NationStates Jolt Archive

If you are religious, mono or poly theistic quasi-religious pagan wiccan agnostic or believe that there is a greater being out there that some how controls or is in anyway responsible for our lives (even if it is the great green arkelseizure) please ignore this thread,

As you can see by the poll Questions I wish to know what the Atheists believe could be done about religion and its intollerant behaviour

I personally believe that if people are going to be delusional than it should be treated with the same criteria as all other forms of mental illness, that is if it is harming themselves or others or causing distress then it sould be "cured"

I am fed up of this rampant Religious fervour (as informed by a friend "Being an atheist is so 20th century put your cards on the table man.".) should we let these religious nutjobs dictate what is and is not politically correct?, Or shall we rise up and send them to Paradise, Heaven Asgarth Valalla Hell Hades Orm etc. to let them start teir Eternal life and stop annoying the crap out of us that wish to enjoy our phisical existance before we wink out of conciousness.

If agnostic please ignore this thread,





ok.

I find it mildly amusing that I was the first poll voter.

:p

I am an Atheist. I am not associated with this person in any way, nor do I share his views. I urge everybody who is religious to make sure this 'person' knows exactly what is wrong with his post.

I am an Atheist. I am not associated with this person in any way, nor do I share his views. I urge everybody who is religious to make sure this 'person' knows exactly what is wrong with his post.

I figured it's mere existence would do.

Everyone vote for flaming. You know you want to...

Religion is proof that God has a sense of humour.

I was wondering about the limited options for a second, but I forgot I was agnostic, not atheist..
Wacky extremists.. :rolleyes:

i find religious faith to be a beautiful thing.

i just dont believe.

i cant pretend, i cant pick and choose what of various beliefs ill accept. for me its all or nothing.

it cant be all, so its nothing.

I am an Atheist. I am not associated with this person in any way, nor do I share his views. I urge everybody who is religious to make sure this 'person' knows exactly what is wrong with his post.

<devils advocate>
If saying you have an invisible gnome on your shoulder who only you can hear puts you in an insane asylum, why shouldn't the same be true of believing in an invisible supreme being whose love you can mystically feel ?

What is the objective difference between an advanced delusion and a belief in God ?
</devils advocate>

interesting little rant. really.

I doubt you will find many athiests on here that would agree with you, as most of them I have met may think I am completely nuts for being a Christian, but realize that if I lose my freedom to be completely nuts, that it won't be long before they start to lose thier rights too, so basically the believe I should just be left alone as long as I am not hurting anyone. ;)

I am an Atheist. I am not associated with this person in any way, nor do I share his views. I urge everybody who is religious to make sure this 'person' knows exactly what is wrong with his post.

that is why I am not intersted in the view of those that are religious, it is a vote for atheists those that accept that outside of physical existace you're pretty much a fart in the hurricane that is existance. te oter option is te eiter Don't bug me I don't bug you get along approach, or the don't care either way solution.

If of course you do believe that religion is a state of delusion, then a lot of oter forms of delusional mental illness and a lot of semi psychotic mental illness cases would have to be reassessed on the grounds that the state of ecstacy they suffer (even if the spider people do tell them to set of fire extingishers at any given momet) is no worse then your run of the mill book thumper.

<devils advocate>
If saying you have an invisible gnome on your shoulder who only you can hear puts you in an insane asylum, why shouldn't the same be true of believing in an invisible supreme being whose love you can mystically feel ?

What is the objective difference between an advanced delusion and a belief in God ?
</devils advocate>

Dunno. I don't think people are put into asylums for believing that they have gnomes on their shoulders. The are put there because they might do damage to themselves or others. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

<devils advocate>
If saying you have an invisible gnome on your shoulder who only you can hear puts you in an insane asylum, why shouldn't the same be true of believing in an invisible supreme being whose love you can mystically feel ?

What is the objective difference between an advanced delusion and a belief in God ?
</devils advocate>

The proposition of locking away billions (?) of people in mental institutions all over the world isn't really a practical option even if it were my place to call them 'insane'.

On the other hand, our little extremist here who seems to be indirectly suggesting we kill everybody who is religious could easily be locked away in a mental institution with no real practical implications. And he worries me a lot more than the largely-peaceful, average masses of religious folks.

Dunno. I don't think people are put into asylums for believing that they have gnomes on their shoulders. The are put there because they might do damage to themselves or others. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

you mean do damage, like get into a holy crusade or theological revenge attack or something, maybe beat someone up cause they are the wrong type of religion or even funnier (in a black way) secular violence against their own religion (hil-fekking-larious), meanwhile espousing peace love and free lentils to all

I urge everybody who is religious to make sure this 'person' knows exactly what is wrong with his post.
It's the spelling, punctuation and grammar, isn't it?

Or should I have let a non-atheist say that?

