Why Tolerate Religion?

[lrkun]

Unfortunately. He's quite a clever chap otherwise.

Can't always have the best of both worlds I guess.

My problem with this is that if people started a non-tolerant policy, it follows that the same can be applied to them in some other areas of this world. It's a loose-loose situation wherein the past inquisition's fatal mistake will be repeated.

However, this thread is akin to another thread. The kill religion thread. Having read the thoughts of the thread starter, it's almost the same as lprogidy.

 

[Prolescum]

Unfortunately. He's quite a clever chap otherwise.

Can't always have the best of both worlds I guess.

My problem with this is that if people started a non-tolerant policy, it follows that the same can be applied to them in some other areas of this world. It's a loose-loose situation wherein the past inquisition's fatal mistake will be repeated.

However, this thread is akin to another thread. The kill religion thread. Having read the thoughts of the thread starter, it's almost the same as lprogidy.

One supposes this is why UB has suddenly reappeared after his hissy fit and spamming a number of threads with the following

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

before whooshing back into the electronic ether.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

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.

 

[Prolescum]

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.

[centre]THIS[/centre]

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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.

*clap clap clap*
So very , very quotable!

 

[Yfelsung]

Continual education of the masses will lead to the death of religion without the need for a single drop of blood to be shed.

When I was a young, "I hate all believers" atheist in the mid-90s, I might have advocated the destruction of the faithful based on some odd combination of belief structures born of the Church of Satan, a casual, but wholly inaccurate, understanding of Nietzsche's work and listening to WAY too much Marilyn Manson (I was 12, sue me).

Now I'm almost 30, I realize the Church of Satan is a fucking laughable joke, Nietzsche was a depressed defeatist of whom much of his notable work was an editing hack-job done by his sister and Marilyn Manson hasn't put out a good album since Mechanical Animals.

In the end, the ultimate "fuck you" to believers isn't to wipe them out, as they think we're trying to do that anyway. No, the better way is to have their children turn away from their faith by educating them. The psychological pain caused by them honestly believing their children will burn in hell for all time is going to be a much sweeter victory than bludgeoning them to death with a cudgel.

Where we need to focus right now are the "culture wars" going on the in the US. Yes, even for those of us who are not American, the culture wars in the US have an effect on us because, in the end, the US is like the biggest kid in the school yard and every four years a new guardian is chosen to lead the big kid around. Right now we got a decent guardian, for 8 years we had a dude who kept making the big kid go beat up the brown kids in the sandbox.

When Beck or Palin put together these laughable rallies with a small handful of attendees, we need to put on counter rallies so that the news can't just focus on these little rallies and make them seem larger than they are.

Lots of studies show that atheists are smarter, we need to USE this intelligence to play THEIR game. They're setting the play-field and our refusal to enter it makes them seem like they're winning. They play dirty, we need to play dirtier. We've already got sense, reason, logic and the like on our side, but we need to take what they have and make it ours too.

 

[lrkun]

One supposes this is why UB has suddenly reappeared after his hissy fit and spamming a number of threads with the following

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

before whooshing back into the electronic ether.

You know, I kind of like that which you quoted from him. I agree with him with his point on evidence. However, I also like math, but I don't get what he means by it. Is it an attack on logic? How is math applied in that statement?

I don't agree with personal testimony counts as evidence. >,< Well maybe it does in the court of law, but it's really a very very very low form of evidence, because it is subject to personal bias.

 

[retardedsociety]

I would not consider myself to be fully anti theist cause in my opinion I really don't give a crap if a person believes in a mayonnaise god that lives in Jupiter.

But I have a problem when they mix faith and knowledge, and they come to schools to preach to the science teachers the words of the Jupiter god and want their children to learn Evolution side to side with the Recipe creation of the god who chose to not add mayonnaise to the making of the earth and people.

If people learn to be open from childhood, to understand that faith is simply a personal thing that has nothing to do with how the world works, then, only then will it not be a threat to our society.

The leaders of most countries world wide have a religious agenda, so perhaps we may try and find ourselves non-religious leaders who can make a difference, starting with the true separation of church and state.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

But I have a problem when they mix faith and knowledge, and they come to schools to preach to the science teachers the words of the Jupiter god and want their children to learn Evolution side to side with the Recipe creation of the god who chose to not add mayonnaise to the making of the earth and people.

If people learn to be open from childhood, to understand that faith is simply a personal thing that has nothing to do with how the world works, then, only then will it not be a threat to our society.

I would say that is the very reason why I am an anti-theist.

If there was a way in which it was even possible to universally have personal beliefs be extricable from the nature of people's individual psychologies, I'd probably be less of an anti-theist. I suppose there is a bit of an engineering mentality in there in that it is not enough to consider how well something works -- you must also be concerned with how well it fails. A belief in a personal god may give some individual comfort in the idea that a magical fatherly wizard in the sky is watching out for you, but it is inexcusably foolish to presume that said comfort is where it all stops. The same individual has also adopted a way of thinking that makes you weak to non-explanations for just about anything which lies outside your intellectual limitations. At least with some major religions, you've adopted a school of ethics where fear and guilt are fundamental components of the ethos. How on earth could those cognitive failings not inform decisions? How do you keep people who cope with ignorance by shielding themselves from reality from demanding that it is the responsibility of others to enable their delusions?

