Restricted age for being Baptised

[Radical]

Sup,

As a Child I was forced into the hands of Christianity, like many people.

At 1 years old I was Baptised. Which I had no say in the matter.
At 12 years old I was confermed with my permission. Only to later come to realise that I never understood religion at the age of 12.

My Political belief is that there should be a restrictment on age that a person is allowed to be Baptised/Confermed/anything similar

I believe forcing/encouraging a child to follow the path of a "religion", is a strong form of Mental Abuse.

I'm now an Athiest and dident really understand religion until about the age of 16/17

What I'm saying is, I think by law, nobody under the age of 16 should be allowed to be Baptised or Confermed.


What are your thoughts?

[brigadista]

Sup,

As a Child I was forced into the hands of Christianity, like many people.

At 1 years old I was Baptised. Which I had no say in the matter.
At 12 years old I was confermed with my permission. Only to later come to realise that I never understood religion at the age of 12.

My Political belief is that there should be a restrictment on age that a person is allowed to be Baptised/Confermed/anything similar

I believe forcing/encouraging a child to follow the path of a "religion", is a strong form of Mental Abuse.

I'm now an Athiest and dident really understand religion until about the age of 16/17

What I'm saying is, I think by law, nobody under the age of 16 should be allowed to be Baptised or Confermed.


What are your thoughts?


it makes a good red..:)

[scarletghoul]

If you're an atheist then why do you care whether you are baptised or not? Surely it is meaningless

[Revy]

Sup,

As a Child I was forced into the hands of Christianity, like many people.

At 1 years old I was Baptised. Which I had no say in the matter.
At 12 years old I was confermed with my permission. Only to later come to realise that I never understood religion at the age of 12.

My Political belief is that there should be a restrictment on age that a person is allowed to be Baptised/Confermed/anything similar

I believe forcing/encouraging a child to follow the path of a "religion", is a strong form of Mental Abuse.

I'm now an Athiest and dident really understand religion until about the age of 16/17

What I'm saying is, I think by law, nobody under the age of 16 should be allowed to be Baptised or Confermed.


What are your thoughts?

sorry but baptism is just a meaningless ritual that you will not remember with all certainty.

It is nothing like circumcision, and I think some restrictions on THAT might be justified.

[Lynx]

You get to be a born-again Atheist. Rejoice!

[Dr Mindbender]

My understanding is that most religions claim that children are incapable of 'sin', therefore the act of baptising them is meaningless anyway.

[Decolonize The Left]

Sup,

As a Child I was forced into the hands of Christianity, like many people.

At 1 years old I was Baptised. Which I had no say in the matter.
At 12 years old I was confermed with my permission. Only to later come to realise that I never understood religion at the age of 12.

My Political belief is that there should be a restrictment on age that a person is allowed to be Baptised/Confermed/anything similar

I believe forcing/encouraging a child to follow the path of a "religion", is a strong form of Mental Abuse.

I'm now an Athiest and dident really understand religion until about the age of 16/17

What I'm saying is, I think by law, nobody under the age of 16 should be allowed to be Baptised or Confermed.


What are your thoughts?

I understand where you're coming from, but as others have mentioned, baptism is so absurd that legislating against it would be counter-productive.

- August

[Communist Theory]

I've dwelled on this a bit but realized it wouldn't matter anyways.

[Demogorgon]

The water does not burn, does it? Nothing should be banned unless there is good reason to ban it. Baptism does no harm whatsoever. Only those who believe in God believe it has any significance.

[PCommie]

Religion sparks wars, look at the Middle East. Of course, churches should be absolutely abolished and counter-religious programmes installed at all schools. It's bullshit to indoctrinate kids from their birth that some sky wizard made their soul or some BS, and that if they don't live like he wants, they'll burn in hell. If God really existed, he would be an enemy of communists.

H&S forever,
-PC

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The water does not burn, does it? Nothing should be banned unless there is good reason to ban it. Baptism does no harm whatsoever. Only those who believe in God believe it has any significance.

Being baptised can be a meaningless little ceremony conducted by well-meaning parents of lukewarm faith. No real objections here, it has about as much significance to the one being baptised as a birthday party, less even.

On the other hand, it could form part of a "package deal" of childhood indoctrination, albeit one of the more inconsequential parts. While I'm thinking that any attempt to regulate the activity of baptism itself will most likely be an abysmal failure (and even it were to "succeed" it wouldn't achieve much), I still think there is a lot more that could be done to prevent parents from hobbling the development of children's critical faculties - getting rid of faith schools (especially schools like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4946222.stm)) would be a step in the right direction.

[Le Libérer]

Baptism is more for the parents, than the child who doesnt fully understand what they are doing. After all who wants their child burning in hell in case their God decides to use his will and take the child from this world.

How do you legislate that? (sarcasm)

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

If you burn down the churches they'll have to ritually crush children elswhere.

Baptism/Christening is just a virtually meaningless ceremony but it has symbolic weight it means you are "claimed" by a faith even if you do not hold it strongly.

This I call "weak faith" it is characterised by those who are pushed into a faith as children or parents who push they're children into religion then allow them "to choose" after they have undertaken primary/secondary socialisation at the hands of a faith. This is opposed to "strong faith" which is actively practised faith or "extreme faith" which is getting into the suicide bomber, Abu Hamza and Ted Haggard end of the spectrum.

Victims of weak faith will tend to find the religion they were pushed into as children colours their morals for the rest of their life as the moral code was programmed into them at an age when their minds were set up not to question it.

This can be the most insidious form of the disease of faith. The kind that is not self recognising, the generational passing of moral inflexiblity by "harmless" religious indoctrination in childhood between non-practicing parents and their children.

As such I think Baptism should be actively discouraged if not banned as damaging to children's independant moral development.

Of course people could just wake up, smell the coffee and declare fuck religion all together in a remarkable show of intellectual freedom from the chains of religious delusion.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Religion sparks wars, look at the Middle East.
Oil sparks wars too - again look at the Middle East. Should we ban oil? Or for that matter, sparks spark house fires that kill people. Should we ban sparks?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oil sparks wars too - again look at the Middle East. Should we ban oil? Or for that matter, sparks spark house fires that kill people. Should we ban sparks?

Oil and sparks have legitimate uses, unlike religion.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Oil and sparks have legitimate uses, unlike religion.
Who decides what is a legitimate use?

Should all dangerous things without "legitimate uses" be banned?


As such I think Baptism should be actively discouraged if not banned as damaging to children's independant moral development.
There is no such thing as independent moral development.

We humans, by virtue of our biology, are faced with the fact that we must live in a society with other humans before we are old enough to make fully informed decisions about how we wish to live our lives. We must therefore learn rules of behaviour (aka "morality") before we are old enough to decide for ourselves how we wish to behave.

