A Really Good Thing: Why we should celebrate the rise of atheism and secularity

[cleanhippie]

Yes, the growth of atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, humanism, and other various manifestations of secularity in both the USA and around the world over the past 25 years is a decidedly good thing, for the following reasons:

1. We need more humans guided by reason rather than faith. We’re facing serious problems in the world today: global warming, increasing inequality, growing forms of fundamentalism, extensive human enslavement, international sex trafficking, impending genocide in places like the Central African Republic, corporation-led corrosion of democracy, violence against women, depletion of the rain forest, human rights violations, etc., etc. — and all of these problems can only be solved through rational understandings of their causes, solutions based on unbiased data and empirically-sound mechanisms, human creativity and compassion, international cooperation and willpower, and smartness, ingenuity, and know-how.

Ten million people praying ten millions hours won’t do shit. Pleading to magic deities and invisible gods, or beseeching the spirits of dead ancestors, or fondling rosaries and misbaha, or anointing with oil and lighting candles, or performing exorcisms and slitting the throats of goats, or driving away the devil and ostracizing witches won’t help at all. Not one bit. So the more people we have who live their lives without such notions or entanglements, the better.

We need a humanity that relies most readily and most heavily upon scientific understanding, rigorous/critical thinking, and utterly sound reasoning, not faith. Now don’t get me wrong: religious faith has its place; it comforts many who have nothing else to rely upon, and it infuses the world with a mystical, spiritual, or, at least, quaint vibe. But it doesn’t help address social problems. For that, we need clear thinkers who don’t look to imaginary gods for assistance.

--snip--

As a direct product of human culture, human psychology, and human experience, religion contains much that is noble, altruistic, just, and inspiring. It reflects many of humanity’s best aspirations and hopes. And the rituals, music, holidays, social bonding, family traditions, and all around heritage that one finds within religion are often wonderful, enriching, and enjoyable. But the actual tenets of faith of most religions — the supernatural beliefs, the gods, the messiahs, the prophets, the miracles — the sooner these wither and fade, the better. And so the fact that we see this happening today, in varying degrees, is a really good thing.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201407/really-good-thing

[rhett o rick]

1. Reality is tough to deal with and many have been "taught" since childhood that using religion as

a crutch is the only way to deal with reality. And many will kill those that don't agree.

[cleanhippie]

2. Fortunately, the trend has humanity moving away from that.

And that's a good thing.

[libodem]

3. Yep

[img][/img]

[iandhr]

4. There are also a growing number of people who affiliate with a faith...

Last edited Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)

… but don't practice it.


The three times a year Jews (people like me) and the twice a year Christians.

[cleanhippie]

5. And that group is the one most turned-off by religious activism.

Be it right or left-wing (mostly right), these folks do not want religion used as a political force at all.

[WinkyDink]

6. "Clear think(ing)" and religion are not necessarily antithetical. I say this as a Secular Humanist.

[Curmudgeoness]

7. Let's say that we could agree on that

for the purposes of argument. Wouldn't all the energy expended in prayer, rituals, etc. be better used to actually do something?

[zeemike]

27. No but it is often portrayed that way.

Which of course is just the "with us or against us" dynamics that has become so popular in our land.
Anything to divide us is a tool...like a wedge is a tool to split with.

[cleanhippie]

32. While I tend to agree, when it comes to religious belief, thinking is anything but clear.

And I think that is what the point here is. Believe what you want, but when it comes to solving real-world problems, religious thinking is not the solution.

[Warpy]

58. Jimmy Carter comes to mind on that account

although religion gave him a bum steer when it came to abortion policy for poor women.

For many people, getting lost in prayer is the key to a deep thinking session during which the prayer keeps the babbling idiot in the left brain occupied while a solution to a problem bubbles up from the right brain. Mantras during meditation do the same thing for people who use them.

Still, one thing in this country has to be affirmed and that's the wall of separation between church and state. The Five Goons have forgotten why it's such a good idea to have that and I hope the country survives them.

[heaven05]

8. actually we should get away from organized religion

as depicted by Jesus with a rifle in his hands as pictured by RW christians in this country? I am ashamed of these idiots representing american thought and ideology. How did have we sunk so low to have these idiots representing us in Congress? Well other idiots voted them in office. There is the problem. The dumbed down amerikkkan voter. I was a nominal christian at one time. Never again will I claim any amerikkkan religion as mine. Racist,sexist, homophobic and murderous religions that only represents white male dominated RW thinking.

Disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!. AND I AGREE WITH ALL POSTED THAT I'M RESPONDING TO. Pie in the sky, bullshit is what religion is. I read today that the male dominated caliphate in Iraq, ISIS, wants to mutilate all women under their control. That's religion for you and how it is used as a tool by psychopaths disguised as religious leaders. Religion one big control mechanism.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. "disorganized" religion seems just as prone to irrational horsehit as the traditional kind.

