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

[knight of meh]

Just because I'm interested in the title i though id start the commentary .


and I'll open with an observation from history Religion + eradication =/= peaceful

[Himster]

Oh Copperknickers: no. The sea-otters will rise up and wipe us all out.

[RubiconDecision]

This sort of debate is the worst since it comes from a very anti-intellectual snobbery that assumes one individal or one group possess inside knowledge of how a species should evolve intellectually. How absurd. It's the diversity of communication in the world of ideas that results in civilization, not some elite megabrain with all the answers about the ills of the world being caused by spirituality. It's poppycock to the extreme.

Imagine the nonsense of saying Atheism should be systematically, peacefully, and totally eradicated....blah blah blah. It's wretched nonsense. Imposing an idea upon others is fascist thought. Imagine Homosexuality should be systematically blah blah blah. Honestly.

Worse it presumes an end result pinacle has been achieved with no further evolution of ideas and that this abolitishment of spirituality is the paragon. Time stands still for some hardcore atheists, I guess who have decided that this is the utter achievement that will usher in a new age.

[Copperknickers II]

This sort of debate is the worst since it comes from a very anti-intellectual snobbery that assumes one individal or one group possess inside knowledge of how a species should evolve intellectually.

Well, we do. Except its not inside knowledge, its publicly available knowledge, aka science.

How absurd. It's the diversity of communication in the world of ideas that results in civilizatio

Its also the diversity of communication that results in Al-Qaeda, Westboro Baptist church, and the ethnic cleansing in Syria and CAR.

Imposing an idea upon others is fascist thought.

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.

Imagine Homosexuality should be systematically blah blah blah. Honestly.

Homosexuality cannot be eradicated, its not possible to eradicate a biological trait which we don't even know very much about.

Worse it presumes an end result pinacle has been achieved with no further evolution of ideas and that this abolitishment of spirituality is the paragon. Time stands still for some hardcore atheists, I guess who have decided that this is the utter achievement that will usher in a new age.

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 tabboos 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.

[RubiconDecision]

Well, we do. Except its not inside knowledge, its publicly available knowledge, aka science.

Its also the diversity of communication that results in Al-Qaeda, Westboro Baptist church, and the ethnic cleansing in Syria and CAR.

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.

Homosexuality cannot be eradicated, its not possible to eradicate a biological trait which we don't even know very much about.

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 tabboos 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.

Science cannot prove that spirituality is a bad cultural aspect that needs to be eradicated. Hence your statement is meaningless. It's a misapplication that somehow your statement is a provable fact based upon science. It's not and hence absurd.

The diversity in the world of ideas is what allowed the emergence of science when the preponderance of the people were ill educated. By your way of thinking, we extinguish ideas because YOU and your ilk don't like them. Pure fascist thought. Had the majority of humanity been as ill tolerant as you, then science would have been eliminated as well. The fact that you can't see that your position is JUST AS BAD and nauseating as the Westboro Baptist Church or Al Qaeda makes this ludicrous.

Ideas are made obsolete over time because the PEOPLE decide, not some lone voice decides what needs to happen. Instead of persuading people all you're doing is telling the rest of us what we should do. No thank you. In a free society, I'll leave my own choices to my intellect and desires and spirituality. I don't need you to tell me what's correct. Worse, what you're proposing is the bedrock of the majority of humanity. You want to inflict your ideas on others, not explain.

The fact that you consider spirituality analagous to cannibalism demonstrates a total lack of ability to discern truth.

Persuasion is about a positive attempt to relay the alternative ideas that another possesses and debate is about bringing others to your viewpoint based upon logic. What you're saying is not logical or persuasive. It's discussing your subjective ideas about spirituality in others in a negative light. Instead what is true is more subjectively determined by the SELF and not another. By your way of thinking, you and your associates could determine sexuality, what is Art, what is Ethical, what is True, etc. No! These are colaborative things that evolve in time and based upon culture and governments and freedom to express those ideas.

Facism in the World of Ideas. Conformity not even to what the majority think, but worse what some lone dissenters think. Not due to logic or persuasion, but because you think it should be abolished. Pray tell what else needs to be eradicated?

[Himster]

Homosexuality cannot be eradicated, its not possible to eradicate a biological trait which we don't even know very much about.

And what are beliefs? Oh, we don't fully understand those either? What a coincidence.

