Kalhoun, all the counter-cites in the world aren’t going to change your opinion one bit.
If your beliefs give you peace, go with them.
If they don’t, investigate them until they do.
I honestly do not have the means or the inclination to argue with you, not because I think you’re evil or misguided- I don’t.
I just see no way of convincing you to see what I see, nor do I even see a way of persuading you to stand in my shoes so that you might.
Sounds like an excuse to not provide any.
Got a bigger brush there? I’m a Unitarian Universalist Sunday School teacher. None of those statements are true of UUs - and several - dehumanizing women and marginalizing gays - have been activist issues for UUs. If you are going to use that brush, then you can’t blame theists for the Marxist=atheist comparison. All atheists are NOT participants in totalitarian regimes. All theists are not closed minded fundamentalists.
Well, I could look up specifics about how the Muslim world drove education for decades, how the Christians saved massive bodies of learning that would have been lost in the fall of Rome, how hundreds of Catholic universities educate learned people of all types, how a Christian minister and the nonviolent movement he led helped get some people some civil rights, how a guy by the name of Gandhi did the same, how some Churches are providing havens for illegal immigrant parents and their citizen children who might be broken up by heavy-handed government action, the Salvation Army, the wonderful people at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, and a few others, but I have a test to study for.
But if you want to take a running start from there, the “religion has done nothing but cause TEH AYVIL” idea should take a bit of a hit.
Once again, which religion? This is not true of UUs. Nor many Buddhist. Jesuit Catholics are trained in coming to their faith through judgment and reason - in ADDITION to faith.
If you want to pit close minded non-thinking Christians/Muslims/Orthodox Jews/Pagans - whathaveyou - go ahead. But please use the detail brush.
Religion provides a framework. Some religions provide a frame that is a hermetically sealed box you cannot move out of. I - personally - do not like those religions - particularly when those religions believe those inside the box are the only people who are worthy and valid (in fact, specifically - I have admiration for the Amish, who have one of the strictest frames, but who don’t demand that should be valid for anyone else). Other religions provide the barest chalk outline on a sidewalk - something that allows you to find your spot, but doesn’t discourage you from seeing outside the frame.
I think we are arguing(?) about more than one thing here. I am somewhat sour on organized religion as a whole, but I do recognize that they do some good in terms of charitable outreach and for some communities, the church is literally a sanctuary. (I’m generalizing and saying church, please fill in with the place of worship of your choice). I am impatient with proselytizers and fervent believers of anything. I would like (and don’t get much) freedom to believe whatever I want to believe privately. I have seen the (metaphorical) knives come out for nurses at work who dare to say they aren’t Christian, for one example. I’ve often wondered what would happen if someone at work just came out and said they were atheist. It would not be pretty–so, I have some sympathy (some–not a lot because the shrill shrieking gets on my nerves) for the non-believers/atheists here.
I actively question the presence of God; highly doubt the divinity of Jesus (although I think he was a radical guy whose message we still don’t want to grok, being as we are, too busy hating each other over what he said, how he said it and what he meant) etc. But (dredges up old file from college sociology and anthropology) man is a social and a spiritual creature. Usually the artifacts that survive are ones that had a ritualistic use–the tokens/totems in burial plots, that sort of thing. IMS, archeologists and anthropologists have never discovered a culture that did not have some kind of religious ceremonial aspect to it (someone who has more recent knowledge, please correct me). I think this drive to worship or believe in the supernatural/divine is an innate quality of some kind–who knows? it might be a brainwiring* or something.
So, my question is this: what do atheists say to that? There has always been an impulse in humans to feel a part of something bigger, to be able to explain their world in terms that are acceptable to them, to help them forge alliances and group identity? How does one dismiss out of hand the complex and multi-layered aspects that religion has on humans today? It is not enough to say it sucks or it’s stupid or it’s done real harm. There’s more to it than that–surely that much is obvious? I cannot speak for the deeply religious, but I would think that when they hear “it’s stupid to believe in God”, they hear more than “you’re stupid”, they hear “2000+ years of spirituality, socialization, essentially the growth of human civilization, is stupid”.** And who wouldn’t get riled at that?
