A religion-themed offshoot of Fuck Sexism

[tushantin]

Religion is the far easier of the two evils

Pardon me for not reading the thread completely, but I just HAD to reply to this quote, ZeaLity (even though what I'm about to say is not relevant to the topic of the thread).

While I greatly respect your knowledge, I must tell you that you're half wrong. Religion is not evil, but blind ignorance is. Religion does NOT forbid you from gaining knowledge and having an open mind: People do. Society does. Religious people do.

Trust me on one thing. I've been studying most of the cultures of all modern and ancient religions and something hit me. All the events that have taken place in the name of religion were not BY religion at all, but rather biased people (for instance, Hitler and the Jews; Hitler was biased against them). Christianity has different values and flavors to it to guide humanity, but some people abuse that power to achieve control or to force their beliefs into someone else's head (ouch). I'm Hindu myself and I've studied my culture greatly, even to the depths of the formation of the Empire of Bharata, but I find it surprising that none of the Hindus even KNOW about our first Emperor. Generally the alchemists of the Vedic era encouraged scientific research, yet the "common" biased people considered it as miracles of the priests. Regardless, Hinduism (not BLIND Hinduism though; like I said, ignorance is the enemy) is also something that binds most of us Indians as brothers and sisters alike.

Similarly, Satanism is a widely diverse religion with many practices. Although SOME Satanists give the religion a bad name with some seemingly evil deeds, not all of Satanism is evil. One article from Diane Vera kinda convinced me of the values of Satanism, and the values it teaches is nothing a lot like the values Kamina teaches in Gurren Laggan. For instance, the atheistic Satanism merely take demons and Satans as symbols for the progress of humanity (eg., Baphomet for Fertility, Lucifer for stealing the stars, etc.) while the theistic Satanists gain a positive insight upon respect for an individual, regardless of sex or culture, and bestowing the powers to achieve their dreams upon them.

This is just a brief, small example, to prove that religion has nothing to do with evil. Religion is a guide to humanity, but does not necessarily take power OVER humanity. People do, and ignorance does. Stupid thoughts come from stupid people.

[ZeaLitY]

Religion is not evil, but blind ignorance is. Religion does NOT forbid you from gaining knowledge and having an open mind: People do. Society does. Religious people do.

That's the same as saying an Auschwitz incinerator is not evil; only the Nazis were, for putting people into them. The incinerator was designed to do one thing: kill or dispose of genocide victims. Similarly, religion does one thing: impose delusion and unreasonable thinking in its adherents, leading to behavior that's a net negative in the world.

Trust me on one thing. I've been studying most of the cultures of all modern and ancient religions and something hit me. All the events that have taken place in the name of religion were not BY religion at all, but rather biased people (for instance, Hitler and the Jews; Hitler was biased against them).

How do you think Hitler whipped up such fantastic support as part of his rise to prominence? Religion. Hitler used heavily-charged religious language in his speeches and dealings, and as part of his personality cult. Christians hated Jews long before Hitler was born, and he capitalized on that hatred. This is a bad example.

Christianity has different values and flavors to it to guide humanity, but some people abuse that power to achieve control or to force their beliefs into someone else's head (ouch).

Let's take a look at a Christian value:

16 To the woman he said,
       "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
       with pain you will give birth to children.
       Your desire will be for your husband,
       and he will rule over you."

So because Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she's now subjected to pain and subjugated to her husband.

This illustrates that there are many bad "values" that religions teach, in addition to the good ones. The evil of religion is not merely an abuse of power, or misguided execution of values. Many of the values themselves are corrupt, such as verses denigrating women for experiencing menstruation or illustrating that God ordered the wholesale slaughter of enemy cities.

a guide to humanity

As a final point, if religion is a guide to something, why shouldn't its merits be debated? If we're going to create a guide for humanity with ideals and values, then we should create the best possible guide, not accept the guide some "prophet" wrote 4000 years ago and call it good. Religious values are ideas formulated during a much more brutal time with a much more scant understanding of natural phenomena. The final result is crystallized—a product of that period. The values written for people living in the age of swords and sandals are still being taught from pulpits to a modern age, in which humanity has pulled itself up from some of its more brutal practices and failures in the past. And yet, religion is still static. If these religions are guides to humanity, they are poor guides, and shouldn't be exempt from criticism.

[tushantin]

LMAO you just hit me home. I never said Christianity never had flaws; indeed they do. Almost every religion does. And it was in the name of Christianity that the non-Christians were slaughtered in the 16th century, being accused of Demon Worshipers, thus giving rise to Satanism.

However do note that Bible isn't just ONE book. There have been variations and you know not WHICH of it is true. For instance, the sentence, "Your desire will be for your husband" only exists in the New King James version, but does not exist in the older or newer variations/scripts, but is placed by either of the following.

1) You will want to control your husband
2) You'll want to please your husband
3) Still your desire will be for your husband
4) Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.

Words are powerful things, and different ways of usage and punctuations make different meanings. For instance, different variations of this sentence mean very different things, similar or contrary to the New King James version.

However, I do understand what you feel about this. Even this wretched paragraph angers me to no end. Hell, someone would say God was a sexist. But as I said, stupid people give stupid thoughts. And as you said, some sexist/racist 4000 year old prophet may have been on drugs.

Yet according various accounts, Christianity was derived from Judaism. In Layman's terms, when one friend had some new ideas to guide humanity, his other friend used the same ideas for different beliefs. Just because one person alters the scripts does not mean religion is at fault. Similar to how a teacher messes with science textbooks to enforce his flawed beliefs onto a student who grow up with those flawed beliefs themselves. Science WAS to find the truth and the meaning and analysis OF that truth and isn't bound to textbooks, but rather reasoning. It's the similar case with religion. And let's face it; even WITHOUT religion, people would STILL have been narrow minded enough to get what they want, being biased against others of "different" beliefs, and this has always been the case, EVEN with atheists.

But let's say for you Christianity is an avatar of all religion. How would that affect the rest of the world? Like I said, even though every religion is flawed in one way or the other, you can't just walk around and disrespect it. Even today most religious people still speak of the names of their gods to empower them. While I know what you'd say, "You have to MAKE your way, NOT wait for the Gods to do their miracles." That's a common Satanist value that I have been mentioning; and Satanism is also a religion. But most of us Hindus do believe this. Make your way. So long as you have the will to pull it off, the Gods shall join in and grant you the strength.

As a final point, if religion is a guide to something, why shouldn't its merits be debated?

Why not indeed? Religion shouldn't be exempt from criticism, that's true. However, do note that every individual has free will, and nothing holds power over him/her. There scriptures are merely there, and each person has a mind of their own. One would blindly believe it; so long as he keeps an open mind and is unbiased against the others, it's all okay. One would consider it symbolic, but not believe it exactly; I don't consider any of the events in the scriptures ever took place unless I did some research myself (for instance, Hanuman wasn't a monkey, but was a warrior from the Tribe of Vaanaras). Some may needn't believe in it; they must find their own truth on their own.

I mean really; those who believe that if some papers say the next guy is a demon, they'd seriously need some help. Religion isn't bound to pages alone. It's the values passed down. I mean come on! People saw corpses decaying and thought it was a living vampire! Thoughts alter!

[ZeaLitY]

LMAO you just hit me home. I never said Christianity never had flaws; indeed they do. Almost every religion does. And it was in the name of Christianity that the non-Christians were slaughtered in the 16th century, being accused of Demon Worshipers, thus giving rise to Satanism.

If they have flaws, then they are "evil", as ignorance pertains to evil. Religion prescribes entire lifestyles using flawed systems, facilitating acts of evil in its adherents. We can say the system of religion itself is evil, as is faith.

However do note that Bible isn't just ONE book. There have been variations and you know not WHICH of it is true. For instance, the sentence, "Your desire will be for your husband" only exists in the New King James version, but does not exist in the older or newer variations/scripts, but is placed by either of the following.

1) You will want to control your husband
2) You'll want to please your husband
3) Still your desire will be for your husband
4) Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.

Words are powerful things, and different ways of usage and punctuations make different meanings. For instance, different variations of this sentence mean very different things, similar or contrary to the New King James version.

A pity, then, that the New King James version is one of the most popular. Here's a comparison of fifteen different bibles for this verse: http://bible.cc/genesis/3-16.htm

Whoops! All of them clearly subjugate women to their husbands. But this doesn't just go for Christians. When God allegedly dictated what is written in the Bible, he meant it for all humanity. He meant that Christianity is correct, and that every other religion is wrong, and its adherents will suffer for it. Thus, every woman is to be subjugated by her husband—even Hindu women to their husbands, to borrow your religion. Can you see how patently ignorant religion is? There is no respect or tolerance here. The Abrahamic God is claiming dominion over you. Nevermind that the Abrahamic God apparently didn't account for single women. Who are they subjugated by and subject to? Oops!

Going back to the original point, this is an evil value, and it is pervasive in all translations, just as many more very ignorant, oppressive, and evil things are ubiquitous in most religions and their texts.

However, I do understand what you feel about this. Even this wretched paragraph angers me to no end. Hell, someone would say God was a sexist. But as I said, stupid people give stupid thoughts. And as you said, some sexist/racist 4000 year old prophet may have been on drugs.

God did a poor job if he let some idiot prophet fuck up what he meant to say that much and allow HIS religion to be founded upon a sexist worldview. Way to recklessly impart divine inspiration. The reality is that religion and gods are man-made, and that like any fantasy conceived over centuries and established upon illogical and ignorant assertions, they are houses of cards. Pull one irrational piece, and the entire thing collapses.

