NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay. Rant time.

This doesn't apply to all, but why do a lot of atheists feel the need to be so asshole-ish about religion? Why? For people who claim to be followers of reason and logic, it makes no sense.

What can it bring you? Honestly? Does it make you feel good, insulting other people's deepest held beliefs? If it does, there is something wrong with you. That's screwed up.

Will it win you any converts? No. It won't ever win you any converts. Trust me, it just drives people away.

Being kind about it, showing people the light is the way to convert people. Not insult their beliefs, it only drives people away. It just... it doesn't make any sense. At all.

And logic and reason sometimes have to stand down for a bit of nonsense. Sometimes, imagination and belief should take priority. Otherwise, life gets dull.

And for the super-religious people here: Religion shouldn't override all senses of common sense and reason. Sometimes, religion has to take a bow, sit down, and shut the hell up.

It's disgusting when people use their religion as a shield for the things they have done. Either come up with a logical explanation for it, or don't do it. "The preacher said so" is not a reason, and people should learn that.

Also, the rant I used against atheism above applies equally to religion.

Some one, anyone, explain the world to me.

some people are assholes. its not the topic, its the person.

internet anonymity FTW?

internet anonymity FTW?

It's not about people ont the internet, it applies to people in real life too.

Okay. Rant time.

This doesn't apply to all, but why do a lot of atheists feel the need to be so asshole-ish about religion? Why? For people who claim to be followers of reason and logic, it makes no sense.

What can it bring you? Honestly? Does it make you feel good, insulting other people's deepest held beliefs? If it does, there is something wrong with you. That's screwed up.

Will it win you any converts? No. It won't ever win you any converts. Trust me, it just drives people away.

Being kind about it, showing people the light is the way to convert people. Not insult their beliefs, it only drives people away. It just... it doesn't make any sense. At all.

And logic and reason sometimes have to stand down for a bit of nonsense. Sometimes, imagination and belief should take priority. Otherwise, life gets dull.

And for the super-religious people here: Religion shouldn't override all senses of common sense and reason. Sometimes, religion has to take a bow, sit down, and shut the hell up.

It's disgusting when people use their religion as a shield for the things they have done. Either come up with a logical explanation for it, or don't do it. "The preacher said so" is not a reason, and people should learn that.

Also, the rant I used against atheism above applies equally to religion.

Some one, anyone, explain the world to me.
\/ This \/
some people are assholes. its not the topic, its the person.

It's not about people ont the internet, it applies to people in real life too.

who are these people and why should we care?

Ben Stein.


that a good enough answer?:D

Because for some reason people feel that their closely held beliefs are somehow above critical inquiry and investigation.

The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

I try to piss off both atheists and theists. My position is that I don't know if God exists or not, but you don't know shit.

It can't be just people. I've met people who are incredibly nice and friendly, and not assholes at all until we started talking about religion and the like.

It can't be just people. I've met people who are incredibly nice and friendly, and not assholes at all until we started talking about religion and the like.

Then perhaps they aren't necessarily assholes.

I'm a very nice guy, online and in real life. But I love arguments. They're fun. I just fucking love arguing, and I get really into it.

Then perhaps they aren't necessarily assholes.

I'm a very nice guy, online and in real life. But I love arguments. They're fun. I just fucking love arguing, and I get really into it.
That's fine, as long as you don't disagree with people for the sake of disagreeing. People like that deserve to get hit with a ball-peen hammer.

That's fine, as long as you don't disagree with people for the sake of disagreeing. People like that deserve to get hit with a ball-peen hammer.

I disagree.

I disagree.
Ball-peen hammer.

That's fine, as long as you don't disagree with people for the sake of disagreeing. People like that deserve to get hit with a ball-peen hammer.

I disagree.



Seriously. As long as they aren't being stupid about it and are actually trying to make an argument whats the harm?

I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing. But say, if everyone on a forum agrees with me then I'll find another forum until the first forum gets some lively debates going.

Trust me, it's just my idea of fun. Me and my best friend will start talking politics, scream across the room at each other for 30 minutes exchanging various derogatory remarks between debate, and then eventually one of us will say

"So what are we gonna eat tonight?"

"Chinese sounds good"

"Yeah, lets go get it"

"Alright, so...."

Okay. Rant time.

This doesn't apply to all, but why do a lot of atheists feel the need to be so asshole-ish about religion? Why? For people who claim to be followers of reason and logic, it makes no sense.


I don't know if asshole-ish is the term, but I've felt the bitter taste religion can leave to a man. Don't be so surprised if some cannot bear it anymore.

What can it bring you? Honestly? Does it make you feel good, insulting other people's deepest held beliefs? If it does, there is something wrong with you. That's screwed up.
1)Maybe.
2)Why?


And logic and reason sometimes have to stand down for a bit of nonsense. Sometimes, imagination and belief should take priority. Otherwise, life gets dull.
I kind of agree,as an occasional means of creative escape from reality; if it's YOUR imagination, not some dumbly accepted thing that some bearded guy says and you accept because you can't be bothered to use your mind. Sadly, religion sometimes kills/limits imagination and free-thinking. The term "belief" always bore self-imposed connotations to me.



Being kind about it, showing people the light is the way to convert people.
Now you're being naive. And "converting" is not the goal of promoting rationality. It's self preservation and freedom of thought.

What can it bring you? Honestly? Does it make you feel good, insulting other people's deepest held beliefs? If it does, there is something wrong with you. That's screwed up.

Why should I give a damn about the beliefs of the religious when they have not, and continue to not, give a damn about mine

some people are assholes. its not the topic, its the person.

Amen. :D

Why should I give a damn about the beliefs of the religious when they have not, and continue to not, give a damn about mine

That's a lie and you know it.

Last wednesday, me and the new Pope were at Video Tyme over on 4th and I saw "Pool Hall Junkies" and said we should get it, and His Holiness said "Nein, ist not goot, Neo Art said ist shieza, let's get "Blazing Saddles"".

So we did.

That's a lie and you know it.

Last wednesday, me and the new Pope were at Video Tyme over on 4th and I saw "Pool Hall Junkies" and said we should get it, and His Holiness said "Nein, ist not goot, Neo Art said ist shieza, let's get "Blazing Saddles"".

So we did.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/rotflol.gif

Show me the atheists that tell people they'll burn in hell.

Show me the atheists that claim that females are inferior to males.

Show me the atheists that favor burning witches at the stake.

Show me the atheists that caused 9/11.

Okay. Rant time.

Joy of joys. gb2/livejournal/.

This doesn't apply to all, but why do a lot of atheists feel the need to be so asshole-ish about religion? Why? For people who claim to be followers of reason and logic, it makes no sense.

And already you're being presumptuous. Atheism is the lack of belief in theism. Atheism =/= follower of reason and logic, although the latter tend to lead to the former.

Assholishness occurs because people tend to get their knickers in a twist because religion is a hot topic. People have vested interest in being right.

What can it bring you? Honestly? Does it make you feel good, insulting other people's deepest held beliefs? If it does, there is something wrong with you. That's screwed up.

What can it bring you? Honestly? Does it make you feel good when you condemn gays and non-believers, insulting other people's deepest held beliefs? If it does, there's something wrong with you. That's screwed up.

When you realize the absurdity of my statement, you'll see the absurdity of yours. Talk to the people you debate with instead of generalizing to every person who is one. Secondly, I don't care what your beliefs are if you aren't in a position of power or influence over me. Then I care, because I then must live by your moral code instead of mine.

Thirdly, prove something's wrong for wanting to have critical thought on profound ideas.

Will it win you any converts? No. It won't ever win you any converts. Trust me, it just drives people away.

Atheism isn't a religion. There aren't any 'converts'. Nobody tries to 'win' them. You come into here with such an angry and presumptuous attitude I'm doing everything I can to not flame you into next week for it, but you aren't making it easy.

Why should I trust you? You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Being kind about it, showing people the light is the way to convert people. Not insult their beliefs, it only drives people away. It just... it doesn't make any sense. At all.

See my previous statement.

And logic and reason sometimes have to stand down for a bit of nonsense. Sometimes, imagination and belief should take priority. Otherwise, life gets dull.

Absolutely not. You can only have your silliness when it doesn't start affecting me, and not one step beyond that. Life being dull isn't the end of the world.

And for the super-religious people here: Religion shouldn't override all senses of common sense and reason. Sometimes, religion has to take a bow, sit down, and shut the hell up.

lol.

It's disgusting when people use their religion as a shield for the things they have done. Either come up with a logical explanation for it, or don't do it. "The preacher said so" is not a reason, and people should learn that.

lawl. Welcome to the world of most atheists.

Also, the rant I used against atheism above applies equally to religion.

Some one, anyone, explain the world to me.

I can only show you the door. You are the one who has to walk through it.


Oh yeah, and see Melphi's sig as to why I'd imagine most atheists, myself included, aren't fond of monotheistic religions.

It can't be just people. I've met people who are incredibly nice and friendly, and not assholes at all until we started talking about religion and the like.

at a guess, sounds to me like a case of your run-of-the-mill double standard about what is 'asshole-ish' to say about religion

NSG is brimming with examples of militant atheists who pretentiously scoff at any mention of religion that isn't hostile and negative. Nevertheless, as an agnostic myself, I can understand where some of this bitterness comes from. Many non-religious individuals are disgusted by the way that certain religious leaders and their followers use their beliefs as a justification for all types of bigotry and persecution. Furthermore, they are angered by decisions made by religious political leaders that appear to be made based soley, or mostly on their religious faith, when such leaders are supposed to represent the interests of the country as a whole (at least in the case of democratic republics). Their hostility, in my mind, is understandable, though not always warranted. It is quite unnecessary to post mean-spirited, sarcastic comments in response to an innocent mention of anothers' religious beliefs, something that I have seen occur more than once on this board.

That's a lie and you know it.

Last wednesday, me and the new Pope were at Video Tyme over on 4th and I saw "Pool Hall Junkies" and said we should get it, and His Holiness said "Nein, ist not goot, Neo Art said ist shieza, let's get "Blazing Saddles"".

So we did.

Now come on, I know there have been more Popes since him . . .

Oh, wait, you're only counting CATHOLIC Popes . . .

How'd I put it in the other thread? Oh yeah, that after a hard day of getting kicked on by annoying thesists, some of the NSG (militant) atheists come charging in here to complain about how them thesists were mean, stupid, ignorant, and had treated them as if ALL atheists were of one mind and ALL believed the same things. And then, in finding like minds here on NSG...

... Proceed to do the exact same thing to the thesists here that they had done to them out in the real world, while claiming that they never would do so of course.

It's rather sadly ironic that I see a lot of atheists here loudly proclaim that the self-rightious, stuck up, holier than thou, attitude of some theists is what makes them upset with religion in general, and then they pull the same attitude about atheism.

