How to kill religion ???

[australopithecus]

I challenge you to prove the first sentence in this direct quote.

Tell you what, I'll hang around until humanity is finally extinct then get back to you because existing for the entirity of future human events would be the only way to prove such a thing conclusively.

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.

Ok then, how would you end religion without either of the above? Out of interest.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

Have you tried conversation yet?

Yesh. Read the rest of the post.

I have...Hence my suggestion.
A conversation does not usually consist of one person telling another that they need to do something for no reason that holds any meaning for them.


I'm going to append this to point out a logical fallacy. You frame atheists as being some sort of ubermensch who are alone capable of rational thought.
You completely disregard the fact that many of the people here and the most effective rhetorical geniuses on YT are former theists.
How did we come to disbelief? Someone talked to us. Someone challenged us. Someone said something we couldn't account for in our universe and our universe had to expand in response.

Conversation... not being told we were just wrong.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

I have...Hence my suggestion.
A conversation does not usually consist of one person telling another that they need to do something for no reason that holds any meaning for them.

Here:

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!)

 

[DeathofSpeech]

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!)

You appear not to recall my response to you in that locked thread...

Here's a thought, UB. Without loading up the M-4 or sharpening any knives, and without building concentration camps for any intellectual untermenchen...

Spread the controversy, confront unreason with reason, combat the intrusion of ANY religious policy into government (that includes anti-religious policy).

Let rational explanation gradually replace superstition.

Permit evolution of meme and cultural maturation to select out the untestable explanation as less utilitarian.

Be patient. Be persistent. Be rational.

It allows everyone to be wrong with impunity, and being wrong is how we eventually get closer to right.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

I'm going to append this to point out a logical fallacy. You frame atheists as being some sort of ubermensch who are alone capable of rational thought.
You completely disregard the fact that many of the people here and the most effective rhetorical geniuses on YT are former theists.
How did we come to disbelief? Someone talked to us. Someone challenged us. Someone said something we couldn't account for in our universe and our universe had to expand in response.

Conversation... not being told we were just wrong.

There was no fallacy, just a misunderstanding. I was not trying to imply that atheists are the only rational beings. I was saying that the number of rational people and critical thinkers are few. Do you agree? If so, why do think this is? Could it have something to do with the distributions of human capabilities?

Mind you, I am not advocating eugenics. At least not anything that involves genocide.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

Mind you, I am not advocating eugenics. At least not anything that involves genocide.

I think this has reached the point that I'm not willing to put any additional effort into this.
You simply aren't worth the time.

 

[Prolescum]

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.

Heh. So persistent dialogue is not making a difference? I fear you are desperately searching for any validation of your views and struggling.

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.

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

So I take it, by omitting a direct rebuttal to the point, that you believe you're being entirely rational? Do you really believe that? I can punch so may holes in that you could use it to drain pasta.

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.

Rational... Yep.

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.

I thought you considered anything not based in fact was tantamount to lying? So now you are basing your views on a belief? Not surprised, to be completely honest. One rule for you, another for everyone else... You are conflating without giving evidence.

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.

Are they really a combination? You've just asserted that the seemingly competing factors actually arise from the same common processes that gave rise to our genes and are therefore indistinguishable in reality. I think you might have to rethink that one.

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,

We don't.

or permanent disbarment from our strive for happiness and higher knowledge?

We don't.

Would it not be right to try to become something more than human?

Not realistically going to happen in our lifetimes. If at all.

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.

Please elaborate on how you came to your position using critical thinking and show how your position is rational.

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.

More bollocks based upon nothing. Where's the critical thinking here? Without evidence of the above sentence, aren't you dogmatically asserting something as truth without presenting reliable and verifiable evidence; you're evidently not talking about mathematics - aren't you as good as lying and give no reason to believe you?

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!)

Lol, so there's no possibility of another solution that doesn't involve science fiction or some kind of fantasy of destroying the religious? :lol:

I was saying that the number of rational people and critical thinkers are few. Do you agree? If so, why do think this is? Could it have something to do with the distributions of human capabilities?

Or the non-universality of free, objective education, for example...

Are you actually (dogmatically) asserting that it is to do with the distribution of human capabilities? Which data are you referring to, or are you just making another massive unfounded generalization that under your own guidelines is basically a lie?