I used to think it did no harm, until for example the woo-infested anti vaccers brought back measles and whooping cough. Now not so much.

[heaven05]

18. no argument from me

[rurallib]

9. Praying is so much easier than actually confronting problems

cheaper too in the short term. Which do you think humans will do?

[Warren Stupidity]

10. No we should spend more time confusing children with obsolete bullshit.

Or so I've read right here.

[trotsky]

12. Correct.

A person Who Knows Everything made it quite clear that children benefit greatly from not being able to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. I didn't know that before I was instructed by A Person Who Knows Everything.

It is so difficult going through life being mediocre.

[trotsky]

17. Well, that may or not be true.

A Person Who Knows Everything once lamented how much easier life would be if they were only more mediocre. You know, like the rest of us slobs.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. I can't understand that.

[trotsky]

22. There is very little we can, Warren.

Being as mediocre as we are.

[Arugula Latte]

36. Well,

A Person Who Knows Everything has "other" ways of knowing. But don't ask for any specifics. Believe me, don't ask.

[blkmusclmachine]

13. If God knows everything in advance, why did he regret his Great Flood?

[closeupready]

26. He works in such mysterious ways, even HE can't figure himself out?

??

[Arugula Latte]

38. Also, if god has a plan for everything and has determined everything that will happen, why pray?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

144. Maybe he realized how much of a dick he was?

You know, murdering everyone on the planet except some dude that screwed his daughters (and the dude's family) That shit must be rough.

[NC_Nurse]

14. Great article, thanks!

[cleanhippie]

24. You're welcome.

[byronius]

15. Awesome post.

[cleanhippie]

34. Glad you liked it.

See below for someone that did not.

[obxhead]

19. There are many reasons politicians embrace and flaunt religion.

The biggest, in my opinion, is to keep us divided.

United they fall, divided they continue to conquer us.

[awoke_in_2003]

120. The church...

has always enjoyed a buddy-buddy relationship with the rulers.

[LW1977]

21. As a Christian who follows everything that Jesus taught...

I find this thread incredibly offending. I'm not just going sit here and have my belief in a higher power be ridiculed by people who call believers like me "weak-minded" and "living in a fantasy". I know things that are unexplainable that could turn your faces pale. I don't ever get involve with these kind of discussions, but when non-believing DUers insult, high-five and K&R each other for attacking those with religious beliefs, you are also attacking those with beliefs who also happen to be pro-birth control, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, for increasing the minimum wage, for affordable care and very anti-Republican. You're just as bad Pat Robertson, James Dobsen (sp) and Tony Perkins.

[trotsky]

23. You just proved you DON'T follow everything Jesus taught.

He said to love your enemies, yet you are cursing them here.

[zeemike]

31. The poster here did not curse people here.

But that hyperbole just reinforces the point made...
The poster was complaining about the double standard being applied here...if someone made a post insulting atheist, or gays, or feminist, or any other protected group that post would be hidden quickly. But it is quite the rage to insult people who believe in the things you call nonsense.

The assumption is that you know it all and the others are just stupid and ignorant and should be ridiculed.

[trotsky]

40. "You're just as bad Pat Robertson, James Dobsen (sp) and Tony Perkins."

Yeah, saying that is just another way of loving everyone.

That poster said they follow ALL of Jesus' teachings. Really? What do you think about that?

[zeemike]

46. I don't think in absolutes.

The world and it's people are not black and white, and Jesus never said you could not object when you were insulted...he did it often.

[trotsky]

47. Neither do I.

But LW1977 does. Perhaps you should engage them to tell them they're wrong.

Did Jesus say there were exceptions to loving your enemies? I was not aware of that.

[zeemike]

50. Well I did not see it.

And love your enemies does not mean that you should let them walk all over you and you must stay silent...sometimes love is telling the truth.

[trotsky]

51. Oh yes, the "truth" as you see it.

Which of course you know is always correct, because you're a perfect Christian.

[Starboard Tack]

93. I love you trotsky. I think you are adorable

I also think he was right to compare you to Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Tony Perkins. They are all as obsessed with Bible literalism as you. When it comes to intolerance, the side you are on is pretty irrelevant. But, as I do truly love you, I must say that I do NOT think you are as bad as those guys. Compared to them, you are "intolerant lite".
And now, it is definitely time for a

[Lordquinton]

127. Says the guy who compared gay marriage to marrying a bicycle.

[Starboard Tack]

129. I love you too Lord Q. But I love my bicycle more.

Because my bicycle will never die and my bicycle will never lie.

