The Doomsday Code

el Chi

Newbie
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
7,439
Reaction score
1
I'm going to start by apologising if I've started this thread in the wrong folder. Whilst primarily it's about religion, it concerns the problems where religion and politics meet.

I've just finished watching the marvellous Channel Four TV program The Doomsday Code, presented by Tony Robinson (with any luck it'll be on YouTube or whatever at some point), and I've found myself in a state of mind whereby I have never been more incensed with religion and the religious. I am not a religious person, but I like to consider myself as being - within reason - tolerant of the views of others. If someone else is religious, fine; if it gets them through the day, fine; I really don't care - if they don't bother me with it, I shan't bother them with my atheism.
So far be it from me to transpose my grievances onto all religious people, but... Well, bear with me.

The program concerned the rising interest in fundamentalist Christians with the visions of the end of the world as depicted in the Book of Revelation, towards the end of the Bible.
The general idea is that these "End-timers", as they like to be referred to, are, every day, desperately awaiting the rapture, when the righteous get wafted up to Heaven and the rest of us heathens are left here to face torments, trials and the wrath of a supposedly all-loving God manifesting itself in unimaginable horror for the better part of a decade.
To hope for such a thing and not get it each day must be to live in a constant state of anxiety and depression, but that's not my point.

The point is that they see certain events – natural disasters such as the recent Pakistani earthquakes – and decide that these are signs. If the signs of an impending Judgement Day are there, preparation in their eyes includes converting people of other (usually desperate third world) nations and, most worryingly, speeding up the process.

This extends to fully acknowledging global warming, but interpreting it as the will of God. Therefore, causing pollution is not their right as the members of a wealthy, affluent nation, but their duty as good Christians.
This extends to supporting Israel, not because they feel the Jews have been historically hard done by, but because a war between Judaism and Islam unsettles the world balance and brings us one step closer to annihilation.
This extends to supporting the war in Iraq, not because they felt that the Iraqi people needed to be freed and be democratic, but because once again, this causes an unsettled, crisis-ridden world.
Both the last two also have the added benefit of weakening Islam, as it is the (current) perceived big threat to the world and particularly to Israel. It is apparently said that, after the rapture when the righteous have departed, that Israel will be attacked and from that, apocalyptic events will begin. If the aggressor is interpreted to be Islam (as it is currently, although there have been many predecessors) then Israel is not only right in having the nuclear bomb, but practically required to have it, so that the prophecy can be fulfilled.

The program addresses the notion of the Anti-Christ which has different manifestations, depending on the timeframe one lived in. In the early days of Christianity, it was the Roman Empire; in the Cold War it was the USSR and China; nowadays many end-timers perceive the platform for the anti-Christ to be the UN and the anti-Christ himself to be Kofi Annan.

If this were just a bunch of fanatical nobodies, then it would all be fine (in a manner of speaking), but they’re not. Many of these fundamentalists are in positions of great power, both political and military, as stated by one of the end-timer preachers in the documentary.
So if some of the most powerful people are making decisions with the idea in their heads that the ultimate, best goal is actually to bring about the end of the world, or at least kick it all off, then these are undoubtedly the most dangerous people on the planet.
Religion and politics should never be mixed and I can think of no better example than this.
If wars are encouraged because of this idea and international co-habitation, dialogue and stability spurned because they will put off the second coming of Christ, what hope is there for any of us?
As the program noted; with people of such power being of this kind of mentality, the end of the world a self-fulfilling prophecy.
No more waiting around.

Another awful consequence of end-timer ideology was not only the support of war and pollution, but of cultivating an acceptance of desperation in third world nations.
Robinson visited Uganda where many evangelical missionaries were converting Ugandan nationals, advising them not to lament the poor quality of their lives, but instead to accept Jesus and pray for the rapture.
The result of this is that many children are taken out of school – there’s no point in learning about anything other than Christ when the rapture could happen at any moment. Why bother putting lots of effort into building roads or planting crops when prayer is needed?
Those were not specifically Robinson’s conclusions, but particularly those of the editor of one of Uganda’s national papers – day after day he saw the damage such belief and resulting lack of initiative was doing and how it was growing in popularity.
It’s insane and it’s deeply depressing that some of the poorest people in the world can be actively discouraged from attempting to improve their lives. I find it mind-boggling that there are people who have seen it their duty to go thousands of miles to tell people to wait for death with hope in their hearts.

