Religion vs Atheism vs Everything Else

winningfish · #1 09-23-2007, 01:36 AM

Religion, its purpose in society, whichever denomination or brand of religion, and atheism itself, ultimately are issues that only matter to those that care about the existence or nonexistence of God.

To the other members of society, it simply isn't that important an issue as to dominate all other issues in society. Religion's good and harmful effects on society(and for the same token atheism) are simply no more or less significant than issues such as organized crime, drugs, pornography, gambling, etc etc.

Discuss.

Sephus · #2 09-23-2007, 01:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Religion's good and harmful effects on society(and for the same token atheism) are simply no more or less significant than issues such as organized crime, drugs, pornography, gambling, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't see how you can compare "religion's good and harmful effects" with "organized crime, drugs, pornography, gambling." religion's effects are very relevant to those issues as well.

there aren't very many social "issues" that aren't affected by religion in some way.

winningfish · #3 09-23-2007, 01:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]

there aren't very many social "issues" that aren't affected by religion in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]

There also aren't very many social issues that aren't affected by, for example, Television and the media and the images they portray. I don't believe in God nor do I have a thing against those who do, so I'm neither religious nor atheist, and really to me, religion if not for the wars that have involved religions, is no bigger or less an issue than say drugs in society or the influence of media. I'm not talking about whether religion is good, bad, or whether drugs are bad, or media is good or bad. I'm talking about the significance of the issue itself.

Which, to RELIGIOUS FANATICS or ATHEISTS, is just not the case. They live or breathe this religion stuff and shove it down everyone's throats.. take a look at the board it's nonstop religion topics one after another. I'm not taking sides, just making an observation.

qwnu · #4 09-23-2007, 02:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in God nor do I have a thing against those who do, so I'm neither religious nor atheist...

[/ QUOTE ]
You have a unique definition of "atheist".

luckyme · #5 09-23-2007, 02:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in God nor do I have a thing against those who do, so I'm neither religious nor atheist,

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I give up.
1) you don't believe in god
2) you're not an atheist.

Do you have a theory that to be an atheist a person must no believe in god AND where a red hat, or what?

luckyme

winningfish · #6 09-23-2007, 02:12 AM

Saying one doesn't believe in God doesn't mean one doesn't believe in the possibility of the existence of some other-being that is all-powerful. It simply means one doesn't subscribe to the present options available in organized religion. It is very different to those who are against God.

And interesting that, PREDICTABLY, the religous are focusing on labelling here instead of looking at the issue being raised, which is that religion simply is not the No.1 overriding dominant social issue that the fanatics on both sides would want to shove down our throats and have us believe.

winningfish · #7 09-23-2007, 02:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in God nor do I have a thing against those who do, so I'm neither religious nor atheist,

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I give up.
1) you don't believe in god
2) you're not an atheist.

Do you have a theory that to be an atheist a person must no believe in god AND where a red hat, or what?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Please learn to use correct spelling and grammar if you want to critique, otherwise you come across as very stupid.

Eaglesfan1 · #8 09-23-2007, 02:14 AM

It doesn't matter whether he is technically an atheist or not. He's making the point that he is seeing this from an objective point of view.

winningfish · #9 09-23-2007, 02:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter whether he is technically an atheist or not. He's making the point that he is seeing this from an objective point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you very much sir.

luckyme · #10 09-23-2007, 02:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Religion, its purpose in society, whichever denomination or brand of religion, and atheism itself, ultimately are issues that only matter to those that care about the existence or nonexistence of God.

To the other members of society, it simply isn't that important an issue as to dominate all other issues in society. Religion's good and harmful effects on society(and for the same token atheism) are simply no more or less significant than issues such as organized crime, drugs, pornography, gambling, etc etc.

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

To most members of society, none of the issues you mention are significant. Who won American Idiot, or does Paris Hilton wear panties on wednesday is the main topic at starbucks.

That leaves very few people to think about AIDS in africa, stem cell research, science lessons, rescuing the holy land so we can have the Rapture, religion in the court room, etc.

Maybe if some religious people killed some doctors, or committed mass suicide, or sexually abused young girls in forced marriage, or flattened the odd building then people would change channels ... but what's the chance religious people would do any of that stuff ... IN THE NAME OF RELIGION.

Now, it possible that an atheist could do harmful acts too, but it's not IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM. Just as a person with a Red Hat may do criminal acts, but not IN THE NAME OF RED HATTERY.

Unless that support/instigation role of religion is understood then any category you want fits in as 'fat people do X bad deeds too'. Religion is a special category, a stronger version of a political affiliation in inciting actions.

My neighbor is an atheist .. what position does that tell you he holds on any issue that he will state, "well, I have to do it, I'm a atheist".

luckyme