A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
I’m just disappointed that the “Death to Juice” guy didn’t make the collage.
Sheesh… are all the new posts now just reposts of things from Reddit?
Just all of Daniel’s. The rest of the crew sometimes have something to say, it just tends to get buried in the sea of copypaste.
Yet this has been shared over 800 times on facebook today (now over 1,800 times!), so it seems you are in the minority. If you hate it, skip it. No need to keep complaining. I know some people don’t like it, and I’m sorry, but that’s life.
I thought I clicked post many hours ago in this area, but my post disappeared, it might have had a few links I added to be funny about it and fell in the filter, just wondering if it was in there or gone forever. No biggie.
I have a HUGE problem with gravity, which has killed exponentially more people than religion ever will…and don’t get me started on water.
yes, gravity and religion are prreeeetty much the same thing.
My apologies…my assumption was that we were all uniting against everything that caused death and suffering in the world. Didn’t want gravity to feel left out.
You managed to get “uniting against everything that caused death and suffering in the world” from a giant collage highlighting the multitude of carnage and suffering caused be one particular thing? How?
That’s the beauty of art, right? It all depends on interpretation. Apparently we interpreted these images differently.
Interpretation? Do enlighten us as to any sane interpretation of the above that suggests “we were all uniting against everything that caused death and suffering in the world”, not just religion.
It seems as if you are opposed to any explanation I might offer, regardless of how logical it may be. Excuse me for not wasting energy on a fruitless pursuit.
You have offered no such thing. You’re acting like you’re a weasel in a way that suggests you actually are a weasel, and have nothing potentially intelligent, sane, or logical to add. You’ve been condescending and inflammatory, but you haven’t actually stuck yourself out there and contributed to the discussion.
Put up or shut up, bud.
Nathan, you haven’t offered any explanation, let alone a logical one. You’ve made a ridiculous assertion and been panned for it, because it was ridiculous.
If you can really draw a link between abhorring the hatred and violence that religious people do to each other and others, and people who accidentally drown or die in falls, then please explain it. I’m not seeing it, personally.
It seems as if you are opposed to any explanation I might offer, regardless of how logical it may be.
First off, slap your mother for giving birth to such a wishy-washy, stupid, self-important pansy like you. Then answer the f*cking question.
Excuse me for not wasting energy on a fruitless pursuit.
You mean explaining yourself? I’d consider it fruitless as well, if I were you. Try blaming it on drugs/alcohol, then apologize to everyone here for wasting their time on your complete idiocy.
Gravity doesn’t hate. Water doesn’t hate. They don’t even kill people so much as they happen to be lethal in just the right non-prejudicial (to people) circumstances. People bear the idea that hate is a positive thing and bring themselves to kill and harass and cheer anyone who hates and/or harrasses anyone they hate because their god, whom they very often describe as loving and merciful and in complete support of their wicked emotions, won’t let them live in his image! They can’t think for themselves because they let their brain go “child-like,” and this faith is supposed to be a positive thing. They are led along to hate, and they act like children, hating things without demonstrating a deeper reflection upon themselves where that feeling really comes from or how to deal with it maturely. Whining, screaming, being big babies, unable to use words, getting a thrill about people getting killed or driven out of their homes, why should murder make anyone happy? That is a sick person. How can you compare a sick person choosing to be so base in their emotional maturity with water or gravity?
So you have made some terrible analogies, I believe that’s what they call a “straw man.” Did you think you made a zinger that would flatten anyone with a working brain? How could you look at that montage of sickness and parry that with some “cute” remark?
Calm down, it’s going to be ok. Just a random discussion occurring in the comment thread of an obscure blog.
You speak against hate with so much hatred. You’re a victim of the very disease you criticize. Self-righteousness doesn’t depend on religion for its existence. Pardon me if I fail to be convinced by your blatant hyp…er, flawless logic.
I’m not going to kill you.
“You speak against hate with so much hatred. You’re a victim of the very disease you criticize.”
Nathan, here’s a quick hint … stop acting like such a fecking arse and in addition saying there’s so much hate, when it’s obvious that there isn’t, doesn’t answer Kodie’s question does it – to be frank it looks like a pretty standard derversion tactic.
So are you going to attempt to answer the question or not?
Just a random discussion
That you so crassly started.
occurring in the comment thread of an obscure blog.
That you found and deemed important enough to comment on.
And now Nathan’s distancing himself from his own words.
Gee thanks, Kodie.
Some days, a quarter of a million people read this “obscure blog”, Nathan. Just imagine how many people are sat at home right now, looking at your picture and thinking “what an odious little tit”. Inspiring, isn’t it?
This is what is called “projectionism”: when someone accuses the other person of the problem or mental attitude that THEY have. Your brain may cause you to think that what you are saying is correct but there aren’t too many people here that will agree with your brain imposed self-protecting delusion. I feel very very sorry for you. You must make a lot of enemies and hurt a lot of people. May be you will mature beyond it some day. Then your posts will be a cause of intense embarrassment to you. People can access them for a very long time, you know.
Gravity is very real. The various gods people claim to follow is not.
Just because you can’t prove something (yet) does not mean it doesn’t exist. Before gravity was ‘discovered’ did it not exist? Before it was found that the earth revolved around the sun did the sun actually revolve around the earth? No, of course not. It’s just that prior to those things being discovered, no one had a way to prove/discover it.
We don’t know everything yet, and there are -alot- of things science can’t explain away.
Also: Religion itself does not hate. Through human error The bible has probably been mistranslated many times, and had edits made to it.
But religion itself? No, it doesn’t hate. It’s the -people- that hate, and twist the words around to fit their agendas.
There are indeed a lot of things science can’t explain yet. So what science does is, it works very hard at finding ways to learn and observe and explain things. What it doesn’t do is pretend that a 4000 year old book of mythology already has all of the answers, and stop looking. If science did work that way, you wouldn’t have a computer, or the internet, or electricity, and would in all probability not be alive. So let’s not get into a god-of-the-gaps argument, eh?
By no means is the bible the book with all the answers. Inspired by God or not, it was still written by Man. I have yet to see Man have all the answers. Heck, I’ve yet to see them with all the questions.
When religion has answered more questions than science, by all means come back and gloat. In the meantime, please accept that religion has contributed nothing to human knowledge, has in fact held it back and at times has actually dragged it backwards.
See for example the dark ages, the fall of the Ottoman empire and the current decline of the USA as a world leader in knowledge and research based industries.
Religion is an abstract excuse based on a non-existent god for people to behave in the meanest ways possible. It allows them to coordinate with others in their “righteous” missions of hate, and yet, is one thing, outside of havens of discussion like this, that people come up with crap like you say as a counter-argument. Nobody ever claimed that god committed these acts through himself or through people, or that religion had a consciousness. It is the people, but you seem to think that it’s not because they have religion to back them up, to lean on, to hide behind, to organize themselves with, or justify how they behave because we have a hiding god that’s just not been proven or evident in anything that’s ever happened, ever, and we’re not really free to point that out – because some of them get so angry they want us to die for saying their god doesn’t exist. As a general rule, I’ve never heard anyone say the religious should die, and I don’t generally favor offhand comments to the effect that anyone should die or be killed painfully (such as “in a fire”). If Christians don’t feel as comfortable threatening death, however, they do not seem to have any such aversion to wanting, wishing, praying, hoping, and even so far as knowing who they hate will end up in hell after they die. Those are just silly and meaningless words that excuse themselves from the hatred of delighting in someone eternally suffering. Excuse me if I don’t find this type of sentiment exactly comforting as a profile of a non-violent Christian, or other religious faction.
So do go on about this god you know exists, out of thousands of gods many people sincerely believe is real, and how he’s hiding, like gravity until we stumble upon this explanation for everything we don’t already know. Do. Please.
Before gravity was “discovered” there was evidence of its existence. This evidence lead to it being discovered and defined. Isaac Newton did not discover/define gravity as a result of his having faith that gravity existed. Please explain why you think this example is applicable to your faith that god(s) exist(s) given the lack of evidence.
@Falcon – seriously, what are you getting at?
An example of choices you may or may not agree with (I am trying to fathom from your post, its tone, its actual words, and implications), as many or few as you like:
- A specific god exists - Some form of a god may exist; I’m not sure, but I haven’t ruled it out - These people featured in the collage aren’t examples of “real” [insert religion here] - These people featured in the collage who aren’t of the same religion as me are examples of “real” [insert religion here] - Just because some people are wrong, religion is still ok because god exists/might exist, and I believe it/believe it’s possible, and I’m not a bad person. - I haven’t really thought it through - I look at the collage and believe that a possible god allows such distortion and hatred in his name without stepping in, and do not follow that up with disappointment in that possible god, nor an urge to associate with the bad examples - The most important thing is to assume since gravity’s effectively invisible but real, leap to the assumption that god is effectively invisible but real or possible, and that it makes gravity relevant (as fatal) to the collage as religion is; that is to say, we don’t walk around blaming gravity for hating and seeking out specific groups of people to abuse and murder, neither should we treat religion, an abstract concept with no abilities or consciousness on its own, as just about the same thing, as in, we should just live with it and accept it and never criticize its effects - For it is close-minded to criticize an inanimate institution that relies on a hiding god which is still possible, and we should stop because it insulted me.
I’ll try to not ramble this time. In MY mind, no, a specific ONE ‘God’ does not exist. There are many, both male and female. They are not all-powerful, or all-knowing, and certainly do not watch over us constantly. They’d probably have things they’d rather be doing. No, the people in the college are not what I would call ‘true’ people of their religion, they twisted their religion around to excuse their behaviors. Which is uncool, no matter what your religion is. I’m not saying people are wrong or right for their religious beliefs. I’m just trying to say that just because science has yet to prove something does not mean it doesn’t exist, and to keep an open mind. Cause yes, a higher power(s) may exist. As for people twisting things for their own agendas, why would a ‘higher power’ allow someone to do that? Simple. The higher powers know they’ll pay for it later. Maybe not this life, but I’m a firm believer in reincarnation. You do wrong this time, you get to come back and try to be a better person next time and pay off the karma. Again, my beliefs. Insult me? Hahaha, nah, I just wanted to try to get people to realize that science hasn’t got all the answers yet (nor even all the questions), and there’s stuff science has yet to prove or disprove. Religion doesn’t have answers either, but it gives some people a good moral compass. The individuals in the college (and others like them) non-withstanding.