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.

The distinction between those things and religion is that religion is (by and large) benign, it doesn't actually harm anyone. The more negative effects of religion like sexism, terrorism, violent homophobia, using prayer instead of medicine on dying children etc. they're all illegal, society already cracks down on those. All that's left that is negative about religion is thoughts: try banning thoughts, try making a "thought Crime" legislation, because that doesn't have any connotation with totalitarianism or fascism. Seriously, come on.

[Sar1n]

Religions should lose their, still privileged positions and be reduced to same level as reenactor groups and other hobby clubs and such. They're nothing more anyway.

[Himster]

Religions should lose their, still privileged positions and be reduced to same level as reenactor groups and other hobby clubs and such. They're nothing more anyway.

We would like that, but most people are still religious, if only in name, those people would obviously disagree with your statements here.

[Copperknickers II]

And what are beliefs? Oh, we don't fully understand those either? What a coincidence.

The debate isn't about beliefs, its about organised institutions.

The distinction between those things and religion is that religion is (by and large) benign, it doesn't actually harm anyone.

This is patently false. People recieve judicial penalties every day for no other crime than disrespecting religion. Many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the name of religion. Many hundreds of thousands suffer as a direct result of religious beliefs such as the Catholic opposition to contraception.

more negative effects of religion like sexism, terrorism, violent homophobia, using prayer instead of medicine on dying children etc. they're all illegal, society already cracks down on those.

They're by no means illegal in many developing countries, and often it is churches from places such as the USA who preach those things.

[RubiconDecision]

Put two people together in isolation for a week and they develop spirituality. How are you proposing to eradicate it? Execute people who have spiritual beliefs? If I tell you to stop thinking about an idea, it makes you think about an idea.

I have a huge respect for some of the atheists in this community, as well as respecting important thinkers from history who also were atheists. But this form of fundamentalist atheism which proposes eradication is like the worst excesses in history for those who had the political power. Your ideas are not my own and I don't want you to think like me, and I would hope you don't want me to think like you.

In a public discourse, persuasion and logic are effective tools, but I doubt but a handful of people have been persuaded to believe an idea or believed it due to logic. People go by what their gut tells them. The most effective persuasion is about the positive merits of an idea. If I'm a Christian and I wish to discuss it, I doubt I'll persuade anyone by bad mouthing another spiritual system or saying I want to eradicate atheism. Immediate red flags and klaxons go off, "Thought police, intolerance, getmeoutofhere!" Instead given the large number of atheists here, it's the wise things Himster says that makes me appreciate his prose and not this drivel being proposed here. It's masking antipathy and hatred for debate.

[Himster]

The debate isn't about beliefs, its about organised institutions.

What? These various institutions are superficial projections of beliefs/interpretations. Institutions are a relatively minor part of religion. People are people, they'll listen to whoever they believe has earned their respect.

This is patently false. People recieve judicial penalties every day for no other crime than disrespecting religion. Many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the name of religion. Many hundreds of thousands suffer as a direct result of religious beliefs such as the Catholic opposition to contraception.

Politics can be influenced by religion, sure. Evil thoughts can on occasion give rise to evil deeds but they are decidedly deparate, but how/why do you plan on eliminating evil thoughts (some of which I admit may be incubated in the benign cloak of religions)?

They're by no means illegal in many developing countries, and often it is churches from places such as the USA who preach those things.

Again political institutions posing as religious ones. How/why should we stop preaching? Neo-nazis can hold their rallies: Why can't priests/preacher/vicars speak of their stuff too?

What's more important is: your goal cannot be done peacefully. Think of your most cherished beliefs, perhaps you believe black people shouldn't be slaves. What if someone decided to "peacefully" make all black people slaves, would you not stand up for such villainy? Would you not arm/rally yourself appropriately to protect the rights of your fellow citizens as is the duty of any man of conscience? Enforcing extreme ideology on other human beings cannot be done peacefully, people will defend their most cherished beliefs by any means necessary.

[RubiconDecision]

The amazing thing to me is the Age of Enlightenment was about devaluing spirituality but NOT being intolerant about it. There's an enormous body of intellectual thought towards a rational discourse of foregoing religion and supersition. That's markedly different than what I'm seeing here. All of the former is persuasive, logical, and admirable.

