.

Tim Robbins

karen3212 wrote: »

I think if religious people continue to divide the world between them, and deride people of other beliefs, then I would rather see religion disappear. I don't think it will go away, I think it will change.

Yes but atheists also need to stop deriding theists of their beliefs.
Personally, I think this can be a very hard thing to do and sometimes I wish I was more accepting even if theology is based on circular logic and unsubstantiated claims.

Although faith helps some people, to me it's an intellectual vacuum cleaner.

I see it going away gradually. In Dublin very few people between 20 - 40 are active in any religion. I predict it will continue to erode between generations and will either cease to exist or have adapted into just a generic form of meta-physical spirituality.

As other posters have pointed out it already has adapted and changed, I guess the past is the best guide to future.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes but atheists also need to stop deriding theists of their beliefs.

I understand what you are saying but at the same time, those beliefs are effecting the life of an atheist because they stretch over rom the religious world into the political and legislative world.

While it might be alright to say that you have no specific enmity towards religions it is not all right to grin and bear the intereference. No religion would stand for it and those without a religion should react no differently.

Edit: This is why I cant agree that we should stop being derisive of superstitious nonsense.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but at the same time, those beliefs are effecting the life of an atheist because they stretch over rom the religious world into the political and legislative world.

While it might be alright to say that you have no specific enmity towards religions it is not all right to grin and bear the intereference. No religion would stand for it and those without a religion should react no differently.

Edit: This is why I cant agree that we should stop being derisive of superstitious nonsense.

Can you give three examples where they stretch into the political and legislative world, in this state please?

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can you give three examples where they stretch into the political and legislative world, in this state please?

Healthcare, education and public policy.

In each of these cases, specific reference is made to, and various actions taken to either accomodate the supernatural (ahem) or to appease superstitions. In some cases to the detriment and certainly to the expense of the state.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can you give three examples where they stretch into the political and legislative world, in this state please?

I can't be President!

aidan24326

Yes, except for my religion.

I would be happy enough to see it die out completely, I find it odd that people like Dades (the artist formerly known as..) can say they'd like it to stay around. Why? Wouldn't it be better to rid ourselves of nonsensical superstition? Organized religion is filling peoples heads with lies and falsehoods, promoting 'faith' as the utmost virtue when faith in itself is nothing more than a copout. It's a case of I haven't a clue so I'll just make sh1t up to fill in the blanks.

An advanced alien species would regard organised religion as a sure sign of our limited intelligence, I expect we'll evolve beyond all that in time. Like Tim says religion is already dying in Ireland among the younger generation, and we used to be a Roman Catholic stronghold. Nuns are nearing extinction, ordinations to the priesthood few and far between, and yet the steadfast resistance to change remains the same. Maybe the death of religion will ultimately be self-inflicted.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Healthcare, education and public policy.

In each of these cases, specific reference is made to, and various actions taken to either accomodate the supernatural (ahem) or to appease superstitions. In some cases to the detriment and certainly to the expense of the state.

You have just given three areas with absolutely no explaination how religion has made any of them worse.
W.R.T. Education, you could argue the Church has provided the state with cheap labour. They did the same with hospitals until they pulled out.

Seriously you need to work on detail.

Are you going to blame the Church for Ireland's poor showing in the World Cup next?

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

I can't be President!

The Irish Humanist society has made a submission to the government about that and many other similar issues. They have about 300 members. If anything this shows most atheists don't care about the above and the other issues.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You have just given three areas with absolutely no explaination how religion has made any of them worse.
W.R.T. Education, you could argue the Church has provided the state with cheap labour. They did the same with hospitals until they pulled out.

Seriously you need to work on detail.

Are you going to blame the Church for Ireland's poor showing in the World Cup next?

Actually Tim, I was assuming that you would already be aware of these however I will elaborate.

The Catholic church has always had a heavy influence on the education in the country. While it can be argued that it was of benefit to us in the early years of nationhood it does not change the fact that they continue to have an influence. It was not the merit I was referring to anyway, merely examples of where the influence is.