Many stupid political ideas - usually libertarian ones - are stupid precisely because they fail to recognize this simple fact. All humans start out as children. Children will inevitably be heavily influenced in their development by the people who raise them (their parents, their guardians, the village, the commune, whatever). By the time you're old enough to decide what you want to do and who you want to be, a lot of your development has already been decided for you by other people. There is no way around this. Children cannot be kept in a "blank slate" condition for ten or fifteen years until they're old enough to decide their own morality. SOME kind of morality - some kind of rules of behaviour - will have to be taught to them at an early age. The best we can do is allow them to reject that morality later. But we cannot refrain from giving it to them when they are young.

For supposedly open-minded individuals, anti-theists have a disturbingly paternalistic view when it comes to religion. We can't allow religious propaganda, you see, because people have fragile, gullible minds and must be carefully protected from nasty lies. :rolleyes:

[Decolonize The Left]

For supposedly open-minded individuals, anti-theists have a disturbingly paternalistic view when it comes to religion. We can't allow religious propaganda, you see, because people have fragile, gullible minds and must be carefully protected from nasty lies. :rolleyes:

(As an aside, I agree that there is no independent moral development.)

Quite the contrary, it is we, as anti-theists (and to a greater degree atheists) who have been bombarded and assaulted with religious propaganda and indoctrination throughout history. Atheists have a history of persecution as 'heretics' and 'non-believers' by religious individuals who take their position of authority for granted. It is not from 'god' that priests acquired power, it is from years and years of mental rape and pillaging of all forms of free-thought and spontaneous creativity.

And then, to have a religious individual get upset when anti-theists or atheists do exactly what religious individuals have done for centuries - that is, speak their beliefs and oppose others, theists get touchy?

A bit of hypocrisy is to be expected from the religious, but such blatant and child-like ignorance was thought to have been lost with the slow decline of religion over the years....

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who decides what is a legitimate use?

You tell me. What legitimate use does religion have that could not just as easily be replaced with secular functions?


Should all dangerous things without "legitimate uses" be banned?

So you admit that religion is dangerous? There may be hope for you yet.


For supposedly open-minded individuals, anti-theists have a disturbingly paternalistic view when it comes to religion. We can't allow religious propaganda, you see, because people have fragile, gullible minds and must be carefully protected from nasty lies. :rolleyes:

If one is taught from a very young age that Jesus is Lord and that people who question or reject that burn in Hell, it's pretty hard to be a freethinker later in life.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

AugustWest:


Quite the contrary, it is we, as anti-theists (and to a greater degree atheists) who have been bombarded and assaulted with religious propaganda and indoctrination throughout history. Atheists have a history of persecution as 'heretics' and 'non-believers' by religious individuals who take their position of authority for granted.
Since "religious individuals" are not a class, nor a single interest group, nor any other kind of cohesive social category with its own distinct goals and interests, I refuse to accept any kind of collective responsibility for the past actions of some other random religious individuals who have nothing to do with me.

It is misleading to say that "atheists have been oppressed by religious people," because atheists and religious people are not social classes. It would be more correct to say that ruling classes have oppressed working classes, and that, in the past, ruling classes have usually claimed to follow various religions. Atheists were extremely rare until the Enlightenment, and the few atheists who did exist tended to be relatively well-off intellectuals and professionals - not exactly the most oppressed people in the world.

Nearly everywhere and at all times, religion was equally prevalent among the oppressors and the oppressed. And until very recently, atheism was more of an imaginary enemy postulated by religious people than a real phenomenon. Most heretics and "non-believers" were in reality believers in a different religion.


It is not from 'god' that priests acquired power, it is from years and years of mental rape and pillaging of all forms of free-thought and spontaneous creativity.
Raping and pillaging is generally defined as something involving coercion. Swords and guns come to mind. As long as priests use only words, your metaphor is absurd.


And then, to have a religious individual get upset when anti-theists or atheists do exactly what religious individuals have done for centuries - that is, speak their beliefs and oppose others, theists get touchy?
I never said anything against atheists speaking their beliefs and opposing others. Everyone should be free to engage in both pro- and anti-religious propaganda as they wish. I was criticizing anti-theists who propose to use repressive measures against religious believers on the flimsy excuse that, essentially, ideas kill people (while guns don't, apparently, since they're not suggesting we ban guns).

The idea that we should do exactly what the enemy has done in the past is also a bit dubious in itself. Our enemies, the ruling classes, have owned private property for centuries and exploited us. Does that mean that when we take their property, we should own it privately and turn them into a new exploited working class? Um, no. Revolution isn't about some kind of great historical vengeance. It's about creating a new kind of society. (though I admit vengeance against the bourgeoisie would be satisfying, it must only be carried out in ways that serve the goal of building socialism)


NoXion:


You tell me. What legitimate use does religion have that could not just as easily be replaced with secular functions?
Like I said, first you have to define what makes a use "legitimate." But if you'll let me define it, ok. A legitimate use is any use that does not result in the material exploitation of some people by others, does not cause quantifiable harm to unwilling parties, and does not go against democratically established norms.

Religion does not do any of those things, therefore it's legitimate. People should be free to put whatever they want in their minds, just as they should be free to put whatever they want in their bodies. Religion provides a useful recreational service, as valid in a secular society as computer games or soap operas.

Maybe you could replace it with something else, but that is as ridiculous and paternalistic as saying "why should we allow people to play this game or take this drug when we could replace it with something else?"


So you admit that religion is dangerous? There may be hope for you yet.
Of course it can be dangerous, but don't misunderstand me, I tend to like dangerous ideas. Especially when they are dangerous to established class society, like Marxism is and like religion can be, if used properly.


If one is taught from a very young age that Jesus is Lord and that people who question or reject that burn in Hell, it's pretty hard to be a freethinker later in life.
Well yes, but this is only a specific case of a more general truth:

If one is taught X from a very young age, it's pretty hard for them to question X later in life. Hard, but not impossible, mind you - as attested by the large numbers of atheists who were raised in religious families.

The problem is, as I said in my earlier post about the myth of "independent moral development," we can't leave children as blank slates for ten to fifteen years until they can make up their own minds. We have to tell them something at a young age. I think the decision about what to tell them on moral and religious issues should be decentralized and left up to the people in charge of raising those children (whether they be parents or some sort of communal body).

On another note, don't underestimate the role of peer pressure on adults. A child raised as a religious fundamentalist in the United States has a much higher chance of rejecting religion as an adult than a child raised as a religious fundamentalist in Saudi Arabia. If we get rid of the peer pressure on adults to conform, that is enough. It will make it sufficiently easy to change your religion or reject it once you reach maturity.

[Demogorgon]

If one is taught from a very young age that Jesus is Lord and that people who question or reject that burn in Hell, it's pretty hard to be a freethinker later in life.
That would rather depend on what you mean by free thinker. If you mean a genuinely free thinking person open to all ideas, you might be right, but not for the reasons you think you are.

If, as I think, you mean rejecting religion, then no. The most fanatically anti-religious people are often those who were raised amongst religious fundamentalists and have reacted to it in quite an extreme way. I agree they may not be free thinkers because they will end up refusing to consider any religious thought and might even want to ban religion.

