Atheists: more hated than gays and muslims

[Tages]

We'll take credit for Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin if you take responsibility for Osama bin Laden, the nutjobs who started each of the Crusades, and the Reverend Jim Jones.
The numbers still stack massively in our favor. Or in yours, depending on your interpretation.

[Peter]

Not suprising. Theistic and atheistic evangelicals have hardly been polite in going about the public debate, and there are a lot more theists than atheists.

Indeed. It's about darn time they got a little of what they dish out, quite frankly.

[Paul McEnery]

People who belive in imaginary characters have proven themselves unworthy.
Truly, there's nothing that annoys me more than fulfilling my appointed role.

But what the hell.

Guess what, Stu.

Your own given self-identity is also an imaginary character.

To which you have given an improvable degree of belief.

[Tages]

I'm tired of Paul McEnery bashing theism. It's time he told us what soured him on atheism.

[west3man]

People who belive in imaginary characters have proven themselves unworthy.
Kramer's delivery may have been indelicate, but he was absolutely correct that RELIGIOUS GROUP A believes in a book that says there are beings capable of performing superhuman feats.

From a certain perspective, you just described every religious person on the planet.

Does that mean that you believe all atheists and agnostics a perfectly justified in calling the rest of the world's population imbecilic?

[cactusmaac]

Actually, people don't deserve respect, they earn it. Thinking that you know the secrets of the universe or "god's" will is one of the most dangerous things in the world. Any person who believes in myths or fairytales is a moron. Anyone who thinks a book was written by or under the divine influence of a deity is a moron. Facts should be respected, what can be proven should be respected... never unprovable hypotheses.

That poll's starting to make sense now.

[west3man]

That poll's starting to make sense now.
Hmm. That quote kinda makes my post redundant.

Clearly, stu DOES think all religious folks are worthy of ridicule.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Does that mean that you believe all atheists and agnostics a perfectly justified in calling the rest of the world's population imbecilic?

Well, they do tell us we're going to hell.

Even that we deserve to go to hell.

[Hawkingbird82]

I think just because people responded that way doesn't mean thats how things flesh out in real life. No one is passing laws to not let atheists get married, adopt children, or be discriminated against at work. But all those laws are being passed against gay people...

[Gaz]

Well, they do tell us we're going to hell.

Even that we deserve to go to hell.
Well, some of us do. But that's not because they're atheist, it's because they're assholes. :p

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I think just because people responded that way doesn't mean thats how things flesh out in real life. No one is passing laws to not let atheists get married, adopt children, or be discriminated against at work. But all those laws are being passed against gay people...

And who's pushing for those laws?

Even if there was an organised atheist movement - which is as ridiculous as an Anarchist Society - it wouldn't be them.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Well, some of us do. But that's not because they're atheist, it's because they're assholes. :p

But it's in the bible that anyone who doesn't have faith deserves to go to hell.

Do you believe someone should go through an enternity of pain and suffereing just because they don't have faith?

[west3man]

Well, they do tell us we're going to hell.

Even that we deserve to go to hell.
Who are "they?"
SOME religious people or ALL religious people? If it's SOME, then doesn't it make sense to hold THOSE people responsible, as opposed to the rest of the religious people in the world?

Or do you want to be held responsible for every other smoking monkey in the world? Whoops, too late. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=116398)

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Who are "they?"
SOME religious people or ALL religious people? If it's SOME, then doesn't it make sense to hold THOSE people responsible, as opposed to the rest of the religious people in the world?

Religous folk who follow the Christian bible.

If you read the religous confirmation thread, you'll know the concept of hell was why I first started having serious doubts in the faith.


Or do you want to be held responsible for every other smoking monkey in the world? Whoops, too late. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=116398)

I'd proudly cop that charge.

[Gaz]

But it's in the bible that anyone who doesn't have faith deserves to go to hell.

Do you believe someone should go through an enternity of pain and suffereing just because they don't have faith?
See, I was trying to lighten the mood by making a joke, and you get all serious on me.
Of course I don't.

[cable guy]

Well, they do tell us we're going to hell.

Even that we deserve to go to hell.

I'm Catholic...

I hate when certain religous sections of Christianity do that to me.

[west3man]

Religous folk who follow the Christian bible.
You don't think there's a difference between someone thinking/believing people will suffer for certain behavior versus TELLING people that they're going to hell?

[Johnny_Storm]

But it's in the bible that anyone who doesn't have faith deserves to go to hell.

Do you believe someone should go through an enternity of pain and suffereing just because they don't have faith?

Not all Christains claim there is a eternal hell, only certain denomination have made that interpretation and it has become the most publicized. The interpretation that I am familiar with indicates that sinners will only die and not be ressurected, as a loving God has even less tolerance for such torture than us humans. The only people who will suffer such a fate are those who would continually harm themselves or others if granted eternal life.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hmm, I wonder if this happens often. A friend of mine told me that something like that happened with him too.

It's not typical behavior, but it's also not rare. This happened back when I was working at a children's hospital in OK. The same guy who attempted the "witnessing in the john" routine tried spreading his faith to other coworkers. Eventually he was caught taking magazines he did not approve of - horrible things like PEOPLE and DISCOVERY - out of waiting rooms and throwing them away, and sticking fundy religious tracts into the magazines and books that were left. When he was fired the theft and destruction of company policy, he complained of religious harassment.

Verily, he was an asshole.

[Hawkingbird82]

Not all Christains claim there is a eternal hell, only certain denomination have made that interpretation and it has become the most publicized. The interpretation that I am familiar with indicates that sinners will only die and not be ressurected, as a loving God has even less tolerance for such torture than us humans. The only people who will suffer such a fate are those who would continually harm themselves or others if granted eternal life.

I'm studying to become a minister for the United Church of Christ. People may remember our "Bouncer" comercial that wasn't allowed to be played on the major networks (Because it was apparently wrong to show Christians that are tolerant.). Most of the folks at my church and in my classes believe that "Hell" is a human idea - let's remember that they wrote the book, not God. It is extremely obvious to see how humans tainted the Bible. Its actually absurd that people believe it to be infallible. We can literally trace back using old texts to see where words have been changed or added. The biggest thing that should put people on guard however, is that the chapters of the Bible were picked out by one group of people at a time when the Catholic church wasn't known for being perfect.

Back to my point, It just seems pretty peculiar to me that an all powerful being would be petty enough to send his creatures to be tortured in Hell. What kind of God do some people worship, I wonder sometimes. I know some people think Islam is extreme, but to me, that is.

Anyways, I'm married to an atheist so they get just as much love from me as anyone else :)

[JeffreyWKramer]

I agree.
The offer isn't a problem, for me. It's the insistent, hard-sell that bothers me.

So, you and other Christians, you'd be cool with athiests going up to you in malls, on the street or in bathrooms, or going door to door and bothering you at home in order to spread their word? So long as they weren't too pushy about it?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well we now have "Is there a Hell?"

And if there is, that's where you find all the goat sex.

There, and the Oval Office.

[Gaz]

I'm studying to become a minister for the United Church of Christ. People may remember our "Bouncer" comercial that wasn't allowed to be played on the major networks (Because it was apparently wrong to show Christians that are tolerant.). Most of the folks at my church and in my classes believe that "Hell" is a human idea - let's remember that they wrote the book, not God. It is extremely obvious to see how humans tainted the Bible. Its actually absurd that people believe it to be infallible. We can literally trace back using old texts to see where words have been changed or added. The biggest thing that should put people on guard however, is that the chapters of the Bible were picked out by one group of people at a time when the Catholic church wasn't known for being perfect.

Back to my point, It just seems pretty peculiar to me that an all powerful being would be petty enough to send his creatures to be tortured in Hell. What kind of God do some people worship, I wonder sometimes. I know some people think Islam is extreme, but to me, that is.

Anyways, I'm married to an atheist so they get just as much love from me as anyone else :)

Only "just as much"? ;)

[Hawkingbird82]

Only "just as much"? ;)

Well, he doesn't rinse his dishes, what can I say?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Any person who believes in myths or fairytales is a moron. Anyone who thinks a book was written by or under the divine influence of a deity is a moron.

I think this statement goes too far. I think folk who believe stuff are very much wrong about such stuff, and being stupid in that area, but clearly all religious folk are not stupid. Aside from historical examples like Einstein, Lewis and Aquinas, here at CBR we have plenty of way-smart folk who are religious. Nate, Mac, Jade Dragon, OzBat... definitely not morons. I could name dozens of others.

Again, smart people are capable of believing in stupid things. Religion is a perfect example.

[Hiromi]

Well, they do tell us we're going to hell.

Even that we deserve to go to hell.


The Bible states that we all deserve Hell, and people who self rightously condemn others to it would do well to remember that.

[Hawkingbird82]

I think this statement goes too far. I think folk who believe stuff are very much wrong about such stuff, and being stupid in that area, but clearly all religious folk are not stupid. Aside from historical examples like Einstein, Lewis and Aquinas, here at CBR we have plenty of way-smart folk who are religious. Nate, Mac, Jade Dragon, OzBat... definitely not morons. I could name dozens of others.

Again, smart people are capable of believing in stupid things. Religion is a perfect example.

Those are the kinds of things that get some Christians worked up - by calling what they believe in stupid. I didn't like it when my brother told me comics were stupid. I don't like it when people tell me what I believe is stupid. But instead of retaliating and saying that atheists are evil, I just thank God that we're not all machines with one point of view!
Besides theres no scientific evidence that there is or isn't a God. If we stopped working on theorys of science people thought were ridiculous, just think how far back we'd be.

