NationStates Jolt Archive

Just out of curiousity, why all the fighting between Christians and Atheists on this board? I never see it as bad as this on any other message board, but here you guys are, constantly scrapping over idealogical viewpoints. It's come to the point where it isn't even friendly anymore, but just a bunch of childish sniping.

So tell me, what's the point? You guys can't even agree with each other, much less make converts, so why bother to keep fighting like this?

Atheists, you're never satisfied, so why bother to ask for 'proof' when it's never good enough for you?

Christians, why are you wasting your time with these people? Good Christians aren't so easy to bait into a flamewar, ya know.

A good flamewar is fun, a good game of logics arguments is even better. And actually once in a while you can convince somebody. Not convert them, but make them change one point of view to be more consistent with both with my opinions and the rest of theirs.

*grin* Political board, man. And in the States, where it seems the majority here hail from, politics and religion are closely connected by virtue of A) the unendingly-funded lobbyists and B) the fact that its user manual declares they shouldn't be.

Edit: 500th Post! I'm Deadly! Booya, motherfucker!

-snip-

I do it becasue I'd like to shake off some of the stereotypes associated with Atheism.

Also, it's fun.

maybe none of them realise that everyone on the other side is as unwilling to change their point of view as they are

Christianity says you go to hell for not being a christian. Thats not right. Also, christianity made evil people, like crusaders, and conquistadors. Their actual main goal was not to take the americas, but to force christianity on the entire population of the americas. That is why I fight with cristians on these forums all the time. Its an evil religion. Also, I find that religion should be destroyed, as even though cristianity is leading in doing this. All religions have caused wars, and made evil people.

All religions have caused wars

Correction: all major monotheistic religions
But I agree with your intentions.

Christianity says you go to hell for not being a christian. Thats not right. Also, christianity made evil people, like crusaders, and conquistadors. Their actual main goal was not to take the americas, but to force christianity on the entire population of the americas. That is why I fight with cristians on these forums all the time. Its an evil religion. Also, I find that religion should be destroyed, as even though cristianity is leading in doing this. All religions have caused wars, and made evil people.

And here's an example of why fundamentalist atheists are just as bad as fundamentalist Christians. If we're going to make with the generalisations, Swilatia, then A) let's do it with better grammar (unless, of course, English isn't your first language, in which case fair enough :)), and B) let's apply the test fairly and equally to every atheist society - China, Russia, the various Soviet imperial states - which has every committed horrible crimes against its people. Oh, look, Russia purged Jews too, and outlawed religion. Oh, look, China exiled hundreds of thousands of Tibetans on the basis of their support for the genuine religious leader which China itself claimed was fake and attempted to replace.

I'm not religious in any way, shape, or form, but if you honestly believe every religion is evil and, consequently, all religious people are evil, then you yourself are the worst kind of idiot.

Correction: all major monotheistic religions
But I agree with your intentions.
And polytheist. Hinduism, mid east before monotheism, Scandinavia before monotheism, Americas before monotheism (Aztec's gods demanding sacrifices...)

Correction: all major monotheistic religions
But I agree with your intentions.

Corrected correction: all religions that have enough supporters to support a war. Even Buddhists have started holy wars.

And here's an example of why fundamentalist atheists are just as bad as fundamentalist Christians. If we're going to make with the generalisations, Swilatia, then A) let's do it with better grammar (unless, of course, English isn't your first language, in which case fair enough :)), and B) let's apply the test fairly and equally to every atheist society - China, Russia, the various Soviet imperial states - which has every committed horrible crimes against its people. Oh, look, Russia purged Jews too, and outlawed religion. Oh, look, China exiled hundreds of thousands of Tibetans on the basis of their support for the genuine religious leader which China itself claimed was fake and attempted to replace.

I'm not religious in any way, shape, or form, but if you honestly believe every religion is evil and, consequently, all religious people are evil, then you yourself are the worst kind of idiot.
And thus another thread goes to ad hominems. If you have to flame, can't you do it good?