[Lordquinton]

141. Today on Poe or not...

[Warren Stupidity]

148. No no no he gave a big long winded 'splaining about how equating

gay marriage to marrying a bicycle was not equating gay marriage to marrying a bicycle. Really the jury got it all wrong. It was a tragedy. You are a bad atheist. Bad. According to his wife, you need to take a nap. According to others here, you are over emotional, but your apoplexy is accepted.

[randys1]

117. Few humans follow MOST of Jesus's teachings, let alone all of them

There are a few human beings, very few, who can say they ATTEMPT to follow ALL of his teachings in the same way Jesus reported to do

(disclaimer, I do not believe any such person lived, let alone was the son of any god since I dont believe anything like a god exists either)

However having spent 11 yrs in catholic schools, having studied the bible over thousands of hours, having gone to church approximately 500 times both catholic and Pentecostal, I can assure EVERYONE here that in all that time and in all my travels I have met ONE, I repeat ONE person who I believe ATTEMPTED to follow most of what Jesus taught in the same way the fictional character lived the teachings, and this was a Franciscan Monk named Dunstin.

Other than him, nobody else.

I know many christians on the internet and in real life who are well meaning, very liberal who support all liberal ideals, one in particular is Mark Thompson, a preacher who has a show on Sirius Progressive channel, wonderful man, love him, love his christian attitude and liberal ideology but even he falls short, way short of the ONLY person I know who can actually claim to be a real true christian.

Many of you who are well meaning just need to work at it a little harder, I dont have to work at it at all because I dont claim to be a christian.

[Orrex]

42. I can think of no curse more vile than likening someone to Robertson

[cleanhippie]

43. What actual PEOPLE were insulted in this article?

Belief itself deserves no special treatment. Demonstrating how belief in the supernatural is hindering human progress is not insulting people.

Just because YOU find it offensive to your sensibilities means nothing. You have no right to not be offended. Stephen Fry has something to say about that. You should look it up.

Just where are actual people being insulted here?

[zeemike]

44. People who believe in God.

Would you say that no atheist need be offended if they were called idiots or other pejorative terms?.

And for your information I don't find it offensive because other peoples opinions and ideas do not offend me...But others might find it offensive and condescending to be told that what they believe makes them a stupid person.

[cleanhippie]

52. Perhaps I missed it, but where in this article are believers called "idiots"?

What exactly, about the article is so offensive to you?

[zeemike]

75. I feel like I have to keep repeating myself.

I did not post to the OP...I was talking about the posts TO the OP.

[cleanhippie]

78. Where in any response to this OP are believers called idiots?

Give me the post number.

[rug]

69. Let's see, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 36.

Granted it was not in the article but in this very thread, by DUers insulting other DUers.

Well done, mission accomplished.

[Starboard Tack]

146. I love you CHippie, but sometimes I wonder...

...do you ever read the gobbledygook that you post?

"You have no right to not be offended."

Do you not understand how the double negative works? I'm sure Stephen would get quite a chuckle over your skill in writing nonsensical twaddle.

You talk about people NOT being insulted.
And then you act offended that someone thinks your posts are insulting.

And then, to top it off, you post this http://www.democraticunderground.com/123024936

Definitely must give you credit for transparency. You are truly hilarious. How can anyone not love you?

[Warren Stupidity]

147. somebody didn't get it.

perhaps add some more rofls and you will be visited by the clue faerie

[muriel_volestrangler]

149. The wording is ambiguous as a lone sentence, though which meaning cleanhippie intends is clear

"You have no right to not be offended" could be:

"you are forbidden from finding something inoffensive"

or

"others are allowed to offend you"

Obviously, cleanhippie means the latter, from the context.

[Starboard Tack]

158. Clear as mud, methinks.

"You have no right to not be offended"

means either "You must be offended" Or "You have the right to be offended"

The negatives cancel each other out. English grammar and syntax is not a high priority in the US educational system, I'm afraid. They tend to concentrate more on the "sciency" stuff, which is good for building rockets and other cool shit, but not so good when articulating thoughts.
I truly hope nobody feels offended by my pointing that out.

Regarding what cleanhippie means, one can only speculate.
And I will specualate that what he intended to say was "You have no right to be offended"

We can only wait and see.....

[muriel_volestrangler]

159. No, it can't mean your second option

Perhaps the problem is that you're looking on 'offended' as only an adjective, rather than a participle.

Consider "you have no right to not be photographed". This could mean "you must be photographed" (there's no right to remain unphotographed, and it's inevitably going to happen to you); it could also mean "people are allowed to photograph you" (there's no right to remain unphotographed, and so perhaps someone will photograph you). But it can't mean "you have the right to be photographed".

I wouldn't start criticising the US educational system about this, if I were you. "You have no right to be offended" would make no sense at all, in context, so it's silly to suggest that as a meaning. The meaning was clear, from the context, and schools teach you to look for context.

