Is atheism just big business subterfuge

Pushtrak

cloptrop wrote: »

Ignore above how would the world benefit from aatheism???

This is far too complicated a question to be addressed. One would have to be aware of underlying attitudes, beliefs, attitudes. What timeframe are you thinking? More issues than anyone on this forum could really account for.

What is for sure though, is backwards thinking of things that are advocated in the bible would lose a pillar in their defence as people would no longer appeal to it to defend something. People take it as a book from a deity so it is taken quite seriously. And defended vigorously.

We ought not take what was said in the bronze age and try to modernize it. I really don't think society would turn in to some type of utopia due to lack of religion. I don't think it would end wars, as religion is just one reason for man to declare war. I wouldn't really be opposed the world having one less reason for war though.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Some friendly advice:

Never argue with a fool. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

There are fools because they don't know any something, and there are fools because they don't want to know something. One can help the former, not the latter. It is good to hope there are more of the former in the audience than the latter. If one is an optimist, I guess.

Channel Zero

Gumbi wrote: »

Are you an idiot? Atheism isn't a religion. And neither is theism. Wow, it really pisses me off when people throw around terms that they don't have the faintest clue about.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Some friendly advice:

Never argue with a fool. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Oh the atheists are upset.:)

Boo hoo.

Of course they never would do that sort of thing would they?:rolleyes:

Ni-ni.;)

Gumbi

Channel Zero wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Are you an idiot? Atheism isn't a religion. And neither is theism. Wow, it really pisses me off when people throw around terms that they don't have the faintest clue about.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Some friendly advice:

Never argue with a fool. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Oh the atheists are upset.:)

Boo hoo.

Of course they never would do that sort of thing would they?:rolleyes:

Ni-ni.;)

No, I'm not upset. I think you're upset because you don't know what atheism means

Insect Overlord

I'm lying in bed, listening to lovely music and drinking a rather tasty White Russian. I donated blood this evening and then enjoyed a fantastic performance of "Pigtown" in the local theatre. I could hardly be upset if I tried, even reading this ridiculous thread.

Sarky

I wish I had a white Russian.
Hey, maybe if I pray hard enough...

Helix

cloptrop wrote: »

The human race will find reasons to hate other humans , Im sure a war could be easily started if the war country was lead to believe the "baddy country" wanted to kill them attack them , said they smelled.

if you genuinely believe that then im not sure why you're asking the questions you are. sure religion, no religion, whatever, you reckon people will still act the exact same. so what's the difference between a religious world and an atheist one in that case? and why are you looking for some kind of differentiation between them if you dont believe there would be one?

whenever

cloptrop wrote: »

Rupert Murdoch and the like would love it if we all decided there is no god and that there is only a need to be a consumer and a sheep.
I wonder alot ,are you more a sheep if you believe or dont believe in god?
Why do both parties try their best to convert you to each camp . I find these days atheists to be more pushy than believers.
Will there be one day a war between an amalgamation of religions against the atheists.
Are corporations delighted with the fall of religion , eg people are easier to conquer if they have no faith .
Lets try keep this thread not about whether or not there is a god . But what are the benefits either way . Religion over atheism .
How will it benefit mankind?

One benefit of science over religon -

Channel Zero

Gumbi wrote: »

No, I'm not upset. I think you're upset because you don't know what atheism means

OK. This is fun. Let's continue the "I think" game seeing as insults are par for the course for any discussion involving atheists. .
I think you think i'm upset because you're arrogant and can't take criticism of atheism or its glorious leaders on the chin, so, along with Insect Overlord, resort to ad homs.

Ellis Dee

cloptrop wrote: »

Rupert Murdoch and the like would love it if we all decided there is no god and that there is only a need to be a consumer and a sheep.
I wonder alot ,are you more a sheep if you believe or dont believe in god?
Why do both parties try their best to convert you to each camp . I find these days atheists to be more pushy than believers.
Will there be one day a war between an amalgamation of religions against the atheists.
Are corporations delighted with the fall of religion , eg people are easier to conquer if they have no faith .
Lets try keep this thread not about whether or not there is a god . But what are the benefits either way . Religion over atheism .
How will it benefit mankind?

