2 enlightened 2 quit

10/9/2012 5:21:43 PM

Quote :

"Nearly one in five Americans say they are atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” ... For the first time since researchers began tracking the religious identity of Americans, fewer than half said they were Protestants, a steep decline from 40 years ago when Protestant churches claimed the loyalty of more than two-thirds of the population. ... Now, more than one-third of those ages 18 to 22 are religiously unaffiliated. These “younger millennials” are replacing older generations who remained far more involved with religion throughout their lives. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/us/study-finds-that-the-number-of-protestant-americans-is-declining.html

Quote :

" The “Nones,” as they are called, now make up the nation’s second-largest religious grouping. The largest single faith group is Catholics"

As has been discussed in this thread, it's not obviously (or likely IMO) that a "rationalist" philosophy is filling this gap, it seems more hedonist/Randian than anything i'd guess.

Quote :

" The Pew report found that even among Americans who claimed no religion, few qualified as purely secular. Two-thirds say they still believe in God, and one-fifth say they pray every day. Only 12 percent of the religiously unaffiliated group said they were atheists and 17 percent agnostic. "

[Edited on October 9, 2012 at 8:22 PM. Reason : ]

10/9/2012 8:19:02 PM

do Mormons count as Protestant?

10/10/2012 12:51:47 PM

I'd classify it more as Restorationist, or do you mean in the scope of their study?

[Edited on October 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM. Reason : -]

10/10/2012 1:25:37 PM

I doubt any actual Mormon would be appreciated to be called a Protestant.

10/10/2012 2:12:52 PM

Mormon's don't even count as christians

10/10/2012 2:39:35 PM

I think even fewer Protestants would appreciate being lumped in the same family as Mormons as well.

10/10/2012 2:44:18 PM

10/10/2012 2:49:29 PM

Quote :

"Mormon's don't even count as christians"

That is, until a practicing Mormon is nominated for President by the Republican party.

10/10/2012 2:55:05 PM

Quote :

"1. Do you think there would be less war and political conflict without religion? If we had a world without religion, would people find another way to group themselves and attack each other anyway? Isn't it human nature for us to form groups and fight? How many examples are there of completely secular wars?"

There was plenty of that before religion existed. Opening scene of 2001 Space Odyssey provides a good imaging of how I picture it. And MOST wars are secular with religion used as a scapegoat or a distraction. The accumulation of resources is the primary cause of war (in my own opinion).

Quote :

"2. Is religion necessary for keeping the minds of the simple-minded majority from behaving in completely immoral ways? I understand that many atheists are still moral people but would much of the world descend into evil and chaos if the simple minded "proles" had no threat of a boogeyman to get them for eternity?"

Morality is such a subjective word. In high school I did not smoke, drink, sleep around, use bad language, or disrespect elders especially my teachers and parents. HOWEVER, by many I was seen as a worse human being than those who acted in VERY unchristian ways just because I was the only kid in school who wasn't at church Sunday mornings. My religion caused others to see me as immoral. My religion also has no threat of eternal damnation or punishment. It sounds like you're using Christianity as a basis of all religion.

Quote :

"3. Would religion exist if we found answers to all of the questions? "

Science be praised! (Meaning.....yes.)

10/11/2012 6:23:00 AM

Yes, but mainly because religion obscures reality and distracts people from their practical circumstances. There'd probably a lot more class consciousness and rebellion against tyranny throughout history if not for such false consciousnesses.

10/11/2012 1:54:30 PM

Money is already most people's true religion.

10/11/2012 2:27:59 PM

True that. At least in the US it's pretty much taken for granted by most people that your wealth essentially indicates your level of virtue. Rich people are rich because they're awesome, poors are poor because they're awful. Used to be an attitude restricted to Calvinism, but now it's a ubiquitous, secular belief.

10/11/2012 2:36:49 PM

^The Hindu caste system goes back even further

10/11/2012 3:39:19 PM

maybe, maybe not. we'd still find asinine reasons to kill each other without it

10/11/2012 11:28:08 PM

but there'd be one less asinine reason

10/12/2012 12:18:55 PM

Quote :

"True that. At least in the US it's pretty much taken for granted by most people that your wealth essentially indicates your level of virtue. Rich people are rich because they're awesome, poors are poor because they're awful. Used to be an attitude restricted to Calvinism, but now it's a ubiquitous, secular belief."

Are there really people that think like this? As black and white as "poor = bad, rich = good"? I can't imagine.

