Is it weird that i'm an atheist that's pro-religion?

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Your last line makes me laugh. The obvious bias in your posts in beginning to show. You clearly believe religious people to less intelligent than others. Belief in a higher being is not weak or ignorant. Personally I find it refreshing that they can admit that they do not understand/know everything as opposed to people like Dawkins who claim to be 100% correct. He claims to be a man of science yet can't prove the hypothesis on which he bases his life's work. Knowledge and reason do not have to be abandoned when you enter a church.

The vast majority of religious people do not make the headlines through their actions but unfortunately the idiot fringe element does. They are the ones doing the good works in this world and that I believe do "practice what they preach". If you would stop viewing religion only as a "magic man in the sky" and see it as a way to live your life with accepted morals and values then you may begin to get the idea.

I think you missed my entire point. You're trying really hard to make me into a god hating asshole. :/

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: WiseOldDude

Originally posted by: PaperclipGodSeems like religion does more good than bad.

Earth to PCG, religion is the root cause of most of the strife on the planet, now and throughout history. Unless you currently own a lot of Halliburton stock that is not a good thing.

Did you even read why i said i dont think thats the case? Like, the first post? :/

 

[Nightfall]

Ok, my .02 cents and then I am leaving. I consider myself to be a Agnostic, but I see the benefits of religion. At the same time though, I see how organized religion has caused so many deaths and so much destruction. Religion is a necessary check to our system of balance. If it wasn't for religion, the world today would probably be much more worse off than it is now. Imagine a world where people have no incentive to be good and do good things. Would a majority of people today embrace that way of thinking? I know I have, and I would have to say some people would be that way, but not everyone. People are self centered and it is my prediction that it would be much more violent and lawless than it is now without religion.

I am a godfather to 4 children and I even go to church a couple times a year. I don't speak out against religion and I don't try to convert others to my way of thinking. I believe that religious tolerance is the only way we are able to get along in the world today.

Religious belief has nothing to do with genetics. It has everything to do with how you are brought up as a child. I know many atheist parents that bring their children up the same way and they become atheists. Same goes for Christian parents raising their kids to be good Christians and so on. Sure, you have the occasional child that jumps one way or the other, but for the most part this is the way it happens.

If organized religion wants to get better in my eyes, then they have to start practicing religious tolerance. Organized religion should start teaching more of the worlds religions to help others understand how and why others believe the way they do.

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
Gawd, not eugenics! You know, Darwinism and SotF has been invalidated somewhat (i.e. improved upon) since Origin of Species. People are born to be trash collectors? I'd say nurture drive occupation more than nature. We differ by very small degrees, there is no large class distinction in the society of man. These pseudo-science genetic arguments, while perhaps not ill-intentioned, are neither supported by more modern genetics/evolutionary theory. Allow me to qualify this by stating I'm a physical scientist, not a biological scientist, but genetics is a very complex topic. A simplified view would be better stated as genetics defines boundaries of behaviors, environment decides where we fit in that boundary. There's a lot of overlap.

I guess it's not really possible to have a purely logical discussion wrt religion, that's not shocking.

It was not my intention to say that nature drives occupation more than nurture and for that lack of clarity I apologize. I think I have inadvertently de-railed this conversation so this will be the last post I will make on the genetics topic.
It was never my intention to prove or put forth that genetics has a huge impact on differences in people's view - merely that it is a factor, albeit a small one - or rather, to avoid subjective measurements, less of a factor than nurture. I do think that some people are genetically pre-disposed to trend towards one side or the other, but that is something that a certain amount of 'nurture' would likely be able to overcome

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Originally posted by: WiseOldDude

Originally posted by: PaperclipGodSeems like religion does more good than bad.

Earth to PCG, religion is the root cause of most of the strife on the planet, now and throughout history. Unless you currently own a lot of Halliburton stock that is not a good thing.

Did you even read why i said i dont think thats the case? Like, the first post? :/

don't feel bad, it's obvious he can't see past the end of his nose.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Excelsior

The problem I have is it seems that atheist are just as guilty of the "We're right, you're wrong" mentality. I'm agnostic and have been for 20 years and I seem to support the religious types more than the atheist just because the atheist types seem to be even more pig headed an ignorant than the christians.

Exactly.

well you seem to be brainwashed then, because the religious types are the first to state by default all others are immoral compared to them by definition, especially atheists. thats the point atheists have to start with.

go back to the inquisition and see how friendly religion will be to a "pro religion" atheist.😛 and well you just have to look at the inquisition to see how religion has spent its time stunting human progress.

