Religions : Legitimate vs otherwise

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

The goal isn't eradicating religion, as much as its moving to secularism with regards to politics. The eventual goal is nations to look more like Sweden and Denmark, not USA or Pakistan.

That has to occur gradually, and you talk about allies, well of course you can gain 'friends' in the movement from moderate religious people; but ultimately the battle is right now for awareness and trying to change the zeitgeist towards a real debate.

Right now in many parts of the world, atheism isn't even on the radar, and for those countries where they are; its helping those people who are in very religious families, communities, etc.. find some hope/support

Its consciousness raising and ultimately gaining the respect and becoming a force in world politics, debate, and having a seat at the table.

Hahaha, the zeitgeist. I personally find it complexing that much of the modern atheists rely upon Darwin to further their argument instead of arguing in terms of Hegal and the German Romantics. Way, way more substance and it actually brings up a debate with realistic grounds.

I don't even believe the zeitgeist exists. Moral progress, without the proper institutional guards, does not exist on a universal human level, my friend.

[photon]

Maybe, but they're so small that I can't think of any prominent atheist that's advocated using or taking over state institutions for their own agenda.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hahaha, the zeitgeist. I personally find it complexing that much of the modern atheists rely upon Darwin to further their argument instead of arguing in terms of Hegal and the German Romantics. Way, way more substance and it actually brings up a debate with realistic grounds.

Have you seen the modern media in the US? Civil, romantic debate? This ain't happening anytime soon in America, just yelling, calling each other names on TV

I would love a civil and respectful discourse with anyone and everyone. However in this age of partisan politics, red/blue states, god/godless people, etc.. Its very hard to get a seat at the table in the discussion, let alone the attitude against atheists in the US would put us just above muslim terrorists

I don't even believe the zeitgeist exists. Moral progress, without the proper institutional guards, does not exist on a universal human level, my friend.

That's your belief, many don't share it including me and your friend Hegel.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by peter12

I actually really like Hitchens and Harris and I get really frustrated when people talk about these three men (or four, if you count Dennett) as if they are part of a triumivirate of ultimate aweseom atheists. These guys are without a doubt incredibly diverse and share almost entirely different beliefs. Harris is an Eastern mystic, for crying out loud!

I categorize militant in liberal terms. That is, someone who is willing to use or take over the institutions of the state for their own use, without the needed democratic component. Now are religious people like that? Of course, probably more so, but you can't deny that this certain faction exists within the "atheist camp."

Ok I see your POV peter. A stretch maybe...but a good POV. Lets take this to the next logical step(s). A sect of Christians or other type of religion take over a government...we get a theocracy. Worst case Afghanistan style, best case...Catholicism? Atheists take over and we get more funding for science and a curriculum that doesnt include God(s)? The issue I have with your comment is hilited in blue....I just dont see an atheist group out there whos trying to take over any institution or state for their own use without the use of democracy.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hahaha, the zeitgeist...

I don't even believe the zeitgeist exists.

I think this is a really really foolhardy attitude to take.

Even if you don't believe in zeitgeists, you really shouldn't laugh at them. It just ticks them off. If you thought poltergeists were scary, just wait until you run into a ghost that can travel through time. WAAAYYY scarier than the ghost of a chicken.

And you just made them angry.

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by Thor

Certainly the religious don't try the friendly approach to atheism, and now that we are a vocal minority and they don't like it; they resort to calling us fundamentalists, militants, zealots, 'as bad as any religion,' etc

Well I'm religious and I haven't taken anything other then a reasonably friendly approach to you and your belief, so am I one of them? Am I traitor to religion then and not true to what I should be?

I haven't called you any of those names nor desired to. To me there is logic and there is faith and they can only be best described as water and oil but the trick to harmony for me is having faith in whats important to me spiritually and not neglect the logic of the physical world. If I was purely faith based I would walk out in the street in front of a car and say 'I'm going to be fine because God will protect me', that's negligence in the highest degree.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Ok I see your POV peter. A stretch maybe...but a good POV. Lets take this to the next logical step(s). A sect of Christians or other type of religion take over a government...we get a theocracy. Worst case Afghanistan style, best case...Catholicism? Atheists take over and we get more funding for science and a curriculum that doesnt include God(s)? The issue I have with your comment is hilited in blue....I just dont see an atheist group out there whos trying to take over any institution or state for their own use without the use of democracy.

Sure, sure. Agreed. Although, I think atheists have done it, just not the humanist strain of atheism that is currently dominant in the west.

EDIT: My point is that anyone with even the best of intentions is capable of causing great evil. I'm sure a catholic theocracy, which was absolutely brutal, was not what Christ or the early (early) Christian sects had in mind. Social solutions have to be kept within a framework of moderation.

