Text only | Text with Images

Final Fantasy Hacktics

General => The Lounge => Spam => Topic started by: Archael on July 21, 2009, 03:52:31 pm

Title: What I've been trying to say all along
Post by: Archael on July 21, 2009, 03:52:31 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60gCWl9_TOs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60gCWl9_TOs)
Title:
Post by: Pickle Girl Fanboy on July 21, 2009, 04:55:56 pm
I love you.
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 21, 2009, 04:58:59 pm
While being a staunch theist I agree with much of what he says.  I especially think the part about most religious people just following what thier religious "authorities" tell them.  But it's not just the religious that do it.  All of humanity does it.  Many atheists gather behind Richard Dawkins like he's the messiah of reason, but if your read any of his books you'll realize that the man can't string to sentences together without a breakdown of reason.  But people just accept him at his word.  Wether theist, atheist, or agnostic, people need to educate themselves.  We are in the information age, but yet people don't seek out information, they'd rather take someone else's word for it.

Anyway, I wish he wouldn't have put the music over his words so I could hear better.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 21, 2009, 05:55:40 pm
Quote from: "Kuraudo Sutoraifu"While being a staunch theist I agree with much of what he says.  I especially think the part about most religious people just following what thier religious "authorities" tell them.  But it's not just the religious that do it.  All of humanity does it.  Many atheists gather behind Richard Dawkins like he's the messiah of reason, but if your read any of his books you'll realize that the man can't string to sentences together without a breakdown of reason.  But people just accept him at his word.  Wether theist, atheist, or agnostic, people need to educate themselves.

I've read 2 RD books, and I fail to see this "breakdown of reason" you're talking about

he makes a lot of good points and they are 100% backed up with reasonable arguments

I don't really think his approach is the right one, though (RD), because his blatant disrespect for the beliefs turns a lot of people off, and no one likes being told they are wrong, especially not in a condescending way

there is a huge problem with the equating you're trying to make here though, and that is that the problems highlighted in the video stem from people gathering behind RELIGION - NOT philosophers, secularists or state / church separatists like RD

the problems with the attitudes and situations mentioned in the video all stem from organized religion, and you simply cannot attribute them to anything else, especially not someone like RD, who actually goes against religion in the first place

QuoteMany atheists gather behind Richard Dawkins like he's the messiah of reason, but if your read any of his books you'll realize that the man can't string to sentences together without a breakdown of reason.  But people just accept him at his word.

Until I see someone killing others (for centuries) and blowing up buildings in the name of Richard Dawkins, (a guy who is trying to fight against the division and problems that religion creates in the first place) your comparison is invalid


QuoteBut it's not just the religious that do it. All of humanity does it

the problem is that religion gives those who lack better judgment a reason and (in their eyes) a justification for their actions - and as mentioned in the video, it has done this MUCH MORE than the good it has propagated

there is no debating the points made in this video, whether you are theist or atheist, the issue brought up is undeniable, and cannot be dismissed with a simple "oh well RD followers have the same sheep mentality as fundamentalist muslims do, so it's OK"

it's not just a "your deity isn't real" issue here, it's more of a "your beliefs are not only false, but they also cause problems for the rest of humanity"
Title:
Post by: Mental_Gear on July 21, 2009, 06:14:12 pm
If I've learned ANYTHING from Playstation Home it's that talking about your faith on the net is a one-way ticket to flameland, so I might as well keep my mouth shut.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 21, 2009, 06:17:09 pm
from playing FFT you mean, where the church turned out to be a bunch of demons, and the savior was actually possessed by the demon leader

 :twisted:
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 21, 2009, 06:51:43 pm
QuoteUntil I see someone killing others (for centuries) and blowing up buildings in the name of Richard Dawkins, (a guy who is trying to fight against the division and problems that religion creates in the first place) your comparison is invalid

His comparison is valid in that he said they follow his words. What would have been invalid would be saying they would kill and die for Richard Dawkins. Unless he meant that, but I don't think he did.

Quotethere is no debating the points made in this video, whether you are theist or atheist, the issue brought up is undeniable, and cannot be dismissed with a simple "oh well RD followers have the same sheep mentality as fundamentalist muslims do, so it's OK"

The sad fact here is people will find a way to dispute it by combining scripture or whatever together and call that an argument. It doesn't work but people will still call him out for his statements. It is only human nature to want to cling to your beliefs till they are shattered beyond a shaodow of a doubt.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 21, 2009, 06:52:45 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"from playing FFT you mean, where the church turned out to be a bunch of demons, and the savior was actually possessed by the demon leader

 :twisted:

Best plot twist ever imagined.
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 21, 2009, 11:22:50 pm
Quote from: "darthpaul"
QuoteUntil I see someone killing others (for centuries) and blowing up buildings in the name of Richard Dawkins, (a guy who is trying to fight against the division and problems that religion creates in the first place) your comparison is invalid

His comparison is valid in that he said they follow his words. What would have been invalid would be saying they would kill and die for Richard Dawkins. Unless he meant that, but I don't think he did.

This.  My point is that people will mindlessly believe someone without doing thier own research.  This may be because they need a sense of belonging, to advance thier own agenda, or just to justify thier preconceived beliefs.

And Arch, totally my bad, the author I was thinking of was Victor Stenger.  The book that I'm mainly thinking of is God: The Failed Hypothesis. The comment of blind following still applies to RD.

Quotethe problem is that religion gives those who lack better judgment a reason and (in their eyes) a justification for their actions - and as mentioned in the video, it has done this MUCH MORE than the good it has propagated

Do you measure good and bad by tonnage or with a yard stick?

Quotethere is no debating the points made in this video, whether you are theist or atheist, the issue brought up is undeniable, and cannot be dismissed with a simple "oh well RD followers have the same sheep mentality as fundamentalist muslims do, so it's OK"

I didn't debate the points in the video.  I agree that many, many bad things have been done in the name of religion, but my point was that humanity would be a bunch o' dicks with or without religion.  If religion didn't exist, humanity would have found something else to justify thier stupidity.
Title:
Post by: tithin on July 22, 2009, 02:34:42 am
Voldemort you are quickly becoming the worst person because you keep banging on about religion and linking to terrible videos about the hypocrisy of religion. Quick piece of advice homey, we're all well aware.
Title:
Post by: boomkick on July 22, 2009, 02:59:56 am
Religion was created for three reasons IMOIMOIMO

1. To control the common people.

2. To create a ideal society.

3. To control the believers of said religion.

I say let anyone who believes religion does make their lives better keep it. I'm not saying it is wrong, but there are some "unreasonable" ideas in religion many of us couldn't solve with any logical/scientific reason.
Title:
Post by: Kaijyuu on July 22, 2009, 04:27:39 am
What's there to debate? That people manipulate religion for personal gain and/or other stupidity? That's been well known for centuries.

The video doesn't say much more. The main point (above) had one fallacy tacked on: the impossible to prove statistic (religion does more harm than good). Everything else on that topic was on sound logical footing.
 
The semantics, weak analogies and begging the question were all supporting his justification of his little crusade (see I did one myself).


Also, the pictures and music were distracting. I'm not sure the point of either.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 22, 2009, 04:46:54 am
Quote from: "tithin"Voldemort you are quickly becoming the worst person because you keep banging on about religion and linking to terrible videos about the hypocrisy of religion. Quick piece of advice homey, we're all well aware.

if you were well aware, you would be beating up xtians irl like me

but clearly you are not

so I will continue to post videos sorry bro
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 22, 2009, 04:52:00 am
Quote from: "Kuraudo Sutoraifu"I didn't debate the points in the video.  I agree that many, many bad things have been done in the name of religion, but my point was that humanity would be a bunch o' dicks with or without religion.

the vid specifically mentions "a world where unreasonable and un-defendable, bigoted positions simply fall to reason and well-being for society"

meaning; it would be alot harder to justify being a "dick" without religion around to cover your ass

this is true even if substitutes for religion were there or not... it's still a very big point against the presence of religion

you don't justify something negative just because other negatives *might* take it's place, you try to get rid of those negatives regardless

QuoteIf religion didn't exist, humanity would have found something else to justify thier stupidity.

this is a pretty big claim, and even if it was true, it still doesn't take away the fact that we'd be better off without the extra scapegoat for stupidity (religion). The fewer of them we have (scapegoats, reasons for stupid and/or evil fucks to hide behind) the better, see above
Title:
Post by: Xifanie on July 22, 2009, 12:08:40 pm
The Atheism revolt is part of the new era. There's no reason to just stand there and wait for things to happen. The more atheists revolts, the faster the new era will come.

Theism should be banned from the surface of earth.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 22, 2009, 12:25:50 pm
1. Create your own religion.
2. Spread some nonsense.
3.????
4. Profit.
Title:
Post by: Mental_Gear on July 22, 2009, 02:24:09 pm
I don't have a problem with someone having different beliefs to me - but I DO have a problem with bigotry as displayed by Zodiac's last post.
Title:
Post by: SilvasRuin on July 22, 2009, 03:06:59 pm
Quote from: "darthpaul"1. Create your own religion.
2. Spread some nonsense.
3.????
4. Profit.

And for proof that this works, look up the shenanigans of  L. Ron Hubbard.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 22, 2009, 03:09:12 pm
I don't have a problem with Zodiac's bigotry because theism will be gone in a century or two.

I don't think it will be banned either, just people will come to realize that creationism just sounds to hooky.

This is just a speculative theory mind you.

Also if there is a god then we were wrong who cares. I cannot believe in a benevolent god existing in the same realm as hell.
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 22, 2009, 04:13:45 pm
Quote from: "darthpaul"I don't think it will be banned either, just people will come to realize that creationism just sounds to hooky.
"Nothing asploded and made the universe" sounds just as hooky as "someone made nothing asplode and made the universe".

QuoteAlso if there is a St. Ajora then we were wrong who cares. I cannot believe in a benevolent St. Ajora existing in the same realm as hell.
Just what exactly is your perception of hell?  I'm always curious about what people think hell is.  I always think it's wierd when people think it's where the devil lives or something like that.  People have strange thoughts on heaven, too, like humans becoming angels when they die or stuff like that.

Quote from: "Arch"you don't justify something negative just because other negatives *might* take it's place
Have I tried to justify anything?  I don't think I have.  I'm pretty sure I've just said that humanity will do bad things, and it's not contingent upon the presence of religion.  In fact, I've agreed that people use religion to be dicks.  I am saying that humanity's malevolence is rooted in humanity, not religion.  And if you believe religion was created by man, then you should agree.  Because then religion is just a branch off of the ole' humanity tree.
Title:
Post by: Kagebunji on July 22, 2009, 04:23:03 pm
I screw shit like Jesus Christus, but I think Hell are cavern-like places with a lot of fire, while heaven... don' give a shit about that.
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 22, 2009, 04:29:59 pm
Quote from: "Zodiac"Theism should be banned from the surface of earth.

Why must you turn the theists into mole people?
Title:
Post by: Mental_Gear on July 22, 2009, 04:30:19 pm
Okay, bad grammar, can't even spell Jesus' last name, and trolling...ah, where do we begin?
Title:
Post by: LastingDawn on July 22, 2009, 04:30:33 pm
You are all only so much in referring to the Western World form of "religion", that you ignore the good of what religion has reaped on the other side. The three teachings of China, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, never have Once openly engaged in senseless war. They are not called "Religion" they are called "Teachings". It is not right, it is not wrong to the mind of the far east Asian, it simply Is. As long as faith does not contradict or seek to invade other's beliefs everything is fine with them. How China went from embracing these to abolishing them is a matter of much concern, but it is indeed the truth that the teachings of China are making their way back into the hearts and minds of their people.

Confucianism may not even be called a "religion" by today's standards as it has no gods. But there are rites, rites to serve and roles to play. That might be the main trouble people have with Confucianism, though within it's own pages of the "Analects", a number of Confucius's student come from every which background. Celebrated war generals, poor young men, he didn't discriminate in his following. Of course "role" to him meant mostly family and political role. Servant to Master, Son to Mother, etc, etc. The only times he does mention "gods" he tells his student that if he cannot serve man well enough, what right does he have to serve the gods?

Taoism has a pantheon, but this pantheon is not all that central to the Main Belief of the Taoist religion, which is the Tao Te Ching (The Tao and its Power), the Tao, according to Lao-Tzu, cannot be seen, cannot be felt, it can't even be properly spoken of, but it is everywhere. Most of the basis for Chinese Martial Arts comes from the schools of Zen which is a fine mix of Taoist and Buddhist thought. Tao is basically the flow of free roaming energy, as we are aware of it, it is the empty space which makes the space useful. It is impartial and cannot judge.  Though is isn't worshipped, it is merely respected. One thing that makes the Taoist Pantheon different from other "gods" is that it is merely a celebration of the person's life, as they had once lived. Let us take for instance Guan Gong, (Lord Guan, Guan Yu), in life he was a celebrated war general who fell in battle, but his life became so well known and his tribulations felt all throughout that it was his memory they decided to honor, forever and anon. Now don't misunderstand me, there are a few "mythological" character's in Taoism, mainly Fu Xi and Nu Wa, who are the basic sort of Adam and Eve, so to speak. The Yellow Emperor, who May have existed, as there are a lot of books attributed to him.

Then we have Buddhism, which admittedly I know little about, I can only say that it holds many similar aspects to Taoism, and has never fought a religious war in assertion that it's religion was right. The Mandate of Heaven, (popularized by Mencius's work) allowed the people of the Empire to judge the Empire to see if it was fit to rule. If not, they had the right to revolt and topple it. Such was the way of things. The ruling beliefs of China have only helped it's citizens, rather then stunt their growth as a people. It does not reject the advent of technology, nor does it proclaim holy war and blasphemy for what another people believe in. There is no "justification" to be done, though it has lead to a few revolts against corrupt governments (A Buddhist lead rebellion drove the mongol elites out of China in the 14th century) but nothing more then that. No grand crusades, or purgings to be done.
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 22, 2009, 04:30:47 pm
Where do you get this idea of hell being a fiery cave?
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 22, 2009, 04:32:31 pm
QuoteYou are all only so much in referring to the Western World form of "religion",

Welcome to the wide wonderful world that is angstheism.
Title:
Post by: Mental_Gear on July 22, 2009, 04:33:21 pm
As long as faith does not contradict or seek to invade other's beliefs everything is fine with them.

