Atheism in Medical School and the Practice of Medicine

[tdram]

Religion is real, that is undeniable. If a higher power exists, is up for debate.

Right. Religion is certainly real, what I was referring to were the teachings of religion, especially the presence of a god or gods. We are far from any consensus on that, with dozens of religions still existing today.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NontradCA]

Right. Religion is certainly real, what I was referring to were the teachings of religion, especially the presence of a god or gods.

Gotcha. Well my issue with this, is that there is absolutely no way to provide evidence that a god exists. Therefor, religions only exists to teach the central dogma of blind faith. This is not a attribute that actually requires teaching. It requires indoctrination.

 

[altitudinarian]

I was just pointing out the major issues - side effects, if you will - of religion. I was not implying that all religious people behave like the above. Crime that has nothing to do with religion is irrelevant to this discussion. I am pointing out religiously motivated crime here only.

Edit: When I bring these points up, most people rush to defend their religion, rather than express their outrage against the people who are using their religion to commit heinous crimes. That always surprises me.

I expressed in some post some time ago, that religion is a vehicle for people to commit such crimes, which is heinous; however, the hard truth about it is that even the religious peoples of that religion who are peaceful and don't discriminate are seen as infidels, people willing to die in hell as well, to those who want to take that religion as a means to be violent and discriminatory. That's why so many Christians backlashed against Pope Francis for even making that speech that suggested that people who might not necessarily believe in God have a chance at heaven; such words make those who are uncomfortable with seeing religion as a means of helping others, of living a just life, rather than to further their own hatred, outraged. In the Middle East, you hear about some (not many but still) Islamic leaders speaking out against the violence between Shiites and Sunnis, and how jihadists need not exist. They are immediately targeted, brandished as infidels that need to burn. In such an environment, I would understand why many wouldn't want to speak out, for the sake of saving the lives of not only themselves, but their families and loved ones that will certainly be targeted. Read about the account of those who are religiously persecuted, being wrongfully imprisoned for even suggesting that there is a different way of living.

Moreover, I know a lot of those articles focus on mostly two religions: Christianity and Islam. No one focuses on Buddhism and its roots in violent movements, Hinduism, and I can list many other religions that, due to lack of knowledge by the press, stereotyping of said religion, and other things, are not mentioned for their own violent practices. And yes, it's also mainly in part that Christianity and Islam (up there with Judaism), are known as having the most widespread influence around the world due to missionary efforts, conquering of land, building of empires, movement of peoples, etc. Thus, that is where we have this amount of historic violence from these religions, which is terrible, but also one needs to look into the context of that, in who were the perpetrators, pushing that ideology. However, other religions have made such atrocities too in mass killings, though it is not documented because they are seen as peaceful religions that do not infringe on other people's privileges/rights. However, it's just that the general public does not know fully the practices of said religion, and only see what is being produced, and/or those in the major religions are only known through those who perpetrated acts of violence.

Finally, it's interesting, because religion, or at least faith-based systems, have been used by many groups who've been oppressed to overcome odds by oppressors. For example, look at the US with slavery and white supremacy. One of the main tenets of white supremacy was that through the Bible, one could prove that the white man is far superior than the black man. In retrospect, (though one could say that due to the influence of their environment and needing ways to exert their agency that slaves started the movement of using religions undertones in their songs), it has been documented that many songs throughout the history of the slavery and black oppression in the US are of Christian, or at least of monotheistic, influence. Those songs were meant to rally hope, that there is something better out there, that their God will come and show them the light to better days, to freedom, despite what society at the time was saying that they were biologically, culturally inferior.

Also to add, during the Holocaust, yes many of the Germans were Christian anti-Semitic, but I find it hilarious then they also persecuted Catholics and other Christians that did not fit the bill of their "Christianity", 'cause I wonder, "How did they justify that in their minds?"; this is a prime example of just how interpretation of a religion, dogma is so important to understand. Many critiqued Pope Pius XII for not speaking out against the hatred against Jews, but it has been reported (though also there is some speculation as well) that he knew that in speaking against Hitler, the Reich would come for him with full fury, so instead he decided to find other ways of helping Jews, such as issuing baptismal certificates to them.

I don't buy this because religions are designed to spread. Pretty much every religion instructs its followers to spread the word. Many religions claim it is the follower's duty to show others the light. Given, that, and my personal experience, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the most devout religious people would not have any interest in spreading their faith.

It depends. Spreading the faith can mean actually evangelizing through word of mouth, or more so through actions. Many of those who truly practice their religion also do some acts towards various communities, in which is way evangelizing, because you're showing that as a person of faith, you're meant to put the needs of those of lesser fortune, of dire situations, first. That you should be willing to sacrifice as much as you can in time, effort, and resources to make sure your neighbor is getting the proper treatment and care he/she/ze needs. Words only mean so much if actions don't support, but then again, it depends on how one sees religion. The KKK totally believe they are a Christian group by purporting that the white race is the race and that they shouldn't have to intermix, intermingle, with any other ethnicities, cultures that don't fit that identity of white. Thus, any actions that fall into that ideology is to them correct evangelizing. Is it right? To them it is. However, helping out someone who is of not a certain origin is seen as heinous, but due to freedom of speech and religion, it's all right to have these views. Not dissing on the laws we have, but to give contrast to what was said previously about how in other countries, just mentioning there is a different way of living, that is peaceful and non-discriminatory, gets you killed, imprisoned, etc.

Also, sorry for my long posts. Personally, one of the lens I see this through is anthropology (that was/is one of my main areas of study). As my water anthropologist professor stated in class where we were learning about why water has such compounded meaning for people that it makes it difficult to come to a consensus about how to use it, "Anthropology shows us that humans relations, meaning is messy. It's complex. It can't just be black and white. That's what makes it interesting, but so difficult at the same time."

