"The World Would Be a Better Place Without Religion" -- A Sentiment Common on College Campuses

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-sexton/the-world-would-be-a-bett_b_4252655.html

Nick Sexton
Student, Princeton University

Posted: 11/16/2013 1:38 pm
Follow

Recently, a friend was telling me how a certain musical artist had entranced him with her talent --until he found out she was very religious and thanks God for her success.

My friend considers himself liberal and advocates for the rights of women, racial minorities, and the LGBT community -- yet, for him, religion elicits a "bad taste in his mouth." Unfortunately, this negative visceral reaction towards religion is something that sometimes seems pervasive among people in our age group, and the Princeton University community is no exception. I have encountered a handful of people who identify as liberal and espouse the necessity of equal rights and tolerance, but turn up their noses at the mere mention of religion. It is problematic that some people nearly cringe upon finding out that someone goes to church every weekend.

I have had quite a few conversations with people who "hate religion," or "don't understand its purpose." The gist of their arguments lies in the idea that religion is used to justify things that are affronts to human rights, or simply as another factor on which we divide ourselves. I spoke with a peer who is deeply involved with Princeton's Society of Secular Humanists. The club recently put up provocative advertisements all over campus, which read, "I think, therefore I am atheist." I asked him if he thinks that religion is generally a positive force for humanity, and he responded that he generally feels that it isn't, that "religions teach...[negative] things directly. You know that famous Bible verse where it says that homosexuality is an abomination. Some Christians take that literally and use that to discriminate against gay people." He went on to assert, "If you look across history, there are way more bad things than good things that come of religion."

I'm generally not a religious person, but from what I've gathered, by talking to friends and family who are, holding faith is a transcendent, personal experience, that should not compel anyone to oppress others. When large religious institutions promote oppressive ideals, it is the fault of power-hungry, hateful individuals -- not the fundamentals that are most central to the religion.

more at link

[Bluenorthwest]

1. I don't know about the world, but General Discussion was better without all the religious material.

nt

[cbayer]

2. Agree. I think the hosts remain divided on the issue.

[mike_c]

3. I disagree with the assertion that religion is not implicitly oppressive....

All religions discourage freedom of inquiry, often to the point of violence. All demand fealty to magical thinking. It's easy to dismiss the violence and oppression that religions have fostered by saying that the point is personal and transcendent, but that's a cop out of major proportions, IMO. I view religion as just another totalitarian control system-- the most successful ones ALWAYS manage to make the sheep oppress themselves.

[cbayer]

6. That's not true. The religion I grew up in encourages inquiry.

The gay catholic man he talks about in this article make a really eloquent case for how challenging tenets of his church is the right thing to do.

You are doing exactly what the author is discouraging - drawing blanket conclusions from the practices of some.

[skepticscott]

19. No, it doesn't

It pretends to. It pays lip service to "doubt", just as all Serious Catholic Clergy have to pretend to do, but in the end, your religion is just like all others. There are certain things that are undebateable givens, no matter how much reason and evidence is brought to bear. That's what makes them religions.

And please..don't weary my ears with bleating about my not even knowing what your religion is about. You've never even had the courage to state what you believe here, but I defy you to do it and prove me wrong. I'm betting you can't.

[trotsky]

22. What cbayer believes or doesn't believe...

is a complete and total mystery, because it seems like she intentionally withholds commentary on it in order to cause confusion, rope people into a sub-discussion, then attack them for making assumptions about her. (Despite those assumptions being caused by her unwillingness to state her positions in the first place.) Weird, I know.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. +

[edhopper]

21. I grew up in a jewish culture

which promoted inquiry. It idolized great scholars like Hillel. So I kept asking questions until my answer finally was that there is no God.

[okasha]

23. "All religions"?

Are you really that uninformed?

[mike_c]

24. evidently so-- perhaps you could inform me....

Which religions encourage empirical testing of their own core dogmas, i.e. which entertain the question "Does the deity we worship really exist, and can that be supported by objective evidence?"

[cbayer]

27. But that's not what you said.

What you said was:

All religions discourage freedom of inquiry

That's quite a leap to:

encourage empirical testing of their own core dogmas

and

"Does the deity we worship really exist, and can that be supported by objective evidence?"

Of course there is not objective evidence supporting the existence of a deity. That's why believers are call believers and faith is called faith.

Inquiry, otoh, is encouraged in many religious institutions.

[mike_c]

29. of course it is....

A religion either encourages free inquiry or it does not. Discouraging inquiry in its dogma is simply one manifestation of discouraging freedom of inquiry. It either does or it doesn't. My statement was that ALL religions discourage such inquiry, often to the point of violence. But I'm happy to admit the error if someone can demonstrate that a religion does differently. I'm not aware of any, and would greatly appreciate being better informed if such religions exist.

I was raised in a Christian tradition, so I can state from personal experience that my initial statement is true of Christianity generally, and evangelical Christianity in particular.

[cbayer]

35. And several people have told you that they have attended churches that encourage inquiry.

You don't seem to believe so you made the criteria much more strident. You even stretched it to a degree that posits a question that can't be answered.

Do you not know that seminaries and universities with programs in religion generally promote inquiry and questioning? That may not be true for Liberty U, but it is in most major universities.

If you would like to be better informed, I suggest that you look at the courses offered at these places. If you are basing this only on your personal experience, I would suggest that it is very limited.

[mike_c]

37. OK, I think we're mixing apples and oranges here....

In the first place, I was discussing RELIGIONS, not individual congregations or even specific sects. Further, I'd assume that there are thousands of those but in terms of human impact fewer than a dozen or so likely influence the overwhelming majority of people's lives, i.e. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. I'm also not talking about academic religious studies programs, which are not themselves religions per se. This is becoming a bit ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but while several people have interjected to disagree with me, none have actually produced any evidence to support their assertions that their religion really does encourage adherents to challenge their dogma, and that is consistent with my initial statement: all such "faiths" discourage free inquiry at least as it pertains to matters of dogma and faith. That is inherently oppressive. I'm a scientist-- mandatory substitution of "faith" for empirical inquiry is absolutely abhorrent to me.

