NationStates Jolt Archive

First, “The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has led Easter prayers for the release of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston, who remains missing in the Gaza Strip.” (BBC)

As an atheist, I find prayer to be rather insulting. I do not know as to whether Alan Johnston is theistic or not…that is beside the point. You might say that prayer is harmless, but it is a part of the arrogant theistic paradigm. It sets up a hypothetical and dichotomous relationship. Furthermore, it implies that prayer is a valid solution to a crisis…imposition of theistic conceptions, and (to be quite honest) counter-productive and worthless sentiment. Prayer might be seen to be a projection of sympathy, but I believe it’s more than that. Thoughts?

Second, an Anglican Bishop commended the Iranian President. Comparing Britain’s supposed moral and spiritual vacuity to Iran’s definitive and concrete worldview. Eurgh.

In my opinion, complete bunk. In the UK at least (and Europe as a whole)I should hope that our traditions are secular and judicious. After all, a civic and neutral conception of morality is vastly superior to any religious equivalent. No biased…equality of treatment; freer and fairer. Society does not need an anachronistic, exclusive and prejudicial ‘fabric’. We do not ‘need’ spirituality; there’s enough good and substance in a wholly rational world. We should abandon these archaisms. Thoughts?

Thoughts?

I think you're far too easily offended.

http://phocks.org/stumble/images/prayer.png

http://phocks.org/stumble/images/prayer.png

I think you're far too easily offended.

Both quoted for truth.

I think you're far too easily offended.

Perhaps I value my 'beliefs'? Perhaps I feel as if they are being challenged by proxy...that prayer is based upon an irrational presumption?

First, “The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has led Easter prayers for the release of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston, who remains missing in the Gaza Strip.” (BBC)

As an atheist, I find prayer to be rather insulting. I do not know as to whether Alan Johnston is theistic or not…that is beside the point. You might say that prayer is harmless, but it is a part of the arrogant theistic paradigm. It sets up a hypothetical and dichotomous relationship. Furthermore, it implies that prayer is a valid solution to a crisis…imposition of theistic conceptions, and (to be quite honest) counter-productive and worthless sentiment. Prayer might be seen to be a projection of sympathy, but I believe it’s more than that. Thoughts?

Second, an Anglican Bishop commended the Iranian President. Comparing Britain’s supposed moral and spiritual vacuity to Iran’s definitive and concrete worldview. Eurgh.

In my opinion, complete bunk. In the UK at least (and Europe as a whole)I should hope that our traditions are secular and judicious. After all, a civic and neutral conception of morality is vastly superior to any religious equivalent. No biased…equality of treatment; freer and fairer. Society does not need an anachronistic, exclusive and prejudicial ‘fabric’. We do not ‘need’ spirituality; there’s enough good and substance in a wholly rational world. We should abandon these archaisms. Thoughts?

It depends on your religion. I, being Catholic, believe in God. God said in the Bible (I'm too lazy to find the exact quote) that He will answer all prayers - maybe not in the way that the person praying intended, but all thoughtful prayers that do not ask for pleasures of the flesh (or something like that) He will answer. So far, that's happened to me. I mean, there are a few prayers that He hasn't answered yet, but in time I believe God will.

As an atheist, I find prayer to be rather insulting. I do not know as to whether Alan Johnston is theistic or not…that is beside the point. You might say that prayer is harmless, but it is a part of the arrogant theistic paradigm. It sets up a hypothetical and dichotomous relationship. Furthermore, it implies that prayer is a valid solution to a crisis…imposition of theistic conceptions, and (to be quite honest) counter-productive and worthless sentiment. Prayer might be seen to be a projection of sympathy, but I believe it’s more than that. Thoughts?

Second, an Anglican Bishop commended the Iranian President. Comparing Britain’s supposed moral and spiritual vacuity to Iran’s definitive and concrete worldview. Eurgh.

In my opinion, complete bunk. In the UK at least (and Europe as a whole)I should hope that our traditions are secular and judicious. After all, a civic and neutral conception of morality is vastly superior to any religious equivalent. No biased…equality of treatment; freer and fairer. Society does not need an anachronistic, exclusive and prejudicial ‘fabric’. We do not ‘need’ spirituality; there’s enough good and substance in a wholly rational world. We should abandon these archaisms. Thoughts?

1.) well the Bishop is just doing his job and well wishing, can you really blame him?

2.) Many people in Europe im sure have opinions also that they think are the right things to do.

i agree, you are too easily offended.

its the archbishops job to pray for people and to suggest that others do the same.

you should stop looking for reasons to diss religious people.

i agree, you are too easily offended.

its the archbishops job to pray for people and to suggest that others do the same.

you should stop looking for reasons to diss religious people.

First, I'm 'dissing' faith...the concept. Not denigrating individuals. Furthermore, it's his job...yes. Also his 'job' to indoctrinate, to preach...doesn't mean that it is 'moral'.

I'm not 'offended' per se, simply aggravated. I think it represents such a huge and illogical double-standard. Especially true of the UK; the religious are a -minority-. Yet the Church is propped up by the state, an anachronistic monarchy...it's part of a wider, even more disturbing, pantheon of errors.

If you don't like religion, just ignore it.

1.) well the Bishop is just doing his job and well wishing, can you really blame him?

2.) Many people in Europe im sure have opinions also that they think are the right things to do.

1. Perhaps. Depends as to whether the journalist is theistic or not. It's more than 'well wishing'; it's 'My big magic sky man is going to help you, whether you like it or not'. It's an assertion of the primacy of mythos.
2. My opinions are based upon reason...'tradition', conservatism...the name changes, but the fundamentals? They are the same. Enslavement, bigotry and retrogression.

Even I think you are a bit too easily offended despite being atheistic myself.

If you don't like religion, just ignore it.