I have a friend who has over the last year deemed himself a fundamentalist atheist. A fan of such atheist philosophers as Richard Dawkins, he has no time whatsoever for religion or spirituality and actively thinks it should be done away with. He won’t ignore anyone who’s religious, but if they try to talk about religion he will become very irate and, being a good debater, will probably run them into the ground.
Usually I’d tell him just to ignore it and calm down. However, when there are people out there whose agenda it is to hurry along the end of the world, I find myself more and more drawn to his line of thinking; increasingly repulsed and infuriated.

Reading this back, parts sound a tad like the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist. The program itself was not truly like that and clearly I’m not doing it justice – but humour me.
 
I can empathize with becoming antitheistic instead of atheistic. This world is crazy, on the one hand you have the only superpower of the world being run by religious fundamentalists. On the other hand, there is the Islam nutcases who make it no secret they want to spread Islam around the world. It's not a good thing to have a man, who thinks he's on God's mission, control the red button.

Considering our knowledge, this should be an age of reason, not religious idiocy.

Of course, there's the emerging superpower of China. But if they're a rolemodel country for the world?
 
The program concerned the rising interest in fundamentalist Christians with the visions of the end of the world as depicted in the Book of Revelation, towards the end of the Bible.
The general idea is that these "End-timers", as they like to be referred to, are, every day, desperately awaiting the rapture, when the righteous get wafted up to Heaven and the rest of us heathens are left here to face torments, trials and the wrath of a supposedly all-loving God manifesting itself in unimaginable horror for the better part of a decade.
Oh shit - Bush!?
 
Jesus. I knew of the end-timers, and they annoyed me (what's that, Jehovah's witnesses? We're currently experiencing total moral collapse and God's going to make it all better...by establishing a fundamentalist theocracy? Count me out) but I had no idea about the "speed it up" mentallity - although I probably would have realised such a mentality existed if I had devoted more braintime to the subject than long enough to think 'damned fundies!' since logically if you believe the end is coming and you believe that it is good, then you'll have no reason to try and prevent it.

That's evil in its purest form - the willfull destruction of life and livelihood because of insanity. Because that's what fundamentalist religion is: madness. One hand flicking through the holy book in anticipation of the utopia that awaits the faithful and the other hand jerking off over the punishment that awaits all the sinners.

I share your feelings here: I like to preach freedom of belief, but more and more I think I'm coming to share with the contempt for all religion displayed by people like my dad*, and your friend.

Perhaps it's a sign of the (end :eek: ) times.

*Hates Christianity. Hates Islam. Even hates Buddhism, though perhaps more out of spite and a desire for consistency than anything else.
 
I hope they find out it was all bullshit and they get reincarnated as turds.

Like with sulkdodds, I've never heard of this speeding up doomsday prophecy.

Sounds like fun.
 
kirovman said:
I hope they find out it was all bullshit and they get reincarnated as turds.
At least they'd get to see a naked arse.
 
Very interesting thread el chi. I was not aware of these "end-timers" but i will say it's incredibly frustrating to have people who want all of humanity to die.

We have struggled so much for this damn civilisation, human rights, social justice , worker rights the list goes on. Why are there insane people who want to destroy everything we've worked so hard for and float up to heaven...

INSANE PEOPLE! Kofi Annan the anti-christ? Amazing.
 
wow, oh dear that is really really really frightening.

I've never really thought about it that way, and I've been for the past few years vehemently anti-theistic, but only for reasons that religion is a lie and is anti-progress and anti-science.

But now, this gives me an even more real and concrete reason to become active against religion. If these are the views of powerful and charismatic individuals with real political power like pat robertson and bush then we are in real trouble.

It is so clear to me now, that the bible ulitimatley acts not only as a way to rationalize opposition to science, discrimination of minorities and homosexuals, and persistence of stupidity, but as a rationalization for killing everyone

I guess this is what it feels like to be one of them....I'm now fearful for the "end times" because if idiots like these get ahold of a few nukes...we're all dead.
 