In fact, the environment most likely to produce free thinking people is either an ordinarily secular one or else a mildly religious one. If you are baptised and consider yourself Christian but thereafter only darken the doors of a church for weddings, funerals and baptisms then you are unlikely to have particularly strong feelings on the matter and are therefore more likely to be open minded.

I really dislike the notion of banning this and that because we must "protect" people from "lies". People need to make their own mind up about things. Those who are religious tend to fall into the category either of those who to all intents and purposes are as secular as I am but simply retain membership in a church out of habit and don't bother thinking about religion and those who have religion because they have a need for it. The former group are hardly likely to significantly influenced by religion in any way, are they? And as for the latter group, religion holds a particular social role that they obviously need. "The hear of a heartless world" and all that. You aren't going to solve their problems by taking away their source of comfort.

Incidentally, as an aside, this talk of "lies" is absurd anyway. A lie is a deliberate falsehood, not an honest mistake. Unless religious clerics are secret atheists preaching religion out of malice then religion is not a lie.

Overall though, remember that dictatorship after dictatorship has tried banning the spreading of certain ideas in order to stamp them out and protect themselves and have yet to succeed. The reason is that ideas are powerless on their own, it is the reasons people hold them that matter. If you ban religion without removing the reasons people desire religion you will achieve nothing and moreover even if you ban religion while removing the reasons people follow religion you will still have committed an act of oppression, restricting activities people are allowed to engage in and ironically will create a new reason for people needing religion.

[mikelepore]

As such I think Baptism should be actively discouraged if not banned as damaging to children's independant moral development.

I don't have a strong opinion about the ritual of sprinkling water on a baby's head, but it's the years of religious indoctrination that concern me. I lean toward saying that here should be some social controls over the practice of parents teaching their children ideas that are only speculations while telling them that they are certain facts. Doing that seems to me like a form of mental abuse.

[Decolonize The Left]

Since "religious individuals" are not a class, nor a single interest group, nor any other kind of cohesive social category with its own distinct goals and interests, I refuse to accept any kind of collective responsibility for the past actions of some other random religious individuals who have nothing to do with me.

I was not attributing the actions of past theists to you personally, I was demonstrating the historical political and social dominance of religious thinking - and hence it's oppression of opposing modes of thought.


It is misleading to say that "atheists have been oppressed by religious people," because atheists and religious people are not social classes. It would be more correct to say that ruling classes have oppressed working classes, and that, in the past, ruling classes have usually claimed to follow various religions. Atheists were extremely rare until the Enlightenment, and the few atheists who did exist tended to be relatively well-off intellectuals and professionals - not exactly the most oppressed people in the world.

There exist other forms of oppression other than the class struggle. While class struggle may be the most encompassing and hence the most potentially revolutionary form of oppression, it makes no claims to the word itself. Women have been oppressed for centuries because they are women - no matter their class.

Likewise, atheists have been oppressed for many years by the religious institutions and governments which support them. Their ideas were not tolerated, nor encouraged, until fairly recently. This sort of 'framing' of the debate in terms of which god is correct (rather than questioning an absurd existence in itself) has led to atheists being silenced.


Nearly everywhere and at all times, religion was equally prevalent among the oppressors and the oppressed. And until very recently, atheism was more of an imaginary enemy postulated by religious people than a real phenomenon. Most heretics and "non-believers" were in reality believers in a different religion.

You seem to make religion out to be non-casual. As though it plays no role what-so-ever in history. Perhaps you would be interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict? I ask this sarcastically as I know that you are well versed in this situation and will certainly (and rightly) adopt a class perspective. It is not here that I disagree. It is in the fact that religion is used to justify the warfare that makes it a part of history.


Raping and pillaging is generally defined as something involving coercion. Swords and guns come to mind. As long as priests use only words, your metaphor is absurd.

Ever look behind the priest? There's usually a bunch of folks with guns and swords...
http://www.theblackboxspeaks.org/images/crusaders-raiding.jpg



I never said anything against atheists speaking their beliefs and opposing others. Everyone should be free to engage in both pro- and anti-religious propaganda as they wish. I was criticizing anti-theists who propose to use repressive measures against religious believers on the flimsy excuse that, essentially, ideas kill people (while guns don't, apparently, since they're not suggesting we ban guns).

I don't promote any sort of repressive measures, or even discriminatory measures, against theists. I'm simply noting that it's highly hypocritical for theists to complain about repression from atheists.

- August

[mel]

I don't promote any sort of repressive measures, or even discriminatory measures, against theists. I'm simply noting that it's highly hypocritical for theists to complain about repression from atheists.

- August

No, it would be highly hypocritical for theists who have engaged in oppressive or repressive measures against atheists to complain about repression. Being a member of a group of people does not make you responsible for the thoughts or actions of the other members of that group of people, past, present, or future. An individual theist who has not engaged in repression of atheists or atheism has every right to complain if an atheist attempts to repress their thoughts or beliefs.

[Decolonize The Left]

No, it would be highly hypocritical for theists who have engaged in oppressive or repressive measures against atheists to complain about repression. Being a member of a group of people does not make you responsible for the thoughts or actions of the other members of that group of people, past, present, or future. An individual theist who has not engaged in repression of atheists or atheism has every right to complain if an atheist attempts to repress their thoughts or beliefs.

To a certain degree, but all actions take place within a context. For example, if a male feels oppressed by a female in the context of socio-cultural domestic relations, it is important for that male to acknowledge the context of said supposed oppression. It may not, in fact, be oppression.

Theists, who hold a position of authority and superiority in almost every single culture and state in the world, speak from a position of privilege. Their ludicrous ideas have been accepted as truth and perpetuated through conditioning and indoctrination for centuries. Atheists, on the other hand, have been marginalized and silenced during these times. For theists to speak of repression is to ignore the entire history through which their ideas have gained power or it is to discount this history in favor of some pathetic appeal to 'freedom.'

The truth is that when most theists speak about freedom, they generally mean freedom to choose a certain religion or another (if that - often times it's to choose a sect within a given religion). They do not speak of the alternative of atheism - and for good reason, it challenges their prejudices and illusions.

The truth is that challenging ideas isn't repression.

- August

[mel]

To a certain degree, but all actions take place within a context. For example, if a male feels oppressed by a female in the context of socio-cultural domestic relations, it is important for that male to acknowledge the context of said supposed oppression. It may not, in fact, be oppression.

Theists, who hold a position of authority and superiority in almost every single culture and state in the world, speak from a position of privilege. Their ludicrous ideas have been accepted as truth and perpetuated through conditioning and indoctrination for centuries. Atheists, on the other hand, have been marginalized and silenced during these times. For theists to speak of repression is to ignore the entire history through which their ideas have gained power or it is to discount this history in favor of some pathetic appeal to 'freedom.'

The truth is that when most theists speak about freedom, they generally mean freedom to choose a certain religion or another (if that - often times it's to choose a sect within a given religion). They do not speak of the alternative of atheism - and for good reason, it challenges their prejudices and illusions.

The truth is that challenging ideas isn't repression.