[hrmjustin]

38. Exactly what kind of evidence do you want?

[mike_c]

39. first and foremost...

...let's be clear about an old scientist's homily: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

For starters, how about the complete absence of any form of religious persecution, because any religion that questions its core dogma rather than asserting them to be correct without challenge has no basis for persecuting anyone who arrives at different dogmatic conclusions. A religion that encourages it's practitioners to question dogma would not likely have any concept of heresy either, because heretics are just the folks who challenge central dogma, and if that's not suppressed, then there can't be any heretics. Christianity fails on both counts, and badly.

A religion that encouraged inquiry would publish a living document, i.e. a journal, rather than a "holy book," because it's central tenants would constantly change as new answers were found. A religion that demands adherence to static dogma, on the other hand, has not place for such inquiry to occur.

[hrmjustin]

41. Who is being persecuted?

I asked you what evidence you wanted. I told you my church lets people to question the faith. you are making stereotypical statements about Christians. My advice to you is meet new Christians.

[mike_c]

42. Christians have persecuted millions, and continue to do so today....

Surely you don't dispute that? If you do, I doubt that we have any common ground for discussion.

I'm not talking about your congregation, or even your sect. I'm talking about the worlds' RELIGIONS.

[hrmjustin]

45. I know my religion's history.

Look you want to say we as a religion can not question our faith, go ahead. Your wrong!

[PassingFair]

67. Should an atheist child be allowed to go to a Catholic school and question ....

even state....that they are atheists during school hours?

[cbayer]

68. My kids did.

They still had to go to some of the services, but at no time were they told that they had to convert to Catholicism or even say they were christian.

But that may be somewhat unique to New Orleans. I don't know.

[PassingFair]

70. Were they allowed to question catholic doctrine or make flat statements of their own dis-belief?

My nieces were warned repeatedly that their open mouths were putting them
in danger of expulsion...although ultimately they were never actually expelled.

[cbayer]

72. They had religion classes where they were able to question doctrine

and also learned about other religions. In NOLA, the catholics school have a wide variety of students, many of whom have no religion or "other" religions. They definitely could say they did not believe and I've never heard of a kid being expelled from a catholic school there for expressing their own beliefs or lack of beliefs.

The risk of expulsion was greatest for drug use. They did random hair exams and were extremely strict about that.

[hrmjustin]

69. I am not in favor of expelling kids based on their beliefs.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

46. Non-theistic Buddhism.

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.

---Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha


As the Buddha was dying, Ananda asked who would be their teacher after death.
He replied to
his disciple:

Be lamps unto yourselves
Be refuges unto yourselves
Take yourself no external refuge
Hold fast to the truth as a lamp.
Hold fast to the truth as a refuge.
Look not for refuge in anyone besides yourselves.
And those, Ananda, for who either now or after I am dead,
Shall be a lamp unto themselves
Shall betake themselves as no external refuge
But holding fast to the truth as their refuge
Shall not look for refuge to anyone else besides themselves
It is they who shall reach for the very topmost height;
But they must be anxious to learn.



I am of the nature to grow old. There is no way to escape growing old.

I am of the nature to have ill-health. There is no way to escape having ill-health.

I am of the nature to die. There is no way to escape death.

All that is dear to me and everyone I love are of the nature to change.
There is no way to escape being separated from them.

My actions are my only true belongings.
I cannot escape the consequences of my actions.
My actions are the ground upon which I stand.

--The Buddha
--------------
The central idea of Buddhism is that everything changes and thus is the nature of life.
Buddha is revered as an enlightened man. He is not a god.


Did the Hindus get mad at Buddhists for being Hindu heretics? No, they just added Buddha to their pantheon. They said "Gautama Buddha is the Ninth Incarnation of Vishnu."

[mike_c]

53. I suspected that might be the case...

...but don't know enough, so thank you for responding.

[cbayer]

44. You keep moving the goalposts.

The fact is that you made a very broad brush statement and you keep redefining what you meant.

That's cool. The more specific you get about this, the more accurate you are likely to be.

Just talk to kids in catholic schools or adults that went to catholic schools. Particularly Jesuits. I think that will blow your hypotheses right there.

You have not presented any evidence either and it's really up to you to back up what you said.

Lots of scientists are also religious people. Many have no problem reconciling the two or at least seeing how different and incomparable they are.

I think we can agree that when faith challenges empirical evidence, we have a problem. Religion does not lend itself to empirical inquiry, but it does lend itself to inquiry of another kind.

As does dogma, something the pope at least appears to be doing at this time.

[hrmjustin]

25. I am sorry but my church does not discourage inquiry. I am not oppressed either.

Sorry but you are wrong.

[mike_c]

26. what's your religion?

I'm quite amazed. To be clear-- your religion encourages you to challenge it's core dogmas rather than to merely accept them? It encourages an evidenced based approach to belief in your deity and such? As I said, that amazes me, and I'm happy to admit I was wrong, if you can honestly say yes to those two questions. And as I said, will you please tell me what religion encourages that sort of inquiry? I will certainly except it from the criticism I offered above.

[hrmjustin]

28. Episcopalian/Anglican

[mike_c]

32. in my experience Christianity certainly does NOT encourage inquiry regarding dogma....

They splinter over the slightest differences of opinion. Ask your clergy person to point you toward literature that undermines biblical dogma, in the spirit of free inquiry. Ask your congregation to discuss those matters. I'm betting you won't be well received. But if those sorts of questions are encouraged by christians, I'll be amazed, and corrected. The church will have changed a great deal since I last interacted with it.

