>> ^bigbikeman:
I'll agree with you on most points Lawdeedaw, except for putting all belief/faith on the same level. Unfortunately our language doesn't have two (or more) different words for the difference of belief between believing the tooth fairy is real, and that our spouse will not cheat on us.
We may be wrong (or right) about both the above beliefs, but obviously one is demonstrably more sane than the other (ie there certainly exist people in this world who don't cheat, and one can "believe" there is a high probability that their spouse is one of them, based on what they know about them, how they act etc).


Oh, I have no doubt that there are diffent levels of faith and agree that some are insane and some are not. It all depends on perspective, though, and that is a sticky, tricky mess.

The problem with the toothfairy is this---we find out that it is mom or dad (My mother was over religious and never taught anything that was "mystical.") Faith, to be true faith, must always have a itty, bitty, tiny curb of possibility---no matter how small it may be. It cannot be disproven nor proven. Religion took hold of a concept provable only in death, and; therefore, is illogical yet, umm... faithable?

Thank you for allowing me to expand upon this idea and for being respectful too.

I'll agree with you on most points Lawdeedaw, except for putting all belief/faith on the same level. Unfortunately our language doesn't have two (or more) different words for the difference of belief between believing the tooth fairy is real, and that our spouse will not cheat on us.

We may be wrong (or right) about both the above beliefs, but obviously one is demonstrably more sane than the other (ie there certainly exist people in this world who don't cheat, and one can "believe" there is a high probability that their spouse is one of them, based on what they know about them, how they act etc).

Hrm, tad off pon. Yes, children are prone to imagine what they are taught AND what they are not taught. My daughter at two and a half was pretending to be a nurse and talking about her awesomely pronounced "stethoscope" and blood pressure cuffs. But she WAS taught that--as you say. At three, however, it became all her imagination! I don't teach her half the fairytales she recites, yet she brings shit out of the closet that amazes me... Really deep too... She does this often, as smart children do.

We do not simply demand to understand as you so narrowly define humanities' natural instinct of belief. Otherwise, we would have flocked to science and would have abandoned religion hundreds of years ago. Look at how we flock naturally to the easier way of everything else in life (Such as technology,) and science certainly is easier than religion! However, we, as a species, do not do this? Ever ask why? Because we imagine, even to this date, and we do it well. Hell, we read imaginations, watch imaginations, even live imaginary lives every day! And you say we are just curious! Lolz, yeah, that’s why we watch Harry Potter too! Lolz.

No, it is not that we are curious---we dream, we fly, we bask in our own delusions. Thor did not just explain thunder---he was thunder and a way of life that excited people.

Do not get me wrong pon, I understand your dislike of religion and those that push/force it upon weaker people. Just like any government, religion is 100% a form of exerted control upon others.

Now, just to point out something, not all religion is based on threats. Buddhists, and hell, even Jehovah's Witness do not preach doom and gloom (My mother was/is a devote Witness and for that I became an atheist. However, they never once preached hell and eternal suffering.)

Also, if we did not have religion---the blame-peice of humanity and our woes and evils---we would still have our woes and evil. And probably the same amount too.

The world wars for control, finate resources and personal amusement. It does not fight over ideals, although we hide behind those ideals so we can feel virtuous.

Lastly, religion does not have to stand on its own logic. See, if god exists, he is the single most powerful creature to ever exist. And if he does not exist? He is the single most powerful IDEA to ever exist. Not much difference huh? Same effects...
You point out that religion cannot stand on its own logic… Well, faith is not logical anyways! Not logical at all. How many times as a boy did I have faith in my mother only to be deceived and let down time and time again? Hundreds, because she was constantly lying and I constantly wanted an honest mother. But, like a fool I believed. How many cancer patients have faith that they can get better? Should we tell them how insane their beliefs are? (Because their beliefs are insane.)

See, that's the beauty of faith. It deceives whether in religion, family, friends, health, etcetera. Everyone's mother will let them down, yet most will have faith nevertheless.

Just let it go pon, we have always had irrational faith and always will. Try to live the best you can until the day that you cannot live anymore. It is all we can do. Try to change the heart of man, not his faith.