Again to the short sweet version: science hasn’t proven everything just yet, humans are far from perfect, and those in the college above give their religions a nasty rap.
One, it was the example used. Sticking with the trend. Two, depending on who you ask, there -is- evidence that a higher power exists. I’d be willing bet that back when Newton was defining/proving gravity existed there were people who didn’t agree with the evidence they were given at the time. Not saying believing or not believing is wrong, just that before newton proved it, definitively people probably disagreed with him about gravity.
Wow. Just.. Wow. I wasn’t saying that religion answered anything. I’m just saying that just because science hasn’t proven something yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. What I feel religion was intended for what to give people a moral compass, but some people (like those above) twist their religions around to suit their agendas.
@ Falcon: Historically, the fundies and extremists are the ones being true to the founding principles of their religions. It’s liberal theists who have “twisted” (or at least changed) religion.
“In MY mind, no, a specific ONE ‘God’ does not exist. There are many, both male and female. They are not all-powerful, or all-knowing, and certainly do not watch over us constantly. They’d probably have things they’d rather be doing.”
Please provide a single piece of evidence supporting these statements. (Please note: “I thought about it therefore multiple gods exist,” is not evidence.)
Falcon: Claims, ideas and speculations that have not yet been proved are not all equally probable. Just because you want something to be true does not make it equally probable with other explanations for the phenomena.
You need to take into account that religious claims about how the universe works and what faith can do have a long and relentless history of being soundly disproved where-ever it is possible to test them validly and reliably. Can you think of five instances where the religious explanation for something has been unequivocally proved to be more correct than scientific explanation? How about one instance? No? Now think of five instances where scientific investigation has disproved a religious claim. Easy, huh?
With odds like that, why would any rational person believe that the claims of a particular version of a particular theological faction of a particular world religion will one day be validly and obviously proved to be true? Could it have something to do with the cognitive distortions caused by the brain’s desperate need to bolster a belief held for emotional reasons?
Falcon: Does it occur to you that the people who are NOT in this collage are actually the ones that distort their religion in order to behave in a socially mature, responsible and humane way? If you read the Christian Bible (any or the three main versions of chosen books) you will find that it preaches hatred and violence more than it preaches love and humaneness. People who followed the examples given of the Jewish Desert War God’s behavior would be imprisoned for life or killed by the State for behavior that was judged to be monstrous. Why do you think that you are not following the first published examples of this god’s behavior? I hope it is because you are not a sociopath or a person with Aspberger’s Disorder and you have, therefore, been properly socialized into the humane values of this community in these modern times. It won’t be because you are following a divine example.
Gravity never killed anyone.
It’s not the falling that kills you, it’s the stop at the end.
Down with pavement! Up with trampolines!
Damn all those Gravity supporters!
Gravity. Love it or leave it!
If you don’t believe in gravity, may you free-fall from a great height and accelerate until you smash into the ground; once you have felt the truth of the effect of gravity, it will be too late to believe in it. The only thing you can do to prevent ending up a stain upon the earth is to believe in gravity. And be careful. And avoid towers, buildings, elevator shafts, airplanes, roofs, mountains, cliffs, climbing trees, roller coasters, and being kidnapped by someone who desires to bring you to any of these places. The path of acrophobia is the light and the truth. The Gravity is a kind and merciful and judg… what? No… no I didn’t know that. That kind of changes the… hell damn fart…
It’s not the same at all!
However I find gravity rather difficult to oppose.
… and we’d have never lived without it.
By your logic, working against any evil is futile.
Don’t worry Nathan, I thought you comment was funny, these people obviously got the wrong vibe.
As if this thread were a fertile ground for telling a joke like that.
Delivery – 0 Timing – 0 Placement – 0
Not funny at all. Very immature attempt at humor, if that is what it was meant to be. Also inappropriate. Reads like the irresponsible ramblings of the socially immature – and probably is.
How many people have killed someone in the name of gravity? Okay, good. Now how many in the name of their god?
I am going to save a copy of this page. The next time some bat guano crazy person tries to talk about some imaginary being’s version of “love” I’m linking straight to this page. Thank you.
That collage does two things to me: It fuels my murderous rage that tells me to kill all the morons in the world, and at the same time reminds me what a pathetic excuse for a species Homo Sapiens Sapiens really is. In short, it just reasures me in being depressed. If we really tried, we might accomplish something, but apparently, most of us don’t bother to try.
Slap yourself. The road is long and steep, but little by little humanity is becoming wiser.
Really? I think things just move in a pendulum swing, bad to good and back again. We’re swinging to chaos and destruction. Just hoping we swing back again and that my children don’t suffer if they’re here for the worst.
There ARE swings, but the overall trend is not bad. Unless we completely fuck up the planet or something.
Look at some of the great inventions. Fossil Fuels – Cool, we got an assload of free energy, nobody can stop us now. Then Climate Change came along. Nuclear Energy – yay, we’ll have infinite energy, even our cars will be fueled by it. Two Chernobyls and Fukushimas later, we know better. Fresh Food in packaging – how convenient. Almost as convenient as the landfills that improve our landscapes.
The thing is, we are constantly using inventions, the consequences of which we cannot know, and we are driven by these consequences to invent new stuff to avoid them. It’s a vicious circle, and we haven’t learned a bit.
I’ve seriously got such a man-crush on you, Devysciple! :D
…for your comment about the “exclusive” circle of yours, and the conversation up to it…
Sense. You don’t make any.
Take for example Thomas Midgley (I know, Wikepedia is down today, just google him). He single-handedly fucked the world over – twice. There’s no better example of how clueless and reckless humans generally are.
If you’re quick you can do a screen capture of the Wiki page before it redirects to the black.
Just press ESC before the black screen comes up.
Freon was a huge improvement, safety and efficiency wise, from the prior refrigerant of choice, which was ammonia. Unlike freon, ammonia had a habit of killing lots of people whenever there was a refrigerant leak. Nobody, including Midgley, was in any position to possibly know about the UV degradation of CFCs in the ozone layer leading to catastrophic deozonation.
Likewise, tetraethyllead was considered to be an elegant and inexpensive way to deal with engine knock, allowing IC engines to be made more powerful while maintaining or improving efficiency; it was the advance that allowed for most of the improvements in IC engines for the seventy years or so it was in widespread use. There was also no evidence available at the time that tetraethyllead was bioavailable at all. (The people who put it in cigarettes as a nicotine adulterant, on the other hand, have no excuse, having done it much later and with full knowledge.)
I’ve got such a man-crush on you, Elemenope ;-)
@Elemenope: That’s my whole point. We’re regularly using stuff of which we don’t know how it might affect the biosphere. Maybe my choice of words was a bit ambiguous. In no way did I want to insinuate that Midgley was an evil genius bent on destroying the world. He was trying to help people, to improve their lives. And still, despite his intentions, the effects were severe. I’d like to add one correction though: If this source is reliable, the toxicity of TEL was already known quite some time before Midgley used it.
In no way did I want to insinuate that Midgley was an evil genius bent on destroying the world. He was trying to help people, to improve their lives. And still, despite his intentions, the effects were severe.
No, I understand. I think, though, that it is a problem that such cases as freon, TEL, DDT, and so forth are looked at today as mistakes rather than as the stepping-stones they were. The whole story tells of the high costs and the great benefits.
I’d like to add one correction though: If this source is reliable, the toxicity of TEL was already known quite some time before Midgley used it.
As far as I can tell, TEL’s potential as an acute toxin was well known by the time it was chosen as an anti-knocking agent, but the quantities involved would not have come close to doses that could cause acute toxicity. There was some talk of its dangers, however, to factory workers who had to work around large quantities of the stuff, and there were a couple of high-profile industrial accidents that included TEL as the fatal agent.
It was not known that chronic low level lead exposure caused developmental disabilities until 1943, and that conclusion (due to unfortunate political pressure) was not widely held by the medical community until almost two decades later.
@Elemenope: While we may differ on our judgment of human inventions, I have to admit that while there are things I know a lot about, there are always people who know more about it, and I am happy to learn from them. Consider yourself included in this exclusive circle ;-)
Someone explain the picture of Ms Bieber?
Here are the lyrics instead of making you watch the video:
Pray Songwriters: Omar Martinez Rosell;Adam David Messinger;Justin Bieber;Nasri Tony Atweh Performed by: Justin Bieber Transcribed by Kodie from http://www.metrolyrics.com/pray-lyrics-justin-bieber.html (emphases mine, and any typos):
I just can’t sleep tonight Knowing that things ain’t right It’s in the papers, it’s on the TV, it’s everywhere that I go Children are crying, soldiers are dying, some people don’t have a homeBut I know there’s sunshine behind that rain I know there’s good times behind that pain Hey, can you tell me how I can make a change?I close my eyes and I can see a brighter day I close my eyes and pray I close my eyes and I can see a better day I close my eyes and prayI lose my appetite knowing kids starve tonight Am I a sinner, ’cause dinner is still on my plate? Ooh I got a vision to make a difference And it’s starting today‘Cause I know there’s sunshine behind that rain I know there’s good times behind that pain Can you tell me how I can make a change?I close my eyes and I can see a brighter day I close my eyes and pray I close my eyes and I can see a better dayI close my eyes for the brokenhearted I pray for the life not started I pray for all the ones not breathing I pray for all the souls in need I pray, can you give ‘em one today?I just can’t sleep tonight Can someone tell me how to make a change?I close my eyes and I can see a brighter day I close my eyes and pray I close my eyes and I can see a better day I close my eyes and I pray, I pray, I pray I close my eyes and pray
I just can’t sleep tonight Knowing that things ain’t right It’s in the papers, it’s on the TV, it’s everywhere that I go Children are crying, soldiers are dying, some people don’t have a home
But I know there’s sunshine behind that rain I know there’s good times behind that pain Hey, can you tell me how I can make a change?
I close my eyes and I can see a brighter day I close my eyes and pray I close my eyes and I can see a better day I close my eyes and pray
I lose my appetite knowing kids starve tonight Am I a sinner, ’cause dinner is still on my plate? Ooh I got a vision to make a difference And it’s starting today
‘Cause I know there’s sunshine behind that rain I know there’s good times behind that pain Can you tell me how I can make a change?
I close my eyes and I can see a brighter day I close my eyes and pray I close my eyes and I can see a better day
I close my eyes for the brokenhearted I pray for the life not started I pray for all the ones not breathing I pray for all the souls in need I pray, can you give ‘em one today?
