What about the religious organizations?

[The Atheist]

Religions have nothing to fear from the truth because even if the chance of what they propse has only a low chance of being right, so trying to expose a religion on the grounds of truth will inevitably fail, and it is really the only weapon atheists have in the fight. We are too small to fight them directly, and too disorganised to disrupt proceedings with any effect. And arguing the truth will never compete with comfort.

The criminal injustices propagated by religion are often lost because they only effect a small number of people relative to the entire religious organisation - so the momentum of the religion is maintained even if small groups are not doing what they should. And the base of the christian religion in particular is that its ok not to be perfect - you will be forgiven. So even if the church itself screws up - thats ok!

BTW: I don't think we should stop trying to bring them down - but its important to realise it isn't going to happen soon or easily and it will have to be done incrementally and methodically.

<<<<<<<standing ovation>>>>>>>>

(I'm helping the incremental increase, if not quite the methodology )

 

[The Atheist]

No it isn't. You can tell you are still breathing. The religious in the US have you heavily out numbered. They would win any war.

Ammusing. You appear to want war. The best you could hope for would be a quick defeat. You would mearly die. Others less milliant would probably be allowed to convert. A slow defeat would be far worse.

Fortunately, I'm not in USA, so that point is moot. I'm in NZ and here, like UK, it's a war which is being won very quickly, as in most parts of Europe.

Christianity can no longer claim a majority of citizens in most of the free world, an enormous change from even fifty years ago. If christianity has been so eroded so quickly, in just half a century, the decline isn't likely to be halted. With logic, evidence and eloquence from the likes of Dr Adequate to my pit-bull approach we are fighting them on all fronts, and winning. Had the great atheists and thinkers of history not shown the way to atheism many more churches would be attended through the free-thinking world than there are today. When did you last see a catholic nun? In my childhood, they were an everyday sight, along with preachers and clothed men of every denomination - not so now.

 

[RemieV]

I don't discuss religious beliefs on my site, for the most part, because I don't know anyone who would say "My life revolves around ghosts," but I do know plenty of people who say "My life revolves around God."

The money has never been the issue for me with psychics anyway. People can give up their money however they choose. It isn't up to me to tell them it's right or wrong.

 

[geni]

Fortunately, I'm not in USA, so that point is moot. I'm in NZ and here, like UK, it's a war which is being won very quickly, as in most parts of Europe.

You are outnumbered 60:40 and athiests have always had the problem that they object to dieing. You would lose a war. In any case you have no way to limit your war to one country.

Christianity can no longer claim a majority of citizens in most of the free world,

Yes it can (probably japan complicates things).

If christianity has been so eroded so quickly, in just half a century, the decline isn't likely to be halted.

Ammusing

With logic, evidence and eloquence from the likes of Dr Adequate to my pit-bull approach we are fighting them on all fronts, and winning.

Pitball? Please. You talk of war. I suspect it makes you feel good. However it is also very very stupid.

Had the great atheists and thinkers of history not shown the way to atheism many more churches would be attended through the free-thinking world than there are today.

Evidences?

When did you last see a catholic nun? In my childhood, they were an everyday sight, along with preachers and clothed men of every denomination - not so now.

Something to do with the womans lib movement.Woman have far more options now.

 

[snooziums]

Christianity can no longer claim a majority of citizens in most of the free world, an enormous change from even fifty years ago.

If only it were true. *sigh* I really want it to be true. There are over one billion Christians currently in the world, and over one billion Muslims currently in the world. Just these two religions alone have over 1/3 of Earth's population.

... we are fighting them on all fronts, and winning.

But not in America. The percentage of the population attending church has sadly increased in the past few decades. And "Christian-based" laws are constantly being introduced into the government all the time now.

When did you last see a catholic nun? In my childhood, they were an everyday sight, along with preachers and clothed men of every denomination - not so now.

Here, churches dot the landscape. And now there are mega-churchs sprouting up everywhere. In the small city where I live, there are going to soon be three here, each one holding over 2,000 people per service.

So, while I wish that it was getting better, but it seems to be getting worse in a lot of places.

 

[The Atheist]

You are outnumbered 60:40 and athiests have always had the problem that they object to dieing. You would lose a war. In any case you have no way to limit your war to one country.

I'm going to let you look up the details for yourself since you're clearly too lazy to bother even attempting to back up your wildly inaccurate 60:40 statement.

Yes it can (probably japan complicates things).

Refer the above. The aberration is USA.

