When trying to convince others that atheism is superior to religion, don't try to convince them that God is not real.

Instead, convince them that religion itself, in all forms, is absurd.

Convince them the basic fact of religion: It doesn't evolve with the times.

Our knowledge of the world and its various properties is continually growing and being revised. Religion hasn't changed in thousands of years.

If you could resurrect a man from the 14th century, he would be ignorant beyond all belief. He would think that sicknesses are caused by demons, and that blood-letting is a great cure for many diseases. BUT, he would be as well versed in religious matters, if not more so, than we are today (Harris, The End of Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith))

Why should we live in ignorance? Why do people still believe the things that they did 1000 years ago?

I think that it is much more important when persuading people to favor atheism to point out this fact.

What do you think?

What do you think?

I think (Harris, The End of Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith)) is a damned good read.

I think it works better if you don't mention atheism at all; most people are taken aback by the thought of living without a god, perhaps just agnosticism or some other pseudo-religion.

I think (Harris, The End of Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith)) is a damned good read.

Yeah, I just started today. Very good read so far.

You might be correct. It is far easier to say the organization of religion or the religion itself is wrong. That is the first step in healing the mental illness that is theism.

But you are also dealing with the most virulent mind virus known to man. In this day and age I believe you have to shout to be heard over all the noise. I find it hilarious to make fun of people who KNOW there is a god. Who blindly follow what they are told to.

I believe at this point ridiculing the religious nuts in this country is far more effective than trying to argue with someone whose final excuse has to be and will always be "God did it". It is more effective to have comedians and culture poke fun at the INSANITY that is religion. The young generation will not desire to be ridiculed by the pop culture in this country.

Maybe a healthy mix of both convincing the sick mind that the organization is bad and ridiculing the die hard old earth nutbags with a fervor. I think a case by case assessment would be prudent. Some cases (rofflle) are beyond help at this point.

I think you're confusing theism with religion. They're different.

Religion is rituals associated with God's name. Theism is belief in God(s).

Try this instead: tell them that mindless rituals are wrong. A belief in God doesn't have to limit your search for greater knowledge.

Best of all: raise all children as agnostic. Let them come to their own conclusions.

The problem with what you suggest is eventually someone will come along with more divine knowledge in the god we (as theists) believe in. This person will let us all know the proper rituals and ways to communicate with this god.

If you dont agree with this man and you are of a minority opinion.....run. Run fast, run hard.

This is the problem with any theistic belief structures. Eventually Jim Jones comes along and the next thing you know you are pouring posion down your infant son's throat.

Basically what I am saying is you cannot believe in god and not eventually have a religion capitialize on it. Sorry. Just not gonna happen.

When trying to convince others that atheism is superior to religion, don't try to convince them that God is not real.

Instead, convince them that religion itself, in all forms, is absurd.

Convince them the basic fact of religion: It doesn't evolve with the times.

Our knowledge of the world and its various properties is continually growing and being revised. Religion hasn't changed in thousands of years.

If you could resurrect a man from the 14th century, he would be ignorant beyond all belief. He would think that sicknesses are caused by demons, and that blood-letting is a great cure for many diseases. BUT, he would be as well versed in religious matters, if not more so, than we are today (Harris, The End of Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith))

Why should we live in ignorance? Why do people still believe the things that they did 1000 years ago?

I think that it is much more important when persuading people to favor atheism to point out this fact.

What do you think?

You know I've been an atheist for many years (former Catholic) and I've come to the realization that trying to convince people to become atheists is a futile and misguided task. I'll explain why, and what we should be doing instead.

First of all, what exactly is atheism? Does the term "atheist" imply that a given individual follows any particular set of beliefs or morals, or is it merely and indicator of what ideas the individual rejects? Atheism is a negative description of one's beliefs, in the fact that it really doesn't tell anybody anything about my worldview except that I can't be accurately grouped together with theists.

Now here's where the problem with trying to win converts to atheism comes in; we can tell them that they're wrong as long and as loudly as we wish, but they're still not going to agree with you until you offer an alternative to their beliefs. If we wish for atheism to become widespread and accepted we need to proclaim the positive qualities of rationality, skepticism and free thinking rather than just bemoan the close mindedness and false logic of religion and hope that convinces people that we must be right by default. Anti anything movements will inherently fail, but I see no reason why atheism must remain merely an anti religion movement. For that reason I'm careful to reframe my arguments to be pro rational skepticism rather than anti ignorant faith.

