God Vs Science

Again, beliefs aren't something that you can really help. I couldn't just ask religious people to stop holding religious beliefs. I'm not sure that it even makes sense to say that we have a right to believe whatever we want. It's like saying we have a right to perform miracles. Human rights are something we've invented for the purposes of co-ordinating each other's behaviour. They don't actually exist. If we decide that it is a human right to believe whatever one wants to believe, then it becomes a human right. But I'm not sure that it makes any sense to make belief a human right.

Anyway, I'm certainly in favour of respecting religious people. But religious beliefs themselves are unreasonable, and yet they are currently protected by an unusual level of respect, and by a strange taboo against challenging them, and I think this needs to stop. I don't think we've managed to let go of the notion that faith (belief without evidence) is some kind of virtue. And while this isn't too much a problem when people's faith is in beliefs about prayer or loving one's neighbour, it becomes a big problem when the faith is directed at the notion that all non-muslims must be converted or killed.

Suicide bombers do what they do because of principles contained within Islam; because of what the Koran actually says. They do it because of their religious beliefs, and yet we aren't allowed to incite hatred against Islam itself (the religion, not its members); we have to pick on the poor bombers who actually believe that they're doing the right thing. All because of the notion that faith and unreasonable belief is something to be respected - an idea which is kept alive by all religious people, and even plenty of secular people (the UK government, for example).

Most religious people are not fanatical. Religion provides a culture and community. If you are brought up in a community with a certain religion you adopt as a child your parents' beliefs. You follow your parents as you are too young to understand. But these childhood standards that you adopt are the foundation of your thinking and actions and could be very upsetting for most people who are not philosophically inclined. They are happy with the way things are and nothing you or I do can change his/her mind.

By the time your mature enough to make your own informed decision, your world view has been a skewed by years of parental indoctrination (so much for freedom of religion).

Freedom of religion should also mean that until a child is old enough to make his/her own unhindered decision, parents should keep there biased Personal ideals to themselves.

This IS impossible, so, in the absence of the ability to stop a culture of theists that find it easier to convert the young, what options are there?

A perfect example would be child preachers. I'm not sure if anyone else here has seen them, but to me, these children clearly are not old enough to make informed decisions about there own religious convictions (and yet they preach to grown adults), they are merely reiterating what there parents have drummed into them.



Most Muslims are not suicide bombers, does that somehow make it reasonable? NO. Those that preach the word of the fanatic ,no matter what religion or creed, empowers the fanatic to whatever he deems to be acceptable to his/her faith, even if this means breaking the very laws created to protect us. This is why Religion is dangerous.

Religion provides, not a culture, but many conflicting cultures across the globe, polarizing views that would be otherwise mutual and harmonious in the pursuit of global unity. Community is self evident and has been around ever since species realized that it is easier to survive working as a group, which anyone could agree that religion merely causes dangerous indifferences between what would otherwise be peaceful peoples.

this very argument is a leap of faith. so is yours, xeno.

you're both asking us to have faith that any time religion isn't put down ahead of time, it will ultimately result in bloodshed.

i'm sorry, you might as well ask me to believe in a big bearded man in they sky, it's so baseless.



two VERY different things.



right, but you're confusing showing respect with making it taboo to challenge religion. that's your leap.

you can respectfully disagree, and you should, whenever fundamentalism rears its ugly head- far, far before it leads to violence.

getting rid of religion to spite fundamentalism makes about as much sense as getting rid of jews to spite a lack of national prosperity. i'm sorry, i don't get into fundamentalism like that, whether it's religious fundamentalism, or atheist fundamentalism.

My post was not based on an opinion of mine, it was, however based on observations upon which I am disappointed to inform you of.

Child indoctrination, to me, seems like easy picking regardless whether those concerned are fanatical or not.

As you rightly stated, physical reinforcing of general populations religious inclinations would likely result in blood shed, so , there is very little anyone can do to stem the tide of 8 year old god warriors.



Atheist Fundamentalism is an imaginary grouping used by theists to demean atheists to the point of relating them to individuals such as Stalin and Hitler. This tactic is totally unrepresentative and a major contributor to the misunderstanding of the Atheist position as it relates to an individual.

As an Atheist I do understand that religion is here, and here to stay, and there is nothing I can do to make anyone think otherwise.

nonsense, it doesn't have to be a grouping at all. individual atheists are occasionally guilty of pushing their beliefs on people, and that's fine. when they resort to ridiculing someone who has not been impolite or imposing (it's perhaps another matter if you're responding to a pushy believer) or calling agnostics "athiests without balls..." (that one irritates the hell out of me) then it's nothing less than fundamentalism.

people should be entitled to belief, however stupid you think it is, it doesn't make them better, nor you. what makes a person better are his values and actions, not what plane they exist on or the system of belief they are drawn from.

when you start thinking people that don't share your belief as less than you, and even treating them as such, what do you think that makes you- a fundamentalist? i would say it does. now, if you're prepared at that point in time to offer mitigating any such accusation, so be it. but to say it doesn't exist just shows how indoctrinated you really are.

however, i don't think most atheists are fundamentalists. and i certainly think it's a fine and noble "system" of belief, even if there really is only one real standard- a lack of belief in god, it tends to lead to nobler, humanist sentiments. (maybe even caring for animals and the planet, too.) but i find that fundamentalism is something any group of people is capable of- probably even agnostics. and it's just as offensive when atheists do it.

Amen (no pun intended).