Hmmm, Neville Chamberlain's own. Organised religion? Just another means by which people might be oppressed, brainwashed and sacrificed on the altar of ignorance. I want to improve society...change the world for the better. Thus, I oppose it. Actively.

Yes, there are similarities abound; Nazism, organised religion, racism. All of them utilised the methods of exclusion, indoctrination and oppression. It might not be genocide, but think how many children enter adulthood believing homosexuality to be abhorrent…believing that the world is 6000 years old. It’s just as dangerous.

First, I'm 'dissing' faith...the concept. Not denigrating individuals. Furthermore, it's his job...yes. Also his 'job' to indoctrinate, to preach...doesn't mean that it is 'moral'.
So? Just let it go. Other peoples' morals aren't worth getting worked up about.

I'm not 'offended' per se, simply aggravated. I think it represents such a huge and illogical double-standard. Especially true of the UK; the religious are a -minority-. Yet the Church is propped up by the state, an anachronistic monarchy...it's part of a wider, even more disturbing, pantheon of errors.
The UK is still apparently majority Christian according to surveys and census data, without even including Islam, Judaism, Hunduism and other major religions. (Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6520463.stm))I doubt that will last long, though. Most people at my 6th form are atheistic, with agnostics and theists in a very small minority.

I do agree that the CofE should not be propped up by the state, but I'd put faith schooling and city acadamies as a much higher priority.

Hmmm, Neville Chamberlain's own. Organised religion? Just another means by which people might be oppressed, brainwashed and sacrificed on the altar of ignorance. I want to improve society...change the world for the better. Thus, I oppose it. Actively.
In other words, doing what your nemesis does: attempting to pour your beliefs onto other people. If it is immoral for someone with a religious belief to share theirs, then why is it not immoral for someone without a religious belief to do the same?

So? Just let it go. Other peoples' morals aren't worth getting worked up about.


The UK is still apparently majority Christian according to surveys and census data, without even including Islam, Judaism, Hunduism and other major religions. (Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6520463.stm))I doubt that will last long, though. Most people at my 6th form are atheistic, with agnostics and theists in a very small minority.

I do agree that the CofE should not be propped up by the state, but I'd put faith schooling and city acadamies as a much higher priority.

You know as well as I do that to be 'British' is to be 'Anglican' (it's a part of the absurd 'national' identity)...according to Gallup, the majority do not believe in God. I should think that they are 'nominally' Christian. If I remember correctly, 40% are theistic? Let me find the link. Was a splendid Economist article.

I'm at University. I know ten or eleven religious people, out of some 200.
Other people's 'immorals' are, though.

Furthermore, it implies that prayer is a valid solution to a crisis…imposition of theistic conceptions, and (to be quite honest) counter-productive and worthless sentiment.


And you are "offended" because?.....


Second, an Anglican Bishop commended the Iranian President. Comparing Britain’s supposed moral and spiritual vacuity to Iran’s definitive and concrete worldview. Eurgh.


So opinions contrary to yours, which don't have an immediate affect on you, offend you?


In my opinion, complete bunk. In the UK at least (and Europe as a whole)I should hope that our traditions are secular and judicious. After all, a civic and neutral conception of morality is vastly superior to any religious equivalent.


So you disagree with him? Oh woe is you :rolleyes:

Yes, there are similarities abound; Nazism, organised religion, racism. All of them utilised the methods of exclusion, indoctrination and oppression. It might not be genocide, but think how many children enter adulthood believing homosexuality to be abhorrent…believing that the world is 6000 years old. It’s just as dangerous.

Not all religious people actually believe that, you shouldn't attack religion as a whole because of the obvious flaws of some.

You know as well as I do that to be 'British' is to be 'Anglican' (it's a part of the absurd 'national' identity)...according to Gallup, the majority do not believe in God. I should think that they are 'nominally' Christian. If I remember correctly, 40% are theistic? Let me find the link. Was a splendid Economist article.
That contradicts itself. How can being British require being Anglican when, according to your data, 60% of Britons aren't Anglican? There is no religious requirement to being British.

I'm at University. I know ten or eleven religious people, out of some 200.
Other people's 'immorals' are, though.
...eh?

That contradicts itself. How can being British require being Anglican when, according to your data, 60% of Britons aren't Anglican? There is no religious requirement to being British.


...eh?

Was a flippant reference to British culture, I apologise. Anglicanism and 'Britishness'; historically, they've been inextricably linked. Vast majority are 'nominally' Anglican. They are baptised, but never go to church.

I'm at University. I know ten or eleven religious people, out of some 200.
Other people's 'immorals' are, though.

Funny that you seem to believe in moral absolutes, despite being an atheist.

Was a flippant reference to British culture, I apologise. Anglicanism and 'Britishness'; historically, they've been inextricably linked. Vast majority are 'nominally' Anglican. They are baptised, but never go to church.
I've bolded the important part in that.

In any case, being baptised doesn't make anyone religious or Anglican. If I were to be told today that I had been baptised in Church, I would just think myself as much an atheist as much as I do now. I know people who have been baptised and don't think anything of it, apart from being a load of mumbo jumbo.

Not all religious people actually believe that, you shouldn't attack religion as a whole because of the obvious flaws of some.

These are not ‘obvious flaws in some’, but in the actual concept. Organised religious belief…fifth columns, modes and means of oppression. I cannot abide the indoctrination of the young; the pretence that a five-year-old can grasp deep theological concepts. Most 30 year olds are not. I find it to be absurd. Damn the labelling, the deep-seated intractability, and the fixed and objective (rather than neutral and subjective) morality. The ‘us and them’ mentality and the sanctimonious attitude. That is how organised religion –necessarily- operates. This is not the denigration of theism, or of individuals; it is a critique of hierarchicalism, mysticism and counter-empirical precedents.