I am brainwashed? By whom?

hahahaha, good one dude. 😛

And just as you say the "religious types" are the first to state by default all others are immoral compared to them...atheists are the first to say that the "religious types" are nutjobs for believing in a supernatural being/power.

Great, more historical examples of how religion has done so much harm. We haven't see this before...:roll:

Never mind the fact that it was man and not the relgion which was responsible for the wrongdoings...just as the gun isn't responsible for the shooting, but the person who pulled the trigger is.

It's really very simple.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Originally posted by: Dumac
I think that you a missing a major point that Dawkin's and such are trying to make.

Yes, religion does inspire some and give a sense of morals to others. Dawkins does not truly bash this idea, as he states many different athiest who practice old, childhood forced religions because it gives them a structure and a sense of ethics.

However, I believe the point many athiests strive to make is that morals and hope are achievable without religion. Some athiest hope to replace religion's use as a root of good behavior with a supposedly less hateful practitions of reasoning and general good will.

Would such a world being ideal? A world whose humans function on non-religious ethics and have 'evolved' past religion? Who knows.

Is it probable? No.

Yeah, i understand trying to make morality possible without religion... but to do so, imo, takes a lot of "soul"-searching and philosophical contemplation. You can't really think that every person out there has the time or the inclination to do that. People want answers, and they want a security blanket. They want to know how things work, why, and what their place is.

It might be great if everyone could have a sense of morality and comfort without religion, but i think its idealistic to consider that a viable option.

I agree. That is why I said the hope for a religious free sense of morality is not probable for the time being 🙂

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Excelsior

The problem I have is it seems that atheist are just as guilty of the "We're right, you're wrong" mentality. I'm agnostic and have been for 20 years and I seem to support the religious types more than the atheist just because the atheist types seem to be even more pig headed an ignorant than the christians.

Exactly.

well you seem to be brainwashed then, because the religious types are the first to state by default all others are immoral compared to them by definition, especially atheists. thats the point atheists have to start with.

go back to the inquisition and see how friendly religion will be to a "pro religion" atheist.😛 and well you just have to look at the inquisition to see how religion has spent its time stunting human progress.

I am brainwashed? By whom?

hahahaha, good one dude. 😛

And just as you say the "religious types" are the first to state by default all others are immoral compared to them...atheists are the first to say that the "religious types" are nutjobs for believing in a supernatural being/power.

Great, more historical examples of how religion has done so much harm. We haven't see this before...:roll:

Never mind the fact that it was man and not the relgion which was responsible for the wrongdoings...just as the gun isn't responsible for the shooting, but the person who pulled the trigger is.

It's really very simple.

Whenever I say religion, I am referring to the man-made structure fabricated around the idea of faith.

Yes, this structure could be used for 'good' or 'evil', but it has been used for 'evil' an absurd amount of times. It is just another tool to control and twist the masses.

My dislike isn't for faith in itself; I am content with anyone believing in a higher being as he chooses. I am, however, discontented with organized faith, which I name religion.

 

[Orsorum]

The funny thing is, there's so much arrogance in a statement from an atheist in saying that "some people aren't strong enough to live life without faith, so let them be." It's a snide, unsubtle way of saying that religious people are weak and that if they were only strong and smart enough, they would become atheists.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: fishface313
religion also causes such things as the Holocaust and 911...so as far as i'm concerned religious holy rollers can suck it!

so how exactly did religion fuel the holocaust?

Last I checked millions of Jews were murdered, right?

And how does the fact that "millions of Jews were murdered" prove that religion fueled the holocaust?

I guess he was trying to go with the whole 'muredering millions of members of Judaism is an attack on thier religion" point of view...

Ah, an incorrect assumption.

That's an incorrect assumption? Hitler hated Jews, and committed Genocide against Jews. It's crystal clear that religion played a huge part in the holocaust.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
The funny thing is, there's so much arrogance in a statement from an atheist in saying that "some people aren't strong enough to live life without faith, so let them be." It's a snide, unsubtle way of saying that religious people are weak and that if they were only strong and smart enough, they would become atheists.

No, that is not it at all, but I can understand why you could think that is the opinion.

I see it more as just an effort of change. Most of the world believes in some diety; it would require a great amount of effort in order to get that overwhelming majority to change. So it is not that they are 'weak'; it is that changing something so personal as a religious belief is very difficult and requires much effort. And since the change required is practically impossible, many athiest say let the religious belief in what they may.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: ntdz

That's an incorrect assumption? Hitler hated Jews, and committed Genocide against Jews. It's crystal clear that religion played a huge part in the holocaust.