- August

I understand your sentiment here, but at least in this community, when talking about a post-revolutionary society, the anti-theists talk about active repression (and they use that word themselves) of religious thought and belief. In the situation where a person is advocating the repression of religious thought, I believe a theist has every right to challenge this repression, and even complain about it were it to be enacted, if they have not personally attempted to or succeeded in repressing atheistic thoughts or beliefs.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Theists, who hold a position of authority and superiority in almost every single culture and state in the world, speak from a position of privilege.
That is flat out wrong. In almost every single culture and state in the world, theists are equally prevalent among oppressors and oppressed alike. How, pray tell, is a religious working class immigrant woman in the United States "in a position of privilege?" How are devout Muslims in Switzerland "in a position of privilege?" How are Jews in Iran "in a position of privilege?" How are Muslims in Israel "in a position of privilege?" How is the Falun Gong in China "in a position of privilege?"

Some theists are in a position of privilege. Most are not.

And the fact that in most cases, theists are oppressed by other theists only goes to support my point: That "theists," in general, are not a single power bloc or interest group of any kind.


Atheists, on the other hand, have been marginalized and silenced during these times. For theists to speak of repression is to ignore the entire history through which their ideas have gained power or it is to discount this history in favor of some pathetic appeal to 'freedom.'
While it is true that various theist groups have been responsible for great oppression throughout history, the vast majority of such oppression was directed against rival theist groups and not against atheists.

I am not convinced that atheists have been marginalized and silenced for most of history because I'm not convinced that atheists even existed - besides a handful of philosophers - before the 18th century.


The truth is that when most theists speak about freedom, they generally mean freedom to choose a certain religion or another (if that - often times it's to choose a sect within a given religion). They do not speak of the alternative of atheism - and for good reason, it challenges their prejudices and illusions.
That is an unwarranted generalization. I am a theist, and I explicitly acknowledge the freedom to be an atheist as part of religious freedom. None of the other theists I personally know in real life propose any kind of limit on the freedom to be an atheist.


You seem to make religion out to be non-casual. As though it plays no role what-so-ever in history. Perhaps you would be interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict? I ask this sarcastically as I know that you are well versed in this situation and will certainly (and rightly) adopt a class perspective. It is not here that I disagree. It is in the fact that religion is used to justify the warfare that makes it a part of history.
Very true. Religion has been used to justify warfare, and all kinds of oppression. However, it is likely that the warfare and oppression in question would have existed anyway, with or without religion.

Of course the history of the world would not have been the same without religion. But the differences would be in the details, not in the big picture. This or that specific battle or massacre would not have happened, but battles and massacres in general would have remained just as prevalent. Women and various ethnic groups would have still been oppressed, the working classes would have still been oppressed, and the succession of modes of production would have been the same.

I do not claim that religion has no effects on history at all. I claim that its effects are only in the details, and not in the general trends.

I also claim that it's impossible to know exactly if a world without religion would have been better or worse, for the same reason it's impossible to tell if the weather outside today would have been better or worse if the tilt of the Earth's axis were different by two degrees: The system involved is FAR too complicated and chaotic for simple predictions.


Ever look behind the priest? There's usually a bunch of folks with guns and swords...
...sometimes. And sometimes not.


I don't promote any sort of repressive measures, or even discriminatory measures, against theists.

The truth is that challenging ideas isn't repression.
Of course. Which is why, as far as the legal status of religion and atheism is concerned, you and I are in complete agreement.

[trivas7]

That is flat out wrong. In almost every single culture and state in the world, theists are equally prevalent among oppressors and oppressed alike. How, pray tell, is a religious working class immigrant woman in the United States "in a position of privilege?" How are devout Muslims in Switzerland "in a position of privilege?" How are Jews in Iran "in a position of privilege?" How are Muslims in Israel "in a position of privilege?" How is the Falun Gong in China "in a position of privilege?"

IMO the point is that all repressive government is legitimized by religion. Of course most theists are disempowered -- and their religion teaches that they stay that way.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

IMO the point is that all repressive government is legitimized by religion.
China? Turkey? France? Myanmar?


Of course most theists are disempowered -- and their religion teaches that they stay that way.
Among the examples I gave were Muslims in Israel and the Falun Gong in China. They are anything but docile.

[trivas7]

China? Turkey? France? Myanmar?

Indeed, all those countries have long religious traditions.


Among the examples I gave were Muslims in Israel and the Falun Gong in China. They are anything but docile.
Neither of these religious groups challenge the legitimacy of the state they reside in.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Indeed, all those countries have long religious traditions.
Every place on Earth has long religious traditions. By that logic, we might as well claim that any revolutionary society is legitimized by religion, since all future revolutionary societies will inevitably be established in places with long religious traditions.

My point was that the states I listed are secular, and sometimes outspokenly so (e.g. China, France, Turkey).


Neither of these religious groups challenge the legitimacy of the state they reside in.
Plenty of Palestinian Muslims do. But in any case, you've set some pretty high standards there. It's rare for any group in general to challenge the legitimacy of the state it resides in.

[trivas7]

Plenty of Palestinian Muslims do. But in any case, you've set some pretty high standards there. It's rare for any group in general to challenge the legitimacy of the state it resides in.
^You're right, my bad. Plenty of Palestinian Muslims do.

My point is that religion is overwhelmingly a reactionary material force in all societies.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Religion is a powerful tool of a victimising elite that makes people dangerous in a way that can only be paralelled by being trapped with rabid boar in shipping containers half full of burning gasoline and crystal meth.

Rituals persist because the opposition to religion refuses to attatch the same relevance to religion's expression as it's supporters.

If somebody thinks that dunking a kids head in water ties them in etenal servitude to a delusional fantasy then I think it's important to remove that kid from that situation. There is no one single act that pushes children into religious delusion it is a procession of virtually meaningless rituals.

Thus there is no such thing as a harmless ritual.

This is because the mind is a powerful thing and the most important method of allowing somebody freedom is to let them decide on the input to their mind for themselves in full knowledge of the meaning of their action. For there are no bindings more powerfully restrictive than those we place on ourselves out of delusion, ignorance and fear. (An example of this is the slave who is party to his oppression by refusing to aid his fellows in escape for fear of retribution.)

Any ritualistic act attempting to tie a child in chains of ritual, deference, guilt and shame is not an act promoting such freedom and as such I oppose it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Religion is a powerful tool of a victimising elite that makes people dangerous in a way that can only be paralelled by being trapped with rabid boar in shipping containers half full of burning gasoline and crystal meth.
Oh really now? Scary people say scary things, and they're going to shatter our poor little fragile egos? :rolleyes:


If somebody thinks that dunking a kids head in water ties them in etenal servitude to a delusional fantasy then I think it's important to remove that kid from that situation. There is no one single act that pushes children into religious delusion it is a procession of virtually meaningless rituals.