Your opening arguments fall apart already in your first sentence when you invoke the powerful and power-hungry media baron as an example of someone who would like the masses to stop believing in a sky fairy. :rolleyes:

Whether or not he believes in one himself is difficult, probably impossible, to judge, but he certainly has used religion to his advantage. If it suits his bottom line, he will peddle religion and stories of angels and cherubs and little Jesus just as eagerly as he supplies his readers with a constant flow of titillating tits and bums and other soft porn. I suspect that the only god that really matters to Rupert is the one of money and power, but will will make common cause with the crossdressers when it suits him. Just like Stalin did during the Great Patriotic War, when he needed all the help he could get.:D

After all, Murdoch was willing to accept some kind of knighthood from the then Protector of Paedophiles Everywhere - in return for a substantial financial contribution to the holy coffers, no doubt, and despite the fact that he isn't even a member of the kiddy-fiddler church, although his then wife was. :rolleyes:

And if he is so godless, why did he recently have one of his sprogs by his current trophy wife baptised so ostentatiously in the River Jordan, and with another high-profile god-botherer - the war criminal Tony BLiar - in attendance to give it some extra holiness? ROFLMAO

Atheists are not sheep, because most of them just do their not-believing alone and their thinking goes on within their own heads rather than being fed in from outside, be it through the pulpit or the Daily Bullshit or sometimes a combination of both.:)

CL7

It's like have a debate with Brick Tamland. Yous are wasting your time.

dvpower

Min wrote: »

Yes, yes, atheism is big business, just ask Richard Dawkins how much his God delusion made him.

In the ha'penny place compared to religions.

smash

cloptrop wrote: »

Rupert Murdoch and the like would love it if we all decided there is no god and that there is only a need to be a consumer and a sheep.

You realise that religion is arguably the biggest business in the world don't you?

suicide_circus

Gumbi wrote: »

How could one POSSIBLY be a sheep if one disbelieved in God???

Quite easily. The prevailing wind of our times, in Europe anyway, is not to believe in a god. The hipsters and trendys dont believe in god...it's cool to be an athiest and having faith is seen as twee and even moronic.

planetX

suicide_circus wrote: »

Quite easily. The prevailing wind of our times, in Europe anyway, is not to believe in a god. The hipsters and trendys dont believe in god...it's cool to be an athiest and having faith is seen as twee and even moronic.

but you can't believe something just to be cool - you can pretend to believe, but actual belief has to be real by definition. Are you suggesting people are pretending to be atheist and secretly praying at home:D

Helix

planetX wrote: »

but you can't believe something just to be cool - you can pretend to believe, but actual belief has to be real by definition. Are you suggesting people are pretending to be atheist and secretly praying at home:D

atheists dont "believe"

Helix

suicide_circus wrote: »

Quite easily. The prevailing wind of our times, in Europe anyway, is not to believe in a god. The hipsters and trendys dont believe in god...it's cool to be an athiest and having faith is seen as twee and even moronic.

there's nothing cool about it. the reason more people in the western world are atheists is because the level of education has increased so much in the last 50 years. people no longer buy the tripe served up by ridiculous old books about magic

suicide_circus

Helix wrote: »

there's nothing cool about it. the reason more people in the western world are atheists is because the level of education has increased so much in the last 50 years. people no longer buy the tripe served up by ridiculous old books about magic

Thats all pretty self evident, yes. Atheism is cool by virtue of the fact that faith is uncool, do you see? DO YOU SEE??!!?

Feeona

I find that those who don't believe in a god like to shout if from the roof-tops, and also try to convert others to their way of thinking.

They're just as bad as a tv evangelist, or my aunty in Canada who tells me that 'god has you in his arms'. Don't push your agenda on me thank you very much!

smash

Feeona wrote: »

I find that those who don't believe in a god like to shout if from the roof-tops, and also try to convert others to their way of thinking.

I think you'll find that this only happens when believers mention God. Non believers don't go door to door spreading the word, or hold constant meetings to discuss it. They just get on with life.

Ghost Buster

cloptrop wrote: »

So you think the lack of belief in religion is a good thing for humanity?

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods not religion. So many assumptions and errors in this and your first post!!!
Why not figure a few things out and try again

Feeona

cloptrop wrote: »

Lets try keep this thread not about whether or not there is a god . But what are the benefits either way . Religion over atheism .

Gumbi wrote: »

Why should one presume God's existence?

smash wrote: »

I think you'll find that this only happens when believers mention God. Non believers don't go door to door spreading the word, or hold constant meetings to discuss it. They just get on with life.

OP specifically stated he didn't want the discussion to be about whether god exists or not. First post didn't seem to read that bit of the post! Could have been a great thread otherwise about the benefits/lack of benefits of religion!

smash

Feeona wrote: »

OP specifically stated he didn't want the discussion to be about whether god exists or not. First post didn't seem to read that bit of the post! Could have been a great thread otherwise about the benefits/lack of benefits of religion!

