Time to discard religion

[goodwithoutgod]

Once we as a global society figure out that we need to treat religion like we did racism, and make it a negative stigma, so that when someone professes to believe in such nonsense people look at you in shock, as we do when some tool uses a racist/sexist etc type comment...we have to stop putting people who call themselves reverend/father/preacher/saint etc up on a pedestal, they should be embarrassed to say, "I believe in a man made delusion designed to control and subjugate the masses." Only then can we progress as a society.

Society doesn't need religion to be moral, this is easily proven. Secular societies are better for everyone. Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, crime rates, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

Now let's look at Saudi Arabian countries, a few come to mind, they are most likely the most devout religious people on the planet...it isn't a past time for them, or a moderate belief, they are willing to die for their beliefs...and they subsequently have the lowest rankings for quality of life, schooling etc.

Side note, guess what the biggest religious demographic group in prison is? Christian, the smallest? Atheist. The facts are irrefutable. Let go of the delusion, embrace reality, there is no longer a valid reason to cling to fear based delusions of a super genie simply because science hasn't provided all of the answers yet to the question of LIFE.

I used to just ignore religion as it has no meaning to me, but then again, as I have stated before I can no longer just look the other way. You have to study the effects of religion, and most major religions to be able to identify the bad emotional impacts subjugation causes. Also on the thought that "why take away faith if it helps people get through the day"...I've never really understood how removing a bad way to reason will make it difficult to get through the day. If anything, it would seem that correcting someone's reasoning would significantly increase their chances of getting through their day.

With reliable forms of reasoning comes the capability of crafting conditions that enable people to navigate life's obstacles. By using a more reliable form of reasoning, people are more capable of bringing about conditions that enable them to flourish.

To argue that people need faith is to abandon hope, and to condescend and accuse the faithful of being incapable of understanding the importance of reason and rationality. There are better and worse ways to come to terms with death, to find strength during times of personal crisis, to make meaning and purpose in our lives, to interpret our sense of awe and wonder, and to contribute to human well-being...and the faithful are completely capable of understanding and achieving this..if they would only try.

 8-)

[Solitary]

Maybe people need to abandon false hope and embrace reality to make the world better. We also need to question authority, especially authority that doesn't know anymore than we do, but makes us feel good in ignorance thinking they have absolute knowledge with God. superstitious nonsense is just that superstitious nonsense, and has nothing to do with reality or the human condition.  :roll:  Solitary

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I agree with you in principle, but in practice I can't see any way to do this that won't go over like a fart in church.

[PickelledEggs]

I agree with you in principle, but in practice I can't see any way to do this that won't go over like a fart in church.

I've farted in church. They just say "God bless you" and get back to the service.

Sent via Tapatalk on my I-605 JediX20

[Buddhist Alternative]

Once we as a global society figure out that we need to treat religion like we did racism, and make it a negative stigma, so that when someone professes to believe in such nonsense people look at you in shock, as we do when some tool uses a racist/sexist etc type comment...we have to stop putting people who call themselves reverend/father/preacher/saint etc up on a pedestal, they should be embarrassed to say, "I believe in a man made delusion designed to control and subjugate the masses." Only then can we progress as a society.

Society doesn't need religion to be moral, this is easily proven. Secular societies are better for everyone. Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, crime rates, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

Now let's look at Saudi Arabian countries, a few come to mind, they are most likely the most devout religious people on the planet...it isn't a past time for them, or a moderate belief, they are willing to die for their beliefs...and they subsequently have the lowest rankings for quality of life, schooling etc.

Side note, guess what the biggest religious demographic group in prison is? Christian, the smallest? Atheist. The facts are irrefutable. Let go of the delusion, embrace reality, there is no longer a valid reason to cling to fear based delusions of a super genie simply because science hasn't provided all of the answers yet to the question of LIFE.

 

I used to just ignore religion as it has no meaning to me, but then again, as I have stated before I can no longer just look the other way. You have to study the effects of religion, and most major religions to be able to identify the bad emotional impacts subjugation causes. Also on the thought that "why take away faith if it helps people get through the day"...I've never really understood how removing a bad way to reason will make it difficult to get through the day. If anything, it would seem that correcting someone's reasoning would significantly increase their chances of getting through their day.

With reliable forms of reasoning comes the capability of crafting conditions that enable people to navigate life's obstacles. By using a more reliable form of reasoning, people are more capable of bringing about conditions that enable them to flourish.

To argue that people need faith is to abandon hope, and to condescend and accuse the faithful of being incapable of understanding the importance of reason and rationality. There are better and worse ways to come to terms with death, to find strength during times of personal crisis, to make meaning and purpose in our lives, to interpret our sense of awe and wonder, and to contribute to human well-being...and the faithful are completely capable of understanding and achieving this..if they would only try.

