We should try to kill religion.

[Dexta]

If we annihilate the religious paradigm, and thus realise there's no spook in the sky, then we'd have to live that we have to look after each other and be truly civilised, because otherwise we would live like carnivorous insects, which most bioforms have done over the millennia (eg dinosaurs eating each other).

There's nobody up there looking after shit. Global warming. Therefore it's our job, we flawed bipedal apes with big brains. Or is it up to "God?"

Kill religion. And don't be cowardly about that. I contend that if you disagree with the conjectures presented thus you are an ethically delinquent idiot.

Kill religion.

Kill it kill it kill it.

[Minimalist]

What kills religion is education.

But in the US we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

[Dexta]

What kills religion is education.

But in the US we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

Totally agree, but do you want to kill it Minimalist, my esteemed Elder?

[CapriMark1]

I don't think you can kill religion. The best that can be done, is to minimize its effects. I point to Flat Earthers as an example.

Nevertheless, this is a war, not a single battle. This is going to take a very long time - likely more than our lifetimes!

At the moment, the religious (and political) conservatives are dominant, but I expect a backlash, shortly, that will severely hinder their progress. I am hopeful, that this is a long term effect, much like WW2 was an effect against totalitarianism - albeit not complete.

[Dānu]

Operation undefined.

[Dexta]

Operation undefined.

That's what my mum said. At least effective, we could sling a lot of shit at the walls and hope some of it sticks.

[Dexta]

I don't think you can kill religion.  The best that can be done, is to minimize its effects.  I point to Flat Earthers as an example.

Nevertheless, this is a war, not a single battle.  This is going to take a very long time - likely more than our lifetimes!

At the moment, the religious (and political) conservatives are dominant, but I expect a backlash, shortly, that will severely hinder their progress.  I am hopeful, that this is a long term effect, much like WW2 was an effect against totalitarianism - albeit not complete.

The sooner and harder we get in the fight, the better though!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

~10% of the humans are total idiots, so religion will not go away.

[Dexta]

~10% of the humans are total idiots, so religion will not go away.

I'm something of an idiot. Can you say the same GS? Also 10% has no real power. Democracy and all that. 

Can you please drop a big war bomb on religion Gawdzilla?....oh, that's right, you don't have the right bomb. Or do you................

[Rizen]

While I do think religion should be done away with, there have been cases of mass atrocities caused by atheist regimes. The Soviet Union, communist states like Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia to name a few. You can't force away religion, otherwise you end up just as bad. Like @Minimalist said, education is the way to banish religion but we're sadly a culture of science denying, anti-education, anti-intellectuals. In 200 years most people will be nonreligious but for now we have to accept religion isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

[Minimalist]

I think people growing up and realizing that there is no invisible sky daddy who is going to pull their nuts out of the fire would be a good thing.  It seems that in Europe the churches are mainly empty and it doesn't seem to hurt them at all.

I don't expect to live long enough to see it but their influence is a numbers question.  The more of the dumb fucks who die out the less control they exert.  I note with some satisfaction the growth of the "Nones" in the US but am skeptical.  Surveys claim that 70% of Americans say they are "spiritual."  Whatever the fuck that means.

[Reltzik]

If we annihilate the religious paradigm, and thus realise there's no spook in the sky, then we'd have to live that we have to look after each other and be truly civilised, because otherwise we would live like carnivorous insects, which most bioforms have done over the millennia (eg dinosaurs eating each other).

There's nobody up there looking after shit. Global warming. Therefore it's our job, we flawed bipedal apes with big brains. Or is it up to "God?"

Kill religion. And don't be cowardly about that. I contend that if you disagree with the conjectures presented thus you are an ethically delinquent idiot.

Kill religion.

Kill it kill it kill it.

I'd suggest a narrower target for a few reasons:

Not all religions rest upon a belief in a god or anything else supernatural.  (Example:  Secular humanism, and if it's ambiguous whether that counts as a religion then that ambiguity is reason enough to be more specific about our target.)

While some of the more liberal forms of religion may be based upon false beliefs, they may act in a benign and occasionally beneficial way that does not do terrible harm to world.  Surgically targeting the most malignant forms of religion is a better than targeting religion as a whole, if for no other reason than because it's more practical to fight a war on one front than on ten.

Broad targeting of religion plays into the hand of the most malignant.  The ones who are saying (for example) that Christianity or Islam requires the persecution of gay people or subjugation of women (even when some forms of those religions do not) will have those messages amplified when we start shouting the same thing.

And, ultimately, that goal is perhaps a wee bit overambitious for our means.

I think a better approach would be to attack specific corners of the religious world (eg, Christian nationalist movements), invite and challenge the more benign parts of the religious world to repudiate their more extremist cousins and unite with us against them, and take the time to message about how the harm they do arises from a specific aspect of their worldview (eg, faith-based epistemology or scriptural literalism).  That last part can stick a few pebbles in the shoes of our allies that might wake them up, and we might not have that opportunity if we make them our enemies instead.

