Those who would convert and those who would eradicate religion

[kejos]

The second one
It would be the most tollerant out of the two

It would. So the answer to the OP question 'Am I mistaken?' is 'Yes'.

There are indeed places like Saudi and Burma where a particular religion is highly oppressive, but in most modern countries there is no pressure to conform to any theist belief, and it is misleading to suggest that theism inevitably leads to totalitarianism.

 

[The Enlightened One]

indeed

 

[Caladan]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

Smells of paranoia stephen. although its hard to get an accurate number, one study indicates that there are only 2.5% atheists world wide of the entire human population. it pretty much reminds me of the way Germans were worried about a tiny Jewish minority because it was disproportionately successful, today many leading scientists are atheists, and this fact may threaten people who desire to keep certain traditions.
perhaps you are reflecting on your own society? an Irish archaeologist I've talked with in recent excavations has told me that people overthere are pushing religion aside. and personally I'm all for pushing religion aside from social and political issues overhere as well, does it mean that I want to eradicate religion? I'm not sure, I would only like to neutralize those religious phenomena which effect my personal life and the society and politics of my nation, only because I know to well what its doing to the normal citizenry.

 

[sandandfoam]

perhaps you are reflecting on your own society?

No I was reflecting on a dialogue I was having on here.
IRL i stay away from the subject of religion, except on occasion to tell some holy joe I'm an atheist if they're bothering me

 

[Biostudent287]

There is a difference.
People who wish to eradicate religion wish to eradicate it because it is nothing but an evil institution, based on no evidence whatsoever. These people would have it replaced with reason, truth and understanding about ourselves and the world we live in. The world would be a better place without it. Respect should not be given to such an institution.

 

[Storm]

There is a difference.
People who wish to eradicate religion wish to eradicate it because it is nothing but an evil institution, based on no evidence whatsoever. These people would have it replaced with reason, truth and understanding about ourselves and the world we live in. The world would be a better place without it. Respect should not be given to such an institution.

No, people who want to eradicate religion wish to eradicate it because they are mere bigots.

Please, explain what's so "evil" about Unitarian Universalism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

Do you care about the method employed?

For instance, I'm big into secularism: I would prefer that religion not have any special status, and I don't think churches should have special political powers. This is something I'm actually willing to take steps to make happen.

At the same time, I would prefer that parents not indoctrinate their kids in their religious beliefs. I'm not about to interfere with anyone to make this happen, but if people were to choose it on their own, I would think it was a good thing.

I think these are the two main things that religion uses to sustain itself, so I think that if these two things, which I see as both positive, were to happen, then religion would most likely gradually wane until it reaches a point where if it hasn't disappeared altogether, it's at least negligible.

Given all that, would you lump me in with your "zealots"?

 

[oldfuture]

I would like to use the word (Extending) rather than (Converting) all the religions which came from heavenly sources (christianty,islam,hebrew) are extensions to each other,or like nowdays we can say...updates

but converting is a human concept reflecting how hard it is to change your direction,which in fact is extending and not converting..

 

[*Anne*]

There is a difference.
People who wish to eradicate religion wish to eradicate it because it is nothing but an evil institution, based on no evidence whatsoever. These people would have it replaced with reason, truth and understanding about ourselves and the world we live in. The world would be a better place without it. Respect should not be given to such an institution.

Yikes. That's an intense 2nd post!

 

[Storm]

Do you care about the method employed?

For instance, I'm big into secularism: I would prefer that religion not have any special status, and I don't think churches should have special political powers. This is something I'm actually willing to take steps to make happen.

At the same time, I would prefer that parents not indoctrinate their kids in their religious beliefs. I'm not about to interfere with anyone to make this happen, but if people were to choose it on their own, I would think it was a good thing.

I think these are the two main things that religion uses to sustain itself, so I think that if these two things, which I see as both positive, were to happen, then religion would most likely gradually wane until it reaches a point where if it hasn't disappeared altogether, it's at least negligible.

Given all that, would you lump me in with your "zealots"?

I wouldn't.

I think one thing a lot of atheists (not you, Penguin) ignore is that MANY religious folks are just as staunchly secular. I'm one.

My secularism is as much an expression of my faith as my politics.
1) I truly believe that virtually all paths are valid, and which one you choose to tread is deeply personal. The government has no business interfering with anyone's choice.
2) This one's a bit selfish, but as a religious minority, theocracy scares the crap out of me, too.
3) Freedom of conscience is paramount to spirituality. Faith means nothing if you're not free to reject it.

I could go on.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

Not only are there differences between them, there are differences within them. Perhaps you need to look deeper than rhetoric?

 

[Biostudent287]

First of all, people who wish to eradicate religion are not all 'bigots.' As I have said in another thread, atheism and science is open-minded and if there was evidence for God then it would be accepted.

I am not, of course, referring to moderates. However, a moderate climate of respect for and fear of offending the religious provides a climate from which more extreme positions can come about. I will stick to Christianity:

I feel that it is wrong for people of the church to claim to know the mind of God and to tell people how their lives should be lived. It is a form of child abuse to label a child with the religion of his or her parents and expect the child to follow these values. It is also wrong to teach children creationism in schools as if it has the same scientific merit as evolution.

This is aside from actual child abuse that Christianity is riddled with. The Pope himself knew of allegations of child abuse amongst members of the church and it is for this reason that there is a campaign to arrest the Pope upon his next visit to Britain.

The Pope, from the Vatican, feels that he has the right to spread the lie that condoms will not help to stop the spread of AIDS. To tell people in third world countries who have little other sources of informaion that condoms are wrong makes the Pope responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, including children. AIDS is bad but condoms are worse? What gives religion the right?