 8-)

"I don't know what caused the Big Bang and I don't know why there is something instead of nothing and that means you don't know either" – Bill Maher. "I prefer Rationalism over Atheism because the question of God is unknowable. As a Rationalist you don't have to waste your time either attacking or defending either position" – Issac Asimov. "You should be skeptical of everything, including yourself" – Bertrand Russell. I had to preface this article with the above quotes because, although I am a Buddhist and believe in a Supreme Being, I am a great admirer of the above people. My two B.A.'s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. You may be right. But I would like to open a discourse with my Atheist friends who have a Philosophy that I also admire. That philosophy is: 'Your Heart should not accept what your Mind rejects'. One of the tenants of Buddhism is that you should not accept anything without thinking. But, I do have a rebuttal for at least two of the statements by some well known, highly intelligent, Atheists:

"If God did not require being created, logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either" – Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created. Consciousness however is still a mystery. In fact, if you're a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter. A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created. To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness 'somehow' evolved; you should know that using the word 'somehow' poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions. For example, Immanuel Kant in 'The Critique Of Pure Reason' surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time 'A Priori' in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness.

"Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to come into existence out of Nothing" – Lawrence Krauss. I have several rebuttals for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in 'The Spiritual Universe' claims that Quantum Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul. John Wheeler believes that the strange results in QP experiments suggest that someone is observing the Universe. Secondly, when Dr. Krauss (if I understand him correctly) talks of something coming from nothing – He is talking about Gravity affecting Negative Energy is such a way that virtual particles 'pop' into existence which then become real particles. The problem with this, as even physicists who are atheists have pointed out, is that this occurs in Space and in Time within the Universe. The Big Bang occurred in a no-when, no-place, no-gravity. Krauss's reply is that a true Nothing (no space, no time, no gravity) is unstable. And like all unstable systems, it will eventually collapse in on itself and produce something. I'm not sure how to answer that. In a no-time, how does nothing 'eventually' collapse. It should be noted that by the year 2017, there may be satellites in place (according to the Science Channel – 'How The Universe Works') that might be able to detect Gravity Waves from a Universe that existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a part of 2 separate Universes (each as a wave-like membrane) in a Multi-verse, collided, causing the Big Bang. If these Gravity Waves from a previous Universe are detected, that would obliterate Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss's assertion that the Big Bang came from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question: 'What caused the first Big Bang ?'. And if the continuous Big Bangs go back in Infinite Regression – the question is: 'Why is there something instead of nothing ?'

When I talk with some of my Atheist friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the existence of God require a Leap of Faith. Whenever I state that I always get what I call 'The Tooth-Fairy' rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid's bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up – you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy. What you can't do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: 'I was there at the Big Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a product of Spontaneous Creation'. Since you can't do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster, or whatever, is quite disingenuous. This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism and why Buddhists, although they believe in God, assert that the Nature of God is unknowable.

The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don't belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.

If the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this 'Awareness' down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Blah blah blah.. Religion isn't going anywhere and I didn't start it so I'm not taking it upon myself to eradicate it and while I'm at it I'm just a little tired of being the only one who can prevent forest fires. You would think that with 60 years or so of Smokey the Bear someone else would take over this thankless task.

[St Giordano Bruno]

Certainly in politics, we still put up a bit of it in my country Australia with the opening of Parliament with the Lord's Prayer. Let's get rid of it, along with that much despised "Lord's Prayer"

[GSOgymrat]

I agree a secular society is the better than the alternatives but I don't agree eradicating religion is either tenable or desirable. Atheism is "truth", everyone else is wrong and the world would be a better place if only everyone believed as I believe mirrors the view religious leaders and despots. Religion will continue to decline as secular societies based on rational and scientific thought demonstrate they create a better world for most people, however I don't see spiritual thought ever completely going away because of the way our brains are wired... we feel first and think second.

[Solitary]

:-D  Good point! We are animals first and then humans trying to be gods :shock:  :-$     Solitary

[SGOS]

I'm just a little tired of being the only one who can prevent forest fires. You would think that with 60 years or so of Smokey the Bear someone else would take over this thankless task.

As a side note, several years ago I was playing Trivial Pursuit with some close friends at a gathering of conservationists.  The question given to our team was, "What is the leading cause of forest fires?"  Everyone gave it some thought and agreed that the answer must be Man, except me (I had worked for the Forest Service for 7 years fighting forest fires and the answer didn't fit with my personal experience.  It didn't even come close).  I said, "No, it's lightning," and everyone looked at me with startled expressions.  I said, "No.  Believe me it's lightening."  So they all said, "OK, we'll say it's lightening," which turned out to be correct.  Later, I read someplace that something like 90% of forest fires are lightening caused, and that's pretty close to what I would have guessed from my experience, at least in the Western States like Montana.  That figure would probably change slightly around dense urban interfaces like Los Angles.  But from my perspective, being on the fire crew would be a very boring job if it weren't for lightening.  Every forest fire report (yes there is always an official report in the government) includes the cause of the fire.  I think the second most common cause listed would be "faulty brake shoe" on a freight train, but it's well below lightening, at least where I worked.

But I digress.

[goodwithoutgod]

Now let's look at Saudi Arabian countries, a few come to mind, they are most likely the most devout religious people on the planet...it isn't a past time for them, or a moderate belief, they are willing to die for their beliefs...and they subsequently have the lowest rankings for quality of life, schooling etc.