Thus there is no such thing as a harmless ritual.
I hereby proclaim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has revealed great wisdom to me, His chosen messenger on this Earth. He spoke to me with a booming voice from a pasta dish, and said "Lo, My people shall be known by their eating habits. He who once eats spaghetti with meatballs after the clock has struck eight in the evening has declared his allegiance to Me, and shall be Mine forever, and shall be touched by My noodly appendage in the hereafter. Teach this to your children, and let them teach it unto their children from now to the end of time."

Joking aside, if there actually were people who believed the above, should we then move against parents giving their children spaghetti with meatballs after 8 pm, because it's a pastafarian ritual?

Sure, eating spaghetti with meatballs is a common behavior that is done all the time without religious undertones - but so is splashing someone's head with water. Anything can become a ritual, even the most ordinary, mundane things.

A ritual is in the eye of the beholder - or the mind of the believer, if you will. Something that is a ritual to me may not be a ritual to you. If you don't share my beliefs, then my rituals are meaningless to you. Baptism is just an elaborate way to wash your face. It is ridiculous beyond all reason to claim that children should be protected from having their faces washed in funny ways. They might believe their parents' stories in the short run, but won't they grow up? Won't they have minds to think for themselves?


This is because the mind is a powerful thing and the most important method of allowing somebody freedom is to let them decide on the input to their mind for themselves in full knowledge of the meaning of their action.
If my washing your face in a ritualistic way is enough to rob you of your freedom to decide things for yourself, then your mind must be so weak that you'll believe just about anything and you're a lost cause anyway.


For there are no bindings more powerfully restrictive than those we place on ourselves out of delusion, ignorance and fear.
And if someone is deluded, ignorant, or fearful because of stories they heard in their childhood, that's their problem. If, as an adult, you're still scared by supernatural stories your parents told you as a kid, you've got serious psychological issues. There are very, very few people so weak-willed that they cannot change their childhood beliefs after they reach adulthood. To assume that most people are like that is frankly an insult to the human species. Haven't you changed some of the beliefs you held as a child? Haven't we all?

People can think for themselves. If they don't think what you believe they should think, persuade them. But don't pretend that they're under some sort of mind control and would agree with you if only they hadn't been brainwashed.

It seems that some militant atheists will go to any lengths to excuse their own failure to persuade people away from religion. And the irony is, many of them were raised religious but rejected faith as adults - which only goes to support my point.

[Demogorgon]

If somebody thinks that dunking a kids head in water ties them in etenal servitude to a delusional fantasy then I think it's important to remove that kid from that situation.
In predominantly christian countries most children are baptised. Indeed it will generally be more common to receive baptism than to not receive it. Are you saying all those children are being harmed? Really?

And are you honestly saying it would be better if all of those children were deprived of their parents? There have been cases of children being removed en masse from their parents before because it was thought better for them. Ever heard of the Stolen Generation? But so far as I know there has never been such a removal on the scale you are proposing. And for what? A harmless ritual?

I know perfectly well some people let their hatred of religion run away with their rationality, but can we at least try to maintain a sense of perspective?

[Manxboz]

Oil and sparks have legitimate uses, unlike religion.

Religion has legitimate uses, i helps many people wake up in the morning and carry on with their life.

[Decolonize The Left]

Religion has legitimate uses, i helps many people wake up in the morning and carry on with their life.

You sure? I use coffee for that purpose...

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Religion has legitimate uses, i helps many people wake up in the morning and carry on with their life.

So you're saying that most people can't get up in the morning without some kind of mental crutch to keep them going? I guess I have more confidence in the potential reasoning capabilities of people than you do.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The universe, as it stands, provides us with no purpose for our existence. You atheists often say that people should find their own purposes. Fair enough, but how is making up a purpose out of thin air any less of a crutch than religion?

What keeps us all waking up in the morning is the thought that our existence is somehow more important than the existence of a pile of mud. I do not see anything in the universe to support that thought.

[Trystan]

The purpose of life is life.

Anyway, I don't think that splashing some water on a baby's forehead while muttering a load of Latin gibberish warrants any restrictions. I was baptised and both my parents are non-believers. When children become literate that's when all the indoctrination takes place . . .

[Kronos]

Fair enough, but how is making up a purpose out of thin air any less of a crutch than religion?

You seem to think that knowing the universe is not teleological gives one a limp, and therefore giving oneself the purpose of, say, washing the dishes, is the equivalent of adopting a belief that promises otherworldly redemption from this world.

Washing dishes is doing what you can with what you got. Christianity is doing what you can't do with what you don't have.

Anyway, what was the initial stimulus for this ancient idealism? Perhaps it was a deep rooted feeling of despair for this world. Some people find that the world is brutal and unforgiving, struggle to preserve themselves from this, but fail. It might follow that they begin to besmirch this world....and claim there is another one beyond it. Ah....but what would have happened if these same people were strong enough to preserve themselves? Would they have had the need, the inclination, to invent an imaginary world?

The "purpose" of life is lacking, but the potential is there. Only, the world has to come to terms with what it is capable of doing. Creating better life, and expanding it throughout the galaxy..if not the universe. One way to fail miserably at this goal is to spend centuries on Earth arguing over who's God is cooler.

Of course, religious people won't ever be the ones who make a substantial difference in anything. They are more or less stock....those who believe what they are taught to believe, remain more or less passive and obedient, and help each other with yard work.

[Decolonize The Left]

The universe, as it stands, provides us with no purpose for our existence. You atheists often say that people should find their own purposes.

The biological purpose of life is reproduction and the furthering of one's genes. This is fairly straight-forward.

What we seem to be debating here is the existential purpose of life, which, as you note, is up for debate. The question at hand is indeed:
Fair enough, but how is making up a purpose out of thin air any less of a crutch than religion?

The difference is in the relationship between the purpose and material reality. If I decide that the purpose of my life is to, say, write novels, and the religious person decides that the purpose of their life is to serve god, there is a huge difference.
The major difference is that the I can judge my purpose based on material reality - how is my novel going? How were my previous novels? Am I pleased with the aesthetic of my novels? How do they relate to other novels which I enjoy? The religious individual has no material basis for their purpose, everything is metaphysical and abstract. 'God's will' varies according to religion. 'God's will' is subject to change according to the church's interpretation at the time. 'God's will' may not even exist - whereas my novels certainly do, I'm holding them.


What keeps us all waking up in the morning is the thought that our existence is somehow more important than the existence of a pile of mud. I do not see anything in the universe to support that thought.

No, our existence is certainly not anymore important than a pile of mud in terms of universal importance, but this ignores a fundamental reality - that "importance" is determined by human beings; it only matters to us.

Hence the reality that the universe is meaningless and absurd is irrelevant. We are not concerned with that because we are fundamentally meaning-making creatures. We must create our meaning. The question is what type of meaning will we create?

The argument I am offering here is that the religious meaning is weaker than the non-religious meaning due to it's disassociation from material reality.

- August

[Kronos]

The biological purpose of life is reproduction and the furthering of one's genes. This is fairly straight-forward.And yet even this Aristotlean final cause is misguided. We can only say that life, when it reproduces, furthers the genotype. But we cannot say that the purpose of this action is what results after it.