>> ^ponceleon:
Sorry Lawdeesaw, but children are NOT prone to "believe" the way you mean it... they are prone to LEARN. It is only ADULTS that fill their mind with bullshit that make them christians, muslims, scientologists, etc.
In fact, religions have to resort to THREATS (you will go to hell) to brainwash their young into suspending their disbelief at all the crap that DOESN'T make sense.
Take my 4 year old god-daughter for example. She's constantly asking questions about her parents faith which they have to answer with "because God wants it that way."
Really? Fuck that. Religion can't stand on its own logic, so it had to start mostly with the mentally vulnerable, which usually equates to children which are impressionable by fairy tales and threats of eternal damnation.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Ugandan-Minister-Making-A-Huge-Fool-Of-Himself#comment-1008434'>^Lawdeedaw</a>:<br />
Otay...<br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Seric" title="member since May 20th, 2008" class="profilelink">Seric</a>; Good points. That is how I believe (Though I worded it differently.) I simply realize that when you take the plastic face away, these same men and women who use religion as a justification will still be just as hateful.<br> <br> @BiycleRepairMan; Thanks for furthering my point, albeit unintentionally. Hitler was allowed because of the evil of people (Even good people can be evil.) There was no mask, there was no reason "decent" people were psychotic. It just happened, mostly because they were sheep. See, without religion, people will move on to find another reason to hate, kill, murder, rape and plunder. Economy? Perhaps... Race? Sure. Humans will be just as evil.<br> <br> But religious people are insane? Are children insane because they believe in superstitions? Santa? You are insane kid!!! Tooth Fairy?! Insane, take this child to the asylum! (By your technical explanation, children are insane to you… ) You also discredit the billions of people religious and spiritual as insane... Well, I guess it is human nature to be insane which makes them the sane ones?! Crap, I am screwed.<br> <br> "Bigotry? Check. Racism? Check. Sexism? Check. Discrimination? Check. Superstition? Check. Martyrdom? Check. Obedience to authority? Check." I was unaware that all religions taught that stuff... Well, the Native Americans cannot be so preachy now can they! Druids too! Ha, in your face! Buddhists? Bwaha.<br> <br> Oh, and half the people don't follow the good parts of religion anyways... Why, because they are evil people. You give too much credit to the average person who hides behind a "good" idea... The average German was a psychopath because they allowed Hitler his rule; and so is the average American who walks by a man just ran over by a car---and takes a photo with his cell phone.<br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ponceleon" title="member since February 8th, 2008" class="profilelink">ponceleon</a>; Explaining religion because it is a natural part of human thought is okay. Justifying actions because of religion is not. No one "justified" religion because of anything.<br> <br> Children are prone to belief because they are built that way. You cannot stop it, just curb it with time. It is built into us. I.e. explaining religion, not justifying it.<br> <br> On the uneducated part, my father, myself, brothers and all had an eighth grade education and guess what? Atheists all...<br></em>

Sorry Lawdeesaw, but children are NOT prone to "believe" the way you mean it... they are prone to LEARN. It is only ADULTS that fill their mind with bullshit that make them christians, muslims, scientologists, etc.

In fact, religions have to resort to THREATS (you will go to hell) to brainwash their young into suspending their disbelief at all the crap that DOESN'T make sense.

Take my 4 year old god-daughter for example. She's constantly asking questions about her parents faith which they have to answer with "because God wants it that way."

Really? Fuck that. Religion can't stand on its own logic, so it had to start mostly with the mentally vulnerable, which usually equates to children which are impressionable by fairy tales and threats of eternal damnation.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Otay...
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Seric" title="member since May 20th, 2008" class="profilelink">Seric; Good points. That is how I believe (Though I worded it differently.) I simply realize that when you take the plastic face away, these same men and women who use religion as a justification will still be just as hateful.
@BiycleRepairMan; Thanks for furthering my point, albeit unintentionally. Hitler was allowed because of the evil of people (Even good people can be evil.) There was no mask, there was no reason "decent" people were psychotic. It just happened, mostly because they were sheep. See, without religion, people will move on to find another reason to hate, kill, murder, rape and plunder. Economy? Perhaps... Race? Sure. Humans will be just as evil.
But religious people are insane? Are children insane because they believe in superstitions? Santa? You are insane kid!!! Tooth Fairy?! Insane, take this child to the asylum! (By your technical explanation, children are insane to you… ) You also discredit the billions of people religious and spiritual as insane... Well, I guess it is human nature to be insane which makes them the sane ones?! Crap, I am screwed.
"Bigotry? Check. Racism? Check. Sexism? Check. Discrimination? Check. Superstition? Check. Martyrdom? Check. Obedience to authority? Check." I was unaware that all religions taught that stuff... Well, the Native Americans cannot be so preachy now can they! Druids too! Ha, in your face! Buddhists? Bwaha.
Oh, and half the people don't follow the good parts of religion anyways... Why, because they are evil people. You give too much credit to the average person who hides behind a "good" idea... The average German was a psychopath because they allowed Hitler his rule; and so is the average American who walks by a man just ran over by a car---and takes a photo with his cell phone.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ponceleon" title="member since February 8th, 2008" class="profilelink">ponceleon; Explaining religion because it is a natural part of human thought is okay. Justifying actions because of religion is not. No one "justified" religion because of anything.
Children are prone to belief because they are built that way. You cannot stop it, just curb it with time. It is built into us. I.e. explaining religion, not justifying it.
On the uneducated part, my father, myself, brothers and all had an eighth grade education and guess what? Atheists all...