I will not join this argument, but I must ask why you separate Russia and Soviet. Russia before 1917 was Russian Orthodox (christian), and after 1989 they have not had wars. What is the Russia you talk about?

Corrected correction: all religions that have enough supporters to support a war. Even Buddhists have started holy wars.
But mostly christians are doing this.

Krakatoa said some stuff, then exploded violently
Well, Hinduism is essentially monotheistic. As Christianity has the trinity as three parts to a whole, none of which are God but God is each of them, Hinduism believes that Brahma is one and all gods are a form and part of him.

And Aztec sacrifices aren't really wars, eh? :D

Corrected correction: all religions that have enough supporters to support a war. Even Buddhists have started holy wars.

Well, not quite all. Point taken though. My point was that many surviving religions who have warred are monotheistic.

Well, Hinduism is essentially monotheistic. As Christianity has the trinity as three parts to a whole, none of which are God but God is each of them, Hinduism believes that Brahma is one and all gods are a form and part of him.

And Aztec sacrifices aren't really wars, eh? :D
No, but the Aztecs waged wars specifically to get prisoners to sacrifice. Their empire was secondary (at least that was the official version).

Hinduism is polytheist because
1)The gods are as separate from each other as people are from gods.
2) Different gods have different rules for their followers. Some forms of Hinduism is fairly peaceful (and so philosofic that their adherents are more or less atheists). Others are warrior religions that could harldy exist without wars. And everything in between.

And thus another thread goes to ad hominems. If you have to flame, can't you do it good?

I will not join this argument, but I must ask why you separate Russia and Soviet. Russia before 1917 was Russian Orthodox (christian), and after 1989 they have not had wars. What is the Russia you talk about?

Your ignorance of what "ad hominem" really means does not lend credence to your counterargument. I never claimed his arguments were invalid because he's an idiot; I claimed he was an idiot because of the sheer absurdity of his arguments.

Oh, alright, I meant Soviet Russia, but in some cases its client states behaved slightly differently and I didn't want some nitpicker pointing out some desk jockey somewhere in the Ukraine allowed an Orthodox priest to keep practicing or something.

Moreover, the (Dawkinsite) claim that religion is the only or major cause of history for wars, which seems to be echoed here, is so stupid as to be unworthy of consideration. Ambition, greed, stupidity and pride start wars; religion is often cited as an excuse to inflame the masses, but again, if we're going to be historical, let's look at the real reasons for the Crusades: the Pope trying to stop Europe warring with itself by sending its armies off somewhere else. And how they ended? With every prince and nobleman who wanted to curry favour claiming he'd start a Crusade in return for (x)? Pathetic.

Genuine religious wars are rare, because wars are rarely started by the people, who are often religious, but the aristocrats, who may sometimes be religious but whose ambition is, generally, somewhat more powerful.

Christianity says you go to hell for not being a christian. Thats not right.

Firstly, why not?

Secondly, the way you describe who hell is for is only indirectly true. Hell was made for all those who rebelled against God. Originally this was Lucifer and his consorts. But now of course humans rebel against God too. Naturally God didnt want to see the people he loved in hell so he sent Jesus to deal with it.


Also, christianity made evil people, like crusaders, and conquistadors..

While they were Christian, it is also true that they were European. Does this mean that being European makes you evil? You havent as yet proved any correlation. Also the crusades are still being debated as to what extent they were religious conflicts, or wheter they were just territorial ones that hid behind religion as a fascarde.


Their actual main goal was not to take the americas, but to force christianity on the entire population of the americas.

Since Christianity is about love for God, then you cant force it on people as you cannot force love


That is why I fight with cristians on these forums all the time. Its an evil religion.

Rather than just looking at what Christians have done, perhaps you can examine the faith itself and explain to me why it is evil


Also, I find that religion should be destroyed, as even though cristianity is leading in doing this. All religions have caused wars, and made evil people.

Firstly, there are far more secular wars in history than there are religious. Secondly, religion has done a great many good things throught history. You just look at them now through modern societyies eyes and focus on the bad things to such an extend that all you see are bad things. Thirdly, territory has been a major cause of wars over all the earth. Should we abandon territory and live in the sky?