[Noah Johnson]

I admit, I'm now being amused by the notion of atheist tracts being left at bus stations and in restrooms. Titles like "Let's Talk Logic" and "Science: Miracles That Actually Work".

Come to think of it, I was once given a tract entitled "Bananas: The Atheist's Nightmare", so I think now I want a tract called "Rice: Product of Evolution or God's Cruel Prank on Half the World?"

Of course, no such tracts exist, because atheists just don't work that way, but what the hell, it's good for a laugh.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Come to think of it, I was once given a tract entitled "Bananas: The Atheist's Nightmare"...


WTF was the gist of that??

[JeffreyWKramer]

If we stopped working on theorys of science people thought were ridiculous, just think how far back we'd be.

The difference is, the facts backed those sorts of "ridiculous" theories. They were ridiculous only in the public mind, because they opposed orthodox thinking (usually religiously-based) of the time.

But think how far we have gotten after dropping theories which were clearly not supported by the evidence. You know, things like alchemy and flat earth theory.

Same thing - progress - would happen if we as a species tossed religion aside.

[west3man]

So, you and other Christians, you'd be cool with athiests going up to you in malls, on the street or in bathrooms, or going door to door and bothering you at home in order to spread their word? So long as they weren't too pushy about it?What've you been reading? I'm no Christian.

By the way, some of those examples qualify as "too pushy," in my book. Asking someone in a mall about God, Chinese food, perfume, or low-interest credit cards is all the same, to me.

Somebody offering you something? Say no, if you don't want it. Then, move on.
You wanna offer somebody something? If they say no, because they don't want it, drop it and move on.

Of course, when people don't do this, that causes problems.

[cactusmaac]

Same thing - progress - would happen if we as a species tossed religion aside.

That is quite unlikely.

The need for belief is hardwired into human consciousness. If religion were tossed aside, some other belief system or mass movement would take its' place probably intense nationalism or a complex system of superstition as seen in Russia when Orthodox Christianity was outlawed.

[JeffreyWKramer]

That is quite unlikely.

The need for belief is hardwired into human consciousness.
Big claim. Want to actually offer some evidence for this?

[cactusmaac]

Big claim. Want to actually offer some evidence for this?

How many atheist societies have there been where said atheism wasn't imposed from above or the need for belief wasn't channelled into politically acceptable alternatives?

[JeffreyWKramer]

What've you been reading? I'm no Christian.
Yeah, I guess I kinda knew that, but lost track of that due to the line of argument you were pursuing.

My apologies.

By the way, some of those examples qualify as "too pushy," in my book. Asking someone in a mall about God, Chinese food, perfume, or low-interest credit cards is all the same, to me.

Somebody offering you something? Say no, if you don't want it. Then, move on.
You wanna offer somebody something? If they say no, because they don't want it, drop it and move on.

Of course, when people don't do this, that causes problems.

So, let's get specific. Do you think those Christians of various denominations who go door to door to spread the Word are being "too pushy?" What about Christians on the board? Do you think it's okay for Christians to bother people in their homes to spread the Word of God, and if so, would you be okay with Hindus or Muslims or athiests coming to your home and doing the same?

[JeffreyWKramer]

How many atheist societies have there been where said atheism wasn't imposed from above or the need for belief wasn't channelled into politically acceptable alternatives?

That's not evidence of anything, and it certainly isn't evidence we're hard-wired for religion. Wanna try actually answering the question?

And btw, even if we were hardwired for faith, I don't think that means we should just accept that as status quo. After all, we're hard-wired to prefer people more like ourselves, and this wiring contributes to clannishness, in-grouping, prejudice and lots of other evils, and we don't consider those okay. Fact is, unlike most animals, we aren't restricted to our wired-in instincts. Our higher reasoning process allows us to resist and transcend those built-in tendencies, when we put effort into doing so.

[cactusmaac]

That's not evidence of anything, and it certainly isn't evidence we're hard-wired for religion. Wanna try actually answering the question?

OK. Try this. The typical human being and typical human society generally professes or invests in a belief system or some kind of another. It's an observable fact seen across times and across cultures.

Now it doesn't matter whether said belief system is Abrahamic, Hindu, Shinto, Wicca, Buddhism, Marxism, pagan etc.

The key thing is that it is a genuine human need to believe in a system of order that exists outside one's own conscious self.


And btw, even if we were hardwired for faith, I don't think that means we should just accept that as status quo. After all, we're hard-wired to prefer people more like ourselves, and this wiring contributes to clannishness, in-grouping, prejudice and lots of other evils, and we don't consider those okay. Fact is, unlike most animals, we aren't restricted to our wired-in instincts. Our higher reasoning process allows us to resist and transcend those built-in tendencies, when we put effort into doing so.

Well, I doubt that many people who have faith of some sort of the other would confuse it with racial prejudice or concede that belief in nothing represents a higher moral ideal.

[west3man]

Yeah, I guess I kinda knew that, but lost track of that due to the line of argument you were pursuing.

My apologies. Happens all the time. S'cool.

Just shocked the shit out of me. "HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A CHRISTIAN?!" ;)

So, let's get specific. Do you think those Christians of various denominations who go door to door to spread the Word are being "too pushy?"No more so than people who go door-to-door selling cookies, encyclopedias, or Mary Kay.

What about Christians on the board?What about them? Would I find it pushy if they asked me if I wanted to talk about The Lord?

Not really. If they all did it? Well, the same request from a few dozen people would be a pain, no matter what it was.

Do you think it's okay for Christians to bother people in their homes to spread the Word of God,No less so than people who go door-to-door selling cookies, encyclopedias, or Mary Kay.

and if so, would you be okay with Hindus or Muslims or athiests coming to your home and doing the same?It's all the same.

I'd rather nobody fuck with me, at home, to be honest. I don't think Mary Kay's any worse or better than Hare Krishna.

[Endel]

It's all the same.

I'd rather nobody fuck with me, at home, to be honest. I don't think Mary Kay's any worse or better than Hare Krishna.


mmmm i know i (and i'm guessing alot of other people) have a harder time slaming the door in the face of someone who's trying to spread a beliefe system then someone who is trying to sell makeup. i personally have been short-tempered to the Avon lady, but i would rather hide from Jehova's Witnesses then confront them.
girl scouts and thier sweet-death cookies are another matter.

[Noah Johnson]

WTF was the gist of that??
The point of the banana tract was that bananas are obviously designed for easy, convenient human consumption, and no crazy atheist can explain away their astonishingly convenient design.

I mean, on a very primitive level, they have a point. Bananas are almost suspiciously convenient.

On the other hand, rice is the necessary staple crop for half the world, and it's fiendishly difficult to grow and prepare, so if there is an all-powerful being designing our foodstuffs, he's got kind of a sick sense of humor.

[fly on the wall]

This is interesting:

It has to be true. They asked, like, 2000 people.


http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

Yeah. I've only noticed mild discrimination against atheists in any at all. I'm sure gays and muslims get a lot more crap.

Also, atheists seem to be in the majority these days anyway.

[fly on the wall]

Well, maybe if Atheists would stop being dicks about telling people "There is no God! You're all a bunch of sheep!" and such, we theists would just go on ignoring them.

...Personally, I just don't give a **** about'em one way or another, unless they get up in my face.

God is love.

[fly on the wall]

It's so unfair. Religious people are the ones who are always blowing shit up, not atheists.

Well, yes. This is true. But only since the USSR went out of business.

[fly on the wall]

Somehow this makes me proud to be an atheist.

Now I hate you according to the survey.

Hate you more than gays and Muslims.

You have to like the layered hatred here. So if a Baptist sees a Muslim and is hating him should an atheist come into view the Muslim is quickly forgotten.

[JeffreyWKramer]

OK. Try this. The typical human being and typical human society generally professes or invests in a belief system or some kind of another. It's an observable fact seen across times and across cultures.

Now it doesn't matter whether said belief system is Abrahamic, Hindu, Shinto, Wicca, Buddhism, Marxism, pagan etc.

The key thing is that it is a genuine human need to believe in a system of order that exists outside one's own conscious self.

Nice try, but no. You're noting that something has tended to exist - true enough - then arguing that because this something has tended to exist, it must be an innate need or aspect of the human condition. That's like suggesting that because most humans have had diarrhea at some point, diarrhea must be an innate part of the human condition. In truth, diarrhea occurs due to something acting upon us - something common enough, true (bacteria, virii, etc.), but not something innate to us. The same is probably true in regard to religion, or belief systems: They recur due to the impact of culture and history, not because they have to be there. In fact, we have no evidence humans tend to set up some sort of belief system because of an innate need, and in absence of such evidence, it is just as likely that this tendency reflects simple historical fact - we've tended to do more or less what's already been done - rather than anything innate. In fact, I'd say that is the more likely hypothesis, as it is more consistent with observation than is the supposition of some hard-wired need.

[Wesley Dodds]

Well, yes. This is true. But only since the USSR went out of business.

This has been brought up a few times in the thread.

People say "Yes, religion is responsible for many deaths, but the atheist Stalin killed more."

The problem with the argument is that Stalin didn't kill people for the sake of atheism, he did it for the sake of Marxism.

Which is a political religion anyway, so you can more plausibly attribute responsibility for Stalin's mass murder to religion than to atheism.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The point of the banana tract was that bananas are obviously designed for easy, convenient human consumption, and no crazy atheist can explain away their astonishingly convenient design.

I mean, on a very primitive level, they have a point. Bananas are almost suspiciously convenient.

Hm, yes and no. Sure, they're convenient compared to, say, Brazil nuts and fugu, but that ain't saying much. As usual, the point is mostly atop the heads of those making this sort of argument.

