• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

1 in 5 Americans is Religiously Unaffiliated

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
I think that is being naive to believe if religion were gone tomorrow the new vehicle for people to use to advance their politics will be good. There are plenty of godless ideologies to use as examples that change isnt always for the better.
I agree, there are plenty of examples of societies with no religion (or at least no officially allowed religion) that didn't turn out all that well. Soviet Russia, communist china, north korea, cuba. Notice how those societies are not free? that's because some other form of control was established to take over for religion as a control mechanism.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Change is always good, whether what the status quo is replaced by is good or bad. If it's good, it should be replaced to avoid stagnation. If it's bad, it should be replaced because it is, well, bad.
...

So. Here we are, living. To change from living to dead...is good?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Don't change the subject. I was referring to something taking the place of religion in our politics... and you know it.
I understand what you're trying to say, but there's an implicit assumption that whatever is changed is a change for the better. I don't think that's a valid assumption to make.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
Organized religion is no different than unorganized religion. It doesn't matter.



Sure they can, I don't think I've ever said anything to the contrary.



My point was that with or without religion, people are interested in controlling others, and they pursue that desire in many different ways. You don't need religion to do that, though religion has often served as a vehicle to do it. As technology creates new ways to track and store more granular parts of everyone's life, that desire to control manifests itself in a desire for more government control over people.
My point was that the motivation for "control" is key. Addressing that can undermine a lot of nefarious fear-based desires.


But to say that unorganized and organized religions are the same is... confounding. Can you please explain that thought?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
I understand what you're trying to say, but there's an implicit assumption that whatever is changed is a change for the better. I don't think that's a valid assumption to make.
One of the constants in the universe is change. Change is never guaranteed to be for the better or for the worse, but the idea of change itself is essentially good.

In this example, of course, changing what takes the place of religion in our politics is good.. whether or not what succeeds religion is "for the better". If what comes after religion is better than religion, we should change again to avoid becoming stagnant. If what comes after religion is worse than religion, we should change again to avoid what's bad.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Don't change the subject. I was referring to something taking the place of religion in our politics... and you know it.
No changing of the subject. If change isn't always good within realms outside of religion or politics, it stands to reason it isn't always good within religion and politics.

If the dominant political party is in favor of outlawing slavery, and its challenger is in favor of reintroducing it, change in this case would be very, very bad. By your previous statement, do you think it'd be worth it to empower the challenger simply in the name of avoiding stagnation?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
One of the constants in the universe is change. Change is never guaranteed to be for the better or for the worse, but the idea of change itself is essentially good.
The physical universe is in constant change.

In this example, of course, changing what takes the place of religion in our politics is good.. whether or not what succeeds religion is "for the better". If what comes after religion is better than religion, we should change again to avoid becoming stagnant. If what comes after religion is worse than religion, we should change again to avoid what's bad.
You remind me of some vendors I have to deal with.

When you have a good product that sells well, customers are pleased with, and it just works well, there's only one logical course of action to take. You have to discontinue it.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
No changing of the subject. If change isn't always good within realms outside of religion or politics, it stands to reason it isn't always good within religion and politics.

If the dominant political party is in favor of outlawing slavery, and its challenger is in favor of reintroducing it, change in this case would be very, very bad. By your previous statement, do you think it'd be worth it to empower the challenger simply in the name of avoiding stagnation?
See post #56
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
The physical universe is in constant change.
We are a part of the physical universe. Our thoughts, our feelings, our psychology, our biology... are in constant change too.

You remind me of some vendors I have to deal with.

When you have a good product that sells well, customers are pleased with, and it just works well, there's only one logical course of action to take. You have to discontinue it.
Progress. Knock it all you want, but without it we would not have nearly the standard of living we have today.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
We are a part of the physical universe. Our thoughts, our feelings, our psychology, our biology... are in constant change too.

Progress. Knock it all you want, but without it we would not have nearly the standard of living we have today.
Except that the definition of progress is that of moving from bad to good. Improvement. You don't improve by arbitrarily changing what is already good.

Arguing that things should be changed with no regard for why it should be changed is madness. Insanity. I don't know any other term for it.

I'll quit my job now. Change is good. Wife and kids be damned. Change is more important.

I know it's a bit lame to post quotes, but I can't help it.