And fine by me. I'm not going to push my beliefs on anyone, all I ask in return is they show me the same damn respect, and if they don't, then I'm a better person than them, simple as.
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 22, 2009, 04:36:46 pm
^That^
Title:
Post by: Mental_Gear on July 22, 2009, 04:44:22 pm
Crap, doesn't use HTML. sorry about that.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 22, 2009, 04:51:50 pm
Quote from: "Kuraudo Sutoraifu"Where do you get this idea of hell being a fiery cave?


Yomi. The Japanese form of hell is a cave. Sometimes told as being fiery sometimes being told as utter darkness.
Title:
Post by: tithin on July 22, 2009, 05:02:45 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"
Quote from: "tithin"Voldemort you are quickly becoming the worst person because you keep banging on about religion and linking to terrible videos about the hypocrisy of religion. Quick piece of advice homey, we're all well aware.

if you were well aware, you would be beating up xtians irl like me

but clearly you are not

so I will continue to post videos sorry bro

Perhaps I have tolerance for idiocy and have learned to turn the other cheek?

Sry bro
Title:
Post by: Pickle Girl Fanboy on July 22, 2009, 05:09:19 pm
Wasn't Confucianism used to justify what was essentially slavery based on gender?
And if you look at Myanmar and Thailand, both majority Buddhist nations, you'll find a history of institutional oppression against Muslims and Animists.

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but I do know that people will use any excuse, destroy any good institution, hide behind everything they can to cling to power.

I think the problem is that people are perfectly balanced between good and evil.  If our natures were an inch to either pole, all the world's social ills would not exist today.

This may be irrelevant to this conversation, but here are Mark Twain's thoughts on religion, among other things, from what I think is called "The Mysterious Stranger."  Not sure on the title.
"In a little while you will be alone in shoreless space, to wander its limitless solitudes without friend or comrade forever--for you will remain a thought, the only existent thought, and by your nature inextinguishable, indestructible. But I, your poor servant, have revealed you to yourself and set you free. Dream other dreams, and better!

"Strange! that you should not have suspected years ago - centuries, ages, eons, ago! - for you have existed, companionless, through all the eternities.

Strange, indeed, that you should not have suspected that your universe and its contents were only dreams, visions, fiction! Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane - like all dreams: a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him! . . .

You perceive, now, that these things are all impossible except in a dream. You perceive that they are pure and puerile insanities, the silly creations of an imagination that is not conscious of its freaks - in a word, that they are a dream, and you the maker of it. The dream-marks are all present; you should have recognized them earlier.

It is true, that which I have revealed to you; there is no God, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, no heaven, no hell. It is all a dream - a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought - a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty eternities!"


Quote from: "Zodiac"The Atheism revolt is part of the new era. There's no reason to just stand there and wait for things to happen. The more atheists revolts, the faster the new era will come.

Theism should be banned from the surface of earth.

Wasn't there a South Park episode about this, where Cartman travels to the future to get a video game system and Mrs. Garrison seduces a man who eventually leads the Atheist revolution and topples Theism, only to find that people start killing one another over obscure dogma concerning Mrs. Garrison?
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 22, 2009, 05:33:11 pm
Cartman traveled into the future where two rival Athiests organizations war against each other over trivial reasons if I remember the episode correctly.
Title:
Post by: LastingDawn on July 22, 2009, 06:06:51 pm
Quote from: "death is the road to awe"Wasn't Confucianism used to justify what was essentially slavery based on gender?
And if you look at Myanmar and Thailand, both majority Buddhist nations, you'll find a history of institutional oppression against Muslims and Animists.

What you are referring to is a branch of Confucianism, one of Confucius's original students made a bunch of rules up proclaiming that Confucius had said it, another original student denied that he had ever said such things, one was to the role of women (especially the comment about one legendary Emperor lacking an advisor because she was a woman), and he was adamant about the "choose a friend as someone as good as yourself and do not make friends with those that are not as good" which contradicts several other things he said. To this the student also replies that the master had never said such a thing but "to learn lessons from those of ill repute, and teach those of good repute". Though admittedly that pupil was all but ignored, as it was the other fellow (I believe his name may have been Zhu Xi?) that went on to be the base of Neo-Confucianism. Keep in mind though that it had the balancing forces of Taoism and Buddhism in most cases, over the years there is a myriad of powerful women throughout Chinese history. There is also the case that though Confucius was a revolutionary, he was still but a man of his time. Though just as there were great Queens in the process of European history (who Aristotle decried women as being "mutant"), there have been great Empresses in Chinese history.

QuoteI'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but I do know that people will use any excuse, destroy any good institution, hide behind everything they can to cling to power.

I think the problem is that people are perfectly balanced between good and evil.  If our natures were an inch to either pole, all the world's social ills would not exist today.

This may be irrelevant to this conversation, but here are Mark Twain's thoughts on religion, among other things, from what I think is called "The Mysterious Stranger."  Not sure on the title.

Believing mankind to only search for ulterior motives is rather realistic, but is it so far out of the range of possibility to believe that these people actually want to help others? Taoism, is a great example of this, what was the point of preaching what was already, pretty accepted by that time, aside from putting it into a very stylish way Confucius nor Lao-Tzu had said anything new, it just wasn't recorded on anything as of that time.

Quote
"In a little while you will be alone in shoreless space, to wander its limitless solitudes without friend or comrade forever--for you will remain a thought, the only existent thought, and by your nature inextinguishable, indestructible. But I, your poor servant, have revealed you to yourself and set you free. Dream other dreams, and better!

"Strange! that you should not have suspected years ago - centuries, ages, eons, ago! - for you have existed, companionless, through all the eternities.

Strange, indeed, that you should not have suspected that your universe and its contents were only dreams, visions, fiction! Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane - like all dreams: a St. Ajora who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him! . . .

You perceive, now, that these things are all impossible except in a dream. You perceive that they are pure and puerile insanities, the silly creations of an imagination that is not conscious of its freaks - in a word, that they are a dream, and you the maker of it. The dream-marks are all present; you should have recognized them earlier.

It is true, that which I have revealed to you; there is no St. Ajora, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, no heaven, no hell. It is all a dream - a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought - a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty eternities!"

A nice poem, but only a poem. This of course is critical of only the Western view of Religion, with an All Powerful God, sitting at the top.
Title:
Post by: Kagebunji on July 22, 2009, 06:13:07 pm
I get idea of Hell being fiery caverns from my dreams( I know it's sick), once I have been in that place and devil was pursuing me, when he caught me... the dream ends. It may be funny, but that's why I believe Hell is fiery cavern (I might be spelling from time to time, sorry I'm learnin)
Title:
Post by: Mental_Gear on July 22, 2009, 06:14:40 pm
Can't you say 'deity' instead of 'St. Ajora'?
Title:
Post by: Dormin Jake on July 22, 2009, 06:54:11 pm
There is no St. Ajora but St. Ajora.  And Odin.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 22, 2009, 07:07:41 pm
I would like to throw an agnostic two cents into this conversation.

You can quote me if you like.

I don't know how the world was formed or exactly what forces bind it(god or physics). I don't need to know to live a generally happy life. I believe in scientific principles most of the time as an explanation. Then when I am emotionally distressed I look towards the baptist god (and sometimes Buddha and Izanagi) for guidance. What suits me at the time so long as I make it through it.

I don't even want to know the answer half the time. It might depress me fill me with rage or even make me lose the will to live on. As long as we have a little mystery in the world it is worth the adventure.

Also because life is semi fair when it ends you get the answer. If there is nothing after death then it does not matter you will not be aware of it just like before you where born. If any of the various religions ring true then you are judged and you shall be on your way.

I don't care either way because eternal sleep sounds lovely, and judgment won't be bad because I know that when I pass I will not have done anything worthy of punishment. Unless the true deity has a problem with living your life to the fullest. If so then I will take my punishment knowing that justice does not exist. That everything was for nothing, for I will be at peace with myself. Just knowing the answer in the end is enough to make the journey worthwhile.
Title:
Post by: Redux on July 22, 2009, 08:01:57 pm
Quote from: "Zodiac"The Atheism revolt is part of the new era. There's no reason to just stand there and wait for things to happen. The more atheists revolts, the faster the new era will come.

Theism should be banned from the surface of earth.
But, banning theism presents its own problems. Humans cannot use complete logic. We may have access to reason, but we are not masters of it. We never will be. For at its heart, reason is truth, and humanity will never be completely true to everything. We are a race of subjectives. Religion is one facet of ignorance, believe me i love bashing false masters of the infinite as much as the next guy, but religion is a symptom, not a condition or disease to cure.  The disease (as some would say, not I) is Humanity itself.

My point is people aren't perfect.  We cant percieve the whole realm of existance. as such we will never see complete reason or truth. Without that, we cant have true reason, it always gives way to hope and belief. Some atheists worship No-god, like xtians worship Jesus. Everyone has a altar we pray to, we see things to have more power than what something really posseses.

I can say for sure i am not a theist. But "God" help me if i am an atheist like that guy. He sees true reason witout religion, a blind belief based on nothnig but hope. He is right about religion causing problems, but think, without religion, LAw never would have began. Democracy wouldn't either. Just as Europe owed a lot to the cruel but just Romans, we owe ou concepts of free speech and will to philosophers whose ideas were based on the existance of a supreme being.

Finally, I believe in "god". small g. I believe that there was a genesis for this universe and that it indirectly caused existance by its perfection. In perfection, i don't mean a personal definition, i mean all things at once. God is not present for in being all things, it is the thesis and anti-thesis of all things, and cancels  out to nothing. I can argue the existance of this "god" define him as the source of all truth, neutral, not good or evil for those are human terms. But in the end i end up with a tiny leap of faith. I can't provide physical proof of "god", but i can argue for him. People cannot prove the non-existance of a "god-particle," genesis for this universe, but they can believe it. We are human. We are creatures of subjective hope and emotion. Therefor we have faith, whether we like it or not. I hope i didn't anger anyone. I odn't pick fights with religious people. I ask them questions, for the purpose of understanding, not blowing it in their faces. I respect their customs when talking to them. Hating someone for being religious is justm ore violence. Understanding and temperance can kill blind belief, not hate and "perfect" reason.
Title:
Post by: VincentCraven on July 22, 2009, 08:29:46 pm
I was going to post a serious response to this thread.

But then I noticed it was in the Spam section. 8)
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 22, 2009, 08:49:58 pm
.....Shit he's right this is spam.
Title:
Post by: Bastard Poetry on July 22, 2009, 09:17:35 pm
I don't have any imaginary friends.

Except for you guys.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 22, 2009, 09:23:02 pm
Quote from: "Bastard Poetry"I don't have any imaginary friends.

Except for you guys.

Well said Mega Ultra Chicken.
Title:
Post by: Kaijyuu on July 23, 2009, 12:40:57 am
I'm in agreement with DP, LD, and redux, if that's possible.
Title:
Post by: Xifanie on July 23, 2009, 01:22:04 am
hell is imaginationland

(http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/South_Park_DVD/south_park_imaginationland_show_image_.jpg)
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 06:39:03 am
Quote from: "Kuraudo Sutoraifu"Have I tried to justify anything?  I don't think I have.  I'm pretty sure I've just said that humanity will do bad things, and it's not contingent upon the presence of religion.  In fact, I've agreed that people use religion to be dicks.  I am saying that humanity's malevolence is rooted in humanity, not religion.  And if you believe religion was created by man, then you should agree.  Because then religion is just a branch off of the ole' humanity tree.

I know

but it sounds like when ideas such as the ones presented in this video are brought up, you dismiss them as "oh well there would be evil even if religion wasn't around, so what's your point?", that's all

 
QuoteI am saying that humanity's malevolence is rooted in humanity, not religion.

Right.

QuoteIn fact, I've agreed that people use religion to be dicks.

Hence, religion should be abolished, like everything else that allows evil people to be dicks and get away with it.

Religion has served as a security blanket for problematic individuals / their followers for far too long, much too effectively. You can argue that other things besides religion should also be abolished then, my answer will be that yes, we also need to get rid of those things.

But religion has to go, too.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 06:48:33 am
Quote from: "darthpaul"I would like to throw an agnostic two cents into this conversation.

You can quote me if you like.

I will, because this topic doesn't have to do with gnosticism / agnosticism

claiming you are agnostic doesn't say shit about what you believe (when it comes to god and religion, atleast)

you are either agnostic atheist (what I am), agnostic theist, gnostic atheist (what theists usually accuse atheists of being), and gnostic theist

I am sure most people here are agnostic theists or agnostic atheists

so yeah, if you wanna throw  the word agnostic around, that says nothing about your beliefs, you're missing the other part

gnostic / agnostic has to do with knowing

theism / atheism has to do with your BELIEF
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 23, 2009, 09:55:50 am
QuoteHence, religion should be abolished, like everything else that allows evil people to be dicks and get away with it.

Money, popularity, and weapons of all kinds including muscled people?

And while you're off ridding the world of Power, I'm going wrangle me a pig so I can soar, majestic and free, over the icy reaches of hell.
Title:
Post by: Redux on July 23, 2009, 11:34:01 am
Quote from: "philsov"
QuoteHence, religion should be abolished, like everything else that allows evil people to be dicks and get away with it.

Money, popularity, and weapons of all kinds including muscled people?

And while you're off ridding the world of Power, I'm going wrangle me a pig so I can soar, majestic and free, over the icy reaches of hell.
All things are subjective. All things can be exploited to allow evil or in this case, being a "dick". To remove that would remove humanity. Potential is what we are. We are not of reason, but of potential. I will be riding a hog as well philsov. As i square the circle.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 12:32:23 pm
Quote from: "philsov"
QuoteHence, religion should be abolished, like everything else that allows evil people to be dicks and get away with it.

Money, popularity, and weapons of all kinds including muscled people?

And while you're off ridding the world of Power, I'm going wrangle me a pig so I can soar, majestic and free, over the icy reaches of hell.

if you wanna go down that road of defining "being a dick" as the slightest negative attitue, then sure. when I meant "being dicks" I meant the things that people do and then claim it's ok in the name of religion

you KNOW the things I'm talking about, and no, muscled people has not been on the list of reasons for things like on-going war against a group of people, genocide, or 9/11


by your logic, you can go and define every single thing as abolish-able due to it's potential for harm, but you still haven't made religion seem any less wrong, and it remains as the reason for the things pointed out in that video
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 12:55:03 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"I will, because this topic doesn't have to do with gnosticism / agnosticism


Yes it does because the atheistic belief that there is no god is just as arrogant as the theist belief that there is one.