In other words, both sides give me a headache.

What can it bring you? Honestly? Does it make you feel good when you condemn gays and non-believers, insulting other people's deepest held beliefs?

This is a PRIME example of the Atheist assholishness the OP is talking about. Every fucking time an atheist wants to slam ALL religion they bring up the actions/beliefs of a small subset of some faiths and act as if all religious people do such things.

Fortunately, just as not all religious people condemn gays and non-believers, or insult other people's deepest held beliefs, not all atheists are thick enough to paint all religious people with this brush.

Show me the atheists that tell people they'll burn in hell.
What the hell does this really have to do with anything? Honestly now, I've seen this argument so many damned times and it STILL doesn't make any sense! You're an atheist for crying out loud, you don't believe in hell, so why does it matter if an idiot tells you you'll burn in hell? Does it hurt your feelers when I tell you to go jump in a lake?

Show me the atheists that claim that females are inferior to males.
In terms of words or deeds? A lot of the communist countries of course claimed equal rights, but they left an awful lot to be desiered.

Show me the atheists that favor burning witches at the stake.
Show me any first world country that does that any more.

Show me the atheists that caused 9/11.
How about I show you the Great Cultural Revolution that killed millions instead of a suicide attack that just netted a few thousand?

It's rather sadly ironic that I see a lot of atheists here loudly proclaim that the self-rightious, stuck up, holier than thou, attitude of some theists is what makes them upset with religion in general, and then they pull the same attitude about atheism.

Yeah, I can definitely see how that's frustrating. But as an agnostic, what I find frustrating is not so much the self-righteousness, being stuck up or holier than thou as it is the contempt for women, queers like me, and their enthusiasm for (their) violence. I really don't care what they believe. It's their cruelty in word and action.

Yeah, I can definitely see how that's frustrating. But as an agnostic, what I find frustrating is not so much the self-righteousness, being stuck up or holier than thou as it is the contempt for women, queers like me, and their enthusiasm for (their) violence. I really don't care what they believe. It's their cruelty in word and action.

That's a complaint against certain sub-sets of sum religions, not against religion in general.

I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing. But say, if everyone on a forum agrees with me then I'll find another forum until the first forum gets some lively debates going.

Trust me, it's just my idea of fun. Me and my best friend will start talking politics, scream across the room at each other for 30 minutes exchanging various derogatory remarks between debate, and then eventually one of us will say

"So what are we gonna eat tonight?"

"Chinese sounds good"

"Yeah, lets go get it"

"Alright, so...."

Ah. I don't understand people who like arguing. I hate arguing with people I like most especially. There are certain topics I avoid like the plague among my friends. Probably because I'm a very emotional person. Debates aren't just a difference of opinion, much as I try to make them so, but a fundamental clash for me. It's probably not healthy, but during an argument, for the duration of the conflict, I honestly hate the other person, most of the time. I might stop hating them after the argument, but then again I might not.

Also: In before UB ruins this thread.

Yeah, I can definitely see how that's frustrating. But as an agnostic, what I find frustrating is not so much the self-righteousness, being stuck up or holier than thou as it is the contempt for women, queers like me, and their enthusiasm for (their) violence. I really don't care what they believe. It's their cruelty in word and action.
The problem is though that some 90% of the planet are theists of one form or another. Not ALL of us show contempt for women, queers, and so on. As a matter of fact, a lot of women AND queers are theists, so the atempts that are made to paint all thesists as they believe X and do Y is as insulting and stupid as ME saying all homosexual men like little boys because someone in Battlecreek, MI did.

As it has been said, some people are assholes, the religion of choice is just used as the excuse. If it wasn't there, they would have found another way to be as annoying.

That's a complaint against certain sub-sets of sum religions, not against religion in general.
You are quite right. I don't have complaints about religion in general, because there is no such thing as Religion in General.

The problem is though that some 90% of the planet are theists of one form or another. Not ALL of us show contempt for women, queers, and so on. As a matter of fact, a lot of women AND queers are theists, so the atempts that are made to paint all thesists as they believe X and do Y is as insulting and stupid as ME saying all homosexual men like little boys because someone in Battlecreek, MI did.

As it has been said, some people are assholes, the religion of choice is just used as the excuse. If it wasn't there, they would have found another way to be as annoying.

No, I don't mean to condemn all theists at all. Some of my loving comrades are theists. The post I quoted was about the "self-rightious, stuck up, holier than thou, attitude of some theists" (my emphasis). I was saying that it's not their obnoxious style that puts me off, it's the cruelty and violence they are willing to sanction. And I feel that it deserves more focus than mere character flaws.

I apologize for pushing you away.

You are quite right. I don't have complaints about religion in general, because there is no such thing as Religion in General.

Stop! Someone's going to make a joke using the bolded "religion in general" as a pun with NSG. Don't do it. It's a bad idea. I'm warning you for your own sake.

Stop! Someone's going to make a joke using the bolded "religion in general" as a pun with NSG. Don't do it. It's a bad idea. I'm warning you for your own sake.
I hope you weren't joking me, because, no offense, it's terrible even as puns go.

Fine then: there is no such thing as unified, monolithic Religion.

I hope you weren't joking me, because, no offense, it's terrible even as puns go.

Fine then: there is no such thing as unified, monolithic Religion.

No, I just read the post and thought for a second that someone would be like "Yeah, there really is no religion in General. Nothing but religion haters" or something shitty like that, and I realized that just because I could contain myself, that didn't mean everyone could.

Joy of joys. gb2/livejournal/.



And already you're being presumptuous. Atheism is the lack of belief in theism. Atheism =/= follower of reason and logic, although the latter tend to lead to the former.

Eh. 'Followers' is a wrong term, but it comes close. I've only ever met atheists who are atheists because "It's the most logical and reasonable path".

Assholishness occurs because people tend to get their knickers in a twist because religion is a hot topic. People have vested interest in being right.

I guess m

What can it bring you? Honestly? Does it make you feel good when you condemn gays and non-believers, insulting other people's deepest held beliefs? If it does, there's something wrong with you. That's screwed up.

Have I ever?

When you realize the absurdity of my statement, you'll see the absurdity of yours. Talk to the people you debate with instead of generalizing to every person who is one. Secondly, I don't care what your beliefs are if you aren't in a position of power or influence over me. Then I care, because I then must live by your moral code instead of mine.

Thirdly, prove something's wrong for wanting to have critical thought on profound ideas.

I never said that. Where'd I say "religion is untouchable and almighty"? Please point out to me where I said that.

Atheism isn't a religion. There aren't any 'converts'. Nobody tries to 'win' them. You come into here with such an angry and presumptuous attitude I'm doing everything I can to not flame you into next week for it, but you aren't making it easy.

Excuse. I don't quite know what the proper term is. Non-converting? Or, maybe un-converting. I like that one. :D If I use the wrong word, please correct me. Because I see atheists trying to un-convert people every day. Their hypocrisy is freakin' hilarious.

Why should I trust you?

Why should I trust you? You might be a gopher-man!

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Neither do you.

See my previous statement.

See mine.


Absolutely not. You can only have your silliness when it doesn't start affecting me, and not one step beyond that. Life being dull isn't the end of the world.

Everything I do effects you, even if it is in the tiniest of ways.

lol.

So, before, I didn't know what I was talking about, but now I'm funny? Jeez.

lawl. Welcome to the world of most atheists.

It's amazing, because I'm an agnostic theist. Isn't life fun?



I can only show you the door. You are the one who has to walk through it.

I've already walked through my own door, thank you.


Oh yeah, and see Melphi's sig as to why I'd imagine most atheists, myself included, aren't fond of monotheistic religions.

Either make the arguement yourself, or don't make it at all. Don't use other's work as a basis for your own beliefs if you bash on others for doing the same.

Show me the atheists that tell people they'll burn in hell.[QUOTE]

I can't, because, as so many atheists scramble over each other trying to tell me, they don't believe in hell, or anything else, for that matter.

[QUOTE=South Lorenya]Show me the atheists that claim that females are inferior to males.

Stalin. I think... I'm pretty sure, yeah. And most religious men I met are actually less chauvanistic than the atheist guys I know.

Face it, being an atheist doesn't make you any more enlighted than anyone else, or smarter, or more wise. It just means you have different beliefs. Oops, I'm sorry, different non-beliefs.

That's actually probably the core issue of this whole debacle. Somehow, some atheists actually got it into their heads that being atheist meant being better. Then, they got into fights with the people who thought being religious made you better, and it just became a huge pissing contest. Huh.

Show me the atheists that favor burning witches at the stake.

I could probably find a few.

Show me the atheists that caused 9/11.

Wow. That... is just a stupid question.

Why should I give a damn about the beliefs of the religious when they have not, and continue to not, give a damn about mine

I don't know. Because they're people, and if you truly want to be better than them, want to prove that atheism is the vaulted 'high-road' than show them that it is the high-road, that you can be better than them. Don't fall down to their level. Be better, more compassionate. Beat them at their own damn game.

Knotthole Glade]I don't know if asshole-ish is the term, but I've felt the bitter taste religion can leave to a man. Don't be so surprised if some cannot bear it anymore.

Knotthole Glade]
1)Maybe.
2)Why?

1.Disgusting.
2. Having fun causing others pain is not a 'normal' human thing to do.

Knotthole Glade]I kind of agree,as an occasional means of creative escape from reality; if it's YOUR imagination, not some dumbly accepted thing that some bearded guy says and you accept because you can't be bothered to use your mind. Sadly, religion sometimes kills/limits imagination and free-thinking. The term "belief" always bore self-imposed connotations to me.

I've seen atheism do the exact same thing man. It ain't pretty. I'm arguing that one or the other is evil. They are both neutral, to be used for good an evil at the discretion of man. Theism and atheism, I mean.

Knotthole Glade]Now you're being naive. And "converting" is not the goal of promoting rationality. It's self preservation and freedom of thought.

But most atheists don't want me to have the freedom of thought in a religion. Atheism ain't 'Freedom of Thought'. Most atheists hold that as part of atheism, but atheism is, as so many have pointed out, a lack of belief, and therefore cannot be anything or have anything.

It is a negative. "There isn't a god or gods." It cannot have tenets or any trappings of a belief system, for as soon as it acquires those trappings, it becomes a belief system.

So either atheism is a lack of belief, or it is something else entirely.

No, I don't mean to condemn all theists at all. Some of my loving comrades are theists. The post I quoted was about the "self-rightious, stuck up, holier than thou, attitude of some theists" (my emphasis). I was saying that it's not their obnoxious style that puts me off, it's the cruelty and violence they are willing to sanction. And I feel that it deserves more focus than mere character flaws.

