Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

As opposed to what?

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

You were too quick for me. Sorry, I misunderstood slightly and deleted my post.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

LOL! No problem.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

Some of you make a good case for curing cancer and AIDS first. I can certainly see value in the reduction of suffering. I think I equated "curing religion" with eliminating fanaticism, and it is fanaticism, not religion per se, that has the potential to bring about our extinction.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

I voted for curing religion. If this cure was only going to last for the next 10 to 20 years, then I'd cure cancer. In the long run though, curing religion will save many more lives and free people to pursue happiness in moral ways that many religions currently severely hinder and are likely to continue hindering in the future. Also, cancer will probably be cured eventually while curing religion seems much more difficult.

The biggest reason why I voted to get rid of religion is that cancer will probably never wipe humanity off the planet. Religion very well may, especially in the future when WMDs will be very readily available to large numbers of people.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to break it to you, but that logic is awfully flawed. First, you obviously believe that religion is bunk (as do I). Many have done awful things in the name of religion. But do you think that the removal of the crutch of religion will stop people from doing awful things? Obviously, if religion is bunk, these conflicts of ideas are purely man made. If Isamlic terrorists weren't using religion to whoop up the masses, they could just as easily whoop them up with economic, political, racial, or a host of other propaganda means. Their issues with the U.S. are far more political than religious anyway (they aren't flying planes into cities in Hindu or Buddhist nations). People will continue to find reasons and means to try and power over each other, regardless of whether religion is used to fan the flames or not. Quite frankly, posts like yours do a great disservice to atheist positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally kid, you and I agree on something. Your last sentence, especially, has done a great service to the atheist postion in my view.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.

To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do believers have a monopoly on horrible acts of murder or terrorism? Have non-believers ever killed large amounts of people?

[/ QUOTE ]

'Believers' (certain ones, anyway) have a monopoly on wanting to kill everyone that disagrees with them. They also have a monopoly on the desire to get nukes in order to kill people that disagree with them. Acts of murder will happen in either case. I argue that acts of killing/murder will decrease by a large margin if there is no religion.

And no, believers don't have a monopoly on acts of terror (as defined by the US), but they're pretty goddamn close to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to break it to you, but that logic is awfully flawed. First, you obviously believe that religion is bunk (as do I). Many have done awful things in the name of religion. But do you think that the removal of the crutch of religion will stop people from doing awful things? Obviously, if religion is bunk, these conflicts of ideas are purely man made. If Isamlic terrorists weren't using religion to whoop up the masses, they could just as easily whoop them up with economic, political, racial, or a host of other propaganda means. Their issues with the U.S. are far more political than religious anyway (they aren't flying planes into cities in Hindu or Buddhist nations). People will continue to find reasons and means to try and power over each other, regardless of whether religion is used to fan the flames or not. Quite frankly, posts like yours do a great disservice to atheist positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part I agree with you, kid. The main thing that is different about pitching religion is that the afterlife is a big draw. Many of the drones that are sucked in by the propaganda of religion would most likely get sucked into other causes as well, but I think the unique characteristics of religion do make it an easier sell.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest reason why I voted to get rid of religion is that cancer will probably never wipe humanity off the planet. Religion very well may, especially in the future when WMDs will be very readily available to large numbers of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we are to include this line of thinking, then we must assume this is how most Atheists think and we really need to add a cure to “Atheism” to the OP.

cf kidluckee's post above.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

This makes no sense to me. Let’s take Christianity who’s 2 main Commandments are love God and love your neighbor. That’s it. Everything else is superfluous. Now how does one get from this anything that one needs to fear? Anything that one fears is a complete manipulation of the Religion and should not be equated with the Religion. To paraphrase chez, to say one is a Christian is not believing - it does not make one a Xn. Period.

As far as Muslims - I don’t know much about the Koran. Either show that the terrorist are following the Koran or lets get off this kick that since they say they are Muslims then that is what Islam. I really can’t believe some can’t make this distinction.

Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Get it? Does that mean Atheism is bad? Come on now. This isn’t rocket science.

Re: Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Hitler and Stalin were atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

not Hitler