I would much rather have a world of atheists but that is because they are not as violent. They are a bit hypocritical in some ways but you can live around someone who believes in nothing far easier than one who devotes his life to an uncertainty.

Quoteyou are either agnostic atheist (what I am), agnostic theist, gnostic atheist (what theists usually accuse atheists of being), and gnostic theist

Sorry, for that clarification is in order. I am a hard agnostic with pragmatic beliefs.

I do not lean towards either side of atheism or theism because that would not be true to what I know. As far as the truth goes I know nothing, so I make no claims.




Also you seem to have missed the point of my post. Which was that this is not a problem worth fighting over. It will resolve itself as the ignorant masses kill each other off in the name of religion. I don't like the concept or the thought of being caught in the middle but it will happen. Multiple religions cannot coexist because religious people don't know how to cope with other people not excepting their beliefs.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 01:17:26 pm
Quote from: "darthpaul"
Quoteyou are either agnostic atheist (what I am), agnostic theist, gnostic atheist (what theists usually accuse atheists of being), and gnostic theist

Sorry, for that clarification is in order. I am a hard agnostic with pragmatic beliefs.

I do not lean towards either side of atheism or theism because that would not be true to what I know. As far as the truth goes I know nothing, so I make no claims.

you don't have to make claims to establish a belief

believe it or not, you ARE a theist or an atheist

there is one you believe over the other

being agnostic about this belief is another topic altogether, did you read my post?

QuoteYes it does because the atheistic belief that there is no god is just as arrogant as the theist belief that there is one.

except atheism isn't even a belief

especially not a belief that there is no deity

you have to look up the proper definition of atheist and see that atheists make no claims, they just LACK BELIEF in the theist claims

there is nothing arrogant about dis-believing something - and that's all atheism is

whether you are gnostic or agnostic about your atheist belief is another matter
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 01:27:14 pm
QuoteAtheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1]or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Title:
Post by: Kaijyuu on July 23, 2009, 01:30:22 pm
QuoteHence, religion should be abolished, like everything else that allows evil people to be dicks and get away with it.

Religion has served as a security blanket for problematic individuals / their followers for far too long, much too effectively. You can argue that other things besides religion should also be abolished then, my answer will be that yes, we also need to get rid of those things.

But religion has to go, too.
Define "get away with it." And what you mean by a security blanket.

Would a gun toting lunatic shooting up a church have "gotten away" with it if he did it in the name of religion? How about a suicide bomber?

QuoteMultiple religions cannot coexist because religious people don't know how to cope with other people not excepting their beliefs.
That's quite the claim. I do agree that there are some people like that, but I think them the minority. The problems arise when these people gain a position of power.



I'm agnostic with a religious bias. Define that as what you will. I know that no one can "know" one way or another concerning religion (or at least they cannot prove it). I believe, or rather hope that there's something supernatural out there. I've come to to terms with the possibility of there being nothing, however.
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 23, 2009, 02:05:32 pm
Quoteno, muscled people has not been on the list of reasons for things like on-going war against a group of people, genocide, or 9/11

group of people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib ... oner_abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in ... ted_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States)

genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)

9/11 (part of):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... _Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine)

All of which happened because... drumroll... the other side had more guns and muscle.  

Meanwhile, the following were done under the flag of SCIENCE!  Should we ban research as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron)
http://www.rbs2.com/humres.htm (http://www.rbs2.com/humres.htm)

~

Also double-replying:

QuoteMultiple religions cannot coexist because religious people don't know how to cope with other people not excepting their beliefs

Multiple political views cannot coexist because political people don't know how to cope with other people not accepting their political ideology.  (See: about every civil war and domestic revolution in history.)  

I suppose we should have no belief system whatsoever and no political system at all, including anarchy.  

*rides off on pig*

~

Meh, triple.

Quotebelieve it or not, you ARE a theist or an atheist

There's two main camps of atheism; hard and soft.  Hard atheism is the more militant and faith-based of the two, with a hard-line definition of "There is no deity."  Soft is easier to defend and requires little to no faith to maintain, usually something along the lines of "There is not enough evidence to prove existance of deity, and its impossible to prove a negative, so...."
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 02:36:22 pm
you can argue that people can do evil acts based on things besides religions, and there is no denying that

but does that mean that we should let religion slide?

you can name secular ideals which have been the reason for "evil" and "immoral acts" all day long, the points in this video are still valid, is what I'm saying

Quote]There's two main camps of atheism; hard and soft. Hard atheism is the more militant and faith-based of the two, with a hard-line definition of "There is no deity." Soft is easier to defend and requires little to no faith to maintain, usually something along the lines of "There is not enough evidence to prove existance of deity, and its impossible to prove a negative, so...."

I don't think I've ever heard about this

don't you mean "Agnostic Atheist" vs "Gnostic Atheist"?

as in "I don't believe in gods, but I don't claim to know / care for sure" vs "I don't believe in gods, and I KNOW they don't exist"?
Title:
Post by: Wareya on July 23, 2009, 02:46:00 pm
"other stuff besides religion causes evil, so why not abolish those too?" is what I'm told this argument's at.

Somethings that cause evil have no better alternative yet. Things that do are having the same controversy as religion. The main better AND ONLY alternative the theistic religion is atheism.
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 23, 2009, 03:56:22 pm
Quoteyou can argue that people can do evil acts based on things besides religions, and there is no denying that

but does that mean that we should let religion slide?

Certainly, because religion isn't the problem.  People are.  

When someone is sick you cure their disease, not simply alleviate their symptoms.  

I'm not advocating killing half the world's population, but there is a MASSIVE difference between holding a belief and making decisions which affects others based on held beliefs; and that is not the fault of either any specific religion or religion in general for that matter.  

QuoteI don't think I've ever heard about this

don't you mean "Agnostic Atheist" vs "Gnostic Atheist"?

Vernecular versus technical.  Same thing, I guess.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 04:02:18 pm
I agree that people are the problem, but if we did not have religion around, do you think people would just find another X excuse to justify their bigotry / hatred / stupidity, etc?
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 23, 2009, 04:29:59 pm
of course. Talking in broad, general terms religion provides a "higher power" to which an individual is given both guidance and power.  If we remove all "higher power" structures like political affiliation (theocrats v. democrats, e.g), nationalism, religion, socio-economic standings, etcetcetc; then the highest power becomes the self -- which grants supreme power (no deity to damn the man, no state to execute him) but also supreme responsibility.  It'd be the same bell curve for ethical/unethical (good/bad, whatever) actions, extremes and all, as our current state.



It's tweedledee to tweedledum.
Title:
Post by: Pickle Girl Fanboy on July 23, 2009, 04:39:41 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"Hence, religion should be abolished, like everything else that allows evil people to be dicks and get away with it.

Religion has served as a security blanket for problematic individuals / their followers for far too long, much too effectively. You can argue that other things besides religion should also be abolished then, my answer will be that yes, we also need to get rid of those things.

But religion has to go, too.

So the question is, how best to remove religion from the face of the earth, without allowing some other belief system to spring up in it's place.

A story:

A man, let's call him John, is fighting a war against theists.  He is an atheist.  He eventually defeats the atheists and chases them off the planet, owing as much to his enemy's brutal oppression of moderates as to his own tactical and strategic prowess.

The people of Earth, grateful to be free from the tyrannical theists, elect John into a position of power.

John's first order is to "continue the revolution".  John establishes a police force to patrol the world and root out spies and agents of the enemy...
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 04:43:01 pm
sounds like a plan to me

Philsov, what if we replaced religion with something like this?

cnp:

Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[2]

    * Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
    * Reason, evidence, scientific method - A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
    * Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
    * Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
    * This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
    * Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
    * Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.


trumps any religion I can think of, and leaves no room for misinterpretation, abuse, or use for self gain and/or power

which is more than I can say for the big three we have today
Title:
Post by: Pickle Girl Fanboy on July 23, 2009, 04:52:03 pm
Okay, but can I be the head of the Secret Police?
Title:
Post by: Redux on July 23, 2009, 05:01:55 pm
Quote from: "death is the road to awe"Okay, but can I be the head of the Secret Police?
I want head of the Ministry of Media.
Title:
Post by: Pickle Girl Fanboy on July 23, 2009, 05:03:07 pm
Quote from: "Redux"
Quote from: "death is the road to awe"Okay, but can I be the head of the Secret Police?
I want head of the Ministry of Media.

You mean the ministry of truth.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 05:12:19 pm
I see a problem with your plan.

Once we trump religious beliefs then science becomes the main belief and people center around it for their answers.

Then we get people who believe that certain theories are right so on and so forth. No we have factions. Factions start waring with each other because for some reason people believe that if you throw enough violence at the problem it goes away.

Now we have terrorist who fight to prove their beliefs are the supreme and correct ones. As the scientific method does not always yield an answer you like or an answer at all.

Now that all that has happened we have a world very similar to the way it is now with certain variable switching places. We also have a rising of people who believe that it can't be that complicated and start to make up deities to believe in as a symbol of hope. The as these neo theists start to rise in power they start to talk (very much like we are now) about overthrowing science and riding it from this world.

Guess where we are then and endless cluterfucking circle.



This of course is just a speculative theory.


I don't want to rid the world of anything except nonacceptance. That is the key here. You don't have to believe what everyone else does but at least except it.

This may of course be an impossible feat to accomplish, but in my opinion it is the best course of action.
Title:
Post by: Pickle Girl Fanboy on July 23, 2009, 05:15:31 pm
@darthpaul: You don't understand how hard it is to fulfill your
ideal. Even if your ideal is great, it's just a dream if you
can't fulfill it! So how can you fulfill it? You need power!
That's the politics of the world! I can see it clearly now!
You can't fulfill your dreams without power! You say I'm a dog
of the church! Go ahead!! I don't care! You can despise me,
but I'll be laughing at the end. You'll all submit to me!
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 23, 2009, 05:19:07 pm
if people embraced it, sure.  But what's to stop them when they reject it and start blowing shit up?
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 05:19:10 pm
Quote from: "death is the road to awe"@darthpaul: You don't understand how hard it is to fulfill your
ideal. Even if your ideal is great, it's just a dream if you
can't fulfill it! So how can you fulfill it? You need power!
That's the politics of the world! I can see it clearly now!
You can't fulfill your dreams without power! You say I'm a dog
of the church! Go ahead!! I don't care! You can despise me,
but I'll be laughing at the end. You'll all submit to me!

Nice use of quotes.

Again my ideal is also a speculative theory. Anything is possible within the scope of reason. With that said I'm gonna fly this boat to the moon somehow.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 05:19:15 pm
Quote from: "darthpaul"I see a problem with your plan.

Once we trump religious beliefs then science becomes the main belief and people center around it for their answers.

Then we get people who believe that certain theories are right so on and so forth. No we have factions. Factions start waring with each other because for some reason people believe that if you throw enough violence at the problem it goes away.

...

the problem is in your head, and that huge assumption leap you made with regards to how people would act in a secular humanist world

news flash: some people believe certain theories are right and wrong today

do you see the flat earth society blowing up buildings?

re-read this part of my post:

* Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
* Reason, evidence, scientific method - A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
* Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
* Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
* This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
* Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
* Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

read it carefully, and tell me how your bat-shit crazy conspiracy theory wars are going to surface from this

the most important principles there are truth and the need to test beliefs... an individual in a society based on these values would be hard pressed to deny facts and evidence... not when there is simply no religion or belief-based systems to speak of

sha shing



Quote from: "philsov"if people embraced it, sure.  But what's to stop them when they reject it and start blowing shit up?

what's to stop them? easy. the fact that it's not a religion

it's the lack of an illogical system based on beliefs and the lack of holy books with morality that is based on the ancient world (bible, others) when we didn't know anything and sought to explain all via superstitious myths



a world such as this would allow much fewer gaps for the true immoral, evil, stupid individuals to hide in like they have today with religion
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 05:23:36 pm
Quote from: "philsov"if people embraced it, sure.  But what's to stop them when they reject it and start blowing shit up?

We are at a dilemma here for sure. To keep people from deviating from even the finest of utopias you would have to control their very thoughts and desires. Much better to kill them all than to do that.

For an interesting look into how the thought of making a truly peaceful society would work read "Naked Empire" by Terry Goodkind.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 05:24:50 pm
Quote from: "darthpaul"
Quote from: "philsov"if people embraced it, sure.  But what's to stop them when they reject it and start blowing shit up?

We are at a dilemma here for sure. To keep people from deviating from even the finest of utopias you would have to control their very thoughts and desires. Much better to kill them all than to do that.

For an interesting look into how the thought of making a truly peaceful society would work read "Naked Empire" by Terry Goodkind.

you'll never have 100% of humanity 100% agreeing with what the majority decides is best for the planet

but shit man, can't we do better than the cluster fuck we have today?

because reality as it is today is a lot worse than what you described
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 05:26:07 pm
Quotethe problem is in your head, and that huge assumption leap you made with regards to how people would act in a secular humanist world


Quote from: "Me"This of course is just a speculative theory.

