I think Im an atheist.

[vukxfiles]

Ulthar gave me negative karma because he says that I am narrow minded. He thinks everyone who has a negative view of religion is narrow-minded, when in fact religion is negative and useless. It should be discarded to make way for civilization's avancement.

And just so you guys know, religion has done too much evil in the world, and it always beats its enemies by bigotry. I say it is enough of atheists trying to quietly and peacefully expose religion, I say we should do to them the same thing they have been doing to us since it began. Use their weapon to fight against them.

[ulthar]

I said you are presenting yourself as narrow minded. Think about the difference.

If I thought everyone with a negative view of religion is narrow minded, how come you are the only person in in this thread I boo'd?

Think about that before you mischaracterize what I think.

[Flick James]

Ulthar gave me negative karma because he says that I am narrow minded. He thinks everyone who has a negative view of religion is narrow-minded, when in fact religion is negative and useless. It should be discarded to make way for civilization's avancement.

And just so you guys know, religion has done too much evil in the world, and it always beats its enemies by bigotry. I say it is enough of atheists trying to quietly and peacefully expose religion, I say we should do to them the same thing they have been doing to us since it began. Use their weapon to fight against them.

I would never give you negative karma over such a thing. I don't begrudge you your views in any way whatsoever. You are perfectly entitled to your attempts to expose religion, and in many of those points I would be in agreement with you. However, your general posture is confrontational, absolute, and in that way you come across as intolerant and closed-minded. In that way you make yourself responsible for the same kind of provincial thinking you accuse people of faith of having. You clearly want to make it a war. That's fine, but I guarantee you that you will fail miserably in winning any significant number of hearts and minds.

Atheism, by it's very definition, allows for no spiritual belief whatsoever, and is so absolute and stifling in that endeavor that to say it makes one more open-minded is a self-imposed contradiction. Open-minded implies tolerance and the allowance for ideas outside that which one ideology represents. Atheism allows neither.   

[Jim H]

Ulthar gave me negative karma because he says that I am narrow minded. He thinks everyone who has a negative view of religion is narrow-minded, when in fact religion is negative and useless. It should be discarded to make way for civilization's avancement.

And just so you guys know, religion has done too much evil in the world, and it always beats its enemies by bigotry. I say it is enough of atheists trying to quietly and peacefully expose religion, I say we should do to them the same thing they have been doing to us since it began. Use their weapon to fight against them.

I would never give you negative karma over such a thing. I don't begrudge you your views in any way whatsoever. You are perfectly entitled to your attempts to expose religion, and in many of those points I would be in agreement with you. However, your general posture is confrontational, absolute, and in that way you come across as intolerant and closed-minded. In that way you make yourself responsible for the same kind of provincial thinking you accuse people of faith of having. You clearly want to make it a war. That's fine, but I guarantee you that you will fail miserably in winning any significant number of hearts and minds.

Atheism, by it's very definition, allows for no spiritual belief whatsoever, and is so absolute and stifling in that endeavor that to say it makes one more open-minded is a self-imposed contradiction. Open-minded implies tolerance and the allowance for ideas outside that which one ideology represents. Atheism allows neither.   

You're suggesting a far more narrow view of atheism than what it really is.  Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - nothing more.  It's unlikely perhaps, but an atheist might very well believe in other supernatural phenomena.  There are also a few arguably atheistic religions, like some versions of buddhism.  There is also nothing in atheism to suggest open minded or close mindedness - that's to the individual entirely.  You're ascribing a trait to it that would require a philosophical system, which atheism is not at all. 

As an analogy, if I were to say theists worship Jesus I'd be making a comparable error.

[Newt]

Have you understood the metaphores in that??

Could you be more insulting and condescending? 

And in English it is "metaphors" - no 'e'.

[Flick James]

Ulthar gave me negative karma because he says that I am narrow minded. He thinks everyone who has a negative view of religion is narrow-minded, when in fact religion is negative and useless. It should be discarded to make way for civilization's avancement.

And just so you guys know, religion has done too much evil in the world, and it always beats its enemies by bigotry. I say it is enough of atheists trying to quietly and peacefully expose religion, I say we should do to them the same thing they have been doing to us since it began. Use their weapon to fight against them.

I would never give you negative karma over such a thing. I don't begrudge you your views in any way whatsoever. You are perfectly entitled to your attempts to expose religion, and in many of those points I would be in agreement with you. However, your general posture is confrontational, absolute, and in that way you come across as intolerant and closed-minded. In that way you make yourself responsible for the same kind of provincial thinking you accuse people of faith of having. You clearly want to make it a war. That's fine, but I guarantee you that you will fail miserably in winning any significant number of hearts and minds.

Atheism, by it's very definition, allows for no spiritual belief whatsoever, and is so absolute and stifling in that endeavor that to say it makes one more open-minded is a self-imposed contradiction. Open-minded implies tolerance and the allowance for ideas outside that which one ideology represents. Atheism allows neither.   

