Quote from: GRIMEven the good is motivated by the bad.
Charitable works motivated by the opportunity to witness, to imprint and spread the meme to others.
Sure, most religions seem fluffy if you're very, very selective, but even John Lennon, new testament Jesus talked about swords and dividing people.
A religion that doesn't imprint new victims gets out evolved in 'mindspace'.

The reason totalitarian government regard it as a problem is that its a rival and it has people deferring to a different higher authority than them.

You know Grim, I spent a while in Akrasia's thread arguing on the atheist side, I'm distinctly on the atheist side of the debate and all, but this looks more like prejudice to me.

I mean, it's true of some religious folks I've met, but I've also met folks for whom clearly it has made a real difference and has helped them be better people.

This is the Dawkins fallacy, that religion is necessarily a force for ill, and it alienates people who might otherwise be persuaded.  There are a great many people who would probably be happy identifiying themselves as atheists if that didn't implicitly put them in the same camp as guys who say that their religious friends, family and colleagues are dangerous wackjobs.

It just goes against the common experience of most people, the truth is the religious by and large ain't so different to the non-religious.  And of those who do differ while some become clearly problematic others seem to benefit from it.

Any hypothesis which contradicts common experience needs solid evidence, and I just don't think you have any here for the hypothesis that religion is necessarily a bad thing.  Personally, I just think it's wrong, like believing in the ether is wrong or believing that ufos kidnap US citizens.  Wrong in the sense of incorrect or fallacious, not wrong in the sense of morally culpable.

I can believe that someone is incorrect on a point without it affecting our respect for each other, for example I think you're incorrect here, the moment I start thinking their beliefs are dangerous though I'd best have some good evidence on my side if I want to persuade anyone else that I'm correct.

Hastur is a Christian, accordingly I think he is incorrect in his assessment of how our universe functions.  He thinks I'm incorrect in my assessment.  That's just life, sometimes reasonable people reasonably disagree.  I don't think it needs be some great culture war.

Quote from: GRIMEven the good is motivated by the bad.

Baloney

Quote from: GRIMCharitable works motivated by the opportunity to witness, to imprint and spread the meme to others.

Not all charitable religious people witness.

Quote from: GRIMSure, most religions seem fluffy if you're very, very selective, but even John Lennon, new testament Jesus talked about swords and dividing people.

I never said religion was "fluffy".  Fluffy bunnies sit around, eat, crap, and get eaten by wolves.

Quote from: GRIMA religion that doesn't imprint new victims gets out evolved in 'mindspace'.

If that were true, there wouldn't be so many new invented religions and revival of old religions going on.  You've got plenty of people buying crystals, dancing naked under the moon, and reading books about ancient mysticism even though nobody is "imprinting" those ideas on them.  You might want to take a good look at John Walker Lindh.  The Taliban didn't go looking for him.  He went looking for the Taliban.  In other words, atheism seems to have a problem with leaving many people feeling "unfulfilled".

As for evolution, the fact that religious people have lots of babies and atheists don't suggests that it will be atheism that's on the endangered species list in the long run.

Quote from: GRIMThe reason totalitarian government regard it as a problem is that its a rival and it has people deferring to a different higher authority than them.

You can subvert a rival so long as you can get it to go in the same direction.  You can find examples where Christianity was subverted toward political ends and you can find other examples where it resisted subversion.  You want to have it all one way.

For someone who thinks so badly of dogma and so highly of evidence, you sure seem to be intent on reading the evidence to support your beliefs, regardless of what the evidence actually shows.  To claim that religion does no good is as false as a claim that religion does no wrong.

Quote from: BalbinusHastur is a Christian, accordingly I think he is incorrect in his assessment of how our universe functions.  He thinks I'm incorrect in my assessment.  That's just life, sometimes reasonable people reasonably disagree.  I don't think it needs be some great culture war.

Unless, as they have been, the forces of unreason start to seriously affect the survival chances of the species.

Can you point at something religion does that's 'good' that doesn't also carry 'bad' with it? And isn't the spread and promotion of non-thought bad in and of itself?

Quote from: John MorrowBaloney

None of these make any difference to what is actually TRUE or not.
And a faith-lead humanity is far more likely to blow itself up before we acheive Type 1 civilisation.

Quote from: GRIMUnless, as they have been, the forces of unreason start to seriously affect the survival chances of the species.

Can you point at something religion does that's 'good' that doesn't also carry 'bad' with it? And isn't the spread and promotion of non-thought bad in and of itself?

Well, firstly I'm an atheist.  I don't think concepts such as good or bad have any intrinsic meaning, as such I don't think anything can be bad in and of itself.    It can only be bad if we decide to consider it such.  Personally I would prefer we all saw the world as it is, but there is nothing intrinsically right about that preference.  It's essentially an aesthetic choice on my part.

Secondly, the species is doomed whatever, it's just a question of how long really.  Everything we are and do will ultimately be lost as if it never was, so it goes.  Sucks to be us.