Then don't go off topic yourself.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79321459&postcount=119

cloptrop

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods not religion. So many assumptions and errors in this and your first post!!!
Why not figure a few things out and try again

Who cares , atheists are starting to sound like emos with their definitions .
HOW WOULD THE WORLD BENEFIT .

Wibbs

cloptrop wrote: »

Sorry if my original post rambled on a bit , I meant to start a thread about the benefits for religion as opposed to no religion.

Given the recent regularity of these threads I was musing on same. I think for Europe anyway religion, the various Christian denominations, have been good. I say have mind you.

Why? A number of reasons, but one biggie is the separation of church and state inherent in that particular faith from the start compared to others(give unto caesar that which is caesars/my kingdom is not of this earth). Sure the line has been more the blurred over the years. The Irish know that one better than most. However, what it meant in Europe was that there existed two separate power structures running at any one time. This tended to act as a brake on the power of both secular kings and religious ones. It also meant that you had two strands of educated men and women running at the same time. One more loyal to the state, one more loyal to the faith. Compare this to say China where all educated men and women were loyal to the state, where the centralised government and emperor were the ultimate power. On the other side in Islam, at least the aim of same, was that the state was the religion, headed by a Caliph. In Europe enough popes were told to fcuk off by princes and kings and vice versa.

The nature of the faith made a difference too IMH. In the Abrahamic faiths god is ultimately knowable, or at least one can seek to know god. In the eastern faiths, it's much more vague. In Buddhism, there's no god as such, or it's beyond knowing so... In the Tao existence is essentially unknowable, so again there can be an element of "why bother trying". Though we may laugh today at early church clerics musing over the minutiae of the scriptures, they were at least musing and building ideas of the nature of existence on the back of it. Our own John Scottus is worth a read on that score*. The idea that if you learned enough of the scriptures understanding about the nature of the universe would ultimately come is a biggie. IMH this also made a difference in the emergence of the sciences. We defo see this in early Islam where they really ran with this, but were ultimately stymied by the inflexibility of the Quran being "perfect" and the aforementioned political structure on the back of it. Again we may smirk at the contradictions in the various Christian texts, but these contradictions and the idea that they were inspired by, but not written by a god also made a big diff. They could be questioned and once you start questioning, you start getting answers, even if they're answers you don't want to hear.

People tend to forget that while the churches in Europe did hold back science, in particular science they saw as threatening to their power, there were an awful lot of clerics involved in major scientific breakthroughs. Newton was a very religious type, who wrote more on theology than any other subject but although a Protestant scientist, considered the Catholic scientists as equals and there was a lot of mixing of ideas. To quote Wikipedia on the subject "The Jesuits have been described as "the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century"". Shít even the theory of the Big Bang was put forward by a priest and genetics would be the poorer without one little monk studying bees and plants, in labs the church paid for. You don't really see scientist clerics in religions outside the Abrahamic faiths. Certainly not ones sponsored by the faiths.

So while today these things are far less important, I would say that we got to today because of them.





*after the fall of Rome, without clerics, particularly Irish clerics, the dark ages would have been significantly darker and we would have lost even more than we did.

cloptrop

Wibbs wrote: »

Given the recent regularity of these threads I was musing on same. I think for Europe anyway religion, the various Christian denominations, have been good. I say have mind you.

Why? A number of reasons, but one biggie is the separation of church and state inherent in that particular faith from the start compared to others(give unto caesar that which is caesars/my kingdom is not of this earth). Sure the line has been more the blurred over the years. The Irish know that one better than most. However, what it meant in Europe was that there existed two separate power structures running at any one time. This tended to act as a brake on the power of both secular kings and religious ones. It also meant that you had two strands of educated men and women running at the same time. One more loyal to the state, one more loyal to the faith. Compare this to say China where all educated men and women were loyal to the state, where the centralised government and emperor were the ultimate power. On the other side in Islam, at least the aim of same, was that the state was the religion, headed by a Caliph. In Europe enough popes were told to fcuk off by princes and kings and vice versa.

The nature of the faith made a difference too IMH. In the Abrahamic faiths god is ultimately knowable, or at least one can seek to know god. In the eastern faiths, it's much more vague. In Buddhism, there's no god as such, or it's beyond knowing so... In the Tao existence is essentially unknowable, so again there can be an element of "why bother trying". Though we may laugh today at early church clerics musing over the minutiae of the scriptures, they were at least musing and building ideas of the nature of existence on the back of it. Our own John Scottus is worth a read on that score*. The idea that if you learned enough of the scriptures understanding about the nature of the universe would ultimately come is a biggie. IMH this also made a difference in the emergence of the sciences. We defo see this in early Islam where they really ran with this, but were ultimately stymied by the inflexibility of the Quran being "perfect" and the aforementioned political structure on the back of it. Again we may smirk at the contradictions in the various Christian texts, but these contradictions and the idea that they were inspired by, but not written by a god also made a big diff. They could be questioned and once you start questioning, you start getting answers, even if they're answers you don't want to hear.

