Help Destroy God

axehandle thats not what i sed at all

religious people should do more to change the organisations that they are affilliated with due to their beliefs, as a fundamentalist will more likely listen to U more than I for who I am, i call it another form of conversion and if u can convince one you convince a million or i have no sympathy

believe in an indoctrinated 'god' if ya want, thats my belief but also the organisation of people that fuck up needs change with the help of those who label themselves such, you have a responsibilty, u just don't be an anarchist and go happy days and watch it all pass by and i've got other things to do, associated with me as nobody can be everywhere, so get busy if its such a big part of ya life and such a big muck up of all of ours, ITS IMPORTANT!!!

or i will fight ya god if u ignore with impunity

 

Closed-mindedness has nothing to do with it. Like the comedian Bill Maher says; "I'm not pre-judging, i'm judging." There's a big difference.

There's absolutely something wrong with it, because it's illogical and irrational. The automatic response is always the same; "You can't prove 100% there is no god." Quite right, however the value of this fact is drastically overstated. I cannot 100% prove that unicorns do not exist. This fact does not mean that I should seriously entertain the possibility of their existence, or that trying to understand the nature of unicorns as a legitimate area of study. I don't know what if anything preceded the big bang, but the honest answer, the logical approach, is to acknowledge what you do not know, not to just grasp at an explaination that's emotionally comforting regardless of validity. That's just the tip of the iceberg. To cut to the point, religious belief is fundamentally irrational and has a destructive effect on society.

There's no comparison. I'm not actually promoting any specific belief system. You don't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to be an atheist.

There's no dilineation, they're intertwined. As previously mentioned, simply the irrational nature of belief in an omnipotent creator is reason enough by itself to confront it.

Religion is a hierarchy, at the apex of which is the infallible celestial dictator.

.....Because that's what the bible says.

It's not an issue of freedom. People have the RIGHT to believe crazy, stupid, or harmful ideas. However, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to sit idly by and accept it any more than we do the ideas of white supremacists, holocaust deniers, etc., etc. There is no other sphere, sports, politics, pop culture, where someone's opinions are considered sacred. Only on the subject of religion do we erect new conversational rules, because religion can't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Yes religious groups do some good works. However, this does not excuse the immeasurable harm they cause. Moreover, this is a bogus argument. There are plenty of atheists who do charitable works as well. There's no evidence to support a causal link between the irrational belief in a supernatural creator and the charitable impulse. Some religious people might be extremely charitable, but religion did not necessarily make them so.

As I said none of what you characterize as the "good parts" necessarily stem from religion, itself. However, all the bad parts do. Religion is irrational, authoritarian, and promotes bigotry and violence.

Like Sam Harris said, besides killing eachother all we've got is conversation, and religion is a conversation stopper. It erects barriers to reasoned dialogue.

This is just picking and choosing. There are some positive values in scripture, like the golden rule, but this is just cherry picking. There's virtually nothing valuable in those books that can't be gleaned from other sources.

 

@ NGNM85: I actually heard that there's actually NO mention of Hell or Purgatory in the Bible, but was invented by the Catholics to get more cash out of folk instead.

 

too me it all boils down to this, if you don't believe in god or the existence of whatever god like entity thingy, then you must really believe in coincidences.

 

please then explain to me why every civilization from the dawning of time believed in some sort of deity or gods, despite the fact these civilizations didn't meet or have contact with each other for thousands of years or longer. are you calling that many years of life irrational and illogical?