[hrmjustin]

34. Meet new Christians. sounds to me you are just making a general statement that is based on some bad

experiences. My clergy would handle different ideas just fine.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

47. What if you said you don't believe in the Trinity?

Or that you don't believe that Christianity is the one true religion?
Or that non-Christians are all going to hell?

Would not you be shown the door if you persisted?

[hrmjustin]

48. no I woul not be shown the door. They know I ddon't think much of the hell idea.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

50. So do you recite a creed you don't believe in?

The churches I went to recited The Apostles' Creed every Sunday.

So you don't believe in what you say you believe in church?

[hrmjustin]

51. Did I say I did not believe in the creeds?

The term hell in the apostles creed means he wen to the land of the dead, not literal hell.

You don't have to say the creed or parts of it if you don't want to.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

55. Some people state you can believe lots of different things and be christian.At least at DU.

How do you know Jesus didn't literally go to hell? The Methodists took that part out of the Apostles' Creed. Have you yourself stood up and been silent during certain phrases recited that you personally don't believe in?


I thought there were certain foundational essential beliefs to label yourself a Christian, but a few people on DU are exceedingly vague and wobbly on what it means to be a Christian. I think they have some hidden agenda in their refusal to be defined, but I don't know what that is.


The only reason I can see for refusing to state their beliefs is that they want people to think they are loving social liberals that NEVER would do anything bad to a person, including dumping loads of misjudgment, unearned shame and guilt on people who are mentally messed up for the rest of their lives. They ignore and explain away the irrational and cruel parts of the New Testament.


Which is why thousands of people wake up to the silliness and fables, and walk out and leave. And still lead good lives without church or reading the book of irrational rules and fairy tales called the bible. Millions of people have prayed fervently and believed in Jesus but not damn thing in their lives changed. Jesus was supposed to be a magic solution to your problems. Didn't work.

But, hey, it's socially acceptable to submit yourself to other peoples' moral judgment when they truly have no moral authority over you, unless you LET them control you.

It's truly a mechanism for control. However, if you don't care what others think, you can leave and feel perfectly good about leaving if you have self-esteem.



I've read lots of stories here on DU of kids who asked too many questions in Sunday School or Catholic School, and they were asked to shut up, or leave, or their mothers were called and complained to. If you think you can ask lots of questions in any Christian church, why don't you ask them to post their stories? George Carlin had that problem too.

In fact, I'll ask those people to post their stories about arguing with nuns or whatever.

[hrmjustin]

56. We don't use the term hell but we say descended to the dead.

There are some generally exepted beliefs that most Christians have but there are some Christians that have different thoughts on different things. Unfottunately we have many christians that are very literal or dogmatic, and they become very judgemental. This is not to say liberal believers can not be just as judgemental.

The bible can be used as a sword. Liberals like to emphasize the more compassionate parts. Conservatives like to emphasize the rules.

I know a lot of atheists and they ate just as good and in many cases better people than the believers I have met. My parents and siblings are non believers.

I went to Catholic school and I had a very good education. My teachers wrre not as dogmatic as my parents teachers were.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. Two words for you: Marcus Borg

Three more words: John Shelby Spong

One a scholar of religion who is a member of and frequent speaker at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland, the other the retired Episcopal bishop of Newark.

Neither has been "shown the door." Both question religious traditions quite pointedly.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

71. I know about Spong.

Heard of him over 20 years ago.

I don't see them challenging the major tenets of the faith. They're giving liberal and non-literal interpretations of the bible, but I don't see major challenging of the faith.


If they are doing anything radical then I'd like to know what it is.


They don't have any answers to rebut the experience of an awful lot of people who prayed, who believed, who were baptized and were told that Jesus would make everything better. And nothing got better. They were still in extreme pain whether physical or mental. Those people felt like they were victimized by a con job. That's an experience that will make an atheist out of someone pretty quickly.


The only answer the Christians have is "Well, you didn't pray hard enough. You didn't believe enough." which is blaming the believer and is quite insulting.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. I guess you haven't read their recent writings then

[okasha]

73. What if you informed yourself a bit better before posting?

See Bishop John Robinson's Honest to God, first published back in the 60's, or just about anything by Bishop John Spong. Episcopalians/Anglicans, including the clergy, have been questioning those issues in public and in print for decades.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

75. Which issues?

I looked at both their websites and saw no challenges to the standard doctrines. I saw some non-literal interpretations of the idea of Jesus and in what dimensions he lives at present.

How about you telling me what issues that Spong or Borg have challenged and questioned?

I still see the same doctrines on the trinity, original sin, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, and "If you believe in Jesus hard enough and pray hard enough and have faith, he's going to make things better." And the unspoken and unchallenged and arrogant assumption that Christians are happier than other people, because they have faith. It's not about thinking. Thinking is discouraged. It's better to just believe, results be damned.

That insistence that if you do what the church fathers tell you, your life will change dramatically for the better, has made a lot of people turn into atheists who see faith in God as a shared delusion. The idea that God will solve your problems or at least make them better, when one is in a pit of black despair due to circumstances, sounds too much like the promises of a used car salesman.

If there is a god, and he helps people, he helps them through the actions of people on earth. If Christians, don't help others, or actually harm people, Christianity seems like a pointless exercise and inadequate to deal with human problems. And it's a good way to scare people and take their money, with them expecting some kind of help from donating, and it's all a tax-deductible scam. And it has real big problems with correlation and causation.


Way back in 1553, John Calvin and the Council of Geneva had the first recognized Unitarian, Michael (Miguel) Servetus, of Aragon, Spain, burned at the stake. Servetus believed that Jesus was both divine and human but not part of the Trinity. Servetus was against original sin, substitutionary atonement and infant baptism. He argued a whole lot with Calvin via letter so they decided he must be put to death for heresy.