People tend to forget that while the churches in Europe did hold back science, in particular science they saw as threatening to their power, there were an awful lot of clerics involved in major scientific breakthroughs. Newton was a very religious type, who wrote more on theology than any other subject but although a Protestant scientist, considered the Catholic scientists as equals and there was a lot of mixing of ideas. To quote Wikipedia on the subject "The Jesuits have been described as "the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century"". Shít even the theory of the Big Bang was put forward by a priest and genetics would be the poorer without one little monk studying bees and plants, in labs the church paid for. You don't really see scientist clerics in religions outside the Abrahamic faiths. Certainly not ones sponsored by the faiths.

So while today these things are far less important, I would say that we got to today because of them.





*after the fall of Rome, without clerics, particularly Irish clerics, the dark ages would have been significantly darker and we would have lost even more than we did.

Great post man , after 100 odd posts of idiots saying "dont argue with an idiot " or "atheists wear all black , secularists wear black with red" or my favourite "strawman"without adding to the conversation it may begin now.

Auguste Comte

Yay for religion.

(Sponsored by the judaoislamic son of christ suicide belt and small arms suppliers association.)

Wibbs

I'd add that the literalist Christianity as promoted by some denominations is both a relatively recent viewpoint and a relatively minority one in Christian theology, especially among the educated adherents. Sure your average 12th century peasant in Germany was a literalist, but the clergy and theologians were far less likely to be. The more recent American(the most obvious example) literalism is unusual as it's also followed by the educated as well as the under educated.

Ghost Buster

cloptrop wrote: »

Who cares , atheists are starting to sound like emos with their definitions .
HOW WOULD THE WORLD BENEFIT .

I care and I am not redefining the word, you have done this. You cannotjust disrepresent something and then declare you dont want to discuss it. Atheism has no stance on belief in religion and it is bizzarre to claim so. Having been a catholic for about 20 years I believe catholicism exists as does Buddhism, Wicca, Judaeism, Islam etc etc etc.
Atheism deals directly with belief in gods from Thor down to less entertaining and beneign ones. Got that?
And no i dont think religion benefits the world. It does some goodbut i believe the negatives out weight the positives.
The only truly harmless religion i have encountered thus far is Wicca.

Wibbs

Ghost Buster wrote: »

And no i dont think religion benefits the world. It does some goodbut i believe the negatives out weight the positives..

Well arguable today, though I would contend that religion/theology was one of the bigger steps towards wider enlightenment and science and also contend(as above) that the particular flavour of theology in Europe helped same.That it was often an essential part of getting to today's world. It's easy to be blase, even smug looking back, but that's not the whole story.

The only truly harmless religion i have encountered thus far is Wicca

Buddhism is pretty harmless. Jainism is incredibly harmless and peace loving. Wicca's only been around for a century tops, so a little early to judge. Who's to say that if it was a bigger religion with more power it would be just as daft as others can be.

Insect Overlord

Channel Zero wrote: »

I think you think i'm upset because you're arrogant and can't take criticism of atheism or its glorious leaders on the chin, so, along with Insect Overlord, resort to ad homs.

It's both amusing and frustrating that my point was completely misunderstood last night.

The point I was making was not that anyone in particular in this thread was a fool, but rather that Gumbi should not have let himself be reduced to use of the word "idiot".

The fact that you associated my post with the behaviour of other posters says more to me about how you see them (or yourself) and not of how you see me.

In answer the title of this thread I say no, atheism is not the result of corporate subterfuge. Being faithful to a particular religion and being a glutton for commercial rubbish are not mutually exclusive, you know. Atheism is not an organised movement, and as such can't really claim to be a force for anything. That said, I reckon if it motivates people to think critically and logically, to self-educate, and to treat others with respect then it's hardly a bad thing at all.

To add to the points made by Wibbs above I would include the good work of religious organisations in spreading education, nursing and care of the poor. Religiously motivated people are quite capable of doing great things to aid their fellow peoples. See Edmund Rice, Oscar Romero and Mother Teresa. The trouble is that much of their good has since been cancelled out by things like the Magdalene laundries, child sex abuse, the spread of AIDS, refusal to let atheists defect from the church and so on. And that's just Catholicism!

