God

[BonzaiJoe]

Sometimes you can find antitheist people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

That's me. I fully agree with Hitchens' quote:

"I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

However, I would like to add that of course people can believe what they want, that's not my problem. Your comparison of me to Taliban and the Nazi regime were laughable and uneducated. If the Taliban was a non-violent political faction, I'd be their direct opposite. That's how far the comparison is true. Arguing against something is not the same as wanting to force people to believe the same thing as you. If you don't know that, you haven't understood reason or democracy.

[alanrotoi]

To be an "anti-something" is to be nothing, it's only to live meanwhile the opposite exist. In every order of life you need to propose, to bulid and to project something.

[BonzaiJoe]

To be an "anti-something" is to be nothing, it's only to live meanwhile the opposite exist. In every order of life you need to propose, to bulid and to project something.

Could you define an "order" of life? How are such orders outlined?

[Chulk]

Could you define an "order" of life? How are such orders outlined?

I'll explain. There is an expression here "en todos los ordenes de la vida" which doesn't refer to an order as putting something in its place or any hierarchy. It means something like "in every situation life may put you through or any situation you may be involved in life".

[BonzaiJoe]

Okay. I don't think that's got anything to do with my atheism/anti-theism then. Creating and building is important, but being critical is also important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg

[alanrotoi]

Being critical is very important, no doubt, but being "anti-something" it's not to be critical, it's only the half part. You say "this or that is wrong" ok fine, very good, nice observation, but if you  propose nothing but "destroying" the wrong thing you really got nothing.

If you want to beat a paradigm you must show or propose something else. Pointing things like that only makes you the "angry guy".

if I have to choose between the angry atheists and Jehovah's Witnesses, I choose the last, because at least they are in peace and are not against anything. They are "pro" their truth.


PS: Thank you Chulk to interpret and supplement my flaws in this language.

[BonzaiJoe]

So you base your preference on the strength or purity of someone's belief, and rationality and moral implications are secondary? I think that's dangerous ground. Take a look at history, again.

Many religious movements, especially Jehovah's Witnesses, are anti a lot of things, and they are anti all other religions. The difference between them and me is that they are against some things that I am not against (drinking, living your life, sex before marriage etc.), and I am against one more religious movement than them (theirs).

[BonzaiJoe]

I thought about it critically and I took a stand. I believe - based on reason and critcal thinking - that all religions are wrong, and that this is an important fact.

[alanrotoi]

Ok you took the "Jeovah's Witnesses part" but you didn't reply the main theme of my post.

Don't scroll, I'll quote for you: "Being critical is very important, no doubt, but being "anti-something" it's not to be critical, it's only the half part. You say "this or that is wrong" ok fine, very good, nice observation, but if you  propose nothing but "destroying" the wrong thing you really got nothing. If you want to beat a paradigm you must show or propose something else. Pointing things like that only makes you the "angry guy"."

[Chulk]

I agree with Alan on this. Stating the opposite is only half of a constructive discussion. I think being critical and showing what's wrong is important, but the key to society improvement is proposing a solution to the flaws

[Chulk]

Oh, and just to light things up a little bit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

[BonzaiJoe]

Ok you took the "Jeovah's Witnesses part" but you didn't reply the main theme of my post.

Don't scroll, I'll quote for you: "Being critical is very important, no doubt, but being "anti-something" it's not to be critical, it's only the half part. You say "this or that is wrong" ok fine, very good, nice observation, but if you  propose nothing but "destroying" the wrong thing you really got nothing. If you want to beat a paradigm you must show or propose something else. Pointing things like that only makes you the "angry guy"."

So you mean I should analyze the causes of destructive religious belief and try to offer a different response to the needs that make way for it? Fair enough. But I think education plays an important role in this. People are not only religious because of ignorance, but it plays a big part. In pointing out that religion is wrong, I am speaking in favour of reason and education and critical thought. I am pro critical thought. You can't just say that religion is "something" and reason is "nothing". That's your value judgement, then, and I don't agree with it.

Other important factors are poverty, cultural norms and individual psychological factors. Yes, we should do something about this, but it's not going to be done overnight.

[Chulk]

You can't just say that religion is "something" and reason is "nothing". That's your value judgement, then, and I don't agree with it.

You misunderstood what Alan said. He's not saying reason is "nothing", he just stated that an idea created and based solely on being "anti-something" is nothing. But reason is not just "anti-religion", that's why reason is not "nothing".
If an idea is only the anti-part of another idea, it depends on that idea to exist and survive. Therefore, the "anti-something" is actually "nothing" without the "something"

[BonzaiJoe]

I think the key part of this argument is that if you've already decided that there has to be something in place of religion, then you've already decided that there has to be some kind of religion (because what else could take the place of religion?). The challenge is to find out exactly which role religion plays for human beings and communities, and to find another means of fulfilling the needs that religion fulfills - a way that does not require ignorance. As I see it, most religious people in the western world could just stop being religious and exchange it with rational thought. However, in other parts of the world, getting rid of religion would require a lot of cultural and economic development.

[Chulk]

Of course something has to replace religion, but it cannot be just logic and reason. People could drop their religion for something moral oriented, without the need of an almighty being. There has to be something to keep the balance, as most people who is highly logical tend to ignore some moral codes because they're just not necessary in their thinking.
People shouldn't believe what cannot be proven to a minimum of probability as science itself says nothing can be proved 100% true (uncertainty principle). We all agree in that, but I think tolerance is a big part of living in a society and I've learnt to just let people believe what they want as long as they don't try to bash it into other people's mind or interfere directly with my life