Charismatic Chaos

I don't know, I think most are actually just mislead. It is sort of like snipe hunting, and the clergy are those that stay out all night. The rest of us just came back to camp after 30 minutes or so.

This is quite the non-sequitur. What about education makes someone not worthy of disdain for unethical behavior?

Irrational hopefulness wastes resources and in some cases gets people killed. Contentedness need not be contingent on a fantasy. People who rely on religion to solve their problems are setting themselves up for dissapointment, and those who solve their own problems are wasting their efforts with religious practices.In essence you are arguing that religion is a recreational pastime, which would be fine except that it HURTS PEOPLE. People die every day because religion prevents them access to proper medical care. People (mostly women and minorities) are prevented education and other rights that would increase their utility to society, because of religion. If say, soccer caused all of that it would be sufficient reason to ban the sport regardless of its enjoyable properties. Why not religion?

Of course not. I simply don't consider irrational hopefulness to be one of those good parts. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you," is probably something worth keeping, but it didn't really originate with Christianity anyways.Just because something has good parts in the midst of serious detractors does not mean that we shouldn't switch over to a better alternative. Arguably because of their upbringing giving them unreasonable hopefulness. Oh well, we can just keep them fooled until they die and they will never be disappointed.Are you arguing "Ignorance is bliss,"? If being more ignorant is more blissful, where do we draw the line? Where do you get that? Why not a world that has the good parts of religion without the need to weed out the harmful stuff? Why is there this assumption of an arbitrary increase in meanness when religion is gone? Religion can be used as recreation; there is no objective reason why praying for enjoyment should be any different than throwing a ball around a field for enjoyment. I did not say that if it is used as a recreation it does not harm people; I said that "just for fun" isn't an acceptable justification for something that does harm people.Religion should be praised and berated for its merits and demerits respectively. I am simply of the position that the merits of religion that cannot be divorced from religion itself are false and have better alternatives. Then please, oppose my sweeping generalities with hypothetical examples. Note however that I am not suggesting religion cannot be helpful in certain circumstances, I am arguing that in those circumstances there is a better alternative that does not require religion. Right, and going from the initial assumption that there are no gods and religion is false, you have two options: Either you believe the religion and are simply wrong, or you don't believe and are intentionally manipulating people to do what you want them to.Ultimately that is what religion is; either it is people bumbling around in the dark looking and hoping for things that will never happen, or willfully deceptive participants who may (or may not) have good intentions.If I threaten someone with death to get them to give to the poor, does it matter if I would actually kill them, or that a good deed was accomplished? Especially compared to the potential of simply cultivating such behaviors in society?

I view deception of a sentient person with the intent to control them inherently harmful, regardless of the accompanying results. I consider it dehumanizing and an attack on their free will, regardless of if they know about it. (I understand that your agree here)As an accompanying ethic, I consider withholding release from such deception (including self-deception) as poor behavior.I am not proposing a banning of religion, merely suggesting that it is poor behavior to perpetuate it and those duped deserve to be enlightened. If they still continue to follow the religion and derive whatever benefits they get, it is their right. The problem with someone choosing to perpetuate such a deception is that they don't have the right to make such a decision regarding their wellbeing, and they are making a judgment call as to which would be more harmful to the person. Ignorance, all else being equal, is a detriment to that person. I will concede the point that in some circumstances its detriment could be offset by another benefit it provides, but it is hard to ethically justify making that decision for another person.Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

Sure it involves deception and ignorance. It was deception that claimed Jesus would be there in the first place, and that there would be an afterlife. It is ignorance that perpetuates the belief and composes the "god of the gaps" rationalization used to justify it.You could have an irrational hopefulness with a personally originated belief, such as an imaginary friend "Bob" taking care of you if something bad happens (even death). However, religion involves mass-imaginary-friends in the form of gods/spirits/karma/etc.. and in order to come to such widely held belief it required indoctrination. That indoctrination was performed either with the intent to deceive, or with ignorance to its untruthfulness.So yes: All religion involves deception and ignorance as core components.

