Would you like to see the death of religion.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Dades wrote: »

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)...

I havent had the pelasure of reading childhoods end as yet but Brave New World is certainly a little ... disturbing. I dont see how the complete end to religion would lead to that reality though, since it presupposes that human beings are unwilling to fight to simple "be themselves" unaltered and unindoctrinated.

I suppose its a row I should have had with Huxley though

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I havent had the pelasure of reading childhoods end as yet...

And you with a name Hivemind!
Childhood's End is one of my fav SF books ever - a fascinating look at the creation of a utopian world.
Over 50 yrs old but well worth a read.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

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?

I think that survey is a load of rubbish. I've seen it before.

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.

No problem having an aversion to what you perceive as superstitous nonsense. But that's not the point. It's your aversion to other people having a propensity to religion. You haven't really being able to explain how this unfairly adversly affects you which begs the question what do you have that particular aversion?

It just seems you don't like other people expressing themselves in a way you can't relate to.

Tim Robbins

karen3212 wrote: »

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.

I guess for them there is no similarity of their respective positions.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

I couldn't forebear from not commenting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

?

DerKaiser

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Personally I don't care, if people believe in something that makes them happy, then let them be, as long as they don't try to influence me or if they are in a position of power they don't let it influence their decisions, but I would ideally like to see more people thinking for themselves and not have their life's mandate set out for them by very charismatic speakers.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think that survey is a load of rubbish. I've seen it before.


No problem having an aversion to what you perceive as superstitous nonsense. But that's not the point. It's your aversion to other people having a propensity to religion. You haven't really being able to explain how this unfairly adversly affects you which begs the question what do you have that particular aversion?

It just seems you don't like other people expressing themselves in a way you can't relate to.

I see this is up to your usual standards of keyboard-warriorism.

I have a problem with people believing in "imaginary friends in the sky that grant wishes if you just ask nicely enough" because it is unadulterated dribble. That is my prejudice, a considered and fair one.

Might I ask your opinion on pedophiles? I dont not agree with what they think and what they do - does that make me a fascist? Does being offended by the position that rogering a 9 year old is harmless make me somehow an authoritarian tyrant? Its an argument of equivalency.

Oh, and kudos for the liberal use of your standard rebuttle "?" - the classic, "'I'll pretend I dont understand so that people who are slightly less smart than I am will think that what this person said is flawed or silly". Very clever. Golf claps all round I think.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You haven't really being able to explain how this unfairly adversly affects you which begs the question what do you have that particular aversion?

That, or you ignored the responses you got yesterday, or make some remark that suggested you weren't interested in responses that didn't sit well with your view.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I see this is up to your usual standards of keyboard-warriorism.

I have a problem with people believing in "imaginary friends in the sky that grant wishes if you just ask nicely enough" because it is unadulterated dribble. That is my prejudice, a considered and fair one.

Might I ask your opinion on pedophiles? I dont not agree with what they think and what they do - does that make me a fascist? Does being offended by the position that rogering a 9 year old is harmless make me somehow an authoritarian tyrant? Its an argument of equivalency.

What a stupid argument. What next? Are you facist if you are against murderers?
The consequence of religious people being religious people is pretty much benign to your life, the common good and the weaker in society unless you are can clearly explain and demostrate it isn't.
Murderers and Pedophiles are entirely different. They are a threat to weak, the young, the innocent and the common good.
Religion even if it just superstition helps some people cope with death, the departing of loved ones. It provokes ethical concerns, helping the weak and the concept of the common good as advocated by the golden rule which is present in all major religions and humanist ideologies.

Oh, and kudos for the liberal use of your standard rebuttle "?" - the classic, "'I'll pretend I dont understand so that people who are slightly less smart than I am will think that what this person said is flawed or silly". Very clever. Golf claps all round I think.

It's not a rebuttal. It's notification I can't understand another post.
What should I do? Pretend I understand it and go off on a tangent?