Consider this: let's say that the real purpose of life was to reproduce itself not so it was reproduced, but so oxygen would be consumed in breathing and Cheetos would be eaten. There is absolutely no difference in calling the purpose of reproduction the reproduction of genes and calling the purpose of reproduction the consumption of oxygen and Cheetos- both formally result from the action. How would we know which was the purpose of the act of reproducing?

We cannot.

[Decolonize The Left]

And yet even this Aristotlean final cause is misguided. We can only say that life, when it reproduces, furthers the genotype. But we cannot say that the purpose of this action is what results after it.

Consider this: let's say that the real purpose of life was to reproduce itself not so it was reproduced, but so oxygen would be consumed in breathing and Cheetos would be eaten. There is absolutely no difference in calling the purpose of reproduction the reproduction of genes and calling the purpose of reproduction the consumption of oxygen and Cheetos- both formally result from the action. How would we know which was the purpose of the act of reproducing?

We cannot.

Interesting. Consider though that life cannot exist without reproduction - That is to say that nothing lives 'forever.' Given this fact, reproduction must necessarily be the purpose of life given that without this fundamental action, it would cease to be.

Thoughts?

- August

[Kronos]

If we say that a cold drink isn't possible without the use of ice cubes, does that imply that the purpose of water is to be frozen?

See the same principle here? Because life would cease to be without reproduction, and therefore reproduction is the purpose of life, is the same as asserting that cold drinks would cease to be cold without ice cubes, and therefore the purpose of water is to be frozen.

I dunno. I just pulled that analogy out of my ass. What do you think?

Also, from another angle, we could ask if the purpose of the configurations of proteins and amino acids was DNA....and we would have to apply the same principle in our reasoning. Now, the "purpose of life" is not the question, but the purpose of proteins and amino acids. Next we could take the matter further and ask the same about the elements that compose the proteins and amino acids.

You see what I mean. Ultimately we end up asking about the purpose of the sub-atomic world....and this will make us dizzy.

[Bud Struggle]

Do you think even biologically there is a "purpose?" Why does bhiology have to imply some sort of causation. It kind of just has to "happen."

Why should there be a biological urge to reproduce? I don't mind people saying there is no God--I do mind there being purposes without a purpose maker.

[Decolonize The Left]

If we say that a cold drink isn't possible without the use of ice cubes, does that imply that the purpose of water is to be frozen?

See the same principle here? Because life would cease to be without reproduction, and therefore reproduction is the purpose of life, is the same as asserting that cold drinks would cease to be cold without ice cubes, and therefore the purpose of water is to be frozen.

I dunno. I just pulled that analogy out of my ass. What do you think?

Also, from another angle, we could ask if the purpose of the configurations of proteins and amino acids was DNA....and we would have to apply the same principle in our reasoning. Now, the "purpose of life" is not the question, but the purpose of proteins and amino acids. Next we could take the matter further and ask the same about the elements that compose the proteins and amino acids.

You see what I mean. Ultimately we end up asking about the purpose of the sub-atomic world....and this will make us dizzy.

"Purpose" generally connotes a subject, and I believe this is why we're at such a dead-end. What I am doing here is drawing a conclusion from observable phenomena (or, rather, relating this conclusion). As far as we know, all life seeks to reproduce - or, perhaps a better phrasing, all life engages in processes of reproduction. We are then infering from this fact that the purpose of life is this reproduction.

You are correct that this inference may not be valid, as (makes me think of Nietzsche's reference to causality) we cannot be certain of the cause at hand. But, with that said, we are forced to make sense of our situation and it would appear safe to claim that the purpose of life is reproduction - noting that this claim is an anthropomorphism.

- August

[Kronos]

You are correct that this inference may not be valid, as (makes me think of Nietzsche's reference to causality) we cannot be certain of the cause at hand. But, with that said, we are forced to make sense of our situation and it would appear safe to claim that the purpose of life is reproduction - noting that this claim is an anthropomorphism.

Fair enough. Though we agree that this is, as The Moustache put it, a "useful fiction".

[Bud Struggle]

we are forced to make sense of our situation and it would appear safe to claim that the purpose of life is reproduction

I don't see why that would be.

[Trystan]

As far as we know, all life seeks to reproduce - or, perhaps a better phrasing, all life engages in processes of reproduction. We are then infering from this fact that the purpose of life is this reproduction.



Really? That's interesting because personally I don't plan to have any children. And many go through life choosing not to reproduce, for whatever reason. So . . . either I'm some freak of nature, or all life does not seek to reproduce.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The universe, as it stands, provides us with no purpose for our existence. You atheists often say that people should find their own purposes. Fair enough, but how is making up a purpose out of thin air any less of a crutch than religion?

I've noticed that most people rarely, if ever, simply make a purpose for themselves out of thin air. Instead, people raise families, pursue careers, engage in hobbies and entertainment, study science, argue philosophy, collect things, follow and/or play sports, lots of things. In short, most people seem to be too busy actually living their lives to worry if the universe is validating them or not.


What keeps us all waking up in the morning is the thought that our existence is somehow more important than the existence of a pile of mud. I do not see anything in the universe to support that thought.How about the amazing fact that you even exist at all? Isn't your existance important to yourself as well as the people that you know and love? Don't you want to find out as much about this beautiful, terrifying, kaleidoscopic and indifferent universe as possible? Are you telling me that you need the universe to acknowledge your existance in order for you to maintain any interest in continuing to exist?

[the last donut of the night]

You tell me. What legitimate use does religion have that could not just as easily be replaced with secular functions?

Yes, we can. You can try as hard as you can to eradicate the world of religion. Go ahead. But all humans have a tendency to look for a supernatural force, being, existence. It might not be monotheism, but it's spiritualism, something that leads to religion. Trying to eradicate religion from society will do you no good. It creates a gap. Look at the USSR; after its destruction, and even though many children had been brainwashed, religion made a comeback. It won't work.

[the last donut of the night]

How about the amazing fact that you even exist at all? Isn't your existance important to yourself as well as the people that you know and love? Don't you want to find out as much about this beautiful, terrifying, kaleidoscopic and indifferent universe as possible? Are you telling me that you need the universe to acknowledge your existance in order for you to maintain any interest in continuing to exist?

Without a God, we are merely intelligent apes. Without God, we have no reason to help others out or do good. What good is an infinite Universe without God behind it? It's just an accident and it's beautiful by accident. It could be ugly as shit and that would be that, by accident. We exist by accident, according to your ideas, and we could be piles of mud by accident. So why bother? Well, you certainly do. Why? Because beneath every atheist's hard shell there is God. The atheist can't recognize him or doesn't want to, so he/she just prattles on about how existence is beautiful and why we should admire this cornucopia of accidents. It's simply not true.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, we can. You can try as hard as you can to eradicate the world of religion. Go ahead. But all humans have a tendency to look for a supernatural force, being, existence. It might not be monotheism, but it's spiritualism, something that leads to religion.