Yet according various accounts, Christianity was derived from Judaism. In Layman's terms, when one friend had some new ideas to guide humanity, his other friend used the same ideas for different beliefs. Just because one person alters the scripts does not mean religion is at fault. Similar to how a teacher messes with science textbooks to enforce his flawed beliefs onto a student who grow up with those flawed beliefs themselves. Science WAS to find the truth and the meaning and analysis OF that truth and isn't bound to textbooks, but rather reasoning. It's the similar case with religion. And let's face it; even WITHOUT religion, people would STILL have been narrow minded enough to get what they want, being biased against others of "different" beliefs, and this has always been the case, EVEN with atheists.

I'm not sure what you're arguing, here.  Religion was most certainly at fault for the schism between Christians and Jews, as Christians believed the Jews religion was wrong. Not an acceptable alternative; not an antiquated but okay way of doing things; not an equally valid theory about the universe—just, plain, wrong, such that they had to found their own religion with its own traditions. And because of this schism, over the next two thousand years, millions of people were killed and oppressed because of religiously-motivated violence and policies. If religion was the foundation, the topic of debate, and the motive for violence after schism, how is religion not the fault?

But let's say for you Christianity is an avatar of all religion. How would that affect the rest of the world? Like I said, even though every religion is flawed in one way or the other, you can't just walk around and disrespect it. Even today most religious people still speak of the names of their gods to empower them. While I know what you'd say, "You have to MAKE your way, NOT wait for the Gods to do their miracles." That's a common Satanist value that I have been mentioning; and Satanism is also a religion. But most of us Hindus do believe this. Make your way. So long as you have the will to pull it off, the Gods shall join in and grant you the strength.

Oh, I can't walk around disrespecting religion? But yet the religious can walk around and

• Condemn other religions to hellfire
• Encourage rejection of science and reason
• Oppress and subjugate women
• Maintain usurious social orders
• Perpetuate financial frauds
• Chop up children's penises and clitorises
• Motivate violent acts and "holy wars"
• Promote sexual guilt and self-loathing
• Kneecap family planning
• Promote alternative, ineffective "medicines"
• Preempt meaningful life and existential lucidity
• Spread apocalyptic urgings
• Oppose literacy and higher learning
• And so much more

So, religion can do all that, and I can't call them on it?

Fuck Christianity.
Fuck Islam.
Fuck Judaism.
Fuck Buddhism.
Fuck Hinduism.
Fuck Zoroastrianism.
Fuck ancestor worship.
Fuck Taoism.
Fuck Confucianism.
Fuck Shinto.
Fuck the Baha'i.
Fuck Scientology.
Fuck Pantheism.
Fuck Theism.

The world stands nothing to lose from religion except an oppressive, organized force that perpetuates more harm than good. Fuck it.

Why not indeed? Religion shouldn't be exempt from criticism, that's true.

Where religion is concerned, to criticize is to disrespect. To say a sect is wrong for a certain ritual or believing in a certain theological concept is to directly challenge their faith, and this is disrespectful. Just pointing out this contradiction to your earlier point.

However, do note that every individual has free will, and nothing holds power over him/her. There scriptures are merely there, and each person has a mind of their own. One would blindly believe it; so long as he keeps an open mind and is unbiased against the others, it's all okay.

If that were true, this would be a world of atheism. Unfortunately, many people never receive that initial, lucid choice to evaluate religion and choose to believe in it, because they're taught and immersed in religious concepts and traditions from birth. An awful lot of Richard Dawkins's criticism towards religion is founded upon this brainwashing of children. When a child, from their earliest memories, is part of a religious tradition, and grows up through adolescence in that tradition—including fellowshipping and coming-of-age ceremonies—where is the choice? Religion is part of that child's fundamental aging experience. And if they ever did get an idea of rejecting it, how can they? They're under the ward of their parents. To reject their parents' religion would be, in almost all cases around the world, to invite mental and physical punishment, or even death.

This is an obvious point, but it's too good a time to pass up demonstrating with this example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Aq00yJSxo

My own parents don't know I'm an atheist, because it would damage my relations with my family so much and disturb them so incredibly that it would be counterproductive to our lives at large to tell them so. This is the extreme social pressure placed upon children to conform to their parents' belief. There is no open-minded choice about it.

As an aside, isn't it interesting that if you were born in another country, you would have been raised in a different religion? And earlier, you would have likely cited that religion as yours instead of Hinduism? You'd better hope your belief is the correct one, because there are thousands of other religions than yours just waiting to condemn you to an afterlife of eternal suffering for believing in the one you do.

One would consider it symbolic, but not believe it exactly; I don't consider any of the events in the scriptures ever took place unless I did some research myself (for instance, Hanuman wasn't a monkey, but was a warrior from the Tribe of Vaanaras). Some may needn't believe in it; they must find their own truth on their own.

I mean really; those who believe that if some papers say the next guy is a demon, they'd seriously need some help. Religion isn't bound to pages alone. It's the values passed down. I mean come on! People saw corpses decaying and thought it was a living vampire! Thoughts alter!

We've demonstrated that these values can be corrupt. You've brought up something else: religious texts are such that many people interpret them literally, believing the earth is 6000 years old and that non-believers should die. People are killed every day over such fundamentalist beliefs. If religions are flawed guides to humanity, and belief in religion routinely causes fundamentalism and acts of extreme violence, sexism, and other evil, then what good is religion?

There is an arena where conflicting guides about life are debated on their own merits—philosophy. And there is an arena where conflicting ideas about phenomena are debated on their own merits, and revised according to observation and experiment—science. And in this room of two, there are many more entities running around—except their ideas are crystallized dogmas born of faulty human ideas and assertions written thousands of years ago, and every one of them thinks the other is wrong and would gladly wish them out of existence if they had the power. These other chickens without heads running around are religions; faiths; beliefs. The sooner they exit the human stage, the better.

[tushantin]

  You're like me: just wouldn't say no to a friendly argument. ROFL I'm glad that's the case, because it's actually fun and intellectually enlightening.

If they have flaws, then they are "evil", as ignorance pertains to evil. Religion prescribes entire lifestyles using flawed systems, facilitating acts of evil in its adherents. We can say the system of religion itself is evil, as is faith.

We're all imperfect, we're all ignorant in a sense. Does that make us all evil? Science has a blind belief that "if you can't prove or see something, it doesn't exist", which is sort of flawed reasoning. Does that mean Science is evil? Some people, ignorant to other knowledge, merely know that Gods have granted them hands to forge their own destiny. Is that evil? An artist dreaming of possibilities, magnificence and beauty, minding his own business, yet ignorant to politics. Is that evil? Mind you, narrow-minded prejudice is the most evil of all.

He meant that Christianity is correct, and that every other religion is wrong, and its adherents will suffer for it.

I understand that. This is one of those reasons why I despise some values of Christianity without being disrespectful to it.

Thus, every woman is to be subjugated by her husband—even Hindu women to their husbands, to borrow your religion.

Actually, it's the opposite. Ever since the Dharmic, MUCH before Hinduism, a woman was and still is a divine entity, the mother of all humanity. It was the uneducated backward castes in the villages pre-British era that considered women as demonic seducers or something, to be ruled over by men. Even in the Chinese religions mankind was said to have been born from a Goddess, and even the ancient Emperors considered their wives to be their better halves - those that give them great advise to rule the empire, those that have much better intellect and insight than the emperors themselves.

Can you see how patently ignorant religion is? There is no respect or tolerance here.

XD Man, I told ya! Stupid people bring stupid thoughts! Not religion! I've seen atheists behave the same way as you mentioned there. Why blame religion for everything? Just because it's done in the NAME of it? Does that mean Christianity is right, that other religions are wrong?

The reality is that religion and gods are man-made, and that like any fantasy conceived over centuries and established upon illogical and ignorant assertions, they are houses of cards.

Exactly! That's one of those truths. But I'll mention in detail in a different thread. Just not here. Yet, do not discount "miracles" yet. We still do not know who those "Gods" are, what are their names and whether they do exist or not. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean they do not exist. Yet, what do you consider about God watching us and laughing at our ignorant wars carried in the name of "religion"? xD

And because of this schism, over the next two thousand years, millions of people were killed and oppressed because of religiously-motivated violence and policies.

I am well aware of the Rabbi Loew story, and I see what you mean. But like I said, the Christians considered the Jews as plain wrong, but I'm not sure about Christianity. There's a difference. For instance, at the time of Rabbi Loew, almost half of the Christians are fine with the Jews, but the Christian Priests were biased and they ordered their men to secretly kidnap and kill other Christian children and blame it on the Jews. Who's at fault? This happens even in non-religion topics, man. Even politics.

Secondly, one Christian told me once that Christianity teaches her to love everyone, even even every other religion and atheism, hate sin but not the sinner (I know you'd argue about the "sinner" part too, and don't worry, I agree with that). While another Christian called me a "demon gonna go to hell" just coz I don't visit the Church. Does the latter's actions make the first GOOD Christian evil too?

Oh, I can't walk around disrespecting religion? But yet the religious can walk around and...

o___O Who said EVERY religion does that? I see what you mean, but believe me, not every religion does that. Point taken though; but when that happens, blame the dudes, not the divine. For instance, if a liar says Peter told him to steal a bike doesn't mean Peter is at fault, coz he was minding his own business. Similarly, scriptures are just THERE! It's people who do the wrong. Burn the people, but spare the horses. Reminds me of a saying from a movie.

Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people.

Guns could be used for self-defense AND for killing. It's all based on WHAT you choose to do.

