Mississippi High School Sued Over Forced Religious Assembly

[Libertarian California]

Religious people acting like retarded mouth-breathers.

News at 11.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Knives are used to vandalize property, to break into buildings, and (in extreme cases) to kill people

Therefore, knives are a danger to a free society, and we would be better off without them.

Well I've never seen any practical use for religion. I have seen many practical uses for knives.

I mean, my issue with religion is that it's the worst of both possible worlds. Not only does it attract stupid people (like every ideology and media-related thing) but it serves no real purpose. I mean... What practical purpose does it serve that cannot be served by secular organizations?

Have you studied cultural anthropology at all? That's not meant as a snarky comment or a challenge. It's an honest question.

[Big Jim P]

Well I've never seen any practical use for religion. I have seen many practical uses for knives.

I mean, my issue with religion is that it's the worst of both possible worlds. Not only does it attract stupid people (like every ideology and media-related thing) but it serves no real purpose. I mean... What practical purpose does it serve that cannot be served by secular organizations?

Religion fools people into believing there's something on the other side that they have to not kill themselves and live a wholesome life to get to. That's the inherent value- reinforcing the moral code and preventing despair-based suicides.

I know there is nothing other on the "other side" I despair, yet I do not suicide. Strange that.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Well I've never seen any practical use for religion. I have seen many practical uses for knives.

I mean, my issue with religion is that it's the worst of both possible worlds. Not only does it attract stupid people (like every ideology and media-related thing) but it serves no real purpose. I mean... What practical purpose does it serve that cannot be served by secular organizations?

Religion fools people into believing there's something on the other side that they have to not kill themselves and live a wholesome life to get to. That's the inherent value- reinforcing the moral code and preventing despair-based suicides.

So, its value is in its ability to make people who are so depressed that they want to kill themselves even more stressed out.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Religion fools people into believing there's something on the other side that they have to not kill themselves and live a wholesome life to get to. That's the inherent value- reinforcing the moral code and preventing despair-based suicides.

What I basically got from this is, "People are stupid dicks. Religion keeps them in line."

Well, now I know what I hate. It's not religion, apparently, it's people who perpetuate that it's necessary by being stupid, angsty dicks.

People naturally tend towards being stupid, angsty dicks.

[Agymnum]

Well I've never seen any practical use for religion. I have seen many practical uses for knives.

I mean, my issue with religion is that it's the worst of both possible worlds. Not only does it attract stupid people (like every ideology and media-related thing) but it serves no real purpose. I mean... What practical purpose does it serve that cannot be served by secular organizations?

Have you studied cultural anthropology at all? That's not meant as a snarky comment or a challenge. It's an honest question.

No, to be honest. I'm assuming what you're about to tell me is that religion is some sort of base for a culture to form and evolve, thus leading eventually to it becoming obsolete after the culture has become well-established.

Or something.

[New Sapienta]

That isn't really related to it at all, and it is a very stupid strawman.

Which is funny, cause you're using fire in the situation.

I really hope I don't have to explain the metaphor.

Oh, I get what you're trying to say, but you acting like slapping down an irrelevant analogy isn't helping anyone's argument but mine.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Religion fools people into believing there's something on the other side that they have to not kill themselves and live a wholesome life to get to. That's the inherent value- reinforcing the moral code and preventing despair-based suicides.

I know there is nothing other on the "other side" I despair, yet I do not suicide. Strange that.

Here's an excellent example of why religion has a place in society as told by an atheist.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Have you studied cultural anthropology at all? That's not meant as a snarky comment or a challenge. It's an honest question.

No, to be honest. I'm assuming what you're about to tell me is that religion is some sort of base for a culture to form and evolve, thus leading eventually to it becoming obsolete after the culture has become well-established.

Or something.

No, that would be overly simplistic, and I'm not going to insult your intelligence with that, though those points do have merit as part of a larger whole. What I'm going to say is that it would take a textbook chapter to explain it in a way that would likely satisfy you, or any other reasonably intelligent atheist for that matter. But the Patton Oswalt routine I linked in my last post is a good start.

[Greater Pokarnia]

I know there is nothing other on the "other side" I despair, yet I do not suicide. Strange that.

Here's an excellent example of why religion has a place in society as told by an atheist.

So the question becomes, is it necessary anymore?

[Neo Arcad]

Religion fools people into believing there's something on the other side that they have to not kill themselves and live a wholesome life to get to. That's the inherent value- reinforcing the moral code and preventing despair-based suicides.