Virtuous behavior, in our society, is usually seen as adherence to established law and cultural norms. A good person is someone that doesn't steal, doesn't start fights, respects others, is considerate, and in general, demonstrates empathy. These are values that almost all decent people and cultures respect in some way.

The problem comes about when there's a disconnect between ethical, empathy-driven behavior and law or cultural expectations. We teach kids to share and respect each other, but they quickly learn that those rules only apply to school children. Once you become an adult, those rules that were allegedly rigid, unchanging commands seem to take a backseat to convenience and "practicality".

How can you have a society that is morally and ethically sound when we're taught from such an early age that the rules don't apply to certain classes of people? There's no way to square that circle. Somehow, we have to stop this cycle.

10/12/2012 1:01:49 PM

Yes, there are people really like that.

10/12/2012 1:02:21 PM

Many folks basically believe that if you're poor it's a result of you being dumb and lazy and if you're rich it's a result of you being clever and hard-working. Those are the virtues I'm talking about. This is where talking points like "Raising taxes on the rich is punishing success/Welfare for the poor is rewarding failure." come from.

Such people think that the natural order of things is that there is a wide breadth in the natural virtue and ability of people and that the wide socioeconomic divisions in our society is a fair reflection of that. Taxing the rich/helping the poor, to them, is a strike against the natural order and an attempt at "equal outcomes/not equal opportunities" even though most of them put very, very little thought into what actual equal opportunity would look like. I say this with confidence because these same people often advocate ending the estate tax, for instance, or oppose even the most basic ideals of public education.

These folks read a lot of Ayn Rand and tend to imagine themselves as the main characters, which is by design, the entire point her writing is to stroke one's ego while simultaneously fostering a victim complex. It's perfect for people who think they're better than to be Christian because fables are silly, but can't shake its essential psychological profile it engenders (Chosen people, ever persecuted).


[Edited on October 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2012 10:54:35 AM

Quote :

"Such people think that the natural order of things is that there is a wide breadth in the natural virtue and ability of people and that the wide socioeconomic divisions in our society is a fair reflection of that. "

I doubt the belief is that simple. It's not as if "ability" or even "virtue" (however we'd like to define it) manifests from nothing. There's usually nothing too different about a black child born in the slums from a white child born in the suburbs. If you could swap them out, you'd see them follow similar paths as far as development goes. I'll concede the point that the child with black skin will probably be the victim of prejudice at some time during his life, although he will assuredly be better off than the white child raised in the slums.

So, while there may not be a "wide breath in the natural (or inherent) virtue and ability of people", there certainly is an extreme disparity in environments. That is the core problem.

Unfortunately, one of your primary solutions for removing this environmental disparity seems to be having a state-imposed tax. Any tax at all is the opposite of virtue, regardless of where the money goes. Virtue can never involve stealing, and taxing is stealing on a large scale. We cannot have an ethical, much less virtuous society if people are made to believe that stealing, kidnapping, and murder is okay, as long as certain people do it and as long as the loot is distributed in such a way that it (allegedly) promotes "social justice".

[Edited on October 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM. Reason : ]

10/15/2012 11:32:24 AM

Quote :

"Any tax at all is the opposite of virtue, regardless of where the money goes. Virtue can never involve stealing, and taxing is stealing on a large scale."

Oh please. Land ownership is a form of theft and you know it. All social philosophies of consent to governance fall short.

Plus, I'm sick and tired of people talking about the wealth redistribution power of government. Think about it, the power to directly redistribute wealth is one of the least powerful abilities of government. Government sets the rules - rules for how we conduct transactions, the safety tolerance of our cars and buildings, and what contracts we can and can't enter into. The upper class didn't disappear when we were ostensibly taxing the highest bracket at 90%. This discussion also ignores the fact that monetary inheritance is probably not the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most important thing parents do that determines the social class of their children.

10/15/2012 2:31:21 PM

Quote :

"Oh please. Land ownership is a form of theft and you know it. All social philosophies of consent to governance fall short."

Not only do I not know that, but I've never had the concept ("land ownership is theft") explained to me in a way that was remotely coherent. You could probably make the argument that land ownership is illegitimate, just as you could say that air ownership is illegitimate; land and air are not products. It's only when someone has transformed these things into something valuable that we can say they are "in use" and thus legitimate.

Quote :

"Plus, I'm sick and tired of people talking about the wealth redistribution power of government. Think about it, the power to directly redistribute wealth is one of the least powerful abilities of government."

The ability of government to take earnings and funnel them into various causes is what gives government any power at all. Without taxation the government is toothless.

10/15/2012 5:10:12 PM

Let's invade the Vatican.

