Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Agreed Points: Religion can be weaponized, Indoctrination is wrong.

---

Just because people can choose to follow it doesn't make it innocent.

For example, you choose to follow the Westboro Baptists church. But having the choice doesn't mean their beliefs now don't have wrong to it or are innocent. It's still harmful and had bad to it, you just chose not to participate in it. And yes if we did stop it, it would continue elsewhere. In the same sense how say a word bullies use to pick on others is made to no longer be negative, the bullying won't stop but rather alter tactics. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't dislike the word.

(For the record, that is a poor example for me. I don't let myself hate individual words but the intention behind the word. You could technically argue similar for Religion, but then I'd simply reply with what I already posted above. With all it's good can be found elsewhere, Negatives will be used elsewhere. All that's left is the flawed way to thinking/believing which I will get to in a moment).

I do agree in that someone who believes in God and keeps it to themselves is better than one who tries to covert people and rub it in their faces.

And although I am even debating that mindset here, that is for the sake of this debate. You would never see me walk up to a casual religious person in the real world and go "You are wrong! You're way of thinking is wrong!" or anything like that.

But there is still the matter of following or believing something without any real or concrete reason to do so.
Every action and philosophy should at least be thought out and have some rational/logical reason behind it, and that almost always involves some proof and evidence combined with some educated guesses.

It's the difference between "I'll study for my test, because prior experience shows reviewing the notes get's me better grades" and "I will simply answer C on every question because I have faith that it will work".

[Pyro V]

What we seem to be arguing is the question of "Do we blame the man or the gun?"

To me, blaming a gun for a man's death is illogical. Blaming the man that pulled the trigger, that is what should be done.
You are blaming religion for people making illogical, irrational, or just plain ignorant/stupid decisions and/or actions. I choose to blame the individuals, as if they are if they have the mentality to do something and then hide behind religion, it should not be blamed on the religion, but rather on the individuals.

As for arguing that believing in something because there is no evidence is illogical, well, that is much of what belief is. If nobody believed in something without evidence at first, then nearly nothing would have been accomplished in the history of anything. The proof or evidence of an invisible sky-daddy is likely nigh-on impossible to find other than a bunch of old books that say so, but, nevertheless, it shouldn't be discouraged simply because "We cannot see, therefore it does not exist."

That idea, in and of itself, seems to be more closeminded and irrational than most religions I've seen or heard of, and is something that I simply can not agree with.

[Gwazi Magnum]

A gun is an item or device though, it is strictly something wielded and operated by man.
Religion is a system that has been known to taken advantage of people when young and indoctrinate or alter their values or beliefs before they're old enough to actually think about it. If a child was a raised around religion, and has chosen to listen to it as a result that's only a natural result of the human mind. We tend to listen to and believe what we're told when young, knowing this it makes little sense to blame the individual often times when we know there was a system behind the scenes that caused this.

And note this mainly falls back to practices such as believing things without evidence, or rejecting evidence to defend their faith. Things like rape, murder I will admit is usually the individual looking for an excuse.

Lots would of been accomplished in history if we didn't need evidence, we don't exactly need faith to be motivated to do things. If we wanted to do or know something we test it, we do research, or explore it and learn from it. We don't simply make up an answer and pretend that it's true. Most of human history was done because of peoples growing curiosity and desire to matter in some way, not from operating without evidence.

Science would never of progressed if your claim was true, the entire point of it is that faith does not work. You need evidence and proof for everything you try to treat as fact, if we simply accepted "I have faith" we would never of had the desire or urge to go out, experiment and actually learn the truth of the matter for ourselves. If there is no proof for something existing like a God, then there is no reason to treat it as a fact.

It makes as much sense as saying 'those who believe in a teapot orbiting the earth should not be discouraged because there is no evidence for it.
That's not close mindedness, that's actually understanding the situation, the facts and working with it.

You wouldn't expect to pass a test on faith, you'd want to learn the content.
You wouldn't want a doctor who worked on faith, you want one who did the research.
You wouldn't want a science teacher who simply had faith on his theories, you'd want researched, repeatable and observable studies backing it up.

[Imperfectionist]

Hmm. Gwazi, I would very much like you to confirm something for me. I am a spiritual person, with a background in Buddhism and Christianity, but no loyalty to any church or temple or sect or institution. I am moral in as many ways as possible, and I believe in life beyond the body, I believe in a consciousness that permeates all things, and I believe in a form of reincarnation that involves not only animals and living things, but planets, stars, galaxies and universes themselves.

Do I cause harm to society, and to the progress of science, because I believe in such things without having gained experimental evidence? Would it be better for the world as a whole if I did not believe in such things? Is your worldview better for my mental health and that of those around me?