I thought people had brains so they could learn how to solve their own problems and society's problems, working together, not live in fear of an all-powerful god who has to be praised constantly by puny humans, or he gets mad and kills a few thousand at a time.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

84. Mike_c, they're evading answering you too.

Don't know what their agenda is. I know they want to think religion is always a good thing and explain away the bad things people do in the name of religion. They'll blame it on the doctrine, not the people doing those acts.

Catholics and Protestants both tortured and burned people at the stake, and today there are certain sects (JWs and Mormons and probably others) where people are literally shunned or disfellowshipped or whatever they want to call throwing you out of their church for reporting sexual abuse, or disagreeing with them, or being disobedient or whatever.

No one has yet answered Christopher Hitchens' question: Name me one good thing a religious person can do that an atheist cannot.

[cbayer]

85. Let me ask you how this sits with you, MOL.

hrmjustin, they're evading answering you too.

Don't know what their agenda is. I know they want to think religion is always a bad thing and explain away the good things people do in the name of religion. They'll blame all evil on the doctrine and the people who adhere to it.

Catholics and Protestants and others have provided care and comfort to people and in places where others have abandoned them. Today there are certain places where people are are literally shunned or actively persecuted or thrown out of their communities or worse who are being taken care of by people of religious faith (See "Half the Sky" for dramatic examples)

No one has yet answered this question: Name me one good thing an atheist can do that a religious person cannot.

See, it's just not so black and white. When one refuse to see or acknowledge the good done by religion and some religious people, one just looks intolerant, close minded and not that much different than religious fundamentalists.

[trotsky]

86. I don't know how it sits with MoL but it's hilarious to me.

Your quest for everyone's opinion being equally valid leads to some side-splitting nonsense.

"Name me one good thing an atheist can do that a religious person cannot. "

That is exactly that point, cbayer. Believers and atheists are capable of the same good deeds. But along with religion comes the considerable baggage and harm that are unique to religious beliefs.

So if we agree that people of all persuasions are capable of the same good or bad, then why have religion, which brings those unique bad aspects? Or at least answer why religious beliefs should be on equal footing with rational analysis?

I know you won't though, you'd much rather scold and bash in your attempt to control everyone.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

87. Hey Trotsky,

You're right.

Why can't people do good things without all that elaborate and irrational mythology???
The problem I have with the Abrahamic religions is their primitive, irrational mythology & rules.
I'm not worshiping a grumpy old bastard god. Nor will I let any minister control my mind or my actions.

And instead of excluding people why don't Christians accept people who want to help others who aren't Christians? I'm thinking of the food bank that refused to let a bunch of atheists help them distribute food.

I study Mahayana Buddhism because you don't need to believe in a god or gods. You can study and apply the philosophy of Buddha as best you understand it. It's extremely deep and often difficult to understand. It starts with the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the Middle Way. All things change and all things are impermanent. Prince Siddhartha wanted to know the cause of suffering, and he concluded it was caused by attachment. Also ignorance, greed and delusion. He is revered, for awakening. He is NOT a god, he is a human.

One could argue that atheists do good without hope of a reward in heaven. And thus are better people than Christians because they don't expect a reward in heaven. A lot of people need no gods to motivate them to do something good, because they have a conscience. Knowing right from wrong has nothing to do with god.

The countries in Europe that are the happiest and most prosperous are the least religious. And the great majority of people in prison in the U.S. identify as Christian. So arguing that religion makes people better is refuted by statistics.

I'd like to know the answers to your questions too, Trotsky.

[cbayer]

88. People can do good things without religion.

Of that there is not doubt.

They can also do good things with religion. What is to you elaborate and irrational mythology is to others the source of their inspiration and love of life. To each his own.

I agree that groups that exclude non-believers from working with them to perform community services are wrong. OTOH, there are many "interfaith" collations that include believers and non-believers which I support.

It sounds like you have found the path that makes sense for you and that's wonderful. There are those that would argue that your path is irrational mythology, but that doesn't diminish it's importance and meaning for you.

Atheists are not better people than believers just as believers are not better people than atheists. Those that argue otherwise are prejudiced as best, bigoted at worst.

[cleanhippie]

89. As ususal, you intentionally miss the point.

People can do good with or without religion.

But there is nothing good that people can do with religion that cannot be done without it. So when people say, "I did X because of my faith", the response should be "Good for you, but so what? People do X all the time without it."

[skepticscott]

90. Some people simply have to turn off

certain things in their head in order to function. Despite claiming to value rational inquiry and to have been taught to question everything, there are certain notions they are constitutionally incapable of abandoning, like the notion that religion is absolutely necessary for the doing of good. All of the logic in the world cannot disabuse them of this delusion.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

91. So Buddhism is irrational mythology??

Because you don't know anything about it?

First of all, you can ignore all the miracles and stick strictly to what The Buddha said which was written down soon after he died. Also, we know that the Buddha existed as a physical person, unlike Jesus. There are a number of shrines in Asia with hair, teeth and bone of Gautama the Buddha. He became enlightened when he was thirty-five and died when he was eighty. He wanted to know the cause of suffering.

I already said that Buddhism is a philosophy that is about dealing with living and the cause of suffering. No gods, no spirits are necessary. The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the Middle Way are the basics.

[cbayer]

92. I didn't say that it was (and I do know quite a bit about it).

I am saying that there are others who might say that. That doesn't make it true anymore than you (or others) saying christianity is irrational mythology.

You can explain your belief system just like a christian or jew or muslim can explain theirs. Yours makes sense to you. You see it as neither myth nor irrational.

The fact that others may see it as both makes it no less meaningful or true for you.

An argument that it is better, makes more sense, is more likely, etc, is just bogus.

Religion (or philosophy if you prefer) is personalized and meaningful to those that embrace it.

You should realize that there are those who would reject what you say in the same way you reject what others say.

[cleanhippie]

93. WHOOOOSH!

Again you intentionally miss the point, instead opting for more false equivalency.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

94. You don't understand English. Tu no comprende ingles.

You're being evasive. As usual.

