How to kill religion ???

[SirYeen]

Don't buy into the bullshit. Religion will fall only if we take active steps to make it.

I don't think anyone here advocates being passive (doing nothing) but there are effective means and counterproductive means.

All we need to do is increase the statistical likelihood that a few members of the congregation find the library door unlocked.
The rest is inevitable.

As long as people are indoctrinated knowledge won't be the nr1 on the list of the average joe. I'm not saying religious people can't be interested in science. I'm just saying that on average atheists are more interested in science and knowledge than religious people are.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

I don't think anyone here advocates being passive (doing nothing) but there are effective means and counterproductive means.

:lol: Religion will fade on its own when it no longer relevant to people's lives. It isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, so stop worrying and stop saying we should 'kill' it - it makes you sound stupid.

The problem : How do you convince people ?

By being honest and open and not forcing stuff upon them. If they don't listen, you have to walk away knowing that at least you tried.

And as you walk away, the person goes jihad on someone's head. Pacifism is not the answer for extremist religions.

 

[Fictionarious]

And as you walk away, the person goes jihad on someone's head. Pacifism is not the answer for extremist religions.

I agree. That makes the most important question, "what is?"
Let's (attempt to) imagine all of humanity's current and potential worldviews from a memeological perspective.
Setting aside such vain and superficial disputes as the great schism betwixt atheisms strong and weak, and between atheism and agnosticism, I would venture to guess most members of this forum have something very close to the following worldview:

That anything that happens in the universe that we can perceive, being natural (and, by exclusion, not supernatural) by virtue of our perceiving it, ought to be understood as best we can understand it; taking things at face-value, or as near to face-value as we can, without supposing the necessity or propriety of "fitting" any individual phenomenon we perceive to any one pre-existing conceptual model. We entertain and remember many conceptual models without embracing any one, considering how each new perception fits into each one. Over time, new perceptions invalidate some models (as the perception of the Earth revolving around the sun invalidated the geocentric universe model, to use a quite worn-out but worthy example), leaving us a narrower and narrower range of models to consider as accurate internal replicas of the reality we operate within. Interestingly, this has led all of us to the range of models in which Gods are not and have not been involved.

If you and I were to come right out with it, UltimateBlasphemer, our goal would be to perceive an Earth and Humanity that unanimously shared this worldview, correct? I share your militancy on this issue, though I know militancy is not the answer to combating extremist religions any more than pacifism is. If we (and our worldview) are to become any more predominant than 3% of the population at any one time, then we should strive to perfectly understand and be able to communicate exactly what it is that makes it so attractive to us in the first place. And then we should strive to understand exactly what it is about the religious worldview that gives it it's adhesive tenacity. My own suspicion is that we disbelievers disbelieve for much the same motivation believers believe: Mental security. We know that the sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and history do not make exceptions on our or anyone's behalf, and we derive just as much comfort from our control universe as the theist derives from God's experimental one.

But what else? Religion (the institution) is simultaneously an effect of a worldview and the primary means of that worldview's furtherance. How is ours to compete but by adopting the same strategy? And compete it must, because we can't stifle religions out of existence. Can't uproot them by hand. Where can't weed it out, we'll have to crowd it out by the introduction of a whole new species better suited to the territory. The problem seems to be in making our worldview into a meme-complex that retains it's giving us an accurate picture of the world but that also motivates us to perpetuate it as much as religions perpetuate themselves.
This is something I will be considering for a while.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

And as you walk away, the person goes jihad on someone's head. Pacifism is not the answer for extremist religions.

Verbal confrontation focused on the rational deconstruction of scripture just doesn't get it fast enough for ya huh?
Shall we slip in quietly in the night then like rational atheist ninjas and smother then with their pillows in the name of no-god?
Or how about we drop them all into live volcanoes and then nuke the volcanoes?