Religion is one of the main examples of this. Take for example the water situation among Israel, Jordan, and Palestine. They have different views of the Holy River (Jordan River) in consumption, what is done there, cleanup, etc. However, because the water situation is so dire, they decided to put their differences aside (for now at least) to solve the situation, for they realize that because of how complex the meaning and importance of the river is not only to them, but the millions of pilgrims who go there, they need to figure this out, one way or another. Doesn't mean that the meaning of the river is to change, that Israel, Palestine, and the Jordan are best friends. It's in recognition that the situation is dire and complex to the point that they will all be sore losers if they don't do something.

Or in Kathmandu, Nepal, where river degradation is terrible. The peoples perform near the river a certain funeral service similar in other cultures where they burn the bodies of the dead on the river. It's ironic they do this because downstream one sees people washing dishes in the river. Further down, cows and other cattle near the river eating grass, drinking water, getting their excrement on. One would think that they would refashion their belief system so to make the water cleaner, but when one peels that layer to see how to do that, it reveals all the other layers that are connected to that.

One poster said religion is one of the key reasons of tribalism. It depends on what you mean by "religion" in that context because where you go in academia, some people view tribalism (as in what a Westerner would view as a primitive culture with no Western culture and ideology whatsoever) as having a cultural system when it comes to belief, not necessarily a religious one, while others in academia would say that it is a belief system that produces a religious, but it's not viewed in the same light as Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, etc., because their belief system can be seen as being only contained within that area/region, and not really seeing any means of spreading, because it's so against the norm of what the rest of the world is used to. Hence, why people in the industrialized world view communities within certain countries of Africa, South America, the Pacific Islands, etc. as being backwards, primitive, etc. for practices that make no sense, are not scientifically sound, etc. But to an anthropologist, it's meant to show how these peoples develop meaning in their own cultural sphere of the world, and why did it come about, revealing the intricacies of language, identity, and other aspects of society and individual/group dynamics.

And then it becomes the ethical question of, "Should we intervene?" when one witnesses practices that aren't sound, or seem bizarre. For who are we, with our own biases and way of living, say what is wrong for another person? And usually, if it's killing/harming people, being discriminatory, then yes one should intervene, and usually the anthropologist will intervene (usually). However, in some cases, it depends. Again, I reference Dr. Paul Farmer, since he's well known for his work in Haiti. In the book, Mountains Beyond Mountains, it's documented that he realizes that the Haitians' religion, which is influenced by voodoo, is seen by the scientific community of hindering their way of getting treatment. Dr. Paul Farmer though saw it as a way for them to embody what is going on in context of the historical, economic, and cultural narratives the peoples have lived and are living through. So instead of denouncing it, telling his patients to flat out stop believing in this, he finds ways to create a dialogue with them that enlightens his patients to how important science is and to make them realize that it's OK to believe in the science and question at times that dynamic of religious beliefs; however, not necessarily telling them all to stop believing.

Overall, in how this relates back to medicine, I found quite insightful the model that Dr. Paul Farmer actually takes from one of the less well-known but very important contributors to scientific medicine today, Rudolf Virchow, "Virchow put the world together in a way that made sense to Farmer. 'Virchow had a comprehensive vision' he (Farmer) said. 'Pathology, social medicine, politics, anthropology.'" (Kidder 61: 2003), from Mountains Beyond Mountains

 

[CheGuevaraMD]

That's an interesting philosophical point. But international terrorists have largely been from educated and well-to-do families. Bin Laden and the 911 crew were Saudis from good families. It's an inconvenient truth for lovers of Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, democracy now, and the sociopathic and sadistic executioner that bears your namesake that social ills don't cause terrorism. Ideology does.

There's plenty of ridiculously poor societies that don't export maniacal killers.

Yes, you're right. I misspoke when I implied that economic development necessarily leads to civility and the decline of extremism. As you noted later in this thread, everything is ideology (the outspoken leftist philosopher Slavoj Zizek would agree with you), and for whatever reason, the progress of Western civilization lead to the Enlightenment and then modern science. This cultural belief in reason and experimentation kills religion, and it is also probably self-sustaining to some degree because science begets technological progress. But now, countries with non-Western beliefs can simply trade their resources for Western technology, and avoid that cultural transition. Will religion therefore make a global comeback? Who knows?

 

[LivingEdge]

Watching you people argue about social issues and metaphysics like a bunch of campus political nerds reminds me why I don't go out of my way to be sociable with my fellow medical students.

 

[PL198]

I don't buy this because religions are designed to spread. Pretty much every religion instructs its followers to spread the word. Many religions claim it is the follower's duty to show others the light. Given, that, and my personal experience, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the most devout religious people would not have any interest in spreading their faith.

Yes but to spread something doesn't mean you have to actively spread it. In my opinion, with businesses, the best form of advertisement is word of mouth. I view that as a passive process, as the original business didn't intend to promote their services, they just did a good job and thus the customer shared this with another person. I think religion is the same way with someone's outward actions. I don't really see many people that are actually interested in a religion because someone is in their face promoting it( in my opinion, I think this is actually how you prevent people from changing their mind). On the contrast, I see people that others appreciate their actions and overall way they carry themselves, and that causes them to learn more about the person's background and maybe their thinking behind their actions.

I feel like it's pretty clear through humanity in general that directly telling people things you wish them to do isn't successful. It seems to me like when someone discovers these things for their own, or is intrigued enough to ask for another person's opinion, that we actually see viewpoints change. I am most certainly this way(not that this means anything for society on a whole, just sharing). When something is in my face and directly telling me what to do, I'm 9.9/10 going to shy away from their opinion and it's honestly probably going to negatively affect my view of whatever they are telling me to do.

Also just wanted to say again that I'm not religious, I consider myself agnostic, but in terms of people changing their mind about any issue really, not just religion, these are my thoughts. In regards to being worked up about characterizing religious people, I think it just seems important to me because in my opinion, large amounts of religious people are fake. That's a judgement and who am I to label their commitment, but on the whole, it seems like large majorities of people who claim to be religious don't do anything close to what their religion recommends. I understand times have changed and thus exact behaviors can't be similar. However I haven't really met too many people I feel have an honest commitment to their religion that I think act poorly. I've met a ton of people that claim to be committed that do though.