I am, however, thoroughly against the arming of otters.

i find religious faith to be a beautiful thing.

i just dont believe.

i cant pretend, i cant pick and choose what of various beliefs ill accept. for me its all or nothing.

it cant be all, so its nothing.
Pretty much the same thing with me.

you mean do damage, like get into a holy crusade or theological revenge attack or something, maybe beat someone up cause they are the wrong type of religion or even funnier (in a black way) secular violence against their own religion (hil-fekking-larious), meanwhile espousing peace love and free lentils to all

Ok - I'll have to extend my argument. They are being locked away because they might harm themselves and others AND have a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. So far, being religious is no diagnosis. Not yet.

Dunno. I don't think people are put into asylums for believing that they have gnomes on their shoulders. The are put there because they might do damage to themselves or others. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Oooh - subtle :D However, if one assumes a belief does harm to society (which is impossible to conclusively prove either way) the question stands.
But, let me rephrase it anyway:

If saying you have an invisible gnome on your shoulder who only you can hear is reason for doctors advicing you to have treatment, why shouldn't the same be true of believing in an invisible supreme being whose love you can mystically feel ?

Second question stands unmodified.

interesting little rant. really.

I doubt you will find many athiests on here that would agree with you, as most of them I have met may think I am completely nuts for being a Christian, but realize that if I lose my freedom to be completely nuts, that it won't be long before they start to lose thier rights too, so basically the believe I should just be left alone as long as I am not hurting anyone. ;)

I doubt you'll get many NSers taking this thread all that seriously, really.

The proposition of locking away billions (?) of people in mental institutions all over the world isn't really a practical option even if it were my place to call them 'insane'.

On the other hand, our little extremist here who seems to be indirectly suggesting we kill everybody who is religious could easily be locked away in a mental institution with no real practical implications. And he worries me a lot more than the largely-peaceful, average masses of religious folks.

nah never said kill them,
I'm not really a fundamentalist atheist (will have to think about that statement for a minute) and apart from my economic views have never really been likened as an extremeist, I'm touched (and I don't mean in the Catholic priest sort of way).

I doubt you'll get many NSers taking this thread all that seriously, really.
yeah, as I hit the reply button I thought "crap, too late" then I thought,
"gee, someone wants me dead, maybe I should report that to the mods"
then I thought, "maybe someone already did"

nah never said kill them,
I'm not really a fundamentalist atheist (will have to think about that statement for a minute) and apart from my economic views have never really been likened as an extremeist, I'm touched (and I don't mean in the Catholic priest sort of way).

"I am fed up of this rampant Religious fervour (Being an atheist is so 20th century put your cards on the table man) should we let these religious nutjobs dictate what is and is not politically correct?, Or shall we rise up and send them to Paradise, Heaven Asgarth Valalla Hell Hades Orm etc. to let them start teir Eternal life and stop annoying the crap out of us that wish to enjoy our phisical existance before we wink out of conciousness."

It's pretty hard to tell one way or the other, but that sounds like an indirect way of saying 'let's kill them all' to me.

you mean do damage, like get into a holy crusade or theological revenge attack or something, maybe beat someone up cause they are the wrong type of religion or even funnier (in a black way) secular violence against their own religion (hil-fekking-larious), meanwhile espousing peace love and free lentils to allIt's not like religion has a monolopy on such things. Stalin was an atheist and widely regarded as the worst mass murdering genocidal megalomaniac from recorded history.
They all just need an excuse, doesn't matter if it's religious or idealism. There's nutjobs everywhere. Outlawing religion wouldn't make people any less violent or self-righteous.

Yay. Someone else who wants to kill people for religious beliefs.

Joy. :rolleyes:

Oooh - subtle :D However, if one assumes a belief does harm to society (which is impossible to conclusively prove either way) the question stands.
But, let me rephrase it anyway:

If saying you have an invisible gnome on your shoulder who only you can hear is reason for doctors advicing you to have treatment, why shouldn't the same be true of believing in an invisible supreme being whose love you can mystically feel ?

Second question stands unmodified.

I'll just quote myself:

Ok - I'll have to extend my argument. They are being locked away because they might harm themselves and others AND have a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. So far, being religious is no diagnosis. Not yet.

The proposition of locking away billions (?) of people in mental institutions all over the world isn't really a practical option even if it were my place to call them 'insane'.

One would have to lock up about 85% of the worlds population. About 99% if you limit yourself to the "true" non-believers - since much of that 15% is people who do not go to church but do believe there is "something out there".

Obviously this would be ... challenging.

On the other hand, our little extremist here who seems to be indirectly suggesting we kill everybody who is religious could easily be locked away in a mental institution with no real practical implications.