Not surprisingly, this religious "proof" rather ignores history, and the impact of agriculture. Hundreds of years ago, bananas were not quite so convenient as the ones we're so familiar with today. They used to be smaller, and the rinds somewhat tougher and harder to open. But, as with apples and many other crops, agriculture has applied a "selective breeding" sort of pressure to the crop, as farmers would plant more of those strains of banana trees that produce larger and easier-to-peel fruit, and perhaps even cut down the trees of the less-optimal sorts of bananas to make more room for the more people-friendly ones.

So, really, this reflects human choice more than the will of God.

[JeffreyWKramer]

No less so than people who go door-to-door selling cookies, encyclopedias, or Mary Kay.

I tell them all to take a hike. Girl Scouts, too. We buy the cookies through parents who bring order forms to the workplace, not door-to-door busybodies.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Also, atheists seem to be in the majority these days anyway.

Not according to any demographic polls I've ever seen.

We can keep hoping, though.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The problem with the argument is that Stalin didn't kill people for the sake of atheism, he did it for the sake of Marxism. Which is a political religion anyway, so you can more plausibly attribute responsibility for Stalin's mass murder to religion than to atheism.


Uhm... no.

Wes, sometimes I can't tell when you're being serious and when you're not, so if this was some sort of ironic statement, apologies in advance. If not...well, it makes no more sense to refer to Marxism as a religion (political or otherwise) than it does to refer to athiesm as a religion. An ideology or a belief system, perhaps, but ideology and belief system do not equate to religion - even though Marxism is just as wrong-headed as any religion.

[Wesley Dodds]

You have to like the layered hatred here. So if a Baptist sees a Muslim and is hating him should an atheist come into view the Muslim is quickly forgotten.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

In theory, you could get the Muslim and the Baptist to put aside their differences and hate the atheist.

[JeffreyWKramer]

BTW, good to see you about, Fly.

[BlairH]

Not according to any demographic polls I've ever seen.

We can keep hoping, though.

Or we can just leave people to their beliefs instead of hoping one particular belief (or non-belief in this case) triumphs over the other...

[Paul McEnery]

Nice try, but no. You're noting that something has tended to exist - true enough - then arguing that because this something has tended to exist, it must be an innate need or aspect of the human condition. That's like suggesting that because most humans have had diarrhea at some point, diarrhea must be an innate part of the human condition. In truth, diarrhea occurs due to something acting upon us - something common enough, true (bacteria, virii, etc.), but not something innate to us. The same is probably true in regard to religion, or belief systems: They recur due to the impact of culture and history, not because they have to be there. In fact, we have no evidence humans tend to set up some sort of belief system because of an innate need, and in absence of such evidence, it is just as likely that this tendency reflects simple historical fact - we've tended to do more or less what's already been done - rather than anything innate. In fact, I'd say that is the more likely hypothesis, as it is more consistent with observation than is the supposition of some hard-wired need.
Hmm.

Now, I'd say that people are innately hard-wired for opium addiction, but of course that wasn't clear until somebody invented opium. If people weren't innately hard-wired for belief in some way, religions wouldn't have any traction.

To flip the bitch on the banana argument, it's awfully unlikely religions would have evolved if they didn't have an auspicious environment to grow in.

As with language -- or indeed, any language-based constructs -- people and religion are coevolutionary. Dennett's new book on religion thinks of it as something that must have offered evolutionary advantages -- the tribes that had religions survived, and the others didn't. A simple thought is that tribes that religiously buried bodies were more hygenic, but we could enumerate a lot more advantages.

And humans do tend to believe what other humans say. One example is that I was about to use the word coeval, but was suddenly suspicious of the spelling. Checking it, I found it didn't mean coevolutionary, as I'd thought by other people's usage, but instead simply belonging to the same age (hence the spelling). I'd mislearnt the word through belief.

And then you've got certain fundamental human experiences. As Freud noted, we all start off with an oceanic feeling of oneness, and then move on to a stage of animism. After that, all children start developing myths about the world, they worship authority and trust it implicitly, etc.

So yeah, hard-wired.

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

In theory, you could get the Muslim and the Baptist to put aside their differences and hate the atheist.
Well the Muslim, certainly. It's in the Koran. People of the Book, and all that; but don't marry an unbeliever.

With the Baptist, it would very much depend on the calibre of the pastor.

[west3man]

I can see the idea that atheism is to religion what darkness is to light. It is the absence of the thing.

Yet, atheism IS based on a belief that something is so without knowing that it is so.

People say there's no such thing as aliens, despite the fact that they don't know that. It's just something they strongly feel.
Others say there ARE aliens out there, despite the fact that they admit they've never seen any (well, some of'em, anyway). It's just something they strongly feel.

Similarly, people say they strongly feel that there is or is not a higher being, responsible for this universe's existence. Few of them admit that they don't KNOW this.


Atheism isn't as far from religion as we might think.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Or we can just leave people to their beliefs instead of hoping one particular belief (or non-belief in this case) triumphs over the other...

Or, like me, we can do both. I certainly don't take any action that would not "leave people to their beliefs" - I'm not saying religion should be outlawed, the religious shot, etc. If people are going to be religious, that's their choice, and I support the freedom of religion, just as I support the right of people to smoke, do drugs and various other things I don't personally enjoy or think well of.

At the same time, I have a fervent hope that humanity as a species eventually moves past such superstitious nonsense.

[Paul McEnery]

OK. Try this. The typical human being and typical human society generally professes or invests in a belief system or some kind of another. It's an observable fact seen across times and across cultures.

Now it doesn't matter whether said belief system is Abrahamic, Hindu, Shinto, Wicca, Buddhism, Marxism, pagan etc.

The key thing is that it is a genuine human need to believe in a system of order that exists outside one's own conscious self.

Technically, Buddhism is a system of unbelief. Buddha (and indeed the Dalai Lama) says: don't follow me, experience things for yourself. I love Buddha's (probably apocryphal) exit line. As he's on the verge of croaking, his students ask him if there's an afterlife. He laughs, and dies. Make of that what you will.

But of course, Buddhist cults grew almost immediately after his death. People needed the live Buddha to cling to, and if they couldn't have that, they'd make a statue of him.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hmm.

Now, I'd say that people are innately hard-wired for opium addiction, but of course that wasn't clear until somebody invented opium. If people weren't innately hard-wired for belief in some way, religions wouldn't have any traction.

Bell bottoms, low-rider pants and leg warmers were once major fashion trends. Does this mean we are wired for bad fashion? Religions are just particularly long-lasting fads, ones supported by the larger culture - sort of like jeans or skirts or dress shirts, things which are popular enough across the board that they don't ever seem to quite fall out of fashion.

And then you've got certain fundamental human experiences. As Freud noted, we all start off with an oceanic feeling of oneness, and then move on to a stage of animism. After that, all children start developing myths about the world, they worship authority and trust it implicitly, etc.

So yeah, hard-wired.

Reread your Freud, Paul. Freud didn't argue that religion is hard-wired. He did argue that is is close to universal because it serves - or once served - a purpose (namely, helping people defend against the awareness of harsh reality), but he saw the continuance of religion as a cultural phenomena, not an innate trait like the id impulses. He also argued that just as a neurotic can put aside old defense mechanisms, and often has to do so for personal growth and mental health, society should now put aside religion.

[Wesley Dodds]

As he's on the verge of croaking, his students ask him if there's an afterlife. He laughs, and dies. Make of that what you will.

That is so awesome.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Atheism isn't as far from religion as we might think.

And undigested, fresh food isn't that different from food which has been eaten and passed through the digestive system - but it sure tastes a lot better and offers a lot more nutritional value.

[west3man]

Technically, Buddhism is a system of unbelief. Buddha (and indeed the Dalai Lama) says: don't follow me, experience things for yourself. I love Buddha's (probably apocryphal) exit line. As he's on the verge of croaking, his students ask him if there's an afterlife. He laughs, and dies. Make of that what you will.What I make of it is that it's somewhat absurd for a bunch of people to asks someone what's on the other side... before he ever walked through.

[Paul McEnery]

I can see the idea that atheism is to religion what darkness is to light. It is the absence of the thing.

Yet, atheism IS based on a belief that something is so without knowing that it is so.

People say there's no such thing as aliens, despite the fact that they don't know that. It's just something they strongly feel.
Others say there ARE aliens out there, despite the fact that they admit they've never seen any (well, some of'em, anyway). It's just something they strongly feel.

Similarly, people say they strongly feel that there is or is not a higher being, responsible for this universe's existence. Few of them admit that they don't KNOW this.


Atheism isn't as far from religion as we might think.
Actually, it's much further from religion than you think.

I mean skipping past the obvious absurdity that atheism is a belief in something, which it patently isn't, the absence of the religious experience or feeling at all is non uncommon.

When Freud was writing about oceanic bliss, it was from observation. He'd never had the experience himself (or at least not since long forgotten childhood), and was regretful of it.

As for higher beings and aliens: anyone who studies the statistics is compelled to think that life evolves wherever it can, in whatever way the situation at the time allows; and that since the universe is such a big place, it must have happened a lot. Whereas anyone who studies the nature of the universe is compelled to recognize that it wasn't intentionally designed.

Neither of these things are matters of belief; they are rational deductions based on empirical evidence. Of course, you could say that we "believe" in the evidence of our senses, and in our intelligent ability to construct chains of logic -- but if you do that, you rob the word of all real meaning.

[west3man]

And undigested, fresh food isn't that different from food which has been eaten and passed through the digestive system - but it sure tastes a lot better and offers a lot more nutritional value.
If you don't think a bagel is all that different from a piece of shit, I hope you don't brush your teeth until after breakfast.

[west3man]

Actually, it's much further from religion than you think.