 

[Yfelsung]

The guy reminds me of me in early high school so much it's almost frightening.

Are all theists slightly illogical or irrational? Yes, they believe in an unproven assertion, they are SLIGHTLY illogical for that fact. If they're completely rational other than that fact, they're going to be fairly rational and logical people despite having the one silly belief.

You kill religion very slowly with education. None of us will live to see it die. In all reality, religion will likely never completely die.

We don't need religion dead, we just need to remove religion from any aspect of society that can directly or indirectly affect us.

Some people believe in luck, some in God; everyone has silly beliefs somewhere in their belief structure.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Mind you, I am not advocating eugenics. At least not anything that involves genocide.

I think this has reached the point that I'm not willing to put any additional effort into this.
You simply aren't worth the time.

Agree to disagree?

Heh. So persistent dialogue is not making a difference? I fear you are desperately searching for any validation of your views and struggling.

It makes a difference. Just like a stream makes a difference in eroding rock. Banging your head will drive a nail too. But there are more effective ways of achieving that goal.

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

So I take it, by omitting a direct rebuttal to the point, that you believe you're being entirely rational? Do you really believe that? I can punch so may holes in that you could use it to drain pasta.

How is "I'm know there are different ways" not a direct 'rebuttal' to "There's not only one rational way"?

I thought you considered anything not based in fact was tantamount to lying? So now you are basing your views on a belief? Not surprised, to be completely honest. One rule for you, another for everyone else... You are conflating without giving evidence.

My evidence is Mendelian genetics and all of material science. Do you believe in dualism or something?

Are they really a combination? You've just asserted that the seemingly competing factors actually arise from the same common processes that gave rise to our genes and are therefore indistinguishable in reality.

So do you think something external to human behavior causes people to have religion?

But what if we knew that this course would lead to a slow human extinction,

We don't.

Granted.

or permanent disbarment from our strive for happiness and higher knowledge?

We don't.

Granted.

Would it not be right to try to become something more than human?

Not realistically going to happen in our lifetimes. If at all.

I would at least like to try to become more morally superior through technology, if I can't stop people from being religious otherwise. Even if we can't make it our lifetimes, our work will make it easier for future generations. Do you agree?

Of course I believe in critical thinking. It is the process that brought me and so many other rational atheist to our position.

Please elaborate on how you came to your position using critical thinking and show how your position is rational.

I know you love going back and pulling quotes from that old thread. Why don't you go back there and really read it some more.

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.

More bollocks based upon nothing.

So you think the overwhelming majority of humanity is not stupid? You are less cynical than myself.

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!)

Lol, so there's no possibility of another solution that doesn't involve science fiction or some kind of fantasy of destroying the religious? :lol:

Maybe. Would you like to suggest something?

I was saying that the number of rational people and critical thinkers are few. Do you agree? If so, why do think this is? Could it have something to do with the distributions of human capabilities?

Or the non-universality of free, objective education, for example...

Granted. But education doesn't always determine a person's belief. I was "educated" to be a Christian, but my brain had the capacity to see through that. Just like yours did.

Are all theists slightly illogical or irrational? Yes, they believe in an unproven assertion, they are SLIGHTLY illogical for that fact. If they're completely rational other than that fact, they're going to be fairly rational and logical people despite having the one silly belief.

Granted. Maybe those are the type of people that Prole may be able to get through to. For the slightly more irrational religious, I'm still here.

You kill religion very slowly with education. None of us will live to see it die. In all reality, religion will likely never completely die.

Never say... ah... never mind.

We don't need religion dead, we just need to remove religion from any aspect of society that can directly or indirectly affect us.

But as long as it exists, religion will always affect us directly or indirectly. Religion determines whether I get a Jehovah's witness at my door tomorrow morning.

 

[Yfelsung]

A JoHo or a Mormon at your door is a 15 second annoyance.

As long as they are not having direct effects on laws and education, they're no longer a threat.

Right now they do have a bit more than I'd like, but they're losing that power with time.

If they get uppity and start causing a considerable problem, then we will react to that as is needed.

Right now they're just loud and annoying as they dig their heels in as the future slowly drags them out of the room.

 

[magicalpants]

Didn't read through everything so forgive me I've I'm repeating something.

I'd look at countries that have the highest non-religious and atheist %'s and try to figure out what they did properly if anything. I really doubt Scandinavian countries are just inclined to be awesome to make up for the weather.

