Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThere is no God and religion is a crutch for the weak minded.

Quote from: beejazzNo. It isn't. At its worst it has become an unnecessary social construct. But religion, theist or otherwise, is not a crutch for the weak minded. There are numerous Buddhists alot more strong-minded than you'll ever be. It takes a great deal of effort and study to thoroughly understand religion. Just because you are too lazy to understand your opponent does not mean you can dismiss the effort that opponent puts in.

So no. And by the way fuck you. I'd never make such broad assumptions about atheists.

Quote from: Mr.AnalyticalDude, you think I'm going to hell/not going to attain Nirvana. Get off your high horse.

Quote from: beejazzThere is no hell. Not even in the Christian faith. That's just some shitty interpretation.

So no, no hell. No high horse here, either

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYou think I'm not going to attain union with the godhead though.

People who are just generally spiritual are one thing, but if you sign up to a religion with a moral code then by definition you're setting yourself above those who don't follow it.

Quote from: beejazzUm... no. For example, if you keep living until you reach enlightenment and don't need live anymore, then you WILL attain enlightenment no matter what. You don't even technically need to be Buddhist, you just need to be in touch with yourself. This is something you can do even without knowing Buddhism exists.

As for Christianity, the core of that religion's dogma revolves around "Love thy neighbor" and "Forgive them for they know not what they do." And the latter statement isn't "haha they're so stupid" or "you're not accountable" as it is "ha... can't really fault you for not getting the ineffable... we're still cool though, right?"

RTFM.

Quote from: Mr.AnalyticalActually isn't the answer you'll both be alive and not be alive?

My point was that believing in there being something else whether that be enlightenment or the reward of being a faithful christian submissive, you're doing so with faith rather than on the basis of evidence and in response to a psychological need.

In some cases it's the inability to come to terms with life being meaningless, in other cases it's a case of wanting to know that club-footed midgets get justice in heaven, it can even be "I like this book, I'm going to buy into what it says". It's positing beliefs about the nature of the universe in response to a psychological urge rather than reason and as a result it's a form of weak mindedness. Of wanting the universe to be the way you hope it is.

The fact that this form of thinking usually comes with either the use of politics or the use of force to make people believe what you do only makes it worse.

People who are vaguely theistic I have less of a problem with because it's clear that it's just woolly-headedness or fear but if you believe that there's a moral edge to your spirituality then by definition you're judging me and the gloves are off. Doubly so if you belong to an organised religion.

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: Mr.AnalyticalMy point was that believing in there being something else whether that be enlightenment or the reward of being a faithful christian submissive, you're doing so with faith rather than on the basis of evidence and in response to a psychological need.

And is that so wrong? You can't really attribute meaning to life objectively, because objectively there is no meaning. Attributing meaning to "the sanctity of human life" or any other thing requires a leap of faith with or without religion. In the end, it is up to your subjective interpretation to decide what is or is not important. So yes, there is a psychological need for faith. No matter how objectively you observe, you can't separate the subjectivity of your motive from the objectivity of how you act on the motive. You can't separate impetus from implementation.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIn some cases it's the inability to come to terms with life being meaningless, in other cases it's a case of wanting to know that club-footed midgets get justice in heaven, it can even be "I like this book, I'm going to buy into what it says". It's positing beliefs about the nature of the universe in response to a psychological urge rather than reason and as a result it's a form of weak mindedness. Of wanting the universe to be the way you hope it is.

Um... quite to the contrary. God isn't some dude in the sky that attributes meaning to life so you don't have to. God is actually an allegorical tool used to describe some pretty heavy existencialist principles. While this bears a close resemblance to "God gives a shit so you don't have to," and sometimes actually crosses over into such dangerous territory, that is not the basis of religion.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe fact that this form of thinking usually comes with either the use of politics or the use of force to make people believe what you do only makes it worse.

Hmm... do you have any idea how many religious people there are in the world? If even a slight majority used force, humanity would be extinct now. Most of us are actually fairly civil. As for politics, that's a pretty slim minority. A majority of politicians are religious. A very slim minority of the religious are in politics.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalPeople who are vaguely theistic I have less of a problem with because it's clear that it's just woolly-headedness or fear but if you believe that there's a moral edge to your spirituality then by definition you're judging me and the gloves are off. Doubly so if you belong to an organised religion.

Well... I can't say there's any fear in my faith, and maybe I do need a haircut (though that's none of your business). As for a moral edge: d00d! No one has teh moral edge. Original sin means we all at fault! (Note: Sin is translated from the Hebrew word het, IIRC. Means "to err" or something like that. Original sin does NOT make us inherently evil or accountable for other people's sins. It's just a roundabout way of saying everybody makes mistakes. Just a preemptive chillax.)

