A call to arms!

[Jstwebbrowsing]

""Religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people - by irrationalists - by those who would steer the ship of state, not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken."

Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction."  -- Bill Mahar

http://www.endhereditaryreligion.com/2009/03/bill-maher-on-religion-and-society/

What do you atheists here think?

[jaimehlers]

It's a pretty safe bet that most will agree with the sentiments expressed in the link.

My feeling is that the problem isn't so much with religion as it is with the human tendency of people to go along with convincing ideologies, which include religions of all stripes.  Religion may or may not make this tendency more prevalent, but it has the unfortunate and dangerous side effect that nobody can actually test it in the real world to see if it actually works as advertised.  Most ideologies don't share that flaw - they may be dangerous and destructive, but you can actually see how they will work out in the long run.

[screwtape]

What do you atheists here think?

I didn't follow the link, but the basic meaning of the quote is one with which I wholeheartedly agree.

[Tonus]

""Religion must die for mankind to live.

I agree with this, although in this case I see "religion" as a euphemism for whatever mechanism it is that causes humans to lose our individuality for the sake of belonging to a group.  In that sense, religion is similar to nationalism, or racism, or any other concept that we use to create divisions that allow us to justify horrifying acts against those who don't belong to our group.  Religion is, IMO, the most pernicious, because it adds an external and mystical force that is all-knowing and capable of vicious reprisal against any who don't act unhesitatingly in "his name," regardless of what they are asked to do.

[Willie]

My feeling is that the problem isn't so much with religion as it is with the human tendency of people to go along with convincing ideologies, which include religions of all stripes.

Completely agree. If you had a magic wand that could instantly make a religion disappear, but that did nothing to change the underlying credulity, all you would accomplish is to create a temporary vacuum which some other, possibly new, irrational ideology would fill. A game of whack-a-mole.

This is also why removing religion by censorship and force will backfire. Once the force is removed, what's left is a population unaccustomed to critically evaluating ideas, and thus intellectually vulnerable. We can see this in the rampant spread of every sort of superstition and religion into the countries of the former USSR. Only by replacing credulity with reason while still maintaining intellectual freedom will any improvement be had.

[wright]

This is also why removing religion by censorship and force will backfire. Once the force is removed, what's left is a population unaccustomed to critically evaluating ideas, and thus intellectually vulnerable. We can see this in the rampant spread of every sort of superstition and religion into the countries of the former USSR. Only by replacing credulity with reason while still maintaining intellectual freedom will any improvement be had.

Bingo. Religious belief in general is in decline, as people get better educated. Actively suppressing religious faith in a given society has never, AFAIK, completely eradicated it. Indeed I doubt that it ever will be; the human mind is so geared towards finding patterns in external stimuli that there will always be false alarms like apophenia and pareidolia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition_%28psychology%29#False_pattern_recognition.

This is precisely why the more reactionary theists are so terrified of education in general and science in particular. They recognize it as something that shows the claims of their faith have nothing substantial to offer.

[ParkingPlaces]

Hey, you guys already said all the good stuff. So all that's left for me to say is "Welcome Tonus!"

[bertatberts]

Firstly I don't see the connection with the title of the thread and the OP.

However this was said by Steven Weinberg an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. " Yet it can be paraphrased to mean any ideology, I.E. "With or without religion patriotism or place another ideology here, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion patriotism or place another ideology here. "
Tonus hit the nail on the head, with his post.
It is not a belief in god that is the problem, it is the religious BS that is behind, pushing it's adherents to do bad things, for a divine pat on the back.
Religious hatred is the largest cause of death, much much more than even patriotism.

So Religion must die for mankind to live, is true. Belief in god is by and in itself not dangerous.
 
Love the believer, hate the religion.

[Anfauglir]

"The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by .... irrationalists - by those who would steer the ship of state, not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken.

(There it no) virtue (in) not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach (reliance on untestable assertion), and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction."

What do you atheists here think?

I've made very little changes to it - just enough to pull "religion" out of the quote.  What do you think about the amended version, Jst?  What parts do you have a problem with, or do you agree with us that people who make critical decisions for others should do so based on careful analysis of testable evidence, as opposed to beliefs they cannot produce evidence for?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I think there are some very reasonable responses with which I agree.  But what bothers me is that some people can't, or don't want to, make a distinction between harmful religion and other religion. 

For example, my father is very racist against colored people.  When I try to pin him down on the issue, he says, "How can you tell the difference between the good ones and the bad ones?"  My reply is always "the same way you tell the difference between good and bad white people.  The good ones do good and the bad ones do bad."

