> abolishing them will not cure the foundry cause which is the desire.
No, but it makes it harder to execute when everyone thinks for themselves. If everyone was educated to think critically rather than handing over part of their brain's processing power to a mob, controlling populations would be harder. Much, much harder.
The part you're missing (and what I think kls is getting at) is that groupthink is not exclusive to religion. A group of people will gravitate towards each other and stop critically thinking. It sucks, but it's human nature.
Atheists are just as capable of groupthink as any other group (conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, capitalists). And just as religion has been used, and still continues to be used, to justify some truly horrible things; the militant desire for the elimination of religion can be just as bad. Sitting around pointing fingers at a very large and varied group of philosophies doesn't really do any good...
In the parent post you mention we burned Toyota at the stake for a faulty floor mat, and then in the same sentence say "we pay no mind to the religious implications of our world's enormous head counts all tied to religion." What do you propose? We burn those religious at the stake? Because your groupthink of atheism makes you feel superior (saved)? Because critical thinking is king, and those that you deem unable to do so are inferior (not saved)?
I propose we declare religion a fallacy and declare that it provides no value to a population. You don't need to hurt people to eliminate ignorance.
My problem is with the group think mentality. Religion just happens to be a larger manifestation of group think, but more so a way for people to orchestrate their desires in the guise of being from the word of god making any argument (like this one) absolutely unacceptable if it questions that authority. That's why religion stands out - because it has the power to control people in mass without much resistance. Help me understand why this is good for society. As such, I've only seen people dance around why it is good that religion is velcro-ed to our behavior. Help me see why a large group of people forfeiting their critical thinking in place of a bunch of mythological fallacies as A Good Thing.
You seem to imply that holding philosophical beliefs about our purpose somehow is an indicator of intelligence or lack of and of ones ability to logically analyze the subject. Spiritual beliefs or the lack of are not an indicator of ones ability to critically think. There are many religious people that have weighed the evidence and feel that it falls on the side of creation and do so based on the best evidence available. At a certain point we are left with only philosophy and one must use philosophical reasoning to help them rationalize the world. While we have made a lot of advancements in science there is still a lot that we do not know, if I may I would like to suggest you watch the following series called the Boundaries of the Knowable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF54xqYhIGA it is a very good series that highlights the depth of how much we don't know and shows the importance that philosophical viewpoints are even today in reasoning and even scientific reasoning. In my opinion religious people have strong cases for an architect in their arguments that the universe is fined tuned, as the multiverse is basically the same argument but structured for a naturalist viewpoint, but both side make the argument for a supernatural entity that created this universe, both are equally untestable and unscientific, but those that hold a theist view have the corollary evidence of fine tuning so from a purely rational and critical thinking view point, based on all known evidence the argument for intelligence creating the universe seems to have the edge. My intention is not to get into a theological debate, or to support creation for that matter, but rather to highlight that one can very easily use rational thought processes to critically analyze the situation and come to the conclusion that there is a creator and have a totally logical thought process in doing so.
Conversely just as with religion, there are many atheist that blindly follow their dogma. I have several relatives that fall into this category, so I am very familiar with the type. For lifestyle reasons such as partying, drinking and a highly active sex life they rejected religious based moral codes as it conflicted with their desires, they then went on to find a dogma that helped justify their choice. On any occasion available they parrot what the thinkers of their particular dogma say and use it as justification for their choice. They never critically analyzed their choice of dogma it just aligned with their world view. As such they are the same as a non-rational religious person just the opposite side of the coin. They are displaying the very same human traits and tendencies, finding something that aligns with their desires and using it for justification of their world view.
Finally, once again I would like to state my intention is not to support religion or atheism, but rather to play devils advocate in hopes of helping others see that the issue is complex human nature, we need to find out how to fix our nature as it is the root cause, blaming religion or atheism or socialism or capitalism, diverts focus from the real issue and that is we need to align incentives and identity with productive efforts as opposed to the age old cure all of branding some other group as the cause of all our ills and dehumanizing them by insinuating they are less intelligent or less human for whatever reason.