Quote from: Dominus Nox

Quote from: RPGpunditHow did this thread become about attacking christians and not about attacking wiccans, would-be aleister crowleys, and otherkins who believe in the "elven holocaust"??

I mean fuck, I can insult christians any day of the week. I was really hoping someone was going to come on here and argue that "actually, I read Silver Ravenwolf's books on Wicca and magick really works!".

Shit. You guys are no fun.

Anyways, since it came up on here, most of the "eastern philosophy" religions actually tend to posit an inevitability of enlightenment/return to godhead. The major branch of Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, contends that eventually, inevitably, all life will attain enlightenment. No one is going to be missed from it.
The process of attaining enlightenment is the process of overcoming suffering; so the only reason to do it sooner rather than later is not because its some future temporal reward (aka heaven) or out of a fear of future punishment (aka hell), but because it deals with a process of overcoming suffering RIGHT NOW. Its about the here and now, mainly, so there's no need to exclude anyone from it, and no carrot-on-a-stick reason to participate in it other than because you want to, right now.

The various branches of hinduism likewise posit that sooner or later everyone achieves Liberation (be it personal or impersonal).

The only religions which need to present a division between the "saved" vs the "not saved" would be those that demand that the supposedly "saved" do a shitload of pretty irrational things or avoid doing a shitload of enjoyable things for no good reason they can explain right now, aside from a promise of some future reward/punishment.

RPGPundit

Well, Pundy, we don't attack wiccans because wiccans are not trying to force their agenda on anyone thru any means. If they were I'd be firing on them and using their pentagrams for targets.

People, or at least me, attack christians because they are trying to force their agenda on them, or me, and we will not sit quietly while they try to take away our rights to not live the way they do.

BTW, I also attack islam for the same reason, I don't discriminate, I attack antone out to force their ways on me period.

Quote from: J ArcaneMan I love pushing my agenda on things. Gives me a real hard on.

Why just this morning, I got up, had a shower, cooked some eggs, then went and forced my Christian agenda on my next door neighbor.

My day is not complete until I've gone and forced my Christian agenda on at LEAST 10 people. I keep a quota. Last week, I made it up to 59, by best record ever!

...

Oh wait, that's a lie. I don't really force myself on anyone, and I rarely even bring up my beliefs, in part because I don't believe I've fully discovered the depths of them, in part because most people don't want to hear it, and also in part because of having become utterly tired of slings of insults from people with delusions of superior intelligence.

Generalizations are a crutch for the weak minded, those terrified of the other.

Grow the fuck up. This isn't bleeding high school anymore, and the Goth movement is largely dead, and was mostly lame when it was still breathing.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalOh for fuck's sake will you god botherers get over yourselves. I bet Jesus didn't whinge half as much as you lot did when he was up on the cross.

Quote from: GRIM

Quote from: J ArcaneOh wait, that's a lie. I don't really force myself on anyone, and I rarely even bring up my beliefs, in part because I don't believe I've fully discovered the depths of them, in part because most people don't want to hear it, and also in part because of having become utterly tired of slings of insults from people with delusions of superior intelligence.

Generalizations are a crutch for the weak minded, those terrified of the other.

I'll let Mr Dawkins answer this one for me...

Ohh, and there is a VERY strong correlation between intellligence, education and increased levels of atheism, so its not wrong to infer that those who live a life without religion are, on average, better educated and more intelligent.

Anyway, Dawkins on religious moderates from a Salon article...

But don't you need to distinguish between religious extremists who kill people and moderate, peaceful religious believers?

You certainly need to distinguish them. They are very different. However, the moderate, sensible religious people you've cited make the world safe for the extremists by bringing up children -- sometimes even indoctrinating children -- to believe that faith trumps everything and by influencing society to respect faith. Now, the faith of these moderate people is in itself harmless. But the idea that faith needs to be respected is instilled into children sitting in rows in their madrasahs in the Muslim world. And they are told these things not by extremists but by decent, moderate teachers and mullahs. But when they grow up, a small minority of them remember what they were told. They remember reading their holy book, and they take it literally. They really do believe it. Now, the moderate ones don't really believe it, but they have taught children that faith is a virtue. And it only takes a minority to believe what it says in the holy book -- the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Quran, whatever it is. If you believe it's literally true, then there's scarcely any limit to the evil things you might do.

