Religion is a Mental Illness

[john9blue]

You're going to have to provide some evidence for a statement like that. I'm sure you have loads of evidence where change has been illogical and inconsistent, I'm sure. So let's see it.

i'm referring to my opinion that modern atheism itself is illogical and inconsistent. i think they have double standards for their beliefs and other beliefs. i've been through this a lot before. it's not an attack on chang's beliefs in particular, because he shares them with a lot of people.

Oh geez, have you not read anything by Viceroy or universalchiro? I'm happy to point you to their posts if you haven't seen them.

you didn't answer my question. how are their posts different from the posts of the theists you enjoy reading?

See, the thing is...religion has nothing to do with logic. It is a matter of FAITH. Faith is by definition not particularly logical. That isn't to say that a logical person can't be religious...I'm not at all suggesting that. But the act of BELIEVING IN FAITH is not a logical one.

you misunderstand the purpose of logic. all it does is give us a way to make decisions and draw conclusions based on what we know about the world. different people can draw different conclusions despite both using logical thinking. obviously one of them must be wrong.

if religion was 100% faith-based, then why would someone switch from one religion to another? they would have no reason to conclude that one religion was better than another if they didn't have any evidence to convince them of that fact, and if they didn't logically conclude that the new religion was better.

Yes and no. Gnosticism is an absolute, and is mutually exclusive of agnosticism. There are certainly degrees of agnosticism though, I would agree with that. So you're sort of half right.

they are opposites. how can you have degrees of one but not the other?

You don't seem to have much of a grasp on what gnostic and agnostic mean. Gnostic actually DOES mean "with 100% certainty". That's kind of the point of the distinction.

see, i don't think that's possible. nobody can be 100% certain of anything. if it's possible to convince someone that they're wrong (and it's always possible to convince someone they're wrong, even you, woody) then they were never 100% sure to begin with. gnosticism must be a matter of degree.

I guess it's a case of "you get out what you put into it".

in that case, it may do you well to go back and re-read instead of skimming.

dawkins has said before that he's 99% sure of his atheism. if that's not gnostic, than what is? if you set the bar at 100%, and view gnostic/agnostic as binary, then you have to admit that almost all christians qualify as agnostics since many of them experience moments of doubt in their faith.

When they experience the moment of doubt, then they're temporarily agnostic, yes. If after they get past that crisis they manage to convince themselves again of being "100% sure" then they become gnostics again.
It's a momentary property, it doesn't refer to what you were 20 years ago, or I'd still still have to call myself an orthodox christian.

atheists act the same way, though. i'm sure you've wondered at least a few times whether god really does exist or not... but you live your everyday life as if he does not exist. if you have moments of doubt in your worldview, does that make you a 100% gnostic atheist the rest of the time, when you aren't even thinking about the question? i don't think it does.

Do you see that the distinction between the guy deluding himself that he's 100% sure his god is real and the guy who has some modicum of doubt is a big one? I see that difference as being MUCH more important than the difference between the guy who's 90% sure and the one who's 65% sure.
It's the difference between being convinced you are in the right and between having the modesty to admit you might be wrong. When one's immortal and real life is in the balance (as say, when one might be asked to do a suicide attack), the difference between 100% and 99% sure is massive. Would you take a 1% chance of killing yourself for no benefit?

if i have a 99% chance of living eternally in paradise with 72 virgins, and a 1% chance of just ceasing to exist, then you bet i'm going to take those odds, lol.

like i said above, i don't think it's possible to believe in something 100%.

[Woodruff]

For example, I would say (and have said before) that my basic position can be stated thusly: the universe appears to me not to need a god or gods to explain why it's the way it is. I see no reason to posit "god". I have no idea what the characteristics of "god" would be were there one, or where it would fit in to the universe I have encountered, or what the effect of that "god" would be upon it.

Here is a question, what leads you to believe that the world operates logically? Why would logic be superior to non-logic when it comes to things like biology, behavior, etc.

Seems to me that most of that falls well outside the realms of "logic". So why would logic be the best tool to explain it all?

Because of the scientific method. Who knows if it's the best, but it's the best we've got right now.