We'll probably need uniforms. Oh... how about armbands that say "Nix Gott Mit Uns"

I had never thought much about it, but I believe this thread has turned into an application of Poe's Law... but with an atheist batshit.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

Although it is not a weapon with a 100% success rate, the one weapon that has generally shown the strongest results has historically been education. If there is one thing that I would say is actually worth forcing on people starting at an early point, it is training them towards being scientifically and mathematically literate. Not requiring them to be scientists, engineers, or mathematicians exactly, but requiring that they have a clue about it and fully comprehend the mindset behind it. When you have that kind of literacy, it has a pretty profound effect on your perspective with respect to everything you come across. You end up building experience that exchanges prejudices towards revelations with prejudices towards investigation.

 

[Prolescum]

The problem : How do you convince people ?

By being honest and open and not forcing stuff upon them. If they don't listen, you have to walk away knowing that at least you tried.

And as you walk away, the person goes jihad on someone's head.

:lol: Nice attempt to portray open discussion as being passive.

Every single religious person, all 6-odd billion of them are completely unreasonable killers. Yep. You've got this one sewn up. I don't know why I disagreed with you in the first place, your view is so completely justified. We should be following you and your faith-based hatred of religion, that's exactly what's required to combat religion. Sign me up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if you dogmatically assert anything as truth without presenting reliable and verifiable evidence, and you are not talking about mathematics, then you are as good as lying and I have no reason to believe you.

Religion can be objectively proven to damage society. It is not just my opinion. There is statistical evidence of religion negatively correlating to health and prosperity. There is a long history of religious crusades and dictatorship. In principle, it doesn't matter how many think the contrary.

Religion has NOT been objectively proven to damage society. You are confusing cause and effect - religion is often adopted by those in dire circumstances and therefore may indeed be practiced more by the unhealthy and non-prospering. It does not by any means prove that it CAUSES those things. That's just a fantastically poor 'science' and shows how blind you are to objectivity in this matter. In fact, studies have shown that people in those situations are given hope by religion and often do much better with religion than without. http://papers.nber.org/papers/w13369

Further, you are making the same mistake people make when accusing atheism of causing the tragedies in russia and the holocaust when you blame religion for war and dictatorships. There were wars before religion and there will be wars after. People in power use religion or nationalism or whatever the prevailing ideologies of the day are to support their wars and policies, but ultimately personal greed is the cause of most war. Unfortunately our society currently elevates greed and self-interest as the highest good, rather than treats it as what it is - the root cause of almost all human suffering.

I was referring to laws against child abuse as laws against indoctrination - you cannot threaten or physically harm children in the U.S. into believing something. Unless you are defining indoctrination as merely teaching children whatever ideologies, in which case no, I do not believe that teaching children something should be outlawed.

But the fact still remains that religion, defined as an institution of indoctrination, suppresses free thought and education. It may be true that religion didn't directly cause those countries misfortune, but it is certainly not helping them. Religion retards scientific and social progress in general.

So if you dogmatically assert anything as truth without presenting reliable and verifiable evidence, and you are not talking about mathematics, then you are as good as lying and I have no reason to believe you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as you walk away, the person goes jihad on someone's head. Pacifism is not the answer for extremist religions.

I love that term 'goes Jihad'. All those Hindus, Sikhs and Christians are going to aim for a Muslim sense of spiritual perfection in the face of those who want to be reasonable and co-exist. :facepalm:

You're not even consistent in your own arguments; how are people to suppose you have anything of value to offer when you just make shit up because it suits your agenda?

You, sir, are as dangerous as those you detest, and are a comedy mirror of extreme proportions.

I genuinely hope this doesn't send you into a murderous rampage to show how reasonable and rational your views are, but if it does, well, they probably deserve it, right?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, someone who reads this forum but isn't a member indicated to me that you may have insinuated that I am a closet religionista. I informed him that I couldn't recall you doing that, but conceded you might well think so. I thought, for your benefit, I'd make it explicit:

I am not, in any way, shape or form, religious. I am, however, reasonable and, one hopes, fairly rational. This is at the core of my disagreement with you, UltimateBlasphemer (well, a bit of lulz too if I'm totally honest - you're an easy target, as most militant people are).