And yet most moderate religious people are appalled by the apocalyptic thinking of religious extremists.

Of course they're appalled. They're very decent, nice people. But they have no right to be appalled because, in a sense, they brought it on the world by teaching people, especially children, the virtues of unquestioned faith.

Basically the 'religious moderates' are still religious and still perpetuating the society and circumstance that gives undue respect to faith. This continuance acts as an enabler for the loopy fringe and even the moderates support, vote and act upon values and ideas that are just plain irrational

Quote from: Mr. Analytical

Quote from: BalbinusOh, and probably because I am by nature sceptical I get annoyed by po faced skeptics who give us all a bad name by writing complaining letters about the x-files on the basis that it promotes superstition (and I am not making that one up). Being sceptical is being unpersuaded you fuckwits, it's not being absolutely bloody mindedly persuaded that nothing is out there it's doubting that something is and requiring good evidence before changing your mind.

Being sceptical means not just saying that there's no evidence for something, it also means signing up to a load of philosophical beliefs about what constitutes evidence, burdens of proof and inductive and deductive forms of reasoning.

Despite being a signed up secularist and having been a member of various atheist organisations since I was 16 (though I only really became a sceptic at university), I'd be hard pressed to remember anyone who bloody-mindedly triues to convince anyone that there's nothing out there. If there's an "aggressive rationalist" position it tends to be that because of the lack of evidence, beliefs about ghosts monsters and baby jesuses are irrational at best and outright falsehoods at worse and should therefore be ignored by all. Which is a different philosophical position (and one I have considerable sympathy for).

Where I agree with you is that I have no time for the kind of PC-secularism that wants to deny religious groups access to town halls and get upset about the X-files because it encourages woolly-mindedness (which it admittedly did). That's just pettyness and resorting to the same unhelpful sniping that annoys atheists when believers do it.

In this country there's the protection of religions from equal opportunity legislation, the presence of Bishops in the house of Lords, the fact that religious people are massively over-represented in parliament and the explosion in faith schools. All of these are problems that are worth getting annoyed about. The X-files and a Sikh keep fit class for over 60's really aren't.

Speaking of which, I used to have a lecturer in moral philosophy who did his PhD under Moore and later Mackie and he HATED the X-files. He once went off on one that went on for forty minutes, ranting and raving about how the X-files were "Aliens ate my cat masquerading as open-mindedness". Was most entertaining.

Quote from: J Arcane

Quote from: GRIMAnyway, Dawkins on religious moderates from a Salon article...

Wow. This Dawkins guy is a real bigoted loon. Remind me never to invite him round to drinks.

And "god botherers"? Jesus fuck, do you even listen to yourself? You sound like an atheist Church Lady.

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalDespite being a signed up secularist and having been a member of various atheist organisations since I was 16 (though I only really became a sceptic at university), I'd be hard pressed to remember anyone who bloody-mindedly triues to convince anyone that there's nothing out there. If there's an "aggressive rationalist" position it tends to be that because of the lack of evidence, beliefs about ghosts monsters and baby jesuses are irrational at best and outright falsehoods at worse and should therefore be ignored by all. Which is a different philosophical position (and one I have considerable sympathy for).

Oh, so you're not trying to say there's nothing out there, you're just saying that anyone who believes there is is stupid by default and should be ignored or reviled. Riiiiiiight.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIn this country there's the protection of religions from equal opportunity legislation, the presence of Bishops in the house of Lords, the fact that religious people are massively over-represented in parliament and the explosion in faith schools. All of these are problems that are worth getting annoyed about. The X-files and a Sikh keep fit class for over 60's really aren't.

Bishops in the House of Lords? Okay, I'm with you on that one. I wouldn't find faith-based schools to be such a bad thing. I've been to one and, if anything, it has encouraged me to question the origin of my faith and actually analyze it from a more informed position. Of course, I also got the crap kicked out of me by older fellow-Christians, so of course I'm going to have a couple of questions. Maybe waiting until Middle School and opting for some actual education as opposed to indoctrination. Memorization of Bible verses was a great help when I needed to look things up. I can't say it hurt my reading comprehension either. Chapel on Thursdays, though, is something I could've done without.

Quote from: Mr. Analytical

Quote from: beejazzOh, so you're not trying to say there's nothing out there, you're just saying that anyone who believes there is is stupid by default and should be ignored or reviled. Riiiiiiight.

Ignored and not trusted around small children. What's the problem?

Quote from: beejazzBishops in the House of Lords? Okay, I'm with you on that one. I wouldn't find faith-based schools to be such a bad thing.

