NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, thats the starling conclusion that I have come to over the last years despite the many atheists of these forums going "Hur hur hur religion is stoopid hur hur hur" in my ear constantly. Before I begin, I should like to make clear that I am (in fact) agnostic, not religious or atheist. I do dislike fundamentalists and for that very reason, I am not atheist because atheism attracts nearly as many fundamentalists as right wing religious sects do.

1. PHYSICAL BENEFITS
Most religions have many physical benefits, offering large scale community support, economic aid and education.

ECONOMIC AID
The Muslims have a religious tax called Zakah (Wealth Cleansing Tax) which is generally 2.5% of an individual's annual income. This tax is distributed among those assessed as the needy - it might go to a sick person who needs to pay for a care worker or to a fired bread winner for a large family. This is one of the 5 Rites of Worship, an essential part of being a Muslim. This is a form of basic social welfare.

Althought the Muslims are one of the few religions who actually have made this process of taxation a central column in their faith, most other religions practice it in other ways. For example, Christianity idealises charity, it being one of the seven virtues. For this reason the collection plate exists and churches donate a great deal of money to good causes and those who are in desperate need. The Catholic Church, for example, will pay for sick people to visit shrines to the Virgin Mary (such as Laudes, France) in the hope that they will be healed. Churches also organise a great many events (raffles, fates, fairs etc etc) ao they can donate the proceeds to charities and organisations who are in need.

EDUCATION
The most obvious examples of this are Christian Sunday Schools, which have been pillars of religious learning for the young for many years. However the religious messages that are preached at this level do not reach the avid fundamentalism of later stages of certain sects of Christianity (see Evangelism) but teach the young basic truths about morality, self sacrfice, faith and endurance. The story of the Cruxification for example is a tremendous story (whether or not one takes it as a truth) because it enshrines virtues that all human beings should have and should work towards - unselfishness, forgiveness and repetence. This basic moral truths are not just religious truths but ones that are applicable to all peoples in everyday life.
Christian education groups exist further down the line, for teenagers too. Many Christian youth groups organise trips to foreign countries or to the Holy Land. Any experience of life in a foreign country (be it religious based or not) is an education in itself because it allows young people to see how other people outside of their own nationality function.
Churches have done historically a great service to education. In the days before government endorsed education, most poor children would be educated at the local church by the vicar or the priest and in some rural places this is still the case.
Beyond this, the Church does a great deal of special educational work. There was a very moving program on last night (late alas) about a deaf priest who travelled the world, setting up schools and education systems for deaf children. He talked of his experiences in 1980s China, where he found that deaf children were seen as a curse on the family and so were locked away for their lives. He opened and was the driving force behind an education system for the deaf in China. All of this he did with Church funds and Church backing. There are still in many places in Africa, missionary schools set up by various Christian organisations to bring education into the depths of darkest Africa where there are few state schools for poor, rural children to attend.

COMMUNITY
Religion often creates a great deal of communal unity - in times past the local place of worship functioned as one the prime places of social interaction. They still indeed function in this manner as many people meet at the local place of worship or have social events organised by their local religious sect.
For some, the local religious site still functions as a place of refuge. The poor and the destitute can be offered places within churches and mosques and if not there, most places offer hostels and refuges. Voluntary aid workers from the Church often sacrifice their own hours, working in such refuges and hostels. Church organised events can provide the poor and homeless with clothing.

SPIRITUAL BENEFITS
Now we are on to murkier grounds here. Religion does indeed offer many spirtual benefits.
The biggest spirtual benefit of religion is is provides many people with a compass, a moral compass, which enables them to define themselves and the way in which they live their lives. For most people, it is comforting to have this singular certainity by which they can live, by which they can make decisions and by which they can lead a good life. Many of the moral codes preached in religion are mostly excellent guides to how to lead a good life. The 10 Commandments for example are mostly excellent guidelines. The New Testament features a great deal of valuable moral advice such as the tale of the Good Samiritan. These morals are simply religious in their nature but are human because one can find similar items to (to give one example) the 10 Commandments all over the world, in places that Christianity has never touched until modern times.
What about other religious benefits? Some studies have suggested that because religious people believe so devoutly in their God(s) that it can heal their own illnesses. Many illnesses lie in the mind rather than in the body or can be caused by extremes such depression and severe distress. Because their faith is so strong, it has been hypothesised that their minds actually believe God will make them better and so it actually happens. Of course such studies must be taken cautiously - many might remember the study that was launched in 2001 by three Columbia Professors in an attempt to make a relationship between prayer and successful fertitilty treatment that was later proved to be a sham. However those who are incurably sick find their faith in God a tremendous help in combating their pain and their fears. The dying and their relations can take incredible comfort from religious teachings and even the presence of a religious offical such as a priest.

So it is my belief that religion is far from evil. Many evil things are done in its name but many evil things have also been done in the name of atheism such as the Bolshevik Terrors in Russia. In the end however, most religions preach against violence and teach against violence. It is alas evil people who subvert religion (just as Stalin may have subverted the good name of socialism) for their own malicious ends. Does Osama Bin Laden represent the majority of the Islamic world? No of course not, his name is greatly condemned by the vast majority of Islamic clerics and Islamic peoples because he is a murderer. Good acts (small and large) in the name of religion vastly outnumber the bad ones. For example the movement to abolish the slave trade in Great Britain was powered not by politics but by religion and the need to ensure that all men are equal before God.