[Copperknickers II]

What? Politics can be influenced by religion, sure. Evil thoughts can on occasion give rise to evil deeds but they are decidedly deparate, but how/why do you plan on eliminating evil thoughts (some of which I admit may be incubated in the benign cloak of religions)?

These various institutions are superficial projections of beliefs/interpretations. Institutions are a relatively minor part of religion.

A minor part of religion? They are the whole reason that religions exist. Name one religion that exists without an institution. Even shamanic tribal religions have priests. Religion without an institution is just a philosophical ideology. Religion is inherently political, and is very much intended to be. As I said in the main thread, I admit we can't eradicate the idea of spirituality and personal belief, but we can eradicate religion as understood in a meaninful sense. Which is convenient, because that meaningful sense (i.e. of an organised institution) is where the majority of the harms come from.

Again political institutions posing as religious ones.

I see. So if it does bad things, its a political institution and not a religious one? Even when it is following the commands of its holy texts and religious jurists? Be serious. Although you have stumbled across the main problem of religion: religion is whatever its followers want it to be, whether they want it to be charitable and benevolent, or cruel and militant. My view is that we can have charitable and benevolent organisations without religion, indeed it would greatly improve their work because they wouldn't have to constantly disassociate themselves from other believers of their religion.

What's more important is: your goal cannot be done peacefully. Think of your most cherished beliefs, perhaps you believe black people shouldn't be slaves. What if someone decided to "peacefully" make all black people slaves, would you not stand up for such villainy?

You cannot compare freeing people from religion to making people slaves, in fact they are polar opposites.

Would you not arm/rally yourself appropriately to protect the rights of your fellow citizens as is the duty of any man of conscience? Enforcing extreme ideology on other human beings cannot be done peacefully, people will defend their most cherished beliefs by any means necessary.

It is not an extreme ideology to believe that organised religion should not exist, it is a view shared by thousands of top academics and scholars. And what I would do if I were religious is irrelevant. I probably wouldn't be very happy with such a campaign, but then I'd be supporting an obsolete and backward institution, so I'd deserve everything I'd get.

And whether or not such an initiative would actually succeed is irrelevant to this debate, it is a hypothetical scenario that is not going to actually happen, nor do I necessarily actually support it, so you don't need to get so personal.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

@OP: you make it too easy. God is real, hence you can not eradicate religion since humans can not win against the creator of the universe. It is also wrong since you would be fighting for a lie, so yeah end of debate.

[Copperknickers II]

@OP: you make it too easy. God is real, hence you can not eradicate religion since humans can not win against the creator of the universe. It is also wrong since you would be fighting for a lie, so yeah end of debate.

I disagree. Even if God were real, he would be a schizophrenic, sadistic, ineffective tyrannical dictator. He hypocritically tries to impose a set of moral rules on us while not even pretending to follow them himself. He claims to be omnipotent, yet he is incapable of intervening on human behalf in any major natural disaster. He is totally unable to communicate his message to us with the result that factions of humans have formed against each other and had actual wars over which of them interpreted his message correctly. He created a natural order in with ruthlessness and killer instinct are the primary methods of survival, and yet, although claiming this is a test for us to stay true to his rules, he gives many hundreds of thousands of people no chance to prove themselves in this test by allowing them to die either too young or too priveleged to have experienced testing circumstances.

If God is real, he is utterly undeserving of our reverence and institutional worship, and we should dismantle religion just to spite him.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

"Ah yes, let the hate flow through you"

Well then dear friend, who got the most right to decide what is right or wrong? The created object or the creator? How can you criticize that which you do not understand? Then again there is the cosmic war going on, but let's not add in too many factors at once.

Isaiah 29:
¹⁶ Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

[Sar1n]

Well then dear friend, who got the most right to decide what is right or wrong? The created object or the creator?

Those who get to feel the effects of right and wrong, I'd say.

How can you criticize that which you do not understand? Then again there is the cosmic war going on, but let's not add in too many factors at once.

Isaiah 29:
¹⁶ Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Funny about your little war. You believe that your god is omnipotent, so he could end the war whenever he wanted. So he's keeping us involved in war for...what? Amusement?

[RubiconDecision]

Such a silly case of a fake debate. There is no debating going on here. The spirituality side could say one aspect of the Christian deity is creating free will. As such, that kind of deity will not force you to believe or directly interfere in a constant way. This is middle school needling and not debate, whereas lots of intelligent atheists have created topics of high caliber about this very issue. The whole of point of the Fight Club is supposed to pit experts of debating skills with a carefully thought provoking debate. This isn't that.