I don't think the quote in my OP is making any distinction.  "All religion is bad and must die" is what I take from the quote.  And then there is the added dogma of, "The hour is getting very late....."  What does that even mean?   Is there some atheist doomsday I don't know about? 

Because of my religion I do not get involved in politics and I don't spend a lot of time keeping up with it apart from major issues.  I view religion that involves itself in politics as false religion and so do millions other that share my religion.  Jesus never made Christians responsible for ruling the world.  Trying to do so moves them beyond the commandments of Christ.  So why is my religion lumped together will all other religions?  I know many atheists disagree with sterotypes so why do so many do it with religion?

As a side note, since I don't actively keep up with politics what is it these false religions do to government that causes you to dislike them?  In the US I know there are issues involving gay marriage and abortion that religious people involve themselves in.  What other battle lines are drawn do you think?

[Aaron123]

Because of my religion I do not get involved in politics and I don't spend a lot of time keeping up with it apart from major issues.  I view religion that involves itself in politics as false religion and so do millions other that share my religion.  Jesus never made Christians responsible for ruling the world.  Trying to do so moves them beyond the commandments of Christ.  So why is my religion lumped together will all other religions?  I know many atheists disagree with sterotypes so why do so many do it with religion?

Other people have no problems mixing religion and politics.  They will state that their religious beliefs are The One True Way^TM, same as you've just done.  Why is it I should think that your viewpoints are the correct ideas, whereas theirs are not?  I image you'll probably quote a bible verse to back your viewpoints, but remember, they'll do the exact same thing.

[jaimehlers]

The reason all religions tend to get lumped in with each other is because they all make claims that can't be proven, therefore they're all potentially harmful.

However, I will say that Churchill's saying about democracy comes to mind here.  That is, while it's still a bad form of government, it's better than the other ones that have been tried before.

In my opinion, for a religion to be less bad, it needs to not attempt to force its rules onto anyone and not attempt to convince people that things it cannot prove are true.  Bear in mind that there are probably things I'm not thinking of that should be included on this list.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Because of my religion I do not get involved in politics and I don't spend a lot of time keeping up with it apart from major issues.  I view religion that involves itself in politics as false religion and so do millions other that share my religion.  Jesus never made Christians responsible for ruling the world.  Trying to do so moves them beyond the commandments of Christ.  So why is my religion lumped together will all other religions?  I know many atheists disagree with sterotypes so why do so many do it with religion?

Other people have no problems mixing religion and politics.  They will state that their religious beliefs are The One True Way^TM, same as you've just done.  Why is it I should think that your viewpoints are the correct ideas, whereas theirs are not?  I image you'll probably quote a bible verse to back your viewpoints, but remember, they'll do the exact same thing.

I'm not asking you to distinguish between true and false religion.  I'm asking that a distinction be made between religions that do good things and religions that do bad things.

The reason all religions tend to get lumped in with each other is because none of them make claims that can be proven, therefore they're all potentially harmful.

My religion teaches me that they best way to live is by loving your neighbor as yourself.  How can you prove if that is true or not?  You cannot.  All you can do is have faith it is true or not. 

[Azdgari]

How does your religion teach you to treat those who leave your religion, socially?

[Aaron123]

I'm not asking you to distinguish between true and false religion. 

Then why talk about "false religions"?  For a comment on "false" and "true" religion to hold meaning, one would have to be able to distinguish the two.

I'm asking that a distinction be made between religions that do good things and religions that do bad things.

Which has nothing to do with whenever that religion is "correct" or not.

[bertatberts]

I'm not asking you to distinguish between true and false religion.  I'm asking that a distinction be made between religions that do good things and religions that do bad things.

And how do you make this distinction? What do you class as a bad religion? Remembering that a religions adherents do not consider it bad.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

How does your religion teach you to treat those who leave your religion, socially?

The Bible teaches that backsliden worshipers of Jehovah are a danger to my spirtuality.  As such, they should be treated accordingly.

Then why talk about "false religions"?  For a comment on "false" and "true" religion to hold meaning, one would have to be able to distinguish the two.

Nowhere did I say anyone must accept my religion as true.  My mention is false religion is to show that my religion is different.  As such, it should be treated as different and should not be thoughtlessly be discriminated against.

And how do you make this distinction? What do you class as a bad religion? Remembering that a religions adherents do not consider it bad.

Are you asking me to tell the difference between good and bad?  Good people do good things.  Bad people do bad things.

Good people produce these things.

"love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

For example, which of the things are produced by Westboro?  Which do they not produce?

[Aaron123]

Nowhere did I say anyone must accept my religion as true.

Then you said this immediately afterwards.

My mention is false religion is to show that my religion is different.  As such, it should be treated as different and should not be thoughtlessly be discriminated against.

You are very much telling us your religion is The One True Way.