Of course the problem is in my head. It was my theory how would it not be in my head. I put voice to it as a thinking point nothing more.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 05:27:41 pm
Quote from: "darthpaul"
Quotethe problem is in your head, and that huge assumption leap you made with regards to how people would act in a secular humanist world


Quote from: "Me"This of course is just a speculative theory.

a lame one dude, totally unrealistic if you read what secular humanism actually is

your scenario would be more plausible in a world dominated by.. hm.. religion, being extremely divisive and judgemental

2x:

the most important principles there (in secular humanism) are truth and the need to test beliefs... an individual in a society based on these values would be hard pressed to deny facts and evidence... not when there is simply no religion or belief-based systems to speak of

it is completely anti - religious, and I just don't see how the symptoms of religion would surface from a world view as radically different as secular humanism, which is not divisive, judgmental at all, but rather seeks to improve everyone's situation and avoid errors based on false beliefs
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 05:30:57 pm
Quotea lame one dude, totally unrealistic if you read what secular humanism actually is

your scenario would be more plausible in a world dominated by.. hm.. religion

What would stop science from becoming a religion? Your stance means nothing when faced with the frailty of the human mind stripped of it's basic need for a higher power.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 05:32:48 pm
Quote from: "darthpaul"
Quotea lame one dude, totally unrealistic if you read what secular humanism actually is

your scenario would be more plausible in a world dominated by.. hm.. religion

What would stop science from becoming a religion? Your stance means nothing when faced with the frailty of the human mind stripped of it's basic need for a higher power.

the fact that it's not a religion and shares zero traits with any of them?

the human mind has a basic need for acceptance and a sense of belonging to a greater purpose, yes

and there is nothing wrong at all with our turning that greater purpose into the improvement of humanity, instead of telling people how they can and can't have sex, who they can marry, who the infidels are, who we have to kill in god's name, who we have to declare jihad on, whose religious beliefs are inferior to ours, and even who we have to enslave

seriously, how can you even argue against that? arguing for arguments sake again DP?

if you need to replace religion with something, do it with a world view where the ultimate goal is to help others, the planet, and improve your own chances of survival /offspring at the same time (secular humanism), instead of the BS you guys are trying to defend

the most dominant religions we have today are NOT based on the improvement and/or development of mankind, they teach us to chastise ourselves and limit our thoughts with false answers that may not be questioned, they are not humanist at all, remember original sin? where we are still supposed to be paying for something we aren't responsible for?

jesus christ guys, wake the fuck up, what zodiac said about atheist thought is true, and its happening for a reason
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 05:43:26 pm
Quotethe fact that it's not a religion and shares zero traits with any of them?

It is a way of explaning that which had no explanation. Religion in it's basic most fundamental state is that. People just take it too far.

QuoteSecular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[2]

I'll cover this before going on. I think it is very nice and should be implemented. I just think that the possibility for loopholes and corruption could destory it, which would be a shame.

Quoteand there is nothing wrong at all with our turning that greater purpose into the improvement of humanity, instead of telling people how they can and can't have sex, who they can marry, who the infidels are, who we have to kill in St. Ajora's name, and who we have to enslave

When did I say making people lives better was a bad thing? I'm all for it in fact I'm just pointing out possibilities for things to go wrong. If you plans work swell, but what if they are deviated by people working for personal gain?

I am not opposed to your plans just skeptical is all.

Quoteseriously, how can you even argue against that? arguing for arguments sake again DP?

You fail to see the difference between a structered debate being held for fun (because the chances of us being heard by anyone who truly matter right now is small) and an argument.

I am just having fun flexing the brain fibers and judging everyone stances based on the arguments they produce. Not "arguing for arguments sake". That would just be a waste of time. This way I understand you all better and have a better understanding of your beliefs. I also learn things from this. It is not about being right or wrong. Debates are about learning.
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 23, 2009, 05:44:44 pm
Save us, George Benard Shaw!

Unfortunately the earnest people get drawn off the track of evolution by the illusion of progress. Any Socialist can convince us easily that the difference between Man as he is and Man as he might become, without further evolution, under millennial conditions of nutrition, environment, and training, is enormous. He can shew that inequality and iniquitous distribution of wealth and allotment of labor have arisen through an unscientific economic system, and that Man, faulty as he is, no more intended to establish any such ordered disorder than a moth intends to be burnt when it flies into a candle flame. He can shew that the difference between the grace and strength of the acrobat and the bent back of the rheumatic field laborer is a difference produced by conditions, not by nature. He can shew that many of the most detestable human vices are not radical, but are mere reactions of our institutions on our very virtues. The Anarchist, the Fabian, the Salvationist, the Vegetarian, the doctor, the lawyer, the parson, the professor of ethics, the gymnast, the soldier, the sportsman, the inventor, the political program-maker, all have some prescription for bettering us; and almost all their remedies are physically possible and aimed at admitted evils. To them the limit of progress is, at worst, the completion of all the suggested reforms and the levelling up of all men to the point attained already by the most highly nourished and cultivated in mind and body.

  Here, then, as it seems to them, is an enormous field for the energy of the reformer. Here are many noble goals attainable by many of those paths up the Hill Difficulty along which great spirits love to aspire. Unhappily, the hill will never be climbed by Man as we know him. It need not be denied that if we all struggled bravely to the end of the reformers' paths we should improve the world prodigiously. But there is no more hope in that If than in the equally plausible assurance that if the sky falls we shall all catch larks. We are not going to tread those paths: we have not sufficient energy. We do not desire the end enough: indeed in more cases we do not effectively desire it at all. Ask any man would he like to be a better man; and he will say yes, most piously. Ask him would he like to have a million of money; and he will say yes, most sincerely. But the pious citizen who would like to be a better man goes on behaving just as he did before. And the tramp who would like the million does not take the trouble to earn ten shillings: multitudes of men and women, all eager to accept a legacy of a million, live and die without having ever possessed five pounds at one time, although beggars have died in rags on mattresses stuffed with gold which they accumulated because they desired it enough to nerve them to get it and keep it. The economists who discovered that demand created supply soon had to limit the proposition to "effective demand," which turned out, in the final analysis, to mean nothing more than supply itself; and this holds good in politics, morals, and all other departments as well: the actual supply is the measure of the effective demand; and the mere aspirations and professions produce nothing. No community has ever yet passed beyond the initial phases in which its pugnacity and fanaticism enabled it to found a nation, and its cupidity to establish and develop a commercial civilization. Even these stages have never been attained by public spirit, but always by intolerant wilfulness and brute force. Take the Reform Bill of 1832 as an example of a conflict between two sections of educated Englishmen concerning a political measure which was as obviously necessary and inevitable as any political measure has ever been or is ever likely to be. It was not passed until the gentlemen of Birmingham had made arrangements to cut the throats of the gentlemen of St. James's parish in due military form. It would not have been passed to this day if there had been no force behind it except the logic and public conscience of the Utilitarians. A despotic ruler with as much sense as Queen Elizabeth would have done better than the mob of grown-up Eton boys who governed us then by privilege, and who, since the introduction of practically Manhood Suffrage in 1884, now govern us at the request of proletarian Democracy.  

  At the present time we have, instead of the Utilitarians, the Fabian Society, with its peaceful, constitutional, moral, economical policy of Socialism, which needs nothing for its bloodless and benevolent realization except that the English people shall understand it and approve of it. But why are the Fabians well spoken of in circles where thirty years ago the word Socialist was understood as equivalent to cut-throat and incendiary? Not because the English have the smallest intention of studying or adopting the Fabian policy, but because they believe that the Fabians, by eliminating the element of intimidation from the Socialist agitation, have drawn the teeth of insurgent poverty and saved the existing order from the only method of attack it really fears. Of course, if the nation adopted the Fabian policy, it would be carried out by brute force exactly as our present property system is. It would become the law; and those who resisted it would be fined, sold up, knocked on the head by policemen, thrown into prison, and in the last resort "executed" just as they are when they break the present law. But as our proprietary class has no fear of that conversion taking place, whereas it does fear sporadic cut-throats and gunpowder plots, and strives with all its might to hide the fact that there is no moral difference whatever between the methods by which it enforces its proprietary rights and the method by which the dynamitard asserts his conception of natural human rights, the Fabian Society is patted on the back just as the Christian Social Union is, whilst the Socialist who says bluntly that a Social revolution can be made only as all other revolutions have been made, by the people who want it killing, coercing, and intimidating the people who dont want it, is denounced as a misleader of the people, and imprisoned with hard labor to shew him how much sincerity there is in the objection of his captors to physical force.    

  Are we then to repudiate Fabian methods, and return to those of the barricader, or adopt those of the dynamitard and the assassin? On the contrary, we are to recognize that both are fundamentally futile. It seems easy for the dynamitard to say "Have you not just admitted that nothing is ever conceded except to physical force? Did not Gladstone admit that the Irish Church was disestablished, not by the spirit of Liberalism, but by the explosion which wrecked Clerkenwell prison?" Well, we need not foolishly and timidly deny it. Let it be fully granted. Let us grant, further, that all this lies in the nature of things; that the most ardent Socialist, if he owns property, can by no means do otherwise than Conservative proprietors until property is forcibly abolished by the whole nation; nay, that ballots, and parliamentary divisions, in spite of their vain ceremony, of discussion, differ from battles only as the bloodless surrender of an outnumbered force in the field differs from Waterloo or Trafalgar. I make a present of all these admissions to the Fenian who collects money from thoughtless Irishmen in America to blow up Dublin Castle; to the detective who persuades foolish young workmen to order bombs from the nearest ironmonger and then delivers them up to penal servitude; to our military and naval commanders who believe, not in preaching, but in an ultimatum backed by plenty of lyddite; and, generally, to all whom it may concern. But of what use is it to substitute the way of the reckless and bloodyminded for the way of the cautious and humane? Is England any the better for the wreck of Clerkenwell prison, or Ireland for the disestablishment of the Irish Church? Is there the smallest reason to suppose that the nation which sheepishly let Charles and Laud and Strafford coerce it, gained anything because it afterwards, still more sheepishly, let a few strongminded Puritans, inflamed by the masterpieces of Jewish revolutionary literature, cut off the heads of the three? Suppose the Gunpowder plot had succeeded, and set a Fawkes dynasty permanently on the throne, would it have made any difference to the present state of the nation? The guillotine was used in France up to the limit of human endurance, both on Girondins and Jacobins. Fouquier Tinville followed Marie Antoinette to the scaffold; and Marie Antoinette might have asked the crowd, just as pointedly as Fouquier did, whether their bread would be any cheaper when her head was off. And what came of it all? The Imperial France of the Rougon Macquart family, and the Republican France of the Panama scandal and the Dreyfus case. Was the difference worth the guillotining of all those unlucky ladies and gentlemen, useless and mischievous as many of them were? Would any sane man guillotine a mouse to bring about such a result? Turn to Republican America. America has no Star Chamber, and no feudal barons. But it has Trusts; and it has millionaires whose factories, fenced in by live electric wires and defended by Pinkerton retainers with magazine rifles, would have made a Radical of Reginald Front de Boeuf. Would Washington or Franklin have lifted a finger in the cause of American Independence if they had foreseen its reality?  

  No: what Cæsar, Cromwell, Napoleon could not do with all the physical force and moral prestige of the State in their hands, cannot be done by enthusiastic criminals and lunatics. Even the Jews, who, from Moses to Marx and Lassalle, have inspired all the revolutions, have had to confess that, after all, the dog will return to his vomit and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire; and we may as well make up our minds that Man will return to his idols and his cupidities, in spite of "movements" and all revolutions, until his nature is changed. Until then, his early successes in building commercial civilizations (and such civilizations, Good Heavens!) are but preliminaries to the inevitable later stage, now threatening us, in which the passions which built the civilization become fatal instead of productive, just as the same qualities which make the lion king in the forest ensure his destruction when he enters a city. Nothing can save society then except the clear head and the wide purpose: war and competition, potent instruments of selection and evolution in one epoch, become ruinous instruments of degeneration in the next. In the breeding of animals and plants, varieties which have arisen by selection through many generations relapse precipitously into the wild type in a generation or two when selection ceases; and in the same way a civilization in which lusty pugnacity and greed have ceased to act as selective agents and have begun to obstruct and destroy, rushes downwards and backwards with a suddenness that enables an observer to see with consternation the upward steps of many centuries retraced in a single lifetime. This has often occurred even within the period covered by history; and in every instance the turning point has been reached long before the attainment, or even the general advocacy on paper, of the levelling-up of the mass to the highest point attainable by the best nourished and cultivated normal individuals.  

  We must therefore frankly give up the notion that Man as he exists is capable of net progress. There will always be an illusion of progress, because wherever we are conscious of an evil we remedy it, and therefore always seem to ourselves to be progressing, forgetting that most of the evils we see are the effects, finally become acute, of long-unnoticed retrogressions; that our compromising remedies seldom fully recover the lost ground; above all, that on the lines along which we are degenerating, good has become evil in our eyes, and is being undone in the name of progress precisely as evil is undone and replaced by good on the lines along which we are evolving. This is indeed the Illusion of Illusions; for it gives us infallible and appalling assurance that if our political ruin is to come, it will be effected by ardent reformers and supported by enthusiastic patriots as a series of necessary steps in our progress. Let the Reformer, the Progressive, the Meliorist then reconsider himself and his eternal ifs and ans which never become pots and pans. Whilst Man remains what he is, there can be no progress beyond the point already attained and fallen headlong from at every attempt at civilization; and since even that point is but a pinnacle to which a few people cling in giddy terror above an abyss of squalor, mere progress should no longer charm us.

Taken from the Revolutionist's Handbook.

http://www.bartleby.com/157/5.html (http://www.bartleby.com/157/5.html)
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 05:44:56 pm
Quotethe most dominant religions we have today are NOT based on the improvement and/or development of mankind, they teach us to chastise ourselves and limit our thoughts with false answers that may not be questioned, they are not humanist at all, remember original sin? where we are still supposed to be paying for something we aren't responsible for?

These are the religious traits I hate most. If there is a benevolent god then why would he want to hold us back?
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 05:46:19 pm
the possibility for loopholes and corruption is possible in anything you could come up with, I think

but at least it's better than what we have now, which is horrible (even through something as small as misinterpretation of holy texts) even before you get into corruption
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 06:07:32 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"the possibility for loopholes and corruption is possible in anything you could come up with, I think

but at least it's better than what we have now, which is horrible (even through something as small as misinterpretation of holy texts) even before you get into corruption

What we have now is a bunch of societies that prefer to act like children.

Loopholes already exist so why not go for a plan that makes people grow up.

You can't have an imaginary friend forever after all.
Title:
Post by: Pickle Girl Fanboy on July 23, 2009, 06:08:56 pm
Quote from: "philsov"Save us, George Benard Shaw!

Unfortunately the earnest people get drawn off the track of evolution by the illusion of progress. Any Socialist can convince us easily that the difference between Man as he is and Man as he might become, without further evolution, under millennial conditions of nutrition, environment, and training, is enormous. He can shew that inequality and iniquitous distribution of wealth and allotment of labor have arisen through an unscientific economic system, and that Man, faulty as he is, no more intended to establish any such ordered disorder than a moth intends to be burnt when it flies into a candle flame. He can shew that the difference between the grace and strength of the acrobat and the bent back of the rheumatic field laborer is a difference produced by conditions, not by nature. He can shew that many of the most detestable human vices are not radical, but are mere reactions of our institutions on our very virtues. The Anarchist, the Fabian, the Salvationist, the Vegetarian, the doctor, the lawyer, the parson, the professor of ethics, the gymnast, the soldier, the sportsman, the inventor, the political program-maker, all have some prescription for bettering us; and almost all their remedies are physically possible and aimed at admitted evils. To them the limit of progress is, at worst, the completion of all the suggested reforms and the levelling up of all men to the point attained already by the most highly nourished and cultivated in mind and body.

