Debate on Validity of Religion (split from "Christians" thread)

[xodlirv1]

Now, see what you did? With a calm, logical, unemotional answer, you've actually made me think about my statement. It's definitely true that there's some good and bad in almost everything.

 

[xodlirv1]

And, just to clarify my own position: I don't consider myself an atheist, but an agnostic. I'm undecided on the existence of a supreme being. However, I most emphatically do NOT believe in the organized religions.

 

[Mash]

I'm atheist in the sense that I lack a belief in a higher power. I don't pretend to know if there is or isn't one.

For me, this is the most logical choice. Asserting that there is not a God is no less dependent on faith than asserting that there is one. You've got no evidence to support the claim that a god doesn't exist, and an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Organized religion has always been a touchy subject for me. I've never really seen the point objectively, though considering how our species operates, I'm not entirely surprised at its existence. We have organizations for absolutely everything. The existence of this forum is proof enough of that. So the fact that we have organized religion doesn't particularly surprise me.

 

[xodlirv1]

I think a lot about organized religion appeals to weak-minded people. It combines the worst aspects of the mother figure (the safety and comfort of the womb) and the father figure (the authority of an omniscient leader), aspects most strong-minded people outgrow the need for by the age of six. Organized religion appeals to people who like to be led around by the nose, who prefer not to make their own decisions or take responsibility for their own lives.

 

[Mash]

I can see why you'd think of it like that, considering the existences of things like the Westboro Baptist Church, but for some, organized religion is viewed in the same way that we view things like... well, this forum.

It's a place to conform and discuss. They can take their own views and experiences there and share them with other people, and in turn get to hear the experiences of others.

Of course, like all things in life it's not all good, but I'd like to think that Churches serve a purpose of their own.

 

[Regal]

There are friends of mine that would be absolutely lost without religion. It's a character trait that I constantly raise an eyebrow at, but it's there nonetheless. They've developed a need for a personal relationship with their god, and taking that away would probably destroy them.

Then perhaps they deserve to be destroyed. Like xodlirv said, religion only appeals to the weak minded sheep of the world. Those who lack the ability to think for themselves. We even go so far as going against beneficial sciences like stem cell research or cloning because mouth breathing sycophants deem them as 'playing God'. With such a mentality will never advance very far. Science has given us more answers than religion ever has.

 

[Mash]

Your frightening inability to grasp the concept of religion, and woefully inept view of the world leave me stunned.

Well played, nonetheless.

 

[xodlirv1]

Like xodlirv said, religion only appeals to the weak minded sheep of the world.

Point of order: I never said it "only" appeals to the weak-minded. Only that there's a lot in organized religion that the weak-minded find appealing. That one short word changes the entire meaning of the statement.

 

[Mash]

Saying that Religion is only for the mindless fanatics is the literal equivalent of saying that Science is only for the most brilliant, hardcore scientific professors who never come out of their labs.

In short, it's simply wrong. To support this statement is to hold a black and white view of the world, which is nearly as narrow and pathetic as the people you're criticizing.

 

[Regal]

Your frightening inability to grasp the concept of religion, and woefully inept view of the world leave me stunned.

Well played, nonetheless.

The truth hurts.

 

[Regal]

Saying that Religion is only for the mindless fanatics is the literal equivalent of saying that Science is only for the most brilliant, hardcore scientific professors who never come out of their labs.

In short, it's simply wrong. To support this statement is to hold a black and white view of the world, which is nearly as narrow and pathetic as the people you're criticizing.

So much wrong with that.

 

[Mash]

So much wrong with that.

Well, if you're feeling brave, you can take a stab at identifying what's wrong with it. I know it'd be stepping way out of you comfort zone to add something substantial to your spewed mass of libel and conjecture, but I think you can do it.

 

[Regal]

You don't seem to understand how much of a hinderance religion is. It does nothing but hold us back. What has religion given us? The Crusades. What has science given us? The ability to split the atom.