I think an interactive database for creationists and other religious people should be made. It could include common misconceptions and the reasons they are false. As well as a search system such that they could type "There are no transitional fossils" (it would probably only need to recognize the word transitional lol) and show how that is incorrect. Along with arguments for atheism such as the fact that we only reject one more god then you do, if you understand why you reject other gods you'll understand why I reject yours.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

Right now they're just loud and annoying as they dig their heels in as the future slowly drags them out of the room.

Can you imagine the look on everyone's face when the last church closes its doors and a space faring stretch-limo pulls up... an alien bearing a distinct resemblance to Ashton Kutcher gets out and announces we've been punk'd? :lol:

 

[Exmortis]

The simplist way to 'destroy' an idea would be to exterminate the people who hold those ideas. An idea can only die if it is forgotten.

 

[Fictionarious]

The simplist way to 'destroy' an idea would be to exterminate the people who hold those ideas. An idea can only die if it is forgotten.

The simplest way is in this case also the stupidest way, because when you leave any trace, any single precocious individual of proper motivation who cannot be traced or stamped out, his ideas will bring back the old idea in a more virulent form then ever there was before.

Tell you what, I'll hang around until humanity is finally extinct then get back to you because existing for the entirity of future human events would be the only way to prove such a thing conclusively.

The point I intended is certainly one that I will accept.

Ok then, how would you end religion without either of the above? Out of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTepA-WV_oE
His policy proposal at about 4:30. "Corrupt the youth", to put it in terms familiar to the ancient Athenian State.

 

[Teabean]

I'm inclined to take a page from the field of medicine, in that doctors don't usually ask how they can eradicate disease. Sticking with the metaphor of religion as a kind of virus, I'd be tempted to try and engineer an inoculation for it, another religion to plant in the minds of people in order to prevent the harmful effects of existing religions and block those individuals from becoming a resource for current religious institutions to exploit.

I'm pretty sure this is doable, and would be capable of making a noticeable impact in our lifetime (the church of Scientology, for instance, started up just back in the 1950s and has since accrued a large pile of cash... more on the money in a bit), since one would just need to invent a religion and get it off the ground.

The difference between just starting another religion, however, is that the inoculation must have a number of specific traits in order to have desirable effects. Some of these codified traits might include:

Equal treatment between men and women (or gender neutrality)
Making it forbidden to proselytize to atheists and agnostics, but encouraging conversion of members of other faiths
Strongly discouraging conversion to other faiths, but being neutral towards deconversion to an agnostic or atheistic position (a one-way gateway religion out)
Regular tithing
Codification of the empirical method as the best and most desirable means of moving knowledge forward
Have the school and academic setting strongly and positively portrayed in repeated stories throughout the religion.
Political involvement (maybe helping members register to vote and encouraging votes to be cast against the "evil tide" of the misguided far right - it'd be delicious irony to have the devoutly religious negate each other)
Recommend adoption before having own children - can provide the same gains to church membership as encouraging large families, but would also reduce over-population issues and provide a better quality of life for young children.

And so on and so forth. Since we are tailoring a religion, we may as well make it one that works in our best interests.

Additionally, we can carefully examine the means by which other religions gain membership and apply the different strategies (our own ethics and morals permitting) into a kind of superbug, including but definitely not limited to such aspects as:
Promise of some form of extended life after death (though perhaps not an eternal one)
Promise of a measure of divine protection
Supernatural punishment for refusing to join
Concepts that are not intuitively understandable by the average member
Childhood indoctrination is encouraged, particularly of other peoples' children (so long as they aren't children of agnostics or atheists, see above)
Protection of church icons and information by copyright law (so similar tactics used by the church of Scientology in that regard)
Fully exploit all technological channels to improve membership and make all communication channels permissible and encouraged (maybe stuff like codify bumper stickers for every member?).
Use of prayers/meditation and personal experiences as personal and unassailable vindication of the "truth"
Exploitation of in-vogue publicity stunts. Personally, I wouldn't condone it, but the Qu'ran burning minister in Florida has been receiving a disproportionate amount of attention to his cause with relatively minor energy input.

It should be crafted in such a way as to be consistent with best current knowledge (so no inconvenient conflicts with fact) and amendable to future discoveries (so it stays current, like our flu vaccinations).