Hurling Biblical verses is not debate. It's a wretched form of evangelism that drives a wedge between the unbeliever and the believer. It's silly. The belief in a deity and the inculcation of a spirituality happens through the heart and not the mind. While atheists might propose that's a silly means of acquiring a philosophy, other's who are philosophical might add that this is the primary way all philosophy is imparted.

If a nonbeliever sees no value in a text, will spewing those words do anything but irritate them? Some theists think that magically commanding those words imparts them with supernatural power, but that doesn't work for most but might briefly convince the guilt-ridden and lonely. It won't take seed and it won't last.

A belief in God is similar to the way any relationship is established. And ultimately that's what spirituality is...a communion with God, not a contract or solely a covenant. You don't make a contract with your spouse or your friend, you love them with your heart. Humans have a need to establish relationships, and spirituality is a manifestation of that need. So even if God didn't exist, humanity would create one and worship that deity.

Unless you can figure out a way to fundementally alter human needs, there will always be spirituality.

One can easily debate the merits of a non-belief in a deity is superior because of myriad reasons. That's rather easy to do and has been done. However despite a long litary of benefits, the majority of humanity when faced against conflict especially will turn to a supernatural means out of their plight. Atheists can laugh at that, but then some find themselves doing it, even ardent ones. It's back to a basic human desire and there's no way to eradicate that save a lifetime of discipline and reliance upon the self.

Say one if totally self-reliant. It might be possible to do if a hermit living in the wilderness. When faced with such solitude, then one is forced to do all things by themselves. But since there are few wilderness places and since humanity is not fulfilled by perpetual solitude, then that won't work for but a handful of folks. Indeed, such solitude has driven humans insane by loneliness and sensory deprivation. Talk to any prisoner in solitary (but I can't wait to hear the false dichotomy rebuttal).

One can discipline the mind and dismiss the need for the supernatural, but the endless questions of "what if" and "why is life this way" feeds the need for spirituality too. There are brilliant folks who do hone their mind, but even they will admit to faltering in their beliefs, and only when surrounded by a community of like minded thinkers will they resist the urge to turn to spirituality.

It is that compelling. How many atheists were once believers and then when they examined the tenets of their faith, then pidgeon-holed God into human characteristics and so devalued the deity? Then "that being" (with a very little b) looks caprious, immature, and thoughtless. Thus they cannot believe in such a deity.

If one doesn't believe at all, and has no established relationship with God, then it is easy to break the relationship. If one is passionate in a relationship and it turns sour because one party loves their love or devalues that relationship, then it is easy to break. If one is ardent in their love and it seems the deity doesn't listen or doesn't care, then others abandon their need for the deity.

If you don't have a relationship, do you dismiss the ability for anyone else to have relationships? If you hate another, do you prevent others from establishing relationships with them? How is that beneficial?

The easy answer is that atheism is a form of awakening. That by awakening oneself to the absence of God, then one acquires an insight. Since they have that insight, they want others to be freed of the shackles of that illusion of a deity. That the belief in that illusion results in society distress and tangental and often serious harm to cultures.

Can you force another to accept that? No. Force in a relationship is rape and unwelcome. Persuasion and logic can be loving and edifying though and philosophers have long attempted to use these two tactics to alter another or awaken them. Unless one wants to be enlightened, then it is impossible, and philosophy has seldom in history been an aim of humanity. But the opposite is true of spirituality. Thus some atheists say that those who embrace spirituality are unenlightened.

That presumes that enlightenment only comes when divorced from God, and we know this is a false statement. There are enlightened folks who are theists just as their are enlightened folks who are atheists.

A theist could say, no person can be enlightened without God, but that isn't true. One can be enlightened without God, you can witness that all the time. So some theists say, "Well, but they are missing something which is critical to their health and to their eternal nature." Perhaps, but can theists force another to accept God. No, that too would be rape and not love. If a theist defines their form of spirituality as a critical aspect of enlightenment, then by justifying that false belief, then horrendous things have happened in history. God doesn't ask us to force people to believe or to force people to hear the message, does God? Are there not verses in every spiritual book which explain the wrongness or even the waste of time that is? There are those verses in the Bible to be sure.