  Here, then, as it seems to them, is an enormous field for the energy of the reformer. Here are many noble goals attainable by many of those paths up the Hill Difficulty along which great spirits love to aspire. Unhappily, the hill will never be climbed by Man as we know him. It need not be denied that if we all struggled bravely to the end of the reformers' paths we should improve the world prodigiously. But there is no more hope in that If than in the equally plausible assurance that if the sky falls we shall all catch larks. We are not going to tread those paths: we have not sufficient energy. We do not desire the end enough: indeed in more cases we do not effectively desire it at all. Ask any man would he like to be a better man; and he will say yes, most piously. Ask him would he like to have a million of money; and he will say yes, most sincerely. But the pious citizen who would like to be a better man goes on behaving just as he did before. And the tramp who would like the million does not take the trouble to earn ten shillings: multitudes of men and women, all eager to accept a legacy of a million, live and die without having ever possessed five pounds at one time, although beggars have died in rags on mattresses stuffed with gold which they accumulated because they desired it enough to nerve them to get it and keep it. The economists who discovered that demand created supply soon had to limit the proposition to "effective demand," which turned out, in the final analysis, to mean nothing more than supply itself; and this holds good in politics, morals, and all other departments as well: the actual supply is the measure of the effective demand; and the mere aspirations and professions produce nothing. No community has ever yet passed beyond the initial phases in which its pugnacity and fanaticism enabled it to found a nation, and its cupidity to establish and develop a commercial civilization. Even these stages have never been attained by public spirit, but always by intolerant wilfulness and brute force. Take the Reform Bill of 1832 as an example of a conflict between two sections of educated Englishmen concerning a political measure which was as obviously necessary and inevitable as any political measure has ever been or is ever likely to be. It was not passed until the gentlemen of Birmingham had made arrangements to cut the throats of the gentlemen of St. James's parish in due military form. It would not have been passed to this day if there had been no force behind it except the logic and public conscience of the Utilitarians. A despotic ruler with as much sense as Queen Elizabeth would have done better than the mob of grown-up Eton boys who governed us then by privilege, and who, since the introduction of practically Manhood Suffrage in 1884, now govern us at the request of proletarian Democracy.  

  At the present time we have, instead of the Utilitarians, the Fabian Society, with its peaceful, constitutional, moral, economical policy of Socialism, which needs nothing for its bloodless and benevolent realization except that the English people shall understand it and approve of it. But why are the Fabians well spoken of in circles where thirty years ago the word Socialist was understood as equivalent to cut-throat and incendiary? Not because the English have the smallest intention of studying or adopting the Fabian policy, but because they believe that the Fabians, by eliminating the element of intimidation from the Socialist agitation, have drawn the teeth of insurgent poverty and saved the existing order from the only method of attack it really fears. Of course, if the nation adopted the Fabian policy, it would be carried out by brute force exactly as our present property system is. It would become the law; and those who resisted it would be fined, sold up, knocked on the head by policemen, thrown into prison, and in the last resort "executed" just as they are when they break the present law. But as our proprietary class has no fear of that conversion taking place, whereas it does fear sporadic cut-throats and gunpowder plots, and strives with all its might to hide the fact that there is no moral difference whatever between the methods by which it enforces its proprietary rights and the method by which the dynamitard asserts his conception of natural human rights, the Fabian Society is patted on the back just as the Christian Social Union is, whilst the Socialist who says bluntly that a Social revolution can be made only as all other revolutions have been made, by the people who want it killing, coercing, and intimidating the people who dont want it, is denounced as a misleader of the people, and imprisoned with hard labor to shew him how much sincerity there is in the objection of his captors to physical force.    

  Are we then to repudiate Fabian methods, and return to those of the barricader, or adopt those of the dynamitard and the assassin? On the contrary, we are to recognize that both are fundamentally futile. It seems easy for the dynamitard to say "Have you not just admitted that nothing is ever conceded except to physical force? Did not Gladstone admit that the Irish Church was disestablished, not by the spirit of Liberalism, but by the explosion which wrecked Clerkenwell prison?" Well, we need not foolishly and timidly deny it. Let it be fully granted. Let us grant, further, that all this lies in the nature of things; that the most ardent Socialist, if he owns property, can by no means do otherwise than Conservative proprietors until property is forcibly abolished by the whole nation; nay, that ballots, and parliamentary divisions, in spite of their vain ceremony, of discussion, differ from battles only as the bloodless surrender of an outnumbered force in the field differs from Waterloo or Trafalgar. I make a present of all these admissions to the Fenian who collects money from thoughtless Irishmen in America to blow up Dublin Castle; to the detective who persuades foolish young workmen to order bombs from the nearest ironmonger and then delivers them up to penal servitude; to our military and naval commanders who believe, not in preaching, but in an ultimatum backed by plenty of lyddite; and, generally, to all whom it may concern. But of what use is it to substitute the way of the reckless and bloodyminded for the way of the cautious and humane? Is England any the better for the wreck of Clerkenwell prison, or Ireland for the disestablishment of the Irish Church? Is there the smallest reason to suppose that the nation which sheepishly let Charles and Laud and Strafford coerce it, gained anything because it afterwards, still more sheepishly, let a few strongminded Puritans, inflamed by the masterpieces of Jewish revolutionary literature, cut off the heads of the three? Suppose the Gunpowder plot had succeeded, and set a Fawkes dynasty permanently on the throne, would it have made any difference to the present state of the nation? The guillotine was used in France up to the limit of human endurance, both on Girondins and Jacobins. Fouquier Tinville followed Marie Antoinette to the scaffold; and Marie Antoinette might have asked the crowd, just as pointedly as Fouquier did, whether their bread would be any cheaper when her head was off. And what came of it all? The Imperial France of the Rougon Macquart family, and the Republican France of the Panama scandal and the Dreyfus case. Was the difference worth the guillotining of all those unlucky ladies and gentlemen, useless and mischievous as many of them were? Would any sane man guillotine a mouse to bring about such a result? Turn to Republican America. America has no Star Chamber, and no feudal barons. But it has Trusts; and it has millionaires whose factories, fenced in by live electric wires and defended by Pinkerton retainers with magazine rifles, would have made a Radical of Reginald Front de Boeuf. Would Washington or Franklin have lifted a finger in the cause of American Independence if they had foreseen its reality?  

  No: what Cæsar, Cromwell, Napoleon could not do with all the physical force and moral prestige of the State in their hands, cannot be done by enthusiastic criminals and lunatics. Even the Jews, who, from Moses to Marx and Lassalle, have inspired all the revolutions, have had to confess that, after all, the dog will return to his vomit and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire; and we may as well make up our minds that Man will return to his idols and his cupidities, in spite of "movements" and all revolutions, until his nature is changed. Until then, his early successes in building commercial civilizations (and such civilizations, Good Heavens!) are but preliminaries to the inevitable later stage, now threatening us, in which the passions which built the civilization become fatal instead of productive, just as the same qualities which make the lion king in the forest ensure his destruction when he enters a city. Nothing can save society then except the clear head and the wide purpose: war and competition, potent instruments of selection and evolution in one epoch, become ruinous instruments of degeneration in the next. In the breeding of animals and plants, varieties which have arisen by selection through many generations relapse precipitously into the wild type in a generation or two when selection ceases; and in the same way a civilization in which lusty pugnacity and greed have ceased to act as selective agents and have begun to obstruct and destroy, rushes downwards and backwards with a suddenness that enables an observer to see with consternation the upward steps of many centuries retraced in a single lifetime. This has often occurred even within the period covered by history; and in every instance the turning point has been reached long before the attainment, or even the general advocacy on paper, of the levelling-up of the mass to the highest point attainable by the best nourished and cultivated normal individuals.  

  We must therefore frankly give up the notion that Man as he exists is capable of net progress. There will always be an illusion of progress, because wherever we are conscious of an evil we remedy it, and therefore always seem to ourselves to be progressing, forgetting that most of the evils we see are the effects, finally become acute, of long-unnoticed retrogressions; that our compromising remedies seldom fully recover the lost ground; above all, that on the lines along which we are degenerating, good has become evil in our eyes, and is being undone in the name of progress precisely as evil is undone and replaced by good on the lines along which we are evolving. This is indeed the Illusion of Illusions; for it gives us infallible and appalling assurance that if our political ruin is to come, it will be effected by ardent reformers and supported by enthusiastic patriots as a series of necessary steps in our progress. Let the Reformer, the Progressive, the Meliorist then reconsider himself and his eternal ifs and ans which never become pots and pans. Whilst Man remains what he is, there can be no progress beyond the point already attained and fallen headlong from at every attempt at civilization; and since even that point is but a pinnacle to which a few people cling in giddy terror above an abyss of squalor, mere progress should no longer charm us.

Taken from the Revolutionist's Handbook.

http://www.bartleby.com/157/5.html (http://www.bartleby.com/157/5.html)

Then how to change your nature, and the nature of others?

Actually, I don't care about fixing other people, unless they are bothering me.

@Arch:  Why do you even care about other people?  The astronomical amount of resources it would take to achieve your goal, and the chances of it succeeding does not make it a worthwhile goal/investment.  Why don't you just try to improve your life, and the lives of those you do care for (gf, family)?

Or even better, why not just enjoy your life while you still have it, and let the world continue on as it always has?
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 06:12:53 pm
QuoteWhy don't you just try to improve your life, and the lives of those you do care for (gf, family)?

oh yeah, that's totally what I do currently

Quote@Arch: Why do you even care about other people?

I really don't but I do believe there are better ways to feel better about ourselves than religion, and when I see problems in things as commonplace as this I post it in spam
Title:
Post by: Pickle Girl Fanboy on July 23, 2009, 06:27:35 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"
QuoteWhy don't you just try to improve your life, and the lives of those you do care for (gf, family)?

oh yeah, that's totally what I do currently
Sarcasm?

Quote from: "Voldemort"
Quote@Arch: Why do you even care about other people?

I really don't but I do believe there are better ways to feel better about ourselves than religion, and when I see problems in things as commonplace as this I post it in spam
Check.  It's fun to find something that makes me sit up and pay attention for once.  I appreciate it, and I hope you're not depressed that everyone is shitting on your passion.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 06:28:26 pm
not sarcasm, it's really what I like doing.. especially the gf

heheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheeheheheh

QuoteCheck. It's fun to find something that makes me sit up and pay attention for once. I appreciate it, and I hope you're not depressed that everyone is shitting on your passion.

it's cool
Title:
Post by: Pickle Girl Fanboy on July 23, 2009, 06:33:14 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"not sarcasm, it's really what I like doing.. especially the gf

heheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheeheheheh

QuoteCheck. It's fun to find something that makes me sit up and pay attention for once. I appreciate it, and I hope you're not depressed that everyone is shitting on your passion.

it's cool

When I merge with my inventions and my intelligence grows at the rate of technological advancement, you will be one of the few allowed into my terraformed martian orgy paradise.

Bring a friend.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 06:34:02 pm
This topic has bee very worth while. The opinions expressed within have been very enlightening.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 23, 2009, 06:53:10 pm
Quote from: "darthpaul"
Quote from: "Voldemort"the possibility for loopholes and corruption is possible in anything you could come up with, I think

but at least it's better than what we have now, which is horrible (even through something as small as misinterpretation of holy texts) even before you get into corruption

What we have now is a bunch of societies that prefer to act like children.

Loopholes already exist so why not go for a plan that makes people grow up.

You can't have an imaginary friend forever after all.

yeah

I just strongly believe we can do good without religion, humanity has many more things to aspire to

like lasers
Title:
Post by: Redux on July 23, 2009, 07:47:30 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"
Quote from: "darthpaul"
Quote from: "Voldemort"the possibility for loopholes and corruption is possible in anything you could come up with, I think

but at least it's better than what we have now, which is horrible (even through something as small as misinterpretation of holy texts) even before you get into corruption

What we have now is a bunch of societies that prefer to act like children.

Loopholes already exist so why not go for a plan that makes people grow up.

You can't have an imaginary friend forever after all.

yeah

I just strongly believe we can do good without religion, humanity has many more things to aspire to

like lasers
Or Superpowers.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 23, 2009, 08:28:37 pm
Quote from: "Redux"
Quote from: "Voldemort"
Quote from: "darthpaul"
Quote from: "Voldemort"the possibility for loopholes and corruption is possible in anything you could come up with, I think

but at least it's better than what we have now, which is horrible (even through something as small as misinterpretation of holy texts) even before you get into corruption

What we have now is a bunch of societies that prefer to act like children.

Loopholes already exist so why not go for a plan that makes people grow up.

You can't have an imaginary friend forever after all.

yeah

I just strongly believe we can do good without religion, humanity has many more things to aspire to

like lasers
Or Superpowers.

Or hookers with super powered lasers.
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 23, 2009, 09:09:34 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:

    * Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
    * Reason, evidence, scientific method - A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
    * Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
    * Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
    * This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
    * Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
    * Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

This would be an ideal society, and a wonderful one at that.  It sucks that no ideal society will ever work though because of man's lust for more.  Just because it'll never happen, however, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it as some people on the board mildly indicated.  We should constantly strive for this society.
Title:
Post by: Xifanie on July 24, 2009, 01:53:40 am
Science? A religion? LOL stop watching South Park

Science isn't a religion

Science isn't a belief

Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking?
Title:
Post by: SilvasRuin on July 24, 2009, 02:14:19 am
Science is study.  Theories though, are beliefs.  Beliefs that come from study, but still beliefs.
Title:
Post by: tithin on July 24, 2009, 05:46:58 am
Quote from: "death is the road to awe"
Quote from: "Voldemort"not sarcasm, it's really what I like doing.. especially the gf

heheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheeheheheh

QuoteCheck. It's fun to find something that makes me sit up and pay attention for once. I appreciate it, and I hope you're not depressed that everyone is shitting on your passion.

it's cool

When I merge with my inventions and my intelligence grows at the rate of technological advancement, you will be one of the few allowed into my terraformed martian orgy paradise.