True. But lets draw a parallel.
Assume 85% of the worlds population is suffering from an incurable disease, say AIDS. The persons with the disease can lead reasonably productive lives, but due to societies adaptation to the sick majority the healthy suffer.
In this case:
1. Would locking up the healthy persons because they want the sick to be cured be a good action ?
2. Would locking them up because they want to *destroy* the sick, thereby also extermination the disease (or at least be able to control it) be a good action ? Do note that this is *exactly* what we do with animals under certain circumstances.

And he worries me a lot more than the largely-peaceful, average masses of religious folks.

I don't know. The mindset of many dogmatic religions involves "do not be critical - do as you are told and be convinced you are right". This mindset can easily be abused (see e.g. Hitlers success).

I don't know. The mindset of many dogmatic religions involves "do not be critical - do as you are told and be convinced you are right". This mindset can easily be abused (see e.g. Hitlers success).

Lock away the abusers then. If you start prematurely punishing people just because there is the possibility for them to do something like murder, you may as well lock everybody away. As quite clearly demonstrated here, you don't need to believe in a higher being to have questionable ethics.

interesting little rant. really.

I doubt you will find many athiests on here that would agree with you, as most of them I have met may think I am completely nuts for being a Christian, but realize that if I lose my freedom to be completely nuts, that it won't be long before they start to lose thier rights too, so basically the believe I should just be left alone as long as I am not hurting anyone. ;)
Fuck yeah!

I'll have to quote myself again:

Ok - I'll have to extend my argument. They are being locked away because they might harm themselves and others AND have a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. So far, being religious is no diagnosis. Not yet.

I've heard that there a specific brain regions that are responsible for religious experiences. If this is true, than you could argue that it's not the religious people who are nuts, but that atheists simply have a brain defect. :eek:

I personally believe that if people are going to be delusional than it should be treated with the same criteria as all other forms of mental illness, that is if it is arming themselves or oters or causing distress ten it sould be "cured"

(Apologises for bad spelling but the (smacks keys harder this time) H, C, L and M keys on this keyb. are a little unresponsive. plus my grammar and spelling really does leave a lot to be desired (I like the idea about arming otters myself))

I was trying to state that people get blindsided by their own beliefs to such a degree that it is a form of selfharm, and even worse you cannot criticise anyones belief if it is an organised religion. If however you correct the guy in the pub trying to convince you that drinking is wrong and a sin against all squirrels then the police get called, he gets evaluated for risk and a "one to watch.", flag is added to his mental health roster (if he isn't added to the care in the community program). compare that to the actions of any firebrand preacher, they are more likely to become political pawns and social martyrs rather than listed as a nutjob (nutjob is not PC I am not a psychologist so bite me I refer nutjob to all forms of mental illness ranging from Depression to psycopathic-raging-crossbow-wielding-postal nutjobber)

I just believe that if we are going to allow street book thumpers, I also believe we should see more Napoleons on the street as well (choosing stereotypes here I know).

If I said what I really thought of religion, I'd have myself a nice healthy warnings from the mods, plus a swift kick in the ass as I'm kicked off the forums and subsequently banned for an extremely inflammatory remark.

If you really must know... click the link in my signature and look up any threads in which I insult the hell out of the Vatican in (early ones).

I'll have to quote myself again:



I've heard that there a specific brain regions that are responsible for religious experiences. If this is true, than you could argue that it's not the religious people who are nuts, but that atheists simply have a brain defect. :eek:

wouldn't that work both ways depending on viewpoint?

I've heard that there a specific brain regions that are responsible for religious experiences. If this is true, than you could argue that it's not the religious people who are nuts, but that atheists simply have a brain defect. :eek:

Yes, you heard right, there is a part of the brain which is thought to be linked to religious experiences. You might want to take a look at this:

http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/The_Paranormal/trascendent_experiences.htm



On another note, this thread gives free-thinking atheists a bad name. I'm not even sure it deserves to have so many posts

The only problem I see with this thread is that the atheists take the extreme view against religion. While religion is a huge crutch that can sometimes prevent people from living life to its fullest, religion does have at least one benefit: a moral lesson. I think everyone can agree that it is bad/immoral to steal, murder, cheat, etc. The Bible itself is similar to a fable or fairy tale that can teach us a moral lesson.

I will admit that I am a theist. I believe there is/was a God that created the universe. My beliefs on this generally follow thomas aquinas's proofs of god's existence (first cause, unmoved mover, etc). However, I am anti-religion (for reasons stated in the part). It seems that atheists always portray all theists the same way regardless. I, for one, am not religious, I do not pray, I do not go to church, I do not speak to God. But I do believe there is some force greater than us that (whether or not it still exists) started the universe in motion. There are other theists with the same beliefs. I am just asking that atheists aknowledge the variations in beliefs of the other side.

