
Nation of Reason: Coming Out of the Religious Closet Together (on Atheism) - bfathi
http://benbobsworld.blogspot.com/2016/03/nation-of-reason-coming-out-of.html
======
RipSnow57-1958
It is truly good that no warranties are implied as one would be necessary if
we were to take this "Looooonnnggg," post seriously. According to records,
religious warfare accounts for about 2-4 million deaths in the world since any
records were kept. Hitler, Stalin and Mao managed better than that in each
week. Let's do enter the corridors of Lucretius and find ourselves to be the
arbiters of human worth as Pol Pot did. Delightful.

~~~
lizardskull
It is wonderful that Ben Fathi is so loving of humankind that he would take
the time to write such a 'loooong' post as you worded it when the author could
have used that time to do so many other things. I believe there are a few
misunderstandings in this writing that could use a little light. To conserve
time, I will stick to the first paragraph.

Christians have a much more sophisticated view of the universe than the author
must realize. Also, there are some flawed thoughts held by the author
concerning history as it is recorded. The idea that during the Middle Ages
Christians destroyed scientific progress is not supported by historical
research. Since you mention the scientific method, Roger Bacon, a Franciscan
friar and the father of the modern scientific method existed during this time
period. Comparing what is going on now with the followers of Mohammed to the
Crusades unfortunate shows the author should spend some time studying both. As
for the creation of a global community based on logic, reason, science, and
compassion you have just described the the life of powerful follower of Jesus.

~~~
bfathi
How exactly does the existence of a single person (Bacon) negate any of the
arguments about atrocities in the Middle Ages?

If you are nit picking between Islam and Christianity, I am afraid you missed
the point.

~~~
lizardskull
I thought one point of the essay was to express your belief that humanity
needs to create a new 'community that is based on logic, reason, science, and
compassion.' My point is those qualities already exist in the church I attend.

Bacon was silly on my part.

Another point I found in the opening paragraph places the blame of many
conflicts in the world on Christian beliefs. If you see someone killing
another in the name of Christ then they taking teaching from a confused
source.

From my perspective the quality of life for us is ever increasing. The cause
behind these improvements can be found within the influence religious
doctrines have held on the minds of each successive generation. If our human
nature is naturally so good how do we explain all the suffering we subject
each other to everyday?

~~~
bfathi
My main thesis is that we needed religion, God, the threat of eternal
damnation in hell, and the promise of bliss in heaven for all these centuries
because the population was illiterate. They needed to be told stories to get
the message across, to scare them into behaving themselves.

I said several times in the article that I agree with all the moral teachings
of all religions - which, by the way, are almost identical in all religions.

My main point is that we no longer need the "stories" in each religion because
the vast majority of the population is literate now. The stories are what
cause religions to attack each other. "My God is better than yours", "My
prophet is right, yours is wrong". Those stories are no longer relevant or
necessary. Instead, they cause strife and bloodshed.

Nowhere in the article do I single out Christianity as the only problem. All
religions have this problem equally - because they are based on two thousand
year old stories.

------
RipSnow57-1958
If one is to create such a "Manifesto," one should not beg so many questions.

~~~
bfathi
Once again we differ. Any manifesto that doesn't beg a thousand questions is
not worth the paper it's written on.

~~~
marvy
I prefer to avoid the expression "beg the question" it's misused so often that
you can't guess reliably which meaning the speaker intended, (or which meaning
the reader will assume).