A lot of people forget that the object of debate is not to convince your opponent. The object of debate is to convince the undecided observers. You will never see a debate that involves two people trying to convince each other of something, that simply isnt what debate is about.

Hinduism is polytheist because
1)The gods are as separate from each other as people are from gods.
2) Different gods have different rules for their followers. Some forms of Hinduism is fairly peaceful (and so philosofic that their adherents are more or less atheists). Others are warrior religions that could harldy exist without wars. And everything in between.

Really, it's two interpretations. Hinduism is pretty hard to class, because there is no absolute Hinduism. Scriptures are open to interpretation, so it varies hugely. In the largest form of Hinduism, however, Brahma is seen as the centre and ultimate reality, the Trimurti is Brahman, Vishna and Shiva (the Hindu Trinity) and then there are the other gods, and despite being individual they are all a part of Brahma, just as the parts of the Christian Trinity are individual.

IMHO everyone has a hole deep down in their immortal souls that can only be filled by taking their opnions, set in concrete as they are, and beating those who disagree in and around the skull with them until they feel a little better.

But mostly christians are doing this.

There have been very few wars that Christians have partaken in on the grounds of religion. The Crusades are still very much up for discussion as to wheter firstly they were defensive conflicts on the part of the European Christians and secondly as to how much they were actually religious and how much they were actually just territorial greed wars using religion as an excuse. If you want to look at wars that religions perpetuate, perhaps you should instead be more anti-Islamic since the Islamic expansionist conflicts of the 7th and 8th century were partically brutal. Or you could be senseable and not judge faiths on their past but look at the actuall faith itself.

A lot of people forget that the object of debate is not to convince your opponent. The object of debate is to convince the undecided observers. You will never see a debate that involves two people trying to convince each other of something, that simply isnt what debate is about.

...sometimes I forget that. The trouble is, the informality of this medium, including the ability to dip in and out at will, mean that the majority of viewers aren't really that interested, and therefore perhaps not that willing to be changed. A flesh-and-blood debate, on the other hand, you have to go along to, sometimes pay to go to, which means you obviously care enough about the issue, or are curious enough to be swayed.

Also the crusades are still being debated as to what extent they were religious conflicts, or wheter they were just territorial ones that hid behind religion as a fascarde.
Whether or not they were territorial, they were commanded by religion under the banner of a Holy War.

Since Christianity is about love for God, then you cant force it on people as you cannot force love
That doesn't mean they haven't tried.

Territory has been a major cause of wars over all the earth.
Part of the initial division between territories and peoples is religion.

Part of the initial division between territories and peoples is religion.

and fences..

and fences..
I disagree. I feel everyone was a happy happy family, and then wandered off in groups. Over time, these groups came back with their own religious ideas, that disagreed with the others'. Because of this, they decided to be different peoples and split apart again, no longer of families.
[Insert fences now]

Your ignorance of what "ad hominem" really means does not lend credence to your counterargument. I never claimed his arguments were invalid because he's an idiot; I claimed he was an idiot because of the sheer absurdity of his arguments.

Oh, alright, I meant Soviet Russia, but in some cases its client states behaved slightly differently and I didn't want some nitpicker pointing out some desk jockey somewhere in the Ukraine allowed an Orthodox priest to keep practicing or something.

Moreover, the (Dawkinsite) claim that religion is the only or major cause of history for wars, which seems to be echoed here, is so stupid as to be unworthy of consideration. Ambition, greed, stupidity and pride start wars; religion is often cited as an excuse to inflame the masses, but again, if we're going to be historical, let's look at the real reasons for the Crusades: the Pope trying to stop Europe warring with itself by sending its armies off somewhere else. And how they ended? With every prince and nobleman who wanted to curry favour claiming he'd start a Crusade in return for (x)? Pathetic.

Genuine religious wars are rare, because wars are rarely started by the people, who are often religious, but the aristocrats, who may sometimes be religious but whose ambition is, generally, somewhat more powerful.
- I know what ad hominem is. "...you yourself are the worst kind of idiot." is a good example. And an even better way to invite and motivate further insults from your opponents.