It is true that a man (a silly man) might make change itself his object or ideal. But as an ideal, change itself becomes unchangeable. If the change-worshipper wishes to estimate his own progress, he must be sternly loyal to the ideal of change; he must not begin to flirt gaily with the ideal of monotony. Progress itself cannot progress. It is worth remark, in passing, that when Tennyson, in a wild and rather weak manner, welcomed the idea of infinite alteration in society, he instinctively took a metaphor which suggests an imprisoned tedium. He wrote—

"Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change."

He thought of change itself as an unchangeable groove; and so it is. Change is about the narrowest and hardest groove that a man can get into.
-GKC
 
Last edited:
Nov 29, 2006
14,585
2,354
126
Having religion in a society is not the same as having religion drive government in a society. In general religion in government is a bad thing because it is an easy way to allow people to push their beliefs onto others without needing logical justification. That doesn't mean without religion people won't feel the need to control others and act accordingly, they'll just use other reasons ("think of the children!")
It is when the people of that society have voting rights and gain political power. Their religious dogma always comes through.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,585
2,354
126
War is never, and has never been about religion. If you believe that, then it makes you little different than the mindless ship convinced through religion to fight for those who start such wars, only to consolidate power.

Those who fight may believe they are fighting for religion, btu this is only at the behest of those who demand that they fight, for their own true purpose.

The Crusades were likewise "not about religion." The papal state merely wanted to expand power and influence. If it were ever truly about religion and controlling the holy land for Gawd, then they never would have ended--or it would, to this day, be a Christian-dominant part of the world.
It may be about the resources etc, but without religion they would not have the tool necessary to pull it off. Hard to wage a war for a resource most people in the country could care less about. But change the purpose to religion and all of a sudden you have an army at your disposal.

So in this context getting rid of religion would cut down on war dramatically. It is one of the few things in this world people are willing to die for, which is why its abused when war comes around.
 

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,415
9
0
So there is hope, wow

1 of 5 is pretty impressive. Let's hope that number goes up in coming years.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Not if Dems keep protecting one above all others.
I like that you didn't type libs there...

I'd bite your head clean off if you had.

However, you know as much as i do that it's not true.

All of religion is based on us vs them and it's just a regular power game.

I prefer military ranks, at least then you know who's jesus (the sergeant, and who is the boss, the Captain.)

Oh yeah, you may think with all the colonels and generals that there are a whole bunch of people in charge all at the same time but in reality, while they discuss things the Captains get the job done.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,976
19,663
136
It may be about the resources etc, but without religion they would not have the tool necessary to pull it off. Hard to wage a war for a resource most people in the country could care less about. But change the purpose to religion and all of a sudden you have an army at your disposal.

So in this context getting rid of religion would cut down on war dramatically. It is one of the few things in this world people are willing to die for, which is why its abused when war comes around.

we have already replaced that concept with "freedom."

No change expected.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
we have already replaced that concept with "freedom."

No change expected.
True, but any man will fight to be free while few will fight for others freedom.

Freedom is a concept in the western world, it's what i've fought for, to keep our values and freedoms safe from those who wish to take it from us.

I wish i could say it was worth it but it wasn't, because of ONE politician we failed not only the Afghanistan people but every single person who will be the victim of their next attack.

All we have managed to do is to set up a MUCH bigger stage with A LOT more people to make sure that one will come.

And that, ladies and gentlemen is because of GW Bush, he did his best to make sure that Al Quaeda were not only left alone in Afghanistan but forced the spread of them throughout the ME, helped them establish bases in Iraq too.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Yes! We will rid the world of religion one day. Its a dying breed, thank god.

Probably won't produce the results you think you want, or what you expect. I love when people blame religion for certain problems... not the idiots actually carrying out the bad stuff.
 

Binarycow

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2010
1,239
2
76
the overall problem is humans, NOT RELIGIONS!
You cant get rid the world of its problems without getting rid of us humans.

BTW, I wouldnt get too excited about such a poll. After all, everyone of us worships something whether it is an invisible god in the sky, the dollar, Hitler, or science. You cant get rid of faith, religious or otherwise. It is part of us.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
My point was that with or without religion, people are interested in controlling others, and they pursue that desire in many different ways. You don't need religion to do that, though religion has often served as a vehicle to do it. As technology creates new ways to track and store more granular parts of everyone's life, that desire to control manifests itself in a desire for more government control over people.
True, and I am under the opinion, to add to your post, that people have to change whether they're religious, non-religious, black, white, whatever.

