Would you like to see the death of religion.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

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.

Latest contradiction:
You do not have to be nice about these beliefs, but you spouting them of a funneral would be in bad taste.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Latest contradiction:
You do not have to be nice about these beliefs, but you spouting them of a funneral would be in bad taste.

Its not a contradiction. Its called "tact".

I'm quite happy to batter your arguments here online but if you were at a funeral and needed to mourn then you can do so in whatever way pleases you most.

Provided it doesnt require I be immolated with the corpse why should I care?

Conar

Yes - through natural causes

I'm enjoying this argument.

Tim, you really need to back down on the facist remark though, if Hivermind is a fascist then so are all opposition groups throughout the world regardless of what they oppose.

I will give another example of how religion is forced on us.
My daughter has to stand in her line in the morning while they say prayers before going into school.
If thats not forcing religion on to someone (and a vunerable mind at that) then I don't know what is. Why should I have to undoctrinate her when she gets home and explain to her that whatever the teacher says about Jesus etc being fact is actually not true and is just their belief, while at the same time trying to tell her to always listen to what her teacher has to say?
And please don't go down the road of asking why I don't send her to a non-denomonational school because we all know they simply aren't available to us all.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim,

At the end of the day, this argument we are having is because you are somehow uncomfortable with my assertion of my feelings - which are that the world would be better off with the death of religion and that I feel no special onus to be anything other than tolerant of the inane and irrational beliefs of others. The fact that I do not extend that tolerance to monnecoddling and accomodating a range of ecclesiastical nonsense nor wish for their beliefs to impact on the way I live my life seems to be a source of some disquiet to you.

I do not agree with your apologetics. You do not agree with my unapologetics.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Conar wrote: »

I'm enjoying this argument.
Why should I have to undoctrinate her when she gets home and explain to her that whatever the teacher says about Jesus etc being fact is actually not true and is just their belief, while at the same time trying to tell her to always listen to what her teacher has to say?

Good point. I particularly like "undoctrinate" I must use it more often.

Tim Robbins

Conar wrote: »

I'm enjoying this argument.

Tim, you really need to back down on the facist remark though, if Hivermind is a fascist then so are all opposition groups throughout the world regardless of what they oppose.

I will give another example of how religion is forced on us.
My daughter has to stand in her line in the morning while they say prayers before going into school.
If thats not forcing religion on to someone (and a vunerable mind at that) then I don't know what is. Why should I have to undoctrinate her when she gets home and explain to her that whatever the teacher says about Jesus etc being fact is actually not true and is just their belief, while at the same time trying to tell her to always listen to what her teacher has to say?
And please don't go down the road of asking why I don't send her to a non-denomonational school because we all know they simply aren't available to us all.

Well that's a better more concrete example and one I would sympathise with. I would recommend join up the humanist society and educate together network. I would be surprised if you haven't done so already and would find it hard to understand how something can be issue to someone and yet they are happy not to actively join up and do something about it.
Cheers.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Its not a contradiction. Its called "tact".

I'm quite happy to batter your arguments here online but if you were at a funeral and needed to mourn then you can do so in whatever way pleases you most.

Provided it doesnt require I be immolated with the corpse why should I care?

Ok so you are capable of temporarily respecting those of religious persuasion and their beliefs. You are temporarily capabale of not being a facist.
why not push the boundries and try to respect them a little bit more?
At least you'd be consistent.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Tim,

At the end of the day, this argument we are having is because you are somehow uncomfortable with my assertion of my feelings - which are that the world would be better off with the death of religion and that I feel no special onus to be anything other than tolerant of the inane and irrational beliefs of others. The fact that I do not extend that tolerance to monnecoddling and accomodating a range of ecclesiastical nonsense nor wish for their beliefs to impact on the way I live my life seems to be a source of some disquiet to you.

I do not agree with your apologetics. You do not agree with my unapologetics.

I regard your form of militant atheism as biggotted facism and you think it's rational critism. It's not. It's full of arguments by asertion, contradictions and unsubstantiated claims.

I think like all biggots, fear and insecurity is what drives you. Dig in to your heart and you'll find love.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote:

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.

The consequence of religious people being religious people is pretty much malign for your life, the common good and the weaker in society unless you are can clearly explain and demonstrate it isn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think like all biggots, fear and insecurity is what drives you. Dig in to your heart and you'll find love.

Perhaps your own insecurities are to blame here. If you can't accept that peoples' opinions differ to your own without calling them fascist bigots maybe you should stay away from such discussions.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

The consequence of religious people being religious people is pretty much malign for your life, the common good and the weaker in society unless you are can clearly explain and demonstrate it isn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well then you are assuming something is by default malign, unless you wish to explain why you are treating religion differently.
I assume all things are by default benign unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

Perhaps your own insecurities are to blame here. If you can't accept that peoples' opinions differ to your own without calling them fascist bigots maybe you should stay away from such discussions.

I'd agree if that's all I did. But I went to great length to point out why Hivermind's position was one of categorical intolerance.
It was a derived conclusion. Can we not derive conclusions or can we only derive certain ones?

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

personally, i think that there's some fault in both camps here. As to Tims original questioning of Hiveminds stance, i think it was perfectly called for. Hivemind was quite vehemently saying that religion effects secular life in a negative way. Tim asked for 3 examples. Hivemind responded with very vague claims. Tim called him on this, unfortunately, the word facsist was bandied about then and I think that provoked a bit of tension. However, if we refocus on hiveminds point.

