As you pointed out before religon is a method of keeping people level headed and peaceful without becoming outraged. As far as I know, the public viewpoint is being gay is not okay according to the Old Testament; however, Christians follow Christ's teachings or abridgement of the Old Testament stating is is better to be kind and unstanding to all people. Therefore, you can be gay and go to church, but don't make a big scene about it.

Nope. You see, that's a fallacy on your part to assume that we DON'T do what we can to make religion less legitimate. To cast our votes in favor of pro-choice and equal rights under the law are also a small part of how we work to make it less legitimate. ALSO, this isn't the only place we communicate to others about the inconsistencies of the bible. God Tastes Like Chicken is a great example.

Fact of the matter is this, YES the bible will be around long after we have become dust, but don't think that just because our lives are so limited that our efforts are pointless because we wont be able to reap the fruits of our efforts.

As for your idea for a Jesus only book, I think Thomas Jefferson already made that. PLUS, your book STILL assumes that Jesus IS indeed the divine messiah.

Point being. Atheists and Agnostics are a rising minority in this country. Someday, that minority will become about half of the population. Observe and see that the momentum is simply that. We ARE seeing a gradual departure from superstitious thinking and it's not being forced this time, but being done organically.

HP, it's only a matter of time before religion is no longer a legitimate thing politically.

Honestly, doing away with religion would be extremely helpful for the downtrodden, the infirm, etc.

Currently, Christians are placing Republicans in power with unprecedented success, and most of them are content cut social programs and deny the poor healthcare, food, and jobs without a second thought.

Religious-based charities waste a great deal of their time and resources building churches and ministering. They do alot of good as well, but without that stupid book they could put 100% of their resources behind the work and help more people more effectively.

They also provide indispensable charity work. Many adoption agencies in the states are religious, many disaster areas rely on them. Not all keep most of the money for building churches, Catholic Charities claims to use 90% directly for its programs, Patrick Stewart thinks you're a prick if you don't think the AJWS isn't awesome, I get most my news from the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, and its been beaten in my head that to be a good Buddhist I need to help all beings. Not many religious based charities have the luxury of building holy buildings, and not all want to convert those they save, but a lot of them do a massive amount of work and we'd be crippled if they weren't there.

I don't think atheists are prone to be douche bags or anything, and most charities I support and volunteer with are secular, but religious communities do provide a way to get a charity recognized. Even the secular groups I'm apart of often have things donated from churches, for example a church offered its basement to us for a few events. I remember as a kid the churches would give us those unicef boxes to collect donations on Halloween, often the minister would make announcements for various events, some people I know really rely on the Salvation Army, a friend of mine is a minister of some sort in the SA (I really don't know anything about their ranks) and spent years in a school learning basically social work and came back hoping to start some much needed programs. The community itself is something thats very strong, influential and can be a very positive thing.

Sadly that does come back to bite us in instances such as the Catholic Charities threatening to stop its adoption services if it must cater to gay couples, which will be a nightmare, but supposedly secular adoption agencies have threatened the same.

Hey everyone! Saya just made religion TOTALLY LEGITIMATE! Let's all keep allowing religion into our social policies and keep saying that DESPITE us being Atheists, we have to go ahead and say "HEY, You're doing some good every now and then, so you MIGHT be right about this whole religion thing and it's more POSITIVE than it is negative!"

Saya, your arguments are dumb. A secular charity is WAY better than a religious one because it's not done to appease superstition. We've covered all that already.

Plus, we've already identified that you're more interested in lifting the teacher because of an emotional outpouring than you are of the actual teachings themselves. I swear, it's like you're more interested in being a Buddhist than you are about being honest and right. Tell me, Saya, I exist and am just as decent as you and have pretty much the same moral code and yet I'm totally atheist. Are you broken or something? If I can exist on these terms with no divinity, why can't you?

And as for this little tid-bit. A secular adoption service doing the same thing couldn't POSSIBLY be doing that out of fear of a social backlash. It would have to be the same kind of bigotry that the catholic adoption service is, right?

