*Organised religion

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't know - it wasn't as sad as I thought it would be. The reactions were generally pretty good from people. Sucks that he feels he has to live a celibate life just because of some 200 year-old church doctrine. I don't mind spirituality - shame organised religion has to screw it all up.

My apologies for missing your point, I sometimes tend towards the contentious. I think we have been arguing diagonally; of course religion (and faith) are the result of human traits, as is everything about human society. What I argue is that the unpleasant traits you rightly observe in other social institutions and widespread beliefs find a special form of propagation and protection from scrutiny in the supernatural aspect provided only by religious/supernatural belief. I still believe society would be better without religion, just as it would be without conspiracy theorists (often religious as well), state religion, and more generally the lack of critical thought. The reason religion is a worthy target when trying to effect social reform/progress is that, as I argue above, it ossifies and protects the negative traits you speak of, elevating them out of the sphere of human scrutiny/criticism by means of the supernatural argument.

>> ^jonny:

Nice straw men. I didn't write anything close to "without religion there can be no inspired art", nor have I ever heard or read anyone seriously suggest such a thing. Using that phrasing, my comment would be "without religion there can be no religiously inspired art," which should be self-evident.
And again you have assigned a position to me that does not follow from my comments. I am not apologizing for religion, nor do I think it doesn't deserve criticism and scrutiny. (On a side note, I think we may be using the word "religion" differently. I always make a distinction between faith (an individual belief) and religion (a collective belief). The distinction is analogous to the personal/public distinction in language.)
I haven't reduced religion to the sociocultural evils you mention. That is what you seem to have done, with only a dismissive acknowledgement of any good that may arise from it. I have repeatedly tried to show that religion is not the source of the evils you mention, but an expression of them. Even the teaching of nonsense and propagation of willful ignorance, which to me is one of the greatest sins, is hardly unique to religion or even inherent to it. Counterexamples - birthers and Taoism.
Again, let me point out that my comments arose from PostalBlowfish's comment that "there is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it," and his and your attempts to equate religion with certain fundamental human traits. This is really the basis of our disagreement - namely whether traits such tribalism and demagoguery are intrinsic to religion. To say that they are intrinsic implies that no religion can exist without those traits, and that is patently false. On the other hand, you don't need to look very hard to find those traits in just about any other social organization (politics, sports, business, etc.). This is what I keep trying to get across. None of the evils you attribute to religion are unique to it. Even if religion somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, all of those unpleasant traits would still be with humans. And this is the most important point I've been trying to make - don't let arguments over religion distract from the vastly more important task of helping humanity overcome these terrible tendencies inherent in all of us.
>> ^hpqp:
You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.
As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.

Nice straw men. I didn't write anything close to "without religion there can be no inspired art", nor have I ever heard or read anyone seriously suggest such a thing. Using that phrasing, my comment would be "without religion there can be no religiously inspired art," which should be self-evident.

And again you have assigned a position to me that does not follow from my comments. I am not apologizing for religion, nor do I think it doesn't deserve criticism and scrutiny. (On a side note, I think we may be using the word "religion" differently. I always make a distinction between faith (an individual belief) and religion (a collective belief). The distinction is analogous to the personal/public distinction in language.)

I haven't reduced religion to the sociocultural evils you mention. That is what you seem to have done, with only a dismissive acknowledgement of any good that may arise from it. I have repeatedly tried to show that religion is not the source of the evils you mention, but an expression of them. Even the teaching of nonsense and propagation of willful ignorance, which to me is one of the greatest sins, is hardly unique to religion or even inherent to it. Counterexamples - birthers and Taoism.

Again, let me point out that my comments arose from PostalBlowfish's comment that "there is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it," and his and your attempts to equate religion with certain fundamental human traits. This is really the basis of our disagreement - namely whether traits such tribalism and demagoguery are intrinsic to religion. To say that they are intrinsic implies that no religion can exist without those traits, and that is patently false. On the other hand, you don't need to look very hard to find those traits in just about any other social organization (politics, sports, business, etc.). This is what I keep trying to get across. None of the evils you attribute to religion are unique to it. Even if religion somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, all of those unpleasant traits would still be with humans. And this is the most important point I've been trying to make - don't let arguments over religion distract from the vastly more important task of helping humanity overcome these terrible tendencies inherent in all of us.

