07 Oct 07
1 edit
According to the Atheist Alliance in their recent conference in Virginia, religion must be destroyed.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200710/CUL20071003a.html
The conference was headed up by Richard Dawkins, author Sam Harris, and journalist Christopher Hitchens. Although most attendees were adamant that God was a myth, the convention brought into focus a divide among atheists as to their identity as a movement and the nature of the enemy they face.
Dawkins lead the camp of atheists who had a black and white view of religion in that it was inherently evil and comparible to racism. Harris on the other hand believed science would ultimatly destroy religion as did Dawkins, however, he also discussed spirituality and mysticism and called for a greater understanding of alleged spiritual phenomena. He also cautioned the audience against lumping all religons together by saying, "The refrain that all religions have their extremists is bull-t", Harris said. "All religions do not have their extremists. Some religions have never had their extremists." He went on to say that radical Islam was much more of a threat than any radical Christian sect in existence today and added that Christians had a right to be outraged when compared equally in the media to radical Islam.
So how about it atheists? Which camp do you fit under? Is it Dawkins or Harris or neither? Who is your enemy? How can athiesm save us? Will it save us? In a way, you could say we all have a gospel of sorts, no? We all have a better way to make the world a better place in our collective minds.
07 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySome religions should be eradicated. Anything whose negative effects are greater then it's positives should be avoided, that is clear.
According to the Atheist Alliance in their recent conference in Virginia, religion must be destroyed.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200710/CUL20071003a.html
The conference was headed up by Richard Dawkins, author Sam Harris, and journalist Christopher Hitchens. Although most attendees were adamant that God was a myth, the rts, no? We all have a better way to make the world a better place in our collective minds.
In my point of view ALL religions are ultimately useless, and obsolete. They will tend to disappear when there's a threshold of independent educated population that can objectively analyze what is happening. Trying to force present religious men to reality is wrong. They have it so imbued it's impossible even to an excellent shrink to cure.
The method to extinguish religion is through education. Religious guys can see this and are starting to try to avoid independent education. They start to create their parallel education, daring to use scientific language to wrongly justify their beliefs in a final hope to endure their points of view. They are extremely dangerous because they are using what has been achieved to their own sick purpose. Fortunately this only exists in fundamentalist countries, but it's a phenomena in the rise.
SO... about my point of view
Some religions (or interpretations people make of it) are dangerous and should simply be banned.
Some can be relatively usefull (teaching people moral and good behavior), but do so with the wrong arguments. We can have moral and conduct with a good education, because it's the logical thing to a community to do. That's a lot stronger then the fear of some selfish god that tells people what to do.
If religions are interpreted as Philosophies, and God is only an abstract entity symbolizing whatever people want, (kind of a buddhism) I'm ok with it. Else, it must disappear, not by forcing anyone, but by making religious men themselves comprehend our world and that they are wrong.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyInteresting post. Thank U. I tend to side with Dawkins. I don't care for Harris's call for "greater understanding...of spiritual phenomena." Regarding the differences about "all religion having their extremists," I would have to hear more of how they defined extremism before I could decide. I do think that Harris is right about radical islam being much more of a threat than...Christian groups; and sure they have "a right to be outraged when compared" but they don't! And perhaps why that is, is that they really don't 'believe' inspite of the high percentage who claim to believe in god.
According to the Atheist Alliance in their recent conference in Virginia, religion must be destroyed.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200710/CUL20071003a.html
The conference was headed up by Richard Dawkins, author Sam Harris, and journalist Christopher Hitchens....
Dawkins lead the camp of atheists who had a black and wh ...[text shortened]... rts, no? We all have a better way to make the world a better place in our collective minds.
As for being saved? My rejoinder is: SAVED FROM WHAT? What will save humanity from blowing itself up? Not religion. I opt for science and technology.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoSo will this "sick purpose" disappear once religion disappears? What is at the heart of this "sick purpose"? Is it religion in general or is it something deeper within man? Put another way, if religion was created by man for a "sick purpose", the question must be asked as to why? It seems to me that the hearts of men are the ones on trial here and not the religions per sey.
They start to create their parallel education, daring to use scientific language to wrongly justify their beliefs in a final hope to endure their points of view. They are extremely dangerous because they are using what has been achieved to their own sick purpose. Fortunately this only exists in fundamentalist countries, but it's a phenomena in the rise.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoSo who will be the "dangerous police"? Who should do the banning and why? You rightly point out that religion is at times a good guide in terms of "good behavior". You then say that logic is all that is needed rather than religious beleifs to uphold such good behavoir. Are you implying that religious belief is devoid of all logic? It seems to me that my Christian belief to do unto others as they would do to me is mixed with a great deal of logic as is the Ten Commandments. They are simply a code to help those within society to get along. I think your main beef is the notion of a God. What happens if there is a God and his ways at times seem "illogical"? I think what you are trying to say is that if it appears illogical to you then it can become dangerous. At that time the dangerous police need to be summoned. Is this correct?
SO... about my point of view
Some religions (or interpretations people make of it) are dangerous and should simply be banned.
Some can be relatively usefull (teaching people moral and good behavior), but do so with the wrong arguments. We can have moral and conduct with a good education, because it's the logical thing to a community to do. That's a lot stron ...[text shortened]... anyone, but by making religious men themselves comprehend our world and that they are wrong.[/b]
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by StregoneI hope you do see the irony here. You say that science and technology will save us, however, if it were not for these two we would not have the capacity to blow ourselves up now would we?
[As for being saved? My rejoinder is: SAVED FROM WHAT? What will save humanity from blowing itself up? Not religion. I opt for science and technology.[/b]
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyIndeed.
I hope you do see the irony here. You say that science and technology will save us, however, if it were not for these two we would not have the capacity to blow ourselves up now would we?