Religion is far from stupid either and the people who practice it are not stupid. Atheists seem to enjoy 'forgetting' that Darwin went to church and would have counted himself Christian before he joined their mob. Many of the greatest minds, leaders and artists in the world have been devoutly religious and their religion has only aided them in making good and moral decisions. Religious people just choose to base their lives on a belief in God(s) whereas atheist people just base their lives on the belief of an abscence of a God(s).
It is my belief that all people need a central, core certainity to live their lives by. Some people might choose God. Some might choose the abscense of a God. Some might base it in a person. Some might base it in a country. But whatever they base it in, is it our right to condemn people to stupidity for it?

The material benefits of religion can be better provided by secular sources, and the spiritual benefits are dubious at best. I have to run now, so I can't really say much more. I don't cal religious people stupid though, unless they say something stupid. ;)

Yes, thats the starling conclusion that I have come to over the last years despite the many atheists of these forums going "Hur hur hur religion is stoopid hur hur hur" in my ear constantly. Before I begin, I should like to make clear that I am (in fact) agnostic, not religious or atheist. I do dislike fundamentalists and for that very reason, I am not atheist because atheism attracts nearly as many fundamentalists as right wing religious sects do.

OK, calm down and take some deep breaths.

I do not think religion is inherently evil or stupid. Nor do I believe religion is inherently good.

What I do think is stupid is creating a simplistic dichotomy between religion and atheism. There are thousands (at least) of different religions. Many with much in common with atheism.

Athiest fundamentalist is an oxymoron.


ECONOMIC AID
The Muslims have a religious tax called Zakah (Wealth Cleansing Tax) which is generally 2.5% of an individual's annual income. This tax is distributed among those assessed as the needy - it might go to a sick person who needs to pay for a care worker or to a fired bread winner for a large family. This is one of the 5 Rites of Worship, an essential part of being a Muslim. This is a form of basic social welfare.

Althought the Muslims are one of the few religions who actually have made this process of taxation a central column in their faith, most other religions practice it in other ways. For example, Christianity idealises charity, it being one of the seven virtues. For this reason the collection plate exists and churches donate a great deal of money to good causes and those who are in desperate need. The Catholic Church, for example, will pay for sick people to visit shrines to the Virgin Mary (such as Laudes, France) in the hope that they will be healed. Churches also organise a great many events (raffles, fates, fairs etc etc) ao they can donate the proceeds to charities and organisations who are in need.

So? There are also secular charities and taxes/government relief programs.

EDUCATION
The most obvious examples of this are Christian Sunday Schools, which have been pillars of religious learning for the young for many years. However the religious messages that are preached at this level do not reach the avid fundamentalism of later stages of certain sects of Christianity (see Evangelism) but teach the young basic truths about morality, self sacrfice, faith and endurance. The story of the Cruxification for example is a tremendous story (whether or not one takes it as a truth) because it enshrines virtues that all human beings should have and should work towards - unselfishness, forgiveness and repetence. This basic moral truths are not just religious truths but ones that are applicable to all peoples in everyday life.
*snip*
Churches have done historically a great service to education. In the days before government endorsed education, most poor children would be educated at the local church by the vicar or the priest and in some rural places this is still the case.
*snip*

Again, sometimes praiseworthy, but also matched by secular efforts. Public education has done far more for the modern world than religious education.

And Sunday School, etc., can hardly be called education. Its purpose is to perpetuate a religion's myths.

COMMUNITY
Religion often creates a great deal of communal unity - in times past the local place of worship functioned as one the prime places of social interaction. They still indeed function in this manner as many people meet at the local place of worship or have social events organised by their local religious sect.
For some, the local religious site still functions as a place of refuge. The poor and the destitute can be offered places within churches and mosques and if not there, most places offer hostels and refuges. Voluntary aid workers from the Church often sacrifice their own hours, working in such refuges and hostels. Church organised events can provide the poor and homeless with clothing.

Again, nothing here that other organizations/entities do not provide.


The biggest spirtual benefit of religion is is provides many people with a compass, a moral compass, which enables them to define themselves and the way in which they live their lives. For most people, it is comforting to have this singular certainity by which they can live, by which they can make decisions and by which they can lead a good life. Many of the moral codes preached in religion are mostly excellent guides to how to lead a good life. The 10 Commandments for example are mostly excellent guidelines. The New Testament features a great deal of valuable moral advice such as the tale of the Good Samiritan. These morals are simply religious in their nature but are human because one can find similar items to (to give one example) the 10 Commandments all over the world, in places that Christianity has never touched until modern times.

Moral values existed long before Christianity or the Ten Commandments. Only a handful of the Ten Commandments are moral, as opposed to purely religious, in nature.

I have no doubt that "[f]or most people, it is comforting to have this singular certainity by which they can live, by which they can make decisions and by which they can lead a good life." This fails to establish that religion is either necessary or good.

What about other religious benefits? Some studies have suggested that because religious people believe so devoutly in their God(s) that it can heal their own illnesses. Many illnesses lie in the mind rather than in the body or can be caused by extremes such depression and severe distress. Because their faith is so strong, it has been hypothesised that their minds actually believe God will make them better and so it actually happens. Of course such studies must be taken cautiously - many might remember the study that was launched in 2001 by three Columbia Professors in an attempt to make a relationship between prayer and successful fertitilty treatment that was later proved to be a sham. However those who are incurably sick find their faith in God a tremendous help in combating their pain and their fears. The dying and their relations can take incredible comfort from religious teachings and even the presence of a religious offical such as a priest.

Placebo effect is interesting, isn't it?
So is the so-called healing effect of laughter.

So it is my belief that religion is far from evil. Many evil things are done in its name but many evil things have also been done in the name of atheism such as the Bolshevik Terrors in Russia. In the end however, most religions preach against violence and teach against violence. It is alas evil people who subvert religion (just as Stalin may have subverted the good name of socialism) for their own malicious ends. Does Osama Bin Laden represent the majority of the Islamic world? No of course not, his name is greatly condemned by the vast majority of Islamic clerics and Islamic peoples because he is a murderer. Good acts (small and large) in the name of religion vastly outnumber the bad ones. For example the movement to abolish the slave trade in Great Britain was powered not by politics but by religion and the need to ensure that all men are equal before God.

Atheism is hardly responsible for the Bolsheviks. And socialism is not a religion.

Great evil has been done in the name of religion. Face it. That does not mean that religion is inherently evil, but it also is not a fact you should ignore.

The slave trade was also justified by religion. (And your abolitionist history is partially accurate at best.)

Religion is far from stupid either and the people who practice it are not stupid. Atheists seem to enjoy 'forgetting' that Darwin went to church and would have counted himself Christian before he joined their mob. Many of the greatest minds, leaders and artists in the world have been devoutly religious and their religion has only aided them in making good and moral decisions. Religious people just choose to base their lives on a belief in God(s) whereas atheist people just base their lives on the belief of an abscence of a God(s).

Again, your understanding of Atheism appears lacking. We neither worship nor follow Darwin. He, in fact, thought his theory was evidence of God.

I certainly do not think religious people are necessarily stupid. To the contrary, you are absolute right that some of the greatest minds of history were religious. Of course, some were Christian, some were Ancient Greeks, some Egyptian, some Moslem, some Roman, some Deists, some Buddhists, etc...

It is my belief that all people need a central, core certainity to live their lives by. Some people might choose God. Some might choose the abscense of a God. Some might base it in a person. Some might base it in a country. But whatever they base it in, is it our right to condemn people to stupidity for it?

"It is my belief that all people need a central, core certainity to live their lives by." That is very nice. What is wrong with reason?

And, no, I don't necessarily condemn people as stupid for their beliefs. Some beliefs I do consider irrational or ignorant, however. And some people are stupid. Simply declaring something your religious belief does not get you a free pass.

How about the Cthulhu cult? Isn't that one even a teensy bit evil?

I spoke to God earlier today.

I asked him which religion was true: "None of them," he said, "they are all made up."

He's a little dissappointed that so few of us have figured this out.

Despite my atheism as of late, I agree with most of the things you say. Religion is a grand thing and I don't quite understand how many atheists who consider themselves enlightened do not realise this. Despite the fact I may not believe in many of the things religion says or the stories they tell you, it does provide a great hope to those who need it. My biggest problem with atheists is the ones who HATE ALL RELIGION, and think it is evil, it is not. My two problems with relious people is evangelism and the ones who judge by religiousness. I can be totally secular and still be a very good person, yet their are people who would consider me worse than someone who believed in god but was mean and did not try to help others. I cannot understand that. If more people shared this train of thought I do, I think that religious people and atheists could get along fairly well. But right now its just sickening.

I hate being told I'm going to a place that I don't believe exists where I will be punished by two entities I don't believe exist either.

The biggest benefit?
The antithesis, accepting Secular Humanism means that every moral system a human thinks of is instantly equal, because there is no superior being to dictate it.
Which means my notions of helping the poor are considered equal to Hitler's notions of killing Jews. After all, "different strokes for different folks".

Religion in itself is not evil. It is the people who control it and twist it to fit their own power schemes that are evil.

The biggest benefit?
The antithesis, accepting Secular Humanism means that every moral system a human thinks of is instantly equal, because there is no superior being to dictate it.
Which means my notions of helping the poor are considered equal to Hitler's notions of killing Jews. After all, "different strokes for different folks".

That is simply silly.

One does not require religion to believe in moral judgments.

And even moral relativism is not absolute.

(And those Nazis you refer to were religious buggers.)

religion is not half as stupid this post or half the relies given (yes including this one..... wise ass)

Religion is not evil.
what is evil is the interpretation that men and women make of it in their quest to be right, to be the only ones with the so-called 'truth'.

The material benefits of religion can be better provided by secular sources, and the spiritual benefits are dubious at best. I have to run now, so I can't really say much more. I don't cal religious people stupid though, unless they say something stupid. ;)

I see that this is another thing we agree on!

That is simply silly.

One does not require religion to believe in moral judgments.

And even moral relativism is not absolute.

(And those Nazis you refer to were religious buggers.)