Bring a friend.

That's me, right?
Title:
Post by: Pickle Girl Fanboy on July 27, 2009, 09:37:50 pm
Quote from: "tithin"
Quote from: "death is the road to awe"
Quote from: "Voldemort"not sarcasm, it's really what I like doing.. especially the gf

heheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheehehehehheheheheheheheheeheheheh

QuoteCheck. It's fun to find something that makes me sit up and pay attention for once. I appreciate it, and I hope you're not depressed that everyone is shitting on your passion.

it's cool

When I merge with my inventions and my intelligence grows at the rate of technological advancement, you will be one of the few allowed into my terraformed martian orgy paradise.

Bring a friend.

That's me, right?

Yes.  Who are you bringing?  Does she show her tits?  Are her tits bigger than my sexbot's tits?  Or my Rocky/Roy Batty's super-aryan sexual prowess?
Title:
Post by: Samuraiblackbelt on July 27, 2009, 10:16:57 pm
Quote from: "Zodiac"Science? A religion? LOL stop watching South Park

Science isn't a religion

Science isn't a belief

Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking?

if you don't believe in creation and you just think that everything just happened by chance then you believe in the big bang (or at least something similar)because you have no proof that everything just happened
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 27, 2009, 10:44:20 pm
QuoteScience isn't a belief

Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking?

Yes, it is.

Science, as a construct, is based on the unprovable (taken purely on FAITH) assumption that any event that occurred in the past will exactly occur again in the future if given the exact same parameters.

As soon as you "prove" this, the event becomes the past and you're back to square one.

Keep the faith brothers!  Hold strong against the heretics!
Title:
Post by: Xifanie on July 28, 2009, 01:04:53 am
that's fate, not science

baka~
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 28, 2009, 01:12:25 am
Scientists are today what holymen where back then.

Except holymen took everything on "devotion" and did not try to find a logical answer to their problems.


"Why haven't we flown into the heavens yet? Uhh well uhhh god keeps us firmly placed on the ground....yeah that's it.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 28, 2009, 04:56:36 am
Quote from: "philsov"
QuoteScience isn't a belief

Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking?

Yes, it is.

Science, as a construct, is based on the unprovable (taken purely on FAITH) assumption that any event that occurred in the past will exactly occur again in the future if given the exact same parameters.

As soon as you "prove" this, the event becomes the past and you're back to square one.

Keep the faith brothers!  Hold strong against the heretics!

so much for the endless spiral "true truth" argument, trying to equate science to religion? lmao

here goes

science is based on the evidence you are able to perceive with your senses - and in this case, this is the one and only common ground we all share as human beings, our senses, so it's automatically the only "facts" that you and I will ever be able to discuss as humans.

Trying to dismiss what is perceivable by our senses as "taken on faith just like religion" is a really shitty argument, because our senses ARE the only reality we can talk about.

religion is not perceivable, measurable, or observable by the senses or any of the instruments which we can use to expand our senses, much unlike science

seriously, I shouldn't even need to explain this

religious "faith" is not on the same level as scientific "faith", not as far as your senses (the closest thing you will ever have to the truth) are concerned

nice try tho

next?

QuoteScientists are today what holymen where back then.

this is probably one of the stupidest statements I have ever read on FFH

scientists and the technology made possible by their findings allow the lifestyle you and your society enjoy so much


even assuming that 100% of science is 100% wrong, it is still a much more positive force for humanity than "holymen back then" ever were, or ever could have been


if you really want to equate them; let's see how your life would look like with "the holymen back then", DP, see if you prefer it over the life you have now thanks to science

same shit right?

Darthpaul, let's see how your world would be like with holy men, instead of:

Mathematics, Anatomy, Biology, Biophysics, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Geology, Neurology, Radiology, Thermodynamics, Physics, Nuclear Physics, Medicine, Engineering, Computer Science, Climatology, and others
Title:
Post by: SentinalBlade on July 28, 2009, 05:33:42 am
If htis is about Darth Paul, Holymen back then would have burned him repudently, for no real basis, because they thought he had mental problems.

When T.V. was invented, when lightbulbs came around, churches everywhere focused on calling these things a sin. If you enjoy these things(that includes internet) you would have been massacred. The technology movement didnt make the church happy, and is one of the reasons they moved agains the Knights Templar and other religious groups.

Life back then? Me and you DarthPaul, would have been murdered by the holy men.

EDIT: I posted before i read the last page, and saw the words should not have been directly thrown at darth Paul. however, the text still stands, as it is fact. One of the FEW facts history books still have in them.

P.S. Have you guys seen China's history books? O.O they have so much info that the U.S. books dont! Like how we filled ballons up and sent them across the ocean with a poison to blow up on a certain countries face O.O
Title:
Post by: Mental_Gear on July 28, 2009, 08:08:59 am
*shrugs* I knew that. Thanks to the video for Metallica's 'All Nightmare Long'.
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 28, 2009, 10:55:32 am
Quotescience is based on the evidence you are able to perceive with your senses

But the conclusions drawn from that data and their use to predict future actions to be equivalent is not.  It's a vile assumption.  If I throw a ball at a 44 degree upward arc with a force of 35 newtons, its trajectory and landing point can be expected to be the same if I do it again (sans wind).  

QuoteEchoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a consequence of the necessity of using inductive logic.

Which I admit is better than some religious beliefs that are neither unprovable nor falsifiable, but faith in science is still required -- at least faith that the past can be used to predict the future.

QuoteTrying to dismiss what is perceivable by our senses as "taken on faith just like religion" is a really shitty argument, because our senses ARE the only reality we can talk about.

Data gathering through senses is just one part of the scientific method.  Hypothesis and conclusion generation are vastly different.  Or do you think we are all made up of earth, fire, wind, and water?  After are, we are all solid, flammable, breathe, and sweat.

Quotereligion is not perceivable, measurable, or observable by the senses or any of the instruments which we can use to expand our senses, much unlike science

One man curing leprosy, blindness, and other ills with the touch of his hand IS an observable action.  Similarly, seeing him DIE after cruxification (which is a horrible, horrible way to go, btw) and then just happening to see him a few days later roaming about perfectly fine is also observable.  So is water walking (defies current knowledge about water surface tension and such, as all the miracles defy otherwise standard operating protocol), food multiplication, alcohol transmutation, etcetcetc.  These were all perfectly observable.  

And going back to the "good" of secular humanism, the core of Christianity is to simply love.  Love god, love fellow man, turn the other cheek, and all that jazz.  And that's been an abysmal failure on the large scale -- and not a fault of Christianity, either.
Title:
Post by: Mental_Gear on July 28, 2009, 11:14:38 am
And going back to the "good" of secular humanism, the core of Christianity is to simply love. Love St. Ajora, love fellow man, turn the other cheek, and all that jazz. And that's been an abysmal failure on the large scale -- and not a fault of Christianity, either.

If it wasn't a bannable offense, I'd have this text pasted until it takes up a 2GB text document.
Title:
Post by: Xifanie on July 28, 2009, 11:23:58 am
lol

like every other theist religion, Christianity's core is

MANIPULATION

the rest is just to cover this up.
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 28, 2009, 11:31:19 am
*pets Zodiac*

pretty....
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 28, 2009, 11:53:45 am
Quote from: "Zodiac"lol
like every other theist religion, Christianity's core is
MANIPULATION
the rest is just to cover this up.

I think we can see your bias here.  I can see the manipulation aspect if you look at how people have used Christianity to manipulate people.  But in truth, there shouldn't be a "head" of any church to manipulate anyone, which is how Christianity was for the first three centuries until it was instituted as the state religion. Which was a stupid move, Constantine; state religions are just oppressive states you punk, it doesn't create believers.

Quote from: "dp"Scientists are today what holymen where back then.

I want to disagree with this statement, too, because scientists are today what scientists were back then.  I want to agree to it, too, becuase most scientists back in the day were the holymen of the day.

Oh, and I disagree about science being a religion, as well.  While science does take belief, it is no more a religion than history is.  It does take some faith to believe history books as well, but that doesn't make it a religion.
Title:
Post by: Kaijyuu on July 28, 2009, 12:25:20 pm
I'm also agreeing with the science = religion thing being bogus.

Yeah, it takes "faith" to think that you're not hallucinating reading my post. You're seeing it with your eyes, but there's always the chance you're not really.
Religion is entirely different. You can't see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, or smell it. No matter how you define reality, this doesn't change. It takes a belief in something that inherently cannot be known or even reasonably assumed.


QuoteBut in truth, there shouldn't be a "head" of any church to manipulate anyone, which is how Christianity was for the first three centuries until it was instituted as the state religion.
So often it seems people blame religion for all the problems associated with it.

Religion doesn't manipulate. It becomes manipulated. The people at the head of religions are to blame for stupidity such as the crusades.

I guess it's just easier to attack an organization than the person causing the problems within it.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 28, 2009, 12:41:54 pm
Quotethis is probably one of the stupidest statements I have ever read on FFH
 

You read to much into my post. I was not equating I was making a joke.

QuoteIf htis is about Darth Paul, Holymen back then would have burned him repudently, for no real basis, because they thought he had mental problems.

Actually they would have castrated, blinded, and crippled me. That is after tearing out my fingernails and toenails in an attempt to make me "repent".
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 28, 2009, 12:49:50 pm
Quote from: "Kaij"So often it seems people blame religion for all the problems associated with it.

Religion doesn't manipulate. It becomes manipulated. The people at the head of religions are to blame for stupidity such as the crusades.

I guess it's just easier to attack an organization than the person causing the problems within it.

Exactly, it'd be like saying having a police force is wrong because it produces corrupt police officers.  The problem isn't the police force; it's the individuals using thier power for thier own gain.  The same applies to government.  Is government inheritly bad?  If officials behave how thier supposed, then no.

Should we remove these institutions because of thier tendency to become corrupted?  No.
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 28, 2009, 01:12:10 pm
QuoteI'm also agreeing with the science = religion thing being bogus.

Yeah, it takes "faith" to think that you're not hallucinating reading my post. You're seeing it with your eyes, but there's always the chance you're not really.
Religion is entirely different. You can't see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, or smell it. No matter how you define reality, this doesn't change. It takes a belief in something that inherently cannot be known or even reasonably assumed.

Science is a lot more than simple observation.  Like I said, the miracles, assuming they occurred, were quite observable, quantifiable, and, yes, to a small extent repeatable.  

Faith that reality might not be real is nowhere near the point that I'm driving.  Reread my posts and try again.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 12:24:49 am
Quote from: "darthpaul"
Quotethis is probably one of the stupidest statements I have ever read on FFH
 

You read to much into my post. I was not equating I was making a joke.

either:

1) that was not a joke and you are just saying it is now to backpedal seeing as how you were proven horribly wrong

or

2) you have a very shitty sense of humor and actually posted that as  a joke

I'm gonna go with #1, because no one else is really joking on this thread to begin with, and I have never seen you joke in topics take a turn for serious discussion (not even spam topics)

so just admit it, you made a very stupid statement on FFH

it's ok

QuoteShould we remove these institutions because of thier tendency to become corrupted? No.


to everyone else saying "Religion is OK, the problem is us humans for misusing it"

guess what:

religion has some good to it, yes. it also has some very, very bad things that come attached with it (which we have established)

the problem is that the good things about religion can be done via completely secular and rational means, so there is no reason to keep it around for the harm it causes (the evil acts that are SPECIFICALLY done in the name of religion)

like the challenge says:

Try to think of a good act performed by a person in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been performed by a non-believer.

Now, try to think of an evil act carried out by a person (or group) solely in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been carried out by a non-believer.


QuoteOne man curing leprosy, blindness, and other ills with the touch of his hand IS an observable action. Similarly, seeing him DIE after cruxification (which is a horrible, horrible way to go, btw) and then just happening to see him a few days later roaming about perfectly fine is also observable. So is water walking (defies current knowledge about water surface tension and such, as all the miracles defy otherwise standard operating protocol), food multiplication, alcohol transmutation, etcetcetc. These were all perfectly observable.

you're joking, right?

QuoteReligion is entirely different. You can't see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, or smell it. No matter how you define reality, this doesn't change. It takes a belief in something that inherently cannot be known or even reasonably assumed.

well said
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 29, 2009, 01:12:06 am
Quotelike the challenge says:

Try to think of a good act performed by a person in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been performed by a non-believer.

Mother Teresa's calcutta missionaries.

QuoteNow, try to think of an evil act carried out by a person (or group) solely in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been carried out by a non-believer.

The holocaust!  oh wait.  Evil is STILL done without invoking the divine!  The same stuff will STILL go on, just under a different masked reason!

Quoteyou're joking, right?

Newp.  It's not some bizarre event like the christian creation where no one was around to observe anything and God clapping his hands to bring everything into existence.  

If someone starts doing some miracles in the middle of a crowd and you can expect some attention and observable results.

My point is that even if these events were indeed observed (meaning that they actually occurred), what conclusions can we draw from it?  Does this give credibility to his teachings, or is it just some lame appeal to authority logical jump?  Are the laws of physics wrong?  Give two people the same set of data and they can both fly off on completely different tangents with it -- and both can be quite correct, simply looking at the data.  Again, observation is only part of the scientific method, so saying something like "you can't smell religion" is really just attacking the strawman and missing the point entirely.  Whenever science becomes the top paradigm the same shit will still be happening, just under a different banner that'll somehow separate group A from B from C and make them all hate and kill one other.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 01:22:10 am
Quote from: "philsov"
Quotelike the challenge says:

Try to think of a good act performed by a person in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been performed by a non-believer.

Mother Teresa's calcutta missionaries.

QuoteNow, try to think of an evil act carried out by a person (or group) solely in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been carried out by a non-believer.

The holocaust!  oh wait.  Evil is STILL done without invoking the divine!  The same stuff will STILL go on, just under a different masked reason!

maybe if I post it in different wording you'll get it

Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.
The second challenge. Can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?

the point is not for you to come up with answers, it's to show that the good religion gives can (and in reality does) come from 100% secular means

wanting to get rid of religion when the good it provides can come from not-so-strings-attached systems is pretty fair iMO

and by strings attached, I mean 9/11 and other exceedingly negative outcomes that were done and justified in the name of religion

QuoteNewp. It's not some bizarre event like the christian creation where no one was around to observe anything and St. Ajora clapping his hands to bring everything into existence.

