NationStates

New Bremerton wrote:

Satuga wrote:Honestly a large portion of morale's came from religion, however now that we have a far more functional society I don't really think it's religions job to be that morale giver anymore. It's society as a whole's job to do that, to teach children the rights and wrongs. Religion should be for mostly closure and hope now, rather than the morale enforcer its been for centuries.
Also it should be moderate like everything less we have another Jones-town.

Religion should ideally be relegated to history as an intangible cultural artifact, yet celebrated in much the same way that Greeks, Italians and Scandinavians celebrate their pantheons of old without actually worshipping Thor or Zeus or sincerely believing in the old religions. This has already kind of happened with Christmas and Easter. It's a real pity most Egyptians don't bother with Amun-Ra these days. We can marvel at Abbasid-era architecture without actually worshipping Allah and idolizing Mohammed. A prosperous, democratic, secular Middle East would be nice. As for China, the ancient civilization fuses elements from animistic ancestor worship, Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism in a sort of syncretistic mix, such that there is no clear dividing line between religion and culture like there is in the West, and the one blends seamlessly into the other.

Once we render religion subordinate to culture and national identity, people will have something exceedingly rich and colorful to rally behind and be proud of without the religious aspect of their culture holding them back in practice. The solution is to replace theocracy with secularism, and not so much blind faith with atheism. The latter is a bonus, but it's by no means a requirement. Replace religion but fail to implement secularism and establish liberal, democratic institutions to fill the void, and we run the risk of replacing one authoritarian ideology with yet another equally totalitarian ideology that calls itself atheist.

Rojava Free State wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Not really. It's taking advantage of a competing ideologies weaknesses to promulgate ones own.

There are other Faith's that don't give a shit about the traditional Christian baggage when it comes to sex.

Like buddhism, but you notice most atheists aren't offended by Buddhists because Buddhists don't condemn you to eternal hellfire for literally everything

True atheism may be difficult or impossible to prove, but I think agnosticism is an ultimately true belief, and that is that we don't know if God exists. we have no evidence of the gods of the world's religions, and while we can't definitely disprove they exist, a lot of evidence suggests that, and in the end its up to the religious believer to prove his God is real. It isn't up to an atheist or agnostic to prove he isn't

Alvecia wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Like buddhism, but you notice most atheists aren't offended by Buddhists because Buddhists don't condemn you to eternal hellfire for literally everything

True atheism may be difficult or impossible to prove, but I think agnosticism is an ultimately true belief, and that is that we don't know if God exists. we have no evidence of the gods of the world's religions, and while we can't definitely disprove they exist, a lot of evidence suggests that, and in the end its up to the religious believer to prove his God is real. It isn't up to an atheist or agnostic to prove he isn't

There's still been some pretty nasty stuff done by buddhists. They have this peaceful reputation, but they're just as susceptible to the same violent acts as other religions.

Rojava Free State wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Not really. It's taking advantage of a competing ideologies weaknesses to promulgate ones own.

There are other Faith's that don't give a shit about the traditional Christian baggage when it comes to sex.

Like buddhism, but you notice most atheists aren't offended by Buddhists because Buddhists don't condemn you to eternal hellfire for literally everything

True atheism may be difficult or impossible to prove, but I think agnosticism is an ultimately true belief, and that is that we don't know if God exists. we have no evidence of the gods of the world's religions, and while we can't definitely disprove they exist, a lot of evidence suggests that, and in the end its up to the religious believer to prove his God is real. It isn't up to an atheist or agnostic to prove he isn't

Rojava Free State wrote:

Alvecia wrote:There's still been some pretty nasty stuff done by buddhists. They have this peaceful reputation, but they're just as susceptible to the same violent acts as other religions.