I am pro-rational skepticism, not anti-faith.
I am pro-life, not anti-afterlife.
I am pro-free thought, not anti-conformity.
I am pro-atheism, not anti-religion.

Let's go out and try to show everyone that it is possible to be a well-adjusted, moral person without needing to believe in a god. Let's convince them to join us as skeptics rather than trying to get them to leave their religions as atheists. They'll never be able to accept the negative side of their coin unless we show them the positive side of ours.

The problem with what you suggest is eventually someone will come along with more divine knowledge in the god we (as theists) believe in. This person will let us all know the proper rituals and ways to communicate with this god.

If you dont agree with this man and you are of a minority opinion.....run. Run fast, run hard.

This is the problem with any theistic belief structures. Eventually Jim Jones comes along and the next thing you know you are pouring posion down your infant son's throat.

Basically what I am saying is you cannot believe in god and not eventually have a religion capitialize on it. Sorry. Just not gonna happen.

Then it's the people to blame for their stupidity. My God doesn't tell me to be a mindless idiot.

It's onto every religious human to pick apart at their faith. They should take time and think 'hmm... does does not cutting my hair or mutilating my son's/daughter's genitals really bring me any closer to the greater understanding. What is a greater sign of piety, a full beard on me and a veil on my wife's face, or me giving what I can to those less fortunate? Is bowing my head infront of a statue any good if my intentions aren't pure?" If God created such a fine tuned world, with laws that can't be changed would he want me to do something illogical."

A person's actions doesn't negate my belief.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
--- Buddha

17:36 And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these you are responsible for. --- Quran

Cheers.

the problem i have with religion is that most of the time it is not chosen. it is forced on people starting at a young age, so they dont really form thier own opinion about it.

the problem i have with religion is that most of the time it is not chosen. it is forced on people starting at a young age, so they dont really form thier own opinion about it.

this!

When trying to convince others that atheism is superior to religion, don't try to convince them that God is not real.

Instead, convince them that religion itself, in all forms, is absurd.

Convince them the basic fact of religion: It doesn't evolve with the times.

Our knowledge of the world and its various properties is continually growing and being revised. Religion hasn't changed in thousands of years.

If you could resurrect a man from the 14th century, he would be ignorant beyond all belief. He would think that sicknesses are caused by demons, and that blood-letting is a great cure for many diseases. BUT, he would be as well versed in religious matters, if not more so, than we are today (Harris, The End of Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith))

Why should we live in ignorance? Why do people still believe the things that they did 1000 years ago?

I think that it is much more important when persuading people to favor atheism to point out this fact.

What do you think?

I hate it when I think that I thought of a concept first then I find out someone else has already published it. It's so fucking irritating. Perhaps I should read more so I can be on par with the power thinkers.

Hmm...

That's not true, the Talmud is continuously updated by rabbinical scholars to provide advice for new happenings in people's lives.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/talmudtoc.html

blood-letting is a great cure for many diseases.

He would think blood-letting is great if he read secular medical books from that time period.

He would realize it's foolish if he read the Bible! (see Leviticus 17:11)

So how did the Bible know something in 15th century BC that modern science didn't know until 19th century AD? :p

He would think blood-letting is great if he read secular medical books from that time period.

He would realize it's foolish if he read the Bible! (see Leviticus 17:11)

So how did the Bible know something in 15th century BC that modern science didn't know until 19th century AD? :p

You're a fucking idiot. Pagan literature has set blood as the lifeforce for years before christianity. Stop trying to stretch whatever you can to make your bullshit faith appear true.

Once again, you're a fucking idiot.

I find it hilarious to make fun of people who KNOW there is a god. Who blindly follow what they are told to.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you "KNOW" there is a God then you act accordingly, following blindly has nothing to do with it. Seems to me you're making fun of the wrong people. "Having faith" as you will doesn't have as much to do with religion as you might think, faith is just a feeling, something you can switch on and off believe it or not.

So for some people, from the start of their lives, it's part of their nature to be more spiritual then others, which manifests itself trough exploring different religions which is all fine and should be no one's business but your own. I think in the end it's all about feeling like you belong, which is a great achievement once behind you.