You're suggesting a far more narrow view of atheism than what it really is.  Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - nothing more.  It's unlikely perhaps, but an atheist might very well believe in other supernatural phenomena.  There are also a few arguably atheistic religions, like some versions of buddhism.  There is also nothing in atheism to suggest open minded or close mindedness - that's to the individual entirely.  You're ascribing a trait to it that would require a philosophical system, which atheism is not at all. 

As an analogy, if I were to say theists worship Jesus I'd be making a comparable error.

That's true. I certainly wouldn't attribute anything philosophical to atheism.

All possible misrepresentations of atheism aside, most of my experiences with atheists bear me out. vukxfiles, in what he has posted thus far, typifies the obstinacy of atheist thought that I have run into time and time again. In this way they behave just like the most intolerant and vehement of religious zealots, whom I despise more so than atheists, by the way. I'm talking about a posture, here, not an encyclopedia definition of atheism.

Like I said before, I don't begrudge the man his opinions of religion, and if anybody takes the time to look at my posts in this thread, they will see that I clearly agree with them, just not to such caustic extent. I'm also not an atheist. His posture is one that suggests that atheists are open-minded and that non-atheists are ignorant, bigoted, and intolerant. He seems to have a seething hatred of religion and would like to see it wiped off the face of the earth. I would like that as well, but through time, with humanity rejecting religion on it's own. Many atheists seem to think it's a war where people must be stripped of their religious views even if against their will, and would readily sign on to outlaw religious thought of any kind. This kind of thinking certainly cannot be equated with open-mindedness and tolerance. The problem with this way of thinking about religion is that it won't work. Human beings will forever reach out for something bigger than themselves, forever seek out that which is spiritual. It is an inescapable yearning that is as real to the human condition as breathing.

And to vukxfile directly. I'm not trying to confront you here. I simply don't agree with your approach. We both reject religion, we both know that many of history's injustices are directly the result of religious intolerance. What I'm saying is that if you seem to want to degrade and humiliate people for their faith, and I'm telling you that it simply won't work. Why? Because people will forever be able to turn around and point out good things that religion, churches, people of faith, etc. have done. Indy has said, for example, that the Protestant uprising of several hundred years ago was responsible for the system of Western civilization that we enjoy today. I disagree. It was a factor, but one of many and certainly not primary. However, I do not discount that it was a factor. You seem to want to denounce it as a factor altogether, because religion and people of faith seem to be incapable of anything but evil and bigotry and intolerance. That is how you come across. If that is how you feel, then fine. All I'm trying to do is suggest is that the peaceful exposure of the flaws of religion that you say is no longer called for, is, well, exactly what is called for.

[Rev. Powell]

Ulthar gave me negative karma because he says that I am narrow minded. He thinks everyone who has a negative view of religion is narrow-minded, when in fact religion is negative and useless.

I don't necessarily agree with giving you negative karma, but I agree with the others that you're being narrow-minded.  To flatly say "religion is negative and useless" could hardly be described as open-minded.  In fact, the irony contained in that second sentence kind of bowls me over; it's almost like you're deliberately refuting yourself. 

Being open-minded involves trying to see things from the perspective of people with whom you may ultimately disagree. 

[The Gravekeeper]

To say that religion and the social rules that have come from it have no purpose whatsoever is to be narrow-minded. Looking at it from a secular point of view, religious rituals can help create a sense of community, can provide a sense of purpose, and can help regulate social behavior (some cases are definitely good, such as discouraging greed, while others have decidedly negative effects, such as the caste system). There are some religious rituals that provide a context that allows members of the community to mock and call their leaders out on poor behavior without fear of reprimand (some African tribes practise this by donning masks and taking on the personas of spirits).

To me, calling religion evil is kind of like calling a gun evil. Have they caused great harm? Yes...but only when people used them to cause harm.

And for the record, I do value logical, rational thought. It disappoints me when I see opinions that were not backed up with logic or reason being used as arguments from both sides.

[indianasmith]

I kind of hate to see this thread take a negative turn when the discussion has been almost entirely civil and thoughtful throughout.  As the board's resident Christian - or at least as the most loudmouthed believer here - all I would add to this discussion is that, before rejecting religion as entirely negative, you should consider that mankind's greatest achievements in music, architecture, philanthropy, literature, and education have been done in the name of religion for most of mankind's history - for almost all of it, in fact, if you leave out the last 100 years or so.
  So, if you abolish religion, you have no crusades, no jihad, no inquisition.  But you also have no pyramids, no Sistine Chapel, no Handel, no Beethoven, no Gothic Cathedrals, no Salvation Army, nor any of the other thousand and one endeavors men have made in countless fields in their ongoing effort to honor their Creator, however they perceive Him.

[Allhallowsday]

I kind of hate to see this thread take a negative turn when the discussion has been almost entirely civil and thoughtful throughout.  As the board's resident Christian - or at least as the most loudmouthed believer here - all I would add to this discussion is that, before rejecting religion as entirely negative, you should consider that mankind's greatest achievements in music, architecture, philanthropy, literature, and education have been done in the name of religion for most of mankind's history - for almost all of it, in fact, if you leave out the last 100 years or so.
  So, if you abolish religion, you have no crusades, no jihad, no inquisition.  But you also have no pyramids, no Sistine Chapel, no Handel, no Beethoven, no Gothic Cathedrals, no Salvation Army, nor any of the other thousand and one endeavors men have made in countless fields in their ongoing effort to honor their Creator, however they perceive Him.