10/15/2012 5:16:40 PM

Quote :

"I've never had the concept ("land ownership is theft") explained to me in a way that was remotely coherent."

Quote :

"It's only when someone has transformed these things into something valuable that we can say they are "in use" and thus legitimate."

Do these not contradict? You just made the case. Undeveloped land is owned. Yet we don't sell contracts that ensure future entitlement to use of Oxygen in the atmosphere. You made the point perfectly well, I fail to see how you didn't convince yourself.

Anyway, the complexities of the marketplace and the rules of our society are vastly complex beyond what we could hope to understand. We have overt redistribution of wealth from the wealthy, but it doesn't follow from that that government is redistributive on net in this direction. In fact, it's an absurd question. Without modern government the world would be different beyond our comprehension, we could all be worse, better, or who knows what.

The problem with wealth redistribution in general is that it's the 2nd wrong to make a right. The concept isn't necessary in the first place if we've created the kind of institutions that we actually want. In other words, the very fact that there is a need to redistribute anything constitutes a failure of government.

10/15/2012 8:54:45 PM

Quote :

"Not only do I not know that, but I've never had the concept ("land ownership is theft") explained to me in a way that was remotely coherent. "

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

It's a little easier to get if you try to understand that property ownership does not bestow extra liberties on the owner, but restricts the liberties of everybody else. At one point, all land was unowned, and now it is all owned. This was accomplished, obviously, by force, usually by a State but in older times by individuals. That's how you stop other people from using land, you threaten them. That's how ownership is established and maintained, entirely by force or Social Contract.

If you actually want to learn something, read this:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Property-Principle-Government/dp/1146754213/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1350396677&sr=8-7&keywords=proudhon

That is, if you want to argue with anti-propertarians while actually knowing a bit about what you're talking about, read that.

Quote :

"It's only when someone has transformed these things into something valuable that we can say they are "in use" and thus legitimate."

That's possession, a form of ownership derived from use. Property is something you can own forever and exclude people from (Even when their use doesn't cost you a dime) without doing anything with it. Capitalism is based on property, the deeds and titles of which are enforced by the State using the police and military. In the absence of a State, defense of property would be accomplished likely by crude warlords and the violence at the heart of it would become much more readily apparent.

[Edited on October 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

10/16/2012 10:08:32 AM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, one of your primary solutions for removing this environmental disparity seems to be having a state-imposed tax. Any tax at all is the opposite of virtue, regardless of where the money goes."

Owner class gets rich from a State-sponsored system of property which engenders certain environmental disparities, hampering their potential competitors in the lower classes: Bad but tolerable.

Worker class gets bread from a State-sponsored system of redistribution that takes a penny from every rich person for every dollar they gain from the aforementioned system: Bad and intolerable.

Would you be able to view those environmental constraints as an indirect tax? That is, one levied on their earnings potential rather than on the earnings themselves. I can understand "two wrongs don't make a right" as a reason not to compensate for that "tax" with an explicit tax, but I don't understand what you'd do to then solve it, if anything. I'm going to hazard a wild guess that, like all problems, they are always solved by markets being freer. The problem here, however, is environmental disparity, which is a direct result (In the absence of public infrastructure) of wealth disparity, which is a necessity of Capitalism (Otherwise, we'd all be owners and nobody would work).

[Edited on October 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .]

10/16/2012 10:23:59 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/2nd-child-pa-couple-dies-praying-19020607#.UYAlsrWG1H0

And though it's not my original idea, it's a good one: lethally inject this stupid fucking couple and let their God save them. Let them test their faith on themselves for a change instead of letting multiple children die.

[Edited on April 30, 2013 at 4:25 PM. Reason : .]

4/30/2013 4:24:45 PM

there aren't enough words to express just how stupid that statement is. That's up there with "if you don't like amurrrrrrca then you can giiiiiiiiiiit out!"

4/30/2013 11:12:02 PM

You're actually trying to defend those people? Do you think parents should have the right to let their children die instead of going to the hospital?

5/1/2013 7:10:33 AM

They have the right to abort the pregnancy, so I don't see the issue.

5/1/2013 7:59:44 AM

Good troll, bro

5/1/2013 8:49:31 AM

Quote :

"They have the right to abort the pregnancy, so I don't see the issue."

And it's equivocations like this that religion promotes that provide evidence that the world would in fact be better without religion.

5/1/2013 9:21:24 AM

why should i care if someone's kid dies because they didn't take it to the doctor?