I apologize for pushing you away.
My appologies as well, I was expanding a bit upon your post and not directing it towards you in specific. Looking back at it, I REALLY was not clear on that. Gomen nasai.

Dude, Atheist are not ASS-HOLES. You and other religious people(not that their bad) always try to force us to religion. We don't believe in god deal with it! We do not need your constant words like"You will go to hell"or"god is real"ok, we do not believe and a true religious person would not care.

I sat next to this girl and I was talking to my friend and she said she was atheist, and I said"Yeah me to" This girl turned to me and yelled"I BELIEVE IN GOD SO COULD YOU STOP TALKING ABOUT IT" then all I said was"I respect your religion you can respect my beliefs also"and know what she said"No I can't"I turned to her and went"What the FUCK, I did nothing to you, damn"then she said"damn"to make fun of me. I about turned around and punched her.

And you act like you are so sweet, but you say 2 gay people who love each other can't get married, BULL SHIT. If a man and a women who do NOT love each other can get married, then why can't 2 gay people love each other get married. And anyway there is NOTHING, that particular states that it is wrong for the same gender to like each other.

And then there is Abortion. I think it is perfectly fine, but you religious people think it is wrong. Did you know that if a mother was killed and the baby tooken out, and the baby never took a breath, it is not considered murder to the baby, abortion is the same.

But most atheists don't want me to have the freedom of thought in a religion.

How many is most?


Atheism ain't 'Freedom of Thought'.

Sure it is. If you're free to be an atheist or not. You're also free to believe what you want if you're an atheist.


Most atheists hold that as part of atheism, but atheism is, as so many have pointed out, a lack of belief, and therefore cannot be anything or have anything.

Here's a statement. "I don't believe in God." Here's another statement. "I believe that God does not exist." Unless I'm really shitty at communicating in the English language, these statements are equivalent.


It is a negative. "There isn't a god or gods." It cannot have tenets or any trappings of a belief system, for as soon as it acquires those trappings, it becomes a belief system.

All philosophical positions are belief systems. To have knowledge or even think, you must have beliefs. All propositions that we affirm to be true are beliefs.


So either atheism is a lack of belief, or it is something else entirely.

Simple syllogism.

1) I believe in nothing.
2) To argue something is true, I have to believe it.
3) Therefore, I believe Premise 1 is true.
4) "Nothing" precludes the existence of Premise 1.
5) Therefore, I must believe in something.

That's fine, as long as you don't disagree with people for the sake of disagreeing. People like that deserve to get hit with a ball-peen hammer.

I've been hit with a ball-peen hammer. It isn't an experience I cherish. :(

Here's a statement. "I don't believe in God." Here's another statement. "I believe that God does not exist." Unless I'm really shitty at communicating in the English language, these statements are equivalent.


They are not equivalent statements. I find difficulty understanding how one could even take them as equivalent statements.

Dude, Atheist are not ASS-HOLES. You and other religious people(not that their bad) always try to force us to religion. We don't believe in god deal with it! We do not need your constant words like"You will go to hell"or"god is real"ok, we do not believe and a true religious person would not care.

I sat next to this girl and I was talking to my friend and she said she was atheist, and I said"Yeah me to" This girl turned to me and yelled"I BELIEVE IN GOD SO COULD YOU STOP TALKING ABOUT IT" then all I said was"I respect your religion you can respect my beliefs also"and know what she said"No I can't"I turned to her and went"What the FUCK, I did nothing to you, damn"then she said"damn"to make fun of me. I about turned around and punched her.

And you act like you are so sweet, but you say 2 gay people who love each other can't get married, BULL SHIT. If a man and a women who do NOT love each other can get married, then why can't 2 gay people love each other get married. And anyway there is NOTHING, that particular states that it is wrong for the same gender to like each other.

And then there is Abortion. I think it is perfectly fine, but you religious people think it is wrong. Did you know that if a mother was killed and the baby tooken out, and the baby never took a breath, it is not considered murder to the baby, abortion is the same.
*sighs* Thank you for going out of your way to prove my point for me. Mind if I lable this post as exhibit A for future reference?

Dude, Atheist are not ASS-HOLES. You and other religious people(not that their bad) always try to force us to religion. We don't believe in god deal with it! We do not need your constant words like"You will go to hell"or"god is real"ok, we do not believe and a true religious person would not care.
Fundamentalist Christians =/= all religious people.

I sat next to this girl and I was talking to my friend and she said she was atheist, and I said"Yeah me to" This girl turned to me and yelled"I BELIEVE IN GOD SO COULD YOU STOP TALKING ABOUT IT" then all I said was"I respect your religion you can respect my beliefs also"and know what she said"No I can't"I turned to her and went"What the FUCK, I did nothing to you, damn"then she said"damn"to make fun of me. I about turned around and punched her.
Oh wow, you encountered a moron in school. How shocking.

And you act like you are so sweet, but you say 2 gay people who love each other can't get married, BULL SHIT. If a man and a women who do NOT love each other can get married, then why can't 2 gay people love each other get married. And anyway there is NOTHING, that particular states that it is wrong for the same gender to like each other.
Way to stereotype. I am deeply religious. My church routinely performs marriages for homosexual couples.

And then there is Abortion. I think it is perfectly fine, but you religious people think it is wrong. Did you know that if a mother was killed and the baby tooken out, and the baby never took a breath, it is not considered murder to the baby, abortion is the same.

Again with this idiotic "you religious people" crap. Have you never encountered someone who was religious but not a fundamentalist Christian? Or are you just a fucking retard? There are plenty of religious people out there, myself included, who have no problem with a woman's choice to get an abortion.

How about I show you the Great Cultural Revolution that killed millions
You can't because the evidence simply doesn't exist.

You can't because the evidence simply doesn't exist.
Of all the stupid things you have said Andaras... that's right up there. It really is. Forgive me, but I'm going to have to go and laugh my rear end off at that.

Of all the stupid things you have said Andaras... that's right up there. It really is. Forgive me, but I'm going to have to go and laugh my rear end off at that.

I'm convinced he's a really consistent parody.

Of all the stupid things you have said Andaras... that's right up there. It really is. Forgive me, but I'm going to have to go and laugh my rear end off at that.

Provide evidence of your claims then.

This doesn't apply to all, but why do a lot of atheists feel the need to be so asshole-ish about religion? Why? For people who claim to be followers of reason and logic, it makes no sense.

Atheists are not followers of reason or logic anymore than those who believe in any of the various religions. They both have an untenable and extreme stance on something that cannot be proven. The only logical viewpoint on the question is Agnosticism, where you truly admit that you have no idea about, and cannot prove, the existence, or lack thereof, of a god or gods.

Provide evidence of your claims then.
That it happened: "Chief responsibility for the grave 'Left' error of the 'Cultural Revolution,' an error comprehensive in magnitude and protracted in duration, does indeed lie with Comrade Mao Zedong" -'Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People's Republic of China', CCP 1981.

So even the Chinese admit that it happened.

As for the death toll, well, we have a Harvard University Press study stating that the death doll was somewhere between 750,000 to 1.5 million (Mao's Last Revolution), far more than the OFFICAL Chinese count of 500,000 people (See, here the CCP admits that people died), but recent studies (Mao: The Untold Story) states that up to 3 million died.

So, Andaras, you have the Chinese Communist Party itself admiting that the Cultural Revolution happened, you have the CCP admit that a great many people did indeed die, and you have reputable scholars esitmate a death toll in the millions. And what do you have to show that this didn't happen?

Let me guess, some obsure communist crackpot website, right?

That it happened: "Chief responsibility for the grave 'Left' error of the 'Cultural Revolution,' an error comprehensive in magnitude and protracted in duration, does indeed lie with Comrade Mao Zedong" -'Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People's Republic of China', CCP 1981.

So even the Chinese admit that it happened.

As for the death toll, well, we have a Harvard University Press study stating that the death doll was somewhere between 750,000 to 1.5 million (Mao's Last Revolution), far more than the OFFICAL Chinese count of 500,000 people (See, here the CCP admits that people died), but recent studies (Mao: The Untold Story) states that up to 3 million died.

So, Andaras, you have the Chinese Communist Party itself admiting that the Cultural Revolution happened, you have the CCP admit that a great many people did indeed die, and you have reputable scholars esitmate a death toll in the millions. And what do you have to show that this didn't happen?

Let me guess, some obsure communist crackpot website, right?

Even China doesn't have the evidence, the post-Mao capitalist regime just said these things to discredit the class struggle that took place in China after the Revolution. The evidence for that time simply does not exist, and I am still waiting for your evidence on the matter. Thus far I have seen none from you except insults and McCarthyist-styled bourgeois propaganda. Harvard is the bourgeois of bourgeois institutions.

Even China doesn't have the evidence, the post-Mao capitalist regime just said these things to discredit the class struggle that took place in China after the Revolution. The evidence for that time simply does not exist, and I am still waiting for your evidence on the matter. Thus far I have seen none from you except insults and McCarthyist-styled bourgeois propaganda. Harvard is the bourgeois of bourgeois institutions.
*blah blah blah*I'm not going to admit your sources know what they are talking about. *blah blah blah* Communism rulz *blah blah blah* Bourgeois

Yup, just what I expected from you. I'll continue to laugh my ass off at your rock hard ignorance.

NSG is brimming with examples of militant atheists who pretentiously scoff at any mention of religion that isn't hostile and negative.

How'd I put it in the other thread? Oh yeah, that after a hard day of getting kicked on by annoying thesists, some of the NSG (militant) atheists come charging in here to complain about how them thesists were mean, stupid, ignorant, and had treated them as if ALL atheists were of one mind and ALL believed the same things. And then, in finding like minds here on NSG...

If I had to compile a list of the things that annoy me most then I think the term 'militant atheism' would be near the top.

To be accused of being a militant Christian you have to murder a homosexual or an abortionist.

To be accused of being a militant Muslim you have to blow yourself up or stone a few women to death for refusing to submit to archaic religious laws.

To be accused of being a militant Atheist all you have to do is say that religion is irrational.

The hypocrisy is sickening.

Show me any first world country that does that any more.

I think that is one of the things that annoys me most about many believers of certain religions: the cherrypicking. "Oh yes, God knows best, but I am going to twist and turn and ignore His words, or perhaps even pretend ignorance or say 'statement X is not relevant anymore' without providing underlying reasoning - because otherwise I do not wish to worship".

If you truly believe God knows best, you do what God says. No weaseling out of the parts that look stupid, cruel, outdated or unpleasant. That includes the burning and killing parts.
Cherrypicking is no different than pissing on the cross and at the same time still pretending you respect Jesus.

