digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

We'd be better off without Religion

richarddawkins.net — In London's Westminster Central Hall on March 27, some 2,000 people turned out to hear Hitchens, Dawkins and philosopher A.C. Grayling debate a trio of religious authorities on the question "We'd be better off without Religion." (The motion carried, 1,205 to 778.)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mike1630, on 10/12/2007, -96/+242Dawkins is the man.
    • Railer, on 10/12/2007, -42/+77Hitchens, Dawkins in the same debate. The only thing I would prefer is listening to the conversation of these two in a pub after the debate, couple smokes and a couple beers later then your going to hear a few good stories. And my guess they'll be filthy.
    • Railer, on 10/12/2007, -53/+26I'm sorry if anyone took offense to my previous comment. I'm a huge fan of these men, I've read all their books, and both men have a great sense of humour. I'm just saying these guys in their lectures have to be more serious, in a more relaxed atmosphere, the conversations would be amazing.
    • RealHyperX, on 10/12/2007, -197/+189I am catholic, my church helps battered women, poor people, children and many others. We have a soup kitchen every day. We are here to take care of people. Even if God is a myth, no other service exists that does what we do. We do not take money from taxes, we put in our own money for these things. We help. Have you ever talked to someone that lost a loved one? Church and faith helps tremendously.
    • LBTS, on 10/12/2007, -61/+4railer, good comeback. Imus should take note.
    • jkleinfeld, on 10/12/2007, -45/+6make that 1,206 to 778
    • vulgrin, on 10/12/2007, -80/+233"We do not take money from taxes"

      B.S. you get freedom from property taxes and other tax breaks. Can you imagine what the property taxes would be if you just taxed all of the Catholic Church's properties in the U.S.? - Try billions of dollars.

      And there are plenty of other organizations out there that feed the poor and help the homeless who aren't affiliated with the Church.
    • 1021, on 10/12/2007, -116/+31Not having a religion forms a type of religion itself... those who are digging up this article fervently present the same "fervor" of any religion-following sheep out there. Wake up people.
    • RubeusEsclair, on 10/12/2007, -88/+150RealHyperx is right. Churches do more for the community than the government can. The tax breaks they get are offset by the things they do FOR the community. My chuch gives rides to people that have a job, but lost their transportation and can't afford anything. They give food to the people that are unable to work. They do things for people on a personal level that the government cannot accomplish.

      Again, even if God is a hoax, you cannot deny the benefits of a church community.
    • rlh1, on 10/12/2007, -83/+26""""funny how-- the majority of atheists and agnostics are intelligent, educated, well-rounded, scholarly, non-superstitious, non-threatening, critical-thinking, balanced, emotionally & mentally healthy and socially stable people... who are capable of intelligent debate, and not prone to "magical thinking" (one of the hallmarks of mental illness and psychosis). 9 times out of 10 it's the religious nuts who are the real pathological crackpots.""""

      you're quite an arrogant ass. I hope you start an Atheistic church so that you can be canonized.
    • force275, on 10/12/2007, -64/+246@realhyperx
      "I am catholic, my church helps battered women, poor people, children and many others. We have a soup kitchen every day. We are here to take care of people. Even if God is a myth, no other service exists that does what we do. We do not take money from taxes, we put in our own money for these things. We help. Have you ever talked to someone that lost a loved one? Church and faith helps tremendously."
      That is all excellent work, but couldn't you do it without being threatened with eternal hellfire and the like if you don't? People should do these acts based on their own morals--not the threat of damnation.
    • taintedzodiac, on 10/12/2007, -26/+53to summarize foxifiednutjob's post above:

      People lie and think themselves better than others. Being religious does not change this simple fact.
    • Shopko, on 10/12/2007, -64/+41@foxified: Holy crap, your perspective on life really sucks. How do you manage to make it through each day knowing that roughly 70% of the U.S. population might cut the arms off of their kids or drive them off a cliff in their car?

      A quick search of crimes at your local library will list many people who have performed some very heinous crimes against children who were NOT Christians.

      I'm sorry, but my life experience with atheists has been just the opposite from yours. I am a Christian, and I couldn't care less if somebody chooses not to agree with me. But the atheists I know absolutely HATE the fact that I pray to God and that I take my kids to Sunday School. Some of the people I have the greatest respect for (my graduate advisor in Physics, for instance) believe in a God. There are plenty of intellectual people who are also Christians, and none of the Christians I know of would ever dream of harming somebody else, and definitely not their children.

      I'm so glad you can look at 0.001% of the population and blindly generalize that group across millions of believers. Doing so lends so much credibility and intellectual honesty to your cause...
    • RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -96/+27Atheism is a religion.

      Their aim is to convert all believers of God(s) to Atheism. They believe their way is the only way for a better world. Only by being an Atheist can one truly have true knowledge. Morality and virtue is exclusive to Atheists and believers of a so called God are only appearing to be moral.

      The Atheist congregate in the internet to discuss and organize. Their prophet is Richard Dawkins and he is infallible. His word is the gospel.
    • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -31/+21"People should do these acts based on their own morals--not the threat of damnation."

      Sigh... Did you know many protestants in the USA feel there is no Hell per se, and if there is one you have to be pretty damn bad to end up there?

      I help to feed the poor, house the needy, lift up those who need uplifting, so do dozens of my cohorts at my church. Not a one of us does so to stave off eternal damnation, we do it because its the right thing to do.

    • cdgod, on 10/12/2007, -21/+113@rubeusesclair

      Sure they do lots for the community, and they can continue to do so without the guise of a mythology.

      They can become a true not-for-profit like the Food Bank (without any religious undertones).

      Kindess and warmness does not depend on a religion.
    • Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -49/+123Shopko: "But the atheists I know absolutely HATE the fact that I pray to God and that I take my kids to Sunday School."

      Shopko, I hate that you take your kids to church because you're not giving them a choice. Screw yourself up all you like, but leave the poor kids out of it. You're destroying their ability to discern between reality and fantasy. That, in my book, is a form of child abuse.
    • RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -30/+120@force275

      Why do people always assume all Christians are good because they fear hell?
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -53/+31Trying to scapegoat religion, as Dawkins often does, does not get to the root of the problem.

      One of the greatest evils of the 20th Century, Communism, took atheism as a central tenet. And it still killed many tens millions of people, and oppressed hundreds of millions more.

      The problem is that humans have a huge capacity to commit evil, to the point that anything good that humans might create (like a religion based on love and service) is still subject to being twisted and misused in the wrong hands.

      Nobody is 100% good, 100% of the time. Never has been (save one) and never will be. We look out for our own self interests.
    • Morphinity, on 10/12/2007, -34/+5@renz's first comment
      "Their aim is to convert all believers of God(s) to Atheism. They believe their way is the only way for a better world. Only by being an Atheist can one truly have true knowledge. Morality and virtue is exclusive to Atheists and believers of a so called God are only appearing to be moral."
      That's the exact definition of religion. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and all have this goal and mindset. Atheists are no different.
    • Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -18/+49renz87, I don't think many people think that "all Christians are good," so you don't have to worry.
    • tedhead2k, on 10/12/2007, -37/+30@force275
      "That is all excellent work, but couldn't you do it without being threatened with eternal hellfire and the like if you don't? People should do these acts based on their own morals--not the threat of damnation."
      That's such a huge misconception. You don't do good things so you can go to heaven.
      "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from youselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8

      Yeah yeah, I quoted the Bible, boo-hoo, but that's what Christians believe, you don't get to heaven by running a soup kitchen. The reason we do these acts is because it is how we are supposed to be, it's the lifestyle that Jesus has lived out and called us to.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -44/+16"We'd be better off without Religion."

      Stalin and Mao both agree...
    • hackmyballs, on 10/12/2007, -25/+12"We'd be better off without Religions"

      False

      We'd be better off without gods and clerics.

      We need a humanist religion to help us achieve our own potential to live richly as individuals and as part of a society.

      For the common goal of a better humanity.
    • betterth, on 10/12/2007, -37/+21Oh look!

      Another day, another story against religion.

      When will the atheists listen to themselves and leave us the ***** alone? No offense, I'm up for a good debate every now and then, but the atheists on Digg are very similar to the Apple fanboys. They need constant attention and stroking of their atheist egos to feel good about themselves and their decisions -- or so the endless myriad of mildly interesting stories would seem to confer...
    • eitheehstsergei, on 10/12/2007, -42/+11We would be better off without homosexuality, races, disease, famine, hunger, and plenty of other things. We'd also be better off without dogmatic atheists. But that's life isn't it? Diversity and conflict? Dawkins is just a cry baby who's trying to get some attention through controversial topics. I thought this guys 15 minutes were up already. Are you people seriously digging this guy up again? LOL, he's a nobody who's using angsty pre-teens as his road to fame, and this has been proven several times.
    • theLured, on 10/12/2007, -33/+54I hate these articles. I am an atheist. I believe in science. By that I mean I don't believe in any religion(discounting science as a religion). Although I do hope for life after death or something close. Notice I said hope and not believe.

      Religion is not the problem. People are. Everyone knows of the evil Christian in movies that tries to "do the lords work". It is the people, not the religion. If a religion says "go out and kill someone now" then it can be blamed, otherwise it shouldn't.