Ammusing.

Your standard of English matches your arguments - weak.

Pitball? Please. You talk of war. I suspect it makes you feel good. However it is also very very stupid.

That is PIT-BULL, a very aggressive type of dog. Yes, I'm very, very stupid and christians outnumber non-christians.

Evidences?

This is impossible to quantify. You present some actual evidence yourself and then I'll worry about backing this up.

Something to do with the womans lib movement.Woman have far more options now.

And the lack of priests and pastors? The shrinking congregations? The closure of parishes?

 

[The Atheist]

If only it were true. *sigh* I really want it to be true. There are over one billion Christians currently in the world, and over one billion Muslims currently in the world. Just these two religions alone have over 1/3 of Earth's population.

Ah, but nearly two thirds aren't and it's a fact that christianity has been in steep decline in the Western world - apart from USA - for many years now.

But not in America. The percentage of the population attending church has sadly increased in the past few decades. And "Christian-based" laws are constantly being introduced into the government all the time now.

Here, churches dot the landscape. And now there are mega-churchs sprouting up everywhere. In the small city where I live, there are going to soon be three here, each one holding over 2,000 people per service.

So, while I wish that it was getting better, but it seems to be getting worse in a lot of places.

The problem is that you're living in the last great bastion of christianity and as I've said above, USA is the exception, not the rule. I do, however, note that national data shows a decline in both belief in god and church attendance, so maybe the rot has started there as well, I think it's likely - you can't keep people's brains switched of forever.

Don't despair - while your lot are passing ever more christian legislation, ours is outlawing it, so swings and roundabouts, we shall overcome!

 

[valis]

I measure my results by, RESULTS.

Just so I don't mis understand.....

By results do you mean persuading people to no longer beleive in religion?
If so does this confrontational approach really work?
How many people would you say have changed their mind because of your arguments?

 

[blutoski]

What about the religious organizations?

Why is there so much protest against "psychics" and other para-science, yet there is so little against religion? (Not that I am support para-science personally).

The question comes up a lot on this forum, and I usually interpret it as "why is the forum not as dedicated to fighting religion as I would prefer?" Certainly, if you look at the thread titles, it's obvious that religion is one of the top three subjects here.

Even if "psychics" do appear to make a lot of money "suckering" their clients, it is nothing compared to what the major religions to. Every week, most pastors and clergy make far more than any metaphysical person could dream of in a month.

1/3 of all colleges and schools in the US are Christian, and over 1/2 of the people in this country believe in God. Yet, there are no "New Age" schools or colleges.

IMO, there are plenty. Montessori comes to mind. Phonics. Any school with intense postmodernism.

"Psychics" claim to give you insight into parts of your future, and to what is making you not feel well. Yet, religious leaders are selling you an afterlife, the promise of a good life, if only you will submit to their God, and that through the power of miracles, you will be healed of everything.

In addition, they have you pray to an invisible God, which has not been proven. And if you do not do what their "scripture" says, then you will incur God's wrath.

However, there are almost no protests to organized religion. I have yet to hear of anyone suing a major religion, yet to hear of any protesters outside of any churches (that were not from another church), and very few sites on the Internet that protest religion.

Well, it is constitutionally protected. And popular.

So why are so many skeptics going after the insignificant stuff like para-science and psychics, when there are religious leaders and followers that are scamming literally billions out of so much? Why not stand up to the likes of Pat Robinson?

I think it depends on what you mean by 'standing up'. The ACLU does its job protecting the rights of those who find themselves denied.

It is almost like religion is this "untouchable" subject for most skeptics, one that they do not want to address. I am not sure if this is out of fear, or some other reason.

Yes, some skeptics have other interests. Some believe that religion has merit. Some believe that the skeptical view should be agnostic. Some have a strategy that focuses on specific outcomes, and feel that boiling the ocean of religion is deducting from valuable efforts elsewhere. None of these are evidence of a cowardice you seem to be implying.

Challenging the "psychics" will do little, if anything. And it will only make the religious supporters stronger, as they oppose anything that is related to meta-physical. So, by going after these and not religious ideas, we only make the religious stronghold even stronger. I am not saying stop opposing "psychics," just to go after the real problems.

So, my question is, why is there not so much more of a voice against the dangers of organized religion, before it is too late? How come there is not thousands of voices against the current injustices that are caused by religious leaders that are running this country, and the world? Maybe it is already too late?

Again: there's plenty going on. My impression is that you're dissing your peers because they're not 100% behind you on your pet peeve.

 

[snooziums]

The question comes up a lot on this forum, and I usually interpret it as "why is the forum not as dedicated to fighting religion as I would prefer?" Certainly, if you look at the thread titles, it's obvious that religion is one of the top three subjects here.

However, there are relatively few psychics and supporters of paranormal activity. Less than two percent of the population. Rather insignificant, it would seem.

IMO, there are plenty. Montessori comes to mind. Phonics. Any school with intense postmodernism.

What does Montessori, Phonics, and post-modernism have to do with anything meta-physical or paranormal? Montessori was just some teaching method that went out of style and is unheard of now. Phonics is just a way to teach kids to spell in English - maybe pointless, but not paranormal. And post-modernism?

Postmodernism questions whether these [rationality, objectivity] ideals can actually exist at all. Friedrich Nietzsche was an early "post-modernist"

Basically, post-modermish is being skeptical of the then-modern industrial society.

Again: there's plenty going on. My impression is that you're dissing your peers because they're not 100% behind you on your pet peeve.

I am questing why there is so much attention towards small and mostly insignificant things like psychics and other paranormal activity. Those are hardly changing the face of society at all, and will most likely be oppressed and reduced to just about nothing by the fundamentalist religious groups anyways.

 

[The Atheist]

Just so I don't mis understand.....

By results do you mean persuading people to no longer beleive in religion?
If so does this confrontational approach really work?

Yes, turning people away from religion is the only quantifiable measure. The confrontational approach is actually to get them talking, then I am a little less threatening. I used to find that if I started with a "softly, softly" style, all that happened was that I'd end up in interminable philosophical and doctrinal debates with christians. Now, they wonder what the hell has hit them and they usually ask why I'm so hostile, which gives me a different type of opening entirely.

How many people would you say have changed their mind because of your arguments?

I don't keep a track record of this as some people have told me five years later that my original talk to them got them got them thinking, which was then the catalyst to ask more and more questions and ultimately end up with the truth.

I generally count one or two "converts" a year, going by the feedback I've had over the years, so taken over 20 years, I consider that I'm responisible for 30-odd conversions directly. I'm happy with that and happy with the feedback I get from people who tell me that I opened their eyes for them. I'd like to think that my writings have inspired a lot more than that, but those 30-ish are the ones I have been involved in one-on-one dealings with.

 

[Ginarley]

For me the real challenge is getting the media and politicians to start questioning religions. We're a long way off that happening however but I'm convinced once the media starts pointing out the problems with religious beliefs on a regular basis that the tide will turn in a big way. Right now even the NZ media is paranoid about touching this subject - and sooner that changes the better.

 

[kitakaze]

You know, The Atheist, you think you're a pit bull but in reality you come across rather like a yappy, yelpy, shaky, weird, little terrier thing and while I have thus far been spared the sight, I suspect you deal with newspapers in like fashion. BTW, comparing yourself with Dr. Adequate or bitching about spelling errors only makes you look yappier (ooo, I hope I spelled that right). Now, I certainly wouldn't seek to discourage your further contributions of slogan spouting and holier-than-thouness but I gotta say that handle, avatar, and 666 post count are quite a sight. You may wanna soak that up for a while. The rally cries and 'IT'S WAR' crap is getting a little tired. You assert that being religous makes one a default idiot not worthy of respect or engagment but then say that you blind-side them first and ease up later and in the end you look just completely pathetic. Whether you like it or not wisdom and faith are not mutually negatable terms. You don't have the patience to engage those you disagree with in respectful dialogue, don't sweat it. You clearly lack the skill to do so anyway. But please, spare us your 'level the cathedrals and burn the mosques' ignorance. Not every faithful person is the drooling simp you claim them to be. Since I was much younger in seeking to better myself I studied and observed a wide range of religions hoping to benefit from the unique wisdom of each and in the end there, like here, was populated with sharp minds and also fools. They attract, you see. And I'll spare you the effort, yes, that's why I'm here and yes, I'm probably the fool but at least I'm willing to learn.

 

[The Atheist]

For me the real challenge is getting the media and politicians to start questioning religions. We're a long way off that happening however but I'm convinced once the media starts pointing out the problems with religious beliefs on a regular basis that the tide will turn in a big way. Right now even the NZ media is paranoid about touching this subject - and sooner that changes the better.

Yeah, see it nearly happened the other day when the Ministry of Education issued the edict about religious instruction, but they backed off half a step because of the "spirituality" clause in case it upset the tangata whenua.

Add that to the fact that while few atheists vote for a party because it's more secular in its approach, plenty of christians vote for christian right-wing parties. Even that Tamaki clown got several thousand votes despite only having one policy - no gays - while Untied kept a couple of seats on the christian vote.

 

[kitakaze]

For me the real challenge is getting the media and politicians to start questioning religions. We're a long way off that happening however but I'm convinced once the media starts pointing out the problems with religious beliefs on a regular basis that the tide will turn in a big way. Right now even the NZ media is paranoid about touching this subject - and sooner that changes the better.

While I'm not submitting it as the ideal I would invite people to consider Japan. I think no other country deals with religion as vaguely and ambiguously as here in Japan. Here religion must serve a functional purpose and pervade only to the extent that it does not invade or obstruct any other aspect of life. This country has since the first westerner set foot on it's soil confounded all efforts to spread Christianity to the masses. Here the wounds of religious terrorism are still fresh and the media and public in general are highly wary and questioning of any fundamental religious group seeking to assert itself. Very few actually would definitively ascribe themselves to any one faith. The joke here is that you're born Shinto and die Buddhist. Yet, on the the appropriate days people on mass will go to the shrine to offer a prayer for their loved ones and those who've passed on and I personally wouldn't have it any other way. I have experienced firsthand some of the dubious techniques that Christian and other religious groups have employed to gain followers and can thoroughly empathize with those who feel frustration or anger towards specific groups or their faiths in general but all that I ask is for people when discussing religion to try and keep in mind the human nature of hope and faith and to remember that if religion gave us nothing but woes we would not have created it in the first place.

 

[The Atheist]

You know, The Atheist, you think you're a pit bull but in reality you come across rather like a yappy, yelpy, shaky, weird, little terrier thing and while I have thus far been spared the sight, I suspect you deal with newspapers in like fashion.

As I've already said many times, the fact that I offend the sensibilities of people like yourself to the extent that you have a little hissy fit, fills me with pleasure.

BTW, comparing yourself with Dr. Adequate or bitching about spelling errors only makes you look yappier (ooo, I hope I spelled that right). Now, I certainly wouldn't seek to discourage your further contributions of slogan spouting and holier-than-thouness but I gotta say that handle, avatar, and 666 post count are quite a sight. You may wanna soak that up for a while.

Couple of things here - you're showing your comprehension skills for a start. Honey, I wasn't comparing myself to the Doc, I was using him as a counterpoint because he is as different from me as you are. The other is that I've found throughout my life that people who can't construct a simple sentence generally aren't worth reading and the poster was a case in point, a semi-literate range of fairly average questiions. Yours are valid ate least, if a little misguided. Nice spot on the 666, I did like that. Keeps the christians amused, too.

The rally cries and 'IT'S WAR' crap is getting a little tired. You assert that being religous makes one a default idiot not worthy of respect or engagment but then say that you blind-side them first and ease up later and in the end you look just completely pathetic.

<<Ironic Applause>> I repeat: you tell me what kind of success YOU have had in turning people away from christianity and we'll debate this further. Until then, your opinion isn't worth a bucket of horse manure.

Whether you like it or not wisdom and faith are not mutually negatable terms.

Live and learn, honey, you're only young yet. Like many other people on these forums, you're assuming that because someone has an IQ of 180 that they're not a moron. Intelligence is far greater than the sum of its parts.

You don't have the patience to engage those you disagree with in respectful dialogue, don't sweat it. You clearly lack the skill to do so anyway.

Again, you're young. Take my prior suggestion and go talk to some Jehovah's Witnesses. Having patience is not defined as the ability to debate religion with a christian. It's the same as debating with an idiot - mainly because you'd be dabating with an idiot. Having patience is waiting to exploit an opportunity and taking it at the right time. Oh, and as to my inability to engage in dialogue, well, I guess I'll just have to get you to give me some lessons!

But please, spare us your 'level the cathedrals and burn the mosques' ignorance. Not every faithful person is the drooling simp you claim them to be.

See above - they are.

Since I was much younger in seeking to better myself I studied and observed a wide range of religions hoping to benefit from the unique wisdom of each and in the end there, like here, was populated with sharp minds and also fools.

"the unique wisdom of each" Oh dear.

They attract, you see. And I'll spare you the effort, yes, that's why I'm here and yes, I'm probably the fool but at least I'm willing to learn.

Of course they attract - that's the whole point, to attract money and for that a church needs people.

 

[The Atheist]

all that I ask is for people when discussing religion to try and keep in mind the human nature of hope and faith and to remember that if religion gave us nothing but woes we would not have created it in the first place.

(Bolding mine)
Ever hear the expression about being born yesterday?

Perfect fit for you. That is a truly precious comment.

 

[Ginarley]

(Bolding mine)
Ever hear the expression about being born yesterday?

Perfect fit for you. That is a truly precious comment.

I believe my first post covered his point nicely. Religion DOES offer something - but its not something people couldn't get elsewhere without having to endure the fairy tales and tithes.

 

[kitakaze]

As I've already said many times, the fact that I offend the sensibilities of people like yourself to the extent that you have a little hissy fit, fills me with pleasure.

I'd call it a difference of opinions but if you wanna call it a little hissy fit it's fine by me, drama queen. But as long as you're having fun butting heads, knock yourself out. I got a head like Ed Munster and I can dance and carry a tune, too.

Couple of things here - you're showing your comprehension skills for a start. Honey, I wasn't comparing myself to the Doc, I was using him as a counterpoint because he is as different from me as you are. The other is that I've found throughout my life that people who can't construct a simple sentence generally aren't worth reading and the poster was a case in point, a semi-literate range of fairly average questiions. Yours are valid ate least, if a little misguided. Nice spot on the 666, I did like that. Keeps the christians amused, too.

No, sweety. My comprehension skills are just fine, thanks. However, in using Dr. Adequate as a counterpoint to yourself and saying that 'WE are fighting them on all fronts' you do denote a shared sense of purpose in a purposeful display of connection. As for the other, I'll let geni speak for him/herself but I will say reducing your argument to getting anal about spelling fits the drama queen profile rather well

.<<Ironic Applause>> I repeat: you tell me what kind of success YOU have had in turning people away from christianity and we'll debate this further. Until then, your opinion isn't worth a bucket of horse manure.

You may want to add a 'to someone like me' to the end of that but regardless, I don't remember availing myself to such and important competition, love. I do remember having many exchanges of ideas and debates (sometimes heated) with religious people that ultimately proved beneficial for both sides but then again I didn't start out the conversation by calling them a simp. So tell me, was Martin Luther King, Jr. a simp. Or how 'bout Malcolm X? He seems more you're style. Uh, let's see. Mother Theresa, Stephen Hawking, J.R.R. Tolkien, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela. Are/were they simps?

Live and learn, honey, you're only young yet. Like many other people on these forums, you're assuming that because someone has an IQ of 180 that they're not a moron. Intelligence is far greater than the sum of its parts.

Thank you, Ms. Ross. Yes, I may be young but I still know ignorance and arrogance when I see it.

Again, you're young. Take my prior suggestion and go talk to some Jehovah's Witnesses. Having patience is not defined as the ability to debate religion with a christian. It's the same as debating with an idiot - mainly because you'd be dabating with an idiot.

I have spoken with Jehovah's Witnesses, successfully. However, my goal wasn't to get them to renounce their faith but to stop coming to my house and realize that not everybody is awake and feeling philosophical at 6:00 in the morning. They came once more another day at 12:00pm and we all laughed and I said 'nice try' and they never came again. Yay me.

Having patience is waiting to exploit an opportunity and taking it at the right time.

You're a regular Palpatine. Go Sith.

Oh, and as to my inability to engage in dialogue, well, I guess I'll just have to get you to give me some lessons!

OK, but first you have to quit it with the 'honey's, Chaka Khan, and think a little more about what I said about passion.

"the unique wisdom of each" Oh dear.

Oh my. Love thy enemy. Universal Law. I know, it's tough.

Of course they attract - that's the whole point, to attract money and for that a church needs people.

Oh, sugar. Who's comprehension skill are getting shaky now?

 

[kitakaze]

I believe my first post covered his point nicely. Religion DOES offer something - but its not something people couldn't get elsewhere without having to endure the fairy tales and tithes.

BTW, it got lost in the banter a bit but your first post was excellent. The very base element of risk assessment and comfort are highly influetial factors when one is considering faith. The sad type that I see all too often and the ones I try the hardest to reach out to the most are the neglected, depressive types who fervently cling to their faith in lieu of a lack of friends, family, self-confidence, or self-worth. What makes me sick are the ones who exploit that weakness to gain support.