Everyone believes their own actions are justified, otherwise they wouldn't take them.

Basically, if there is no person specified as being superior (IE, correct), then everyone has a free-for-all to decide that morality is whatever they want.

It doesn't stop people from making GOOD moralities, of course.
It just doesn't stop people from making BAD moralities.

I'm a christian, so i obviously don't think relgion stupid. i was once an agnostic, but since converting i've been in a much better way, and i have something to feel better about. good thing too. since converting i;ve been faced with suicide, deteriation of friends relationships (with me caught in the middle), firings, illnesses, cancer, untimely death and friends insanity. not to mention a sh*tload of work on my part.
without religion i really doubt i could've coped. so no, even if this is a placebo (as a previous moter mentioned) i don't think this is a bad thing. definately not evil.
one final thing. i hated being preached to when i was agnostic, but one thing has stuck with me.
Believe in heaven, don't believe in heaven. That's your choice. The fact of the matter is that it exists, andone day you will be judged, regardless of what you believe.

Everyone believes their own actions are justified, otherwise they wouldn't take them.

Basically, if there is no person specified as being superior (IE, correct), then everyone has a free-for-all to decide that morality is whatever they want.

It doesn't stop people from making GOOD moralities, of course.
It just doesn't stop people from making BAD moralities.

So, if big daddy God doesn't tell us what is good and bad, we are incapable of determining right from wrong? Rubbish.

Just a few good names to Google:

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno, Cicero, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Arthur Schopenhauer, G. E. Moore, W. D. Ross, Bertrand Russell, A. J. Ayer, Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Jürgen Habermas, Christine Korsgaard, Ayn Rand, and John Rawls.

There are many more ethical systems that do not depend on religion.

Athiest fundamentalist is an oxymoron

Consider the meaning of 'fundamentalist' - someone who takes the fundamentals of their beliefs to the extreme. I have met atheists who do this and with just as much irrationality as fundamentalist Christians



So? There are also secular charities and taxes/government relief programs.

And this disproves my point how exactly? Just because someone else does it doesn't diminsh the inherent goodness of the act. You are asking whether religion is neccessary which is quite a different question altogether. I am attempting to show certain atheists that religion is not evil.



Again, sometimes praiseworthy, but also matched by secular efforts. Public education has done far more for the modern world than religious education.

And Sunday School, etc., can hardly be called education. Its purpose is to perpetuate a religion's myths.


Education in my humble opinion can be anything where an experience or lesson is learnt. Crashing your car can be educational as it teaches you to drive it properly. Sunday School can be educational because it teaches some of the basic moral codes of life and it gives experience/knowledge of Christianity.
As has been proven by historical records, Jesus Christ was a real person who was indeed cruxified by the Romans. Only the more spiritual side to the Bible is myth, some of it is widely accepted historical fact.


Again, nothing here that other organizations/entities do not provide.

And that some how disproves the goodness within?



Moral values existed long before Christianity or the Ten Commandments. Only a handful of the Ten Commandments are moral, as opposed to purely religious, in nature.


The only one that is purely religious to my mind is the one about false idols. And my argument is that religion acts as a way to spread and teach morality en masse. You will notice that I don't actually attribute morals to religion as I note that morals are universal.


I have no doubt that "[f]or most people, it is comforting to have this singular certainity by which they can live, by which they can make decisions and by which they can lead a good life." This fails to establish that religion is either necessary or good.


Yes it does - it gives people comfort, therefore making it a force for good in their lives.


Placebo effect is interesting, isn't it?
So is the so-called healing effect of laughter.


So called? I have known headaches to go away when I laugh.


Atheism is hardly responsible for the Bolsheviks. And socialism is not a religion.

So why must religion be responsible for people like Bin Laden? Admission into all communist parties around the world requires atheism. And the way some people treated it (especially Russian Bolsheviks) socialism might as well be as much a religion as a political ideal.


Great evil has been done in the name of religion. Face it. That does not mean that religion is inherently evil, but it also is not a fact you should ignore.


Umm I dont claim to ignore it.


The slave trade was also justified by religion. (And your abolitionist history is partially accurate at best.)


William Wilberforce, leading MP backing the slave trade was extremely religous. Also most of the anti slave trade movement came from the grass roots clergy who actually caused the remarkable ruling from the courts that it was illegal to have slaves on English land (this ruling was actually made in the 1740s). However that simply prevented slavery in England, not in the colonies. Nor did it prevent the trade.



Again, your understanding of Atheism appears lacking. We neither worship nor follow Darwin. He, in fact, thought his theory was evidence of God.


How odd. From most atheists, you would think that was the case.


"It is my belief that all people need a central, core certainity to live their lives by." That is very nice. What is wrong with reason?

And is religion not reasonable?


And, no, I don't necessarily condemn people as stupid for their beliefs. Some beliefs I do consider irrational or ignorant, however. And some people are stupid. Simply declaring something your religious belief does not get you a free pass.

Ah sweet agreement.

religion is not half as stupid this post or half the relies given (yes including this one..... wise ass)

[SARCASM MODE]
What a well though out, meaningful criticism...
[END SARCASM MODE]

Why oh why do we have such time wasters, God (or the abscence of God) only knows.