[Woodruff]

You're going to have to provide some evidence for a statement like that. I'm sure you have loads of evidence where chang has been illogical and inconsistent, I'm sure. So let's see it.

i'm referring to my opinion that modern atheism itself is illogical and inconsistent. i think they have double standards for their beliefs and other beliefs. i've been through this a lot before. it's not an attack on chang's beliefs in particular, because he shares them with a lot of people.

But that's not what you said. Of course, you edited out what you said. So I'll ask again...where is your evidence that chang has been illogical and inconsistent? If you're going to make that sort of a statement about him, which you did, then you're going to have to back it up.

Oh geez, have you not read anything by Viceroy or universalchiro? I'm happy to point you to their posts if you haven't seen them.

you didn't answer my question. how are their posts different from the posts of the theists you enjoy reading?

Is this "edit out everything relevant" week or something? Perhaps if you weren't removing all of the context, you'd already know that answer.

See, the thing is...religion has nothing to do with logic. It is a matter of FAITH. Faith is by definition not particularly logical. That isn't to say that a logical person can't be religious...I'm not at all suggesting that. But the act of BELIEVING IN FAITH is not a logical one.

you misunderstand the purpose of logic. all it does is give us a way to make decisions and draw conclusions based on what we know about the world. different people can draw different conclusions despite both using logical thinking. obviously one of them must be wrong.

Which is not relevant to my point at all.

if religion was 100% faith-based, then why would someone switch from one religion to another? they would have no reason to conclude that one religion was better than another.

So you are contending that ANY CHOICE that anyone makes is based on logic? I would suggest that your question relies almost entirely on personal preference, which does not typically involve a lot of logic.

Yes and no. Gnosticism is an absolute, and is mutually exclusive of agnosticism. There are certainly degrees of agnosticism though, I would agree with that. So you're sort of half right.

they are opposites. how can you have degrees of one but not the other?

They are not opposites, but they are mutually exclusive of one another. One of them is a hard single point of data, and the other one is all of the other points of data. You seem to be trying to prove you don't understand the terms in any way.

You don't seem to have much of a grasp on what gnostic and agnostic mean. Gnostic actually DOES mean "with 100% certainty". That's kind of the point of the distinction.

see, i don't think that's possible. nobody can be 100% certain of anything.

Unless you're a solipsist, you certainly can. I am 100% certain that I am typing on my computer keyboard right now, for instance.

if it's possible to convince someone that they're wrong (and it's always possible to convince someone they're wrong, even you, woody) then they were never 100% sure to begin with. gnosticism must be a matter of degree.

This doesn't even make basic sense, actually. Not a bit of it. Completely wrong.

I guess it's a case of "you get out what you put into it".

in that case, it may do you well to go back and re-read.

Garbage in, garbage out.

[Woodruff]

I wish I had a penny for every time someone,usually a theist,tries to tell me what my atheism must entail,or that it is a religion,or even a worldview.It's almost as if they cannot grasp that individuals can take a position on a single issue without massive societal support and reinforcement.Confused hits the nail squarely on the head.

i wish i had a penny for every time someone, usually an atheist, tries to tell me what all my contradictory christian beliefs must logically entail, or that it's a bad influence on society, or even a poison. it's almost as if they cannot grasp that god can do amazing things that go beyond human understanding.

i just tried to show you how stupid your post was by counterexample, but if you need further clarification, then let me know.

Some clarification would indeed be helpful.Are you now claiming to be a Christian?Or were you perhaps speaking on behalf of what you imagine some Christians might feel?I merely ask because I was only speaking for myself,if you were not then your counter example obviously fails as a comparison.If I remember correctly you have claimed to be agnostic in the past,but perhaps with some sympathy for Christianity?I will happily debate you all day every day if you describe exactly what your position is.Mine is agnostic or weak atheism,simple as that but if you require further clarification please ask.

So John...were you going to answer this, or were you going to continue hiding from it?

[john9blue]

jesus woody. go back and READ my fucking posts. i'm not editing out anything, i'm just removing old quotes so you don't have to scroll down 10 times to read my whole post. and feel free to quote me on anything i've said in this thread, if you think i'm trying to hide anything.

But that's not what you said. Of course, you edited out what you said. So I'll ask again...where is your evidence that chang has been illogical and inconsistent? If you're going to make that sort of a statement about him, which you did, then you're going to have to back it up.