Where religion is concerned, to criticize is to disrespect. To say a sect is wrong for a certain ritual or believing in a certain theological concept is to directly challenge their faith, and this is disrespectful.

It may have been the case then. Not today. XD You have no idea how many times I've criticized Christianity's biggest flaws to one of my friends who's devoted to Christianity. He didn't take it as an insult. He respected my views, just as I respected his views. So tell me, man. Where's the fault you're speaking of? It's not in religion. It's in people's minds. Change THAT, and the world becomes a better place.

...Religion is part of that child's fundamental aging experience. And if they ever did get an idea of rejecting it, how can they?...

I understand that, and this is something that affects me deeply. I'm going to change that entirely for the whole world, bringing a brighter future than today. Especially the children, I shall try my best.

You'd better hope your belief is the correct one, because there are thousands of other religions than yours just waiting to condemn you to an afterlife of eternal suffering for believing in the one you do.

XD Despite my belief in Hinduism, I'm also "partially" atheist. That is because I don't consider the Hindu Gods as Gods, but I DO know there is a God hidden somewhere unnamed. My parents don't believe me, but my Godmother does. I also have deep respect for every culture and religion in the world despite their flaws, for even so a religion in good hands serves in the welfare of the people. There are temples that feed the hungry, that give courage to the cowards, etc. Even though I don't believe in Charity, I still respect them.

As for thousands of folks waiting to send me to hell for my beliefs, then the challenge is on. I still say it; I'm PROUD of being a Hindu, born in a Hindu family, and nothing can change that. It's Hinduism I believe in, not false Gods or biased judgment by the fools. My parents are pure Hindus and they have never been biased against other religion or anyone else, which gave me a new light in the wretched dark world. They taught me values, morals, to love and share, to do all the good that you can. To be a GOOD human being. Even today, as a grow up, I still criticize many aspects of Hinduism too, and yet I find that the fault is not in religion itself; it's the humans.

You've brought up something else: religious texts are such that many people interpret them literally, believing the earth is 4000 years old and that non-believers should die.

I keep telling you, yet you don't see my view. Things can never be taken LITERALLY unless there IS evidence to it. For instance, did Adam or Eve ever exist? No, they were merely metaphors of the growth of civilization (that I shall demonstrate in my novel). Did LUCIFER really battled against Michael and God? NO! Lucifer/Iblis was actually taken as a cameo appearance of a Babylonian King who was called the "Morning Star". Did God bless Solomon power over the demons? Once again NO! It was a metaphor which I still need to uncover. Those who take things literally without much research and commit crimes by its names are fools.

There is an arena where conflicting guides about life are debated on their own merits—philosophy. And there is an arena where conflicting ideas about phenomena are debated on their own merits, and revised according to observation and experiment—science....

Life has always been an arena. Ideas are produced, fought for, then refined. The older knowledge, though flawed, exists for a purpose. Today, you shall refine those flaws and make something good. Tomorrow, someone else will refine YOUR flaws and make something better. And till will keep going on.  Blame the narrow minded, not the horses.

[Lord J Esq]

Looks like this heated up after I went to bed. How rude! =P

There's something you said earlier in the debate that I need to answer:

Trust me on one thing. I've been studying most of the cultures of all modern and ancient religions and something hit me. All the events that have taken place in the name of religion were not BY religion at all, but rather biased people (for instance, Hitler and the Jews; Hitler was biased against them).

Oh no you don't. Just because a "biased person" does something "bad" does not mean that they are any less religious than they would otherwise have been, or that their misdeed is outside of religion. Indeed, the implication of that reasoning is offensive, as it proposes that wrong can only be done when people act outside of religion.

The quality of a person's conduct is largely independent of their religious views. That may not sound radical today, but it is a radical idea, because for ages humans have insisted that the absence of religious morals in a person--which applied not only to the truly nonreligious, who were always a minority, but even to the followers of other religions--was a major cause of wickedness in the world. People have even committed slavery, rape, murder, and genocide on these grounds. This is the narrow area where there is a link between a person's conduct and their religious views. Religious faith creates justification in the minds of believers. If one has supposed a divine entity, then he or she can appeal to that entity's authority as a justification for any action the person may wish to undertake. Indeed, it's rarely so cynical as "I need an excuse to be bad." Most of the time, people actually believe that their desired actions are sanctioned from On High. It is this ability to justify what would otherwise be unjustifiable that links religion and action together, creating an entire class of evil which otherwise would not exist.

Hitler was a religious person. He wasn't very Christian, although Christianity was the religion of the German people, and his Nazi movement used it to great effect. But, by my account, all that stuff he said about the Aryan people and the German state wasn't just to deceive the public: He actually believed it himself. We can call this belief system a "religion" because it lacked a strong empirical basis and made significant claims about the moral ordering of the universe. Much of what Hitler did was religious. Christians, ever fond of trashing non-Christians, like to call Hitler an atheist, insinuating a connection between his atrocities and his supposed atheism. They're dead wrong about that, though. It'd be difficult to pin this particular nightmare in human history on Christianity directly--although it would be simple enough to point to the ease with which Germany's majority Christian citizenry adopted and assimilated it, and even to the socioeconomic factors across Europe which set up Hitler's rise in the first place--but the bottom line is that, even though Hitler's story is only marginally a Christian one, it is a religious one.

There are many injustices committed entirely outside of religion, don't get me wrong. Many of these are petty, lacking a larger philosophical context. Some are far worse than petty. The absence of religious motivation offers no guarantee that a given action will be just. Indeed, any claim to the contrary would be preposterous. Nevertheless, the reverse is not true: The presence of religious motivation poses a significant risk that a given action will be unjust.

You weren't necessarily talking about the great horrors of history when you said that the course of human events has been instigated by "biased" people rather than by religion--although I inferred as much given that you immediately followed up your statement with a Hitler example, which is usually bad form--but, even on this more general level of major events without regard to justness or unjustness, you are totally unfounded in proposing that religion is some innocent, benign thing which never influences people's thinking, and you are more than totally unfounded in further proposing that all actions taken in the "name" of religion have never actually been committed out of religious motivation. Such an assertion is so baldly wrong that I find myself hard-pressed to think of a way to explain it to you successfully. In America right now there are religiously inspired campaigns underway to affect the shape of our society. Most of these are detrimental. Even the best ones--the soup kitchens and what have you--will often discredit themselves by using "charity" as a lever to win converts, conditioning the charity on a proselytizing session. I urge you, then, to give a closer inspection to whatever it is that "hit you," because the song it sang doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.

[ZeaLitY]

You're like me: just wouldn't say no to a friendly argument. ROFL I'm glad that's the case, because it's actually fun and intellectually enlightening.

Religion is a corrupting influence on the world. It is one of my central ambitions to abolish it.

We're all imperfect, we're all ignorant in a sense. Does that make us all evil? Science has a blind belief that "if you can't prove or see something, it doesn't exist", which is sort of flawed reasoning. Does that mean Science is evil? Some people, ignorant to other knowledge, merely know that Gods have granted them hands to forge their own destiny. Is that evil? An artist dreaming of possibilities, magnificence and beauty, minding his own business, yet ignorant to politics. Is that evil? Mind you, narrow-minded prejudice is the most evil of all.

The presence of flaws capacitates evil. The difference between those things and religion is that religion's premise is completely flawed. It is not just an imperfect system; it is completely incorrect from the bottom premise of divinity up. There is no need to keep religion, spirituality, and faith in human civilization. It is rotten at the core.

I understand that. This is one of those reasons why I despise some values of Christianity without being disrespectful to it.

My point is that to most followers of a religion, to disagree with one of its tenets or holy verses is to disrespect them. There is an ocean of people in the United States, male or female, who would say you are condemned to hell for rejecting Genesis 3:16. Likewise, there are an ocean of Muslims and Jews who would also condemn you for disagreeing with anything in its books. These are fundamentalists, but the incidence of disrespect is not unique to them; there are many things one can disagree with that will inflame moderates, or even theologians. The Protestants split from the Catholics because of several disagreements over Catholic theology. These weren't fundamentalist urges, but "academic" debates about topics like the divinity of Christ. The disrespect of disagreeing with the church and the mutual criticism led to religious wars that killed thousands of people in Europe afterwards. Even this year, Ireland passed an anti-blasphemy law, and the United Nations recently mulled over the same for Islamic countries, outlawing certain criticisms of Islam.

Most religious people cannot accept criticism. Why should they, when their texts call critics and followers of other faiths apostate and destined for hell? They're wrong to them—fundamentally. To criticize them is to offend and disrespect them.

Actually, it's the opposite. Ever since the Dharmic, MUCH before Hinduism, a woman was and still is a divine entity, the mother of all humanity. It was the uneducated backward castes in the villages pre-British era that considered women as demonic seducers or something, to be ruled over by men. Even in the Chinese religions mankind was said to have been born from a Goddess, and even the ancient Emperors considered their wives to be their better halves - those that give them great advise to rule the empire, those that have much better intellect and insight than the emperors themselves.

You missed my point. What I'm saying is that according to Christians, Hindu women should be subjugated to their husbands, because that's what God said about all of humanity. Not Adam and Eve; not just Christians; everyone. God laid down the law for everyone. How intolerant it must feel to know that so many other religions have claimed the authority to tell you to do with your life and that of others who don't believe in these religions. This discrimination occurs every day, whether it's a Muslim woman told to go to the back of an Israeli public bus because she doesn't believe in Judaism, or a gay person denied the right to marry because of Christian-inspired laws. This is the mark of religion disrespecting the rights of non-believers. Freedom of religion is freedom from religion.