I'm going to burn down my local church! That'll show em.
 
Nah, they're just idiots in my opinion. The Revelations is deliberately vague and open to interpretation. I, for one, while reading, can't shake off the feeling of reading a text written by a person thrust from ancient times into a science fiction world. Well damn, it does feel like it, and has about as much foundation, as relnuts claims have.

However, I do hope that finally reason will gain the upper hand over devotion and we'll live into a better tomorrow.

Thought for today: Some people forget that religious faith does not cancel out thought and intelligence.
 
I'm going to burn down my local church! That'll show em.

It's a sign!

Saw the program - lobbying influence in America is huge, it's without precedent, and having a destructive belief like end-timism with a firm foothold in the beltway is scary stuff.

The most depressing thing for me was watching the efforts of 'missionaries' in uganda. Tell people the end of the world is coming, and what's the point in struggling with a job, a house, a long-term relationship? The percentage of people carrying HIV is now on the up again, thanks to an emphasis on abstinence rather that protection. With a 'beaming up' just around the corner, why bother worrying with a condom, even if a huge chunk of the population carries a disease that will shred your life expectancy?

I hate getting outraged, but those American ****s who think they have the right to sell their cult to these people make me sick to the core. These people live in a third world country and deal with poverty, civil war and illness every day - they need all the hope they can get and it must be the easiest job in the world telling them that nothing needs doing, salvation is just around the corner.

The most ironic thing is that the whole thing has holes in it so wide you could fit your fist through. Revelations was most likely the work of a man living in a cave, tripping his tits off on shrooms as he worked on a commentary of decadent Roman rule. The 'rapture' is a 19th century idea. It's a patchwork far removed from the omniescent biblical prophecies that endtimers like to describe.

Cheers for bringing this up El Chi, I was hoping there'd be a thread
 
I am not a religious person, but I like to consider myself as being - within reason - tolerant of the views of others. If someone else is religious, fine; if it gets them through the day, fine; I really don't care - if they don't bother me with it, I shan't bother them with my atheism.

Sadly, religious tolerance is one of those ideals that's ultimately (and counter-intuitively) part of the problem.

Discriminating based on race is never justifiable, because there is no relevant difference between the races.
Discriminating based on sex is hardly ever justifiable, for that same lack of truly relevant difference in everyday life.
Sexuality is, again, not a relevant difference between people.

The only human trait that we can, and must, legitimately discriminate against is stupidity. There are things in this world that are quantifiably wrong. There is no other word for it.

Amorality doesn't come from the death of sperm. It comes from the needless proliferation of stupidity.
And what is religion but shameless stupidity institutionalized and promoted? It is, in all aspects, the celebration of ignorance.

Those people who are commonly considered the "good" christians - the moderates who live like the rest of us and only chant to ghosts occasionally and privately - they are no better than their insane, apocalyptic counterparts.
I would argue that they are worse.

These are the people whose tacit approval gives Pat Robertson his power. It's they who give money to the church and give their children as well. They're the ones who vote for the insane millenialists because they have the same "values" (which, unsurprisingly, are never actually quantified).

What moderate catholic, sensible enough to know that the pope is killing millions with his lies about condoms, has started an uprising to depose him?
How many refuse to pay at sunday mass until things improve?
Why are the very worst of them never excommunicated?

It all comes down to those quiet, inoffensive moderates standing idly by while life never improves.
Smart people can't do much because idiots love martyrs. Change has to come from within, from these moderates - and it's not.
 
I have a friend, I'm really kinda worried by her.

First she gets this boyfriend. I didn't care that much, to be honest I'd have been happy for her if he wasn't a bit of a dick. Anyway, her boyfriend goes to this Evangelical church nearby. I know the priest there, called Ron something (I jokingly call him L Ron now) is a bit of a nutter who calls for the cleansing of the nearby area of gays, but I believed she was smart enough to take the good bits from religion, like the self-belief, and leave the shit behind.

Apparently not. She went off to supervise some Christian camp over the summer. She was talking to me about it, and it was basically like the Branch Davidians or something. Christian kids were encouraged to bring curious friends along, and NONE of the "curious" friends came out "unsaved". Faith healings were performed on cancer victims, both short and long distance. And the horrid thing was that she believed every word of what she was telling me.