- I did not make a counterargument. Thus I did not try to lend credence to it.

- Now I'll have to make an oblique kind of sort of counterargument to this post. Just because this is an old pet peeve of mine. Don't confuse it with anything I said before, because they are not related.

Showing that a war has another cause than religion does not show that religion was not a cause. All wars have at least three causes. With at least one of them absent there is peace.
1) A social/political order where some people (rulers) can make decisions for all people in a society.
2) A reason why the rulers want war. This is usually either an economic cause or greed for power ("ambition") or glory ("honor").
3) A reason why the rest of the people support the rulers war. This is never economic in nature, because most people always lose from a war, regardless of whether their rulers win or lose. Instead this is always a conviction of some sort that the other side ("enemy") is evil and not humans like those on your own side. Nothing is better than religion for this, so in a very big portion of the wars in history religion is at least a part of this, though other things can work too.

Why don't you ask the people who always start those threads. Though IMHO, a lot of self styled athiests and self styled Christians both have nothing better to do then try to piss each other off, both while claiming to hold the moral high ground.

What really cracks me up though is how is how many athiests in such threads will often times claim that faith is a weakness while they rely entirely on science, usually while showing a very skewed view of both the modern evolutionary theor yand the very meaning of the word faith, which literarally translates "to not have aperfect knowledge of".

If you get real technical, the only way the athiest could be taking the "scientifically proven" ground like many claim was if proof was found God had existed but didn't any longer. Hence, all athiests really are is the religious practice of beleiving in the non existence of God.

If you get real technical, the only way the athiest could be taking the "scientifically proven" ground like many claim was if proof was found God had existed but didn't any longer. Hence, all athiests really are is the religious practice of beleiving in the non existence of God.
Or it could be that they try to believe only in things with evidence that they do exist. If something doesn't, or never did, exist, you could never show that by demonstrating how one ceases to exist. For example, would it work for me to say that there is an elephant hovering above your head? It would be foolish to say that the only way you can disprove this is by actually having an elephant hover above your head, and then destroying it.

Doesn't work, does it?

Why don't you ask the people who always start those threads. Though IMHO, a lot of self styled athiests and self styled Christians both have nothing better to do then try to piss each other off, both while claiming to hold the moral high ground.

What really cracks me up though is how is how many athiests in such threads will often times claim that faith is a weakness while they rely entirely on science, usually while showing a very skewed view of both the modern evolutionary theor yand the very meaning of the word faith, which literarally translates "to not have aperfect knowledge of".

If you get real technical, the only way the athiest could be taking the "scientifically proven" ground like many claim was if proof was found God had existed but didn't any longer. Hence, all athiests really are is the religious practice of beleiving in the non existence of God.
Atheists are funny and god love us agnostics. I think the correct term for a lot of people who'd label themselves atheists is "Antitheist". God is beyond our reach.

don't understand the point either. I haven't really tried to convert anyone, so I haven't been baited yet (or if they have tried to bait me I just ignore it)
I do try to explain why I am the way I am if they ask though, but just answering questions doesn't seem to be a problem.

The problem comes when people start to try to "prove" thier side. I have said many times, I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with any kind of empirical evidence or anything. I still believe though.

There really isn't any point in trying to 'convert' someone who doesn't want to be converted. I think the solution to the problem is to realize "I don't believe the same as anyone else, and it doesn't matter what the believe or what I think about what they believe, because I don't care what they think about what I believe."

Whether or not they were territorial, they were commanded by religion under the banner of a Holy War.

You'd be hard pushed to find a passage in the Bible that advocated holy war post Jesus. You maybe could strech the Cannanites etc but they are not post Jesus.


Part of the initial division between territories and peoples is religion.

And its also on the basis of diffrent cultures etc. More wars are fought over territory than anything else. Religion is only one element of that. Its unfair to say its the cause of the "most" wars.

don't understand the point either. I haven't really tried to convert anyone, so I haven't been baited yet (or if they have tried to bait me I just ignore it)
I do try to explain why I am the way I am if they ask though, but just answering questions doesn't seem to be a problem.

