Religion should be systematically, peacefully, and totally eradicated over the next 100 years (commentary) [Copperknickers II vs. Sicknero]

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Thousands of Religions have come and gone.Replacing each other with the new fad.

Thor Odin Loki

Zeus Apollo Hades

The Sun the Moon the Stars.

Islam and Christianity will fall when the aliens show up.And we worship their gods.

[Copperknickers II]

There's a book you've probably read but should re-read: Animal Farm.

Some people like to be "mind-controlled" as we atheists like to call it, but are we so much better than they are? It's up to them to whom they'd prefer to delegate their moral/spiritual responsibility, to take away an individual's right to choose on such a foundational issue is an anathema.

I don't think anyone should delegate their moral and spiritual responsibility to somebody else. People shouldn't be allowed to have an government-backed institutional basis for convincing people to sell their minds into slavery. Slavery of the body is illegal, so why not slavery of the mind? Of course, some people volunteer to devote their lives to religion, but many if not most are simply indoctrinated since birth by their parents and are not given a fair choice.

One cannot have a debate with posts that are riddled with complete fallacies and appeals to violence to overthrow institutions and thoughts.

I haven't posted any fallacies or appeals to violence, and you still haven't answered my questions. What makes legal abolition of religious freedoms wrong, when legal suspension, and abolition, of countless other freedoms enshrined in the UNUDHR is right?

[Himster]

I don't think anyone should delegate their moral and spiritual responsibility to somebody else.

We all do. We all listen to philosophers, scientists, comedians, political leaders and form our worldview based on a lot of what other people think, do and say. It's human nature. We are social organisms, not everyone finds anarchy as appealing as atheists. Religion offers structure that isn't found elsewhere, who are we to deny people that luxury?
Look at the Milgram experiment: Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
For good or for ill we are obedient machines. You call religious people slaves, when really they're just humans. We can't free someone from a prison that only exists in that person's mind, they'll have to do that themselves. Even if we tell them they should be free, or that they should pretend to be free (as the Soviets did), that would be an insincere and false act.
You can't force a slave to be free. That's an oxymoron.

People shouldn't be allowed to have an government-backed institutional basis for convincing people to sell their minds into slavery.

Government backed? What? Religious institutions have tax breaks, so what? So do charity organisations and fee based clubs, that doesn't mean they're government backed.

Slavery of the body is illegal, so why not slavery of the mind? Of course, some people volunteer to devote their lives to religion, but many if not most are simply indoctrinated since birth by their parents and are not given a fair choice.

You think you're an authority figure on what constitutes "fair choice"?

[Copperknickers II]

We all do. We all listen to philosophers, scientists, comedians, political leaders and form our worldview based on a lot of what other people think, do and say. It's human nature. We are social organisms, not everyone finds anarchy as appealing as atheists. Religion offers structure that isn't found elsewhere, who are we to deny people that luxury?

We are all informed by the opinions of others, yes, but that is totally different to having our opinions dictated to us in a book which allows little room for interpretation (arguably. But even if you think that religious texts are supposed to be totally open to interpretation, that is even worse, since that's what gives extremists legitimacy to interpret violence and intolerance.)

For good or for ill we are obedient machines. You call religious people slaves, when really they're just humans. We can't free someone from a prison that only exists in that person's mind, they'll have to do that themselves. Even if we tell them they should be free, or that they should pretend to be free (as the Soviets did), that would be an insincere and false act.

They will never have any chance of being free until they understand that progress needs to be based on science, not theology or philosophy. It has become accepted now that giving a child prayers instead of medicine for physical illness is abuse. But there is mounting evidence that the effects of raising a child in an environment of unnecessary religious rules is just as damaging, yet it is portrayed as not just acceptable, but desirable, because of the prestige religion has as an integral part of Western society.

You can't force a slave to be free. That's an oxymoron.

You can take away their bindings though.

Government backed? What? Religious institutions have tax breaks, so what? So do charity organisations and fee based clubs, that doesn't mean they're government backed.

Not sure where you're from, but the head of state of my country is also the head of the church, and the power to invest the monarch with the powers of the Crown lies with the archbishop, not the people.

You think you're an authority figure on what constitutes "fair choice"?

Nothing I have said so far in this thread is my own original opinion, its all the opinions of respected scientists and sociologists. So I think that I am representative of people who are authorities on what constitutes fair choice.

[Himster]

We are all informed by the opinions of others, yes, but that is totally different to having our opinions dictated to us in a book which allows little room for interpretation (arguably. But even if you think that religious texts are supposed to be totally open to interpretation, that is even worse, since that's what gives extremists legitimacy to interpret violence and intolerance.)