So, if big daddy God doesn't tell us what is good and bad, we are incapable of determining right from wrong? Rubbish.

Just a few good names to Google:

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno, Cicero, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Arthur Schopenhauer, G. E. Moore, W. D. Ross, Bertrand Russell, A. J. Ayer, Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Jürgen Habermas, Christine Korsgaard, Ayn Rand, and John Rawls.

There are many more ethical systems that do not depend on religion.


None of them can be justified, though. Under modern secular humanism, Socrates is only as important as your unemployed welfare bum, because all humans are all equal.

It comes down to this:
What's your framework for deteriming what is right?
We can only use logic so much...for instance, we can try to infer whether or not to let Terri Schiavo go, if we have a moral framework.
But that framework is completely arbitrary.
Right to life? Why? Why can't I go around killing people indiscrimantley?
Right to death? Why? Why can't I keep her alive and throw darts at her head?

Because it's wrong?
Only in your opinion.
With the introduction of a God-like figure, there is only ONE opinion that matters. Meaning that there IS a CLEAR right and a CLEAR wrong.

None of them can be justified, though. Under modern secular humanism, Socrates is only as important as your unemployed welfare bum, because all humans are all equal.

It comes down to this:
What's your framework for deteriming what is right?
We can only use logic so much...for instance, we can try to infer whether or not to let Terri Schiavo go, if we have a moral framework.
But that framework is completely arbitrary.
Right to life? Why? Why can't I go around killing people indiscrimantley?
Right to death? Why? Why can't I keep her alive and throw darts at her head?

Because it's wrong?
Only in your opinion.
With the introduction of a God-like figure, there is only ONE opinion that matters. Meaning that there IS a CLEAR right and a CLEAR wrong.

For some people, clarity is a necessity.

None of them can be justified, though. Under modern secular humanism, Socrates is only as important as your unemployed welfare bum, because all humans are all equal.

It comes down to this:
What's your framework for deteriming what is right?
We can only use logic so much...for instance, we can try to infer whether or not to let Terri Schiavo go, if we have a moral framework.
But that framework is completely arbitrary.
Right to life? Why? Why can't I go around killing people indiscrimantley?
Right to death? Why? Why can't I keep her alive and throw darts at her head?

Because it's wrong?
Only in your opinion.
With the introduction of a God-like figure, there is only ONE opinion that matters. Meaning that there IS a CLEAR right and a CLEAR wrong.

OK, I see where you are going ...

I won't concede that rational thought is arbitrary. And you are arguing against a strawman of "secular humanism" that stands for none of the things you attribute.

But, more importantly, religion does nothing to solve the problems you put forth. There is no CLEAR religion, no CLEAR religious values, and therefore no CLEAR right or CLEAR wrong. Human reason is required.

What's your framework for determining what is "God's" opinion?
Which God or gods?
How do we infer which religion to follow?
Who says what the religion stands for?
(And if you say "the Bible," why? how do we know it means anything more than my copy of Lord of the Rings? Which version?)

If I want to go around killing people indiscriminately, telling me there is an invisible woman in the sky that will spank me after I die is hardly a persuasive or CLEAR explanation of morality.

Theist: Religion is not evil!
Atheist: Okay?
Theist: You hungry?
Atheist: Yeah, you?
Theist: Yeah, you want Indian?
Atheist: Naw, how about Thai?
Theist: Too spicy.
Atheist: How about Greek?
Theist: Okay.
Atheist: Lets go.
THE END

OK, I see where you are going ...

I won't concede that rational thought is arbitrary. And you are arguing against a strawman of "secular humanism" that stands for none of the things you attribute.

But, more importantly, religion does nothing to solve the problems you put forth. There is no CLEAR religion, no CLEAR religious values, and therefore no CLEAR right or CLEAR wrong. Human reason is required.

What's your framework for determining what is "God's" opinion?
Which God or gods?
How do we infer which religion to follow?
Who says what the religion stands for?
(And if you say "the Bible," why? how do we know it means anything more than my copy of Lord of the Rings? Which version?)

If I want to go around killing people indiscriminately, telling me there is an invisible woman in the sky that will spank me after I die is hardly a persuasive or CLEAR explanation of morality.


Of course there isn't.
But, any religion says it is right. It's not clear WHO is right, from a purely objective standpoint, but every single one offers clarity to the people who believe in it.
Secular humanism says EVERYone is equally right and equally wrong. Big difference.


Might as well add a few things:
A. When I say "religion", I mean "organized religion".
B. I am not a member of an organized religion
C. I am just speaking what works for the vast majority of the people, who make their arguments on emotion, have no accountability, and always revert to faith over logic.
D. So, yes, I get along with Secular humanists a lot better than religious people. :)

Theist: Religion is not evil!
Atheist: Okay?
Theist: You hungry?
Atheist: Yeah, you?
Theist: Yeah, you want Indian?
Atheist: Naw, how about Thai?
Theist: Too spicy.
Atheist: How about Greek?
Theist: Okay.
Atheist: Lets go.
THE END

YAY! :D

Atheist fundamentalist is an oxymoron.

Are you saying that Atheism doesn't have ANY fundemantal tenants? I always thought the non-existance of God would count as a pretty damn big one. >.>

"It is my belief that all people need a central, core certainty to live their lives by." That is very nice. What is wrong with reason?