As believers, I respect the fruitcakes of the Westboro Baptist Church a whole lot more than your average Christian - they at least truly believe.
As human beings otoh they are of course despicable.

Because I see atheists trying to un-convert people every day. Their hypocrisy is freakin' hilarious.

I'm calling bullshit here: it's not unusual to see believers going from door to door, or approaching people on the street, or just standing on a box in a public square and shouting at people. I've never seen an atheist do it, and the only time I've heard of it being done was in a light-hearted way to make a point against religious prosthelytizing.

As a rule Atheist arguments are to be found in books or websites, which you can choose to read or not read as you wish. How many people have come up to you on the street and thrust a copy of The God Delusion or Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion into your hands?

*blah blah blah*I'm not going to admit your sources know what they are talking about. *blah blah blah* Communism rulz *blah blah blah* Bourgeois

Yup, just what I expected from you. I'll continue to laugh my ass off at your rock hard ignorance.

Still waiting for the evidence...

Atheists are not followers of reason or logic anymore than those who believe in any of the various religions. They both have an untenable and extreme stance on something that cannot be proven. The only logical viewpoint on the question is Agnosticism, where you truly admit that you have no idea about, and cannot prove, the existence, or lack thereof, of a god or gods.

Very few Atheists say that there's definitely no God. Most either say "there's no evidence either way, so we should go with the nul hypothesis (non-existence)" or "there is evidence and it suggests that there is no God, although we can't prove it 100%.

Very few Atheists say that there's definitely no God. Most either say "there's no evidence either way, so we should go with the nul hypothesis (non-existence)" or "there is evidence and it suggests that there is no God, although we can't prove it 100%.
Please define between theism and deism, it's perfectly fine to be a deism as Jefferson and many Enlightened people of that age were, but to be a theist is much different. A deism believes in a 'cosmic order' or 'cosmic force' to explain nature etc, but deists do not believe in a personal God that interferes and cares about what humans do and behave. Theists, on the other hand, believe God has a plan for us and cares about things - for example he cares if we mutilate the genitalia of children, or what gender we have sex with, etc etc.

Theism is an impossibly grandiose claim because it's the claim that you know the mind of God (and they call religious people humble...), and you personally can therefore tell other people what God thinks. But given that religion is man-made the nature of 'revealed truth' is that it's always fallible, it's like Joseph Smith making up 'revelations' so he could sleep with any woman he wanted, and to grant himself absolute 'earthly' authority among his followers by claiming he has divine right.

I have no problem with deism, although believing it now with all the modern scientific advances is a little strange - but I'll accept it. But to an a theist in this day and age is almost beyond irrationality.

Please define between theism and deism, it's perfectly fine to be a deism as Jefferson and many Enlightened people of that age were, but to be a theist is much different. A deism believes in a 'cosmic order' or 'cosmic force' to explain nature etc, but deists do not believe in a personal God that interferes and cares about what humans do and behave. Theists, on the other hand, believe God has a plan for us and cares about things - for example he cares if we mutilate the genitalia of children, or what gender we have sex with, etc etc.

Theism is an impossibly grandiose claim because it's the claim that you know the mind of God (and they call religious people humble...), and you personally can therefore tell other people what God thinks. But given that religion is man-made the nature of 'revealed truth' is that it's always fallible, it's like Joseph Smith making up 'revelations' so he could sleep with any woman he wanted, and to grant himself absolute 'earthly' authority among his followers by claiming he has divine right.

I have no problem with deism, although believing it now with all the modern scientific advances is a little strange - but I'll accept it. But to an a theist in this day and age is almost beyond irrationality.

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between Atheism and Deism: I'd ask a Deist how they'd tell the difference between a Universe that was kick-started by an outside force which never intervened again, and a Universe that was began through natural processes and was never interfered with. The distinction between modern Deism and Atheism seems to be more linguistic than philosophical.

If I had to compile a list of the things that annoy me most then I think the term 'militant atheism' would be near the top.

To be accused of being a militant Christian you have to murder a homosexual or an abortionist.

To be accused of being a militant Muslim you have to blow yourself up or stone a few women to death for refusing to submit to archaic religious laws.
Funny, not according to this board. Throwing arround phrases such as Islamo(whatever term is used now-a-days) and fundie is par for the course if you mention ANYTHING about religion.

To be accused of being a militant Atheist all you have to do is say that religion is irrational.
Oh, the drama...

The hypocrisy is sickening.
Pot, meet kettle. I'm sure you'll get along swimingly.

I think that is one of the things that annoys me most about many believers of certain religions: the cherrypicking. "Oh yes, God knows best, but I am going to twist and turn and ignore His words, or perhaps even pretend ignorance or say 'statement X is not relevant anymore' without providing underlying reasoning - because otherwise I do not wish to worship".

If you truly believe God knows best, you do what God says. No weaseling out of the parts that look stupid, cruel, outdated or unpleasant. That includes the burning and killing parts.
Cherrypicking is no different than pissing on the cross and at the same time still pretending you respect Jesus.

As believers, I respect the fruitcakes of the Westboro Baptist Church a whole lot more than your average Christian - they at least truly believe.
As human beings otoh they are of course despicable.
And here we have Exhibit B. Thanks.

Still waiting for the evidence...
China says it happened. We hvae living eye witnesses, records of that time, statements, and the like. BUT... you know what, some how, I just KNOW you're going to ignore it all, as you usually do.

Just for shits and giggles though:

^ Harry Harding, "The Chinese State in Crisis, 1966-9," in The Politics of China: The Eras of Mao and Deng, edited by Roderick MacFarquhar (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 242-4.
^ Law, Kam-yee. Brooker, Peter. [2003] (2003}. The Chinese Cultural Revolution Reconsidered: Beyond Purge and Holocaust. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0333738357.
^ Miller, Toby. [2003] (2003). Television: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies. Routledge Publishing. ISBN 0415255023
^ a b c Tang Tsou. [1986] (1986). The Cultural Revolution and Post-Mao Reforms: A Historical Perspective. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226815145
^ a b Historical Atlas of the 20th century
^ NetEase: Who made Liu Shaoqi into what he was?
^ Decision Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, adopted on 8 August 1966, by the CC of the CCP (official English version)
^ murdoch edu
^ MacFarquhar, Roderick and Schoenhals, Michael. Mao's Last Revolution. Harvard University Press, 2006. p. 124
^ Chang, Jung and Halliday, Jon. Mao: The Unknown Story. Jonathan Cape, London, 2005. pp. 539-540
^ Yan, Jiaqi. Gao, Gao. [1996] (1996). Turbulent Decade: A History of the Cultural Revolution. ISBN 0824816951.
^ Wang Dongxing's Memoirs
^ People's Daily: September 10, 1976 1976.9.10 毛主席逝世--中共中央等告全国人民书 retrieved from SINA.com
^ a b c Harding, Harry. [1987] (1987). China's Second Revolution: Reform after Mao. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 081573462X
^ Basic Knowledge about the Communist Party of China: The Eleventh Congress
^ Andrew, Christopher. Mitrokhin, Vasili. [2005] (2005). The World was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World. Basic Books Publishing. ISBN 0465003117
^ Lu, Xing. [2004] (2004). Rhetoric of the Chinese Cultural Revolution: The Impact on Chinese Thought, Culture, and Communication. UNC Press. ISBN 1570035431
^ a b Peterson, Glen. [1997] (1997). The Power of Words: literacy and revolution in South China, 1949-95. UBC Press. ISBN 0774806125
^ MacFarquhar, Roderick and Schoenhals, Michael. Mao's Last Revolution. Harvard University Press, 2006. p. 258
^ Chang, Jung and Halliday, Jon. Mao: The Unknown Story. Jonathan Cape, London, 2005. p. 567
^ On the Chinese Communist Party's History of Killing. The Epoch Times, Dec 23, 2004
^ Zheng Yi Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China. Westview Press, 1998. ISBN 0813326168
^ MacFarquhar, Roderick and Schoenhals, Michael. Mao's Last Revolution. Harvard University Press, 2006. p. 259
^ James P. Sterba, New York Times, January 25, 1981
^ The Chinese Cultural Revolution: Remembering Mao's Victims by Andreas Lorenz in Beijing, Der Spiegel Online. May 15, 2007
^ MacFarquhar, Roderick and Schoenhals, Michael. Mao's Last Revolution. Harvard University Press, 2006. p. 262
^ Chang, Jung and Halliday, Jon. Mao: The Unknown Story. Jonathan Cape, London, 2005. p.569
^ Tucker, Nançy Bernkopf. [2001] (2001). China Confidential: American Diplomats and Sino-American Relations, 1945-1996. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231106300
^ Wiltshire, Trea. [First published 1987] (republished & reduced 2003). Old Hong Kong - Volume Three. Central, Hong Kong: Text Form Asia books Ltd. ISBN Volume Three 962-7283-61-4
^ Ma, Bo. Blood Red Sunset. New York: Viking, 1995
^ [1] Yinghong Cheng & Patrick Manning, Revolution in Education: China and Cuba in Global Context, 1957–76, paragraph 32.
^ [2][3]Liu Xiaobo, Banning Discussion On The Cultural Revolution Catastrophe Is Another Catastrophe

And
Simon Leys (penname of Pierre Ryckmans) Broken Images: Essays on Chinese Culture and Politics (1979). ISBN 0-8052-8069-3
- The Burning Forest: Essays on Chinese Culture and Politics (1986). ISBN 0-03-005063-4; ISBN 0-586-08630-7; ISBN 0-8050-0350-9; ISBN 0-8050-0242-1.
- The Chairman's New Clothes: Mao and the Cultural Revolution (1977; revised 1981). ISBN 0-85031-208-6; ISBN 0-8052-8080-4; ISBN 0-312-12791-X; ISBN 0-85031-209-4; ISBN 0-85031-435-6 (revised ed.).
- Chinese Shadows (1978). ISBN 0-670-21918-5; ISBN 0-14-004787-5.
Chan, Anita. 1985. Children of Mao: Personality Development and Political Activism in the Red Guard Generation. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Chan, Che Po. 1991. From Idealism to Pragmatism: The Change of Political Thinking among the Red Guard Generation in China. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara.
Liu, Guokai. 1987. A Brief Analysis of the Cultural Revolution. edited by Anita Chan. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe.
Yang, Guobin. 2000. China's Red Guard Generation: The Ritual Process of Identity Transformation, 1966-1999. Ph.D. diss., New York University.
Fox Butterfield, China: Alive in the Bitter Sea, (1982, revised 2000), ISBN 0-553-34219-3, an oral history of some Chinese people's experience during the Cultural Revolution.
MacFarquhar, Roderick and Schoenhals, Michael. Mao's Last Revolution. Harvard University Press, 2006. ISBN 0674023323
Zheng Yi. Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China. Westview Press, 1998. ISBN 0813326168
Chang, Jung and Halliday, Jon. Mao: The Unknown Story. Jonathan Cape, London, 2005. ISBN 0224071262
Novel: Red Scarf Girl by Ji-Li Jiang. A true story about the life of a young girl during the cultural revolution.
Emily Wu and Larry Engelmann "Feather in the Storm" a childhood lost in chaos (2006) ISBN 0-375-42428-8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

To be honest I don't see much of a difference between Atheism and Deism: I'd ask a Deist how they'd tell the difference between a Universe that was kick-started by an outside force which never intervened again, and a Universe that was began through natural processes and was never interfered with. The distinction between modern Deism and Atheism seems to be more linguistic than philosophical.
Well I have no problem with the natural rights deistic conception of 'God'. Innate in theism on the other hand is an impulse that you can't just keep it personal - that for people to live in the same space as you and not hold the moralistic tribal values of over thousands of years ago is deeply offensive, and that everyone must adhere to you're rigid monolith religious views.

snip
You're quoting the partisan publications of partisan individuals, nothing more.

