A good example of why the religious suck

[HPLovecraft]

If the religious suck, who sucks more in this case? The book burners, or the Muslims?

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Azure

Some people feel threatened by religion.

About equal to those religious people whose faith is so weak that they can't have a normal conversation with an atheist in fear that they might lose their belief.

In my experience, an atheist usually has no interest in having a religious conversation of any kind. Why would they? Their perspective on the world makes it unnecessary to have a conversation that attempts to tear down or disprove a belief system- they simply don't care. On the other hand, the jaded, mad at religion kind of atheist always want to have a heated religious conversation for some strange reason?? Atheists that try to convert others are always a head scratcher.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'll never understand the rampant anti-religious zealotry on this board.

Some people feel that religion negatively impacts the lives of those who are enchanted by it and some of the people that are affected second-hand.

[Pagal4321]

Sweet, I guess I am of the devil!!

Fear me?!

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

In my experience, an atheist usually has no interest in having a religious conversation of any kind. Why would they? Their perspective on the world makes it unnecessary to have a conversation that attempts to tear down or disprove a belief system- they simply don't care. On the other hand, the jaded, mad at religion kind of atheist always want to have a heated religious conversation for some strange reason?? Atheists that try to convert others are always a head scratcher.

This statement is a head scratcher.

Think for example in the US people often switch faiths during their lifetime, usually from one to another and not to atheism. Although the fastest growing segment in the US is non believers.

People convert and deconvert all the time; especially deconvert these days. So obviously a lot of that is due to the internet, information being widely available and debating it on the internet or with friends.

Often when you grow up surrounded by an idea, the time you reach university is the time you are finally exposed to many new ideas, this is a very common time for people to change religious beliefs, political ideology and core principles they held very dear.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'll never understand the rampant anti-religious zealotry on this board.

You do realize this thread was a direct response to the rampant anti-anti-religious zealotry on this board?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

In my experience, an atheist usually has no interest in having a religious conversation of any kind. Why would they? Their perspective on the world makes it unnecessary to have a conversation that attempts to tear down or disprove a belief system- they simply don't care...

As if the only reason to have a religious conversation is apologetic; atheists and theists discuss religion all the time in the context of a cultural phenomenon. Regardless of whether or not religion is legitimate, there is no denying that it is a fascinating and integral component of cultural anthropology, history and sociology.

I find it purely fascinating all on its own that "religion" still defies attempts to define and classify philosophically, and still remains one of the great mysteries of human evolution. What it is and where it came from remains a topic of acute interest among experts.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

You do realize this thread was a direct response to the rampant anti-anti-religious zealotry on this board?

Oh, of course, hence the thread title. But its become so commonplace now that this board has cultivated a very obvious anti-religious bias to it. There are posters that come on here for almost no other discernible purpose.

[SeeBass]

Line of the week: Daily Show

You know the constitution says you can build a catholic church near a playground but wouldn't it be disrespectful if you did?

[Cheese]

Cartoons...because so many hate them.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

lolz

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As if the only reason to have a religious conversation is apologetic; atheists and theists discuss religion all the time in the context of a cultural phenomenon. Regardless of whether or not religion is legitimate, there is no denying that it is a fascinating and integral component of cultural anthropology, history and sociology.

I find it purely fascinating all on its own that "religion" still defies attempts to define and classify philosophically, and still remains one of the great mysteries of human evolution. What it is and where it came from remains a topic of acute interest among experts.

My interest is in atheists that are equally as
fanatical with their lack of belief as a religious person is with their beliefs. I think we all know that a large number of atheists are former devouts that became offended and upset along the way.

I would consider myself an agnostic with a religious background. I have a lot of
sympathy for religious people that are frequently controlled and essentially abused by their spiritual leaders.... Particularly in the evangelical church.

[Vulcan]

I'm not a follower of any religion, I have my own practises but
I don't know why people get so upset about religion. It's like a kitchen knife, it's a tool that can, at it's best, be used for a better understanding of life and provide charity for those caught in disasters, etc. It gets spoiled when greed comes into the picture but that's the same as when business and government gets corrupted.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not a follower of any religion, I have my own practises but
I don't know why people get so upset about religion. It's like a kitchen knife, it's a tool that can, at it's best, be used for a better understanding of life and provide charity for those caught in disasters, etc. It gets spoiled when greed comes into the picture but that's the same as when business and government gets corrupted.

