Religious belief: it will retard your otherwise well-functioning brain!

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)

Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).

For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.

I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".

>> ^jonny:

[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.

The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

yet you manage to do both

>> ^bobknight33:

Hate the sin not the sinner.
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
>> ^bobknight33:
Christ not only would be proud He is proud

If your religious beliefs are true, I want you to continue thinking this so that it is impossible for you to avoid eternal punishment. That's not really true. I'm not that petty. But God is (allegedly).
Go back to judging and hating people. That's what you were told to do, after all!

I realize I am debating with a brick wall aka @bobknight33, but...:

"You believe in the gay thing and are proud also in that belief. No one is bashing you for that belief."

my "thing" doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Yours and the CEO's does.

"Maybe 5% not 1/2"

nope, pull your head out of the sand/ass Look it up on gallup or any reputable site. Gay marriage support is over 50 percent. If you don't want your money supporting anti-gay causes, you won't be supporting chik-fil-a anymore. And it's a hell of a lot easier to NOT eat there as opposed to those who would support who now have to eat there frequently in order to make up for that lost business. Even if it was five percent. From a business standpoint, that's still a retarded thing to do. I noticed that there were a lot of old people who showed up to support chik-fil-a. Those old people aren't going to be around for much longer and regardless of whether it's 5 or 50 percent, It's only going to go up.

"If I am not mistaken his statement was on a religious station so he was speaking his religious beliefs. He does not regret saying those words. He just regrets the childish hatred from the " open minded" community. You guys don't seem too open minded. "

again, mr. brick wall. My views don't infringe anyone's rights. yours ultimately do. not being tolerant of those who are intolerant is not intolerance.

"I don't know of any hard evidence to support this statement Time will tell. I strongly believe that Divorce and single parenting is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of the country. I believe there are no "winners" in a divorce. I would rather see pro marriage agenda being push rather than call now for a quick divorce ad."

If I had a nickel for all the things people claimed would destroy the fabric of america, but didn't I would have a lot of nickels. allowing women to vote. interracial marriage, ending slavery, civil rights, the list goes on and on.

How exactly does one measure the "fabric" of america? Does it have good tensile strength? Or is the "fabric" argument just a bullshit way of invoking fear to scare people into agreeing with you. Agree with my view or AMERICA WILL DIE!!! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!! All these things that will supposedly destroy america have been around long before America even existed. If they were destroying america, they're doing a shitty job of it.

You and your ilk have demonstrated time and time again that you have no actual evidence as to why homosexuality is bad or harmful other than some old book. If you can't make your case, then prepare to be another footnote in society along with those who thought the earth was flat.

Again. Why should he offer an apology? He did nothing wrong.

He is allowed to denote $ to causes that he believes in.
He should be proud he is standing up for what he believes in.

You believe in the gay thing and are proud also in that belief. No one is bashing you for that belief.

You stated\
" They needlessly pissed off at least half their customer base." Maybe 5% not 1/2


-Proclaimed that people who don't share their stance are morally inferior.
-Declared on television that gay marriage is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of the country
" They've said that in the future they're going to stay out of situations like this which seems to indicate that they regret what they did. If they regret their actions..an apology WOULD be in order"


If I am not mistaken his statement was on a religious station so he was speaking his religious beliefs. He does not regret saying those words. He just regrets the childish hatred from the " open minded" community. You guys don't seem too open minded.


You stated\

"-Proclaimed that people who don't share their stance are morally inferior."
I don't know if he stated this but would be wrong to say.

You stated\
-Declared on television that gay marriage is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of the country "

I don't know of any hard evidence to support this statement Time will tell. I strongly believe that Divorce and single parenting is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of the country. I believe there are no "winners" in a divorce. I would rather see pro marriage agenda being push rather than call now for a quick divorce ad.



>> ^VoodooV:

Found this on another website and it would appear relevant:
Chick-fil-a and it's CEO met several criteria before earning a boycott.
-Donated to antigay causes.
-Announced that they did so
-Seemed proud of their stance
-Proclaimed that people who don't share their stance are morally inferior.
-Declared on television that gay marriage is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of the country
-Are a private company
- They needlessly pissed off at least half their customer base. They've said that in the future they're going to stay out of situations like this which seems to indicate that they regret what they did. If they regret their actions..an apology WOULD be in order.
It's called empathy bob, try it out sometime.


>> ^bobknight33:
Why should he offer an apology? He did nothing wrong.>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^bobknight33:
Gays 0 Chick Fil-a 1

bob's math isn't too good either. CEO didn't issue an apology, but they did release a statement saying that in the future they are going to stay out of hot-bed political issues.
It appears they have learned their lesson, but probably too late. Pro-gay supporters will very rarely eat there again, meanwhile the anti-gay supporters may be eating there a lot now...but they won't be able to sustain their attendance. They'll either go broke or die of a heart attack.
Net win for civil rights

Hate the sin not the sinner.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

>> ^bobknight33:
Christ not only would be proud He is proud


If your religious beliefs are true, I want you to continue thinking this so that it is impossible for you to avoid eternal punishment. That's not really true. I'm not that petty. But God is (allegedly).
Go back to judging and hating people. That's what you were told to do, after all!