Hivemind wrote:

1. Education: 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.

2. 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.

3. Healthcare: Abortion. end of Conversation.

Maybe if the conversation refocuses on the above points of contention, we could have a peaceful discussion again. All friends again?:)

Tim Robbins

1. Education: 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.

I don't see any point here. The Catholic Church for all it's faults has over 3 million members. Surely 3 million people are going to have some sort of influence in society. This begs the questions: what type of influence do they have and what type should they have?
Hivermind needs to develop the detail here.

2. 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.

Again what's the point here? Surely government officials are allowed to believe in the man upstairs? Surely instituitions such as Catholic schools have a right to protect their ethos? Why should they adopt Hivermind's ethos?

As for the dismissal of homosexuals of schools, approxiametly 4% of the population is homosexual. That's about 160,000 people. How many of them been kicked out of their school?

3. Healthcare: Abortion. end of Conversation.

Again I see no point here.
Many atheists are against abortion. Many theists are accepting of abortion.
Our state is entitled to vote whatever we want on this, we are not at the whip of any religion for any referendum. Religions are perfectly entitled to discuss and debate issues amongst its own members. That's democracy.
Don't forget the state went against the Catholic Church in the last divorce referendum even though the majority of its members were in the Catholic Church. This would be clear evidence that the CC is not controlling people or its members like robots.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well then you are assuming something is by default malign, unless you wish to explain why you are treating religion differently.
I assume all things are by default benign unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.

I assume neither. I'm pointing out that if you are free to assume that without providing any proof, the contrary assumption requires no proof either. With neither side required to provide proof, there is no point in argument.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

I assume neither. I'm pointing out that if you are free to assume that without providing any proof, the contrary assumption requires no proof either. With neither side required to provide proof, there is no point in argument.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fine, but I've yet to meet someone who thinks all things are by default malign.
There's a bit of the maxim "innoncent until proven guilty" I am adopting here.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Fine, but I've yet to meet someone who thinks all things are by default malign.
There's a bit of the maxim "innoncent until proven guilty" I am adopting here.

Er no, you are assuming "benign until proven anything else". That's a far from neutral position (essentially you are assuming that religion is 'guilty' of being benign), particularly in a debate like this - and while a neutral position is not required, proving a non-neutral position definitely is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

^^Come on guys, lets not turn this into another epic!

Keith186

I'd prefer to see the end of it but not forcefully end it.

I think it would be good if children were brought up with no religion and then see how many of them find god. That would be interesting.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Keith186 wrote: »

I think it would be good if children were brought up with no religion and then see how many of them find god. That would be interesting.

It certainly is interesting. China tried it since 1949. The current number of Christians in China is around 100,000,000 and rising.

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

It certainly is interesting. China tried it since 1949. The current number of Christians in China is around 100,000,000 and rising.

Wow. Never realised that.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It certainly is interesting. China tried it since 1949. The current number of Christians in China is around 100,000,000 and rising.

Thats not really the same thing. China outlawed religion. But followers of the religion continued, illegally, to worship and believe and pass this on to future generations.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er no, you are assuming "benign until proven anything else". That's a far from neutral position (essentially you are assuming that religion is 'guilty' of being benign), particularly in a debate like this - and while a neutral position is not required, proving a non-neutral position definitely is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Innocent is a non-neutral position. But this is all moot.
If it makes you happier, I'll assume "nuetral" until proven anything else. I have no problem doing that because in the context of this discussion, it doesn't really change anything I am still asking Hivermind to substantiate his points.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Innocent is a non-neutral position. But this is all moot.
If it makes you happier, I'll assume "nuetral" until proven anything else. I have no problem doing that because in the context of this discussion, it doesn't really change anything I am still asking Hivermind to substantiate his points.

Works for me, although people don't generally change baseline positions just like that.

On a side-note, innocence of a crime is a neutral position - but I don't want to go off-topic explaining that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

Works for me, although people don't generally change baseline positions just like that.

On a side-note, innocence of a crime is a neutral position - but I don't want to go off-topic explaining that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We are arguing over words. Let's park it.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Let's park it.

Lets.

MooseJam

Yes, except for my religion.

yes I would love to see the death of religion that would be a day worth celebrating

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Wicknight wrote: »

Thats not really the same thing. China outlawed religion. But followers of the religion continued, illegally, to worship and believe and pass this on to future generations.

Not so. China has a one child policy, which means that it would have taken 200,000,000 Christians in the last generation to produce 100,000,000 in this generation. The vast majority of Chinese Christians are first generation believers who were brought up without religion and then found God - exactly the scenario that Keith envisaged.

Conar

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote: »

Not so. China has a one child policy, which means that it would have taken 200,000,000 Christians in the last generation to produce 100,000,000 in this generation. The vast majority of Chinese Christians are first generation believers who were brought up without religion and then found God - exactly the scenario that Keith envisaged.

If the one child policy was actually working then China's population wouldn't have continued to grow so I think you're figures must be way off.
Using your figures China's population would be halfing per generation.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Conar wrote: »

If the one child policy was actually working then China's population wouldn't have continued to grow so I think you're figures must be way off.
Using your figures China's population would be halfing per generation.

Good point. Obviously the 1 child policy is not working. However, in 1949 Christians comprised 0.2% of the Chinese population. That number actually declined steeply in the next decade due to fierce persecution. Today Christians comprise 8% of the Chinese population. So, either I am correct in saying that the majority of Chinese Christians are first generation believers, or else Christians are at least 40 times more fertile than the rest of the population.