My very intelligent friend, probably the second smartest person I know, had become basically radicalised, albeit not the kind of radicalism that makes the news. The worst thing is that I'm on a year out, and so is she, but we'll barely be doing anything together, as she's ****ing off doing some Evangelical stuff.

So yeah, my previous tolerance for Christianity has lately been replaced with largely a distaste for the whole damned thing.
 
ive gone to christian camp and there wasnt cancer healings but they encouraged you to bring friends. i even took classes on how to convert non-believers. and my mom kept saying the worlds going to end during that lebanon-israel conflict and she is sort of suicidal on bad days hoping she'll die so she can go to heaven. and the antichrist is supposed to be the EU president or something because its the revival of the roman empire. all this rapture stuff revolves around prophecies in the bible
 
Hope this doesn't seem like dredging up my old topic, but for anyone who's interested, the documentary can de found here .

What moderate catholic, sensible enough to know that the pope is killing millions with his lies about condoms, has started an uprising to depose him?
How many refuse to pay at sunday mass until things improve?
Why are the very worst of them never excommunicated?

It all comes down to those quiet, inoffensive moderates standing idly by while life never improves.
Smart people can't do much because idiots love martyrs. Change has to come from within, from these moderates - and it's not.
This is my problem - I don't want to be angry at religious people but, as PvtRyan said, it can be horribly easy to see all good reasons to be anti-theistic.

The thing is that separating religion from politics, in a way, goes against democratic ideals.
If the majority of a society is religion x and so is the elected administration, then said administration acting upon religion x's principles (or at least an interpretation therein) can defend their actions by claiming that they are acting in accordance with the will of the majority.
I'm not saying that makes it right, but I could still see it as a defense.
 
Sadly, religious tolerance is one of those ideals that's ultimately (and counter-intuitively) part of the problem.

Discriminating based on race is never justifiable, because there is no relevant difference between the races.
Discriminating based on sex is hardly ever justifiable, for that same lack of truly relevant difference in everyday life.
Sexuality is, again, not a relevant difference between people.

The only human trait that we can, and must, legitimately discriminate against is stupidity. There are things in this world that are quantifiably wrong. There is no other word for it.

Amorality doesn't come from the death of sperm. It comes from the needless proliferation of stupidity.
And what is religion but shameless stupidity institutionalized and promoted? It is, in all aspects, the celebration of ignorance.

Those people who are commonly considered the "good" christians - the moderates who live like the rest of us and only chant to ghosts occasionally and privately - they are no better than their insane, apocalyptic counterparts.
I would argue that they are worse.

These are the people whose tacit approval gives Pat Robertson his power. It's they who give money to the church and give their children as well. They're the ones who vote for the insane millenialists because they have the same "values" (which, unsurprisingly, are never actually quantified).

What moderate catholic, sensible enough to know that the pope is killing millions with his lies about condoms, has started an uprising to depose him?
How many refuse to pay at sunday mass until things improve?
Why are the very worst of them never excommunicated?

It all comes down to those quiet, inoffensive moderates standing idly by while life never improves.
Smart people can't do much because idiots love martyrs. Change has to come from within, from these moderates - and it's not.


Just to let you know, I actually saved this post because it puts the point down so well :LOL:

And thanks El Chi for the documentary.
 
Just watched the docu. Scary shit...

Radical Christianity looks a lot more dangerous to me than radical Islam. Because of the apparent influence they have.
 
It's not really just an apparent influence when you consider that christians outnumber muslims by at least twice as many.

The amorphous blob of self-contradictory ideals that we call christianity encompases around a third of the entire earth. And, as I've pointed out, they are all extremists.

The thing is that separating religion from politics, in a way, goes against democratic ideals.
If the majority of a society is religion x and so is the elected administration, then said administration acting upon religion x's principles (or at least an interpretation therein) can defend their actions by claiming that they are acting in accordance with the will of the majority.
I'm not saying that makes it right, but I could still see it as a defense.

That's actually not the case.
America, at least, is not a democracy, so it does not need to follow democratic ideals.
In fact, the ideal democracy is really more like theocracy, for the reason you've stated. Constitutional democracy is far superior a system. I would argue that it is the only system that allows for the possibility of a stable, free society.