 

[mirabelle]

Isn't this exactly what you're doing in this post?

I said, If you are blind. I see clearly and you don't that is why I am telling you. But, I never said that I will guide you or convince you. I am just saying.And you have your actions, I have mine, no I am not going to harm you, you're doing that perfectly alone, you and all those who don't belive in God. And as much as everyone that wears a long white coat is not a doctor, everyone who wears a religious outfit is not a true believer. The smart people don't try to master the big principle, they are mastered by them. And telling people to stop believing in God because a number of people had bad behavior while they pretended to be religious, is like telling people not to do medicine because some doctors are bad people. Again, it is about being mastered by the principles, some fail in that. Also, if you think that you've seen everything and know everything, enough to claim that that is true and that is false, then you are fooling yourself. I value the message that came from God to humans and that is why I wish everyone belives it and believes in God. Your own life is a proof of the existence of God, can't you see. Inform yourself, read the quran, and then, try to discuss with me.

 

[Nasrudin]

I said, If you are blind. I see clearly and you don't that is why I am telling you. But, I never said that I will guide you or convince you. I am just saying.And you have your actions, I have mine, no I am not going to harm you, you're doing that perfectly alone, you and all those who don't belive in God. And as much as everyone that wears a long white coat is not a doctor, everyone who wears a religious outfit is not a true believer. The smart people don't try to master the big principle, they are mastered by them. And telling people to stop believing in God because a number of people had bad behavior while they pretended to be religious, is like telling people not to do medicine because some doctors are bad people. Again, it is about being mastered by the principles, some fail in that. Also, if you think that you've seen everything and know everything, enough to claim that that is true and that is false, then you are fooling yourself. I value the message that came from God to humans and that is why I wish everyone belives it and believes in God. Your own life is a proof of the existence of God, can't you see. Inform yourself, read the quran, and then, try to discuss with me.

Hmmm. That's tempting. Real vision. Being mastered. hmmmm. No thanks, I'm good. That sounds like something a very sneaky, coercive gay man would tell me who wants to F me.

 

[tdram]

I said, If you are blind. I see clearly and you don't that is why I am telling you. But, I never said that I will guide you or convince you. I am just saying.And you have your actions, I have mine, no I am not going to harm you, you're doing that perfectly alone, you and all those who don't belive in God. And as much as everyone that wears a long white coat is not a doctor, everyone who wears a religious outfit is not a true believer. The smart people don't try to master the big principle, they are mastered by them. And telling people to stop believing in God because a number of people had bad behavior while they pretended to be religious, is like telling people not to do medicine because some doctors are bad people. Again, it is about being mastered by the principles, some fail in that. Also, if you think that you've seen everything and know everything, enough to claim that that is true and that is false, then you are fooling yourself. I value the message that came from God to humans and that is why I wish everyone belives it and believes in God. Your own life is a proof of the existence of God, can't you see. Inform yourself, read the quran, and then, try to discuss with me.

I think this post basically proves everything I've been saying about religious people's mentality.

I could tell you how blinded you are by faith, but I won't since I don't really care what you believe, as long as you don't bother me with it. I also never told anyone to stop believing in God. I just gave my observations on religion.

 

[tdram]

I said, If you are blind. I see clearly and you don't that is why I am telling you. But, I never said that I will guide you or convince you. I am just saying.And you have your actions, I have mine, no I am not going to harm you, you're doing that perfectly alone, you and all those who don't belive in God. And as much as everyone that wears a long white coat is not a doctor, everyone who wears a religious outfit is not a true believer. The smart people don't try to master the big principle, they are mastered by them. And telling people to stop believing in God because a number of people had bad behavior while they pretended to be religious, is like telling people not to do medicine because some doctors are bad people. Again, it is about being mastered by the principles, some fail in that. Also, if you think that you've seen everything and know everything, enough to claim that that is true and that is false, then you are fooling yourself. I value the message that came from God to humans and that is why I wish everyone belives it and believes in God. Your own life is a proof of the existence of God, can't you see. Inform yourself, read the quran, and then, try to discuss with me.

This also applies to you.

 

[boogaloo]

Also, if you think that you've seen everything and know everything, enough to claim that that is true and that is false, then you are fooling yourself.

I see clearly and you don't that is why I am telling you.

 

[DermViser]

Mirabelle makes me laugh.

 

[didymus]

How about my post earlier?

EDIT: Funny, I've never heard tell of anyone killing in the name of evolution by natural selection. It must be because it does not have a catchy name.

Whut? It's called eugenics. Peruse Reddit for an afternoon and look at all the atheists advocating for eugenics on there. That is exactly what the world can expect from atheist leaders and governments, and is, historically, exactly what countries got when atheist rulers had power.

Listen, if people aren't killing in the name of religion, they will be killing in the name of State, skin color, political affiliation, territory, cultural differences, or "undesirable traits." Ridding the world of religion will not rid the world of mass slaughter, and you'd have to be obtuse to think otherwise.

And, seriously, the argument that religion has been responsible for the most death and destruction in the history of the world is the most benighted, pitiful, and patently false argument that atheists continue to make. I mean, I know why you/they do it, but no learned person takes such foolish arguments--or such foolish people--seriously.

P.S. Atheist dictators and secular governments (in the name of atheism, secularism, anti-religionism, science, and so on) were directly responsible for the killing of vast and incomprehensible amounts of people ALL throughout the 20th century. The argument can be, and has often been, made that far more people have been slaughtered "in the name of" non-sectarian motives than religious ones.

 

[didymus]

I think this post basically proves everything I've been saying about religious people's mentality.

Right, because this one individual provides you a representative sample and all.