> chang is an atheist
> i think atheism is illogial and inconsistent
> therefore i think chang is being illogical and inconsistent

easy enough?

Is this "edit out everything relevant" week or something? Perhaps if you weren't removing all of the context, you'd already know that answer.

well then why don't you quote it for me, i seem to have missed where you told me what makes viceroy different from d1g, other than which of their beliefs they choose to vocalize.

So you are contending that ANY CHOICE that anyone makes is based on logic? I would suggest that your question relies almost entirely on personal preference, which does not typically involve a lot of logic.

personal preference counts as logic... like so:

> this choice gives me something that i've liked in the past
> if i liked something in the past, then i will like it in the future
> therefore i will end up liking this choice

obviously there can be some holes in this logic depending on the situation, but it's logic nonetheless.

religion, though, has more than just personal preference going for it. there are other benefits to being religious.

They are not opposites, but they are mutually exclusive of one another. One of them is a hard single point of data, and the other one is all of the other points of data. You seem to be trying to prove you don't understand the terms in any way.

you're assigning absolute values to relative terms.

this would be like me defining darkness as "zero photons in the air" and then claiming that anywhere with photons in the air is lit up, even the darkest of city alleyways. most normal people would define "dark" as having an acceptably low number of photons in the air, although the exact number would vary from person to person. same with gnostic/agnostic.

Unless you're a solipsist, you certainly can. I am 100% certain that I am typing on my computer keyboard right now, for instance.

you don't think there's a infinitesimally small chance that you're a brain in a jar being controlled by aliens or a scientist somewhere, being made to think you're typing at a keyboard?

[john9blue]

Some clarification would indeed be helpful.Are you now claiming to be a Christian?Or were you perhaps speaking on behalf of what you imagine some Christians might feel?I merely ask because I was only speaking for myself,if you were not then your counter example obviously fails as a comparison.If I remember correctly you have claimed to be agnostic in the past,but perhaps with some sympathy for Christianity?I will happily debate you all day every day if you describe exactly what your position is.Mine is agnostic or weak atheism,simple as that but if you require further clarification please ask.

So John...were you going to answer this, or were you going to continue hiding from it?

i didn't answer it because

a. i don't agree that he's an "agnostic atheist" judging by what he posts here, and my other replies show why.
b. my personal beliefs about god are irrelevant to this discussion. you don't need to have a certain religion to show the shortcomings of atheism.

[Haggis_McMutton]

When they experience the moment of doubt, then they're temporarily agnostic, yes. If after they get past that crisis they manage to convince themselves again of being "100% sure" then they become gnostics again.
It's a momentary property, it doesn't refer to what you were 20 years ago, or I'd still still have to call myself an orthodox christian.

atheists act the same way, though. i'm sure you've wondered at least a few times whether god really does exist or not... but you live your everyday life as if he does not exist. if you have moments of doubt in your worldview, does that make you a 100% gnostic atheist the rest of the time, when you aren't even thinking about the question? i don't think it does.

I never claim to be 100% sure about anything so I'm not a gnostic about anything (including god). It's that simple.
If you ask a guy on the street "hey fellow, are you 100% sure about your beliefs in god" and he says yes, then he's gnostic (at that moment), if he says no, then he's not. I'd never say yes, so I never was and never will be a gnostic atheist.

Btw. if you're gonna go the way of defining beliefs by behaviour, I'd be very curious to find out what behaviour you have that makes you a "complete agnostic". Do you toss a coin each morning to decide if this day you'll believe or not in god?

if i have a 99% chance of living eternally in paradise with 72 virgins, and a 1% chance of just ceasing to exist, then you bet i'm going to take those odds, lol.

Yeah, but if you live your life to completion you still have pretty decent chances of getting to heaven. This is just the express ticket variant.

like i said above, i don't think it's possible to believe in something 100%.

And you're dodging what I said yet again.
People delude themselves that they can believe in something 100%. Do you agree with this or not?
There are many religious people who would claim they are 100% certain of their beliefs. Do you agree with this or not?

---

Oh, and btw, about the effect of atheism on society you sorta just said "I'd be surprised if it's good". Do you base this belief on anything other than a hunch?

Edit:
I'm trying to keep the scope of this reduced cause I don't have time for a massive discussion now, but my curiosity is getting the best of me.
You say you believe "atheism is illogical and inconsistent".
How can it possibly be inconsistent? It's a solitary (dis)belief.

