>> ^bareboards2:

I don't like this. Me, who always loves Maher.
Look, all religion is a matter of setting aside the rational mind and embracing belief in something outside yourself.
Romney was brought up in the Mormon Church, he didn't choose it. To ask him to set it aside as irrational is to ask him to set aside his family, his community, the very fabric of his life.
The Mormon church is one of the fastest growing religions on the planet, despite all the weirdness. I don't know how anyone could embrace the weirdness, but I do know why someone might embrace their culture -- it is structure, it is support, it is community, it is rules for living in an increasingly fractured society.
Don't pick on Romney for being Mormon. Not if you give every other non-atheist a pass on their particular brand of crazy.


Maybe it is too much to ask from Romney to see through his ultra-silly superstitions. Fine. There are lawns to be mowed and toilets to be unclogged everywhere. Put him to work. Just dont make him president of the most powerful nation on earth.

Call me an elitist intellectual atheistic asshole if you will, but the truth is that I think a presidential candidate ought to have the intellectual capacity to shed childish, inane superstition that is religion, and the intellectual honesty to admit it, despite the fact that this might enstrange them from family or friends, and voters..

Am I asking for a little more from the presidential candidate than I do for other people? Hell yeah.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^criticalthud:
@A10anis
uhh...this is kind of like a story that needs to be told again and again until it is within the very fabric of our society, as religion is. but it isn't right now. this is still almost a fringe viewpoint.
I would add though that in this battle between rationality and superstition lies common ground - the simple understanding that a most religious people, deep down, find religion partly because of some sense of purpose. and that should be honored. We self-called "rational" beings often come off as condescending...and in our young and petty consciousness, our own understanding of the universe and the cosmos is hardly advanced. we are hardly "higher intelligence". and if we want other people to get over themselves, we should probably do the same.

Meaning no disrespect, but could you possibly articulate your points in a way thet people who speak english would understand. If you are not english speaking, then forgive me, i'm sure you meant well.

happily!
yes, if i were a religious sort and I saw this video, I could come away with the feeling that I am being labeled as scared, primitive, or dumb. My reaction would probably be to stick to my guns with even more zest.
I think a better approach would be to focus on what we have in common - that is, a sense of purpose to do good in this world...and go from there.
While fear and the endless search for security are certainly psychological factors contributing to the appeal of organized religion, there are many positives to dwell on instead. You get more flies with honey.
and rather than debate whether there is a god or no god, or the stupidity therein, I think it is about time to start contemplating whether we can even conceive of what "god" is or could be. We seem to be stuck upon the idea that god is a "being", whereas the world and universe around us seems to suggest that we are surrounded by a complex collective planetary intelligence and interdependency that we are barely even skimming the surface of.


Shush. You are a pseudo intellectual.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^criticalthud:
@A10anis
uhh...this is kind of like a story that needs to be told again and again until it is within the very fabric of our society, as religion is. but it isn't right now. this is still almost a fringe viewpoint.
I would add though that in this battle between rationality and superstition lies common ground - the simple understanding that a most religious people, deep down, find religion partly because of some sense of purpose. and that should be honored. We self-called "rational" beings often come off as condescending...and in our young and petty consciousness, our own understanding of the universe and the cosmos is hardly advanced. we are hardly "higher intelligence". and if we want other people to get over themselves, we should probably do the same.

Meaning no disrespect, but could you possibly articulate your points in a way thet people who speak english would understand. If you are not english speaking, then forgive me, i'm sure you meant well.


happily!
yes, if i were a religious sort and I saw this video, I could come away with the feeling that I am being labeled as scared, primitive, or dumb. My reaction would probably be to stick to my guns with even more zest.
I think a better approach would be to focus on what we have in common - that is, a sense of purpose to do good in this world...and go from there.
While fear and the endless search for security are certainly psychological factors contributing to the appeal of organized religion, there are many positives to dwell on instead. You get more flies with honey.

and rather than debate whether there is a god or no god, or the stupidity therein, I think it is about time to start contemplating whether we can even conceive of what "god" is or could be. We seem to be stuck upon the idea that god is a "being", whereas the world and universe around us seems to suggest that we are surrounded by a complex collective planetary intelligence and interdependency that we are barely even skimming the surface of.

>> ^criticalthud:

@A10anis
uhh...this is kind of like a story that needs to be told again and again until it is within the very fabric of our society, as religion is. but it isn't right now. this is still almost a fringe viewpoint.
I would add though that in this battle between rationality and superstition lies common ground - the simple understanding that a most religious people, deep down, find religion partly because of some sense of purpose. and that should be honored. We self-called "rational" beings often come off as condescending...and in our young and petty consciousness, our own understanding of the universe and the cosmos is hardly advanced. we are hardly "higher intelligence". and if we want other people to get over themselves, we should probably do the same.


Meaning no disrespect, but could you possibly articulate your points in a way thet people who speak english would understand. If you are not english speaking, then forgive me, i'm sure you meant well.

@A10anis

uhh...this is kind of like a story that needs to be told again and again until it is within the very fabric of our society, as religion is. but it isn't right now. this is still almost a fringe viewpoint.

