Thread: An example of why so many atheists are passionate

I agree. If Christianity didn't affect me or others, I wouldn't care. For example, I don't care if someone goes and prays to whomever they wish to pray to and give their own, privately owned money to any sort of capitalist enterprise. But when my tax money goes into religion, when religion affects my right to have access to stem cell research and abortions and whatever other thing I want, and when it causes serious anxiety like in that case (where people are overwhelmingly lead by fear. I have a feeling that anyone here who says they don't "fear" any aspect of their religion, at one point it was a large motive for continuing church attendance. I can't imagine many kids saying "Let's go to church! I love God!" It's more like "Aw, church again. Well, better than hell.")

Originally Posted by wasup

I can't imagine many kids saying "Let's go to church! I love God!" It's more like "Aw, church again. Well, better than hell.")

If only they could love church like they adore vegtables and school.

Originally Posted by psychology student

If only they could love church like they adore vegtables and school.

Quite right, old boy. When I think of health and well being, I think of education, nutrition and religion.

I was talking to my boss about this yesterday. If only there was a worldwide organization that did all the good things of religion (IE help the starving children, give people a social community to support each other, etc.) that didn't involve believing preposterous and frequently inanely stupid things that were dangerous and destructive. The secular coalitions out there just don't cut it ufortunately.

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

I was talking to my boss about this yesterday. If only there was a worldwide organization that did all the good things of religion (IE help the starving children, give people a social community to support each other, etc.) that didn't involve believing preposterous and frequently inanely stupid things that were dangerous and destructive. The secular coalitions out there just don't cut it ufortunately.

It's a fact that we need some kind of software to direct and coordinate the activity of our billions, and religions have proven both the most powerful and the buggiest. Personally, I find interfaith dialogue, comparative analysis, and reform of religions a more reasonable approach than passionate opposition with no alternative scheme of organization behind it.

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

I was talking to my boss about this yesterday. If only there was a worldwide organization that did all the good things of religion (IE help the starving children, give people a social community to support each other, etc.) that didn't involve believing preposterous and frequently inanely stupid things that were dangerous and destructive. The secular coalitions out there just don't cut it ufortunately.

Red Cross?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Red Cross?

Red cross families meet at frequent periodic times locally and have a sustaining relationship?

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

Red cross families meet at frequent periodic times locally and have a sustaining relationship?

You are saying that there's no alternative to church if you want to hang out with a bunch of people?

You need to get out more.

Originally Posted by Korittke

You are saying that there's no alternative to church if you want to hang out with a bunch of people?

You need to get out more.

You're simplifying his position to the point of absurdity for rhetorical purposes with no regard for what is true?

You need to reexamine the foundations of your views.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

It's a fact that we need some kind of software to direct and coordinate the activity of our billions, and religions have proven both the most powerful and the buggiest. Personally, I find interfaith dialogue, comparative analysis, and reform of religions a more reasonable approach than passionate opposition with no alternative scheme of organization behind it.

No alternative scheme of organization? If we didn't have an alternative scheme to collectively and blindly believing what a book tells us and basing ones world view on it, I would have already killed myself. Religion isn't needed to "direct and coordinate". Take a look at secular states with higher percentages of atheists. They don't seem to get their children blown up every other day. They don't seem to be in civil war over which part of the country was originally assigned to them by some holy sky man. They're not the ones wasting their time on mindless discussion over such trivial matters as gay marriage or abortion. Your position is unfounded.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You're simplifying his position to the point of absurdity for rhetorical purposes with no regard for what is true?

You need to reexamine the foundations of your views.

He said that secular coalitions "don't cut it", in terms of helping others and providing a community to help one another. I'm afraid he doesn't know what he's talking about. Does it "cut it" if preachers tell people in HIV-flooded areas that condom use is an abomination? Does it cut it if a third of the money goes up the pope's butt, a third into buying golden door-knobs and paying pedophiles and another third into building faith based social help stations? Does it cut it if people get social help within the moral framework of the Middle Ages?

meet at frequent periodic times locally and have a sustaining relationship?

How am I simplifying his position? There is absolutely no need for religion to "meet at frequent periodic times locally and have a sustaining relationship".

Originally Posted by Korittke

He said that secular coalitions "don't cut it", in terms of helping others and providing a community to help one another. I'm afraid he doesn't know what he's talking about. Does it "cut it" if preachers tell people in HIV-flooded areas that condom use is an abomination? Does it cut it if a third of the money goes up the pope's butt, a third into buying golden door-knobs and paying pedophiles and another third into building faith based social help stations? Does it cut it if people get social help within the moral framework of the Middle Ages?

How am I simplifying his position? There is absolutely no need for religion to "meet at frequent periodic times locally and have a sustaining relationship".

Churches gather together like minded people, send their kids off to be "taught" by the same like-minded people, then go and listen to a sermon or "teaching" and then come out and fellowship with one another. They have missionaries to other countries, they have book meetings, pot lucks, any other events. They let each other's teenagers babysit their toddlers. This is a close-nit group that is based off of a terribly unfounded belief.

And what you don't seem to realize is that this extent of a close-knit group can be hard to come by (outside of church) to some people. While the most extroverted people probably don't need or desire a structure like this, the majority of people could use it. This is why there are many (according one of my professors) who don't go to church for the sermons or teachings, he goes for the people and the music (he received his doctorate in Music History) and they don't believe a word about what is being preached.

BTW - I'm half-stoned on some new sleeping meds, so hopefully this reply is somewhat comprehensible.

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

Churches gather together like minded people, send their kids off to be "taught" by the same like-minded people, then go and listen to a sermon or "teaching" and then come out and fellowship with one another. They have missionaries to other countries, they have book meetings, pot lucks, any other events. They let each other's teenagers babysit their toddlers. This is a close-nit group that is based off of a terribly unfounded belief.

And what you don't seem to realize is that this extent of a close-knit group can be hard to come by (outside of church) to some people. While the most extroverted people probably don't need or desire a structure like this, the majority of people could use it. This is why there are many (according one of my professors) who don't go to church for the sermons or teachings, he goes for the people and the music (he received his doctorate in Music History) and they don't believe a word about what is being preached.

BTW - I'm half-stoned on some new sleeping meds, so hopefully this reply is somewhat comprehensible.

Yes, you are right on this one. Secularism is closely connected to personality. It's more of a cultural thing though. It's not like "2/3rds of the population are genetically incapable to live with freedom and make friends".