Otay...

@Seric; Good points. That is how I believe (Though I worded it differently.) I simply realize that when you take the plastic face away, these same men and women who use religion as a justification will still be just as hateful.

@BiycleRepairMan; Thanks for furthering my point, albeit unintentionally. Hitler was allowed because of the evil of people (Even good people can be evil.) There was no mask, there was no reason "decent" people were psychotic. It just happened, mostly because they were sheep. See, without religion, people will move on to find another reason to hate, kill, murder, rape and plunder. Economy? Perhaps... Race? Sure. Humans will be just as evil.

But religious people are insane? Are children insane because they believe in superstitions? Santa? You are insane kid!!! Tooth Fairy?! Insane, take this child to the asylum! (By your technical explanation, children are insane to you… ) You also discredit the billions of people religious and spiritual as insane... Well, I guess it is human nature to be insane which makes them the sane ones?! Crap, I am screwed.

"Bigotry? Check. Racism? Check. Sexism? Check. Discrimination? Check. Superstition? Check. Martyrdom? Check. Obedience to authority? Check." I was unaware that all religions taught that stuff... Well, the Native Americans cannot be so preachy now can they! Druids too! Ha, in your face! Buddhists? Bwaha.

Oh, and half the people don't follow the good parts of religion anyways... Why, because they are evil people. You give too much credit to the average person who hides behind a "good" idea... The average German was a psychopath because they allowed Hitler his rule; and so is the average American who walks by a man just ran over by a car---and takes a photo with his cell phone.

@ponceleon; Explaining religion because it is a natural part of human thought is okay. Justifying actions because of religion is not. No one "justified" religion because of anything.

Children are prone to belief because they are built that way. You cannot stop it, just curb it with time. It is built into us. I.e. explaining religion, not justifying it.

On the uneducated part, my father, myself, brothers and all had an eighth grade education and guess what? Atheists all...

@ponceleon

First off, I'm wondering why you happen to think that I believe in a god or gods. No where in this thread have I stated that I'm religious. I simply think forcing opinions on other people is a bad idea--whether it's forcing others to believe in your religion or forcing others to give up their religion, as say China does. So maybe you might want to lay off the ad hominem attacks. Let's have a reasonable open dialogue, shall we?

Second, you entirely missed the point of my post. I'm not asking you to believe. You are free to look at the world around you and decide for yourself. My point was that the world around us can be interpreted in multiple ways. Take a roller coaster for instance. One person rides a roller coaster and is terrified. The person next to him is having a great time and loves it. Are roller coasters terrifying or fun? Science cannot help us answer this question. Both people experienced exactly the same event but interpret it in entirely separate ways. The best we can say is that some people find roller coasters scary and some people find them fun. What does this have to do with religion? So far, you have interpreted your experiences in this world to conclude there is no god or gods. That's fine! I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with you demanding everyone else interpret their own experiences exactly as you do. You want scientific proof of god. Again, I have no problem with that (although I find your insistence on scientific proof kind of funny, since I don't require scientific proof to know that I am having fun on a roller coaster). That's your choice. But I don't think you have the right to take away the choice from everyone else in the process. Trying to do so would be as absurd as trying to force everyone in the world to like roller coasters.

Let's talk about Dawkins for a second. I think Dawkins does a disservice to atheists everywhere by lumping all religious people into one group. We call that "stereotyping." The stereotype that Dawkins uses is based on a conservative fundamentalist Islamic/Christian religious fanatic (the unthinking believer that I was talking about in previous posts). Since he is using a stereotype, he may as well be railing against [insert the ethnicity of your choice] and screaming about all the problems they cause. Now, certainly he has an eager audience--as do KKK leaders at most of their rallies. But he's doing nothing to make the world a more civil or peaceful place. In fact, he's simply polarizing it even more.