[Gwazi Magnum]

Imperfectionist said Hmm. Gwazi, I would very much like you to confirm something for me. I am a spiritual person, with a background in Buddhism and Christianity, but no loyalty to any church or temple or sect or institution. I am moral in as many ways as possible, and I believe in life beyond the body, I believe in a consciousness that permeates all things, and I believe in a form of reincarnation that involves not only animals and living things, but planets, stars, galaxies and universes themselves.

I'd ask about the reasoning you had behind such a theory/belief, and if I found it was based largely on faith and/or logical fallacies I would disagree with your way of thinking.

Imperfectionist said Do I cause harm to society, and to the progress of science, because I believe in such things without having gained experimental evidence? Would it be better for the world as a whole if I did not believe in such things? Is your worldview better for my mental health and that of those around me?

I would not however try to claim this, unless if you actively went around trying to convince others of this same thing.

Someone operating on faith, but keeping it to themselves I simply find harmful to that individual.
Someone operating on faith, but then trying to force it on others (Ex: Teach the bible, not science in schools) is harmful to society.
->And yes, trying to raise your children to the same system counts as forcing it on others.

The mental health bit I feel might need some clarification on my part.
I should probably divide this into two categories honestly.

1) Poor Practices
Mainly just the standard "I will stand by faith, not proof or evidence" sort of thinking. Something that although not wise or advisable, and may lead to some harmful or poor decisions in the future. But should not in itself effect one's ability to remain happy or generally healthy.

2) Mentally Unhealthy
This is stuff such as "I am but a sinner who needs to be saved by God". Beliefs and practices that actively make the person feel inferior or lesser compared to another individual or being. It could also just be blind hope or dependence such as "Only God can help me with my Depression". Where what is a rather serious condition is left dependent on something that no only has no proof of actually being able to help but something that can easily be shaken or removed, may it be by exposure to certain bible conflictions, certain scientific arguments, or simply division within the Church where others declare you "Not a true Christian" for things such as say not showing up on sunday enough, not dressing modestly enough, suspicious of your new friend of the opposite sex etc.

So in short, with the information provided I'd say I disagree with your method of finding your conclusion, and would urge you to try to use more evidence and proof to support future beliefs. But if this is not being forced on others, nor is it harmful to your mental health if it simply stays as such, and doesn't expand into some kind of reliance or valuing yourself as something less.

[Imperfectionist]

Interesting. Well, I'm glad my beliefs are satisfactory in your eyes, Gwazi. I don't think I'd be able to sleep at night otherwise.

Again, though, you are revealing your raised-Christian bias. What you don't like, as I said on the last page, is the Christianity of your past, and you lump all faith-based thought in with that, placing it in the "to be avoided" category. Which is sad.

[Brovo]

@Pyro: At work with limited internet at the moment so I can't reply to most of this stuff, but the one thing I wanted to quickly comment on: Empathy is not an ideal, it is an instinct separate and distinct. Same goes for sympathy. These are things most social creatures possess, especially pack-based ones (ex: tribal humans).

The reason this is important to note is because it paves the way for the formation of morality when combined with a sufficient level of intellect. This is why our morals have evolved over time and become more expansive, comprehensive, and complex.

It's also because you are certainly correct about some humans possessing limited or completely vacant empathy and/or sympathy. This is typically due to a mental disorder, though. As well, our intellect makes us capable of overriding base natures, like empathy. Ex: Soldiers being trained to kill.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Imperfectionist said Interesting. Well, I'm glad my beliefs are satisfactory in your eyes, Gwazi. I don't think I'd be able to sleep at night otherwise.Again, though, you are revealing your raised-Christian bias. What you don't like, as I said on the last page, is the Christianity of your past, and you lump all faith-based thought in with that, placing it in the "to be avoided" category. Which is sad.

I gave you credit when you did some clever evaluation of my history, but that doesn't suddenly become a card you can use whenever I keep disagreeing with you on the topic. If you want to disprove me use logical arguments and points, guilt and shaming attempts won't do anything to help.

Let me word it this way, you dismissing my arguments with simply going "Your Bias" is the equivalent of me answering any criticism with "God". It doesn't answer the question, you're just filling a hole without explaining it. And honestly this is what I would accuse of crawling under people's skin, not what Brovo does. While he does try to be funny and teasing at times he does so in a friendly way and still get's his argument across.

Your post right here is outright sarcasm, and attempts to shame and guilt the other side. Which not only should function as a bigger insult, not only lacks an actual argument, but plays on emotion rather than logic. That's a big no-no in the debating world if your objective is to be reasonable and find the truth behind something.

[Brovo]

@Imperfectionist & Gwazi: Now now, settle down kids.

[Imperfectionist]

I'm a hypocrite at times, but at least I don't pretend I'm "lightening the mood". I deliberately attempted to get under your skin. I'm glad you noticed.