The only problem I have is that a lot of huge religions have a LOT of people who are a bother, because they force themselves upon you, but I can't blame them. I think this is always something you'll set yourself up for as a religion if you create a concept which involves possible punishment. Here you attract a bunch of people as a religion, you tell them what's right and wrong, and then you tell those same people that if they don't spread their belief other people are going to burn for it, which is "wrong" according to that same religion. Now what is the only result that this way of thinking could lead to? exactly, the way it's going now (and always have been), people killing and getting killed thinking they are proving something. This has caused so much blood to spill for nothing it's embarrassing for us as a race till long after the sun dies out.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you "KNOW" there is a God then you act accordingly, following blindly has nothing to do with it. Seems to me you're making fun of the wrong people. "Having faith" as you will doesn't have as much to do with religion as you might think, faith is just a feeling, something you can switch on and off believe it or not.

Nobody can know if there is a God. That was the irony in my post. They cannot know, yet many believers have to be blind and ignorant of science (truth) to remain so fiercly faithful. They act as if they know the truth when in fact they have to ignore it (science).

Nobody can know if there is a God.

God is the one thing you know.

God is the one thing you know.

And at the same time the one thing you don't.

Self-refuting arguments are so fun aren't they Obbe?

And at the same time the one thing you don't.

How do you not know God?

How do you know god?

How do you know god?

There is no how.

There is no there....

Do you see how pointless, baseless and counter productive your arguments are now or should I continue?

I'm pretty sure I don't know God because he's never spoken to me, I've never seen him, and there's no evidence he exists, or ever will exist. Hell, I have just as much evidence that Spiderman is real as I do Jesus.

should I continue?

By all means.

Everything is illusion except me.

Does that sum up your fortune cookie philosophy right there?

If not, what do you have to add?

Faith leads to religion. These two concepts ARE closely related and will remain so. You cannot have religion without faith. You CAN have faith without religion but you will not have it very long and here is why:

As long as there is someone stupid enough to think a wish granting man lives in the sky, that is to say faith, there will always be some conman there to capitialize upon said person's faith with religion.

I get what your saying. I am an asshole to most theists. Most notably Christianity. The moment another persons RETARDED ancient and backwards belief structure stops affecting me personally is the moment I will respect said bat shit crazy person's religious beliefs.

I honestly do not feel you can undo the damage a meme complex as virulent as most religions are, with kind and gentle words. I believe most of the faithful involved in religion today are beyond hope. My only hope is that pop culture and media continue to be critical and ridicule religion. I hope this for the younger generation of not yet indoctrined and underdevoloped minds who will not sign on with a particular faith for fear of being riduculed as bat shit crazy.

It is a pretty good plan I think.

Nobody can know if there is a God. That was the irony in my post. They cannot know, yet many believers have to be blind and ignorant of science (truth) to remain so fiercly faithful. They act as if they know the truth when in fact they have to ignore it (science).

You don't understand what I'm talking about that at all. You think you are not a dumb person but you're just blabbering all over it with your anti-religion bullshit. I'm saying faith and religion are different things. Religion comes after faith. You say you laugh at people who pick a religion, I'm saying you shouldn't laugh at them but do something about the religion you disagree with (which will result in a discussion you can't win, just look around), because the reason why someone has faith is not important in this context. It's there, and it's real and people want to believe in something no matter if their current religion holds any truth, which is why you almost never convince someone otherwise (a good example is Scientology as always in my opinion). It's not faith that makes people do stupid things, it's religion that tells people to do stupid things.

Besides what do you know? Someone else's choices are really not to be decided but you at all, you can only try and make someone see it your way but do accept that it's very well possible that your way doesn't go with that person, which doesn't make your way any less true, but it makes it your way, which you should feel confident about but you are obviously not, or you'd never attack a person directly in any way about this.

My bad, reposted. And hell yeah, finding evidence against religion would be good, just one you know, would shift people back to themselves again for a while instead of depending on a feeling or thought processes of someone looking out for you while that's probably not true at all.

My bad, reposted. And hell yeah, finding evidence against religion would be good, just one you know, would shift people back to themselves again for a while instead of depending on a feeling or thought processes of someone looking out for you while that's probably not true at all.

Evidence against religion = The first part of this movie: www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Evidence against religion = The first part of this movie: www.zeitgeistmovie.com

It's a good movie. All it does it prove the pagan influences in Christianity. It isn't evidence against God. Not everyone has the X-ian view of an angry menopausal God that's just waiting to smite a human at every step of the way.

There are many theists, specifically deists, pantheists, daoists, and other semi-religious people that don't fit the bill of being corrupted by traditional religion. Just ask ArmsMerchant, faith doesn't always lead to religion.

He would think blood-letting is great if he read secular medical books from that time period.

