On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:01:14 -0500, Ghamph wrote:

How will we change the world, so that it becomes rational rather than
religious?

Cannot be done; what you propose is the logical fallacy of the false
alternatives. If you cut out the false alternatives and ask how the world
can be made rational, that's fairly easy -- kill everyone that is not or
at least do not allow them to breed. Attempts have been made to do this
very thing, but you'd be surprised at how difficult this turns out to be,
usually because you encounter someone else doing exactly the same thing
but using his own definition of "rational" rather than yours :-)

It is fascinating to think about how the transition will occur.
Here are two things to consider:

* There once was a time in America when no woman could vote. Yet,
somehow, even though women could not vote, they all have the right to vote
today. How did that happen?

Men gave them the vote, probably on pain of celibacy if they did not.
Voting went through a number of stages, starting with ONLY those people
that owned land and had taken an oath of citizenship (the oaths are
recorded in a book in Pennsylvania; I do not know about other states).
That seems wisest actually; the people who have the most "stake" in
government ought to be the ones voting.

I do not consider universal suffrage to be wise. I believe a person must
earn citizenship in some way.

* There was once a time in America where the large majority of
people
smoked cigarettes. Smoking was allowed everywhere -- even on airplanes
and in public restrooms. Yet today, smoking is banned in most public
spaces, including airplanes. How did that happen?

American's concept of "liberty" is eroding, and American's concept of the
tail wagging the dog is increasing. I prefer it "no smoking" but I
acknowledge the fact that it is basically unAmarican. As it happens,
minorities of all kinds rule the workplace and public environments.

Would you like to help?

Not really. I would like to restore American liberties. Perhaps your
goal is different.

You would be amazed at how much of an effect discussion and linking can
have.

No doubt. If these discussions had *any* effect I would be blown away.

The answer is that those two processes had to start somewhere. There had to
come a point where some group of people in the minority said, "this is
wrong, and we need to fix it." They began openly talking about the problem.
Then other people in the minority agreed. Then, eventually, the minority
began to influence those on the outer edges of the majority. Once that
process started and gained sufficient momentum, the majority (e.g. smokers)
became the minority.

Smokers do not become the minority just because non-smokers are talking
about them. Smokers become a minority when fewer of them smoke as
compared to those that do not, coupled with a willingness to deprive them
of a liberty. However, that door has been opened and now the ACLU, a
minority, can do amazing things with other people's liberties.

Here is a simple question: Can we have the same sort of effect on religions
like Christianity? Can we change Christianity from a "majority" activity
into a fringe activity, and in the process replace it with something much,
much better?

No. Had you started with the first half of the sentence, then of course
you can replace Christianity, and what you will replace it with is
"chaos", as you and every other atheist vies for WHAT will replace it.
The process is already underway, been underway for at least 400 years.

The way to change the world is to change people's minds. As more and more
people openly discuss the fact that "God" and "Allah" are completely
imaginary, the world becomes a better place.

No, it is a club and members of the club can talk among themselves forever
and make no change at all. When you leave the confines of your club, you
find that methods effective among yourselves are simply not effective
elsewhere.

The people who believe in
"religion" look sillier and sillier.

To whom? Your club, for whom religious people already look silly? Your
words have no meaning.

Whenever anyone says "God," we should reply, "God is imaginary."

You already do. It is rather tedious and why you are confined to your
club. What may surprise you is that most Christians say the same thing,
more or less -- invisible; so large he fills the universe yet so small he
fits in your heart.

The way to change the world is to change people's minds. As more and more
people openly discuss the fact that "God" and "Allah" are completely
imaginary, the world becomes a better place.

So you say. So far you have not offered any reason to believe you; you
have not said in what way will the world be a better place.

The people who believe in
"religion" look sillier and sillier.

But only to you. You seriously misunderstand religious people; if you did
NOT call them silly, THEN they would worry what they are doing wrong. The
more you mock Christians, the happier they are sharing the martyrdom of
Jesus. Bring on the mockery!

Eventually, religion becomes a fringe
activity that is meaningless.

In what way do you differ?

* Talk about the fact that God is imaginary. Encourage discussion and
help others to start thinking rationally about religion. [example]

Discussion requires participation; I rather suspect that nobody will
engage me in an actual discussion on this. Not that I want to; I did not
initiate this dialog. You are welcome to your beliefs.

You would be amazed at how much of an effect discussion and linking can
have.

No doubt. Are we seeing a repeat here?

If we keep publicly discussing the problems of religion, we will
coallesce the minority and then begin changing the majority.

If only you had a "religion" of your own! But you don't, so your ideas
must necessarily not be duplicated by very many other people.

Besides, maybe your grasp of English is lacking, but the "problems of
religion" are discussions of pre-trip rapture versus post-trib rapture,
things like that. Perhaps you meant to say "problems OF religion" in
which case you'd need to reveal one or two example problems so I know what
you are writing about.