 

[Nasrudin]

Whut? It's called eugenics. Peruse Reddit for an afternoon and look at all the atheists advocating for eugenics on there. That is exactly what the world can expect from atheist leaders and governments, and is, historically, exactly what countries got when atheist rulers had power.

Listen, if people aren't killing in the name of religion, they will be killing in the name of State, skin color, political affiliation, territory, cultural differences, or "undesirable traits." Ridding the world of religion will not rid the world of mass slaughter, and you'd have to be obtuse to think otherwise.

And, seriously, the argument that religion has been responsible for the most death and destruction in the history of the world is the most benighted, pitiful, and patently false argument that atheists continue to make. I mean, I know why you/they do it, but no learned person takes such foolish arguments--or such foolish people--seriously.

P.S. Atheist dictators and secular governments (in the name of atheism, secularism, anti-religionism, science, and so on) were directly responsible for the killing of vast and incomprehensible amounts of people ALL throughout the 20th century. The argument can be, and has often been, made that far more people have been slaughtered "in the name of" non-sectarian motives than religious ones.

The United States constituion is an explicitly secular document. The fact that we were the longest standing constitutional republic in history is not a bad go of it for secularism.

What you really mean, but poorly argue with sloppy punches after getting repeatedly outboxed, is that there will always be competing ideologies in all societies based on our distintive primate social structure and behavior patterns. So that if you removed religion it would be something that would rise up in the vacuum. I don't disagree.

Perhaps commercial hedonism in our case outside of the doggedly God-fearing. And perhaps as we've developed into a corpratocracy we will now pay the price for our ideological systems in becoming a third world country with commensurate wealth inequality.

In these competing systems I would without a doubt choose commercial and capital primacy if given the choice between it and theocracy. Because I love a culture that will allow anyone who wants to play and has the coin a place at the table. Regardless of what a ridiculous bearded cleric thinks about it. Or a pious fool making a fine show of their moral superiority.

I just hate that sort of hypocritical ****.

You know Scandinavia is largely atheist. Sort of a wrench in the whole atheist leader theory. Cute little rant though.

I'm not even saying that leaders of theocratic regimes are even sincerely religious. It's just that they make fine use of the prepackaged obedience that religion delivers. I don't take Saddam Hussein's historic platitudes to placate Islamic factions as being anything religious for example, and so on.

You have to start throwing with more precision. You're too basic with your atheism = religion = 20th century mass murderous political movements thing.

We've played this game already.

 

[mirabelle]

I said, If you are blind. I see clearly and you don't that is why I am telling you. But, I never said that I will guide you or convince you. I am just saying.And you have your actions, I have mine, no I am not going to harm you, you're doing that perfectly alone, you and all those who don't belive in God. And as much as everyone that wears a long white coat is not a doctor, everyone who wears a religious outfit is not a true believer. The smart people don't try to master the big principle, they are mastered by them. And telling people to stop believing in God because a number of people had bad behavior while they pretended to be religious, is like telling people not to do medicine because some doctors are bad people. Again, it is about being mastered by the principles, some fail in that. Also, if you think that you've seen everything and know everything, enough to claim that that is true and that is false, then you are fooling yourself. I value the message that came from God to humans and that is why I wish everyone belives it and believes in God. Your own life is a proof of the existence of God, can't you see. Inform yourself, read the quran, and then, try to discuss with me.

I would add,

I think this post basically proves everything I've been saying about religious people's mentality.

I could tell you how blinded you are by faith, but I won't since I don't really care what you believe, as long as you don't bother me with it. I also never told anyone to stop believing in God. I just gave my observations on religion.

Ok, no problem! We are both free on this earth.

 

[tdram]

To be honest this thread makes me sad. Welcome to America: where healthcare is a right, but free thought is not.

Healthcare is a right here?

 

[Roxas]

Healthcare is a right here?

I don't think so, but many of our leaders do.

 

[Nasrudin]

To be honest this thread makes me sad. Welcome to America: where healthcare is a right, but free thought is not.

Don't be dramatic. What's not free. You're free, I'm free. We're talking exactly what we think. And it's very different. This is what happens outside the church. It's a beautiful thing that someone can say god is dead, while someone else says accept Allah and you will be free, and we can all mix it up on the same playing field.

I think its hilarious that you perceive atheist thought as so hostile. My heart rate stays a flat steady chill when discussing these things. I haven't been angry once. And yet I see echoes of my calm thoughts go like like a train wreck through yours.

I guess I can stretch my mind and imagine why. But as someone who's been thinking and questioning and probing the lies of my Christian upbringing since I was 9, you have to realize you're sounding panicky like a white belt.

Look if it makes you feel less attacked, I'll take a confident stroll out onto a PC limb and say I'm quietly thankful for the concentration of religious christians in the US. Because their dogma at least has been taking a proper enlightenment beating for a few hundred years.

Whereas Islam is quite frighteningly backwards.

There salon.com-ites. I said it. Not all these cults scare me equally. Some are scarier than others.

 

[boogaloo]

Edit: not worth.

 

[tdram]

Don't be dramatic. What's not free. You're free, I'm free. We're talking exactly what we think. And it's very different. This is what happens outside the church. It's a beautiful thing that someone can say god is dead, while someone else says accept Allah and you will be free, and we can all mix it up on the same playing field.

I think its hilarious that you perceive atheist thought as so hostile. My heart rate stays a flat steady chill when discussing these things. I haven't been angry once. And yet I see echoes of my calm thoughts go like like a train wreck through yours.

I guess I can stretch my mind and imagine why. But as someone who's been thinking and questioning and probing the lies of my Christian upbringing since I was 9, you have to realize you're sounding panicky like a white belt.

Look if it makes you feel less attacked, I'll take a confident stroll out onto a PC limb and say I'm quietly thankful for the concentration of religious christians in the US. Because their dogma at least has been taking a proper enlightenment beating for a few hundred years.

Whereas Islam is quite frighteningly backwards.