Tell me about your Zombie Jesus again who was God but God had to kill himself, and the symbolic cannibalism, if you're talking about irrational mythology.

And I'm not getting into the problem of evil as propounded by Epicurus, because you wouldn't understand it.

[cbayer]

95. I understand English perfectly well, thanks.

Resorting to personal attacks is a sure sign that you have lost the debate.

Adios!

[skepticscott]

96. That you're being accused of making "personal attacks"

or "bullying", "harassing" or "stalking", when you've done no such thing, is a sure sign that you've won the factual debate, and are dealing with someone who can't admit that, but who is obsessed with getting the last word in.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

97. She doesn't know the meaning of "mythology".

Then there are historical facts.

[cbayer]

104. Talking about someone instead of to them is also a sure sign that you have lost the debate.

[cleanhippie]

105. Ignoring factual points and your own inconsistencies is the surest sign you've lost the debate.

But you knew that already.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

108. I already addressed my comments to you.

I did not resort to personal attacks or say you were a bad person. You might be a really nice person. I don't know.

You and rug LOVE to dance circles around the plain meanings of words, because you don't like the ugly things those plain words of your theology say.

[cbayer]

111. I've told you this repeatedly, and I understand that it doesn't fit your narrative,

but I don't have a theology.

And saying that someone doesn't understand english is pure unadulterated personal attack.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. It's not about people. It's about dogma.

Good people fall afoul of bad dogma all the time, whether it's political, social, religious, etc.

As an atheist, I'm married to none. I pave my own 'dogma'. It's never handed to me in a book. So I have FULL responsibility for my beliefs. They never get 'hitched along' with my 'faith', and therefore beyond question.

For instance, if you're a catholic, an adherent to the church, tithe, etc, and you perhaps don't dislike gay people or anything, but you vote against same sex marriage, you are AT BEST a conflicted person making a bad decision. At best. And that's the people that remain in the 'faith' without wholly adopting positive support for an idea, like what the bible says about gay people in Leviticus, etc.

Atheists can be bigots too, but there's nothing about atheism that FORCES you to be a bigot. That REQUIRES it of you. The same cannot be said of quite a few high-population religions.

[cbayer]

102. Everyone has their own dogma.

My experience with you is that you follow a pretty strident anti-theist dogma. Whether you got it from books or not, one can indeed find it there.

Whether one gets it from books or not, everyone has full responsibility for their beliefs. You are not different or better than anyone else.

There is nothing about religion that forces someone to be a bigot. If someone ascribes to a belief system that endorses bigotry, the bigotry is their own. Any attempt to hold the belief system responsible is wrong headed.

That goes for anti-religious bigots as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Thinking that having an imaginary friend is stupid is not a dogma.

"There is nothing about religion that forces someone to be a bigot."

Bullshit. It is an explicit tenet of multiple mass-adherent religions. They have a choice; be a bigot, or fall out of the faith entirely.

For people who actually put some weight in the idea of metaphysical faith, that's a shitty proposition to be offering, because most times these religions purport to be the only path to an alleged afterlife. Take the whole, or leave it, and forsake alleged heaven, etc.

For people who for some reason believe in those faiths, they are literally held over a barrel on this. I can understand them making a bad decision.


And if you keep that 'anti-religion bigot' shit up, we're going to have words. It is not bigotry on my part to point out what their own books, what their pope, what their imams, say that is bigoted.

That's a right wing flip, calling people like me intolerant, for not tolerating their intolerance. Not going to fly with me.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Not entirely true.

It might be hard to identify a single issue that NO religion can do, but I can, with one issue rule out an enormous array of churches:

Same sex marriage. I can officiate such a marriage in my state.

Of the churches left, when I'm done with that, I daresay I can eliminate a ton of those with one or two other issues, but SSM is a good start.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. I can officiate a same-sex marriage.

That rules out a full bucketload of religions, though not ALL of them.

And what would my fellow atheists do about it, even if they didn't agree with same sex marriage? Not a fucking thing.

Can't be thrown out. Can't be shown the door.

So there's something I can do that quite a number of wholesale religions cannot.

[cbayer]

103. But there are many religious and fully ordained people who can officiate

a same sex marriage. Your being an atheist doesn't give you the opportunity to do something that a religious person can't do.

Weak example, to say the least.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. Weak sauce.

Any atheist can do it. Not every religious person can do it, while remaining within their current faith. A few can. Several of the top-membership faiths cannot. They have to leave, or be kicked out first. They can remain people of faith by adopting a different faith, in some cases.

Hell, this family got booted for failing to disown a gay child, nevermind officiating a SSM.
http://www.towleroad.com/2013/08/tennessee-church-kicks-out-family-for-supporting-lesbian-daughter.html

Where are the atheists that boot people from atheism for not disowning gay children?

*crickets*

There are many high-population religions that have explicit tenets around these issues, that are bigoted, and bronze age morality, codified, and institutionalized. If you want to do it, in many cases, you have to leave, or you risk being thrown out. And I'm not just talking in the US. There are still places in the world where you can't even BE gay, openly, without risking murder by religious people.

If I went to Dubai, and slept with a man and was in any way caught, I would be put in jail. In Iran? Killed. In Seattle, where Same Sex Marriage is legal, if I asked Archbishop Peter Sartain if I could so much as use his facilities to host a SSM, let alone officiate it, he would say no. He can't do it. He would be defrocked even if he was personally willing to do it.

So don't pretend there's equal ground here. It's a laughable position.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

109. Rev. Frank Schaeffer got suspended.

I saw him and his gay son this morning on The View. He got suspended for officiating at the gay wedding of his gay son. He also said three of his four kids are gay, and church officials told him he must have "done it to them to make them gay." He said it was not a choice. His son was quite thankful overwhelmingly that his parents were supportive of his sexuality so that he did not commit suicide.


(Aside: He who saves one life, saves the world entire. He who destroys one life, destroys the world entire. --The Talmud, as said at the end of Schindler's List.)