      Religious people do not bother me if they don't discuss their religion too much with me. The preachers in town piss me off. I know about Christianity, but I don't want to hear about it the same as Christians would be offended if I started saying that evolution is the truth. If you are a preacher, preach in church, not town. If I do want to hear about Christianity then I will enter your church and ask about it.

      Also I do not like Christians that try to stop teaching evolution. I believe in science, science is my religion{yes science can be classed as a religion). If a Christian says that evolution should not be taught then Christianity or any other religion shouldn't. It is egotistical to say that you know the truth. None of us know the truth, we just believe.

      This Christianity vs science is just plain crap. I believe in one thing, you believe in another. All around we have roughly the same morals so lets just get along. For those that don't understand my thought that science is a religion, read a science book. You believe what it tells you. That belief is the same belief found in religion.
      Science has proof. That's great that you have proof. Christians get proof too, like when you see on TV they have been given a second chance and gain their beliefs again.

      Science disproves Christianity and Christianity disproves science. I believe science is right, but I don't say that I am right. I try not to be egotistical over my beliefs or anything else that I do(yes I know this can be read as me being conceited, for the smart arse who tries to point it out).
    • OneZeroZeroOne, on 10/12/2007, -9/+761) Not having a religion and speaking your opinion about that fact is NOT the same as being religious. There is no National Organization of Atheists lead by the Grand Atheist Wizard. Atheists don't have a creed or handbook. The only thing you can say about any atheist is that he or she does not believe in the supernatural, or that am omnipotent being created the universe. Having "fervor" over your beliefs isn't the issue. The issue is that, fervant or not, most atheists don't wage crusades or jihad, they don't murder, they don't found oppresive theocracies, they aren't willfully ignorant and they don't wantonly suppress scientific endeavors.

      2) Why do you have to be a member of a church to be charitable? If you need to tag along with a bunch of other people that go to the same building you do every Sunday in order to do something good for other people, then that says something about you, doesn't it? Why do you do it? To impress others? Peer pressure? To please the idea of god that's in your head? Why not do it just to be nice?
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -26/+16@bobthebuilder25:

      So, if you put a crazy person in charge of an atheistic society, it's the crazy person's fault.

      If you put a crazy person in charge of a religious society, it's the religion's fault.

      Is that the point you're getting at?
    • DAGONthehauge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Religious thought is often a so deeply routed cognitive dissonance no amount of arguments or logic or sweet talk will remove it from a fellow human being. Plus, some religiously infected may become violent; try arguing for modern liberal humanism to a algerian bearded muslim in a jalabba; he will KILL you for trying.
    • kniwshmdcknit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Save the anecdotes, everybody. I'm pretty sure that I have a good and bad story about most types of people.

      @eitheehstsergei... cool it. I thought that us atheists were supposed to be the angry ones.

      Also, an easy way to keep these stories from appearing on Digg all the time is to stop bringing religion into public life. It's no longer an acceptable excuse for behavior.
    • chronusmcgee, on 10/12/2007, -22/+4If atheism is so great, why, in tarnation, have the athiest of the world killed more people in the last century than all other religeons combined, including the murderous muslims? Huh?

      For your information, Hitler didn't beleive in a God, Stalin didn't either, neither did Lenin, nor Pol Pot, nor any of the other "Saints" of your vauntend atheism. You better hope God doesn't disbeleive in you, buster!
    • mb96net, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I don't have any problem with people going to church and religious traditions, and I agree that many churches and church groups do great things for communities, and most morals taught by mainstream religions are good. The only thing I have against religion is that it tries to assert authority and answer question without any evidence and teaches people that believing in an imaginary being is a virtue, when in actuality believing in an invisible imaginary being without any evidence is one definition of insanity. It doesn't matter if it's Ralph Wigum's imaginary leprechaun that tells him to burn things, or a fanatic Muslim's invisible god that tells them to wage a jihad, or a fundamentalist Christian's imaginary god telling them to "kill fags" .

      Most people (religious or not) are good, just and moral, but it can't be denied that some hide behind "teachings" from a crazy prophet that introduces people to his imaginary friend to them and use "faith" as an excuse to be immoral, unjust and evil.
    • WebCester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4About the whole "fear of hell fire" thing: The poster that was initially responded to said they were Catholic, not Protestant. And you can't deny that one of the central tenants of catholicism is that you'll go to hell unless you repent.

      Just saying. The situation with protestants may be entirely different, but that has nothing to do with the initial comment.
    • patik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17"I am catholic, my church helps battered women, poor people, children and many others. We have a soup kitchen every day. We are here to take care of people. Even if God is a myth, no other service exists that does what we do."

      Maybe it's because you're already doing it. Are you suggesting that if all churches were to disappear, then no other organizations would form to help those same causes? Why set up a soup kitchen when one already exists?
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13"Religion is for numbing the masses who lack intellectual curiosity."

      That's a fallacy. I'm a Christian, and I have a graduate-level education. I never felt that my faith held me back from asking questions and learning more; on the contrary, my faith encouraged me to explore my potential and to try to become all that God created me to be. And I've never thought that my experience was any different from countless other Christians that I've met.
    • leadingzero, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6@TheLured
      "Science disproves Christianity and Christianity disproves science."

      This absolutely isn't true. Science has never "disproved" anything about Christianity. We have plenty of historical accounts of eye-witnesses that can attest to the existence and works of Jesus (which is what Christianity is all about). Also, Christianity has never "disproved" science either. Just because you believe in God does not mean you have to throw out all logical, rational and scientific thought. I actually believe what I believe because I looked at science and the world and the evidence that we can draw from them. I looked at different theories and religions and personally believe that the worldviews portrayed by faith in God and Jesus actually make the most sense when applied to the backdrop of our reality.

      I believe that Dawkins himself has said that the world has an "appearance of design" even though he believes to the contrary. The belief in God and my worldview that results from it satisfies my questions about reality far more than atheism ever could.
    • LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Many would say the same for life without athiests.

      The problem in life is people forcing their views on others and making decisions for the people based on the opinions of a few.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10It amazes me that so-called intellectuals want to marginalize all religion as being resolutely harmful, without looking at the particular contents of each religion to see if what they're teaching is either harmful or helpful. Maybe one religion really is better than another. Maybe one religion teaches "love and peace" while another teaches "jihad and genocide". There's a definite qualitative difference.

      And here I thought that one of the first rules of being an intellectual is that you are able to look beyond such gross generalizations and meaningless whitewashings to understand issues on a more complex level, to sort things through an individual analysis.

      Arguing that "There is no God" and "All religion is harmful" is really two separate issues, when you think about it. Religion has had a lot to do with the coalescence of society. The first known legal code, after all, had intermixed moral, spiritual, and civil laws, and was believed to have been given through divine revelation.

      But of course, to admit that not all religions are harmful could, in fact, leave the door open on the question of whether God exists. Thus, the need for atheists to paint all religion as a cancer on society.
    • mattyG, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7@force275

      uh... helping the poor etc does not get anyone into heaven, therefore your point is way off base and shows just how little you know about christians/christianity. And i wouldn't be surprised if that's how the rest of digg is based on comments i've read on past articles. You guys only think you know more because you've read the skeptics annotated Bible, which is total crap. Good works do not get a person into heaven. That is the most basic Christian belief. Only through faith in Jesus do you get in heaven. Of course I guess i'm just weak minded right guys?
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9If we didn't have supernatural religion, we'd still fight over ethics or scientific theories to the point of extremism. It's societal nature for some deviant individuals to be so involved in a group or belief that they would do something as stupid as kill for it.
    • bubs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Geesh, can we give the anti-religion submissions a break for a while?
    • RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4@bobthebuilder25

      “A religion has two things…...”

      Atheism doesn’t need a God to be a religion. There are actually a few religions that don’t have any belief in God. Buddhism specifically is a Non-Theistic religion.

      Atheists have religious faith, in that they believe there is no Creator. Let’s make this clear, I am very much a realist and an objective person. This universe in merely a product of chaos that occurred billions and billions of years ago and I very much believe that because there is evidence. What takes faith, is believing that what exist at the moment exist only to exist. Why is there something as opposed to just nothing? And how can you create something out of nothing? Atheists have a lot of faith placed in that existence has no purpose other than to the individual or species. I personally don’t see no distinction between that “Atheist faith and” other “faith” that believes that the purpose of existence is something beyond that.

      “…..but people like Dawkins serve to raise consciousness about the issue and that is all. Especially in a time when religion justifies bombings and George Bush's imperialist dreams.”

      When you name you’re book the God Delusion and state that religion is the cause of all wars in the world you clearly have an agenda other than raising consciousness. You need to realize that in most wars religion is never the primary motivation, most of the time it’s materialistic things like land and resources.(e.g. money & oil) Religion is a tool that leaders use to gain support. Religion is not a cause but a victim of war.

      Those Atheist declarations I mention, I posted because those are what Atheists actually saying. I don’t need to link a source since it’s evident throughout this whole page you, just need to scroll around.

      Anyways my point is Atheism is a religion.

    • theLured, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@leadingzero
      I can see what you mean. religion and science can go well together, but there are conflicting parts. Science says the world is millions of years old whilst Christianity says it is only a few thousand. My point is that overall science and most religions do not go together. But if you apply parts then they can fit together fine, which is why there are Christian scientists.
    • 955701, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@RealHyperx

      Yeah, those are things that any organized group with a public service arm does. The difference is that the church does it to advertise their message as much as they do for compassion. Although any individual churchgoer may have more compassion and less advertising in mind, the church doesn't think that way. Poor people don't have money, but labor is expensive and they have plenty of that.