If someone starts doing some miracles in the middle of a crowd and you can expect some attention and observable results.

you're actually trying to say that miracles, if they happened, would account for perceptible evidence in the name of religion

I was wondering if you were joking before, but now there is no doubt in my mind


QuoteMy point is that even if these events were indeed observed (meaning that they actually occurred), what conclusions can we draw from it? Does this give credibility to his teachings, or is it just some lame appeal to authority logical jump? Are the laws of physics wrong? Give two people the same set of data and they can both fly off on completely different tangents with it -- and both can be quite correct, simply looking at the data. Again, observation is only part of the scientific method, so saying something like "you can't smell religion" is really just attacking the strawman and missing the point entirely. Whenever science becomes the top paradigm the same shit will still be happening, just under a different banner that'll somehow separate group A from B from C and make them all hate and kill one other.

there is no straw man here

the things scientific faith is based on are observable by us humans, through our senses

the things religious faith is based on are not

this was all in response to this statement by you:

QuoteScience, as a construct, is based on the unprovable (taken purely on FAITH) assumption that any event that occurred in the past will exactly occur again in the future if given the exact same parameters.


you cannot equate scientific knowledge with religion and somehow say they are both based on faith as if this somehow made religion any more valid - this is classic theist backpedal tactics. You can't really defend religion, so you try to attack science (or something juicy, like our perceptible reality) in hopes of making religion seem OK

I've seen it plenty times before don't worry

you are welcome to call science faith if you want, it's still superior, more correct, more relevant, and more important than religious faith will ever be, the evidence for this can be seen all around you, namely that computer you're on

Science isn't being brought into question here, religion is

So unless you want to try and argue that the theory of gravity is wrong and that it means that somehow god exists, let's stick to religion and leave the equating to scientific knowledge out of the picture.
Title:
Post by: Kaijyuu on July 29, 2009, 01:40:31 am
Quote from: "Voldemort"wanting to get rid of religion when the good it provides can come from not-so-strings-attached systems is pretty fair iMO

and by strings attached, I mean 9/11 and other exceedingly negative outcomes that were done and justified in the name of religion
The crux of your argument here seems to be that you think that more harm than good comes out of religion.

It's not that I find that hard to believe, I find it hard to prove. First, you'd have to quantify the "good" and the "bad", measure it throughout human history, and then weigh them against each other. Good luck.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 01:44:01 am
Quote from: "Kaijyuu"
Quote from: "Voldemort"wanting to get rid of religion when the good it provides can come from not-so-strings-attached systems is pretty fair iMO

and by strings attached, I mean 9/11 and other exceedingly negative outcomes that were done and justified in the name of religion
The crux of your argument here seems to be that you think that more harm than good comes out of religion.

no

the crux of my argument here is that the good that comes specifically from religion can come without it

and that the bad that comes specifically from religion cannot


QuoteIt's not that I find that hard to believe, I find it hard to prove. First, you'd have to quantify the "good" and the "bad", measure it throughout human history, and then weigh them against each other. Good luck.

I think it's a safe bet that in our modern world, the same if not more good can come from systems such as secular humanism rather than ancient religions conflicting with modern society - WITHOUT 9/11's

if you need quantified "proof" of this in order to believe it, you are part of the problem -_-
Title:
Post by: Kaijyuu on July 29, 2009, 01:51:18 am
Quoteno

the crux of my argument here is that the good that comes specifically from religion can come without it

and that the bad that comes specifically from religion cannot
Fair enough.

The "bad that comes from religion" can certainly come without it though. People have reasons other than their beliefs to be, say, racist or homophobic.


QuoteI think it's a safe bet that in our modern world, the same if not more good can come from systems such as secular humanism rather than ancient religions conflicting with modern society - WITHOUT 9/11's

if you need quantified "proof" of this in order to believe it, you are part of the problem -_-
I'll ignore that ridiculous statement at the bottom...


You're arguing in a circle here. Why do you think it's a safe bet? It cannot be argued that no good comes from religion, as that's been shown many times (Ghandi, Mother Teresa, ect). So, what tipped the scales for you?
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 01:52:20 am
Quote from: "Kaijyuu"
QuoteI think it's a safe bet that in our modern world, the same if not more good can come from systems such as secular humanism rather than ancient religions conflicting with modern society - WITHOUT 9/11's

if you need quantified "proof" of this in order to believe it, you are part of the problem -_-
I'll ignore that ridiculous statement at the bottom...


You're arguing in a circle here. Why do you think it's a safe bet? It cannot be argued that no good comes from religion, as that's been shown many times (Ghandi, Mother Teresa, ect). So, what tipped the scales for you?

seeing good coming without religion

and then seeing harm that comes specifically from religion

also, I don't think the statement at the bottom is that ridiculous - it's usually the people who are too hardheaded to accept that ancient religions are indeed a problem in the modern world that provide a cover for the ones that cause the problems to begin with

any reasonable person can see that a human being can function just fine without religion, if you don't, I would say that yes, you are part of the problem

people don't like being wrong, and they don't like to change, either - which is one of the reasons religion has been dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world (and it, as well as everyone else, even the non-religious have suffered a great deal because of it), the effects of that very visible today
Title:
Post by: Kaijyuu on July 29, 2009, 02:08:15 am
Quote from: "Voldemort"seeing good coming without religion

and then seeing harm that comes specifically from religion
I see good come with religion.

And harm come without.

What's your point? What you and I see is hardly representative, anyway.

Quotealso, I don't think the statement at the bottom is that ridiculous - it's usually the people who are too hardheaded to accept that ancient religions are indeed a problem in the modern world that provide a cover for the ones that cause the problems to begin with

any reasonable person can see that a human being can function just fine without religion, if you don't, I would say that yes, you are part of the problem
I never said that human beings cannot function without religion. Where did you get that?


And I don't "provide covers." I do not defend what people sometimes do in the name of religion. I don't defend 9/11, or the crusades, or the salem witch trials, or whatever else you can think of.

But everything is shades of grey. You say the good that comes from religion can come without. I agree. But, will it all? Would there of been a Ghandi without religion? A Martin Luther King Jr? Maybe. But what they fought against certainly would've still existed.

I can't say whether or not we'd be better off if religion was simply abolished. All you've said and presented so far doesn't show that you can, either.
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 29, 2009, 02:27:19 am
Let's play a mad lib here:

seeing good coming without _______

and then seeing harm that comes specifically from _______

Replace with these for example: religion, government, police, the internet, journalism, capitalism, socialism, industry.

Just because it can fit in the model, doesn't mean that it is wrong.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 02:28:45 am
Quote from: "Kaijyuu"I never said that human beings cannot function without religion. Where did you get that?


And I don't "provide covers." I do not defend what people sometimes do in the name of religion. I don't defend 9/11, or the crusades, or the salem witch trials, or whatever else you can think of.

I know you don't, I was just rambling

Quote from: "Kuraudo Sutoraifu"Let's play a mad lib here:

seeing good coming without _______

and then seeing harm that comes specifically from _______

Replace with these for example: religion, government, police, the internet, journalism, capitalism, socialism, industry.

Just because it can fit in the model, doesn't mean that it is wrong.

just because it can fit the model doesn't mean we will not be better off without it

like I said to philsov, don't try to make this about x system, religion is in question here, not government, the police, the internet, journalism, capitalism, socialism, or industry

trying to substitute something else for religion will not suddenly make the problem posed by religion go away or irrelevant
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 29, 2009, 02:38:33 am
I'm merely applying your logic to others systems in the world.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 02:43:05 am
Quote from: "Kuraudo Sutoraifu"I'm merely applying your logic to others systems in the world.

I know what you're trying to do, but other systems in the world have positives / negatives which although are influenced by the good / evil intentions of human beings, they are not based on superstitious beliefs in invisible men in the sky

or on the beliefs that there is a life after this one

or on the belief that your people are somehow chosen by god and everyone else is not

you know the drift

religion is a little different than most other systems
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 29, 2009, 03:02:08 am
But that is not what you were arguing.  You were arguing the that religion's bad outweighed it's good.  I'm trying to make the point that any system created by man will be flawed.  Meaning that your problem is with man, not religion.

The plausibility of religious beliefs being true is a different argument, worth talking about, but not the argument that you or the video brought up.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 03:04:01 am
Quote from: "Kuraudo Sutoraifu"But that is not what you were arguing.  You were arguing the that religion's bad outweighed it's good.  I'm trying to make the point that any system created by man will be flawed.  Meaning that your problem is with man, not religion.

any system created by man is indeed flawed

religion is just one I believe we could really, really do without

but I don't want to get rid of man

I want to get rid of religion so that men can improve themselves further


my problem is with religion, don't try to mince words
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 29, 2009, 03:53:56 am
Quote from: "Voldemort"so just admit it, you made a very stupid statement on FFH

Ask anyone I admit when I am wrong and when I make a mistake. I don't believe in pride in oneself, which is my salvation from becoming a self-centered prick.

That being said I still don't believe you took everything in I think you saw that sentence and thought "ah hah this idiot is on [i[my[/i] FFH!"

Look at the post again. Don't be shy. It won't bite.

QuoteScientists are today what holymen where back then.

Except holymen took everything on "devotion" and did not try to find a logical answer to their problems.


"Why haven't we flown into the heavens yet? Uhh well uhhh god keeps us firmly placed on the ground....yeah that's it.

Maybe the joke is too high brow for you. Or maybe it does suck, but do you honestly think I believe that a nuclear physicist could become the Pope?

You can't just discard what you don't want to see. For when you do that you are a chaos theorist. Someone who does nothing to better the human race and only causes problems. :D Have a nice day.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 04:03:29 am
QuoteScientists are today what holymen where back then.

Except holymen took everything on "devotion" and did not try to find a logical answer to their problems.

the differences between scientists and holymen do not end on one of them taking everything on "devotion" or one of them seeking logical answers

this isn't a joke

it's a stupid statement

most statements with "scientists" "are" "what" "holymen" "where" (which by the way is spelled were, not where) are usually stupid
Title:
Post by: Redux on July 29, 2009, 06:38:26 am
Voldemort, do you believe that scientific pursuit is not everything? That society must fraw a line at scientific research for the basis of morality? There are some in this world who think the only way for human thriving is through unethical and or all-out research, not matter the cost. That i cannot agree with. You are right on the idea that religion can be removed without to much of a negative impact. But a question if you would be so kind. Could you name a moral code back in ancient time that had nothing to do with religion or wasn't used in religious subtext?
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 29, 2009, 08:41:25 am
Quote from: "darthpaul"
Quote from: "Voldemort"so just admit it, you made a very stupid statement on FFH

Ask anyone I admit when I am wrong and when I make a mistake. I don't believe in pride in oneself, which is my salvation from becoming a self-centered prick.

That being said I still don't believe you took everything in I think you saw that sentence and thought "ah hah this idiot is on my FFH!"

Look at the post again. Don't be shy. It won't bite.

QuoteScientists are today what holymen where back then.

Except holymen took everything on "devotion" and did not try to find a logical answer to their problems.


"Why haven't we flown into the heavens yet? Uhh well uhhh St. Ajora keeps us firmly placed on the ground....yeah that's it.

Maybe the joke is too high brow for you. Or maybe it does suck, but do you honestly think I believe that a nuclear physicist could become the Pope?

You can't just discard what you don't want to see. For when you do that you are a chaos theorist. Someone who does nothing to better the human race and only causes problems. :D Have a nice day.

Not saying I don't agree with the post, but I don't even remember posting this.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 10:58:48 am
QuoteYou are right on the idea that religion can be removed without to much of a negative impact.
I support this

QuoteVoldemort, do you believe that scientific pursuit is not everything? That society must fraw a line at scientific research for the basis of morality? There are some in this world who think the only way for human thriving is through unethical and or all-out research, not matter the cost.
not this


QuoteCould you name a moral code back in ancient time that had nothing to do with religion or wasn't used in religious subtext?
Hammurabi's Code

and I don't see how that question says anything about what we are discussing here

religion can and should still be removed
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 29, 2009, 12:59:49 pm
Quotethe bad that comes specifically from religion cannot [come without it]

Can you name two or three bad events in the past 100 or so years that came specifically from religion?
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 29, 2009, 01:40:51 pm
Hammurabi claimed to be the medium the gods delivered thier law through.

And you're right, your problem is with religion.  But any critiria that you have brought up to condemn religion, condemns many other world systems.

Quote from: "Whomever"Except holymen took everything on "devotion" and did not try to find a logical answer to their problems.

Galileo Galilei - Roman Catholic Philosopher and Scientist
Isaac Newton - Unitarian Theologian and Scientist
Johannes Kepler - Lutheran Philospher and Scientist
Nicolaus Copernicus - Roman Catholic Cleric and Scientist
Claudius Ptolemais (Ptolemy) - Theologian of Greco-Roman Polytheism and Scientist

These men didn't take everything on devotion.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 02:26:27 pm
QuoteAnd you're right, your problem is with religion. But any critiria that you have brought up to condemn religion, condemns many other world systems.

you can adapt it to condemn other world systems, yes

my problem is still with religion

I sincerely believe we would improve as a species without it

I cannot say the same with things such as (for example) government, education, secular moral law, etc - that would be a different discussion and is unrelated to my opinions about religion


QuoteHammurabi claimed to be the medium the gods delivered thier law through.

I don't know why this question was asked, but regardless of what Hammurabi's code is, my problem is still with religion >_>

QuoteCould you name a moral code back in ancient time that had nothing to do with religion or wasn't used in religious subtext?

but Hammurabi's Code was as secular as I could recall when it comes to the ancient world. It's a good example of a moral code which isn't based on what your god thinks

(Examples)

    1. If any one ensnares another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

    2. If any one brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

    3. If any one brings an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if a capital offense is charged, be put to death.

    4. If a Builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.

    5. If a man give his child to a nurse and the child dies in her hands, but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurses another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.