[chang50]

Some clarification would indeed be helpful.Are you now claiming to be a Christian?Or were you perhaps speaking on behalf of what you imagine some Christians might feel?I merely ask because I was only speaking for myself,if you were not then your counter example obviously fails as a comparison.If I remember correctly you have claimed to be agnostic in the past,but perhaps with some sympathy for Christianity?I will happily debate you all day every day if you describe exactly what your position is.Mine is agnostic or weak atheism,simple as that but if you require further clarification please ask.

So John...were you going to answer this, or were you going to continue hiding from it?

i didn't answer it because

a. i don't agree that he's an "agnostic atheist" judging by what he posts here, and my other replies show why.
b. my personal beliefs about god are irrelevant to this discussion. you don't need to have a certain religion to show the shortcomings of atheism.

So I am either a liar or deluded?
Your personal beliefs go right to the heart of the matter when you accuse me of being a hypocrite after I have stated my position openly and honestly but you hide yours so I cannot assess it likewise.This is called intellectual honesty and is fundamental to FAIR and EQUAL debate,which you appear reluctant to engage in.A level playing field,is very little to ask for.

[chang50]

But that's not what you said. Of course, you edited out what you said. So I'll ask again...where is your evidence that chang has been illogical and inconsistent? If you're going to make that sort of a statement about him, which you did, then you're going to have to back it up.

> chang is an atheist
> i think atheism is illogial and inconsistent
> therefore i think chang is being illogical and inconsistent

easy enough?
Facile certainly......but inconsistent with what?If someone does not believe in the existence of gods he is neccessarily consistent in describing himself as an atheist...and you claim I am illogical?Of course the atheist may be wrong in his disbelief,I've never denied that possibility.But as long as he genuinely disbelieves he is wholly consistent.As has been pointed out many times theism/atheism refers only to belief.

[Woodruff]

jesus woody. go back and READ my fucking posts. i'm not editing out anything, i'm just removing old quotes so you don't have to scroll down 10 times to read my whole post.

You're removing necessary context from the posts.

But that's not what you said. Of course, you edited out what you said. So I'll ask again...where is your evidence that chang has been illogical and inconsistent? If you're going to make that sort of a statement about him, which you did, then you're going to have to back it up.

> chang is an atheist
> i think atheism is illogial and inconsistent
> therefore i think chang is being illogical and inconsistent

easy enough?

Easy enough to dismiss your statements as the bullshit that they were, yes. Thank
you for admitting that you're simply full of crap.

Is this "edit out everything relevant" week or something? Perhaps if you weren't removing all of the context, you'd already know that answer.

well then why don't you quote it for me, i seem to have missed where you told me what makes viceroy different from d1g, other than which of their beliefs they choose to vocalize.

Ah, so I must go to the effort of re-inserting your statements, instead of your just
leaving them in? Of course, you're doing it here too. Stop being such a coward.

As for where Viceroy is different from daddy1gringo, the difference is clear to anyone who observes them. Daddy1gringo takes great care to listen to and consider viewpoints other than his own. Daddy1gringo does try to explain his views in a logical manner, while recognizing and admitting that "faith is not logical". Meanwhile, Viceroy preaches at you about what your views should be while quote the Bible and not at all listening to much that anyone else has to say. In addition, Viceroy makes statements such as "Evolution cannot possibly be factual" while holding that the Bible is the truth because the Bible says so.

That you believe there is little difference between the two tells me that you're not interested in a serious discussion either, but simply want to pretend that you're better than everyone else. That ties into your cowardice about not stating your own personal positions, so I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that you'd be hypocritical in that regard too.

So you are contending that ANY CHOICE that anyone makes is based on logic? I would suggest that your question relies almost entirely on personal preference, which does not typically involve a lot of logic.

personal preference counts as logic... like so:
> this choice gives me something that i've liked in the past
> if i liked something in the past, then i will like it in the future
> therefore i will end up liking this choice

obviously there can be some holes in this logic depending on the situation, but it's logic nonetheless.

Based on your "logic" here, then there is no LOGICAL reason for someone to SWITCH religions,
as that would not be "something they liked in the past, then they will like it in the future". Thank
you for admitting that there is no logic to it.

religion, though, has more than just personal preference going for it. there are other benefits to being religious.