Bad Panda

I cringe when people proclaim that they're Ahteists (specifically). Like it's something to be proud of and they're so much more enlightened.

I'm not religious. I don't care about religion/God or whether there is one. Why would I want to take up my time talking about something I either

i) don't believe in
ii) don't care about anyway?

That's not to say I don't wonder sometimes, but it's as far as it goes.

The lenghts some people go to be offended by the church* - wanting to renounce they're Catholicism etc is really quite sad.

Obviously they're behaviour has been abhorrent when it comes to certain cases, but still. Who really listens to these eejits anyway!?

Gumbi

suicide_circus wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

How could one POSSIBLY be a sheep if one disbelieved in God???

Quite easily. The prevailing wind of our times, in Europe anyway, is not to believe in a god. The hipsters and trendys dont believe in god...it's cool to be an athiest and having faith is seen as twee and even moronic.

Not at all. Not at all. You seem to be implying that one should presume a deity, which is nonsensical, as I've already explained.

CL7

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The point I was making was not that anyone in particular in this thread was a fool, but rather that Gumbi should not have let himself be reduced to use of the word "idiot".

What is so wrong with calling someone an idiot if it's deserved? I don't think religious believers are idiots. I do think though that believers that insist that Atheism is a religion and a belief system are either:

A Idiots

B Ignorant

C Intentionally obtuse and dishonest just because it supports their argument/world view.

What's wrong with calling it like it is?

Zab

Bad Panda wrote: »

I cringe when people proclaim that they're Ahteists (specifically). Like it's something to be proud of and they're so much more enlightened.

They are proud and they do consider themselves to be more enlightened.

I'm not religious. I don't care about religion/God or whether there is one. Why would I want to take up my time talking about something I either

i) don't believe in
ii) don't care about anyway?

That's not to say I don't wonder sometimes, but it's as far as it goes.

Are people stopping you on the street to proclaim their atheism and try to "convert" you? You "wondering" is as far as it goes? If somebody is trying to force the conversation on to you then just tell them you aren't interested. It's true that some people really do love talking about this stuff, but are you implying that more people try to talk to you about atheism than religion? I've never had an atheist call to my door on a mission to "convert" the masses, although both topics do come up in conversation.

The lenghts some people go to be offended by the church* - wanting to renounce they're Catholicism etc is really quite sad.

Obviously they're behaviour has been abhorrent when it comes to certain cases, but still. Who really listens to these eejits anyway!?

Lots and lots of people listen to "these eejits", even if you aren't one of them. The people who renounce Catholicism are far from sad, even if you think they're misguided. They see the Roman Catholic Church as something that needs to be rallied against. Unless you don't think that the RCC is a powerful entity then I don't see how this is sad.

Pushtrak

Channel Zero wrote: »

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/09/the-weaponization-of-atheism/

Ok, lets see what this has to say...

The late Christopher Hitchens provides the most obvious example, a celebrity atheist as famous for boosting wars as for baiting clerics.

Liberal admirers often mentally separated the atheistic Hitchens from the political Hitchens but in reality the two personas were inseparable.

One doesn't have to agree with every single thing a person says on the basis of agreeing with one thing. Surely a reasonable person can see this as ridiculous?

Attendees at the convention can, after all, hear much the same thing from Sam Harris, another of the so-called ‘Four Horsemen’. Harris, like Hitchens, thinks that atheists have a special insight into the war on terror, which should, he says, understood as a conflict against ‘a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise’.

Harris is very vocal against Islam more than any other theology. Generally it isn't theology or fundamentalism you'll hear him* have an issue with, but the fundamentals of Islam.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another conference speaker, carves out similar territory.

‘We are at war with Islam,’ she says bluntly. ‘And there’s no middle ground in wars.’

I hadn't heard of her before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Elsewhere, Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the neonconservative American Enterprise Institute, explained the home front consequences of that total war.

‘All Muslim schools. Close them down. Yeah, that sounds absolutist. I think 10 years ago things were different, but now the jihadi genie is out of the bottle.’

The distasteful thing about that is it limits it to one religion when, really, we'd be better suited not having any religious schools. As in, no one particular religion is represented over another. Cultural studies or some such could be very valuable though.

That doesn’t mean that leftwing atheists should hide their views about God. It’s simply that say that we’re far more likely to win people from religion by working alongside them against the forces of oppression in this world – and thus showing them in practice that religious consolations aren’t necessary – rather than by dismissing them as dupes and stooges.

Well, as long as there are people discussing why they think it is worth believing, I'll be discussing why it isn't. And that is all that needs be said on that.



*Of course, this presupposes you actually hear what he has to say and not get your info on some site.