There salon.com-ites. I said it. Not all these cults scare me equally. Some are scarier than others.

You're certainly right. It's great living in a country where we can talk our thoughts about religion freely and not end up in jail or beheaded.

 

[tdram]

Why do you think that so many people hold to their convictions in the face of so much opposition? The easy thing to do would be to let it go and admit that God is a lie.

There's very little opposition. The vast majority of people in the world are religious. It's so much easier to keep believing whatever you've been believing and what everyone around you believes than to try something different, which will most likely be met with hostility from many around you. Breaking away from my religion was probably one of the hardest things I had to go through. I was shunned by family and friends that I was really close with. A lot of people stopped trusting me and said many hurtful things. Letting go of religious beliefs in a world where religion is the norm is far from easy. The idea that atheists are making it hard for you to remain religious is frankly absurd.

 

[Nasrudin]

I probably sound panicky as I typically sit idly by while these discussions go on. I'm not a great debater (so go ahead and pick apart my words if you want), and I'm not one for the hostility associated with it.

I have no doubt that you're calm, it's pretty easy to sit back and anonymously assault someone else's way of life just for thinking differently than you. I'm not the one shoving my beliefs down your throat. As I mentioned earlier, the thing I find the most disheartening is how far we've fallen in terms of true tolerance for one another.

You can call me dramatic, but the way anti-theists (both on this thread and irl) talk about religion doesn't make it sound as if that kind of thought should be allowed. You're claiming it's responsible for the majority (if not all) of the worlds evil. Why say that if your endgame wasn't to dissuade or disallow that thought anymore? If it was anything less, this thread would have been no longer than a page consisting of "Hey you're religious? Cool, I'm atheist." But it never ends there.

I guess my experiences with most atheists (which in truth were rabid anti-theists) has probably been different from yours. Mutual respect was a foreign concept to many of them. I've had my beliefs challenged many many times. That's not a problem. I love discussing and learning about differing viewpoints and ideologies, as long as the setting is one of mutual respect. This thread has been far from that. Anytime someone approaches this subject with no other intention than to mock and destroy, yes I find that a little bothersome.

And you don't think that it takes some serious thought to continue the practice of any religion this day and age? This thread is proof of how difficult people like you make it. I promise, it's not out of simple ignorance or stupidity. I'm a firm believer of "don't cast your pearls before swine," so suffice it to say that I've had experiences sufficient enough to provide me with evidence that some form of Deity is real. Why do you think that so many people hold to their convictions in the face of so much opposition? The easy thing to do would be to let it go and admit that God is a lie.

We don't have to respect each other's ideas. I'm not sparing religion just because a lot of semi-religious and religious people think its in poor taste. That's the reality going forward.

I respect you as a fellow human being. If you need my help I'll give it to you within reason. Patients don't know what I am. I'll pray with them without batting an atheist eye.

Ok. So. Don't worry about when people think something you hold dear is nonsense. Because that's the truth. So we might as well start there. And see how we can negotiate sharing the earth together. Your sort and mine.

I hardly think any of these word battles would mean we wouldn't be working side by side in perfect harmony on wards. And on the piano keyboard.

 

[Mad Jack]

Watching you people argue about social issues and metaphysics like a bunch of campus political nerds reminds me why I don't go out of my way to be sociable with my fellow medical students.

Because one night or of a hundred religion might come up and it's totally better to just not make friends

 

[tdram]

You can call me dramatic, but the way anti-theists (both on this thread and irl) talk about religion doesn't make it sound as if that kind of thought should be allowed. You're claiming it's responsible for the majority (if not all) of the worlds evil. Why say that if your endgame wasn't to dissuade or disallow that thought anymore? If it was anything less, this thread would have been no longer than a page consisting of "Hey you're religious? Cool, I'm atheist." But it never ends there.

I do believe that religion is behind the majority of evil in the world. However, that doesn't mean I want to ban religion or disallow thought. I don't know how you made that jump. What you're proposing is that we don't speak our mind so that you don't have to hear our criticism. You are the one disallowing thought here. I am perfectly fine in a world where people criticize each other's beliefs. I don't consider that an "attack" on me.

 

[Roxas]

.

 

[Roxas]

I do believe that religion is behind the majority of evil in the world. However, that doesn't mean I want to ban religion or disallow thought. I don't know how you made that jump. What you're proposing is that we don't speak our mind so that you don't have to hear our criticism. You are the one disallowing thought here. I am perfectly fine in a world where people criticize each other's beliefs. I don't consider that an "attack" on me.

I've never said this either. Once again, I'm not the one trying to change anyone's mind or put anyone down here.

 

[tdram]

I suppose I was referring more to my own experiences. As a member of the science community, particularly in medicine, it seems that professors and classmates of mine are constantly preaching against religion. Anyone who dares think otherwise is branded as ignorant. For the average Joe, being religious isn't too hard. In the science community, it's a different story.

You mentioned your experiences before, and I truly am sorry for whatever hurtful things people said to your about your decision. I feel like this is the best thing about people that are true practitioners of what their religion teaches, is they will accept you no matter what. For example, my wife's brother decided at a fairly early age that he didn't believe in the church he grew up in. Having spoken with him about this, he told me how amazed he was at his family's support, and it only strengthened his respect for our church and its members. I'm sorry your experience was so much harder.

Thanks for understanding. Hopefully things are changing and people will be more supportive of others who decide to leave or change religions.

 

[PL198]

Healthcare is a right here?

Lol love it when somehow whatever idiotic things the UN says gets made into policy in the US. F*ck the UN so much

 

[Roxas]

.

 

[tdram]

I've never said this either. Once again, I'm not the one trying to change anyone's mind or put anyone down here.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either. As I said, I don't care what people believe. I'm also not blaming or putting down anyone for believing. As a person who used to believe, I know how comforting it can be. I don't want to ban any religion, but I also don't want to perpetuate the false notion that religion is always good. It is by far one of the most powerful tools that can be wielded for evil. It's important that people know both sides.