I would have to say that as long as religion exists as a common practiced belief rather than a component of history, the latter outcome of which you speak, nice though it may be to think about, is basically an absolute impossibility. But then, I also apply that to all forms of irrational thinking, since they're all largely borne out of very similar wrongness.

 

[RedYellow]

Well everybody has laid out all the good points, but I guess I'll recap by saying,

dude, this makes you sound like a fascist. You can't outlaw ignorance, and not tolorating religion is just going to feed into their persecution complex and reinforce their fervor. If you dont lead by the example of letting people believe what they want, how can we expect them to tolorate our free thought?

 

[lrkun]

Well everybody has laid out all the good points, but I guess I'll recap by saying,

dude, this makes you sound like a fascist. You can't outlaw ignorance, and not tolorating religion is just going to feed into their persecution complex and reinforce their fervor. If you dont lead by the example of letting people believe what they want, how can we expect them to tolorate our free thought?

Please explain further your point about the highlighted portion. I like that statement, but it needs further elaboration.

 

[Jotto999]

Though it spreads and functions analogously to a virus, I find theism is only a symptom of the real problem at hand. That problem being scientific illiteracy, poor reasoning skills, and socioeconomic factors. I don't think an intolerance toward practicing religion will fix these issues very well.

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.

I agree! Good post.

 

[Yfelsung]

Well everybody has laid out all the good points, but I guess I'll recap by saying,

dude, this makes you sound like a fascist. You can't outlaw ignorance, and not tolorating religion is just going to feed into their persecution complex and reinforce their fervor. If you dont lead by the example of letting people believe what they want, how can we expect them to tolorate our free thought?

I think we can disagree on "not outlawing ignorance".

The problem with freedom is that humans are not all that great at ruling themselves. While some freedoms are great and lead to great things, the freedom to be stupid is detrimental to the species as a whole.

Full education, from elementary all the way to post secondary, should not only be provided by governments but REQUIRED BY LAW to attend.

Indoctrinating children into a fairy tale is a problem.

Indoctrinating children into a society that puts knowledge and education above all is not only good, it should be encouraged.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

I admit, the assault from pond scum and druggie pissed me off. I was trying everything I could to not break my computer, so I went away for while.

Congratulations on a job well done, trolls.

So now I don't care if I appear intolerant anymore. Like my faith in god, these two have taught me shed these old clothes. In my opinion, what is right overrides anyone's perception of tolerance.

And my "UltimateBlasphemer" quote wasn't a slight against math. I see now that the court analogy wasn't very good. I was trying to compare science's way of finding the truth by collecting empirical evidence to how a judge would evaluate evidence and determine a verdict.

 

[Yfelsung]

I admit, the assault from pond scum and druggie pissed me off. I was trying everything I could to not break my computer, so I went away for while.

Congratulations on a job well done, trolls.

So now I don't care if I appear intolerant anymore. Like my faith in god, these two have taught me shed these old clothes. In my opinion, what is right overrides anyone's perception of tolerance.

And my "UltimateBlasphemer" quote wasn't a slight against math. I see now that the court analogy wasn't very good. I was trying to compare science's way of finding the truth by collecting empirical evidence to how a judge would evaluate evidence and determine a verdict.

Right and wrong are subjective, like good and evil, so what you deem as "what is right" is not necessarily what I deem as "what is right".

The most accurate definition of good and evil I ever heard was thus:

Good is anything that moves the world towards my personal view of a Utopian society.

Evil is anything that moves the world away from my personal view of a Utopian society.

If you and I have different views of Utopia, you and I don't share the same definition of good.

 

[lrkun]

I admit, the assault from pond scum and druggie pissed me off. I was trying everything I could to not break my computer, so I went away for while.

Congratulations on a job well done, trolls.

So now I don't care if I appear intolerant anymore. Like my faith in god, these two have taught me shed these old clothes. In my opinion, what is right overrides anyone's perception of tolerance.

And my "UltimateBlasphemer" quote wasn't a slight against math. I see now that the court analogy wasn't very good. I was trying to compare science's way of finding the truth by collecting empirical evidence to how a judge would evaluate evidence and determine a verdict.

I agree with your statement.

This is how I understand it: It's better to let the evidence dictate one's conclusion, rather than one's own opinion.

Is my understanding of your statement correct?

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

If you and I have different views of Utopia, you and I don't share the same definition of good.

Right. I understand the subjective good and evil. And if you take that idea to its full extent, then no one really has the right to say what is good and what is not. Do you agree?

What I like to defend is the idea of biological/memetic good and evil, which have much more rigid and tangible definitions.

This is how I understand it: It's better to let the evidence dictate one's conclusion, rather than one's own opinion.

Is my understanding of your statement correct?

Yes, your understanding is correct. Methodological materialism is my dogma.

Edit: Methodological materialism not Physical methodology >_<

 

[Yfelsung]

Yes, no one has the right to say what is good or evil. No one has the right to complain when they are being oppressed. No one has the right to do anything.

People have power or they do not have power.

A right is power given to you by someone with more power than yourself.

You do not try to goad and herd society in the direction you want.

You wrap its hair in your fist and you fucking drag it, bloody and raw, in the direction you want. If you have the power, you will succeed.

Never miss an opportunity to gain power over others.

 

[australopithecus]

Congratulations on a job well done, trolls.

Please do grow up.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Please do grow up.

Too late.