I’ve come to the conclusion that the sole value of religion is as mythological fodder for horror films like The Exorcist or Stigmata.

Just found another one if anyone’s interested.

My father always says “Now Seán, you gotta take the good with the bad with religion”. The evidence is staring in the face that religion is bullshit, but apparently he is suffering form arborary vision imparement.

This is an excellent article, Bachalon. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Even to me though it seems oddly sinister to suggest that we should give up our gods. That’s almost like saying “Don’t hope for the fantastic and miraculous to be manifested. It’s irresponsible to believe in a hallowed hero.”

The optimist in me believes it’s time to give up our superstitions. The pragmatist in me fears that’s never going to happen for the world.

But why I do I feel evil when I advocate the end of all religions? Am I really that indoctrinated?

But why I do I feel evil when I advocate the end of all religions? Am I really that indoctrinated?

Possibly…I feel the same way since it is like telling people what they can or can not think.  Yet, what is better, to allow people to think whatever they please (and suffer the consequences from their “logical” conclusions) or get people to realise that we live in the real world and all of us have to make real world decisions to make the real world a better place (instead of thinking that if we beleive in some myth hard enough, we will find paradise instead of flesh munching worms after we die)?

I say down with the superstitions.

Instead we have debates on TV news shows between hardline Muslim scholars and moderate Muslim politicians without any intervening voice of scepticism suggesting that the whole darned thing might be just as invented as virgin births and Mormon tablets.

That hits it on the head for me.  When talking with religious friends, we avoid the subject.  The few times they’ve backed me into the corner, I’ve told them I respect their religion about as much as folks who really believe in the Easter Bunny. I respect the *people*, so I don’t rub their collective noses in how I really feel ... but that’s it in essence.

Organized religion is a contrived system of control, paying homage to invisible, inaudible, untouchable “spirits”, using stories stolen from earlier mythologies.  It’s a colossal carrot and stick game, used to control the hearts and minds of the masses.

D

Yes….We have people right here in the United Sates which are every bit as determined to take over the world with their religion as Muslims are. You’ll always get the argument that at least they aren’t actively involved in violence as other religions are….......YET!

“Author and educator George Grant was Executive Director of Coral Ridge Ministries for many years. He explains in The Changing of the Guard, Biblical Principles for Political Action:

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ—to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land—of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. (pp. 50-51)”

Our own Pat Robertson seems to be preparing his followers for getting thier hands bloody.

“If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody…. This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God’s people will emerge victorious.
—Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson’s Perspective Oct-Nov 1992”

I realize that regular visitors to this site probably aren’t seeing anything new here. I had to add some beef to my post though.

Thanks for the compliment Brock. Sometimes my news reader pays off.

As for that feeling of indoctrination, don’t worry to much about it. There are such things as invalid beliefs and even beliefs than can be justified in small ways can become invalid if they have an malignant effect on behavior.

That’s the crux for me.

But why I do I feel evil when I advocate the end of all religions? Am I really that indoctrinated?

You have been contaminated with Credulum 214, an artificial religious element with a half-life of 5 years.  The isotope breaks down into Cynicum 180 and large amounts of helium gas. 

The effort of resisting Credulum’s influence is directly proportional to the remaining amounts of the isotope still in your system.  You’re never completely free of it but cheleation therapy with Heinleinium and Twainium can reduce it to nontoxic levels in a few years.

Well, it sounded funnier in my head…

Well, it sounded funnier in my head…

It sounded complicated in mine. But if it works, who am I to say: What?

It made me smile DOF.

Yeah, just what I needed to read after work.

This whole idea of controlling the institutions and courts sounds a lot like 1984 by George Orwell. That scares the shit out of me. Christianity does such a good job of blocking all sorts of logical questioning thought that it could very well end up like the world in 1984. If some religion gets that much power in the government every one who wishes to think and express themselves would be screwed. Maybe I am just being crazy and over reacting by mentioning 1984 but if I lost me right to think for myself I would be pissed.
  I dont know if christianity would take things as far as 1984 but it seems to be advocationg a similar goverment.
  Another note: forcing people to think for themselves(as in taking away religion) would be a different thing that forcing people to think one specific thing. By forcing someone to think forthemselves choice is inherant. You have to choose what your opinions are. That, I think, is the biggest thing that religion takes away: the ability to make ones own choices about opinion. And, I think, the most important thing we have: choice of belief.

Cheers BunBun.

Our elected leaders constantly bleating their respect for religion is not political correctness but a public declaration that intellect, tolerance, democracy, reason and enlightenment are of less value than dogma and delusion.

I could have swore it was a declaration that beliefs govern us.  When it comes down to the wire your survival instinct is trained to cooperate with any beliefs you’ve instilled in it, rational or irrational.  You don’t have to be a theist to govern yourself irrationally.

Now’s the moment for a clear, definite, distinct line to be drawn between state and religion, one that defends the individual’s right to follow whatever ideology he or she wishes within the law, but also firmly declares and vigorously defends our collective ideals of gender equality, respect for differing sexual orientations…

But these colective ideals must have a basis or how will we determine them?  So we don’t use religion, what do we use?  The popular vote?  As people’s whims change and their greed for superiority avails them what’s to stop them from changing the moral boundaries?

