Vatican, gays, and lulz

[Kuya]

I know that the religious differences are not the only differences between these groups and the many different views on economy and politics as well as religion are making them continue to fight, but in most cases the initial division is a religious one, as a motivator.

What? Do you mean the initial reason for the division of the religious sect is religious? Barring the fact that is redundant, i sead that their initial and continues motivators aren't religious. So then if the sects are fighting in Iraq for non religius reasons, what argument do you have agaisnt this?

Your original point was this:

Why are they unwilling to co-exist with others? At its root its the religious differences. If their neighbors were of the same religion do you think they would have the same unwillingness to co-exist?

Which you then changed to sect, that's ok if it was a mistake. So then you say that they fight because they have religious differences, even if they are small, to which i already informed you that religious reasons weren't the ones they used for the fighting. So after this, we can only assume these things:

A: Even if there were one religion, that wouldn't be so for long, because inevitably sects would form, and according to you, wars over their religious differences would erupt. This defeats your original point, as fighting will happen regardless of the fact that they may be from, basicaly, the same religion.

B: Not all wars are started on religion, but we probably already knew this.

Even if people were of the same religion there would be unwillingness to co-exist. Why is this you might say? Because their fighting really has very little to do with religion, because the fighting in itself is elementaly based on the fact that there are differences, regardless of what kind of differences they may be. You want to stop all wars? Destroy our differences. You meant you only wanted to decrease the violence by eliminating religion? Something new would replace it, which of course, doesn't take away from the validity that this point may have. Just because religion may be replaced if exterminated, doesn't mean one should not get rid of it anyway, if at least for a little peace, right? I mean, we know even if you just kill a murderer, he will be replaced by another, right? So why bother? Well we do it anyway for the morality of it, and and it does cause some peace and quiet, for sometime.

However, what i mentioned before completely ignores the reasons for which religion was created in the first place. You take away religion, then you must find some new outlet to release the stress of every day existence in society. Taking away religion, much like taking away alcohol is bound to lead to some growing pains and probably strife, if people aren't ready for the change.

Now i realize i'm heading into a different direction, but so be it. From the begining in this thread, you never specified your methods of trying to "change" theist, so i am going to assume you weren't of the kind of i was referring to. To whom Alleya was referring to as militant atheists, which is something you probably aren't. But i certainly hope you don't argue that there aren't any, and that they are the very detriment that would make your cause that much difficult.

[Kiro]

Reading Alleya's posts, I'm conviced the incarnation of Ghandi = HQ lovin' White Mage.

[Kuya]

So you're saying that popular religion is used as a tool by the bourgeoisie/aristocratic classes to exercise control over the masses for socioeconomic gains. I can agree with that. But that also means that the religion those masses believe in is certainly not the true religion of any real, benevolent god (or if it is, we should dislike that fucker anyway), so even if the masses are "right" about the existence of a god, they aren't truly right- in fact, they aren't any more right than Joe Atheist because neither know true faith in the "real" God- the atheists simply don't believe and the masses believe wholeheartedly in whatever warped version the controlling class feeds them. Thus it's not only prudent for atheists to question religion, but for the masses to do so as well. Problem is the religious masses can only question so far, as whatever true message might've existed has been corrupted many degrees over the generations.

You can talk about moderate Christians all you'd like, but moderate is a relative term and there are a lot of really fucking silly laws that affect all Americans, theist and atheist alike. There are still states?/counties where you can't buy booze on Sundays (and some dry counties)- yeah in practicality not a big deal so don't play that card, but it's just incredibly nonsensical. Sodomy is illegal in many states. Religion still defines what marriage is in this country. So stop getting in a hissy when religion enters the public realm and atheists want to question it publicly. It's one thing to stand outside a church and scream at people about their God being fake and their book a sham, but questioning religion and explaining your position on why it shouldn't have any effect on your life unless you choose for it to is completely reasonable and hardly something I'd call "militant". I know you want to be the quintessential moderate and lets all just get a long kind of guy and everything is equal no matter what kind of guy, but really, cut it out on this one.