>> ^hpqp:

You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.
As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.

You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.

As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.

Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.
>> ^jonny:

@hpqp: The first problem here is that you are extrapolating my response into something it's not. PostalBlowfish commented that "There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it." My response to that has multiple points which apparently I haven't articulated very well. To add another though, it seems pretty clear that religious inspiration in art and music would be hard to duplicate without it, i.e., it is often the very nature of the supernatural belief that is inspirational. But to your point, that does not at all imply that I am "divorc[ing] the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined".
I'm not being naive or disingenuous - I've literally thought about this stuff for decades. In no way do I excuse any organized religion from its sanctioned evils (e.g., harboring pedophiles). For a long time I viewed religion as the source of many of the evils in society. But I've since come to realize that the evils directly attributable to religion are not intrinsic to religion, but to more fundamental aspects of human nature. And it is those fundamentally human traits that I think we, as a society, should be focused on rising above. Tribalism is one that I tend to focus on, and my point here is that religion is an expression of it, rather than a source of it.
Human's basic need to be tribal is kind of a big topic, so let me offer a more targeted, if tangential, example of what I mean. Consider the teaching of creationism in science classes. The most effective argument against it is that creationism is not science. Arguments against religious interference, separation of church and state, etc., only serve to muddy the waters and alienate the very people we would want to convince that creationism doesn't belong in science classes. There is no need to appeal to larger arguments against religion.

Does it have to be a Christian church? Maybe atheists need to establish The Church of No God and attend regularly, possibly attending by way of webcast or Skype conference call.

What about churches such as those attended by members of the cult of Scientology? Does attending the church of a religion based upon a blatantly false premise exclude an individual from having to pay this proposed tax? Maybe this is an opportunity for religions to prove they are genuine, any religion that is unable to prove that it is based on genuine deities doesn't count and therefore its congregation must pay the tax.

There's potential in this idea if it gets thought out properly in such a way that causes problems for organised religion instead of benefits. Or maybe my mind is just too twisted and I should accept that it's a crazy idea that will never make it into any legislation

You are so full of crazy, it isn't even amusing anymore.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I watched some of it. I didn't finish it because I don't feel like watching atheists complain for an hour is the best use of my time.
If God didn't exist, you might have a point..but He does exist and the real problem is that your mind is closed, your eyes are scaled over, and your ears plugged. You're like a guy who lives in a cave who denies the existence of the sun. You can't see it therefore it doesn't exist. Face it hpqp, you have more faith than I do.
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped...To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
Grasse, Pierre-P., [editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie", former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation", [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.107
>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry: 100$ says you did not watch the video. Greta lists many of the reasons why people like myself are so adamantly against superstitious beliefs and the organised religions that uphold them. If you can watch her talk and still defend religion, than you are very morally compromised.

I watched some of it. I didn't finish it because I don't feel like watching atheists complain for an hour is the best use of my time.

If God didn't exist, you might have a point..but He does exist and the real problem is that your mind is closed, your eyes are scaled over, and your ears plugged. You're like a guy who lives in a cave who denies the existence of the sun. You can't see it therefore it doesn't exist. Face it hpqp, you have more faith than I do.

"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped...To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."

Grasse, Pierre-P., [editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie", former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation", [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.107

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry: 100$ says you did not watch the video. Greta lists many of the reasons why people like myself are so adamantly against superstitious beliefs and the organised religions that uphold them. If you can watch her talk and still defend religion, than you are very morally compromised.

@shinyblurry: 100$ says you did not watch the video. Greta lists many of the reasons why people like myself are so adamantly against superstitious beliefs and the organised religions that uphold them. If you can watch her talk and still defend religion, than you are very morally compromised.