> You seem to imply that holding philosophical beliefs about our purpose somehow is an indicator of intelligence or lack of and of ones ability to logically analyze the subject.
I don't know if I implied it, but yes – if what you believe in is false and can be easily tested and verified to be false and still manage to sink belief in it, and profess others to do the same or "you'll go to hell", otherwise – you're not intelligent.
To use a poor analogy: In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (original one, not the shit one from a few years ago), a dude named Mike TV is teleported from one TV to another. During this process Mike is scrambled up into tiny little squares and carried to the other side of the room where the tiny squares are put back together. Magic. Now, since I don't understand how analog/radio signals work, I could just take this as my way of explaining it. It's much easier than talking about radio waves and all of that techy stuff. The trouble is, no one would ever allow me to disseminate this garbage theory to anyone. People will tell me I was misleading people and lying to them. Turns out, misleading people is bad.
So in trying to explain the world around us, why should I be okay with a ideology with so many holes? Talking snakes? Really? Before you come back (and not address the talking snakes, noah's arc, etc), try not to separate the religious theology from the religion – because religion specifically tells you not to do that, however more convenient it may make your argument.
> In my opinion religious people have strong cases for an architect in their arguments
The problem with the hyper-atheist movement is that it has told the 'other side' that they should stop thinking about how their story evolves. My arguments aren't against an architect, just that we don't know shit about the architect or that there is an architect. Pretending we do is a lie. If a god comes down and announces himself, I'll be the first believer. Until then, I'm on the fence watching bullshitters disseminate bullshit.
> For lifestyle reasons such as partying, drinking and a highly active sex life they rejected religious based moral code
No. If that's the case, Catholics should be atheist because they are easily the highlight of debauchery-related news. There is definitely a sense of freedom where you can dictate your own path. Whether that leads to drinking, or drugs is moot. Oppression also causes poor behaviour, let's not forget.
> I would like to state my intention is not to support religion or atheism, but rather to play devils advocate in hopes of helping others..
Nope. You're religious. You come to a place where the main occupation is programming; a vice that shows illogic the door unfavourably and expect to hear clamour at the idea of global misinformation dissemination. Not to mention call athiests drug, alcohol addled fiends.
To be an atheist, it means you start with a blank piece of paper and only fill in what is verifiable truth. As a religious person, the plan is to start with a fully drawn picture and struggle to grey out the more awful points. It's common for people to see atheism as a 'holier than thou' exhibition. But really, it's religious folk who start off claiming to know it all.
Nope. You're religious. You come to a place where the main occupation is programming; a vice that shows illogic the door unfavourably and expect to hear clamour at the idea of global misinformation dissemination. Not to mention call athiests drug, alcohol addled fiends.
Actually I have identified as agnostic for a long time, and I don't see where I called call atheists drug, alcohol addled fiends, rather I highlighted a personal experience with family members that identify with atheism and who chose it because it aligned with there preferences, as well as noted there particular reasons for doing so to highlight that lack of critical analysis happens on both sides of the fence. You are becoming defensive and inferring items that are not being said. To be very clear I stated that my relatives chose atheism due to it aligning with their desires not that all atheist have those desires, but in saying that some do and some don't which was the overarching point, which is while there are true thinkers in most movements there are also non critical thinkers, atheism is not impervious to that reality.
If your argument is against atheism, you'll find no resistance from me. I could care less about the atheist movement or otherwise. That's the whole premise of critical thinking - to never align yourself because of a few common ideals. Atheism is a movement. Critical thinking is a way of life. That's why religion is such a hard pill to swallow. You can't, in good conscience, be a critical thinker AND believe in talking snakes. Once you come to that realization there is really no turning back. Then you see how religion corrupts indefinitely and absolutely.
No, but it makes it harder to execute when everyone thinks for themselves. If everyone was educated to think critically rather than handing over part of their brain's processing power to a mob, controlling populations would be harder. Much, much harder.