The problem comes when people start to try to "prove" thier side. I have said many times, I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with any kind of empirical evidence or anything. I still believe though.

There really isn't any point in trying to 'convert' someone who doesn't want to be converted. I think the solution to the problem is to realize "I don't believe the same as anyone else, and it doesn't matter what the believe or what I think about what they believe, because I don't care what they think about what I believe."
But you'd want to save them right? As futile as it is..

Seriously, I think god truely prefers us agnostics!

You'd be hard pushed to find a passage in the Bible that advocated holy war post Jesus. You maybe could strech the Cannanites etc but they are not post Jesus.
Tell that to any religious leaders who command holy wars.

And its also on the basis of diffrent cultures etc. More wars are fought over territory than anything else. Religion is only one element of that. Its unfair to say its the cause of the "most" wars.
I don't believe that Religion is the cause of most wars, but I do believe it have been a small factor in many.

And I'm off now, enjoy your arguing! It's been fun!

Tell that to any religious leaders who command holy wars.

Precisely, religous leaders. Not religion itself. People have used religion to start wars but if you look at Christianity it does not justify them. Islam on the other hand is more debatable

But you'd want to save them right? As futile as it is..

Seriously, I think god truely prefers us agnostics!
I don't want anyone to go to hell, but it isn't my responsibility to "save them" I can't save anyone, I can't even save myself, God has the power in that situation, I am called to go out into the world and preach the good news, part of that is living a good life, part of it is evangelism, and part of it is just answering questions to the best of my ability when people ask.

God wants me to be a good steward with my time and energy, evangelizing to someone who is violently opposed is both a waste of my time, and not a very wise course of action to begin with, if they are opposed to religion, my evanelizing may just push them further away.

I don't want anyone to go to hell, but it isn't my responsibility to "save them" I can't save anyone, I can't even save myself, God has the power in that situation, I am called to go out into the world and preach the good news, part of that is living a good life, part of it is evangelism, and part of it is just answering questions to the best of my ability when people ask.

God wants me to be a good steward with my time and energy, evangelizing to someone who is violently opposed is both a waste of my time, and not a very wise course of action to begin with, if they are opposed to religion, my evanelizing may just push them further away.
good.. I hate it when people think they have to save me. I know what I'm doing. Mind you own business.

I usually try to ignore all things religious. It's not all that easy all the time, though. Religious fanatics tend to make life more difficult for everyone, including us atheists. The most people have to worry about when it comes to atheism is stupid arguments, while religious fanatics advocate murder and opression in the name of their god/gods. This ought to say something about the bigger picture.

I do know that religious fanatics are in the minority and that most religious folks are simply ordinary, sensible (well, fairly sensible anyway) people. I just thought I'd mention that.

good.. I hate it when people think they have to save me. I know what I'm doing. Mind you own business.
and 90% of the time I do, so it seems like we should get along about 90% of the time right?

Atheists are funny and god love us agnostics. I think the correct term for a lot of people who'd label themselves atheists is "Antitheist". God is beyond our reach.

Sorry, must forgot to say, I'm not an agnostic or an athiest. I just find the notion that so many people think their position's based off of fact instead of faith extremely comical.

Way I see it, if I end up wrong, I'll know when I bite it. Or probably not. Philosophy still hasn't answered the question of whether you'd have time or not to notice yourself being dead.

Or it could be that they try to believe only in things with evidence that they do exist. If something doesn't, or never did, exist, you could never show that by demonstrating how one ceases to exist. For example, would it work for me to say that there is an elephant hovering above your head? It would be foolish to say that the only way you can disprove this is by actually having an elephant hover above your head, and then destroying it.

Doesn't work, does it?

You missed the entire point though: Either scenario destroys all need for faith, either from athiests, or religious people. The fact is, until one position is actually scientifically proven, and in all likelyhood neither one never will be, both are just as ridicolous as the other.