I just can’t sleep tonight Can someone tell me how to make a change?
I close my eyes and I can see a brighter day I close my eyes and pray I close my eyes and I can see a better day I close my eyes and I pray, I pray, I pray I close my eyes and pray
In essence, a song that contributes to the idea that one can satisfy oneself that praying is actually changing the problems of the world, or at least enough to sleep and eat.
Don’t you think it’s nice of Justin Bieber to be thinking of the needy and using his popularity to share these profound issues with the world, instead of only being a shallow teen crushing on someone in song after song after song? He has facets, he has global concerns about people less fortunate than himself! So if you want to change the problems of the world, close your eyes (it doesn’t work if you peek), and ask your invisible friend, and let all your fans know, that’s how it’s done.
He also said that, in reference to opposing abortion in cases of rape, “everything happens for a reason”.
So, I suspect you also have a problem with companies, as many brake the law, and then you have a problem with governments, as they are corrupt and wrongdoers, and I suspect you have a problem with technology, because it has caused the invention of fearful and barbaric weapons, and then you mus have a problem with the food industry, as many of its additives causes health problems…so there is one common denominator on al these things. Man. Then you have a problem with Man. God too, and he wants to solve it.
The big distinction between all those other things and religion is that they provide a way to do something that otherwise couldn’t be done. Governments allow people to organize productively, lending an aegis over meetings between strangers, guaranteeing that agreements would be enforced, property respected, and violence eschewed. Companies allow innovation to become manifest in products and services that make peoples’ lives better. Technology is the means by which humanity’s reach is broadened, allowing us to protect ourselves from natural dangers, escape from lives of dreary subsistence and understand the hidden truths of the building blocks of the universe.
Religion has no unique gift to provide humanity that counterbalances its great cost. That’s the difference.
Ugh. I’m struggling to try to be friendly when you seem to have tried so very, very hard to deliberately miss the point…
Plenty of companies break the law. Hopefully they are then punished for doing so and don’t get to dictate the course of human history for thousands of years. If you can’t tell the difference between a corporation doing something illegal and religious dogma *sanctioning and encouraging* brutality, then you might as well put your face on the collage above.
[Srvr Mnkys Fxd]
I do have a problem with all those things and I also have a problem with religion. I must confess I do have a problem with humanity at whole quite often. Somehow it just seems that religion is for some people a way to avoid justification for their monstrosity, to avoid the part where you really stop to think is this okay or is this reasonable. In fact for some religion acts AS justification.
But it is not the only thing, no. Dedication to make profit can also get in the way, desire for power inside the government, all kinds of things that lead to some significant personal gain can have the effect of throwing away all justifications and to treat others like shit. However, this particular site is concentrated on one of those aspects: religion. That is NOT to say that governments, corporations or even religions can’t ever do anything good to anyone or benefit anyone without hurting others.
The difference is, most of those other things are available for debate. People may not meet minds, but it’s ok to discuss. But how dare anyone ever say they have a problem with religion. A lot of people have a religion and, even though it’s a silly made-up thing, how dare you even say that you hate religion. It is too sensitive and sacred and you hurt their feelings. Then they turn around and do one of those things on the collage, or agree with some of them, or at the very best case, declare those people “not real” versions of whatever religion they are. Maybe a Christian hates Muslims because of 9/11. They don’t even hate Muslims for beating and killing women who may have been raped; they hate that they crashed into buildings with airplanes. And to them, that’s what a “real” Muslim does, so they hate that group and don’t mind very much if any of them get arsoned out of their home or business in the US, even if they are a differently-practicing Muslim. They disagree so vehemently with abortion as being against god’s prerogative to create life or let die that they will take their own gun and kill an abortion doctor, or, as in the previous example, kill a Muslim, or support that someone else did it. Sickening and disturbed. Now maybe not “all” Christians are like that, but they all get pretty sensitive if you dare challenge their cherished fantasy.
I don’t even care what kind of asshole a government or business owner is, they are not that fucking disturbed as to lust after actual blood, at least not here in the US. Well, maybe sometimes, but we’re ALLOWED TO speak up whenever that stuff happens, or even if we imagine that stuff happens, like calling Obama “Hitler,” tell me when Obama gased 6 million people and nobody noticed or said anything.
So yeah, humans kind of suck, but religion is the one of any of those things nobody is allowed to criticize.
If the god you believe in is real, then he is either not that troubled, or is incompetent. If you also think he created the earth and the universe and cares about each and every little problem everyone, individually, seems to bring to him, and that he attends to every one of them, you have a low, low bar of expectation for gods.
Every single person who is passionate toward their god is a real person with real faith. Some people use “faith” as a control to other people or a way to make money, so I don’t think every one of them is for real, in their own mind, faithful. But for those who are, those who choose to express this in disgusting ways, unimaginable animal lust for blood, such hate, they don’t just excuse themselves with the available “god,” they really learn from what they believe he is telling them he wants, they act on it or support those who do. God does nothing to tell them differently, god does nothing to change their minds, god does nothing AT ALL. God has never helped or hurt anyone, because god doesn’t exist. It’s disgusting to me that you don’t acknowledge their faith is the same as yours, that you think they are just fakes in their faith, that they are incapable of listening. Of course, YOURS is powerful and true, you are “doing it right,” and god has preference for you and your kind, and doesn’t have preference for people who really REALLY need to be stopped from committing such horrible acts on others. If that’s a god you believe is real, that alone makes me think a lot less of you. Your faith is fake too, because god isn’t real.
Why do you hate Amurca? ; ) Thanks for this compilation. I think.
You’re in good company, D. You and Jesus, co-despisers of ‘religion’. And of course…your FAITH-full and enduring friend….yours truly! Ha ;)
Gen 1:3 :)
Those people feel just as strongly about Jesus as you do, or about Allah as much as you feel about Jesus. They feel blessed, light, indwelling, all that shit. Ok, your “relationship” clearly takes away parts of your useful brain and replaces it with programming. At least you don’t seem to use yours to hate, but you are pretty dense and you already said you don’t think you need to avail yourself of reason and that you are led and you follow blindly.
Au contraire dearest Kodie. I always employ reason’s fullest faculties in each and every ‘applicable’ instance., rest assured. But that I ‘follow blindly’ is true…that way I’m sure to see since the Light is the One doing the leading. If, however I claimed to see on my own then I would surely be, as you say…blind. The kingdom is a paradox, a beautiful, beautiful paradox indeed.
Let there be…Light ~~O~~
And all those people in the examples given are just the same way as you, with just as much certainty.
Like all Gnostics, John C believes his light is “special” and “unique” and he is (depsite shallow protestations of humility) “elect”. After all, we are blind and he sees. His Special Friend tells him so.
I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean.
@ John C – Jesus may not have liked religion (we really don’t know much of anything about him, because fuck the bible that’s not a particularly reliable book), but it doesn’t really matter. A religion founded in his image is fucking up the world. Such a great year to be alive. The last GOP candidate to believe in global warming is gone and the rest are crazy.
Muslims don’t worry about another religion certainly we are on the truth religion ALLAH said to us in the translation of QURAN :
61:V.8. They intend to put out the Light of Allâh (i.e. the Religion of Islâm, this
Qur’ân, and the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) with their mouths. But Allâh
will bring His Light to perfection even though the disbelievers hate (it).
Why are the Sunni killing the Shia, and the Shia killing the Sunni? Whichever wipes out the other first are the best Muslims and Allah loves them the best? You say those don’t represent true Islam? Are they not Muslims?
Why do Islamic militants murder innocent babies, children, women and men while they shop for food in the marketplace? While they worship in the mosque? You say those don’t represent true Islam? Are they not Muslims?
ANY RELIGION that gives birth to such violence is evil. Islam qualifies. Christianity qualifies. And so do most other religions. Face reality, Ahmed. All religions are useless and harmful. Including yours.
Ahmad, your Holy Book failed miserably to convey its message to countless people, that exploited it to justify violence.
If a perfect being wrote or inspired it (otherwise I assume it would not be Holy to you) I would have expected Him doing a better job at conveying His wisdom and His will.
The quran is a meandering pile of crap. It jumps from one topic to the next without rhyme or reason. It doesn’t even have an index. Reading it was one of the most painful experiences of my life.
It’s funny how this argument keeps cropping up. Muslims claim Islam is true because their holy book says so. Christians claim Christianity is true because their holy book says so. Both claim that their holy book has authority because their religion is true. Silly, circular argument.
Yeah… Ahmad, the Bible says that the Bible is true. Shouldn’t you believe it?
Damn guys… Christians and Muslim should really find a definitive way to settle this up… Oh, wait…
The disbelievers don’t “hate” it, they don’t believe it because it’s patently silly, and they don’t know how anyone gets away with the things they do simply because they are swayed to believe it by challenges like that! There’s no credibility of Allah just because a book says he would say that. It’s imperative to the growth of a religion that a book challenges people to believe something with no proof, to push them around emotionally and sell them on fear. “Do you want to join our club of “amazing light someday” or do you want to be some filthy person who wants to say it’s not true? You want to be in the club, then you have to follow these rules.
Religions do not need to exist for people to be good, so religions serve no purpose other than to get people to hate because of some invisible salvation that’s not even true. Yes, the bible also uses sleazy used car salesman tactics. They don’t want to miss out! It’s called being lied to, any disbeliever is just trying to point that out.
Oh great…a Muslim version of John C.
So just to recap, when people ask you why you have a problem with religion you just copy a ton of stuff into a neat Jpeg, some of them taken out of context and then use it to condemn an entire ideology or ideologies based on the acts of very few.
Oh and Facebook comments as an example of irrationality… I have a word for that… worthless evidence.
…some of them taken out of context…
Could you give an example? Could you perhaps also give a context where those “acts of very few” – who are representatives of their faith – would be acceptable?
Oh and Facebook comments do show what believers write. You may consider them worthless evidence, but believers still wrote them.
No, we don’t “just copy a ton of stuff into a neat Jpeg”, we discuss this shit over and over and over again, only to find out that certain people can’t be bothered to read any of it, and then proclaim that religion is awesome. When we point them to some of the ongoing discussion, they either fall silent very quickly (and sadly, because we like to discuss it with the people that behave this way), or they get defensive in the most aggressive ways. This collage is not evidence that religion sucks, we don’t need that anymore, we have enough of it. It is merely a brief artistic summary of the evidence.