And, luckily America is a constitutional democracy.
So if anyone tries to pull the "we're the majority" argument, you can tell them without fear that that's straight-up terrorism.

A constitutional democracy, at its basic level, is designed to allow for a democratic vote. BUT - and this is important - it is also designed to prevent one homogenous religion/race/sex from oppressing any other for no reason.

In other words, in America, it is illegal for your leaders to implement policies that don't make secular, logical sense.

From the crazy guy who put the huge ten commandments statue up in a courtroom* to the several billion taxpayer dollars spent on worthless "faith-based initiatives" and abstinence education every year, christianity is giving a big slap in the face to the concept of freedom.

I could probably name thousands of such theocratic policies implemented by our government.

That's a big part of why "bringing freedom to the mideast" was such a crock.
I'm left to assume that they're taking our remaining freedoms and exporting them.

This is why christianity is more dangerous than islam.
They're not doing superficial attacks against the exterior of democracy.
They're eating away our democracy from the inside.

It's the difference between being punched and having cancer.


*This is even less appropriate because the actions perscribed by ten commandments are almost exclusively illegal under american law, seeing as how they largely involve a death penalty for petty or even non-criminal actions.
 
It's not really just an apparent influence when you consider that christians outnumber muslims by at least twice as many.
But Islam is growing by leaps and bounds and Christianity is barely keeping up with the world population.
And, as I've pointed out, they are all extremists.
Be careful using terms like "All", as one exception proves you wrong. And I know many Christians who are not extremists, not trying to bring on the end times, etc. etc. etc.

You only see the bad ones.

My church sends out missionaries, yes. But while these missionaries are converting people to Christianity (which usually gives them a sense of hope, God forbid. Excuse the pun), they're also building hospitals and schools. Last year my mom started a campaign to raise medical supplies for a hospital in Africa that had almost nothing. We sent over two container loads of useful materials, from bedding to a kidney dialysis machine.

What have you done?
 
My very intelligent friend, probably the second smartest person I know, had become basically radicalised, albeit not the kind of radicalism that makes the news. The worst thing is that I'm on a year out, and so is she, but we'll barely be doing anything together, as she's ****ing off doing some Evangelical stuff.

:(

thats no good
 
But Islam is growing by leaps and bounds and Christianity is barely keeping up with the world population.

Sounds like a job for mormon polygamy!

Just kidding.
Besides the muslim part, that sounds like great news.
Once the muslim population gets too high, maybe christians will realize the downside of the theocratic majority rule.
I doubt it, since a (larger) persecution complex is far more likely, but oh well.

Be careful using terms like "All", as one exception proves you wrong. And I know many Christians who are not extremists, not trying to bring on the end times, etc. etc. etc.

You only see the bad ones.

My church sends out missionaries, yes. But while these missionaries are converting people to Christianity (which usually gives them a sense of hope, God forbid. Excuse the pun), they're also building hospitals and schools. Last year my mom started a campaign to raise medical supplies for a hospital in Africa that had almost nothing. We sent over two container loads of useful materials, from bedding to a kidney dialysis machine.

What have you done?
When I say ALL, I mean ALL.

That's a great argument that I don't hear very often, by the way.
"My church has bake sales/builds homeless shelters/fights cancer/gave hats to orphans/etc."

Well no, jimmy. That's not your religion. That's secular.

Since when do any of those activities require vague praise for jesus to accomplish?

Or are you saying that, without the threat of hell, you wouldn't be doing any of those things?
Or that you will only provide them to the societies that are "saved" from heathenism?
Or were you saving africans just to be holier than thou (mou?) when the time came to speak with one of those asshole atheists who are clearly so godless as to hate africans and/or kidneys?

Suffice it to say that I do donate to charities. I'm not going to list them all, simply because I'm not doing it to impress you or to pretend that putting dimes in a box will somehow make me more logical at an argument.


With that out of the way, I have to ask why, if your goal is to save africans, do you support the clearly anti-african actions of the condom-hating pope?

One exception doesn't prove me wrong, as any exception proves the rule.
You, however, are by no means exceptional. You're only as bad as your worst member.
And, as I have proven in other threads, even your worst member is nowhere near as bad as the horrible things demanded by both testaments of the bible.