At this point, Gwazi, I really do just feel sad. You're further gone than I thought, and it's a little goddamn ridiculous. It smacks of an incredible lack of empathy, and an unhealthy fixation on the wrong things. The sad part is, I feel you.

I know how awful religious institutions can be (see my earlier "universal morality" argument). I know that religious differences are a factor in the ongoing deaths of... too many people. I hate those institutions. I hate the people (mostly men, the fucks) who would use martial might to oppress those who are not like them. I hate the people who instill guilt and fear into the minds of children, who say that homosexuality is wrong, who discriminate openly and otherwise against those who are not like them. I hate them all. They make me sick. They are reprehensible, and that is nowhere near a full list.

I want things to change. You want things to change. We should be on the same side here. But, you're too caught up in your own head to see the harm your words can do to others. You can rationalize all you want, but you are just as guilty as the people on that list. Just as oppressive. So, Gwazi Magnum, I hate you. You make me sick. You are not part of the solution, but part of the problem, and until you realize what that problem really is, we have no more to say to each other.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Your tactics then are deplorable, points get proven through logic and reason. Not emotion and attacking people.

I even told you I didn't see your mind of approach as harmful to society, just that I personally disagreed with it.
Which honestly highlights something, I'm suspecting if I had said anything outside of "I was wrong, you were right" you would accuse me as part of the problem and claim you hate me. You are hardly the first to say such things to me (Not just on Religion mind you, I've had people says such things for just about any topic, Feminism, abortion, education, drug laws etc.). So if you think acting disapproving of me is going to sway me, you are very, very mistaken.

Now if you excuse me I'm back to the boat of logic and reason, I might be wrong at times. I might clash heads at time with people I largely respect and otherwise agree completely with in matters, but it will ultimately lead me in the right direction. I hope to see you on that boat too, but you're going to need to drop your hatred of people who disagree with you, and your shaming tactics first if you wish to board it.

[Brovo]

@Imperfectionist: ... O.o You hate a person who has a different world view unironically? And then think yourself to be in the morally righteous position?

... How remarkable Christian of you. I'm sure Jesus would approve of absolute, seething hatred for your ideological enemies instead of like, accepting them, and stuff. Geez who would turn the other cheek or love thy enemies, what nutjob would do that!?

[Imperfectionist]

I'm not Christian, Brovo. I said as much above. And the seething hatred is not quite seething, as I also said. It is gut-wrenching, and sad.

It makes me sick that such an intelligent person (much more intelligent than me) can't see the negative effects of his own words and actions, can't see that he is actively campaigning against people who have done no wrong. Gwazi approaches this concept from what I truly believe to be a harmful angle, and I hate him for it. He could do so much more. Instead of engaging perfectly moral people in bullshit "debates" on the Guild, he could use his obvious strengths in logic and rhetoric to argue against the actions of the immoral, twisted people he actually has a case against.

Wasted potential, Brovo, and wasted energy, on all our parts. That is what this thread represents.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Imperfectionist said I'm not Christian, Brovo.

He's well aware of that, what was trying to be said is that you're acting very Christian by hating someone for disagreeing with you.

Imperfectionist said It makes me sick that such an intelligent person (much more intelligent than me) can't see the negative effects of his own words and actions, can't see that he is actively campaigning against people who have done no wrong.

You know considering you just called me much more intelligent than you, you sure are claiming to know better than me in a lot.

Imperfectionist said He could do so much more. Instead of engaging perfectly moral people in bullshit "debates" on the Guild, he could use his obvious strengths in logic and rhetoric to argue against the actions of the immoral, twisted people he actually has a case against.

I started a topic, those who replied made the choice to engage in the debate. I didn't march up to anyone specifically and go "Hey you! Let's debate your Religion!".

And if you've been paying attention, I have been arguing the immoral actions already like you want me to.
It's just that since I also voiced disagreement with the concept of treating something as fact without evidence, you took it as if I hate and attack all religious people... and ironically responded with the exact same behaviour you accuse me of doing.

Though let me try to highlight the difference between disagreeing, and actively working against.

Disagree: I do not agree with the opinion, I would personally act or do differently. But it is not a serious enough issue for me to try to seriously argue or change outside of saying "I disagree with this"
Ex: I disagree with people who choose to identify as feminists, but if they're actions all point towards gender equality and not third-wave feminism then I'm fine with them.

Actively working against: This is something where I will not simply agree to disagree and keep going. I find this behavioural outright harmful to others, and would actively work to make it stop.
Ex: Someone comes in and says "I think we should stop teaching science, and teach the Bible. Because that's all we need". That is basically abandoning all of humanity's progress and advancement in knowledge, that is something I would not stand for and openly argue against.