[Starboard Tack]

167. Interesting point

Then the key word is the auxiliary verb, where "to be" is somewhat ambiguous, and "to feel" is not.

"To be offended" could mean you are the object of an offender (participle), or could mean you are the subject who feels offended (adjective).

Your "photograph" analogy does not fully apply, because being offended can also describe a state of mind, or an emotional state, whereas being photographed cannot, and means simply being the object of the verb "to photograph", hence no ambiguity.

"You have no right to be offended" makes sense when meaning "to feel offended". That's why I speculated that was what he meant. My criticism of the US educational system is not founded on posts made here. I have a lot of respect for higher education in the US, but far less for the public school system, especially when it comes to reading comprehension, grammar and syntax. Obviously, there are exceptions and some excellent teachers, but I speak from first hand experience, having raised kids there and having worked as a teacher.

Point is, the sentence he used is both clumsy and ambiguous.

[muriel_volestrangler]

168. Point is, you took it out of context

which is not what you should have been taught to do.

[Starboard Tack]

171. No, I took nothing out of context

I pointed out some atrocious syntax which led to ambiguity. At least we strive for clarity, as elusive as it may be.

[muriel_volestrangler]

173. No, you claimed there was a problem with the double negative

and suggested that cleanhippie actually meant the opposite of what he wrote. I was the one who pointed out it was ambiguous, but that one meaning fitted well into what he wrote.

[Warren Stupidity]

160. or you have no right "to not be offended".

As in: you have no right "to not be poor". That would be expressed in simpler terms as 'you have no right to be rich'. As there is no good unnegated term for "not offended" there is no equivalent.

One could have a right "to not be offended". For example anti-blasphemy laws give such a positive right to the religious. However in this country the first amendment prohibits anti-blasphemy laws, so one has, in this country, no right to not be offended.

is it clear yet? Try this: "no" in "no right" applies to "right". "not" in "not offended" applies to "offended". Still not clear?

[Starboard Tack]

150. Pinch hitting while our hero naps are we

Maybe you would be so kind as to explain to the clueless what the following means

"You have no right to not be offended."

[Warren Stupidity]

153. It most likely means "you have no right to not be offended".

Perhaps, as an expert on tag teaming, you might consult your other half for help.

[Starboard Tack]

156. OMDawkins! Do you also think that is what Stephen Fry is saying?

In fact he is saying the opposite. It isn't even a language issue, which I would understand if you had both learned English as a second language. It is basic grammar. Think about it.

Now, apart from the double negative blooper, let us examine what Fry is actually saying, shall we?
He is expressing an opinion about people who whine, by using the phrase "I'm offended by that". And I agree with him.
I sometimes use the term "I find that offensive", especially when responding to extremists. That does not mean that I feel personally offended. Far from it.
When you and your buddies insult me and my family, I am not offended, even though you are being offensive.

Fry is not expressing an opinion on people who insult others because of their religious beliefs, though I'm sure he would find them as obnoxious as I do.

I know the subtleties of language can be challenging, but I hope this has helped.

BTW, I love you too.

[Warren Stupidity]

161. At some point it is best to just fade away.

But I will not be offended if you don't fade away from this discussion.

[Starboard Tack]

163. Good, because this is a good discussion.

I enjoy discussions like this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

162. Fry *was* expressing an opinion on what people say about religious beliefs

The Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech last month. Under the proposals, it would become a criminal offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour if one 'intends to stir up religious hatred' or if their conduct is 'likely to stir up' religious hatred. Prosecutions could be brought only by the Attorney-General and a convicted person would face up to seven years in prison.

Fry refused to go as far as Hitchens in combatively denouncing the bill, but made clear he 'couldn't possibly obey a law' that allowed prosecutions of comedians or writers who caused offence.

He said: 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?'

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/05/religion.hayfestival2005

[Starboard Tack]

166. Yes, I saw that and I agree with him.

People do not have a right, as in legal or civil right, to be offended. Of course, they do have a human right to feel offended, but as Fry says "So fucking what?"
None of that, in any way, excuses those who go out of their way to insult believers or minorities, or anyone else. That said, it should not be a crime, per se.
To offend and to insult are very different in meaning.
Regarding the bill, I see it as being highly problematic in terms of free speech. I think incitement laws such as the proposed Bill are not healthy. We have common law remedies for breach of the peace, which work very well at defusing volatile situations, without banning freedom of speech.

[mr blur]

164. And how can anyone not cringe and sneer at you?

Your stalking of people is getting really creepy. Sea air getting to you? Starved of intelligent conversation?