 

um its called 'the great migration' and being stuck inside during an ice age, it started off as an ode to seasons that didn't come often in 'hope' and then rebirth then.......and now its a bunch of crap specially since science has disproved so many untruthes instilled through religious organisation to instill control of the masses, so u can be spirtual but organisations r corruptive as fuck!!!! as yes it goes back to a dawn of time and then white men took over the world all the while spreading the disease, now they call it economic terrorism, its a new 'god' abd they use 'religion' to sell it while stealing the children

most people aren't 'evil' its only a few, many have been treated like animals and so act seemingly accordingly, i mean marketers come from a bad place and a leopord never changes it spots and so took ideas of 'facism' as hitker fooled whole nations and use them to a diff advantage, we know this maaan, any forefathers who fought fo freedom would be out on the line as it don't come for nada but we haz nets toooo for quickness of info but it ain't the ends at all, we needa ta move forward and onnn

i have sed i am spiritual through indoctrination all over but not religious and so believe they should be simmered down as i see nothing spirital in religion at all.

its merely a bag of philosphy someone wrote a while back, bit like mr middle eastern bearded one is the new messiah to some, that is the byword of 'evil', not him but the action and lack thereof who claim something.

 

An attempt to explain that which cannot be explained, using a familiar frame of reference. We make things happen in our local environment, therefore similar, just more powerful, makes things happen in the universe as a whole. Also, an attempt to overcome trauma of death.

 

It's really quite simple. Science is a relatively recent development in the history of our species. Early civilizations had no means of comprehending or explaining the world so they created mythologies. Eventually, we began to understand more and more about our universe and how it works and we've steadily let go of these ideas, the predominance of monotheism, I believe, is symptomatic of this process. Simply put, any assumption, especially really wild and extreme assumptions like those proposed by religion, require extreme evidence, yet offer none. Jumping to far-fetched conclusions without any factual basis is by nature irrational.

 

I think the question is one of how you interpret the world but, importantly, also one of how you translate that interpretation to other people.

Personally I think that harbouring a religion notion, a belief in Gods (enter Allah, Zeus, Jesus, Elvis, Thor or Santa as appropriate) is a way of STOPPING your interpretation at a fixed point and PREVENTING further elucidation.

As I mentioned earlier our ancestors described things as they saw them and according to the social and cultural dictates of the times they lived in. Where once they saw someone 'possessed by demons' they now see a viral infection for example. Over the centuries we have dropped interpretations which are limited in their scope, hence the continuing decline in religion as a means of describing phenomena.

Rather than truely investigting phenomena, religion presents a cut off point for reason and rational scientific exploration (see Karl Popper). That is to say rather than explore people simply GIVE UP and enter GOD or religion in the gap to 'EXPLAIN' simply because they're too lazy. This is as far from libertarianism as you could go.

If you want to understand how a steam engine works, you don't say "Ah yes god works in mysterious ways" - no, you uncover the mechanics and the physics and create an apprciation to the extent that you can construct the steam engine yourself, or at least appreciate how it works. Of course when we apply this model to the universe we are discussing a massive amount of variables but the process is EXACTLY the same even if the end result seems impossibly distant.

By presenting "God" what we in effect do is stop this process in its tracks, stop this honest investiagtion into who and what we are. Religion then actually confines the mind and in so doing, imprisons it. It is NOT and cannot be libertarian.

And that is only discussing a PERSONAL interpretation. What happens when someone decides to communicate their interpretation to others? The result is a CULT or an organised institution which are EXCLUSIVE by their nature. We might consider one of many examples. The Inquisition, established by the Catholic Church, murdered upwards of nine million women for 'witchcraft'. Hitler believed in "The Third Reich that would last 1000 years" and used his interpretation to justify his actions.

As an anarchist I think we need to liberate ourselves from these types of interpretation by simply asking ourselves where and when do you stop investigating the world around you?

That is only one aspect of this argument but it's very very important. Because most of us call ourselves anarchists we should surely be concerned with removing impositions to our freedom rather than placing them in our way? \m/


It is easy to dismiss the above and to produce notions of the 'quality' of religious charity work, or moral uprighteousness, or the 'good' in religion and do so in such a way as to present it as if it where the origin of such things. I also do charity work and I have strong moral ideas which were born out of a libertarian interpretation of the world that has nothing to do with religion or god whatsover!

 

Destroy all bibles, and people will forget all about god, and religion.