Your views are petty and risibly US-centric, and I only ply such ridicule toward you because you portray yourself as so comically ridiculous, like a pantomime villain.

Now that that's out of the way, perhaps you could open your anger-encrusted eyes and see that your way isn't the only way, and certainly isn't the rational way. It is my sincere hope that you will concede this point alone.

I had never thought much about it, but I believe this thread has turned into an application of Poe's Law... but with an atheist batshit.

I've said as much previously to no avail. Yet. Perhaps an outing at FSTDT would be suitably eye-opening for him.

Edited to regular font now that the point has hit home.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

UB... do you want to know what kills religion?

Lack of emotional investment. Just that. Nothing else.
Everything you do can never be more than an influence.
Anything you do to increase or validate their emotional investment makes it that much more likely they will never leave.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

You know, someone who reads this forum but isn't a member indicated to me that you may have insinuated that I am a closet religionista. I informed him that I couldn't recall you doing that, but conceded you might well think so. I thought, for your benefit, I'd make it explicit:

I am not, in any way, shape or form, religious. I am, however, reasonable and, one hopes, fairly rational. This is at the core of my disagreement with you, UltimateBlasphemer (well, a bit of lulz too if I'm totally honest - you're an easy target, as most militant people are).

Oh no, I don't think you are religious. I believed you the first time I asked about your religious views. You are just another fellow atheist who doesn't realize the urgency of the situation with religion. The more we can do to stop lives being lost to religion, the better. It has to be done with waterfalls, not streams.

You are also kind of an asshole for making your posts unnecessarily large by increasing the font size. I am surprised that the mods haven't given you a warning yet (ahem) because it is equivalent to shouting and pollutes the reading area.

 

[australopithecus]

You are also kind of an asshole for making your posts unnecessarily large by increasing the font size. I am surprised that the mods haven't given you a warning yet (ahem) because it is equivalent to shouting and pollutes the reading area.

Shouting works when you need to attract the attention of someone who isn't listening and I doubt he will get a warning due to the distinct lack of any rule breaking.

Anyhoo, as for how to kill religion? Short answer: You can't. Longer answer: You shouldn't.

People will probably always cling to faith in something and that something will probably always be called a god. Sure religions can die out but they are almost universally replaced by new ones. Short of making humanit extinct you'll never be rid of religion.

Plus, to kill religion you'd have to effectively stop people believing in them. You can't unless you're willing to promote ignorance and that would make you no better than the ideologies you seek to remove. Why replace forced theism or at the least heavily promoted theism with forced/promoted atheism? You remove peoples right to chose then you become the enemy of reason.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Sure religions can die out but they are almost universally replaced by new ones. Short of making humanit extinct you'll never be rid of religion.

Never say never. Don't you know that? They said that man would never fly. They said that man would never become like god and create life.

Plus, to kill religion you'd have to effectively stop people believing in them.

That's what it means. Now by "stop people", that doesn't necessarily mean that you would beat someone's head until it fell out. It could mean that humans are no longer genetically predisposed to believing. Or that humans would be apart of a collective intelligence that no longer found religion useful.

I'm not saying that's how I would do it but... I'm just saying.

 

[Andiferous]

You are also kind of an asshole for making your posts unnecessarily large by increasing the font size. I am surprised that the mods haven't given you a warning yet (ahem) because it is equivalent to shouting and pollutes the reading area.

Well, I'm a bit worried I contributed to that trend.

But you're right, in longer posts, it makes reading a bit tricky.

 

[Aught3]

You are also kind of an asshole for making your posts unnecessarily large by increasing the font size. I am surprised that the mods haven't given you a warning yet (ahem) because it is equivalent to shouting and pollutes the reading area.