Some would argue that religions that put forward the concept of heaven are in fact devaluing this life in favour of an afterlife that may turn out to be a fantasy/myth. If I base my life on the belief that I am doing certain things to get into heaven there's a chance I may not make the most of THIS life and there's a chance that this life is the only life I have.

There are many passages in the Bible that suggest striving for great things is not what you should be doing. The meek shall inherit the earth, the last will be first, etc. The Bible at times legitimizes servitude. I think several things about the Bible encourage mediocrity and hamper ambition to do anything great on this earth.

Some would also argue that the Biblical model of humans being granted dominion over the beasts/land has in part led to a destructive and exploitive relationship with nature.

Some would also argue that the belief in the imminent return of Christ lessens any responsibility for leaving the Earth in good shape for future generations. If you believe Christ may return in your lifetime you aren't going to prioritize sustainability, leaving the Earth in good shape for your children, for their children, for 100 generations from now. Many Christians have thought they were living in the endtimes for the last thousand years. You can find a multitude of Christian literature on our current times being the "end times."

Cults are seen as more obviously insidious with their brain washing but some of the principles they use are not so different from the larger religions. And in fact various religions consider each other to be cults, I know many Christians consider Mormons and JW's to be in a cult.

These are but a few of the interesting arguments as to how religion is actually a destructive influence on life, on the environment, on people's lives. If people are interested in arguments like these I'm sure I can think up/research a few more.

I've certainly take a few classes on subjects like these including a class called "The Critique of Christianity" and one called "Humanities and the Natural World" in which causes for our destructive relationship with nature were explored. Good ol Liberal Arts education. In the Critique course our reading included Marx (including the paper his famous religion is the opiate of the masses is quoted from), Freud's Future of an Illusion, Nietzsche's Anti-Christ and Twilight of the Idols and Schopenhauer's Essence of Christianity. If anybody wants any further reading I'm sure you can those on the web in mediocre translations. I think a lot of their arguments are more sophisticated that the current militant atheists like Hitchens.

Turns out people have been arguing that religion can be a bad influence for the past 200 years. Perhaps more successfully in the 19th century than in the 20th for some strange reason.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

A few quotes from the above mentioned authors:

'Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.'
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

'Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.'
from Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy, p.23, Walter Kaufmann transl.

'The everyday Christian. -- If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him.'
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.116, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

'Christianity came into existence in order to lighten the heart; but now it has first to burden the heart so as afterwards to be able to lighten it. Consequently it shall perish.'
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, all too Human, page 119, R J Hollingdale, translator

More found at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/.../nietzsche.htm

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Some would argue that religions that put forward the concept of heaven are in fact devaluing this life in favour of an afterlife that may turn out to be a fantasy/myth. If I base my life on the belief that I am doing certain things to get into heaven there's a chance I may not make the most of THIS life and there's a chance that this life is the only life I have.

There are many passages in the Bible that suggest striving for great things is not what you should be doing. The meek shall inherit the earth, the last will be first, etc. The Bible at times legitimizes servitude. I think several things about the Bible encourage mediocrity and hamper ambition to do anything great on this earth.

Some would also argue that the Biblical model of humans being granted dominion over the beasts/land has in part led to a destructive and exploitive relationship with nature.

Some would also argue that the belief in the imminent return of Christ lessens any responsibility for leaving the Earth in good shape for future generations. If you believe Christ may return in your lifetime you aren't going to prioritize sustainability, leaving the Earth in good shape for your children, for their children, for 100 generations from now. Many Christians have thought they were living in the endtimes for the last thousand years. You can find a multitude of Christian literature on our current times being the "end times."

Cults are seen as more obviously insidious with their brain washing but some of the principles they use are not so different from the larger religions. And in fact various religions consider each other to be cults, I know many Christians consider Mormons and JW's to be in a cult.

These are but a few of the interesting arguments as to how religion is actually a destructive influence on life, on the environment, on people's lives. If people are interested in arguments like these I'm sure I can think up/research a few more.