I come from a Catholic culture so I can only really speak from that perspective. You have a superficial view of religion if you don't mind me saying. The dictates of "religions" are consistently the dictates of individuals' interpretations. Not every catholic obeys or even likes the pope. As for the fact that extremists take legitimacy from text that is open to interpretation: what does that change? A nut-job with a bible is no different than a nut-job with a cuddly-stuffed-toy. It's a common myth among atheists that: "Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, for good people to do bad things, that takes religion." That is utter horse shite. Good people do bad things for all sorts of reasons: ideology, survival, passion, religion, to save a loved one, patriotism, or because of authority etc.

Striking against religion as you seem to be proposing can/will only result in unnecessary reaction, meaning a stall of progress.

They will never have any chance of being free until they understand that progress needs to be based on science, not theology or philosophy. It has become accepted now that giving a child prayers instead of medicine for physical illness is abuse. But there is mounting evidence that the effects of raising a child in an environment of unnecessary religious rules is just as damaging, yet it is portrayed as not just acceptable, but desirable, because of the prestige religion has as an integral part of Western society.

That is changing naturally. You underestimate the power of human free-will. Only we can decide what we believe, other peoples' opinions only hinder/enhance us to a limited degree. Also science without philosophy is inherently dystopic, more specifically science is a tool to society not the other way around. Improperly applied science is invariably an evil on society. Yes religion can hinder science, but so can lots of things, the monopoly that oil companies have on our lives hinders science in more ways than one, mankind's natural laisez faire attitude to the status quo hinders applying what we know about climate change, lack of popular imagination hinders funding for NASA and other space programs,

You can take away their bindings though.

A slave with loosened shackles is still a slave. They have to free themselves. True emancipation can only happen in the willing mind.

Not sure where you're from, but the head of state of my country is also the head of the church, and the power to invest the monarch with the powers of the Crown lies with the archbishop, not the people.

Well there I'm with you. But naturally (being Irish) I'm against any and all things that reek of Britishness (except your comedians, I like your comedians).

Nothing I have said so far in this thread is my own original opinion, its all the opinions of respected scientists and sociologists. So I think that I am representative of people who are authorities on what constitutes fair choice.

[Denny Crane!]

We all do. We all listen to philosophers, scientists, comedians, political leaders and form our worldview based on a lot of what other people think, do and say. It's human nature. We are social organisms, not everyone finds anarchy as appealing as atheists. Religion offers structure that isn't found elsewhere, who are we to deny people that luxury?

Atheists are not anarchistic in their moralities. It was an atheist that coined the idea of a meme but the idea of shared ideas and relativistic morals informed by societal norms is not a new one, nor is any idea that is particular and shared within a culture. To be honest I can't recall seeing any serious atheist making the claim that we are fundamentally individualistic in every last idea (hell I've never seen rampant individualists make that claim!).

Look at the Milgram experiment: Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

You know the milgram experiments were scientifically flawed and have been effectively debunked right? They were practically faked.

Government backed? What? Religious institutions have tax breaks, so what? So do charity organisations and fee based clubs, that doesn't mean they're government backed.

Actually it does many charities have government support, government aid in the form of GIFT AID in the UK and government regulation through the charities commission with large amounts of oversight over how they are ran. Furthermore religious institutions have automatic entry for a select number of the heads of the church into the upper house of the UK government the House of Lords - for life, where they can exert considerable influence over government. And should we talk about faith schools?

You think you're an authority figure on what constitutes "fair choice"?

You don't have to be an authority figure to discuss the point.

Sorry to jump in on a reply that was not intended for me but good god there was so much wrong with that it was painful to behold!

[Himster]

Atheists are not anarchistic in their moralities. It was an atheist that coined the idea of a meme but the idea of shared ideas and relativistic morals informed by societal norms is not a new one, nor is any idea that is particular and shared within a culture. To be honest I can't recall seeing any serious atheist making the claim that we are fundamentally individualistic in every last idea (hell I've never seen rampant individualists make that claim!).

I was saying the exact opposite. We're social organisms, we learn together. Atheists are perceived as being anarchistic was my point, while theists by comparison have a more unified worldviews, relative to their religions of course.

You know the milgram experiments were scientifically flawed and have been effectively debunked right? They were practically faked.