NiallFH

cloptrop wrote: »

I wonder alot ,are you more a sheep if you believe or dont believe in god?

Atheism is believing in nothing, how can you be a sheep, you aren't following any flock or blindly believing in things that have no scientific evidence of factual backing. Atheism is a 'lack' if belief. Theres no Atheist mass etc, where you have religion Atheists have nothing.

cloptrop wrote: »

Why do both parties try their best to convert you to each camp . I find these days atheists to be more pushy than believers.

Probably because you are a believer so you don't have believers pushing you to somewhere you already are?

cloptrop wrote: »

Will there be one day a war between an amalgamation of religions against the atheists.

I would imagine religions war with each other more than with Atheists.

cloptrop wrote: »

Are corporations delighted with the fall of religion , eg people are easier to conquer if they have no faith .

I don't see how that is true, I would believe the opposite myself, Religious people are easier to conquer, whereas Atheists tend to be more free thinking and less likely to believe or be conquered.

cloptrop wrote: »

But what are the benefits either way . Religion over atheism .
How will it benefit mankind?

Honestly I believe religion has caused nothing but pain, suffering, war, suppression etc for mankind

Channel Zero

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It's both amusing and frustrating that my point was completely misunderstood last night.

The point I was making was not that anyone in particular in this thread was a fool, but rather that Gumbi should not have let himself be reduced to use of the word "idiot".

The fact that you associated my post with the behaviour of other posters says more to me about how you see them (or yourself) and not of how you see me.

The implication was pretty clear there, but if you're saying it wasn't aimed at me and was my fault for assuming that, then er thanks for clarifying.

Just on the atheism is a religion thing, it is of course an unfair generalisation similar to "all religious people are stupid" etc. In saying that, some think that militant atheism does share some of the bad aspects of religion, and that some of its acolytes can come across as fanatical. I can understand that some will get their nose out of joint by this comparison, so best leave it at that tbh.

Pushtrak wrote: »

One doesn't have to agree with every single thing a person says on the basis of agreeing with one thing. Surely a reasonable person can see this as ridiculous?

I think the point is that Hitchens himself refused to separate the two, and like Harris, used his atheism to justify war.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Harris is very vocal against Islam more than any other theology. Generally it isn't theology or fundamentalism you'll hear him* have an issue with, but the fundamentals of Islam.

Have you read "End of Faith"? He has an issue with all organised religion it's fair to say. He likens religion to a form of mental illness. You're right though in saying that he reserves a special animosity for Islam. He is what many would describe as an Islamophobe, saying "[SIZE=-1]the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists[/SIZE]".
He's entitled to his views of course, if they are indeed his views. Considering he sold a shedload of books riding on the back of post 9/11 hysteria, perhaps he's just in it for the money.

The distasteful thing about that is it limits it to one religion when, really, we'd be better suited not having any religious schools.

The statement from Ali was ‘All Muslim schools. Close them down. Yeah, that sounds absolutist. I think 10 years ago things were different, but now the jihadi genie is out of the bottle.’

The distasteful thing about that for me is that it wrongly stereotypes Muslims as radical fundamentalists and therefore promotes hatred and intolerance. The other distasteful thing about it is that it's a proposal to deny the right of Muslims to educate their children as they see fit.

Wibbs

NiallFH wrote: »

I don't see how that is true, I would believe the opposite myself, Religious people are easier to conquer,

Not if you're trying to conquer their version of god they're not. Much more likely to get a cohesive resistance in such cases. If they're big on afterlives even more so as they'll have less to lose as they see it. Julius Caesar noted this in his diaries. The Celts having a deeper belief in a hereafter compared to Romans had no fear of death and were hard to fight because of it. It doesn't have to obviously religious either, but a similar mindset. Thousands of Russian troops marched into German machine gun fire shouting "Stalin!" dying for their "motherland". Not far off religious belief.

whereas Atheists tend to be more free thinking and less likely to believe or be conquered.

Depends on the time and place. Chances are very high that the vast majority of those posting on this thread that identify as Atheists would be be religious to some degree or other 50 years ago and that would be near a given 200 years ago. Their ability to "free think" came with the times, rather than any internal propensity for it. Indeed one might argue that the few religious in the thread set against the majority, intimating they're gobshítes for believing in such things are actually more free thinking and rebellious.