XD Man, I told ya! Stupid people bring stupid thoughts! Not religion! I've seen atheists behave the same way as you mentioned there. Why blame religion for everything? Just because it's done in the NAME of it? Does that mean Christianity is right, that other religions are wrong?

Observe a single jerk or criminal. They can only do so much; they're one person, constrained by the limits of a single human being's capacity. Now take a religious mob of several people, institutionalized with legal powers, financial clout, and traditional soft power. They can commit much greater evil, and are more likely to do so, given their wholesale belief in flawed values and an incorrect premise based on divinity. Religion institutionalizes, organizes, empowers, magnifies, and facilitates the collective actions of misguided people. Faith also plants the seed of irrationalism by encouraging people to base their entire worldview on a fallacious myth, thus compartmentalizing logic and reason. It's got to go.

Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean they do not exist. Yet, what do you consider about God watching us and laughing at our ignorant wars carried in the name of "religion"? xD

To you first statement, reason is why we don't entreat every possible fantasy without proof. I could walk into Harvard tomorrow and propose that all the chemical elements are actually based on the emanations of five basic elements. If they asked why, I would say, "I just know. I have faith that the universe works this way." And they would laugh me out. Humanity didn't come this far by believing in myths, or chasing wild geese without any semblance of truth. It painstakingly hypothesized and disproved over centuries by observing experiments and phenomena. We "believe" in electricity because we can see it; because it fits other phenomena and their behaviors; because it works. We don't believe in Santa Claus, because we know he is a man-made myth, and there is no evidence for his existence. "What if there's an invisible God?" is right up there with Santa Claus.

To your second statement—"laughing at our ignorant wars"—what an asshole God, to have created humanity, then laugh as it hurts itself. I think I'll choose not to believe in him, given that he's not interested in providing any evidence of his existence.

I am well aware of the Rabbi Loew story, and I see what you mean. But like I said, the Christians considered the Jews as plain wrong, but I'm not sure about Christianity. There's a difference. For instance, at the time of Rabbi Loew, almost half of the Christians are fine with the Jews, but the Christian Priests were biased and they ordered their men to secretly kidnap and kill other Christian children and blame it on the Jews. Who's at fault? This happens even in non-religion topics, man. Even politics.

And later, throughout Medieval history, Jews were routinely massacred by Christians in pogroms. Yes, people fight over other things, such as land or ethnicity. But like wars over racism (racial discrimination is completely incorrect and should be abolished from humanity), wars over religion are completely unnecessary, as religion is founded upon a completely incorrect premise and should be abolished from humanity. It is something humanity could stand to lose without any collateral damage whatsoever, and its loss will greatly improve the world. We penalize those who commit hate crimes, as we want to eliminate racial discrimination. We penalize those who commit hate crimes in the name of religion, and we should seek to eliminate religion, as it's a rotten tree that can only bear more bitter fruit than good.

Secondly, one Christian told me once that Christianity teaches her to love everyone, even even every other religion and atheism, hate sin but not the sinner (I know you'd argue about the "sinner" part too, and don't worry, I agree with that). While another Christian called me a "demon gonna go to hell" just coz I don't visit the Church. Does the latter's actions make the first GOOD Christian evil too?

Christianity makes the first Christian evil, yes, as her belief visibly qualifies the religious foundation upon which the latter person acts. She's part of the Christian flock, reinforcing Christianity's presence on earth—which motivated the latter person's acerbic comment. She is also evil in a philosophical sense because of profound ignorance, which victimizes herself by denying her a meaningful life and understanding of the world she lives in, and may victimize other if it motivates her to ignorant or insensitive actions (as it did the latter person).

o___O Who said EVERY religion does that? I see what you mean, but believe me, not every religion does that. Point taken though; but when that happens, blame the dudes, not the divine. For instance, if a liar says Peter told him to steal a bike doesn't mean Peter is at fault, coz he was minding his own business. Similarly, scriptures are just THERE! It's people who do the wrong. Burn the people, but spare the horses. Reminds me of a saying from a movie.

The "divine" is why those people have the power and motivation to commit acts of evil. Do you think a person who grew up without religion would have any interest in taking a knife to a baby's penis? Or have any "higher" arguments when trying to oppress women? Without religion, these evils would be significantly impaired and reduced, if not eliminated entirely, like circumcision. The divine is why these people are committing their evil. It is inseparable; it is the hand holding the murder weapon.

It may have been the case then. Not today. XD You have no idea how many times I've criticized Christianity's biggest flaws to one of my friends who's devoted to Christianity. He didn't take it as an insult. He respected my views, just as I respected his views. So tell me, man. Where's the fault you're speaking of? It's not in religion. It's in people's minds. Change THAT, and the world becomes a better place.

Refer to the anti-blasphemy laws above. Did you also know that in Malaysia, several churches have recently been bombed just because their followers spoke the name Allah? Were you aware that Coptic Christians in Egypt were recently attacked for their faith? These people didn't even criticize; their only transgression against the attackers was to differ in their religious beliefs! This is the imperative of religion, and it's right in their holy texts—"non-believers and followers of other faiths are wrong!" You may have found a subdued believer in the mix, but as these international news and laws demonstrate, many religious people cannot tolerate criticism or even a differing of belief. So much for docile selection of guides to humanity. Again, you will likely blame the people for those attacks, and not their religion, but religion is the very reason they attacked! The entire concept's hands are dirty. In some, religion only motivates casual discrimination. In others, it motivates murder. The root is corrupt; remove the problem at its source and abolish religion.

It's Hinduism I believe in, not false Gods or biased judgment by the fools.

Oh dear, did you just call non-Hindu gods false? You just disrespected and offended hundreds of millions of people, all at once. You've also betrayed your own intolerance of other superstitions. The negative effects and perspectives of religion is even found in your own words. If you believe the Christian god is false, then how are you respecting your docile Christian friend that you mentioned above? You're asserting that her entire worldview, morals, and attachment to reality are wrong. You're not even giving her a chance of being right, as you've decided the Hindu gods are the one in the pantheon, and not hers. Tu quoque.

I keep telling you, yet you don't see my view. Things can never be taken LITERALLY unless there IS evidence to it.

I DO know there is a God hidden somewhere unnamed.

You contradict yourself. You're saying that because this God is "hidden", there is no evidence of his existence, but that you still somehow know he truly ("literally") exists, in spite of a lack of evidence. This is "faith", and it's opposed to reason. Which rules apply, in this world? Faith, or reason? It can't be both. There can't be "natural" and "supernatural" simultaneously existing.

The older knowledge, though flawed, exists for a purpose. Today, you shall refine those flaws and make something good. Tomorrow, someone else will refine YOUR flaws and make something better. And till will keep going on.  Blame the narrow minded, not the horses.

Only, this older knowledge isn't being refined. For many religions, it is the same as when Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha dictated it to its followers. It is antiquated, and the only purpose it serves is distracting people from a lucid existence and justifying ignorance and evil acts.

[Lord J Esq]

After rereading the recent posts, I'm thinki everything from Reply 854 should be split into a new topic. Or merged into an existing religious topic, since we have so many of 'em. Religion and sexism are certainly intertwined, but I think we've gotten off-track here.

[rushingwind]

I had a very long, rambling reply to this that made no sense, so I'll just abbreviate it all to this: Even though I agree about the evils of religion, I don't think it can be abolished. Even if you had a purely atheist society, some crackpot somewhere would start claiming that he's having visions of a god, and other idiots would follow him. The crackpot might be genuinely crazy, or just malicious, but someone would try it. (The moral of this? Humanity is inherently stupid, and grossly uninterested in educating themselves. Maybe this would change in a religion-free environment, I don't know. I hope it would.)

Case in point: The Heaven's Gate cult. Thirty-nine people committed suicide to catch a ride on a UFO supposedly hidden in the Hale-Bopp comet. In this day and age, these people should have known better. Especially when all of this was coming from leaders who called themselves "Bo" and "Peep." It just goes to show that people will believe anything, and that they can convince themselves of any reality.

Maybe I'm not giving humanity enough credit, I don't know. I certainly don't have any answers to what should be done, as most religious people can't be de-converted because they refuse to actually consider the evidence. How do you get rid of something that people refuse to let go of? It's not easy.

Despite my belief in Hinduism, I'm also "partially" atheist.

Tushantin, that's like me saying that I'm "partially" pregnant. It doesn't work that way.

Either you believe in the existence of a higher power, or you don't. If you believe there is a god somewhere, then you are not an atheist. If you put stock into mysticism, then you aren't an atheist.

[tushantin]

I suggest you guys (basically those who haven't) take a look at this.
http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,8370.0.html

Okay back to the thread.

Humanity is inherently stupid, and grossly uninterested in educating themselves. Maybe this would change in a religion-free environment, I don't know. I hope it would.

"Through suffering enough they learn wisdom"...
"Through suffering... There’s no other way.
"Not in the primitive stages... Primitives are too self centred to ask the important questions until suffering forces them to ask"...
(Robert Anton wilson (1990) Schrodingers Cat Trilogy [Orbit Books]).

If religion really IS so evil, then in a way it's going the right path.   And this brought the rise of ZeaLity and his Springtime of Youth. LMAO

Tushantin, that's like me saying that I'm "partially" pregnant. It doesn't work that way.