      I have been asked to leave eight (!) times from charity events at churches when they found out I didn't believe in gods, including theirs. I was simply there to help people.

      This goes for schools as well - churches have schools because propoganda is more successful when it starts early
    • RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4@foxifiednutjob

      Why do people believe that you somehow abandon all logic and reason when you believe in a Creator? Logic is not exclusive to atheist and it never was.

      BTW Leviticus was in the Old Testament. I don't see what point you're trying to make. Christianity is all about the new testament. You know learning from our sins….yada…yada…..yadda.
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9RealHyperx: "We do not take money from taxes"
      vulgrin: "B.S. you get freedom from property taxes and other tax breaks."

      Analogy:
      "We don't get handouts"
      "B.S. - you didn't get your pocket picked"

      The only BS is the notion that not getting your pocket picked is equivalent to receiving a handout.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3"Stalin and Mao lacked religion, but they also possessed insanity. To say that atheism drives the sort of actions they committed is to be spewing ***** from the mouth."

      Hitler and Osama Bin Laden had religion, but they also possessed insanity. To say that religion drives the sort of actions they committed is to be spewing ***** from the mouth.
    • pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25"I am catholic, my church helps battered women, poor people, children and many others."

      Good people don't need religion to do good things.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@Bob

      If someone says "religious person X, Y and/or Z killed x number of people" and uses that to determine that "We'd be better off without Religion" then the rebuttal "non-religious person X, Y, and/or Z killed x number of people" is a valid retort. Sometimes people need their own irrational argument regurgitated to them before they see the irrationality of it.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"The agnostic atheist today"

      What is an agnostic atheist? Someone who's not sure that they're sure there is no God?
    • Rezistik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@chronusmcgee

      Hitler wasn't atheist don't be a fool.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

      Its strange how the only religion anyone here speaks of is Christianity besides of course chronus who mentions "murderous Muslims"

      Most wars and murders are caused by religion or are performed by religious people, however that might just be because most of the world is religious

      I myself am atheist, it doesn't mean i think everyone should be atheist that is one of my problems with religion and faith they want you to believe what they want you to and not to question it and they always think they are right.
    • swifty383, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Dawkins is a jackass. He's as intolerant as any southern baptist redneck. He does believe in God, but his God is Atheism.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Yes there are a lot of people that take the words of the Bible word for word as if absolute historical fact no matter how unlikely they are. I can acknowledge that, but to me, the merits of the stories are not because I believe they are guiding parables rather than absolute truths. Believe it or not some people look to religion as a guiding philosophy and not governing dogmatism.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Foxifiednutjob, you remind me of the raving religious nutjob in the square of my old university. Shouting out garbage, ranting and raving about how we live our lives wrong and that if we don't change we are doomed to condemnation, blah blah blah.
      You sir, are the same type of ***** with the same message, just different words. Grow a brain and take a long look in a mirror.
    • oriolesfan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5rodzirra says: "Shopko, I hate that you take your kids to church because you're not giving them a choice. Screw yourself up all you like, but leave the poor kids out of it. You're destroying their ability to discern between reality and fantasy. That, in my book, is a form of child abuse."

      Hey idiot, how DARE you tell someone else how to raise their kids?! What if I told you that depriving your child of religious experiences growing up is a form of child abuse? Would you appreciate that? Please, just learn to accept that people are different. There's nothing special about you that makes you able to decide what is "right" or "wrong", so stop trying to change other people. Frankly, I'm still reeling from the ignorance of your statement.
    • night141, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I find it hilarious that you guys argue the same damn points on each article dealing with religion and not a one of you listen to the other side, that goes for both theists and atheists.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@RealHyperX,

      "my church helps battered women, poor people, children and many others. We have a soup kitchen every day. We are here to take care of people. Even if God is a myth, no other service exists that does what we do. We do not take money from taxes"

      In fact, a study done in 2004 by Rachel M. McCleary, and Robert J. Barro of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University, which covered 66 years and 1,693 US-based relief organizations found that a majority of relief organizations in the United States were secular in nature and unrelated to any religious organization. In addition, many organizations founded many years ago with religious names, sign of those times, are now utterly secular, such as Christian Children's Fund. Google it yourself.

      Internationally, there are many, many more secular relief organizations than church-based ones.

      You are simply ignorant of the facts, and merely reciting what you have been brain-washed with from birth by your religious community.

      Oh, and you certainly *do* take money from taxes - churches don't pay property taxes on your church-owned property, which adds significantly to my taxes (especially since most churches, and their cemateries, take up prime real estate), costing the nation in aggregate many, many billions of dollars (in fact, we could provide free universal health care to every citizen in the US with the money churches don't pay in taxes). Not to mention the fact that churches are the only "nonprofits" exempt from financial accountability reporting to the federal government. No one knows *what* goes where and how much is spent on what - it's all done on "faith".

      Most remarkable of all, you start the discussion by stating that you are a Catholic. The Catholic Church is one of the richest organizations in the entire world, and pays no taxes on any of it. Your church's wealth, by some estimates, exceeds that of all other churches *combined*. Wealth, it is worth adding, that is accumulating at far greater pace than is being distributed in services to the poor (your church exploits your volunteering while you fill their coffers with donations and real estate appreciation)

      You benefit greatly from my atheistic tax dollars, thank you not.
    • rnwen2750, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ fox-person - Dude. Since when did anyone of note or a large group of people use religion as a *reason* to commit pedophilia?
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@the lured,

      "Religion is not the problem. People are."

      With respect, your argument is logically fallacious.

      The sole justification for organized religion - for following what someone else tells you is their interpretation of what a holy book says you should do - is the argument that it makes people better.

      If it fails to do so - and, as you yourself admit, the evidence is that religion not only fails, on balance, to improve peace, harmony and wellbeing of all humankind, but, on the contrary, many people follow it to horrendous excess - then perhaps it is rational and critical to examine if there is not some basic, inherent flaw in organized religion itself.

      Evidence shows that the more religious a society it is, the worse its members fare across a wide array of quantifiable measures of societal wellbeing.

      In fact, a strong, logical, rational and empirical argument can be made that religion itself is a bad thing for humankind, because religion itself leads inevitably to a surrender of individual responsibility and critical thought.

      You might as well say, "misogyny isn't bad, misogynists are". Sometime an idea, in an of itself, causes inevitable harm and needs to be combated for the betterment of all humanity.
    • bcasper1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@foxifiednutjob:

      I'm an atheist, but I cant help being superstitious when I'm bowling...
    • dadioflex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Dude. Since when did anyone of note or a large group of people use religion as a *reason* to commit pedophilia?"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children_of_God


    • nsummy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@rodzirra Taking your children to sunday school is hardly child abuse. I don't know how you were raised, but when I was a kid there were many choices I didn't have. Do you think if parents let kids make all of their own choices they would ever go to the dentist/doctor, eat anything besides candy and mcdonalds, or grow up with good morals or values? I didn't think so. So sure maybe when the kid is 18 he will be allowed to choose which religion or even no religion, but in the mean time he follows his parents rules.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I am catholic, my church helps battered women, poor people, children and many others. We have a soup kitchen every day. We are here to take care of people. Even if God is a myth, no other service exists that does what we do. We do not take money from taxes, we put in our own money for these things. We help. Have you ever talked to someone that lost a loved one? Church and faith helps tremendously."

      That's good. But how does it relate to religion per se? Wouldn't you do the same thing anyway?

      @vulgrin:

      "We do not take money from taxes"

      "B.S. you get freedom from property taxes and other tax breaks. Can you imagine what the property taxes would be if you just taxed all of the Catholic Church's properties in the U.S.? - Try billions of dollars."

      What's that got to do with anything? Not getting robbed is not the same thing as robbing others.
    • smackywentz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A man is a God in ruins...
    • oriolesfan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Ok, a lot of people have said that what churches are doing to help does not relate directly to religion, which is true, and that therefore it would still exist without the religious connections. First of all, good luck getting donations every week outside of a Sunday mass environment. But the real question I have is: WHERE are all of these non-religious charitable organizations NOW that you guys assume will exist? Why are churches the clear leaders in charity work all over the world if you atheists could do it so much better (or at least just as well) without religion?
    • CronoTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ renz

      "Atheism doesn’t need a God to be a religion. There are actually a few religions that don’t have any belief in God. Buddhism specifically is a Non-Theistic religion."

      Although Buddhism does not say there is a god, it is rooted in supernatural beliefs. Atheism is the belief in reason and logic, not supernatural nonsense. Call it religion if you must, but you are only confusing the issue.
    • Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6oriolesfan says: "Hey idiot, how DARE you tell someone else how to raise their kids?! What if I told you that depriving your child of religious experiences growing up is a form of child abuse? Would you appreciate that? Please, just learn to accept that people are different. There's nothing special about you that makes you able to decide what is "right" or "wrong", so stop trying to change other people. Frankly, I'm still reeling from the ignorance of your statement."