The perceived existence of other benefits doesn't necessarily make it logical.

They are not opposites, but they are mutually exclusive of one another. One of them is a hard single point of data, and the other one is all of the other points of data. You seem to be trying to prove you don't understand the terms in any way.

you're assigning absolute values to relative terms.

Gnosticism is not a relative term. It is an absolute term. As I said, you seem to be trying to prove that you don't even understand the terms themselves.

this would be like me defining darkness as "zero photons in the air" and then claiming that anywhere with photons in the air is lit up, even the darkest of city alleyways. most normal people would define "dark" as having an acceptably low number of photons in the air, although the exact number would vary from person to person. same with gnostic/agnostic.

No, it isn't the same.

Unless you're a solipsist, you certainly can. I am 100% certain that I am typing on my computer keyboard right now, for instance.

you don't think there's a infinitesimally small chance that you're a brain in a jar being controlled by aliens or a scientist somewhere, being made to think you're typing at a keyboard?

As I said, unless you're a solipsist, no. There is not.

[Woodruff]

Some clarification would indeed be helpful.Are you now claiming to be a Christian?Or were you perhaps speaking on behalf of what you imagine some Christians might feel?I merely ask because I was only speaking for myself,if you were not then your counter example obviously fails as a comparison.If I remember correctly you have claimed to be agnostic in the past,but perhaps with some sympathy for Christianity?I will happily debate you all day every day if you describe exactly what your position is.Mine is agnostic or weak atheism,simple as that but if you require further clarification please ask.

So John...were you going to answer this, or were you going to continue hiding from it?

i didn't answer it because

a. i don't agree that he's an "agnostic atheist" judging by what he posts here, and my other replies show why.
b. my personal beliefs about god are irrelevant to this discussion. you don't need to have a certain religion to show the shortcomings of atheism.

c. You're a coward. You want to continue to berate others for their positions without ever having to state your own. You want to be able to call others hypocrites without having that charge leveled at you. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Stop being a coward, John.

[tzor]

Here is a question, what leads you to believe that the world operates logically? Why would logic be superior to non-logic when it comes to things like biology, behavior, etc.

The universe neither operates logically or illogically; it simply operates. Logic is our attempt to understand how that universe operates; the scientific method is a great process to organize facts to understand how that universe operates. Never the less, the universe doesn't care a wit if we know how it works or not; it still works the way it works.

I see science differently than I think many of you see science. Science isn't really about finding "answers." Every "answer" that is found leads to several new "questions." Science is the process of discovering new questions. At one time, people didn't know what matter was. Then they speculated that it was about five elements. Then they started speculating about atoms. Then they started speculating about particles. Then they speculated on the standard model. Then they speculated on the supersymetric standard model. Every answer leads to more questions; a fractal explosion of questions.

The other view of science, the accumulation of facts was a common problem of the elitist attitudes in the last two centuries. (This attitude was best expressed in the late 19th century when someone suggested that the patent office be closed because everything that was possible to invent had already been invented.) This attitude impedes science; constrains those who seek to find new questions to ask. Logic is a tool; it is not a religion.

[Woodruff]

Here is a question, what leads you to believe that the world operates logically? Why would logic be superior to non-logic when it comes to things like biology, behavior, etc.

The universe neither operates logically or illogically; it simply operates. Logic is our attempt to understand how that universe operates; the scientific method is a great process to organize facts to understand how that universe operates. Never the less, the universe doesn't care a wit if we know how it works or not; it still works the way it works.

I see science differently than I think many of you see science. Science isn't really about finding "answers." Every "answer" that is found leads to several new "questions." Science is the process of discovering new questions. At one time, people didn't know what matter was. Then they speculated that it was about five elements. Then they started speculating about atoms. Then they started speculating about particles. Then they speculated on the standard model. Then they speculated on the supersymetric standard model. Every answer leads to more questions; a fractal explosion of questions.

The other view of science, the accumulation of facts was a common problem of the elitist attitudes in the last two centuries. (This attitude was best expressed in the late 19th century when someone suggested that the patent office be closed because everything that was possible to invent had already been invented.) This attitude impedes science; constrains those who seek to find new questions to ask. Logic is a tool; it is not a religion.

