One of my beggest gripes with religious people is this silly thing called faith. Faith is essentially the belief or trust in something without questioning it and without any real evidence to prove the belief. How can anyone be this naive? Would someone please explain to me why I should accept such a stance from anyone? Also, how did you develope faith in something without evidence, or are you just willing to accept heresay and unproven scripture in loo of evidence? How does anyone justify faith?

because they're too scared to even consider for one second that their own demise is irreversible.

Do you have faith that if you plug in your computer and hit the button it will turn on?

You musn't get rid of all faith, because you do have some. You must rid yourself of faith that cannot be investigated.

But religious faith can't be substantiated, so there's a difference.

Read 'The God Theory'.

Maybe you'll be able to make a better post about God, and see facts proving 'his' existence.

quote:Originally posted by Pinball Mgruff:

But religious faith can't be substantiated, so there's a difference.

Substantiations of faith require a faith of their own. Unless you draw arbitrary lines marking out what can and cannot be doubted (which everyone does to some extent).

Whose arbitrary lines are better?

The whole point of faith is that it is unsubstantiated.

Someone has a deep inner conviction that God exists and loves them?

Fucking good for them! Let them get on with it.

It only becomes a problem when they try to force it on those who don't share their faith.

Jx

Everything you know comes down to faith eventually.

Who cares what they believe in... As long as it make them happy and it isn't harming you why should you care?

they need that warm and fuzzy feeling because there minds are too weak to grasp reality as it is.

quote:Originally posted by jesus_could_fly:

Everything you know comes down to faith eventually.

Your a fucking retard, shut the hell up and go read a book on mathmatics.

quote:Originally posted by THE ONLY SANE MAN:

Your a fucking retard, shut the hell up and go back to sucking your priest dick.

quote:Originally posted by jesus_could_fly:

Everything you know comes down to faith eventually.

No, no it doesn't.

Like a couple of other people said, as long as they're not forcing it on you, why do you care?

Bashing a harmless belief seems worse than having unsubstantiated religious views.

Faith is a mental virus not a choice. Children are most susceptible, but anyone who hasn't developed critical thinking skills is at risk.

The most prevalent faith beliefs are NOT harmless. They have specific behavioral consequences that are harmful to the individual and society. Bashing these beliefs is a good way to prevent further infection and to create a culture of reason.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-12-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by THE ONLY SANE MAN:

Your a fucking retard, shut the hell up and go read a book on mathmatics.

Giving any sort of practical meaning to mathematics is an act of faith.

quote:Originally posted by Quebb:

Do you have faith that if you plug in your computer and hit the button it will turn on?

You musn't get rid of all faith, because you do have some. You must rid yourself of faith that cannot be investigated.

That is not faith. That is inductive logic.

Understand this, people.

quote:Originally posted by bung:

That is not faith. That is inductive logic.

Understand this, people.

But can you solve the problem of induction without faith?

Also, your original experiences which you use in your inductive logic are themselves reliant on a faith that solipsism is wrong.

By using logic you're having faith that this is a logical universe.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

By using logic you're having faith that this is a logical universe.

I think justified belief works via degrees and that probability and usefulness is the best we can have.

There's no empirical evidence for the existence of God, all purely logical arguments fall apart, and for the most part it is useless. It may give you a warm feeling inside, but when it beings to infringe upon science, then we have a problem. Science has given tremendous results, unlike "God". I has given us medicine, etc. etc. It is pragmatic, probable and useful for survival and perception.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

By using logic you're having faith that this is a logical universe.

Reproducibility is evidence that the universe is logical. Even quantum weirdness is reproducible. Thus, is it not 'faith' to believe in a logical universe--it is belief based on evidence.

quote:I think justified belief works via degrees and that probability and usefulness is the best we can have.



Yes, but that still requires faith.

quote:There's no empirical evidence for the existence of God,



Guess it all depends on what you mean by "empirical".

quote:all purely logical arguments fall apart,



I...guess...?

quote:for the most part it is useless.



What is? God?

quote:It may give you a warm feeling inside,



Naw, that's the opiates.

quote:but when it beings to infringe upon science, then we have a problem



What are you talking about?

quote:Science has given tremendous results, unlike "God".



I disagree quite strongly.

quote:I has given us medicine, etc. etc. It is pragmatic, probable and useful for survival and perception.



Yes...very materialistic.

Say, Hare, are you still depressed? Because I'm not.

quote:Reproducibility is evidence that the universe is logical.



Prove it.

quote:Even quantum weirdness is reproducible.



Yes, and through quantum "weirdness", as you so cunningly called it, has shown that there can be no such thing as an objective truth as through the simple act of observing something we alter it.

quote:Thus, is it not 'faith' to believe in a logical universe--it is belief based on evidence.



Everything requires faith and everything requires evidence.

You don't think religious freaks have evidence?

Of course they do, it just differs from your definition.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

The most prevalent faith beliefs are NOT harmless. They have specific behavioral consequences that are harmful to the individual and society. Bashing these beliefs is a good way to prevent further infection and to create a culture of reason.



Would you like to give an example of how having a faith is harmful to society?

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Would you like to give an example of how having a faith is harmful to society?

Well, having faith in the government certainly hasn't brought about too much in the way of happiness...

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Well, having faith in the government certainly hasn't brought about too much in the way of happiness...

...

You know what I'm talking about.

People who think have done tremendous damage to society. Ban thought!

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

...

You know what I'm talking about.

No, no I don't. Unless you explicitly state something I'm not going to assume, or in other words, take something on faith

Oh, the irony!

quote:Originally posted by Quebb:

Do you have faith that if you plug in your computer and hit the button it will turn on?

You musn't get rid of all faith, because you do have some. You must rid yourself of faith that cannot be investigated.

Faith:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

I dont have faith that my computer will turn on because every time I have tried to turn it on it has in fact turned on. I would have no reason to think otherwise. Now if you take a hammer to my pc and really fuck it up then it would take some faith to believe that it would work.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

But can you solve the problem of induction without faith?

Also, your original experiences which you use in your inductive logic are themselves reliant on a faith that solipsism is wrong.

What exactly is this problem of induction you speak of?

And there are plenty of arguments against solipsism, none of which I would say require any amount of 'faith' to believe that solipsism is foolish and wrong.

Nevertheless, this is all irrelevant because his example is still based on inductive logic, not faith.

[This message has been edited by bung (edited 03-12-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:



How exactly do you justify that science hasn't given us tremendous results?

I'm seriously not going to waste my time responding to posts of yours anymore, Rizzo.

EDIT - I'll say one thing though. I seriously doubt belief in God is why you don't feel depressed anymore. It may be, but it certainly didn't work for Kierkegaard.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-12-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Faith is a mental virus not a choice. Children are most susceptible, but anyone who hasn't developed critical thinking skills is at risk.

The most prevalent faith beliefs are NOT harmless. They have specific behavioral consequences that are harmful to the individual and society. Bashing these beliefs is a good way to prevent further infection and to create a culture of reason.



Fucking exactly.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Giving any sort of practical meaning to mathematics is an act of faith.

You really are stupid. Mathmatics are a thing that shows how much of something there is compared to another and how these numbers can be changed into another the addition, subtraction, devision, multiplaction . proof 1 apples + 1 other apple = 2 apples.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

No, no I don't. Unless you explicitly state something I'm not going to assume, or in other words, take something on faith

Oh, the irony!

I used the word "faith" in a post about religion, in a thread about religion, in a forum about religion. It's not an assumption to think I'm talking about religious faith, it's common sense.



quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Fucking exactly.

No, not fucking exactly. Do you want to give an actual reason why you think that having a faith is somehow detrimental to society?



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-12-2007).]

Very simple.

When humans convince themselves that something ties everything together(god), we release dopamine just as we do when having sex, smoking a cig, eating a big mac or shooting fentanyl.

To which degree, I know not.

Got it from the news.

Danish research by some brain specialist named Albert Gjedde.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Would you like to give an example of how having a faith is harmful to society?