      Reel all you want. Call me names, even. But I'm guessing you wouldn't hesitate to criticize someone for physically abusing their children, would you? I do accept that people are different. Most people don't agree with me that filling a child's head with falsehoods, during the most critical stage of a child's development, is abusive. The excruciating pain I'm feeling during my own recovery from those religious experiences tells me that it is abusive.

      Since people seem to pay more attention to the physical health of children than the mental and emotional, I'll try an analogy: If you knew of a parent who withheld healthy food from their child, and instead forced them to eat a diet of only Kool-Aid and sugary, high-fat snacks, would you not say that that parent is abusing that child? After all, he is almost certainly dooming that child to a life of ill-health and pain. The same goes for a child who is fed a steady diet of superstition and distorted fantasy. It cripples the child's mind, and reduces his ability to use logic and reason.

      You're right that there's nothing special about me that makes me the final arbiter of all right and wrong. Empirical, verifiable reality and logic stand quite easily and powerfully without my help.
    • Speaf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0An interesting assertion has been made in this thread -- the idea that good people will be good people regardless of religion. The question is, why are religious people so overwhelmingly more generous with their time and money than the average non-religious person? (see; http://www.arthurbrooks.net/statistics.html ).

      Do religions attract more 'good people'? Do religions simply scare their adherents into doing good? If so, what is the potential cost to our society if religion was eliminated, despite the questionability of their motives?
    • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1No, he is a man. He oversimplifies religious arguments to make his atheistic positions more easily defensible. In reality no one has succeeded in proving or disproving the existence of God, but there is a lot of convincing evidence on both sides.
    • DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@That is all excellent work, but couldn't you do it without being threatened with eternal hellfire and the like if you don't? People should do these acts based on their own morals--not the threat of damnation.

      Even if you continue in sin, a real Christian church (not just one that claims it) will still help you in need. If you don't believe in hellfire, you have nothing to fear so what's the biggie? Rome had the same thinking and well, look where they are.
    • DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@rodzirra

      lol, you would know about child abuse giving what your parents did to you. if going to church and learning to be good is a terrible thing to do, i'd like to know what to do. being a parent means help guiding them in the right direction, not giving them some TP and a porno like your crappy parents did you. freak.
    • Brss45, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@foxifiednutjob

      funny how you pull random "facts" out of you ass.

      truly ALL religious persons are stupid and uncapable of scientific thought.
      and ALL athiests are intelligent people who are *clearly* superior.

      ------------
      anyway. beyond religion, which in itself is pretty stupid, people need to acknowlege that there are diest who detest structured religion. belief is a personal thing, just like anything else. no one is the same as anyone else, so how can people share a religion the same, and if they don't they are cast down?!

      again, spirituality does not include the hypocracy of religion, and yet maintains the belief that there is something more.'

      "Everyone seems to have a clear idea of how other people should lead their lives, but none about his or her own."
      -The Alchemist

      Everyone perceives and believes differently. Why do we feel the need to attack what other people think?

      ...sorry for rambling.
    • phoggey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Just love it when atheists try to tell me that I'm better off without my religion. How the ***** do they know anything about me? The world should be free to believe in whatever the ***** you want to believe in as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If you have a problem with it, then YOU'RE the ***** with the problem. I don't have a problem with you. Placing blame on innocent people for actions caused by few is *****. People will continue to fight under any guise they can get, it's not limited to religion.

      Don't place your beliefs on me, bitch. You think what I believe is childish? Thanks for telling me what I should do, now here's some advice for you, blow me. I have rights that come before your ***** comments belittling my beliefs.

      Can anyone here, really just one ***** person, say that they've been directly negatively affected by Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism? I for one know of cases where I've been positively affected, my family went to churches many times to get food.
    • guitarh3ro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Prepare for mass stereotyping and ignorancy.

      Religion is good for several reasons.

      -It gives people hope, even if it may be false
      -It keeps the population down when war starts over it
      -Religion is generally full of a lot of morale and peaceful teachings, such as Buddhism or some parts of the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things in the Bible that are violent, that is true.

      However, everything has a downside, and religion has some of them.
      -Religious extremists piss everyone off because they shove their teachings in the faces of others who really don't really care and would rather keep their opinion to themselves.
      -Religion has a lot of hypocrisy.
      -It can't be proven. There is only faith.

      Okay, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. There are a lot of things I didn't go into, but it would take days to write everything.

      Before any religious extremists out there digg me down, I am a Christian, but I'm just being logical.
    • tapezor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I guess people easily forget that churches were the ones that started hospitals and schools in America.

      We have Harvard because of John Harvard, a Minister.

      Duke University in Durham, North Carolina traces its origins to 1838 when Methodist and Quaker Families in rural Randolph County employed Brantley York as a permanent teacher for their subscription school.

      Yale was first founded to train ministers. 10 ministers from Harvard pooled their books together to create Yale's first library.

      Princeton was established by the "New Light" Presbyterians, it was originally intended to train Presbyterian ministers.

      Penn, In 1740, a group of Philadelphians joined together to erect a great preaching hall for the evangelist Rev. George Whitefield. Designed and built by Edmund Woolley, it was the largest building in the city and it was also planned to serve as a charity school.

      Medicine and Religion were linked early in history, leading to todays hospitals.

      I guess if you guys want to take away all the money from the church, then they wouldn't have been able to create hospitals and schools that most of you went to in the first place.

      I guess because of religion, all we have to show are stupid schools and hospitals... yea... we don't need it.
    • Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2DryvBy says: "lol, you would know about child abuse giving what your parents did to you. if going to church and learning to be good is a terrible thing to do, i'd like to know what to do. being a parent means help guiding them in the right direction, not giving them some TP and a porno like your crappy parents did you. freak."

      Oh, man... how could I have been so blind? I'm going to church this Sunday, so I can learn to be good like you. Thanks for the help, DryvBy.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@"If Christianity is all about the New Testament, why keep the old one around? By your own logic, who cares what Genesis said. Christianity is all about the new testament afterall..."

      There was a group of Christians who thought the old testament was evil and a pack of lies made up by Satan. They were called the Cathars. Of course the Pope had them all put to the sword before they could challenge his authority.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@RealHyperX:
      Do you honestly believe that without religion, good people wouldn't think to help others out?

      I weep for your faith in humanity.
  • Cutkomp, on 10/12/2007, -33/+69Religion isn't the really problem, people who exploit the many religions are. It's human nature to seek a higher power and appeal to authority. We are at a point of evolution I think, not physically but mentally. The Information Age will eventually bear good fruit as the people who exploit get exposed. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus... all seeking the same thing, all looking in different directions, most being exploited. Sadly, the evil side of man will make it happen, but when it does all must be forgiven.
    • beckerist, on 10/12/2007, -30/+48That's akin to saying "The programming on your Television set isn't what's causing your children to be violent, it's the TV set!"

      no. Religion IS the problem because religion is the courier for corruption. Religion is no longer about differences in morality, it's now used as a tool to spread agendas (be it social, economic, political..etc)

      There is no single religion that expresses MY exact views. Does that mean they are all wrong? To me, yes, to you, who knows? My point isn't that "religion is bad OMG11!!!11" My point is that religion CAN be bad, and yes, it's our human nature to blame for that, but don't regard the "philosophy." The philosophy is what triggers our human instincts to corrupt it in the first place.

      Make religions OBJECTIVE (give me proof) and THEN you can stop blaming them. Until then, it's all up to interpretation.
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -19/+12@coasters2k:
      You are correct. Religion, aside from its usefulness in keeping many people sane and comfortable, is one of a great many tools with which to exploit people.

      Of course, the question asked is moot. Religions will be around right up until the last believer stops believing. And possibly even not then.

      See, religion is a primitive artifact of the human need to explain things. We can't accept an inability to explain, so we just, essentially, make plausible ***** up. This is, of course, a problem - as far as actually searching for answers goes - as for those who believe in religions, plausibility just keeps ratcheting into more and more unreasonable territory.

      Would we be better off? Probably - though it's unlikely to ever happen.
    • ophilye, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6but .. but... if we don't have Religion, what is Jack Thompson going to use to prove he's better than Rockstar Games??
      how is the church going to get all their money to control government?
      What are all those nice little mormon boys going to do from age 18-20, while they're banned from thinking sexual thoughts (but of course not taught about it either)?

      Anyone else feel that "Man from Mars" (Heinlein) feeling coming on?

      Thou art God. :)
    • reddfox321, on 10/12/2007, -16/+30I cosign 100%

      The religion isn't the problem. Man is.

      If all people could follow any religious code to the T, morality wouldn't even be a problem. People are not always altruistic by nature; they're equally exploitive. I think a lot of religious leaders should understand that they and theirs are no exception before they start the finger-pointing for societal ills.
    • AJH16, on 10/12/2007, -19/+20@coasters

      You say that the Bible spews hatred towards other people, however I would like to ask you to back that up. It is true that the old testimant of the Bible did have incredible violence towards other people (and also towards the Jews themselves), but it was never done do to hatred, but rather on a case by case basis, and most of it was involved in them either freeing themselves from an oppressor or conquering Israel.