Yes, I agree with Len – tell us what is/are the appropriate contexts, and as well, why facebook people’s opinions, statements, death threats, are not made by real people who exist with real opinions and extreme feelings that death is the first resort for people they don’t like…. rather than discussion or why it hurts them so much to try to understand people or have their beliefs not attacked so much as merely disbelieved or disagree with? What context is it ok to use, er, not “a religion,” but a very special and dear emotional “relationship” as a defense for publicly posting that atheists should die and pro-choice women should get raped? What context?
I mean, this is not a collage featuring the very few extreme people whom we can just ignore because they have insignificant impact. It is a short summary of examples of a lot more people and the sickness religion causes. For some reason, out of their whole lives where they may think at the end there is reward, in the middle is a devotion and love and gratitude, that is best expressed by an acceptable form of hate, they are not ashamed, they do not think “how will this look?” or “who am I threatening?” They skip right ahead to calmly violent, an otherwise-psychopathic statement that most people would outright fear, shun, and distance themselves from, but because they use religion as a shield, others feel free to support them and agree with them and not point out what a sick fuck they are. This jpeg compilation is a mere symptom of all the sick fucks that aren’t featured on it.
And what context?
The context, of course, is that non-Christians are mud people who DESERVE to be treated this way. Because God is Love, Man.
If you would get with the program, you would no longer be offended by these “out of context” statements. Of course.
Any time one Muslim feels to say, “death to infidels,” that is dire and we need to fear and suspect all Muslims of being extremists, but you get 3 different Christians with apparently none being the voice of reason saying “death to infidels,” and it’s out of context. That’s just one example. Of course it’s not just one Muslim or three Christians, but we see different impressions and excuse-making for the Christians.
As a reminder:
“these people are f’ing scum of the earth. can we start killing them now? few groups are filled with more hatred than athiests (sic).”“IF THE CROSS OFFENDS YOU: SO SHOULD THIS COUNTRY;LEAVE BEFORE WE KILL YOU!!!!!”“Kill em all…let God sort em out. Guess what Atheists….”
“these people are f’ing scum of the earth. can we start killing them now? few groups are filled with more hatred than athiests (sic).”
“IF THE CROSS OFFENDS YOU: SO SHOULD THIS COUNTRY;LEAVE BEFORE WE KILL YOU!!!!!”
“Kill em all…let God sort em out. Guess what Atheists….”
And then amplify those sentiments with the whole collage, different groups being threatened, distrusted, mistreated, abused, harassed BY CHRISTIANS in the name of their LORD, and it’s “out of context.” Just about everything in that collage is so disgusting and disheartening to think these people find agreement for their opinions as often as they do, and rather than being routinely met with comments that oppose them or challenge them to examine their beliefs and extremely violent ideations, to simmer down at least, to not “go there,” they are high-fived, joined with, supported; they find like minds to agree with them. I think that’s how terrorist cells are formed, although Muslims could never get away with saying the same hateful plans and wishes out loud as Christians do in the US. If a Muslim says “hell, burn the whole school down,” it tends to cause a panic in a way that doesn’t happen when a Christian says it, just because of a banner. A fucking banner! Get over it, it’s a banner. Nobody’s burning the banner on a stake on your lawn to drive you and all the other Christians out of town.
Why can’t we point this stuff out?
We can and we must.
CC got nothin’.
FWIW: I don’t believe religion of any sort creates intolerance or hate crimes any more than fashion shows create homosexuality or sports create aggression. I believe that in all cases (religion, sports, fashion) the parent organizations simply provide an outlet for people predisposed toward aggression and violence, or an outlet for folks predisposed toward traditionally feminine pursuits. I believe many, perhaps even most, folks in all religions are generous people with kind hearts trying to do what they believe is the right thing. I am not so ignorant as to fail to recognize that in all religions (or movements of any sort) there exists a hostile (frightened — ignorant– damaged) minority of folks who will use religion or politics or anything else to express their fearful and violent ways. Sometimes this minority gets control of their chosen outlet (church, political organization etc…) and uses it to punish or control a world that terrifies them. Once this occurs it appears as if religion, or politics or anything else must be inherently evil because it has been used for so many evil actions. I also know that when damaged folks get control of an organization that a mob mentality takes hold and much evil ensues. Like a riot at a South American soccer match — a group madness takes over otherwise civilized people. This of course does not make soccer inherently bad or even dangerous — it makes a few violent, hostile, and loud patrons very dangreous though. Similarly I would argue that even though cars have maimed, and even killed untold numbers of people I don’t think that makes them inherently bad. Most people don’t intentionally or even through gross negligence set out to use cars to batter and abuse their fellow humans or even animals. Cars have probably accomplished a billion times as much ‘good’ as ‘bad.’ Unfortunately A few extremely damaged types turn an otherwise benign form of transportation into a weapon to express their hostility or ignorance or both. If the media popularizes the misuse of cars (movies news etc…) then the mob fascination of poorly educated, and even worse in the thinking department folks, takes hold and cars become a popular way for folks to hurt each other (and express their darker side)
I completely disagree with this:
“I don’t believe religion of any sort creates intolerance or hate crimes… the parent organizations simply provide an outlet for people predisposed toward aggression and violence”
Religions, particularly fundamentalist religions, do not just “provide an outlet” for those things: They actively encourage them, and they socialise their members towards those behaviors from a young age. You can’t ignore that and blame all of the bitter, evil nastiness on a few individuals – It’s endemic to the thing. Your comparison to homosexuality in the fashion industry falls down on every level, too – You don’t have to be gay to be in fashion, it’s not a requirement – It’s just an environment that accepts gay people without judging.
Are people victims of God, or victims of religion? Are people proponents of God, or proponents of religion? I am sorry Daniel of the anger that you have towards God, and anger towards the people who use God’s name in vain to judge others. Forgive them for their shortcomings…forgive me for commenting.
I could no more be angry at God than I could be angry at Peter Pan.
How could anybody be mad at a jar of peanut butter?
“Are people victims of God, or victims of religion?”
Religions – which is to say people of power within religions. There’s insufficient evidence supporting god’s existence, and it’s impossible to be a victim of the imaginary.
You doubt their sincerity too? You doubt they sincerely believe in god, and doubt they are so angry as to react with death threats against people who dare call their god “not real”? Because god is not real, and just because you think it is doesn’t make it true, obviously the first thing you resort to is pity!
To what end forgiveness here? Forgive them, they know not what they do? Why are you here telling us this? Should we not stay aware and vigilant of, not protect ourselves and others against death threats and abuses and hatred? Just let it be, god will sort it out, correct?
THAT is what is wrong with religion. Let god judge them later on; for now, we endure this with a shut mouth and forgiveness? Their shortcomings? Minimize, minimize, pray pray OK!!!!!!!!
You doubt their sincerity too? You doubt they sincerely believe in god, and doubt they are so angry as to react with death threats against people who dare call their god “not real”? Yes…I have doubts with people.
Because god is not real, and just because you think it is doesn’t make it true, obviously the first thing you resort to is pity! Pity no…empathy with someone being treated unjustly by others?…yes. To what end forgiveness here? Forgive them, they know not what they do? Why are you here telling us this? A: I accidentally came across this blog and commented..the blog was open to comment.
Should we not stay aware and vigilant of, not protect ourselves and others against death threats and abuses and hatred? ????? I don’t hate you.
Just let it be, god will sort it out, correct?
No…we should try and find a way to live with each other.
I can’t count how many shortcomings I have. You are right, I did separate myself in my statement “Forgive them for their shortcomings” I am nobody here to request that one man or woman forgive another. I do apologize.
Tell this to the people who think burning down a school is preferable to having a Christian-based banner taken down so all the students feel included in the community. Tell this to the people who think pro-choice women should be raped and forced to carry a child. I mean, not just have an opinion that a raped woman should have to carry a child – have her be raped in the future. Tell this to the people who, rather than have atheists live and work amongst them, send us to another country (because it’s clearly their territory), or hunt us down and kill us. Tell this to people who would not accept their own child’s homosexuality and turn them from their home. Tell this to people who only feels bad about 5 homosexuals suiciding themselves because not all of them did. Tell this to people who let their own child die because they think god has a plan and that does not include medicine. Tell that to.. I mean look at the fucking compilation yourself. Find a way to live with each other. We have accepted a certain amount of religiosity in our communities, but we don’t have to accept violence and stupidity and infringement of rights. They have their rights to worship, but they are taking more than their fair share to vocally threaten a lot of other people, based on something as real as the green-striped dog-spider-mansion living in my sock drawer. We’re expected to leave it alone, never point out its shocks, never share this information with anyone, only “good thoughts,” keep believing faith is only a force for good. Cover up the dirt. I know, I understand. Let’s focus on something other than this inconveniently propagated unpleasantness that might risk the salvation of some of my religious friends by influencing them to leave the faith. What will they do, with that Christ-shaped hole and nothing to live for if we know this and don’t stuff it full of comforting macaroni and cheese until the topic changes to a cute family of ducks, and the coupon you saved $4 on a 12-pack of Coca-Cola so it was practically free! Jesus must love the shit out of super-couponing.
“No…we should try and find a way to live with each other.”
That’s easy. If the believers will stop trying to pass laws based on their religious beliefs I will stop fighting against their stupidity.
@manuel Then you have a problem with Man. God too, and he wants to solve it. I have a problem with Man. Harvey, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too, and they want to solve it.
I speak for my imaginary beings, and you speak for yours.
Each entry in your photo album is merely repeating the same logical error, namely, converse accident or mistakenly believing that because some people misunderstand or misuse religion for personal gain, their doing so somehow invalidates religion. It does not.
Incidentally, your lengthy catalogue of photos is yet another logical error, that of argumentum ad nauseum whereby you mistakenly believe that the more you repeat your original error, somehow it will magically become true. It will not.
Well those are some interesting points, Peter. Oh wait, my mistake, no they’re not, they’re absolute bullshit. As is your casual dismissal of a catalogue of hatred and violence produced by religion as “logical errors”. By the way, you should probably learn what that phrase actually means (as well as some fundamentals of logic) before you parrot it any more. I really cannot be bothered to explain it to you.
I didn’t say that the hatred and violence displayed by the website owner were “logical errors” as you claim. I said that the use of them to attempt to disprove religion were logical errors. Your contemptuous denial of the logic contains two more logic errors, namely argumentum ad hominem and audiatur et altera pars or not stating the assumptions in your counterargument.