I mean skipping past the obvious absurdity that atheism is a belief in something, which it patently isn't, the absence of the religious experience or feeling at all is non uncommon.

When Freud was writing about oceanic bliss, it was from observation. He'd never had the experience himself (or at least not since long forgotten childhood), and was regretful of it.

As for higher beings and aliens: anyone who studies the statistics is compelled to think that life evolves wherever it can, in whatever way the situation at the time allows; and that since the universe is such a big place, it must have happened a lot. Whereas anyone who studies the nature of the universe is compelled to recognize that it wasn't intentionally designed.

Neither of these things are matters of belief; they are rational deductions based on empirical evidence. Of course, you could say that we "believe" in the evidence of our senses, and in our intelligent ability to construct chains of logic -- but if you do that, you rob the word of all real meaning.
And when you take YOUR conclusions and elevate them from opinion to a level akin to obvious, objective fact, you rob the latter of all real meaning.

[Paul McEnery]

Bell bottoms, low-rider pants and leg warmers were once major fashion trends. Does this mean we are wired for bad fashion?
Only American tourists.

Come on, Jeffrey, that's apples and oranges. We're not hard-wired for specific religions, and we're not hard-wired for specific clothes. But we are hard-wired for clothes, because it's too bloody cold and wet out there.


Reread your Freud, Paul. Freud didn't argue that religion is hard-wired. He did argue that is is close to universal because it serves - or once served - a purpose (namely, helping people defend against the awareness of harsh reality), but he saw the continuance of religion as a cultural phenomena, not an innate trait like the id impulses. He also argued that just as a neurotic can put aside old defense mechanisms, and often has to do so for personal growth and mental health, society should now put aside religion.
You're not distinguishing between religion and religious experiences.

Freud clearly recognizes the reality of the latter, places it within child development, and sees that it's a psychological technique that we can take out of the pencil box later if we want to.

As for specific religions, of course Freud has an evolutionary take on it.

However, we can look on the irony of people who've taken Freud and made religion out of it. (Hint: they're called Americans.)

[lonewolf23k]

You're right. Let me just go take all the atheistic sentiments off of our national currency, tell the president to stop talking about being an atheist so much, and take all the athiest literature out of every hotel in America.

I'm sorry that you have to deal with so much athiest bullying.

You know, there's freedom of religion in America, last I heard. That means freedom to believe, as well as not believe. Nobody's forcing you to pray, so stop trying to stop the ones who want to.

[west3man]

You know, there's freedom of religion in America, last I heard. That means freedom to believe, as well as not believe. Nobody's forcing you to pray, so stop trying to stop the ones who want to.
How is he trying to stop people from praying?

[Paul McEnery]

And when you take YOUR conclusions and elevate them from opinion to a level akin to obvious, objective fact, you rob the latter of all real meaning.
If it was an obvious fact, I wouldn't have to drag it out for proof all the time.

However, objective fact it certainly is.

The three available options are:

1) The universe was externally created by incredibly powerful beings; even so, all they did was set up the parameters, because the universe does not show evidence of design, but quite the opposite, in fact.

2) The universe is itself a living thing, infused with spirit, buddha nature, or whatever else you want to call it. Obviously, as part of that universe, we also have spirit or buddha nature, and when we put aside our egos, we can achieve oneness with it.

3) Universes happen all the time. They give birth to other universes. When the branes get too close to each other, they even destroy other universes -- that's a possibility. Inevitably, at least one of those universes would be hospitable to life. Perhaps the universe birthing process is itself evolutionary in such a way that it promotes life-bearing, but that's highly speculative.

Those are the only three options, which we can call:
1) Absent God
2) Immanent God
3) No God.

Actually, I can conceive of 2 and 3 coexisting, but not 2 and 1. Well, maybe 2 and 1, because a higher level being might have figured out how to make living universes rather than dead ones, and an immanent God might be a feature of it -- in the sense of, that's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Paul McEnery]

Nobody's forcing you to pray
Of course they bloody are, don't be silly.

Some of these numbskulls are always trying to get prayer in at ball games, back in the schools, yelling their prayers at street corners, etc., etc.

Which is something that most atheists and most religious people find irritating.

[west3man]

If it was an obvious fact, I wouldn't have to drag it out for proof all the time.If you didn't think it were obvious, you'd wouldn't present it with the same tone.

However, objective fact it certainly is.

The three available options are:

1) The universe was externally created by incredibly powerful beings; even so, all they did was set up the parameters, because the universe does not show evidence of design, but quite the opposite, in fact.

2) The universe is itself a living thing, infused with spirit, buddha nature, or whatever else you want to call it. Obviously, as part of that universe, we also have spirit or buddha nature, and when we put aside our egos, we can achieve oneness with it.

3) Universes happen all the time. They give birth to other universes. When the branes get too close to each other, they even destroy other universes -- that's a possibility. Inevitably, at least one of those universes would be hospitable to life. Perhaps the universe birthing process is itself evolutionary in such a way that it promotes life-bearing, but that's highly speculative.

Those are the only three options, which we can call:
1) Absent God
2) Immanent God
3) No God.

Actually, I can conceive of 2 and 3 coexisting, but not 2 and 1. Well, maybe 2 and 1, because a higher level being might have figured out how to make living universes rather than dead ones, and an immanent God might be a feature of it -- in the sense of, that's not a bug, it's a feature.
It's not the picture that I have a problem with, so much as how you frame it.

[Paul McEnery]

If you didn't think it were obvious, you'd wouldn't present it with the same tone.


It's not the picture that I have a problem with, so much as how you frame it.
You know, calculus isn't obvious, until you've been shown how to do it, and then, all of a sudden, it becomes obvious, and you're amazed it took you so long to figure it out.

You can say the say thing about the religious experience. People do.

And you can say the same thing about the nature of the universe.

And if I seem peevish about it with you about it, West, it's because we really have been here an awful lot of times.

[west3man]

You know, calculus isn't obvious, until you've been shown how to do it, and then, all of a sudden, it becomes obvious, and you're amazed it took you so long to figure it out.

You can say the say thing about the religious experience. People do.

And you can say the same thing about the nature of the universe.

And if I seem peevish about it with you about it, West, it's because we really have been here an awful lot of times.
And if I seem peevish about it with you, Paul, it's because you're all too willing to proclaim your right to sing this tune and all too UNwilling to recognize our right not to dance to it.

[fly on the wall]

This has been brought up a few times in the thread.

People say "Yes, religion is responsible for many deaths, but the atheist Stalin killed more."

The problem with the argument is that Stalin didn't kill people for the sake of atheism, he did it for the sake of Marxism.

Which is a political religion anyway, so you can more plausibly attribute responsibility for Stalin's mass murder to religion than to atheism.

I can't believe I'm taking the bait here but here goes.

The original statement you made was who is blowing people up, mostly the religous. So I said, "That's true since the USSR went out of business".

I never said why the USSR was killing people, just that they were atheists killing people. Could their atheism have made them more likely to kill people? Perhaps since they would believe there was no Hell to go to. Naturally this applies to both the USSR and the Chinese at the same time. Both atheists, both kill-crazy.

Why did the USSR and the Chinese Communists waging all those wars? You say it's because they were trying to spread Marxism, not atheism. But atheism is a part of Marxism. You can't spread Marxism without spreading atheism.

It's like those jars of peanut butter and jelly all swirled up for the lazy people. Layers of peanut butter, layers of jelly. You can't spread one without the other.

Nor did they try.

Anyway you look at it the behavior of the USSR and the Chinese Communists in the 1930's and 1940's does not reflect well on atheism. Just as the activities of the various participants in the Middle East these days does not reflect well on religion.

[JeffreyWKramer]

If you don't think a bagel is all that different from a piece of shit, I hope you don't brush your teeth until after breakfast.

A bagel and a turd are about as similar as athiesm and religion. Sure, in each case both have some things in common, but the differences between them are quite important.

[west3man]

A bagel and a turd are about as similar as athiesm and religion. Sure, in each case both have some things in common, but the differences between them are quite important.
And the differences between America's leaders and America's enemies are quite important. That doesn't negate the similarities.

And, it needn't always overshadow them.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And the differences between America's leaders and America's enemies are quite important.

I consider "America's current leaders" to be a subset of "America's enemies."

[west3man]

I consider "America's current leaders" to be a subset of "America's enemies."
...and we come full-circle.

[cactusmaac]

The point of the banana tract was that bananas are obviously designed for easy, convenient human consumption, and no crazy atheist can explain away their astonishingly convenient design.

I mean, on a very primitive level, they have a point. Bananas are almost suspiciously convenient.

On the other hand, rice is the necessary staple crop for half the world, and it's fiendishly difficult to grow and prepare, so if there is an all-powerful being designing our foodstuffs, he's got kind of a sick sense of humor.

Convenient?

Not unless you can digest banana peel.

[Wesley Dodds]

I can't believe I'm taking the bait here but here goes.

Ah, but Marxism and Maoism are political religions, so the mass murder in the name of these philosophies is the fault of religion.

I think if the Marxists and Maoists had believed in God the massacre would have been worse. It's a good thing they were atheists.

[cactusmaac]

Nice try, but no. You're noting that something has tended to exist - true enough - then arguing that because this something has tended to exist, it must be an innate need or aspect of the human condition. That's like suggesting that because most humans have had diarrhea at some point, diarrhea must be an innate part of the human condition. In truth, diarrhea occurs due to something acting upon us - something common enough, true (bacteria, virii, etc.), but not something innate to us. The same is probably true in regard to religion, or belief systems: They recur due to the impact of culture and history, not because they have to be there. In fact, we have no evidence humans tend to set up some sort of belief system because of an innate need, and in absence of such evidence, it is just as likely that this tendency reflects simple historical fact - we've tended to do more or less what's already been done - rather than anything innate. In fact, I'd say that is the more likely hypothesis, as it is more consistent with observation than is the supposition of some hard-wired need.