      The new testimant has absolutely no promotion of hatred or violence of any kind. It in fact says just the opposite. Try backing up what you say rather than spewing your own hatred around.
    • vulgrin, on 10/12/2007, -18/+15"The religion isn't the problem. Man is. "

      Without Man, there wouldn't be Religion.
    • KayinNasaki, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8I think a lot of people look at the issue of religion wrong. As I figure it, it's not so much that religious followers are exploitable, as much as the type of person who turns to religion is exploitable. Also, people say religion has killed a lot of people -- well thats true... But some stuff like say.. the crusades -- that would of happened any way. Folks wanted to conquer and pillage. If it wasn't religion it'd be another excuse. It's kinda like the whole violent video game arguement. Theres a causality between violence and games because violent people seek out violent entertainment.

      There is a problem with religion now that we're trying to take codes and beliefs that were beneficial thousands of years ago and apply them to modern life. I mean, everyone laughs at the silly ***** in Leviticus, but it's really one of the oldest medicial manuals, codified as religious requirements.

      Religion has been very important as the beginnings of philosophy and science. Nowadays, it's far less important, but it keeps a lot of people in line who would otherwsie probably default to some other wackadoo philosophies. Even the conflict in the Middle East, while rooted in religion, is mostly a cultural war. Even without religion we've been stepping on the middle east's toes for years.

      I'm not really religious... but I just don't think if we removed religion that people would say.. be smarter and more indepedant. They'd latch onto other types of security with religion ferver and it'd probably be a bigger mess. Besides, nowadays, religion has much more of a PG rating. Anything over that (Those gay protesters who's names I forgot~) are just lunatics, religion or not.
    • AJH16, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4@foxifiednutjob

      I know exactly what you mean. I wanted to let you know there are some of us out there, though useually we won't claim to be terribly religious even if we believe it strongly. We don't fit the typical "fundamental" stereotype, but we are rational, think through what we believe and most of us think that "religion" as an institution is screwed up just as much as the next guy, but we hold are beliefs very strongly.

      I would classify myself as fundamental, but I warmly welcome scientific and philisophical discussion alike. I believe that if what I believe is correct, than it should be supportable. It makes no sense for God to create everything in such a way as to conceal his existance or to try and trick people. In fact, the Bible says quite the opposite, indicating that God is evident through his creation. I am also well educated and can hold a solid debate.

      I think the issue is that a large number of fundamentalists in any view, secular or religious, do not actually neccessarily even really know what they believe because they are unwilling to look at anything beyond their very limited view. Also, another group are not well versed enough in science to be able to defend their view and so they fall back to simply ignoring science rather than trying to find a workable solution that makes all parties happy.
    • vtron, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14@reddfox321

      Have you ever looked at what these "holy" books are teaching about morality? If we followed religion to the T we would all be separationalist, womanizers. They all teach that men of your faith are the only ones worth a damn.
    • jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6"by foxifiednutjob 5 minutes ago
      I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this. But so far I haven't been."

      Come join us at #ChristianDebate on DALNet IRC. Feel free to formally set up a debate with someone while you're at it.
    • skyzyx, on 10/12/2007, -16/+8First, there is a distinct difference between "Religion" and "Faith". Religion is man-made. I'm not religious. But I absolutely have faith in the Lord God.

      How on earth can people be so arrogant as to think that they are the rulers of this world? God put us all here, and it is He that is in control. But he gave us the free-will to choose how we want to live our lives. He wants us to show Him the respect and love he's shown us -- a fatherly love and respect -- but people think that they can do better without God. And look what's happened: wars, death, killing, etc. PEOPLE have chosen to do these things; this was not part of God's plan.

      But people -- even of "Faith" -- are not perfect. Nobody is. People are people, and people screw up. That's to be expected. It's not an EXCUSE, but it is an EXPLANATION. Scripture (specifically the Bible) is NOT about hate or intolerance or anything of the sort. It's about God loving us, and His desire for us to love him back. He would never ask us to do anything that is bad for us, and if we were to just listen to Him and live in the way that He has guided us to live, we would all be in a much better spot.

      You can't look at the flaws of human beings and determine that that's what God is like.

      It's really, really sad that things have become as corrupted as they have....
    • treed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@reddfox

      "Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your curses as reward for their martyrdom—while you went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good?—by what standard?"

      -- Ayn Rand's character John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged
    • VAXcat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12 To paraphrase Diderot, "Humankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last shaman".
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@beckerist:
      "Religion is no longer about differences in morality, it's now used as a tool to spread agendas (be it social, economic, political..etc)"

      Dude, that just shows a level of innate naivete I doubt I'll see again on Digg.

      Religion has ALWAYS been a tool for spreading an agenda, much like a knife has always been a tool for spreading jam. Organized religion is, at its essence, the ability for a small number of people to control the belief and value systems of a large number of people. At that level, it's a concentration of power; regardless of how 'moral' you think those wielding such power may be, it's always a precursor to abuse.

      You know the old saw: 'Power Corrupts'. We like to think, 'Oh, but our leader wouldn't do THAT'. Except that our religious leaders have for millenia now. Starting from the cherry-picking of the gospels, continuing though the Spanish Inquisition, and even into modern, alter-boy-molesting Catholicism. And, of course, that's only one fork of Judaism we're talking about. The examples of religious abuses among Islamic leadership are myriad and newsworthy enough that I don't even need mention them. Jesus Christ - as a theoretical historical figure - knew this; his own death was caused by the same sort of corruption in Jewish leadership of the time. Tibetan Buddhist monks before the Chinese invasion were also quite exploitative (suffering from what we call 'Ivory Tower' disease, in a very real way). One only need to take a glance at Hindu to know that the same sort of abuses go on there.

      But, of course, that's the deal a believer makes; the leaders get some level of control over me, and I get some level of peace of mind. It's a good deal for some people - even if abuses do occur. It's an especially good deal for people for whom peace of mind is a rare and valuable commodity.

      But I'm not one of those people. And I'd like it very much if the various theists around would leave me alone about my views on the existence or non-existence of God. I'm sharing my insight, not attacking you. Humility aside, I'm probably one of the more polite, respectful, and clear-thinking atheists you'll meet on the internet (because, as we all know, normal person + anonymity = inane troll); so, please don't treat me like I'm the 14 year old kid in the back of the class who wears all black and takes every opportunity to tell you 'There is no God'. I generally don't bother people with that uncomfortable likelihood. I prefer instead to look at atheism and the various theisms from an objective and critical perspective.
    • AJH16, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10@coasters

      Could you please show me where it says that the penalty for homosexuality is any less than any other penalty. In Levitican law, the penalty was death (for hebrew homosexuals mind you), however the new testimant does away with the Hebrew legal system (the law was fullfilled in Christ) and while yes, Christianity consides homosexuality to be immoral, it is no worse than lying or any other sin. Also, it is very specific that Christians should not hate anyone who sins, though they should not approve of the action. (They also shouldn't look down their noses because they are just as guilty of wrong as anyone else.)

      Also, the Bible never says that woman should be treated like objects. It does say that they should submit to their husband, but it is then the husband's responsibility to do what is in his wife's best interest not, what is in his. In fact, Biblically, men should put themselves below their wives and wives should put themselves below their husbands, which is pretty good relationship advice. If you are always looking out for your own best interest instead of your partners, you are going to be in for a lot of trouble.

      As for the situation in which a man offered his daughters, that was not looked on as a good thing, but rather was a statement of what he offered to try to protect the two men who had come to visit the town. The point of the story was that those men were angels and nothing happened to the daughters, but rather the men (who were angels) averted the situation. (I believe they blinded those in the crowd but I do not remember off the top of my head. (Sorry I'm at work and don't have my references handy.)

      I would say many of the Levitican law was outlandish in its punishments, but the basic belief is that any imperfection seperates you from a perfect God and in the times before Christ, they didn't have any real ability to reconsile that. Like I said however, the New Testimant teaches that Jesus was the fulfillment of the old testimant law and covenant and that the hebrew law has no power.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"Does the Old Testament not matter as much as the New Testament?"


      Sounds like a question from someone that doesn't understand the difference between the old and new covenant. How can you honestly debate something that you don't understand?
    • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"They all teach that men of your faith are the only ones worth a damn."

      So not true. I heard a preacher once say that his belief is that any good will put his wife in her place; UP ON A PEDESTAL where he can love and honor her in the manner in which she is meant to be loved and honored.

      Damn, the ***** assumptions that exist about religions. Sigh, really sad...
    • Wahoo06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4foxfieldnutjob, clearly, you are mistaken. Your first statement only proves that people like you are unwilling to debate. You quickly call out "FUNDIE CHRISTIANS" (speaking of which, ever hear of typing without your caps lock?).

      Also, you, like a number of others, would rather not have individuals take responsibility for their actions and instead want to blame groups. I agree with cutkomp. People are imperfect, and either make mistakes or intentionally do wrong. And despite what you think, you cannot simply blame people who are loosely associated with those who do these things.
    • chalkboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@vtron (#6125820)
      You ever read the bible? I don't think so. This is what is spewed by people that don't know what they are talking about. Read the bible before telling people what it says. If you take the passages out of context you can make them say anything you want.
    • chalkboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@coasters2k (#6125353)
      You are very ignorant. Read whole bible before commenting on what it says.
    • Brewdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2foxifiednutjob:

      Quit being a troll. Your most sensible, coherent comments have at least -10 diggs and then you post annoying crap like that?
    • drlha, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"The religion isn't the problem. Man is."