You're quoting the partisan publications of partisan individuals, nothing more.
That's what I thought you'd say, which is just funny as half of those sources are from China itself.

Once again you show yourself off as a man who stands with his fingers in his ears screaming how he's not listening, not listening, LALALALALALALALA!

You still haven't explained your side of how that many people suddenly go missing.

Funny, not according to this board. Throwing arround phrases such as Islamo(whatever term is used now-a-days) and fundie is par for the course if you mention ANYTHING about religion.

Wait, how does this have any relevance at all to the use of the word 'militant'? Oh wait, it doesn't, you're just evading frantically.

'Militant' has violent connotations, which is why people like you like to use it in cheap smear tactics.

'Fundie' is just a form of 'Fundamentalist', and is usually used fairly accurately (in terms of the definition laid out by the first Fundamentalists) and it doesn't have violent connotations. It's unusual to see anyone accused of being a 'fundie' purely for arguing for the truth of Christianity.

Find me even one example of a Muslim being accused of being an Islamo-Fascist purely for advancing an argument for the truth of Islam.

Oh, the drama...

Pot, meet kettle. I'm sure you'll get along swimmingly.

Drama? You imply that people who argue for atheism are equivalent to suicide bombers and murderers and then you accuse me of being overly dramatic? You're funny.

That's what I thought you'd say, which is just funny as half of those sources are from China itself.

Once again you show yourself off as a man who stands with his fingers in his ears screaming how he's not listening, not listening, LALALALALALALALA!

You still haven't explained your side of how that many people suddenly go missing.

Well you can't prove anything, because birth records etc didn't exist in China during the Nationalist or early Communist periods.

How many people have come up to you on the street and thrust a copy of The God Delusion or Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion into your hands?

we should really get on that...

This doesn't apply to all, but why do a lot of atheists feel the need to be so asshole-ish about religion? Why?

Because religion is stupid and, for lack of a better word/due to laziness in looking for another one, nefarious.

What can it bring you?

Fun and a very, very minor fulfilment, sort of like your little rant probably does here.

Honestly?

Honestly.

Does it make you feel good, insulting other people's deepest held beliefs?

Yes. Yes, it does. When those "beliefs" are religious, they are not respectable or worthy of reverence, but in fact are risible. So I deride them. Like I deride tonnes of stupid things, e.g racism/country music/Denmark. And it does make me feel good when I get an outlet - again probably like your little rant made you here. It's not on the scale of, say, something nice happening and making me feel good, but is a minor sense of "fun" to utterly be able to undermine someone's religious nonsense, and it is of course necessary, lest they get the idea that religion is not ludicrous, or is somehow respectable.

If it does, there is something wrong with you.

Oh, there are many things "wrong" with me - the sad fact for you and your little rant is that this is not something I consider "wrong" with me, nor do I care that you think it.

Will it win you any converts? No. It won't ever win you any converts. Trust me, it just drives people away.

I do want to drive the religious away, and am not looking for converts, so I guess I'm doing pretty OK. Marginalisation of religion is dandy enough for me.

And logic and reason sometimes have to stand down for a bit of nonsense. Sometimes, imagination and belief should take priority. Otherwise, life gets dull.

You must lead a very un-dull life, then, what with all the nonsense in this rant of yours. Felicitations. :)

To the OP:

Gee, it might be because religion sees no problem in doing the exact same thing. You ever hear a gaggle of fundamentalists or conservatives talk about homosexuals (or anyone else they don't like) like they weren't worthy of living?

Assholes are part of the team roster on all sides of any issue. If you can't realize that, you're in severe denial and looking too hard at one side's assholes.

we should really get on that...

Heh, back when I was at sixth form a few of my friends suggested that we should dress up in suits and go around the college saying things like "Excuse me, but have you heard the bad news?" or "Have you ever considered kicking God out of your heart?" :p

Andaras, NERVUN, when you get back online: leave the Cultural Revolution alone. Put it away. Give it a rest. Cut it out.

It may have started out as relevant (though I think it was just a throwaway line from NERVUN), but it's not relevant to pursue it in such detail in this thread.

Heh, back when I was at sixth form a few of my friends suggested that we should dress up in suits and go around the college saying things like "Excuse me, but have you heard the bad news?" or "Have you ever considered kicking God out of your heart?"And did you? Ask people to let the truth into their hearts... :)

Firstly, I'd like to point out to the numerous people who have said, "Atheists can be assholes because Christians/theists are!" that this is not justifiable, and is, in all honesty, silly. Many Christians and theists are assholes with offensive beliefs. If someone says, "Women are inferior to men," then by all means, attack away; however, if someone says "I believe in God," then don't assume they're saying "Women are inferior." There's no necessary correlation there, and all of us know it.

That being said, I am an atheist, and I often feel bitter about it. I read a survey a while ago (I can't link to it because I can't recall where it was; if someone else knows what I'm talking about, feel free to link it), and it determined that atheists are the most distrusted minority in the United States. Now that's not cool. I live in the deep South, and it sucks to think that if I let slip that I don't believe in God, there is a good chance it will change the way people think about me. I work as a salesperson, and I feel (though I admittedly have no evidence) that if I were to tell all of my customers that I'm an atheist, it would lose me sales.

Atheists in the US are, to some extent, a persecuted minority, and that's where the bitterness arises.

If someone says, "Women are inferior to men," then by all means, attack away; however, if someone says "I believe in God,"

What, don't attack? Why not? Religious opinions aren't special. They are up for attack as all others, and deserve not one whit of respect or coddling with just because they happen to be religious.

What, don't attack? Why not? Religious opinions aren't special. They are up for attack as all others, and deserve not one whit or respect or coddling with just because they happen to be religious.

I don't think it is "don't attack" as much as there is no reason to. I don't coddle the religious if I am on a rant, but I don't go on a rant just becuase there is someone religious.

Okay. Rant time.

This doesn't apply to all, but why do a lot of atheists feel the need to be so asshole-ish about religion? Why? For people who claim to be followers of reason and logic, it makes no sense. Waaaah waaaah waaaah. I've lost count of the number of threads on this same topic. *yawn*

You're better off asking why anyone feels the need to be an asshole about anything. It will yield you the same utility of results.

I don't think it is "don't attack" as much as there is no reason to. I don't coddle the religious if I am on a rant, but I don't go on a rant just becuase there is someone religious.

^ Exactly.

I don't think it is "don't attack" as much as there is no reason to. I don't coddle the religious if I am on a rant, but I don't go on a rant just becuase there is someone religious.

In fairness, it usually is enough to hear someone voicing any sort of opinion backed by nothing more than "because *enter religious doctirne of choice* says so" to get me ranting. I find it extremely offensive if people choose not to have an opinion on their own and refuse to use their own reasoning to back their opinions.

I don't think it is "don't attack" as much as there is no reason to. I don't coddle the religious if I am on a rant, but I don't go on a rant just becuase there is someone religious.

Can you imagine someone considering religion (or at least some religions) to be .. well... "evil" ?
If one truly believes that, should one just shut up or be free to express the opinion ?

In fairness, it usually is enough to hear someone voicing any sort of opinion backed by nothing more than "because *enter religious doctirne of choice* says so" to get me ranting. I find it extremely offensive if people choose not to have an opinion on their own and refuse to use their own reasoning to back their opinions.

Exactly. Religion as proof is the most laughable concept evah. I'd also like to state for the record that I am an equal opportunity asshole. I will bash anything that annoys me.

I don't coddle the religious if I am on a rant, but I don't go on a rant just becuase there is someone religious.

If they air their religious opinions, then they put them in play. Just like all other opinions. If I feel like attacking them, I will, just like I'll attack any other opinion I disagree with if fancy strikes me. You do coddle the religious if you do not attack their opinions just like any other.

Can you imagine someone considering religion (or at least some religions) to be .. well... "evil" ?
If one truly believes that, should one just shut up or be free to express the opinion ?

Can you give an example? it is one thing to jump on someone for claiming that satan tells them to kill, quite another to jump on someone for simply claiming they follow satan.

In fairness, it usually is enough to hear someone voicing any sort of opinion backed by nothing more than "because *enter religious doctirne of choice* says so" to get me ranting. I find it extremely offensive if people choose not to have an opinion on their own and refuse to use their own reasoning to back their opinions.

Then you're getting offended by your own inability to see what's under your nose. They have justified their opinion using their own reasoning - you just don't agree with the reasoning.

You can rant until you're blue in the face; it's not going to change anything until you understand the nature of your opponent.

If they air their religious opinions, then they put them in play. Just like all other opinions. If I feel like attacking them, I will, just like I'll attack any other opinion I disagree with if fancy strikes me. You do coddle the religious if you do not attack their opinions just like any other.

Attacking out of boredom and attacking because they exist are different things.

attacking a religious persons beliefs just because they believe is like attacking someone who doesn't like chocolate because the don't.


If your bored and want amusement, they by all means. have fun.

Then you're getting offended by your own inability to see what's under your nose. They have justified their opinion using their own reasoning - you just don't agree with the reasoning.

I can justify my belief that gravity is a sometime fiction with 'I read this book once that suggested this'...and to my mind, perhaps I've justified something using my own reasoning. Nonetheless, people would be perfectly right to attack said reasoning and said justification.

When you attempt to back up a factual claim with mumbo jumbo or religious doctrine, you absolutely deserve to be called on it.

You can rant until you're blue in the face; it's not going to change anything until you understand the nature of your opponent.
Not true. I've known plenty of religious people that 'saw the light' after a while and started thinking for themselves.

Then you're getting offended by your own inability to see what's under your nose. They have justified their opinion using their own reasoning - you just don't agree with the reasoning.

