What religion are you?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-21 09:19pm

Atheism can be borne of apathy, so it doesn't have to be a logical conclusion.

Also, atheism itself is neutral; like religion as a whole, it has no single tenent. However, unlike religion, you can't change or modify it to make it oppressive. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, pure and simple; it has no other connotation (or shouldn't at least). Christianity (as an example), on the other hand, is and should be associated with some degree of intolerance, since that's one of the basic beliefs.

Marxism had atheism as one of its core tenants, but the forcing of atheism upon people is what should be considered oppressive, not atheism itself.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-02-22 12:29am

wolveraptor
[qoute]I disagree with the first part; religious leaders can act humanely. It's just that they often don't.[/quote]
Often? Humanism from a religious leader is something very rare in this world.

Darth Raptor
[qoute]if you look in almost any modern Evangelical publication you'll see how much Christians love to squawk about the rough times their missionaries have in the PRC.[/quote]
They also love to talk about a World Atheist Conspiracy and End of the World, the Great Beast and other stuff as if it were real.

Either China is hard on its Christians

Maybe it's a bit harder on fundies than we are.
Local religions in China don't face any persecution, at least in the places I've seen. If you're specifically talking about Christians, that's not the same as "Atheism PERSECUTES teh religions in China!!".

Broomstick

legal, social, and political disadvantages of religious believers
Above. I don't know what difficulties Christians face, but frankly I don't care. Local religions seem to be doing fine.
Being religious wouldn't bar you from making a reasonable life for yourself, but it WAS a major handicap if you wanted rise into the ranks of the powerful.
In fact, I believe it's VERY fucking reasonable, if not very democratic. You think otherwise? Look at HAMAS.
Eradicating religion and replacing it with atheism was a major tenent of the original Marxism
So what is atheism's fault here? Or was Marx the Great Founder of Atheism? No, he wasn't. Atheism does not call to replace all religions with itself; Marxism does. The two are very different things - a worldview and a political program. That's not in the "Atheism is opressive!!" camp, sorry.
"People" are not always good, religious or not.
People are better now than 1000 years ago. That's a fucking obvious fact, there's moral evolution going on. Religion for the most part clings to very old dogma, where really fucked up stuff is considered normal.
Um... like North Korea acts "rationally"?
No. Kim whatever his name is acts rationally in the name of himself. It's a pity he doesn't give a fuck about his nation. But he's not out of his mind, if you mean that.
It is neither inherently evil nor inherently good
It is inherently evil. When people say "turn religion for the good" they mean "let's leave out the nasty bits that call us to slaughter, kill and torture infidels and witches and believe in other idiotic fantasies which science has proven false a long time ago".

Essentially "good" religion is liberal religion, which is much of a non-religion at all. It's closer to agnosticism.

Fundie religion IS inherently evil.
And religion is not politics.
Yes, it is not. It's just an evil and manipulative tool. That's it.
Is atheism ALWAYS rational, that is, based on reason and logic...
I don't "hope". That's what it is. I'm more of an agnostic myself, but atheism of all the worldviews is the most logical one.

I can agree with that.

But I don't, you know. Because there IS a big fucking difference. Fundie can start even World War III, if he thinks that what his God wants.

A corrupt secular government would never, because it's not INSANE.

Fundieism is a form of mental sickness, where imaginary things are playing role in the fundie life as if they were REAL.

This is what it scary about religion.

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2006-02-22 12:49am

Raised Catholic, currently agnostic skeptic.

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2006-02-22 12:59am

Stas Bush wrote:People are better now than 1000 years ago. That's a fucking obvious fact, there's moral evolution going on. Religion for the most part clings to very old dogma, where really fucked up stuff is considered normal.

I'd dispute that and say that only a strong government keeps people from acting like complete and total assholes most of the time. For instance, the US, with a strong, centralized government, is a hell of a lot better place to live and obstensibly more moral place than, say, Mogadishu or the Democratic Republic of Congo, neither of which have much of a government to work off of. In the US, I am very unlikely to see dog-fighting occuring in a public place and I'm also not very likely to be shot by AK-47 wielding militiamen with a bone to pick with everyone not supporting them. I'm also unlikely to be hacked to death with a machete or enslaved. In the DR of Congo, all those things can quite easily happen.