      Religion was created by man, so obviously the man problem!
    • chalkboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@Fordi (#6125958)

      Very good post.

      I am a Christian. I do not try to convert people to my religion. I do not hide my religion. I find that it makes me a happier person and that is all that really matters. I do not like people attacking my religion. A lot of atheist preach tolerance but are intolerant to Christians. I feel that people will pick the religion that suites their personality. I picked Christianity some pick Atheism. Who am I to say some one is wrong. I may not understand their choice but I will not judge their choice.
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually dedicated Buddhists are looking for nothing... "That which you are seeking, is causing you to seek"
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@Foxifiednutjob
      Haha, you don't know how bad you sound like a fascist. Don't ever talk about American values again you *****.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4No how about you calling America a land of freedom and almost immediately afterwards you make a notion that all religious people to get out of America. Idiot.
      Everything you say is ripped right out of a glossary of stereotypes. You have no real thought of your own, just extremist ideas. Had you been born in the middle east you would've blown yourself up by now. You have the atheist mental equivocation of a religious zealot. Everything you say is tripe.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Foxified, ever read "Mein Kampf?" You'd love the book. You and the author think so much alike
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Religion is not the problem. People are."

      Then religion is a failure, which inevitably leads to harm.

      Religion inherently requires its followers to relinquish certain aspects of autonomous judgment. Any organized religion requires its followers to obey without question. Once that authoritarian worldview is introduced, it inevitably spreads. Corruption is built right into organized religion, it is unavoidable, it doesn't matter what the specific beliefs are.

      Self-rule and self determination in free society are all incompatible with religion.
    • sephiroth965, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's human nature to seek a higher power and appeal to authority."
      That is the same mindset as those who say "It's human nature" for men to be the dominant race and women to be thought of as inferior.
  • Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -22/+13Dugg for the title alone.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Really? I would figure your rationale and line of thinking is the most dangerous thing to humanity. Stirring up extreme ideas to cause alarm? Hmm you know what? That sounds a lot like how the terrorists rally support....

      I think it's time for some introspection you lunatic!
  • edstate, on 10/12/2007, -27/+32Killing in the name of God means there are no consequences. And that's a BIG problem.
    • ophilye, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5Did anyone else start singing "#&*& you I won't do what you tell me!!" after that above post.

      just me?

      Ok, fine, I'll put down the Guitar Hero.
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Nah, I'm right there with you.

      Immediately, I was mumbling, 'And now you do what they told ya, (now you're under control)...'
    • yenster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Being interested in and exploring comparative religion, I've come to realize that a study of religion is basically a study of moral relativism. Of the Big Five religions on this planet (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism), the three monotheistic religions (B, C & I) seem to have the most glaring discrepancies between the perceived cultural or public morality as handed down via common religious teaching and what the Almighty will actually condone under the "right" circumstances.

      For instance, did you know that at one point or another in the Christian/Jewish scriptures, God condones (thereby making it morally permissible):

      1. Killing a human for doing manual labor on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)
      2. Random murder for no particular discernible moral reason (Genesis 19:26)
      3. Death for those practicing the "Withdrawal" method of birth control (Genesis 38:9)
      4. Human sacrifice (Leviticus 27:29); example of the practice at Judges 11:30-39 (children, no less)
      5. Genocide, meaning the complete annihilation of a population including innocent non-combatants (so many examples that I can't list them all but start with Numbers 16:49, Numbers 21:3 and Numbers 21:35...there's plenty more like these )
      6. Taking virgins as war prize (rape?) and even setting aside several ("the Lord's tribute") as human sacrifice (Numbers 31:31-40)

      ...and on and on and on it goes. As one studies further, one begins to question how you can base *any* moral/ethical system on the religious teachings of at least three of the world's five most popular belief systems. Last time I checked, none of these have been rescinded; they have as core teaching the idea that the Deity acts on a whim and if you've got enough power and He favors you, might makes right. There are no other moral absolutes that I can see. Which is shocking, because I started my studies, like most students, steeped in the Christian idea of moral absolutes and brainwashed to be wary of religions like Buddhism and Hinduism that are less detailed or vocal about what is permissible of the just and moral person.
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2um....yenster Buddhism is not monotheastic at all.........

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
    • yenster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@YUKEVSTER

      My bad. I meant to type "J, C & I." Buddhism, the widely-loathed "atheistic" religion, oddly enough seems to have the least problems with practicing its own ethics and morality consistently. At least, I'm unaware of any pogroms, genocides or widespread cultural intolerance of other faiths or non-believers by Buddhists. Which only goes to emphasize my point, doesn't it?
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ yenster

      "Buddhism, the widely-loathed "atheistic" religion,"

      And what do you base that statement on? What could there possibly be about Buddhism to dislike?
      It's frightening rationality?
    • yenster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@YUKEVSTER

      "And what do you base that statement on? What could there possibly be about Buddhism to dislike?
      It's frightening rationality?"

      I would base that statement on the number of hostile calls (including at least one bomb threat that I'm personally aware of) that some of my local Buddhist temples receive. This is in Dallas, Texas, which a BBC documentary on religion called "the most Christian city in North America" due to the church/population ratio. Draw your own conclusions.

      As for me, I think Buddhism's just peachy. But I once lost a job here in the U.S. for expressing such an opinion.
    • prammy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@yenster:

      My roommate is a Muslim and I am a Hindu. We do have some interesting discussions on religion.

      Some things he was surprised about was that (a) we have no policy on conversion, (b) we have no excommunication and (c) we do not consider people who convert to other religions to be heretics. Another popular misconception about Hinduism is that we are polytheistic (in its core Hinduism is not polytheistic, we believe in the supreme consciousness called Brahman, not the same as the case brahmin), in fact atheism is also valid in Hinduism (check out info about Samkhya school of philosophy in Hinduism).

      Buddhism can be viewed as a derivative of the Samkhya school if you think philosophically. There is no God, only enlightenment (which in Hinduism is Brahman).

      Hinduism and Buddhism essentially boils down to 'Help other people, don't do things to other people that you don't want done for yourself'. Like other religions they are not perfect, but boils down to 'Do the right thing and don't hurt anyone else and if you must choose between knowledge and power, pick knowledge'.
    • yenster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@prammy

      "(c) we do not consider people who convert to other religions to be heretics."

      Reading the writings of early Dutch, French, Spanish, British and Portuguese Christian missionaries to South and Southeast Asia, I was always amused to read how the local population could happily crowd into the Christian church on Sundays then just as happily show back up at the Ashram or Wat the next day for more religion. It apparently drove the early missionaries nuts that they couldn't get an exclusive contract, so to speak. I love Hindus and Buddhists--they just seem to be unable to comprehend the finer points of sectarianism. :)
    • prammy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@yenster:

      Yea thats true. However Hindus were pretty good at being sectarian when it came to caste though. I am a Hindu and I abhor the caste system. Every Hindu I have met feel the same way, there are exceptions of course, especially in the rural areas of India.

      Here is something interesting.

      When we go to India, we usually reserve a week or 10 days or so to visit the main temples in the area. One of these religious sites that we visit and pray is a christian church which has been there since the dutch were in Cochin. We also visit the synagogue in Mattancherry. In Hinduism, God or the supreme consciousness is usually thought of as not being describable, and omnipresent. So we are allowed to believe that Jesus, Allah, any God of any religion can be considered to be God since we all view things in different ways. There is no right or wrong way to believe, just that we have to do the right things as in help others and not harm anyone or anything including plants and animals. With plants and animals it is ok to kill for sustenance but not for pleasure.

      This also makes it easy for us to accept evolution as a better more scientific explanation than creationism, because who is to say that evolution and natural selection were not God's grand plan in the first place? I feel that many of the people who push creationism as a science do so primarily because they don't want to accept that we evolved from apes as opposed to being made in God's image. Since in Hinduism, God is in everything, evolution is very easily accepted. It also helps that we have a God (Vishnu) who comes to us incarnated as a fish, a boar, a turtle and a lion. We have gods who come in snake form, we have gods who come as birds and monkeys. After all, if God can find pride in the creations of the animals in the world, why should we be so proud to distance ourselves from our organic brethren ?
    • JoCliMe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"I know this doesnt address your point, but I was THROWN OUT OF A BOOKSTORE last weekend for putting all of the Bibles in the fiction section. Man, they have no sense of humor..."
      Wow, never heard that one before, and technically you're right...There are parables in the Bible ; )

      Also, I find it funny that in the debate on whether or not religion is bad about 90% of the arguments are against Christianity. Why is that? Why does the world try to put Christianity in such a bad light...I wonder...
    • yenster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@prammy

      I've got a reply to your last but messed up and put it in the main thread. It's way down below--sorry. Quite interesting to hear a Hindu perspective.
  • SIDSI, on 10/12/2007, -32/+81Religion is not the peoblem, people are the problem, without religion those people would just find something else to fight over.
    • Waterispoison, on 10/12/2007, -24/+8But at least they would fight over something tangible. Unless it's something like racism in which you just try to educate people in similar ways as to religion.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -12/+32Oh my science, you're right.
    • ophilye, on 10/12/2007, -10/+45like what?
      Skin colour?
      sexual preference?
      sex?
      oil rights?
      government procedures?


      pfft... never happen. That's crazy talk. You're crazy. Get out of the road.
    • unibomber999, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9Otters are the problem. They don't practice true Atheism.
    • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3thats not always the case. if anyone truly believes that their "eternal soul" is in risk and they truly believe the dogma they've been contaminated through their entire lives they'll do anything to save it.
    • SilverhammerMBA, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0But without people, religion would not exist. There are many problems with religion and it's easier to make people aware of them and rectify the problem than to try to solve whatever fundamental feature of our humanity compels us to fight with each other.
    • ASSASSYN, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Religions aren't`t the problem...tell that to the millions and millions of dead people caused by some fanatics interpenetration of it as their justification for crusades, wars, holy wars, plagues, genocides, ethnic cleansing, manifest destinies, Divine right to do what ever, rape, cult murders, and torture
    • Twoodge, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4@ophilye
      Hate to go off the topic, but 'sexual preference' really does piss me off as a term. Sexual orientation ain't a choice, and that phrase really does promote the contrary, which simply isn't true. Righty, rant over.