Honestly I believe religion has caused nothing but pain, suffering, war, suppression etc for mankind

Then throw out much of art, the law, even science, because much of that was promoted and informed by religious belief. I have no doubt of the damage religions have caused, however I'm not so blinkered or banal to suggest it's nearly that black and white.

prinz

We're all sheep when it comes to being influenced, whether by fashions, fads, advertising, media sources whatever. Atheist or Jedi, it's irrelevant.

dlofnep

Ask Galileo what religion did for science. Religion is happy to accommodate science, so long as it doesn't contradict religious texts. That's why you have a load of lunatic Christians running around the US right now trying to get Creationism taught as a legitimate scientific subject. It's no great wonder that over 90% of the Royal Society and American National Academy of Sciences are non-believers.

Religion is an obstacle for the advancement of our species. It doesn't serve any purpose, other than collective control over a population.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Ask Galileo what religion did for science..

Ask Francis Collins.... one of the main men behind the Human Genome Project and a world leader in identifying the genetic origins of many of the world's diseases. He also worked with Hitchens towards the end of his life too in studying his illness.

Being an evangelical Christian doesn't seem to have hampered his scientific career, has it?

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Ask Francis Collins.... one of the main men behind the Human Genome Project and a world leader in identifying the genetic origins of many of the world's diseases. He also worked with Hitchens towards the end of his life too in studying his illness.

Being an evangelical Christian doesn't seem to have hampered his scientific career, has it?

There are many people who are able to separate their religion from their scientific views and I have never stated otherwise. Save the strawman. The Church accepts Evolution now so it's of no great surprise that he has the support of the Pope. Let's see how much support Francis Collins would have had from his community 100 years ago.

It doesn't change many of the points I have highlighted. Religion actively either discourages scientifically valid theories, or proposes erroneous ones. This is a huge problem around the world and is greatly affecting the education of millions of students - who are being spoonfed nonsense about biology and cosmology.

jank

dlofnep wrote: »

Religion is an obstacle for the advancement of our species. It doesn't serve any purpose, other than collective control over a population.

That all depends on your definition of religion.

Pushtrak

Channel Zero wrote: »

Just on the atheism is a religion thing, it is of course an unfair generalisation similar to "all religious people are stupid"

The only way that would work is if no religious people were stupid. So, it doesn't work.

etc. In saying that, some think that militant atheism does share some of the bad aspects of religion

I'd rather specifics be brought up so a discussion could be had.

, and that some of its acolytes can come across as fanatical.

In my case, I'd rather hope I come across as wanting a discussion. And this being a forum, I perhaps have come to the right avenue in which to look for this.

I think the point is that Hitchens himself refused to separate the two, and like Harris, used his atheism to justify war.

So, suppose there are some, even many who use their atheism to support their politics. What are the implications of this? What are the implications when some, or many respond using atheism to renounce war? I'd like to see you make proper points in the thread, flesh them out and have a discussion on topics. You aren't delivering. You are just labouring under mistaken assumptions, and not really giving much to think on. If you wish to take an "atheism is" leap on the basis of what people say who are atheists, then get ready for your perspective to constantly be leapfrogging as you talk to other atheists.

You may as well be posting something like "True atheists drink this." Oh, and one last thing. I'd be interested why people who claim to find theist/atheist discussions so disagreeable, and on finding them disagreeable find they must jump in to let everyone know just how disagreeable such discussions are to them.

Wibbs

dlofnep wrote: »

There are many people who are able to separate their religion from their scientific views and I have never stated otherwise. Save the strawman. The Church accepts Evolution now so it's of no great surprise that he has the support of the Pope. Let's see how much support Francis Collins would have had from his community 100 years ago.

Hmmm you may want to read up on a certain Gregor mendel, the "Father of genetics". An Augustine monk. One whose studies were sponsored and supported by the church who built a lab for him. Over 100 years ago, in the middle of the 19th century*. So without a religious monk we would have been waiting longer to work out how evolution did it's funky thang.

There are plenty of such examples. As I pointed out earlier "The Jesuits have been described as "the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century."". Isaac Newton was a god botherer. Any number of Islamic scientists were too. Their churches supported them. On the Catholic scorecard the Jesuits have contributed massively to our scientific knowledge and not just in physics and centuries ago to boot. Again with offcial church support. To quote wikipedia "by the eighteenth century the Jesuits had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light."






*actually scientists of the time largely rejected his work, it took a while for this genetics malarkey to take hold.

sheesh

dlofnep wrote: »

Religion is an obstacle for the advancement of our species. It doesn't serve any purpose, other than collective control over a population.

Explain to me so the presence of religion in virtually every society on the planet

its got to be doing something!

I don't believe in god either but this thing about religion being of no use is a bit mad.
I can see plenty of good social reasons for religion in identity, community a whole raft of social situations from naming cermonies for children, marriage burial and also collective control of populations. which is needed by the way for large numbers of people to live in the one place thereby allowing the exchange of ideas thereby improving technology.