Would you like to pick up a newspaper or read a history book or perhaps tend to an interview with a few thousand Muslims who would gladly strap explosives to themselves and blow your infidel ass to smithereens just because you don't have faith in or worship their Prophet?

What about revisiting Jonestown, or the Koresh compound, and asking those people to rethink the actions they chose in the warm glow of their faith. I'd bet you anything that a good portion of those folks would do it all over again, so confident are they in their faith.

Do you have a few more minutes to read? Because if pressed, I could give you umpteen more examples of how having a misplaced faith can be harmful to society. Believe it or not, it's not always just limited to the extreme versions of faith, either.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Would you like to pick up a newspaper or read a history book or perhaps tend to an interview with a few thousand Muslims who would gladly strap explosives to themselves and blow your infidel ass to smithereens just because you don't have faith in or worship their Prophet?

What about revisiting Jonestown, or the Koresh compound, and asking those people to rethink the actions they chose in the warm glow of their faith. I'd bet you anything that a good portion of those folks would do it all over again, so confident are they in their faith.

Do you have a few more minutes to read? Because if pressed, I could give you umpteen more examples of how having a misplaced faith can be harmful to society.

This is basically what I expected. Those are examples of religious extremism. The majority of religious people are not like that, and their faith doesn't bother anyone else.

quote:Believe it or not, it's not always just limited to the extreme versions of faith, either.

Then how about giving a few examples of how having faith directly hurts society. You haven't done anything but prove what everyone already knows, which is that religious extremists are the cause of religious problems, not faith in general.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

No, not fucking exactly. Do you want to give an actual reason why you think that having a faith is somehow detrimental to society?



People relying on astrology, people believeing that john edaward can speak to the dead, people believe in psychics, people believing the rapture will come in their lifetime.

People believing that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. These people think people that dont believe what they believe will be damned in hell forever. How can you respect someone if you think they are going to hell...if you KNOW they are going to hell? How can you let your children play with them? How does this very common belief help society?

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

People relying on astrology, people believeing that john edaward can speak to the dead, people believe in psychics, people believing the rapture will come in their lifetime.

People believing that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. These people think people that dont believe what they believe will be damned in hell forever. How can you respect someone if you think they are going to hell...if you KNOW they are going to hell? How can you let your children play with them? How does this very common belief help society?

Way to ignore what I asked for.

Once again, would you care to explain how any of this hurts society? Who cares if it helps or not? It's their personal belief, and it doesn't hurt anyone. If they're not pushing their faith on you, why should you care?

edit: again, most of the time. Religious extremism is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the majority of religious people who worship peacefully, and don't force their beliefs on anyone.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-13-2007).]

But don't you see? In their eyes, their faith is not "extreme". It's as perfectly logical to them as your softspoken faith is to you.

You can't call yourself "the majority of others". On a global scale, there are more of them than there are of you.

The Old Testament is riddled with stories that not only permit, but require heretics to be put to death. Surely you are aware that there are a very large number of people in this day and age who declare the Old Testament as the infallible word of God? Sure, they personally may not have the conviction to actually follow through and get their hands dirty, but it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to imagine these people supporting someone who musters up the guts to commit a heinous act or two in the name of Lord Almighty. Abortion clinic bombings ring a bell?

Just because your particular flavor doesn't harbor violence doesn't mean that there aren't hundreds of thousands of others out there who wouldn't flinch at a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of the Lord by protecting His good Word.

Until people begin speaking freely about the bad outcomes that frequently accompany religious belief and stop being afraid of offending someone's "religious freedoms" in the process, this country and it's Middle-Eastern cousins are going to continue to chip away at each other until that big mushroom cloud in the sky takes over and ...! whoops!... what were we fighting over, again?

There again, the nuclear apocalypse would be a time of celebration for most religious fanatics. They'd be witnessing what was prophesied in the religious texts as "Armageddon", and would quietly be cheering their radioactive hearts out that their God was finally going to make an appearance and judgement day has COME!

Faith makes you feel at peace.

I realize that extremists don't consider their views to be extreme. However, common sense and the majority opinion of everyone else on the planet (particularly those who don't enjoy getting blown up) come together to say that their views are in fact, extremist.

I say "the majority" because I'm completely confident that most religious people aren't violent fascists. If you have some data that proves that most people who carry religious faith are fanatical violent people, then show it.

The old testament is not the guiding light for all religious people either. Likewise, a large majority of religious people aren't jumping at the chance to kill off non-believers either. In today's society, stoning a person to death for heresy is looked down on by pretty much everyone, and there are a slew of other reasons why many intolerant religious bylaws of older times are not followed to the mark today.

If there are hundreds of thousands of others who would suicide bomb people in the name of religion, then it's a terrible thing, but it's not what I'm talking about. They're still a minority compared to religious people as a whole.

You still keep talking about religious extremism. Nowhere did I say that faith can't be taken advantage of, and it would be stupid to say so. But until you provide some proof that just having a faith is directly harmful to anyone, then it's just as ignorant for the op to harass religious people for being religious as it is for religious people to push their faith on others.

You're average religious person of any faith worships peacefully, doesn't push their religion on others, and is a contributing member to society.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-13-2007).]

Remember: We don't practice stoning people anymore, that is inefficient for modern times. We bomb clinics, with highly volatile explosives.

You can't tackle the problem by separating people of religious faith by different degrees and packaging them into neat little labels of "fundamentalist" and "non-fundamentalist". You have to attack the problem at it's root, which is that a belief system shared by a society that is based on superstition, taboo and promotes hatred of other groups of people who believe differently is a dysfunctional one.

The exact method of perpetrated violence wasn't the point. You make it sound like every religious person is secretly harboring a desire to blow up someone with different views.

So basically your point is that just because a small percentage of religious people exploit religion as a cause for violence, anyone that has faith is hurting society?

People who want to kill each other will always find an excuse to kill each other. If it's not religion, it's something else. It is also entirely possible to separate people into groups of extremist and non-extremist. In fact, thats kind of necessary. It's certainly right to keep people form pushing their views on others, but why should people be ridiculed simply because they have a religious belief?

Also, you keep referring to religion as something inherently intolerant. It is not. My question, that has gone unanswered, is this: Why is having unsubstantiated religious views harmful to society in itself?



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Why is having unsubstantiated religious views harmful to society in itself?

Because it impedes progress. Simple as that. Consider this, which articulates it far better than I could:

quote:

The point is that most of what we currently hold sacred is not sacred for any other reason other than it was thought sacred yesterday. Surely, if we could create the world anew, the practice of organizing our lives around untestable propositions found in ancient literature - to say nothing of killing and dying for them - would be impossible to justify. What stops us fom finding it impossible now?

Many have observed that religion, by lending meaning to human life, permits communities (at least those united under a single faith) to cohere. Historically this is true, and on this score religion is to be credited as much for wars of conquest as for feast days and brotherly love. But in its effect upon the modern world - a world already united, at least potentially, by economic, environmental, political, and epidemiological necessity - religious ideology is dangerously retrograde. Our past is not sacred for being past, and there is much that is behind us that we are struggling to keep behind us, and to which, it is to be hoped, we could never return with a clear conscience: the divine rights of kings, feudalism, the caste system, slavery, political executions, forced castration, vivisection, bearbating, honorable duels, chastity belts, trial by ordeal, child labor, human and animal sacrifice, the stoning of heretics, cannibalism, sodomy laws, taboos against contraception, human raditation experiments - the list is nearly endless, and if it were extended indefinitely, the proportion of abuses for which religion could be found directly responsible is likely to remain undiminished. In fact, almost every indignity just mentioned can be attributed to an insufficient taste for evidence, to an uncritical faith in one dogma or another.

The idea, therefore, that religious faith is somehow a sacred human convention - distinguished, as it is, both by the extravagance of its claims and by the paucity of its evidence - is really too great a monstrosity to be appreciated in all its glory.

Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity - a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible. When foisted upon each generation anew, it renders us incapable of realizing just how much our world has been unnecessarily ceded to a dark and barbarous past.

- Sam Harris, End of Faith, "Reason in Exile"

Edited: transcribed typos

[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 03-13-2007).]

It does not make a person completely stupid and unable to contribute to society for having irrational beliefs on one area in their life, and a rather unimportant one at that. As I said, most religious people today do not partake in persecution of other viewpoints. It's also interesting to note that while that long list of atrocities may be attributed to religion, they have (for the most part) been abolished and their supporters (religious or not) are few, if any, yet religious people still walk the earth in large numbers. If anything, this just makes me think that religious views as a whole are dynamic, and that it is entirely possible for people to hold religious views and still make up a working society.

I don't see how any of this proves that your average religious person today "impedes progress", simply by following a religion. Mr. Harris seems to support a coldly efficient use of the human mind, and disregards any illogical thought as detrimental to society. He does not, however, explain how a religious person who worships their faith peacefully hurts society by thinking a certain way.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Quebb:

Do you have faith that if you plug in your computer and hit the button it will turn on?

You musn't get rid of all faith, because you do have some. You must rid yourself of faith that cannot be investigated.

When I turn on my computer, I use inductive reasoning, observations and previous experiences to draw a prediction. NOTHING TO DO WITH FAITH.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

It does not make a person completely stupid and unable to contribute to society for having irrational beliefs on one area in their life, and a rather unimportant one at that.

If one has (your words) irrational beliefs about other things, such as believing there are evil ninjas in trees waiting to bombard unsuspecting passersby with ninja stars, then that person is deemed delusional, declared unfit to hold office or any position of public esteem, and is looked down on by society because of their "psychotic" rantings ... on a similarly rather "unimportant" belief.

If one has irrational beliefs about ancient, outdated texts that harbour superstition and taboo and discourages reason, as long as it's packaged up as "religious faith", then we are forced to respectfully allow them to believe whatever makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside, and don't DARE try to show them the error in their reasoning, as that would be attacking their religious freedom. We would even encourage that person to run for elected office, insofar as their beliefs match our own!

Someone once said something to the effect of: If one person believes in a certain delusion, it's insanity. If large numbers of people believe in it, it's religion.

Can you look outside of your own box to make the comparison, or are you allowing your faith to blind you from the obvious?

quote: Mr. Harris seems to support a coldly efficient use of the human mind, and disregards any illogical thought as detrimental to society.

God/Allah seems to support a coldly efficient use of the power of human gullibility, and disregards logical thought as detriment to the faith, thereby encouraging followers to abandon reason altogether.

At least Mr. Harris has the best interest of humanity at heart, where the invisible sky gods just have their greedy need to be adored and worshipped "at heart".

And you're right - your average single religious person doesn't impede humanity's progress - it's the entire fold that does, starting with the moderates and ending with the most extreme fundamentalists.



[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 03-13-2007).]

What bothers me is the fact that people act on faith. For example a lot of christians support the death penalty because they are convinced that there is an afterlife. They are willing to bet your life on the fact that you will enter a different realm after you die based on nothing but a shitty book (it's really not that interesting, the plot is shit and the characters are static and a severe lack of cohesion and transition. D-)

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

If one has (your words) irrational beliefs about other things, such as believing there are evil ninjas in trees waiting to bombard unsuspecting passersby with ninja stars, then that person is deemed delusional, declared unfit to hold office or any position of public esteem, and is looked down on by society because of their "psychotic" rantings.

If one has irrational beliefs about ancient, outdated texts that harbour superstition and taboo and discourages reason, as long as it's packaged up as "religious faith", then we are forced to respectfully allow them to believe whatever makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside, and don't DARE try to show them the error in their reasoning, as that would be attacking their religious freedom. We would even encourage that person to run for elected office, insofar as their beliefs match our own!

Someone once said something to the effect of: If one person believes in a certain delusion, it's insanity. If large numbers of people believe in it, it's religion.

Can you look outside of your own box to make the comparison, or are you allowing your faith to blind you from the obvious?

What Obvious? How does either of those situations on their own disqualify someone as a productive member of society? My point is that religious people, an overwhelming majority of which go through their day-to-day lives not bothering anyone with religious matters, are not hindering society's growth, and they are certainly not hurting anyone.

Also, I am not religious. I simply feel that the way a person thinks about their existence, in most cases, does not keep society from functioning.

quote:God/Allah seems to support a coldly efficient use of the power of human gullibility, and disregards logical thought as detriment to the faith, thereby encouraging followers to abandon reason altogether.

Absolutely made-up. Can you prove that a person who follows a religion uses less logical thought in everyday life than a no-religious person other than the fact that they have unsubstantiated religious views? Of course not. Once again, when people simply hold religious faith in their minds, as most religious people (of any faith, not just Christianity and Islam) do, it affects nothing in society whatsoever.



quote:At least Mr. Harris has the best interest of humanity at heart, where the invisible sky gods just have their greedy need to be adored and worshipped "at heart".

Nothing in this paragraph proves anything. The "invisible sky gods" are not the holy figures of all religions, and your criticism of the purpose of their being really doesn't say much.

quote:And you're right - your average single religious person doesn't impede humanity's progress - it's the entire fold that does, starting with the moderates and ending with the most extreme fundamentalists.

So hate the fundamentalists, not the religious populous as a whole. People who bash religion for the problems that extremists cause could use their time better by targeting extremists instead.

If you want to group religious extremists in with the majority of religious people who don't harm anyone, then theres really nothing else I can say. But keep in mind, absolutely nothing you've argued for has proven that religious people who do not impose their beliefs on others hurt society in any way just by thinking one way or another about their existence.

And honestly, cakezone - since you have recognized that there ARE people out there who "misuse the faith" by going to extremes, how do you propose tackling the problem of getting people to stop killing in the name of that which they worship?

Should we just ignore them, and hope against hope that one day it will just stop, and everyone will just magically be peace-loving spiritualists with no bad intentions, like you?

Or should we just rap them on the knuckles firmly but half-assedly, and admonish them for not having the ability to use reason and rational thought, like you? Should we demand that they not adhere to the ancient books that preach violence and hatred, and that they should take an example from those like you, who only adhere to the Bible passages that feel good?

I'm afraid that won't do any good. I'd love to hear your solutions, though. Try to present them in a way that won't make it look as though loosely adhering to the faith is the best method of getting them to think outside of the doctrines of their faith.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

And honestly, cakezone - since you have recognized that there ARE people out there who "misuse the faith" by going to extremes, how do you propose tackling the problem of getting people to stop killing in the name of that which they worship?

Should we just ignore them, and hope against hope that one day it will just stop, and everyone will just magically be peace-loving spiritualists with no bad intentions, like you?

Or should we just rap them on the knuckles firmly but half-assedly, and admonish them for not having the ability to use reason and rational thought, like you? Should we demand that they not adhere to the ancient books that preach violence and hatred, and that they should take an example from those like you, who only adhere to the Bible passages that feel good?

I'm afraid that won't do any good. I'd love to hear your solutions, though. Try to present them in a way that won't make it look as though loosely adhering to the faith is the best method of getting them to think outside of the doctrines of their faith.

I don't pretend to have all the answers.

I do know that changing a religious extremist's mind is not possible, and that even though violent fundamentalists exist, the majority of people who hold unsubstantiated religious faith are not dangerous to society.

My original argument never said anything about fixing the problems posed by religious extremists. It said that the majority of religious people are not hurting society by having unproven thoughts about their existence, and as of yet, nobody has proven me wrong.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

If you want to group religious extremists in with the majority of religious people who don't harm anyone, then theres really nothing else I can say.



I'm grouping them together because they belong together.

Some impede humanity's progress ALOT, some of them impede humanity's progress a little bit. Their varying degrees might separate them from being moderate versus extreme, but the underlying cause, the common denominator, if you will - is their faith in general, their belief in religious doctrine. That is what is at stake here. If you're going to attack the problem, you can't start at the top of the ladder and work down. You have to start at the bottom of the ladder and work your way up.