It isn't Buddhism itself calling for the violence though. Violence among Buddhists in southeast Asia is often due to ultranationalism and not teachings of the religion. It's like blaming the teachings of Catholicism for the troubles. The IRA doesn't blow things up in the name of the pope. They do it in the name of reuniting Ireland and the Catholic label is basically just a shorthand for Irish Republican

Alvecia wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
It isn't Buddhism itself calling for the violence though. Violence among Buddhists in southeast Asia is often due to ultranationalism and not teachings of the religion. It's like blaming the teachings of Catholicism for the troubles. The IRA doesn't blow things up in the name of the pope. They do it in the name of reuniting Ireland and the Catholic label is basically just a shorthand for Irish Republican

I'm sure that every religion would argue the same. It's not Christianity that's calling for the death of gays, it's those extremist. It's not Islam that wants to purge the heathens, it's just those extremists.
Practically, it matters little.

New Bremerton wrote:

Alvecia wrote:I'm sure that every religion would argue the same. It's not Christianity that's calling for the death of gays, it's those extremist. It's not Islam that wants to purge the heathens, it's just those extremists.
Practically, it matters little.

You'll never catch me arguing that a radical atheist who has killed in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a real atheist. Not that I can think of any such person to begin with. I've never heard an atheist apply the No True Scotsman fallacy to themselves.

As for those horrible people who govern China, they're clearly atheists, although they do what they do in the name of state socialism or just plain old self-interest rather than atheism. Hence, the No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't exactly apply unless I deny their atheism.

Kowani wrote:You all say “the desire for power and wealth will exist regardless of religion”. And that’s true. But it’s a lot easier to get people to go along with terrible things if you tell them their soul’s at risk for it.

North Korea 2006 wrote:Atheism Is The Vegans In The God Debate!

You Dont Know If Someone Is Atheist? Dont Worry They Tell You!

Say God Bless You To Them They Love It! Even Though Im Not A Religious Person Myself

New Bremerton wrote:

Alvecia wrote:I'm sure that every religion would argue the same. It's not Christianity that's calling for the death of gays, it's those extremist. It's not Islam that wants to purge the heathens, it's just those extremists.
Practically, it matters little.

You'll never catch me arguing that a radical atheist who has killed in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a real atheist. Not that I can think of any such person to begin with. I've never heard an atheist apply the No True Scotsman fallacy to themselves.

As for those horrible people who govern China, they're clearly atheists, although they do what they do in the name of state socialism or just plain old self-interest rather than atheism. Hence, the No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't exactly apply unless I deny their atheism.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

New Bremerton wrote:
You'll never catch me arguing that a radical atheist who has killed in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a real atheist. Not that I can think of any such person to begin with. I've never heard an atheist apply the No True Scotsman fallacy to themselves.

As for those horrible people who govern China, they're clearly atheists, although they do what they do in the name of state socialism or just plain old self-interest rather than atheism. Hence, the No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't exactly apply unless I deny their atheism.

What is the no True Scotsman fallacy?

Servilis wrote:

Alvecia wrote:I would say the finger should be pointed at secularism rather than atheism. The latter being something of a subset of the former.

Secularism I would say has definitely made the world a better place.

I agree.
As that one person on Twitter put it :
"Religion is like a penis, it's okay to have one, it's okay to be proud of one, but it's NEVER okay to take it out in public and shove it down my throat or my child's throat."

Rojava Free State wrote:

North Korea 2006 wrote:Atheism Is The Vegans In The God Debate!

You Dont Know If Someone Is Atheist? Dont Worry They Tell You!

Say God Bless You To Them They Love It! Even Though Im Not A Religious Person Myself

If atheism is the veganism of the God debate, being a pious believer is the burger king for breakfast diet of the debate

Hakons wrote:

Servilis wrote:I agree.
As that one person on Twitter put it :
"Religion is like a penis, it's okay to have one, it's okay to be proud of one, but it's NEVER okay to take it out in public and shove it down my throat or my child's throat."

That's a disgusting analogy

Panslav wrote:

Hakons wrote:
That's a disgusting analogy

Disgusting, yet so true.

Panslav wrote:I'll quote Karl Marx here: "Religion is opium for the people"