      And yes, go Richard! etc. =)
    • phatt-matt, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5@foxified...Some of the great Atheists: Hitler, Stalin, Mao...imprisoned and murdered millions of people.
    • kniwshmdcknit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It's one less the thing. Religion is a catalyst for immoral acts. Don't ignore that just because people might fight about something else.

      @Phatt-matt- They weren't murdered in the name of atheism.
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Um.

      Hitler was a good Christian boy, douche. Don't try to pass your nutters off on us.

      As for Stalin and Mao, the murder of innocents in their countries was politically driven. Not that it matters. OP is correct in that if dictators and mobs want blood, they'll use whatever excuse suits them to get it.

      It's just that religion constitutes a conveniently repercussion-free excuse. So does nationalism.
    • Jahandar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Yes, the people are the problem, but people are the product of their philosophy. You can't address the problems if you ignore the belief systems that drive people.
    • tylerjames, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6and what the ***** would be the difference between catholics and protestants, sunnis and shi'as, if there was no religion?

      religion is what makes these people *know* that they are absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong, after all, God is on their side! and if you have the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe on your side you know that you are justified in killing your enemies in his name. Religions proclaim to provide absolute answers, so any religion that says differently must be wrong.

      It raises the stakes to eternity with the promise of eternal reward or eternal damnation. Even fierce Nationalism cannot be so powerful.

      If your sole argument is that "religion is not the ONLY cause of death and strife in the world* then you are right, there are others. But religion is definitely the worst one of all.

      If you want to get down to it the real problem is *irrational belief* whether it is the irrational belief that your country is absolutely better than someone else's, that your political or military leaders are absolutely right 100% of the time and their instructions should be followed, or that your football (soccer) team is obviously the greatest thing in the world and anyone who says otherwise should die.

      People of every age have recognized the power of religion as a tool to control the actions and feelings of millions of people. And the result has been a history of bloodshed. I understand that in religion there is the capacity to do good. But I also contend that religion throughout history has been the most powerful tool of death and strife that man has ever known.

      And it is one that cannot hope to be matched by nationalism or sports worship. No matter what South Park might have told you.
    • tehkain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It means one less viel to cover up their agenda..
    • richempire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When it comes to religion everyone has an opinion, so here it's mine. even when most of us can agree that the whore religion and God or gods thing (Greeks) was invented several thousand years ago by smart people to keep the dumb ones under submission, and believe me, even today we can see Earth's richest empire, the Catholic Church, keeps expanding and getting richer. We must admit that religion and church bring some good stuff to the community, like charity, compassion and order; remember that back in the day the Government wasn't so organized like today. I wouldn't bet that we'd be better off without religion, but who knows?
    • lawlacaust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0thank you. for the best comment on this list.
  • xekko, on 10/12/2007, -18/+36I don't think we'd be better off without religion. We'd be better off with universal tolerance and acceptance, from *both* religious and non-religious people. We all should learn how to agree to disagree and to focus on what unites us rather than what divides us.

    People should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, but no person should be able to force their beliefs on others, religious or otherwise.
    • ElwinRansom, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8Some would argue that raising a child with a particular belief set is technically forcing your beliefs on others.
    • banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5@Elwin

      Some would argue that Jews control the world. Your point?
    • plhearn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Not to sound like a racist but Jews do, in fact, run the world. The US runs the world because it has twice the GDP of any other country. The top 5 corporations in the USA combined own more than 80% of all assets in the country. 4 out of those 5 corporations are run by Jewish families.
    • NoHandle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Religion is a scape goat. That is why it is a problem. It is for the weak and was intelligently designed to provide control over the masses. It was very helpful in furthering society... in the middle ages, after so much was lost. Now religion is constantly being abused and perverted, only hindering society from progressing further.

      The biggest problem in the world today that I see is intolerance and this is because it causes so much hate and suffering for everyone, who in turn, create more hate and suffering. The biggest contributor to intolerance is ignorance and religion thrives and nourishes ignorance, although they use a different name, faith. When you actually think about what faith is, it is ignorance and apathy rolled into one. You don't know, but you know you don't know and simply don't care. Some old book sounds pretty credible and so many others are doing, is enough reason for most people.

      This ties right into the two biggest names used against atheism, Hitler and Stalin. They were only followed so thoroughly because they used the same model as religion and the same people who are trained in the ways of religion. The problem wasn't that they were atheists, the problem was that everyone who was following them was religious. Two people do not create wars, do not commit genocide, do not make thousands of people disappear into the night. That is done by the people following them and largely, I believe, because they don't question what they are doing. They have faith in their leader, the same as followers of god have faith in his existence. So the problem isn't atheism, the problem is that there are not enough atheists to set a trend of questioning and critical thinking.
    • DemonWasp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You appear to have hit this one on the head. It's not religion, as a concept, or as a belief system that is necessarily the problem; it's the intolerance of people who don't believe as you do. This is a problem between religions AND from aethiests, including myself. Many, even most, people seem to be very accepting of the beliefs of others, but there are some people who just can't understand that they're not always right. The fact that many of these people happen to be very vocal and very religious is part of the problem: they are strong-headed and set in their opinions; when those opinions differ from those of other strong-headed, opinionated people, conflict ensues.

      There are a lot of crises facing the world right now (global warming, the dissolving situation in the Middle East, among others) that demand our time and effort more powerfully than concerns over whether Rockstar's latest game or homosexuality is going to lead to the collapse of morals in society. Grand Theft Auto doesn't kill people. Homosexuality doesn't kill any more people than heterosexuality. It's war, poverty, famine and disease that are killing people, and if we don't stop bickering over the small issues, the big ones are going to swallow us whole.
    • willcoll, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@plhearn

      I wish I could digg you down further
    • NoHandle, on 10/29/2007, -2/+2@DemonWasp:

      Yes, I agree. Though these issues have more to do with people, rather than religious groups. I simply feel that religion promotes this type of intolerance and Atheism is founded on the principles of critical thinking. That is not to say I don't have atheist friends who act with hate and intolerance. It is curious to see that myself and others view this as acting religious though...
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@plhearn:
      "Not to sound like a racist but Jews do, in fact, run the world. The US runs the world because it has twice the GDP of any other country. The top 5 corporations in the USA combined own more than 80% of all assets in the country. 4 out of those 5 corporations are run by Jewish families."

      So, you're saying that because four jewish familys own 64% of the US's wealth, the Jews control everything.

      I suppose by 'the Jews', you mean those four jewish families. Going past that wouldn't make much sense, as I would guess that, other than their personal friends, those four families aren't really out to do anyone any favors, even the Jewish community.
    • tylerjames, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4xekko said: "People should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, but no person should be able to force their beliefs on others, religious or otherwise."

      Why did Elwin Ransom get buried for suggesting that religion should not be taught to children then? Children will grow up believing what their parents tell them to believe because there is a level of trust there. If people really don't care about the truth value of religion then fine, but then don't go and teach children that it IS true.
      It would be far better to extract the relevant lessons from the Bible (The Golden Rule is a beatiful distillation of morality, and it was stil beautiful when Confucius proposed it 500 years before Christ: "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.") Teach those to your children but teach them to have a healthy skepticism, to seek the truth, and to be able to be able to admit when they were wrong in the face of new evidence.

      Also I'm not sure how you would have to alter the teachings of Christianity to make everyone believe that it's okay for other religions to exist. If Christians are supposed to be good and want to help people, and following the teachings of Jesus and the word of God is the only path to salvation, then how can a devout Christian sit back and watch otherwise good people condemn themselves to hell by worshipping the wrong god?

      Unless it isn't true.
    • chalkboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@tylerjames (#6126958)
      Do you believe what your parents told you to believe. I doubt it. I don't believe what my parents told me to. I could be strange but I don't think so.
    • tylerjames, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@chalkboy
      i would bet that you are strange in that respect
    • chalkboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@tylerjames (#6127435)
      I actually believed almost opposite of my parents. I had a good childhood too. I just feel that you should raise your kids to think for themselves.
  • ZakColeman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Exactumundo.
  • banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -45/+19We'd be better off without atheists.
    • m3th0dm4n, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Prepare to be dugg down, sinner.
    • banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6@coasters

      What in the bloody hell for? The pin headed dolt who posted this story didn't.
    • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2wine about it to your god for creating us.. oh no wait, let me guess he's testing your faith -right.
    • banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4@cybermort

      I'll "wine" about it to my God right after you pass third grade. Thanks for playing, Mister Free Thinker.
    • banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3@coasters

      Sure.