It's MORE likely that a secular adoption service does this from the religious right social stigmas that are in place right now. For fuck's sake, Saya, a candidate for the president of the USA is virtually UNELECTABLE if he were an atheist right now. You mean to tell me that a secular charity wouldn't feel those same pressures to toe the conservative line?

I'm as good as that guy named Jesus. I can cure a cripple with a prosthesis and I can walk on water when it freezes.

I didn't say that religion should be kept in social policies, I'm very much for the separation of church and state.

But secular charities are dwarfed by the religious. If the religious ones were to go away, we'd be fucked. Secular charities can also be guilty of keeping more proceeds than they should. And it isn't always to appease superstition, a religion can reason to its followers why its good to be, well, good. In Christianity, particularly Protestantism, as long as you have faith you'll go to heaven, you do not gain salvation by donating to charity. And its already been pointed out that Christian politicians want to cut social programs. So why does it also inspire so much charity? Because most religions incur a sense of community, brotherhood and goodwill. And some are even interested in mimicking the teachings of Jesus, fancy that.

There is no divinity in Zen Buddhism, I have no idea what you're talking about. Can I exist without Buddhism? Yes. Would I be as involved socially without Buddhism? I don't know, probably not, but maybe, its hard to say what my exposure to philanthropy would have been without it. I don't need it to function, no, I am not broken, I want it because I want to see something.

Its hard to say without asking, but its also stupid to think that a secular institution can't be cruel and bigoted, just as stupid to assume that any religious institution has to be.

I think in the face of losing income, business and most of all, being a bigot, an adoption agency (not necessarily charity) would simply comply to laws, especially in non-conservative states. What kind of a agency are you if you're willing to allow children to go without parents just to prove that you're just as bigoted as the next redneck? And thats assuming they're doing it just to keep the religious people off their backs and not bigoted themselves. I have seen charities cut off their noses to make a point that they won't back down in the face of backlash, how strongly do they believe in gay rights if they're willing to roll over for only potential backlash, not real?

That's easy, but would you die for your fellow man, die for strangers generations in the future?

That's what I thought.


I think I better take a stress pill and think things over. I am a tad cranky at the moment. Not a good time to reflect and debate.

Every individual who has died for an ideal which to him will create a better life after he is gone fits into that definition.

God FUCKING DAMN IT! You are just choosing to throw shit out there just to argue. First, you agree that politics should be secular and then the only point you're actually making overall is that religious charities should be around because without them we'd be fucked. I think the problem is, YOU can't imagine humanity having the ability to fill those vacuums. And not only that, this isn't even ABOUT those things to begin with.

First off, you name ONE secular organization that's done this and all you've proven is that they're quite CLEARLY bigots with NO FUCKING EXCUSE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. But you call a Catholic organization out for being bigoted and what do you get? People just saying, "They're just misguided." or "Well, that's what they believe in and we just have to deal with that."

FUCK. THAT. Seriously. Your points are amazingly dumb and actually, they're barely even applicable to this thread in the least.

You know what... you're not even making any points. You're just shooting off your 'net mouth.

HP, why are you responding to TN? He's a total idiot, and his comment was equally retarded.

I would like to point out however, that assuming Jesus was not divine, then it's unlikely he died for strangers and future generations. That bit was probably tacked on later.

Jesus the man was probably very different than the Jesus which is portrayed in the bible.

Wait, wait wait...

Every soldier for every country in the world
Martin Luthor King Jr
William Wallace
Leiv Livescue
Che Guivara
Hitler (even though he was a bad guy, he did believe he was doing right for Germany)
All the dudes at Alamo
Tecumseh (Actually a Navite American Christ figure)

Do I need to elaborate anymore?

Saying we should have a secular government isn't the same as saying we should end all religious organizations, and you know that. The services religious organizations are irreplaceable. I named one organization that denies same sex couples adoption, true, but I can also name religious organizations that do not ostracize as such. I think both organizations would be bigoted with no excuse, I'm not saying the Catholics are right in doing that whatsoever.