Rev. Schaffer is United Methodist. He should walk and go to another denomination. His father was a bible thumper evangelist and he left that.
He should be a UU or Congregationalist minister. They don't have a problem with gay marriage.

Congregationalist UCC started out as the Pilgrims. They have the New England meeting house with pews facing the pulpit on three sides, and no stained glass. They are the most liberal Christian denomination. Any further left and you are a UU which is explicitly not Christian.

The First Congregational Church UCC minister in Houston, Bob Tucker, sometimes came over and preached at First UU and they had a friendly relationship. Most Christian ministers are horrified by UUs. "What? You mean they're NOT CHRISTIAN?? You don't have a creed?"


I've been a UU for nearly 35 years. UUs do not have cooties. They have real live minister school seminaries, two of them. Starr King and Meadville-Lombard. Some of them go to Harvard Divinity School. Harvard was started by the Congregationalists.

www.uua.org

Thanks, AC.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. UU is certainly one of the groups I have no issues with.

I've seen some fairly amazing group togetherness-without regard to religious boundaries. A come-one-come-all atmosphere.

That, I can most certainly appreciate.

I agree, WRT Rev. Schaffer. He would be better off finding a faith that is more in line with his morals.

[msongs]

4. IMO the primary purpose of religion is to grant power to the priest class w/ a few exceptions

perhaps where there is no priest class or dogma/theology

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. He appears to be trying to avoid blaming anything on anything

If we recognize that people are largely products of the way in which they are raised, and if someone is raised in a faith-based environment, what right do we have to rebuke their religious faith?

That's when we should blame the religion, not the person, if the person is saying or doing something wrong. That ought to have read "If we recognize that people are largely products of the way in which they are raised, and if someone is raised in a faith-based environment, what right do we have to rebuke the person?" Otherwise, you never fix anything - you say you won't blame a religion, because it's just individuals in the religion being bigoted, but then you say you won't blame the individuals, because they were raised in the religion.

[trotsky]

10. Great observation.

Of course they key characteristic of all these essays is that they seek to shame anyone who doesn't admire or praise religion. Facts, logic, reasoning - none of those are necessary to get shared and re-posted by people looking to silence disagreement with religious thought.

[ZombieHorde]

7. "When large religious institutions promote oppressive ideals,

it is the fault of power-hungry, hateful individuals -- not the fundamentals that are most central to the religion."

When large religious institutions promote progressive ideals, or charitable ideals, is that the fault of progressive people and/or charitable people, as opposed to the fundamentals that are most central to the religion?

Who is the ultimate authority on what exactly is the fundamentals that are most central to the religion? The adherents of most religions certainty don't agree.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. The solution is: Blame God

If you can't blame the religion, because anything bad comes from "power-hungry, hateful individuals", and you can't blame the individuals, because "people are largely products of the way in which they are raised" - in religions - then Blame God - God is eternal, so wasn't raised, and existed (and exists) without the religion. He also can't be 'power-hungry', since He already has infinite power, and hunger implies incompleteness.

So, if there's hatred in the world, God Did It.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

49. How about this fundamental?

In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us. . . . With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



However, we must avoid confirming them in their wanton lying, slandering, cursing, and defaming. Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly acts...

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



Therefore we Christians, in turn, are obliged not to tolerate their wanton and conscious blasphemy.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...

Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it...

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. For our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



...they remain our daily murderers and bloodthirsty foes in their hearts. Their prayers and curses furnish evidence of that, as do the many stories which relate their torturing of children and all sorts of crimes for which they have often been burned at the stake or banished.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



...that everyone would gladly be rid of them.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



Undoubtedly they do more and viler things than those which we know and discover.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



If I had power over the Jews, as our princes and cities have, I would deal severely with their lying mouth.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



They [rulers] must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did...

If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews' malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
-------------------------------------------------------------


No apologist can claim that Martin Luther bore his anti-Jewishness out of youthful naivete', uneducation, or out of unfounded Christianity. On the contrary, Luther in his youth expressed a great optimism about Jewish conversion to Christianity. But in his later years, Luther began to realize that the Jews would not convert to his wishes. His anti-Jewishness grew slowly over time. His logic came not from science or reason, but rather from Scripture and his Faith. His "On the Jews and Their Lies" shows remarkable study into the Bible and fanatical biblical reasoning. Luther, at age 60 wrote this dangerous "little" book at the prime of his maturity, and in full knowledge in support of his beliefs and Christianity.

Few people today realize that Luther wrote 'On the Jews and Their Lies.' (He also wrote such works like "Against the Sabbatarians.&quot Freethinkers should become aware of the anti-Semitic influence that Luther has brought on the world. His vehement attack on Jews and his powerful influence on the German faithful has brought a new hypothesis to mind: that the Jewish holocaust, and indeed, the eliminationist form of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany may not have occurred without the influence from Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies."

Walter Buch, the head of the Nazi Party court, admitted Luther's influence on Nazi Germany:


When Luther turned his attention to the Jews, after he completed his translation of the Bible, he left behind "on the Jews and their Lies" for posterity. -cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Many people confess their amazement that Hitler preaches ideas which they have always held.... From the Middle Ages we can look to the same example in Martin Luther. What stirred in the soul and spirit of the German people of that time, finally found expression in his person, in his words and deeds.
-"Geist und Kampf" (speech), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]


Hans Hinkel, a Nazi who worked in Goebbels' Reich Chamber of Culture said:


Through his acts and his spiritual attitude he began the fight which we still wage today; with Luther the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun. -cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich

[ZombieHorde]

54. Holy shit, Martin Luther was a fucked up man. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Classic black-and-white thinker

He studied Hebrew with Jewish scholars and discussed religious matters with them. During this period, he decided that the reason that Jews didn't convert to Christianity was that the Catholic Church had too many untenable beliefs. The Jews he spoke to told him that the veneration of the saints was too close to worship and offended their strict monotheism, for example.