Without science you wouldn't be unable to spread your Word much further than your cave!
It strikes me that in recent history it is the Religious groups (be it devout Christians such as Bush/Blair, the Israeli army or Islamic extremists) that have harnessed the capacity to blow each other up using science & technology.
I agree, there is plenty of irony in this forum...
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyOf course they were. Was it not for the fear of religion and people wouldn't behave. Even with religion there was so much chaos...
So are you implying that they were at one time useful and timely or was this never the case?
Even now religion is useful to control the masses of unintelligent people. It's purpose is unite and lead the sheeps to some common goal. Some can perfectly see this. Look at them getting rich.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyReligion wasn't created for a sick purpose. The intentions were great. To provide an answer to a lot of stuff. To provide a moral code of conduct. To unite people under the same flag.
So will this "sick purpose" disappear once religion disappears? What is at the heart of this "sick purpose"? Is it religion in general or is it something deeper within man? Put another way, if religion was created by man for a "sick purpose", the question must be asked as to why? It seems to me that the hearts of men are the ones on trial here and not the religions per sey.
When some saw the power of religion , they started to get advantage of it. Now, it's sick.
I'm not saying religion is the source of all bad things. Not even close. Even without religion, bad people will try to get advantage, and new sick purposes will appear. It's part of human nature. Religion was born as part of human nature.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyWhile I don't like Dawkins as a character, he's a little over the top for me, I would agree that we would be much better off utterly without religion than we are with it. Certainly in public life at least. While religion can offer good tips on morality as a society, I find these to be so firmly held that they cannot adapt effectively to changing circumstances and some really weird stuff starts getting labelled as immoral, like baring your face, or wearing a condom. Consequently, while much of religious morality is logical, it is not exclusively logical, and thus we find that the majority of religious people tend to temper the more hardline morality of their religion with their own logical insight (for instance many jews do in fact eat pork, because now the chances of catching diseases from it are reduced, which is apparently cited as the reason for Kosher in the first place, a public health policy of sorts).
According to the Atheist Alliance in their recent conference in Virginia, religion must be destroyed.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200710/CUL20071003a.html
The conference was headed up by Richard Dawkins, author Sam Harris, and journalist Christopher Hitchens. Although most attendees were adamant that God was a myth, the ...[text shortened]... rts, no? We all have a better way to make the world a better place in our collective minds.
My point is that we should take out the middle man and simply use logic and reflection, exclusively, to determine our morality. In this way, we can still adopt all of the positives religion has to offer int he form of morality but avoid the quite damaging (and often violently defended) weirder morals that religions tend to accrue.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyScience and technology aren't good or bad in themselves, they are tools that can be used and developed for good or bad purposes. (You could say the same of religion.) In the end we are the only ones who can save ourselves from killing each other off or from destroying Earth to the point that we can't live there anymore, but I don't believe we could do it without science and technology. Not that I am very optimistic that we can do it with them.
I hope you do see the irony here. You say that science and technology will save us, however, if it were not for these two we would not have the capacity to blow ourselves up now would we?
So, was that the kind of saving you were talking about? And how does Christianity deal with this issue?
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyReligion was good moral code 2k yrs ago. Now times have changed. DO you hear the stupid things the pope says?? That priest preach? It's unbelievable.
So who will be the "dangerous police"? Who should do the banning and why? You rightly point out that religion is at times a good guide in terms of "good behavior". You then say that logic is all that is needed rather than religious beleifs to uphold such good behavoir. Are you implying that religious belief is devoid of all logic? It seems to me that my ...[text shortened]... ecome dangerous. At that time the dangerous police need to be summoned. Is this correct?
Society has evolved to a new moral code, dictated by the law made by us. We are our own police. We decide, laws evolve according to the needs at that time.
I have no problem with the notion of an abstract God. It might or might not exist. We are on our own, if you start to rely on gods, you get nowhere.
Even if there was a god and he showed to me, I would have my opinion. And I would say to him:"I think it should be this way". Then we could have an argument, and he could try to convince me otherwise. But NO ONE tells me one certain thing IS THIS WAY, because it must be so. Sheeps and dogs do that. I have an intelligence.
The police is always around. It's our society. When things go bad, we adapt. Do you want to live on a religious law? You have good examples of countries who follow religious law and conduct. Or is your religion better and you wouldn't fall in the same errors of them?
07 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYes, there's an irony. The possibility was always there, independent of us. We just found out how. Are you insinuating science is a bad thing? I can understand that point of view. We could just live happily abolishing technology and forbidding research. Our objectives would be to love the gods, or sacrifice some animals and humanity would live happy ever after.
I hope you do see the irony here. You say that science and technology will save us, however, if it were not for these two we would not have the capacity to blow ourselves up now would we?
I understand this point of view better then religion, it makes sense somewhere, in the meaning we would be protecting from ouselves, although I don't agree to it.
07 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysYou are correct. Both science and religion are tools. Therefore, to say that one tool is bad or another is bad is really in error, rather, what we should be looking at is who is using these tools and for what objectives. That is why I do not understand the Dawkins point of view and why I think it is in error.
Science and technology aren't good or bad in themselves, they are tools that can be used and developed for good or bad purposes. (You could say the same of religion.) In the end we are the only ones who can save ourselves from killing each other off or from destroying Earth to the point that we can't live there anymore, but I don't believe we could do ...[text shortened]... at the kind of saving you were talking about? And how does Christianity deal with this issue?
As for the Christian point of view, the main focus is the heart of mankind. What makes you tick? Who or what do you love the most? Who is using which tools and why? I don't really see science delving into such issues, therefore, the question then must be asked, how then can it save us? After all, it is merely a tool and does not delve into the hearts of men who are using such tools. That is what is at the "heart" of the matter.