If we hadn't changed our views from the past to fit into what we know is best and most civil for modern society today, we would still be burning people at the stake and stoning heretics in downtown squares.

If we don't change our views today on how faith breeds these groups of extremists that will likely blow us all up tomorrow, then we are ignoring what we have already learned and will have destined ourselves to repeat the same mistakes of our past ... except this time on a much grander scale.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:



I'm grouping them together because they belong together.

Some impede humanity's progress ALOT, some of them impede humanity's progress a little bit. Their varying degrees might separate them from being moderate versus extreme, but the underlying cause, the common denominator, if you will - is their faith in general, their belief in religious doctrine. That is what is at stake here. If you're going to attack the problem, you can't start at the top of the ladder and work down. You have to start at the bottom of the ladder and work your way up.

If we hadn't changed our views from the past to fit into what we know is best and most civil for modern society today, we would still be burning people at the stake and stoning heretics in downtown squares.

If we don't change our views today on how faith breeds these groups of extremists that will likely blow us all up tomorrow, then we are ignoring what we have already learned and will have destined ourselves to repeat the same mistakes of our past ... except this time on a much grander scale.

So my question is this:

Obviously, the extremist differs from the average religious person. However, they both follow the same faith, and the same religious guidelines, and the same holy book. So the difference lies in how they follow the faith. The problem does not reside in the faith itself, it resides in the people who use faith as an excuse for violence. There is no "bottom of the ladder" here. Theres a pedestal where a crazy religious extremist stands, and nothing more. This once again fails to explain how the average religious populous hurts society by thinking a certain way.

I'm honestly getting tired of repeating the same things over and over again. Unless theres some evidence as to how holding faith in itself is detrimental to society, this argument is pointless. And by that, I do not mean explanations on how religion can be exploited and manipulated for wrongdoings.

[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Nothing in this paragraph proves anything. The "invisible sky gods" are not the holy figures of all religions, and your criticism of the purpose of their being really doesn't say much.

Please report a holy figure, in any of the established religions we were speaking of (Muslim and Christian), that does not evoke a supernatural being which is omnipotent beyond our comprehension. Nevermind the invisibility, because you and I both know that he is not a physical entity that can be seen, touched or heard.

quote: So hate the fundamentalists, not the religious populous as a whole. People who bash religion for the problems that extremists cause could use their time better by targeting extremists instead.

But how can that be done without targeting their faith in general? You admitted already that one cannot change the mind of a religious extremist. This being a given, wouldn't it do us well to begin to tackle the problem at it's core, the religious faith itself? It's not the invididual that needs to change. It is the entire culture that hosts and houses these extremists. Working at it one extremist at a time would not only be an exercise in futility, but a gigantic waste of time that we no longer have. Best to just get to the root of the problem and eradicate it at it's most elementary level.

quote: But keep in mind, absolutely nothing you've argued for has proven that religious people who do not impose their beliefs on others hurt society in any way just by thinking one way or another about their existence.

No, it has proven that all religious people, moderate and extreme alike, hinders humanity by making it perfectly acceptable to hold tight to views that are completely unsubstantiated and that has, over the course of history, severely impeded progress due to the irrational doctrines their adherents follow.

There is no real argument here. You defend the "right" of having faith as something that (unfortunately) other people take to extremes, but too bad, that's just an unpleasant side-effect, we MUST allow this to continue for the sake of those who practice it not-so-heavy-handedly.

I defend my views that as long as one survives, the other will flourish. And it matters not which way you flip-flop them around.

Maybe you dont realize this but we both have faith we just put into different things that both say they have proof of this view.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Please report a holy figure, in any of the established religions we were speaking of (Muslim and Christian), that does not evoke a supernatural being which is omnipotent beyond our comprehension. Nevermind the invisibility, because you and I both know that he is not a physical entity that can be seen, touched or heard.

You're the one that decided we were talking about Christianity and Islam. I'm talking about any faith.

quote:But how can that be done without targeting their faith in general? You admitted already that one cannot change the mind of a religious extremist. This being a given, wouldn't it do us well to begin to tackle the problem at it's core, the religious faith itself? It's not the invididual that needs to change. It is the entire culture that hosts and houses these extremists. Working at it one extremist at a time would not only be an exercise in futility, but a gigantic waste of time that we no longer have. Best to just get to the root of the problem and eradicate it at it's most elementary level.

If you truly think that religion itself is the core of the problem, then that makes sense. I don't. I think people have a natural right to think however they want to about their existence. You're asking the impossible. You can't stop religion, or theological thought. Until science can conclusively prove the origins of everything, and many many generations have passed even after that, people will always have their own religious views. It seems your problem is that they congregate about it.

quote: No, it has proven that all religious people, moderate and extreme alike, hinders humanity by making it perfectly acceptable to hold tight to views that are completely unsubstantiated and that has, over the course of history, severely impeded progress due to the irrational doctrines their adherents follow.

I don't see how. All you've done is explain multiple times about how religion can be exploited by extremists. Like I said earlier, religious people have changed, and so have the irrational theological laws that were set in place. I don't see why that kind of symbiotic evolution between society and the many religions that flourish in it can't continue to evolve and exist.

quote:There is no real argument here. You defend the "right" of having faith as something that (unfortunately) other people take to extremes, but too bad, that's just an unpleasant side-effect, we MUST allow this to continue for the sake of those who practice it not-so-heavy-handedly.

I defend my views that as long as one survives, the other will flourish. And it matters not which way you flip-flop them around.

As long as there are people, there will be people who want to kill each other. Religion is one of many thing people can exploit to gain followers for violence. If it isn't people's beliefs on origins, it will be race, or nationality, or something else.

The reason you still have not proven how faith harms society is because the only thing you can argue for is that organized Christianity and Islam have the potential for exploitation by fundamentalists. What about every other faith that would be considered equally as illogical?

Thinking one way or another about existence is not harmful to society. That is what the op of this thread was complaining about, and that is what I'm addressing.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

You're the one that decided we were talking about Christianity and Islam. I'm talking about any faith.

Since Christianity and Islam are the two main frontrunners for breeding violence out of their faith, why not single them out? But fair enough. Show me ANY religious faith whose God isn't invisible and supernatural in origin.

And what about the other faiths that would be considered equally illogical, you ask? Well by all means, let's not stop with Christianity and Islam. Let's take it all the way to the far east and then circle back to the SUPER-illogical strains like Scientology and the like. But whatever we do, let's address it at it's core, and stop pussyfooting around with statements like "but it's not detrimental to society to believe in one form of existence or another". That is philosophy, which can be adhered to loosely and without prejudice. Religion does not allow as much for it's adherents. It's very message, every religious message, save for maybe Buddhism, requires that you 1)not question your faith, ever - and 2) that you believe solidly that YOUR god supercedes everyone ELSE's god.

I'm not so naive as to think that faith will be eradicated in it's entirety. I just believe that we have to stop handling the issue with kid gloves, and protecting the "good" faith-possessors while simultaneously trying to wipe out the "bad" faith-possessors.

Look at it like you would any problem in society:

Illicit drugs don't kill people. It's the people who take illicit drugs irresponsibly that kill themselves. Since it is not feasible to just pluck out one-by-one all the individuals who hold a tendency to misuse illicit drugs, wouldn't it make more sense to try to cease production of the illicit drugs themselves, thereby protecting ALL people who just might abuse drugs in the future?

Easier said than done, right? Of course. But the point I am trying to drive home is that protecting the rights of some (who might use drugs in moderation, merely for recreation) often broaden the rights of the many (who might use drugs to the point of addiction and overdosing). Why can't an attempt be made to educate people that it's not just HOW we use the faith(illicit drugs), it's the faith(illicit drugs) itself that has, and IS, impeding progress for humanity? Why not just encourage people to abandon unsubstantiated faith (illicit drugs) altogether?