 

[Roxas]

.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Ugh, I'm too busy at the moment to jump back in and I'm clearly missing all the fun.
I'll necro bump this after 1st block exams or something.

 

[tdram]

I agree, religion is not always good. So wouldn't the logical thing be to condemn individual acts of evil/war/judgement, and not the entire group? That's all I'm advocating.

Can we just go back to typical SDN now with neurotic premeds, MD v DO debates, and 40 MCAT/270 USMLE what are my chances threads?

Haha, ok.

 

[didymus]

....after getting repeatedly outboxed....

Repeatedly out-boxed? Who me? I've only one post in this thread, and no one has "out-boxed" me on any other thread of similar subject matter, where I have mostly been only a passing contributor. But since you chose to use a boxing analogy, we will go hit by hit and see who wins on points:

The United States constituion [sic] is an explicitly secular document. The fact that we were the longest standing constitutional republic in history is not a bad go of it for secularism.

I have a lot of love for our country and for our rule of law, and I want this sentiment to frame what I'm about to say: As a society established upon an "explicitly secular document," (which is obviously debated by many--but it is a point you made, so I'm going to run with it for sake of argument) many would say our history is not a great endorsement of secular values. Case in point, no religious group has ever come close to devising and deploying anything conceivably close to the atom bomb. Should we also discuss in detail the slaughter of American Indians by our government? the Philippine-American War? Vietnam War? the war in Iraq? the legal buying, selling, and keeping of slaves? a political system fraught with corruption? a political history of systemic racism and sexism? corporate protectionism and favoritism?

Also, you seem to make a leap when you argue that the secular constitutional republic that is the foundation and guide of the United States Government is an inherently good system that gives legitimacy or credibility to a secular society. Are you sure all--or even many--atheists globally would agree with your assessment? Considering the densest concentrations of atheists in the world live under entirely different political systems than what we have in the United States, I don't think you can call what we have here a representative example of a secular society (and most of the world's atheists would likely argue passionately against you that the United States is a great example of anything, except how countries should not be). Therefore, are you wanting to argue that our system of government is an accurate representation of how secular societies run as a rule, and that it is a bright "city on a hill" (irony) demonstrating the merits of a secular rule of law? Is this the argument you want to stick with?

What you really mean, but poorly argue with sloppy punches after getting repeatedly outboxed, is that there will always be competing ideologies in all societies based on our distintive primate social structure and behavior patterns. So that if you removed religion it would be something that would rise up in the vacuum. I don't disagree.

Perhaps commercial hedonism in our case outside of the doggedly God-fearing. And perhaps as we've developed into a corpratocracy we will now pay the price for our ideological systems in becoming a third world country with commensurate wealth inequality.

You are really difficult to follow sometimes, and your thoughts can be quite incoherent. I have no idea what you are even attempting to communicate here.

In these competing systems I would without a doubt choose commercial and capital primacy if given the choice between it and theocracy....

Are those the only two options?

Because I love a culture that will allow anyone who wants to play and has the coin a place at the table.

It seems you have created some sort of imaginary dichotomy in your mind, and are using it to keep your distance from a caricature of religion you have accepted as valid. You are also profoundly deluded if you think commercial and capital primacy allow anyone who "wants to play and has a coin" some sort of existential freedom where a culture established on, and affirming of, certain religious values is oppressive.

.....Regardless of what a ridiculous bearded cleric thinks about it. Or a pious fool making a fine show of their moral superiority.

I guess this is much worse than what clean shaven politicians think, or self-righteous academics who makes a fine show of their intellectual superiority.

You know Scandinavia is largely atheist. Sort of a wrench in the whole atheist leader theory. Cute little rant though.....

Are we are using exceptions as the rule now? Get back to me after researching the history of human rights under the Chinese, Cuban, N. Korean, Albanian, and Soviet governments.

How have you determined (once again) that a certain system is inherently good? You throw out Scandinavia(!!) as an example of atheist government working, but by what metrics have you deemed any system as effective and successful over another? How did you arrive at the conclusion that the largely ethnically homogeneous cultures encapsulated by political scandinavism are the quintessence of societal structure and function? Again, would the consensus among the greatest concentrations of atheists globally align with your assessment?

I'm not even saying that leaders of theocratic regimes are even sincerely religious. It's just that they make fine use of the prepackaged obedience that religion delivers.....

Every atheist regime in history has done an excellent job of making the masses obey. Would you like to discuss in detail how they went about this?

You have to start throwing with more precision. You're too basic with your atheism = religion = 20th century mass murderous political movements thing.....

Cause examples from, you know, actual history are totally weak and unsubstantial.

We've played this game already.....

Then you should be better at this by now.

 

[Nasrudin]

Repeatedly out-boxed? Who me? I've only one post in this thread, and no one has "out-boxed" me on any other thread of similar subject matter, where I have mostly been only a passing contributor. But since you chose to use a boxing analogy, we will go hit by hit and see who wins on points:



I have a lot of love for our country and for our rule of law, and I want this sentiment to frame what I'm about to say: As a society established upon an "explicitly secular document," (which is obviously debated by many--but it is a point you made, so I'm going to run with it for sake of argument) many would say our history is not a great endorsement of secular values. Case in point, no religious group has ever come close to devising and deploying anything conceivably close to the atom bomb. Should we also discuss in detail the slaughter of American Indians by our government? the Philippine-American War? Vietnam War? the war in Iraq? the legal buying, selling, and keeping of slaves? a political system fraught with corruption? a political history of systemic racism and sexism? corporate protectionism and favoritism?