I'm not sure what medical practice is like in Iowa, but AFAIK nobody who's had diarrhoea - which would include me - wants to have diarrhoea making your analogy rather suspect.

And surely humanity has enough examples of small populations who split off and become isolated from larger bodies of humanity and slowly evolve different belief systems over the ages, ones that aren't the result of following habit and tradition.

The fact that it is very widely-observed human behaviour would suggest that it is a necessary part of the human condition.

[BlairH]

Ah, but Marxism and Maoism are political religions, so the mass murder in the name of these philosophies is the fault of religion.
Belief in a political system does not constitute a religion. I disagree with your definitions.

I think if the Marxists and Maoists had believed in God the massacre would have been worse.
If this hypothetical Marxist God taught respect, compassion and love, and the Marxists followed this God's teachings to the letter, the massacre would have been limited. You are going by the principle that the religious are intrinsically nore violent, which is just bollocks.

[Wesley Dodds]

If this hypothetical Marxist God taught respect, compassion and love, and the Marxists followed this God's teachings to the letter, the massacre would have been limited.

Why subject my hypothetical Marxists to a standard that no religion on earth has been able to meet?

It's the easiest thing in the world to twist religious directives. For example, they could have told themselves that the perfect Communist society was in the sky and killed each other out of "respect, compassion and love". What could be a more compassionate act than killing someone so they can go to Heaven?

See, I just followed your teaching to the letter and justified genocide with it.

And when I say "political religion" I'm talking about the concept in sociology and political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_religion):

* Structural
o differentiation between self and other, and demonisation of other (in theistic religion, the differentiation usually depends on adherence to certain dogmas and social behaviours; in political religion, differentiation may be on grounds such as nationality, social attitudes, or membership in "enemy" political parties, instead)
o a charismatic figurehead, with messianic tendencies; if figurehead is deceased, powerful successors;
o strong, hierarchical organisational structures
o a desire to control education, in order to ensure the security of the system

* Belief
o a coherent belief system for imposing symbolic meaning on the external world, with an emphasis on security through purity;
o an intolerance of other ideologies of the same type
o a degree of utopianism and the aim of radically transforming society into an end-state (an end of history)
o the belief that the ideology is in some way natural or obvious, so that (at least for certain groups of people) those who reject it are in some way "blind"
o a genuine desire on the part of individuals to convert others to the cause
o a willingness to place ends over means - in particular, a willingness to use violence and fraud
o fatalism - a belief that the ideology will inevitably triumph in the end

[Wesley Dodds]

Basically, even if the belief system doesn't posit belief in God, if it's structurally the same as a religion we can expect adherents to behave just as though they were members of a religion (or cult).

[Gaz]

I'm not sure what medical practice is like in Iowa, but AFAIK nobody who's had diarrhoea - which would include me - wants to have diarrhoea making your analogy rather suspect.

And surely humanity has enough examples of small populations who split off and become isolated from larger bodies of humanity and slowly evolve different belief systems over the ages, ones that aren't the result of following habit and tradition.

The fact that it is very widely-observed human behaviour would suggest that it is a necessary part of the human condition.
(I could construe that last bit as a backhanded insult to atheists, but I won't)

Ah, but those cultures tend to revert back to more simplistic/primitive modes of community or society, which also seems to support the "practically advantageous until more understanding comes" theory.

[cactusmaac]

Note: Not saying that atheists are less than human.

[Gaz]

Note: Not saying that atheists are less than human.
I was reasonably sure of that, hence why I didn't take offence. Not much anyway (I had to have a little, otherwise it wouldn't have bothered me at all...)

[Endel]

We're not hard-wired for specific religions, and we're not hard-wired for specific clothes. But we are hard-wired for clothes, because it's too bloody cold and wet out there.

we are NOT hardwired to wear clothes. we are hardwired to have specific skin and specific body termerature. when we moved into colder areas, it became necessary to wear clothes, or we would die. but the jump to making and wearing closes to counter the cold is not hardwired. innate abilites are things that we were specifically designed to do from birth. traits and physical dispositions are passed down genetically determining how we would look/act as adults. The issue on wheter even langauge is inate or not is still being debated.

as such, religion isnt hardwired. people may have a tendancy to use religion, but we were not born with the knowlage of or desire to have faith in a higher being/other existance/ect.

[Dan Apodaca]

You know, there's freedom of religion in America, last I heard. That means freedom to believe, as well as not believe. Nobody's forcing you to pray, so stop trying to stop the ones who want to.

And how, exactly, am I trying to stop anybody from praying? Please, enlighten me.


Or is it that you're just being combative for no reason?

[K'Nort]

So, you and other Christians, you'd be cool with athiests going up to you in malls, on the street or in bathrooms, or going door to door and bothering you at home in order to spread their word? So long as they weren't too pushy about it?

I still don't think this is a very good argument. Just like the verbage on the money. Your average American Christian never ever goes door to door or approaches people in public. And they can be just as irritated when it is done to them. There are a few specific denominations, but they've never been the most popular ones. It's over-generalizing the negative traits of a subset.

[west3man]

I still don't think this is a very good argument. Just like the verbage on the money. Your average American Christian never ever goes door to door or approaches people in public. And they can be just as irritated when it is done to them. There are a few specific denominations, but they've never been the most popular ones. It's over-generalizing the negative traits of a subset.
And, it's doing what we supposedly find so abhorrent with regard to race, sexual orientation, and so many other things.

[Paul McEnery]

And if I seem peevish about it with you, Paul, it's because you're all too willing to proclaim your right to sing this tune and all too UNwilling to recognize our right not to dance to it.
Well, you have a right to dismiss the truths of calculus, too. And most people do very well ignoring them. But it doesn't stop them being true. Nor, for that matter, do people get by without the truths of calculus, because that's how we build things like bridges and computers and etc.

Quite simply, any religion that builds itself on the tenets of theism has a foundation of shifting sand. That, of course, is exactly why theists are so vehemently opposed to things like gay marriage, evolution, psychiatry, round planets, other religions, etc. To accept them is to punch a hole through the entire metaphysics.

IOW, in order to preserve the metaphysics of theism, we have to trample civil liberties and the pursuit of scientific truth.

So the issue comes down to this: preserving a comforting lie at the expense of civil liberties. As it always has.

So yes, I am distinctly unwilling to accept that anyone has a right to deny the truth; because that denial has vicious political consequences.

[west3man]

Well, you have a right to dismiss the truths of calculus, too. And most people do very well ignoring them. But it doesn't stop them being true. Nor, for that matter, do people get by without the truths of calculus, because that's how we build things like bridges and computers and etc.
Pythagoras, you're not.

[Paul McEnery]

we are NOT hardwired to wear clothes. we are hardwired to have specific skin and specific body termerature. when we moved into colder areas, it became necessary to wear clothes, or we would die. but the jump to making and wearing closes to counter the cold is not hardwired. innate abilites are things that we were specifically designed to do from birth. traits and physical dispositions are passed down genetically determining how we would look/act as adults. The issue on wheter even langauge is inate or not is still being debated.

People can debate it till the cows come home. Nevertheless, the turtle moves. :D

Briefly, we are hard-wired for pattern recognition and reproduction. We are not hard-wired for grammer, or any other linguistic structure. However, we are hard-wired for constructing meaning, and for perceiving certain symbolic elements (this is more true for visual elements than for aural elements).

Grammer acquisition is the key to learning a language. Once you've got the grammer, the words slip into place, and it's much, much easier to pick up a lexicon. This, of course, is the reason we find it tricky to learn a different language. At first, we can swap out, say, French words for English ones, but the quantum leap into becoming a French speaker is when you get sentence structure down, not to mention cases. Otherwise, you're just in pidgen French territory.

The way in which grammer is acquired is now understood to happen in your first year (if not in the three months prior to birth, too). The brain is sufficiently plastic that it can't pick up individual instances -- i.e. words. That's a good thing, because what gets impressed on the brain instead is the general pattern of how words are deployed -- grammer.

That's why, when little kids start using sentences, they're much more definite about language use than adults. They'll say, for instance, hanged over rather than hungover, because they've learned the rule, but not the more complicated rules of cases. It's quite a hurdle to get to the exceptions of English.

So that's the extent to which language is innate (depending on what you mean by innate, of course).

As for clothes, yeah, your quibble about hardwiring is correct. However, we are hardwired to seek shelter wherever, and to make it portable wherever, and to come up with technological solutions to current problems. That's the innate stuff. Fashioning available resources into portable shelter is the next level up, just as it is with language acquisition.

[Paul McEnery]

Pythagoras, you're not.
This is true. For a start, I don't believe that pinto beans are the reincarnation of human beings. And I've also forgotten more math than Pythagoras ever knew -- he wouldn't have been up to passing a math degree without a helluva lot of study.

Nonetheless, what I've said about theism is absolutely true. You can be as stubborn as you like about it, it's still true.

Theism is just a rationalization of medieval models of reality. We no longer accept those models of reality as true because we've proved they aren't. But we are slower to throw out the philosophical abstractions of those models because not only is it not obvious that they're false (so that you have to do a fair piece of philosophical work to assemble them into testable hypotheses that fail -- which they do), they're counterintuitive.

It's very like stuff like Einstein and Copernicus, let alone quantum physics. It's all but impossible to shift from our monkeyminds into these physics truths; it's just not the way we're put together. So when we think about the divine or the sacred, we can't help but put a human face on it, making God over in our own image.