I do not feel that it is bigotted to refuse to give 'respect' to institutions that contain such crimes and I can not understand how any person can remain a member of a religion when members of the same / similar religions use their faiths as excuses for such crimes.

Christianity has a lot to answer for, from all of the above, to the holding back of the advancement of science, to the views on homosexuality and more.

 

[Biostudent287]

Yikes. That's an intense 2nd post!

Start as you mean to go on?

 

[Storm]

First of all, people who wish to eradicate religion are not all 'bigots.'

What would you call people who can't tolerate diversity?

As I have said in another thread, atheism and science is open-minded and if there was evidence for God then it would be accepted.

1) Anti-theism has little to do with atheism, and nothing at all to do with science.
2) Atheism and science likewise have nothing to do with each other.
3) Tolerance for diversity has (say it with me) nothing to do with evidence.

I am not, of course, referring to moderates.

"Of course?" When you say "religion," you include moderates as well as extremists.

However, a moderate climate of respect for and fear of offending the religious provides a climate from which more extreme positions can come about. I will stick to Christianity:

Again, when you say "religion" you include everybody. If you mean Christianity, SAY "Christianity." And even then, bear in mind that there is such a thing as a Christian moderate.

Things for new people to know in order not to look completely foolish while posting in RF

I feel that it is wrong for people of the church to claim to know the mind of God and to tell people how their lives should be lived.

Pot, have you met my friend kettle?

Those who want to "eradicate religion" are doing the same thing, just without God.

It is a form of child abuse to label a child with the religion of his or her parents and expect the child to follow these values.

No, it isn't. Fair warning, as someone who was actually abused as a child, this is one of the best ways to make me lose my temper.

Abuse is traumatic. It leaves deep scars, as well as wounds that never heal at all. Religion does not qualify, and calling it abusive only serves to belittle the very real suffering I and far too many others have endured.

It is also wrong to teach children creationism in schools as if it has the same scientific merit as evolution.

Granted, but see the thread linked above.

This is aside from actual child abuse that Christianity is riddled with. The Pope himself knew of allegations of child abuse amongst members of the church and it is for this reason that there is a campaign to arrest the Pope upon his next visit to Britain.

While this is a legitimate grievance, it is all too often used as a political football, which is almost as bad.

The Pope, from the Vatican, feels that he has the right to spread the lie that condoms will not help to stop the spread of AIDS. To tell people in third world countries who have little other sources of informaion that condoms are wrong makes the Pope responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, including children. AIDS is bad but condoms are worse? What gives religion the right?

What makes this typical of religion? Where in Christianity does it say that such tactics are acceptable? I'm pretty sure their God was rather clear about bearing false witness.

When you use a legitimate, specific criticism as a club against those who have nothing to do with it, you rob it of its power.

Religion, or in this case, the religious should not be exempt from criticism. Nor should it's wealth of mind-bogglingly diverse adherents be lumped together.

I do not feel that it is bigotted to refuse to give 'respect' to institutions that contain such crimes and I can not understand how any person can remain a member of a religion when members of the same / similar religions use their faiths as excuses for such crimes.

Then don't respect them. That's not bigotry; respect should be earned. However, when you lump people together, self-righteously condemn them, and say they shouldn't have the very rights which protect you (freedom of conscience), you cross the line to bigotry.

Christianity has a lot to answer for, from all of the above, to the holding back of the advancement of science, to the views on homosexuality and more.

Not really. Some Christians do. Big difference.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

the main similarity i can see is the fear inherent in either standpoint.
the religious (from the OP) fears a world full of evil.
the anti-theist (from the OP) fears a world full of gods.

it's not hard to see why someone would globalize hir message in order to see the world go in a direction that suits hir. and it's fortunate that there are far too many dissenters to allow this kind of fear based behavior make any sweeping changes to the global scenery.

but as it's been pointed out, neither of these are necessarily realistic.
not all religions preach that EVERY last person has to believe the same thing as you for the game to be won. and most secularists dont oppose religion as an institution, we simply want religious practice and dogma to remain where it belongs - the private sector. so as much as we can keep beating the drum of "fanatics are fanatics no matter what they believe", i think it's most important to keep our eyes on the gray area within the spectrum, since that's where most of us live.

 

[kejos]

I feel that it is wrong for people of the church to claim to know the mind of God and to tell people how their lives should be lived.

So does God, if the New Testament is anything to go by.

It is a form of child abuse to label a child with the religion of his or her parents and expect the child to follow these values.

That's why Christians ignore labels and refuse to allow church membership unless there is long-term proof of commitment.

It is also wrong to teach children creationism in schools as if it has the same scientific merit as evolution.

But then that's antichrist activity.

This is aside from actual child abuse that Christianity is riddled with. The Pope

Pope, Christianity? Come on.

Christianity has a lot to answer for, from all of the above, to the holding back of the advancement of science

Michael Faraday let you write that.

to the views on homosexuality and more.

Ah, the nitty gritty.

 

[dogsgod]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

There's many more than two sides to this.
I would like to see religion fade away on its own failings, though it won't happen in my lifetime.

 

[Magic Man]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

You'll have to be more specific. What do you mean by "eradicate"? I would like to see most organized religion gone, but I'm not into getting rid of it through force or laws or anything like that.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Hey biostudent. While you're at it. Explain how Paganism is evil too please. "And it harm none, do as you will." Yeah real evil...

 

[ChristineES]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

Extremists views are rare (or at least I hope so). No one can truly change another person, although so many have tried. God gave us all freedom of choice.