Can we just all stop fighting over religion?

[Big Brother]

Way to generalise the attitudes of 84% of the human population. Are you going to group all philosophies and political beliefs into your hatred, or are you reserving it for belief systems with a supernatural element? 

 

Not sure what you're referring to, but I'll give it a go. My understanding is that what separates religion from philosophy or political beliefs, is that religion contains superstition or supernatural elements. Superstition and supernatural elements are falsities and so, religion teaches falsities. Call it a generalization if you want but it seems more like an inherent trait to me.

[Spite]

Falsities by your judgement, the vast majority would disagree with you. Sure religion requires you to believe in something you can't measure with a microscope or a ruler. So do political beliefs. There's no science in kindness or social responsibility. Nationalism or ethics. Despite people's attempts to rationalise human behaviour, it's all based on individual belief and hope. 

 

In any case I'm not going to waste both our time arguing this- we've done it before. I'm certainly not going to try and convert you. I think in the long term, despite every atheist's fantasy, the majority will continue to be religious and that's something you'll just have to accept.

[Naruu]

Falsities by your judgement, the vast majority would disagree with you. Sure religion requires you to believe in something you can't measure with a microscope or a ruler. So do political beliefs. There's no science in kindness or social responsibility. Nationalism or ethics. Despite people's attempts to rationalise human behaviour, it's all based on individual belief and hope. 

 

In any case I'm not going to waste both our time arguing this- we've done it before. I'm certainly not going to try and convert you. I think in the long term, despite every atheist's fantasy, the majority will continue to be religious and that's something you'll just have to accept.

Every Atheist's fantasy? Wait what, the only thing that Atheists have in common is the fact they disbelieve in gods. Buddhism can be Atheist, so you're saying Buddhists want all religions to go? Saying all Atheists believe in something like that is just as bad as Big Brother saying all religions are evil.

[Big Brother]

Falsities by your judgement, the vast majority would disagree with you. Sure religion requires you to believe in something you can't measure with a microscope or a ruler. So do political beliefs. There's no science in kindness or social responsibility. Nationalism or ethics. Despite people's attempts to rationalise human behaviour, it's all based on individual belief and hope. 

 

In any case I'm not going to waste both our time arguing this- we've done it before. I'm certainly not going to try and convert you. I think in the long term, despite every atheist's fantasy, the majority will continue to be religious and that's something you'll just have to accept.

 

You're right, it is a waste of time. Nevertheless, I would like to say that I disagree with your conclusion. There has been a trend towards growing irreligion, in many Western countries including the United States. I believe that religion was invented to control people and to explain phenomena that could not be explained scientifically in the past, and now that we have other means to control and are capable of scientifically explaining the world around us to a larger degree, religion will fade into obscurity. I don't expect you to accept it, but it won't really matter if you do or not.

[Naruu]

You're right, it is a waste of time. Nevertheless, I would like to say that I disagree with your conclusion. There has been a trend towards growing irreligion, in many Western countries including the United States. I believe that religion was invented to control people and to explain phenomena that could not be explained scientifically in the past, and now that we have other means to control and are capable of scientifically explaining the world around us to a larger degree, religion will fade into obscurity. I don't expect you to accept it, but it won't really matter if you do or not.

Everything is a waste of time really, we simply apply meaning to things and concepts as human beings.

 

Christianity's on the decrease in the West yes, but does that trend apply to Islam as well or religions like Taoism or Buddhism? Your logic here is that religion is decreasing in the west, but how do you know that trend will keep up and how do you know it applies to all religions as well, examples being Taoism, Islam and Buddhism. If anything, Islam is actually on the increase in Europe.

[Big Brother]

Everything is a waste of time really, we simply apply meaning to things and concepts as human beings.

 

Christianity's on the decrease in the West yes, but does that trend apply to Islam as well or religions like Taoism or Buddhism? Your logic here is that religion is decreasing in the west, but how do you know that trend will keep up and how do you know it applies to all religions as well, examples being Taoism, Islam and Buddhism. If anything, Islam is actually on the increase in Europe.