Thirdly, I think religion overall assists the survival of the species by encouraging cooperation and forms of conduct which increase the overall survival prospects of the group.  I think that's why we evolved it most likely.

Fourthly, I'm not persuaded religion now threatens the survival of the species, I think the things threatening our survival that are in our own power are mostly utterly unconnected to religion.  Mostly short sightedness and an inability to properly assess medium to long term risk.

Fifthly, I didn't say there is good without bad, merely that it isn't all bad.  It's a mixed bag, like most human conceptual creations.

Quote from: GRIMUnless, as they have been, the forces of unreason start to seriously affect the survival chances of the species.

Please tell me how the various anti-reproductive policies of many atheists promotes the survival of the species.  I'm really curious about that one.

I'm also curious why we should care about the survival of the species since as best science can tell, the universe will end or become inhospitable to life and we have no way of escaping it.  What's the point of the species surviving?

Quote from: GRIMCan you point at something religion does that's 'good' that doesn't also carry 'bad' with it? And isn't the spread and promotion of non-thought bad in and of itself?

No, the spread and promotion of non-thought isn't bad in and of itself.  That's your own personal bias speaking.

Quote from: GRIMAnd a faith-lead humanity is far more likely to blow itself up before we acheive Type 1 civilisation.

How do you know this?   What makes you think we'll ever achieve a Type 1 civilization?   Why should we even try?  Given that the population is rapidly starting to contract in the most secular nations, what makes you think that, if the whole world were to become secular, we'd ever have enough people to need that much energy or even need to get off of the planet?

Quote from: BalbinusYou know Grim, I spent a while in Akrasia's thread arguing on the atheist side, I'm distinctly on the atheist side of the debate and all, but this looks more like prejudice to me.

I mean, it's true of some religious folks I've met, but I've also met folks for whom clearly it has made a real difference and has helped them be better people.

This is the Dawkins fallacy, that religion is necessarily a force for ill, and it alienates people who might otherwise be persuaded.  There are a great many people who would probably be happy identifiying themselves as atheists if that didn't implicitly put them in the same camp as guys who say that their religious friends, family and colleagues are dangerous wackjobs.

It just goes against the common experience of most people, the truth is the religious by and large ain't so different to the non-religious.  And of those who do differ while some become clearly problematic others seem to benefit from it.

Any hypothesis which contradicts common experience needs solid evidence, and I just don't think you have any here for the hypothesis that religion is necessarily a bad thing.  Personally, I just think it's wrong, like believing in the ether is wrong or believing that ufos kidnap US citizens.  Wrong in the sense of incorrect or fallacious, not wrong in the sense of morally culpable.

I can believe that someone is incorrect on a point without it affecting our respect for each other, for example I think you're incorrect here, the moment I start thinking their beliefs are dangerous though I'd best have some good evidence on my side if I want to persuade anyone else that I'm correct.

Hastur is a Christian, accordingly I think he is incorrect in his assessment of how our universe functions.  He thinks I'm incorrect in my assessment.  That's just life, sometimes reasonable people reasonably disagree.  I don't think it needs be some great culture war.

This is the sort of thing I keep trying to post and failing miserably at apparently.  Well, not all of it but the general gist of it.    I am not trying to be pro-religion or anti-atheist, I just call people being cocksmocks when they act like cocksmocks (to steal a line from Jimmy).  

I just get frustrated at the casual asumption that I must be some sort of bible thumper when I say 'that argument is shit' just because the argument in question is pro-atheist.:confused:

Quote from: BalbinusThirdly, I think religion overall assists the survival of the species by encouraging cooperation and forms of conduct which increase the overall survival prospects of the group.  I think that's why we evolved it most likely.

laugh point.

Quote from: BalbinusHastur is a Christian, accordingly I think he is incorrect in his assessment of how our universe functions.

Oi! I think that the Scientific Method is the best method of accurately modelling the universe.  That's practically a statement of faith for me.  It's just not much good with singularities like the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension, etc. etc.

(tangent, but Rowen has absolutely no problem in using the word "singularity" for points like that were our logic and reason completely break down and Orthodox ikonography has been representing them with black holes for centuries.  There's an ikon of the Transfiguration that looks disturbingly enough someone has tried to paint Jesus standing in front of black hole complete with Swartzchild radiation.  Freaky)

I think this thread is a good damn example of why atheists seem so anti-religious. What do I mean? Well, shit, I'll explain.

It's because religious people can talk about religion any damn time they want to. (In the United States midwest, where I've been brought up at least.) However, if you're an atheist, you have to keep your mouth shut.

Why? Several reasons. On this thread, atheists who talk about being atheist are immediatly phrased as preachers or bigots by some. Akraisa, whose posting I appreciated for example, gets called a bigot by JimBob because he had a thread about it and it got long. Oh, and because he had a prickly posting demeanor? (On the Rpgsite? Well I'll be damned. Besides the irony of JimBob talking about someone's caustic tone amazes me.)