>> ^lampishthing:

Admittedly I think that organised religion is, indeed, poo but because it matters to a lot of people I don't degrade it. Just like if my (imaginary) little sister cherished a rock I wouldn't harm it.
Your imaginary sister's love of a rock is benign. It doesn't seriously negatively impact other people's lives. Religion deserves to be buried, not because it consists of silly beliefs, but because those beliefs result in the misery and suffering of others.

I was really just saying that someone always posts something along the lines of "Haha religion is poo" on all these videos. Admittedly I think that organised religion is, indeed, poo but because it matters to a lot of people I don't degrade it. Just like if my (imaginary) little sister cherished a rock I wouldn't harm it.

Re the last con: Yes, I would have said the same thing on a new age spiritualism video. I would have even said it on a scientology video because of the general term praying. But yeah, if you'd been saying "praying to Xenu" I probably wouldn't have called you on it because some religions are just bad news for everyone. Not all though - I think that's my basic defence.
>> ^chilaxe:

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
I think that comment constitutes trolling on some level.>> ^chilaxe:
Is the prank that praying is make-believe?


I can honestly respect that sentiment. On the pro side, it could be right.

On the con side, the other above comments include an offensive racial stereotype, deliberate insensitivity to Muslims' ban on depictions of the prophet Mohammad, and the video itself might be highly offensive to some conservative Muslims.
I was religious when I was younger, and it did extract a cost on my life history, so I do make such comments based on my own experience, rather than as an outsider.
If this was a video of some new age spiritual ritual, I don't think my comment would be questioned, so I'm not sure what the difference is in the present circumstances.

That's my 2 cents on the pro and con, anyway

I am a TAP agnostic. But I certainly do not entertain the thought of any of the organised religion's gods to exist, more so a form of univesial energy that is beyond us...for now.

I think the woman in the middle said the most striking thing of all and it seems largely overlooked, which I'm going to badly attempt to paraphrase..

If a person chooses to believe something in their heart, who am I to tell them they are wrong. I certainly cannot disprove the contention there is a god (of any particular denomination) just as religious folks cannot prove there is a god.

So you have two realms of belief, conflicting. If you cannot see something and never experience it, this does not mean it does not exist, it just means that if it does exist, you have not been made privy to it Does this mean anyone should force their belief on another?

My main problem with organised religion is that many try to force others to follow their belief without any proof that there is anything to follow in the first place. Similarly, I dislike evangelical atheists who will go out of their way to break the belief of the religious.

May be if we get the fuck over ourselves and just act with humanity (the point I believe Mr. Gore was trying to make), the world would be a much better place.

religion didn't play a major role in the fall of segregation at all, it was the changing of peoples mindsets and therefore a complete shift in the zeitgeist that brought down the fall. martin luther just happened to be a bible basher. i bet there is not a shred of evidence linking actual organised religion and the bible, to the downfall of segregation.
he lead the movement with religious influences, but peoples minds were changed because their conciousness was raised on how ridiculous segregation was.

also this guys reason is shit, being scared to go to hell, so thats why hes not a racist? well, that's not a good reason to not do something. if that's his reason, he clearly still doesn't know then why its ACTUALLY bad to be a racist and why its wrong on so many levels.

also, he says 'i didn't vote for obama, but i'm happy he's there'.
well......he obviously isn't, because he didn't vote for him.


he shouldn't be applauded at all - a satisfactory ending to this video should have been that that john lewis bloke got to beat HIM up. Then they would have been even, he would have got a taste of what it's like to be on the receiving end.



this man is clearly very simple and swayed by simple things. He was obviously a natural idiot in the first place to be a racist, there was of course a large minority of people back in the 1960's who weren't racist, just like there are a large minority of atheists in america today, so you can't blame it on 'lack of knowledge'.
he is also clearly influenced by ideology, unable to change his points of view due to his own retardness, voting for mccain instead of obama - judging by his accent he's probably from the southern republican states. if you had any common sense at all you'd have voted for obama in the election. (unless you were rich and greedy in which case you had good reason to vote for mccain - this guy is, i presume, in neither of these catergories)

in conclusion this guy is an idiot and should be shot.