Humans are still stuck with a paleolithic mind-set. 10,000 years of civilization have not bred out our base tendencies and mindsets. In fact, for a while, they were encouraged.

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2006-02-22 01:01am

GHETTO EDIT:

And, even then, the strong government doesn't work all the time (see: Roman Empire, USSR, America pre-1860). Rather, it needs a combination of Enlightenment ideas about human equality and rights with a government that respects and abides by those same ideas.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-02-22 02:36am

I personally subscribe to what I call apatheism, which is basically the idea that god is irrelevant and I really don't care whether or not one exists. That there isn't a plus for ease of this philosophy, since it means less of the evading of smitings.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2006-02-22 04:08am

Stas Bush wrote:
Either China is hard on its Christians
Maybe it's a bit harder on fundies than we are.
Local religions in China don't face any persecution, at least in the places I've seen.

I'm guessing you never met any members of the Falun Gong.

The Chinese google sensorship regarding them speaks for itself.

What we see when looking for information on the Falun Gong

-Various informative links,

What the Chinese government allows it's citizens to see.

-Various informative links regarding the dangerous outlaw cult that is the Falun Gong, written by the Chinese government.

Also, time magazine article on abuses of Falun Gong practitioners

Hehe, check this out...
What Google China has to say about Falun Gong abuses.

"... Given all these dangers and abuses, people should thank the Chinese Government for taking a determined stance to uphold its long-standing values and act as a mighty fortress for the welfare of its citizens ... The followers of Falun Gong are trapped ..."

"... television show. But this claim (and many others) are often overlooked by CNN and other international media agencies that seem only to "frame" the Chinese handling of Falun Gong in terms of the lack of religious freedom or human rights abuses ..."

"US Charges Against China's Dealing with Falun Gong Slammed - [ 翻译此页 BETA ]
The Chinese government settles the Falun Gong issue according to laws, and by doing so it is protecting the basic human rights and the freedoms of citizens and safeguarding China's Constitution and laws, Zhang said. ..."

I love google's new Chinese service, we've never had a more efficient tool for demonstrating Chinese propaganda.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-02-22 05:31am

Spyder
Falun Gong? They are outlawed, and rightfully so. They are literally mad fanatic fucks, who burn themselves up.

I don't really care for freedom of religion when it comes to mad fucks. Mad people should be treated as, you know, mad. Mentally ill, you know.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-02-22 05:40am

More on Falun Dong:

The No. 1 People's Court in Beijing sentenced four top organizers of the Falun Dafa movement to jail terms of 7 to 18 years. All were members of the Communist party. They were charged with using a cult to "obstruct justice, causing human deaths in the process of organizing a cult and illegally obtaining state secrets." The state claimed that 1,400 followers died because they rejected needed medical attention or committed suicide. 1

www.religioustolerance.org
Now, you tell me these people should be let free and loose? They are a criminal cult.

One week ago the Information Centre confirmed that China has sent more than 50 practitioners of the Falun Gong movement to a psychiatric hospital in Beijing since December where they are being treated like psychiatric patients.

Yeah, right. Big crackdown on the mentally ill.

The last time, in November, she brought her four-year-old daughter and unfurled a yellow banner reading, "The Falun Law Is the Universal Law!"

Wow. That seems kind of nice.

In 1992, when a former trumpet player and grain clerk named Li Hongzhi first mingled the tenets of Buddhism, Taoism and traditional Qigong exercises to create Falun Gong, the party took no notice, even when he published books, sold videotapes and lectured to mass gatherings. By some estimates his organization grew to 60 million followers—as many as in the party—and still China's Elite leaders had barely heard of Falun Gong. Until that morning two years ago when they found all those practitioners meditating on their doorstep in silent protest against a magazine article they considered slanderous.

What the communist leadership saw looked eerily like the party itself in its heyday. The organization was hierarchically structured, with neighborhood groups, like cells, acting autonomously but in contact with higher levels. Li taught his practice through tapes and essays, which followers studied, and no one was permitted to interpret or question his words. He taught that physical suffering—including, possibly, the type meted out in prison camps—helps practitioners improve their karma and should be courted. Since the crackdown began, Li has vehemently attacked the party and its "evil" leader Jiang Zemin. He once praised demonstrators who "lose everything" and implied that those who stay home quietly have "reached understanding with the evil beings."