 

I don't know if it applies in those cases as well, which is why I specified that I was talking about the West. And you have a good point, only time can truly tell whether or not this trend will continue in the West. It has been going on for a few generations in the West and I believe it will continue because the incentives religion has provided in the past has or is in the process of being replaced by other incentives. You mention that Islam is on the rise in Europe, which is partially because of immigration and partially because of converts. Irreligion for the continent as a whole is still on the rise. Another belief that is on the rise in Europe is that Islam is something bad, something undesirable, and a lot of these people extend that hostility towards other religions as well. A lot of European societies are being polarized at the moment, drastic change could happen, so who really knows what the end result of it all will be.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Big Brother

[Doktor Avalanche]

Oh, we'll get it done, don't you worry.

 

I wasn't really serious but to address your post:

 

1. It's not impossible to accomplish, just difficult. It would require comprehensive persecution and re-education, but totally possible.

2. Whether it's right or wrong is very subjective. I consider removing religion to be right because of the negative impact it has on the world, whether it's inspiring fanatics or tricking people into believing in god or gods, heaven and hell, and the like.

3. I don't agree that violent repression would increase the followers of religion. If that's the result, you're doing it wrong. Look at the persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. For example:

 

"Between 1945 and 1959 the official organization of the church was greatly expanded, although individual members of the clergy were occasionally arrested and exiled. The number of open churches reached 25,000. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active. But in 1959, Nikita Khrushchev initiated his own campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church and forced the closure of about 12,000 churches. By 1985, fewer than 7,000 churches remained active."

 

The organization of the church was allowed to expand, only to be promptly reduced. What this tells me is that if you have enough control over society, you can with some difficulty rid said society of religion. If you keep comprehensive repression up for enough generations, eventually no one will even remember that there used to be a thing called religion.

Your argument in point number two is terrifying and arguable. Terrifying for the fact that you decide to eliminate because you do not accept a belief yourself. There have been positive factors brought into this world by many who have believed in the supernatural/deific forces.

 

Other factors are also present in the loss of attendees in the Russian Orthodox Church, many refused to attend a Communist Party-controlled religious institution and practiced their faith at home. Interesting to note I wrote an essay on the very subject of Russia during the Communist era while in seminary.

[Big Brother]

Your argument in point number two is terrifying and arguable. Terrifying for the fact that you decide to eliminate because you do not accept a belief yourself. There have been positive factors brought into this world by many who have believed in the supernatural/deific forces.

 

Other factors are also present in the loss of attendees in the Russian Orthodox Church, many refused to attend a Communist Party-controlled religious institution and practiced their faith at home. Interesting to note I wrote an essay on the very subject of Russia during the Communist era while in seminary.

 

You're right, it's totally arguable. What I stated is just where I stand in relation to that argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that religious people should be murdered and sent of to camps (too extreme for my taste), but if I had to choose between a world with religion and a world without, I'd choose the world without it.

 

There have indeed been positive factors brought into the world by believers of religion of supernaturalism. But no one actually requires belief in things like that in order to bring good things into the world. People can and will choose to do good things, regardless of whether or not they have faith in a religion. So I don't really see it as a particularly useful argument to say that religious people have brought good things to the world, because people are bound to do that anyway.

 

I hadn't thought of the possibility that a lot of people might refuse to attend a Communist Party-controlled religious institutions, good point. But still, I maintain the opinion that if the leaders of a nation really wanted to rid their nation of religion, with enough time and effort, they should be able to.

[Quasar]

 

 

"Between 1945 and 1959 the official organization of the church was greatly expanded, although individual members of the clergy were occasionally arrested and exiled. The number of open churches reached 25,000. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active. But in 1959,Nikita Khrushchev initiated his own campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church and forced the closure of about 12,000 churches. By 1985, fewer than 7,000 churches remained active."

Getting rid of churches â‰  getting rid of religion.

[Big Brother]

Getting rid of churches â‰  getting rid of religion.

 

It was just an example, and only one of the means which the Soviet Union employed to decrease its religious population. Getting rid of churches is not the same as getting rid of religion, but it does contribute towards such an end.

[Doktor Avalanche]

You're right, it's totally arguable. What I stated is just where I stand in relation to that argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that religious people should be murdered and sent of to camps (too extreme for my taste), but if I had to choose between a world with religion and a world without, I'd choose the world without it.

 

There have indeed been positive factors brought into the world by believers of religion of supernaturalism. But no one actually requires belief in things like that in order to bring good things into the world. People can and will choose to do good things, regardless of whether or not they have faith in a religion. So I don't really see it as a particularly useful argument to say that religious people have brought good things to the world, because people are bound to do that anyway.