Well, I'm a bit worried I contributed to that trend.

But you're right, in longer posts, it makes reading a bit tricky.

Fair enough but there is really no need to call someone an asshole over it. What ever beef you and Prolescum have going I suggest you both cut it out or take it to PMs. No one here wants to see it played out on the boards.

 

[australopithecus]

Never say never. Don't you know that? They said that man would never fly. They said that man would become like god and create life.

And 'they', whoever 'they' are, were commenting on either technological or scientific advances, not the wholesale irradication of a ingrained cultural predisposition that's millenia old.

That's what it means. Now by "stop people", that doesn't necessarily mean that you would beat someone's head until it fell out. It could mean that humans are no longer genetically predisposed to believing. Or that humans would be apart of a collective intelligence that no longer found religion useful.

I'm not saying that's how I would do it but... I'm just saying.

Stopping implies proactively taking steps to make sure they don't do something. It might not mean beating someone's head in but it does mean doing something that prohibits someone doing something else. Humans not being genetically predisposed or outgrowing religion isn't stopping people being religious, they would be a natural sidelining of religion to the point of redundancy. Killing or stopping means going out of your way to make sure something doesn't happen, and in the case of religion I fundementally disagree that any rational person should support anyone going out of their way to stop people believing what they wish or setting up a system where they can't learn about certain things because they might then believe in them.

 

[Prolescum]

Edit: I've edited my earlier post as the point is now well established.

Oh no, I don't think you are religious. I believed you the first time I asked about your religious views. You are just another fellow atheist who doesn't realize the urgency of the situation with religion.

And what, precisely if you will, is the urgency? You have a party to attend? What pressing occurrence necessitates a push by a tiny minority to overcome the millennia old traditions and beliefs of billions in one short sharp shock?

You see, in a place called reality, you cannot win the battle with vitriol, condemnation or persecution. Your way is logistically unlikely and impossible practically. So for all the bluster and bile, all you get is to sulk in your own bitterness. Congratulations, you are officially an irrelevance.

The more we can do to stop lives being lost to religion, the better. It has to be done with waterfalls, not streams.

You certainly like flirting with dramatic language, but it's all puff. You neglected to respond to an important part of my post. I repeat it here:

Now that that's out of the way, perhaps you could open your anger-encrusted eyes and see that your way isn't the only way, and certainly isn't the rational way.

Any time you like.

That's what it means. Now by "stop people", that doesn't necessarily mean that you would beat someone's head until it fell out. It could mean that humans are no longer genetically predisposed to believing. Or that humans would be apart of a collective intelligence that no longer found religion useful.

Heh, I knew you just made this stuff up. I think you'll firstly have to back up the idea that humans are currently genetically predisposed to believing. How does that tally with your presumably Humanist-style ideology? I won't even start on the second supposition.

 

[Andiferous]

Taking this a different direction:

Ultimate Blasphemer:

You are an anti-theist, and as such, I think it's safe to assume you do not believe god exists.
We both agree that the idea of god has been somewhat responsible for bad stuff.
If god exists in culture, but not in actuality, I suppose we could say god is a human invention.
Now, if god is a human invention, how exactly will censoring the idea of god fix this problem?
Perhaps culling humans is more effective.

Secondly.

Do you believe in critical thinking? Do you believe it can be useful to this problem? If so, what is your definition of critical thinking, and does it involve censorship of ideas?

I know you are arguing against the organisation and not the idea; but understand that I believe those two things are rather impossible to separate.

There's a cool quote from somewhere: "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

And what, precisely if you will, is the urgency? You have a party to attend? What pressing occurrence necessitates a push by a tiny minority to overcome the millennia old traditions and beliefs of billions in one short sharp shock?

Life is short. Selflessly make a difference while you can.