Hahaha! Well, that's entirely possible, but if I told you in detail it'd take a whole day (which is why I'm writing a series of books entirely about it ROFL). But here's in brief. I believe in Hinduism, but I still do not believe in Hindu deities being actual "Gods". Well, Dharmic culture does not ENFORCE one to believe in the Gods, which is why I'm accepted as one anyway. But still, the Gods are either symbolic in nature or are worshiped for people's faith (and believe it or not, ALL of it is based on whether a person WANTS to or not; nobody is forced to do what they don't want to). And this is exactly why I believe religion is innocent (at least the Hindu and its variations, but I'm not sure about the others), and it's basically the sinful minds of the people that cause chaos.

I urge you, then, to give a closer inspection to whatever it is that "hit you," because the song it sang doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.

LOL Your post really did "hit me" there! But of course you're right. But I'm not exactly a lawyer, so my own reasoning may sound flawed mostly because I suck at explaining (but I do try my best).

But if you're supposing that religion itself is the cause of "religion inspired crimes", then this would also apply to the rest of the inspiration based actions, such as fanfiction. For instance, Toriyama's Dragonball was an epic classic, yet the inspired "movie" burned eyes of thousands of fans. Your theory is based on sentimental obviousness than factual; 1) You're right, because most of those who DON'T KNOW much about Dragonball would accuse Toriyama of being a horrible writer, just because the newer story is inspired by his manga, and 2) You're wrong, because despite the inspiration, it wasn't Toriyama's fault that the movie failed. It was the actors, the director, the CG artists, etc.

Similarly, take an example of CE. Despite being inspired by CT and CC, despite gaining so many fans and taking fanfiction at its best, it does not Kato's thoughts or style in it. The reason being, the CE team never KNEW Kato personally and neither was Kato INTENTIONALLY responsible for CE's creation. And let's face it; it's not just religion that influences people's thinking. EVERYTHING does! Children commit suicide hoping that Superman would save them, TV shows influence people to blindly believe concepts that make people's lives miserable, videogames like WoW influencing people to stay at home and not have a life, etc. And things go WORSE, even without religion in tow.

One thing that really confirmed my view was this; Sherlock Holmes never cared about religion, yet he never bothered to interfere in their affairs because he did not believe in the denial of right to live and freedom. All he cared for was every crime he sensed. As ZeaLity said, religion cannot be exempt from criticism, and there are many religious folks who commit crime and get away with it in the name of God. But to Holmes religion is no excuse to get away with crime. Regardless, he once said that deep within the veins of innocent humanity runs a scarlet thread of crime. His purpose was to expose that evil to the world in broad daylight.

I have a similar reasoning here. About 6 years back I believed the same thing, that religion is intolerable and infuses false knowledge upon the people. But when I look at my parents, my godparents, and other relatives, I learned somethings beyond that. Religion (at least not ALL religion) binds you as brothers, but doesn't take away your freedom. It gives you a chance to think, a chance to resist, a chance to know. Religion gives you a chance to love and care, a chance to understand. To live and let live. To bring smiles and let the world bloom with them. Yet there ARE many who take political advantage of this even though they're not entitled to it. Yet there ARE people who claim they have seen God and have heard its voice. My goal is defend one's right to live, right to think and right to religion. But if something is done against someone's will, such as one person forcing his religion or belief upon someone else, or even hurting or denying the right to someone in the name of religion itself, that is when things get incriminating. The scarlet thread of sins run MUCH deeper into the heart of humanity than a mere surface which is religion.

Religion is a corrupting influence on the world. It is one of my central ambitions to abolish it.

No problem but one. You have every right to discriminate against "some" religious people and every right to take advances towards achieving your goal. However, do note that if you're denying people their right to live their own life as they want or their right to religion, you'd be nothing different from those Priests who bombed the Churches just because their followers spoke the name "Allah", because they TOO denied their followers the right to speak/religion. But when it comes to people ENFORCING people to follow their religion or inflicting crimes in the name of religion, it's a totally different story, and thus you have my support.

There is no need to keep religion, spirituality, and faith in human civilization. It is rotten at the core.

I would like to see you try. But I believe you've only seen the "tyrannies" of a few religion and not the true essence of it. Although I'd like to see what happens when you remove religion, spirituality and faith from the root, I still say that they're essential components in human civilization, at least until humans reach the final stage of evolution. Obstructions and faith (in one's self and comrades; NOT Gods) are the tools that help humans develop.

Most religious people cannot accept criticism. Why should they, when their texts call critics and followers of other faiths apostate and destined for hell?

Yes, that's entirely true. But the thing is, the reason I'm still defending "religion" as general is because I have never seen what you just described beyond Egyptian, Christian, Jewish and Muslim, because that doesn't seem to be the case for the (varied) Hindus, Chinese and the other cultures, at least to my knowledge. There is NOTHING stating in these cultures' scripts stating that the critics or non-believers should be punished or whatever. Also, contrary to Christian God, NONE of the Gods in these cultures claim they are the only true and the rest are false. In fact, they accept diversity in existence and beliefs. I don't mean to brag, but just stating my point here.

It's people that cannot accept criticism, actually, because most people fear to be wrong coz it's so damn embarrassing to them.

You missed my point. What I'm saying is that according to Christians, Hindu women should be subjugated to their husbands.

Exactly! Meaning your target of discrimination is merely some factors of specific religion, but not the whole house or term as whole. Told ya, things take time to mature and perfect over time. For instance, technology is the primary cause of Global Warming and ecosystem collapse. You can't simply destroy technology for that, you need to perfect it. Sure, it's got flaws that creates serious problems to both people and the world as whole (Trucks killin people, guns killin people, pollution causin bicyclers like me big headaches, waste of electricity, rapid consumption and waste disposal, etc.) and there have been many villagers and farmers calling technology "evil", but as you can see we're trying to improve the best we can. If you're against THAT, then we've no problem livin in caves again and drinkin river water. ^^

Faith also plants the seed of irrationalism by encouraging people to base their entire worldview on a fallacious myth, thus compartmentalizing logic and reason.

That depends on what kind of "faith" you actually mean. I understand irrational faith in Gods and angels gots to go, but "faith" in general would destroy your Springtime of Youth, since it binds you and your fellow folks!  

Also, do note that every myth comes from some history one way or another. If you've read Da Vinci code then you know about Jesus. Lucifer was merely a Babylonian King and not a Satan. "Genbu" was the title one of the Kings of China gained after he died, and this brought the legend of the Northern God Genbu. Draupadi wasn't a woman with five husbands, rather a King with five daughters for five warriors. Lilith came from Priestess Belili. But I'm still not sure about the history of Lamia.

To you first statement, reason is why we don't entreat every possible fantasy without proof.

You misunderstood what I said. Reason is also something most people do not apply in more than one point of view. Let me elaborate with your very example.

You COULD walk into Harvard tomorrow and propose that all the chemical elements are actually based on the emanations of five basic elements. If they asked why, you WOULDN'T say, "I just know. I have faith that the universe works this way." Rather, claim that it's merely a possibility, because you can neither prove it exists nor can you prove that it DOESN'T exist. And if they still laugh ya out, then they've obviously got a one track mind. Like I said, if you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, because if you can't prove it doesn't exist might possibly exist. A mere possibility changes things, and ruling out a possibility while assuming it does/doesn't exist is something only a fool would do.

Christianity makes the first Christian evil, yes, as her belief visibly qualifies the religious foundation upon which the latter person acts.

That's a completely different story to a scenario when I ask a person, "what if God doesn't exist and you've been wrong all this time", and she replies that at least she'd believe he did, because she wants to believe that there's at least a little glimmer of hope left in the world. Of course, you'd argue upon the factor of "faith" here. But considering a person's mentality and state of mind, I'd say there's nothing wrong for her to embrace false hope so long as she wants good things to happen on her own freewill. Once again, you might argue that just wanting isn't enough and one can't sit around and wait things to happen. I agree with that. This was why I chose to show her how to get what she wants. ^^

Nevertheless, there's a difference between evil and victim. If a person, though victimized, commits sins ignorantly or knowledgeably, that person would be considered "evil". But if a person (or a person's thoughts) is merely a victim to some kind of influence without committing a sin or denying someone any rights, that person would merely be a victim, and not an evil sinner.

Do you think a person who grew up without religion would have any interest in taking a knife to a baby's penis? Or have any "higher" arguments when trying to oppress women? Without religion, these evils would be significantly impaired and reduced, if not eliminated entirely, like circumcision.

Although there have been cases of people castrating other people/babies that have nothing to do with religion, you're partially correct. I'm aware of the Muslim customs, and they don't entirely chop off their baby's penises. I've been visiting a Muslim doctor ever since childhood and I've learned that it's actually only the top skinny portion that they cut without damaging the penis critically. I'm not sure why, but one of them said it's for hygiene's sake.

But you're right, though. It's kinda painful, especially for a child, which is why I'm against it.

The divine is why these people are committing their evil. It is inseparable; it is the hand holding the murder weapon.

Mind you, a murder weapon like a butcher's knife or combat knife can also be used to make awesome tasting cabbages. XD It depends on who's using it.

Oh dear, did you just call non-Hindu gods false?