If that was true, then there would be no such thing as an atheist, except in the purely technical sense. Yet there are plenty of atheists who also reject all forms of supernaturalism, not just the existance of gods. Since there is nothing exceptional in the biological sense about such athiests - in other words, they are human beings just like the rest of us - that shows that religiosity is a matter of socio-cultural conditioning, rather than biological necessity


Trying to eradicate religion from society will do you no good. It creates a gap. Look at the USSR; after its destruction, and even though many children had been brainwashed, religion made a comeback. It won't work.The Soviet attempt to eradicate religion, if indeed that was what they were trying to achieve as opposed to simply reducing the political influence of the Orthodox Church, was half-assed and only attacked the symptoms. Closing churches and co-opting the clergy is not enough. Besides, the Soviet hierarchy was caught up in it's own version of superstition and magical thinking - anyone remember Lysenkoism?


Without a God, we are merely intelligent apes.What's wrong with that? I find it all the more amazing that this mind-bogglingly huge, completely indifferent and totally emotionless universe in which we find ourselves could produce seemingly self-aware creatures (that's us!) and all that follows from it


Without God, we have no reason to help others out or do good.Nonsense. I can think of at least two secular approaches to morality right now - game theory and enlightened self-interest. Also, one answers to society for one's actions, not God. Then there is the fact that while it is possible to be a murderous, thieving asshole for the entire span of one's existance, only a small minority of such people actually get away with it, ruining the lives of many others in the process. This means that while being an immoral shit can pay off in the short run or for a handful of individuals, such actions end up shafting the majority, who come up with a set of laws, morals, ethical guidelines etc intended to benefit them and punish cheaters. In other words, nice guys finish first (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212).

Also, have you actually examined theistic morality systems? Certainly the one I am most familiar with has no problems with child abuse, or murdering people and occupying their land, but God help you if you eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics!


What good is an infinite Universe without God behind it?It's ours for the taking. All except the tiniest speck that is our planet is (to our knowledge) pristine and uninhabited with possibly countless new worlds to explore.


It's just an accident and it's beautiful by accident. It could be ugly as shit and that would be that, by accident.Actually, I think there is an evolutionary explanation for why we find our vast universe to be (for the most part) beautiful - a vast mountain range, while requiring a significant expenditure of resources and energy to cross, has potentially new and unexplored territory beyond it. A species that considers daunting mountain ranges and vast oceans to be ugly has little chance of crossing the damn things. Considering the fact that humans now inhabit all the continents and are the most numerous animals for their size, I'd say that it's an extremely successful strategy.


We exist by accident, according to your ideas, and we could be piles of mud by accident.Except that we aren't. We're Homo Sapiens and all the baggage that goes along with it - emotions, culture, the vast new ecosystem of technology - piles of mud have none of these things.


So why bother? Well, you certainly do. Why? Because beneath every atheist's hard shell there is God. The atheist can't recognize him or doesn't want to, so he/she just prattles on about how existence is beautiful and why we should admire this cornucopia of accidents. It's simply not true.So you are claiming there's no such thing as an atheist. How the fuck would you know? Are you a mind-reader?

[Decolonize The Left]

Really? That's interesting because personally I don't plan to have any children. And many go through life choosing not to reproduce, for whatever reason. So . . . either I'm some freak of nature, or all life does not seek to reproduce.

The claim that 'you' don't plan on having kids is irrelevant to my argument. In the first place, how do you define 'you?' If you simply mean your brain/body, then you must confront the fact that every cell in your body is already undergoing a process of reproduction. The fact that you may be willing yourself not to engage in the act of sex with the intended purpose of conceiving a child is secondary to the fact that you have sexual urges.

- August

[mel]

The claim that 'you' don't plan on having kids is irrelevant to my argument. In the first place, how do you define 'you?' If you simply mean your brain/body, then you must confront the fact that every cell in your body is already undergoing a process of reproduction. The fact that you may be willing yourself not to engage in the act of sex with the intended purpose of conceiving a child is secondary to the fact that you have sexual urges.

- August

What about people who do not have sexual urges? They do exist and they call themselves asexuals.

[Decolonize The Left]

What about people who do not have sexual urges? They do exist and they call themselves asexuals.

Well that is one definition of 'asexual,' the others being "having no distinct sex," and "without sexual action." I've never heard of an individual not having some form of sexual urges, and I would seriously need to look deeply into that individual's life to understand why that is the case.

- August

[mel]

Well that is one definition of 'asexual,' the others being "having no distinct sex," and "without sexual action." I've never heard of an individual not having some form of sexual urges, and I would seriously need to look deeply into that individual's life to understand why that is the case.

- August

The generally accepted definition of "asexual" used by members of the asexual community is "one who does not experience sexual attraction". Some members of the asexual community also claim (and as we are not them, it is impossible to tell, but I feel we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt) that they do not experience what they call "sexual desire" (and there is a distinction).

Certainly you can assume that if a person does not experience any sexual desire that something must have happened to them that made them that way, that there is some biological or psychological cause. Studying that can't hurt, and it is very likely a very small segment of the population who does not experience sexual desire or attraction, but they should not be ignored.

I'd just like to add that a person "without sexual action" generally refers to a person who is celibate (deciding not to have sex) than somebody who is asexual (does not experience sexual attraction) by the definition accepted by members of that community. I personally believe that members of the asexual community are best qualified to provide a definition of what that "orientation" means than somebody else. Wouldn't you agree?

The site has been through a major redesign since the last time I interacted with the members of this forum, but here is a good site where you can find out more about asexuality as an orientation and the people who identify as such. I spent a good year back in high school doing a lot of sexuality research, which is how I came across the group in the first place, and it might clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about asexuality.

http://www.asexuality.org/home/

[the last donut of the night]

So you are claiming there's no such thing as an atheist. How the fuck would you know? Are you a mind-reader?


I'm claiming that atheists do exists and that God exists. I'm saying that you atheists just deny what's true.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm claiming that atheists do exists and that God exists. I'm saying that you atheists just deny what's true.

God exists, eh? Which god, and what evidence do you have that such a thing exists?

[Green Dragon]

I don't have a strong opinion about the ritual of sprinkling water on a baby's head, but it's the years of religious indoctrination that concern me. I lean toward saying that here should be some social controls over the practice of parents teaching their children ideas that are only speculations while telling them that they are certain facts. Doing that seems to me like a form of mental abuse.

Since socialists are so often proud to say they have no idea what their revolution will bring, it is highly ridiculous for them to complain about the speculative nature of others.

[Demogorgon]

Well that is one definition of 'asexual,' the others being "having no distinct sex," and "without sexual action." I've never heard of an individual not having some form of sexual urges, and I would seriously need to look deeply into that individual's life to understand why that is the case.

- August
That is dangerous territory. I don't think we should ever look upon people's sexualities as being something that needs to be somehow justified in terms of "how did they come to be like that?"