You certainly like flirting with dramatic language, but it's all puff. You neglected to respond to an important part of my post. I repeat it here:

Now that that's out of the way, perhaps you could open your anger-encrusted eyes and see that your way isn't the only way, and certainly isn't the rational way.

Any time you like.

I realize that my "way" is not the only way. I am fine with people believing in different ways to end religion.

There is also more than one way to drive a nail. You can use a hammer, or you can smash your head into it until it becomes a bloody pulp.

I think you'll firstly have to back up the idea that humans are currently genetically predisposed to believing.

Do you believe in the Mendelian genes? Do you believe that genes directly determine the structure of every protein in every cell in your body? Do you believe that genes play an important role in every physical process in your body? I do.

And because I am a philosophical materialist (only believe in the physical world, as it is empirically true), I also believe that genes ultimately determine human behavior. There are many other seemingly competing factors such as family upbringing, cultural tradition, social setting, and environment. But don't these things arise from genes or from the common physical processes that also give rise to our genes? I think so.

Therefore anything that humans do or are capable of, do not do it and are not capable of it without the combination of their genes and the physical processes surrounding them.

Now, if god is a human invention, how exactly will censoring the idea of god fix this problem?
Perhaps culling humans is more effective.

We hope not. For our own fleshy sake. But what if we knew that this course would lead to a slow human extinction, or permanent disbarment from our strive for happiness and higher knowledge? Would it not be right to try to become something more than human?

Do you believe in critical thinking? Do you believe it can be useful to this problem? If so, what is your definition of critical thinking, and does it involve censorship of ideas?

Of course I believe in critical thinking. It is the process that brought me and so many other rational atheist to our position. I just don't think that it is enough. The fact that there are so few of us implies that only a few people have the capacity/freedom of critical thinking.

We would either have to increase the capacity (genetic engineering/mind uploading), or attack the root of problem directly (check out the locked thread in sig!)

 

[Andiferous]

We hope not. For our own fleshy sake. But what if we knew that this course would lead to a slow human extinction, or permanent disbarment from our strive for happiness and higher knowledge? Would it not be right to try to become something more than human?

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to cull human beings for lots of reasons, but I practice self restraint.

Of course I believe in critical thinking. It is the process that brought me and so many other rational atheist to our position. I just don't think that it is enough. The fact that there are so few of us implies that only a few people have the capacity/freedom of critical thinking.

Suppose we look at general cultural attitudes fifty years ago. Even a hundred years ago. They're pretty different, eh? There is change.

 

[Fictionarious]

Short of making humanity extinct you'll never be rid of religion.

Plus, to kill religion you'd have to effectively stop people believing in them. You can't unless you're willing to promote ignorance and that would make you no better than the ideologies you seek to remove. Why replace forced theism or at the least heavily promoted theism with forced/promoted atheism? You remove peoples right to chose then you become the enemy of reason.

I challenge you to prove the first sentence in this direct quote. Read Zuckerman's "Society without God". I haven't yet, but the reviews are enough.
Also, the words "end religion" are not synonymous with either "end the lives of the religious", or "censor the religious". It is entirely possible to attack the problem without attacking the people or curtailing their proper liberty.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

You are just another fellow atheist who doesn't realize the urgency of the situation with religion. The more we can do to stop lives being lost to religion, the better. It has to be done with waterfalls, not streams.

If you're in such a hurry to get immediate results, then I can only assume you mean to solve the worlds problems before we blow each other up.
I think the first thing you should be asking, is "what can we do toward addressing this problem that will not become the catalyst that causes that to happen?"

That is what I mean by "effective methods."
Dropping bigger bombs never teaches an adversary the "rightness" of your position. It only teaches them to better fortify their defenses.

There is also another question here and that is "Why can't I just force other people to see things my way?"
That question makes you exactly the same as the fundies.

That reduces the effective methods to those which don't make the situation worse.

Have you tried conversation yet?

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Have you tried conversation yet?

Yesh. Read the rest of the post. Err, the most recent one.