Why not Vishnu? I have no problem with people who worship Vishnu. Or Thor. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the Tooth Fairy. The problem comes only when people try to impose their religion on others--and that is not something I am advocating. As I said above, I have a problem whenever anyone forces their opinion on others (as does Dawkins--it's something we agree on). So obviously I am against things like the forced inclusion of Creationism in textbooks. Or blasphemy laws. Or the discrimination against a particular group based on their religion (or lack thereof).

Sorry this post is getting so long. I'll wrap it up with this: I'm curious what your stance is on the existence of dark matter. Most astronomers believe in dark matter in spite of the fact there is no physical way to measureit. It's basically invisible. And yet current models of the structure of the universe require the existence of dark matter to work properly. You demand proof in order to believe in a god or gods. Well, there is no proof of dark matter--only speculation. And yet the scientific community generally has faith that it exists. How do you reconcile that?

Although I don't have any evidence of the existence of God or gods, science has ironically given us plenty of evidence for the benefits and evolutionary advantages of faith. Have a read.

The Evolutionary Advantages of Faith

So, your insistence on doing away with religion is actually quite amusing, as you would be fighting evolution apparently.

Allow me to answer.

When you are saying that the universe is controlled by a zombie vampire that demands cannibalize of all his worshipers on Sunday, YOU are under the burden of providing proof of such a silly explanation of how the universe works, not me.

Just as Dawkins says, why not Vishnu, why not Xenu, why not the Magic juju at the bottom of the ocean, why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? See the problem with you "faithful" people is that you want to put the burden of proving that something by definition magical and unprovable on me the rational person.

Sorry, if you are going to believe that the tooth fairy is real, YOU have to show me the tooth fairy DNA. I don't have to WASTE my time searching for evidence in YOUR particular delusion when the world is FULL of other, funnier ones I'd rather search for if I was forced to.

As for re-inventing the wheel, I'm not saying we need to do that. If you re-read my post you'll see that I have no problem with secularizing the good teaching and removing them from all the mumbo jumbo. Be nice to each other, check. Don't kill people, check. Worship the magic doodaddie or you go to the magical pit of fire for all eternity... sorry, no check for you.

Anything else?

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^ponceleon:
Sure it is fair to dismiss ALL religion. Just because you are a little crazy in that you believe in magical forces controlling the universe doesn't make it ANY more legitimate.
[edit]
I do good things because it is better for all of us to be good to each other, not because some magical being threatens me if I don't do what he says. Who is a better person, the one who does good deeds because he wants to do good deeds, or the one who does them because he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't?

I'm only going to address these two parts of your post, so sorry for the edit.
First part. Do you have any legitimate proof that magical forces aren't controlling the universe? I highly doubt it... you would have published said proof and won the Nobel prize by now.
What science has given us are facts about the world we live in, but that collection of facts can be interpreted in multiple ways. Where some people see only random chaos others see intelligent organization. Clearly, your interpretation of the facts is that there cannot possibly be any divine being or beings or any "mystical" forces. And that's fine! But surely you must realize that this is your interpretation? That other interpretations are possible? Were you to demand everyone to believe your interpretation (as Dawkins does) you would be no better than the Fundamentalists that both you and he despise.
Second part. What exactly is "doing good things?" That is precisely the question most religions strive to answer. You feel you can come up with the answers for yourself. I respect that! But others feel: why re-invent the wheel? People have been exploring this question (and many others like, "What is the meaning of life?") through religion and philosophy for centuries. They choose to look to other places for answers and they should be free to do so. In fact, I think we all should do a bit of introspection on questions like this more often and instead of blindly trying to force others to see our opinion, engage others in open and honest dialogue. Most hostility towards religion comes precisely because there are those who refuse to engage in honest dialogue, thereby giving themselves and religion in general a bad name.
In closing, I just want to say that nobody thinks unquestioning belief is a good thing. Faith is not the same thing as unquestioning belief. Faith is trust, and trust comes from experience. You yourself, ponceleon, have faith--faith in yourself and your own moral code that I'm assuming stems from your own personal experiencese. That is exactly the same way it is for the bulk of religious people (with the exception of the radicals and fundamentalists I mentioned earlier). Most religious people believe not because of some threat or because they no longer question things, but because their experiences in life have given them confidence that their interpretation of things is correct.

I think the difference is with the generality of the word, and its importance, with whatever definition, to people.