You know, the thing about you is that you assume too much. I never said that my God is the only truer one. I merely stated "False Gods", and that's it. And this INCLUDES Hindu deities. Sheesh, confirm things before you act, man! XDDD

As I told rushingwind, I do not believe in people who speak for their conceived Gods, because Gods have no business in the affairs of humans. Even if Gods were to meddle (that is if they exist), it's highly unlikely they'd let their presence be known; otherwise it'd just be a Mary Sue in a novel, and various other reasons. If there is a God, he doesn't belong to any religion. As you said, religion is merely man made, an accessory that human civilization has been wearing since ages ago. The Hindu Gods, from my research, were actually based on real historical people (if you've read my Damned Religion thread you'd know why they're referred to as Gods) while the Abrahamic God seems to be based on the "God" the Torah mentions. I'm not sure about the Torah God, because in the book "Essence of Kaballah" it seems that God seems to be the omnpresent one (like I said, God belonging to no religion) which is similar to the possible unnamed God I was talking about, but I would consider most religious Gods as deities (hopefully which doesn't disrespects the religious). By "False Gods" I mean defined Gods, ancient people worshiped as Gods and not "respected ancestors", fictional Gods, etc. By defined Gods I mean those who say God is this or God is that, God hates this God likes that, etc. This is utterly rubbish because nobody knows who or what God is. At least to me, worshiping False Gods is a waste of time, but reading about False Gods is dang as heck inspiring! ^o^

Yet, despite my beliefs, I have no reason to deny a person his or her rights to religion or their rights to think. Their beliefs is their business alone. One day I will make the world see my way though, and without enforcing them to. Just give them a chance if they want to. Because it's highly possible that the next generation's belief could be better than mine or yours.

You contradict yourself. You're saying that because this God is "hidden", there is no evidence of his existence, but that you still somehow know he truly ("literally") exists, in spite of a lack of evidence.

Okay, I guess I wrongly stated this. XDDD Forgive me. Actually there's still a possibility that God may or may not exist. The thing is one can't scientifically prove he/she exists yet one can't prove he/she cannot exist. I'm still ruling this as a possibility, and won't deny it. If at that moment of writing I may have believed that he actually DID exist, (I admit, I was a fool) then forgive me. But then again it's understandable: I'm a writer! LOL

Only, this older knowledge isn't being refined. For many religions, it is the same as when Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha dictated it to its followers. It is antiquated, and the only purpose it serves is distracting people from a lucid existence and justifying ignorance and evil acts.

Partly yes, and partly no. Some of those events have been misreported. And then again, you KNOW how historical facts get emphasized and molested as myths. Because it may even be possible that Moses was probably a rebel, but some Christian writer was inspired, took his example, CHANGED it and placed it in the Bible.

Hell it's still a possibility.

And if that's the case, the person the followers followed may not necessarily be evil, but merely a leader the followers followed. If you needed liberation from a Pharoah's tyranny, wouldn't you join a mob of rebels? Would you just want to run away or just overthrow the kingdom? How can that act be evil? Think Crono and his followers. Think Kamina and HIS followers. Think yourself and YOUR followers.

[ZeaLitY]

Tushantin, that's like me saying that I'm "partially" pregnant. It doesn't work that way.
Hahaha! Well, that's entirely possible, but if I told you in detail it'd take a whole day (which is why I'm writing a series of books entirely about it ROFL). But here's in brief. I believe in Hinduism, but I still do not believe in Hindu deities being actual "Gods". Well, Dharmic culture does not ENFORCE one to believe in the Gods, which is why I'm accepted as one anyway. But still, the Gods are either symbolic in nature or are worshiped for people's faith (and believe it or not, ALL of it is based on whether a person WANTS to or not; nobody is forced to do what they don't want to). And this is exactly why I believe religion is innocent (at least the Hindu and its variations, but I'm not sure about the others), and it's basically the sinful minds of the people that cause chaos.

Choosing to believe in something that doesn't exist because it has institutional support, then committing ignorant and evil acts BECAUSE IT FUCKING SAYS TO DO THESE THINGS IN THE FUCKING RELIGION ITSELF prevents religion from claiming any kind of innocence to anything.

LOL Your post really did "hit me" there! But of course you're right. But I'm not exactly a lawyer, so my own reasoning may sound flawed mostly because I suck at explaining (but I do try my best).

Your reasoning is bad because you are trying to defend something unreasonable.

I have a similar reasoning here. About 6 years back I believed the same thing, that religion is intolerable and infuses false knowledge upon the people. But when I look at my parents, my godparents, and other relatives, I learned somethings beyond that. Religion (at least not ALL religion) binds you as brothers, but doesn't take away your freedom. It gives you a chance to think, a chance to resist, a chance to know. Religion gives you a chance to love and care, a chance to understand. To live and let live. To bring smiles and let the world bloom with them.

I guess I'm just charmed if I can do all of this without having to waste my life sitting in a goddamned church or believing in myths. Nothing of what you described can only be done with religion. You are correct that religion offers opportunities for socialization, but so do racquetball clubs. Religions, however, use socialization to threaten people from leaving churches and force them to conform to belief patterns. More unethical behavior from religion.

et there ARE people who claim they have seen God and have heard its voice.

As a child, I once sleep-walked and, to my eyes, did not see my parents in their bed, even though they were there. As a preteen on a frighteningly dark campground in the country, I once heard leaves rustling to the right of me, and no leaves were rustling. One's imagination and convictions can confuse the senses and make one perceive nonexistent phenomena. So can group-think, medical conditions and loss of blood to the brain. You can even do it right now by starving your senses. Lay down in a blank room, without sound, and have someone tie you down so you can only stare at the ceiling. Within several minutes of sensual deprivation, you will begin hallucinating phenomena because your ears and eyes need to see something.

Many people claim they saw God or heaven in near-death experiences, but this is a hallucination: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/10/06/near-death-brain.htm

Or, religious people can simply lie about having seen God or whatever.

No problem but one. You have every right to discriminate against "some" religious people and every right to take advances towards achieving your goal. However, do note that if you're denying people their right to live their own life as they want or their right to religion, you'd be nothing different from those Priests who bombed the Churches just because their followers spoke the name "Allah", because they TOO denied their followers the right to speak/religion. But when it comes to people ENFORCING people to follow their religion or inflicting crimes in the name of religion, it's a totally different story, and thus you have my support.

We do not allow children to skip school and live the life they want to. We put warning labels on dangerous products so that people ignorant of the dangers will not be injured. We enact regulation on financial markets so that powerful transactors cannot take advantage of ignorant parties. This is government, humanity governing itself. Religion is self-delusion and faith is a neurosis. Abolishing it is consistent with humanity's governing and improving itself.

I would like to see you try. But I believe you've only seen the "tyrannies" of a few religion and not the true essence of it. Although I'd like to see what happens when you remove religion, spirituality and faith from the root, I still say that they're essential components in human civilization, at least until humans reach the final stage of evolution. Obstructions and faith (in one's self and comrades; NOT Gods) are the tools that help humans develop.

The good news is mine: atheism and non-belief is demographically on the rise across the world. As for the "true essence" of religion, it is best summed up in "believe in something that doesn't exist" and conform to a prescriptive dogma based on outdated thinking and brutal morals.

because that doesn't seem to be the case for the (varied) Hindus, Chinese and the other cultures, at least to my knowledge.

Three things.

1. Chinese and Indian religions have their own distinct faults. I recently listened to the wife of a UN ambassador from India speak about how the Hindu cycle of familial living makes it very difficult for women's rights in India, at the moment (elders expected to leave the household, gender roles ingrained in the religion, etc.). This problem of attitudes is so pervasive that many women, when their husband loses his job, quit their jobs as well, because it is a point of shame to be the primary breadwinner. Switching to Buddhism, there's the obvious sexism that precipitated my attack, as well as anti-human belief. Buddhists believe that desire is damned, and have a host of philosophies condemning various experiences of the human condition. Christianity has done the same thing about human sexuality, to the point that at one time in Irish history, sex was a procreation-only practice done in the dark, clothed.
2. Every religion is also guilty of deceiving its adherents by encouraging their belief in falsehoods while preventing them from having a meaningful, lucid life. This is a circumvention of reason. No matter how bad suicide attacks and rape in the name of religion may be, this is the insidious root of it all, and every religion and belief system is guilty of it.
3. Religions still reinforce social orders. Christianity in Medieval Europe made rigid a system in which the church had significant land holdings and a monopoly on education. Hinduism in India helped reinforce the caste system, while Buddhism became doctrinal in other Asian states. A useful example is that of the Dalai Lama, who, before China took over Tibet, was in charge of a harsh, class-based society. Quality of life actually improved under the Chinese.

It's people that cannot accept criticism, actually, because most people fear to be wrong coz it's so damn embarrassing to them.

And they cannot accept this because of their religion, which claims divine authority and names other faiths as being incorrect, and even adversarial. It is a serious flaw in your thinking that you can so easily disclaim religion from the acts of its believers. Religion is why they believe and behave that way. They are inseparable.

Exactly! Meaning your target of discrimination is merely some factors of specific religion, but not the whole house or term as whole. Told ya, things take time to mature and perfect over time. For instance, technology is the primary cause of Global Warming and ecosystem collapse. You can't simply destroy technology for that, you need to perfect it. Sure, it's got flaws that creates serious problems to both people and the world as whole (Trucks killin people, guns killin people, pollution causin bicyclers like me big headaches, waste of electricity, rapid consumption and waste disposal, etc.) and there have been many villagers and farmers calling technology "evil", but as you can see we're trying to improve the best we can. If you're against THAT, then we've no problem livin in caves again and drinkin river water. ^^

 

That depends on what kind of "faith" you actually mean. I understand irrational faith in Gods and angels gots to go, but "faith" in general would destroy your Springtime of Youth, since it binds you and your fellow folks!

The Springtime of Youth is based on a mental human tendency towards neuroticism and the result that a person isn't usually able to gauge their best effort or true potential, and thus should be aware of this and seek to eliminate negative thinking or frailty in the self-will. This human potential exists; it is not some imaginary God. Determination is nothing supernatural.