Except they were repeated over and over. Most recently in 2009. All with slightly different parameters and slightly different results, but the overwhelming conclusion is that we're social organisms with hierarchical systems, like all social organisms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk

Actually it does many charities have government support, government aid in the form of GIFT AID in the UK and government regulation through the charities commission with large amounts of oversight over how they are ran. Furthermore religious institutions have automatic entry for a select number of the heads of the church into the upper house of the UK government the House of Lords - for life, where they can exert considerable influence over government. And should we talk about faith schools?

Well, I agree there. Something should be done about that. The separation of church and state really should be an international political doctrine.

You don't have to be an authority figure to discuss the point.

True. But the assertion that has been taken by the OP is that all religion should be "totally" done away with, which it shouldn't/can't be, a self appointed authority is implied in the assertion, if not explicitly stated and is therefore integral to the discussion.

[RubiconDecision]

Let's say some dubious voters and politicians cooked up a plan to eradicate Satanism from the USA. Do you think that would ever be legal? The courts would throw it out. Let's say they tried the same with atheism. The same thing would happen. It's extremely hard to "eradicate" practically anything. A post arguing for thought crime is an all new low for the community as an embarrassment as well among any group that prides itself for the free exchange of ideas. There can not ever be a politician who can eliminate natural rights for individuals which then by implication leads to them banding together as a community.

[Denny Crane!]

I was saying the exact opposite. We're social organisms, we learn together. Atheists are perceived as being anarchistic was my point, while theists by comparison have a more unified worldviews, relative to their religions of course.

Fair enough however I don't see religious people as being unified in their belief more than anyone else because religion is fragmented as badly as any cross section of society in its views and the relative social norms of any given time are dominant to a much greater degree. Perhaps when religion formed the underlying power structures and influences on society this was more true.

Well, I agree there. Something should be done about that. The separation of church and state really should be an international political doctrine.

Yeah it is messed up.

True. But the assertion that has been taken by the OP is that all religion should be "totally" done away with, which it shouldn't/can't be, a self appointed authority is implied in the assertion, if not explicitly stated and is therefore integral to the discussion.

A better assertion would have been that it would be beneficial to society without implying any authoritarianism.

[Copperknickers II]

A better assertion would have been that it would be beneficial to society without implying any authoritarianism.

Which is exactly what I've been advocating. I don't know who Himster and Rubicon are arguing with, but it definitely isn't me, because not once have I defended any plan to autocratically destroy religion and persecute it as a thought crime. The motion is that religion should be subjected to a campaign of full secularisation until it no longer has any political or social influence through formal insitutions with claims legal authority, or informal organisations advocating non-scientific dogma.

All of the above would in the real world be subject to a multilateral majority consensus, which is of course the aim of debating the matter in the first place, i.e. its completely irrelevant whether you actually believe that there could ever be such a consensus: the only relevant things are the arguments you can put forward to support your view that, given a consensus, the motion is a good idea, or even with a consensus, a bad idea.

[Denny Crane!]

Which is exactly what I've been advocating. I don't know who Himster and Rubicon are arguing with, but it definitely isn't me, because not once have I defended any plan to autocratically destroy religion and persecute it as a thought crime. The motion is that religion should be subjected to a campaign of full secularisation until it no longer has any political or social influence through formal insitutions with claims legal authority, or informal organisations advocating non-scientific dogma.

All of the above would in the real world be subject to a multilateral majority consensus, which is of course the aim of debating the matter in the first place, i.e. its completely irrelevant whether you actually believe that there could ever be such a consensus: the only relevant things are the arguments you can put forward to support your view that, given a consensus, the motion is a good idea, or even with a consensus, a bad idea.

Tying it down to complete secular individual adult choice is completely rational as you say.

I agree.

[RubiconDecision]

The reason you don't get it, is you don't understand the implication of your words, or the fact that they are violations of natural rights. The same natural rights which are the basis of governments in a Republic, or in a Democracy, or in your own bizarre form of Monarchy.

"1. dissolving all religious institutions, i.e. organisations that recieve any sort of public funding and employ any sort of preacher, legal advisor or political representative.

2. making it entirely clear that, whatever philosophical, scientific, or personal justifications they might have, religions should be regarded as almost certainly false, as divisive, and as generally counterproductive to a healthy society and to friendly and cooperative international relations."

One cannot dissolve religious institutions in America (I have no idea if this is possible in Scotland or the rest of the UK or elsewhere), for the natural rights of Freedom of Religion (and Freedom from Religion) are at the foundation of the political freedoms of Americans. The US Congress cannot break those fundamental laws since they inalienable and inherrent as stated in the Bill of Rights. The only way to do what you're asking is the overthrow of the US's fundamental process and there is no desire by any group to do so. Even if there were huge majorities to pass such laws, they would be immediately voided by the US Supreme Court.