Social policy, the government may have eliminated the special position of the catholic church in the 70's but it also included peculiar clauses all over the place such as the right of institutions to protect their spiritual ethos - this leads to the gagging and potential dismissal of homosexuals from schools or religiously based groups. Moreover, many government offcials have stated that they have deep religious beliefs (up to and including Berites wonderful little remark about "Aggressive Secularists"). Edit: And as Dades quite rightly pointed out, there is religious garbage in the sodding oath the president must take.

Healthcare. Abortion. End of conversation.

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Healthcare. Abortion. End of conversation.

I could have sworn there was a democratic vote against abortion in this country no???

Even so, to say that one cannot view abortion as ethically wrong without being 'religious' is probably doing a dis-service to some atheists I would think.

Conar

Yes - through natural causes

JimiTime wrote: »

I could have sworn there was a democratic vote against abortion in this country no???

Yes but the result was wrong

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The Catholic church has always had a heavy influence on the education in the country. While it can be argued that it was of benefit to us in the early years of nationhood it does not change the fact that they continue to have an influence. It was not the merit I was referring to anyway, merely examples of where the influence is.

What's wrong with that? Surely it's their democratic right for them to set up their own schools just as it is the right for secularists to set up their own schools.

Social policy, the government may have eliminated the special position of the catholic church in the 70's but it also included peculiar clauses all over the place such as the right of institutions to protect their spiritual ethos - this leads to the gagging and potential dismissal of homosexuals from schools or religiously based groups. Moreover, many government offcials have stated that they have deep religious beliefs (up to and including Berites wonderful little remark about "Aggressive Secularists"). Edit: And as Dades quite rightly pointed out, there is religious garbage in the sodding oath the president must take.

Most of these clauses are meaningless. As I pointed out the humanists society is the only one who seems worried about them. They have 300 members. If the presidential clause was as much as an issue as you are trying to argue, I would suspect that many more atheists would support the humanist societies endeavours on this issue. The reality is they are not.

Healthcare. Abortion. End of conversation.

Many atheists are against abortion.

No offense but you have as much detail as a white bread sandwich with a little bit of butter. You haven't given one good example where religion negatively impacts your own life, unless you have a burning ambition to be president which begs the question, why not join and support the humanist society.

With respect you sound like a facist who just hates people for being something different to you.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I could have sworn there was a democratic vote against abortion in this country no???

Not exactly. Abortion has been illegal in Ireland since 1861. The issue of legalizing abortion has never really been on the table, ever.

The 1983 8th Amendment to the Constitution was about enshrining the illegality of abortion into the actual Constitution so that no future laws or judgments of the courts could be made in favour of abortion without a future referendum. This vote was pushed by religious groups, particularly

Those who opposed the amendment, including the government at the time, were made up of groups that both supported and didn't support abortion.

Since then future referendums about abortion have been about redefining this illegality, tightening it up or not, around issues such as threat to the life of the mother.

Despite the common misconception that a lot of people seem to have, Ireland has never have a vote over making abortion legal. Probably because it wouldn't pass. Only 37% of the population approve of abortion, at least publicly when asked by newspaper polls.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What's wrong with that? Surely it's their democratic right for them to set up their own schools just as it is the right for secularists to set up their own schools.

That response is downright disingenuous. You asked for an area where the church has influence and were given one. Your response? If you want a secular school go and set one up. Bravo.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Most of these clauses are meaningless. As I pointed out the humanists society is the only one who seems worried about them. They have 300 members. If the presidential clause was as much as an issue as you are trying to argue, I would suspect that many more atheists would support the humanist societies endeavours on this issue. The reality is they are not.

Again, an example of influence - this time in the Constitution. You didn't clarify that they be matters of life and death.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Most of these clauses are meaningless. As I pointed out the humanists society is the only one who seems worried about them. They have 300 members. If the presidential clause was as much as an issue as you are trying to argue, I would suspect that many more atheists would support the humanist societies endeavours on this issue. The reality is they are not.


With respect you sound like a facist who just hates people for being something different to you.

I wont deal with the other comments as Dades has already put it more succinctly than I could.

The Teachers Union is very concerned by the portectionist clause as are the various LGBT organisations. though, according to your position, they dont count.