Also science and religion are not completely incompatible there are plenty of areas in the modern science that impinge in no way on western religions.

Andrewf20

Just on the OPs post, in relation to whether there's benefits to religon vs no religon, in my mind I ask the question, has religon made the world a happier place? I think its almost an impossible question to answer as its difficult to measure happiness. Also, do people do charitable acts becauses they want to please their God (i.e religous motives) or simply for the sake of it. Again, very hard to measure. My gut instinct tells me that it could go either way. I can think of many examples of where religon has brought so much joy and so much misery.

I think Athiests may appear more pushy these days in this country because the Catholic church was so pushy for generations. This has probably been a major catalyst.

Pushtrak

sheesh wrote: »

Explain to me so the presence of religion in virtually every society on the planet

its got to be doing something!

It provides meaning for people. The accuracy/inaccuracy of the meaning is not the point here. It gives people contentment in that it mitigates a fear of death somewhat.

Death is a more manageable idea for the one who'd otherwise dwell on it if they think it likely they'll have another form of life after this one. It provides an easy answer for how we are here.

People take varying stances on their willingness to look in to what the science says, or on looking in to it, accepting it. So, we have the god of the gaps. Most religious discussion now is pretty much pre-big bang (which carries issues as time seems to have began at big bang) and the question why is there something rather than nothing? Some are happy to say its a deity.

I don't believe in god either but this thing about religion being of no use is a bit mad.
I can see plenty of good social reasons for religion in identity, community a whole raft of social situations from naming cermonies for children, marriage burial and also collective control of populations.

For social situations, there have been progress for secular alternatives. As for the collective control of populations... Care to expand on that one?

which is needed by the way for large numbers of people to live in the one place thereby allowing the exchange of ideas thereby improving technology.

I'm not sure the removal of religion today would result in a breakdown of anything here.

Also science and religion are not completely incompatible there are plenty of areas in the modern science that impinge in no way on western religions.

See, the concern would be the opposite. But, I will point out your premise is of modern science not impinging on western religion, well that is true with disclaimers aplenty. You find people who take a literal interpretation of their particular scripture and you'll see science doing plenty of impinging.

How about looking at it the other way? Well, I think an easy example just off the top of my head would be Jehovahs Witnesses. They refuse blood transfusions. Course, when this involves kids a legal case has to be made to get such treatment to be made available. As for adults, they can refuse the treatment. Of course it is within their right to put their life on the line in any way they want and refuse whatever treatment they wish, but I'd think most reasonable people would question the wisdom in such an approach to their health.

Embryonic stem cell research is also not exactly in line with Vatican thinking. Much good could come from advances here.
http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-do-you-support-stem-cell-research-486519-Jun2012/

jank

Wibbs wrote: »

Hmmm you may want to read up on a certain Gregor mendel, the "Father of genetics". An Augustine monk. One whose studies were sponsored and supported by the church who built a lab for him. Over 100 years ago, in the middle of the 19th century*. So without a religious monk we would have been waiting longer to work out how evolution did it's funky thang.

There are plenty of such examples. As I pointed out earlier "The Jesuits have been described as "the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century."". Isaac Newton was a god botherer. Any number of Islamic scientists were too. Their churches supported them. On the Catholic scorecard the Jesuits have contributed massively to our scientific knowledge and not just in physics and centuries ago to boot. Again with offcial church support. To quote wikipedia "by the eighteenth century the Jesuits had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light."






*actually scientists of the time largely rejected his work, it took a while for this genetics malarkey to take hold.

Good points, however these historical facts wont change an opinion when its set into "tirade" mode.
Religion is a proxy of man, what is good or bad about it is mans fault not "religion" itself.
Maybe we should ban money because it makes people do bad things?

Pushtrak

jank wrote: »

Good points, however these historical facts wont change an opinion when its set into "tirade" mode.

I'm not sure that is entirely true. But supposing it is, the question of "Is religion a force for good or evil" is of lesser importance to a question of "Is it true?" in my eyes at least.

Religion is a proxy of man, what is good or bad about it is mans fault not "religion" itself.

So, the good and bad can be chalked up to man. We are in agreement. Though, I'm not seeing where you would have god inserted here. If you see the good and bad as down to man, where is god in this good/bad process? Just watching on? Interacting with people who pray? Religion is the proxy of man. What, to the religionist is the proxy of god?

Maybe we should ban money because it makes people do bad things?

Maybe we should ban sarcasm?











Though, if we do, I'd be fecked.