That gives a little insight into what Falung Gong is. It's a totalitarian CULT.

In early January, she found an article by Li Hongzhi called "The Limits of Forbearance." "I copied it onto a CD-ROM and gave it to everyone I know," she says. Through such networks, Li's words spread to more radical practitioners. Later that month, five suspected followers set themselves afire in Tiananmen Square, including a 12-year-old girl and her mother, both of whom died.

Oh, that's even more nice.

Frankly, if you ask me, such "religion" is not allowed to exist.

Tiriol · Post by **Tiriol** » 2006-02-22 06:11am

I define myself (currently) as agnostic with a leaning towards Christianity (more Deistic approach, since I happen to think that creationism is pure, unadultered shit, like ID, and also more humanism-influenced one).

That doesn't make much sense, now does it..?

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2006-02-22 06:33am

Stas Bush wrote: Oh, that's even more nice.

Frankly, if you ask me, such "religion" is not allowed to exist.

Neither do I, this is the point I was addressing.

Local religions in China don't face any ... I've seen.

An exact link from that site you posted please, because the page you linked doesn't mention any of that shit. Also, do you have a source that says that a Falun Gong practitioner did anything worse then unfurl a yellow banner that didn't originate from the Chinese government?

The state claimed that 1,400 followers died because they rejected needed medical attention or committed suicide. 1

Oh gee, the Chinese government said it...must be true then.

Also, you've shifted the goalposts from "The Chinese government have not persecuted any local religions" to "...such "religion" is not allowed to exist". I never said it did, but I fully accept your concession that the Chinese government is infact taking steps to stamp out Falun gong practitioners, as you just pointed out. I think we're done here.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2006-02-22 06:36am

What I did however manage to find from that link you posted:

The Chinese government has relentlessly suppressed religious groups since achieving power in 1949. The rest of the world is most familiar with its oppression of non-registered Christian groups. However, the government has also persecuted many types of new religious and spiritual groups, including the Falun Gong. In fact, its suppression extends beyond such groups to include organizations that teach only simple meditation and gymnastic techniques. The government appears to fear any national group that is capable of organizing its followers into direct action.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-02-22 06:51am

Spyder

Also, do you have a source that says that a Falun Gong practitioner did anything worse then unfurl a yellow banner that didn't originate from the Chinese government?

So it's the "when cultists say they are not dangerous, I believe. When the government says they are mad fucks, I don't believe... because I believe the cultists" line. Great.

Oh gee, the Chinese government said it...must be true then.

I think it's a reasonable conclusion. If you read the article with attention, you would notice that Falun Gong didn't attract attention for quite a while.
Also, it would be ridiculous to persecute on religious grounds one religion, but not another. If religion is the ground for persecution, then why aren't all Buddhists, Daos, Shaoling monks and Confucians facing persecution?
Maybe because they don't tell people to reject medicine and burn themselves up?

My point is that there's a brink when religious practice becomes socially dangerous. Like, when it defies medical treatment and people die. After that, they cannot scream "persecution for religion" - because the grounds for persecution are not just a matter of worldview, but a matter of social dange.

I admit that totalitarian cults, sects face persecution, both in China and even modern Russia. But I also state that such organisations SHOULD be persecuted.

Because cults like Moonies or Dianetics are socially dangerous - as well as many other fundies.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-02-22 06:52am

Also, a quick question. Are Jehowa's Witnesses allowed to deny medical treatment for their members by the law?

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2006-02-22 07:06am

I am a liberal catholic.

Raw Shark · Post by **Raw Shark** » 2006-02-22 08:10am

On the Falun Gong vs China: I have no personal bias for or against the Chinese government, and am in fact inclined to side with a society over a religion, but I have to admit that "Refused Medical Treatment" sounds an awful lot like Double Plus Good Newspeak for "Confined in close quarters without sanitation until bacteria saved us a bullet" to me in the absence of any objective evidence that such refusal is part of the group's beliefs.

On the Original Topic: I am officially Agnostic, but I conduct informal services of praise and supplication to O Mighty Dolla every second Friday at my place of employment.

speaker-to-trolls · Post by **speaker-to-trolls** » 2006-02-22 03:21pm

Spyder wrote:
speaker-to-trolls wrote:I'm not. Atheism isn't a religion it is a lack thereof and humanism is a moral system. I've never quite been able to work up the kind of hatred of religion that some others here seem to have, I do think religion is illogical and serves no good purpose, but I can't help thinking that if it were to dissappear we'd only replace it with an increased sense of nationalism and/or racism.
I mentioned once before; religion doesn't neccessarily involve a deity.