Also, you seem to make a leap when you argue that the secular constitutional republic that is the foundation and guide of the United States Government is an inherently good system that gives legitimacy or credibility to a secular society. Are you sure all--or even many--atheists globally would agree with your assessment? Considering the densest concentrations of atheists in the world live under entirely different political systems than what we have in the United States, I don't think you can call what we have here a representative example of a secular society (and most of the world's atheists would likely argue passionately against you that the United States is a great example of anything, except how countries should not be). Therefore, are you wanting to argue that our system of government is an accurate representation of how secular societies run as a rule, and that it is a bright "city on a hill" (irony) demonstrating the merits of a secular rule of law? Is this the argument you want to stick with?



You are really difficult to follow sometimes, and your thoughts can be quite incoherent. I have no idea what you are even attempting to communicate here.



Are those the only two options?



It seems you have created some sort of imaginary dichotomy in your mind, and are using it to keep your distance from a caricature of religion you have accepted as valid. You are also profoundly deluded if you think commercial and capital primacy allow anyone who "wants to play and has a coin" some sort of existential freedom where a culture established on, and affirming of, certain religious values is oppressive.



I guess this is much worse than what clean shaven politicians think, or self-righteous academics who makes a fine show of their intellectual superiority.



Are we are using exceptions as the rule now? Get back to me after researching the history of human rights under the Chinese, Cuban, N. Korean, Albanian, and Soviet governments.

How have you determined (once again) that a certain system is inherently good? You throw out Scandinavia(!!) as an example of atheist government working, but by what metrics have you deemed any system as effective and successful over another? How did you arrive at the conclusion that the largely ethnically homogeneous cultures encapsulated by political scandinavism are the quintessence of societal structure and function? Again, would the consensus among the greatest concentrations of atheists globally align with your assessment?



Every atheist regime in history has done an excellent job of making the masses obey. Would you like to discuss in detail how they went about this?



Cause examples from, you know, actual history are totally weak and unsubstantial.



Then you should be better at this by now.

All that is required for a person to be atheist is not to have a defined position on the afterlife or a specific higher celestial authority. Whereas what is required of you, if you ascribe to one particular religion is to affirm at least some minimal set of affirmations about the world around us unseen.

You love the move of blurring what is essentially a negating position--atheism--to mean all sorts of political movements and ideologies who perhaps needed to eliminate their religious competitors for power.

Pol Pot and the group that accepts the title of atheist have nothing in common. Whereas you have everything in common with someone who's basic position is that everyone else but their particular faith is in some variation of peril, eternally, for not accepting your version of what constitutes reality.

If you have trouble following me through that basic comparison then you just have trouble following.

And that's all there is to this argument. You make the exclusivity claim. You make the positive affirmation that says those who disagree with you are eternally damned. And then you proceed to shadow box while imagining yourself kicking @ss in verbal combat.

Your attack on American empire is adoringly incognizant of religion's role in constructing the conception of savages and subjects of the Roman Catholic Church in more southern adventures in empire.

If you want to negate destructive ideology then we are allies. But trying to pin national socialism or Stalinism or the like on people who don't believe in god make you no more than a third rate propagandist.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Alright. I tried guys, I really did.

But I'm just in a state of 'IDGAF' at this point.

I think everyone should believe (or not believe) in whatever they want, and they shouldn't let it affect other people's lives. Religion should stay OUT of public policy (at least in the US, which has separation of church and state) and extremism (on the religious or the athiest side) is bad, mmkay.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

You can feel free to believe what you want - that's not the point. The point is your beliefs have no business in anyone else's life other than your own.

So he can feel free to believe whatever he wants, as long as that belief includes the belief that it has no business in anyone else's life. In other words, he's free to believe what you believe.

That sounds oddly like the same thing you're condemning.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

You can't expect Wall Street to regulate itself. The same with God's chosen. If the issue doesn't interest you, I get it. But why do people care about cricket? I don't know, but they do. (We do.)

Wall street = the religious/religion
SEC = atheist
If I'm following the parallel correctly.
So you're acknowledging that atheist do "regulate" religious people/religion/beliefs at least on message boards. Given the wall street parallel should I assume you also believe atheist ought to do said regulating? In other words, does is imply the ought? I'm going to assume an affirmative answer on that based on what I've seen from you on this subject before.

It's worse yet. As I'm sure you would agree. Religion is not as neutral as cold steel and gunpowder. Happy day if it only were.

Given the above, we'd have to conclude that Atheism is not as neutral as cold steel and gunpowder, either. In fact, atheism seems to have a decidedly anti-religious/theism bent, if we're going to call what generally happens on message boards "regulating". No one "regulates" someone else's belief system neutrally, or because they feel neutral about it.

All that is required for a person to be atheist is not to have a defined position on the afterlife or a specific higher celestial authority.

That may be all that is required but that's certainly not all that it generally entails.

Whereas what is required of you, if you ascribe to one particular religion is to affirm at least some minimal set of affirmations about the world around us unseen.

Does atheism not have some minimal set of affirmations about the world around us?
Doesn't atheism reject theism on formal/semi-formal grounds? Lack of empirical evidence? The problem of evil? The rejection of beliefs that can not be falsified?
Which means an affirmation of the scientific method to inform most/all beliefs, certain philosophical constructs, and an exercise in informal logic.

Pol Pot and the group that accepts the title of atheist have nothing in common.

So they share one belief in common but that means they have nothing in common?
You can't reject lumping all atheist into one basket by lumping them all into one basket. Pol Pot had many beliefs, some of which are no doubt shared by many other people, atheist or not.
No Atheist are nationalist?
No Atheist are communists?
No Atheist are racists?

Whereas you have everything in common with someone who's basic position is that everyone else but their particular faith is in some variation of peril, eternally, for not accepting your version of what constitutes reality.

Because they share one basic position they have everything in common? Didn't you just try to establish in the prior sentence that this was in fact, not the case?
On the one hand the doctrinal and practical splits that are unceasing in Christianity are often used to show just how idiotic it is to believe in absolute truth but in this case it's being ignored to say that we have everything in common. Catholics and Protestants don't even agree on the nature of hell or who would go there, much less anything less basic.