Well the problem is that they a) promote sectarianism by preventing kids from mixing with people of other faiths and backgrounds, b) they're funded out of the public purse, so in effect I'm currently paying to help the Catholic Church recruit its next generation, c) they're hotbeds for extremist views, from encouraging terrorism amongst Muslims to teaching creationism amongst Christians and d) they're frequently used as a means of forcing parents to practice more than they would otherwise. The woman who cleans my mum's place cleans her kid's school chapel twice a week for fear that the priest won't allow her kid into secodary school.

By and large I have no problem with private faith schools (aside from the fact that kids are too young and uncritical to make up their minds on such matters), it's publically funded ones that I think should be done away with.

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: Mr. Analyticala) promote sectarianism by preventing kids from mixing with people of other faiths and backgrounds

Well, I hadn't thought about that. Granted I didn't have any trouble with it, but I didn't go to *just* a Christian school; I also went through a public school, a correctional facility, and an art school.

Quote from: Mr. Analyticalb) they're funded out of the public purse, so in effect I'm currently paying to help the Catholic Church recruit its next generation

Wait... what?! Funded out of the public... Okay, that is a problem.

Quote from: Mr. Analyticalc) they're hotbeds for extremist views, from encouraging terrorism amongst Muslims to teaching creationism amongst Christians

Um... Mr. Analytical, is there any way of testing and proving this hypothesis?

Quote from: Mr. Analyticald) they're frequently used as a means of forcing parents to practice more than they would otherwise. The woman who cleans my mum's place cleans her kid's school chapel twice a week for fear that the priest won't allow her kid into secodary school.

Public education should be public. As in the parents shouldn't have to earn it. Charter schools might be an exception, but it's still the student's priority and not the parent's. I highly doubt that there was not another more secular school available. If there wasn't, that's a problem. If there was, then this woman is simly acting on her goals and priorities, however misguided those goals or priorities may be. I've seen similar behavior from parents who wanted to be part of other community activities, from soccer to the local math charter school. That said, I highly doubt that her child would actually have been kicked out because she didn't go and clean that chapel.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalBy and large I have no problem with private faith schools (aside from the fact that kids are too young and uncritical to make up their minds on such matters), it's publically funded ones that I think should be done away with.

I'm both with you and against you on this one. Kids shouldn't have to learn about faith, but making religious education the exclusive domain of the rich is something I'm hesitant to endorse.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!You know why I love to watch Warner Brothers' old "Roadrunner" cartoons?

It's because I love seeing how the Coyote tries to catch the Roadrunner.  I'd rather he never catch him -- if he did, it wouldn't be any fun.

That's how I feel about religion -- the search for answers, I think, is more interesting and enlightening than the answers themselves.

Only there're no rocket-skates.

Quote from: Dominus NoxIf these people just ran themselves off cliffs, it might be fun.

But they want to force all of us to march off the cliff with them. Not fun.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!You know why I love to watch Warner Brothers' old "Roadrunner" cartoons?

It's because I love seeing how the Coyote tries to catch the Roadrunner.  I'd rather he never catch him -- if he did, it wouldn't be any fun.

That's how I feel about religion -- the search for answers, I think, is more interesting and enlightening than the answers themselves.

Only there're no rocket-skates.

Quote from: beejazzNot the case. Not for the majority of religious people anyway. We outnumber you what? Ten to one? If we wanted you gone you'd be gone already.

Seriously. Don't join my religion. I don't particularly like you and you'd reflect poorly on it (and, by extension, me).

Quote from: GRIMWar.
Education.
Law.
The unwritten social code of society.
Voting patterns.

The religious majority already imposes by making decisions on irrational grounds that impact on the irrelegious minority.

Quote from: GRIMReligion isn't a search for answers though.
It is an assumption of an answer 'Goddidit!' and then working backwards cherrypicking things that support the assumption of divinity.

Quote from: beejazzThat's a problem with democracy and its derivatives, including representative democracy. Not religion.

I could say that because I don't like pop music, I am being persecuted by the majority, who by buying into pop music allow it to dominate radio broadcasts everywhere. Oh woe is me for being forced to listen to pop music because the majority dictates.

Tough. There's a word for systems that put the minority over the majority. I don't know what it is at this hour of the morning though. It might be "oligarchy." I'll look it up later.

Quote from: beejazzHow the fuck would you know? You aren't religious. Unless you read minds, you have no evidence. I don't mind people only putting their faith in the objective and the observable, but I expect some amount of internal consistency.

Quote from: GRIMthe god hypothesis is falsifiable