[Edited on May 1, 2013 at 9:22 AM. Reason : my equivocation has nothing to do with religion. i have no use for religion.]

5/1/2013 9:21:26 AM

you shouldn't, go away

5/1/2013 9:22:32 AM

NeuseRvrRat

Quote :

"why should i care if someone's kid dies because they didn't take it to the doctor?"

You're right, I can't prove objectively that trying to prevent cruelty and suffering for children is a noble pursuit. But I'll just let your comment stand and the world can decide for themselves.

Quote :

"my equivocation has nothing to do with religion. i have no use for religion."

Then how in the world could you compare an abortion to allowing an 8-month old wither away and die?

[Edited on May 1, 2013 at 9:28 AM. Reason : .]

5/1/2013 9:25:56 AM

Quote :

"why should i care if someone's kid dies because they didn't take it to the doctor?"

what

5/1/2013 9:27:45 AM

Quote :

"You're actually trying to defend those people? Do you think parents should have the right to let their children die instead of going to the hospital?"

Based on all available knowledge, how do you think those children would have turned out if they didn't die?

Yes, that's right. They'd be fundamentalists, and they'd create 6 more fundamentalists, etc. How are we supposed to outbreed these people?

5/1/2013 9:28:42 AM

I don't give a shit, they didn't deserve to suffer and die. My morality is more based on preventing suffering than promoting secularism.

5/1/2013 9:29:41 AM

Quote :

"Based on all available knowledge, how do you think those children would have turned out if they didn't die? Yes, that's right. They'd be fundamentalists, and they'd create 6 more fundamentalists, etc. How are we supposed to outbreed these people?"

that's bullshit. even westboro children have defected.

[Edited on May 1, 2013 at 9:31 AM. Reason : also what he said ^]

5/1/2013 9:31:13 AM

Quote :

"I don't give a shit, they didn't deserve to suffer and die. My morality is more based on preventing suffering than promoting secularism."

There are plenty of children all over the world suffering and dying due to lack of medical care, and what are you doing? Using most of your income to fuel your own consumption.

Children never deserve the punishment inflicted on them, but none of you give enough of a shit to do anything about it, you just post angrily on a message board.

5/1/2013 9:35:36 AM

Quote :

"Then how in the world could you compare an abortion to allowing an 8-month old wither away and die?"

Both result in a human ceasing to mature.

5/1/2013 9:41:06 AM

Quote :

"There are plenty of children all over the world suffering and dying due to lack of medical care, and what are you doing? Using most of your income to fuel your own consumption. Children never deserve the punishment inflicted on them, but none of you give enough of a shit to do anything about it, you just post angrily on a message board."

Whatever. I don't need to prove myself to you; I know exactly how much time, blood, and money I've given to people that aren't my immediate family.

You realize that you're on an angry message board complaining about people using it right? Every time you talk shit about regulation should you also be grilled about not being out in the world making a difference?

5/1/2013 9:59:38 AM

Quote :

"Both result in a human ceasing to mature."

This isn't the abortion thread but comparing an embryo or even a late term fetus to an 8th-month old in this case and a 2-year-old in the previous case is fucking retarded.

5/1/2013 10:01:19 AM

Is my statement incorrect, sir?

5/1/2013 10:04:03 AM

Define "human" as you used it in that sentence and I'll answer that.

5/1/2013 10:17:27 AM

Why is the definition of human needed? I'm not trying to make you accept an embryo is a person; I simply stated that both instances prevent the existence of a mature human.

You really need to get your fist out of your ass today, but I suppose its to be expected from you in a religion thread.

[Edited on May 1, 2013 at 10:23 AM. Reason : -]

5/1/2013 10:22:51 AM

Yes, by that definition they are the same. So is using a condom.

5/1/2013 10:26:41 AM

y0willy derping all over himself. per usual

5/1/2013 10:31:43 AM

The world would not be better off without religion.

Think of all the millions, hundreds of millions that have been killed in the name of whatever God.

Imagine what the world population would be currently if they and their descendants were added to the total?

Saying the world would be better off without religion is like saying it would be better off without plagues, famine, other natural disasters, or genocide. It is just another natural and necessary force that thins out the herd.

Christianity and Islam destroying each other completely would put us at a pretty tidy world population given our current state of technology and natural resources.

[Edited on May 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM. Reason : -]

5/1/2013 10:38:15 AM

surely, you can't be serious

the whole fucking point of both of those religions is to encourage people to fuck like gerbils and spread religion

[Edited on May 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM. Reason : nm, u trollin]

5/1/2013 10:39:27 AM