I agree with everything you've said there. Very well said.

[Woodruff]

This pastor is certainly as mentally sound as anyone:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/06/christian-pastor-i-believe-that-the-government-should-use-the-death-penalty-on-homosexuals/

[john9blue]

woody, i'm not going to respond to your bullshit anymore. you're sidetracking the discussion into stupid irrelevant shit like symmetry does. come back once you have something meaningful to say.

atheists act the same way, though. i'm sure you've wondered at least a few times whether god really does exist or not... but you live your everyday life as if he does not exist. if you have moments of doubt in your worldview, does that make you a 100% gnostic atheist the rest of the time, when you aren't even thinking about the question? i don't think it does.

I never claim to be 100% sure about anything so I'm not a gnostic about anything (including god). It's that simple.
If you ask a guy on the street "hey fellow, are you 100% sure about your beliefs in god" and he says yes, then he's gnostic (at that moment), if he says no, then he's not. I'd never say yes, so I never was and never will be a gnostic atheist.

just because someone says that they're 100% sure doesn't mean that they're 100% sure. people use hyperbole all the time without actually thinking through what they are saying. i think if you pressed most of these "100% sure" people, they would admit that perhaps another religion could POSSIBLY be the right one.

Btw. if you're gonna go the way of defining beliefs by behaviour, I'd be very curious to find out what behaviour you have that makes you a "complete agnostic". Do you toss a coin each morning to decide if this day you'll believe or not in god?

i'm not a complete agnostic. i don't really think that's possible. like the 100% guy, i say that i'm agnostic, but the truth is that my guess on whether god exists or not changes a bit year to year based on whatever i read or hear. i can't possibly be 100% undecided when i've already made judgments about different arguments for/against god.

if i have a 99% chance of living eternally in paradise with 72 virgins, and a 1% chance of just ceasing to exist, then you bet i'm going to take those odds, lol.

Yeah, but if you live your life to completion you still have pretty decent chances of getting to heaven. This is just the express ticket variant.

admittedly i'm not an expert on islamic beliefs in the afterlife... but unless those "decent chances" are 99% or more, then it would seem logical for someone who was 99% sure of their religion to be okay with blowing themselves up for islam.

Oh, and btw, about the effect of atheism on society you sorta just said "I'd be surprised if it's good". Do you base this belief on anything other than a hunch?

haven't we had this discussion? on a theoretical level it doesn't make sense for the removal of religious values to be good for society, and on a practical level we have no evidence yet of a successful atheist society.

Edit:
I'm trying to keep the scope of this reduced cause I don't have time for a massive discussion now, but my curiosity is getting the best of me.
You say you believe "atheism is illogical and inconsistent".
How can it possibly be inconsistent? It's a solitary (dis)belief.

i worded that poorly. i think most modern atheists are inconsistent because they hold other beliefs to a higher standard than they hold their own, and use fallacious arguments to try and defeat fallacious arguments.

So I am either a liar or deluded?
Your personal beliefs go right to the heart of the matter when you accuse me of being a hypocrite after I have stated my position openly and honestly but you hide yours so I cannot assess it likewise.This is called intellectual honesty and is fundamental to FAIR and EQUAL debate,which you appear reluctant to engage in.A level playing field,is very little to ask for.

-_- all right. consider me an agnostic then. i like the idea of christianity, but i'm not knowledgeable enough to defend a lot of christian beliefs, so i tend to leave christian apologetics to those who are good at it.

[Army of GOD]

Actually, religion is an opiate.

lrn2marx

[NoSurvivors]

85% of the world, not to mention 85.8% of your beloved America, believe in a god of some sort. Don't you think calling 85% of the world "crazy fucks" is a stupid idea?

Perhaps 85% of the world, but definitely not 85% of America, is religious.

Sorry, I forgot. Arrogant Americans like you only give a damn about themselves. .

[Woodruff]

woody, i'm not going to respond to your bullshit anymore. you're sidetracking the discussion into stupid irrelevant shit like symmetry does. come back once you have something meaningful to say.

I've done nothing of the sort here. I've simply called you out on your bullshit and you don't like it. Stop running, John. I guess you're just following in the footsteps of the dodge-master, Phatscotty...you've learned well.

haven't we had this discussion? on a theoretical level it doesn't make sense for the removal of religious values to be good for society, and on a practical level we have no evidence yet of a successful atheist society.