My point, however, is that we don't apply your same demeaning ridicule to ideas like string theory. There is no more evidence for string theory than there is for God. The theory can be stretched to fit the data in as many ways as a concept like God. Yet, for whatever reason, string theory doesn't seem to get lumped into the same bucket with unicorns, leprechauns, or tooth fairies. Plenty of people's ideas about God are perfectly sane. Whether or not you choose to believe in any one of the myriad of definitions is up to you. I personally am agnostic, as you haven't even defined the terms you're asking me to reason about.

I don't really like that when it comes to the idea of religion/god(s), we nitpick about semantics in ways that are totally rejected in any other scenario. Ie., the whole "I can't 100% disprove the existence of any god, therefore I am an agnostic rather than an atheist." Yes, scientifically, rigorously, that sort of claim is correct -- nobody can 100% prove that any given god does not exist.

However, that is also true about leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, Santa Claus, etc.; nobody can prove scientifically that they don't exist. But if you ask people if they really believe in Santa Claus or leprechauns, they generally don't split hairs and say "...well, I can't be 100% sure that they don't exist", they just say no. Nobody is agnostic about unicorns.

For me personally, I accept that I cannot completely disprove the existence of any religious god, or anything like dragons, fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy. But, I think that all of those things are about equally likely to actually 'exist' in any way that we typically define that word. And, I think that likelihood is close enough to zero that I have no problem with saying straight up that I don't believe in the existence of any of them, without hedging my bets and prefacing it with a "...well, I can't be 100% sure".

>> ^bobknight33:
It is very sad to see such a great society built firmly on the foundation of God's word to trashed by today's people.
Why would not believe in GOD and show him the proper respect? In general, you believe in evil things like Ghosts, Demons and such evil things? We all seen stuff that scared the crap out of us and know it is from some type of supernatural evil source. Why believe that but not the existence of GOD?

Just because Christians don't act GODly does not make the bible wrong, meaningless or irrelevant. GODs word is the TRUTH. Not the crap on TV and media.



I don't believe in "evil things like ghosts, demons" or UFOS, or jesus, or buddah, or allah, or the tooth fairy, or santa claus.

As for giving god "respect," I don't think he deserves it. His representatives don't give atheism, science, common sense any respect. He's got to earn it.

For me to respect god, he'd have to raise Galileo from the grave and apologize to him.

I am sensing a steady decline in median IQ here at the Sift. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are not equivalent to fictional characters like the ones emulated by fantasy role players. I'm not even gonna define why, just gonna say that if you don't see the massive difference, you are dumb.

Furthermore, Santa Claus is actually an inoculant for religious thought, so as an atheist I'm all for those types of myth (the kind that are obviously fanciful).

>> ^chilaxe:
It makes the most sense to me to not teach kids anything made up... no Tooth Fairy, no Easter Bunny, no Santa Clause.
Reality is still good without them, and life is hard enough without believing things that aren't realistic.


woooooow... I disagree! Fictional characters, heroes, villains, stories, novels! are so important for childen development, as they actually gain life experience through them.

>> ^chilaxe:
It makes the most sense to me to not teach kids anything made up... no Tooth Fairy, no Easter Bunny, no Santa Clause.
Reality is still good without them, and life is hard enough without believing things that aren't realistic.


Hmmm

Personally i dont know how i feel.

I'd like to know what (if any) difference its makes to people (as a trend)

What? What kind of a childhood would that be.

That stuff is fun.


....for the adults.




>> ^chilaxe:
It makes the most sense to me to not teach kids anything made up... no Tooth Fairy, no Easter Bunny, no Santa Clause.
Reality is still good without them, and life is hard enough without believing things that aren't realistic.

>> ^chilaxe:
It makes the most sense to me to not teach kids anything made up... no Tooth Fairy, no Easter Bunny, no Santa Clause.
Reality is still good without them, and life is hard enough without believing things that aren't realistic.


i dunno, what about all those people who love role-play fantasy and dress up as lord of the rings characters and have loads of fun just recreating that whole world with each other? i think there's something lovely and innocent and harmless about that. whether or not they 'believe' in that isn't even a question.. maybe in some sense they're believing in the shared reality for the time that they're acting it out... but beyond that i think they're just indulging that part of us that needs fantasy and playfulness and whatever.. point is, i don't have a problem with it at all.. as long as they don't hurt anyone or force anyone to do something they don't want to do... i think ricky is expressing something similar here.. it makes 'em happy.. whatever.. who are we (as atheists) to deny them that? in the words of karl-head-like-a-fucking-orange-pilkington "its about bein happy, innit?"