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Don't you think that Hitler's hatred of Jews came first, and an attempt to make a religious justification for it was later?

No one's going to argue that religion hasn't been used like a tool to serve someone's evil purposes, but the source of the evil is the person, not the religion.

Originally posted by: Orsorum
The funny thing is, there's so much arrogance in a statement from an atheist in saying that "some people aren't strong enough to live life without faith, so let them be." It's a snide, unsubtle way of saying that religious people are weak and that if they were only strong and smart enough, they would become atheists.

Well, you can't blame the man for believing that his position is right and the others are wrong: that's why he holds his position in the first place. The religious people say much the same things about atheists. Rare is the person who is humble enough to admit that their views aren't necessarily the most correct, most unbiased, and most intelligent out of all competing viewpoints. Maybe it's just part of being human, I don't know, but it's clearly something shared by atheists and religious people.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
The funny thing is, there's so much arrogance in a statement from an atheist in saying that "some people aren't strong enough to live life without faith, so let them be." It's a snide, unsubtle way of saying that religious people are weak and that if they were only strong and smart enough, they would become atheists.

You think its easy for someone who believes in an omniscient god who rewards people for leading good lives to suddenly switch and start believing none of that exists?

 

[ppdes]

Reminds me of a Ford quote:
>An idealist is a person who helps other people to be prosperous.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
The funny thing is, there's so much arrogance in a statement from an atheist in saying that "some people aren't strong enough to live life without faith, so let them be." It's a snide, unsubtle way of saying that religious people are weak and that if they were only strong and smart enough, they would become atheists.

Pretty much. 🙂

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
It feels as though people like Dawkins are missing one big point when discussing how absurd religion is - not everyone is capable of living a happy, fulfilling life without it. Not everyone would have the moral fortitude to do what's right without the fear of god. Hell, not everyone wants to live in a world where life seems to have little point.

Im an atheist through and through. I dont believe in any sort of higher being (at least one that cares about who or what we are), yet at the same time i find myself envying theists. Wouldn't it be nice to truly believe that you'll be taken care of for eternity? That you never really die, you just go somewhere nicer?

Religion does so much good: It gives people a sense of purpose, it motivates them to act in a moral way, it gives them a common belief to rally behind. It binds people together. Obviously there have been plenty of wars and death on behalf of religion, too - but how can we say that there wouldn't be just as much death without religion? If anyone saw that south park episode a few weeks ago where Cartman visits the future to find the planet divided into different factions based on which subtheory of evolution they believe in, you'll get my point.

People will always find things to disagree on. Hell, look at US politics over the past 150 years: In the 1850's the biggest issue was whether or not blacks should be kept as property. 100 years ago it was whether or not women should be allowed to vote. 75 years ago we were changing the entire interpretation of the constitution with the New Deal. Today the biggest issues are how to bail out social security and whether or not we should impeach a president for a blowjob. The more things we agree on, the more things we find to disagree on. So that said, why is religion so awful? At least there's a good side to go along with the bad, right?

Have you forgotten that religion has caused almost every war for the last 5k years? Or the abortion bombers, jihad, witch burning, ireland violence, darfur genocide, Iraqi civil war?

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Have you forgotten that religion has caused almost every war for the last 5k years? Or the abortion bombers, jihad, witch burning, ireland violence, darfur genocide, Iraqi civil war?

But if you read that whole post you quoted, especially the last paragraph, you'd see that i contend disagreements are human nature... that we'll find things to argue and fight over no matter how big or how small and no matter if the banner we rally behind is religious or not.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
The funny thing is, there's so much arrogance in a statement from an atheist in saying that "some people aren't strong enough to live life without faith, so let them be." It's a snide, unsubtle way of saying that religious people are weak and that if they were only strong and smart enough, they would become atheists.

There is just as much arrogance from religious people out there...Religious people are the ones that feel they can determine for everyone what is moral- Abortion, gay marriage, etc. Atheists talk, religious groups DO.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Have you forgotten that religion has caused almost every war for the last 5k years? Or the abortion bombers, jihad, witch burning, ireland violence, darfur genocide, Iraqi civil war?

But if you read that whole post you quoted, especially the last paragraph, you'd see that i contend disagreements are human nature... that we'll find things to argue and fight over no matter how big or how small and no matter if the banner we rally behind is religious or not.

Maybe, maybe not. You can';t prove that if there wasn't religion, there would have been as many wars. That is a blatant assumption. Whereas, my statement is based on history.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Maybe, maybe not. You can';t prove that if there wasn't religion, there would have been as many wars. That is a blatant assumption. Whereas, my statement is based on history.