[mr blur]

54. You are completely wrong about one thing,

.if someone made a post insulting atheist, or gays, or feminist, or any other protected group that post would be hidden quickly

Don't you know the unwritten rule here? Anything unpleasant you want to say about atheists, no matter how bigoted, rude or, indeed, nasty, is fine. Knock yourself out. You should PM one of The Elite, won't take long to spot them and I'm sure they'll send you the memo.

[zeemike]

72. Well that is completely wrong.

I have not seen any posts denouncing or accusing or making fun of atheist here...And you can even post negative things about believers in GD and no one will say a word about it.
But ridicule of believers has become a sport, and memes abound to play it with...and they all get used in most every post.

IMO progressives make a big mistake if the fall for this...because those that believe in the teachings of Jesus are progressive in all the ways we think progressive are socially and politically.
And when you define progressive as someone who does not believe in god you automatically split off millions of our natural allies.

[mr blur]

116. Oh, do grow up.

We're not in GD.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Ouch! Hammer hits nail very nicely.

Yep, it's open season on believers and tolerant non-believers. Disdain and mockery are the flavors of the day.

[closeupready]

25. "I find this thread incredibly offending" - that's your problem.

This is a political discussion board for liberals, progressives, and others who traditionally constitute the Democratic Party, including secular-minded intellectuals. This topic is perfectly in line with the purpose of this board.

Don't like it? Door's over there.

[cleanhippie]

29. +1

[cleanhippie]

28. !

[trotsky]

30. Ha! I was just going digging for a good graphic of that quote. n/t

[zeemike]

33. Welcome.

Not all the people here are bent on insulting people of faith...but you would think so sometimes when you see some of the loud voices we have.

[cleanhippie]

37. Do you really see this article as "insulting people of faith"?

Please, elaborate as to why that is so I might better understand your point of view.

[zeemike]

49. I was not talking about the article I was talking about the thread.

Where people jump in and say offensive things about people who believe in God...as any such thread will have.
If I have an objection to the OP I would have addressed it...but I don't happen to think the OP's conclusion that it is a good thing is actually a good thing, but don't wish to argue it.

[cleanhippie]

53. So yours is just a response in general, not to anything particular found here in THIS thread?

[zeemike]

73. No my response was to a post complain about the ridicule.

And to you who are complain about my standing up for that person.

[cleanhippie]

77. What ridicule are you talking about?

Point out where someone is being ridiculed.

[zeemike]

80. See post 77...it has a list

and I don't want to spend any more time on this.

[cleanhippie]

87. Uhm, thats my last reply to you.

You've spent all this time complaining about how believers were called "idiots", yet cannot show even a single instance of that happening.

I can understand why you don't want to spend any more time on this.

You have a nice day.

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. That's what happens when it's thought healthy for children to be unable to tell fantasy from reality

You end up with adults complaining about non-existent insults, and referring to lists that aren't there.

[cleanhippie]

143. !

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. Well,the important thing is that ...

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. You're not sitting there having your belief ridiculed by people calling you "weak-minded"

No-one has said that here, or in the article. Nor has anyone said you're "living in a fantasy". There has been one reference to 'fantasy', and that is a reference to a post from a few days ago which said it's healthy for young children to be unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

[mr blur]

55. Well, so what?

So you choose to be offended? Who cares?

[MellowDem]

133. If you're offended for bad reasons, it's probably because you're wrong.

So why are you offended?

[trotsky]

154. Here's a quote from a guy who has deeply offended several hundred million religious people.

“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.

If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.

I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.

To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”

― Salman Rushdie

[Starboard Tack]

172. I agree. Now tell that to those who have read the bible and find it offensive.

Some have read it several times and still find it offensive. What is that all about.

[muriel_volestrangler]

174. So you agree with "nobody has the right to not be offended"

but think "you have no right to not be offended" is "gobbledygook", "nonsensical twaddle", an example of a problem with a double negative, "hilarious", "clear as mud", that "the negatives cancel each other out", that this shows "English grammar and syntax is not a high priority in the US educational system" ('Is'? 'Are'.), and it makes you speculate that he meant the opposite.

Rushdie's education (Rugby School, King's College, Cambridge) is acceptable to you, I guess.

[Starboard Tack]

175. Okay, nobody has the right not to be perfect, including me and Rushdie

I see the quote is attributed to Rushdie, but cannot find a verifiable source. It is also attributed to Ricki Gervais. I admire both of them, but still don't like the ambiguity. However, I concede.

[Starboard Tack]

176. Just to let you know Muriel

I never make the same mistake twice. I make it 5 or 6 times, just to be sure.

[Mariana]

169. Everything that Jesus taught?

How about Matthew 5: 11-12.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Why aren't you rejoicing and being exceeding glad?