Nobody in this day and age would seriously picture God as a great big man with a beard. But Genesis does picture God as walking the earth. That's how people thought then: God is, like, really really big, like the biggest thing that we can think of, which is a really really really big... er, man.

We don't think that any more; but Christian theism does think that way in the abstract: God is a really really big thinker, who does really really big things, in such a really really big way that He's everywhere at once. It's exactly the same as saying God is a really really big man, but using abstract language about human abilities. (Just like: God has really really big love, and God has really really big tantrums, and really really big set ideas about human conduct; etc.)

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm not sure what medical practice is like in Iowa, but AFAIK nobody who's had diarrhoea - which would include me - wants to have diarrhoea making your analogy rather suspect.

Diarrhea is an analogy perfectly befitting your argument.

And surely humanity has enough examples of small populations who split off and become isolated from larger bodies of humanity and slowly evolve different belief systems over the ages, ones that aren't the result of following habit and tradition. Sure. And, mostly, they build a set of traditions based upon what is already there. If anything, they tend to become more insular, due to having fewer outside influences.

You aren't helping your argument here. An anthropologist you ain't, Cactus.

The fact that it is very widely-observed human behaviour would suggest that it is a necessary part of the human condition.

No, that suggests it is a common part of culture, not that it is a necessary part of human nature. The two aren't equivalent. Culture can take lots of forms. Hopefully it will someday take a form advanced enough to leave institutionalized superstition such as religion behind.

[Paul McEnery]

Diarrhea is an analogy perfectly befitting your argument.

Sure. And, mostly, they build a set of traditions based upon what is already there. If anything, they tend to become more insular, due to having fewer outside influences.

You aren't helping your argument here. An anthropologist you ain't, Cactus.

.
Well you either, Jeffrey. :p

You're using a very narrow definition of religion to make your point. Wesley's point about political religion expands the definition correctly.

Once you understand that Tylor's definition of religion is the bunk, it becomes clear that religion is simply the articulation of a community structure in mythological terms, whether those terms involve flying monkeys, cosmic eggs, fifth-dimensional midwives, or no apparently supernatural entities at all.

The great problem with Marxism is that it falls prey to McLuhan's law: the form of new technology is the content of an old technology (in this case, social technology). Marx's utopian dreams were gathered from judeo-christian eschatology; on the plus side, when expressed by Stalin, that eschatology showed its true colours.

[Endel]

People can debate it till the cows come home. Nevertheless, the turtle moves. :D

Briefly, we are hard-wired for pattern recognition and reproduction. We are not hard-wired for grammer, or any other linguistic structure. However, we are hard-wired for constructing meaning, and for perceiving certain symbolic elements (this is more true for visual elements than for aural elements).

Grammer acquisition is the key to learning a language. Once you've got the grammer, the words slip into place, and it's much, much easier to pick up a lexicon. This, of course, is the reason we find it tricky to learn a different language. At first, we can swap out, say, French words for English ones, but the quantum leap into becoming a French speaker is when you get sentence structure down, not to mention cases. Otherwise, you're just in pidgen French territory.

The way in which grammer is acquired is now understood to happen in your first year (if not in the three months prior to birth, too). The brain is sufficiently plastic that it can't pick up individual instances -- i.e. words. That's a good thing, because what gets impressed on the brain instead is the general pattern of how words are deployed -- grammer.

That's why, when little kids start using sentences, they're much more definite about language use than adults. They'll say, for instance, hanged over rather than hungover, because they've learned the rule, but not the more complicated rules of cases. It's quite a hurdle to get to the exceptions of English.

So that's the extent to which language is innate (depending on what you mean by innate, of course).

you're preaching to the choir. i'm a ling major who's studied semantics and child language development with specific focus on Brenner and Witgenstein.
i dont think that language is innate but we have specific predispositions (which you summed up pretty well :)) to make sounds and understand symbolisms. Noam Chompsky's theories on innate language make me want to stab myself. Seriously, a good part of it is 'we we dont understand it so it must be innate' conclusions. Becuase he is the god of linguistics in america, alot of child development has been either ignored, abandoned, or discounted because 'there is no reason to study accusitional processes if language is at its heart innate' (paraphrasing from linguistic studies teachers and experts).

correction, i dont want to stab myself, i want to stab Chompsky and all the idiots who follow him so blindly

adding: and i agree to what JeffreyWKramer said on culture . just b/c something is widespread in culture doesnt make it a physiologically necessary or natural.

[Paul McEnery]

you're preaching to the choir. i'm a ling major who's studied semantics and child language development with specific focus on Brenner and Witgenstein.
i dont think that language is innate but we have specific predispositions (which you summed up pretty well :)) to make sounds and understand symbolisms. Noam Chompsky's theories on innate language make me want to stab myself. Seriously, a good part of it is 'we we dont understand it so it must be innate' conclusions. Becuase he is the god of linguistics in america, alot of child development has been either ignored, abandoned, or discounted because 'there is no reason to study accusitional processes if language is at its heart innate' (paraphrasing from linguistic studies teachers and experts).

correction, i dont want to stab myself, i want to stab Chompsky and all the idiots who follow him so blindly

Couldn't agree with you more. Except to say that Chomsky's prose makes me want to stab myself in either the ears or eyes to escape from it.

If you can spare the time, Terence Deacon's Symbolic Species is a great antidote to Steven Pinker's Chomskyism. Pinker has an absolute tin ear for the way language actually works, and obviously has never read any Saussure or Derrida, or he'd know better. I mean, the Dawkins idea that language is itself biological is solid, but none of that crew, including Dennett, really understand how that plays out; no doubt because they're all anglophone materialists, which seriously skews the way you think about both language and the world in general.

Which is, I tend to think, why Orthodox Christianity has such a crook view of ontology -- it insists in thinking Mediterranean thoughts in a Germanic mindset, so it all comes out funny.

[Endel]

heh, difficulty in translation and understanding the semiotics behind syntax are actually two of my big interests. i focus on eastern languages rather then romace/germanic but its relative enough. it IS frustrating when people who arnt or have no interest in becoming multi-lingual start to argue broad subjects like universal grammars when then have no clue on what really is universal.

I have a some familiarity with Pinker; i've wanted to read his "How the Mind Works" for some time, but havent had the time or patience for it. The Language Instinct's backing of Chompsky's unversal grammar made me just as frustrated as chompsky's work itself, but i felt he was much more comprehsive, and took the conclusions in a more logical way (evolution and nat. selectiona dn such).

We touched on Deacon in semiotics class, but it was a very light touch, since the proff had the joyful task of explaining Peirce to us in less then 4 days (he ended the last lesson with 'and its interesting to know that he went insane after thinking about all this too long')

[Wesley Dodds]

I don't know why there's no reason to study acquisitional processes if language is innate. Piaget did some interesting work on the stages of a child's mental develoment -- it seems likely to me that certain cognitive processes "switch on" at various ages. This is perfectly consistent with a Chomskyian account of language. Hell, we know that there are windows for certain language development steps that can't be missed.

Look at the maths of language. Human language is both sequence and hierarchy dependent. That's unique in the animal world. The ability to produce these recursive sentences -- sentences that can go on forever -- is the essence of what makes us human and is probably very closely linked to human consciousness.

Other reasons why a Chomskyian account is solid -- the problem of the poverty of the stimulus. How children make some mistakes a lot but rarely make others. The fact that all natural human languages obey a universal grammar.

I did my time with Lacan, and I have to say that an innate language structure is a much better explanation for what we see than a "tabula rasa" approach (certainly false) or even accounts of a predisposition or intelligence that makes language learning possible.

The best argument against an innate symbolic intelligence being responsible for this, I think, is the difficulty we have with maths and abstract reasoning. Language is as natural as breathing, but other forms of symbolic processing we have to work to learn.

[Endel]

ow ow ow. universal grammar?
not only are those 'universals' few and far between but the idea basically lumps similar things together and has the linguist say 'see? it works! i swear!' for language universals to exist, they would be everpresent in all languages, without strong difference. but such differences DO exist, and change as all living languages change. generalizations just dont work when it comes to the vast majority of multi-langauge grammar

Chompsky also tries to take language into fields like mathmatics which it really cant go. concrete meaning of numbers cannot be ascribed to concrete meaning of words since words really dont have concrete semantic meaning.

[Xothermic]

I'm sorry, there is no way in hell atheists are more hated than gays and muslims. Not even close.

[west3man]

I'm sorry, there is no way in hell atheists are more hated than gays and muslims. Not even close.
If folks could choose between their children being gay believers-in-God or straight atheists, I think they'd choose the former.

A lil same-same pales in-comparison to denying God's very existence, in the eyes of many, I'd say.

[BlairH]

If folks could choose between their children being gay believers-in-God or straight atheists, I think they'd choose the former.

A lil same-same pales in-comparison to denying God's very existence, in the eyes of many, I'd say.

Interesting...
That may be the case in America, but I certianly don't think it's the case in Scotland (and we're a very religious nation)

[Winslow]

If folks could choose between their children being gay believers-in-God or straight atheists, I think they'd choose the former.

A lil same-same pales in-comparison to denying God's very existence, in the eyes of many, I'd say.

That's a pretty insightful hypothetical.

But I'm not sure it measures "hate" as much as the strength of belief.

[Gaz]

Interesting...
That may be the case in America, but I certianly don't think it's the case in Scotland (and we're a very religious nation)
No more than the US. And not like we're more homophobic either.

[west3man]

That's a pretty insightful hypothetical.

But I'm not sure it measures "hate" as much as the strength of belief.
Despite Wesley's title, that article doesn't even *mention* the word "hate."