Your attack on American empire is adoringly incognizant of religion's role in constructing the conception of savages and subjects of the Roman Catholic Church in more southern adventures in empire.

Is your credit to the secular constitution for the longevity of the outcome not adoringly incognizant of Christians generally being respecters of the rule of law and order, the most basic glue holding a modern society together? Was that constitution also written in a belief vacuum? Are the ideas in it uniquely atheistic?

If you want to negate destructive ideology then we are allies. But trying to pin national socialism or Stalinism or the like on people who don't believe in god make you no more than a third rate propagandist.

I don't think any of us escape this criticism. Unless someone is uniquely gifted at propaganda.

 

[tdram]

So he can feel free to believe whatever he wants, as long as that belief includes the belief that it has no business in anyone else's life. In other words, he's free to believe what you believe.

That sounds oddly like the same thing you're condemning.

What you just said makes absolutely no sense. You've clearly misunderstood a very simple point.

Let me try to explain it to you:

He can hold any belief he wants but he has no right to force me to share his belief, or force me to act based on his belief system.

As a Muslim, he might believe that people shouldn't drink alcohol, but he has no right to impose that restriction on anyone but himself. He can't walk into a bar and start taking away everyone's liquor.

Do you understand now? The only way you can object to that is if you don't agree with the human right to personal freedom. Note I used the word "right" instead of belief. His belief cannot override my "right".

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

What you just said makes absolutely no sense. You've clearly misunderstood a very simple point.

Let me try to explain it to you:

He can hold any belief he wants but he has no right to force me to share his belief, or force me to act based on his belief system.

As a Muslim, he might believe that people shouldn't drink alcohol, but he has no right to impose that restriction on anyone but himself. He can't walk into a bar and start taking away everyone's liquor.

Do you understand now? The only way you can object to that is if you don't believe in personal freedom.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. You've now changed your statement to say something different than it previously did. Don't pretend you haven't by trying to imply I'm some kind of simpleton.

I must have missed the part where he was arguing that he should be able to force you to share his beliefs? If no one was arguing for this, why are you arguing against it?

 

[tdram]

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. You've now changed your statement to say something different than it previously did. Don't pretend you haven't by trying to imply I'm some kind of simpleton.

I must have missed the part where he was arguing that he should be able to force you to share his beliefs? If no one was arguing for this, why are you arguing against it?

Ok, you are really just trying to troll me right now. I'm not going to bite. You know exactly what I meant the first time, you just wanted to be a smart @ss, picking apart my words. I was clarifying my stance on religion to those who believe I want to ban it. I don't. I just don't want it imposed on anyone else.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Ok, you are really just trying to piss me off right now. I'm not going to bite. You know exactly what I meant the first time, you just wanted to be a smart @ss. I was clarifying my stance on religion to those who believe I want to ban it. I don't.

1. No you weren't. You were talking about religious crimes.
2. Your emotional issues are your problem, stop trying to imply motive.
3. Here's the original context.

Or it's possible that there are simply a lot of "religious" people in the world, and some of them are bad. Clearly the one's committing some of the above acts aren't true representatives of what religion teaches. "Religiously motivated crime" seems like an incredible contradiction to me, but you are making a case that this is the norm.

I am well aware that after 7 pages of this thread, you certainly aren't going to change your mind. I just ask that you accept the possibility that maybe people are going to do horrible things whether they are affiliated with religion or not, and religion is just the face that they put on it to justify it to themselves.

Like I said, I'm religious, and I've never hurt or harassed anyone. Why would you continue to fight against my right to believe what I want?

If you're hurting someone because they believe in a different religion or are atheist, or because of something written in your holy book, it's a religiously-motivated crime. If you behead someone because they said something bad about your religion, that's a religiously motivated crime. If you withhold treatment from a sick child because your religion tells you to, that's a religiously motivated crime. I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion.

I never made a case it was the norm. However, it is prevalent in the world and problematic.

You can feel free to believe what you want - that's not the point. The point is your beliefs have no business in anyone else's life other than your own.

And your bolded, as it is, is a contradiction.

 

[Roxas]

Ok, you are really just trying to troll me right now. I'm not going to bite. You know exactly what I meant the first time, you just wanted to be a smart @ss, picking apart my words. I was clarifying my stance on religion to those who believe I want to ban it. I don't. I just don't want it imposed on anyone else.

Perhaps I was wrong to jump to such a strong conclusion as to say ban, but the wall of pictures you posted, as well as your overall demeanor throughout this discussion implies your motives are more hostile than just "believe whatever you want." At no point in this discussion have I blamed histories atrocities on any one group of people.

 

[BANGO]

.

 

[Roxas]

.

 

[tdram]

And your bolded, as it is, is a contradiction.

It is not a contradiction. It was a separate point.

 

[tdram]

I have never understood this; why is it that people who are very comfortable and confident in their disbelief of God spend so much time debating the existence of one? Holy marbles.

You could say the same for the believers in this thread.

 

[tdram]

Perhaps I was wrong to jump to such a strong conclusion as to say ban, but the wall of pictures you posted, as well as your overall demeanor throughout this discussion implies your motives are more hostile than just "believe whatever you want." At no point in this discussion have I blamed histories atrocities on any one group of people.

The pictures were mainly directed at those who were overstating the good effects of religion and downplaying or ignoring/denying the negative effects. The idea that religion is a positive force in every person's life is untrue, and that is what I was trying to point out. It can be a very negative and destructive force, by indocrinating people in youth and encouraging blind faith without questioning. In the wrong hands, this can wreak havoc. That is not to say that all religious people are evil. By no stretch of the imagination is that true.

Either way, my argument is simply an argument. My motivation is not to ban religion. My motivation is simply to state my point and provide my evidence. This is a public forum which will be read by hundreds of people, if not more. Some of the people who read it may find the information I posted useful and food for thought about their own relationship with religion.

 

[BANGO]

.