      Atheist governments have slaughtered far, far, far more human beings than every religion and/or religious war in history combined.

      And of course, you'll respond by insisting that they didn't kill in the name of atheism, as if the philosophical system at the basis of an entire movement has no meaning whatsoever.

      You "free thinkers" are embarrassing yourselves every time you speak because you are ignorant on so many levels. How many times will you pin heads claim that science supports your atheism?
    • m3th0dm4n, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Your God is dead and no one cares.
    • pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3@banderbe: It may not mean much to you, but I dugg you up
    • banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2@coasters

      Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung..

      Are you kidding me? You didn't know that? They were all atheists, their Governments banned religion and they amassed a body count FAR in excess of all religions and religious wars combined.

      Come on "Free Thinker". You should know this stuff.
  • StrangeFamous, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Spirituality is healthy and fine. But, when you take 100 people and start teaching them why YOUR brand of spirituality is "the right" kind of spirituality, that's when the problems start. Religion is spiritual indoctrination on a global scale.

    Props to xekko, I fully agree with that sentiment.
    • Valence, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10I totally agree. It's completely wrong to take 100 people and start teaching them why YOUR brand of spirituality is better. Kind've like if you post a link on how "We'd be better off without religion" on a site that takes millions of hits a day. That's what religion's like. I mean, this sort of thing is only okay if you're talking about how YOUR brand of non-spirituality is better.

      Time to go mail a donation to the Second Harvest food bank here in Orange County. It's run by those ***** Catholics, who are always jamming food down people's throats. ***** bastards. I'm so sick of religion, which is responsible for all the world's evils - I don't think that this is a sentiment which can be overstated at all.
    • betobeto, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Right on - 99% of all problems in the world can easily be related to the matter that someone gets to consider HIS truth THE truth to follow, and therefore tries to shove such "truth" down everybody else's throats.

      Like, Relativism FTW.
  • thedarkrabbit, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12Yay! another religion story on digg to make people freak out and argue through their comments!!

    Let the CAPS LOCK SHOUTING BEGIN!
  • starcrunchfx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7There will never be no religon. People need answers. If answers are not there, people make them up.

    Oh ya, USSR tried to get rid of religon. It didn't seem to work out to well for them.
    • kuribo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Sometimes when answers ARE there, people still make them up.
    • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8do you want to put your point of view to an acid test. go research which countries have the highest amount of Atheist in their population. pick the top three. research their crime rate, economy, health care, technology indexes and then compare them to the average global indexes or USA's. it will give you something to think about.. that is if you're open minded
    • starcrunchfx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Ya, the highest black populations seem to drag down the countries as well. I think we'd agree the world would not be better without black people.
    • kuribo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@cybermort

      I'm not sure if you're talking to me or the parent comment; if not me, then just ignore this. I wasn't aware that I was putting forth a point of view in my comment; I was basically making a joke about some religious ideas prevailing despite contradictory evidence. Nowhere did I say that I'm against religion, that I think religion is holding people back, etc. If you don't think it's funny, OK. If you're offended, I apologize, I'm not trying to piss anyone off.

      All I can think of is that maybe you're reacting to the article as a whole, in which case, why did you reply to other comments?

      (Also, I don't see the relationship between religion and economic prosperity, health care, etc. as one of causation. A lot of the poorest countries are also very religious, and a lot of atheists are personally very successful.)
  • CromCruach, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6I don't think religion is neccesarily the problem. Humans are easily corruptible. I think it stems from the fact that we, on the one hand, are capable of reasoning, consciousness, and morality. On the other hand, we still live in a world where only the strong survive and there are issues like disease, famine, etc.
  • shinda, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5If there was no religion then who'd we blame for all conflict?
  • Snakedal337, on 10/13/2007, -9/+8The root of all evil, a documentary by dawkins, is a wonderful video I think everyone should watch. I have no problems with that guy leading in the atheist revolution.
    • Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love the irony when he interviews that evangelist guy who tells him not to be arrogant about being atheist. During that interview that guy is more arrogant than anyone else I have ever seen.
  • acanaday, on 10/12/2007, -17/+15Great!! Our world's diverse culture would be AWESOME without religion! I would love to go visit India, Europe, Japan, or Jeruselem, without the cultural influence of Religion! THAT SOUNDS FANTASTIC! Who needs it!! It has only brought the world horrible things.

    /sarcasm
    • kuribo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6So, the millions of people who have been tortured, killed, persecuted, driven from their homes, etc. over thousands of years are worth it, because it makes your vacations more interesting? Nice...

      (Honestly I see what you're saying, cultural diversity is great, but I don't think it really counteracts some of the terrible things that have happened in the name of religion; not that religion hasn't/doesn't have good qualities too, because it certainly does.)
    • unibomber999, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1You think religion is great, because you like to go travel and gawk at it? I bet it would just spoil your vacations to not have all of these people believing in their cute, little gods.
    • FuriousGopher, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3There have been far greater good qualities to come from Religion then there have been negative qualities.
      And as for removing Religion, how do you suppose we do it? Commit a holocaust for all creationists? That wouldn't be hypocritical of atheists at all
    • redDC143C, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"So, the millions of people who have been tortured, killed, persecuted, driven from their homes, etc. over thousands of years are worth it, because it makes your vacations more interesting? Nice..."


      You really think religion is the actual cause of these wars? It's not. It's groups of people with different ideologies wanting other groups of people to have the same ideologies. Religion is simply the most prevalent cause, however it could be any other reason.

      Prime example: CAPS LOCK. If someone were to write the most eloquent and well thought out comment on digg, yet left caps on, it would surely get dugg down. Is there any *real* harm in having to read all caps? Absolutely not, but the majority of digg users want others to be like themselves and not use caps.

      Simply put, wars are the result of groups in conflict, whether it be religion, or something as mundane as a keystroke.

    • kniwshmdcknit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0We need more commissions from the government for talented artists.
    • tylerjames, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@acanaday

      no one has argued for the abolition of history, culture, or irreplaceable artifacts
      i'm sure any atheist would feel the loss of the Notre Dame cathedra, the Sistene Chapel, or any of the great Buddhist monuments as much as any religious person

      people can still appreciate the Temple of Athena without having to believe that Zeus will shove a lightning bolt up your ass if you ***** with her
  • dondara, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5The most obvious headline I've ever read.

    Personally I think that religion is the problem. It's a crutch for people scared of the unknown. Do I know what is going to happen to me when I die? Of course not and I don't really care as there is nothing I can do about it. I'm ok with not knowing something. Religion was started as a means to control the populace. Need people to throw their lives away, tell them there is a reward waiting for them in the "afterlife". Want them to keep producing followers, tell them birth control is a sin. That ***** is social eng. 101.
  • ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -18/+32So, let me get this straight. Atheists tell religious people that the atheist way of thinking is the right way, and yet they berate the religious people for arguing over whose way of thinking is right?

    What a load of hypocrisy. If you want to be atheist, be atheist. If you want to be Christian, be Christian. If you want to be Jewish, be Jewish. And feel free to think whatever you want to think about the other religious beliefs -- just don't try and push yours on to people who don't want it.
    • FuriousGopher, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11Exactly! Thank you for expressing the observation that we non-atheists have been observing (Of course, we'll both get dugg down for this; On Digg, Atheists > Creationists - As unfair as it might be, that's how savage this site is when it comes to religious debate)
    • Timmmm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4> If you want to be atheist, be atheist. If you want to be Christian, be Christian. If you want to be Jewish, be Jewish.

      This sounds like the relativist fallacy. Perhaps you should be free to believe what you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there *is* a correct answer, and every religion (with the possible exception of one) is wrong. Consider more obviously flawed beliefs:

      "If you want to believe the Earth is flat, do so. If you want to believe the sky is green then that is fine."
    • FuriousGopher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Timmmm: "Perhaps you should be free to believe what you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there *is* a correct answer, and every religion (with the possible exception of one) is wrong."

      So what is the correct answer? Do tell us, since apparently the majority of the Earth is wrong, and you KNOW the absolute correct answer
    • tylerjames, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3he never claimed to KNOW the answer

      that doesn't change the fact that there is one and that a whole lot of people are going to be proven wrong regardless of what the answer actually is
    • FuriousGopher, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I know very well that there is only one correct answer, but why would he made the claim that nearly every religion is wrong, when we have no proof which side is correct? He even goes so far as the claim that it's a FACT that nearly every religion is wrong. And yet atheists all of sorts love to claim that religious people are close-minded, arrogant and over-supercilious.

      2nd Timothy 3:1-4 tells us this: "In the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God."

      Frankly, I more commonly see atheists with those traits rather than religious people of today. For a prophecy written nearly 2000 years ago, it sure rings true today.
    • prammy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@chumpchief:

      "So, let me get this straight. Atheists tell religious people that the atheist way of thinking is the right way, and yet they berate the religious people for arguing over whose way of thinking is right?"

      When you have atheist missionaries going around the world to convert people your statement might ring true. When they get churches to teach evolution beside the bible, your statement might ring true. When I have atheists coming to my door 8am on a saturday morning to tell me the details of Natural Selection, your statement