Also, do note that every myth comes from some history one way or another. If you've read Da Vinci code then you know about Jesus. Lucifer was merely a Babylonian King and not a Satan. "Genbu" was the title one of the Kings of China gained after he died, and this brought the legend of the Northern God Genbu. Draupadi wasn't a woman with five husbands, rather a King with five daughters for five warriors. Lilith came from Priestess Belili. But I'm still not sure about the history of Lamia.

How sad, then, that people believe these myths as real. Do you feel you're exempt from these criticisms because your imaginary God is your own creation, and not a historical figure's production?

Rather, claim that it's merely a possibility, because you can neither prove it exists nor can you prove that it DOESN'T exist. And if they still laugh ya out, then they've obviously got a one track mind.

No. You're using a computer right now because the scientific method and skepticism worked, and those are why I would be laughed out, even if I asked them to believe me. What you can present without proof, I can dismiss without proof. Educate yourself about scientific skepticism and its role. The world you're living in would be one of mud huts if not for reason.

That's a completely different story to a scenario when I ask a person, "what if God doesn't exist and you've been wrong all this time", and she replies that at least she'd believe he did, because she wants to believe that there's at least a little glimmer of hope left in the world.

That is an irrational statement. What constitutes hope, for her? Believing in something that probably doesn't exist on the 0.00000001% chance that it does, and will fix the world? If she wants a glimmer of hope in the world, she should fucking create it with her own hands and try to improve the world herself. Prayer does nothing. It was an embarrassing day when science had to prove that, but several studies have now demonstrated that prayer has no effect on the dying, and that prayer actually made some terminal patients die faster because it darkened their hopes. "If I'm in such bad condition they can only pray, I must be on the way out." It is weakness to surrender your hopes and desires to some nonexistent higher power. She should do it herself if she truly cares. As long as she has that faith, it reinforces the actions of others committed in that faith's name, while denying her a meaningful existence.

It's another victim of your own irrational thinking that you call her hope in the Christian God false, but are certain in your hopes for this invisible God you keep bringing up. It's illogical when she does it, eh?

Nevertheless, there's a difference between evil and victim. If a person, though victimized, commits sins ignorantly or knowledgeably, that person would be considered "evil". But if a person (or a person's thoughts) is merely a victim to some kind of influence without committing a sin or denying someone any rights, that person would merely be a victim, and not an evil sinner.

They still have to be stopped. Religion still has to be abolished, even if their adherents are committing evil in blithe ignorance.

I'm not sure why, but one of them said it's for hygiene's sake.

The hygiene argument has been scientifically demonstrated to be false. They are liars. If you are against this practice, you should also be against the irrational beliefs that created it.

*More misunderstanding the point*

Yet, despite my beliefs, I have no reason to deny a person his or her rights to religion or their rights to think. Their beliefs is their business alone. One day I will make the world see my way though, and without enforcing them to. Just give them a chance if they want to. Because it's highly possible that the next generation's belief could be better than mine or yours.

Well, then! When a believer of the stabbing God comes and puts a knife in your chest, I hope you'll salute him for staying true to his beliefs. The adherents of religion are putting metaphorical knives in chests every day on the order of millions through different forms of discrimination and oppression.

[quot]I'm still ruling this as a possibility, and won't deny it. [/quote]

Why not? Afraid to die? Afraid to live in a world that would be unromantic without some God? Too attached to fantastical concepts like superpowers or ghosts to let them go? Or does it just seem like the natural thing to do in a world full of religious people?

Partly yes, and partly no. Some of those events have been misreported. And then again, you KNOW how historical facts get emphasized and molested as myths. Because it may even be possible that Moses was probably a rebel, but some Christian writer was inspired, took his example, CHANGED it and placed it in the Bible.

Again, why shape your life around a flawed source?

And if that's the case, the person the followers followed may not necessarily be evil, but merely a leader the followers followed. If you needed liberation from a Pharoah's tyranny, wouldn't you join a mob of rebels? Would you just want to run away or just overthrow the kingdom? How can that act be evil? Think Crono and his followers. Think Kamina and HIS followers. Think yourself and YOUR followers.

How can that act be evil? Obvious. After those Jews escaped from Egypt, they maintained belief in Judaism, and helped sculpt its repressive, backwards beliefs.

You have failed to substantively debate any actual points about religion and its deleterious effects. This is a sad hallmark of religious debate, because religious people argue irrational positions that can't be defended by reason. They start pivoting and proposing nebulous claims and hypotheticals, while claiming some kind of hidden knowledge unique to their faith that the other party couldn't possibly understand. This is how it's always been. I hope that with time, you can perceive how your own irrational belief is caused by tradition, fear of death, or a confluence of factors, and how hypocritical your belief is given your other views on religion. Perhaps then, you'll also realize that when a religion deludes its believers and tells them to commit evil acts, that religion is evil. As it stands, your arguments have demonstrated an unreadiness to realize that at the moment. Good luck.

[tushantin]

Don't call me a hypocrite merely because my views are different. As it stands, you've not even tried, or don't want to try, to see things as I do in order to judge it rightfully all on the assumption my ideas reasoning is flawed. Fine, if it's a honest straightforward response you want, there here it is.

Your reasoning is bad because you are trying to defend something unreasonable.

That may be so, but your reasoning is also flawed because of your ignorance of the actual status of evil religion you speak of in the other side of the planet.

I guess I'm just charmed if I can do all of this without having to waste my life sitting in a goddamned church or believing in myths.

You don't need to. If you seriously believe that spending your life ringing bells in Churches and Temples alone is religion then you're dead wrong.

Religions, however, use socialization to threaten people from leaving churches and force them to conform to belief patterns. More unethical behavior from religion.

That's funny, how have I not experienced this before? When sitting in a temple I can simply walk outta there or even say that their practices are weird. Yet they don't seem to do anything about it and mind their own business.

Many people claim they saw God or heaven in near-death experiences, but this is a hallucination: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/10/06/near-death-brain.htm
Or, religious people can simply lie about having seen God or whatever.

Of course, it is. "A Pope claimed he saw God who asked him to destroy the Knights Templer because they practice sodomy." Do you think I'd seriously believe that?

We do not allow children to skip school and live the life they want to.

What you're talking about is individual preservation, and NOT criminal acts. But consider the Human Trafficking thread: "300 to 500 children in Seattle living in slavery."

The good news is mine: atheism and non-belief is demographically on the rise across the world. As for the "true essence" of religion, it is best summed up in "believe in something that doesn't exist" and conform to a prescriptive dogma based on outdated thinking and brutal morals.

First sentence: Good! Second sentence: "Believe in something that doesn't exist" doesn't necessarily apply to every religion as you're assuming. Here's an example of a religion that doesn't bother with the existence of imaginary stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism
Speaking of which, your beliefs resemble some of theirs. Especially the "self-perfectionism" and "Eye for an eye" attitude.

Chinese and Indian religions have their own distinct faults.

Yes. So does everybody else.

I recently listened to the wife of a UN ambassador from India speak about how the Hindu cycle of familial living makes it very difficult for women's rights in India,

1) The problem isn't from Hinduism itself, but the backward classes that rose since around 16th century. It's still played today in some rural areas, but not necessarily in cities.
2) The majority of India is already striving to give female importance a priority and abolishing sexism completely, but what you're speaking of is merely rural areas where governmental power is either the least or irresponsible.

This problem of attitudes is so pervasive that many women, when their husband loses his job, quit their jobs as well, because it is a point of shame to be the primary breadwinner.

As I said, influence of backward classes, not Hinduism/Dharmic. There are ways to liberate from this, but the main problem is finance, lack of education and unemployment. You have no idea how crappy the lives of poor folks are here in India. They're practically ignorant in everything except to the knowledge and penny that have a little access to. But that's not the case in urban areas; educated women have a choice and right to employment whether or not their husbands/fathers are.

Buddhists believe that desire is damned, and have a host of philosophies condemning various experiences of the human condition.

I'm really beginning to doubt where you're getting your info from. To most Buddhists, sentiments is considered a dangerous weakness only when it is out of control. Most of them strive to keep themselves in control and think unbiased and rationally. I'm not too sure if they consider desire to be "evil", but control of emotions is one of the basic discipline teachings in all aspects of life.

Every religion is also guilty of deceiving its adherents by encouraging their belief in falsehoods while preventing them from having a meaningful, lucid life.

Completely untrue.

Religions still reinforce social orders.

Religion in turn began with the establishment of human civilization in the first place. Each clan/tribe were associated with some for of belief, and that word of the leader was considered law. In order to survive the wilderness with the clan they were forced to accept those beliefs. Political law was established with the expanses towards cities and nations, and a government was formed. Their "religion" however remained in the root and was taught to the children. In essence, Government and Law began with religion itself.

I'm not saying if it's a good thing; just stating the obvious origins. But I assume you want to drop religion while keeping the government intact. The thing is it's more difficult than it sounds. At least for just one person like yourself.

And they cannot accept this because of their religion, which claims divine authority and names other faiths as being incorrect, and even adversarial.

Haha I know a certain atheist who can't accept criticism.

The Springtime of Youth is based on a mental human tendency towards neuroticism and the result that a person isn't usually able to gauge their best effort or true potential, and thus should be aware of this and seek to eliminate negative thinking or frailty in the self-will. This human potential exists; it is not some imaginary God. Determination is nothing supernatural.