You may substitute a number of problems in society to the drug analogy I made, and you will still get a pretty fair comparison to the faith problem. The same people will rise to defend their rights to use drugs/guns/faith responsibly, all the while ignoring the bigger problems that drugs/guns/faith have upon this world, all at the expense of their own right to "be responsible".

Guns are necessary in some instances, as are drugs. Faith, however, is like you said - a very small and unimportant factor that most people could live without, if they'd only broaden their perspectives some and allow themselves to look at the negatives it's imposed on humanity since it first entered our conscious thoughts.

What I am proposing is freedom FROM religion. What you are proposing is freedom OF religion.

What the OP is bitching about is not people's take on the philosophy of existence, and how the worst of their philosophies might prove harmful. What the OP is bitching about is how religious people of faith dare justify their unsubstantiated beliefs and expect logical, rational people to just swallow it up without question.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

[quote]Since Christianity and Islam are the two main frontrunners for breeding violence out of their faith, why not single them out? But fair enough. Show me ANY religious faith whose God isn't invisible and supernatural in origin.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the Hindu gods are invisible. Neither is the Buddha. That being said, I was never talking about one religion in specific. I'm talking about any faith or belief that may differ from the logical explanation of the universe.

quote:And what about the other faiths that would be considered equally illogical, you ask? Well by all means, let's not stop with Christianity and Islam. Let's take it all the way to the far east and then circle back to the SUPER-illogical strains like Scientology and the like. But whatever we do, let's address it at it's core, and stop pussyfooting around with statements like "but it's not detrimental to society to believe in one form of existence or another". That is philosophy, which can be adhered to loosely and without prejudice. Religion does not allow as much for it's adherents. It's very message, every religious message, save for maybe Buddhism, requires that you 1)not question your faith, ever - and 2) that you believe solidly that YOUR god supercedes everyone ELSE's god.

I still fail to see how this has relevance to anyone's thoughts harming society.

quote:I'm not so naive as to think that faith will be eradicated in it's entirety. I just believe that we have to stop handling the issue with kid gloves, and protecting the "good" faith-possessors while simultaneously trying to wipe out the "bad" faith-possessors.

I don't know what you're trying to propose here.

quote:Look at it like you would any problem in society:

Illicit drugs don't kill people. It's the people who take illicit drugs irresponsibly that kill themselves. Since it is not feasible to just pluck out one-by-one all the individuals who hold a tendency to misuse illicit drugs, wouldn't it make more sense to try to cease production of the illicit drugs themselves, thereby protecting ALL people who just might abuse drugs in the future?

Easier said than done, right? Of course. But the point I am trying to drive home is that protecting the rights of some (who might use drugs in moderation, merely for recreation) often broaden the rights of the many (who might use drugs to the point of addiction and overdosing). Why can't an attempt be made to educate people that it's not just HOW we use the faith(illicit drugs), it's the faith(illicit drugs) itself that has, and IS, impeding progress for humanity? Why not just encourage people to abandon unsubstantiated faith (illicit drugs) altogether?

You may substitute a number of problems in society to the drug analogy I made, and you will still get a pretty fair comparison to the faith problem. The same people will rise to defend their rights to use drugs/guns/faith responsibly, all the while ignoring the bigger problems that drugs/guns/faith have upon this world, all at the expense of their own right to "be responsible".

Guns are necessary in some instances, as are drugs. Faith, however, is like you said - a very small and unimportant factor that most people could live without, if they'd only broaden their perspectives some and allow themselves to look at the negatives it's imposed on humanity since it first entered our conscious thoughts.

What I am proposing is freedom FROM religion. What you are proposing is freedom OF religion.

Your idea of "Freedom FROM religion" sounds like you wanting everyone to think the same way, and to simply get rid of a freedom of religious congregation because of problems that that particular freedom opens the doors to. If thats honestly how you feel, then theres no point in arguing any further, since nothings going to change one way or another on this for either of us.

quote:What the OP is bitching about is not people's take on the philosophy of existence, and how the worst of their philosophies might prove harmful. What the OP is bitching about is how religious people of faith dare justify their unsubstantiated beliefs and expect logical, rational people to just swallow it up without question.

no, I'm pretty sure he's just complaining about how people think. He never mentioned their faith bothering him in any real way. He's just upset that they think differently for some reason.

quote:One of my beggest gripes with religious people is this silly thing called faith. Faith is essentially the belief or trust in something without questioning it and without any real evidence to prove the belief. How can anyone be this naive? Would someone please explain to me why I should accept such a stance from anyone? Also, how did you develope faith in something without evidence, or are you just willing to accept heresay and unproven scripture in loo of evidence? How does anyone justify faith?



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote: Originally posted by cakezone:

I still fail to see how this has relevance to anyone's thoughts harming society.

If you don't believe that someone's thoughts (and by this I am implying ingrained religious belief, and faith) do not inevitably lead to someone's actions, then you are, for lack of a better word, tripping.

quote: I don't know what you're trying to propose here.

I've outlined it in numerous paragraphs to the best of my ability, even borrowing words from others who I thought might make a clearer point than I was able to articulate. If you don't get it by now, then you never will, simply because you won't allow yourself to, because you are concerned with turning a disagreement about strains of religious faith into a philosophical musing about existence.

quote: If thats honestly how you feel, then theres no point in arguing any further, since nothings going to change one way or another on this for either of us.

You can stop anytime you like, but I am pretty dedicated to espousing the need for abandoning unsubstantiated faith in order to make this world a safer, more progressive place to live in.

In regards to the OP just "complaining about the way others think", as you put it, I think the very first sentence he typed captures the fact that he is not just griping about free thought in general, he is griping about (bolded for effect here) religious people and that silly thing called faith . Please, note to yourself that he is not attacking a person's basic philosophies on existence. He is attacking their blind reasoning in regards to their religious faith.

quote: Originally posted by the OP:

One of my beggest gripes with religious people is this silly thing called faith.

You read that, right? Not how people think in general, but how Religious People Count On Faith, for no good reason.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

If you don't believe that someone's thoughts (and by this I am implying ingrained religious belief, and faith) do not inevitably lead to someone's actions, then you are, for lack of a better word, tripping.

I think most people are completely capable of thinking and keeping their actions within reason. i.e. not becoming religious fundamentalists.

quote:I've outlined it in numerous paragraphs to the best of my ability, even borrowing words from others who I thought might make a clearer point than I was able to articulate. If you don't get it by now, then you never will, simply because you won't allow yourself to, because you are concerned with turning a disagreement about strains of religious faith into a philosophical musing about existence.

I'm not trying to turn this into a philosophical debate. I have no idea what you're trying to propose when you say

quote:I just believe that we have to stop handling the issue with kid gloves, and protecting the "good" faith-possessors while simultaneously trying to wipe out the "bad" faith-possessors.

Unless you're implying that religion should phase out entirely, in which case we're never going to agree.

[quote]quote:You can stop anytime you like, but I am pretty dedicated to espousing the need for abandoning unsubstantiated faith in order to make this world a safer, more progressive place to live in.

You missed the point. You seem to think religion needs to be eradicated, and I don't. I really don't think anythings going to change that for either of us. You haven't provided me with any evidence that the majority of people with blind faith are hurting anyone by thinking. You've said religious fundamentalists can exploit faith, and that that is (to you) a justification for the attacking of anyone's blind faith, and in a larger sense, reason that religion should not exist and that everyone should follow logical reasoning. Unless you have something else up your sleeve, theres really nothing left to say here.

I think people should have all the religious freedom they want, even if it opens the doors to problems. You think religion should be completely gone for a potentially "better" society.

quote:In regards to the OP just "complaining about the way others think", as you put it, I think the very first sentence he typed captures the fact that he is not just griping about free thought in general, he is griping about (bolded for effect here) religious people and that silly thing called faith . Please, note to yourself that he is not attacking a person's basic philosophies on existence. He is attacking their blind reasoning in regards to their religious faith.