edit: @ kuya

When did i ever argue that their belief was right? Or when did i ever say i was religious? As for it being prudent for atheist to question religion... are you absolutly sure you've read everything i posted? Because i was never opposed to an atheist questioning a theist's beliefs, just so long as it's done with full knowledge and in a calm and respectful manner. Which is why i was complaining about the degeneration of this intent on the part of some atheist to releive people of negative spiritual beliefs, into a simple extention of mankind's usual bullshit. Also you should make sure you check what each state classifies as sodomy, as it tends to vary. And after reading your second paragraph i am even more unsure that you read what i posted, or understood it. As you clearly stated some example of what an obnoxious and detrimental atheist is, and what an atheist with actual intent to help would do. Plus, militant wasn't a term i used initially and getting along and having happy happy time with everybody was a solution i did not state, and an unlikely solution for me to take seing as how analizing my views using this thread would reveal i'm mostly a realist.

Think you mixed my opinions with Alleya's.

[Charla]

Yeah, when I read that it sounded a lot more like a response to Alleya's position.

[Beckwin]

So you're saying that popular religion is used as a tool by the bourgeoisie/aristocratic classes to exercise control over the masses for socioeconomic gains. I can agree with that. But that also means that the religion those masses believe in is certainly not the true religion of any real, benevolent god (or if it is, we should dislike that fucker anyway), so even if the masses are "right" about the existence of a god, they aren't truly right- in fact, they aren't any more right than Joe Atheist because neither know true faith in the "real" God- the atheists simply don't believe and the masses believe wholeheartedly in whatever warped version the controlling class feeds them. Thus it's not only prudent for atheists to question religion, but for the masses to do so as well. Problem is the religious masses can only question so far, as whatever true message might've existed has been corrupted many degrees over the generations.

You can talk about moderate Christians all you'd like, but moderate is a relative term and there are a lot of really fucking silly laws that affect all Americans, theist and atheist alike. There are still states?/counties where you can't buy booze on Sundays (and some dry counties)- yeah in practicality not a big deal so don't play that card, but it's just incredibly nonsensical. Sodomy is illegal in many states. Religion still defines what marriage is in this country. So stop getting in a hissy when religion enters the public realm and atheists want to question it publicly. It's one thing to stand outside a church and scream at people about their God being fake and their book a sham, but questioning religion and explaining your position on why it shouldn't have any effect on your life unless you choose for it to is completely reasonable and hardly something I'd call "militant". I know you want to be the quintessential moderate and lets all just get a long kind of guy and everything is equal no matter what kind of guy, but really, cut it out on this one.

edit: @ kuya

When did i ever argue that their belief was right? Or when did i ever say i was religious? As for it being prudent for atheist to question religion... are you absolutly sure you've read everything i posted? Because i was never opposed to an atheist questioning a theist's beliefs, just so long as it's done with full knowledge and in a calm and respectful manner. Which is why i was complaining about the degeneration of this intent on the part of some atheist to releive people of negative spiritual beliefs, into a simple extention of mankind's usual bullshit. Also you should make sure you check what each state classifies as sodomy, as it tends to vary. And after reading your second paragraph i am even more unsure that you read what i posted, or understood it. As you clearly stated some example of what an obnoxious and detrimental atheist is, and what an atheist with actual intent to help would do. Plus, militant wasn't a term i used initially and getting along and having happy happy time with everybody was a solution i did not state, and an unlikely solution for me to take seing as how analizing my views using this thread would reveal i'm mostly a realist.

Think you mixed my opinions with Alleya's.

Maybe a little of both, but when you started citing Marx as somehow being a defense for religion not being totally responsible, I couldn't help but comment on how that only further invalidates religion and makes it more appropriate to be questioned.