Another reason? I know where I'm at, atheists don't get hired. They're not trusted. I know that, as a suspected atheist, people worry about my morals because they're not sent from God. Maybe that's not your experiance. Maybe that's not how you feel about me.  I mean, I appreciate that, but I still get crapped on all the time and if I complain, I'm being unreasonable.

I mean, I was a Boy Scout for years. I'm an Eagle Scout. I couldn't ask anyone about my own doubts, if anyone asked me my denomination, I'd have to lie, and I'm glad they just assumed I was religious during my Eagle Review. If it came out that I was unsure of a devine presence or, worse, didn't care, I could be stripped of the rank I earned and am proud of. I know people who I lived with for years, and am on good terms with that absolutely would.

That's not life threatning and it's only one example. I'm not irritated at religion, even though I think it's kind of retarded. But religious people over here like to enforce it, and that gets old. Luckily, it's been years since I've been beaten for my religious preferences.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonOi! I think that the Scientific Method is the best method of accurately modelling the universe.  That's practically a statement of faith for me.  It's just not much good with singularities like the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension, etc. etc.

(tangent, but Rowen has absolutely no problem in using the word "singularity" for points like that were our logic and reason completely break down and Orthodox ikonography has been representing them with black holes for centuries.  There's an ikon of the Transfiguration that looks disturbingly enough someone has tried to paint Jesus standing in front of black hole complete with Swartzchild radiation.  Freaky)

I think it's a perfectly valid use of the term singularity.

Anyway, you got my point though I'm sure, we disagree on a few ontological details but that doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things.

Well, actually it means tons in the grand scheme of things.  Hm, anyway, I think we can disagree on whether or not there is a god and still agree on tons of other stuff, while monumentally important it's also not that big a deal if that makes sense.

As for the scientific method, never occurred to me you didn't.

I'm a bit disappointed nobody posted about the PEAR lab closing though, I'd have thought that a natural spinoff from all this.

Quote from: Thanatos02Another reason? I know where I'm at, atheists don't get hired. They're not trusted. I know that, as a suspected atheist, people worry about my morals because they're not sent from God. Maybe that's not your experiance. Maybe that's not how you feel about me.  I mean, I appreciate that, but I still get crapped on all the time and if I complain, I'm being unreasonable.

I mean, I was a Boy Scout for years. I'm an Eagle Scout. I couldn't ask anyone about my own doubts, if anyone asked me my denomination, I'd have to lie, and I'm glad they just assumed I was religious during my Eagle Review. If it came out that I was unsure of a devine presence or, worse, didn't care, I could be stripped of the rank I earned and am proud of. I know people who I lived with for years, and am on good terms with that absolutely would.

That's not life threatning and it's only one example. I'm not irritated at religion, even though I think it's kind of retarded. But religious people over here like to enforce it, and that gets old. Luckily, it's been years since I've been beaten for my religious preferences.

This is what I was hoping to find in this thread. This is so outside my experience that it seems fantastic to me. I have gone to literally hundreds of interviews (as a consultant it happens often) including ones for churches and religious organizations. I have never once been asked about my beliefs nor even tangentially come close to discussing them. No "What church to you attend". I have never had any reason to believe I did not get a job due to my beliefs. So, please, could you elucidate? Who would discriminate in this manner at an interview? What questions would they ask and were there witnesses present? It very well may be that we are talking about different industries but as a consultant, although I am in IT, I interview with members of many different industries.

As for religious discussions and talking over any doubts I have, for the most part I mimit this to people I know and trust. This is not a protect myself kind of thing. I just consider my beliefs to be a private thing. I like discussing peoples faiths and do so with friends often and have never had one who scorned me for doing so. However, I am particular in who I choose to call friends. This is not to say I only hang around with people who agree with me but I do not believe someone would want to be my friend if they were a fundamental Christian for example. So you site the Boy Scouts, do your friends scorn you as well (assuming you have friends in the Boy Scouts)? Again, I am merely asking since my course of action would be to either distance myself (assuming my interest in the group was such) or only be concerned with my beliefs and share them as appropriate. In the later, I would deal with the fall out as needed. Again, my experience has been such that no one has ever grilled me about my faith. If people ask, generally I will tell them my beliefs but I do not feel the need to volunteer them so I wonder how the Boy Scouts would find out. Would you volunteer the information or would it be asked of you?

Please, despite the tone of this thread, I am genuinely interested in your personal experiences. If you do not feel comfortable answering, by all means do not.

Thanks for the insightful post nonetheless.

Bill

I applied for a job once with a Christian organization and they asked my religious affiliation. That was the only time I have ever been asked that, directly or indirectly, by an employer.

Partially to Zalmoxis, but mostly to Thanatos02: Was it in America?

Asking that sort of stuff here should be reported. Whether you report it to the interviewer with a simple "I'm not comfortable answering that" or report it to a lawyer depends on the extent of the questioning and how much you want to try to squeeze them because of it. In some companies you could get a guy fired and be almost gauranteed a "please don't sue us" hiring for yourself.