 

i personally see religion as a fear of whats to come after death. nobody can accurately say what happens to ones conience after death nor have they ever been able to. i see this as a stepping tone for religion of all forms to spring up ever since the dawn of man kind.. if a person or group of people create an idea about what happens to them after death, wether it be true or false, just to live a happy life for themselves then so be it. just dont go cramming it down the non-believers throats. i myself am not religious but at the same token i dont hate the people who do believe as long as they dont push it on me, which rarely happens in my case... just a thought

 

Two great hates that hate great together!

 

1.) Anarchism is liberation from the dogma of church and state. However, we have to be careful that we don't create a cult on the ashes of the old. Hate fascism, not the fascist so to speak. We must oppose their ideals that create oppression, not the people who are oppressed by the system.

2.) The religious have had just as much a hand in radical politics as atheists and I would argue that the certian religious folk have done more to expose the injustices of the system than any anarchist, especially anarchists on an internet forum.

3.) These radicals, while not anarchist, are undoubtedly left-wing and anti-conservative. As anarchists, we can use their writings to further our causes and open the minds of people who would otherwise turn away from our ideologies. If you have a Christian friend, give them "A Theology of Liberation" and see if it changes their life.

but

 

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you know exactly who is on this, or other forums, and what they accomplish with their activism? Don't stereotype people, you have no idea who you're talking about with a generalized cheap shot like that...

 

1) Fascist keep fascism alive. Why wouldn't you want to kill them to ? Also, hate is a bit strong word. I think no one really hates, it's more like loathe.

2) Like we give a damn ? Religious fans have killed more millions of people, whilst anarchist..? We oposse organized religion, "mainstream" or whatever you wish to call it. You can achive everything witout masters, so can religious people witout god.

 

No, I don't. But is it any different to dismiss someone because they have religious motivations for their radical politics than because they post on some internet forum?

And in my experience, internet anarchists are like everything else on the web; full of bravado and fire only when there's anonymity. Those that actually follow up on their beliefs offline get my support and respect, but you're kidding yourself if you think most e-anarchists are also activists.

1.) The majority of people in the world support the corruption of the system, either because of ignorance or fear. The "office drone", the "soccer mom", etc. And I wouldn't consider these people the enemy. They are victims. Nevertheless their current lives, in their own little way, ensure the current ideologies remain strong. Most of these people will not suddenly change their ways just by reading some pamphlet or Proudhon essay. You need to ease them into anarchism; its considered a radical ideology for a reason.

2.) Ideology kills people. Religion just so happens to be a common ideology. Nonetheless, history is filled with people killing in the name of some "higher" ideal; the Romans used their empire, Crusaders their god, Hitler a disgusting racial dogma, and Stalin is own take on left-wing ideology. The issue isn't religion, its mankind. I personally despise religion, however, if one's beliefs guide them to anarchism and urge them to make a difference I will support them. Just as I'll support the atheist who is doing the same; the means are different perhaps, but the end is the what matters.

 

In my experience most of my fellow activist anarchists are also heavily online, so no I'm not fooling myself; are most of the people on this particular forum activists? No, but then again most of the people on this forum aren't anarchist either. However I've found that other forums do contain I high number of active anarchists and that the web, by its very nature, facilitates communications between us.

You will never get anarchists to completely trust anybody with religious motivations no matter how radical their politics, their track record over the centuries speaks for itself. Can we work with them on certain issues? Of course we can, and do on a daily basis, but we also work with other anti-capitalist groups that we don't completely trust don't we? I don't think either group of people should be dismissed out of hand.

 

I kinda missed the point. You say that fascists are victims of society ? People who support this system without criticizing it are more-or-less stubborn. You can't explain something to stubborn person, of course you can try. But in most of the cases you fail, so you have to go with stronger oppresion.I agree with your statements, but I think there's something more we can do. I'm not fighting against people, I'm fighting against their ( our ) stupidity. And I'm not talking about right-wing supporters here ( I don't have ANY sympathy for them, and please don't tell me they are victims of something. )

I don't see why you 'defend' religion so much. I guess everyone have their own reasons. For me, all religion is same. If you support it, you support everything that comes with it either good or bad things.