Ah reason, such a revered yet conspicuously absent concept in the hallowed halls of the typical Atheist mind.

Ah reason, such a revered yet conspicuously absent concept in the hallowed halls of the typical Atheist mind.
Making blanket generalizations of groups, to me, doesn't seem like the best way to debate...

Making blanket generalizations of groups, to me, doesn't seem like the best way to debate...

The thought had occured to me as well...

Are you saying that Atheism doesn't have ANY fundemantal tenants? I always thought the non-existance of God would count as a pretty damn big one. >.>



Ah reason, such a revered yet conspicuously absent concept in the hallowed halls of the typical Atheist mind.

Insults. How Christian of you. ;)

From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist):
fun·da·men·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

See also, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism).

Any more wisdom to impart? :D

My post here may seem rather ironic considering my user name, but here goes.

Different religions were created for one of two reasons.

1. To pacify and bring people under control

and/or

2. Population controls

Any good side effects (not to deny they exist) of religion are either coincidental or help achieve one of those two ends.

For example:

1. Being righteous makes you more complacent and easier to manage by your (presumably religious) leader.

2. The idea of abstinence prevents the population from growing to a dangerous point, and also makes said population easier to manage by your (again presumably religious) leader.

3. On the other side of that spectrum, the idea of spreading your religion brings more people under your religious leader's control.

Just look at goverments led by religious leaders. All monarchies, despotisms and dictatorships, or at least started out that way.

Yes, thats the starling conclusion that I have come to over the last years despite the many atheists of these forums going "Hur hur hur religion is stoopid hur hur hur" in my ear constantly. Before I begin, I should like to make clear that I am (in fact) agnostic, not religious or atheist. I do dislike fundamentalists and for that very reason, I am not atheist because atheism attracts nearly as many fundamentalists as right wing religious sects do.

1. PHYSICAL BENEFITS
Most religions have many physical benefits, offering large scale community support, economic aid and education.

ECONOMIC AID
The Muslims have a religious tax called Zakah (Wealth Cleansing Tax) which is generally 2.5% of an individual's annual income. This tax is distributed among those assessed as the needy - it might go to a sick person who needs to pay for a care worker or to a fired bread winner for a large family. This is one of the 5 Rites of Worship, an essential part of being a Muslim. This is a form of basic social welfare.

Althought the Muslims are one of the few religions who actually have made this process of taxation a central column in their faith, most other religions practice it in other ways. For example, Christianity idealises charity, it being one of the seven virtues. For this reason the collection plate exists and churches donate a great deal of money to good causes and those who are in desperate need. The Catholic Church, for example, will pay for sick people to visit shrines to the Virgin Mary (such as Laudes, France) in the hope that they will be healed. Churches also organise a great many events (raffles, fates, fairs etc etc) ao they can donate the proceeds to charities and organisations who are in need.

EDUCATION
The most obvious examples of this are Christian Sunday Schools, which have been pillars of religious learning for the young for many years. However the religious messages that are preached at this level do not reach the avid fundamentalism of later stages of certain sects of Christianity (see Evangelism) but teach the young basic truths about morality, self sacrfice, faith and endurance. The story of the Cruxification for example is a tremendous story (whether or not one takes it as a truth) because it enshrines virtues that all human beings should have and should work towards - unselfishness, forgiveness and repetence. This basic moral truths are not just religious truths but ones that are applicable to all peoples in everyday life.
Christian education groups exist further down the line, for teenagers too. Many Christian youth groups organise trips to foreign countries or to the Holy Land. Any experience of life in a foreign country (be it religious based or not) is an education in itself because it allows young people to see how other people outside of their own nationality function.
Churches have done historically a great service to education. In the days before government endorsed education, most poor children would be educated at the local church by the vicar or the priest and in some rural places this is still the case.
Beyond this, the Church does a great deal of special educational work. There was a very moving program on last night (late alas) about a deaf priest who travelled the world, setting up schools and education systems for deaf children. He talked of his experiences in 1980s China, where he found that deaf children were seen as a curse on the family and so were locked away for their lives. He opened and was the driving force behind an education system for the deaf in China. All of this he did with Church funds and Church backing. There are still in many places in Africa, missionary schools set up by various Christian organisations to bring education into the depths of darkest Africa where there are few state schools for poor, rural children to attend.

COMMUNITY
Religion often creates a great deal of communal unity - in times past the local place of worship functioned as one the prime places of social interaction. They still indeed function in this manner as many people meet at the local place of worship or have social events organised by their local religious sect.
For some, the local religious site still functions as a place of refuge. The poor and the destitute can be offered places within churches and mosques and if not there, most places offer hostels and refuges. Voluntary aid workers from the Church often sacrifice their own hours, working in such refuges and hostels. Church organised events can provide the poor and homeless with clothing.