 

[Mash]

I'm not saying that religion isn't a hindrance.

However, it has its place. Eventually mainstream religion will for the most part disappear. There will always be cults and groups of people that practice it privately, but I don't see it lasting more than a couple hundred more years as a global phenomenon. That being said, I don't see the need to kick it out the door. It'll walk out on its own as science answers the questions that we could previously only answer via religion.

Now, you want to know something that has hindered us as a race more than religion ever could, and isn't going to disappear in time?

Politics.

If you want to be pissy at something because of how much it's held us back as a society, be pissy at politics.

 

[OSUchamps]

You don't seem to understand how much of a hinderance religion is. It does nothing but hold us back. What has religion given us? The Crusades. What has science given us? The ability to split the atom.

Don't forget charity (religion) and eugenics (science). There are two sides to every coin, and both can be loaded guns in the hands of the nefarious.

Ignorance and prejudice is a human problem, not one linked specifically or exclusively to religion. My fellow atheists would do well to remember that--but, case in point, I suppose.

 

[Regal]

I'm no fan of politics but at least politics doesn't spawn fanatics and bigots the way religion does.

 

[Mash]

You're joking, right?

Politics spawns bigots and fanatics worse than religion does. It's based on the same principles of dogmatic belief, except that it's incorporated internationally, and has a shitload more money behind it than religion does. It's broadcasted on far more TV stations, it's infiltrated almost every news station, you hear it on the radio, and it's taught in schools.

You have a zealous hatred for religion for whatever reason. You have no sense of objectivity when you talk about it. It's the exact same thing I see in political discussion. It's no longer about logic, or reasoning. It's about a pure, irrational hatred for something for whatever reason.

 

[Regal]

Politics spawns bigots and fanatics worse than religion does.

Then please show me the political equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[Smoten]

Xephidel, you have convinced me that you are a mad-scientist atheist Sithlord. :cool

Mash16, I think you make very compelling points and arguments. You seem like the sort of person who might be interested in the life philosophy of Epictetus. He was a Greek stoic philosopher during the first century. He hasn't published any works of his own, but his pupil Arrian of Nicomedia transcribed and compiled his lectures into a manual entitled The Discourses of Epictetus. Arrian was a Roman historian, public servant, military commander and philosopher of the 2nd-century Roman period. There is a free book available on google books by Ulysses G. B. Pierce called The Creed of Epictetus which is based on the result of his thesis on The Discourses presented for his PhD in Philosophy. I find that he presents strong points on all sides to challenge one's way of thinking. It's only hundred pages and well worth the read.

 

[Mash]

Then please show me the political equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I'll do you one better. I'll give you the political equivalent of the Crusades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Nazism is a political ideology that was reinforced by political propaganda, and a very convincing political figurehead. It was the worst side of politics brought to life. There was no religion involved.

 

[RangerLoki]

Godwin's law.

 

[Mash]

Honestly, you can apply Godwin's law to any popular concept.

What I don't like about Godwin's law is the frequency in which it's used to attempt to divert, or invalidate any and all comparisons to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis despite the validity of the comparison in question.

 

[RangerLoki]

You can apply Nazism to any hot button issue and reduce it to a sound bite, but Godwin himself said it's also abused as a censorship for legitimate comparisons.
Both are uninspired and tired, honestly.

 

[Regal]

I'll do you one better. I'll give you the political equivalent of the Crusades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Nazism is a political ideology that was reinforced by political propaganda, and a very convincing political figurehead. It was the worst side of politics brought to life. There was no religion involved.

Nazis thought they were making a better world. Give them some credit.

Xephidel, you have convinced me that you are a mad-scientist atheist Sithlord. :cool

Crap... my secret is out.

 

[RangerLoki]

Nazis thought they were making a better world. Give them some credit.

Auschwitz. Best place in the world, way before Disney Land's time. Confetti, confetti.