Conversion is a method - maybe the primary method - through which christianity is accomplishing its overall goal of establishing a medieval-style theocratic government that follows the bulk of those testaments.
By supporting that, you're supporting the worst. Because that is the worst.

There is a huge, disturbingly successful, christian movement to redefine science to mean religion, redefine family values to mean societal control and, apparently, redefine domination to mean charity.

It is all a part of establishing a system of acheiropoietics (AKA unquestioned theocratic domination of all aspects of life) in place of the empiricism (AKA science) that has given us the way of life we take advantage of today.

The key characteristic of the acheiropoietic society was the utter lack of a "sense of hope" (as you put it).
The dominant mindset of medieval times was that life and knowledge are worthless because you'll be going to a wonderful heaven anyways.
Societal and technological progress ground to a halt because all that mattered to life was going to church, being pious, and eventually dying.
Remember that science didn't come along for another 300-400 years. Skepticism of any sort didn't exist yet.

Re-creating that society is the principal goal of christianity, and it is the same goal those oh-so-evil terrorists have.

So no matter how lovey-lovey and non-violent you are, your means do NOT justify your ends.
When you vote for a religious man and convert other cultures to yours, you're as much an extremist as any other you can name.
Stop pretending otherwise.
 
I agree that religion has caused a whole shitload of problems, and this whole "end-of-times" thing is absolutely batshit insane. However, I'll have to disagree with the whole "all religious people are extremists" kick. Plenty of people consider themselves religious, but don't give a rat's ass about what some pope tells them to do. They think for themselves- they simply believe in a higher power. Which I believe is delusional, but essentially harmless.
 
Plenty of people consider themselves religious, but don't give a rat's ass about what some pope tells them to do. They think for themselves- they simply believe in a higher power. Which I believe is delusional, but essentially harmless.

I don't agree with that, because no man lives in a vacuum.

If you believe in a god in any "useful" way (meaning that you believe that being "good" makes it happy, and that will overall improve the quality of your life/afterlife) then you believe that the very concept of goodness is unquantifiable.

In other words, that it is not only okay but noble to abandon logical thought where the most important aspects of society are concerned. Secular laws that apply to everyone equally no longer apply to you.
And all other religious people have different, mutually exclusive, variations on what is manditory for being good.
To the religious person, every other religion is wrong, even though they all share the same utter lack of reason.

Thus, believing in a god inevitably leads to a sentiment of "my god is better than yours", just like racial pride always leads to "my race is better than yours".
That sentiment is what creates the phenomenon of religious conversion/evangelism: "you'll burn in hell if you don't listen to me, so do everything I say!"

If someone's personal god, therefore, tells him that a presidential candidate is a cool space alien, or that murder is good, that's going to affect his vote. He'll vote for the most intergalactic, most murderous candidate.
That sounds unlikely until you remember november 2004.

The simple fact of reality is that religion is the source of almost all social ill, even from so-called moderates.

The universal theme is that there is no standard for goodness in this world, so you can act however you want.
And, by extension, christians, muslims and whoever can act however they want.
They all have the same lack of reason for their actions.

That's where "religious tolerance" comes from. It is the acknowledgement that all religions are equally stupid and dangerous, yet also the refusal to do anything about that fact.


Good is quantifiable, it is tangible and it definitely can be applied in a way that pleases everyone who actually is good, instead those who just say or imagine that they are.
Largely, it is defined in the constitiution of the united states of america.

Collective denial of this fact is killing our society.
 
I think you're thinking about this too logically. Religion is many things, but one thing we can both agree it is not is logical. People don't think of it in a way that says "because I believe in god, I believe that uselessness is unquantifiable". Furthermore, not everyone "asks god" to the answers to their problems. Plenty of people just believe in it in an abstract way, like something to fall back on if you're having trouble finding beauty in the world.

I'm far too cynical to believe in this sort of thing, mind you, but I can at least understand it to an extent.
 
I think you're thinking about this too logically. Religion is many things, but one thing we can both agree it is not is logical. People don't think of it in a way that says "because I believe in god, I believe that uselessness is unquantifiable". Furthermore, not everyone "asks god" to the answers to their problems. Plenty of people just believe in it in an abstract way, like something to fall back on if you're having trouble finding beauty in the world.

