Did you see the "I hate religion but love Jesus" video? Watch this.

Well, part of the issue is I didn't find them entertaining. Caustic criticism is not my cup of tea any more than a shallow proposition that smacks of marketing. Even as far as caustic critics go, TAA is the Angry Video Game Nerd of philosophy; entertaining for about five seconds, then you wish he'd settle down a bit, maybe expand his vocabulary. I think Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw needs to sit them both down to have a long, colorfully explicit talk.

So all things aside, I find fault in the fact that neither video was very good. They do not admit to being entertainers, and are not that entertaining besides, in my opinion.

Then again, my opinion is given to its own flights of self-righteousness. It's in my stars.

There are progressive schools of theism that recognize the need to evolve and adapt the teachings, even those considered sacred. That self-righteousness is being eliminated. I don't believe that decent Christians, for one, are in the minority; I think certain groups are much louder than others. That trend exists in every culture.

Unfortunately, even the decent ones tend to lose their head when the self-righteous begin to speak. Influence... Without it, we'd be rid of the self-righteous to begin with. They're so sure of themselves as to be infectious. The point of all this is to say that the beliefs themselves should never be held so accountable as the people who interpret them to do harm, as the former leads more often than not to the oppression of good, innocent people.

I also think it's folly to posit that things like standardized sexuality, bullying, discrimination etc. would never have come about without religion. Sinister people use labels to mask their intentions, and foolish people fight those labels as if they are to blame. Prejudices arise heedless of creed. Many wicked men wear valuable armor; it is better to expose the head and strike than to break through the helmet.

Thought I'd point this out:

"Equal and opposite reaction." Self-righteousness is not the opposite of self-righteousness.

Mah *****.

Truth be told, I find the traditional conception of God shallow and lacking. Why does he look like us? Why is he a he? I prefer more naturalistic religions...

...or things like Hinduism, which basically says, "Hey here's all these gods, but actually they're just one with as many forms as there are things in the universe, and he is you, and oh yeah actually he's just in your head. Have fun."

Sure. But does that mean they can't criticize? If someone's being a dick to me because I'm being a dick to him, I might point out he's a dick, but I won't call it fair unless I recognize I'm being a dick too. Everyone could do to learn this; as a rule of thumb, I find that people most often pick out shortcomings in others with which they are familiar in themselves. You're most uniquely qualified to criticize what you've experienced on your own, after all.

 

Who is Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw?

I deal with people of blind faith far more often than people without it. I acknowledge that the trend is there in the human race, but given that the core of all organized religion demands faith, the trend of self-righteousness is incredibly hard to separate from religion. I feel that we will sooner dissolve organized religion than see it lose its self-righteous and quasi-tolerant rhetoric. The trend is a general one that applies to all people, and religion is holding them back. I do not feel that the overall trend justifies the hindrance.

While I agree that such things would exist without organized religion, I hold that they would never gain such a hold on the public as they have now. Because of the trend mentioned just a bit ago, the general public would have far less trouble growing more tolerant if they did not have requirements of faith holding them back. At what point does a self-righteous person stop and organized religion reinvent itself? That is an important question.

Ah, let me rephrase. "Equal and opposing."

Christians and Jews needed something that they could assume without asking questions, especially something that allowed them to conquer with a conscience; it is what made them come so far where Hinduism has not. Less thought, more acting. Isn't the philosophy what makes it shallow, rather than any specific image?

Aw, I should have acknowledged this in my own assessment. It goes into the "Can you hate hatred?" argument eventually, though. While I am intolerant of intolerance, and that may appear incoherent, I consider it similar to antibodies and antigens. Are antibodies wrong to fight antigens because they are doing the same thing the offending cells are? I would not say so. Rather, the goal of antibodies is to rid the body of antigens. What about the concept of matter and antimatter? According to the conflict, your body would prefer that there were no need for antibodies, and would rather that both be eliminated. More important than admitting your own faults, I believe it is more important to ask yourself if you are working to solve a problem or simply creating one yourself. That is what defines a dick. Someone who creates problems out of aggression. Not someone who moves to solve them out of a wish to do that explicitly.

 

>Refresh the page off-and-on for half an hour
>No responses; check the rest of the Spamzone
>MAKAZE REPLIES AS SOON AS YOU LEAVE

Behold.

Why are faith and self-righteousness entwined?

That rhetoric is almost entirely exclusive to mainstream religions and scarcely seen in others. So unless we can dissolve organized religion sooner than earlier than organized religions came into existence which propagate self-righteous, quasi-tolerant rhetoric, then no, we can't do that faster. In fact I think we already have definitely can't do that faster by virtue of not having any means of time travel at our disposal.

Disagree. Take away religion and the same sinister folks will grab another shield. The person individually must understand why s/he discriminates; no introduction or elimination of a view will ever truly purge that on its own. Perhaps there are imaginable worlds where something less pervasive exists, but assuming there is a Makaze for every world, he would probably still call for improvement, and he'd still be barking up the wrong tree.

Why am I starting to think that this is like a buzzword for you? Faithful people can be tolerant. Everything takes faith. You cannot read this sentence without some measure of faith. You need to have faith that your eyes are perceiving an image that corresponds with reality, that we are both communicating in a language that is both aesthetically and functionally similar, that you understand my meaning to some degree. Or you can reject that faith, and discontinue this conversation--rather, be incapable of recognizing that you have the opportunity to continue it, that I myself have continued it, that it ever began in the first place. To say that faith is holding us back is to say that being human is holding us back; whether you're right or wrong, to dispense with it would make us inhuman, and that would be pointless.

Perhaps, if we were to reach a point where we didn't need faith, it would become vestigial and quietly fade from view; but even then, I question if we would qualify as human. Do we not implicitly identify humanity with a certain level of understanding? I daresay we'd have to transcend that at some point to be rid of faith. We needn't go that far to improve the human condition. A dog can be the very best dog there ever was, can be worth more than some humans, can get along with other dogs, and still be a dog; we at our present level of capability can oust intolerance with concerted effort within and without. We can set faith aside in order to further our understanding and relations with others. We may never be rid of it, but it needn't hold a vice grip on the lives of all those who admit to having it.

How can something oppose itself? Fighting fire with fire does not actually work that well...

People were never given that by a religion; they took it freely. And no, it isn't, because nearly every philosophy can be summarily translated into another and have the same effect on a given person. Christians, atheists, nihilists, Buddhists, Scientologists, artists, soldiers, pianists, Quakers, bakers, candlestick makers--We're all capable of the same spectrum of action, expression, and experience. I hold in higher regard those beliefs which reach more fully to that spectrum, and in that respect find the symbols of Christian belief lacking; however, it is ultimately the individual who chooses how deeply to engage in the human consciousness, thus it is the individual's failing to understand or to tolerate. To blame any external entity is to invite weakness.

Then let's call them morons instead. People are not bacteria, and they are rarely anything but strengthened by having their actions mirrored. Not to mention, they tend to come off as villains themselves, prompting another to rise and adopt the same tactics to combat the new threat. Imagine if the antibodies became the antigens, and inspired more antibodies, who would inevitably become antigens themselves.

 

So is there anybody else in this thread that has come to the conclusion that both Theism and Atheism are valid ways of looking at the world and that it's stupid to argue over a question to which neither side knows the answer?

 

Ehe, heh.

Thank you.

Because it allows one to believe that they are right in spite of reasoning to the contrary, and even if the religion specifically says otherwise, which those I mentioned do not, they will feel completely at liberty to try marketing campaigns like this and think that because they are faithful, their specific interpretation of the faith is the true one. Anyone who believes differently is 'ignorant'. I could not count the number of Christians who have called me ignorant. That seems to be a favorite for them.

When faith is involved, anyone can convince themselves of something and claim to be more faithful than thou. And guess what? If you have doubts about what they say, then they are more faithful than thou. And it is not a good thing to be like them. There are a few exceptions, but this is true of anyone I have known who believes in an institution for the sake of believing in it.

Are you arguing that it is not possible and therefore should not be tried? Truly?

I am not trying to eliminate the view. I am trying to eliminate a notion that you should have faith in any view, that if you hold this view that you should hold it as it is more certain than your existence, not to be questioned. One person who believes this alone does not bother me. A Bible and a church that tells this person not to question that belief does... And then that person following orders and refusing to question.

Wrong. I argued with Marushi not too long ago about this. Do you not do anything in a dream? Have you ever had a dream in which you used your computer? How would you distinguish that experience from this experience?

Making use of a concept is not faith. When I daydream and make use of concepts such as trees, grass, the ground, a sidewalk, a building and other people, do I have faith that they exist in my daydream? Are you claiming that daydreams do not happen? Or do you believe that acting as if things existed is the same as believing that they do?

I do not have faith that what I see is 'real'. Solipsist, remember?

I do not understand. At what point does understanding a concept require believing that it is real? I believe P put it rather well. He said that I believed in a concept in accordance with how much I trust my knowledge of it. I would say that humans can be pragmatists without losing their humanity. I hold that religion is the largest stumbling block to that end, and affects a very wide variety of people regardless of their beliefs, hindering them as well. Are you disagreeing with me?

Depends. The first guy was not fighting with fire, was he? In the first video? But the second guy was. Difference?

The notion of fire fighting fire is a bit faulty. Instead, imagine that you have two stones. Two similar objects. One of the stones is weak and enacts a clever marketing scheme to defend itself from the public eye. The other stone sees the first stone's weak points and hits it at crucial angles, breaking it into pieces. Both stones represent each party's self-righteousness.

That is what happened here.

Fire is easier for you to argue with because it is a substance, but remember that not all things are substances, and it will not work for every instance. The thing about fire is that it is far too similar. When fire touches fire, it will join with it. One purpose. That is not true of these young men, so the analogy does not work well.

I do not blame an external entity. One must remember that the church, as society, is made up of individuals. I blame preachers as much as I blame those who believe them. I blame the weakness in each person for latching onto what is easy. I blame each individual for the atrocity. I blame them collectively, but does that imply that it is external to them? I do not believe so.

Ah, you misunderstood. I spoke of these antibodies and antigens as aspects of the self. I personally hate intolerant people. Within myself, that is an antibody fighting off the external concept of intolerance. My wish to eradicate intolerance is not misplaced or inherently a contradiction of itself because what I want is to eradicate intolerance, even and especially in myself. I require the antibody because the antigen will still exist if I do not eradicate it; a self-defense mechanism. If a certain antigen disappeared for a long enough time, we would lose our antibodies for it. And that is just in biological terms. Do you disagree? How do you suggest eradicating it without them?

 

1) Not arguing, debating
2) Not debating that at all
3) No it's not stupid because you could, by extension of that logic, make all possible forms of discourse stupid. Try me.

Also I think I'd be in the ballpark to say that I believe they are both valid and Makaze believes neither is valid.

You're making a shitton of assumptions about faith there. In fact, that sounds exclusively like blind faith to me. There are arenas where there is no reasoning to the contrary and we're all just taking shots in the dark; what then?

Faith is not guaranteed to bring conceit or self-righteousness. It does so in the hands of the lazy. It can be fine-tuned; to discard it altogether, in my opinion, is a form of conceit. It is saying essentially that a person has the ability to understand every possible idea, entity, what have you, and that any instance of faith, no matter how temporary, how self-aware, or how measured, indicates a lower intelligence.

You're twisting my words. What I'm arguing is that organized religion is not the evil you're after, and it will do no good to be rid of it. Evil comes from people; it is recognized by people, defined by people, exclusive to people. Evil, badness, unsavory behaviors, lack of empathy or understanding, and yes, even religion: These are all things we created. They cannot be blamed for our failings or we risk severe weakness. Any worldview can be pushed to the point that it yields a productive, tolerant individual; and it can be twisted to the point that it yields a cancerous individual.

As I said, all of the above is not characteristic of all religions, nor even all mainstream religions. In fact, ones which do not hold themselves above reason or above one's own existence have persisted longer than ones which do so. So clearly the issue is not religion, it is blind faith. Blind faith takes many forms: patriotism, racism, sexism...

It is a mental recreation of images and sensations perceived in waking. I fail to see how that harms my point at all. It's another form of experience, and subject to the same scrutiny.

Ooh, you chose your words poorly there. Making use of a concept? All of philosophy is conceptual, religion included. They are concepts we use to exercise our metacognition, explore the way we think, the glitches in our language, why we exist, where we came from. It supposes what we cannot know. It also intertwines with more concrete practices in the form of ethics and philosophical analysis. No measure of faith is incompatible with the concrete; it is meant to enhance it, not dominate it. It is a tool to be used to better our grasp of the abstract and maintain our hold on the "real." A man who had his hand in front of his face and couldn't know for certain that his hand was in front of his face would likely go mad; yet, at some point, he'll reach a question branching from "How do I know my hand is in front of my face?" that he can't answer. I consider it a matter of pragmatism in that case.

Yeah well, your view makes zero sense to me, since I am clearly not you. The problem with solipsism is that, by nature, it is not universal... unless all things and people are aspects of yourself. And in that case, you are equal. You're as real as anything. Do you believe you're not real?

Not what I was getting at. To know with certainty what we would need to know to be rid of faith, we would have to be different sorts of creatures. We perceive time; we can only live in the now. We are born and die; we know and experience only what happens in that period. We exist in a limited space; we can only see, smell, hear, feel, and taste so far. The rest requires at the very least .1% of guesswork.

No, what happened is one balloon puffed up really big, and another one puffed up and tried to bump the other one out of the way, and in the end either they'll get smart and quit or they'll burst. That's my analogy for the people themselves; what I was addressing with the fire-fighting analogy was the concept of self-righteousness being used to destroy self-righteousness.

All right, let's try a different analogy to marry the people and the concepts. It's one person swinging a torch around recklessly, and another swinging a torch at the first to get him to stop. All they can accomplish is to set each other on fire, and possibly burn down a village. Wouldn't it be better for them to just put out the flames?

Fire only has one purpose, indeed. And so does self-righteousness. It cannot be justified. Blue fire burns as hot, if not hotter, and fire behind a mask only ignites the mask in time.

The belief was, ultimately, given form by a limited number of persons. Its interpretation by others places the blame squarely on their shoulders for any misdoings, but the original idea remains. There is no one Christianity; there is one for every Christian. There is no one Buddhism; there is one for every Buddhist. There is an idea from which each one takes, and there is one that is unique to them, inside their head, built from what they've taken. They may bear great similarity, but in practice may turn out completely different. So yes, the person is connected to the religion, but the religion as practiced is not universally connected in the same fashion.

People talk about religion like it's a big lumbering creature with thousands of people in its jaws; it's more like a species, of which everyone of a select group gets a pet. It's like that pit bull situation a while back, where lots of people were wanting to just euthanize pit bulls all over because a lot of them were causing people serious harm. Well yeah, but that's because a lot of people don't know how to take care of their goddamn dog. Even lions can be domesticated, if you know how to train them and you stick with it. I guess we could put a warning on some religions: "susceptible to corruption, may cause intolerant dickweeds," but that seems silly when we could just accuse the dickweeds of what is their fault.

I don't believe it's nearly that simple. First off, you know what I think about this: that you'll never truly be free of it. There will always be intolerance. If the only form it takes in you personally is not to tolerate the intolerant, then so be it; but you will not stop anyone else's intolerance in so doing. You're going to make them think that it works, that they need it. They will meet your intolerance with more of their own, whether you think you're settling the score or not.

Indifference. Understanding that, with you at your very best, intolerance cannot touch you. That is the only way. Hell, you should've learned this with schoolyard bullies; you don't hit back, that just makes it worse. You can tell a teacher, and that's what everyone recommends, but even that doesn't help sometimes. The most reliable thing is to stand your ground and be immovable. If your genes don't even have a place for the virus to infect, it'll whittle away and die.

 

I wish the world would understand this.

 

So much attention over something that has been said over, and over, and over again.

I guess it's cooler because he made it rhyme.

 

First of all, discrimination and rage against homosexuality only came into religion in the first place because it was widely accepted in society anyway. If you look at cultures from all over the world you will see many forms of discrimination they share, but not religion that they share. I know atheist homophobes. Their reasoning being 'ew what if they fancy me'. Nowt to do with religious influence. People have always hated that which is different and that which they don't understand.

And self righteousness in NOT mutually inclusive to religion. Many people are willing to fight for what they believe in. Freeing the slaves for instance, would that count as a self righteous war? Mistakes were made by the church, that's true. Leading by example went right down the crapper back in the crusades, but then again that was partly religion, partly greed of rulers wanting more land/money etc for themselves and using religion as an excuse to send men to fight.

I am a practising Catholic, and I quite agree with some aspects of both videos and completely disagree with others. I mean yeah Jesus was as amazing as the guy said in the first video. But maan he was mixed up about religion. Religion puts you in chains? I have never felt more free as when I go and freely worship. It just all seems a bit like, what? It's like he's telling us we are somehow wrong to want to praise God in our own way. It's like he doesn't think we can both go to church and also know just how amazing Jesus is. And he somehow doesn't seem to equate Christianity with a religion. Christianity is the religion Jesus started.
So yeah second guy was right to call him out on bits of this. But he doesn't seem to get: The Bible was Gods word written by Humans. It's not infallible. Human sentiments and ideals from the time would be woven up in there. Note how only Mark wrote about that flaming sword bit.
Loving your family = loving Jesus. Jesus said 'Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me'. And ALL the gospel writers agree on that right there.

I also don't get how every one is always pointing out the negatives of the church. True, there are many points to be made. But why overrule all the good that has been done? Why completely ignore the likes of Blessed Mother Teresa, and St Maxamilian Kolbe, to name just a couple of the amazing people who did incredible things for, and because of, their faith. Look at CAFOD, all the good they have done. Heck I know myself that since becoming a Christian I have tried my best to be a better person and do what I can for others.

What I'm trying to say is, in a nutshell. You get good atheists. You get bad atheists. You get good Theists. You get bad theists. If people could stop generalising and hating on whole groups of people because of stereotypes and pre conceived notions, I think the world would be a bit happier.

Gotta say Makaze, the 'fault of religions the world over' is yours too, by your reckoning. Did you not just judge religions the world over without knowing all their followers, and all there is to know about each religion?

This saddens me :( You don't know me, you don't know about all religions all together. Yet you hate everything I stand for.

Love one another as you love yourself. Come on guys. Religious or not, if we all followed this, where would we go wrong?

 

He does not hate everything that you stand for. He hates the means by which you express it, ie, religion.

Some people really hate themselves, you know.

 

That is correct.

Then, you believe nothing. You make use of the concepts you can make use of, and at best you choose to revel the side that is the most pleasing to you. That is not to say that you can claim to know the truth about it.

It is not saying that. It is saying that a person does not have the ability to understand every possible idea, entity, what have you, and that he should not believe it because he cannot know it. Make use of what you can, do not believe in it lest it warp your world view, et cetera. Where faith may or may not acknowledge that you cannot know, it most certainly clings to an idea regardless and refuses to shift based on doubts. Especially with notions of faithfulness, it suggests that deviating from the assumption, being led astray from it would be morally wrong. This is as true of faithfulness to a loved one as to an idea. How is that not the blind faith that I assumed earlier?

I differentiate faith and belief based on the assumption that faith is defined as blind faith and that anything less than blind faith is a belief rather than a faith. Faith has a moral and glue-like property while belief does not. That is the difference.

I am not refuting this. However, pragmatism shows that some creations are more harmful than others. Organized religions, especially those that teach faith, are easily the most harmful inventions of people in existence. In order to eradicate faith, I would eradicate an institution that grabs them at a young age and teaches them to embrace it. People are not always given a choice, Sforzato. Children are easily set into close-minded tunnel vision by institutions.

Is my dislike for this man-made thing invalid? I agree that removing faith itself would be far better, but that is not possible. Removing the greatest proponents of it is good enough for me.

Agreed. Statism is by far the largest offender. I am indeed against blind faith, but I find it far more efficient to look to what inspires blind faith than to each case of it. Religions and states alike have adapted to survive, but faith in them has been persistent throughout. Consider, if you will, notions in Chistianity that we must move past the old testament, and others who claim that we must uphold the laws of the old. In the same way and in the same nation, many in the US hold that we must progress to a state of more social freedoms while others claim that we should regress and move back to ancient documents. Nearly all hold that the institution is necessary and sacred in some way.

You dodged the problem. Does it require faith to operate things in dreams? Should one place faith in what one operates in dreams? I agree, they are under the same scrutiny. As such, how do you differentiate a need for faith between them? Do you at all?

Exactly. The problem arises when one places more value in previously assumed faiths than practice. The problem arises when the man's hand is not in front of his face in pragmatic terms and yet he still believes it is. Pragmatism does doubt rather than hold faith because faith is in most cases what man defaults to. If I did not doubt, then I would believe that what I see is real. The patterns I have perceived will continue to be real. I will have trouble adjusting to new things that do not match my childhood experience. Pragmatism requires one to constantly revise his view of the world, to question it, to work through problems with trial and error. Faith arises out of base pragmatism but pragmatism as a philosophy requires one to deny faith and with better wording faithfulness in lieu of what works.

It is universal in hypothetical terms. No one can prove that anyone else is real. It should be coherent to you so long as you doubt that I am real. Any hypothetical Person A cannot prove the existence of any hypothetical Person B, but Person A proves his own existence by trying to prove the existence of Person B. He thinks therefore he is. The same if we replace Person A with Person B. They have no way to communicate that they have thoughts to the other. As such, I neither believe nor disbelieve in you. Rather, I make use of you; I bounce ideas off of you as if you exist until you cease to bounce them back, or stop being useful.

I assume it is universal because it is the same position that every hypothetical person would be in. Am I wrong?

I am saying that we need neither certainty nor faith. We will never need to believe anything 100% aside from logical axioms. This is the same argument as perfection. You would argue that when a person comes across a painting that is better than all others he has encountered, and for years finds no better, that he he should call it perfect. And then, when he finds a new one that is even better, he should call it perfect, too. Rather, I hold that one should acknowledge that nothing is perfect and hold neither faith nor certainty in high regard. A thing is only as valuable as its ability to please you. There need not be a certainty if you can use unstable things to obtain what you want. Keep seeking the best tool, of course, but drop pretenses of finding an infallible one. Am I still not making sense?

Okay, fair enough. However, one's position was generally more pragmatic than the other's. I will admit that the self-righteousness was unneeded, but it was certainly more justified on one side, if not completely justified.

That is much better. I concede, it would indeed be much better to put out the flames. The problem is, how do we get the one waving his torch around wildly to put out his flame?

The premise of Christianity has been infinitely more harmful than the premise of Buddhism in practice. That is my position, and I will stick with it unless refuted.

I accuse the dickweeds of believing in faulty ideas. They refuse to acknowledge that the ideas are their own. I attack the ideas of the institution that taught them because that is what makes them listen and argue, consider what is being said. It is more practical to humiliate the institution that they learned from when they refuse to believe that their views can be argued as if they held them as individuals. If you attempt to question them, then they will consult their Bible. It is far more effective to refute the book than to refute them when they will just rebound back to the book again.

I never accept things, and I suspect I never will. I know what you think, but you are resigned. In the same way, I could wish to be free of eyesight, and yet I could not wish to be free of it if I had not experienced it. I agree that I will never get rid of my past experiences of it, but I see no reason to accept such a fatalistic statement as "people will never let go of it".

I would shake the foundations of this world before I grew complacent. If my methods are not working, then another will. I will make it that simple.

I never had to deal with those. Throughout my life, I have dealt with problems by overpowering aggressive forces, or, like you said, being indifferent. My ego and violence grows with the forces mounted against me. Even when I am indifferent, it is chiding, condescending. They cannot hurt me. But indifference is not in me if damage is done, if I lose. I will have everything I want. The more I am told to let things pass, the less I wish to. I will change the world to suit me before I will change myself to suit the world.

Removing red text due to annoyance.

Cite a source for this. Namely, cite a non-theist society that hated homosexuality.

You are wrong. Those atheists were raised by people who were raised by who were raised by people who hated homosexuality and they were religious. Furthermore, people in all of those generations themselves were religious. Prejudices do not die out as easily as you seem to think. Many, many atheists are simply rebelling against the church and an authoritarian god rather than honestly questioning the morality they were raised in.

Rest assured you will never meet someone who fits the definition of a Buddhist who hates homosexuality. If you find a region that has Buddhist roots and has Buddhists to this day, you are incredibly unlikely to find people who hated homosexuality. Just being around bigotry as a child inspires it.

To most appearances, the US is a Christian society. Its values line up heavily with Christian values, and the prejudices that take place there have long histories in Christian law. Patriarchy for general sexism, death penalty and disowning for sexual deviation leading to general homophobia, notions of protecting the holy land resulting in an alliance with Israel despite its war crimes. Most of the problems in any given nation can be traced to its most powerful social force; namely, its current dominant religion and its religious history. Christianity is what inspired notions of manifest destiny, and yet many non-theists believe in it. That does not change the fact that Christianity inspired it and is the reason why those non-theists believe it today.

Wait, what? If anything, religion is what kept slavery in place. There were progressives here and there, but they were far from exemplary of organized religion itself, being so few. Martin Luther King, Jr. himself refuted any notion of organized religion supporting the freedom of oppressed peoples. Segregation of churches was and still is very prominent. You have stereotypical black churches and stereotypical white churches. Do you think this is a coincidence?

Furthermore, consider people like Malcom X who were considered extremely self-righteous and also fought for freedom at the same time as Martin Luther King, Jr.. The difference that may have explained this is that Malcom has the support of his religious body in general while Martin Luther King, Jr. did not. Malcom was following and had the support of an organized faith which led him to racism and self-righteousness, and Martin Luther King, Jr. did not have the support of the rest of his religion and he was not self-righteous. Do you see the correlation?

I did not state that they were mutually inclusive. Rather, I state that where organized religion exists, self-righteousness with be high on all sides. There will be those in the church who are self-righteous, being a vast majority, and those without who are self-righteous in response and opposition to the church. Where people claim righteousness, through a god or otherwise, they claim righteousness, and that creates more righteousness by extension. Righteousness that would not be so rampant without the organization to vouch for it. Organized religion is a fountain of self-righteousness if there ever was one.

Ah, this is where we disagree. See, I view nations and faith in said nations as religions as well. You might call a belief in a government or military 'statism'. They often coincide. If you get any institution, a state building or a church, and encourage people to subscribe to a doctrine, and have their children go to schools that teach its doctrine, either Sunday school or public school, you will get self-righteous people. This is because they both share notions of faith, of something bigger than yourself to believe in, and so they allow you to sit back and believe yourself infallible while your deity does all of the work.

Bad atheists tend to look like religious people themselves. My position is not against theism, nor am I for atheism. My position is against organized religions. Institutions that teach children atheism and theism end up the same in my eyes if both kids grow up to believe what they were taught. Believing that a god does not exist is just as bad as believing that one does if you do not doubt it. You should doubt it whichever side you lean towards, and instead of borrowing morality and/or believing that your morality is perfect because your religion agrees with you, create and constantly question what you want, and why it might differ from a what you were taught. If you believe that either a state or a god's morality is right, then question that as well. Question all, come to a conclusion that is based on your own desires, and you will probably end up less self-righteous without even aiming towards that goal. After all, when you accept that what you do is on you alone, it is far harder to brush it off on your beliefs. Or so I would think?

Ah, yes, I apologize. Too much of a blanket statement. "A fault of blindly faithful people the world over" would have been more accurate.

I agree with what KS said. I hate certain things about myself, and I hate those things in others. I love certain things about myself, and I love those things in others. It could certainly be said that I follow this principle, or try to. I just so happen to hate an unwillingness to doubt in myself, and so I hate it in others. By extension, I also hate things that cause it in others, such an organized religion. Isn't this rather closer to what Sforzato said earlier?

 

Before I say anything, you make a lot of valid points. However.

You say that The Bible is not infallible, while in reality, it is being read as it is. Many, many Christians use the Bible to back up their opinions. However, if you question these Christians, then they say The Bible is right. This does not make any sense.

There are many good Christians in the world. I am not denying this. However, what makes me dislike the Catholic Church is the repeated sexual abuse of kids/altar boys etc. Call it a stereotype or generalization, as most Catholics don't, but they keep ignoring the fact that these things happen.

I agree.

Love one another as you love yourself. I agree. The problem, however, is that so many religious people think that you need to believe in their deity in order to actually do this.

 

We are getting to that point where we're saying the same damn thing and I am tired so I'm going to skip the part that will end predictably and work on this part here

It's not resignation. Resignation is to say, "This is bad, but I will deal with it." What I'm saying is, "This is a thing, and I will use it to recognize another thing in contrast, because that is how I work." It's human nature. To pretend we operate any other way is either to be in denial or to say the same thing with different words.

You will change because of the world? Then you are reactionary. You are bound by what you dislike. If it were to vanish, so would you, or great chunks of you. Remove yourself from the stimulus; become who you truly are, all on your own. Then you will achieve serenity in any circumstance. You will not change, but transform. You will be so much of yourself that the world will not be able to touch you unless you will it.

Don't call me resigned because I know how to go with the flow. It is as much a cultivated skill, a conscious decision, an aspect of my self, as is your confrontationalism to your self. I haven't given up on a thing; if anything, I'm exploring venues that you choose not to. The sort that suppose that I could temporarily let go of who I am without losing it. I have faith that I'll find myself again.

 

We always do that, do we not?

I never accept nature. I bend it, twist it. I refuse to be limited by anything. Trial and error is how I work. I will compare the future to my past. I do not wish to eradicate my past. If a virus existed in the past and I eradicated it today, I would be able to contrast the world before and the world now.

This is how I work, by changing the now in contrast with my past.

I am the world, and the world is me. I seek to change the world as I seek to change myself. It seems that we are once again saying the same things, but you prefer a dualism where I prefer an alignment; inner peace. Again, I will contrast the now with my past indefinitely, striving towards a world where I can think of nothing to improve on. That is the primary desire of my existence.

 

You limit yourself by not attempting to utilize the resource of your nature to the fullest. Twisting it is straining it, consuming its energy inefficiently. You limit yourself by not pursuing your true will. Have you considered the future? That you could be sacrificing things that will limit you in the long run?

And what's so bad about limits, anyway? A drummer who removes the toms and crash from his drum set may learn to better utilize the remaining pieces, even achieving with less what he could with more. Limits can be useful in self-improvement.

The dualism is an illusion, and it is the only real thing. Unfortunately the language falls short of expressing it; it has to be felt. At any rate, we're both after actualization; you just want to discard the formula that exists while I want to perfect it. I'd consider it a waste to dispense with something so precious and magnificent as the human experience. But I guess I can't blame you for doing what comes naturally. If your nature is to defy your nature, then so it goes.

I hope you never reach the point where you can't think of anything to improve upon, as I imagine you'll find it a dull and listless affair. But I hope you never stop striving, as your experiences and those you bring to others will only become richer.

 

That is true. In a similar way, one may wear weights while walking to build strength. Your analogy helps me, though. I consider necessities limits. Dependencies. I seek to destroy anything I am dependent on. I also seek to limit myself in ways that please me. If religion and faith are the toms and crash, then I will remove them and focus on the remaining pieces in peace.

My nature is to become objective. Not to die, but to cease being... In a flask, so to speak. To gain all knowledge and never stop until I consume every possible thought. To become individual I must transcend things that make me individual. Contradictory, isn't it? I suppose I truly cannot escape the dualism. But I want it all the same. To know everything but what I will do next... Would I still be me? Not certain, can you offer insight?

 

QUIT TWISTING MY METAPHORS

But yeah I think we have successfully gained all we can out of this train of thought

...You could have faith you will be-*brick'd*

 

Still, it's a baseless and generalised hate. I find it hard to see why it is acceptable to hate on religion, why we are considered an acceptable group to discriminate against. If someone on this forum had replaced the word 'religion' with 'homosexuals' or 'black people' then everyone would have been on them like a ton of bricks, which is fair enough. But no one seems to bat an eyelid at this needless, and equally offensive, stereotype though.

And maybe 'Treat others as you would wish to be treated' would be more appropriate for those who, sadly, truly hate themselves.

Can I just say guys I was agnostic for many years of my life, then theist when I started secondary school, then a few of years ago some things happened and I had a good long think about faith and what it meant to me. I won't go into details here but after a long period of looking at all the information I could I decided I believe in God and started worshipping in church. I'm the happiest I have ever been. I try to be a better person. I made these choices of my own free will, without having anything forced on me. I know that at 18 I'm hardly going to know everything there is to know about religion and the lack thereof, but I try to keep an open mind about what other people think. Can you accept that, and accept me for that?
And I just want to say thanks for a nice clean thread. I'm glad no one resulted to flaming as you usually get with these internet debates :)