As for the tithing, we could then put excess proceeds (what isn't used for its expansion) from this "church" towards useful goals, like medical research or space exploration. It'd even be kind of neat if the expansion of our empirical knowledge were held as the sort of religious goal to work towards, akin to the return of Christ.

Lastly, if we were trying to be overly vicious (and really, I see no reason not to be given what's at stake), we could even co-opt (that is, plagiarize) the cultural ground work of existing religions, perhaps even creating different gateway versions of the religion designed to undermine specific religions; the Christianity vaccine might have similar hymns, church buildings, and even a holy book called the "Bible" which might instead start, "In the beginning, there was a big bang.". Also, the wafers served at Sunday mass would be like, chocolate dipped butter shortbread wafers. It would, however, do away with all components we deem to be harmful (gays are abominations, demands of blind faith, condoning genocide and slavery, worship of death) or that might cause doubt and confusion amongst its followers (the Holy Trinity where god both is and is not the father, son, and holy ghost, the 3 omnis- whereby evil in the world makes no sense, etc.). An individual with a solid understanding of the bible might even use entries of biblical text to foretell the coming of this updated religion in order to subvert followers. Existing traditions such as Christmas should definitely be co-opted, and the origin of those traditions subverted (ie. the Yule log came from the inoculation tradition and may mean something entirely different. The Christmas tree, too. Same with wreaths. Santa Claus is still ridiculous, but maybe we can work him in somehow using time-space distortions and recent experiments in breaking the lightspeed boundary)

The various inoculation versions would ideally funnel members into the main religion and eventually out of it entirely. And if we can figure out inter-faith conversion strategies (perhaps making that a specific, evolving goal of the religion), then the religion population (membership) should remain somewhat proportional to the available "food" in the environment (other faiths). With any luck, it will eventually eat itself out of existence when the time is right.

Given that half the U.S. population still hasn't figured out evolution and a fair percent of those seem interested in rewriting history, I have little doubt that the birthmarks of such a religion could be quickly obfuscated by the use of callous fabrications (a la the Church of Latter Day Saints) and religious scholars 50 years from its inception will earnestly be trying to figure out which bible is the true bible - the one with ridiculous fairy tales sown throughout or the one that predicted and is in line with the available evidence around us and who's followers are making contributions to the world of progress because of, and not in spite of, their religious foundational documents.

Anyways, worst case end result is that religion is still around and, possibly, undiminished, but it would hopefully be put to good use and be rendered harmless (or even made a beneficial ally) towards the progress of a well-educated, secular, rational society.

Maybe it's a bit much to hope for, but I really think something like this could be engineered or designed, and even starting a poor religion appears to be surprisingly easy.

 

[Prolescum]

:facepalm:

 

[Fictionarious]

I'm inclined to take a page from the field of medicine, in that doctors don't usually ask how they can eradicate disease. Sticking with the metaphor of religion as a kind of virus, I'd be tempted to try and engineer an inoculation for it, another religion to plant in the minds of people in order to prevent the harmful effects of existing religions and block those individuals from becoming a resource for current religious institutions to exploit.

I'm pretty sure this is doable, and would be capable of making a noticeable impact in our lifetime (the church of Scientology, for instance, started up just back in the 1950s and has since accrued a large pile of cash... more on the money in a bit), since one would just need to invent a religion and get it off the ground.

The difference between just starting another religion, however, is that the inoculation must have a number of specific traits in order to have desirable effects. Some of these codified traits might include:

Equal treatment between men and women (or gender neutrality)
Making it forbidden to proselytize to atheists and agnostics, but encouraging conversion of members of other faiths
Strongly discouraging conversion to other faiths, but being neutral towards deconversion to an agnostic or atheistic position (a one-way gateway religion out)
Regular tithing
Codification of the empirical method as the best and most desirable means of moving knowledge forward
Have the school and academic setting strongly and positively portrayed in repeated stories throughout the religion.
Political involvement (maybe helping members register to vote and encouraging votes to be cast against the "evil tide" of the misguided far right - it'd be delicious irony to have the devoutly religious negate each other)
Recommend adoption before having own children - can provide the same gains to church membership as encouraging large families, but would also reduce over-population issues and provide a better quality of life for young children.

And so on and so forth. Since we are tailoring a religion, we may as well make it one that works in our best interests.