Not all religious people actually believe that, you shouldn't attack religion as a whole because of the obvious flaws of some.

I think the problem with organised religion is how easily it can be turned into a tool of mass oppression. All major religions have been used as such, I think.

But yes, OP you are far too easily offended/aggravated/whatever... As much as I think leaving things up to prayers is pure laziness, let the poor bishop do his job :p

First, I'm 'dissing' faith...the concept. Not denigrating individuals. Furthermore, it's his job...yes. Also his 'job' to indoctrinate, to preach...doesn't mean that it is 'moral'.

I'm not 'offended' per se, simply aggravated. I think it represents such a huge and illogical double-standard. Especially true of the UK; the religious are a -minority-. Yet the Church is propped up by the state, an anachronistic monarchy...it's part of a wider, even more disturbing, pantheon of errors.

1. Perhaps. Depends as to whether the journalist is theistic or not. It's more than 'well wishing'; it's 'My big magic sky man is going to help you, whether you like it or not'. It's an assertion of the primacy of mythos.
2. My opinions are based upon reason...'tradition', conservatism...the name changes, but the fundamentals? They are the same. Enslavement, bigotry and retrogression.

Hmmm, Neville Chamberlain's own. Organised religion? Just another means by which people might be oppressed, brainwashed and sacrificed on the altar of ignorance. I want to improve society...change the world for the better. Thus, I oppose it. Actively.

Yes, there are similarities abound; Nazism, organised religion, racism. All of them utilised the methods of exclusion, indoctrination and oppression. It might not be genocide, but think how many children enter adulthood believing homosexuality to be abhorrent…believing that the world is 6000 years old. It’s just as dangerous.

i stand corrected. how could any religious person possibly feel that this is one huge irrational diss? why would anyone feel attacked when being compared to nazis?

you have godwinned your own thread. that should tell you something.

These are not ‘obvious flaws in some’, but in the actual concept. Organised religious belief…fifth columns, modes and means of oppression. I cannot abide the indoctrination of the young; the pretence that a five-year-old can grasp deep theological concepts. Most 30 year olds are not. I find it to be absurd. Damn the labelling, the deep-seated intractability, and the fixed and objective (rather than neutral and subjective) morality. The ‘us and them’ mentality and the sanctimonious attitude. That is how organised religion –necessarily- operates. This is not the denigration of theism, or of individuals; it is a critique of hierarchicalism, mysticism and counter-empirical precedents.

We arn't living in the middle ages anymore, the Church in england does not exercise any sort of forced dogma on it's people like you seem to imply. The aglican church which also happens to be relatively moderate does not believe in a fixed moral law which cannot be bent or changed, they are more subjective then a lot of churches. If you talk to any anglican you will probably find that their "morals" are not much different from any normal persons "morals".

These are not ‘obvious flaws in some’, but in the actual concept. Organised religious belief…fifth columns, modes and means of oppression.
Enforced atheism can be just as opressive - Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin were all atheists too. We live in a society which tolerates religious freedom. Ergo, people follow religion.

I cannot abide the indoctrination of the young; the pretence that a five-year-old can grasp deep theological concepts. Most 30 year olds are not.
I dislike religious indoctrination of the young as well, which is why I oppose faith schools and allowing religions to run city academies. However, that doesn't mean opposing organised religion.

I find it to be absurd. Damn the labelling, the deep-seated intractability, and the fixed and objective (rather than neutral and subjective) morality. The ‘us and them’ mentality and the sanctimonious attitude.
Without being rude, you seem to be doing a bit of that yourself.

That is how organised religion –necessarily- operates. This is not the denigration of theism, or of individuals; it is a critique of hierarchicalism, mysticism and counter-empirical precedents.
Not all religions are heirarchical. Congregationalism isn't, and neither is Sikhism (I think). There is also just as much mysticism in science too - we don't have the answer to everything yet.

We arn't living in the middle ages anymore, the Church in england does not exercise any sort of forced dogma on it's people like you seem to imply. The aglican church which also happens to be relatively moderate does not believe in a fixed moral law which cannot be bent or changed, they are more subjective then a lot of churches. If you talk to any anglican you will probably find that their "morals" are not much different from any normal persons "morals".

Well, I am under the impression that most 'normal' people are immoral...but that's an aside.

I live in England. In my experience (invariably so) the more religious a person is, the more close-minded and prejudicial they tend to be. It is a strong correlation, and I have associated with many people...from the deepest realms of the SSXP to the most ferocious and dogmatic Dawkinsian. I have found atheists and agnostics to be far more moral, far more accepting...far more flexible. Progressive. There is convincing and plentiful evidence to back this up; just use google. I don't see as to why my belief (that it's fundamentally oppressive - even if only slightly) is so misinformed. The Anglican Church is still theistic (there is of course no evidence of God's existence), and there is still a religious agenda. However slight. It is propped up by the state...by a minority. It is ludicrous. That it stands for hardly anything is surely indicative of wider non-religious sentiment? That it the church in England is in fact nothing more than the detritus left over from the Enlightenment. Furthermore, my comments applied to the concept of organised religion as a whole. Anglicanism is more nationalist than religious; poor example.

i stand corrected. how could any religious person possibly feel that this is one huge irrational diss? why would anyone feel attacked when being compared to nazis?

you have godwinned your own thread. that should tell you something.

Yes...because this is an 'irrational' argument. ;) It's based upon historical, political and even philosophical truisms. Must be irrational. Just like believing in God and/or fairies.

I despise the beliefs, the institutions...but not the people. I think that is the distinction between the religious and myself.

Enforced atheism can be just as opressive - Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin were all atheists too. We live in a society which tolerates religious freedom. Ergo, people follow religion.


I dislike religious indoctrination of the young as well, which is why I oppose faith schools and allowing religions to run city academies. However, that doesn't mean opposing organised religion.