SPIRITUAL BENEFITS
Now we are on to murkier grounds here. Religion does indeed offer many spirtual benefits.
The biggest spirtual benefit of religion is is provides many people with a compass, a moral compass, which enables them to define themselves and the way in which they live their lives. For most people, it is comforting to have this singular certainity by which they can live, by which they can make decisions and by which they can lead a good life. Many of the moral codes preached in religion are mostly excellent guides to how to lead a good life. The 10 Commandments for example are mostly excellent guidelines. The New Testament features a great deal of valuable moral advice such as the tale of the Good Samiritan. These morals are simply religious in their nature but are human because one can find similar items to (to give one example) the 10 Commandments all over the world, in places that Christianity has never touched until modern times.
What about other religious benefits? Some studies have suggested that because religious people believe so devoutly in their God(s) that it can heal their own illnesses. Many illnesses lie in the mind rather than in the body or can be caused by extremes such depression and severe distress. Because their faith is so strong, it has been hypothesised that their minds actually believe God will make them better and so it actually happens. Of course such studies must be taken cautiously - many might remember the study that was launched in 2001 by three Columbia Professors in an attempt to make a relationship between prayer and successful fertitilty treatment that was later proved to be a sham. However those who are incurably sick find their faith in God a tremendous help in combating their pain and their fears. The dying and their relations can take incredible comfort from religious teachings and even the presence of a religious offical such as a priest.

So it is my belief that religion is far from evil. Many evil things are done in its name but many evil things have also been done in the name of atheism such as the Bolshevik Terrors in Russia. In the end however, most religions preach against violence and teach against violence. It is alas evil people who subvert religion (just as Stalin may have subverted the good name of socialism) for their own malicious ends. Does Osama Bin Laden represent the majority of the Islamic world? No of course not, his name is greatly condemned by the vast majority of Islamic clerics and Islamic peoples because he is a murderer. Good acts (small and large) in the name of religion vastly outnumber the bad ones. For example the movement to abolish the slave trade in Great Britain was powered not by politics but by religion and the need to ensure that all men are equal before God.

Religion is far from stupid either and the people who practice it are not stupid. Atheists seem to enjoy 'forgetting' that Darwin went to church and would have counted himself Christian before he joined their mob. Many of the greatest minds, leaders and artists in the world have been devoutly religious and their religion has only aided them in making good and moral decisions. Religious people just choose to base their lives on a belief in God(s) whereas atheist people just base their lives on the belief of an abscence of a God(s).
It is my belief that all people need a central, core certainity to live their lives by. Some people might choose God. Some might choose the abscense of a God. Some might base it in a person. Some might base it in a country. But whatever they base it in, is it our right to condemn people to stupidity for it?


no its not evil

You will never convince me religion isn't evil. But thats just me. I have been hurt alot, but religion took the cake for hurting me.

Insults. How Christian of you. ;)

From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist):
fun·da·men·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

See also, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism).

Any more wisdom to impart? :D

First, I resent that you call a friendly disagreement an insult, and thus Christian. And in your definition, it says "Usually." Remember, a Fag is a bundle of sticks and Gay is to be overly happy. Sometimes the literal definition is not the implied/lay definition, which is one of the greatest perplexities of the English language.

Fundamentalists support a beleif. That beleif is not necessarily bound to faith in a religion. It is possible to classify Atheistic views as evendence of religion in that it supports a philosophical view of spirituality and a God (or, specifically, the absense of such).

How about the Cthulhu cult? Isn't that one even a teensy bit evil?


Whats wrong with the Cthulhu cult? I mean just because an elder deamon speaks to us in our sleep telling us to sacrafice people in his name and to free him from his eternal prison of R'lyeah so he may rule over the earth once more, does not mean we are evil.

Sartre once said that "people are Hell." Kind of a crabby old dude. There are two things wrong with most of religion: A, as Engels said, it acts as an opiate of the masses, meaning it has a brainwashing effect, and B), most religions promot ethe idea that you can buy yourself into heaven. Also, everybody is too quick to condemn anybody who doesn't share the exact same ideals as them. The idea to me that all of the gay people will go to Hell is preposterous. Religious people, too, can be a problem. I would like to call to the stand George W. Bush, who touts his religion like... Well, a Pharisee, if you remember the story of Jesus Christ. And as Christ said, Go into your closet and pray to the Lord." Meaning, that the only people to whom your spirituality matters are yourself and God, whoever that may be to you. the people who are most noted for their devoutness, I.E. Bush, are not necessarily the most devout. Reember the Pharisees, and the idea that somebody can easily put on a big act about their religion.

First, I resent that you call a friendly disagreement an insult, and thus Christian. And in your definition, it says "Usually." Remember, a Fag is a bundle of sticks and Gay is to be overly happy. Sometimes the literal definition is not the implied/lay definition, which is one of the greatest perplexities of the English language.

Fundamentalists support a beleif. That beleif is not necessarily bound to faith in a religion. It is possible to classify Atheistic views as evendence of religion in that it supports a philosophical view of spirituality and a God (or, specifically, the absense of such).

Excuse me?

This was directed at me:

Ah reason, such a revered yet conspicuously absent concept in the hallowed halls of the typical Atheist mind.

I was insulted, and I replied directly to that comment in a tongue-in-cheek manner. If that is not an insult, then my riposite cannot be taken as an insult to Christianity. Regardless, learn to take a joke.

The primary meaning of Fundamentalism is as I have laid out. It is not derogatory. Why get so worked up about it?