>> ^bobknight33:

Christ not only would be proud He is proud



If your religious beliefs are true, I want you to continue thinking this so that it is impossible for you to avoid eternal punishment. That's not really true. I'm not that petty. But God is (allegedly).

Go back to judging and hating people. That's what you were told to do, after all!

Its a cake. Lighten up. Is you IQ less than 100? Just wondering because your argument is is lame.

Lock up all the Bobs. I hate Bobs. Bobs are bad. Bobs are evil.

>> ^VoodooV:

Cool, I can lock Bob up in a concentration camp just because his name is bob.
Who cares, right bob? It's just discrimination right? it's all for the lulz right? Discrimination puts hair on your chest mIrite?
It's my religious belief that all people named bob are evil so I'm protected from all criticism right?
As usual, Bob is clueless
>> ^bobknight33:
Who cares.
Every one gets discriminated for something at some point in time grow up and find another cake.
Get a life.
Its a mom and pop store he can deny service for any reason.

Cool, I can lock Bob up in a concentration camp just because his name is bob.

Who cares, right bob? It's just discrimination right? it's all for the lulz right? Discrimination puts hair on your chest mIrite?

It's my religious belief that all people named bob are evil so I'm protected from all criticism right?

As usual, Bob is clueless

>> ^bobknight33:

Who cares.
Every one gets discriminated for something at some point in time grow up and find another cake.
Get a life.
Its a mom and pop store he can deny service for any reason.

The goal of posting this video was to spur interesting conversations on philosophical topics, but so far everyone (with an exception here and there) seems interested in discussing the same old atheist talking points and ignoring the content of the video entirely.

The argument that was made, I think, is that if you're an atheist you're leading a double life. On one hand, you are committed to this relativism which makes every value judgment subjective, but on the other hand, you live as though there are absolute values and meaning. As someone once said, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap his face. For instance, there is a story about a young man who turned in a paper about relative truth, and how there was no right and wrong, and the professor gave him an F. The student was pretty heated because the paper was well written and so he confronted his professor about the low grade. The professor told him the reason for the F was because He didn't like the color of the paper he was using. The student exclaimed "but that isn't fair!". The professor asked him what he meant by fair? That's when the student got it and then the professor changed his F to an A. The point being that while it's easy to wax philosophical about these points, no one really lives that way. We all have an idea of what is wrong, and if there is something the way it shouldn't be, then naturally there is also a way it ought to be. Where does that come from?

>> ^wraith:

@shiny:
What was your goal in posting this video?
Do you really think that given that atheism might lead one to the belief that there might be no point, no goal, no plan to one's life would lead an atheist to the realization that it would be better to trust ancient and unverifiable (or verifiably false) fables and hearsay about a supposed infallible plan for each and every particle in the universe that will ever exist?
Is "peace of mind" your best argument for the veracity of your religious beliefs?

Well, those might seem to be good reasons, but in the end, atheists are supposed to be against religion. If it was really about religion, you would the criticism spread around a lot more than it is. I haven't seen many atheists taking vocal stands against Allah or Krishna, even though between the two they represent a 1/3 of the worlds population. This is especially true of the "new atheists", even though many of the things they rant about are epitomized in islamic and hindu countries. It just seems that todays atheism isn't so much anti-God(s) as it is anti-Christ. It's not focused on all gods, it's focused on the true God: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

>> ^wraith:

@shiny:
Regarding your question:
1. People who had a dramatic change in their life tend to be very vocal an opinionated about that. Why should that not also true of people who loose or gain religious beliefs?
2. For me, who has never believed in a god or gods, I tend to react to pressure that religious people exert on me and my life. I would not classify that as god "dealing with my heart".
3. Most people who are even able to frequent these fora are from western wealthy nations which, through god's almighty plan or certain socio-economic factors turned out to be predominantly christian.
Regarding your statement: I, from the safety of a country where supposed blasphemy is not met with harsh punishment by learned elders of a forgiving religion, do criticize all religions almost equally. Even I, given the christian background of my home country reserve most of my criticism for christianity because I encounter it most in my daily life.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yeah, but we're talking about atheists, and you don't really see many atheists out there arguing against Allah or Krishna.

@shiny:

What was your goal in posting this video?
Do you really think that given that atheism might lead one to the belief that there might be no point, no goal, no plan to one's life would lead an atheist to the realization that it would be better to trust ancient and unverifiable (or verifiably false) fables and hearsay about a supposed infallible plan for each and every particle in the universe that will ever exist?

Is "peace of mind" your best argument for the veracity of your religious beliefs?

@shiny:
Regarding your question:
1. People who had a dramatic change in their life tend to be very vocal an opinionated about that. Why should that not also true of people who loose or gain religious beliefs?
2. For me, who has never believed in a god or gods, I tend to react to pressure that religious people exert on me and my life. I would not classify that as god "dealing with my heart".
3. Most people who are even able to frequent these fora are from western wealthy nations which, through god's almighty plan or certain socio-economic factors turned out to be predominantly christian.

Regarding your statement: I, from the safety of a country where supposed blasphemy is not met with harsh punishment by learned elders of a forgiving religion, do criticize all religions almost equally. Even I, given the christian background of my home country reserve most of my criticism for christianity because I encounter it most in my daily life.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Yeah, but we're talking about atheists, and you don't really see many atheists out there arguing against Allah or Krishna.

>> ^messenger:

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:
>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:

>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...