You can rant until you're blue in the face; it's not going to change anything until you understand the nature of your opponent.

Oh, I understand it. I grew up with it, after all.
But I also undestand that to accept this kind of "reasoning" as valid will open the door to all sorts of abuses of human rights. It took centuries to wrestle that kind of power away from religions, and I'm not going to stand by as it's handed back.

Can you give an example? it is one thing to jump on someone for claiming that satan tells them to kill, quite another to jump on someone for simply claiming they follow satan.

I'm an example. I consider religion of any form to be detrimental.

Attacking out of boredom and attacking because they exist are different things.

No one mentioned either, but there is no difference. I will attack any aired opinion I wish to attack. The religious ones are not special.

attacking a religious persons beliefs just because they believe is like attacking someone who doesn't like chocolate because the don't.

No, it's more like attacking someone's beliefs on chocolate once they express them. Be it eating chocolate or eating out Jesus, nothing is out of bounds.

Not true. I've known plenty of religious people that 'saw the light' after a while and started thinking for themselves.

I've witnessed some on this very forum. Not all hope is lost. :)

I'm an example. I consider religion of any form to be detrimental.

Precisely.

I can justify my belief that gravity is a sometime fiction with 'I read this book once that suggested this'...and to my mind, perhaps I've justified something using my own reasoning. Nonetheless, people would be perfectly right to attack said reasoning and said justification.

When you attempt to back up a factual claim with mumbo jumbo or religious doctrine, you absolutely deserve to be called on it.

Do you know how 'called' I feel on it? About as 'called' as you do when I tell you you're wrong because Jesus said so.

Do you know how 'stupid' I feel about it? About as stupid as you do when I tell you're a fool for not converting.

Do you know how 'mocked' I feel when you laugh at me? About as mocked as you do when I say how much you're missing out by not being religious.

You can attack me until the day I die; the fact is that you're shooting at the strongest shields ever created - those of someone who's very core of existence is coming under fire. And it won't work for me any more than my attempts to convert you would.

Now, as a matter of fact, I don't go around trying to convert people, and tend to keep my faith to myself. But I will stand up for it when it is attacked unnecessarily. It's probably much the same with most atheists. I just wish that everyone could knock out the extreme elements that polarise the issue so much, and realise that if we just stopped dismissing the other as a complete moron, we'd get along much better.

Not true. I've known plenty of religious people that 'saw the light' after a while and started thinking for themselves.
What, and no 'intellectual' has ever been converted to religion?

What I love about these threads is how much people know it doesn't matter what they say, but say it anyway.

Ahh.. smell that?

It's the smell of repetition.

When you attempt to back up a factual claim with mumbo jumbo or religious doctrine, you absolutely deserve to be called on it.

Very true, but I don't think this is really what we're talking about.

It's perfectly okay to question someone's reasoning when they're asserting justification for a claim. If someone says, "I believe in God," and you ask them why, then by all means feel free to pounce on whatever reasoning they give you. Even if they say, "I believe in God," and you reply with, "There's no reason why you should," that seems fair. But if someone professes belief in a god, don't be an asshole because you know of some other people who believe in a god are assholes.

This started as a direct reply to you, Neesika, but ended up being a more general reiteration of the original point I was trying to make, so don't think I'm accusing you of being an asshole. :)

Do you know how 'called' I feel on it? About as 'called' as you do when I tell you you're wrong because Jesus said so.
Uh....huh.

Because calling someone on their bizarre beliefs about gravity (using my previous example) when said beliefs are based on some obscure fantasy novel...and pointing out the empirical evidence that refutes said beliefs...is JUST like saying 'Jesus said so.'

Oh wait. It's not.

You see....despite your claims, I do think that most people who are not insane, have the capacity to understand the difference between fact, and belief.

The rest of your lame comparisons are unworthy of note, being as fundamentally flawed as the first.

I could care less what you believe...and here is the issue...you seem to be under the mistaken impression that you are being attacked for your beliefs alone. False. Believe what you wish...believe that a ten foot worm named Klith lives under your bed and controls the world...believe it as ferverently as you desire. But when you start quoting the Great and Wormy Klith as some sort of support for your arguments about global warming...expect to be laughed out of the room.

I'm an example. I consider religion of any form to be detrimental.

How is religion, in itself, without application, intrinsically detrimental? I've known some brilliant people who are religious, for seemingly good reasons, who went to church and never once tried to convert anyone or even inform people of their views. How can that be detrimental?

What I love about these threads is how much people know it doesn't matter what they say, but say it anyway.

Ahh.. smell that?

It's the smell of repetition.

I can't smell it in this thread actually, as it permeates the entire forum....:p

But if someone professes belief in a god, don't be an asshole because you know of some other people who believe in a god are assholes. It's no different than the poor, persecuted religious folk who believe that all atheists give a shit enough to actually bother with them.

And don't worry...I am an asshole. I just don't actually give a shit about religion as long as religion isn't used as an excuse to violate my, or anyone else's human rights.

I can't smell it in this thread actually, as it permeates the entire forum....:p

A valid point. No doubt one that has been brought up before.

I am literally in a constant state of déjà vu with this forum.
Except certain rare instances.

How is religion, in itself, without application, intrinsically detrimental? I've known some brilliant people who are religious, for seemingly good reasons, who went to church and never once tried to convert anyone or even inform people of their views. How can that be detrimental?

I've got a good example right here :

Tamarin presented to more than a thousand Israeli school children, aged between eight and fourteen, the account of the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua:

Joshua said to the people, 'Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction. . . But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.'. . . Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword. . . And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

Tamarin then asked the children a simple moral question: 'Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?' They had to choose between A (total approval), B (partial approval) and C (total disapproval). The results were polarized: 66 percent gave total approval and 26 percent total disapproval, with rather fewer (8 percent) in the middle with partial approval. Here are three typical answers from the total approval (A) group:

In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim.

In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways.

Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth.

The justification for the genocidal massacre by Joshua is religious in every case. Even those in category C, who gave total disapproval, did so, in some cases, for backhanded religious reasons. One girl, for example, disapproved of Joshua's conquering Jericho because, in order to do so, he had to enter it:

I think it is bad, since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land one will also become impure and share their curse.

Two others who totally disapproved did so because Joshua destroyed everything, including animals and property, instead of keeping some as spoil for Israelites:

I think Joshua did not act well, as they could have spared the animals for themselves.

I think Joshua did not act well, as he could have left the property of Jericho; if he had not destroyed the property it would have belonged to the Israelites.


...

Tamarin ran a fascinating control group in his experiment. A different group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by 'General Lin' and 'Israel' replaced by 'a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago'. Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7 per cent approved of General Lin's behavior, and 75 percent disapproved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of the children agreed with the moral judgments that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it.

http://blog.case.edu/singham/2007/09/14/the_problem_with_religion4_corrupting_the_minds_of_children

You can be a good person and not be religious. But in order to be a good person while being religious, you very often have to go against what your religion would dictate.

I've got a good example right here :



http://blog.case.edu/singham/2007/09/14/the_problem_with_religion4_corrupting_the_minds_of_children

You can be a good person and not be religious. But in order to be a good person while being religious, you very often have to go against what your religion would dictate.

Right, which totally proves the hypothesis that it is impossible to accurately have an understanding of religion, so as to not have these sorts of misguided beliefs.

Oh, wait... it doesn't do that at all.

Your example of the intrinsic wrongs of religion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of religion by children. Surely, you don't mean for us to take our cues on the intrinsic value of religious belief from children, who have next to no understanding and are just espousing what they're taught.

This indeed does not show any fundamental problem with religion. Instead, it gives us evidence of an inappropriate application of a particular brand of religion (namely, Judaic literalism). I think we can both agree that this sort of application of religion is bad, but perhaps we can also both agree that this is not an inherent problem in religion and is instead, as there are so many examples throughout history, a problem of the application of religion by a select few individuals.

Right, which totally proves the hypothesis that it is impossible to accurately have an understanding of religion, so as to not have these sorts of misguided beliefs.

Oh, wait... it doesn't do that at all.

Your example of the intrinsic wrongs of religion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of religion by children. Surely, you don't mean for us to take our cues on the intrinsic value of religious belief from children, who have next to no understanding and are just espousing what they're taught.

This indeed does not show any fundamental problem with religion. Instead, it gives us evidence of an inappropriate application of a particular brand of religion (namely, Judaic literalism). I think we can both agree that this sort of application of religion is bad, but perhaps we can also both agree that this is not an inherent problem in religion and is instead, as there are so many examples throughout history, a problem of the application of religion by a select few individuals.

It does show the fundamental problem with religion that it can override our inate sense of morality, right from a very early age on. And it has done so throughout history, in many examples, from the crusades to the inquisition to the reconquista. And that's only one flavour of one religion I'm looking at right now. All the others have more or less similar bloody histories.

NSG is brimming with examples of militant atheists who pretentiously scoff at any mention of religion that isn't hostile and negative.

It is? Personally I can only think of two.

How is religion, in itself, without application, intrinsically detrimental? I've known some brilliant people who are religious, for seemingly good reasons, who went to church and never once tried to convert anyone or even inform people of their views. How can that be detrimental?

http://cectic.com/comics/137.png

Or I could simply say religion is an abomination :p

Still waiting for the evidence...

He already gave it to you.

Some one, anyone, explain the world to me.
Some people are assholes. The End.
NSG is brimming with examples of militant atheists who pretentiously scoff at any mention of religion that isn't hostile and negative. Nevertheless, as an agnostic
You appear not to know what the word agnostic actually means. Please stop using it until you remedy this.
Show me the atheists that favor burning witches at the stake.
Most people accused of witchcraft were acquitted, those who weren't were hanged.
Yeah, I can definitely see how that's frustrating. But as an agnostic
You appear not to know what the word agnostic actually means. Please stop using it until you remedy this.
I can't smell it in this thread actually, as it permeates the entire forum....:p

It's getting harder and harder for me to recognise it. I'm starting to grow used to it.

I'm an example. I consider religion of any form to be detrimental.

Precisely.

So, how are the two of you defining religion, exactly?

I ask this because I want to know if my beliefs fit your definition of religion, and if so, how my beliefs may be detrimental.

It does show the fundamental problem with religion that it can override our inate sense of morality, right from a very early age on. And it has done so throughout history, in many examples, from the crusades to the inquisition to the reconquista. And that's only one flavour of one religion I'm looking at right now. All the others have more or less similar bloody histories.

Actually, it shows a problem with cultural socialisation. One could easily do the same experiment with USian schoolchildren and the Vietnam war. The children, raised to believe in the inherent goodness of the US soldier, would have the same reaction as your Israeli schoolchildren. They would mentally exculpate 'their team', even if they would condemn the exact same actions in others. A historical example of such behaviour would be the current Western reaction to Afghani occupation. When the USSR did it, it was wrong. Now we're doing it, and it's right. Check it out: no religion required.