I have no idea what your own laws and judicial process is. If you live in a nation that doesn't respect fundamental human rights, then I guess you're free to propose whatever nonsense you wish.

I've already explained this to you. That it breaks at least four natural rights and probably more. You see this as somehow a better solution, that you'd be freeing us from religion. Quite frankly what makes this freedom by eradication even a desirable outcome? If Christians demanded an eradication of atheism it would likely result in enormous controversy and any politician supporting it would likely be condemned by most Christians themselves.

[Denny Crane!]

Is it a human right for bishops to be given power over the country just on the basis of their religion?

Nope.

[Himster]

The motion is that religion should be subjected to a campaign of full secularisation until it no longer has any political or social influence through formal insitutions with claims legal authority, or informal organisations advocating non-scientific dogma.

Change religion to "religious institutions" and take out "social" influence: then put that in the title, then we'd all agree and I'll open this bottle of scotch (reserved for special occasions: 13 year old Lagavulin), paint my face blue and shout "Freeeeeeedom." (actually I'll probably just do those things anyway.)

[RubiconDecision]

Is it a human right for bishops to be given power over the country just on the basis of their religion?

Nope.

Nope, but we're not discussing the lunacy of the irregular Separation of Church and State in the UK, are we? It's appalling how your government is set up but would you eradicate religious institutions or fix your form of government? And it works both ways because the Queen (or any royal ruler of England in the future) decides who is the Archbishop of Canterbury, like this makes sense either. Or that Anglican clergy get pensions from the UK government.

If we were narrowly discussing these kinds of issues, you could definitely get some agreement from Christians that that kind of law is truly breaking the spirit of the law. Atheists have successfully stopped the US government from Christian nativity scenes at the government's expense, and I totally support this. But as far as I'm concerned Christian ministers should be able to marry other Christians and for it to be recognized without the government's involvement as there's been two thousand years of precedent for it.

Get the government out of religion and vice versa, but no critical thinker who supports natural rights could then in the same breath propose the eradication of spirituality.

[Denny Crane!]

Why does the government have to be involved at all in religion and vice versa which is all cn is proposing I believe.

[RubiconDecision]

Trust me, a good portion of spiritual people would be thrilled if the government and religion went separate ways. The one good thing that some religious groups do well (due to volunteering) is act as the first step in sorting through the needy with things like food and housing vouchers, and then sending them to the right government agency. What that does is reduce the amount of repeat users who abuse the system. They used to go from one church to another in search of funding. Instead there are central facilities and funds sent from religious groups to better help them.

Remove the religious organizations who are volunteering their time and money, and a lot of homeless people would suffer. A good portion of shelters have religious affiliation. Many of the homeless campsite provide land and some utility use and maintain these so homeless people have a place to go. Where it gets muddy is when these get supported through tax dollars, but the big money is from either benevolent wealthy (usually the vast bulk of funds) or from corporation or smaller businesses.

Take away the tax status if you want. Please stop with the disgusting FBI program in the US to get pastor/priests to pacify people in case of martial law or disaster (Clergy Response Team). Chaplains in the military. Whatever. The last thing a chaplain wants to do is create some generic religion and use this as a comfort to soldiers. It makes them bend their own belief systems in the most bizarre way. I understand why the chaplains are there because soldiers often believe in God and need spirituality when faced with death.

But eradication itself would be ILLEGAL. Seizing upon fascist ideas in order to break the shackles of spirituality.

[TiagoJRToledo]

And? What's wrong with that, so long as the idea you are imposing is correct? Are you saying that we should not impose ideas such as 'murder is wrong' and 'sexism is bad'? Because without those ideas being imposed you can bet all hell would break loose.

No, just major advances are sometimes made which leave behind obsolete activities to the pages of history. For example, up until about 3000 years ago, human sacrifice was a reasonably common practice throughout the world. Then, slowly, it became less and less common, beginning in civilised places and slowly spreading out to all primitive societies, until today, when no country in the world practices religiously ordained human sacrifice except in very isolated and extreme circumstances.

The notion that all ideas are equally valid, on the basis that multifaceted diverse societies are the most desirable ones, is clearly and demonstrably false. And even if that were not true, you can be the most hardened veteran cultural relativist and still accept that taboos such as cannibalism, paedophilia and human sacrifice transcend cultures and can be clamped down on while still maintaining just as much cultural diversity as there was before.