You know, I think you're so obsessed with being against religion no matter what you don't care about being honest or right. As of right now, no we would not have the ability to replace the work religious groups do, this is what allows the Catholics to throw a tantrum when gay rights get recognized because everyone knows that we depend on them. The government often can't pay for what they do, and millions of people world wide depend on their charity. This is a fact that bitching and whining online will not be able to change. By all means continue to whine and moan about how religion is the greatest evil known to man, but you seriously can't say that the charity work they do is useless and easily replaced.

Saya. You're a stupid. fucking. bitch. Quote me ANYWHERE AT ALL as to where I said we SHOULD get rid of them. The least I said is that I find it unlikely that we wouldn't be able to eventually fill those vacuums if society moved away from religion full stop. But no. You're getting all pissy and butt hurt because I'm taking an extremely hard atheist stance on the role of religion in politics and you're sitting there flapping your fuckin' dick suckers about charities as if that was EVER part of the conversation at all.

Guess what, Saya? Normatively, religious people VOTE and make policy based on their scriptures. H_P is an exception and there are a handful that are. BUT, the only way to actually undermine the superstitious from trying to shape our policies, is to EXPOSE RELIGION FOR WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS. If we can start communicating with people and sharing ideas, ALLOWING atheism to be recognized as not a threat to faiths around the world, but the most secular and FAIR frame of mind in which to view our world, maybe future generations can be free from the bonds of superstition. Right now, atheists ARE seen as less trust-worthy than Muslims or Jews when it comes to politics in America. That has to change and that can only change when the biggest minority starts using their voice.

Fine. I'll be as fair as possible to make your soft sensibilities feel better. I get that a religious experience is a hell of a way to feel better about ones life and their role in it. But it's a placebo. It's always been a placebo and if we as people keep trying to "respect" other peoples' religions, we're going to continue to have to endure this social infection.

But for fuck's sake, Saya. Stop trying to paint me out as a monster. I'm not looking to burn scriptures, put religious people in camps, and legislatively outlaw faith. I don't want to do that on a governmental scale, I'm just saying that we DO have to start viewing religion for what it is. Our own little brand of delusions. Logically, I CAN'T say that I'm an atheist but it's okay that others aren't. How can I see the superstitious as something that's okay? One of us HAS to be wrong and it just so happens that I'm most likely the one in the right.

Thing is, society as we know it has been shaped in the kiln of religion, especially western culture when it comes to all the flavors of Christianity. But to move on and progress, we're going to have to start distancing ourselves away from our opiates and realize that just because our delusion of choice gives us a very profound emotional state, it doesn't mean that the world needs to reflect the BARBARIC values of your personally prescribed version of an invisible sky man.

It's a teeny, tiny point, but even our money says things such as, "In God we trust." Well guess what? That doesn't represent ME. It just represents the superstitious.

Mah ancestor.

I can't fucking believe it, but I must admit that at this point in my life I agree with what Kontan is saying.
Obviously a year ago I would have leaned towards Saya's side, defending the religiously zealous by pointing out the various good little deeds they do, but now that I think about it more I've come to the "mind blowing" conclusion that anyone can do good little deeds.
I've tried to steer away from religious and political topics on this forum and even in real life as to not make a fool of myself anymore than I already have in the past, but I want to speak my mind on this.

I like how Kontan describes religion as an opiate, because that is exactly what it is, a feel good drug. Humans obviously don't want to deal with pain, and when there is pain it's nice to blame it on something dark and evil. This is great and all...but it absolutely sucks giant, donkey dicks when you're questioning the truth and then something really bad happens. Because all this time you had something to go to. And then all of a sudden you don't. I know this because I just went through it. Here I am crossing over to atheism and then BAM I find out my brothers in the emergency room, close to dying. At that moment I wanted to go to God sooo fucking bad, I needed him. But he wasn't there, there is absolutely nothing there, all those times I prayed I was just praying to myself.

It was a HUGE wake up call. A perfect God would never create a world as fucked up as this one, he would never allow his "children" to have to suffer horrible diseases, for babies to get *aped and tortured...etc. etc.