How have we used them to “disprove religion”? In fact, what does that even mean? It’s a collage of clippings showing the consequences of some people and their religions. You really need to stop using phrases you’ve copied from Wikipedia – It’s painfully obvious that you don’t understand the logical falacies you’re accusing me of, and while it seems to be working in your own head as a distraction from the original point that you mafe being absurd and wrong, I’m still right on message with that.
I find it rather arrogant of ppl of faith to say other ppl of faith got it wrong. What makes you believe that you understood what your holy book wants to tell you? Why are you so sure that the way you live your (religious) life is the right way? The ppl burning “witches” in the dark ages were quite sure of doing the right thing. You are not living your religion but the life you got used to growing up in the environment you grew up in. Had you been born a few hundred years ago you would shout “kill them, burn them” to ppl accused of witchcraft or nonbelievers too. Not because you are a bad person, but because you get formed by the society you grow up in.
Very simply, one cannot make concrete claims about God and correspondingly about religion because God is beyond time and space and so is transcendental experience of God. This is the prime mistake made by the people listed as examples by the website owner and by the website owners’ listing of them as examples, and by all Atheists. The religious/spiritual process is one of changing consciousness and rising above the limits of reason and science. A fundamentalist/literalist approach is inappropriate.
You do realize this goes both ways? If “one cannot make concrete claims about God and correspondingly about religion”, that goes for you too. Yet you’re more than willing to claim other believers’ ideas are wrong.
You just said that you don’t know either – so you can’t really say that the violent theists got it wrong, can you? That was exactly my point.
“…one cannot make concrete claims about God and correspondingly about religion because God is beyond time and space and so is transcendental experience of God.”
If this statement is true, then all religion is meaningless.
In other words, it’s not a religion, it’s a relationship?
//Very simply, one cannot make concrete claims about God and correspondingly about religion because God is beyond time and space and so is transcendental experience of God. //
The logic works against your defense as well, genius: What sort of proof do the religious have that their faith’s interpretation of God is genuine and accurate?
How can I add anything that could be positive to this thread…? its a very real page validating reasons to hate, be angry at, strive against, battle against, rage against, attack, demean, slander, accuse any and all people innocent or not whom choose with their own right to have a belief.
In no way am I defending any of the ridiculously appaling things that are posted here, but from the posts of the ‘anti-religion’ posters, your posts, particularly your wording, accusations, slanders and disgusting behaviour or respect for people in general leads nothing to desire for anyone that would genuinely want to work change in their own personal lives against these attrocities, either in their own lives or as part of a religious organization.
so instead of pouring salt on the wound of what a terrible human history we have with more hate and division, why not repurpose that destructive energy into something that really matters, positive. knowledge, exposure, assistance, reproving wrongs, patience, kindness, longsuffering with peoples ignorance in order to exhort and build them up to a place where we all collectively can make a difference.
Please point out where in this discussion of how religion can inspire hatred and stupidity people have resorted to “accusations, slanders and disgusting behaviour or [dis]respect for people in general”.
@trj, sure, here are a few (i hesitate to post because its not what i’m trying to accomplish and will seem to only add to the point that i’m trying to move away from)
Kodie said: You have offered no such thing. You’re acting like you’re a weasel in a way that suggests you actually are a weasel, and have nothing potentially intelligent, sane, or logical to add
NZO said: First off, slap your mother for giving birth to such a wishy-washy, stupid, self-important pansy like you…complete idiocy.
Kodie said: Religion is an abstract excuse based on a non-existent god for people to behave in the meanest ways possible.
Devysciple said: It fuels my murderous rage that tells me to kill all the morons in the world…
Kodie said: close your eyes (it doesn’t work if you peek), and ask your invisible friend, and let all your fans know, that’s how it’s done. ::barf::
Kodie said: And all those people in the examples given are just the same way as you, with just as much certainty. (ouch really?)
Erik said: because fuck the bible that’s not a particularly reliable book), but it doesn’t really matter. A religion founded in his image is fucking up the world
Custador said: Oh wait, my mistake, no they’re not, they’re absolute bullshit
Maybe its just me, but if people I know or dont know personally speak to me in those ways, though they may be right in their point, are wrong in their expression. and instead of it bringing our perspectives to a clearer place, it adds another point of hatred into the mix. I now have to get over a person insulting me or some degree of insult in order to benefit from their better perspective. Few are willing to do that, even fewer actually can and do. and my guess, if those who dish out that behaviour had an opposing view posed to them in similar manner, it would only add to their repository of hating ‘that group’.
who wants to learn through insult? or mockery? or aggression? or slander or accusation? no one!
so what is the cure for ignorance? more hatred or resentment or separation? certainly not!
how about caring, consideration, sharing, charity, teaching, knowledge, understanding, forgiveness, love and acceptance. if we put those into practice, ignorance doesn’t stand a chance.
in the religions depicted on this page, each of them have all of these principles at their roots. it seems that the same harsh judgement to the group of people that leave these principles of their religious belief is deserving of the same grouping and harsh judgement.
lets all redouble our efforts of poise on truly humanitarian goals in a battle against ignorance.
It’s called “When People Ask Why I Have A Problem With Religion, It’s Hard To Come Up With A Single Answer…”
The problem occurs when people think their religious beliefs are off-limits for criticism.
As for my comments – Nathan was a troll, did you read his various comments? Prayer is ineffective, and Justin Bieber wasted an opportunity to use his influence for an actual change, rather suggesting a wishful thinking kind of non-activity. Religion is an abstract excuse based on a non-existent god for people to behave in the meanest ways possible, what do you personally feel was offensive about that, slanderous, accusatory in any way that was not true? And yes, although John C tries and tries to manipulate and evangelize his version of Christianity, his faith is, yes, really not stronger, more real, or more correct than those in the poster – just, apparently, safer to be around.
I know this is hard for you to understand, but from my angle, you have a hard time hearing hard things to hear. Atheists are, what? Using too many words, too many critical words to criticize people’s pet beliefs that too often go uncriticized because they’re intolerant of it, or at the very nicest, oblivious what possible reason anyone could have for disliking religion – because they’re religious, and we’re persecuting them, personally. For clam’s sake, did you see the death threats? The stupidity? The violence? The harassment?
I think you have a problem with atheists talking about anything. That’s what your patronizing tone suggests.
Thanks for the reply Kodie, sorry if I came across patronizing, really didn’t mean to. trying to learn to speak/type a different way and i’m still new at it. :s
this i love: The problem occurs when people think their religious beliefs are off-limits for criticism. agreed with nationwide billboard signs
re: religion=behaving only as mean as possible. I personally dont find that offensive, but its a really harsh statement, you are entitled to your opinion for sure. I was sympathizing to the sincere non-fundies out there that can read pages like this and actually demonstrate a will to change and educate with great influence. people with religious belief aren’t all worthy of that kind of judgement. i have many christian, jewish and muslim friends who are great people, excellent, kind, generous and sincere in all aspects of their lives and loath mistreating people or violence etc.
just made reference to that again because it really only adds to an argument against non-believers as a generalization. better, you point could have come across more credibly without making that blanket judgement.
re: john c post – it appears I miss read what you were saying, it can be read that you are saying that john c IS personally exactly the same as a violent murderous extremist as in some of these photos above. I’ll take that back.
another thing, and its really only meant to be sincere feedback, (if i had a way to private message you i would) but how do you know what is easy or hard for me to hear or understand? making those clear assumptions is patronizing and unnecessary. it only detracts from your credibility.
my posts were more about if we have a point that is worthy to note, all the more responsibility falls to us to communicate it effectively. this is the internet and we are all strangers. crazy stuff like the things that happened in those photos start with people being inconsiderate of others and just piling more and more ontop of it. so how can we be different? the extremists think they have a worthy perspective and they want to enforce it with violence or other irrational and uncourteous behaviours. there is a better way. and you are obviously very intelligent, well researched and experienced and have very good and thorough points to offer. name calling or insults is base in expression. I presume you are above that as an individual, so please take this to heart.
Me say: “Religion is an abstract excuse based on a non-existent god for people to behave in the meanest ways possible”
You get: “re: religion=behaving only as mean as possible.”
I could just outright fault you for getting that wrong, but I could have specified “some people.” When I say people, I don’t mean all people. People means more than one person. I don’t think you could say what I said was wrong, just less clear than I could have been. I don’t think all religious people are as terrible, but some religious people who don’t happen to be horrible (or at least, in their opinion of themselves) tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to protect their right not to have their faith criticized or called something it’s not (to them, like, not true), while I or someone else are busy criticizing the actions of some other violent people who share the same religion.
Some people with those, “coexist” stickers on their car? Are you one of those? Your posts make it sound plausible you like that sticker or even have it. I don’t want to cast aspersions on you if you dislike it. It would be nice if everyone could keep their faiths from harming other people or making them feel less welcome or safe anywhere they have a right to be. Some of my other criticisms of religiosity in this thread and others is the initial reaction of the calmer religious tends to be to pose themselves as an obstacle to open discussion about the true ugliness that evidently exists because of religion, because: (a): those people are aren’t “real” [religion] (b): I’m not like that, I just want you to know, we’re not all like that. Jesus is Love. (c): Here’s why my god is real and you are a sinner, so take that back. (d): (c) + hate disguised as “prayer” for x group of sinners. Love the sinner, hate the sin. – It sounds a lot to me like you like that kind of talk, I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s still hate. That’s not nice-talking, that’s not trying to bridge the gap.
I don’t know about you, but I find a lot of that tiring and death threats don’t do a lot to comfort me. I mean, you didn’t like my comment about Justin Bieber, but what a lot of “being nice” seems to entail being less vocal, having our anger invalidated, keeping these disgusting actions hidden and tolerated – to avoid spoiling someone’s worldview. I don’t know if that’s what you’re after, I think you’re all right trying or hoping to find common ground and civil discussion, but I don’t think this might be the right thread to be told to calm down and ignore the big problems the Bieber way. Not everything is about changing people’s minds but having a safe place to say what you really think.