Religious values? You mean values like the oppression of women, pedophilia, homophobia...those sorts of values? I'd say society would be better off without the promotion of them that religion CURRENTLY does, yes.

[Woodruff]

85% of the world, not to mention 85.8% of your beloved America, believe in a god of some sort. Don't you think calling 85% of the world "crazy fucks" is a stupid idea?

Perhaps 85% of the world, but definitely not 85% of America, is religious.

Sorry, I forgot. Arrogant Americans like you only give a damn about themselves. .

Huh? Where did that come from? I simply pointed out that your statement regarding the percentage of religious people in America wasn't even close to accurate. And that's worthy of that response from you?

Roll your eyes at yourself, where it's deserved.

[jonesthecurl]

85% of the world, not to mention 85.8% of your beloved America, believe in a god of some sort. Don't you think calling 85% of the world "crazy fucks" is a stupid idea?

Perhaps 85% of the world, but definitely not 85% of America, is religious.

Sorry, I forgot. Arrogant Americans like you only give a damn about themselves. .

Huh? Where did that come from? I simply pointed out that your statement regarding the percentage of religious people in America wasn't even close to accurate. And that's worthy of that response from you?

Roll your eyes at yourself, where it's deserved.

I'd also like some idea of what NoS's comment has to do with Woody's. It looks like a complete non-sequitur to me. Come to that, what do the rolling eyes mean in this context? I'm baffled. Please, NoS , explain what you meant.

[waauw]

haven't we had this discussion? on a theoretical level it doesn't make sense for the removal of religious values to be good for society, and on a practical level we have no evidence yet of a successful atheist society.

I'm curious. What do you define as criteria for a succesful atheist society?
Also I haven't read your debate so this might sound stupid, but removing or adding religious values is a stupid notion as a whole. Not because religion is important or unimportant, but because many of the values held by many religious people are the same of people who aren't religious. There is no monopoly on any values there(except admiring a deity).

[john9blue]

I'm curious. What do you define as criteria for a succesful atheist society?
Also I haven't read your debate so this might sound stupid, but removing or adding religious values is a stupid notion as a whole. Not because religion is important or unimportant, but because many of the values held by many religious people are the same of people who aren't religious. There is no monopoly on any values there(except admiring a deity).

a widespread society without significant religious influence in their culture. has that ever happened?

and the reason both types of people hold similar values is because most people get almost all of their values from their culture/environment. most nonreligious people (despite pretending to be "freethinkers" or whatever other nonsense) indirectly get some of their values from religion, since religion is probably very influential within their culture, and they get most of their values from their culture like everyone else.

[tzor]

a widespread society without significant religious influence in their culture. has that ever happened?

It all depends on how you define "religious influence." If you mean religious dogma, then yes, there have been a few. If you mean philosophical influences of a predominant religion, then the answer is probably not.

But i would hardly qualify either as "atheist."

[crispybits]

I'm curious. What do you define as criteria for a succesful atheist society?
Also I haven't read your debate so this might sound stupid, but removing or adding religious values is a stupid notion as a whole. Not because religion is important or unimportant, but because many of the values held by many religious people are the same of people who aren't religious. There is no monopoly on any values there(except admiring a deity).

a widespread society without significant religious influence in their culture. has that ever happened?

and the reason both types of people hold similar values is because most people get almost all of their values from their culture/environment. most nonreligious people (despite pretending to be "freethinkers" or whatever other nonsense) indirectly get some of their values from religion, since religion is probably very influential within their culture, and they get most of their values from their culture like everyone else.

You are discounting or forgeting that there are several other ways to influence culture and imbue values. For sure "thou shalt not kill" is a biblical commandment, but we can learn that it is bad to kill someone else through non-religious means also.

Can you name any values that are exclusively religious and which cannot be transmitted or taught through secular means that, if missing, would lead to a lack of moral values?

[john9blue]

You are discounting or forgeting that there are several other ways to influence culture and imbue values. For sure "thou shalt not kill" is a biblical commandment, but we can learn that it is bad to kill someone else through non-religious means also.

i never said religion was the only way to acquire moral values. but it is a popular and effective way.