That's hardly intelligent discourse.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

That, or you ignored the responses you got yesterday, or make some remark that suggested you weren't interested in responses that didn't sit well with your view.

I didn't ignore them. I went through the president point, the education point, the healthcare point etc.

In fact yesterday you where coming from the similar angle yourself:

"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."

So I am confused as what your issue is. Perhaps pick one particular point or issue that you feel I have skimmed over and we can discuss / debate it in more detail.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

I think I see where the blockage is.
Nobody is saying religion has to go for these things to change. Many people, myself included, are happy for people to maintain their personal beliefs as long as they don't impinge on public policy, or restrict progress. Some examples were given where the line is crossed. Yes, an entirely secular state is possible, even with religion, but that's not the question that was asked.

I'm at loss now as to where (if any) the disagreement lies.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

I think I see where the blockage is.
Nobody is saying religion has to go for these things to change. Many people, myself included, are happy for people to maintain their personal beliefs as long as they don't impinge on public policy, or restrict progress. Some examples were given where the line is crossed. Yes, an entirely secular state is possible, even with religion, but that's not the question that was asked.

I'm at loss now as to where (if any) the disagreement lies.

Well there are two issues:
1. Are the cases where the line is crossed trivial?
I am saying yes. I don't know what you are saying. Hivermind appears to be saying no and there are ample cases where "supernatual nonsense" is being accomodated where it shouldn't be.

2. Do we need the death of religion?
I am saying no. You are no. Hivermind seems to be unclear. Perhaps he could clarify.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What a stupid argument. What next? Are you facist if you are against murderers?
The consequence of religious people being religious people is pretty much benign to your life, the common good and the weaker in society unless you are can clearly explain and demostrate it isn't.
Murderers and Pedophiles are entirely different. They are a threat to weak, the young, the innocent and the common good.
Religion even if it just superstition helps some people cope with death, the departing of loved ones. It provokes ethical concerns, helping the weak and the concept of the common good as advocated by the golden rule which is present in all major religions and humanist ideologies.

Firstly, YOU brought up the fascists not me. You assume that I have a problem with other peoples beliefs and you are damn right I do. I have never made any claim to the contrary. Why should I? To accomodate your conscience and desire to be politically correct? To appease religious maniacs who murder abortionists and make statements like "Kill those who say Islam is violent!" - please! It was your argument and you have had it turned on you. I object to the influence of religion on my life (examples include public policy: Good Friday Drink laws, the protection of ethos clause and the abortion law - which stems from a belief that all life is sacred which is a sincerely religious perspective). It is not fascist to want to argue with those you feel are wrong, I didnt demand they be gagged did I? did I ask for a pogrom to be instigated?

I merely said that I would like to see the end (death) of religion because I personally feel it is a detriment to society and to the advancement of the human race.

You asked for examples and gave them. Just because you apply spin to it or are happy to live with the facts doesnt make them any less real.

Oh and a specific response to "Murderers and Pedophiles are entirely different. They are a threat to weak, the young, the innocent and the common good." ... are you seriously going to tell me that religion is not the single biggest perpetrator of preying on the weak, the innocent and exploiting the common good?

As for your "?" ... justify it how you will. It is intended to be condescending, patronising and dismissive. Thats how it comes across.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well there are two issues:
1. Are the cases where the line is crossed trivial?
I am saying yes. I don't know what you are saying. Hivermind appears to be saying no and there are ample cases where "supernatual nonsense" is being accomodated where it shouldn't be.

2. Do we need the death of religion?
I am saying no. You are no. Hivermind seems to be unclear. Perhaps he could clarify.

1) I showed you that they are not trivial. that you do not want to aknowledge the information you have been given is your own matter.