Who are these people?

hur hur hur religion is stoopid hur hur hur

hur hur hur religion is stoopid hur hur hur
<Insert extremly sarcastic remark about inteligent first posts here>

The problems of religion are;

Primaily, that by requiring unwavering faith, it convinces people of things without any necessary truth or logic to them. Whilst there is no evidence that there is or is not a God, there is no reason to choose believing in God over believing in a giant red-arsed baboon from Neptune. We cannot say for sure there even is anything; we can only say there might be.

Now, this in and of itself is of little consequence. A person's life is their own to lead; the problem is, by creating unwavering faith one then generates the inability to tolerate differences of opinion. If you believe something with all your heart, mind, and soul, there is no room for alternatives. There are no other faiths, no other Gods, and no other interpretations. There is only what you believe. To doubt that is to commit yourself to some ugly punishment, though the fact that religions use fear to rule is something else I shan't touch on greatly.

This, then leads to self-justified openness for crimes. If one believes what a holy book says, it justifies oppressing others, war, and other things besides. They are unfaithful, unwashed heathens - they are wrong, and you are right. You cannot admit you might be wrong, or eternal damnation is your reward. So deeply does this become entrenched that you suppress your own doubts; it is no longer even a facade.

Conversely, I don't believe in evolution because I am told to, or because I feel it, I believe in it because it is, in my opinion, a rational theory which has sufficient evidence to warrant subscription to that viewpoint. If proof to the contrary is offered, I will argue; because I want the correct outcome. I will; point to examples of moths and butterflies, explain that microevolution is a natural precursor of macroevolution, and that microevolution is indisputable. If however, evidence comes to light that evolution is a myth, I would accept that, if grudgingly. If I were going simply on faith, however, then I would not have to accept it; indeed I would be unable to accept it, because to do so contravenes faith.

Evils are rarely done in the name of athiesm, I must point out. They may be carried out by athiests, but not in the name of athiesm. Evils are very commonly carried out in the name of religion, however.

For clarification, I'm an agnostic myself. I believe human inginuity, emotions, and experiences are far too deep and profound to be simple biology. The very theory of evolution suggests that our sole 'emotions' ought to be lust, anger, greed, and protection of our families. No art, no beauty, no aspirations, and certainly no endeavours undertaken simply 'because it's there'. But I see no religious belief which offers a sensible explanation, therefore I try to form my own. I have no personal qualms with not knowing what comes next. I am unafraid of death, only that I will die having achieved less than I ought, for death is one way or another, just the next stage. I understand fully however, that other people feel a meaning and an explanation is required.

None of them can be justified, though. Under modern secular humanism, Socrates is only as important as your unemployed welfare bum, because all humans are all equal.

It comes down to this:
What's your framework for deteriming what is right?
We can only use logic so much...for instance, we can try to infer whether or not to let Terri Schiavo go, if we have a moral framework.
But that framework is completely arbitrary.
Right to life? Why? Why can't I go around killing people indiscrimantley?
Right to death? Why? Why can't I keep her alive and throw darts at her head?

Because it's wrong?
Only in your opinion.
With the introduction of a God-like figure, there is only ONE opinion that matters. Meaning that there IS a CLEAR right and a CLEAR wrong.

Come again?

You seem to misinterpret what secular humanism is and what it does. First of all, "secular humanism" is not a single set system of belief any more than "Christianity" is. For instance, just as Baptists and Unitarians are both termed "Christian", even though they have some very different beliefs (Baptists tend to be pretty adamant about the Trinity, whereas Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity at all), so to can both Freidrich Neitzsche and Immanuel Kant technically be termed secular humanists, even though they would disagree pretty vehemently on most philosophical points, such as whether there is/isn't a God, whether the intent is what makes an action good, what "good" is, etc.

However, I don't know anyone, secular humanist or not, who would argue that a street bum and Socrates are "equal", unless you lay down exactly what you mean by "equal". If by "equal", you mean equally entitled to fundamental rights by simple virtue of their existence, then most secular humanists would agree, while a few wouldn't. Incidentally, most Christians would agree too, although some wouldn't. If by "equal", you mean equally intelligent and equally capable of rational thought and analysis, then no one, not secular humanist or Christian that I can think of, would argue for it. As such, I can only conclude that what you're trying to beat up is just a Strawman.

As for your other argument, there are some pretty solid points that have been developed by using mere logic. For instance, I've never heard anyone offer a solid critique of Kant's moral starting point that the only true and unquestionable good in the world is a good intent. Whether that's enough or not to generate his moral system is more debatable, but his starting premise is pretty f-ing ironclad, wouldn't you say? Yet he didn't have to use God to justify it, nor is it arbitrary: it pretty accurately reflects the fact that a good intent is still good even if the results of acting on that intent are bad, whereas a good act could still be made bad if the person were acting out of an evil intent.

On the main point, I'd say that religion is neither good nor evil, but its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. Religion is really just a vehicle to mobilize people on a massive scale by teaching them an identical moral/metaphysical doctrine and giving them an incentive to follow it. If that doctrine is good, then good things develop. If it's bad, then bad things develop. The strength of religion is that it can do huge amounts of good if the people who write and maintain the doctrine will it so. The weakness is that it's just as easy for those who create and maintain the doctrine to do evil things with it as well.