Additionally, we can carefully examine the means by which other religions gain membership and apply the different strategies (our own ethics and morals permitting) into a kind of superbug, including but definitely not limited to such aspects as:
Promise of some form of extended life after death (though perhaps not an eternal one)
Promise of a measure of divine protection
Supernatural punishment for refusing to join
Concepts that are not intuitively understandable by the average member
Childhood indoctrination is encouraged, particularly of other peoples' children (so long as they aren't children of agnostics or atheists, see above)
Protection of church icons and information by copyright law (so similar tactics used by the church of Scientology in that regard)
Fully exploit all technological channels to improve membership and make all communication channels permissible and encouraged (maybe stuff like codify bumper stickers for every member?).
Use of prayers/meditation and personal experiences as personal and unassailable vindication of the "truth"
Exploitation of in-vogue publicity stunts. Personally, I wouldn't condone it, but the Qu'ran burning minister in Florida has been receiving a disproportionate amount of attention to his cause with relatively minor energy input.

It should be crafted in such a way as to be consistent with best current knowledge (so no inconvenient conflicts with fact) and amendable to future discoveries (so it stays current, like our flu vaccinations).

As for the tithing, we could then put excess proceeds (what isn't used for its expansion) from this "church" towards useful goals, like medical research or space exploration. It'd even be kind of neat if the expansion of our empirical knowledge were held as the sort of religious goal to work towards, akin to the return of Christ.

Lastly, if we were trying to be overly vicious (and really, I see no reason not to be given what's at stake), we could even co-opt (that is, plagiarize) the cultural ground work of existing religions, perhaps even creating different gateway versions of the religion designed to undermine specific religions; the Christianity vaccine might have similar hymns, church buildings, and even a holy book called the "Bible" which might instead start, "In the beginning, there was a big bang.". Also, the wafers served at Sunday mass would be like, chocolate dipped butter shortbread wafers. It would, however, do away with all components we deem to be harmful (gays are abominations, demands of blind faith, condoning genocide and slavery, worship of death) or that might cause doubt and confusion amongst its followers (the Holy Trinity where god both is and is not the father, son, and holy ghost, the 3 omnis- whereby evil in the world makes no sense, etc.). An individual with a solid understanding of the bible might even use entries of biblical text to foretell the coming of this updated religion in order to subvert followers. Existing traditions such as Christmas should definitely be co-opted, and the origin of those traditions subverted (ie. the Yule log came from the inoculation tradition and may mean something entirely different. The Christmas tree, too. Same with wreaths. Santa Claus is still ridiculous, but maybe we can work him in somehow using time-space distortions and recent experiments in breaking the lightspeed boundary)

The various inoculation versions would ideally funnel members into the main religion and eventually out of it entirely. And if we can figure out inter-faith conversion strategies (perhaps making that a specific, evolving goal of the religion), then the religion population (membership) should remain somewhat proportional to the available "food" in the environment (other faiths). With any luck, it will eventually eat itself out of existence when the time is right.

Given that half the U.S. population still hasn't figured out evolution and a fair percent of those seem interested in rewriting history, I have little doubt that the birthmarks of such a religion could be quickly obfuscated by the use of callous fabrications (a la the Church of Latter Day Saints) and religious scholars 50 years from its inception will earnestly be trying to figure out which bible is the true bible - the one with ridiculous fairy tales sown throughout or the one that predicted and is in line with the available evidence around us and who's followers are making contributions to the world of progress because of, and not in spite of, their religious foundational documents.

Anyways, worst case end result is that religion is still around and, possibly, undiminished, but it would hopefully be put to good use and be rendered harmless (or even made a beneficial ally) towards the progress of a well-educated, secular, rational society.

Maybe it's a bit much to hope for, but I really think something like this could be engineered or designed, and even starting a poor religion appears to be surprisingly easy.

PM me if you are or become seriously interested in doing this. Some kinks would have to be worked out (to say the least), like how the same religion could integrate methodological empiricism and the promise of eternal life. We'd have to favor methodological empiricism. We would have to incorporate at least some element of just what we're discussing here - that the very idea of eternalness of the soul is a stakes-raiser and that heaven is an implicit promise, with hell an implicit threat. I envision this hypothetical religion doing away with such concepts, even in spite of the fact that they have proven to be fast-spreading memeological annuals, to use a plant metaphor, and replacing them with memeological perennials - ideas that are supported, rather than destroyed, by the introduction of logic and/or lack of evidence.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

:facepalm:

I think this warrants something far in excess of a single facepalm. sigh.