I know there is nothing other on the "other side" I despair, yet I do not suicide. Strange that.

Not everyone can deal with the concept of nothingness after death. I myself live for the sake of living, and for the sake of advancing the human species with whatever talents I have to offer. But not everyone sees it that way. Some men need a reward, an impetus to live a life of virtue and not vice, even if the eternal life cake ends up being a lie.

[Individuality-ness]

Why am I not surprised?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Here's an excellent example of why religion has a place in society as told by an atheist.

So the question becomes, is it necessary anymore?

As long as people wake up and say "I'm going to have rape for breakfast", as long as people follow brute force over intelligence, as long as people see nothing wrong with exploiting the weak for personal gain unless there's a better reward at the end for being nice...then, yes.

[Agymnum]

No, that would be overly simplistic, and I'm not going to insult your intelligence with that, though those points do have merit as part of a larger whole. What I'm going to say is that it would take a textbook chapter to explain it in a way that would likely satisfy you, or any other reasonably intelligent atheist for that matter. But the Patton Oswalt routine I linked in my last post is a good start.

I get what he's saying (I love Oswalt, by the way, almost as much as Carlin), but my main opposition to religion is in the modern era.

I mean, if religion was completely useless forever and ever, then it would've never been invented. It's like a square wheel - why invent something that doesn't improve your quality of life?

My point is that religion in the modern era is like a chariot racing around on a highway alongside Chevy's and Toyota's and Benz's. It's just not right, not today when we have sufficiently evolved both scientifically and culturally to be able to rise above it.

[Neo Arcad]

Here's an excellent example of why religion has a place in society as told by an atheist.

So the question becomes, is it necessary anymore?

Yes. Some folks just need something to believe in. So long as it remains harmless, you're the one doing wrong by trying to eliminate it. When it becomes a problem, as with the incident this thread should be discussing, it's dealt with and trimmed back. There's no need to burn the whole bush down just because some branches stick out a little bit funny.

[Resora]

I really hope I don't have to explain the metaphor.

Oh, I get what you're trying to say, but you acting like slapping down an irrelevant analogy isn't helping anyone's argument but mine.

Yeah, you didn't get it.

[New Sapienta]

No, that would be overly simplistic, and I'm not going to insult your intelligence with that, though those points do have merit as part of a larger whole. What I'm going to say is that it would take a textbook chapter to explain it in a way that would likely satisfy you, or any other reasonably intelligent atheist for that matter. But the Patton Oswalt routine I linked in my last post is a good start.

I get what he's saying (I love Oswalt, by the way, almost as much as Carlin), but my main opposition to religion is in the modern era.

I mean, if religion was completely useless forever and ever, then it would've never been invented. It's like a square wheel - why invent something that doesn't improve your quality of life?

My point is that religion in the modern era is like a chariot racing around on a highway alongside Chevy's and Toyota's and Benz's. It's just not right, not today when we have sufficiently evolved both scientifically and culturally to be able to rise above it.

And yet people find comfort in it, good people, and bad people. The bad people who want to kill the Sky Cookies people would only hijack a political party or country instead if their is no religion. I.E. Hitler, Stalin etc. As long as people take solace in their religion, use it to make life easier, and don't force their views on others, along with choosing to follow it, it isn't slavery.

[Greater Pokarnia]

So the question becomes, is it necessary anymore?

As long as people wake up and say "I'm going to have rape for breakfast", as long as people follow brute force over intelligence, as long as people see nothing wrong with exploiting the weak for personal gain unless there's a better reward at the end for being nice...then, yes.

Not really. Ever heard of Kohlberg's stages of moral development? The first, simplest two are avoiding punishment and benefiting oneself. As long as murderers, rapists, etc. are punished, these individuals won't do these things. Except for the irrational ones, but they tend to do that kind of shit regardless of whether religion is present.

[New Sapienta]

Oh, I get what you're trying to say, but you acting like slapping down an irrelevant analogy isn't helping anyone's argument but mine.

Yeah, you didn't get it.

Yeah, I did.

Perhaps instead of your one-liners, you could add something worthwhile to the discussion? Your drive-bys aren't helping.

[Individuality-ness]

No, that would be overly simplistic, and I'm not going to insult your intelligence with that, though those points do have merit as part of a larger whole. What I'm going to say is that it would take a textbook chapter to explain it in a way that would likely satisfy you, or any other reasonably intelligent atheist for that matter. But the Patton Oswalt routine I linked in my last post is a good start.