...and reinforces the message that there is no room whatsoever for the supernatural and the irrational.

Could you prove the supernatural is an irrational concept?  Wouldn’t that require a knowledge of the supernatural greater than most?  Yet, if metaphysics comes to belief, as we must always acknowledge it does, then I find it unfair to equate the supernatural witht he irrational.  It can’t be any more rational than atheism since they know just as much.  I recommend the government go to some length to encourage respect for everyone’s ignorance of the absolute reality of things.  Besides politics requires cooperation and giving preferential treatment to the atheist is going to leave out the majority of theists in the world.

No bishops, mullahs, Presbyterian ministers, rabbis, or Scientologists should be gifted special hearings at Downing Street…

Don’t forget excluding atheists.  We must be fair to all religions.  Oh wait, then no one would be left to influence the government if their could be one left.  I agree that all of the above should not be granted special hearings, but they must be granted hearings nonetheless if you are to play fair.

Originally posted by bachalon:
What do you think?

Another idiot blowing steam and writing without thinking.

But these colective ideals must have a basis or how will we determine them?  So we don’t use religion, what do we use?

Here’s a radical notion:  How about the Constitution, or perhaps the Affirmations of Humanism, which are far more universal (and useful) principles than the Bible or the ten commandments?

I think it’s quite interesting that the articles in Bachalon’s posts, which are straightforward and unapologetic in their call for an end to “respecting” religion, were published in mainstream media.  Anything of a similar nature written here in the US would likely only be found in non-mainstream publications.  It’s ironic that such opinions find a wider audience in the UK, where there’s an actual state religion, than they would here in the supposedly secular US, as yet not declared a Christian nation despite the militant and unceasing cries of the fundies for it to be so.

By and large, people don’t think twice about calling Scientology a total crock of shit, and considering its adherents to be delusional nut cases; but to say the same of Christianity and ITS adherents is considered “persecution” or “hate speech” by many of those same people.  It stands to reason (which is why it can’t be grasped by most Christians) that an adult human being with an IQ over 30 who believes in an invisible superfriend like “God” or “Jesus” should be considered just as delusional as if they truly believed in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.  Belief in invisible beings is something to be laughed at, not respected.  And certainly not respected to the point that the supposed “words” of those invisible beings are looked to as a source from which the laws that govern a civil society should be taken.  If our leaders told us that the Easter Bunny commands all people to immediately cease killing rabbits, and therefore a law would be enacted, we’d call them insane and kick them out of office with all due haste.  Yet not an eye blinks when our leaders propose laws according to “what God says” in the Bible, as if that somehow makes their proposals any less ridiculous than those of an Easter Bunnarian.  Rational and reasonable people rightly see no difference between such ludicrous claims.

Sure, I can still respect people I know who cleave to such nonsense as a belief in gods in order to get through their lives, but I admit that my respect for their level of intelligence and maturity drops a few notches.  Only children and fools should give credence to the notion that fairies, dragons or gods are somehow real; their ignorance is excusable (and often curable).  Not so any adult who can manage to tie his or her own shoes and is convinced that Jesus is going to return to earth and run the place for a thousand years.  I refuse to “play nice” and pretend that it’s ok for adults to go on in their delusion, especially when their invented deity and his “laws” seem to take precedence over the very real needs and problems of the rest of humanity.  Presenting myth as fact is the height of insanity, and using that myth to make law is intolerable.  Moreover, employing the force of law to prop up one belief system over all others is unconstitutional - and that’s what’s happened here in America.

Rather than “honoring our Christian heritage” as the fundies claim as justification for reconstructionist policy, we should be a little bit embarrassed about our ignorance at the time the country was founded, and embrace the fact that we’ve smartened up over the past two centuries and start correcting those laws that serve to highlight our former ignorance, intolerance and delusion, while simultaneously supporting discrimination against those people who’ve embraced reason and reality.

Here’s a look at our government from a ritish perspective.

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewforum.php?f=24

Sorry…..British that is. Each day I have a different key rebel on my keyboard. I guess it’s Bs’ turn today. I have to jab it extra hard to make it work.

I think that Sunday Herald article took a lot of balls to publish, especially considering the “shout ‘em down!” mindset of the fundies these days.  I can almost see in my mind the hate mail the editor is getting.

Yesterday afternoon, one of the local news channels aired a piece about a group calling itself “Christian Exodus”.  These people - mostly fundamentalist christians - are slowly but surely moving in to certain communities in South Carolina, taking over over local governments with an eye on the bigger picture.  Unfortunately I couldn’t find a link to - OUCH! I got a Frankenberry caught in my tooth! dangit! - that particular story, but here’s something mentioning these folks and their “movement”:

http://www.hibbingmn.com/placed/index.php?sect_rank=4&story_id=205757

Secession?  hmmmm . . .

YOu can find those Christian Exodus winners here.

Personally I hope they succeed so the rest of the country can get a taste of what a fundamentalist christian country would be like.

I don’t think anything would turn people off of that quicker than watching a state self-destruct like that.