2) I have made myself clear. Perhaps you missed it. I would like to see the demise of religion from the world.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Firstly, YOU brought up the fascists not me. You assume that I have a problem with other peoples beliefs and you are damn right I do. I have never made any claim to the contrary. Why should I? To accomodate your conscience and desire to be politically correct? To appease religious maniacs who murder abortionists and make statements like "Kill those who say Islam is violent!" - please! It was your argument and you have had it turned on you. I object to the influence of religion on my life (examples include public policy: Good Friday Drink laws, the protection of ethos clause and the abortion law - which stems from a belief that all life is sacred which is a sincerely religious perspective). It is not fascist to want to argue with those you feel are wrong, I didnt demand they be gagged did I? did I ask for a pogrom to be instigated?

I merely said that I would like to see the end (death) of religion because I personally feel it is a detriment to society and to the advancement of the human race.

You asked for examples and gave them. Just because you apply spin to it or are happy to live with the facts doesnt make them any less real.

Oh and a specific response to "Murderers and Pedophiles are entirely different. They are a threat to weak, the young, the innocent and the common good." ... are you seriously going to tell me that religion is not the single biggest perpetrator of preying on the weak, the innocent and exploiting the common good?

As for your "?" ... justify it how you will. It is intended to be condescending, patronising and dismissive. Thats how it comes across.

It is facist. You refuse to accommodate those of differing beliefs.
Are you trying to tell me you're a liberal or something?

I would say heroin dealers prey on the weak just a little bit more than religion. So yes I am "seriously going to tell me that religion is not the single biggest perpetrator of preying on the weak, the innocent and exploiting the common good." That's quite easy.

As for knowing my intention with "?" is that based on some "superstituos" power you have. It is certainly not based on rational enquiry.

The words "glasshouses" and "stones" are coming to mind.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

1) I showed you that they are not trivial. that you do not want to aknowledge the information you have been given is your own matter.

Incorrect you have failed to show they are trivial.

2) I have made myself clear. Perhaps you missed it. I would like to see the demise of religion from the world.

Yes but you haven't given one rational reason why. Your militant atheism is as irrational as those you deride.
The only difference I see is that their irrationality, by and large, seems founded in love and compassion your irrationality seems founded in abject hate.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Incorrect you have failed to show they are trivial.

Incorrect. In Hiveminds defence - you simply disagree.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is facist. You refuse to accommodate those of differing beliefs.

It seems to me, by accommodate, you mean remain silent while those beliefs are allowed to influence public policy.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is facist. You refuse to accommodate those of differing beliefs.
Are you trying to tell me you're a liberal or something?

I would say heroin dealers prey on the weak just a little bit more than religion. So yes I am "seriously going to tell me that religion is not the single biggest perpetrator of preying on the weak, the innocent and exploiting the common good." That's quite easy.

As for knowing my intention with "?" is that based on some "superstituos" power you have. It is certainly not based on rational enquiry.

The words "glasshouses" and "stones" are coming to mind.

Just because I would welcome the death of religion and I dont feel any need to play nice-nice with the theists does not mean that I will not tolerate them. Thats the key word isnt it? Tolerate. I am willing to put up with their nonsense since I have no choice - I am not demanding progroms, I am not strapping dynamite to my chest and walking into synagogues. Your ability to comprehend words like "fascist" is being called into question now because you have put words in my mouth and decided my position for me rather than dealing with the facts.

If you are sincerely suggesting that religions, which demand that you be indoctrinated from the moment you are born, which prey on the uneducated and weak minds, which deliberately and calculating instil hatred and fear of others, which condemn science and evidence and which are based on nothing more than parables and fairy stories are perfectly alright then you sir, are the fascist! The unreasonable and irrational ability to ignore the crimes or characteristics in one group (religion) while vilifying the same behaviour in others (drug dealers and pedophiles) is little more than the same double-think employed by fascists, racists and, indeed, religions to control the populations opinions.

They are the biggest perpetrators of this behaviour. They have been doing it the longest. They have the most adherents (addicts?) and they have consistently proven themselves to be the more ruthless.

As for this nonsense "?" - there is a little thing called "implication" and "perception" ... you might want to look those up before being so arrogant.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

It seems to me, by accommodate, you mean remain silent while those beliefs are allowed to influence public policy.