...religion does have at least one benefit: a moral lesson. I think everyone can agree that it is bad/immoral to steal, murder, cheat, etc.
You can get the same lesson from your parents, who have a responsibility to instill the most basic core values and morals into their offspring. In fact, morals are relative and can sit apart from religion. Being moral means you're able to follow the law and be a good citizen.

The only problem I see with this thread is that the atheists take the extreme view against religion. While religion is a huge crutch that can sometimes prevent people from living life to its fullest, religion does have at least one benefit: a moral lesson. I think everyone can agree that it is bad/immoral to steal, murder, cheat, etc. The Bible itself is similar to a fable or fairy tale that can teach us a moral lesson.


That's a bit of a generalisation. I'm an atheist, but I have no problem with people being religious. As long as they don't try and force everyone to conform to their point of view, or do anyone harm, then it's no big deal.

I'm more or less neutral here. I mean, how do you privilege sanity over insanity using only objective facts, anyway? Isn't the notion of "better" just a social construct?

I'm more or less neutral here. I mean, how do you privilege sanity over insanity using only objective facts, anyway? Isn't the notion of "better" just a social construct?
No! No deep pensive thought allowed here. :p Bad Letila, bad! ;)

You can get the same lesson from your parents, who have a responsibility to instill the most basic core values and morals into their offspring. In fact, morals are relative and can sit apart from religion. Being moral means you're able to follow the law and be a good citizen.

I agree with the assertion that morals are relative, but not that they have anything to do with law or good citizenship.

I agree with the assertion that morals are relative, but not that they have anything to do with law or good citizenship.
But, then, how can you be moral if you break the laws of the land?

But, then, how can you be moral if you break the laws of the land?Because the laws can be immoral.
Howver, since 'good' is (generally) a moral concept, 'good citizenship' must also be moral. However the idea of what is 'good citizenship' may then significantly differ amongst people.

But, then, how can you be moral if you break the laws of the land?



Laws are not necessarily moral. After all, they are constructed by fallible and sometimes corrupt governments. For example, in Turkmenistan it's illegal to grow a beard. What does that have to do with morality?

The only problem I see with this thread is that the atheists take the extreme view against religion. While religion is a huge crutch that can sometimes prevent people from living life to its fullest, religion does have at least one benefit: a moral lesson. I think everyone can agree that it is bad/immoral to steal, murder, cheat, etc. The Bible itself is similar to a fable or fairy tale that can teach us a moral lesson..

I agree that I should have posted the word anti religious as opposed to atheist, for the thread as I seem to have upset other more tolerant atheists, my original poll choices where meant to be semi-humerous by taking various extremes of individual tolerance and pushing them a little further.

The moral order question is one of my main hatreds (and I do mean hatreds) of most organised religions as they all represent pretty much the same ethical viewpoint, however the relevant structures within also seem to ride roughshod over them if anyone questions any of the more spiritual (unrealistic) aspects of their order. Killing seems to be fine as long as they are heretics / apostate / heathens.

Religion does teach moral and social responsibility but so do parents, schools, media and peers, but it does in a lot of cases force limitations on peoples behaviour, and can also encourae amongst the devout a form of hysteria that can be socially damageing not just to themselves but also to the community as a whole, and as such I believe that these cases should be evaluated in te same manner as oter anti-social behaviour disorders. This does not mean lock all people who believe in a higher power God, Alien or Shub

If I had proceded with this thread, as calling all non football(Soccer) fans and asked about the anti social behaviour of football fans should those extremeist cases (hooligans) be treated under the mental health act, which tie up masses of police resources and organisation each week to make sure opposing groups don't cross paths and so that disputes can be rapidly broken up (a massive waste of resources) would there have been an outcry, not really as everyone would agree that football hooliganism is a bad thing, but put religious extremeists in the mix and people will treat it like a 3 week old sheep corpse.

Just another self-righteous little human who thinks their bullshit beliefs are somehow better than everyone else's bullshit beliefs. Yawn.

"Move along now. Nothing to see here."

You can get the same lesson from your parents, who have a responsibility to instill the most basic core values and morals into their offspring. In fact, morals are relative and can sit apart from religion. Being moral means you're able to follow the law and be a good citizen.

I'm not arguing against that fact. I am, however, saying that the Bible is in some sense a moral guideline. As a utilitarian, I believe morals are not set in stone (no pun intended); however, the bible is a helpful tool in the sense that it says do not kill, and do not be adulterous, etc, which I hope we can all agree are good lessons. I'm not arguing the basis of these claims I'm just saying they are good in a sense.

Disease is a social construct. Unless you living in a society that chooses to designate religious belief as a disease, it isnt one in your society.:p

Disease is a social construct. Unless you living in a society that chooses to designate religious belief as a disease, it isnt one in your society.:p
Oh well now, let's not be silly. :p