Without being rude, you seem to be doing a bit of that yourself.


Not all religions are heirarchical. Congregationalism isn't, and neither is Sikhism (I think). There is also just as much mysticism in science too - we don't have the answer to everything yet.

"Enforced atheism can be just as opressive - Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin were all atheists too. We live in a society which tolerates religious freedom. Ergo, people follow religion."

Problem with that argument...that atheism was not the determining factor. That their oppression was not based upon 'atheism', but upon Stalinism etc. No offence, but it's fallacious...Khomeini and Ahmedinejad on the other hand ;)

"However, that doesn't mean opposing organised religion."

Surely it does...by extension? It's simply the indoctrination of the 'adult'. Is that any better or worse?

Science does not have all the answers. Do not assume that it never shall. Yet it is empirical, logical...tends to find the answer eventually. Religion has left us with nothing, but strange and delusional hypotheses. It is the agent of ignorance, rather than discovery.


I'm making loose generalisations...but they made be made, I believe, when there's proof in the pudding.

Well, I am under the impression that most 'normal' people are immoral...but that's an aside.


What do you base your morals on?


I live in England. In my experience (invariably so) the more religious a person is, the more close-minded and prejudicial they tend to be.

Well any argument based on experience means shit all tbh. Though I do agree that the more fundamentalist one is the more, close minded he is. But thats different, you don't have to be religious to be fundamentalist.


There is convincing and plentiful evidence to back this up; just use google.


There is no statistic that can measure how close minded people are, or really how religious they are. So there isn't much to back up your claim.


I don't see as to why my belief (that it's fundamentally oppressive - even if only slightly) is so misinformed.

Define fundamentally oppressive, and state why it is more oppressive then any other moral or philosiphical view.

I do agree, however, that we aren't living in the Middle Ages anymore. I think that adds weight to my argument, rather than the opposition's. :)

I did not mean to insult or belittle religious individuals, and I apologise if I have caused offence. I find it to be strange that an attack on religion is immediately perceived to be an attack on the religious...would a Marxist, Republican or Tory react similarly? I think not.

I do agree, however, that we aren't living in the Middle Ages anymore. I think that adds weight to my argument, rather than the opposition's. :)

I did not mean to insult or belittle religious individuals, and I apologise if I have caused offence. I find it to be strange that an attack on religion is immediately perceived to be an attack on the religious...would a Marxist, Republican or Tory react similarly? I think not.

It is quite offensive to say that the ideas you base your life on is fundamentally immoral/wrong.

(i'm not religious btw)

"What do you base your morals on?"

Conglomerate of anarchism, utilitarianism, socialism, secularism and progressiveness (i.e in American terms, extreme liberalism). Nihilistic fundamentally, but believe we should construct a fitting and decent moral framework so that we might be better and gladder. That we must accept, rather than exclude. Have freedom from, rather than freedom for. That we must be open, rather than close, minded. Organised Religion is something I feel I must oppose..it would appear to stand for everything I do not. ;)

"Well any argument based on experience means shit all tbh. Though I do agree that the more fundamentalist one is the more, close minded he is. But thats different, you don't have to be religious to be fundamentalist."

Don't believe in the value of empirical experience? Fair enough.



"There is no statistic that can measure how close minded people are, or really how religious they are. So there isn't much to back up your claim."

Well...there is. Conservatives being 'close-minded', progressives being 'open-minded' (by definition, surely). Religious? Observance, attendance etc. It's easy enough.

"Define fundamentally oppressive, and state why it is more oppressive then any other moral or philosiphical view."

This is more complicated. It is fundamentally oppressive, because it is indoctrinal. It is institutional. It is based upon a belief that is backed up by ‘faith’, not by fact. It sets a terrible and heinous intellectual precedent. I’ll expand on this if you so wish. It is oppressive because it stunts your worldview, shapes your thoughts and feelings…as all moral and philosophical ‘views’ do. Point being that religious belief is invariably inferior to secularism/etc. It is –worse-.

It is quite offensive to say that the ideas you base your life on is fundamentally immoral/wrong.

(i'm not religious btw)

It might offend, but it is not necessarily offensive. It is a critique...would you be worried that we might have offended Hitler or Dollfuss? No. Criticism is a necessity. Otherwise there can be no improvement.

Problem with that argument...that atheism was not the determining factor. That their oppression was not based upon 'atheism', but upon Stalinism etc. No offence, but it's fallacious...Khomeini and Ahmedinejad on the other hand ;)
Stalin had an ideological, atheistic opposition to religion. If you can pin that on 'not being the determining factor' you can also say the same of Khomeini and Ahmedinejad - just as Stalin uses athesim as a means to keep in power, you can say they use religion to keep in power.

Surely it does...by extension? It's simply the indoctrination of the 'adult'. Is that any better or worse?
How is an adult choosing (emphasis on choosing) to go to church, mosque, temple or synogouge indoctrination?

Science does not have all the answers. Do not assume that it never shall. Yet it is empirical, logical...tends to find the answer eventually. Religion has left us with nothing, but strange and delusional hypotheses. It is the agent of ignorance, rather than discovery.
So? It is people's right to believe in something, whether it be right or wrong, ignorant or not. Forcing an athestic viewpoint on someone simply because it is 'right' is just as bad as religious tyrany in Iran and elsewhere - remember, religious people think they are right as you do.

It might offend, but it is not necessarily offensive. It is a critique...would you be worried that we might have offended Hitler or Dollfuss? No. Criticism is a necessity. Otherwise there can be no improvement.

But religious folk are not the same as Hitler or Dollfuss.

"If you can pin that on 'not being the determining factor' you can also say the same of Khomeini and Ahmedinejad - just as Stalin uses athesim as a means to keep in power, you can say they use religion to keep in power."