Thank you for the reply Kodie. Its obvious we have some differences, and I’m glad you are willing to discuss them with me in detail. I read your post many times through in order to try and understand you as best is possible in these mediums. (forum)
before I reply, I wanted to say, one of the things I hate, probably hate the most in all of my life, its hard to describe but man it gets me bothered more than anything I’ve encounted yet. How it seems there is some cosmic force or some invisible static or interference that modulates our expression and how it is interpreted once heard. ie, how we strive to be as clear as possible and still be misunderstood. its not related to anything you have posted. just reminded me of the burdensome struggle to understand one another as each of us intended to be understood. i think that is a bigger enemy than ignorance.
thanks for clarifying ‘people’ :) I also dispise this supposed ‘right’ to not have faith criticised. that being said. your example of criticism to a theists faith calling it ‘not true’ is hostile. we can be very critical and effective I think without being hostile or resorting to base expression. I would liken the behaviour on the same field as racism to the hearer. most people associate their identity at least in part to their beliefs, for or against theism. i’m not trying to make an argument associating racism etc in this discussion, but merely trying to clarify and bring understanding about why theists have knee-jerk reactions to those forms of criticism. you then said this: while I or someone else are busy criticizing the actions of some other violent people who share the same religion.
that is a HUGE point. and i think even ratifies my earlier mention of racism. because, natrually, these fundamental expressions of violence or utter disregard for any reason or logic in life is completely revolting and disgusting. if there is such a thing; even worthy of racism. racism isn’t the right term, but the beligerent boycotting and mockery and various other forms of abuse seem appropriate with those behaviours. regardless of how i feel that I can agree to that, I still think there is a better way that how we have been fighting this battle. this forum is a podium to have these discussions especially, hopefully conceding that we can agree to disagree in points necessary to work toward a greater goal of function and understanding. ‘bridging the gap’.
i dont have a coexist stick, i actually have never seen it until you mentioned it and googled it. i dont know how I feel about it. i’m well researched in various religious texts and because of that I can’t ignore the fact that many of those religions represented on that sticker at their core beliefs cannot and will not coexist ever. their tenets are hostile to one another and it is falacy to even consider that ultimate unity is even possible while any of them exist together. then i beg the question, is it religiosity or fundamentalism that is the hostile party? I read this article: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcourses.ttu.edu%2Fjkoch%2FResearch%2FKoch%2520Ramirez%2520Religion%2520and%2520Partner%2520Violence%2520Final%2520Feb%252009.pdf&h=rAQG0hsg4 where he shows proof of study that contrary to our expectations, religiosity leads to less violence approval, less psychological aggression and less intimate partner violence. where fundamentalism adds to these 3 points. IF we can establish that, then our battle is against fundamentalism. and how can we effectively battle for the disarmament of fundamentalism within any faith. and that, in this forum is constructive, of which you and many others here have extremely good things to add and something I would like to discuss in much more detail
Dominic is not patronizing. He responded to a specific request with many examples. You respond with an ad hominem retort.
“Religion is an abstract excuse based on a non-existent god for people to behave in the meanest ways possible, what do you personally feel was offensive about that, slanderous, accusatory in any way that was not true?”
1. You are misusing the idea of “existence” and confining its use to an existence in time and space. God doesn’t have boundaries and is not confined/defined in time and space. 2. While some people may behave in the ways you describe not all religious people do. 3. The truth of religion is independent of how people may or may not consider it.
1. You are misusing the idea of “existence” and confining its use to an existence in time and space.
That’s the definition of “existence”.
God doesn’t have boundaries and is not confined/defined in time and space.
a) How do you know that? b) How do you distinguish something that “is not confined in time and space” from something that doesn’t exist?
That’s a fancy way of saying he exists in your imagination.
Maybe its just me, but if people I know or dont know personally speak to me in those ways, though they may be right in their point, are wrong in their expression.
I can assure you, it’s just you. We have no reason to be nice to trollish posters, and are not, in any way, wrong for doing so. We’re RIGHT to have a problem with religion, we’re RIGHT to blame religion, and we’re RIGHT to mock anyone whose posts lack substance, and patronize everyone else.
instead of it bringing our perspectives to a clearer place, it adds another point of hatred into the mix. I now have to get over a person insulting me or some degree of insult in order to benefit from their better perspective. Few are willing to do that, even fewer actually can and do.
If you can’t take insults, get off the internet, or log into carebearsforjesusdotcom. The fact that most of the religious nutcases that come here can’t do a simple google search to research the subject they’re arguing about is reason enough to mock them.
and my guess, if those who dish out that behaviour had an opposing view posed to them in similar manner, it would only add to their repository of hating ‘that group’.
You’re bad at guessing. I would rather be smacked by the Enormous Black C*ck of Truth, while being called a b*tch, than have some a$$wipe with no clue pat me on the head.
who wants to learn through insult? or mockery? or aggression? or slander or accusation? no one!
First off, the mockery wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for the fractal willful ignorance, and stupidity of the poster. Secondly, anyone concerned with the truth would agree with me on this point, and someone that would prefer a convenient lie would agree with you.
Mockery. Just as Santa Clause is mocked out of children in third grade, Jesus Clause can be mocked out of adults. There are no boundaries to mocking an adult for having an imaginary friend when their mind is otherwise healthy.
how about caring, consideration, sharing, charity, teaching, knowledge, understanding, forgiveness, love and acceptance. if we put those into practice, ignorance doesn’t stand a chance.
Do you see anyone on the fundie side looking to learn? Please, point them out. I would LOVE to help educate someone.
It’s obvious to me that you don’t know much about ignorance, if you can’t seem to understand that someone actually needs to feel uncomfortable about their ignorance to change it.
in the religions depicted on this page, each of them have all of these principles at their roots. it seems that the same harsh judgement to the group of people that leave these principles of their religious belief is deserving of the same grouping and harsh judgement.
Do explain this in a way that doesn’t show either gross ignorance of these religions, or doesn’t involve massive doses of the special pleading fallacy.
My humanitarian goals include mocking people until they’re uncomfortable enough to change their educational status from well below Coco the gorilla, to above retarded.
Nzo, thank for the reply. Actually I find it a great reply. If I can change my tone a little bit; I agree with every point you make. and I can accept the rebuttal. man to man, for years i’ve been the mocker teacher guy, because thats how I learned best, quickest and easiest. despite having to swallow my pride at the time(s). I am just personally tired of it, particularly against ‘fundies’ (heheh new expression to me, its great) Fundies don’t seem to respond well to mockery, at least with me, its like it only fuels their conviction further. which is counter productive. I’m genuinely after a different angle that might be successful at penetrating the fundies absurd defences. and not that it matters, but in considering that, the same idea of flaming on the internet, it doesn’t accomplish anything to me. just makes me the one to kill the troll with flame.
re: the root of those religions, perhaps i should clarify, in their religious texts, those points are there and if we could determine an acceptable norm that isn’t favored by fundies, those principles are emphasized. real, genuine believers that think and rationalize even within their limitations, are concerned primarily with love and morality. wether I can prove that statistically, that’s what i choose to believe.
I appreciate the compliment, and I can appreciate your sentiment.
I wish you the best in your foray into the positive reinforcement/healthy relationship argumentation paradigm.
Fundies don’t seem to respond well to mockery
I find that fundies don’t respond well to anything that goes against what they think or believe, especially for the religious crap, but often even for mundane, everyday things. If they won’t respond well to it anyway, I might as well have some fun with it.
he’ll just take the flame and go back to his buddies and be like ‘see, i told you, that’s all atheists do’
The first 10 seconds of this explains what would happen anyway.
@NZO hey, i wanted to go back and clarify something, when i said: “who wants to learn through insult? or mockery? or aggression? or slander or accusation? no one!”
I was meaning to emphasize that graceful, passionate and indiscriminate learning is FAR more appealing than the labour of learning through negative expression.
We’re not talking about a school class here. We’re talking about posters on the internet, who may, or may not, be open to, or interested in, having a rational discussion.
You’d be surprised how quickly my tone can change if someone shows the least bit interested in actually having a two-way discussion, instead of a 1-way+u-turn discussion.
That being said, I’ve made my case about people concerned with the truth not being as concerned with the delivery method. If they’re not concerned with the truth, I don’t really care to have a cup of tea with them.
“We’re RIGHT to have a problem with religion, we’re RIGHT to blame religion,”
None of the Atheist arguments against religion are logically valid. They all depend on logical or factual errors.
“If you can’t take insults, get off the internet, or log into carebearsforjesusdotcom.”
Ad hominen retorts are logical errors.
“most of the religious nutcases that come here can’t do a simple google search to research the subject they’re arguing about is reason enough to mock them.”
Being an internet scholar is a poor excuse for learning. It is superficial and consists of parroting what someone else has said without being able to evaluate the logic or truth of what is being said.
“I would rather be smacked by the Enormous Black C*ck of Truth, while being called a b*tch, than have some a$$wipe with no clue pat me on the head.”
You mistakenly refer to justified critiques of your postings as condescending and spew invective to cover up the lack of substance in your post.
“First off, the mockery wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for the fractal willful ignorance, and stupidity of the poster. Secondly, anyone concerned with the truth would agree with me on this point, and someone that would prefer a convenient lie would agree with you.”
First off, you admit to ad hom attacks and provide zero evidence of how the poster is wrong. Second, stating that you are correct does not make you correct and stating someone else is in error does not make their statements erroneous. Opinion needs to be backed up.
“There are no boundaries to mocking an adult for having an imaginary friend when their mind is otherwise healthy.”
Jesus was a historical figure. I will assume that you are claiming that God is an “imaginary friend” in which case you would be wrong. No major religion claims that God is an individual. It is only the religion of Atheism and other fundamentalist/literalist religions that make that mistaken claim.
“My humanitarian goals include mocking people until they’re uncomfortable enough to change their educational status from well below Coco the gorilla, to above retarded.”
So ad hominen arguments are your stock in trade? And I thought that Atheism was supposed to be logical.
“None of the Atheist arguments against religion are logically valid. They all depend on logical or factual errors.”
There is insufficent evidence to support the idea that god(s) exists.
Religion relies on the existence of god(s) as a foundational principle.
Therefore religion is false.
Please tell me how that argument is not “logically valid.”
The thing you seem to assume is that we think religious beliefs automatically deserve some respect. I think Nzo is wicked awesome in his responses, and sharp, he doesn’t pussy-foot around, and I enjoyed reading his responses and was a little bit jealous that I can’t express myself as clearly and as close to the mark.