I'm far too cynical to believe in this sort of thing, mind you, but I can at least understand it to an extent.

There are a handful of "religions" that are really more like philisophical exercises. I think those are the ones you're refering to. Deism, agnosticism, and the like.
People who acknowledge, logically, that any god must be un-knowable, and thus has no impact on them or the material world whatsoever.

There's no problem with these philosophies because they don't have any impact - either negative or positive - on secular society. They know, through logic, that god has not communicated any commands. They aren't trying do god's command, so they aren't fucking things up.
In that respect, they are not religions but philosophies that are effectively identical to atheism.


The lack of logic that characterizes religion, however, is exactly what I was talking about above.

Religious people obviously don't actually consciously think "because I believe in god, I believe that goodness is unquantifiable" but really, that's what all religion is.
It's the belief that that the standard for morality is defined not through empirical evidence, but from a supernatural entity that only they can "see".

As for invoking god as though he were some sort of motivational poster, that also causes problems.
If you need god to find joy in life, then there's something wrong with you.
If you're using god to fill that void, then you aren't using therapy.

That line of thinking gives us faith healing, new-age homeopathic cures and other quackery that, for example, charge cancer patients for placebos when they'll die without chemotherapy.
Not only that, but the belief that god created the beauty in the world is the source of a little thing called "intelligent design" which is being used by christianity to - surprise! - establish a theocratic government with an archieopoietic-based society.


What I described above, in my last post, are not the logical thought processes of a religious person, but the logical outcome of their lack of logical thought processes.
I don't care about what they believe. I care about what that belief causes to happen to me and my family, and to the world at large.
 
Can't beat far eastern religions. I prefer those much more over the abrahamic religions.
 
Yeah, I'm refering largely to theistic religions.

Buddhism for example, like deism and agnosticism (although far more elaborate), is more of a philosophy than it is any sort of religion.
 
I'm just saying that some people DON'T treat it like a hardcore thing, and DON'T need to find god in life.
 
What I'm trying to get across here is that is doesn't matter if it's hardcore or not. The effects are inevitably the same.

Any belief that god has a material impact on the world leads to religious conflict.

If you don't need god's material impact, then you shouldn't be religious.

Religion is can be most accurately defined as feeling a need for something that isn't there.
You could call it an addiction for a substance that doesn't exist.
 
People don't need God, God needs them!

Come on everyone, if you don't believe in him, he can't hurt you!
 
What I'm trying to get across here is that is doesn't matter if it's hardcore or not. The effects are inevitably the same.

Any belief that god has a material impact on the world leads to religious conflict.

If you don't need god's material impact, then you shouldn't be religious.

Religion is can be most accurately defined as feeling a need for something that isn't there.
You could call it an addiction for a substance that doesn't exist.

I agree with you completely! I just think that there are varying degrees of piety, and that it is ignorant to lump them all into one category.
 
I don't think it's ignorant at all.

There might be varying degrees of piety, but so what?
There is no clear line between an extremist and a moderate because there is effectively no difference between them.
It's only tactical: some are violent and some are passive-agressive.
The means still don't justify the end, which is that medieval society I'm talking about.

See MiccyNarc as an example of what I mean. "I'm not killing them. I'm just converting them."

All those various degrees of piety work together, intentionally or not, to create a backwards world where the only truth is god and "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
 
I suppose you could also argue that somebody who believes in God but follows a logical sort of morality doesn't need God to do that.
 
That too.

If you're like our pal MiccyNarc and believe that religion is worth it for the charity, there is the obvious problem that identical charity can be accomplished without any god at all.

So then what is religion good for?
Clearly religion is only useful for enforcing laws that don't makes sense. "Stop eating pork", "stop being gay", stop working on sundays".

Since there is nothing logically wrong with being gay or eating pork (pun maybe intended?) the only way to get people to take that shit seriously is through celebrating and enforcing a dominion of the senseless.
Medieval society etc.

If you only believe in following the laws that already make logical sense, then 1) you aren't following any religion I've ever heard of and 2) you don't need to either.
 
Back
Top