I think that Sunday Herald article took a lot of balls to publish, especially considering the “shout ‘em down!â€? mindset of the fundies these days.  I can almost see in my mind the hate mail the editor is getting.

That particular Sunday Herald is located in Scotland,I believe, which is already pretty secular so it probably doesn’t take as much balls as publishing here in the States would.

Yesterday afternoon, one of the local news channels aired a piece about a group calling itself “Christian Exodus�.

Yeah, we’ve chatted about those particular nutters over here.

YOu can find those Christian Exodus winners here.

Damn…I bet this is how Christianity (and other religions) spread in the first place.  Just hordes of insane people settling down in areas and being annoying as all get out.

I find it funny that on their web site, they have the “no establishment” from the Bill of Rights prominently displayed before they go into the details on how they want to establish a religious state!  Hypocracy at its best!

On a darker note, this reminds me of that wonderful line from The Terminator:

“It can’t be bargained with! It can’t be reasoned with! It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!”

For me, a statement that religious people are delusional and deserve to be laughed at raises the same neck hair as does a statement that Atheists are immoral and without the Bible or religious beliefs as reference, the moral fiber of the world would unravel. Just an observation.

The line between church and state ought to be eight miles thick, and I think that is a no-brainer.

The objection that nonreligious morality has only a human source (and is therefore subject to change) does not hold water.  Religion itself has a human source and is subject to change.  How else explain 300+ Christian denominations in the US alone?  Each sees something a little different in that anthology of ancient writings known as the bible. 

Christianity itself was once a heresy of Judaism.  As I recall the Pharisees and Sadducees were less than thrilled with Jesus.  Some even believe (please let’s not get into the details right now) that Christianity is recycled Egyptian or Babylonian mythology.

BTW, Theo, atheism is not a religion unless drought is another kind of precipitation.  As drought is the lack of precipitation, so atheism is the lack of any belief in god.  We might prefer rain to drought but that has no bearing on which you will see outside the window at a given moment.

I do not advocate for humanistic morality out of distain for god, rather out of lack of belief that he/she/it exists at all.  Whatever morality we do propose should at least be based on our most supportable, most probable, most predictive model of reality.  In other words, what OB said.

I might respect a believer but that respect will be tempered since they hold to something I think is absolute nonsense.  Probably they feel the same about me.  Neither of us believes the others’ reality is equal to our own.  Both cannot be right.

I like Affirmations of Humanism better so I’ll answer to them.

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

Now that’s what I was looking for.  The ethics of science.  Now we have a basis.

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

So where’s their proof nature holds more salvation than the supernatural?

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

Yes.

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

Wait if we just granted an ethics of science why are we all of a sudden pluralistic?  Where there is difference, there is strife.  Not settling for less than absolute or a method to find the absolute.

We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

In a community determined by the logical this seems adequate.

We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

Sounds good, but your arts are insufficient if they can not resolve the differences in a pluralistic society.

We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

Good for you, but you might want to start by rewording your second point, it sounded a little intolerant.

We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

Agreed.

We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

Go Team!

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

Can do.

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

Arts and crafts are fun!

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

Get out!  Me too!

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

So long as our ethics of science agrees.

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

Fair enough.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

I can’t believe we’re not best friends by now.

We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

Mmhmm.

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

Apparently not open to metaphysical ideas though.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

Did you test those theologies of despair in all cases?

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

9/10.  Do you expect me to take it in blind faith that you proved reason better then blind faith in all cases?

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

Alrighty then.  Utopia, here we come.

Originally posted by OB:
By and large, people don’t think twice about calling Scientology a total crock of shit, and considering its adherents to be delusional nut cases; but to say the same of Christianity and ITS adherents is considered “persecutionâ€? or “hate speechâ€? by many of those same people.  It stands to reason (which is why it can’t be grasped by most Christians) that an adult human being with an IQ over 30 who believes in an invisible superfriend like “Godâ€? or “Jesusâ€? should be considered just as delusional as if they truly believed in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

Now, now, that’s not being a very tolerant humanist.

Originally posted by OB:
Belief in invisible beings is something to be laughed at, not respected.

Knowledge of invisible beings is something to be laughed at, not respected.  Beliefs must be granted us.  We all believe in a variety of things not all may be related to the metaphysical.  My opinion that certain forms of music are good must be respected(or at least tolerated) and I am required to oblige you in the same manner.  My belief in a God must be respected(or at least tolerated) and I am required to oblige your belief in the nonexistance of such a being.

OK.  I done for now.

Originally posted by decrepitoldfool:
BTW, Theo, atheism is not a religion unless drought is another kind of precipitation.

I’m not sure your analogy stands.  Drought is the perceivable shortage of water.  Precipitation is the perceivable abundance of water.  Atheism is the belief god(s) does not exist.  It is not simply a lack of belief in God.  If atheism is similar to a drought, then atheists would have a shortage of belief in god(s), which implies some belief still remains.  Theism is the belief in god(s).  Both are belief systems relating to the existence of the supernatural, which grants them equal religion status in my book.  I’ve challenged people to come up with a more logical definiton of religion before and had no reply.