Erm, no offence...but that's incorrect. Stalin was a ****...but not because he was an atheistic, because he sought to undo organised religion. Indeed, one might argue he sent up his own...the personality cult. Atheism (by definition) is the absence of religion...of any real organisational structure. They were not his 'flagship' policies. Islamofascism? These are the 'flagship' policies of the Iranian state. They are destructive. Khomeini was motivated by radical Islamism...Stalinism by megalomania. :)


"How is an adult choosing (emphasis on choosing) to go to church, mosque, temple or synogouge indoctrination?"

13 out of 14 are born into their religion, and stay there (The God Delusion - Dawkins)...I'm sure that they did not 'choose' to go in the first place. ;)


"So? It is people's right to believe in something, whether it be right or wrong, ignorant or not."

No, it's not. I do not agree. If something is wrong, it is wrong. End of. You must get rid of it. It's detrimental, it's destructive. Ignorance is often the root cause...no accident that the poorer the standard of national/state education, the more religious a population.

"Forcing an athestic viewpoint on someone simply because it is 'right' is just as bad as religious tyrany in Iran and elsewhere - remember, religious people think they are right as you do."

It's not forcing an atheistic viewpoint. I do not advocate such a thing. I am trying to stop people from forcing a theistic viewpoint. :) That's all. You can believe if you so wish...just don't externalise it as extensively.

But religious folk are not the same as Hitler or Dollfuss.

Hitler was a religious folk....

But religious folk are not the same as Hitler or Dollfuss.

Well, Dollfuss’ Austrofascism was based upon clericalism and Catholicism…but that’s an aside.

No, many are not. Some are. I should, and can, still criticise their beliefs if I so wish. If it is patently obvious that they are immoral and counter-utilitarian.

Although his ideas were more influenced by darwinism.

But thats besides the point, as I meant generally.

*Change 'Darwinism' to 'Social Darwinism and Gall and Spurzheim'

Hitler was a religious folk....

Although his ideas were more influenced by darwinism.

But thats besides the point, as I meant generally.

Well, Dollfuss’ Austrofascism was based upon clericalism and Catholicism…but that’s an aside.

No, many are not. Some are. I should, and can, still criticise their beliefs if I so wish. If it is patently obvious that they are immoral and counter-utilitarian.

Criticising their specific beliefs is different to borderline insulting religion generally.

So? It is people's right to believe in something, whether it be right or wrong, ignorant or not. Forcing an athestic viewpoint on someone simply because it is 'right' is just as bad as religious tyrany in Iran and elsewhere - remember, religious people think they are right as you do.

I agree with you. I believe fundamental human rights are not violable under any circumstances. We should all be allowed to believe and think whatever we want; free thought, free speech.

That said, it is just wrong to preach and enforce an religion on someone as it is to force atheism on another. In this regards religion is far worse than atheism, because organised religion begins its doctrination from birth, greatly diminishing the possibility of an objective review. It is all fine and well to me if adults decide to commit themselves to a particular religion; it is not right at all to raise children under a religious envrionment.

Criticising their specific beliefs is different to borderline insulting religion generally.

I'm not 'insulting' it. I'm levelling criticisms; and they're accurate ones.

Although his ideas were more influenced by darwinism.

But thats besides the point, as I meant generally.

Then, in general, the populations of Europe tolerated, cooperated with, and in many cases supported the Jewish genocide out of the long standing anti-semetic beliefs reaching back to the roots of Christianity.

They are just as bad as Hitler.

I'm not 'insulting' it. I'm levelling criticisms; and they're accurate ones.

Nah they are generalisations.

Erm, no offence...but that's incorrect. Stalin was a ****...but not because he was an atheistic, because he sought to undo organised religion. Indeed, one might argue he sent up his own...the personality cult. Atheism (by definition) is the absence of religion...of any real organisational structure. They were not his 'flagship' policies. Islamofascism? These are the 'flagship' policies of the Iranian state. They are destructive. Khomeini was motivated by radical Islamism...Stalinism by megalomania. :)
If that's the case, you can argue that Khomeini was motivated by meglomania too. Stalin was a tyrant in order to push for his communist agenda. Khomeini was in order to push for a Islamist agenda. That is a fault on the part of the leader - not Islam.

13 out of 14 are born into their religion, and stay there (The God Delusion - Dawkins)...I'm sure that they did not 'choose' to go in the first place. ;)
You're talking about children, then, not adults. Moving the goalposts. IF that is the case, though, how is is possible that less and less people are going to church and not more in each generation? That means surely, that peopel aren't being indoctrinated.

No, it's not. I do not agree. If something is wrong, it is wrong. End of. You must get rid of it. It's detrimental, it's destructive. Ignorance is often the root cause...no accident that the poorer the standard of national/state education, the more religious a population.
You cannot prove that it is wrong - science is yet to say conclusively that there is no God. It can't, since it is impossible to prove a negative. That is one of the reasons why there is a freedom of religion, organised or not.

It's not forcing an atheistic viewpoint. I do not advocate such a thing. I am trying to stop people from forcing a theistic viewpoint. :) That's all. You can believe if you so wish...just don't externalise it as extensively.
You just disagreed that there is/should be freedom of religion. If that's not forcing an atheistic viewpoint, I don't know what is.

Hitler was a religious folk....
But not everyone religious thinks like an Austrian dictator.

Nah they are generalisations.

I haven't 'generalised'! I haven't really made reference to the 'religious'. I have criticised the very -concept-; of an organised, powerful and indoctrinal body. That is accurate. Refute it, if you feel you can.

But not everyone religious thinks like an Austrian dictator.

Most Europeans certainly did.

Most Europeans certainly did.
No they didn't. Are you seriously saying that every 1930s-1940s European was a Nazi?