After the Reformation, he expected that Jews would start converting to Christianity, now that he had eliminated veneration of the saints, indulgences, and a lot of other things that his Jewish acquaintances had criticized.

When they didn't convert, he did an about-face and condemned them.

For an analogous situation, see the first generation of American neocons. They were all Communists until Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin. Then they did a 180° and became arch conservatives.

[trotsky]

9. The question that needs to be asked is,

does religion bring anything positive to the table that absolutely cannot come from anything else?

We all know the negatives it brings. So unless there is something - anything - that religion provides that nothing else can, then yes, it would appear the world would be better off without it.

[Vashta Nerada]

11. The world would be a better place without religion.

Religion has hindered the advancement of people and civilizations for millennia. It has hindered the advancement of science, LGBT rights, children's rights, and women's rights. Look at what has happened to our country. Many areas want high school science texbooks to include "creation science". The religious nutcases in this country want to get rid of access to birth control and abortion. They also hinder the advancement of stem cell research.

Religion needs to go away, and it needs to go away now.

[cbayer]

12. It's not going anywhere. What did you think of the article?

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Yes it is. Nonexistence is 'somewhere' in the sense of it being a category.

Case in point, the trend among our young.

This will ultimately be a war of attrition.

[Arugula Latte]

30. It is going away in the more advanced, educated countries.

[cbayer]

36. There is a positive correlation between poverty and religiosity.

There is also a positive correlation between poverty and educational level. Correlation, however, is not equal to causation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "advanced".

And while rates of religious affiliation may be falling in some areas, it is not going away and is actually increasing in other areas.

IMHO, it's never going away, nor should it, no matter how much you would like that to happen.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. In the west. We've discussed this before. You have to wish away east asia.

Religiosity, across income levels, is very low in China and Japan. Given that China makes up around 1/6 of the human population, it drives the stats on this topic. Unless of course you just erase them from the picture.

[cbayer]

63. Actually, the data is all over the place for China and difficult to verify, but most

studies show that religiosity is increasing and that the actual percentage of believers of one thing or another is quite high.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020702069.html

[trotsky]

64. You know, it's this kind of parting shot:

"no matter how much you would like that to happen"

That shit causes a lot of discord here, cbayer. You should stick with what people are saying, and not what you want to PORTRAY them as saying so you can point out how horrible they are (and how wonderful you are).

[Act_of_Reparation]

77. Kind of, but not really

The correlation is not really between poverty and religiosity, but between religiosity and the degree to which people must rely on religion to get by. In undeveloped, conservative, or economically disparate countries, religious participation is high, even among the rich. In countries with highly developed and well-funded social support programs (Northern Europe, for instance), religious participation is low, even among low earners.

In line with our predictions, we find that religious participation declines with human development, an individual's ability to produce secular goods, and economic inequality. We also find that it declines with regulations on religion imposed by state actors but not with those imposed by nonstate actors.

Gaskins, Ben, Matt Golder, and David A. Siegel. "Religious Participation and Economic Conservatism." American Journal of Political Science. 57.4 (2013): 823-840. Print.

The authors do a good job reconciling demand-side secularization theory with supply-side religious markets theory. It is well worth a read, I'd say.

[cbayer]

78. No, actually the correlation is between poverty and religiosity.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx

It has been proposed that this has to do with need, but causation has not really been established.

Another theory is that those most desperate receive comfort and solace in the belief that there is something better to come.

[trotsky]

80. "those most desperate receive comfort and solace in the belief"

Well duh, that's been a common use of religion for many centuries now - convincing the poor and disenfranchised to accept their lot in life. So is that a positive or negative thing?

[Act_of_Reparation]

81. I don't think it says what you think it says

Social scientists have put forth numerous possible explanations for the relationship between the religiosity of a population and its average income level. One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, helping many residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families.

Which is precisely what Gaskins et al posit. As government assumes responsibility for providing for the poor--or if government restricts religious activity--religiosity declines. Poverty is only one factor of many; if poverty were completely eliminated, yet religions were still largely responsible for meeting people's material, biological, and social needs, then religiosity would likely persist.

[cbayer]

82. I don't think we really disagree here.

I would agree that this hypothesis probably has merit, but I also think its multifactorial and more complicated.

For example, the role that religion played in American slave populations wouldn't really fit this model.

What their churches and religion provided for them was not really material but more spiritual.

They could only hope that there was a reward, asylum and something better on the other side of the desperate lives they were forced into.

So I would argue that in addition to material, biological and social needs, there is also a spiritual need.

Those that live very fortunate lives and really want for nothing may not feel the need to hope for something else after this life.

[Act_of_Reparation]

83. Maybe more than you'd think

I would agree that this hypothesis probably has merit, but I also think its multifactorial and more complicated.

Perhaps it is. However, the AJPS is the highest impact-factor political science journal in circulation, and these authors are well-known as being leading minds in their respective fields. Their research is thorough, their methods are sound, and, importantly, they have gone through the peer review process. As their paper attempts to reconcile the two most widely-accepted interpretations of religiosity, this couldn't have been an easy task. To say that the hypothesis "probably has merit" is, I think, a bit of an understatement.

For example, the role that religion played in American slave populations wouldn't really fit this model.

What their churches and religion provided for them was not really material but more spiritual.

They could only hope that there was a reward, asylum and something better on the other side of the desperate lives they were forced into.

This is a pretty common defense of religiosity, but I don't think it has much merit. Religious communities, I would argue, provided tangible social and material benefits to America's slave populations. Going into them all would require quite a bit of time, but, scanning over Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I can identify quite a few basic, measurable human needs religion could have fulfilled for people enslaved under the plantation system, chiefly, but not limited to: morality, shared resources (safety); friendship, family (love and belonging); self-esteem, confidence, respect of others, respect from others, achievement (self-esteem).