People – might or might not – deserve respect. Your beliefs in the imaginary are to be made fun of. There’s no proof for them and we’ve seen many, many, many circular arguments. “Nzo was mean” or “the collage fails to disprove god,” and how does any of that conclude that we should believe in your belief? It does not mean that we should, and it doesn’t even mean you should. If the only way you know how to argue a point is to fail reading comprehension and fail to understand logical fallacies, even elementary ones, and repeat what you’ve been fed from another site (it’s patently obvious you are not using original arguments or able to follow through on them intellectually), what else do you have? Prove god exists, or at minimum, what kindness we should reserve to protect your precious beliefs rather than mock or attempt to shatter them? I know you will not be convinced by this argument, the sites you read tell you that’s what we would say and how that only confirms you are right! Somehow, illogically.
The only criticism I would have for Nzo’s format is that, unlike teasing Santa Claus out of children, adults have these big Santa Claus clubs to retreat to and are not as subject to embarrassment.
Ad hominen retorts are logical errors.
Show me where, in my post, I used ad hominem. Do you even understand what ad hominem is? You DID know that there’s a difference between merely insulting someone, and using insults to try and disprove someone, right?
Show me. Show me where I used an insult to try and discredit someone’s character to refute a point. If you can’t, apologize for being an idiot.
There’s a difference between learning something on the internet and… learning? That’s what I’m getting here. If that’s not what you’re saying, your communication sucks; if that IS what you’re saying, you’re still wrong.
If you think you’re right, please explain how digital research differs from… whateverthef*ck you think ‘learning’ is.
There was no critique of my work. None that I could find, at any rate. I spew invective as I please, and in no way do my insults indicate a lack of substance.
You’d be dishonest to claim my posts lack substance.
Again with the ad-hom… you’re wrong. You’re SO wrong it’s stupid. Correct yourself, clown.
Show me where I’m wrong, show me how I didn’t back up what needed to be backed up, and for f*ck’s sake, don’t show me this crap:
TARD A) “god is gud” ME) “no he’s not”
If the original poster didn’t back any claim, I don’t have to.
Jesus was a historical figure.
No. He. Was. Not. No one has proved he existed. Not a single person. You can’t provide the proof, because it doesn’t exist. If it did, you wouldn’t be getting an argument from this side.
I will assume that you are claiming that God is an “imaginary friend” in which case you would be wrong. No major religion claims that God is an individual. It is only the religion of Atheism and other fundamentalist/literalist religions that make that mistaken claim.
You’re arguing on the plurality of something imaginary? Holy f*ck, you’re a clown.
Who cares if it’s one unicorn, or ten? They’re imaginary… they do not exist.
You stupid, stupid twit. I won’t even continue with this.
I wish you were an internet scholar, because you could smack yourself in the face with your monitor when you looked up the fallacy, researched my posts, and found you were inexcusably wrong.
HELP! SRVR MNKEHS!
[Is that about what you wanted? - Vorjack]
<3 Vorjack. I'd trust you with my life, and my posts. Thanks!
accusations, slanders and disgusting behaviour or [dis]respect for people in general
Nathan, at least, deserved the hell out of anything dished at him. Show me what he has done to earn respect, or any consideration beyond written spit, or admit that we had our reasons to treat him like the troll he is.
man i know, for sure, why not right. point i was trying to make, he’ll just take the flame and go back to his buddies and be like ‘see, i told you, that’s all atheists do’ and i can appreciate ‘the responsibility’ of flaming trollers on the internet. i just need to believe that there is a better and truly sincere better way that could actually chime in to someone and get them to hear/read differently.
Bah, meant the last reply above here. Oh well.
Drat. Only half of it… never mind.
i just need to believe that there is a better and truly sincere better way that could actually chime in to someone and get them to hear/read differently.
There’s a good reason people use mockery to change the status quo. As I mentioned above, one has to realize that being ignorant/stupid/selfish/bigoted/racist/etc. is unacceptable, or he/she won’t feel the need to change anything.
If you can find a way that measurably increases the chance that a fundie will listen/understand/learn, do let us know.
I agree Devysciple’s comment (satire?) was in poor taste and falls under your criteria. But otherwise I don’t really see a general disrespect, as in general disrespect of religious people. I see a few cases (the ones you mention) of specific disrespect and insults towards posters on this forum, but I think they earned it.
I do agree this is overall not a constructive discussion, but I don’t think the topic lends itself to that. There’s really nothing positive to be said about religious extremism, and few of us want to be conciliatory towoards it, quite the contrary. But if you’re looking for constructive discussion I think you’ll be perfectly able to find it in other posts or in the forums.
trj, thank you. i’m very new here so i have no idea where to look. but thank you.
Well, since I’m the one who has apparently missed all the fun, and who has been singled out as the bad person who threatened religious people, I’d like to say a few things regarding my previous post: No it was not satire. It was my sincere reaction to the collage that motivated this article. My words were harsh, and I don’t care if they rub anyone the wrong way. I did, however, not say that I will go out and kill religious zealots. I stated that part of me wished to do so. I did not explicitly state that some other part of me, my morals, would surely prevent me from doing this. It should also have become apparent from the subsequent answers that my main focus was not on the murderous rage, but on the deep dissatisfaction with human behaviour in general. And if people like Dominic or Peter feel addressed by an expression like ‘morons’, that’s their choice, not mine. So, in short, that is how I feel, I won’t take back anything I wrote. If some people behave like assholes, and other people who may or may not be affiliated with the aforementioned group feel insulted by my statements directed at that group, the problem is not mine. Don’t expect to come out of a poo-flinging contest with a clean shirt.
Just because “religion can inspire hatred and stupidity” does not mean that it does do that all the time. You and the other Atheists here make that simple logical error of jumping from a few examples of insufficient religious awareness to claiming that all those who profess a religion behave in the same way and that religion is the problem when in fact it is the misunderstanding and misuse of religion that is the problem.
Just because “religion can inspire hatred and stupidity” does not mean that it does do that all the time.
I seriously doubt anyone here would claim that. Nor do we claim all believers behave alike. That is your own – erroneous – interpretation of what we say. (BTW when you say “You and the other Atheists here” aren’t you making the same error of generalisation you object to?)
Also, re. “insufficient religious awareness”: That’s the standard excuse, isn’t it? Those haters have got it all wrong ’cause True Religion isn’t like that at all.
Wrong. Read your Bible. It’s chock full of passages that can be used to directly support racism, misogyny, homophobia, and general intolerance. Saying people “misunderstand and misuse religion” whenever their attitude and religious opinions don’t match some ideal of yours is simplistic and misleading. The Bible itself is a big part of the problem because it’s a morally dubious book whose ambiguity can be used to claim support for almost any kind of position (the same goes for the Quran, by the way). A message of hate can be as theologically justifiable as a message of love.
trj, I have to say, that is a great reply. and let me tell you why. mad respect!
Kodie, please take notice of his tact and poise, this is the style of communication that is an ideal and worthy reply, dealing with very touchy subjects that many will ‘knee-jerk’ upon reading, however, they are executed with such discrimination that it becons any person to stop and listen.
its full of fact, clear unbiased fact. no sarcasm, no hidden agenda, no condescension.
that is the clearest expression of pure communication that i’ve seen in this thread and we should all take notice and learn to do the same.
we should all take notice and learn to do the same.
Kodie is a regular poster here, and is well liked and respected for her views and posts. You? You’re a drive-by nutjob, apparently. Why do I say this? Let’s find out…
At no point have you established yourself as any kind of authority on how to post. At no point have you established yourself as any kind of authority on how to make people read a response without a knee-jerk reaction.
At no point have you established yourself as anything but someone so psychologically compromised that he thinks he has the authority to tell people how they should post.
Honestly, what kind of reaction do you think you would get?
There are plenty here that post more like trj than me, Kodie, Jabster, or Sunny. Do you know why they haven’t tried to tell us how to post?
Because they don’t require others to regard them as some kind of kindergarten teacher, from whom sage advice about learning and behavior comes.
Take your superiority complex elsewhere, as you’ll probably be getting quite a few “shove it” responses to this.
tact and poise, this is the style of communication that is an ideal and worthy reply
Thank you for the constructive criticism. Are you the hall monitor at your school?
;) flame accepted. doh!
Props for that.
“There are plenty here that post more like trj than me, Kodie, Jabster, or Sunny. Do you know why they haven’t tried to tell us how to post?”
I had to scratch my head at this and wonder what I did to be complimented and recognized.
Looking around I realize it was from that pig ignorant fuckwit named Dominic St Pierre.
Thanks Dom, it means so very much to me.
Nobody claimed that.
“Just because “religion can inspire hatred and stupidity” does not mean that it does do that all the time. You and the other Atheists here make that simple logical error…”
First nobody has said religion always causes hatred.
Second, it’s undeniable that there are huge numbers of examples where it does inspire hatred. That in and of itself makes this criticism of religion valid.
Third. I invite you to answers the famous Hitchens question. Name one good thing a religious person can do that an atheist can’t.
I’ve never heard Hitchens question before, its good. I would say quite a few things, they are mostly treated as invalid by an atheist perspective, but depending on the subjective ‘good’ by or for whom. answer: Pray for people’s needs, sickness, pain, disease, comfort etc. though an atheist may consider it invalid and useless, regardless, the gesture and feeling of sincere care is often received as a very good thing by the recipient of prayer, even if they didn’t ask for it. and once in a while it would seem that those prayers get answered. even in the simplest of ways as encouragement. sure an atheist ‘could’ pray for someone, but by definition, wouldn’t and shouldn’t.
another, cast out demons, perform miracles or heal someone. pretty much any manifestation of a ‘supernatural’ power. again, from an athiest perspective, none of those things exist and are therefore invalid. but, even if an atheist were to allow themselves to consider that such things are possible, they are incapable of trying, doing or manifesting such at all.
An atheist can wish someone well, or the best of luck, or anything at all, and fulfill the ‘sentiment’ portion of your response.
another, cast out demons, perform miracles or heal someone.
Are you serious? An atheist could call 911, or take someone to a doctor. Take a wild guess which one I’d put my money on.
Domimic: “answer: Pray for people’s needs, sickness, pain, disease, comfort etc.”
Atheists do the same thing except we call it hoping and wishing, and it is done just as compassionately and sincerely as any prayer ever uttered. (NZO beat me to it) More importantly, atheists have an innate understanding that just like prayer, a wish is incapable of producing the desired result so instead of thinking we have done a “good” thing and let it go at that, we are more apt to try to find a real way to help and become involved in that process.
As for demons, miracles, spiritual healing and BS like that, most atheists have too much integrity to defraud gullible people to make a quick buck like the charlatans all do.