Though religion does work very well in this regard; i.e. it can be used as a social rationale, allowing the body politic to do immoral things on a social scale.

http://cectic.com/comics/137.png

Or I could simply say religion is an abomination :p

So... people believing in a god kills rhinos?

;)

if that's the case let's all become atheist?,
their is no authority running atheism except of course the atheist international and we in the ADC[atheists for democractic change], have decided that all means must be used to end this curroption of our religion.
before you curse at me I don't believe in god.
this post is also a joke

So... people believing in a god kills rhinos?

;)

Almost :p The message of the comic is that basing your actions on beliefs that do not seem to correspond to reality might well be detrimental to the world.

You appear not to know what the word agnostic actually means. Please stop using it until you remedy this.

1) Define agnostic.
2) Show how Vamosa fails to demonstrate a knowledge of what the word means and how it is being used incorrectly.
3) Show how agnosticism is incompatible with belief or disbelief in God.


You appear not to know what the word agnostic actually means. Please stop using it until you remedy this.

You're being rude for the sake of being rude, aren't you? I know what the word means and I use it correctly. If you're going to criticize other people's usage of words, then you should be taken down a peg or two.

Here's the common sense definition: An agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God" (1).

Here's an even better definition, and it comes from a nifty dictionary of philosophy: Agnosticism is "The view that some proposition is not known, and perhaps cannot be known to be true or false. The term is particularly applied to theological doctrines" (2). This definition agrees with the common usage and can also apply to other ideas.

Or how about this? Agnosticism is "A position distinguished from theism and atheism equally, by its view that neither in principle nor in fact is it possible to know God's nature or even whether he exists. In its broadest sense, agnosticism is compatible with deep religious commitment, as in the case of Nicholas of Cusa or of Henry Mansel (1820–71); in its narrower and more specific sense, however, it normally implies a certain detachment in matters religious. The term itself was coined by T. H. Huxley (1825–95), who defined its basic principles as repudiation of all metaphysical speculation and of most Christian doctrine as unproven or unprovable, and the application of scientific method to the study of all matters of fact and experience" (3, emphasis added).

Further, there are various schools of (theological) agnosticism including weak agnosticism and strong agnosticism.

Here's a definition of weak agnosticism: "Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative agnosticism), is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable and therefore one should withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available" (4, emphasis added).

Here's a definition of strong agnosticism: "Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. It is a broader view than weak agnosticism, which states that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable" (5, emphasis added).

To summarize, an agnostic in this discussion is a person who believes either that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. A weak agnostic believes the existence of God is unknown, but knowledge is in principle within our reach. A strong agnostic believes the existence of God is unknowable.

I am a strong agnostic atheist, and I use the word "agnostic" correctly because I don't claim to know whether or not God exists. By the way, you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist because knowing is different from believing. You can believe something without knowing.

Please try not to be a jackass, and do some homework before you criticize other people on their usage of words.

Oh, and here are some references:

(1): The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005.

(2): The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Simon Blackburn. Oxford University Press, 1996. Oxford University Press.

(3): The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.

(4): "Weak Agnosticism." Wikipedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism>.

(5): "Strong Agnosticism." Wikipedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism>.

some people are assholes. its not the topic, its the person.

Exactly.

Almost :p The message of the comic is that basing your actions on beliefs that do not seem to correspond to reality might well be detrimental to the world.

My reading of the comic was as a reiteration of Harris's argument: that accepting uncritically, and even respecting, unreasoning religious faith gives other faith-based positions like Chinese Medicine a degree of shared respectability. So even if a given religion is harmless in itself, it passively supports nastier doctrines.

So even if a given religion is harmless in itself, it passively supports nastier doctrines.

In the same way, my breathing passively supports Ozone depletion.

In the same way, my breathing passively supports Ozone depletion.

You seem to have missed the point.

The argument is that teaching people that believing things without evidence is worthy of respect within the context of religion naturally leads on to respecting other un-evidenced beliefs.

1) Define agnostic.
ag·nos·tic Audio Help /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ag-nos-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

2) Show how Vamosa fails to demonstrate a knowledge of what the word means and how it is being used incorrectly.
NSG is brimming with examples of militant atheists who pretentiously scoff at any mention of religion that isn't hostile and negative. Nevertheless, as an agnostic myself, I can understand where some of this bitterness comes from.
He appears to be using the word agnostic as though it was an alternative to atheism or theism.
3) Show how agnosticism is incompatible with belief or disbelief in God.
It is not. The two are unrelated. Which is my point.


You're being rude for the sake of being rude, aren't you?
Yes.
I know what the word means and I use it correctly. If you're going to criticize other people's usage of words, then you should be taken down a peg or two.
If you say so.

Here's the common sense definition: An agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God" (1).

Here's an even better definition, and it comes from a nifty dictionary of philosophy: Agnosticism is "The view that some proposition is not known, and perhaps cannot be known to be true or false. The term is particularly applied to theological doctrines" (2). This definition agrees with the common usage and can also apply to other ideas.

Or how about this? Agnosticism is "A position distinguished from theism and atheism equally, by its view that neither in principle nor in fact is it possible to know God's nature or even whether he exists. In its broadest sense, agnosticism is compatible with deep religious commitment, as in the case of Nicholas of Cusa or of Henry Mansel (1820–71); in its narrower and more specific sense, however, it normally implies a certain detachment in matters religious. The term itself was coined by T. H. Huxley (1825–95), who defined its basic principles as repudiation of all metaphysical speculation and of most Christian doctrine as unproven or unprovable, and the application of scientific method to the study of all matters of fact and experience" (3, emphasis added).

Further, there are various schools of (theological) agnosticism including weak agnosticism and strong agnosticism.

Here's a definition of weak agnosticism: "Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative agnosticism), is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable and therefore one should withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available" (4, emphasis added).

Here's a definition of strong agnosticism: "Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. It is a broader view than weak agnosticism, which states that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable" (5, emphasis added).

To summarize, an agnostic in this discussion is a person who believes either that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. A weak agnostic believes the existence of God is unknown, but knowledge is in principle within our reach. A strong agnostic believes the existence of God is unknowable.

I am a strong agnostic atheist, and I use the word "agnostic" correctly because I don't claim to know whether or not God exists. By the way, you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist because knowing is different from believing. You can believe something without knowing.

Please try not to be a jackass, and do some homework before you criticize other people on their usage of words.

Oh, and here are some references:

(1): The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005.

(2): The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Simon Blackburn. Oxford University Press, 1996. Oxford University Press.

(3): The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.

(4): "Weak Agnosticism." Wikipedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism>.

(5): "Strong Agnosticism." Wikipedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism>.

Is that meant to be taking me down a peg? It annoys me that people use agnostic as though it were an alternative to or middle point between atheism and theism. It looked like you were doing that.

if that's the case let's all become atheist?,
their is no authority running atheism except of course the atheist international and we in the ADC[atheists for democractic change], have decided that all means must be used to end this curroption of our religion.

ADC? Splitters!

The Evil Atheist Conspiracy is where it's at.

In the same way, my breathing passively supports Ozone depletion.

When has someone ever died for no reason other than not being religious? Not being killed because they weren't religious, or the wrong kind of religion. Just dropped over dead as though they had stopped breathing.

You seem to have missed the point.

The argument is that teaching people that believing things without evidence is worthy of respect within the context of religion naturally leads on to respecting other un-evidenced beliefs.

Right, and allowing people to breathe is, in the same way, teaching people that it's okay to emit CO2 into the air.

There's no reason a person cannot determine that religion is an area in which you often have a lack of evidence to support your beliefs, whereas in science or other facets of life, you should indeed have evidence to support your beliefs. Just like a person can determine that it's okay to emit CO2 through respiration, but not through large-scale factory expulsion.

It's like saying that junk food is a gateway to hard drugs.

Right, and allowing people to breathe is, in the same way, teaching people that it's okay to emit CO2 into the air.

There's no reason a person cannot determine that religion is an area in which you often have a lack of evidence to support your beliefs, whereas in science or other facets of life, you should indeed have evidence to support your beliefs. Just like a person can determine that it's okay to emit CO2 through respiration, but not through large-scale factory expulsion.

It's like saying that junk food is a gateway to hard drugs.

Can you provide an objective reason why believing in the stories from the Bible is better or worse than believing in the magical properties of certain animalparts ?

Because I can do that for the junkfood and normal food ;)

Short answer- our (atheists and agnostics) being, as you put it, ass holeish, might just be our way of getting back at you for that whole inquistion thing sometime ago. Or the killing gays, or the crusades, or the destruction of so much pre(insert religion) literature and art- because it didnt quite go with (insert religion) ethics, or the whole being a pedophile/ serial killer/rapist is justified because im a man of god. For the record, I am not saying religion or religious people are inherently evil or worng- what I am saying is that religion gives many people a potent and accpeted means to justify horrendous actions past and present. If the non religious had never questioned or challenged the actions and statements of religion, we would be living in a very different, less free world today. But there you go, im probably just being an asshole again...

Right, and allowing people to breathe is, in the same way, teaching people that it's okay to emit CO2 into the air.

This analogy is completely irrelevant because I'm talking about societal attitudes and you're bringing up vital human functions.

There's no reason a person cannot determine that religion is an area in which you often have a lack of evidence to support your beliefs, whereas in science or other facets of life, you should indeed have evidence to support your beliefs. Just like a person can determine that it's okay to emit CO2 through respiration, but not through large-scale factory expulsion.

Your comparisons are absurd. If you decide that it's not only ok, but it's actually admirable, to hold beliefs without (or even against) evidence in terms of religion then there's a natural progression to accepting and tacitly encouraging other forms of superstition.

It's not at if dangerous medical practises are necessarily distinct from religion anyway: think how many children have been killed by the negligence of parents who objected to medecine or vaccines on religious groudns.

It's like saying that junk food is a gateway to hard drugs.

Rubbish. You're still failing to grasp that we're talking about the attitudes of society. If you want to bring junk food into it, then a better analogy would be a society where attitudes were as follows:

"Not only is it intolerant to question somebody's eating habits, even if they're known to be harmful to them, but you should respect them for dismissing all the scientific evidence which suggests that a build up of fat in their system is likely to contribute to an early death. We should respect people who willingly consume substances in an unhealthy way."

This would be a gateway to unquestioning acceptance of the use of hard drugs.

Can you provide an objective reason why believing in the stories from the Bible is better or worse than believing in the magical properties of certain animalparts ?