He would realize it's foolish if he read the Bible! (see Leviticus 17:11)

So how did the Bible know something in 15th century BC that modern science didn't know until 19th century AD? :p

And I agree that if he read the secular medical books of that time, he would think blood-letting was great. But Leviticus 17:11 does not say otherwise. Indeed Leviticus 17:11 - 16 are laws against the consumption of blood.

This is the verse you told us to look up:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life."

That doesn't mean that one shouldn't partake of blood-letting, it is merely stating that blood is the source of life. Couldn't bad blood mean a bad life? And thus blood-letting would still seem right to this man. The Bible is far too ambiguous to have any real meaning.

The point that the Bible is not updated as science is still stands.

I don't think it is prudent, however, to convert anyone away from anything, to mock their beliefs or to otherwise make them question their faith. I say live and let live. If someone is happy to believe what they believe, and if they do not encroach on another's beliefs, then we should let them do as they want. If one person's belief (or lack thereof) affects the basic rights of any other, that is when they should be reprimanded.

By that token, religion should be kept completely separate from politics. Medical ethics (a subject which is legislated on by governments across the world) is a prime example of a place where religion is a problem. I don't see why religion should have any place in the decisions of government, despite how many people are part of a religion.

So in summary, my opinion is that we should live and let live, but not let belief interfere with politics.

There are many theists, specifically deists, pantheists, daoists, and other semi-religious people that don't fit the bill of being corrupted by traditional religion. Just ask ArmsMerchant, faith doesn't always lead to religion.

Faith will always lead to religion. It make take awhile but the end result will be a large group of fanatics trying to control the secular.

As long as someone out there is foolish enough to believe there is an invisible man in the sky, and believe it without or in direct contradiction to empiracal evidence, there will be some conman smart enough to dupe you in the name of the inivisible man.

Fact is many people who sport faith are just fringers of an organized religion even if they do not yet realize it. Religion will guide them or their children (indoctrining the young naive brain) into the fold.

Faith will always lead to religion. It make take awhile but the end result will be a large group of fanatics trying to control the secular.

As long as someone out there is foolish enough to believe there is an invisible man in the sky, and believe it without or in direct contradiction to empiracal evidence, there will be some conman smart enough to dupe you in the name of the inivisible man.

Fact is many people who sport faith are just fringers of an organized religion even if they do not yet realize it. Religion will guide them or their children (indoctrining the young naive brain) into the fold.

I would argue that unless you have absolutely no doubts that there cannot possibly be a god then you are at least partially susceptible to such fanatics. Just like there are mainline Christians who are moderates, there can also be semi-religious people (such as deists, pantheists, etc.) who are moderates and refuse the urge to associate themselves with fanatics. Not all Christians are evangelicals, and not all moderate Christians are gullible enough to believe what a fringe minority tell them. Same goes with non-traditional theists. They are, virtually by definition, able to maintain their secular identity without having to engage in ritual.

What aspect of being semi-religious could a false prophet somehow manipulate? Ritual? Tithes? Guilt? I think secular people are smart enough to avoid all of these.

If not those then what could they manipulate?

Faith will always lead to religion. It make take awhile but the end result will be a large group of fanatics trying to control the secular.

As long as someone out there is foolish enough to believe there is an invisible man in the sky, and believe it without or in direct contradiction to empiracal evidence, there will be some conman smart enough to dupe you in the name of the inivisible man.

Fact is many people who sport faith are just fringers of an organized religion even if they do not yet realize it. Religion will guide them or their children (indoctrining the young naive brain) into the fold.

Its so funny how you fail to see the mirror image of yourself when making such descriptions.

a mirror image is, just that. An image.

it doesn't mean that there is a whole other universe on the other side of that glass.

thusly your metaphor fails miserably.

it is clear that everyone who is high up in organised religion is either very clever and sly, or a malevolent cretin.

most christians fall into the malevolent cretin category.

What the fuck was up with all the double posts, stoner.

it is clear that everyone who is high up in organised religion is either very clever and sly, or a malevolent cretin.

most christians fall into the malevolent cretin category.

I agree with the latter, but at the same time I feel the prior should be "it is clear that everyone who is high up in organized religion is either very clever and sly, or a good businessman".

I agree with the latter, but at the same time I feel the prior should be "it is clear that everyone who is high up in organized religion is either very clever and sly, or a good businessman".

I think that falls under clever and sly.

thusly your metaphor fails miserably

Uhhhh....metaphor?