    6. If any one steals the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.

    7. If a man takes a woman to wife, but has no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.

I would call that a secular moral code, regardless of what Hammurabi said
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 29, 2009, 02:49:40 pm
Not to embarrass others
Not to oppress the weak
Not to speak derogatorily of others
Not to take revenge
Not to bear a grudge
To repent and confess wrongdoings
Not to withhold food, clothing, and sexual relations from your wife
Not to have sexual relations with your mother  
Not to have sexual relations with your father's wife  
Not to have sexual relations with your sister
Not to have sexual relations with your father's wife's daughter  
Not to have sexual relations with your son's daughter  
Not to have sexual relations with your daughter  
Not to have sexual relations with your daughter's daughter  
Not to have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter
Not to have sexual relations with a woman and her son's daughter  
Not to have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter's daughter  
Not to have sexual relations with your father's sister  
Not to have sexual relations with your mother's sister  
Not to have sexual relations with your father's brother's wife  
Not to have sexual relations with your son's wife
Not to have sexual relations with your brother's wife  
Not to have sexual relations with your wife's sister
A man must not have sexual relations with an animal
A woman must not have sexual relations with an animal
Not to have sexual relations with someone else's wife
Not to break oaths or vows

I would call this a secular moral code, regardless of what Moses said.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 02:55:14 pm
yup, if you conveniently ignore the first, and probably most unique to christianity ones:

"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God...

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'



religion - still got a problem with it tho

needs to go bro, regardless of the Hammurabi's Code Question, religion is still a problem for modern day society, which is why I didn't want to answer his question, so you don't get the impressions that my views will change for even a second about this, Kuraudo

to be clear: Hammurabi's Code - it doesn't change anything


Quoteany system created by man is indeed flawed

religion is just one I believe we could really, really do without

but I don't want to get rid of man

I want to get rid of religion so that men can improve themselves further


my problem is with religion, don't try to mince words

QuoteI don't know why this question was asked, but regardless of what Hammurabi's code is, my problem is still with religion >_>

so you can relax on what is and isn't a secular moral code
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on July 29, 2009, 05:51:02 pm
If you're relaxing, then I'll relax.

And I understand that your views aren't going to change.  I don't mean to be inflammitory with any of my posts, I'm just trying to post counterpoints to your points.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 29, 2009, 05:54:33 pm
I understand

but your counterpoints aren't making excuses for the evil caused by religion, not defending religion, and not giving excuses as to why we shouldn't get rid of religion. it's almost as if you consider it to be immune to ideological scrutiny, when it is anything but

or they try to substitute religion in my argument for another, secular system



and the only thing that will do is keep forcing me clarify my stance over and over

religion is pretty damn difficult to defend nowadays, and there's a good reason for that too

uphill battle
Title:
Post by: Xifanie on July 30, 2009, 01:28:47 am
Religion isn't bad, only theism is. Ever saw a Buddhist doing stupid/evil stuff because of his religion? The only common belief Buddhists have is reincarnation AFAIK.

Religion holds values to live with.

Theism forces those values on the people.
Title:
Post by: Archael on July 30, 2009, 02:33:07 pm
now I'm going to beat the dead horse (((XTIAN RAGE{!!!}}

one of the doctors who was plotting bombing attacks in the UK was a qualified neurosurgeon

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... years.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3812810/Glasgow-car-bomber-Doctor-who-tried-to-blow-up-nightclub-and-airport-given-32-years.html)

so you're going to tell me the problem is education, government, the internet? and not religion?

you can be a very intelligent, well educated individual and still believe in 72 virgins and paradise after death, and act based upon this belief for horrible results

this mode of thought (religion) thrives in an shell of protection - the taboo that is criticizing people's religious beliefs, that is why it's still present in modern day society


haaa haa
Title:
Post by: philsov on July 30, 2009, 04:43:30 pm
Quoteso you're going to tell me the problem is education, government, the internet? and not religion?

If you actually read the article, most of it is the judge putting words into Abdulla's mouth.  Abdulla himself denied any religious backings for the attack, and said it was because his home country had been invaded.  I'd expect a religious extremist to be, you know, religious on the matter.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on July 30, 2009, 04:44:28 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"now I'm going to beat the dead horse (((XTIAN RAGE{!!!}}

one of the doctors who was plotting bombing attacks in the UK was a qualified neurosurgeon

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... years.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3812810/Glasgow-car-bomber-Doctor-who-tried-to-blow-up-nightclub-and-airport-given-32-years.html)

so you're going to tell me the problem is education, government, the internet? and not religion?

you can be a very intelligent, well educated individual and still believe in 72 virgins and paradise after death, and act based upon this belief for horrible results

this mode of thought (religion) thrives in an shell of protection - the taboo that is criticizing people's religious beliefs, that is why it's still present in modern day society


haaa haa

Most religions (not all) have a belief in non violence and their gods say not to kill other people for any reason. (Yet we still have executions...WTF?)

Anyway there are free radicals everywhere. The al Queda terrorists are one such group of radicals.

I'm not saying your wrong Voldemort, you not, but the #1 problem with any religion nay any social structure is leaving things up to interpretation.

Al Queda believes that we are infidels because of a prophecy in their religion (*I have a qualm about this I shall mention at the end.) says that the infedels will rise up from nowhere and cause global terror and unrest. They feel that we (the U.S.A to clarify) are those foretold and that we need to be purged.

This kind of interpretation happens everywhere from a local Sunday school all the way to the Supreme Court. People will take action for their beliefs thinking that their beliefs give them the right to so. It's all bullshit really.

*I mentioned a prophecy in the Quran. Well I have read Several translations and even an exact translation of this prophecy. I say this knowing that it is an interpretation in and of itself but here me out. It speaks of a group of people (not a country) that causes death and destruction reasons they believe to be just.
 
There has only been two groups of people in the last hundred years who perfectly fit the description.  

1) Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party (If they are the infidels than al Queda is about 50-60 yeras too late.)

2) Osama Bin Laden's al Queda themselves. (That one is a doozy I know but they fit the qualifications perfectly.)
Title:
Post by: Kaijyuu on August 01, 2009, 12:56:53 am
so what'd I miss in my couple day absence
Title:
Post by: Captain Obvious on August 07, 2009, 01:09:47 pm
Religion is the damnation of society.
Title:
Post by: Captain Obvious on August 07, 2009, 01:11:42 pm
Damn... Why can't I raise my posts like a fucking jerk?
Title:
Post by: Xifanie on August 07, 2009, 02:37:50 pm
Because you're only posting in spam. And if you continue like that you'll get  :ban:
Spam isn't the main focus of FFH dammit.
Title:
Post by: Mental_Gear on August 07, 2009, 04:25:59 pm
Also C.O., please learn to explain your argument.

As I'm sure you've heard many times in school: More effort required. Though I wouldn't expect much from somebody named after an uncyclopedia in-joke.
Title:
Post by: Quo on September 06, 2009, 07:12:37 am
I read ALL EIGHT PAGES and signed up just to reply to this post...

(And never once thought that maybe I could've posted as guest...? -.- It's 4AM, shut up...)

But hopefully (doubtfully) I have something that will support Arch's argument, but go a little smoother with the dissenters... (probably not...)

Removing religion from the world may not make the world a better place... but we DO know that religion BEING in the world HAS made it a hellish place in the past... A LOT...

So why not just get rid of it anyway and try something new? We know that what we have now doesn't work... let's try something else. If that doesn't work, we'll try something else again...

It's called striving for the ever-unreachable perfection. Not doing so would be sloth, which is one of the seven deadly sins... :(
Title:
Post by: Archael on September 06, 2009, 11:28:10 am
QuoteRemoving religion from the world may not make the world a better place... but we DO know that religion BEING in the world HAS made it a hellish place in the past... A LOT...

yeah but some people in this thread were actually arguing that because removing religion from the world *may not* significantly make it a better place (via other shitty systems replacing it), that it's OK for it to stay

... that's like saying we don't need to combat terrorism because some other, more extreme group *MIGHT* take it's place. sure let's leave them alone! after all, something WORSE could be there, right? yeah let's leave em alone. dumbest argument ever

they completely ignore the negative effects of a religious world as we see them today (clinging to the rope of "well how do you know something else wouldn't be worse, arch!?!?"), like I said here:


Quote from: "Voldemort"I understand

but your counterpoints aren't making excuses for the evil caused by religion, not defending religion, and not giving excuses as to why we shouldn't get rid of religion. it's almost as if you consider it to be immune to ideological scrutiny, when it is anything but

or they try to substitute religion in my argument for another, secular system



and the only thing that will do is keep forcing me clarify my stance over and over

religion is pretty damn difficult to defend nowadays, and there's a good reason for that too

Title:
Post by: boomkick on September 06, 2009, 11:33:32 am
What about Buddhism, that's not a "terrorist" religion is it?
Title:
Post by: Archael on September 06, 2009, 11:39:48 am
Quote from: "boomkick"What about Buddhism, that's not a "terrorist" religion is it?
no one is saying it is

seriously, sometimes your posts are  :gay: and besides the point
Title:
Post by: philsov on September 06, 2009, 12:51:07 pm
Quote... that's like saying we don't need to combat terrorism because some other, more extreme group *MIGHT* take it's place. sure let's leave them alone! after all, something WORSE could be there, right? yeah let's leave em alone. dumbest argument ever

Horrible analogy.  I'll ask this again because you missed it last time.

Can you name two or three bad events in the past 100 or so years that came specifically from religion?

I'll tell you right now 9/11 and the isreali/palestine conflict is about as religious as the american settlers vs. the cherokees.
Title:
Post by: Archael on September 06, 2009, 01:01:47 pm
Quote from: "philsov"
Quote... that's like saying we don't need to combat terrorism because some other, more extreme group *MIGHT* take it's place. sure let's leave them alone! after all, something WORSE could be there, right? yeah let's leave em alone. dumbest argument ever

Horrible analogy.  I'll ask this again because you missed it last time.

Can you name two or three bad events in the past 100 or so years that came specifically from religion?

I'll tell you right now 9/11 and the isreali/palestine conflict is about as religious as the american settlers vs. the cherokees.

The willingness of a group of people to completely ignore their survival instinct to fly planes into buildings because of their religious beliefs ISN'T religious?

9/11 is probably the only example I'd ever need to throw at you ( even if it's far from the only one in the last 100 years) and it is VERY religious
Title:
Post by: philsov on September 06, 2009, 01:08:22 pm
The willingness of a group of people to completely ignore their survival instinct to fly planes into buildings are trained soldiers.  WWII, ring a bell?

And what evidence do you have that they did it for religious reasons in the first place?  Remember the message that followed?  Get out of Israel.  It's bleed-over from the creation of Israel and forced removal of people from their homes from 60 years ago.  

Still wanting some examples.
Title:
Post by: Asmo X on September 06, 2009, 01:10:14 pm
Heaven's Gate mass suicide.
Title:
Post by: Archael on September 06, 2009, 01:12:08 pm
QuoteThe willingness of a group of people to completely ignore their survival instinct to fly planes into buildings are trained soldiers. WWII, ring a bell?

Trained soldiers with religious beliefs

QuoteAnd what evidence do you have that they did it for religious reasons in the first place? Remember the message that followed? Get out of Israel. It's bleed-over from the creation of Israel and forced removal of people from their homes from 60 years ago.

Because these people believe that everything that is not fundamentalist islam is an affront to their religion and their way of life, hence the "get out of israel"


QuoteStill wanting some examples.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... _state.php (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/shame_on_washington_state.php)

^    "The day his son died, Greg Swezey told sheriff's investigators he knew Zakk would die 10 or 15 minutes before the teenager passed away. His condition had gotten much worse about an hour and a half before Zakk died, he told the investigators, and he realized Zakk was exhibiting some of the symptoms of death he'd seen when older church members died.

    He did not consider calling an ambulance, he told them.

Who did he call instead? Elders of his church, who showed up to splash oil on the poor kid and pray."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/3 ... 09504.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/george-tiller-killed-abor_n_209504.html)

(http://blog.news-record.com/staff/culture/teachcotnroversy.jpg)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpy_Z4Au ... re=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpy_Z4Auj5g&feature=channel) (theists pushing for Creationism to replace evolution with Creation Science in Kansas Schools)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIJ2Rn7-e1I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIJ2Rn7-e1I)
Title:
Post by: philsov on September 06, 2009, 01:19:32 pm
There we go.  

Now, what are you suggesting we do to remove religion in all forms?
Title:
Post by: Archael on September 06, 2009, 01:28:47 pm
Quote from: "philsov"Now, what are you suggesting we do to remove religion in all forms?

through education (based on evidence and the sciences, not superstitions), replace it with something akin to this:

QuoteSecular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:

* Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
* Reason, evidence, scientific method - A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
* Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
* Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
* This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
* Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
* Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

^ a world view such as this gives us so much more to aspire to (the common 'purpose' that so many think they wouldn't have without religion) and not the divisive, punishing, and anti humanistic principles of the big 3

just watch the video in the OP again... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60gCWl9_TOs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60gCWl9_TOs)

what's wrong with a false belief?  :)
Title:
Post by: philsov on September 06, 2009, 02:50:38 pm
by itself absolutely nothing.

What matters are the actions taken.  

I agree with the video, just not your angstheism.
Title:
Post by: Archael on September 06, 2009, 02:53:31 pm
Quote from: "philsov"by itself absolutely nothing.

What matters are the actions taken.  

correct

QuoteI agree with the video, just not your angstheism.

why? all I have ever said in this topic is that religion and religious belief can be harmful to society (like the examples I presented above), and that we would be better off without it

that is also what the video says

if you agree with the video, you agree with me (I'm the one who posted the video in the OP, remember? the title of this topic says "THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY ALL ALONG!"), meaning, I'm 100% in agreement with the video

 don't worry, agreeing with me won't kill you
Title:
Post by: Piercewise on September 06, 2009, 03:56:19 pm
A question for Arch, if I may:

Quotethrough education (based on evidence and the sciences, not superstitions), replace it with something akin to this:

Could you be more specific? What means of education would you encourage, particularly on those who are slow to accept secular humanism?
Title:
Post by: Archael on September 06, 2009, 04:07:52 pm
formal education, like what we have in universities today, that emphasizes the points I quoted above. But I'm not an education major, I don't know how best you would go to educate masses of human beings, so you're really asking the wrong person here

I'm not saying people have to ACCEPT secular humanism, secular humanism was just an example of a world view that would be beneficial for all to embrace. I'm sure there's others world views with similar, secular goals
Text only | Text with Images