Because I can do that for the junkfood and normal food ;)

Well, I would hesitate to invoke the Bible, as we're (I hope) still talking about religion, not Christianity. But it would seem to me that a belief in either, without action or application, would be fine and would have the same intrinsic worth (unless one were true and the other false; then the true one would be more valuable, I would think). Insofar as application of said beliefs, it seems that they could both certainly have unfortunate consequences, but that it may actually be easier to hold some religious belief without its leading to detrimental implications than to hold a belief in the "magical properties of certain animal parts." I mean, either belief could yield grotesque conclusions, but neither necessarily does, meaning that belief is bad, in itself.

By the way, it's been far too long since I've been in a Philosophy class, so this rare workout for my arguing muscles is thoroughly invigorating. :)

This analogy is completely irrelevant because I'm talking about societal attitudes and you're bringing up vital human functions.



Your comparisons are absurd. If you decide that it's not only ok, but it's actually admirable, to hold beliefs without (or even against) evidence in terms of religion then there's a natural progression to accepting and tacitly encouraging other forms of superstition.

It's not at if dangerous medical practises are necessarily distinct from religion anyway: think how many children have been killed by the negligence of parents who objected to medecine or vaccines on religious groudns.



Rubbish. You're still failing to grasp that we're talking about the attitudes of society. If you want to bring junk food into it, then a better analogy would be a society where attitudes were as follows:

"Not only is it intolerant to question somebody's eating habits, even if they're known to be harmful to them, but you should respect them for dismissing all the scientific evidence which suggests that a build up of fat in their system is likely to contribute to an early death. We should respect people who willingly consume substances in an unhealthy way."

This would be a gateway to unquestioning acceptance of the use of hard drugs.

Alright then, let's use a societal attitudes example. Your analogy is similar to saying that since we teach people that it's okay to not eat peas, it's okay to never eat anything healthy. The idea is that you're taking something that often leads to atrocious consequences to be atrocious itself. This is the principle on which you seem to be operating. So some terrible people use religion as an excuse to do terrible things. Fine. But this does not necessitate the institution of religion being terrible in itself. This is why at the beginning of this discussion, I mentioned religion without application. There are terrible applications of all sorts of things. This does not mean that each of these things is intrinsically, inherently terrible.

A parent refusing to allow his/her child medical care on the basis of religion is awful. We both agree on that. The difference is that you blame religion, whereas I do not. If that parent refused medical care for his/her child on the basis of anthropology, would you blame anthropology (not that I know how this could happen, but that doesn't matter)? Of course not. You would blame the parent for having a fundamental misunderstanding of a (possibly) false belief. Similarly, when a parent refuses such medical care on the grounds of religion, we should blame the parent for having a fundamental misunderstanding of a (possibly, though I think we both would say that it is indeed) false belief.

snip

Will it win you any converts? No. It won't ever win you any converts. Trust me, it just drives people away.


Point in question why would we care if it wins converts? the correctness of a viewpoint is not reliant on the number of followers

ag·nos·tic Audio Help /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ag-nos-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

So, basically, can we agree that the first definition is valuable to this discussion? Can we also agree that the definitions I provide agree with this one?


He appears to be using the word agnostic as though it was an alternative to atheism or theism.

That's a bit of a creative reading.


It is not. The two are unrelated. Which is my point.

So then, what the hell are you arguing?


Yes.

I am surprised by that honesty. Are you prepared to apologize and admit that you behaved poorly?


Is that meant to be taking me down a peg?

Yes, but, really, I should not have been rude to you. Any chance we can make up?


It annoys me that people use agnostic as though it were an alternative to or middle point between atheism and theism. It looked like you were doing that.

This is really vague. What do you mean by "alternative" and "middle point"? How did it "look like" I was using agnosticism in that way? Where did I claim that agnosticism is anything other than a philosophical position about knowledge claims? Where do I claim it's a "middle point"? What are you arguing?

Theres a good reason why us atheists care about religion as shown in this video, but i will highlight a few points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

1. Atheists are not allowed to join boy scouts.
2. In several American states, such as Maryland atheists are not allowed to testify in courts, as they cannot swear on the bible.
3. In some US states atheists cannot run for governor. (such as Pennsylvania and Tennessee)

These are clear violations of our human rights.

Alright then, let's use a societal attitudes example. Your analogy is similar to saying that since we teach people that it's okay to not eat peas, it's okay to never eat anything healthy.

Why do you insist on using these contrived (and innaccurate) analogies? You're still failing to grasp the issue here; let me repeat from the original post that you took issue with:

"The argument is that teaching people that believing things without evidence is worthy of respect within the context of religion naturally leads on to respecting other un-evidenced beliefs."

So if you insist on the peas example then the realistic analogy would be:

'Someone refuses to eat peas. Not because they don't like them or because they have an allergy: they have no reason for this habit at all. We should not only refrain from criticising this (even if it prevents them from having a balanced diet) but we should actually view this arbitrary dietary restriction as worthy of respect.'

Now will you please stop making these silly comparisons and engage with the actual argument.

The idea is that you're taking something that often leads to atrocious consequences to be atrocious itself.

Bullshit. This is a feeble strawman and bears no relation to what I've been saying. You seem to be having trouble with this argument so let me lay it out in stages:

1. If society 'respects' and reveres blind faith in religion other examples of blind faith gain indirect respectability.
2. Some applications of blind faith are bad.
3. Therefore respecting and revering blind faith in religion leads to increased respectability for bad things.

The result of this is that we shouldn't treat blind faith as admirable just because it happens to be religious anymore than we should when it applies to any other superstition.

This is the principle on which you seem to be operating. So some terrible people use religion as an excuse to do terrible things. Fine. But this does not necessitate the institution of religion being terrible in itself.

Have you even been reading my posts? I wan't arguing that all religion leads directly to atrocity, but about the problems which 'respecting' blind fath lead to

This is why at the beginning of this discussion, I mentioned religion without application. There are terrible applications of all sorts of things. This does not mean that each of these things is intrinsically, inherently terrible. A parent refusing to allow his/her child medical care on the basis of religion is awful. We both agree on that. The difference is that you blame religion, whereas I do not. If that parent refused medical care for his/her child on the basis of anthropology, would you blame anthropology (not that I know how this could happen, but that doesn't matter)? Of course not. You would blame the parent for having a fundamental misunderstanding of a (possibly) false belief. Similarly, when a parent refuses such medical care on the grounds of religion, we should blame the parent for having a fundamental misunderstanding of a (possibly, though I think we both would say that it is indeed) false belief.

Wait, why do you assume that their denial of medicine is based on a misunderstanding of a religion? Take Christianity for example: the NT is full of examples of miracle healing and Mark 16:17-18 explicitly states that anyone who truly believes can heal the sick with a touch. If anything it's the Christians who take their children to doctors who are misunderstanding their religion (although their parenting skills are good). You seem to have fallen into the same trap as so many apologists for religion: you begin by assuming that religion must be good, so you dismiss any adherants to the religion who act in immoral ways as 'misguided' or 'not true believers'. It's the same tired argument that tries to argue that the 9/11 hijackers weren't really Muslims and Fred Phelps isn't really a Christian.

You're also failing to realise that Anthropology deals with facts rather than values, so the only reason that someone might refuse medical care based on Anthropology would be if they felt that the treatment would be dangerous based on scientific evidence: hardly comparible to the knee-jerk superstition of Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses. Please stop making up new vacuous comparisons and try defending some of the ones you've already presented.

There's no reason a person cannot determine that religion is an area in which you often have a lack of evidence to support your beliefs

well, this is true. but that, by its very nature, is a bad thing and a reason to suspect that religion is shit.

You can't because the evidence simply doesn't exist.

http://smiles2k.net/smiles/big_smiles/super_smilies007.gif

You're quoting the partisan publications of partisan individuals, nothing more.

"It disagrees. Therefore it must be bourgeoisie!"

Anyway, just grow a thick skin everyone. Just do what I do when someone insults me for being a Christian. Just fucking ignore it. I don't give a damn about what you think of my beliefs. If I did, I would've asked. Now are we getting Chinese or not? I'm not doing that General Tsao's chicken again if we are, that stuff passes right through me.

Theres a good reason why us atheists care about religion as shown in this video, but i will highlight a few points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

1. Atheists are not allowed to join boy scouts.
2. In several American states, such as Maryland atheists are not allowed to testify in courts, as they cannot swear on the bible.
3. In some US states atheists cannot run for governor. (such as Pennsylvania and Tennessee)

These are clear violations of our human rights.

Numbers two and three are also violations of the Constitution of the United States of America, and should be challenged as such. Number two is especially worrying. I will not swear on a bible, as I am a pagan.

some people are assholes. its not the topic, its the person.

The person could be the topic.

Right, and allowing people to breathe is, in the same way, teaching people that it's okay to emit CO2 into the air.
Um, it is okay. There you go.

Can you provide an objective reason why believing in the stories from the Bible is better or worse than believing in the magical properties of certain animalparts ?
Depends on whether the person in question knows what myth is or not.

Oh dear, another one of these?

Evangelists on all sides of the debate, both theist and atheist, are annoying. Although it would be amusing to see an athiest evangelist in real life. Preferably mounted on a soap box on a street corner directly across the street from an Apocolyptic Hobo.

Theres a good reason why us atheists care about religion as shown in this video...
So you care because you want to be a Boy Scout, miss time out from work, or run for governor... equally honourable endevours.

Not true. I've known plenty of religious people that 'saw the light' after a while and started thinking for themselves.

What about religious people who think for themselves already?

What about religious people who think for themselves already?

They only exist in right-wing propaganda.

They only exist in right-wing propaganda.

Or left-winged fantasy.

Short answer- our (atheists and agnostics) being, as you put it, ass holeish, might just be our way of getting back at you for that whole inquistion thing sometime ago. Or the killing gays, or the crusades, or the destruction of so much pre(insert religion) literature and art- because it didnt quite go with (insert religion) ethics, or the whole being a pedophile/ serial killer/rapist is justified because im a man of god.

That's nice, what the hell does MY religion have to do with any of this? Once more you jumbled together the actions of some sects of the Abrahamic faiths and accused ALL religions of being complicit in them.

That's nice, what the hell does MY religion have to do with any of this? Once more you jumbled together the actions of some sects of the Abrahamic faiths and accused ALL religions of being complicit in them.

It doesn't, actually. He's just wanting you to take it personally.

Point in question why would we care if it wins converts? the correctness of a viewpoint is not reliant on the number of followers

Then why keep arguing about your viewpoint with those who are happy to leave you to it?

They only exist in right-wing propaganda.

Or left-winged fantasy.

LOL.

Then why keep arguing about your viewpoint with those who are happy to leave you to it?

I suspect his point is no point. But maybe that's just me.