I don't for a moment think that is how you intended that, but that is where it ends up. Something that bothers me about this board is that people have expanded or altered the old fashioned view of what is sexually normal to include homosexuality and the like, but have failed to get past it altogether and accept that human diversity really is far beyond a few categories. That means there are asexual people, transgendered people and so on and that we shouldn't go looking for psychological flaws in them as certain bigots, even here (not yourself) seem to think.

[Demogorgon]

I'm claiming that atheists do exists and that God exists. I'm saying that you atheists just deny what's true.
This statement could mean two things

a) That God exists and atheists are mistaken as to that, denying the truth due to honest misconception

b) That atheists know God exists but maliciously deny it.

If you are claiming a then you "merely" have to prove God's existence to show that atheists are wrong, but if you are going for b (a position held by many American fundies) then you are going to have to prove rather a lot. Not only that there is a God, but that everyone naturally knows this and that there is some kind of character flaw fundamental to all atheists.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I've noticed that most people rarely, if ever, simply make a purpose for themselves out of thin air. Instead, people raise families, pursue careers, engage in hobbies and entertainment, study science, argue philosophy, collect things, follow and/or play sports, lots of things.
Those are examples of making purposes out of thin air.


In short, most people seem to be too busy actually living their lives to worry if the universe is validating them or not.
If you do something without any good rational reason for doing it, then you are foolish or stupid. If you simply live your life without any reason to do so, then you are foolish or stupid. Or as Socrates is supposed to have said, the unexamined life is not worth living.


How about the amazing fact that you even exist at all? Isn't your existance important to yourself as well as the people that you know and love?
My existence is only important to myself in the sense that I have an instinct for self-preservation - as do we all. This instinct drives me to avoid things that endanger my life. I can overrule it, as all humans can, but it requires an effort of will to do so.

But on a rational level, no, my existence is not particularly important to myself at all; at least not for its own sake. I currently believe my existence to have contingent importance. That is to say, my existence is important to the extent that it benefits The Good. If there is no such thing as an objective, universal standard of Good, then my existence has no importance.


Don't you want to find out as much about this beautiful, terrifying, kaleidoscopic and indifferent universe as possible?
If it serves no higher purpose, then no.


Are you telling me that you need the universe to acknowledge your existance in order for you to maintain any interest in continuing to exist?
Yes.


If that was true, then there would be no such thing as an atheist, except in the purely technical sense. Yet there are plenty of atheists who also reject all forms of supernaturalism, not just the existance of gods. Since there is nothing exceptional in the biological sense about such athiests - in other words, they are human beings just like the rest of us - that shows that religiosity is a matter of socio-cultural conditioning, rather than biological necessity.
Yes and no. I believe atheism is a matter of socio-cultural conditioning, while superstition (not organized religion, but mere superstition) is what humans naturally believe in as long as they are not faced with strong social conditioning in favour of a skeptical mindset.

Or in other words, people are naturally inclined to believe things without evidence, and you have to hammer a scientific attitude into their heads to make them stop being superstitious. Even Dawkins admits this when he claims that religion is an outgrowth of the natural tendency of young children to believe their parents without question.

This means that yes, it would be possible to have a society composed entirely of atheists... but your war against religion will never be over. There can be no final victory. People will always invent new superstitions and new religions, and you will forever have to condition each new generation not to believe such things.


Nonsense. I can think of at least two secular approaches to morality right now - game theory and enlightened self-interest.
And both of those dictate that if you can cheat without getting caught, you should do so.

Of course, they also dictate that society should create rules to punish cheaters, as you explained. So, overall, they tell you to punish cheating when other people do it but to try to do it yourself in secret.


It's ours for the taking. All except the tiniest speck that is our planet is (to our knowledge) pristine and uninhabited with possibly countless new worlds to explore.
Yes! And we should go, explore, colonize, and terraform! Not only do I agree with you, but I think we should pursue the expansion of Humanity into space with religious zeal. In fact, I strongly suspect that we will never get off this forsaken rock without some fervent ideological or religious motivation. It's only thanks to ideological motivation that we had humans in space at all over the past 50 years...

(and Jazzratt, if you're reading, yes, this (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9411/relic00382eg7.jpg) is precisely what unintentionally came to my mind after I wrote that :lol:)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Those are examples of making purposes out of thin air.

Er, how?


If you do something without any good rational reason for doing it, then you are foolish or stupid. If you simply live your life without any reason to do so, then you are foolish or stupid. Or as Socrates is supposed to have said, the unexamined life is not worth living.Just because someone doesn't have a grand plan or vision for anything or isn't interested in the big questions, their life is worthless? Isn't that needlessly elitist? I don't see how calling such people stupid or foolish is productive in any way.


My existence is only important to myself in the sense that I have an instinct for self-preservation - as do we all. This instinct drives me to avoid things that endanger my life. I can overrule it, as all humans can, but it requires an effort of will to do so.

But on a rational level, no, my existence is not particularly important to myself at all; at least not for its own sake. I currently believe my existence to have contingent importance. That is to say, my existence is important to the extent that it benefits The Good. If there is no such thing as an objective, universal standard of Good, then my existence has no importance.Well that's unfortunate, because there isn't, although human morality certainly has recurring themes. Prohibitions against outright murder are common, but some societies had ritual killings.


If it serves no higher purpose, then no.What higher purpose is there than empowering humanity through knowledge?


Yes.Why? :confused:


Yes and no. I believe atheism is a matter of socio-cultural conditioning, while superstition (not organized religion, but mere superstition) is what humans naturally believe in as long as they are not faced with strong social conditioning in favour of a skeptical mindset.

Or in other words, people are naturally inclined to believe things without evidence, and you have to hammer a scientific attitude into their heads to make them stop being superstitious. Even Dawkins admits this when he claims that religion is an outgrowth of the natural tendency of young children to believe their parents without question.

This means that yes, it would be possible to have a society composed entirely of atheists... but your war against religion will never be over. There can be no final victory. People will always invent new superstitions and new religions, and you will forever have to condition each new generation not to believe such things.Yeah, but I've yet to have a conspiracy theorist or UFO believer knock on my door. Then there's stuff like New Age religions, Raelism, Wicca, Neo-Paganism, and that kind of stuff. Frankly, if we're going to be permanently stuck with a degree of woo in society, we could at least do with woo that's not 2000+ years stale.


And both of those dictate that if you can cheat without getting caught, you should do so.

Of course, they also dictate that society should create rules to punish cheaters, as you explained. So, overall, they tell you to punish cheating when other people do it but to try to do it yourself in secret.The most reliable way of not getting caught is not cheating in the first place.


Yes! And we should go, explore, colonize, and terraform! Not only do I agree with you, but I think we should pursue the expansion of Humanity into space with religious zeal. In fact, I strongly suspect that we will never get off this forsaken rock without some fervent ideological or religious motivation. It's only thanks to ideological motivation that we had humans in space at all over the past 50 years...

(and Jazzratt, if you're reading, yes, this (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9411/relic00382eg7.jpg) is precisely what unintentionally came to my mind after I wrote that :lol:)Why not do it for the exclusive glory of humanity? We'd be the one doing the hard work, after all.