[phil89]

201. It is fantasy to believe mythology and fiction are real.

I don't see how that's an insult. I think weak minded is inaccurate but believers in god/gods are by definition irrational and that's generally not a good thing. It's your right to do so but it doesn't make any sense. Yes there are unexplainable things, but that's not evidence of a god. And you don't need religion as a basis to support gay marriage and gun control, etc.

[Arugula Latte]

205. A lot of you believers in the supernatural have little context for how it feels to be the

ones who are in the belief minority. You're getting a small taste of it here. Welcome to our world, where even the money has "in God we trust" written on it. (Speak for yourself, money.)

[Dustlawyer]

39. Left out is over-population! This attack on birth control

and abortions is idiotic! World leaders need to start discussing what the maximum population should be and how to arrive and maintain a healthy level. We have already past what the Earth can reasonably support in terms of population and with rising sea levels we will have to relocate much of the World's population. We already have hundreds die everyday from starvation and it is only getting worse!

Religion stands in the way of our very existence on this planet. Sometimes I feel like a Lemming caught up in the mad rush over the cliff!

[cleanhippie]

41. You make valid and important points.

[Leontius]

56. Another steaming pile of crap posted by the troika.

[cleanhippie]

59. Glad you liked it.

Your usual name calling and lack of objective criticisms again demonstrate that you didn't actually read the article but instead chose for a knee-jerk response.

Bravo!

[PassingFair]

177. Troika?

I thought a "quartet" had been identified!

[hrmjustin]

57. Just so people know we believers can use reason as well. Don't care for this article much.

[edhopper]

60. on everything but your faith

haven't you said you believe things even though they aren't rational?

"It may not be scientific, but I still believe."

If i am quoting you right.

[hrmjustin]

62. We are still capable of using reason.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. almost everyone is capable.

The question is "has the capability been nurtured or suppressed?".

[edhopper]

107. Yes you are

people of faith are capable of reason, capable of being scientists. but is one area of their life they choose faith over reason.
I thought you agree with that?

[hrmjustin]

112. My point is faith based decisions use reason as well as prayer.

[Warren Stupidity]

157. nah, they figure out what the reasonable position is and then go pray and magically god agrees.

[cleanhippie]

61. What faith-based approach would solve the myriad real-world problems outlined in the article?

What exactly, did you not like?

[hrmjustin]

63. The World council of Churches is divesting in fossil fuel investments.

That is a faith based approach I approve of!

[cleanhippie]

64. How is that faith based?

Did they divest because god told them to, or is it because after reviewing the cientific data they decided that fossil fuels are non sustaining and a major contributor to world problems?

Sounds as if you are saying that a heart transplant at a catholic hospital would be a faith based operation.

[hrmjustin]

65. My point is we are not a bunch of idiotsthat we can't use reason.

And yes it is a faith based decision. We believe Goddoes not want us to destroy his creation.

[cleanhippie]

67. No one has said that. But when it comes to your faith, you don't use reason.

You have stated directly that you believe in supernatural miracles (most notably, the resurrection of a dead person). Where is the reason in that?

And if god does not want the council of churches to destroy the planet by investing in fossil fuels, why did he tell them to make those investments in the first place?

How is saying "god told me to do it" reasonable at all?

[hrmjustin]

68. I never said God told me or the council.

I never claimed miracles happen today.

We are capable of solving problems just like non-believers.

We don't all just throw up our hands and say God will deal with it.


And the tone of the articles makebelievers out to be idiots.

[cleanhippie]

76. You just stated before that divesting in fossil fuels was a faith-based decision.

And you also stated that god didn't want you to destroy the planet, hence the decision to divest.

No one is saying that believers are incapable of reason. Most use reason effectively all day every day. But when it comes to matters of faith, it cannot be reasonable. Thus why it's called "faith". That's the definition, that which is not based on proof is faith.

The council divested in fossil fuels because of the PROOF that fossil fuels are harming the planet and creating many of our problems. If divesting was a "faith-based" decision, then so was the decision to invest in them in the first place.

And it's the "tone" of the article you don't like? Respectfully, I say "so what." Let's discuss the actual points being made in te article. Refute the reasoning being used to make those points, if you can. Otherwise, your simply being unreasonable.

[hrmjustin]

81. What exactly do you think a faith based approach is?

[cleanhippie]

82. An approach based on faith, not reason.

If it were based on reason, it wouldn't be faith-based.

[hrmjustin]

83. lol ok.

[cleanhippie]

84. Lol?

What does it mean to you?

Just because an organization itself is "faith-based" does not mean it's executive/business decisions are "faith-based".

If it's based on proof, it's not faith. Why is that so difficult to understand?

[hrmjustin]

86. We have a dofferent view of faith based.

[cleanhippie]

90. Well, thats the problem with "faith", it has no objectivity.

Whats YOUR view? And why is it any better than what I posited?

[hrmjustin]

92. Faith based decisions are based on prayer, accessing a situation, the greater good, and reasoning.

[cleanhippie]

95. No, faith is not based on reason.

Perhaps you are confusing "reasoning" with "rationalizing," but reason and faith are mutually exclusive.

rea·son noun \ˈrē-zən\
: a statement or fact that explains why something is the way it is, why someone does, thinks, or says something, or why someone behaves a certain way

: a fact, condition, or situation that makes it proper or appropriate to do something, feel something, etc.

: the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way

faith noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs

: a system of religious beliefs

ra·tio·nal·ize verb \ˈrash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈra-shə-nə-ˌlīz\
: to think about or describe something (such as bad behavior) in a way that explains it and makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc.

: to find ways to make (something, such as an industry, a company, etc.) waste less time, effort, and money

[hrmjustin]

97. as I said we disagree.

[cleanhippie]

99. That much is obvious. What is not so obvious is why you disagree.

You seem unable to say just why you disagree other than you just do.

[hrmjustin]

100. I gave you what I believe is a faithbased decision is.

[cleanhippie]

103. "...what I believe is a faithbased decision is"

Yes, you did. And it's not reasonable

[hrmjustin]

104. Says you.

[cleanhippie]

108. Says reason.

[hrmjustin]

109. lol.

[mr blur]

113. "Based on prayer....and reasoning"? So which cancels the other out? Can't have both.

[hrmjustin]

114. Says you.It works well for me and other believers.

[Warren Stupidity]

142. here is what I think justin is saying.

for example on climate change:

1. they know based on reason outside of faith that the evidence for catastrophic climate change is indisputable and that the ethical position, again based on reason is to support efforts to mitigate the looming disaster.

2. they then do *something* (an underwear gnome hand waving moment) and their faith informs them that (1) above is what god wants too.

[mr blur]

155. Justin is saying nothing, as usual.

42,000 helpings of word salad - if he bothers to actually say anything beyond a header.

[hrmjustin]

170. I am sorry I don't have your way with words sir!

[phil89]

202. Like taking aspirin and praying for a headache to go away

nt

[rug]

85. He actually caught his own tail.

[MellowDem]

131. We know, we also know you don't use it for faith, that's the problem.

[hrmjustin]

140. says you.

[MellowDem]

152. And you, and the definition of faith

[rug]

70. I see "feel good" religion has its counterpart in "feel good" atheism.

This writer is equally shallow.

No offense.

[hrmjustin]

71. The author is very insulting.

[rug]

74. I don't mind that. It's his shallowness.

[Leontius]

126. You call it shallow I call it a pile of crap.

Why is it that all these flag wavers of atheism write like 13 year olds trying to show how cool and edgy they are to the rest of the 8th grade class.

[rug]

130. Let's compromise.

It's a shallow pile of shit.

[cleanhippie]

88. In what way is he insulting?

Please, be specific.

[hrmjustin]

89. Here.

"Ten million people praying ten millions hours won’t do shit. Pleading to magic deities and invisible gods, or beseeching the spirits of dead ancestors, or fondling rosaries and misbaha, or anointing with oil and lighting candles, or performing exorcisms and slitting the throats of goats, or driving away the devil and ostracizing witches won’t help at all. Not one bit. So the more people we have who live their lives without such notions or entanglements, the better."

[cleanhippie]

91. Are you saying that he is wrong or that you just find it personally insulting?

What exactly, is he wrong about?

Did you also find THIS part insulting?

As a direct product of human culture, human psychology, and human experience, religion contains much that is noble, altruistic, just, and inspiring. It reflects many of humanity’s best aspirations and hopes. And the rituals, music, holidays, social bonding, family traditions, and all around heritage that one finds within religion are often wonderful, enriching, and enjoyable.

[hrmjustin]

94. He is wrong and insulting.

The second thing u just posted is fine.

[cleanhippie]

96. In what way is he wrong?

I get that you find it personally insulting, and thats fine.

In what way is he wrong? What exactly is he wrong about?

[hrmjustin]

98. Prayer works imo.

[cleanhippie]

101. Prove it.

Many have tried, and all have failed.

What your complaint seems to boil down to is "I'm offended by this article but cant really say why, and the author is wrong, even though I can't say why. He just is."

[hrmjustin]

102. Lol you know I can't.

[cleanhippie]

105. And that's why we shouldn't rely on faith-based" anything.

Knowingly or not, you're really making the Authors point here.

[hrmjustin]

106. You don't have to.

[cleanhippie]

110. Ahh, but thats not true.

Thats the WHOLE POINT of the article, justin.

[hrmjustin]

111. The point of the article is that he eventually wants religion to go away and he likes the trends now

[cleanhippie]

118. The point was the REASONING behind that view.

Can you argue with his reasoning?