You also used the term "militant atheists" iirc, and expressed a discontented belief that pretty much any atheist who questioned religion publicly was just a sheep under a different shepherd, as if you were somehow drawing parallels between questioning a system and being the ones to create and further propagate the system. Sorry, but it doesn't fly. You mention a calm and respectful manner, and more often than not, that's what you'll find (especially if you want to speak in relative terms of the "zealots" of either side). And there's nothing really wrong with being passionate in discussion about things.

I guess Alleya was the one talking more about moderate Christians, but meh.

[Blarg]

What? Do you mean the initial reason for the division of the religious sect is religious? Barring the fact that is redundant, i sead that their initial and continues motivators aren't religious. So then if the sects are fighting in Iraq for non religius reasons, what argument do you have agaisnt this?

I was trying to respond to your point that political and economic reasons can split people up, by saying its often a religious difference causing the first crack and then the other differences are added on.

Given the teachings of Islam to love your fellow muslim (fellow as in those who believe the same as you), and the very fundamental adherence to the Koran and Hadith, I find it unlikely to think that killing on a large scale would occur between those who share the same islamic view. Given this, for muslims to kill each other there must be a difference in religious view to the extent that they are no longer your brother/sister in faith. Keep in mind that politics are very heavily based on the Koran and Hadith, and their law is Sharia law.

You take away religion, then you must find some new outlet to release the stress of every day existence in society.

I don't completely agree with this. Religion is the cause for a lot of stress as well, having to worry about how many commandments you are breaking doesn't sound fun to me. It may cause stress for those currently religious to have to live without the love of god but we can see the results by hearing from people who have deconverted to atheism, I don't have anyone to quote here but their lives were not worsened by fear and stress. For those who really can't live without religion because its all they know probably would need some new way to release stress that could be every bit as 'dangerous' isn't really a problem because as long as the youth of the world are brought up without this religious dependence there will be no void to fill, so this problem would only last for a few decades.

you never specified your methods of trying to "change" theist

Time will ultimately be the strongest force to bring about change, the religious majority is dropping, worldwide at least. I believe that, at the least, in 100 years theism will be substantially less common. Science will continue to chip away at religion until it will be very difficult to remain a fundie and the questions of 'how did life start' 'where did the universe come from' will have answers that would convince many current moderates. Encouraging people to question their faith by posing my own questions in debate is mostly all I can do behind this keyboard.

[Kuya]

Maybe a little

of both, but when you started citing Marx as somehow being a defense for religion not being totally responsible, I couldn't help but comment on how that only further invalidates religion and makes it more appropriate to be questioned.[/quote]
Yes, i used his theories to expose that the basis of strife within society is caused by the conflicts between social clases which, at the jist of it, do so because of power inbalances, which means religion is but a superficial component of it all, and not the root of it, as Blarg was implying. Though i don't see how that means i'm trying to validate religion instead of trying to disvalidate a position which i find to be "barking at the wrong tree".

You also used the term "militant atheists" iirc

Plus, militant wasn't a term i used initially

Yes?

expressed a discontented belief that pretty much any atheist who questioned religion publicly was just a sheep under a different shepherd, as if you were somehow drawing parallels between questioning a system and being the ones to create and further propagate the system.

And finaly this, this sentence of yours implies that i was calling every atheist a sheep, which i wasn't.

Being, an atheist (which i believe they would be better off just calling themselves agnostics, since it's less pretentious that way), was about getting free of those archaic ideas and further advancing human potential through logic and honest understanding, and the enpowerment of human potential without it being attritbuted to some unknown force. Instead now we have, as usual, people who have now turned it into some abominal pack.

Here, which admitedly is after my first post about the matter, but still long before yours, makes it pretty clearly i see a difference between two sides of the atheist spectrum. So i made no generelization here. And to me, being a as aggravating as possible helps propagate the system by giving a bad idea of what an atheist is, and certainly, aggresively attacking a person's believes isn't going to make them any less conservative. In fact, i'd gardner to say it would make sead person much worse.