3 things you would remove from the world

Sleepy wrote: »

I find that a rather odd argument tbh. Rejecting a belief because it has no supporting evidence isn't a "belief" in it's own right. It's a dismissal of poor reasoning as that.

It's logically possible that one of the estimated 4,200 different religions in the world right now has accidentally stumbled onto the truth of life, the universe and everything (I phrase it like that because were there a single shred of evidence that any of their beliefs were correct, the entire world would know about it - so these beliefs aren't based on reasoning: they're based on desire, indoctrination, arrogance, manipulation, desperation, blind hope or as many of the organisations themselves like to call it "faith").

It's logically improbable that any of these belief systems hold any more merit than the hundreds of thousands of other religions that have risen and fallen since the dawn of mankind. Cool and all as Thor looks on screen, basing your life around his purported teachings is an odd choice...

Although there's no evidence to suggest it, it's certainly logically possible than some form of higher being or "God" was responsible for the Big Bang. To extrapolate from this that Atheism is in and of itself a "belief system" is linguistic gymnastics tbh. To extrapolate the validity of a man-made religion from this tiny window of logical possibility is either breath-taking arrogance or pitiable desperation.

looksee wrote: »

Would you like to pop over to Atheism and Agnosticism with that argument about atheism being a belief system? I don't want to take the discussion off topic, but 'not collecting stamps' is not a hobby, and atheism is not a belief system.

Care to explain how performing an action is the equivalent of holding a belief?

Science has yet to falsify religion..Just as religion has yet to factually establish its claims

The atheist corner is pretty much 'God does not exist unless you can prove it' and that is the belief...However, the counter argument is ' prove he/she/it does not

The burden of proof, who does it fall on? we could argue it all day but its pointless as neither have seeing as neither have factual proof of their argument,

The issue here is that both sides adhere to a set of beliefs.

There now exists churches of atheism, congregations of people gathering together, proselytising and various other behaviours that are considered features of a belief system...Am I saying these people believe in a deity? no...I am saying they conform to a set of specific beliefs..

We could argue that there are divisions of Atheism, just like there are divisions of other belief systems..which range in intensity. such examples are mentioned in the research below

(See http://www.atheismresearch.com/ for a typology)

Full Study Here

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13674676.2014.987743

Let us not forget the near weaponized superiority complex in some extreme atheists ....its quite reflective of the extremist approach in some religions to be honest. it appears on both sides, it is mutually detectable on extreme ends of the continuum....let us examine a quote from the above research

(The fourth typology, and one of the more assertive in their view, we termed the Anti-Theist. While the Anti-Theists may be considered atheist or in some cases labeled as “new atheists,” the Anti-Theist is diametrically opposed to religious ideology. As such, the assertive Anti-Theist both proactively and aggressively asserts their views towards others when appropriate, seeking to educate the theists in the passé nature of belief and theology. In other words, antitheists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental. The Anti-Theist has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding of the limitations and danger of religions. They view the logical fallacies of religion as an outdated worldview that is not only detrimental to social cohesion and peace, but also to technological advancement and civilized evolution as a whole. They are compelled to share their view and want to educate others into their ideological position and attempt to do so when and where the opportunity arises)

Interesting...ideological positioning, im sure you're aware of what that is a synonym for...seems they like to proselytise too

Finally, we have the agnostic camp who lay between either realm of extremity (its quite the logical approach imo, if we cant prove or disprove...its better to say we dont know...specifically based on a lack of factual evidence)




Alas, I return to my original point

The further people go in trying to disprove others point of view, the further we get from the solution which is unification despite difference

Religion is fine, Agnosticism is fine, Atheism is fine

Extremism is not fine...and breeds a lot of the evil in the world

And at the heart of extremist behaviour is people, and its a case of open vs closed mind

Religion is no evil...People are evil

Formula

Cosmetic surgery

Selfies

1) Utopians
2) Distopians
3) Conspiracy theorists
...
4) Lizard people.

poa wrote: »

Good choice.
Another 3 of mine would be: tobacco, cancer, heroin.
Without question the world would be a better place without them.

Why would it be better without heroin? Are you just going to give people who have just under gone very painful surgery some panadol?

My 3 are

Nuclear weapons
The ghost of Ian Paisley that haunts Castle Dillion
Spiders

addiction, selfishness and rats.

Cancer, midgies, greed

1st one is obvious. Horrible disease.
2nd one as so I can go camping and enjoy it properly
Last one is really vague but really to try and stop all the selfish. sociopathic criminals who run the planet and manipulate all of us to fund their wars and make them richer.

I thought about religion but I don't want rid of it, just tidied up. The greed one would help with that.