I think it's really about tolerance/acceptance.

[cactusmaac]

Culture can take lots of forms. Hopefully it will someday take a form advanced enough to leave institutionalized superstition such as religion behind.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

You don't think there's a difference between someone thinking/believing people will suffer for certain behavior versus TELLING people that they're going to hell?

Well I don't hear much vocal opposition from other Christians telling the others to 'SHUT UP'.
Maybe on the board or such, but no as vocal in public.

And I still have a problem with anyone who can happily follow a religon that sends those without faith to hell.

[west3man]

Well I don't hear much vocal opposition from other Christians telling the others to 'SHUT UP'.
Maybe on the board or such, but no as vocal in public.

And I still have a problem with anyone who can happily follow a religon that sends those without faith to hell.
That doesn't answer the question, directly, but I gather this means the answer is "no." Apparently, you feel that silence = implicit approval and endorsement," as far as this topic is concerned.

In some situations, I agree, but on the national or global scale, involving private citizens, that's a tough sell.

[BlairH]

And I still have a problem with anyone who can happily follow a religon that sends those without faith to hell.
Meh. Let people have their beliefs and be tolerant of them. No reason to "have a problem" with those people, especially if you disagree with the premise of the faith itself. No reason to get one's panties in a twist.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

That doesn't answer the question, directly, but I gather this means the answer is "no." Apparently, you feel that silence = implicit approval and endorsement," as far as this topic is concerned.

In some situations, I agree, but on the national or global scale, involving private citizens, that's a tough sell.


Blair's quite fond of posting a quote that shows why that's a dangerous thing, West.

It doesn't have be big global gestures.
If every Chritian who disagrees with the more vocal idiots told them to shut up, then there would be change.
I tell people - even strangers - who make racist comments near me to shut up. If everyone did, there'd be no more of that.

[west3man]

Blair's quite fond of posting a quote that shows why that's a dangerous thing, West.

It doesn't have be big global gestures.
If every Chritian who disagrees with the more vocal idiots told them to shut up, then there would be change.
I tell people - even strangers - who make racist comments near me to shut up. If everyone did, there'd be no more of that.
What we were talking about was judging the group by the actions of SOME of its members. You seemed to imply that the whole should be judged by a subset because their silence makes them complicit.

That means we're not talking about whether SOMEone tells them to shut up. (Like you, a non-racist, telling a racist person to shut up.) We're talking about whether silent Christians ought to be held responsible for the words and actions of what some believe to be a small subset of their population.

And, if we say we SHOULD judge them that way, then doesn't that mean everyone in every group ought to be held responsible for the actions of everyone else in that group, simply because they don't get into a national/global scale shouting match with them on a regular basis? And, yes, it does have to be national/global because you suggest that it's not just American, Australian, or Indonesian Christians you're judging, but Christians, in general.

[Gaz]

Meh. Let people have their beliefs and be tolerant of them. No reason to "have a problem" with those people, especially if you disagree with the premise of the faith itself. No reason to get one's panties in a twist.
I can see where he's coming from though. It's basically saying that an atheist is a "bad" person solely because of that, ignoring any other parts of their character. They could run homeless shelters, foster 2 dozen abused kids, dig wells in Africa, but if you don't believe in God, then you're still on the other side of the moral line...

[west3man]

I can see where he's coming from though. It's basically saying that an atheist is a "bad" person solely because of that, ignoring any other parts of their character. They could run homeless shelters, foster 2 dozen abused kids, dig wells in Africa, but if you don't believe in God, then you're still on the other side of the moral line...
It's not necessarily saying an atheist is a "bad" person.
It's saying that there's a higher power who decides you're Hell-bound or not based upon certain criteria.

[BlairH]

I can see where he's coming from though. It's basically saying that an atheist is a "bad" person solely because of that, ignoring any other parts of their character. They could run homeless shelters, foster 2 dozen abused kids, dig wells in Africa, but if you don't believe in God, then you're still on the other side of the moral line...

Yeah, but why should that bother atheists? There are people out there who think I'm an infidel for practicing Christianity, but it doesn't bother me much (untill their thoughts manifest themselves in prejudicial or indeed destructive actions and deeds of course)

Let them have their beliefs I say. There's no actual harm done in believing that somebody -after their natural life has expired- will go to Hell. It shouldn't bother non believers, as they don't believe in Hell.

[west3man]

Yeah, but why should that bother atheists? There are people out there who think I'm an infidel for practicing Christianity, but it doesn't bother me much (untill their thoughts manifest themselves in prejudicial or indeed destructive actions and deeds of course)

Let them have their beliefs I say. There's no actual harm done in believing that somebody -after their natural life has expired- will go to Hell. It shouldn't bother non believers, as they don't believe in Hell.
Would it bother you if you found out somebody thought you were mean or a liar or a thief or psychotic?

[Wesley Dodds]

When you're exposed to it constantly it has a way of beating you down.

It doesn't help that the culture panders to the wisdom and goodness of faith and religiosity. The message of most cultural products is that the evidence of things unseen is an intrinsic good.

So, atheists often end up feeling like outsiders in their own culture -- and for taking what we feel is the most intellectually defensible stand. In fact, anti-intellectualism is the essence of blind faith, because you're saying that no facts or evidence can disprove your beliefs.

If only to base your faith on firmer ground, it's worth asking what needs to happen to convince you God, Heaven etc. don't exist. I don't think many believers can -- it doesn't help that believers attribute the good things that happen to them to God but not the bad.

If something good happens it's because of God, but if something bad happens it's not his fault? So, if nothing good ever happens to you, it doesn't argue against the existence of a loving, personal God. It's just never his fault.

[BlairH]

Would it bother you if you found out somebody thought you were mean or a liar or a thief or psychotic?
Someone I cared about? Sure. Otherwise, not really (unless -of course- they decided to act on their unfounded suspicions)

[Ed Cunard]

I know Marx isn't popular here, in the context of the discussion and in society at large. That said, though, I want to refer to something said far upstream. Here's a longer version of Marx's "opiate of the people" comment:

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man — state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Letting the full quote breathe a little and stretch its legs, it starts to look less like a blanket condemnation of religion as a whole.

[BlairH]

When you're exposed to it constantly it has a way of beating you down.
Some religionites I speak to feel the same way. We call it "Christian persecution syndrome." It's looked down upon. I believe it's the same with atheists.

It doesn't help that the culture panders to the wisdom and goodness of faith and religiosity.
If it does, it "panders" to tangable provable science in equal measure. I don't see people being killed on the street because they support scientific progress. I see them being killed because they are Catholic/Protestant/Muslim/whatever.

So, atheists often end up feeling like outsiders in their own culture
Oh I doubt that your feelings of being an "outsider" are any more substansial than that of your average Christian. Hardly anybody I know goes to Church, let alone my Church.

and for taking what we feel is the most intellectually defensible stand.
In what way is it more intellectually defensible? I'd say that both theism (mono and poly) and atheism are IMPOSSIBLE to defend intellectually using our present level of academic thought.

In fact, anti-intellectualism is the essence of blind faith, because you're saying that no facts or evidence can disprove your beliefs.
Bah, poppycock! Many noted intillectuals over the years have been faithful. Look at Pascal for example. Pascal's wager only scratches the surface of this man's faith. His writings suggest a very mature and academic relationship with God.

it doesn't help that believers attribute the good things that happen to them to God but not the bad.
Oh we can attribute the bad things to God too! It's just that we see bad things in a less sinister light than some folks.

If something good happens it's because of God, but if something bad happens it's not his fault?
Not necesserally. I'm mature enough to know that when something bad happens to me, it's often my own stupid fault, and I have not applied my gifts from God in the best manner. However I also believe that when I triumph, it is because God has gifted me with the ability to do...whatever (the ability to learn, the ability to rant incoherantly on CBR etc)

[Motormouse]

Civilisation will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest.

Emile Zola

[BlairH]

Civilisation will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest.

Emile Zola
Emile Zola is a murderous bigot.

[Samurai]

Civilisation will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest.

Emile Zola
Why listen to a relative of Arnim Zola? The whole family is evil!

http://comicscentral.tripod.com/marvelheroes/a/images/arnimzola.jpg



;)

[Wesley Dodds]

Some religionites I speak to feel the same way. We call it "Christian persecution syndrome." It's looked down upon. I believe it's the same with atheists.

I agree, but I don't like calling things perseution unless at least rocks are being thrown at you.

If it does, it "panders" to tangable provable science in equal measure

I disagree -- mysticism wins out against scientism almost every time. Scientists and intellectuals are almost always either kooks or badguys. And the hero thinks with his gut and just "knows" right and wrong.

I don't see people being killed on the street because they support scientific progress. I see them being killed because they are Catholic/Protestant/Muslim/whatever.

Because people of different religion are killing each other.

Oh I doubt that your feelings of being an "outsider" are any more substansial than that of your average Christian. Hardly anybody I know goes to Church, let alone my Church.

Call me back when political leaders are talking about how disblief in God has changed their life and informs their politics.

The outsider feeling comes from how the culture is saturated by religion.

and for taking what we feel is the most intellectually defensible stand.
In what way is it more intellectually defensible? I'd say that both theism (mono and poly) and atheism are IMPOSSIBLE to defend intellectually using our present level of academic thought.

Well, just to start off, if it's true that our present level of academic thought isn't enough to say it's more defensible to take the position that something doesn't exist.

But fortunately we can assess many of the specific claims made by specific religions and ask ourselves how plausible they are, whether they conform to our knowledge of the world and our experience.

Bah, poppycock! Many noted intillectuals over the years have been faithful. Look at Pascal for example. Pascal's wager only scratches the surface of this man's faith. His writings suggest a very mature and academic relationship with God.