I've certainly take a few classes on subjects like these including a class called "The Critique of Christianity" and one called "Humanities and the Natural World" in which causes for our destructive relationship with nature were explored. Good ol Liberal Arts education. In the Critique course our reading included Marx (including the paper his famous religion is the opiate of the masses is quoted from), Freud's Future of an Illusion, Nietzsche's Anti-Christ and Twilight of the Idols and Schopenhauer's Essence of Christianity. If anybody wants any further reading I'm sure you can those on the web in mediocre translations. I think a lot of their arguments are more sophisticated that the current militant atheists like Hitchens.

Turns out people have been arguing that religion can be a bad influence for the past 200 years. Perhaps more successfully in the 19th century than in the 20th for some strange reason.

I was raised an atheist long before it became popular, where 'religion is the opiate of the people' was an oft mentioned statement with a lot of communist philosophy thrown in, still it wasn't in an antagonistic way and we were encouraged to find our own ways. I'm not interested in exploring the vices of the various religions, I know they've been compromised by greed (promises of heaven after death, re-incarnation etc.) but their original basis and some of their aims can still viable. If someone becomes closer to their god or finds a certain peace, who am I to judge them.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not interested in exploring the vices of the various religions, I know they've been compromised by greed (promises of heaven after death, re-incarnation etc.) but their original basis and some of their aims can still viable. If someone becomes closer to their god or finds a certain peace, who am I to judge them.

How is heaven after death an example of being compromised by greed? It's a foundational belief in many religions.

Which of their original basis and aims are still viable?

If we can't judge beliefs that appear to be harmful to living life and to the continued existence of life on this planet, it would seem you are suggesting we cannot judge anything. Did you not read the negative psychological effects religion can have that I suggested? Did you not read how it may have affected our relationship with nature and world?

You didn't address any of my points directly at all. Saying "who am I to judge" seems like the ultimate cop-out. We all judge things all the time. Seems more like you don't want to judge something that is near and dear to some because you don't want to offend. But judging is certainly what humans do, and we do it every day.

If someone lives their life towards a specific goal and that goal is fantasy or illusory was that worth it for them? I'm talking about religion making people live their lives for the worse. If you don't think people living their lives for the better is a worthwhile goal then I dunno. If people are destroying the world because they don't think the world is going to last for another generation and your grandchildren have to live a worse world because of it shouldn't you have maybe done a bit less fence-sitting?

[Codes]

I consider myself to be an athiest. I was never brought up in a religious environment, and I have pursued a career in the biological sciences. I'm willing to admit that I'm no friend to religion, but I try my best to avoid any religious discussions, and have no problem with peoples' faiths so long as it doesn't impact me. I'm extremely comfortable with the prospect of my death being the ultimate end to my existence.

I do have a big problem with religious (and athiestic) zealots, however. I have no interest in trying to "convert" anyone, and my blood instantly boils as soon as someone attempts to "convert" me. The final straw was when one of my friends... good friends... told me she felt sorry for me because I was going to Hell. I was extremely offended when she insinuated that because I wasn't Christian, I had no morals.

What it boils down to is that radical extremism of any kind, whether religious, political, or even scientific never results in a positive outcome.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Some would argue that religions that put forward the concept of heaven are in fact devaluing this life in favour of an afterlife that may turn out to be a fantasy/myth. If I base my life on the belief that I am doing certain things to get into heaven there's a chance I may not make the most of THIS life and there's a chance that this life is the only life I have.

There are many passages in the Bible that suggest striving for great things is not what you should be doing. The meek shall inherit the earth, the last will be first, etc. The Bible at times legitimizes servitude. I think several things about the Bible encourage mediocrity and hamper ambition to do anything great on this earth.

Some would also argue that the Biblical model of humans being granted dominion over the beasts/land has in part led to a destructive and exploitive relationship with nature.

Some would also argue that the belief in the imminent return of Christ lessens any responsibility for leaving the Earth in good shape for future generations. If you believe Christ may return in your lifetime you aren't going to prioritize sustainability, leaving the Earth in good shape for your children, for their children, for 100 generations from now. Many Christians have thought they were living in the endtimes for the last thousand years. You can find a multitude of Christian literature on our current times being the "end times."