I haven't 'generalised'! I haven't really made reference to the 'religious'. I have criticised the very -concept-; of an organised, powerful and indoctrinal body. That is accurate. Refute it, if you feel you can.

I have:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12523530&postcount=32

Most Europeans certainly did.

Back this up.

Edit: and no what people thought a few centuries beforehand IS irellavent.

Back this up.

Edit: and no what people thought a few centuries beforehand IS irellavent.

Did you see my post at #47?

Then, in general, the populations of Europe tolerated, cooperated with, and in many cases supported the Jewish genocide out of the long standing anti-semetic beliefs reaching back to the roots of Christianity.

They are just as bad as Hitler.

Anti - semitism was not in the majority in europe, especially not during ww2. Also, anti semetism =/= support of the holocaust. Also, you can't blame christianity for anti semtism. Early christians, you can however yet that was more to do with other factors rather then because they were christian.

"If that's the case, you can argue that Khomeini was motivated by meglomania too. Stalin was a tyrant in order to push for his communist agenda. Khomeini was in order to push for a Islamist agenda. That is a fault on the part of the leader - not Islam."

Stalin wasn't a communist, first. Second, he was a megalomaniac. That is all that motivated him, in my earnest and informed opinion. I'd argue that Islam, Christianity etc. are necessarily exclusive and oppressive. It is inherent. Where communism is concerned, it certainly isn't.

"You're talking about children, then, not adults. Moving the goalposts. IF that is the case, though, how is is possible that less and less people are going to church and not more in each generation? That means surely, that peopel aren't being indoctrinated."

Well, as societies become more advanced and multicultural...as education improves...religion dies. Even so, indoctrination still takes place.


"You cannot prove that it is wrong - science is yet to say conclusively that there is no God. It can't, since it is impossible to prove a negative. That is one of the reasons why there is a freedom of religion, organised or not."

No, no...hold on. Wait a moment. I do not have to 'disprove' a negative. It doesn't work like that. We have to prove that something exists, not that it doesn't. Should apply to God, as it does everything else. You prove the positive; you're the one seeking a mandate, seeking to establish an indoctinatory institution. Burden of proof, and indeed the obligation to prove, lies with the religious.


"You just disagreed that there is/should be freedom of religion. If that's not forcing an atheistic viewpoint, I don't know what is."

It's called 'secularism'. Freedom from organised religion is freedom from oppression. You might still believe in God...or pixies. Just don't add to that great apparatus of illiberty.

"But not everyone religious thinks like an Austrian dictator."

Most Austrians did at the time...-not- most Europeans, however.

I have:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12523530&postcount=32

I responded. You didn't exactly 'refute' tbh.

Anti - semitism was not in the majority in europe, especially not during ww2. Also, anti semetism =/= support of the holocaust. Also, you can't blame christianity for anti semtism. Early christians, you can however yet that was more to do with other factors rather then because they were christian.

Judeophobia (Christian in origin) was widespread; especially in Central Europe. Anti-Semitism (racial etc.) has its origins in transposed Christian prejudice and 19th Century Pseudo-Science. Even so, you can blame the church...if not Christianity.;)

Anti - semitism was not in the majority in europe, especially not during ww2. Also, anti semetism =/= support of the holocaust. Also, you can't blame christianity for anti semtism. Early christians, you can however yet that was more to do with other factors rather then because they were christian.

Well, I don't have exact figures, of course, but it seems highly implausible to me that millions of Jews could be found and killed by anything less than a substantial number of active supporters within the population. And for every active supporter, there must be at least as many who passively lets it happen. How did you think the Nazis found Anne Frank?

Also I don't understand your point about Christianity and antisemitism. The whole European tradition of antisemitism was based off Christian bible teachings blaming Jews for the murder of Christ. Early Christians were certinly antisemitic for reasons besides their Christian beliefs; but that is purely because they were the ones who invented the whole myth of Jewish guilt.

Conglomerate of anarchism, utilitarianism, socialism, secularism and progressiveness (i.e in American terms, extreme liberalism). Nihilistic fundamentally, but believe we should construct a fitting and decent moral framework so that we might be better and gladder. That we must accept, rather than exclude. Have freedom from, rather than freedom for. That we must be open, rather than close, minded. Organised Religion is something I feel I must oppose..it would appear to stand for everything I do not. ;)


Since your morals are subjective, it would be irattional to just view anyone as "immoral". Yet you believe that you should construct a moral framework, fair enough but how would you get this framework to be accepted by more people then yourself? Yes, indoctrination, though I am sure you would call it something else. Whenever you bring people up in a certain moral framework, you are technically indoctrinating them.


Don't believe in the value of empirical experience? Fair enough.


Your experiences are limmited to the people you have met, again that backs up shit.


Well...there is. Conservatives being 'close-minded', progressives being 'open-minded' (by definition, surely).


Not inherently, no.


Religious? Observance, attendance etc. It's easy enough.


eh?

It is oppressive because it stunts your worldview, shapes your thoughts and feelings…as all moral and philosophical ‘views’ do.

zing!


Point being that religious belief is invariably inferior to secularism/etc. It is –worse-.

This can only be based on opinion.

Stalin wasn't a communist, first. Second, he was a megalomaniac. That is all that motivated him, in my earnest and informed opinion. I'd argue that Islam, Christianity etc. are necessarily exclusive and oppressive. It is inherent. Where communism is concerned, it certainly isn't.

You know that's not the point. Commie, Stalinist, Tyrant, it doesn't matter. My point - thich you failed to answer - still stands. But I'll entertain you. If Islam and Christianity are inherently opressive, how come England, (where the CofE is still established) has religious freedom?[/QUOTE]

Well, as societies become more advanced and multicultural...as education improves...religion dies. Even so, indoctrination still takes place.
Meaning that indoctrination isn't happening, if religion is dying.