So a fundamentalist atheist is someone who talks about gods inexistance, where a stock standard atheist is one who keeps there mouths shut?

I just noticed how silly the title of this thread is, as if there some type of battle to be had between science and the questionable existence of a higher being.

Your right it doesn't HAVE to be a grouping, but why would anyone want to make such a statement if not to demonize? Do you ever hear anything good about any fundamentalists, no, and so the word alone, at least to me, promotes a negative response. Rightfully negative? I'm not one to jump to any conclusions, but its almost a given to cringe whenever the "F" word is uttered.

What is the difference between a fundamental and a moderate atheist?

I am an atheist myself but I wouldn't ever try to prevent other people of having beliefs of their own. I might mock them and ridicule them but I would never stop them from having those beliefs by force. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone I really don't care.

But atheists who want to abolish religion altogether by force or actively try to convert 'believers' are fundamentalists in my book. A fine line I suppose.

Anyone who even thinks its possible to abolish religion completely should be considered mentally retarded, or mabee thats the difference, moderate atheists believe a god doesn't exist, but a Fundy atheist is mentally retarded.

really xeno, with heaven/hell, good/evil dichotomy like that, people will think you're just against christianity, rather than truly atheist. of course there's a middle ground. it's a bit left of abolishing religion or trashing someone just based on beliefs, however. i think the first amendment words it pretty well, except that we're people and can afford more respect than the govenment can, being sentient- whereas the government is just a collection of big green pieces of paper, pushing little people around.

This thread was cited to me by the guy who pointed me towards this forum as a reason I should join it, so it was one of the first one I looked for and I would like to chime in.

Theism is an irrational belief. One could argue that, but most won't; if you do, then you dismiss the need for faith entirely. So, given that it is an irrational belief, we need to decide what sets it apart from other irrational beliefs.

If someone were to claim that the sky is red, you would try to correct them, would you not? To do so is widely considered the right thing to do, it is not just morally accepted but morally expected. Theism doesn't follow this rule. If you try to correct an irrational theistic belief, you are considered disrespectful and intolerant.

I make the case that we <i>should</i> be intolerant of theism, for the same reason we are intolerant of cold fusion or misleading advertisement or fraudulent research; it causes people to devote time and resources to a solution that won't help.

it's a very rare thing when intolerance makes the world better.

i mean, i'm not suggesting we should tolerate everything, but intolerance isn't a solution, it's a reaction. the reaction can be destructive or constructive.

take racism, and i mean intolerance towards racism. i don't think we should be too tolerant of racism, but if we made all racism a crime you could go to prison for, i'm not sure there would be many people left in society.

so even when you're fighting something, it's good to hold onto a bit of tolerance.

also, intolerance and ignorance usually go hand in hand. once someone is intolerant, they feel they can also be ignorant. no one needs to know what religion is for instance. you call theism a belief, when there's not a small difference between that and a collection of belief systems that most people think aren't interchangable. some belief systems are perfectly reasonable, if irrational.

if you want to treat religion as fiction, that's fine by me, but most people arguing against it seem to just want to get rid of it.

i find the idea of enforced rationality (or complete intolerance towards religion) no less frightening than the idea of enforced religion. either one can gather enough "authority" to be abused and hurt countless people.

We should be getting rid of religion, for the same reason we're trying to get rid of cocaine; it may make you feel good, but ultimately, it is inherently destructive.

That being said, should religion be illegal? No. Nor do I think we should punish theists. I don't think that religions as institutions are without merit, and their cultural impact is undeniable and deserves recognition. What we shouldn't do, however, is allow their irrational beliefs to go unchallenged.

I was very particular about the use of theism vs. religion. I am specifically talking about the belief in a god or gods; regardless of which god or gods or the trappings of religion. If you believe in a god or gods, you are going to devote time and resources to an irrational belief, which is a waste.

I'm curious as to how something can be irrational and reasonable, could you please elaborate on that?

i'm used to hearing specious arguments why religion is destructive, let's hear yours.

i think you and i will agree that *some* religion is destructive, but all of it?

i'm looking forward to your completely rational response.

...and welcome to the forum.

Thanks for the welcome.

Theistic belief leads people to expend resources in ineffectual ways. Your beliefs dictate how you allocate resources such as time, money and energy. Now, if religion were purely a recreational activity, the use of these resources for no effect other than personal enjoyment could be justified, because people would be rationally deciding that this feeling is worth the expenditure of resources. This is not the case with religion. People go to church, pray, donate money, etc. with the expectation that it will a) make them a better person, b) better the world around them, and/or c) grant them a better place in the afterlife. It is irrational to expect any of these, but people still engage in these behaviors for the same reasons. In this respect, theism is inherently destructive in the same way that homeopathy is destructive.

wow, an argument from economy?

i have to tell you, that's one i've never heard stressed before. kudos!

Lol, what can I say, have to keep you on your toes.

and you have. it's going to be a very long time before i figure out why your argument is bs. best one i've heard in i can't remember how long.

my feelings aren't black and white, i'm not even certain i'm religious. from a philosophical standpoint, i think getting rid of religion would be tragic. i could certainly be wrong, couldn't we all? i kind of hope you are, but without good arguments, what point would there be to thinking?

As I said before, I can't and won't deny that religions of all kinds have had positive cultural and philosophical impact. I think they need to be kept around in the same way that past religions; as interesting mythologies studied for their historical impact, with an understanding that they are not functional world views.