You need to reevaluate this section. It's overgeneralizing, false and xenophobic. A deeper look into Islamic extremists and where they come from is clearly needed, but someone else can guide you better than I can.

I have no problems with people believing in religion, as long as they have given some thought to the major questions that cast them into doubt. That is their right. Belief, and even ignorant belief (or blind faith), is a person's right, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. But this is never the case.

Your method of 'social bullying' would not work where the religious are the majority. Even in cases where the religious are the minority, such tactics can have unintended consequences. Could you console yourself over the suicide of a Christian who was bullied and persecuted for his beliefs? How would Christians react to such news?

A more 'to the point' method would be more effective imho. A frontal assault on the belief system itself- it's foundations, contradictions, consequences, would force a person to think about his stance. Debunking of past experiences that have been wrongly defined as divine would also be required. However, even this can have undesirable consequences.

The more deeply rooted a person is in their beliefs, the more likely that attacking the belief system can result in an existential crisis, depression, and in worst case scenarios, suicide. Resources need to be made freely available to people, who are extremely vulnerable at this stage. Worse yet, it is easy for anything to tip them back to their religion, even deeper than before, and they may never question their faith again without overwhelming proof.

Then there is the question of what the core belief itself is. This need not be 'God created the universe and mankind', in which case a book on physics and evolution would do no good. How would you address other core beliefs like 'Treat others the way you would want to be treated'? It is easy to conceive of a person questioning this core belief going on a killing spree to apply the converse to his oppressors. Different approaches to morality in the absence of religion need to be made easily available.

To say that this is a complicated issue is an understatement. But it is still far from impossible. You would need an organization of like minded people and lots of funding for starters.

Noted :)

BY the way, I have a very deep understanding of the Islamic faith system, and its radicalized population. 3 tours in Iraq and long term study has given me some insight. I have posted on the Islam pages before....or perhaps that wasnt this forum, anyway, I feel pretty confident I have a good working understanding of the concept.

[Mister Agenda]

What we need to discard is dogma. If a group can survive without that I can probably work with them.

[darsenfeld]

Religion is clearly man-made, but then even as an atheist I'd say it has some positive points.

I say not discard it, but let it be.   Secularism is not inherently more benevolent anyhow, as a secular state is simply one not based on religion.

[The Fly]

Once we as a global society figure out that we need to treat religion like we did racism, and make it a negative stigma, so that when someone professes to believe in such nonsense people look at you in shock, as we do when some tool uses a racist/sexist etc type comment...we have to stop putting people who call themselves reverend/father/preacher/saint etc up on a pedestal, they should be embarrassed to say, "I believe in a man made delusion designed to control and subjugate the masses." Only then can we progress as a society.

Great idea. Here is what I propose.

We will form together as a group to have meetings on a regular basis (maybe weekly or bi-weekly). A good portion of these group meetings will be allocated to group bonding and group motivation. We could come up with some songs and/or phrases for us to learn and memorize so that we can cite them in unison. Doing that would make us feel like we all shared something in common, as opposed to just being individuals gathered together. After we do that for awhile we can elect a designated person to go up and give a speech that is meant to motivate, inform, inspire, educate, and prepare the group towards a goal or way of thinking. Each group meeting will have a different topic to be covered and may even warrant a different speaker. People need leaders and organization, so those two things will help the group in terms of efficiency. The last thing that will be done is monetary donations. Our cause will need a lot of capitol to fight the powers that be. So we should probably ask for donations as regularly as the group's wallets will allow.

On top of that we need to have some guidelines or rules as to what our group is and what it is all about. It needs to be simple enough to ensure that enough people can understand what we're about, but obscure enough as to not alienate too many people that would otherwise love to join our group. Here is an example list of guidelines.

1. We do not believe in things that are not real. Anyone who does will be publicly shamed and even removed from the group.
2. Religion is an ABOMINATION and must be treated as such. Any religious sympathizers will be punished by the will of the group.
3. Our group is vital for humanity's ongoing survival. Without us, religion will destroy the world. Therefore, we must take this as serious as a war, because it is a war. This is a war for all humanity, it simply must be done or we will perish.
4. Group meetings are not mandatory, but if you aren't attending the meetings on a regular basis we seriously question your commitment to the cause. If you aren't dedicated to the cause then it is clear the religious have gotten to you and we will reach out to you in a caring manner so that you can come back into the graces of the group and its ever-important cause.

Anyway that list is just a start. Once we get the ball rolling I am sure a lot more essential items will be added to the list. Any ideas on what we should call our group and our group meetings? Anything else any of you would add?

[stromboli]

quote removed on request of original poster

I don't recall which class I was in- I think Statistics- that it was demonstrated that moderates demographically outnumber extremists in any population. I know from my experiences in religion it is true. The problem is that certain factions control the media and we hear a lot more of the left-right than the middle.

Most religious people are basically tolerant. Religion by itself is not that problematic, it is the extremist encroachment on human rights that is. There are religions that do preach intolerance, from Islam to sects of Christianity. Over time and with enough negative exposure, hopefully people will move away from that and into a more secular point of view.