And why is he attacking their blind reasoning? He never gave an answer. He has no explanation on why he hates faith so much, nor does he give insight into why it's so necessary for him to attack people's faith.

Unless you consider him thinking that it's silly as a reason for all of his complaining about people with a faith.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-13-2007).]

My final point before calling it a day:

quote: Originally posted by cakezone:

I don't pretend to have all the answers.

And neither do I, but I am willing to stop cloaking religious faith in this blanket of human right protections and at least ATTEMPT to recognize that it is religious "thought" that is hampering mankind from progressing into a more peace-loving, progressive form of humanity. It hasn't worked out well in the past to cling to prejudiced religious views, and there is certainly no reason to think it is going to work out to our advantage in the future.

Free thought? I'm all about that. But let's practice freedom of religious thought under the blankets at night with the lights off so that it doesn't encourage our peers, children and educational system to allow it to keep manifesting our thoughts into subsequent actions. Let's take it out of schools and out of mainstream society, and whatever we do, let's keep it as far away from our sciences as is feasibly possible. If we can't eradicate it in it's entirety, let's at least diminish it to the point of it only being polite if spoken in whispers.

It might sound extreme, my pipe dream to "eradicate organized religion", but compare it to the extremity of those people who strap bombs to their chests and blow up each other's mosques and medical clinics in the name of God, and see whose mode of extremity you prefer to contend with in the long run. I can just almost guarantee that you won't catch people who hold secular, naturalistic views with wires and plastic explosives taped to their torsos just to get their point across.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

My final point before calling it a day:

And neither do I, but I am willing to stop cloaking religious faith in this blanket of human right protections and at least ATTEMPT to recognize that it is religious "thought" that is hampering mankind from progressing into a more peace-loving, progressive form of humanity. It hasn't worked out well in the past to cling to prejudiced religious views, and there is certainly no reason to think it is going to work out to our advantage in the future.

Free thought? I'm all about that. But let's practice freedom of religious thought under the blankets at night with the lights off so that it doesn't encourage our peers, children and educational system to allow it to keep manifesting our thoughts into subsequent actions. Let's take it out of schools and out of mainstream society, and whatever we do, let's keep it as far away from our sciences as is feasibly possible. If we can't eradicate it in it's entirety, let's at least diminish it to the point of it only being polite if spoken in whispers.

It might sound extreme, my pipe dream to "eradicate organized religion", but compare it to the extremity of those people who strap bombs to their chests and blow up each other's mosques and medical clinics in the name of God, and see whose mode of extremity you prefer to contend with in the long run. I can just almost guarantee that you won't catch people who hold secular, naturalistic views with wires and plastic explosives taped to their torsos just to get their point across.

You clearly think religion is much more of a problem than I do. I still see no evidence of how one person, or a million people, simply thinking one way about religion hurts anyone. I've said multiple times that religion has the potential for exploitation, however, that is not the same thing as religious thought directly harming anyone.

If your entire point is that religion should be separated from mainstream everyday life, then this entire argument was pointless, because that doesn't come into conflict with anything I said. In fact, it's in complete agreement. As I said before, people practicing religion without pushing their beliefs on others (which included suicide bombings) does not harm anyone in any way. You've turned your point around into trying to justify the eradication of religion based on religious extremists' crimes, but you still have not proven that religious thought is directly harmful to a society. The idea that all unsubstantiated religious beliefs control people's actions and make them want to perform violent acts in the name of religion is both ridiculous, and completely untrue.

That being said, your entire idea of the eradication of religion sounds idealistic, infeasible, and a little fascist. I'm really just never going to think that sacrificing people's freedom of religious thought and congregation is worth a seemingly "more progressive" society.

There is no need to eradicate religion. With new discoveries on the horizon it will become harder and harder to deceive yourself into religion. Religion will die.

One can only hope, Lamabot. The power of clear-thinking individuals who allow themselves to cling to unsubstantiated faith never ceases to amaze me.

Let's hope those events on the horizon come long before we all do each other in over these silly, outdated belief systems.

quote:What exactly is this problem of induction you speak of?

The problem of induction is a very well known issue developed by Hume. It questions whether use of inductive logic can be justified in a search for empirical truth.

At first, you may scoff and say that it is obviously justified by it's successes in the past, but this is circular reasoning and therefore fallacious as the premises are themselves reliant on inductive logic.

Also, since inductive reasoning can take valid premises and use them to support invalid conclusions, it cannot be justified using deductive logic. Hence, you can't justify it inductively or deductively.

Various 'solutions' have been proposed, but these could better be described as ways of dealing with the problem rather than overcoming it. These are generally of two forms:

-a rejection of all use of inductive logic

or

-acceptance that we must take its validity as an assumption.

Both alternatives accept that using inductive logic cannot be justified and it's use is therefore a matter of faith.

One notable solution is by Karl Popper. He tosses out all inductive logic. He then argues that science does not find true information, but it is capable of identifying false information through falsification. Then he argues that non-falsified theories are preferable to falsified ones, ie. until we can come up with a better theory, we should act as if our current one is true. This is faith.

Of course, critics have responded to Popper by asserting that saying something has been falsified is itself a theory; so it can only be assumed accurate through inductive logic. Which brings us right back to where we started.

quote:And there are plenty of arguments against solipsism, none of which I would say require any amount of 'faith' to believe that solipsism is foolish and wrong.

No doubt http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Are you going to present some of your arguments or am I expected to magically know what you are talking about?

quote:Nevertheless, this is all irrelevant because his example is still based on inductive logic, not faith.

The problem of induction makes faith quite relevant.

quote:You really are stupid. Mathmatics are a thing that shows how much of something there is compared to another and how these numbers can be changed into another the addition, subtraction, devision, multiplaction . proof 1 apples + 1 other apple = 2 apples.

Tell me, without using your unreliable senses, can you demonstrate that mathematics has any connection to reality?

And then, how can you justify using the past to predict the future (see the problem of induction)?



[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by easeoflife22:

One of my beggest gripes with religious people is this silly thing called faith. Faith is essentially the belief or trust in something without questioning it and without any real evidence to prove the belief. How can anyone be this naive? Would someone please explain to me why I should accept such a stance from anyone? Also, how did you develope faith in something without evidence, or are you just willing to accept heresay and unproven scripture in loo of evidence? How does anyone justify faith?

There's a difference between faith and blind faith.

I don't believe in scripture.

quote: Originally posted by cakezone:

You clearly think religion is much more of a problem than I do.

Clearly. No argument there.



quote: I still see no evidence of how one person, or a million people, simply thinking one way about religion hurts anyone. I've said multiple times that religion has the potential for exploitation, however, that is not the same thing as religious thought directly harming anyone.

Rethink this:

1 million people think a certain way about religion.

Those 1 million people happen to think that religious violence is justified when necessary

Just a small percentage of those people actually follow through with the violence

Society is harmed. People are hurt…. as a direct result of the their religious thought processes.

I’m sorry, but “having the potential for exploitation” IS a fine example of how it is possible for organized religion to be harmful to society. Meth is harmful, but the majority of meth users aren’t actual lab cooks who stand to accidentally blow up their apartment building, they’re just harmless users who probably will not affect society much. Should we attack only the lab cooks, or should we attack the problem of Meth itself? We could just target the cooks, but that still leaves wide open the possibility of regular, harmless users falling into the bracket of “harmful cook” someday.

quote:That being said, your entire idea of the eradication of religion sounds idealistic, infeasible, and a little fascist.

You know, cakezone – I went to bed last night with this portion of your post weighing heavily on my brain. Sleep evaded me as I questioned my most deep-seated worldviews and seriously pondered to myself if I have unwittingly became fascist without somehow realizing it or recognizing it. Then it hit me during my drive to work this morning, and regardless if you read this or not, I’d like to post it just to clarify the position I have taken throughout this thread.