 

I hadn't thought of the possibility that a lot of people might refuse to attend a Communist Party-controlled religious institutions, good point. But still, I maintain the opinion that if the leaders of a nation really wanted to rid their nation of religion, with enough time and effort, they should be able to.

I agree, faith does not constitute beneficial achievements for mankind.

 

And yes, depleting the amount of sanctuaries can decrease some of the faithful and allow them to lose interest in their beliefs. I was made aware of this through my own Native tribal faith which was made illegal in the United States and Canada for over a century. Now, the Midewiwin and Waabanowin can practice openly, however the number is literally less than a handful who actually know the original traditions and has become more of a neo-tribalistic Medicine/Dawn Society resurgence.

Edited January 18, 2016 by VasiliusKonstantinos

[Big Brother]

I agree, faith does not constitute beneficial achievements for mankind.

 

And yes, depleting the amount of sanctuaries can decrease some of the faithful and allow them to lose interest in their beliefs. I was made aware of this through my own Native tribal faith which was made illegal in the United States and Canada for over a century. Now, the Midewiwin and Waabanowin can practice openly, however the number is literally less than a handful who actually know the original traditions and has become more of a neo-tribalistic Medicine/Dawn Society resurgence.

 

Yeah, that seems like a very apt example of what I was talking about. It's a shame the traditions were lost to such a degree, while I'm opposed to actual religious belief, religious traditions and theology are very interesting subjects. Some of the best stories I've read are Greek and Norse myths.

[Spite]

I think the growth of Christianity in China exemplifies the theory that oppressing a religion in fact encourages it's growth.

[Big Brother]

I think the growth of Christianity in China exemplifies the theory that oppressing a religion in fact encourages it's growth.

 

I think it exemplifies poorly conducted oppression.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Big Brother

[Spite]

You think they should perhaps be more vigorous in their hate? Maybe throw some of the Christians to the lions, or ban public gatherings, or crucify them? We know that doesn't work too.

[Big Brother]

Nothing quite so archaic, and it has very little to do with hatred. Any segment of the population can be oppressed into non-existence, or at least into obscurity. It's only a matter of putting the most suitable and most efficient measures to use. Even language can be a useful tool in this regard.

[Spite]

I don't think it would work, especially now the Internet exists. I think it would have the opposite effect. I think the close proximity of so many devout Muslims in Western Europe will slowly foster a stronger Christian identity in challenge, even though there might not be an associated faith factor.

[greatkitteh]

I don't think it would work, especially now the Internet exists. I think it would have the opposite effect. I think the close proximity of so many devout Muslims in Western Europe will slowly foster a stronger Christian identity in challenge, even though there might not be an associated faith factor.

 

A dioist accusing religons? Well done. 

[Spite]

A dioist accusing religons? Well done.

I don't even know what this sentence means

[Redael]

We wouldnt have to argue if everyone believed the exact same things I believe.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Redael

[Big Brother]

I don't think it would work, especially now the Internet exists. I think it would have the opposite effect. I think the close proximity of so many devout Muslims in Western Europe will slowly foster a stronger Christian identity in challenge, even though there might not be an associated faith factor.

 

Well, you could be right. I think the effects would vary, based on which measures are used and in which situations they are applied. Even the world wide web can be censored and controlled, to some degree. It's not inconceivable that a stronger Christian identity might be fostered but neither is it inconceivable that Christian and Muslim identity alike can be reduced and weakened. I can easily see a strengthening of Christian or Muslim identity and values in today's Europe, as it is. However, I believe that in a Europe where states actively pursue measures to reduce religion's role in society and where secularism has been raised to new heights, any religious identity, religious values and influence could and would be marginalized. Sure, some people might cling to their faith with more fervor in the face of such adversity but even then I believe it's only a matter of time and effort.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Big Brother

[Captain_Vietnam]

I don't think it would work, especially now the Internet exists. I think it would have the opposite effect. I think the close proximity of so many devout Muslims in Western Europe will slowly foster a stronger Christian identity in challenge, even though there might not be an associated faith factor.

muslim should remove from europe north america and go to middle east and africa. europe and america should be christian only and all athiest need to go as well

[johnl023]

muslim should remove from europe north america and go to middle east and africa. europe and america should be christian only and all athiest need to go as well

 

Have fun trying and reigniting wars in E. Europe (athiesm), France, Germany and the Balkans (Islam).