Au contraire. I would support the humanist society and their endeavours.

But I would also support liberal democracy. That means, if their beliefs have no negative impacts on those who don't share those beliefs, I say let them have their beliefs.

It is facist to deny them their happiness, define for them what their happiness should be or to be completly inflexible and not accomadating others who view the universe differently.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Incorrect you have failed to show they are trivial.


Yes but you haven't given one rational reason why. Your militant atheism is as irrational as those you deride.
The only difference I see is that their irrationality, by and large, seems founded in love and compassion your irrationality seems founded in abject hate.

I failed to show they are trivial. Instead of immediately leaping on the obvious (which is to laugh my a$$ off at this slight mistake and claim victory by Freudian slip) I will point out that I supported my point by specific reference to the fact (you know what those are right?) that the LGBT adjunct of the teachers unions aas well as the teachers union itself is deeply concerned by the clause. That you disagree with me, and by extention them, only shows you are marginalising their opinion to suit your own argument.

I have given a number of reasons why I would welcome the death of religion. I will give you some more.

1) Religions are based on superstition and traditions, regardless of whether these are based on evidence or rationality or logic. This leads to things like indoctrinated prejudices (see Islam/Christianity and Judaism) and fear of scientific endevour (see Evolution, Copernicus and Stem Cell Research).

2) Religion is a system of control which is inflicted on children before they have a chance to choose for themselves. If you bring the nonsense in the Bible etc to an adults attention who has not been indoctrinated in to a specific religion they will laugh at you and point out every piece of stupidity contained therein - or if they are nice about it simply tell you that they dont believe a word of it.

3) Religion directly contributes to the issues of overpopulation and AIDS by opposition to contraception.

I could go on but the fact is that you have been on here longer than me so you should already know the arguments. Their "irrationality" is not founded in love and compassion. Its founded in fear and control and deceit.

My stance is based on the considered point of view, on evidence and extensive personal reflection. That I am forceful in my opinions is nothing to do with rationality and everything to do with frustration, personal style and perhaps a healthy dollop of arrogance.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Au contraire. I would support the humanist society and their endeavours.

But I would also support liberal democracy. That means, if their beliefs have no negative impacts on those who don't share those beliefs, I say let them have their beliefs.

It is facist to deny them their happiness, define for them what their happiness should be or to be completly inflexible and not accomadating others who view the universe differently.

So the fact that many religions DO impact negatively on my world and my happiness is irrelevant?

Your point falls apart here and you are revealed as nothing more than an apologist for religion if this is truly your feeling.

It is not fascist to be opposed to something, which is what I am. In fact it is the excercising of libertarian ideals that drives me to argue and rail against such things WITHOUT (for the last bloody time) demanding that they shut up, go away or are executed wholesale.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Just because I would welcome the death of religion and I dont feel any need to play nice-nice with the theists does not mean that I will not tolerate them. Thats the key word isnt it? Tolerate. I am willing to put up with their nonsense since I have no choice - I am not demanding progroms, I am not strapping dynamite to my chest and walking into synagogues. Your ability to comprehend words like "fascist" is being called into question now because you have put words in my mouth and decided my position for me rather than dealing with the facts.

If you are sincerely suggesting that religions, which demand that you be indoctrinated from the moment you are born, which prey on the uneducated and weak minds, which deliberately and calculating instil hatred and fear of others, which condemn science and evidence and which are based on nothing more than parables and fairy stories are perfectly alright then you sir, are the fascist! The unreasonable and irrational ability to ignore the crimes or characteristics in one group (religion) while vilifying the same behaviour in others (drug dealers and pedophiles) is little more than the same double-think employed by fascists, racists and, indeed, religions to control the populations opinions.

They are the biggest perpetrators of this behaviour. They have been doing it the longest. They have the most adherents (addicts?) and they have consistently proven themselves to be the more ruthless.

Drug dealers have the same behaviour as religions. Says it all really.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

That I am forceful in my opinions is nothing to do with rationality and everything to do with frustration, personal style and perhaps a healthy dollop of arrogance.