Quick, quick, muddy the waters! Aoogah, aoogha, dive, dive!Perhaps if we make it impossible to define what a religion is we can withdraw the topic altogether!

Completely irrelevant to the point; do they tell people to believe in and obey something that does not exist? Check! Thats all that matters.

And mine is that none of the individuals devoted to those traditions and world beliefs pulled those beliefs out of their rears, they were taught that they were true by others. Assuming what they taught isn't true (and I do), their teacher was either intentionally deceptive or ignorant of the truth.

They are overturned much, much more often. That is science's benefit, the search for the truth rather than the continuation of false doctrine. Ignorance is something to work to reduce not perpetuate. (elimination isn't practical) As a result of overturning and replacing scientific ignorance and errors it has become a much more accurate representation of reality.

Seriously? I don't recall many slaughters headed by "Science Wills It!" but hey, whatever. I advocate refraining from teaching and believing lies when the truth functions just as well without deception. Society has no qualms about outlawing con men who cheat the unwary, but when the con man wears a robe and silly hat it somehow becomes acceptable? Aww, I'm so sorry. Explain again why requesting people to tell the truth and not attempt to control their fellow man through deception became a position of dangerous fundamentalism? Explain again why accountability and explanation for your own actions is so much more dangerous than passing it off to a non-existent entity. And finally, why do you assume that I blame all the worlds ills on religion? I blame the ills of the world that are caused by religion on religion, and that is a strong enough argument to knock it the heck off.

Pfft! (insert scoffing sounds here) Opposable thumbs enabled the deaths of more people than anything, and yet I don't hear you accusing them. This, I hope, is because nobody goes "I have thumbs, therefore I must smash this other dude's head in!" On the other hand, they do go "I have a God, and he says it is a good idea to smash this other dude's head in!" The means to do something and the motive to do something are quite different concepts. I will be happy to tell Bernie Madoff that what he did was totally acceptable.Oh, were you trying to make a point in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I did not mistype, it is "knock it the heck off", as in "cut it the hell out". I have no illusions that religion is going to vanish overnight, through force or otherwise. The goal still stands.

Why would the opinion of unbelievers have any effect on what is true? Is it simply that the preference of unbelievers prevents it from being exclusive enough for you to feel superior for believing it? If unbelievers were strongly in opposition to a works-based gospel would you consider it to be a good testimony that it was how things worked?

Atheists are quite fond of breathing, would you consider that a sign that your god does not want you to breath? We also are pro-eating, as well as avoid poisons and disease like, well, the plague. Is that an indication that your god wants you to starve and get sick?Atheists are also generally against murder. They are for kindness and hospitality. Should we assume your god goes for the opposites there as well?My point here is to highlight another example of your poor thinking. I thought this was abundantly clear, but as an atheist I am in favor of no gospel. Claiming that I am on the same side as believers in any god is a gross misunderstanding of my position.I hope my point will stick with you as well: You are really doing a terrible job in thinking. Thinking, in the sense of logic and reason, is a skill that requires practice and is aided by education. It would be very helpful if you put a little effort into thinking well, even if it does not change your ultimate position.

Look, I don't care! Just because he believes as you do that unbelievers are on the side of Satan does not make your thought process logical. It can resonate all you want, but it is still poor thinking!Lack of belief in your god does not prevent people from behaving similarly to believers. This is evident in things that having nothing to do with religious rules, such as breathing, or things that do, such as murder. Assuming that just because someone differs on the subject of belief that they must differ on other subjects is idiotic. You have to show a logical progression from one to the other.For instance, non-believers can also be in favor of salvation not based on works. (Personally, I would be in support of that since there seems to be no way of telling what God wants us to do.) Your argument is simply a "Guilt by Association" logical fallacy:

quote:

---

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

​

1) It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
2) Therefore P is false

​

Source: Page not found - Nizkor

---