Considering your position that these people dont count I will respond to your fascist comment by simply pointing out that you can clearly "smell your own kind".

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

That response is downright disingenuous. You asked for an area where the church has influence and were given one. Your response? If you want a secular school go and set one up. Bravo.

Incorrect that was not my response.

I asked the question in the context of Hivermind's complaining of interfering giving him an opportunity to explain how their interfering is bad or damaging.

Now if group X wants X type schools for their members, what's wrong with that? They are not forcing him or the state to make every school this way?

So the issue would be Hivermind just not like group X. What's wrong with live and let live?

Again, an example of influence - this time in the Constitution. You didn't clarify that they be matters of life and death.

Because whether they are matters of life of death is not the issue.
The issue is whether we need to end religion to change these things.
The answer is clearly no. It would be possible for Religion to exist and for all edifices of the state to be entirely securlar.
This is the concept of separation of state and church. You don't need to eliminate the church to have separation.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I wont deal with the other comments as Dades has already put it more succinctly than I could.

The Teachers Union is very concerned by the portectionist clause as are the various LGBT organisations. though, according to your position, they dont count.

Considering your position that these people dont count I will respond to your fascist comment by simply pointing out that you can clearly "smell your own kind".

?

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

aidan24326 wrote: »

I would be happy enough to see it die out completely, I find it odd that people like Dades (the artist formerly known as..) can say they'd like it to stay around. Why?

People can have personal faith, or spirituality, or a purpose in life if they want. Whatever makes them happy. As long as the politicians, doctors and scientists can do their jobs without undue influence then why not. I don't see the point in running into churches and grabbing rosary beads out of old ladies hands tbh.

aidan24326 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better to rid ourselves of nonsensical superstition?

What, no Easter Eggs?!

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

?

http://politicalcompass.org/

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

http://politicalcompass.org/

I did that survey before and came out hard liberal left.
I think there's another spectrum here. I would see Hivermind towards the militant atheist side of it. And me down towards the post - theist side.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

I don't see the point in running into churches and grabbing rosary beads out of old ladies hands tbh.

I don't think that is what the question means, since the old ladies would still be religious so therefore religion hasn't died.

Do you think it would be a bad thing if people freely and happily abandoned religious belief and practice?

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think it would be a bad thing if people freely and happily abandoned religious belief and practice?

Put like that, I guess not.
But that image is the stuff of science fiction. But is it Childhood's End (good) or a Brave New World (bad)...

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I did that survey before and came out hard liberal left.
I think there's another spectrum here. I would see Hivermind towards the militant atheist side of it. And me down towards the post - theist side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

cordially,
Scofflaw

?

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

?

I couldn't forebear from not commenting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

Yes - through natural causes

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes but atheists also need to stop deriding theists of their beliefs.
Personally, I think this can be a very hard thing to do and sometimes I wish I was more accepting even if theology is based on circular logic and unsubstantiated claims.

Although faith helps some people, to me it's an intellectual vacuum cleaner.
.

I mean I would like religious people to stop deriding other religious people, the emphasis is on people. I don't expect them to respect each other's beliefs. I think it's ok to deride beliefs, if you think they are silly. It is not ok to demonise the people, imo. I only deride beliefs of others, I am trying constantly not to deride the person.

I am surprised though when I hear a very religious person, deride the beliefs of another religious person. I really don't understand why they miss the similarity of their respective positions.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I did that survey before and came out hard liberal left.
I think there's another spectrum here. I would see Hivermind towards the militant atheist side of it. And me down towards the post - theist side.

Actually i took the wee test and found that my politics are slightly to the left and a lot more libertarian than Ghandi so ... how do you equate that one into your little spiel of me being a Nazi?

Or should I just reach for a copy of Godwins and prepare for the inevitiable onslaught of pseudo-intellectual rubbish that people usually start chucking around when they decide they dont appreciate someone disagreeing with their opinions.

Honestly Tim, you really should understand that just because I have a particularly strong aversion to the idea of superstitious nonsense and that I am more than happy to speak my mind on the subject does not, in fact, make me a fascist. It makes me disagreeable, cantankerous, aggressive certainly and perhaps even a smidgin arrogant (:)) but it does not make me a fascist.