It is if you say "I believe no matter what the "facts" are." Refusing to accept basic scientific truths like evolution is a good example of the anti-intellectualism of blind faith. The evidence for evolution is absolutely staggering -- if you've actually studied it. But people who believe God made it all in 6 days often don't look, they go straight to creationist texts that focus on supposed "problems" with evolution. And then it becomes impossible to explain to these people why they're wrong because they don't know enough about evolution to know how they're misrepresenting it. (The most common example of that is when people refer to evolution as a chance. Evolution is the opposite of chance.)

Not necesserally. I'm mature enough to know that when something bad happens to me, it's often my own stupid fault, and I have not applied my gifts from God in the best manner. However I also believe that when I triumph, it is because God has gifted me with the ability to do...whatever (the ability to learn, the ability to rant incoherantly on CBR etc)

This is what I'm talking about. If good things happen to you, it's because of a loving God, but if bad things happen then it doesn't mean God isn't loving.

[BlairH]

I agree, but I don't like calling things perseution unless at least rocks are being thrown at you.
A Christian guy might be excecuted in Afghanistan soon. His crime? Converting to Christianity. Aye true, there exists a level of contempt for atheists in some parts of the world too, but it's folly to believe that this level of contempt rises above that held for the religious.

I disagree -- mysticism wins out against scientism almost every time. Scientists and intellectuals are almost always either kooks or badguys. And the hero thinks with his gut and just "knows" right and wrong.
I disagree. In pop culture we also see variations of the old kooky mystic and/or evil and corrupt religious leader. Look at Sin City for example.

Because people of different religion are killing each other.
Substitute "religion" for "football team" and you are correct.

Call me back when political leaders are talking about how disblief in God has changed their life and informs their politics.
Didn't the Soviet propaganda machine misinterpret something Yuri Gagarin said on his voyage to the cosmos? "The sky was blue, but there was no God". Yeah, he didn't actually say that, it was inserted by the aforementioned Soviet propaganda machine.

The outsider feeling comes from how the culture is saturated by religion.
Well, religion plays a very big part in our culture. You shouldn't feel like an outsider. If you don't believe in God then you clearly aren't missing much, so why bother lamenting your status as an "outsider"?


It is if you say "I believe no matter what the "facts" are." Refusing to accept basic scientific truths like evolution is a good example of the anti-intellectualism of blind faith.
I don't believe anti-intellectualism is a symptom of blind faith. It is merely a by-product of narrow-mindedness. Some people refuse to interpret the Bible in a modern way. The fact is, the Bible is OLD. If it's sacred words spoke of evolution and such, ancient people's heads would explode as they lacked sufficient scientific reasoning necessary for evolution. A certian level of scientific progress and enlightenment is needed to understand -as we all know- but if you look at the texts of the bible, you'll find nothing that actually discredits the theory of evolution. The two ideas, intelligent design and evolution are compatible.

This is what I'm talking about. If good things happen to you, it's because of a loving God, but if bad things happen then it doesn't mean God isn't loving.
I think there's a difference between my point of view and that of other Christians who automatically thank God for EVERYTHING good. I believe that the root cause of everything is God, but at the end of the day, it's my application of what God saw fit to give me that determines whether it's time to sink or swim.

[Paul McEnery]

The two ideas, intelligent design and evolution are compatible.
.
Again, no.

Not only is this universe very definitely not intelligently designed, we have very good reason to believe that no universe can be intelligently designed. Intelligent design is simply not a global feature of universes.

Hell, it's scarcely even a feature of human society. In fact, as the classic liberal that you are, I would have thought that you opposed intelligent design in political economics.

[Wesley Dodds]

I disagree. In pop culture we also see variations of the old kooky mystic and/or evil and corrupt religious leader. Look at Sin City for example.

The Catholic model of religion means hypocrisy but a Protestant close relationship with God is something laudable.

but if you look at the texts of the bible, you'll find nothing that actually discredits the theory of evolution

The bit in genesis where God made animals whole instead of creating the conditions for evolution?

[Paul McEnery]

I know Marx isn't popular here, in the context of the discussion and in society at large. That said, though, I want to refer to something said far upstream. Here's a longer version of Marx's "opiate of the people" comment:



Letting the full quote breathe a little and stretch its legs, it starts to look less like a blanket condemnation of religion as a whole.
But certainly viewing religion as a necessary stage that must be transcended if we are to achieve material solutions to our problems.

[Winslow]

But certainly viewing religion as a necessary stage that must be transcended if we are to achieve material solutions to our problems.

That's my understanding as well.

Given religion's role at the time to keep the proletariat in their place and docile, hoping for a better situation in the life to come rather than improve life conditions now, I think he had a pretty darn good point.

[K'Nort]

Yeah, but why should that bother atheists? There are people out there who think I'm an infidel for practicing Christianity, but it doesn't bother me much (untill their thoughts manifest themselves in prejudicial or indeed destructive actions and deeds of course)

Let them have their beliefs I say. There's no actual harm done in believing that somebody -after their natural life has expired- will go to Hell. It shouldn't bother non believers, as they don't believe in Hell.

I think there is harm done, actually. Maybe not blatant and in your face harm (although that happens too) but if nothing else, it's impeding general humanity. Having people floating around with bad notions instead of good ones doesn't do the species any favours.

[Wesley Dodds]

But certainly viewing religion as a necessary stage that must be transcended if we are to achieve material solutions to our problems.

I actually agree with this. If possible, we should make the step from the imaginary to the real.

[Winslow]

I actually agree with this. If possible, we should make the step from the imaginary to the real.

I hope you never write a comic. :p ;)

[Paul McEnery]

That's my understanding as well.

Given religion's role at the time to keep the proletariat in their place and docile, hoping for a better situation in the life to come rather than improve life conditions now, I think he had a pretty darn good point.
That's the obvious bit.

The less obvious bit is that it's also true of the spiritual life. Sooner or later, one has to abandon the things of G-d for G-d himself.

And by "things of G-d" I mean all God-concepts.

Especially the ones that have been dead in the water for 150 years.

[Winslow]

That's the obvious bit.

The less obvious bit is that it's also true of the spiritual life. Sooner or later, one has to abandon the things of G-d for G-d himself.

And by "things of G-d" I mean all God-concepts.

Especially the ones that have been dead in the water for 150 years.

I agree, with qualification. :D

[Ed Cunard]

But certainly viewing religion as a necessary stage that must be transcended if we are to achieve material solutions to our problems.

Well, sure--I'd say that's a nice, concise way of getting to the probable point of Marx's comments, and a much more accurate one than the "Rar! Religion bad!" analysis often provided when that gets quoted. I'm not so forceful on it--I think Marx's comments could also be read as "hey, you know, maybe we could concentrate on the here and now in order to fix things here." The quote kind of reminds me of a less antagonistic version of the sentiment from that Joe Hill song:

Long haired preachers come out ev'ry night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked, how 'bout something to eat, (Let us eat)
They will answer with voices so sweet; (Oh so sweet)
You will eat, (You will eat)
Bye and bye, (Bye and bye) in that glorious land above the sky;
(way up high)
work and pray, (work and pray) live on hay, (Live on hay)
you'll get pie in the sky when you die. (That's a lie)

And the starvation army they play,
And they sing and they clap and they pray.
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:

-Chorus-

Holy Rollers and Jumpers come out,
And they holler, they jump and they shout
"Give your money to Jesus," they say,
"He will cure all diseases today."

-Chorus-

If you fight hard for children and wife-
Try to get something good in this life-
You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,
When you die you will sure go to hell.

-Chorus-

Workingmen of all countries unite,
Side by side we for freedom will fight!
When the world and its wealth we have gained,
To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

-Final Chorus-

You will eat, bye and bye,
When you've learned how to cook and to fry.
Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,
And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But certainly viewing religion as a necessary stage that must be transcended if we are to achieve material solutions to our problems.

Well, I agree with Marx on something. Let's get to transcending this stage.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think there is harm done, actually. Maybe not blatant and in your face harm (although that happens too) but if nothing else, it's impeding general humanity. Having people floating around with bad notions instead of good ones doesn't do the species any favours.

That's how I feel too, more or less. Of course, I classify religion as a "bad notion", or at very best one which that's time has passed.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I hope you never write a comic. :p ;)

Sticking with the imaginary is great for fiction writers, but it isn't particulary useful or healthy for society as a whole. Prayer won't build roads, develop alternative energy sources or cure MS.

I agree with Wes here.

[Winslow]

Sticking with the imaginary is great for fiction writers, but it isn't particulary useful or healthy for society as a whole. Prayer won't build roads, develop alternative energy sources or cure MS.

I agree with Wes here.

I was being silly Jeffrey . . .

But as for the power of prayer, one of our members recently had a documented heart blockage (documented by EKG) clear up after we prayed for him.

So maybe prayer won't build roads, or develop alternative energy sources, but occasionally, for reasons known only to God, He chooses to heal through it . . . every once in awhile.

[Wesley Dodds]

But as for the power of prayer, one of our members recently had a documented heart blockage (documented by EKG) clear up after we prayed for him.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If your member forwent treatment and just recieved prayer then that would be an example of the destructive quality of religion.

[Grazzt]

But as for the power of prayer, one of our members recently had a documented heart blockage (documented by EKG) clear up after we prayed for him.

So maybe prayer won't build roads, or develop alternative energy sources, but occasionally, for reasons known only to God, He chooses to heal through it . . . every once in awhile.

Or maybe you have a low-level psychic ability that manifests through sheer force of will, ie prayer.

I mean, I've heard of studies that said people who were prayed for recovered faster. But