Everybody: What stance should non-believers take towards religion?

[Don Penguinoini]

Dawkins hates religion. Anyone who hates is WRONG.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I hate some things. And I'm not wrong.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Hating religion and trying to eradicate it is the measure i am using... Not like hating when people pick their noses.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Sometimes religion makes peole irrational and mean though... Like, some people will not marry anyone who isn't the same religion as they are... And some people are mean to other people, just because they are of a different religion. I'm not saying that any one religion does it more than others, or that some non-religous people don't do it too, but I think if we could all agree on the same religion, or lack thereof, then that would be one less thing that people could discriminate against.

 

[YmirGF]

I voted "Udder", as I am a proponent of "spiritual anarchy". Why is it that people must agree? *giggles*

 

[Random]

I voted "Udder", as I am a proponent of "spiritual anarchy". *

We know.

Why is it that people must agree? *giggles

S**ts and giggles aside, the desire for a common purpose is the answer, I believe. People can generally see no way to establish a common purpose amongst individuals without ironing out their differences through conflict. But that only creates a vicious circle wherein they end up more divided than ever before.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Religion is the nemesis of logic, quantifiable, science, evidence, and burden of proof.

 

[lunamoth]

I think this is a good question when compared to a similar question:

What stance should non-drinkers take towards alcohol?

1. Push for the outlawing of alcohol, which is clearly a destructive force in society. Billions of dollars are lost due to alcohol cutting into employee productivity and crime associated with alcohol abuse. Billions more on helping people overcome the addiction and disease caused by alcoholism. Families destroyed. We obviously should have zero tolerance for alcohol consumption.

2. Push for people to always be moderate in alcohol consumption. No bar can serve more than one or two drinks per customer, depending on your body weight.

3. Let people drink whatever they want, even though it comes at great cost to society.

4. Other.

 

[Random]

Religion is the nemesis of logic, quantifiable, science, evidence, and burden of proof.

Some "agnostic". Looks like the Dirt Clique have gotten to you... Oh well, another lost soul for God to chalk up to "resentment"...

 

[Sunstone]

...the religion of evolutionary biology he promotes...

Are you quite certain Dawkins promotes a religion of evolutionary biology? If so, what makes you certain he does?

 

[Sunstone]

I think this is a good question when compared to a similar question:

What stance should non-drinkers take towards alcohol?

1. Push for the outlawing of alcohol, which is clearly a destructive force in society. Billions of dollars are lost due to alcohol cutting into employee productivity and crime associated with alcohol abuse. Billions more on helping people overcome the addiction and disease caused by alcoholism. Families destroyed. We obviously should have zero tolerance for alcohol consumption.

2. Push for people to always be moderate in alcohol consumption. No bar can serve more than one or two drinks per customer, depending on your body weight.

3. Let people drink whatever they want, even though it comes at great cost to society.

4. Other.

Good analogy.

 

[kai]

fundamentalism is the tip of an iceberg of moderation, it is supported from a foundation of tolerence. i find it hard to understand how certain trascendant feelings. are pinned to myths and fables of old.

religion itself isnt as fascinating as peoples willingness to embrace such stories as realities.

 

[Storm]

I voted UU, but the Dennett approach as you describe it seems perfectly fine, too.

 

[gnostic]

After reading the OP again, I still can't vote the poll, because none of them neatly fit me. There are some points, here and there, that make sense, hence have some validity, but the rest of description of either one of these 3 simply don't fit me at all.

Dawkin saying that the religion is a source of the problem, and I would agree that they are one of sources of problem in the world, but how could you possibly get rid of religion, without compulsion, violence and bloodshed? You can't. And I don't like violence and I don't want to force people into anything, especially in regard to an individual's belief.

Dennett's position is also equally untenable. Unless you can change the people belief that some aspects of religion is bad, then there is no way you can their mind.

 

[Poisonshady313]

As long as nobody's hurting anybody... let them do their thing.

As long as religious folk aren't pushing their religion on non-religious folk... let them do their thing.

 

[antonio]

Why must only non believers be concerned about religion? I am a believer and I think organized religion is evil. It's evil because humans have the capacity to be evil. I am a zen Buddhist who is catholic. Catholicism and every other religion I know of even some areas of Buddhism take on political aspects and want to force other people to do what they want. Religion, today and in history, has killed and tortured to accomplish their objective. We should have freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. Our constitution has excellent humanist values. freedom, liberty, equality which are constantly hampered in their full realization by RELIGION.
antonio:rainbow1:

 

[darkendless]

Why must only non believers be concerned about religion?

Whether you like it or not, religion is shoved down your throat. Your kids cant escape it at school, you cant go shopping without christians chasing you down the street begging you to accept jesus, its even in some national constitutions (America and Australia as examples).

To the OP, i don't think you can fix something that was broken to start with. Its not as simple as ironing out the creases, nothing the church does will suit everyone, so its best to do nothing and let the underlings sort themselves out. Although i agree to some things Dawkins says, his attitude is'nt going to convert the world, so he's better off letting everyone be, and preaching to his own flock.

 

[Storm]

Please cite an example of religion in the American Constitution.

 

[darkendless]

Please cite an example of religion in the American Constitution.

"so help me god" part of he oath to the military, isn't really considered part of the constitution but other than just national service i don't know how to classify it? Same goes with Australia (citizenship, military, public education).

 

[Storm]

That's not the same thing. One is an archaic turn of phrase (which, iirc, is volutary) and the other is a (nonexistant) violation of the Establishment Clause.