I think it's because you suffer the same mindset as the religious extremists you deride. You are incapable of understanding that people are perfectly within their rights to think, feel, live differently to you.

You sound like some angry teenager who is annoyed he had to go to mass and has read "The God Delusion" but not much else.

Why don't you spout of your diatribe the next time you have to go to a funneral of a loved one , I am sure everyone will be delighted to hear your positive views of life.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Drug dealers have the same behaviour as religions. Says it all really.

I think it does.

Consider. A Drug dealer is selling the promise of euphoria, Religions sell the promise of divine ecstacy. A drug dealer get people addicted to the drug because of the pleasurable effect and feeling given by the drug, Religion gets its followers addicted to the idea of an afterlife and of being cleansed by the holy spirit 9or some such). A drug dealer will extend his business to the friends of those he can, a Religion actively demands that the children of its adherents be raised and baptised in the same religion. A drug dealer does not allude to the dangerous of his drugs, its bad for business and Religions rarely admit to or aknowledge the dangerous of surrendering your own thought to the anti-logic and anti-rationality of a certain belief system.

A drug dealer makes a lot of money from the people who buy his drugs.

The church makes a lot of money from the people who buy into their nonsense.

I think the analogy holds up, my poor writing ability today not withstanding.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

So the fact that many religions DO impact negatively on my world and my happiness is irrelevant?

It seems that you completly avoid religions so I can't see how it impacts on your world or your happiness.

It is not fascist to be opposed to something, which is what I am.

Never said it was. That's a silly straw man.

In fact it is the excercising of libertarian ideals that drives me to argue and rail against such things WITHOUT (for the last bloody time) demanding that they shut up, go away or are executed wholesale.

Excercising of "libertarian ideals" and "demaning" people to "shut up".
Says it all really.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I think the analogy holds up, my poor writing ability today not withstanding.

Analogies aren't a logical way of arguing. It's pathetic listening to you give out about people for having irrational beliefs and equating a heroin dealer with a religion. Flipping dense really.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it's because you suffer the same mindset as the religious extremists you deride. You are incapable of understanding that people are perfectly within their rights to think, feel, live differently to you.

You sound like some angry teenager who is annoyed he had to go to mass and has read "The God Delusion" but not much else.

Why don't you spout of your diatribe the next time you have to go to a funneral of a loved one , I am sure everyone will be delighted to hear your positive views of life.

Now you are just getting personal Tim. felling the sinking feeling of a lost argument?

the fact is that I can accept that people have the "right" to believe whatever the hell they like. they can believe they are Napoleon, George Bush or Frank Sinatra's dessicated left bollock for all I care - that does not mean I have to be nice about their beliefs, it does not mean I have to believe them and it does not mean that i have to accept them. It only means that I have to tolerate them - which i do, to a point. Then I have the right to speak my own mind and protect myself from the influence of people like that.

If you cannot extend your pseudo libaralism (which it most certainly is considering you vehement defence of one group to the exclusion of another) then perhaps you might want to re-evaluate your political mindset.

As for your funeral comment, frankly, thats just in bad taste.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It seems that you completly avoid religions so I can't see how it impacts on your world or your happiness..

Avoiding religions in Ireland? In fact, avoiding religions on this planet is near to impossible. So this is a non-argument and shows signs of desperation.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Never said it was. That's a silly straw man..

Again, no. My point was that I am not a fascist because I simply oppose something, which is all I am doing. I thought that was clear?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Excercising of "libertarian ideals" and "demaning" people to "shut up".
Says it all really.

Please reasd before you post. That is the most unbelieveably stupid post I have seen all day - and I have been browsing the thunderdome.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Analogies aren't a logical way of arguing. It's pathetic listening to you give out about people for having irrational beliefs and equating a heroin dealer with a religion. Flipping dense really.

Philosophy, poetic license and sense of humour.

Three things you seem to have trouble with actually.

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

Ding Ding!