We should learn how to deal with ourselves, let go of religion, and grow the fuck up.



(I apologize to everyone for having to deal with my ignorance in the past, I know I was a fucktard.)

What I want to now is why Kontan is getting to pissy.
You'd expect me to have several things to say in a thread on religion but this conversation is just turning me off.

Well they are both pretty stubborn.

I think what's happening is that people are misconstruing the things that others are saying, and getting "pissy and butt hurt" when they shouldn't be.

Religions provide an easy entry point for people to do charitable things, and it can be a very effective tool for letting lots of people know about said charitable events and opportunites.
And I agree about the sense of community that one can have in a religion.

But that doesn't excuse religious charities if they deny services to people who don't follow those things that don't affect other people. I can see denying charitable services (and calling the cops) to someone who eats babies, but for someone who is gay, or has had an abortion, it's ridiculous. Christians aren't even supposed to judge people, since God is the only one who can (according to what it says in their own book).

Did I get that right? People?

Kontan and Despanan: what if a charity that is run by a religious group *doesn't* apply bigotry to their clients?

This doesn't make sense. You can do charitable things regardless. . . I find religious charity to be mostly a ministry tool. I should know... I've volunteered enough at church in my lifetime.

I used to be like Kontan and have a vein pop in my head whenever I heard of anyone suggesting religion was capable of anything good. Maybe its going from one extreme to another, and I understand we live in two different countries. I don't mean to sound like Canada is enlightened our anything, but for the most part we've straightened out how to live with our differences, and I know it can work. We find other things to fight over most of the time. I do realize if you grow up in the south its not that easy to believe its possible.

But it doesn't have to be an opiate. I'm not deluded. As I said before, people have to realize it is a deeply personal thing. Its not something to make me feel better, it doesn't always feel good, but it cuts to something deep in the core of my being and its very difficult to put into words, much less argue about it. And its why I wouldn't ever try to convert someone, I can't make them have that experience. Organized religions have their doctrine, teachings and prescriptions, but the individual's faith is very personal and, well, individual. Maybe Christians have a similar feeling to mine, but ascribe it to God. Its not something you can study in a text book. I study religions in school all day long, but at the end of the day I can't tell you what its like being a follower of other religions. What is it like being a Taoist or Jainist? I don't know. Its not something I can convince them isn't true, if thats where their belief comes from. To do so would be to ask someone to deny their own experience, yes? What am I freeing them of, if I try to convince them that they are being deluded to submit to an evil evil doctrine?

Religious people can be incredible douche bags, yes, no denying that. Being the personal experience it is it has no place in government policies, and its no excuse for bigotry. If they decide to try and use their religion to manipulate others, they're asking to be put on the stand and having their doctrine questioned and thrown back in their faces. I don't defend zealots, but I'm willing to defend religion in general. But the quiet Christian minding his own business? Doesn't bother me. People deserve to question it themselves, and come to their own conclusions, whatever they may be. Its nice to have friendly debates, but at the end of the day you have to pick your battles. And when they are genuinely doing good (and many many many religious people do), and are on my side (as many religious organizations/charities are), why the hell would I antagonize them?

Depends on what it is, doesn't it? Like my church raised a lot of money for UNICEF, didn't give them an opportunity to teach Bosnian children the word of God. My parents probably wouldn't have thought of it on their own. When I did take advantage of a church offering services, like their basement, they didn't try to convert us one bit. A lot of people genuine want to help, and like I was saying, religious communities generally can really foster that sort of desire, and give them the opportunity and backing to do what good they want. If you're in a room once a week with people beating it over your head about the brotherhood of mankind, and then say "hey, want to help out with this?" you're probably more prone to help than if you stayed at home. Like I said, not that religious people are better or anything, its just like LaBelle put it, a very easy access point to these things.