Facsism is: forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

My preference of “eradicating organized religion” does absolutely nothing to hinder free thought (suppression), because it is impossible to dictate what people think, and even if it was possible, I wouldn’t support that kind of policing of thought. Requesting that people not implement their faith-based ideas into society is quite different than requesting that they somehow stop thinking about it altogether.

My preference of “eradicating organized religion” does the OPPOSITE of emphasizing nationalism and racism. It encourages people to not use their spiritual views as measuring sticks for other human beings, and encourages people to leave religion and faith out of governmental decisions and civil matters… even matters that only affect their immediate neighborhoods, not just on a global scale.

If anything, the eradication of organized, public displays of faith would serve well to stamp out these already present “fascist” qualities that our current world is in the throes of TODAY, in a world where organized religion is not only tolerated, but encouraged. Think about it:

- Organized religion and public displays of faith often encourages suppression of the competing religion’s regimes. Good example of that would be the Shiite/Sunni holy war, the Israeli/Palestinian territory dispute, the Protestant/Catholic disputes, etc.



- Organized religion and public displays of faith is already regimenting within our commerce system(look at the God insignia on all the bills/coins in your wallet or purse). Most people don’t see this as a problem, as the majority are comfortable with “In God We Trust” on their money. But what about the people who aren’t comfortable with that? Would they be justified in believing that the rest of the world was stifling their liberties with a “little fascism”?



- Organized faith-based religions DO emphasize aggressive nationalism and racism. Again, think of the Shiite/Sunni conflict, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Protestant/Catholic conflict, etc.

I believe that calling what I proposed “a little fascist” is completely unwarranted. I also believe that viewing organized, faith-based religions as NOT being “a little fascist”, is complete denial of the state of the world today.

Am I being too idealistic, maybe? Perhaps. I’m sure that the people who were opposed to the Christian crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were labeled as idealistic, too. It’s a good thing these people stuck to their idealism and worked hard to get these practices banished from our civil societies.

Is the plan for eradicating organized, faith-based religions even feasible? I believe it is. You and I may never see the change while we’re alive, our children probably may not, but if we’re lucky, maybe THEIR grandchildren will know what it’s like to live in a world where people aren’t compartmentalizing themselves into Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. They will just consider themselves and their neighbors as humans, nothing more or less.

Your main point of contention was: “people practicing religion without pushing beliefs on others does not harm society in any way”. That is true, but aren’t you being a bit idealistic, since we cannot guarantee that they will ALWAYS feel that way, and since we can’t guarantee that even the MAJORITY will feel that way, and since we can’t guarantee that entire communities will not just change their peace-loving, passive nature at the drop of a hat.

You contend that the MAJORITY of people are just harmless faith possessors. I contend that even if a small minority (and that is being ULTRA-conservative on my part) are the types of people who DO push their beliefs on others, then there is a problem at hand that needs to be dealt with. I propose dealing with it through education and the admonishing of organized, faith-based initiatives as a societal practice.

quote: I'm really just never going to think that sacrificing people's freedom of religious thought and congregation is worth a seemingly "more progressive" society.

I am going to continue to think that it will. And luckily, I am not the only person who feels that way. There are millions of agnostics and atheists who would GLADLY check the box of “religion unimportant” when polled about their beliefs. That’s all I’m asking, is that it becomes unimportant and trivial to people. Once that happens to the MAJORITY, then we will truly be on our way to achieving a more progressive society.





[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 03-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

1 million people think a certain way about religion.

Those 1 million people happen to think that religious violence is justified when necessary

Do you have some proof that everyone with unsubstantiated religious beliefs agrees with religious violence on some level? This seems to imply that you do. I don't think you're answering the question I'm asking though. The op was complaining about peoples faith. Apparently, having unsubstantiated religious views bothers him. I asked how it hurts anyone to simply have illogical religious views, not how these specific religions harboring violent extremists harms society. You're answering the question as if Christianity and Islam are the only religions that apply here, and that every Christian or Muslim agrees with religious violence in certain cases. A religious fundamentalist who straps a bomb to himself for a religious cause is not the kind of example I was asking for. I already said that religious extremism is the exception to the idea that most people with unsubstantiated views on religion do not harm anyone by thinking. You're focusing on this tiny percentage of people who are in no way a representation of the majority of religious followers.

In response to the fascism thing, maybe fascist isn't the right word. Your idea does however, seems to support forming an oppressive society where religions can't be expressed openly, all in the name of your view of a better world.

Everything negative you've said about organized religion only applies to the extremities and those who would push their beliefs on others, however, you continue to speak as though said organized religion as a whole promotes oppression, intolerance, and aggressiveness among everyone.

I do not feel like saying "people practicing religion without pushing beliefs on others does not harm society in any way" is idealistic at all. Yes, you can argue that it's impossible to tell if they'll always feel that way, but again, religious practices have evolved over time, and so have religious people. An easy example of this is how nobody follows old religious doctrines to the mark anymore, yet they still hold their faith. I see no reason why religion can't continue to become more tolerant in society.

quote:There are millions of agnostics and atheists who would GLADLY check the box of “religion unimportant” when polled about their beliefs. That’s all I’m asking, is that it becomes unimportant and trivial to people. Once that happens to the MAJORITY, then we will truly be on our way to achieving a more progressive society.

What I'm saying is that people shouldn't have to think that religion is unimportant, and nobody has the right to ask someone to do that. Instead, they should have the religious freedom they want, while not forcing their beliefs on others. This describes the majority of religious followers today.

Thinking religion is unimportant, and thinking that other people's beliefs are unimportant to you are two different things.



Your entire viewpoint on this is based on your apparent belief that religious liberty can be sacrificed in exchange for a more "progressive" society. There are plenty of agnostics and atheists who would be completely opposed to throwing away a freedom in the name of public safety and a supposedly better world as well.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-14-2007).]

quote: Originally posted by cakezone:

Do you have some proof that everyone with unsubstantiated religious beliefs agrees with religious violence on some level? This seems to imply that you do.

Where did I ever state that everyone who holds unsubstantiated religious beliefs agrees with violence? I wasn't bred from a family of atheists, I grew up surrounded by good religious people who were practically the epitome of what someone would describe as peaceful, loving, and full of kindness. Would I want to "oppress" these people into feeling shameful for what they believe in? No. Would I want to somehow make it so that the "Thought Police" would administer an electric shock to their bums every time a religious thought entered their stream of consciousness? No. You are using words like "facsist" and "oppression" to make it seem as though I am favoring a dictatorship.

All I would like to see required by people is the prudence to keep their religiosity to themselves and their intimate surroundings. I would like, as a non-believer, to be able to NOT see God inscribed on money and in courthouses, to NOT be a tool that we create civil laws and measure justice by, to NOT enter the schools so that my future children will be infected with it, to NOT be an unspoken requirement for people who hold office, to NOT impede science with supernatural "gap" explanations, to NOT be factored in regarding a society's lawmakers dictating what people can do/not do to their bodies, and last but definitely not least, to NOT ostracize and feign superiority over others who do not believe in the same God (or lack of Gods) that they do.

I realize that the levels of participation of people following those procedures would vary among religious groups. I am not so idealistic to think that religion will just cease to be a factor in people's lives overnight. I believe it would require years, decades, maybe even close to a whole century to completely "eradicate" faith-based regimes from our society. But for Pete's sake - let's start somewhere! Let's start educating people on the dangers of religion. Let's start waking up as a large, collective group of human beings who share the same planet and come to agree that religion has fared poorly in past history, and that religion can and will breed violence among certain groups if left unchecked. And let's start checking it right away, right now, right this very instant! Let's not just preach this to the extremists and the cuckoos whose minds are already fucked up beyond all repair - let's start with the peaceful, rational, grassroots, homegrown religious folks and get them to start a precedent for others, by showing a good example of what it truly means to not to force religious faith on others. That doesn't mean just sitting by passively and allowing the root of the issue (religion itself) flourish while hoping against hope that everyone will just *stay calm and act cool*. That means being confident enough in the strength of their own belief systems to be able to recognize and admit outloud that giving up a few religious liberties is well worth the cost of having to suffer humanity through a repeat of it's already sordid and ugly religious past.