*And if it is found to be so, that does not negate the need one bit. I hope that’s understood by atheists. Biochemical spirituality is still spirituality, no? But that’s another thread…
**I’m not saying they’re aware that’s what they’re hearing. They may just interpret it as “you’re stupid” and get pissed, but it’s a visceral thing that happens when someone disses religion (which for most people is their spirituality).
All too true.
In far too many places in this country, one still needs to keep quiet about their beliefs, or lack of them. One may technically be protected against discrimination at work due to one’s faith, but just acknowledging that one is not a christian can make one’s life miserable at a lot of jobs and in a lot of communities.
Is it any surprise that folks who feel the pressure of being a doubter or non-believer where they live and work would want someplace to safely vent? To express their anger? To finally give as good as they’ve had to take?
My atheist uncle is a unitarian, but you can hardly count them as "religious. Belief in god or an afterlife are not required (though they welcome those who do). Their principals are humanist. From their website:
In my opinion, without required belief in god, they’re not a religion; they’re a social club.
I’m sure the Buddhists will be interested to hear that. 
“Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder” translates to you as a social club?? :rolleyes:
Considering that’s an entirely meaningless phrase, sure, why not? It can mean almost anything you want it to mean.
Sure. There is nothing supernatural about the statement by my interpretation. How do you read it?
Sure. Now, if you could only show that “the Muslim world” means “Islam” and so on, you’d have a point.
The phrase “a stopped clock is right twice a day” might fit here, as well.
Wait- your nitpick of my general statement invalidates the whole kit and caboodle?
NOW who believes in the supernatural?
I told you why I wasn’t going to go into specifics.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think.
You want to do some research, go ahead. Or don’t. But your blanket statement and the blanket statements you have adopted by your defense of them are incorrect, and now you either know or should know that they are incorrect.
I don’t have the time to teach you, and if you don’t want to go down the path I laid out, then even if I did have the time, the job still wouldn’t get done.
So according to you, all the evil done in the name of religion is inextricably intertwined with religion, yet all the good done in the name of religion is a fluke?
Good to know. :rolleyes:
You’re not interested in honest debate, Kalhoun, you’re interested in righteously holding a position.
You are as bad as the Fundies who want to define who is Christian.
There are very religious Unitarians. The Director of Religious Education at my church is a very religious woman. The Director if Religious Life defines himself as a Christian (and came to us from the UCC). There are also not so religious Unitarians - but I know a few Lutherans and Catholics who are not so religious.
Even if you take Unitarians off the table as a religion, none of what you are talking about are truths about the Quakers or the United Church of Christ - both who have dogmatic liberal religions. You’d STILL need a detail brush.
Qadgop, I hear what you’re saying, and it’s not like I don’t get pissed off at the idiot fundies out there. I’ve had my share of run-ins with theists whom I couldn’t avoid (Ever try being an atheist in the army, for example?), and I started out in atheism with an attitude.
Then one day I got into a debate with a theist who, while actually a very nice woman, was a little pushy. I got all hot and bothered and asked her how she could be stupid enough to believe in the magical sky pixie, and I was nasty about it. I don’t remember what I said, but I remember that I wasn’t very proud of myself afterwards.
It turned out that she took being a Christian very seriously, because she wanted to be reunited with her dead daughter in heaven. 
Boy, did I feel like a fucking putz.
I learned something that day. The fact that the other side acts like idiots in no way gives our side the right to act like idiots. I’d often heard it before, but brother, I learned it that day. That was the end of my attitude right there. I took the chip off my shoulder and burned it, and since then I’ve tried my best to treat the theists the way I’d want to be treated. Ironically, that’s what they preach.
Call it the Right Man’s Burden. I agree that the theists can be annoying little twats at times, but the twats on our side aren’t helping. At all.
I think it’s you who is being dishonest. If it’s done in the name of religion and the people committing the acts are SAYING it’s because of religion, why would you think otherwise? If good acts are done in the name of religion, but also done outside the framework of religion because it’s the right thing to do, then you don’t need religion to do them.
I asked the question before, but no one responded. To rephrase: If religion has done good things in this world…things that can all be accomplished without relgion…and religion has also been responsible for really, really bad things in this world in the name of religion, is it worth it to support the bad, knowing you can accomplish all the good without subscribing to religion?
Strawman. She never said there weren’t; she merely stated that religious beliefs are not required for membership. Do you dispute that? If not, then you have no point.