This is why you arguments are fundamentally incorrect. The world is not black and white, and you or any other person have the moral high-ground to proclaim one idea superior to other.

Who are you to say that faith and spirituality are obsolete and contribute nothing to advancement of Man? I would argue that they are powerful motors of innovation.

There are things that are self-evident, such as murder. But we cannot expect everyone to steer in one direction, when people have multiple backgrounds and experiences.

The remark of human sacrifice being an accepted and common practice is, from an archaeological and anthropological standpoint, not true.

[Copperknickers II]

Trust me, a good portion of spiritual people would be thrilled if the government and religion went separate ways. The one good thing that some religious groups do well (due to volunteering) is act as the first step in sorting through the needy with things like food and housing vouchers, and then sending them to the right government agency. What that does is reduce the amount of repeat users who abuse the system. They used to go from one church to another in search of funding. Instead there are central facilities and funds sent from religious groups to better help them.

Remove the religious organizations who are volunteering their time and money, and a lot of homeless people would suffer.

I simply do not see what Christianity has to do with charity. Yes, it has a strong condition of getting involved in charity, but the majority of charitable activities are carried out by charities without religious affiliation, and I do not for one minute believe that just because churches and associated charities are no longer government-recognised institutions, everyone who participates in Christian aid and other such organisations will just stop being involved in secularised versions of such organisations.

Why does the government have to be involved at all in religion and vice versa which is all cn is proposing I believe.

That, and the further point that the governments in the USA, the UK, and other countries, gives too much leeway for religious organisations to spread propaganda about homosexuals, evolution, abortion, climate change, and other issues that undermine and actively attack the public's trust in science, which I believe is absolutely essential in democracy where people have to vote on parties based on their knowledge of such subjects. The fact is, freedom to believe in Jesus Christ or Mohammed or Jehovah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not necessitate freedom to form organisations that constitute, at worst, domestic security risks, be they Islamist terrorism, or less overt but greatly more prevalent anti-scientific beliefs.

Change religion to "religious institutions" and take out "social" influence: then put that in the title, then we'd all agree and I'll open this bottle of scotch (reserved for special occasions: 13 year old Lagavulin), paint my face blue and shout "Freeeeeeedom." (actually I'll probably just do those things anyway.)

In a real world situation I'd be very happy to support such a welcome compromise, but I'd still like to convince you that it needs to go even further than that: to root out the harms done by extremists, it is necessary to take out the foundations of non-extreme ordinary beliefs from which the extremists draw their legitimacy. That means mitigating social influence, not just political (although let's be honest, there is very little difference between the two in this context).

One cannot dissolve religious institutions in America (I have no idea if this is possible in Scotland or the rest of the UK or elsewhere), for the natural rights of Freedom of Religion (and Freedom from Religion) are at the foundation of the political freedoms of Americans. The US Congress cannot break those fundamental laws since they inalienable and inherrent as stated in the Bill of Rights. The only way to do what you're asking is the overthrow of the US's fundamental process and there is no desire by any group to do so. Even if there were huge majorities to pass such laws, they would be immediately voided by the US Supreme Court.

Can't you pass amendments to the constitution? And, if it were suddenly discovered that God was real, or that guns caused cancer, or anything else that directly contravened or overruled so called 'natural rights', would the natural rights stay the same or could you change them? That is the problem with written constitutions and rights proclamations: malum consilium quod mutari non potest.

[Himster]

The world is not black and white, and you or any other person have the moral high-ground to proclaim one idea superior to other.

True, but we do have criteria by which we can judge mores,

Who are you to say that faith and spirituality are obsolete and contribute nothing to advancement of Man? I would argue that they are powerful motors of innovation.

Powerful motors of innovation? Please explain..

The remark of human sacrifice being an accepted and common practice is, from an archaeological and anthropological standpoint, not true.

It's found on every landmass where humans were present in the ancient world and has even survived today in pockets: Bangladesh in 2010, in India there are dozens every year by followers of Kali, there are money killings by followers of west and east African Vodun, in 2005 there were boys beaten and murdered because a pastor said they were witches, in Chile there was a boy who had his arms and legs removed by his paternal Grandfather, the boy was then placed in the sea so the tide could take him out to sea at the behest of a local Machi. Never mind the tens of thousands of cult members who sacrificed themselves in mass ritual suicides.

The thing is: these were accepted and common practice as demonstrated by the sheer universality of them throughout the globe, thousands of unconnected cultures acting in such a uniform way.