Umm, is this in response to 'atheism is lack of religion' or 'if religion went it'd be replaced by nationalism/racism'?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-22 05:48pm

Stas Bush wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:I disagree with the first part; religious leaders can act humanely. It's just that they often don't.
Often? Humanism from a religious leader is something very rare in this world.

So what? You claimed that religious leaders are never ethical. As long as such people are present, it defeats your point, even if they are one in a million.

Stas Bush wrote:In fact, I believe it's VERY fucking reasonable, if not very democratic. You think otherwise? Look at HAMAS.

I believe she was talking about Soviet Russia. There, publicly announcing your deep faith in, say, Enlil, Mesopotamian god of the wind, would hinder your political career.

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2006-02-22 07:49pm

Stas Bush wrote:Also, a quick question. Are Jehowa's Witnesses allowed to deny medical treatment for their members by the law?

Jehovah's Witnesses? No. They might stigmatize one of their adherents if they got a blood transfusion, since they feel that the soul is in the blood (based on some verse in the Bible).

Other religions, mainly Christian Science, strongly discourage modern medicine and encourage faith healing, but they can't force an adult member to not get medical treatment. Children, however, are a different kettle of fish. If a child dies due to "faith-healing" and, therefore, a lack of medical treatment, the parents might not be jailed. Prosecuters will try to get a charge to stick, but it can fail and the parents will be free people.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-02-22 08:21pm

Stas Bush wrote:Above. I don't know what difficulties Christians face, but frankly I don't care. Local religions seem to be doing fine.

I'm sure some Christians - the quiet, non-evangelizing kind - are doing alright. But many Asian countries, including but not limited to China, have long seen Christianity as an unwanted and dangerous foreign influence.

Aside from Christianity, however - I don't think that many Tibetan buddhists, even those who have profited materially through recent changes, would agree with your assessment about "local religions". Certainly not the Dalai Lama.

Being religious wouldn't bar you from making a reasonable life for yourself, but it WAS a major handicap if you wanted rise into the ranks of the powerful.
In fact, I believe it's VERY fucking reasonable, if not very democratic. You think otherwise? Look at HAMAS.

Hamas - the folks who just came to power in Palestine?

Excuse me - I thought we were discussing atheists in power here. And, by the way, I was referring to the Soviet Union, jackass, so rewind that bait and switch you just tried to pull

Atheism does not call to replace all religions with itself;

You, however, ARE asking that religion be replaced entirely by atheism. And you can't see the potential for oppression in that attitude?

Frankly, I find prostelytizing atheists to be as objectionable as prostelytizing monotheists.

"People" are not always good, religious or not.
People are better now than 1000 years ago. That's a fucking obvious fact, there's moral evolution going on.

Cite. Facts, please. Demonstrate that there has been any sort of moral improvement over the last 1,000 years. Stating it's an obvious fact does not make it one. You made the statement, you back it up.

Um... like North Korea acts "rationally"?
No. Kim whatever his name is acts rationally in the name of himself. It's a pity he doesn't give a fuck about his nation. But he's not out of his mind, if you mean that.

Yeah, I mean he's a fucking fruitcake. Abusing/starving your powerbase is a pretty stupid thing to do if you're a ruler. Provoking larger and more powerful nations with greater resources than yours is pretty fucking stupid.

It is neither inherently evil nor inherently good
It is inherently evil. When people say "turn religion for the good" they mean "let's leave out the nasty bits that call us to slaughter, kill and torture infidels and witches and believe in other idiotic fantasies which science has proven false a long time ago".

While I can wholeheartedly agree on the let's not torture and kill "infidels and witches" part, your statement that you believe religion to be inherently evil reveals your bias. You are a religious bigot.

I also suspect that you are defining religion in terms of Christianity, perhaps to a lesser extent as monotheism - which I wouldn't mind you clarifying. Most of the "convert or be killed" religions are monotheisms, with the polytheists much less inclined to that level of intolerance.

Fundie religion IS inherently evil.