[Dānu]

Even if I had sympathy with your suggestion, it's not clear what you're suggesting be done, so there's no reason to say yay or nay.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

~10% of the humans are total idiots, so religion will not go away.

I'm something of an idiot. Can you say the same GS? Also 10% has no real power. Democracy and all that. 

Can you please drop a big war bomb on religion Gawdzilla?....oh, that's right, you don't have the right bomb. Or do you................

No, I can't say I'm an idiot. The VA tested me and scored my IQ at 128. I completed the test in record time for that facility. The director told me that I scored higher than most of his staff.

"All of your staff, sir."

[pattylt]

I look back at growing up in the days where almost everyone was religious to some extent or another…high church attendance and all that…even if some of it was performative. And yet, we got rid of Jim Crow laws and passed the civil rights amendment. We protested a war we weren’t allowed to win and caused enough anxiety that politicians began joining our side. We gave women the right to their own finances and credit cards and eventually, gave rights to the LGBTQ community to marry and watched red lined housing be condemned. All this took place as churches were still strong even if the nones were slowly, quietly rising in numbers.

Religion doesn’t have to be the enemy…just the toxic forms that are rather new in our awareness. Is it the death throes of shrinking religion driving those with strong convictions to form up and start making such noise? Or, is this how religion actually does die….clusters of fanatics struggling to stay relevant as they decrease year by year? I don’t have answers but I know you don’t attack a cornered animal as that’s when it’s at its fearsest…..you wait for it to crawl out thinking it’s safe and expose them for the fanatics they are.

It may be a self correcting concern. As their numbers shrink, their relevance will, too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm something of an idiot. Can you say the same GS? Also 10% has no real power. Democracy and all that. 

I've been fool for love. Married four times, divorced once.

[Dexta]

I'm something of an idiot. Can you say the same GS? Also 10% has no real power. Democracy and all that. 

I've been fool for love. Married four times, divorced once.

Well, your rudimentary math is certainly lacking lol

[SYZ]

While I do think religion should be done away with, there have been cases of mass atrocities caused by atheist regimes...

This is missing the point.  The atrocities committed in those countries
(and others) weren't committed solely in the name of atheism, or because
the country was irreligious.  This is important when claiming that atheism,
per se, is the direct cause of conflict.     It isn't.

Whereas several current conflicts have been catalysed solely
in the name of religion, for example India and Myanmar,
Nigeria and the Sahel, or Intra-Islamic Sectarianism (as per
modern "Islamist" and traditional madrasa-based faction).

BTW...

Irreligion does not equate to atheism, and China is the most irreligious
country in the world.  The Chinese government itself formally recognizes five
religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Catholicism and Protestantism, and Islam.  No
mention of atheism.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've been fool for love. Married four times, divorced once.

Well, your rudimentary math is certainly lacking lol

Nope, it's exact.

[Charladele]

My sympathies, Gawdzilla.

[GenesisNemesis]

Good luck herding nonbelievers together to do that.

[Reltzik]

Good luck herding nonbelievers together to do that.

It's like herding cats, except herding cats is something you can do with a laser pointer, and that doesn't work on most atheists.

[Dexta]

Well, your rudimentary math is certainly lacking lol

Nope, it's exact.

Well then you're lucky you haven't been arrested for bigamy...perhaps you live in Utah?

[Paleophyte]

I contend that if you disagree with the conjectures presented thus you are an ethically delinquent idiot.

If we aren't with you...?

This seems like a non-starter on several levels.

First, you haven't actually suggested anything, so it's impossible to figure out if I'd agree with you except in the vaguest terms.

Second, violating another individual's right to belief is typically viewed as the sort of authoritarian wrong that a smart society avoids unless absolutely necessary, and you haven't made a compelling argument that it is.

Third, it's entirely possible that what you're considering would produce a paradoxical effect. Right now, belief is quietly withering on the vine, dying of its long-running allergy to reason. If you start actively oppressing believers, you run the risk of satisfying their persecution fetish and filling the role of the Evil Atheist. They currently lack an actual adversary, but if you give them that, it could easily energize dying and senescent churches to action.

[Dexta]

I contend that if you disagree with the conjectures presented thus you are an ethically delinquent idiot.

If we aren't with you...?

This seems like a non-starter on several levels.

First, you haven't actually suggested anything, so it's impossible to figure out if I'd agree with you except in the vaguest terms.

Second, violating another individual's right to belief is typically viewed as the sort of authoritarian wrong that a smart society avoids unless absolutely necessary, and you haven't made a compelling argument that it is.

Third, it's entirely possible that what you're considering would produce a paradoxical effect. Right now, belief is quietly withering on the vine, dying of its long-running allergy to reason. If you start actively oppressing believers, you run the risk of satisfying their persecution fetish and filling the role of the Evil Atheist. They currently lack an actual adversary, but if you give them that, it could easily energize dying and senescent churches to action.

I can't hope to match the eloquence of your post. I'm drunk. Again. The thing I identify is that I don't seek to persecute, I seek to persuade.