Cults are seen as more obviously insidious with their brain washing but some of the principles they use are not so different from the larger religions. And in fact various religions consider each other to be cults, I know many Christians consider Mormons and JW's to be in a cult.

These are but a few of the interesting arguments as to how religion is actually a destructive influence on life, on the environment, on people's lives. If people are interested in arguments like these I'm sure I can think up/research a few more.

I've certainly take a few classes on subjects like these including a class called "The Critique of Christianity" and one called "Humanities and the Natural World" in which causes for our destructive relationship with nature were explored. Good ol Liberal Arts education. In the Critique course our reading included Marx (including the paper his famous religion is the opiate of the masses is quoted from), Freud's Future of an Illusion, Nietzsche's Anti-Christ and Twilight of the Idols and Schopenhauer's Essence of Christianity. If anybody wants any further reading I'm sure you can those on the web in mediocre translations. I think a lot of their arguments are more sophisticated that the current militant atheists like Hitchens.

Turns out people have been arguing that religion can be a bad influence for the past 200 years. Perhaps more successfully in the 19th century than in the 20th for some strange reason.

That reads like a list of reasons (faulty as they are) as to why Christianity is a destructive influence, not religion. I won't go into depth and refute everything you said, largely because it's all been said before on here, both of us will argue until our fingers fall off, and nothing much will be settled.

What I will say, however, concerns the point you mention about the Bible (and what I assume you to truly mean -- religion) encouraging mediocrity and hampering ambition. This is straight-up bologna. You wouldn't be where you are today if it weren't for the exceptional abilities of religious men and women before you. Some of the greatest artistic expressions of our western heritage are existent because of religion. Do you believe Michaelangelo aspired to mediocrity? Leonardo (who also happened to be a groundbreaking scientist)? Are you familiar with the work of John Milton? Dante? Machiavelli? How about Gothic architecture?

How about science? The science of today stands on the shoulders of those giants in science of the past who tried to explain the world in natural terms; not to prove that God didn't exist, but to further add to His glory. And I quote:

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Thomas Aquinas, the great philosopher, certainly wasn't anything mediocre or lacking in ambition. Copernicus first presented his system of the planets circling the sun inside the Vatican, at the behest of the Pope! Bacon, Descartes, Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton:

Originally Posted by Isaac Newton

The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.

Even Albert damn-freaking Einstein was a religious man:

Originally Posted by Albert mothereffing Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

I won't even mention the contributions of those who followed the creeds of other religions and explored and created in the name of God or the gods. Homer, the literature-loving kings of the Mughal Empire, Ghandi, the fusion of art styles in Andalusia. . . . The entire groundwork of our Western Heritage, and the rest of the world, was laid out in the name of religion. Dismissing it as merely something that makes fellows aspire to mediocrity is not just plain wrong, it's ridiculous. Where we stand today is testament to the error of that statement.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

What I will say, however, concerns the point you mention about the Bible (and what I assume you to truly mean -- religion) encouraging mediocrity and hampering ambition. This is straight-up bologna. Some of the greatest artistic expressions of our western heritage are existent because of religion. Do you believe Michaelangelo aspired to mediocrity? Leonardo (who also happened to be a groundbreaking scientist)? Are you familiar with the work of John Milton? Dante? Machiavelli? How about Gothic architecture?

You can't remove them from their times. In most cases they were being commissioned to paint/create religious works of art. Guess why that might be? Churches had a lot of money and power in those days and most people were Christians in Europe. We don't know what they would have painted/designed had different patrons or institutions hired them instead. Should we credit Christianity for the great Muslim artists or Asian artists of the same period? I notice you don't trot out anybody not from the Western European heritage and tradition.

As well it can be suggested the Christianity was more widespread back then and being an atheist was less of an option, especially if you wanted to retain credibility, the appearance of sanity, respect, etc. It was institutionally empowered.

I would suggest that if they were great Christians they would not have been artists at all but would have been priests/monks instead. Some of the men you name might have considered themselves not to be very devout Christians, I don't know their histories in precise detail.

Crediting Christianity for their artistic talent is ridiculous. Credit the artists.

For the record I love gothic architecture.