Faith won't cut it.

[hrmjustin]

119. says you. Thus we disagree.

[cleanhippie]

121. We can agree on reality, right?

He is right about the trend, and that is a good thing. For all of us.

[hrmjustin]

122. That things are becoming secular? I am all for the government being secular.

I have no issue with the culture becoming secular.

[cleanhippie]

123. Me either. And the faster it happens, the better for us all.

[hrmjustin]

124. ok.

[cleanhippie]

125. Great

[PassingFair]

178. Do witch's "spells" work too?

How about hexes?

[hrmjustin]

179. Ask a witch.

[PassingFair]

180. So you actually believe that you have supernatural powers, through prayer?

It seems a natural step for you to believe in curses and incantations as well.

[hrmjustin]

181. I never claimed supernatural powers.

I never cast a spell before so my rea tion is to ask someone who has.

[PassingFair]

182. You say your "prayer" works.

What is the difference between a prayer and a spell or incantation?

Seems like the same things to me....

[hrmjustin]

183. Prayer works when we ask for inner strenght. I don't believe that God decides the ways of this world

and through a prayer all is solved. I pray for strength and it works.

[PassingFair]

184. Let me get this straight.

You objected to this:

"Ten million people praying ten millions hours won’t do shit. Pleading to magic deities and invisible gods, or beseeching the spirits of dead ancestors, or fondling rosaries and misbaha, or anointing with oil and lighting candles, or performing exorcisms and slitting the throats of goats, or driving away the devil and ostracizing witches won’t help at all. Not one bit. So the more people we have who live their lives without such notions or entanglements, the better."

And you said you found this offensive because "Prayer works, IMO"

Now you say prayer only works for "inner strength". So tell me again what you found so "offensive".

OK.

[hrmjustin]

185. I do not limit the power of God. Be cause I believe something it does not make it so and the

author was just downright insulting.

[PassingFair]

186. I'm not asking about the "power of God"...I'm asking about YOUR intercessory power, vis a vis God.

And you say you only pray for "inner strength".

And it "works".

Do you believe that you, as a person, do NOT have "inner strength" without God?

[hrmjustin]

187. Sure I do. God helps me to find it and gives me strength.

[PassingFair]

188. Did you lose it, or was it never there?

So to be clear, you never ask God for anything besides "inner strength", to bear your burdens?

Never put in a plug for anyone or anything else?

[hrmjustin]

189. I do put in plug ins but it is to ask for strength for them.

There are times I ask for things even though I believe otherwise.

No I never lost my iinner strength.

[PassingFair]

190. So you DO believe that you have intercessory powers.

Thank you.

[hrmjustin]

191. No I do not. I sais I put in a plug in but I feel that God does not decide the ways of this world.

[PassingFair]

192. Okay, now I'm confused again.

You "pray" to God to help you or others and hope that in
his glorious omnipotence, he will stop and consider your
particular entreaties and give you what you ask for, but
this is NOT utilizing supernatural powers.

[hrmjustin]

193. No I don't think it is supernatural.

God giving me inner strength is not supetnatural in my view.

[PassingFair]

194. OK

We have different ideas of what supetnatural means.

[hrmjustin]

195. fair enough.

[cleanhippie]

196. It's not a difference of ideas. It's an unwillingness to adhere to or agree on the definition

words.


By having a flexible definition, a word can mean one thing now, and three minutes later it can mean something entirely different, if it suits their purposes.


"supernatural", QED.

[PassingFair]

197. Unless it's the definition of the word "atheist"....

[hrmjustin]

198. I never took a stance on the word atheist. I let atheists define it.

[PassingFair]

199. Sorry....guilty of "lumping you in".

[hrmjustin]

200. No problem. it was a big war that I felt I did not know enough to take a side.

[Starboard Tack]

145. Yep! That is where he lost me too. Otherwise, I was fine with it.

The desire to insult and offend tends to override all else for some people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/123024936

It really makes one question their motives.

[hrmjustin]

165. It is what it is here.

[phil89]

203. You don't think that's true?

He's 100% correct.

[hrmjustin]

204. We disagree.

[mr blur]

115. Oh good, the comedy's arrived.

[rug]

132. Great! Let's see a pratfall.

[MellowDem]

134. Your opinion has no reasoning to back it up...

It's not persuasive, much less offensive.

[rug]

135. Obsevation requires only observation.

I thought you knew that.

[MellowDem]

136. And good discussion requires reasoning

[rug]

137. Point me to one.

[MellowDem]

138. Why? If you wanted one you'd engage in it.

[rug]

139. Actually, I'm engaging in several even as we speak.

This is not one of them.

[MellowDem]

151. It was your choice, still is