Let's round up all of the muslims first and then gradually resent the cost of the camps to which we send them...
Then let's round up all of those who vocally oppose this, and "reeducate" them until they understand that Constitutional freedoms apply only to the popular.
Then we ought to make an effort to clean up the nutters in the rest of the theist communities.
Since there is still hope for secular jews and christians we ought not send them off to the camps straight away, but we ought to make it apparent who they are with little patches... just so we can sort out marginal idiocy at a glace. After all they can be quite valuable members of society and all, though perhaps we should make certain that they hold a separate status as something less than fully a citizen. It'll cut down on legal paperwork if we don't have to tolerate them making all sorts of trouble choking up the courts with silly demands for equality.
The children of course should be carefully nurtured into a "right minded" thought process.

...and when we grow tired of the financial and management burden of the camps... we should find a humane means of putting these poor creatures out of their suffering.

OR

We can acknowledge that people only become free of religion by replacing it with reason. Offer them reason and they will gradually come individually to their own freedom from it.

It is not a timely solution and is not one in which progress is easily measured, but it is a solution in which the believer comes freely by choice to disbelief.
It requires no force and no violations of our own ideals.

If one values our ideals.

 

[lrkun]

I think this warrants something far in excess of a single facepalm. sigh.

Let's round up all of the muslims first and then gradually resent the cost of the camps to which we send them...
Then let's round up all of those who vocally oppose this, and "reeducate" them until they understand that Constitutional freedoms apply only to the popular.
Then we ought to make an effort to clean up the nutters in the rest of the theist communities.
Since there is still hope for secular jews and christians we ought not send them off to the camps straight away, but we ought to make it apparent who they are with little patches... just so we can sort out marginal idiocy at a glace. After all they can be quite valuable members of society and all, though perhaps we should make certain that they hold a separate status as something less than fully a citizen. It'll cut down on legal paperwork if we don't have to tolerate them making all sorts of trouble choking up the courts with silly demands for equality.
The children of course should be carefully nurtured into a "right minded" thought process.

...and when we grow tired of the financial and management burden of the camps... we should find a humane means of putting these poor creatures out of their suffering.

HITLER!!!

OR

We can acknowledge that people only become free of religion by replacing it with reason. Offer them reason and they will gradually come individually to their own freedom from it.

It is not a timely solution and is not one in which progress is easily measured, but it is a solution in which the believer comes freely by choice to disbelief.
It requires no force and no violations of our own ideals.

If one values our ideals.

Let people believe what they want to believe, as long as it does not hurt others.

 

[Teabean]

DeathofSpeech, it would be quite nice of you to seek the end of religious influence in such a matter and I'd certainly wish you the best in pursuing it. The question as put forth was the best way to kill (or de-fang) religion, and this was my best response to that specific problem; mimic the obviously successful survival and propagation strategies of existing religions in a manner in which, at the very least, no harm is done and the behavior of the religious is changed for the better.

Certainly, no rights are violated by starting a new religion, and there is no forced coercion involved in proselytizing to members of another faith. If you equate such an idea with the creation of, say, a fascist police state, I just think I should point out that the two simply aren't the same (necessarily... that would depend on the specific dictates of the religion, and I had no intent of making it a sort of dystopic police state).

Furthermore, if you're all for the application of logic and reason (and who here isn't, really?), then I should also point out that logic and reason could very well be (and was intended to be) included as central value within the religion. I think the (philosophical) case has been well-made that one still has the liberty to believe in a supernatural entity of some sort while applying reason, just the nature of such an entity very likely is not one of the commonly held notions of god (looks like us, cares about individual lives, loves us, has a bad temper, can be proven by observing reality, etc.). A religion that does not, in effect, create a state of internal dischord amongst the minds of its adherents would have lost both the major cause of deconverted members and the primary beef that anybody ever takes up with religions (that they draw inappropriate or incorrect conclusions, usually with poor behavioral consequences).

Fictionarious, it's very schematic at this point, I know, but I'll let you know when I'm ready to start rewriting the bible and/or Qu'ran.