I would add though that in this battle between rationality and superstition lies common ground - the simple understanding that a most religious people, deep down, find religion partly because of some sense of purpose. and that should be honored. We self-called "rational" beings often come off as condescending...and in our young and petty consciousness, our own understanding of the universe and the cosmos is hardly advanced. we are hardly "higher intelligence". and if we want other people to get over themselves, we should probably do the same.

>> ^hpqp:

Shark fins, rhinoceros horns, tiger testes, etc... what makes people eat these, at the cost of torturing millions of animals and endangering their species? Superstitious beliefs. Moreover, almost always about virility (what is it with men and sexual insecurity?). China may not have its Yahweh or Allah, but it does have its fair share of ridiculous superstitions carried over the centuries as "tradition".


All praise the stiff dicks!

Shark fins, rhinoceros horns, tiger testes, etc... what makes people eat these, at the cost of torturing millions of animals and endangering their species? Superstitious beliefs. Moreover, almost always about virility (what is it with men and sexual insecurity?). China may not have its Yahweh or Allah, but it does have its fair share of ridiculous superstitions carried over the centuries as "tradition".

>> ^criticalthud:

He's more rational than most. at least.
And if he ever announces science as superseding superstition, and fully understands it's importance to the course and future of humanity, I might consider him rational enough to be a leader.


Science will inevitably lead to the robot uprising, what do you have against mankind!

"if he ever announces science as superseding superstition, and fully understands it's importance to the course and future of humanity, I might consider him rational enough to be a leader."

If you know of a good atheist candidate, please let me know.

"100 percent regulation is bad and so is 100 percent de-regulation."

I would like a system to be developed that warned people of the dangers of using a product, but still allowed them to use it. For instance, how tobacco is sold, though I think the warnings on it are not strong enough.

He's more rational than most. at least.
And if he ever announces science as superseding superstition, and fully understands it's importance to the course and future of humanity, I might consider him rational enough to be a leader.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@criticalthud I find some marginal intellectual value in it, to be sure. But we aren't so different than 2000 years ago, it doesn't take much to loose all foundations of order as recent events all around the globe show. While the language we use to talk bout rights and such might have become more sophisticated, the man behind the language lingers on.
Comparing direct Democracy to cooperation is much like comparing your neighbor to your best friend. The former is cooperation by force of conditions (his relation to your own set of circumstances) and the later force of both your desires (your friend's and your own to be in a mutual relationship). The latter carries more weight when you make choices. The challenge I have to myself is how to make a system that harnesses this much stronger force of cooperation to a larger set of people. To be sure, most of the people you would elect don't actually care about you in a very real way. And conversely, neither do 1 million people in California. For me, both representative and direct democracy have a lack of care towards individual members.


thank you for a well thought out and articulate response. it is this kind of exchange that gives me hope. I would submit that we are quite a bit different from greek era consciousness, and that the age of reliance upon myth and superstition is at a close. This may or may not happen in our lifetime but we are and have been turning away from superstition to explain the world favoring and science instead. We are altering both our behaviors and our consciousness to become more rational human beings, and this change is happening at a very high rate, especially now that we are talking with each other.

are we on the brink of destruction...sucking the ecosphere dry? yeah, probably, and we're still too mired in the age of the ego to really give a fuck as a species. but i'm still finding you far more rational than michelle bachman, and I trust my neighbor far more than a politician in the pocket of big pharma.

I would submit that recent event around the globe are not indicative of a loss of order, rather a recognition by the general populace of their continued and growing irrelevancy. Despite the chaos, there is an increased sense of awareness that is developing on this planet.... and rapidly. And once it starts, it is potentially infinite.

people all around the world are quickly figuring out that they are getting fucked and they want to do something about it.
and we are quickly figuring out that we are not god's chosen and the world is not our domain to rule as we see fit. we're just another species, and we are fucking up the planet in a bad way.
and we are modifying their behavior to become more rational beings.
and rationality values cooperation

or who knows. maybe i'm just trippy dippy

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

>> ^Psychologic:
Religion isn't the cause of irrationality, it's a symptom of it. Eliminating superstition would be about as effective as treating disease by finding a cure for coughing.
Maybe Hitchens really is helping people who are uncomfortable doubting religious claims... I just feel that his aggressive and hyperbolic language can be counter-productive to his apparent goals.

The tenacity of Hitchens and Dawkins may seem malevolent, but they attack using language and logic instead of censorship, violence, and excommunication.
I much prefer that over the alternative.


Why are there only two options?

>> ^Psychologic:

Religion isn't the cause of irrationality, it's a symptom of it. Eliminating superstition would be about as effective as treating disease by finding a cure for coughing.
Maybe Hitchens really is helping people who are uncomfortable doubting religious claims... I just feel that his aggressive and hyperbolic language can be counter-productive to his apparent goals.


The tenacity of Hitchens and Dawkins may seem malevolent, but they attack using language and logic instead of censorship, violence, and excommunication.

I much prefer that over the alternative.

Religion isn't the cause of irrationality, it's a symptom of it. Eliminating superstition would be about as effective as treating disease by finding a cure for coughing.

Maybe Hitchens really is helping people who are uncomfortable doubting religious claims... I just feel that his aggressive and hyperbolic language can be counter-productive to his apparent goals.