I use examples of religious extremism to point out the extreme cases of religion-gone-wrong. I use Christianity and Islam as an example, as they have been the biggest FACSIST OPPRESSORS of all the faiths, and - suprise, suprise - they are the two most dominant faiths in the world today. If the top worldy religions of today consisted of Buddhists, Jains and Rastafarians, then I seriously doubt that this conversation would be taking place, and it would seem equally as unlikely that a forum like this would even have cause to exist. There would just be no need for it. Unfortunately that is not the case, so I feel it is imperative that given the state of the world as it is today, religion be recognized and held accountable for the doctrines and state of mind it requires its adherents to follow. I don't want to just roll the dice and let it go unmanaged and hope against hope that the rest of the world will somehow morph into the good sense that my neighbors, family and immediate friends possess. That is being idealistic, not to mention naive.

In light of all the atrocities committed by faith-based religious groups over the entire course of humanity thus far, it does not make me flinch in the least to be assertive enough to say: Religious liberties be damned. This is a crisis. Pull out all the stops.

I don't know why you insist on dragging the OP's position in on this. You surely can't assert that he/she has much interest in it, lest I remind you there has been -0- posts since the inception of this thread made by them. You asked a question, threadstarter abandoned thread, so like-minded people (like myself) began to offer their viewpoints on it. That's all this is.

quote: There are plenty of agnostics and atheists who would be completely opposed to throwing away a freedom in the name of public safety and a supposedly better world as well.

I am going to borrow on one of your tactics: Can you prove that? It seems to me that most atheists wouldn't feel much of a sting of abandoning something they didn't believe in already in order to strengthen public safety.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Where did I ever state that everyone who holds unsubstantiated religious beliefs agrees with violence? I wasn't bred from a family of atheists, I grew up surrounded by good religious people who were practically the epitome of what someone would describe as peaceful, loving, and full of kindness. Would I want to "oppress" these people into feeling shameful for what they believe in? No. Would I want to somehow make it so that the "Thought Police" would administer an electric shock to their bums every time a religious thought entered their stream of consciousness? No. You are using words like "facsist" and "oppression" to make it seem as though I am favoring a dictatorship.

When you say

quote:1 million people think a certain way about religion.

Those 1 million people happen to think that religious violence is justified when necessary

It sounds like you're projecting a 100% agreement rate with this. If you're just referencing this hypothetical group of 1 million people as a single sample of religious extremists, then I was confused about that.

quote:Would I want to "oppress" these people into feeling shameful for what they believe in? No. Would I want to somehow make it so that the "Thought Police" would administer an electric shock to their bums every time a religious thought entered their stream of consciousness? No.

Yet you would prefer that they consider their religious beliefs as unimportant, and that they only practice religion "under the blankets at night with the lights off"

I'm just a little confused as to how you actually think religion should be handled. You say you support the eradication of religion, failing that, you support religious freedom as long as it's not interfering with sociological development?

If thats true, then we're not in disagreement there.

quote:All I would like to see required by people is the prudence to keep their religiosity to themselves and their intimate surroundings. I would like, as a non-believer, to be able to NOT see God inscribed on money and in courthouses, to NOT be a tool that we create civil laws and measure justice by, to NOT enter the schools so that my future children will be infected with it, to NOT be an unspoken requirement for people who hold office, to NOT impede science with supernatural "gap" explanations, to NOT be factored in regarding a society's lawmakers dictating what people can do/not do to their bodies, and last but definitely not least, to NOT ostracize and feign superiority over others who do not believe in the same God (or lack of Gods) that they do.

You said something like this earlier. As I replied before, none of this is in disagreement with anything I'm saying. In fact, it's completely parallel. In the situation you described, people follow their religious without pushing their beliefs on others, and you're apparently happy with that.

quote:I realize that the levels of participation of people following..

All of this just comes back to you thinking that ending open religious practice is worth a supposedly better world, whereas I do not.

quote:I don't know why you insist on dragging the OP's position in on this. You surely can't assert that he/she has much interest in it, lest I remind you there has been -0- posts since the inception of this thread made by them. You asked a question, threadstarter abandoned thread, so like-minded people (like myself) began to offer their viewpoints on it. That's all this is.

If you post arguments to something I said in reference to the op's post, I'll refute them.

quote:I am going to borrow on one of your tactics: Can you prove that? It seems to me that most atheists wouldn't feel much of a sting of abandoning something they didn't believe in already in order to strengthen public safety.

No, just like I can't prove that the majority of religious people are non-violent. Obviously I can't produce a list of names for you, but the idea of liberty v.s. a supposedly "better" place (in one person's view) has been argued countless times, even on this very forum. There are a lot of people in humanities who would argue this to the death.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 03-14-2007).]

AngryFeminist, LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!! THERE'S A CHRISTIAN THERE! IT'S GONNA GET YOU!!!!!! Lol

Gotcha

talkin' about paranoid blues for real

[This message has been edited by mustache rider (edited 03-14-2007).]

Faith is for those who cannot accept reality for what it is.

Also I'm sure we can all agree that people believe what they want to, regardless of he facts. If they want to believe all that bible/Qur'an/torah/etc etc bullshit, then they will.



[This message has been edited by Quageschi (edited 03-14-2007).]

quote: Originally posted by cakezone:

It sounds like you're projecting a 100% agreement rate with this.

I am.

quote: If you're just referencing this hypothetical group of 1 million people as a single sample of religious extremists, then I was confused about that.

Hypothetical? Who said anything about it being hypothetical? If you can deduce that there are 6 billion people in this world, and that only about 20% of those 6 billion people are non-religious, then it is a very conservative plug to estimate that at least 1 million of these other 80% of people would be willing to give their lives by whatever means necessary in the name of their faith.

quote: Yet you would prefer that they consider their religious beliefs as unimportant, and that they only practice religion "under the blankets at night with the lights off"

Yes, I would like for them to regard their religions as unimportant to ANYTHING BUT how it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside when they are in the privacy of their own homes. I would like for them to stop brandishing it on their sleeves and using it as a crutch to help them get along socially with other human beings. It's just not necessary. Moreover, it hinders the progression of society.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Hypothetical? Who said anything about it being hypothetical? If you can deduce that there are 6 billion people in this world, and that only about 20% of those 6 billion people are non-religious, then it is a very conservative plug to estimate that at least 1 million of these other 80% of people would be willing to give their lives by whatever means necessary in the name of their faith.

Before reading this, I had no idea where you got that original figure. Hence, the confusion.

quote:Yes, I would like for them to regard their religions as unimportant to ANYTHING BUT how it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside when they are in the privacy of their own homes. I would like for them to stop brandishing it on their sleeves and using it as a crutch to help them get along socially with other human beings. It's just not necessary. Moreover, it hinders the progression of society.

Well again, if thats how you feel about the progression of society, so be it.

quote:Originally posted by Quageschi:

Faith is for those who cannot accept reality for what it is.

Also I'm sure we can all agree that people believe what they want to, regardless of he facts. If they want to believe all that bible/Qur'an/torah/etc etc bullshit, then they will.

Of course they will believe whatever they want to regardless of the facts, Quageshi. Human gullibility knows no bounds.

But I refuse to take a defeatist attitude of "oh well, ppl are gonna do what they're gonna do!" - and not speak out against it. Luckily a few founding fathers of this country took this same stance and tried their damndest to make this a civil society with a healthy separation of church and state. Those old guys would likely roll over in their graves if they could see what a turn humanity has taken in this regard.

quote:Originally posted by mustache rider:

AngryFeminist, LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!! THERE'S A CHRISTIAN THERE! IT'S GONNA GET YOU!!!!!! Lol

Gotcha



^Deluded Idiot #6,345,961,005 who believes my screen moniker is somehow related to feminism.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)