[GGG]

I think that one of the most important parts of religion in modern society is that it keeps people in social groups outside of work. Throughout our youth we go to school and keep having these forced social interactions. I realize that this continues at work but at work you generally are down to a much smaller group that you interact with. As you age the number of people you interact with diminishes. We can talk all we want about our 100 facebook friends but in truth as we age we become increasingly isolated. Technology has made us less and less dependant on community and real social interactions. Religion is just one of many outlets that get people together and therefore true or not religion in a free society has a great benifit for those that choose it.

For those who continually see the negatives of religion remember that if it didn't exist people would find other methods of maintaining power. Communism worked very well as a religion free method of controlling the poor and other techniques would have evolved if religion hadn't proven so effective.

In my opinion it is not religion or a decline in the amount of religion that has led to an increase in our prosperity but it is actually the oppisite as scarcity has decreased the need for the poor to have hope aka religion has decrease as there are fewer poor. As well the rich can become rich and still provide a fair standard of living for the masses so they don't need to subjugate their populations.

Those are just some ramblings I thought of while reading through the thread.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by troutman

It has been pointed out many times in these threads that we don't need god to be good. Our morals come from the natural world, not the super-natural.

Again my ability to not cohesevily put thoughts together is my downfall. I'm sure your point and quote has been pointed out many, many times. I'd contend the natural world does have it's morals, but that taking those morals to the point of a functioning society has almost necessitated religion.

I could probably argue this better, but I won't because I'm kind of lazy. Sure, I'll agree that people do have some rules ingrained into them, ethics etc. But on a major scale, the worlds religions have used God(s) to get people to follow a certain set of rules, and the threat of eternal naked backwards running through cornfields is a good enough threat to get most people to follow them.

This is all coming from an Agnostic Anarchist. Trust me, I'd love it if we didn't need the giant imaginary friend you turn to when you die and were all able to govern ourselves. As I've said before in these kind of threads, I still feel that people inherently look out for #1, and these religions do tend to get people to look past that in a positive way.

Ok, my randomness is done. I'll edit this in a few hours when I realise a better way to make my terrible point.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think that one of the most important parts of religion in modern society is that it keeps people in social groups outside of work. Throughout our youth we go to school and keep having these forced social interactions. I realize that this continues at work but at work you generally are down to a much smaller group that you interact with. As you age the number of people you interact with diminishes. We can talk all we want about our 100 facebook friends but in truth as we age we become increasingly isolated. Technology has made us less and less dependant on community and real social interactions. Religion is just one of many outlets that get people together and therefore true or not religion in a free society has a great benifit for those that choose it.

For those who continually see the negatives of religion remember that if it didn't exist people would find other methods of maintaining power. Communism worked very well as a religion free method of controlling the poor and other techniques would have evolved if religion hadn't proven so effective.

In my opinion it is not religion or a decline in the amount of religion that has led to an increase in our prosperity but it is actually the oppisite as scarcity has decreased the need for the poor to have hope aka religion has decrease as there are fewer poor. As well the rich can become rich and still provide a fair standard of living for the masses so they don't need to subjugate their populations.

Those are just some ramblings I thought of while reading through the thread.

Some comments regarding your post...

First...religion or religious groups are not the only social groups that a person or family can join. I also do not believe that religion was created for the "social" aspect of the program. Im assuming that if the social aspect is what keeps people in religion they have joined it for the wrong reason(s). In saying that it would not surprise me to find a great number of people who are in it for this reason...people who do NOT lead a religious life outside of their weekly jaunt to the local church. What would we call these people? I think hypocrite is one example.
I also know in my case that my circle of friends does not shrink. I keep adding friends to my list. Close friends are another story, but religion or religious groups dont create anything more than a social circle anyways.

Regarding the communism comment. This point has been hashed about hundreds of times here. Theists would love everyone to believe that atheists are communist or socialist <hence evil> while Christians are devoutly capitalist? Sound funny to you in this vein? No longer are faith in Jesus and God sufficient; instead, one must also have faith in market capitalism and small government?
Communism is not, however, atheistic. It is possible to hold communist or socialist economic views while being a theist and it isn't at all uncommon to be an atheist while staunchly defending capitalism.
Perhaps it is Christianity which is communistic? After all, there is nothing in the gospels which even so much as suggests a divine preference for capitalism. On the contrary, quite a bit of what Jesus said directly supports many of the foundations of socialism and even communism. He specifically said that that people should give all they could to the poor and that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

As to the comment about the poor. The only places in the world where Christianity is growing is in poor or oppressed nations (The USA excepted). The free and educated world is increasingly moving away from religion to a secular stance.

[fredr123]

Profound question of the day:

[J pold]

^^^I was just going too post that! Awesome!