Fundieism is a form of mental sickness, where imaginary things are playing role in the fundie life as if they were REAL.

This is what it scary about religion.

But not all religion is "fundie", and most religious people are not "fundie".

Once again, you are showing a bias on the level of bigotry where religion=fundie=insane

Is atheism ALWAYS rational, that is, based on reason and logic...
I don't "hope". That's what it is. I'm more of an agnostic myself, but atheism of all the worldviews is the most logical one.

Bullshit. Atheism can arise out of defiance. Or despair. Or anger. My mother's a good one for that. Her atheism is because she's mad God never came to her rescue, so it's on the level of "Oh, so you won't help me? Then I won't believe in you! So there!

" Which is hardly a model of rationality.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-02-22 08:33pm

Stas Bush wrote:Also, it would be ridiculous to persecute on religious grounds one religion, but not another.

Stupid. Can't you argue better than this?

Obviously, a government persecutes first those religions seen as most threatening. In China's case, those that can organize people. Thus, Christians and Muslims are more dangerous than, say, Zen Buddhists in monasteries delibrately cutting themselves off from the outside world.

If religion is the ground for persecution, then why aren't all Buddhists, Daos, Shaoling monks and Confucians facing persecution?

Ask the Tibetans how their Buddhists have been treated by China. You can ask the Tibetans monks and nuns themselves, but I believe more of them are living in India these days than in Tibet.

Daoism can and frequently is practiced on one's own - it does not require, nor does it tend to promote national networks. Thus, is less threatening. Shao Lin monks tend to live in their own communities, avoiding much outside contact - thus, again, they are not organizing large numbers of people with potential to revolt. Confucianism is more a philosophy than a religion, and seeing as it promotes unquestioning obeidence to both elders and established government, is probably among the least threatening of all those things you named.

Argue better. Be more familar with the examples you give.

Because cults like Moonies or Dianetics are socially dangerous - as well as many other fundies.

"Moonies" and "Scientologists" (It helps if you can get the fucking name of the movement right, idiot) are fundies only if you define fundy as "belief I don't like and don't agree with".

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-02-22 08:40pm

Stas Bush wrote:Also, a quick question. Are Jehowa's Witnesses allowed to deny medical treatment for their members by the law?

An adult (at least in the US) is permitted to refuse ANY medical treatment, without needing to give any reason whatsoever.

However, one Jehovah's Witness can't refuse treatment on behalf of another, at least not without formal power of attorney. So, if a JW caves in an emergency room and says "Go ahead, Doc, gimme that blood transfusion" the doctor goes ahead - no matter how many church other members are present saying "no". Which is why doctos will attempt verbal persuasion of JW's needing blood treatments - because sometimes they'll decide to go for it.

The courts are still wading through the whole minors/ parental consent thing, but more and more they're either going for "best interests of the child" (which usually means the kid gets the medical treatment) or, if the child is in his/her mid to late teens, asking the minor what they'd want. Which doesn't always happen, but the courts do recognize that a 15 year old (for example) isn't totally incompetant.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-02-22 08:43pm

wolveraptor wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:I disagree with the first part; religious leaders can act humanely. It's just that they often don't.
Often? Humanism from a religious leader is something very rare in this world.
So what? You claimed that religious leaders are never ethical. As long as such people are present, it defeats your point, even if they are one in a million.

Good point. I agree. That is a retreat from Stas Bush's first position on this.

Stas Bush wrote:In fact, I believe it's VERY fucking reasonable, if not very democratic. You think otherwise? Look at HAMAS.
I believe she was talking about Soviet Russia. There, publicly announcing your deep faith in, say, Enlil, Mesopotamian god of the wind, would hinder your political career.

I suspect professing a deep faith in Enlil will probably hurt your political career just about anywhere in the world. Particuarly in Mesopotamia these days, what with the Sunnis and Shiites running the place.

Cos Dashit · Post by **Cos Dashit** » 2006-02-22 09:08pm

Raised Christian, atheist/agnostic for a short time, now a naturalistic pantheist. Ask for more info.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2006-02-22 09:11pm

To answer the original question, I am a member of the Mad Dog Church of Tactical Truth, to be specific, the radical wing of the CTT known as the Wholly Brethren and Cistern of Voracious Truth, which was founded by Brother Cougar Allen. And now you know why my custom title is what it is.