No, no...hold on. Wait a moment. I do not have to 'disprove' a negative. It doesn't work like that. We have to prove that something exists, not that it doesn't. Should apply to God, as it does everything else. You prove the positive; you're the one seeking a mandate, seeking to establish an indoctinatory institution. Burden of proof, and indeed the obligation to prove, lies with the religious.
And they would say they do have the proof they need the God exists. I don't believe that it's proof enough, but tough shit - Enough people believe in it, and it doesn't do anyone, you or me, any harm. We do not live in a tyrranical society where we restrict freedom of concience, based on whether you believe something is correct or not.

Believing in God does not mean creating an indoctrinatory institution, either.

It's called 'secularism'. Freedom from organised religion is freedom from oppression. You might still believe in God...or pixies. Just don't add to that great apparatus of illiberty.
And the UK is a generally secular society. Even the established church has very little influence.

Most Austrians did at the time...-not- most Europeans, however.
That's impossible to prove, since elections were rigged. But that in no way reflects on religious Austrians.

Well, I don't have exact figures, of course, but it seems highly implausible to me that millions of Jews could be found and killed by anything less than a substantial number of active supporters within the population. And for every active supporter, there must be at least as many who passively lets it happen. How did you think the Nazis found Anne Frank?

Also I don't understand your point about Christianity and antisemitism. The whole European tradition of antisemitism was based off Christian bible teachings blaming Jews for the murder of Christ. Early Christians were certinly antisemitic for reasons besides their Christian beliefs; but that is purely because they were the ones who invented the whole myth of Jewish guilt.


Passivity is not quite the same as active sponsorship...or indeed apathy. The Nazis were brutal; would you dare oppose them? I think not. Developed system of complete totalitarianism. You cannot imagine. Not hard for a large military to round up the Jews...remember that it didn't start with genocide. It was gradual. Furthermore, the Poles (where vast majority of Jews lived) were very compliant. Their anti-Semitism being virulent today; a product of Catholic-Nationalism.

I agree with most of your second point. Anti-Semitism certainly has its origins in Christianity...though augmented with pseudo-science. Any excuse to be prejudicial, I suppose.

Well, I don't have exact figures, of course, but it seems highly implausible to me that millions of Jews could be found and killed by anything less than a substantial number of active supporters within the population. And for every active supporter, there must be at least as many who passively lets it happen. How did you think the Nazis found Anne Frank?


You are talking about germany, I am talking about europe.


Also I don't understand your point about Christianity and antisemitism. The whole European tradition of antisemitism was based off Christian bible teachings blaming Jews for the murder of Christ. Early Christians were certinly antisemitic for reasons besides their Christian beliefs; but that is purely because they were the ones who invented the whole myth of Jewish guilt.

You need to read the Bible more closely, it never justifies anti semitism. It is just used as a poor excuse by people who feel the need to justify their prejudice. Thats including the church.

“Point being that religious belief is invariably inferior to secularism/etc. It is –worse-.”

Mine being the right one; according to rational analysis. Philosophy. Ethics. History. Politics. All of them are demonstrative of the ills of religion. I will not stand for the homophobia, the sexism, the racism, the prejudice, the mysticism, the hierarchy etc. However mildly expressed…these are surely synonymous with the Church etc. As aforementioned, this isn’t the middle ages. Believe what you want. Yet, as we should not seek to force atheism…we should not let others force theism. :)

“It is oppressive because it stunts your worldview, shapes your thoughts and feelings…as all moral and philosophical ‘views’ do.”

Nothing wrong with that being the case if it is a correct, and indeed productive/open moral view that subverts the idea of oppression in the first place. ;)

“Not inherently, no.”
No offence, but perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the terms. Tradition vs. Modernity. Intolerance vs. Tolerance. Retrogression vs. Progression etc.
“Since your morals are subjective, it would be irattional to just view anyone as "immoral". Yet you believe that you should construct a moral framework, fair enough but how would you get this framework to be accepted by more people then yourself? Yes, indoctrination, though I am sure you would call it something else. Whenever you bring people up in a certain moral framework, you are technically indoctrinating them”
Would it? My morals are subjective…doesn’t mean that I cannot recognise the difference between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. If it is patently obvious that something is evil, surely it would be necessary to oppose it? Far from irrational. Yes, I believe we should construct one…believe people should accept it…but considering it’s fundamentally a utilitarian and tolerant one, then that would surely be fine. Religion cannot fit into that. Faith can…but not the ‘church’.

"You know that's not the point. Commie, Stalinist, Tyrant, it doesn't matter. My point - thich you failed to answer - still stands."

Erm...it does matter. If an idea is not a bad one, is not oppressive...then the outcome would not be negative. Khomeini's revolution was inevitably evil; Lenin's was not necessarily so. Do you understand? The ideology matters.

"But I'll entertain you. If Islam and Christianity are inherently opressive, how come England, (where the CofE is still established) has religious freedom?"

Secularism. The Enlightenment. Modern convention. Part of a wider trend in Europe. More atheists, more agnostics. We tend not to oppress ;)

"Meaning that indoctrination isn't happening, if religion is dying."

It is less effective.

Ignorance + organised religion = 'Faith sufferer'.
Organised religion+educaiton= skepticism.

"And they would say they do have the proof they need the God exists. I don't believe that it's proof enough, but tough shit - Enough people believe in it, and it doesn't do anyone, you or me, any harm."

Right. Of course not. 9/11, Iran, Iraqi Civil War, Israel, homophobia, illiberty. Doesn't do -anyone- any harm. Are you mad, my friend? It isn't 'tough shit' on us, it's 'tough shit' on them. They're the ones bending the rules of fact and empiricism. Not us.

"We do not live in a tyrranical society where we restrict freedom of concience, based on whether you believe something is correct or not."