Their actions would fly in the face of their scriptures. They want to do that, that's fine. But to do so, you go right back to cherry picking what you find to be worth following in a book full of bullshit. Which goes right back to the argument that if the bible was supposed to be the word of God, then why is the word of God so messed up? Then they're going to say that it was written by human hands and then I say, "Are these the leaders you REALLY want to follow? These are the guys you want guiding you on your "spiritual" path? Damn, even Buddha is technically more decent than the god in the bible."

You see, it's not my fault. As far as Christianity is concerned, I DIDN'T write the damned thing, bigoted fucks did. Go back and read the bible again. Yes, it says a lot of really nice, feel good shit, but it states quite plainly its stance on certain people and the behavior of their god is just plain old questionable.

As far as getting really pissy and butthurt, I'm actually not. I'm just using incendiary language partly because I feel like it and partly because I just don't really like Saya. Ironically enough, I would consider HP to be one of my boys.

Do I have a problem with people doing good things in the name of their religion? A little bit, but only topically. Do I think good deeds done without the religious seal of approval is technically better? Of course. I'm an atheist. I'm capable of looking over people's beliefs for a bigger, positive picture. But I do and and can only logically conclude that being a religious person is a character flaw, even if it is minor.

I actually liked HP the most out of this discussion. Saya was WAY more annoying. But, she's not an atheist, she's a Buddhist and I can't agree that a live and let live attitude is the best way to go. It would require me to say, "Hey, you have some silly superstitions, but it's okay, you might be right."

Oh well. I'm over this. HP is cool, Saya is once again annoying and dumb, and I'm an incendiary asshole. All is right with the world.

You'll have to forgive Kontan, Saya annoys him and he was on a tear yesterday evening for unrelated reasons. So I think he was using her as a scratching post. However, it IS really annoying that Saya continues to throw out straw-man after straw-man in this discussion:

and that's just this page. Again and again Saya has attempted to put words in our mouths, and paint us to be something we are not. She continues to do this even after I have pointed it out, and commented on how these positions are incorrect. It's getting to the point where she seems to think repeating these accusations over and over again will somehow make it true. Guess what, it doesn't work that way. Stop doing it, it's a cowardly and poor tactic.

Neither myself, nor Kontan have made any statements that we believe religion is incapable of good, secular organizations are exempt from bigotry (though in the case of Gay adoption, pretty much the only reason anyone would be against it would be religious-based) Or that we should do away with all religious organizations.

So you can see why Kontan is upset.

Personally I think he has been a little harsh, but I've overlooked it because:

A) He's right The ends don't justify the means and you can't just excuse an incorrect worldview because that's inherently dishonest. One of us has to be wrong, and one of us has to be right.

B) I think it's funny. (heh..."Flapping your dick-suckers")

and

C) I think Saya kinda brought this on herself. Many of her arguments strongly imply that so long as the people involved in it are good people we should give religion a pass because it's the polite thing to do. (I don't have to explain why that sentiment is wrong do I?) It's my suspicion that Kontan has gotten ruder and ruder due to his irritation with this tactic.

Anyway, I would actually like to hear you weigh in on this Alan. You've been kinda chirping here and there but I'm interested in hearing you expand on your ideas.

I think we're confusing the issue here. Again, neither I, nor Kontan have argued for the dismantling of religious charities. Hell, the charity I ran the Chicago Marathon for IS a faith-based Christian charity.

I have my own issues with faith-based aid (mainly because it's often a recruiting tool) but those are beside the point entirely.

Well all I can say from experience is that I've always seen "religious" charity used MERELY as a ministry tool. For example, I went on a mission trip to Eastern Europe a few years back, and I was told that I was going to be there spending time with orphans for a month. Once I got there they ended up making me witness to random people on the street and act in a drama that was used for ministry. I only ended up volunteering at the orphanage for 2 days out of that month. Well one day I started talking to this one old guy who was probably in his 80's, we were just having a normal conversation about the government, life in the US etc...we continued talking for like an hour and then one of my group leaders pulled me away and said that I should stop wasting time. If I wasn't doing Gods work, then it was pointless for me to spend time with that person. At the time I thought that the leaders knew exactly what they were doing...but now that I look back I'm like wtf???