You misunderstand me, but I won't place much effort into explaining much. The Faith of Springtime I mentioned is not some "belief in something non-existent", but FAITH in Human potential, individual's strength. You KNOW such a strength exists, because without it you wouldn't have encouraged the people to do the same.

How sad, then, that people believe these myths as real. Do you feel you're exempt from these criticisms because your imaginary God is your own creation, and not a historical figure's production?

My "imaginary God" is merely a speculation, a possibility, and nothing else, and you don't seem to see the line between myth and reality. Also, that "imaginary God" is in fact based on a metaphysical force that resides in the mind of every creative thinker INCLUDING yours, and this as a fact is reality, ZeaLity. I believe in the knowledge I research on my own, not blindly accept anything people want me to believe, thank you.

What you can present without proof, I can dismiss without proof. Educate yourself about scientific skepticism and its role. The world you're living in would be one of mud huts if not for reason.

Scientific perfectionism may base its strengths from skepticism, yet the major discoveries were purely out of intelligence and curiosities. For Nikola Tesla, it wasn't unusual to wonder what would happen if he melted his assistant's hands into a highly electrical discharge or whatever. Skeptics may think it can't happen, but curious thinkers will MAKE it happen. Take notes on the discovery of atoms for a change.

If she wants a glimmer of hope in the world, she should fucking create it with her own hands and try to improve the world herself.

Haven't you read the last sentence in the paragraph, man? Today she's able to do the impossible all thanks to self-perfection and determination. YET she still clings onto, what you call, false beliefs of "Gods". Why? Because if someone doesn't want to, then that's their business, not mine. I'm not you, mate.

It's another victim of your own irrational thinking that you call her hope in the Christian God false, but are certain in your hopes for this invisible God you keep bringing up. It's illogical when she does it, eh?

If you're talking about my "irrational thinking", think again. Her hope is her own, and I had no reason to meddle with it; neither did I ENCOURAGE her to keep it nor did I criticize her judgment.

And term "False God" is an easier term to use with you considering you see every God "false" anyway. And you keep insisting and assuming that somehow I have this weird "hope" upon this God I keep bringing up. What coffee did you drink this morning? Didn't you read what I said that "God" is merely a possibility and nothing else?

They still have to be stopped. Religion still has to be abolished, even if their adherents are committing evil in blithe ignorance.

Go for it.

The hygiene argument has been scientifically demonstrated to be false. They are liars. If you are against this practice, you should also be against the irrational beliefs that created it.

I'm already against it. But mind you, only the "irrational" beliefs, such as the penis thing.

Well, then! When a believer of the stabbing God comes and puts a knife in your chest, I hope you'll salute him for staying true to his beliefs. The adherents of religion are putting metaphorical knives in chests every day on the order of millions through different forms of discrimination and oppression.

Do you seriously think I've been learning Krav Maga and Fencing as a joke? And don't worry, I will salute him: If he certainly is true to his beliefs then he shouldn't give up on me just because I'm so damn hard to kill.

Why not? Afraid to die?

Yes. If I die, my work would be left unfinished.

Afraid to live in a world that would be unromantic without some God?

No. Whether or not this "God" exists, there's still more to the world than meets the eye.

Too attached to fantastical concepts like superpowers or ghosts to let them go?

Symbolically and when it comes to sheer entertainment, yes. Realistically, no.

Or does it just seem like the natural thing to do in a world full of religious people?

*grins* Dude, I like to try things different. Theistic religion and Atheists themselves bore me.

Again, why shape your life around a flawed source?

And why do you illogically assume so much? Your "skepticism" seems to be failing you. And I shape my life upon actual historical events and fiction alike; Historical (both actual history and also the basis/origins of myths) because of my relations with past knowledge, and fiction because it's a one way trip to a person's thoughts and ideas. None of these are flawed sources.

How can that act be evil? Obvious. After those Jews escaped from Egypt, they maintained belief in Judaism, and helped sculpt its repressive, backwards beliefs.

Your statement is completely contradictory, because if YOU ever succeed in abolishing religion and your followers cause something bad after you, then your cause would be considered "evil" by yet another "ZeaLity" 200 years later. Rebellion is a struggle for freedom. Maintaining belief with Judaism is a completely different issue. I find your reasoning highly illogical.

-------------------

Congratulations, you win the argument. Hell, it's been entertaining yet enlightening at the same time, and I highly enjoyed it. Consider this though.

Despite the rise of Atheism, it'll take somewhere around 200 years to completely abolish religion little by little, and by then none of us would be alive. If you're hoping to do it pronto, then you do need to know that its being backed by their respective government: bad news.

Destroy Sexism, I'm with ya. Destroy Racism, I'm with ya. But let's say you DO manage to abolish religion completely. If you think that will be the end of all evil, then you're dead wrong. Sure, there will be strict security, restrictions, preservation, etc. But there shall also still be rape, murder, robbery, explosions, nose picking, etc.

So long as human mind exists there will always be chaos, believe it. And if you fail, I won't; I'll manage to change the way the world thinks one day.

But I'm looking forward to what you have in store. ^^ Goodluck.

[Radical_Dreamer]

You COULD walk into Harvard tomorrow and propose that all the chemical elements are actually based on the emanations of five basic elements. If they asked why, you WOULDN'T say, "I just know. I have faith that the universe works this way." Rather, claim that it's merely a possibility, because you can neither prove it exists nor can you prove that it DOESN'T exist. And if they still laugh ya out, then they've obviously got a one track mind. Like I said, if you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, because if you can't prove it doesn't exist might possibly exist. A mere possibility changes things, and ruling out a possibility while assuming it does/doesn't exist is something only a fool would do.

You would absolutely still deserve to be laughed out. Just because you claim something possible in the broadest sense doesn't mean your claim is worth serious consideration. Furthermore, you may be wrong in your fundamental assumption. You may assert that something cannot be proved or disproved, but your assertion does not make it so. But even giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you are correct in that you assert something that cannot be proven or disproven, why assert it at all? There's no rational way you could have come to "know" this thing, and asserting that it is true when you cannot demonstrate that it is true is attempting to impose your ignorance on others. That's evil, plain and simple.

If you make an ignorant, worthless assertion, and this assertion is rejected by those with knowledge on the topic, the problem is not with them.

[tushantin]

If you make an ignorant, worthless assertion, and this assertion is rejected by those with knowledge on the topic, the problem is not with them.

Of course, the problem is not with them and which is why I don't go around reinforcing my ignorance on others. A standard instability of situation occurs when a point is presented without proof, and whether or not by a chance of possibility.

But you don't see what I mean actually. I merely borrowed his example (I admit, it's a bad example) just to show the validity of a possibility. A possibility should not be ruled out on an individual basis. But it's a completely different story when it's being enforced as plain ignorance.

HOWEVER, when there ARE plus points for possibility rather than improbability, whether or not we're able to prove its existence, (for instance, you witness something you cannot explain, and you jot down the details of it) considering the circumstances scientific attention may be called upon.

[Thought]

Let's take a look at a Christian value:

16 To the woman he said,
       "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
       with pain you will give birth to children.
       Your desire will be for your husband,
       and he will rule over you."

So because Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she's now subjected to pain and subjugated to her husband.

This illustrates that there are many bad "values" that religions teach, in addition to the good ones.

Wait, so women being equal to men in a perfect world, before humanity’s fall, is a "bad" value to teach? And teaching that inequality between the genders is the result of human behavior, not the natural order, that's a bad value too?

Ah, curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Bible! How dare you teach people that gender inequality is the result of evil in the world!

Religious faith creates justification in the minds of believers.

This is quite true, however you are shortsighted in its significance. Individuals of any kind, religious or not, seek justification for their actions. Religion is used as a very convenient tool for such justifications, but need for justification is human in nature. With very few, usually genetically linked, exceptions, no one has ever willingly done what they consider to be an evil deed. Oh, people have done what they'd consider to be evil things, but always in the moment, as a necessity to perform the action, the individual is capable of justifying that action.

This function of the human brain is amazingly powerful. If you truly want to do something, you will justify it. Religion might make this easier, but even without religion it would be done.

I’m a Christian and I believe in equality of women. Should it be any wonder, then, that I am able to twist that bible verse above to be show how women are clearly supposed to be the equals of men?

And if I were Christian and believed in the inequality of women, would it be any wonder that I would be able to twist that bible verse to show how women are clearly supposed to be unequal?

Religious faith creates justification in the minds of believers, but it is the human mind that craves justification. People will follow anything that can provide that justification, be it religious faith or politics or science.

There are many injustices committed entirely outside of religion, don't get me wrong.

I must here object on your own grounds, Josh! If religion is bunk, as you have essentially claimed in the past, then the injustices committed entirely outside of religion as fundamentally similar to the injustices committed inside (partially or fully) of religion. The two are the same and a distinction between the two may be counterproductive. Injustice is injustice, be it in China or Washington, the lab or the pulpit. To separate the two seems like you are trying to excuse one or the other (though I'm not sure which) so some degree of blame.

Either you believe in the existence of a higher power, or you don't. If you believe there is a god somewhere, then you are not an atheist. If you put stock into mysticism, then you aren't an atheist.

Just to note, atheism just says that there's no god. While usually this includes any and everything paranormal, strictly speaking, it doesn't have to. It would be an odd atheist who believed an afterlife, for example, without a god but other than not believing in the divine, there is no strict criteria for atheism.

So as long as Tush says that there are no gods about, he's strictly speaking an atheist. But since he seems to believe in many paranormal, "mystical" things, he's not one that other atheists would readily recognize. Hence, "partially atheist," while technically impossible, could serve as a useful classification regardless.