Even then though I do not hate them.
Do I heavily disagree and argue with them? Yes.
Do I happen to piss them off enough they PM Brovo about how much they hate me? Yes.
Do I actually hate them in return however? No.

I tend to have strong opinions about things, and I will openly voice them to both those who ask and those who are simply willing to listen. I tend to be very direct and blunt in my methods of communication, all characteristics that people typically associate with hating the recipient. But in my case that simply is not true, I do not hate them, I strongly disagree with them. Disagree with them enough I am more than willing to voice that disagreement in open debate.

Imperfectionist said Wasted potential, Brovo, and wasted energy, on all our parts. That is what this thread represents.

Actually what this thread represents is open conversation and debate, an open marketplace and exchange of ideas where the best ones will win out in the end.
I will openly admit to having started it the wrong way with the loaded question bit, but the purpose was not to go "Shame on you religious people! May you suffer and feel terrible about yourselves! I hate you!". It was to open conversation and dialogue.

And often times that requires people to be direct, to be honest and have thick enough skin to not throw a fit when someone disagree's with them.
I will repeat, if you do not have thick enough skin to handle disagreement, OT is not for you. And your willingness to outright hate someone over a disagreement (especially one you claim to relate to and understand) does kind of highlight that you may not be able to handle disagreement or criticism as well as you think you can.

[Brovo]

Imperfectionist said
I'm not Christian, Brovo. I said as much above.

I know. I was just using Jesus as a metaphor and so on. Could have probably better worded that though, so my apologies.

Imperfectionist said And the seething hatred is not quite seething, as I also said. It is gut-wrenching, and sad. It makes me sick that such an intelligent person (much more intelligent than me) can't see the negative effects of his own words and actions, can't see that he is actively campaigning against people who have done no wrong. Gwazi approaches this concept from what I truly believe to be a harmful angle, and I hate him for it. He could do . Instead of engaging perfectly moral people in bullshit "debates" on the Guild, he could use his obvious strengths in logic and rhetoric to argue against the actions of the immoral, twisted people he actually has a case against.Wasted potential, Brovo, and wasted energy, on all our parts. That is what this thread represents.

I'd say amen, but that would be... Ironic.

Gwazi said I started a topic, those who replied made the choice to engage in the debate. I didn't march up to anyone specifically and go "Hey you! Let's debate your Religion!".

Gwazi said If any Religious person is reading this, please answer this question:
If you found out your God didn't exist, would you now go out raping and murdering people? If not then you just proved that you don't need Religion to be a moral human being.

"When will they learn?" -Romulan Commander.

[ASTA]

Many members in my immediate family are religious. Most of them are of the Christian faith, while a very small number are Jehovah's Witnesses. After speaking with these persons about their unique past deeds, experiences and struggles, I came to know that each one of them used religion as a potent tool to help them through a number of demanding challenges in their lives. Some of them used their religion to ease the burden brought on by a chaotic and abusive household, while others utilized their new-found dependence on God to lift them from a life ruled by crime. I guess you could say it was a coping mechanism--something the human mind can use to make life emotionally and psychologically bearable.

This positive use of religion is hardly unique; history is plentiful with examples related to those I've listed and more, which is why I cannot exactly bring religion under heavy fire, nor pass it up as meaningless nonsense that is destined to be replaced by science.

However, this does not mean it is free from criticism, for while I adore religion for what good it has done for us as a species, I absolutely abhor it for the suffering and calamity it has caused for others that choose to (or to not) subscribe to its teachings. Things like the blatant disregard for supposed 'cursed' or 'tainted' peoples (such as homosexuals, transgender persons or even those of different racial backgrounds), or the wars brought on by religion's dogmatic teachings and incorrect accusations of another group (the numerous holy wars scattered throughout history, like the Crusades for example).

[Gwazi Magnum]

Brovo said -Romulan Commander.

I already noted that part was poorly worded/argued.

Plus that's only a very small part of the OP, and you keep bringing it up as if I'm re-using it when I'm not.

[Brovo]

Magic Magnum said
I already noted that part was poorly worded/argued.Plus that's only a very small part of the OP, and you keep bringing it up as if I'm re-using it when I'm not.

Because it's still there. Lets be frank, nobody is going to read through this entire thread. They're going to read that one question because it's at the bottom of the first post.

I mean if you already accept that it's a broken aesop... Then remove it.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Brovo said Because it's . Lets be frank, nobody is going to read through this entire thread. They're going to read that one question because it's at the bottom of the first post.I mean if you already accept that it's a broken aesop... Then remove it.

It didn't occur to you that it just didn't occur to me to edit that?

I'll go edit it now.

[Brovo]

Magic Magnum said
It didn't occur to you that it just didn't occur to me to edit that? I'll go edit it now.

Much better.