You have yet to tell us why we must accept your ideas as The True Way, while everyone else is false, and why we should YOUR word for it over everyone else, even though they will say the exact same thing as you.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I'm not the one discriminating and saying atheism must die.  Read these words......

I don't care if you accept my religion is true.  I care if you accept my religion is different.

[One Above All]

I'm not the one discriminating and saying atheism must die.  Read these words......

I don't care if you accept my religion is true.  I care if you accept my religion is different.

You've yet to answer the question, which I'll ask again:
What makes your religion different from all others?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I'm not the one discriminating and saying atheism must die.  Read these words......

I don't care if you accept my religion is true.  I care if you accept my religion is different.

You've yet to answer the question, which I'll ask again:
What makes your religion different from all others?

My religion does not try to "steer the ship".

[One Above All]

My religion does not try to "steer the ship".

Not true. Your religion is the only one (that I know of) that goes door-to-door to try to convert people. Try again.

[jaimehlers]

My religion teaches me that they best way to live is by loving your neighbor as yourself.  How can you prove if that is true or not?  You cannot.  All you can do is have faith it is true or not.

Actually, it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that enlightened self-interest (doing good to the others with the expectation that good will be done back to you at some later point) is one of the best ways to live.  It has nothing to do with religious beliefs, though.  Simply put, the norm of reciprocity^Wiki (often called the rule of reciprocity).

Let's compare that with another statement of yours.

The Bible teaches that backsliden worshipers of Jehovah are a danger to my spirtuality.  As such, they should be treated accordingly.

You're essentially arguing that if someone becomes a worshiper of Jehovah, and then later stops being a worshiper of Jehovah, that they're a danger to you and should be treated accordingly.  However, I doubt you would have any problems with the idea of converting a Muslim to belief in Jehovah, even though the Muslims have a religious law which states that apostates (those who turn away from a religion) should be put to death.  This is essentially a double-standard.  It violates the rule of reciprocity - you are essentially arguing that people who convert away from your religion should be treated badly even while you imply that people who convert from another religion to yours should be exempt from similar rules on the part of their former religion.

Furthermore, the basis of this argument is that apostates are a danger to your 'spirituality'.  Except, that begs the question of just what 'spirituality' is.  Can you demonstrate what it is, or is it one of those things you just have to have faith about?  Because if it's the latter, this is precisely what I was talking about[1] - a claim that you can't demonstrate or prove, and that leads you to declare that a certain category of people are a danger to you, thus leading to you treating them accordingly.  In other words, based on a claim that you can't support, you're arguing that these people pose a danger to you and are claiming the right to act accordingly, which has the definite potential to be harmful. to others.

1.	I originally said that no religion made claims that could be proven, but this was badly phrased; what I meant was that all religions made claims that couldn't be proven.

[Aaron123]

I don't care if you accept my religion is true.  I care if you accept my religion is different.

There are a lot of people that claims that their religion tells them not to "steer the ship" (mind you, these are people from many different religion).

What makes yours "different"?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

My religion does not try to "steer the ship".

Not true. Your religion is the only one (that I know of) that goes door-to-door to try to convert people. Try again.

Mahar is talking about government decision making.  Going door to door does not affect government decision making.  It's not like they insist on a law that says you must open the door to them.  That would be trying to steer the ship.

[One Above All]

Mahar is talking about government decision making.  Going door to door does not affect government decision making.  It's not like they insist on a law that says you must open the door to them.  That would be trying to steer the ship.

Changing people's religion will change their political views. Whether you like it or not, your religion does try to "steer the ship".

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I don't care if you accept my religion is true.  I care if you accept my religion is different.

There are a lot of people that claims that their religion tells them not to "steer the ship" (mind you, these are people from many different religion).

What makes yours "different"?

I never said my religion was different than those that agree.  It's different from those that disagree.

[Aaron123]

I never said my religion was different than those that agree.  It's different from those that disagree.

Silly me.  All this time, I thought that "my religion is different" was suppose to be some significant and profound statement.

Instead, it's just some Captain Obvious thing.  Really?  Your ideas are different from those that has different ideas?  I could never have guessed.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Mahar is talking about government decision making.  Going door to door does not affect government decision making.  It's not like they insist on a law that says you must open the door to them.  That would be trying to steer the ship.

Changing people's religion will change their political views. Whether you like it or not, your religion does try to "steer the ship".

Not through government, which is the ship being referenced.  And which political views will my religion change?

Silly me.  All this time, I thought that "my religion is different" was suppose to be some significant and profound statement.

Instead, it's just some Captain Obvious thing.  Really?  Your ideas are different from those that has different ideas?  I could never have guessed.

Well if it's that obvious then why treat them all the same?