As such, you can laugh and mock those who do accept spirituality and see its merits. Which is fine in a free society in the world of ideas. It can even be noble to do so, when teasing as a tactic to awaken another. It seldom works without persuasion and logic.

Want to convince one person to be an atheist? Be their friend not their enemy. Live a full and fulfilling life without a deity. Maybe they'll notice it and ask why you are at peace. Then the door is open to your form of awakening.

Calling for the eradication of religion is as intolerant as the worst of street preachers and convinces only as many as that street preacher.

[Copperknickers II]

Unless you can figure out a way to fundementally alter human needs, there will always be spirituality.

True. But not relevant to this thread. This thread is about organised religion.

It is that compelling. How many atheists were once believers and then when they examined the tenets of their faith, then pidgeon-holed God into human characteristics and so devalued the deity? Then "that being" (with a very little b) looks caprious, immature, and thoughtless. Thus they cannot believe in such a deity.

We're not pigeonholing him into human characteristics, we're simply taking him at his word. As he portrays himself in his own holy books, he is clearly hypocritical and cruel. You don't need to be a human to be hypocritical and cruel.

The easy answer is that atheism is a form of awakening. That by awakening oneself to the absence of God, then one acquires an insight. Since they have that insight, they want others to be freed of the shackles of that illusion of a deity. That the belief in that illusion results in society distress and tangental and often serious harm to cultures.

Can you force another to accept that? No.

Firstly, I am interested in my own welfare more than in enlightening others. Religious people are dangerous. Secondly, we as a society can certainly force people to conform to our beliefs if we hold a majority viewpoint that such beliefs are wrong. Look at racism: you can never stop racism, but you can stop racist organisations. Indeed such organisations are already banned in many countries.

Calling for the eradication of religion is as intolerant as the worst of street preachers and convinces only as many as that street preacher.

Ah, you're right I suppose. I mean, something more intolerant than calling for religion to be eradicated would have to be extremely intolerant. It would have to unite millions of people under a cause and explicitly state that millions of other people are infidels and unbelievers. It would have to posit that everyone, even babies, are going to spend eternity in a dungeon with fire and demons, if they don't adhere to a set of specific rules that they can only know if they come from a Western country. It would have to have actually started wars with countries from the sheer conviction of its followers and hatred of the Other. You can perhaps see where I'm going with this. Religion is more intolerant than Atheism.

[RubiconDecision]

In philosophy or debate one must define a term. Your definition of religion is invalid. All religion is not X. Would the religion of Buddhism have X? Would the religion of this sect of Buddhism have X. Your method of debate is to debase a term by saying religion is X when it's such a broad term as to be almost meaningless. It would be like saying religion is good. Good is not specific and almost a meaningless term. A statement must be specific to be debateable.

Some would argue that some forms of Buddhism are atheistic and hence you'd actually be disallowing atheists who happen to practice that form of spirituality from their beliefs. What??? Why would you do so?

By your definition Religion i.e. All of it is more intolerant than atheism and this cannot ever be proven as true.

If you're going to make generalizations I cannot see how you can debate successfully. Your original challenege is enormously broad. If I can demonstrate one sect of one religion is not intolerant, or if I can demonstrate that one person who believes in one sect of one religion is tolerant than if defeats your analysis.

One could say, a specific sect of a religous organization is intolerant. Here are some examples. These attributes are not allowed in a just civil society because of X. Since the laws of country X preclude the attributes of this specific group, it shouldn't be allowed to continue in this country due to its illegal behavior. As such any benefits it derives from its tax free status, or any governmental recognition it derives, should be removed since it's demonstrating illegal behavior.

If a religious group is not breaking the law, then by what authority would a community abolish its practices? You would abolish it because it offends your sensibilities? I'm offended by bigotry but I'd have a huge difficulty in abolishing the thought and practices of bigots unless they break the law.

You do realize that despite any negative connotations to religious organizations, they do perform necessary charitable roles within communities, and as such those roles will then have to be either neglected or done by the state. Since the adherants of a belief system are within a community since they are welcomed and tolerated by it, they generate tax revenues for that community. Abolish their belief system or disallow them to exist within a community, and they'll relocate to another community that does tolerate them. As a huge majority of people belong to religious institutions, you'd cripple many communities' ability to function.