November 19, 2008 2:14pm
Usage does have some influence on the meaning of a word. The character of Ms. Carmody in the movie "The Mist" Is a prime example of a hardcore fundamentalist christian. I have met many people like that. In that same fashion, Stalin, Trotsky, and Kim Jon Il are Political Fundamentalists, in that they would rather get rid of any threat to their political system through mass murder or other atrocious means, because in their minds that system is the only right one.
My "Sweeping Generalizations" are based on the christians I've met. They're also based on things I've seen in documentaries such as "Jesus Camp." Stereotypes tend to reinforce themselves, really.
I'm actually quite pleased with your response because now we're at a point where I can very easily explain my reasons for attacking religion and disproving the various holy canons each one has.
1. You say that you can claim the same thing about committing crime or acts of violence as a christian as I can about being Atheist.
You claim that you would also denounce any sect that promotes violence.
Tell me, Sk, would you be willing to stand outside of an Abortion clinic to ensure that it was not bombed by a christian extremist?
2. Certainly, there are plenty of people who at the moment, being part of a religion, christianity in the case of this debate, non-violent and such.
However, since history repeats itself, I'm quite certain if a holy war began the vast majority of christians would be out there mass-murdering their religious opponents.
And since history repeats itself, and Religion is a dividing factor (Despite Winston's insistence on John 3:16 being christianity in a nutshell, it's obvious that since there are so many sects this is not the case, It would be much easier to prevent such occurances by removing religion altogether.
It's a numbers game. You people can vote, and you let your religious views influence your vote. This does, quite often, hinder progress, both in the areas of medical science and civil rights.
An example here is the recent elections, which resulted in gay marriage bans in California, Florida, and one other state...can't think of the name off hand. The majority of the campaign funding for the support of propositions that resulted in these bans, came from religious institutions.
It's an issue of discrimination, that is perpetuated by the church, just like inter-racial marriages or Women's Suffrage.
And just like those two issues, the Church is the biggest opposition to such an idea.
And just like those two things, allowing gay marriage isn't going to ruin the country, or society, or anything.
Instead of letting religion influence such decisions, people should let the thought of how they'd feel being discriminated against the same way be the determining factor.
3. You say the atrocious acts are the acts of men, and aren't advocated by religion. Here's the problem. It's a three part problem.
1- Mankind Created religion and its gods
2- Men Preach, Advocate, and Spread religion.
Religious leaders are all human.
3- All members of religion are human.
So when you think about it, being that religion and the atrocious acts are both the result of the actions of humans, it's obvious that It's all human error, and that religion, having always been deep down a fear-based system of control, is merely the tool that spurred on such acts.
Religion is constantly and easily corrupted. Just like politics. And it's for the same reason.
As I've already acknowledged, it's impossible to completely remove religion. But it is entirely possible to reduce the number of people following a religion to such an unsubstantial amount that it will be completely unknown that it's being followed anymore. That idea fits in with the " You can't tell anyone what to believe" concept of the Venus Project, which is a project that I would love to see at least starting to be effectively accomplished within my lifetime.
Speaking of not telling people what to believe in, another reason I want to debunk religion is to slow and/or stop it's spread. There are some easy ways to do this, really.
Stop religious broadcasts of all kinds. People who aren't christian or even religious at all can be converted fairly easily in times of emotional trauma/weakness just by hearing some preacher's speech on the radio or while channel surfing on the TV. And for a good majority of religious people, including the person who this debate was intended to turn away from religion, it is merely an emotional crutch.
As I've stated numerous times, one of the major problems I have with Monotheistic faiths is that all of their Canons say to "Go forth and Spread the word." Well, Enough of that. And while you may say that what I'm doing is exactly the same, I have to tell you, it's not. I'm just trying to stem the tide of such ideals.
It's simple. If you remove religion, you remove a whole slew of issues that divide us all. With those issues out of the way, we can focus on solving the other real, immediate problems that plague society. Like Politics, the Money system, Over-Population, and Food Shortage/Poverty.
Removing religion and party politics, will allow for a better understanding and unification of the people of the world, as well as make it easier for something like The Venus Project to actually work.
By the way, SK. the only reason I brought up extraterrestrials is because of your statement about the place of Humans in the animal kingdom and all of our developmental achievements being the reason you take stock in the existence of god and the creation story. By the way, you never did answer the question I posed, even if it was a mere Hypothetical.
What would happen to your belief in god if an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence made contact with us?
Oh, and to Disgusted...I'm not even CLOSE to being a hippy, and I don't consider myself Liberal, Conservative, or Otherwise. Both sides have some good ideas, but the majority is bullcrap.
I can't stand the concept of Political correctness, but I also can't stand the idea of keeping the rich rich while the poor get poorer, or the idea of being pro-life (You should call it what it is..Anti-choice), or the idea of military expansion. Etc.