So I would argue that in addition to material, biological and social needs, there is also a spiritual need.

This is mainly where we differ.

I don't recognize a "spiritual" need, mainly for these two reasons:

1- No one can even define what "spiritual" means in this sense.

2- There's just no evidence for it. Maslow certainly didn't include it on his list.

Those that live very fortunate lives and really want for nothing may not feel the need to hope for something else after this life.

But that isn't really a "spiritual" need. That's a sense of fairness, a desire for justice. I would argue these needs are social in nature, specifically related to the need for safety. Because the world is largely unfair and unjust, belief in the supernatural behaves like a workaround to satisfy these needs without actually satisfying them.

Another wrench we can throw into that theory is the Gallup poll you cited.

Estonia, it would seem, is the least religious country polled, with only 16% of Estonians reporting religion as a major part of their lives. Estonia is not the poorest country on Earth, but by no means is it is the richest. As of 2011, one in six Estonians lived below the poverty line. There are far richer countries which exceed its religiosity by leaps and bounds. Why?

[dimbear]

13. When large *** promote oppressive ideals, it is the fault of power-hungry, hateful individuals......

Fill in the space marked *** as it strikes your fancy. Suggestions: dictatorships, criminal gangs, fraternities, book clubs.............

On ripe reflection, anything whatsoever fits like a glove, except maybe puppies.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. It is an astoundingly odd statement.

Apparently the author doesn't think institutions are responsible for anything. I re-read that sentence thinking that I must have missed a modifier or a phrase. But no, its just a few bad apples, not The Church.

[Promethean]

14. I recently read a book about this basic premise

The book had extensive research and instruction including clearly defining the primary cause of the negative influences and countering that most strongly. Incidentally I read this book because of Cbayer and Rug challenging a post I made earlier this week about it. I realized I was going on what people said and not what I knew.

Summarizing to an almost criminal degree: The problem comes down to faith or as the author defined it, claiming to know something that you do not. When you base your perception of reality on a premise like claiming to know something you do not it has a cascading negative effect on your perceptions toward the rest of reality. The initial wrong premise leads to further wrong premises until you have someone like Michele Bachmann.

For those interested the book is "A Manual for Creating Atheists" by Peter Boghossian.

[cbayer]

15. There was a thread started yesterday on this book.

The review of it was pretty scathing.

Haven't read it and probably won't, but the excerpts I have read seem like a rehash of the same old themes.

You aren't going to "deconvert" the Michelle Bachmann's of the world and most believers can be found in a much more grey area than she and her ilk are.

So, as opposed to the Boghossian prescriptions for deconversion, I would wish for a more "live and let live" approach between believers and non-believers. The whole deconversion concept smells just what like proselytizing believers do.

[trotsky]

16. Actually, as was pointed out to you on another thread,

a large majority believes that god DEFINITELY exists. No gray area. They are absolutely positive.

So once again, reality conflicts with the little narrative you construct for yourself. I would love to see you join in on a productive discussion - you know, one that acknowledges facts rather than just abides by the arbitrary rules you create.

[pinto]

33. "Absolutely positive" falters on either end of the spectrums, imo.

That goes for science, religion, politics, etc. Doubt is a well traveled approach to it all.

[trotsky]

57. Great, thanks for your opinion.

You should let cbayer speak for herself, as you promised to.

[pinto]

58. You're welcome.

I was replying to your post, no more nor less. I've no chips in the game beyond a good discussion. We can all agree or disagree with one another as it goes.

[Promethean]

17. Oh my

Did you even read what I wrote? I literally just finished the book. It is fully fresh in my mind. I explained the premise of the book and you cling to some review by someone who obviously did a hack job? Do you even care in the slightest for your own credibility?

[cbayer]

18. Of course I read what you wrote. I was just giving my own POV on it.

I'm not clinging to any review of it and I have no idea what this has to do with my credibility.

I don't care for his premise and disagree with his hypothesis, which you summarized.

Is that not my prerogative?

[CFLDem]

31. Even though I'm not religious,

but let's face it, without religion humans would just pick another reason for being assholes.

[xfundy]

40. Actually, there would be one less reason.

And a very important one: no more invisible man that's gonna get you, no more big brother that's gonna beat you up that you can't see, no more hordes ready to kill and steal because of an ostensible belief in a deity that, coincidentally, hates everyone the horde hates and delights in the warriors being enriched by the spoils of the "holy war."

[CFLDem]

43. Never gonna happen.

Humans are superstitious creatures who have to anthropomorphize everything.

But we can dream...

[madrchsod]

52. religion has been around for a very long time

religion will be around for a long time into the future.

[dimbear]

59. Measles, polio, and leprosy have been around a long time too.

But now? There's a bright new day coming.

[Laelth]

76. Trey Parker's insight on this subject is hilarious and poignant.

Go God Go

and its sequel ...

Go God Go XII

These are well worth watching (NSFW and NSF people who are easily offended).

-Laelth

[cbayer]

79. He and Matt Stone also presented an interesting perspective in Book of Mormon.

I'm not going to post any spoilers, but will say that the conclusions they appear to draw are rather ambivalent.

[BlueStreak]

101. It is the ago-old question of beliefs versus religious enterprises

The religious enterprises usually do far more harm than good, although there are certainly some examples of religious enterprises that are net contributors to society.

Personal faith doesn't necessarily represent a problem for society at large. It only becomes a problem when translated into political power by the enterprises.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

112. Personal faith is a problem to society in this instance:

Assume that society supports the health and welfare of children. They do not have legal capacity to consent to anything. Their parents or guardians must consent.

Suppose your parents are Christian Scientists and you are a sick child with a treatable disease. Juvenile diabetes or cancer. And they pray over you. They don't take you to the doctor.

You die. The parents are charged with murder for not following the law about not killing your child by neglect. Negligent homicide. And usually convicted thereof.