I suspect it's half the reason who so many agnostics have decent senses of humor. They're some of the only ones honest enough with themselves to ee the humor in the entire scenario.

You missed the entire point though: Either scenario destroys all need for faith, either from athiests, or religious people. The fact is, until one position is actually scientifically proven, and in all likelyhood neither one never will be, both are just as ridicolous as the other.

You missed the entire point though: Either scenario destroys all need for faith, either from aFlyingSpaggettiMonsterists, or FlyingSpaggettimonsterists people. The fact is, until one position is actually scientifically proven, and in all likelyhood neither one never will be, denying the Flying Spaggetti Monster is just as ridicolous as believing in the Flying Spaggetti Monster.

There have been very few wars that Christians have partaken in on the grounds of religion. The Crusades are still very much up for discussion as to wheter firstly they were defensive conflicts on the part of the European Christians and secondly as to how much they were actually religious and how much they were actually just territorial greed wars using religion as an excuse. If you want to look at wars that religions perpetuate, perhaps you should instead be more anti-Islamic since the Islamic expansionist conflicts of the 7th and 8th century were partically brutal. Or you could be senseable and not judge faiths on their past but look at the actuall faith itself.
The crusades was to steal their "holy" land from people following other faiths. Whether jerusalem at the time would be muslim, jewish, of even buddhist, the crusades would have still happened. Also, most christianty was in erope at this time, as the places where christianity started were all muslim at the time. Also, did you even pay attention to the fact that I said that even though cristainity is evil, I did not say it is the only evil religion. Islam is evil too.

I don't know whether I've just been ignoring the evangelists (be they atheist or theists), but I haven't noticed too much of what you talk about.

I try not to debate the validity of people's beliefs. I'm an atheist, of the explicit kind, so obviously I consider religious beliefs nothing but self suggestion.
That said, it's usually not harmful to anyone, so I don't see the point in trying to degrade something that obviously makes them happy (ok, I know I more or less just did, but I doubt people's faith is that weak).

However, I do and always will object - and strongly - against people who use their faith as an excuse to spread hatred & prejudice. Faith should not be considered an excuse for acting against perfect strangers, no more than my Doc Martens is an excuse for kicking random people's head in.

To attribute wars to religion is as ignorant as doing the opposite. Religion have thruout history been deeply intertwined in nearly all conflicts, large and small. The most unfortunate aspect of organised religion, is how people use it to sanctify their inhumane agendas. Feel homophobic? Well Christianity is the perfect excuse.
Tired of the way your local dictatorship lets forigners run off with your country's resources, and don't know who to blame? Well Islam offers the perfect excuse for blowing up some of your neighbours kids & venting your frustration.

It's sad as hell, and such actions surely have nothing at all to do with the tenents of the religions they hide behind. But it goes on every day.

I try not to engage in debates about religion outside these boards. I dislike preachers intensely, as I feel they're enemies of autonomy - they don't respect my wish to live my life as I see fit. But I know several religious people, of several different faiths, and a good number of them I consider close friends.
What they do in their institutions doesn't concern me. It has no more impact on me than their personal thoughts or what they do on the bathroom. And as long as people - theist & atheist - can respect eachothers autonomy & the fact that we live in secular societies, then I fail to see what there is to argue about.

It's like having an argument over the colour of a phonebooth. As long as we agree on how the thing operates & allow eachother to use it, who gives a shit about what colour various people think it is?

For someone like me, who only superficially studied religion (by my self) because of it's impact on politics, debating various religious beliefs can be both useful & interesting. Christians, for example, are a highly diverse bunch. Some are almost identical to mainstream muslims, while others are radically different.
Not only is it an opportunity to learn something about other people's cultures, but it also helps me understand the political climate of my fellow debaters countries.

And of course, it's always interesting to hear people's thoughts about the big universal questions - especially for someone like me who doesn't devote much of my real life to divining the meaning of life, the universe & everything.

Edit: Why is it some atheists have so much trouble accepting that term?

and 90% of the time I do, so it seems like we should get along about 90% of the time right?
Yes. I like you.:)