I gave you a reasoned example of why i feel that way, though. It's not as if im pulling it out of my ass. If you want to refute it then tell me where my logic is going wrong in that first post.

 

[SoulAssassin]

This reminds me of the Marx quote something along the lines of "Religion is the opiate of the masses".

I'm all for anything that keeps the masses from murdering each other, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the possibility of eternal damnation has persuaded more people not to kill than the possibility of the electric chair. Now we can follow that up with the old "More people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason" quote but that threat of eternal damnation has also probably stopped more than any other reason. Unfortunately, religion still has a place in our world and I don't think the "masses" are ready to accept the truth yet. If we don't nuke ourselves then maybe in another 500 years or so maybe we'll evolve past it....but probably not.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
This reminds me of the Marx quote something along the lines of "Religion is the opiate of the masses".

I'm all for anything that keeps the masses from murdering each other, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the possibility of eternal damnation has persuaded more people not to kill than the possibility of the electric chair. Now we can follow that up with the old "More people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason" quote but that threat of eternal damnation has also probably stopped more than any other reason. Unfortunately, religion still has a place in our world and I don't think the "masses" are ready to accept the truth yet. If we don't nuke ourselves then maybe in another 500 years or so maybe we'll evolve past it....but probably not.

Yeah, thats kind of my point. Religion itself doesnt make people violent, its simply a banner sometimes used to justify violence... no different than any other excuse, i.e. stalin killing "political dissidents," hitler killing "genetic inferiors," atilla and ghengis khan raping nearly all of eurasia for power and money, the violence goes on and on....

We should stop trying to find excuses for our violent nature. War has existed as long as life has (the animal world isnt exactly peaceful). We're still animals, just slightly smarter than the rest. If we want to stop war, then the first step should be controlling our own illogical, emotional, instinctual responses when someone disagrees with us.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Maybe, maybe not. You can';t prove that if there wasn't religion, there would have been as many wars. That is a blatant assumption. Whereas, my statement is based on history.

I gave you a reasoned example of why i feel that way, though. It's not as if im pulling it out of my ass. If you want to refute it then tell me where my logic is going wrong in that first post.

Your logic is wrong because itis an assumption being used as proof.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Excelsior

The problem I have is it seems that atheist are just as guilty of the "We're right, you're wrong" mentality. I'm agnostic and have been for 20 years and I seem to support the religious types more than the atheist just because the atheist types seem to be even more pig headed an ignorant than the christians.

Exactly.

well you seem to be brainwashed then, because the religious types are the first to state by default all others are immoral compared to them by definition, especially atheists. thats the point atheists have to start with.

go back to the inquisition and see how friendly religion will be to a "pro religion" atheist.😛 and well you just have to look at the inquisition to see how religion has spent its time stunting human progress.

I am brainwashed? By whom?

hahahaha, good one dude. 😛

And just as you say the "religious types" are the first to state by default all others are immoral compared to them...atheists are the first to say that the "religious types" are nutjobs for believing in a supernatural being/power.

Great, more historical examples of how religion has done so much harm. We haven't see this before...:roll:

Never mind the fact that it was man and not the relgion which was responsible for the wrongdoings...just as the gun isn't responsible for the shooting, but the person who pulled the trigger is.

It's really very simple.

Whenever I say religion, I am referring to the man-made structure fabricated around the idea of faith.

Yes, this structure could be used for 'good' or 'evil', but it has been used for 'evil' an absurd amount of times. It is just another tool to control and twist the masses.

My dislike isn't for faith in itself; I am content with anyone believing in a higher being as he chooses. I am, however, discontented with organized faith, which I name religion.

Thats not the primary official definition of religion though.

And faith is man-made by definition, is it not? I don't believe other organisms are capable of having it, but I could be wrong.

What you fail to realize is that if this "structure" or speak of wasn't used then something else would take its place. Again, man himself is responsible for the wrongdoings, not his organized faith in a higher power.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
I'm agnostic.

Religion brings peace of mind to a lot of people. Individually, it's great, but in the masses, it's a mixed bag of results.

Originally posted by: Kilgor
The problem I have is it seems that atheist are just as guilty of the "We're right, you're wrong" mentality. I'm agnostic and have been for 20 years and I seem to support the religious types more than the atheist just because the atheist types seem to be even more pig headed an ignorant than the christians.

I agree with these 2 posts completely.

IMO, "religion," which I will define as the institution of dogmatic beliefs held collectively yet exclusively, is the problem, no matter what those beliefs are, be it the Pope or Dawkins.