I get what he's saying (I love Oswalt, by the way, almost as much as Carlin), but my main opposition to religion is in the modern era.

I mean, if religion was completely useless forever and ever, then it would've never been invented. It's like a square wheel - why invent something that doesn't improve your quality of life?

My point is that religion in the modern era is like a chariot racing around on a highway alongside Chevy's and Toyota's and Benz's. It's just not right, not today when we have sufficiently evolved both scientifically and culturally to be able to rise above it.

Just because we ourselves don't need religion doesn't mean that no one else does. Even if we're all driving flying cars and living on Mars, people are still going to wonder what is their purpose in the world. Some of us are going to conclude "we have no defined purpose", others "I need to define my own", and still others will look towards divine reasons. As long as a religion doesn't inhibit scientific progress or deny others civil rights, there's no problems with having one.

[New Sapienta]

As long as people wake up and say "I'm going to have rape for breakfast", as long as people follow brute force over intelligence, as long as people see nothing wrong with exploiting the weak for personal gain unless there's a better reward at the end for being nice...then, yes.

Not really. Ever heard of Kohlberg's stages of moral development? The first, simplest two are avoiding punishment and benefiting oneself. As long as murderers, rapists, etc. are punished, these individuals won't do these things. Except for the irrational ones, but they tend to do that kind of shit regardless of whether religion is present.

Yeah, and his stages of moral development are only one of many different theories on the subject.

[Greater Pokarnia]

Not really. Ever heard of Kohlberg's stages of moral development? The first, simplest two are avoiding punishment and benefiting oneself. As long as murderers, rapists, etc. are punished, these individuals won't do these things. Except for the irrational ones, but they tend to do that kind of shit regardless of whether religion is present.

Yeah, and his stages of moral development are only one of many different theories on the subject.

True, but my point is more that I think the threat of eternal hellfire is more of a driving factor than the promise of paradise, and so punishing those who do these kinds of things should work just as well.

[New Sapienta]

Yeah, and his stages of moral development are only one of many different theories on the subject.

True, but my point is more that I think the threat of eternal hellfire is more of a driving factor than the promise of paradise, and so punishing those who do these kinds of things should work just as well.

Except even considering the moral developments are true, once the basic stuff is met, the tribes might decide to group up and have a nice plate of rape for dinner.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, that would be overly simplistic, and I'm not going to insult your intelligence with that, though those points do have merit as part of a larger whole. What I'm going to say is that it would take a textbook chapter to explain it in a way that would likely satisfy you, or any other reasonably intelligent atheist for that matter. But the Patton Oswalt routine I linked in my last post is a good start.

I get what he's saying (I love Oswalt, by the way, almost as much as Carlin), but my main opposition to religion is in the modern era.

I mean, if religion was completely useless forever and ever, then it would've never been invented. It's like a square wheel - why invent something that doesn't improve your quality of life?

My point is that religion in the modern era is like a chariot racing around on a highway alongside Chevy's and Toyota's and Benz's. It's just not right, not today when we have sufficiently evolved both scientifically and culturally to be able to rise above it.

Not exactly. I understand that we're a bit of an outlier, but my own Unitarian Universalist church doesn't even begin to claim to provide all of the answers (instead, it encourages questions and what we call a "free and responsible search for spiritual meaning"), we fight for the separation of church and state, and we don't proselytize. In fact, we have a number of happy atheists in our pews, as we don't even require belief in a god. The U.C.C., United Methodists, Roman Catholics (though they're dealing with their own issues), and many other denominations have no problem at all with the concept of evolution. The Dalai Lama has come right out and said that if a scientific truth were to be uncovered that conflicted with Buddhist precepts, then Buddhism would have to change.

Not all religion is destructive to society. In fact, the great majority of faith adherents in the U.S. are simply using their religion as a way to explore the concept of meaning in their lives, and are horrified at the idea of their beliefs being used in such a terrible manner. However, as always, the destructive ones are the loudest, and tend to draw the most attention.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yeah, and his stages of moral development are only one of many different theories on the subject.

True, but my point is more that I think the threat of eternal hellfire is more of a driving factor than the promise of paradise, and so punishing those who do these kinds of things should work just as well.

Except it doesn't, as there's no commensurate reward for not doing well. You can't be all stick and no carrot.