The organization itself is hardly ever the problem. Case in point, we have laws here in the US. If people break them, should be get rid of lawmakers, laws themselves, and/or government? No. If we did, that wouldn't change the fact the law breakers are law breakers. We would just give them another venue in which to operate.

Getting rid of "organized" religion may sound fine, but as you stated, we'll find other means to manipulate and control.

Anti-religious zealots can be so simple minded sometimes not looking at the long-term picture.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
the overall problem is humans, NOT RELIGIONS!
You cant get rid the world of its problems without getting rid of us humans.
Yeah, you take 100 000 people and indoctrinate them from day one with a religion, you teach them who the enemy is, who is evil and against us god fearing people...

Then you tell the people affected by their hatred that it has nothing to do with religion.

But it does, because bad men will do bad things and good men will do good things but for good men to do bad things, that takes religion.

You will never see an atheist fight to the death against innocent people because it will grant him a swell afterlife.

There IS a difference even though religious people will NEVER admit it.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Arguing that things should be changed with no regard for why it should be changed is madness. Insanity. I don't know any other term for it.

I'll quit my job now. Change is good. Wife and kids be damned. Change is more important.
It will change, but not how people think or expect.

Just like religion, Atheists are out to control people too. If they didn't, they wouldn't write books and have organizations aimed at pulling people out from faith.

Just like the fat-cat religious leaders, they're out to get your support and money too... your allegiance. So those who want, go ahead and run from one form of control to another. It's stupid. You're not free. You'd still be controlled by another human's flawed and self-serving philosophy.

There are no such thing as "free thinkers". Everyone's doing something someone already did or told them to do.

I don't think people not wanting religion is stupid, I think what's stupid is running from under one leaky roof to another, from drinking dog piss to drinking human piss.

Atheists will only replace Christians in D.C. Is that what this country wants?

If someone wants to propose change, they better have a better alternative. I see none.

EDIT: This was really in response to crastestdummy's post:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34072488&postcount=10
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,732
3,553
126
I thought Mao and Stalin got rid of religion and brought wonderful change. There is so much stupidity from Liberals in this thread it's pathetic.

Rob M. Probably won't produce the results you think you want, or what you expect. I love when people blame religion for certain problems... not the idiots actually carrying out the bad stuff.

M: Can't see any probably about it. The only caveat I would offer is that what religion becomes after the death of the light that brought it is mechanical, it is corrupted by those who don't even get their own religion. So the problem is not religion but corrupted religion and the corruption of the people who practice it.

zsdersw: One of the constants in the universe is change. Change is never guaranteed to be for the better or for the worse, but the idea of change itself is essentially good.

In this example, of course, changing what takes the place of religion in our politics is good.. whether or not what succeeds religion is "for the better". If what comes after religion is better than religion, we should change again to avoid becoming stagnant. If what comes after religion is worse than religion, we should change again to avoid what's bad.

M: The idea of change is essentially good? What kind of horse shit is that? And by the way, the change we see in the universe is called entropy or heat death. The background radiation is down to absolute 3 degrees, no?

It is typical that liberals like change, any old change at all, but conservatives realize that chaos is change too. It is much more difficult to build order that to destroy it. This is why liberals need conservatives, to keep them from being stupid.

What will change is not religion to atheism, but religion to new religion. We are not alone and the human mind knows it. There are only circles of one truth that cover us all. Even the notion that religion will die is a religion, a dream of a better day. And that's a religion folk will grow out of too. God created man or man created God and nobody can tell the difference. The destruction of religion is just another attempt to find God.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I thought Mao and Stalin got rid of religion and brought wonderful change. There is so much stupidity from Liberals in this thread it's pathetic..
If you're not being sarcastic about this i'll fucking hound you about it, i never know with you though, you're all up in the fucking clouds saying shit that you think is profound but to everyone else it's just confusing.

And yeah, everytime anyone ever says they get what you're saying, like Perk or such, it's just to be polite, no one ever knows what the fuck you're on about but we take wild guesses all the time.

I think you are potentially one of the smartest posters here but you waste all of it on being so daft with your presentation of any and every argument.

Religion is the poor mans honor, but so is racism.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY