EPIC FAIL: The God Delusion

[Cainkane1]

I'm an atheist. When I lost my religion I didn't need to replace it with anything. Everything I needed was already there: friendship, community, curiousity, etc.

I feel the same way. You don't have to be a whiz kid to be an atheist. I replaced religion with reason and what small amount of scientific knowledge I do have.

 

[Marduk]

You seem to be skipping over the fact that religion is what Hitler used to start the war. Sure, Churchhill using religion to fight the Germans was like using a fire-break to stop a forest fire. It's effective - but only if you can't stop the jerk-off that started the fire in the first place.

Hitler didn't use religion to start the War
Hitler didn't start the War


but if he had, how is him using religion to draw his people together, me skipping over that when I said the exact same thing.
Do I need to qualify this statement

Religion is a useful tool in a poorly educated population.
Thats what its good for, thats what its always been good for

by listing every country on earth now ?
ok ok
Religion is a useful tool in a poorly educated English population.
Thats what its good for, thats what its always been good for
also
Religion is a useful tool in a poorly educated German population.
Thats what its good for, thats what its always been good for
also
Religion is a useful tool in a poorly educated American population.
Thats what its good for, thats what its always been good for
happy ?

 

[Marduk]

Dammit, forgot the eyties

 

[Her Dark Star]

Religion is a useful tool in a poorly educated English population.
Thats what its good for, thats what its always been good for

Ok so why is it useful? Why is it only useful to the poorly educated? Could you expand on what good it brings them that isn't possible by other means (or would be more difficult)? Please note that I'm not attacking your proposal but seeking to understand what benefits you are reffering to.

 

[Marduk]

Ok so why is it useful? Why is it only useful to the poorly educated? Could you expand on what good it brings them that isn't possible by other means (or would be more difficult)? Please note that I'm not attacking your proposal but seeking to understand what benefits you are reffering to.

I have already covered that HDS on page 1, the post you are commenting on is the last in a long line of reiterations for the poorly educated certain members who were transfixed by Godwins law
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6105500&postcount=19
Don't mention the "N" word, no good can possibly come of it

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

H3LL, you're missing the point. The big picture has to do with justifying the need for morals, not how mental disease or mental retardation affects the setting of dumass morals.

Oh dearie me, please don't tell me you're actually rehashing the fundie argument that we need religion to give the masses morals.

If you just need a justification for why have morals at all, enlightened self-interest already does that better than any religion does.

 

[Her Dark Star]

Yeah I was avoiding the whole Godwin area of the conversation lol.

However Marduk, my question actually does still stand I think. The only good that I saw you mentioning was the ability to rally people under the banner of God. Aside from the fact that people can be rallied to just about any cause with a good speech (regardless of its actual content), why does religious rallying have any particular benefit and why particularly for the poorly educated?
Of course, before I go any further, I realise that you may have been joking

 

[Marduk]

Yeah I was avoiding the whole Godwin area of the conversation lol.

However Marduk, my question actually does still stand I think. The only good that I saw you mentioning was the ability to rally people under the banner of God. Aside from the fact that people can be rallied to just about any cause with a good speech (regardless of its actual content), why does religious rallying have any particular benefit and why particularly for the poorly educated?
Of course, before I go any further, I realise that you may have been joking

You answered your own question. I mentioned the one benefit I can think of, you then repeated it back to me

well done you


but why the poorly educated?,
In the Uk at that time, education wasn't brilliant, we were poorly educated
education about religion especially was non existent, people weren't discussing the multipliity of errors in the bible so much as they were discussing the Vicars latest sermon. People genuinely believed in Jesus, and God and believed en masse (pardon my french) that paradise awaited them when they died. That lent them a fierce nationalism which was easily utilised by a Prime Minister who understood the nations feeling. The fact that Winston Churchill's policy of demonising the enemy by referring to them as Godless all the time worked is evidence of how far down the religious rabbit hole we were at the time. Good things too imo, I prefer speaking English to German, most of mine was learned from war films and Marlene Dietrich songs

Compare Winston Churchills use of religion as a rallying call with Tony Blairs complete refusal to talk about it until he left office
Things have changed, if we have another world war now, we'd have to be rallied around Doctor Who

 

[Her Dark Star]

Ah, forgive me, I think that I might have been talking at cross purposes, thinking that you were defending that religion had many purposes, when you were not.
Yes it does indeed serve as a great rallying cry, after all when its for God you don't actually have to explain anything or have any other reason

Edit - If I'd read your signature quotes earlier that might have given me a better idea of your stance lol

 

[Marduk]

Ah, forgive me, I think that I might have been talking at cross purposes, thinking that you were defending that religion had many purposes, when you were not.
Yes it does indeed serve as a great rallying cry, after all when its for God you don't actually have to explain anything or have any other reason

Edit - If I'd read your signature quotes earlier that might have given me a better idea of your stance lol

but Religion does have many purposes
just most of them arent good ones
or at least morally good ones, the latest purpose I have seen it used for is to escape prosecution for child abuse.
thats just not cricket


btw, surely my avatar name here would give you a good idea of my stance

 

[Her Dark Star]

Lol, or rather they aren't good ones for the majority, just for those in control.
Anyway, apologies for derailing the thread, let normal service resume.



....oh wait, derailed and rambling threads is normal service.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Just think if everybody spent that church time working for a volunteer organization helping the less fortunate. Infinitely better than praying for god to help.

Would you say the same thing about people who go to a movie every Sunday morning? Or watch TV on Wednesday nights?

These are not at all comparable. Going to church is not comparable to other ways of spending your time for a couple of reasons. 1. People usually believe that going to church is in and of itself a moral thing, and they feel like better people for going to church. People do not think this about going to the movies. 2. Some religious people judge others based on their church attendance. Fox news regularly talks about the fact that Obama does not attend church weekly and therefor must not be a good person. When I have lived in religious communities, people are looked down upon who do not go to church regularly and seen as less moral people than those who do go to church.

In news stories when a crime happens, so often if the victim went to church regularly, that is reported in the story. "So and so, who are members of such and such a church and attend regularly, were tragically murdered in a botched robbery attempt." The implication obiviously being that "look, this is extra sad because they must have been good people, see how much they went to church!"

A friend of mine is Catholic. He talked to me recently about how he thought he needed to start being a better person. He's disrespectful to women, obsessed with making money to the point that he invests in immoral industries (i.e. sweat shops and mines in third world countiries), doesn't give back to his community in any way, etc. So I saw him a little while ago, and he talked about how now he goes to church every Sunday, and he feels so much better! He has not changed his attitude, lifestyle, or behavior in any way (by his own admission). The ONLY thing he has changed is that he now goes to church regularly. But now he has the satisfaction of being a better person without actually having done ANYTHING.

You're not going to be able to dellude yourself that way by going to a movie.

You missed Sun Countess' point. The point is that, for many, if not most churchgoers, they feel that just going to church is a moral act and makes them a good person. If they actually spent that time BEING good people - volunteering, etc, then they would ACTUALLY be doing something that makes them a better person...whereas sitting in a pew in no way makes you one.

Of course, many church goers do volunteer work as well, and genuinely live Christian values.

But at the same time, there are many others who go to church to get that, "I'm a good Christian!" feeling without actually ACTING like a good Christian.

 

[Oystein]

An unfortunate comparison! I'll say this for multiverses: there's no one currently claiming that The Multiverse condemns me to a lake of fire.

Surely, in one of those many universes, you'd be condemned to a lake of fire!

 

[Maia]

You're not going to be able to dellude yourself that way by going to a movie.

(snippety snip)

Oh, it's happened, all right... Who could forget The Passion of the Christ? Huge busloads of Southern Baptists off to see prolonged S/M up on the screen while eating popcorn, all while deluding themselves that it was a holy experience. And bringing LITTLE KIDS. Lots of little kids. Actually, I really wanted to go, because I felt that I couldn't criticize it in detail without seeing it. But I knew that I'd never make it through that movie. I don't like incredibly violent films, and Roger Ebert said it was the most violent one he'd ever seen, so it was out for me. I really should get it on DVD sometime so I can fastforward through the worst parts...

 

[Mark6]

I'm putting all the blame on you for not knowing what you are talking about
1. I know Hitler wasn't an atheist, I have never said any different.
2. I don't think religous views have anything to do with genocide, anyone can do that
3. I think you should spend more time reading what people have said before you go all straw answering things they haven't

Then why did you write, without quotations or smileys?

Everyone knows it was the Nazis who were Godless

Certainly looked like you actually believed it.

If your claim was that Churchill used "Godless Nazis" as a successful propaganda point even though it was untrue, then you should make yourself more clear.

 

[Paulhoff]

Oh, it's happened, all right... Who could forget The Passion of the Christ?

Don't forget the old:

"Me, why have I forsaking Me".


Paul

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Oh, it's happened, all right... Who could forget The Passion of the Christ? Huge busloads of Southern Baptists off to see prolonged S/M up on the screen while eating popcorn, all while deluding themselves that it was a holy experience. And bringing LITTLE KIDS. Lots of little kids. Actually, I really wanted to go, because I felt that I couldn't criticize it in detail without seeing it. But I knew that I'd never make it through that movie. I don't like incredibly violent films, and Roger Ebert said it was the most violent one he'd ever seen, so it was out for me. I really should get it on DVD sometime so I can fastforward through the worst parts...

Well, that's probably not a good counter-example because it still basically boils down to religion. Most of those people likely weren't thinking "I'm a better person for watching some gruesome torture", but rather, "I'm a better person because I'm totally interested in Jesus Christ." In effect the movie was really an extension of their church and religion delusions.

Still, you do have a more general point. I still remember the rappers-vs-metalheads days in high school, or football fans, or the good ol' days of the 3dfx-fanboys-vs-nvidiots flame wars, or people thinking they've become some kind of messiah for installing Linux instead of Windows or BSD instead of Linux, or a bunch of other such us-vs-them situations. Anything that can be used to draw a line between "us" and "them", will be used by some people as a claim to greatness. People will claim that they're better persons for watching the right movies, listening to the right music, wearing the right clothes, going to the right art galleries, waving a little flag for the right sports team, playing the right faction on WoW, or even just being born in the "right" race or nation.

Still, it seems to me like none of the other criteria are taken half as seriously as religion, even by most of their proponents. Nobody except the most deranged fanboys will argue that you're a monster for playing on a Playstation instead of a Wii, or listening to Eminem instead of Metallica, or watching a DVD instead of going to the movie theatre. But it seems to me like whole swathes of the USA and some other places will argue just that: you're some kind of a menace to society and servant of Satan if you don't go to church, and doubly so if you are going to the church of a whole other religion.

And even when someone will argue that going to the movies made them a better person, they tend to detail exactly what change (they think) it caused in them. They won't just list going to the movie theatre as _the_ change for the better. They might say that it broadened their cultural horizons, or opened them to new ideas, or whatever. Even in the case of The Passion Of Christ they may say that they learned more about Christ. But for a lot it seems to me like the simple act of going to the right church or witnessing for the right sect or thumping the right holy book is already passing for a change for the better in itself. No need to do anything else.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Oh, it's happened, all right... Who could forget The Passion of the Christ? Huge busloads of Southern Baptists off to see prolonged S/M up on the screen while eating popcorn, all while deluding themselves that it was a holy experience. And bringing LITTLE KIDS. Lots of little kids. Actually, I really wanted to go, because I felt that I couldn't criticize it in detail without seeing it. But I knew that I'd never make it through that movie. I don't like incredibly violent films, and Roger Ebert said it was the most violent one he'd ever seen, so it was out for me. I really should get it on DVD sometime so I can fastforward through the worst parts...

he he, okay, I'll give you that one...though obviously with the caveat that Hans posted above.

 

[SusanB-M1]

A few years ago, I joined the British Humanist Association, not because I felt a need to replace a religion - I'd stopped believing long since - but because if change is to be effected, an Association with a substantial number of members is more likely to be able , e.g., to influence Government opinion. This the BHA does.

 

[dafydd]

How self-centered of you.




Yup. It's like a support group where the smart kid clique can hang out and pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for being so very bright. When an unsuspecting woo-woo drops by to enlighten you poor sods, you guys get your sport by swarming on him or her like a ravenous pack of wolves. It's not about education here, it's about sport and circle-jerks.

I haven't read TGD, but I spent years at his forum before it went down, and I have heard Dawkins vent his spleen before, and his fanbois do a pretty good job of regurgitating his crap again and again. The man is a fool. And I say all that as someone who opposes religious fundamentalism.

Richard Dawkins is not a fool.