• 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."

Discussion Maybe we should ban religion all together

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,401
3,046
126
Felix put a thumbs down emote on the Op's post. You have to be pretty intolerant to interpret it to mean what indus said though.
Ah you were being nice hen you said "intolerant".....you should have said - that was a chicken shit response!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,401
3,046
126
I would be fine if nothing about religion were mentioned by religious or the extreme opposite.
I agree! But how do you go about straddling the fence between saying nothing about Religion and not taling Atheist beliefs?
That is a pretty slippery slope, all things considering!
The sad part is most people who are religious vote for those whose religious beliefs mirror their own!!
Not rrealizing that religious or not the person could be a scoundrel!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,401
3,046
126
I want freedom from religion. You can have your religion and beliefs just don't get any on me.

I also think their should be a strict enforcement of the separation of church and state. The moment an elected representive mentions religion they no longer represent ALL of their constituents which is wrong. How is catering to one party and/or religion not identity politics?
The better question is - How can you not have identity politics?
Even if the person running for office keeps religion out of the picture....those who he/she attends church or mass with will know that they are running for office and word of mouth will get out that so and so is religious.....
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,122
3,159
126
I agree! But how do you go about straddling the fence between saying nothing about Religion and not taling Atheist beliefs?
That is a pretty slippery slope, all things considering!
The sad part is most people who are religious vote for those whose religious beliefs mirror their own!!
Not rrealizing that religious or not the person could be a scoundrel!!
The absence of Religious discussion is not Atheist discussion. There is a whole Universe of concerns that do not pertain to whether a god exists or not.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I agree! But how do you go about straddling the fence between saying nothing about Religion and not taling Atheist beliefs?
That is a pretty slippery slope, all things considering!
The sad part is most people who are religious vote for those whose religious beliefs mirror their own!!
Not rrealizing that religious or not the person could be a scoundrel!!
Well, that last bit is always an issue because religion in itself or lack thereof cannot be a position so the topic must be ignored by candidates and officeholders if that's how things are to be decided. Also the subject of going to church or not should have no bearing on performance, that should be based on the performance itself.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
The absence of Religious discussion is not Atheist discussion. There is a whole Universe of concerns that do not pertain to whether a god exists or not.
Saying "I am an atheist" is making an appeal about religion as much as Obama saying he is a Christian. If people are going to be evenly represented then that's how it is. Everyone shuts up about their ideas about a god or lack of one.

If people are to be gagged then everyone is on the matter. What they do or do not in their private life is one thing but keep it out of office.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,122
3,159
126
Saying "I am an atheist" is making an appeal about religion as much as Obama saying he is a Christian. If people are going to be evenly represented then that's how it is. Everyone shuts up about their ideas about a god or lack of one.

If people are to be gagged then everyone is on the matter. What they do or do not in their private life is one thing but keep it out of office.
I agree, but the concern was that Atheist discussion would just balloon out of control. The only reason Atheists even mention it is because how vocal and dangerous religion has become. It is also the reason that people are fleeing Religion.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I agree, but the concern was that Atheist discussion would just balloon out of control. The only reason Atheists even mention it is because how vocal and dangerous religion has become. It is also the reason that people are fleeing Religion.
Atheists are not cookie cutter versions of each other. Some are malicious and vindictive. Fortunately most people don't even know what they are and those who are atheist are OK as a rule.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,401
3,046
126
I agree, but the concern was that Atheist discussion would just balloon out of control. The only reason Atheists even mention it is because how vocal and dangerous religion has become. It is also the reason that people are fleeing Religion.
Sorry you can`t have it both ways!
I wqill go no further-- Hyabusa explained it way better than I could.....
yet let me say just like some christians some atheists are as dangerous and vindictive as some Christians!
Notice I said some not all....ande that does not mean you get to use the argument that supposedly not as many atheists …….
In reality there is northing special about being a Christian or an Atheist....we all need to learn to live in harmony for the better good of mankind!!
Hayabusa -- "Atheists are not cookie cutter versions of each other. Some are malicious and vindictive. Fortunately most people don't even know what they are and those who are atheist are OK as a rule."
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,122
3,159
126
Sorry you can`t have it both ways!
I wqill go no further-- Hyabusa explained it way better than I could.....
yet let me say just like some christians some atheists are as dangerous and vindictive as some Christians!
Notice I said some not all....ande that does not mean you get to use the argument that supposedly not as many atheists …….
In reality there is northing special about being a Christian or an Atheist....we all need to learn to live in harmony for the better good of mankind!!
Atheists are not cookie cutter versions of each other. Some are malicious and vindictive. Fortunately most people don't even know what they are and those who are atheist are OK as a rule.
Yes, we need to all live together. Not just in our Nations though, Globally as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,677
2,838
136
It was post #12 where I sarcastically said something about abusive priests.

This to be exact:



And he disliked it. I am truly baffled like like who would stand up for abusive priests?

Unless I'm missing something.. so please enlighten me

I don't get your point. The comment was suggesting that the _only_ people who value religion are abusive priests. Downvoting it does not imply defending those priests, it implies disagreeing with the idea that religion would not be missed by anyone else.

I don't much care for religion, but I also don't agree that those abusers are the only people who would miss it. It exists for many reasons, after all.

That said, this illustrates why downvoting is just a bad idea and it's better to reply and say what one's disagreement is.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,868
81
91
You can't ban religion, it co-evolved with humanity to further the survival of the species.

Atheism is the death stage of civilization, the fertility rates simply bear this out.

Not only can you not ban it, because of the evolved religious instinct it just becomes redirected in dysgenic and maladaptive forms, notably progressivism which is just christianity stripped of scripture and god, "racism" your new original sin, the mindless worship of "diversity" and the attempt to create utopia on earth while denying human nature. Even creationism is reborn as "equality" requires a denial of evolution based on nothing but faith.

Dawkin's used to talk about reilgion being a mind virus, he wasn't self aware enough to understand that his own is the most deadly as it kills its host.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
20,020
11,352
136
You can't ban religion, it co-evolved with humanity to further the survival of the species.

Atheism is the death stage of civilization, the fertility rates simply bear this out.

Not only can you not ban it, because of the evolved religious instinct it just becomes redirected in dysgenic and maladaptive forms, notably progressivism which is just christianity stripped of scripture and god, "racism" your new original sin, the mindless worship of "diversity" and the attempt to create utopia on earth while denying human nature. Even creationism is reborn as "equality" requires a denial of evolution based on nothing but faith.

Dawkin's used to talk about reilgion being a mind virus, he wasn't self aware enough to understand that his own is the most deadly as it kills its host.
Wow, just wow. Gamer gate was just your version of crazy lite. This is the distilled version.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
825
126
You can't ban religion, it co-evolved with humanity to further the survival of the species.

Atheism is the death stage of civilization, the fertility rates simply bear this out.

Not only can you not ban it, because of the evolved religious instinct it just becomes redirected in dysgenic and maladaptive forms, notably progressivism which is just christianity stripped of scripture and god, "racism" your new original sin, the mindless worship of "diversity" and the attempt to create utopia on earth while denying human nature. Even creationism is reborn as "equality" requires a denial of evolution based on nothing but faith.

Dawkin's used to talk about reilgion being a mind virus, he wasn't self aware enough to understand that his own is the most deadly as it kills its host.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that you believe that without religion humanity could become too depressed and they'd just go into mass chaos?
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,677
2,838
136
Yeah, doctors are well educated, but I think they are often 1/2 way off their rocker. Med school is enough to do that to you sometimes, it's a grind, and then they make you do an internship, then a residency. By the time you hang your shingle you've spent your entire youth being "educated." Who you are as a person may have been seriously sacrificed.

I actually have a slightly negative opinion of doctors as a profession myself. A bit over-rated, in my opinion, outside of E.R. trauma-care.

But that's going off-topic entirely, my reservations about them have nothing to do with terrorism.

I don't think there's a particular connection of that profession and terrorism, at least not one that doesn't just as well apply to all the high-status professions that tend to appeal to people from the cultures that are relevant to certain forms of terrorism. Engineers are notoriously greatly over-represented among them, for example. Really not hard to see why that might be.

Anyway, I'd be amazed if anyone imagines at this point that terrorists are always drawn from uneducated poor people. That's not the historical pattern at all.

It irritates me that often I hear conservative commentators attacking the straw man idea that terrorists are always poor and oppressed in every way, implying that the liberals are so stupid as to believe that. Nobody actually believes that in the first place, it's way more complicated than that.

There are clearly certain groups that are over-represented but there is more than one such group, there are clearly clusters of them across multiple demographic categories.

Also the startling thing to me about that Glasgow attack was how inept at terrorism these highly-skilled and educated guys turned out to be. They failed to check in advance whether their fire-bomb car would fit through the bollards outside the airport doors - it didn't, it got stuck, meaning the only people they injured were themselves.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,868
81
91
Wow, just wow. Gamer gate was just your version of crazy lite. This is the distilled version.
And you have no answer, because the writing is on the wall. Your glorious future is demonstrated mass dysfunction, completely unsustainable in every way. You don't get to transcend the realities of the flesh based on nothing more than wishful thinking. You deny nature, you deny human nature.


I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that you believe that without religion humanity could become too depressed and they'd just go into mass chaos?
I'm saying the "brights" weren't so bright, and most of their critiques have now come back to haunt them. Not only are they proving that they are an inferior replacement, but their claims about religion and science being incompatible have been met with their own blinders to science inconvenient to their own narrative. While their hatred of christianity has been twisted into a love of islam. James Damore is just one example. Self destruction, dysgenics, and mouse utopia.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,677
2,838
136
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that you believe that without religion humanity could become too depressed and they'd just go into mass chaos?

Actually I _partly_ agree with some of what he says. Speaking as a gloomy atheist.

It _is_ the case the strongly religious have far more children than anyone else. It might in fact be necessary to 'believe' for a sufficient number of people to maintain the will to go on, and to reproduce. Birth rates are indeed low in non-religious cultures (but also among the 'moderately' religious).

The problem that I see, is that while birth rates may mean the future is religious, it doesn't look as if the hard-line believers who have lots of children will agree as to what the 'correct' religion is.

They, in fact, depend on all us non-believers and agnostics and secularists to maintain some sort of order and peace between them. If we all die out, the hard-liners will be free to go at each other tooth and claw.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,677
2,838
136
I'm saying the "brights" weren't so bright, and most of their critiques have now come back to haunt them. Not only are they proving that they are an inferior replacement, but their claims about religion and science being incompatible have been met with their own blinders to science inconvenient to their own narrative. While their hatred of christianity has been twisted into a love of islam. James Damore is just one example. Self destruction, dysgenics, and mouse utopia.
Ironic that you appear to have a religious-type belief in socio-biology (ignoring the weakness of the evidence for your beliefs because doing so suits your feelings). Not to mention being full of religiously-motivated hatred.

Hard to unravel the tangled mess of contradictions here (the 'brights' are mostly fairly conservative, incidentally, what the left used to call 'bourgeois atheists'). Though how does your line differ from that found in the 'manifestos' of the likes of Brevik and the Christchurch killer?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,401
3,046
126
Actually I _partly_ agree with some of what he says. Speaking as a gloomy atheist.

It _is_ the case the strongly religious have far more children than anyone else. It might in fact be necessary to 'believe' for a sufficient number of people to maintain the will to go on, and to reproduce. Birth rates are indeed low in non-religious cultures (but also among the 'moderately' religious).

The problem that I see, is that while birth rates may mean the future is religious, it doesn't look as if the hard-line believers who have lots of children will agree as to what the 'correct' religion is.

They, in fact, depend on all us non-believers and agnostics and secularists to maintain some sort of order and peace between them. If we all die out, the hard-liners will be free to go at each other tooth and claw.
Again lumping all "religious" people together!
Religious people or Christians do not depend on non-believers or agnostics or secularists to maintain some sort of order and peace! That is wishful thinking on your part or at worse it is you saying you need me, thinking on your part!
I know of plenty of religious people and Christians who do not get caught up in the thinking that somehow because they are religious or call themselves Christian they believe as well they should that they are no better or worse than you are and they behave accordingly!
We are talking about a small fringe element of the religious or Christians who actually believe they are better...…..to lump all religious or Christians together is just plain wrong! As it is to lump all atheist and secularists and agnostics together!
 
Last edited:

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,729
2,247
136
And you have no answer, because the writing is on the wall. Your glorious future is demonstrated mass dysfunction, completely unsustainable in every way. You don't get to transcend the realities of the flesh based on nothing more than wishful thinking. You deny nature, you deny human nature.




I'm saying the "brights" weren't so bright, and most of their critiques have now come back to haunt them. Not only are they proving that they are an inferior replacement, but their claims about religion and science being incompatible have been met with their own blinders to science inconvenient to their own narrative. While their hatred of christianity has been twisted into a love of islam. James Damore is just one example. Self destruction, dysgenics, and mouse utopia.
And the only way it ends for you and for all you religious nuts is with a hole in the ground and no one giving a shit.

Guess who the world remembers with love?

Not any pope, not any mullah. Definitely not anyone who followed a religious book.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,401
3,046
126
And the only way it ends for you and for all you religious nuts is with a hole in the ground and no one giving a shit.

Guess who the world remembers with love?

Not any pope, not any mullah. Definitely not anyone who followed a religious book.
hahahhaa that could be problematic!
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,729
2,247
136
Communism killed more people in 100 years than all the major religions did in 2000.
That's wrong on both fronts.. because religions have been around a lot longer than just 2000 years.

Did you forget about pagan human sacrifice?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,122
3,159
126
You can't ban religion, it co-evolved with humanity to further the survival of the species.

Atheism is the death stage of civilization, the fertility rates simply bear this out.

Not only can you not ban it, because of the evolved religious instinct it just becomes redirected in dysgenic and maladaptive forms, notably progressivism which is just christianity stripped of scripture and god, "racism" your new original sin, the mindless worship of "diversity" and the attempt to create utopia on earth while denying human nature. Even creationism is reborn as "equality" requires a denial of evolution based on nothing but faith.

Dawkin's used to talk about reilgion being a mind virus, he wasn't self aware enough to understand that his own is the most deadly as it kills its host.
Reproduction existed before Religion, it will continue to exist. Humanities extinction won't be because people stopped having kids.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY