ATHEISM AND CIVIL SOCIETY

[Bill]

Many people claim that religion is necessary to control a civil society. The
corollary to this claim is that atheism breeds a dangerous anti social
society.



This is pure fiction and religious propaganda. Many of the most brutal
societies in the world were religiously dominated. One recent example was
the Taliban.



A society based on intelligent atheism is likely to be fairer and less
repressive than one based on religion.



Atheists realize and accept the fact that humans are totally interdependent.
All of modern society's wealth, health and benefits are the result of the
cooperative and supportive efforts of our fellow man.



Visualize man isolated in a jungle or the wilds of Northern Canada without
any of societies man made cloths, tools, shelter, medicines or food. How
long could he survive? How much would he suffer before a horrible and
painful death?



Man is a social animal totally dependent on the society in which he lives
and atheists are fully aware and supportive of this.



Japan and many other non religious societies thrive without religion.

[j***@zoomnet.net]

Bill wrote:
Many people claim that religion is necessary to control a civil
society. The
corollary to this claim is that atheism breeds a dangerous anti social
society.

This is pure fiction and religious propaganda. Many of the most brutal
societies in the world were religiously dominated. One recent example
was
the Taliban.


On the other side there's the Soviet Union,Red China,
Caucesu's(sp?) Romania,and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

[Bill]

Post by Bill
Many people claim that religion is necessary to control a civil society. The
corollary to this claim is that atheism breeds a dangerous anti social
society.
This is pure fiction and religious propaganda. Many of the most brutal
societies in the world were religiously dominated. One recent example was
the Taliban.
On the other side there's the Soviet Union,Red China,
Caucesu's(sp?) Romania,and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Further evidence that good and bad societies are not just the result of
religious or god beliefs.

[James]

Post by Bill
Many people claim that religion is necessary to control a civil society. The
corollary to this claim is that atheism breeds a dangerous anti social
society.
This is pure fiction and religious propaganda. Many of the most brutal
societies in the world were religiously dominated. One recent example was
the Taliban.
On the other side there's the Soviet Union,Red China,
Caucesu's(sp?) Romania,and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

As you've undoubtedly been told before, there's a difference between
Communism and atheism. A child molester being an eater of oranges does
not mean that all eaters of oranges are child molesters.

That being said, I should make it clear that I disagree with the
original poster. The best societies are based on an absence of
religion, which is most decidedly *not* atheism. I'm sure a culture
that enforces atheism would make the same mistakes as any society that
tries to tell its people how to think.

[bob young]

Post by James

Post by Bill
Many people claim that religion is necessary to control a civil society. The
corollary to this claim is that atheism breeds a dangerous anti social
society.
This is pure fiction and religious propaganda. Many of the most brutal
societies in the world were religiously dominated. One recent example was
the Taliban.
On the other side there's the Soviet Union,Red China,
Caucesu's(sp?) Romania,and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

As you've undoubtedly been told before, there's a difference between
Communism and atheism. A child molester being an eater of oranges does
not mean that all eaters of oranges are child molesters.
That being said, I should make it clear that I disagree with the
original poster. The best societies are based on an absence of
religion, which is most decidedly *not* atheism. I'm sure a culture
that enforces atheism would make the same mistakes as any society that
tries to tell its people how to think.

The same line of thought shows that were there suddenly to be just one
religion it would not work either - just examine today the plethora of
schisms within any modern religion.

This proves of course that religions are man made and tillustrates man's
insatiable need to start new branches or cults to meet his desire for
unique power and influence.

Atheism does not suffer from this problem since it is not a club. Atheism
can, however, be a moderating influence in a world of religious mania.

bob
Humanist Brit.

"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent
in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]

Post by James
--
James B
aa #944
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
-David Hume

[bob young]

Post by Bill
Many people claim that religion is necessary to control a civil society. The
corollary to this claim is that atheism breeds a dangerous anti social
society.
This is pure fiction and religious propaganda. Many of the most brutal
societies in the world were religiously dominated. One recent example was
the Taliban.
On the other side there's the Soviet Union,Red China,
Caucesu's(sp?) Romania,and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

These were all dictatorships terrified of any organisation that may
galvanise the population into forming some kind of resistance [see the
Falung Goong in China today] so they banned any group activity and that
included all religions, and I mean ALL RELIGIONS

These nations never went to war as atheists, they had no atheist flag
[try your local church and count the battle flags hanging over the alter]
neither did they write diktats for their people about atheism being any
kind of standard for them to follow.

How sick and tired I am of this weak response that we see so many times
used by religionists struggling to prop up their belief.

bob
Humanist Brit'
Hong kong

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or
without it, you'd have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good
people to do evil things, it takes religion."
[Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate]

[Midjis]

Post by Bill
Many people claim that religion is necessary to control a civil
society.

Very few people, I think, would seriously claim this, simply because it
is quite obviously not so. Those fanatics who wish to impose their
religion on others, perhaps - but I cannot imagine even the vast majority
of religious people would make such a groundless claim.

Post by Bill
This is pure fiction and religious propaganda. Many of the most brutal
societies in the world were religiously dominated. One recent example
was the Taliban.

Religious and non-religious societies have been similarly brutal through
history. The only distinguishing factor really has been that there have
been far fewer deliberately non-religious societies (as distinct from
those that merely allow their people to make up their own minds).

Post by Bill
A society based on intelligent atheism is likely to be fairer and less
repressive than one based on religion.

Not necessarily. A society that seeks to impose religious (or anti-
religious) views of any kind will be intrinsically unfair and tend
towards repressiveness. A society that insists on atheism - intelligent
or not - attempts to place itself inside the minds of its citizens, and
make this essentially personal and private decision for them. The
decision to believe or not is one of very few decisions that an
individual gets - or at least SHOULD get - to make entirely freely and
for themselves. A law that forbids religion is no more fair or desirable
than that of the lunatics in Afghanistan who were going to murder a man
simply for changing his religious position.

Post by Bill
Atheists realize and accept the fact that humans are totally
interdependent.

As do many religious people. It is simplistic - even lazy - to assume
otherwise, simply because certain types of religionist are thoroughly
anti-social. Certain types of atheist are similarly aggressive and
intolerant - a lack of belief in god or gods is certainly no indicator of
moral superiority.

Post by Bill
All of modern society's wealth, health and benefits
are the result of the cooperative and supportive efforts of our fellow
man.

Indeed. And many of those benefits stem from the work of the atheistic,
and many from the work of the religious. Social consciousness, altruism
and a desire to improve humanity's lot are not the exclusive reserve of
either position.

Post by Bill
Visualize man isolated in a jungle or the wilds of Northern Canada
without any of societies man made cloths, tools, shelter, medicines or
food. How long could he survive? How much would he suffer before a
horrible and painful death?

'Man'? Or 'a man'? If the former, probably a good long time - if only
because of our vast numbers. If the latter, then it would depend on the
individual and his own personal resourcefulness.

Post by Bill
Japan and many other non religious societies thrive without religion.

And many civilised societies thrive with it. Freedom is the key. Those
societies that tend to struggle are the ones that prohibit it, or those
that insist upon it.

[bob young]

Post by Midjis

Post by Bill
Many people claim that religion is necessary to control a civil
society.

Very few people, I think, would seriously claim this, simply because it
is quite obviously not so. Those fanatics who wish to impose their
religion on others, perhaps - but I cannot imagine even the vast majority
of religious people would make such a groundless claim.

The point made highlights the origins of all religions, a guide to living
empowered by an invisible imaginary god, or in some cases a carved image of
one

Post by Midjis

Post by Bill
This is pure fiction and religious propaganda. Many of the most brutal
societies in the world were religiously dominated. One recent example
was the Taliban.

Religious and non-religious societies have been similarly brutal through
history. The only distinguishing factor really has been that there have
been far fewer deliberately non-religious societies (as distinct from
those that merely allow their people to make up their own minds).

Post by Bill
A society based on intelligent atheism is likely to be fairer and less
repressive than one based on religion.

Not necessarily. A society that seeks to impose religious (or anti-
religious) views of any kind will be intrinsically unfair and tend
towards repressiveness.

There can never be a case made encouraging modern man to be guided by
primitive superstitions and imaginary gods. they are utterly out of date.

Post by Midjis
A society that insists on atheism - intelligent
or not - attempts to place itself inside the minds of its citizens, and
make this essentially personal and private decision for them.

This will be overridden by politicians, atheism and democracy should go hand
in hand

Post by Midjis
The
decision to believe or not is one of very few decisions that an
individual gets - or at least SHOULD get - to make entirely freely and
for themselves. A law that forbids religion is no more fair or desirable
than that of the lunatics in Afghanistan who were going to murder a man
simply for changing his religious position.

A wonderful example of the depth of religious lunacy. Law should not forbid
religions, common sense should outlaw them, in time maybe it will, but i
have my doubts.

Post by Midjis

Post by Bill
Atheists realize and accept the fact that humans are totally
interdependent.

As do many religious people. It is simplistic - even lazy - to assume
otherwise, simply because certain types of religionist are thoroughly
anti-social. Certain types of atheist are similarly aggressive and
intolerant - a lack of belief in god or gods is certainly no indicator of
moral superiority.

Post by Bill
All of modern society's wealth, health and benefits
are the result of the cooperative and supportive efforts of our fellow
man.

Indeed. And many of those benefits stem from the work of the atheistic,
and many from the work of the religious. Social consciousness, altruism
and a desire to improve humanity's lot are not the exclusive reserve of
either position.

Post by Bill
Visualize man isolated in a jungle or the wilds of Northern Canada
without any of societies man made cloths, tools, shelter, medicines or
food. How long could he survive? How much would he suffer before a
horrible and painful death?

'Man'? Or 'a man'? If the former, probably a good long time - if only
because of our vast numbers. If the latter, then it would depend on the
individual and his own personal resourcefulness.

Post by Bill
Japan and many other non religious societies thrive without religion.

And many civilised societies thrive with it. Freedom is the key. Those
societies that tend to struggle are the ones that prohibit it, or those
that insist upon it.

[Midjis]

Post by bob young
The point made highlights the origins of all religions, a guide to
living empowered by an invisible imaginary god, or in some cases a
carved image of one

A guide for living must come from somewhere. Whether you call it law,
ethics, etiquette, piety, or whatever - a society without moral
guidelines of some sort would be a fairly unstable one, and would tend to
gravitate towards dictatorship.

So the question is where do the guidelines come from? And where do we
wish to believe they come from? In former societies, perhaps people were
satisfied to believe that their laws came from the gods. Today, most
people would not be satisfied with this. But a person's belief that they
are expected to behave in a certain way by their deity is not inherently
harmful (provided the required behaviours are not harmful, of course).
It is when that person takes it upon themselves to try to enforce certain
behaviours in OTHERS that a problem arises.

Similarly, while an atheist is free to believe that he or she has taken
up a more intellectually advanced position than a believer, s/he is NOT
free to berate others for choosing a different position.

As I said, a belief is personal, and while it remains personal, it is no-
one's business but that of the individual. Once it extends beyond the
self then it is out of its place and needs to be confronted.

Post by bob young
There can never be a case made encouraging modern man to be guided by
primitive superstitions and imaginary gods. they are utterly out of date.

Such a statement is weighted in favour of your own position, of course.
It is not your decision to make for other people. You have your
position, and your confidence that it is superior - and perhaps it is, at
that. But it is not for you to decide for others.

Post by bob young
This will be overridden by politicians, atheism and democracy should
go hand in hand

Democracy and corruption go hand in hand - but that does not mean that
corruption is a good thing. We favour democracy because we see it as the
fairest system, under which each individual supposedly gets the power to
influence the government of the country. Whether or not that is true is
another debate - but that is the principle.

Yet here we have someone who seems to argue that as part of the democracy
'package' should come an imposed restriction on one of the most personal
and private decisions a person will ever make.

Since the adoption or rejection of any given religious belief by an
individual does not inherently affect the freedom of others, the state
has no place making this decision on its people's behalf. Some of our
behaviours are rightly controlled by our politicians in the form of
legislation. Religion, or the choice to reject religion, should not be
one of them.

[bob young]

Post by Midjis

Post by bob young
The point made highlights the origins of all religions, a guide to
living empowered by an invisible imaginary god, or in some cases a
carved image of one

A guide for living must come from somewhere. Whether you call it law,
ethics, etiquette, piety, or whatever - a society without moral
guidelines of some sort would be a fairly unstable one, and would tend to
gravitate towards dictatorship.
So the question is where do the guidelines come from? And where do we
wish to believe they come from? In former societies, perhaps people were
satisfied to believe that their laws came from the gods. Today, most
people would not be satisfied with this. But a person's belief that they
are expected to behave in a certain way by their deity is not inherently
harmful (provided the required behaviours are not harmful, of course).
It is when that person takes it upon themselves to try to enforce certain
behaviours in OTHERS that a problem arises.
Similarly, while an atheist is free to believe that he or she has taken
up a more intellectually advanced position than a believer, s/he is NOT
free to berate others for choosing a different position.
As I said, a belief is personal, and while it remains personal, it is no-
one's business but that of the individual. Once it extends beyond the
self then it is out of its place and needs to be confronted.

Until such time as religionists start killing others in the name of their
imaginary gods
THEN it becomes of major interested to all concerned.

Post by Midjis

Post by bob young
There can never be a case made encouraging modern man to be guided by
primitive superstitions and imaginary gods. they are utterly out of date.

Such a statement is weighted in favour of your own position, of course.
It is not your decision to make for other people. You have your
position, and your confidence that it is superior - and perhaps it is, at
that. But it is not for you to decide for others.

Religion has ALWAYS taken the SUPERIOR stand; mainly because human beings
are in many cases arrogant and crave indulgence and admiration. In
religions there is no shortage of either - just watch any televangelist
'show' and this becomes abundently clear

Post by Midjis

Post by bob young
This will be overridden by politicians, atheism and democracy should
go hand in hand

Democracy and corruption go hand in hand - but that does not mean that
corruption is a good thing. We favour democracy because we see it as the
fairest system, under which each individual supposedly gets the power to
influence the government of the country. Whether or not that is true is
another debate - but that is the principle.
Yet here we have someone who seems to argue that as part of the democracy
'package' should come an imposed restriction on one of the most personal
and private decisions a person will ever make.

Ha Ha It is hardly 'personal and private' after being brainwashed from the
cradle is it?

Post by Midjis
Since the adoption or rejection of any given religious belief by an
individual does not inherently affect the freedom of others
the state
has no place making this decision on its people's behalf. Some of our
behaviours are rightly controlled by our politicians in the form of
legislation. Religion, or the choice to reject religion, should not be
one of them.

[Midjis]

Post by bob young
Until such time as religionists start killing others in the name of
their imaginary gods
THEN it becomes of major interested to all concerned.

Of course it does. But it is very easy to dismiss the fact that most
religionists simply try to live to the standards they believe their god
expects of them, and generally mind their own business. These people are
blameless, and have the right to make their own decisions with reference
to their beliefs. And why do people dismiss this? Because they are
lazy, and it is easier to stereotype. Or because it helps them
rationalise a hatred or distrust that they already feel.

As I said, it is not acceptable for a person to attempt to impose their
religious position on others, whatever that position might be. It is a
personal choice and applies only to the individual.

Post by bob young
Religion has ALWAYS taken the SUPERIOR stand; mainly because human
beings are in many cases arrogant and crave indulgence and admiration.

True, and it is wrong for religion to take the superior stand. It is
also wrong for atheism to try to take it.

Post by bob young
In religions there is no shortage of either - just watch any
televangelist 'show' and this becomes abundently clear

Again, it is easy to watch the most outspoken or fanatical and tar all
with the same brush. Easy and convenient. It does not require too much
thought. But a televangelist is not an average worshipper of the
Christian god - if he can be said to worship that god at all. The prime
drive of a televangelist is usually a deity called Money.

Post by bob young

Post by Midjis
Yet here we have someone who seems to argue that as part of the
democracy 'package' should come an imposed restriction on one of the
most personal and private decisions a person will ever make.

Ha Ha It is hardly 'personal and private' after being brainwashed from
the cradle is it?

"Ha Ha"? Up until here you seemed almost rational.

But until there is a proper study to refer to, all I can do here is offer
myself once again as anecdotal evidence against this claim. I was raised
by Christian parents and schooled in a Christian school. I was taught
the stories of the Bible from a very early age. I went to church on
Sundays and was told all about who Jesus was, what he had done, and why.
I understood this, and had no reason to disbelieve it. I prayed in
school assemblies, and sang hymns. I celebrated Christmas because I knew
what Christmas meant - not simply because the corporate world told me to
buy things. Likewise with Easter. I have learned a lot about
Christianity from my upbringing, and since then I have learned a fair
amount about other faiths as well.

I am not a Christian. I am a free individual able to make my own
assessments and my own decisions. My family have done their duty as
Christians in teaching me what their religion teaches them. Their duty
stops there. They have no God-given duty to make me Christian, and they
do not try. They have also done their duty in allowing me the freedom to
decide for myself which path to take as far as religion is concerned.
And it is a personal choice because it is mine and mine alone, and a
private one because (aside from the appropriate places, such as this
group, or with my family, I do not discuss my religion).

You may define this as being 'brainwashed', if you wish - but I would
have trouble accepting such a definition.

[bob young]

Post by Midjis

Post by bob young
Until such time as religionists start killing others in the name of
their imaginary gods
THEN it becomes of major interested to all concerned.

Of course it does. But it is very easy to dismiss the fact that most
religionists simply try to live to the standards they believe their god
expects of them, and generally mind their own business.

These I can easily live with as I doubt either that they try to push their
belief down other's throats
buy i would still prefer them to find a way of being good decent people
without the need for an imaginary god

Post by Midjis
These people are
blameless, and have the right to make their own decisions with reference
to their beliefs.

True

Post by Midjis
And why do people dismiss this? Because they are
lazy, and it is easier to stereotype. Or because it helps them
rationalise a hatred or distrust that they already feel.

The religious extremists are the ones to be feared by all concerned both
within and without their citadel

Post by Midjis
As I said, it is not acceptable for a person to attempt to impose their
religious position on others, whatever that position might be. It is a
personal choice and applies only to the individual.

I agree

Post by Midjis

Post by bob young
Religion has ALWAYS taken the SUPERIOR stand; mainly because human
beings are in many cases arrogant and crave indulgence and admiration.

True, and it is wrong for religion to take the superior stand. It is
also wrong for atheism to try to take it.

Well atheism is a rather fragmented thing by comparison, as A's come from
all walks of life and do not have a citadel

Post by Midjis

Post by bob young
In religions there is no shortage of either - just watch any
televangelist 'show' and this becomes abundently clear

Again, it is easy to watch the most outspoken or fanatical and tar all
with the same brush. Easy and convenient. It does not require too much
thought. But a televangelist is not an average worshipper of the
Christian god - if he can be said to worship that god at all.

They all worship one god - money

Post by Midjis
The prime
drive of a televangelist is usually a deity called Money.

Oooops i missed that, something else we agree on

Post by Midjis

Post by bob young

Post by Midjis
Yet here we have someone who seems to argue that as part of the
democracy 'package' should come an imposed restriction on one of the
most personal and private decisions a person will ever make.

Ha Ha It is hardly 'personal and private' after being brainwashed from
the cradle is it?

"Ha Ha"? Up until here you seemed almost rational.

You do not consider that 98% of Christians were brainwashed as children?

Benny Hinn had a black boy aged around nine as a 'miracle' on one of his
shows, the boys father was standing behind him with a hand on each of his
shoulders. The boy looked decidedly uncomfortable, no doubt because he was
lying about the miracle that cured his arm that he could now move ["Look
show it for everyone to see move your arm"] I could read his father's
thoughts 'Mess this one up son and we aren't going to get paid so
concentrate" The boy seemed to be terrified. Just one aspect of religion
that makes me sick

Post by Midjis
But until there is a proper study to refer to, all I can do here is offer
myself once again as anecdotal evidence against this claim. I was raised
by Christian parents and schooled in a Christian school.

Me too

Post by Midjis
I was taught
the stories of the Bible from a very early age.

Me too

Post by Midjis
I went to church on
Sundays and was told all about who Jesus was, what he had done, and why.
I understood this, and had no reason to disbelieve it.

Me too

Post by Midjis
I prayed in
school assemblies, and sang hymns. I celebrated Christmas because I knew
what Christmas meant - not simply because the corporate world told me to
buy things. Likewise with Easter. I have learned a lot about
Christianity from my upbringing, and since then I have learned a fair
amount about other faiths as well.

Me too but as i think I mentioned before; after traveling abroad at age 24
things changed for me, and all of what I learned about one particular god
and his virgin birth son was re-categorised under the heading of 'Banal
Superstition'

Post by Midjis
I am not a Christian. I am a free individual able to make my own
assessments and my own decisions. My family have done their duty as
Christians in teaching me what their religion teaches them. Their duty
stops there. They have no God-given duty to make me Christian, and they
do not try. They have also done their duty in allowing me the freedom to
decide for myself which path to take as far as religion is concerned.
And it is a personal choice because it is mine and mine alone, and a
private one because (aside from the appropriate places, such as this
group, or with my family, I do not discuss my religion).
You may define this as being 'brainwashed', if you wish - but I would
have trouble accepting such a definition.

Shouldn't be a problem, you are in good company, a company of millions.

Bob

[Midjis]

Post by bob young
You do not consider that 98% of Christians were brainwashed as
children?

It is not for me to say. Most Christians and Muslims I have met
personally are intelligent people who have considered what they believe
and who have reached their decision of their own accord. Granted, they
may have been raised in a particular way - as I was - but as adults they
have generally either chosen to continue because they believe their
upbringing was right, or they have chosen to move away from the faith in
which they were raised.

Most militants, I believe, are also where they are by choice. They
embrace religion because they see it as a way to justify their hatred of
a particular group of people. Whether it is the Muslim militant
attacking 'Westerners' (as we non-Muslims have apparently even started to
call ourselves), or the Christian militant attacking Muslims, or
atheists, or pagans, or whoever else they have decided they do not like.

In such cases, I believe that the religion is adopted in order that it
can be used as the excuse - not that the religion demands such
behaviours. After all, the fact that the majority of followers of either
of these faiths are peaceable and relatively tolerant people seems to
suggest that such demands are NOT made on all followers.

Post by bob young
Benny Hinn had a black boy aged around nine as a 'miracle' on one of
his shows, the boys father was standing behind him with a hand on each
of his shoulders. The boy looked decidedly uncomfortable, no doubt
because he was lying about the miracle that cured his arm that he
could now move ["Look show it for everyone to see move your arm"] I
could read his father's thoughts 'Mess this one up son and we aren't
going to get paid so concentrate" The boy seemed to be terrified.
Just one aspect of religion that makes me sick

And me also. But referring back to the point above - this is Benny Hinn,
not a Christian. This is a devotee of Money. It is not Christianity,
but a scam relying on people's gullibility.

Post by bob young
Me too but as i think I mentioned before; after traveling abroad at
age 24 things changed for me, and all of what I learned about one
particular god and his virgin birth son was re-categorised under the
heading of 'Banal Superstition'

Perhaps so. What I learned also influenced me to change my views. And,
although unlike you I retain what I consider a 'religious' position, this
is based on my interpretation of and interaction with the world around me
and not upon a belief in any almighty creator. My 'religion' does not
require anything of me, and I require nothing of it. It is simply a way
of looking at things.

Nevertheless, the point is that while we both left Christianity behind
us, it can be said of both of us that we were not 'brainwashed' in any
sense of the word. We were raised a certain way, but we retained our
ability and our WILL to learn things for ourselves and to make our own
decisions. And I firmly believe that the vast majority of religious and
non-religious people could say the same. As I say, even most militants I
would not consider 'brainwashed'. They do what they do because they WANT
to - they merely use religion as a handy justification for doing it.

Suicide terrorists... My personal jury is still out on them. They may
indeed be the few who are truly brainwashed. But they are still the
*few*.

[bob young]

Post by Midjis

Post by bob young
You do not consider that 98% of Christians were brainwashed as children?

It is not for me to say. Most Christians and Muslims I have met
personally are intelligent people who have considered what they believe
and who have reached their decision of their own accord.

If considered in depth is it quite inappropriate for one human
to decide which of it's same species is intelligent or not.

One man's measure of intelligence depends entirely on his own level of
intelligence

Post by Midjis
Granted, they
may have been raised in a particular way - as I was - but as adults they
have generally either chosen to continue because they believe their
upbringing was right, or they have chosen to move away from the faith in
which they were raised.

I doubt any 'choice' is involved, since religions, after being inculcated
from the cradle,
provide imaginary protection and escape from unpleasant things [see my
comments on intelligence above]

Post by Midjis
Most militants, I believe, are also where they are by choice. They
embrace religion because they see it as a way to justify their hatred of
a particular group of people. Whether it is the Muslim militant
attacking 'Westerners' (as we non-Muslims have apparently even started to
call ourselves), or the Christian militant attacking Muslims, or
atheists, or pagans, or whoever else they have decided they do not like.

If the belief, as i am confident it is, becomes ingrained as a child, then
the religion comes first. the degree of aggression is inbuilt with the
person's psyche

Post by Midjis
In such cases, I believe that the religion is adopted in order that it
can be used as the excuse - not that the religion demands such
behaviours. After all, the fact that the majority of followers of either
of these faiths are peaceable and relatively tolerant people seems to
suggest that such demands are NOT made on all followers.

With Muslims the moderates are so imbibed into their belief,
they are afraid to tackle the aggression as it 'just could, maybe might,
upset Allah' - [who is non existent anyway - hence Atheists]

Post by Midjis

Post by bob young
Benny Hinn had a black boy aged around nine as a 'miracle' on one of
his shows, the boys father was standing behind him with a hand on each
of his shoulders. The boy looked decidedly uncomfortable, no doubt
because he was lying about the miracle that cured his arm that he
could now move ["Look show it for everyone to see move your arm"] I
could read his father's thoughts 'Mess this one up son and we aren't
going to get paid so concentrate" The boy seemed to be terrified.
Just one aspect of religion that makes me sick

And me also. But referring back to the point above - this is Benny Hinn,
not a Christian. This is a devotee of Money. It is not Christianity,
but a scam relying on people's gullibility.

This is where atheists get active,
wondering how so many people can be taken in
and more to the point, why should they?

Post by Midjis

Post by bob young
Me too but as i think I mentioned before; after traveling abroad at
age 24 things changed for me, and all of what I learned about one
particular god and his virgin birth son was re-categorised under the
heading of 'Banal Superstition'

Perhaps so. What I learned also influenced me to change my views. And,
although unlike you I retain what I consider a 'religious' position, this
is based on my interpretation of and interaction with the world around me
and not upon a belief in any almighty creator. My 'religion' does not
require anything of me, and I require nothing of it. It is simply a way
of looking at things.
Nevertheless, the point is that while we both left Christianity behind
us, it can be said of both of us that we were not 'brainwashed' in any
sense of the word. We were raised a certain way, but we retained our
ability and our WILL to learn things for ourselves and to make our own
decisions. And I firmly believe that the vast majority of religious and
non-religious people could say the same. As I say, even most militants I
would not consider 'brainwashed'. They do what they do because they WANT
to - they merely use religion as a handy justification for doing it.

We should always remember the theory of the Bell Curve as it sets us apart
and measures every one of us.

Cheers

Post by Midjis
Suicide terrorists... My personal jury is still out on them. They may
indeed be the few who are truly brainwashed. But they are still the
*few*.

[Midjis]

Post by bob young
If considered in depth is it quite inappropriate for one human
to decide which of it's same species is intelligent or not.
One man's measure of intelligence depends entirely on his own level of
intelligence

I have made no comparisons or made any statements as to which are
intelligent and which are not. I have said that most Muslims and
Christians I have met are intelligent people. If you would oppose that
statement then it would seem to suggest that you are arguing that they
are NOT intelligent. Would that not go against what you have said here?

Post by bob young
I doubt any 'choice' is involved, since religions, after being
inculcated from the cradle,
provide imaginary protection and escape from unpleasant things [see my
comments on intelligence above]

Bob, you and I have both stated that we have been raised in a certain
way, but have subsequently made the choice to abandon the religion in
which we were raised. Granted, there are some who will choose to remain
faithful to the religion under which they were raised, and some to whom
it never occurs that a choice need be made. But having made your own
choice, and being in discussion with someone who has also made their own
choice, it seems a little careless to suggest that 'choice' is never
involved.

Post by bob young

Post by Midjis
In such cases, I believe that the religion is adopted in order that
it can be used as the excuse - not that the religion demands such
behaviours. After all, the fact that the majority of followers of
either of these faiths are peaceable and relatively tolerant people
seems to suggest that such demands are NOT made on all followers.

With Muslims the moderates are so imbibed into their belief,
they are afraid to tackle the aggression as it 'just could, maybe
might, upset Allah' - [who is non existent anyway - hence Atheists]

Hence atheists such as yourself who believe that Allah is non-existent
and therefore feel confident in making statements such as 'Allah does not
exist'.

I do not believe in Allah. Just for the record.

As to your point regarding moderates... I admit I do not know the
answer, because I do not really know what we expect them to do.

It is generally argued that moderates condone terrorism if they do not do
anything about it. Individual Muslims who condemn terrorism or Islamic
fundamentalism are rarely heard, and when they are, their comments are
dismissed by the media as "just one person". When political groups such
as the Muslim Councils speak out, their statements are dismissed as
'half-hearted' or as 'paying lip service'. It is difficult to see quite
what the media expect the Muslim public of Britain to do - the
implication apparently being that unless they arm themselves and go out
and start shooting terrorists then they are in cahoots with the
militants. But WE could be doing that - and we do not. We shoot
electricians. But this implication of guilt is accepted by the public
worringly quickly - yet we never felt it necessary to blame the Irish
public for IRA terrorism. We do not consider ourselves to be condoning
crime because we are not all going out and playing the vigilante on the
streets.

Who murdered Kitty Genovese[1] that night in Queens, New York in 1964?
It was not the 38 residents who saw or heard her as she was attacked over
the course of half an hour, but who did not rush out to rescue her. Most
did not realise what was happening; some were afraid. It was, solely and
simply, the man who attacked her. The press at the time had a field day
- accusing those residents of everything just short of murdering her
themselves, because they did not save her, when in fact the truth was far
more complex. It strikes me as a similar injustice to imply that a
Muslim is responsible for terrorism simply because s/he does feel able or
willing to confront it directly. It does not follow that that person
approves of it.

But the common factor involved here is the media, and the media portrayal
of people. And the media, as we surely know, work in the service of the
media above and beyond anything else.

--
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese
--

Post by bob young

Post by Midjis
And me also. But referring back to the point above - this is Benny
Hinn, not a Christian. This is a devotee of Money. It is not
Christianity, but a scam relying on people's gullibility.

This is where atheists get active,
wondering how so many people can be taken in
and more to the point, why should they?

Where a claim such as this can be proved to be a con - as I am sure this
one could have - then it should be opposed, and, if possible, prosecuted.
The Nigerian 419 scams rely on people WILLINGLY handing over money to the
scammers - they play on people's greed and gullibility. And some argue
that because of this, the scammers should not be prosecuted. After all,
nobody HAS to hand over the money, right?

But even the gullible and the greedy deserve some protection - and the
fact is that the 419 emails are sent by people who know full well that
they are trying to scam people. Therefore, it follows that those who
send the emails would be prosecuted in a perfect world, because their
intent is malicious.

Likewise, I would see prosecuted any evangelist or religious broadcaster
or preacher who uses demonstrably fake claims and cases to encourage
people to make donations. Again, the intent is malicious because the
scammer in this case also knows that the claims he is making are false.

However, people have the right to do what they wish with their money. If
the money is collected honestly, then there is no offence - even if the
premise for collecting the money is a deity whose existence cannot be
proved but is accepted as truth by those involved. Money requested to
maintain church buildings, or which is intended to be passed on to worthy
causes, is clean money, if it is asked for and given on that basis. And
if a community pays its priest then I have no objection - but a rich
priest would always make me suspicious.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Midjis

Post by bob young
I doubt any 'choice' is involved, since religions, after being
inculcated from the cradle,
provide imaginary protection and escape from unpleasant things [see my
comments on intelligence above]

Bob, you and I have both stated that we have been raised in a certain
way, but have subsequently made the choice to abandon the religion in
which we were raised. Granted, there are some who will choose to remain
faithful to the religion under which they were raised, and some to whom
it never occurs that a choice need be made. But having made your own
choice, and being in discussion with someone who has also made their own
choice, it seems a little careless to suggest that 'choice' is never
involved.

Choice implies that it is arbitrary: tomorrow I will believe Santa
Claus exists. The day after I will believe pixies do instead.

Can you honestly choose to believe in something you do't already
believe?

It wouldn't be genuine.

[Midjis]

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Choice implies that it is arbitrary: tomorrow I will believe Santa
Claus exists. The day after I will believe pixies do instead.
Can you honestly choose to believe in something you do't already
believe?
It wouldn't be genuine.

The point is that you can - or should be able to - choose to conform to a
particular religion or not. I found that I had doubts about the religion
under which my parents raised me. I had a choice then: to explore those
doubts or ignore them. Having chosen to explore them I had a further
choice: to set down the religion of my upbringing or not. Having chosen to
do so I had yet another choice: continue to analyse my beliefs and
formulate my own spiritual position (including atheism if that seemed the
most appropriate), or to define myself by what I was not. And so on.

You are right that it could be said to be a matter of choosing whether to
be true to ourselves - that certain choices will result in us not being
'genuine', while others will allow us to express what we actually believe.
But the choices are there, and in a free society we should have the right
to make them for ourselves, so long as they do not interfere with the same
right in others.

[Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian]

Post by Bill
Visualize man isolated in a jungle or the wilds of Northern Canada without
any of societies man made cloths, tools, shelter, medicines or food. How
long could he survive? How much would he suffer before a horrible and
painful death?

Unfortunately the fundies "know exactly" that human fellows aren't necessary
because the (imaginary) skydaddy will help...

[bob young]

Post by Bill
Many people claim that religion is necessary to control a civil society. The
corollary to this claim is that atheism breeds a dangerous anti social
society.

Religions are extremely old, in their inception they performed a use by
providing a set of guidelines for ordinary people to live by. These are now
largely replaced by modern rule of law and law enforcement something the
originators of religions did not have.

Religion is not longer a prerequisite for modern living but it could one day be
the reason for our self destruction, destruction in the name of imaginary gods.

Post by Bill
This is pure fiction and religious propaganda. Many of the most brutal
societies in the world were religiously dominated. One recent example was
the Taliban.

Man 'is' brutal; as his brain is a freak of the evolutionary process, rather
like the long neck of the Giraffe is a similar aberration of nature. Religion
has been used as a reason and excuse for violence from time immemorial. A
muslim Cleric interviewed on TV when asked why this temple and his people cold
not stop the killing in Iraq, replied "There is nothing we can do, as
everything that happens on this earth is pre-ordained by Allah"

When religion reaches these depths of lunacy what hope is there for humanity?
Will they use this self same excuse when they nuke Tel Aviv

Post by Bill
A society based on intelligent atheism is likely to be fairer and less
repressive than one based on religion.

Confirmed by historical records

Post by Bill
Atheists realize and accept the fact that humans are totally interdependent.
All of modern society's wealth, health and benefits are the result of the
cooperative and supportive efforts of our fellow man.

One can't help but think of medicine first. Leprosy was wiped out thirty years
ago, therefore why did a god create a world with this horrible desease leaving
his own creation to sort the mess out?

Post by Bill
Visualize man isolated in a jungle or the wilds of Northern Canada without
any of societies man made cloths, tools, shelter, medicines or food. How
long could he survive? How much would he suffer before a horrible and
painful death?

True, but in the heart of Africa he might survive. Leave him there for a
generation or two and then come back what's the betting he would have his own
home made god already in place?

In a couple of million years the Chimps may well be capable of using a simple
language, then watch out for the first Chimp god, looking awfully 'Chimplike' -
of course

Post by Bill
Man is a social animal totally dependent on the society in which he lives
and atheists are fully aware and supportive of this.

We better had be

Post by Bill
Japan and many other non religious societies thrive without religion.

Almost. There is Shinto in Japan. They use it for weddings and funerals and
that is about all - they treat it rather like an ancient novelty, there to be
used but not to be taken too seriously

Bob
Hong Kong

"The belief in God is not based on the perception of design in nature. Belief
in design in nature is based upon the belief in God. Things are as they are
whether there is a God or not. Logically, to believe in design one must start
with God. He, or it, is not a conclusion but a datum. You may begin by assuming
a creator, and then say he did this or that; but you cannot logically say that
because certain things exist, therefore there is a God who made them. God is an
assumption, not a conclusion. And it is an assumption that explains nothing."
[Chapman Cohen 1868-1954]

[Midjis]

Post by bob young

Post by Bill
A society based on intelligent atheism is likely to be fairer and
less repressive than one based on religion.

Confirmed by historical records

The Soviet Union was the very epitome of fairness and freedom, after all.