What I wonder is... if Jesus excreted,  could these holy turds still be found in the earth, like, arrowheads or fossilized bone??  

[vukxfiles]

Don't you guys understand. Atheists go nowhere by debating about religion in a civilized way, because religious people don't. Why let them bash us, and we are not allowed to bash them? They deserve all the bashing we could give them.

Also, what the heck are you guys talking about pyramids and chapels? So people need to believe in something that doesn't exist, be bound by illogical rules, so they can have pyramids?? I say to hell with the pyramids, I'd rather have my liberties.

[Mofo Rising]

Don't you guys understand. Atheists go nowhere by debating about religion in a civilized way, because religious people don't. Why let them bash us, and we are not allowed to bash them? They deserve all the bashing we could give them.

Also, what the heck are you guys talking about pyramids and chapels? So people need to believe in something that doesn't exist, be bound by illogical rules, so they can have pyramids?? I say to hell with the pyramids, I'd rather have my liberties.

I will agree with you that atheism is fairly demonized in quite a few communities. It often seems that consensus says that belief in any religion is more socially acceptable than not believing any of them. But you're promoting a them or us worldview, and I think if you looked at it, you would find it a bit more complicated than that.

An eye for an eye is not a healthy way to live. If you lose sight of the fact that all of us, no matter our beliefs, are humans worthy of respect, you start down a very dangerous path. Dehumanization is the first step towards atrocity. You can cite countless examples of the horrors committed in the name of religion, but atheism doesn't have anything like a better track record. Look at communism in the last century, the grand idealism that never quite worked out.

Take Cuba. It amazes me that people fetishize the spirit of rebellion Che Guevara has come to symbolize, while conveniently side-stepping the fact that he was instrumental in setting up one of the most brutally repressive governments in recent history. The communist government there promoted atheism, and if you think liberty is alive and strong there, you are very mistaken.

I think everybody here does understand. This isn't an us or them situation, it's a timeless discussion. I am on the atheist side of the discussion, but I can't see any sense in attacking people who believe in their religion by a reduction in argument and personal vehemence.

Also, "bound by illogical rules?" There isn't a human being alive who can say they're free of those. Casting off religious arguments doesn't free you from the assumptions about life you live by every day.

[indianasmith]

I kind of hate to see this thread take a negative turn when the discussion has been almost entirely civil and thoughtful throughout.  As the board's resident Christian - or at least as the most loudmouthed believer here - all I would add to this discussion is that, before rejecting religion as entirely negative, you should consider that mankind's greatest achievements in music, architecture, philanthropy, literature, and education have been done in the name of religion for most of mankind's history - for almost all of it, in fact, if you leave out the last 100 years or so.
  So, if you abolish religion, you have no crusades, no jihad, no inquisition.  But you also have no pyramids, no Sistine Chapel, no Handel, no Beethoven, no Gothic Cathedrals, no Salvation Army, nor any of the other thousand and one endeavors men have made in countless fields in their ongoing effort to honor their Creator, however they perceive Him.

What I wonder is... if Jesus excreted,  could these holy turds still be found in the earth, like, arrowheads or fossilized bone??  

GROAN . . . . . . .

[indianasmith]

Don't you guys understand. Atheists go nowhere by debating about religion in a civilized way, because religious people don't. Why let them bash us, and we are not allowed to bash them? They deserve all the bashing we could give them.

Also, what the heck are you guys talking about pyramids and chapels? So people need to believe in something that doesn't exist, be bound by illogical rules, so they can have pyramids?? I say to hell with the pyramids, I'd rather have my liberties.

     The point I was trying to make is that most of mankind's greatest achievements through the centuries have been a product of religious devotion.  Kill religion and you kill something precious and creative in the human soul.  Also, your whole premise that "religion is worthless" is based on the presupposition that God does not exist.    If God does exist, it only makes sense that we should try to reach out and understand Him - and it even makes some sense that He might try to reveal Himself to us.  Your life's philosophy seems to be based on the logical impossibility that something that cannot be measured cannot therefore exist.
   And, while I don't demonize atheists in general - most of the atheists I know are very decent people, and a couple of them are very close friends - I will enlarge on Mofo's comment.  Atheistic regimes in the 20th century killed more people than have died in all the religious wars in history, combined.  So who's hands are stained with the most blood?

 Mankind is an inherently bloodthirsty beast, regardless of what he believes about his creator.

[El Misfit]

here's what I believe- I believe that there's no such thing as a superior religion, since most religions doesn't believe that all other Religions are false and that theirs the best. Hell, If I were to be baptized, it would only be fore Hinduism, since Hinduism believes that All other Religions is real along with Hinduism!