Not necessarily tyrannical...emancipating the mind is as important as emancipating the body. Religion is the slavery of thought. We have the -right- to say it is correct if it -is-. Just as our forebears did vs. Nazism.

"Believing in God does not mean creating an indoctrinatory institution, either."

Hence this being an argument about organised religion, rather than theism.

"And the UK is a generally secular society. Even the established church has very little influence."

I live in Surrey...I go to University in London...;)

"That's impossible to prove, since elections were rigged. But that in no way reflects on religious Austrians."

Well, actually Dollfuss came to power (in the dictatorial sense) on the back of the Austrian Civil War/February Rising. Majority of Austrians supported it. The Viennese, unfortunately, were anomalous.

Even I think you are a bit too easily offended despite being atheistic myself.

I agree with that and I'm and atheist too.

I'm atheist, you're too easily offended, etc, etc.

Erm...it does matter. If an idea is not a bad one, is not oppressive...then the outcome would not be negative. Khomeini's revolution was inevitably evil; Lenin's was not necessarily so. Do you understand? The ideology matters.
I'm not talking about ideology, I'm talking about the name you give it. It doesn't matter whether you call it communism or not.

Secularism. The Enlightenment. Modern convention. Part of a wider trend in Europe. More atheists, more agnostics. We tend not to oppress ;)
Therefore, if organised religion can coexist with post-enlightenment secular society, what is there to be worked up about? Doesn't it render your 'religion oppresses' point obsolete? Oppression can happen in athestic societies and freedom can happen in deeply religious societies.

It is less effective.

Ignorance + organised religion = 'Faith sufferer'.
Organised religion+educaiton= skepticism.
In other words, people who have an education can't be religious. In that case, what does that make Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Hawking...?

Right. Of course not. 9/11, Iran, Iraqi Civil War, Israel, homophobia, illiberty. Doesn't do -anyone- any harm. Are you mad, my friend? It isn't 'tough shit' on us, it's 'tough shit' on them. They're the ones bending the rules of fact and empiricism. Not us.
Is every muslim a terrorist? No.
Is every Iranian crying to destroy Christianity and the west? No.
Is every Iraqi a suicude bomber? No.
Is every Israeli Jew on an anti-Islam crusade? No.
Is every Christian a homophobe? No.

And let's take this a bit further, shall we?

Pol Pot: killed 1 in 7 of his countrymen.
Stalin: committed Genocide against the Jews.
Mussolini: Fascist and tyrant.

By your 'logic' based on stereotypes, that makes atheism genocidal, anti-semitic and based on tyrany.

Not necessarily tyrannical...emancipating the mind is as important as emancipating the body. Religion is the slavery of thought. We have the -right- to say it is correct if it -is-. Just as our forebears did vs. Nazism.
And people have the right to say something if you think it is wrong.

Hence this being an argument about organised religion, rather than theism.
And my point still stands. If several people want to come together to worship, that does not mean indoctrination.

I live in Surrey...I go to University in London...;)
Uh huh. And the UK is still a generally secular society.

Well, actually Dollfuss came to power (in the dictatorial sense) on the back of the Austrian Civil War/February Rising. Majority of Austrians supported it. The Viennese, unfortunately, were anomalous.
Hard to work out exact numbers of who supported who in a civil war. In any case, it's irrelevant.

"I'm not talking about ideology, I'm talking about the name you give it. It doesn't matter whether you call it communism or not."

What name you call 'what'? Your argument is nonsensical.


"Therefore, if organised religion can coexist with post-enlightenment secular society"

Yes, but not happily. e.g US

"what is there to be worked up about?"

The interference, the 'fifth column'. The indoctrination of the young. The ignorance.


"Oppression can happen in athestic societies"

Agreed

"and freedom can happen in deeply religious societies"

Not agreed. Name one.


"In other words, people who have an education can't be religious. In that case, what does that make Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Hawking...?"

Einstein, Newton and Darwin being slightly obsolete examples (think how dated they are). Hawking being anomalous. This is a trend in -all- societies; it explains religiousity in the US. The juxtaposition of high economic development with social 'backwardness' in certain regions. Standards of primary and secondary education are far higher in many European countries.


Is every muslim a terrorist? No."

Of course not.

"Is every Iranian crying to destroy Christianity and the west? No."
EveryIranian politician and mullah is. ;)

"Is every Iraqi a suicude bomber? No."

No...what does nationality have to do with it?

"Is every Israeli Jew on an anti-Islam crusade? No."

No

"Is every Christian a homophobe? No."

Vast majority.

"And let's take this a bit further, shall we?

Pol Pot: killed 1 in 7 of his countrymen.
Stalin: committed Genocide against the Jews.
Mussolini: Fascist and tyrant."

Each of them 'happened' to be atheists. Atheism was not the source of their immorality. Incidentally, Mussolini wasn't a 'tyrant' exactly. Signed fewer death warrants than Bush.

"By your 'logic' based on stereotypes, that makes atheism genocidal, anti-semitic and based on tyrany."

Not at all. Your argument is fallacious.

My argument is not based upon 'stereotype', but the -teachings- of said religions! Your argument has nothing to do with the tenets of atheism; of which there are only a hanful. Ridiculous argument.

"And people have the right to say something if you think it is wrong."

Yep.Doesn't stop me from criticising them.

"And my point still stands. If several people want to come together to worship, that does not mean indoctrination."

That's not 'organised religion', per se.

"Uh huh. And the UK is still a generally secular society."

Of course. That wasn't my point.

"Hard to work out exact numbers of who supported who in a civil war. In any case, it's irrelevant."

No offence, but you should read up on that. It is very easy to work out; Black Austria vs. Red Vienna. Very clear cut. Far more 'Black Austrians'.

You're far too easily offended. And I'm Christian.