And btw, you missed tithing which we would never do because we don’t believe in feeding and perpetuating myths.
I posted a thread in the forum that pretty much confirms that nobody actually does pray for someone they say they will pray for. So, a theist will outright lie about how much they care. It seems to comfort at least one or possibly both parties that something will be done about it, a phone call to the imaginary friend, who’ll never listen to his voicemail anyway, but it seems that call never or rarely happens.
Cast out demons? Are you shitting me? In the most civil tones you can summon such as to demonstrate proper rapport amongst discussioners, a theist can try to cure a behavioral or physical problem of some unusual seizure by chanting at it! Are you fucking real? Get ‘em to a ward, for crabcakes’ sake.
;) seriously, just sayin sistah
I think you misunderstood the question. We are talking about things that do actual good – things that actually positively influence the lives of people.
If I tell you that Unicornists can call upon the giant invisible unicorn who grants wishses to heal the sick, it seems unlikely you will consider that “good.” At best, it’s neutral. The same is true for prayer, casting out demons etc…
Plus I hope you aren’t arguing that atheists are incapable of offering “gestures and feelings of sincere care.”
sorry correction: in the religions depicted on this page, each of them have all of these principles at their roots. it seems that the group dishing out the same harsh judgement to the group of people that leave these principles of their religious belief is deserving of the same grouping and harsh judgement.
Nzo says: January 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm
“There’s a good reason people use mockery to change the status quo. As I mentioned above, one has to realize that being ignorant/stupid/selfish/bigoted/racist/etc. is unacceptable, or he/she won’t feel the need to change anything.
If you can find a way that measurably increases the chance that a fundie will listen/understand/learn, do let us know.”
Have you considered that your need to use ad hominem arguments is in response to you being “ignorant/stupid/selfish/bigoted/racist/etc” and that while you recognize that it is “unacceptable” y0u have no idea of how to correct it?
Atheism is a fundamentalist religion so your problem is really on how to increase the chance that you yourself will listen/understand/learn.
Many atheists, on this and other websites, abandoned their superstitious beliefs because they were tired of being mocked and decided to learn more about their religion so they could fight back. As they honestly examined the beliefs they had and realized how gnorant/stupid/selfish/bigoted/racist/etc their beliefs were, they left them behind.
So then, according to you, they’re lying?
Have you considered that you are just projecting your desires on other people?
Sunny Day, I really like this post.
I am a theist, however, exactly like the athiests you mention, I too have learned, particularly by my interactions with athiests and muslims and jews and others to abandon my superstitions, dogma’s, and other senseless or useless points of my belief. and it was only because I allowed myself to be wrong and to see/hear another perspective and qualify the evidence.
Though a fallacy may be committed, you may not infer that the one who committed it has the wrong conclusion, or that you have the right one.
Let’s just say you haven’t said anything other than call “fallacy” and god is real, and jump to a lot of conclusions yourself, meanwhile comprehending what’s been said poorly. I’d say, you have a knee-jerk response because your beliefs were insulted, and out of all the beliefs in all the land, only yours is correct. For a change of pace, I’m not going to ask you to provide proof that god is real, but what you think is wrong with all the other ones that leaves you with yours.
Atheism is not a “fundamentalist religion.” Declare it all you want, but you sound like you are repeating what you heard, and what’s your source for that, and how do you come to rely on this information? You can’t shield yourself, crying “fallacy fallacy blah blah blah” forever.
Peter, nzo, this is a good point “Have you considered that your need to use ad hominem arguments is in response to you being “ignorant/stupid/selfish/bigoted/racist/etc””
its classic, “Stop judging so that you will not be judged. Otherwise, you will be judged by the same standard you use to judge others. The standards you use for others will be applied to you.”
No, it’s not a good point. None of it is. I judge people on the content of their posts, and the implied intellect behind them, not the delivery method. I would gladly have someone judge me in that way.
unrelated to your reply, but i just wanted to say, its been a while and i miss gettin pwnd by atheists. its kinda like the feeling of getting a punch in the face while training. nzo, if i knew you lived near by, i’d say lets hit the put for a brew
I believe I’d pay for the first round.
Your post made me chuckle.
Here is a quick lesson on what an ad hominem is:
You are wrong because you are a fucking asshole.
This is a mere insult:
You are a fucking asshole.
Now that you know the difference please admit that your previous accusations of ad hominem were based on ignorance of what it actuall means.
“…We’re RIGHT to have a problem with religion, we’re RIGHT to blame religion…”
This is based on a false assumption. The problem isnt religion. Its men. Its people. Its the men who either created or warped an existing belief system into one that allowed and perhaps commanded one man to treat another as less than himself. Its the men who were too cowardice to stand up and say “This is why I believe youre (Wrong/deserve death/should have no rights/etc.)” and instead blame it on a deity, calling it Holy and Righteous. Its men who corrupt the minds of those either weaker in internal fortitude, downtrodden, hopeless, or mislead. Its men who twist the word of a peaceful sage into words of hate. In blaming religion we blame a tool much the same way we say guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat. By blaming the tool we miss the root cause…
A favorite quote of mine comes from a movie set in the time of the Crusades where “MEN” seeking fame, power, and fortune did unspeakable things to one another in the name of religion. (Kingdom of Heaven) A priest knight says: “I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What god desires is here [in the head] and here [in the heart] and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man……or not.”
People created a code to serve and justify their own evil desires. Lay the blame where it belongs…on our own weakness as men.
Hmm no, it’s actually religion.
So Bender…by your theory, where there is no religion there will be none of the evils religion perpetrates….Thats ignorance at its base. Even in a pure atheistic world people would still commit those very evils…just justified by some other dogma be it tribalism, nationalism or just plain greed.
When did I say that? Of course there would still be violence. But there would A LOT less violence. For instance, nobody crashes a plane into a building for “greed”. You need religion for that.
Well, if what I read of the conspiracy theories are true then 9/11 was a controlled demolition that Bush and Cheney were responsible for so Halliburton could reap the rewards of the following war. No, I dont believe that but evidently some think that money can motivate anything…and usually does. Tell me, who benefits from religion controlling people? Isnt it a select group of people with an authoritarian position? Isnt money generally involved? Those terrorist who crashed the planes into the WTC were fodder for those getting rich or more powerful above them. Religion was and still is a tool that an elite use to secure dominance over the weak…but its still the people responsible.
Those terrorist who crashed the planes into the WTC were fodder for those getting rich or more powerful above them.
You’re not making any sense. Bin Laden was a billionare and had nothing to gain economically with the 9/11 attacks. The terrorists obviously didn’t give a shit about money, since they were willing to die.
Religion was and still is a tool that an elite use to secure dominance over the weak…but its still the people responsible.
How the hell does that excuse religion?
Dont get me wrong…I dont believe in organized religion at all. Ive just had the opportunity to work near and study very closely how religion works from the inside. The little power struggles and the men who try to keep the zealots at bay and the men who use the devout to secure their own security and prosperity and knowing that MOST religions dont support the evils their leaders preach place the blame where it is due.
Dont get me wrong…I dont believe in organized religion at all.
Is there any other kind?
MOST religions dont support the evils their leaders preach place the blame where it is due.
Humans are malleable. They want shortcuts and they want comfort, and they have egos. Religion is an effective tool for that. So, blame religion, although we have said many times, it’s an inanimate abstract concept with no power of its own and has to be used by people to work, you seem to like to let it off the hook. Ignore it completely, it has nothing to do with the problems featured in the collage. I believe in the sincerity of belief of every person who used their non-existent god to justify violence, and how, because it’s under the safe haven of “religion,” which is still to blame, is culturally considered off-limits to criticism. Without religion, a high percent of those people would still find some way to hate, but they would have nowhere to hide. Without religion to back them up, they wouldn’t be able to find friends to agree with them in violent intentions. Without religion, people would rely on other people to solve their medical problems instead of god’s will. They wouldn’t be superstitious, and if they were insane and said scary things, people would not high-five them, but report them to the police or a hospital or just stay clear of them. They would have no friends who think the “higher power” justifies these things.
I think your limited examples of guns, pencils, and spoons, the way you liken religion to them, is simplistic and not thought through. The fact that you “don’t like” organized religion, what don’t you like about it, it hasn’t done anything to you, according to you.
Aside from the organizational aspect of religion are you aware of the contemplative/mystical/non-dual core religions and are you in agreement with that?
Please show me an example of a society which is truly secular and atheist (personality cults don’t count) where homophobia and violence and bigottry are rife. Or are you jusf speculating?
Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia just to name three.
PERSONALITY CULTS DON’T COUNT.
Please, stop with the ‘Atheists are murdererrrrrrrs!’.
1 – There is ample evidence that Stalin was a closet theist. big whoop
2 – Pol pot’s atrocities were based on the fact that he was a lunatic, totalitarian scumbag who wanted an agrarian utopia without actually, u know, feeding or otherwise taking care of his people.
3 – Mao was pretty much the same lunatic, totalitarinan scumbag but he was obsessed with industrialization and population growth.
Besides, evidence of not believing in god does not equal “everything they do is because they do not believe in god.”
And why personality cults CAN’T count? Are you willing to offer the same to religious believers?
Certainly, secular societies (thinking about scandinavian countries) are by far the countries with the highest level standards, and as a christian I’d rather live there than in…, hmm, let’s say Saudi Arabia (or Texas). And I’m tired with religious believers comparing atheists with Stalin and Mao (not to say with Hitler, who wasn’t even an atheist); heck… not even moderate socialists (who might or not be atheists) should be compared with them.
Without men (and women), what is religion?
You’re mistaken. Man is to blame for acts committed, yes, but so is religion. Many acts of hatred, violence, stupidity, etc could not exist without the catalyst of religion. Religion creates a unique mental/emotional framework in the mind that allows hatred that would not otherwise exist in the world. For example, hatred toward an “infidel,” “blasphemer,” “idolator,” and other concepts THAT ONLY EXIST AS CONSTRUCTS OF RELIGION. An atheist cannot hate someone for being any of those things, because they have no meaning to an atheist. But a religious person can have the deepest imaginable hatred for another human being because of those ideas have served for centuries as threats to enforce ignorance. So religion uniquely offers opportunities to divide us and engender hate in ways that could not exist without it. Hmm, that’s quite a smack to the nuts of your position, eh? And let’s keep going, shall we? Furthermore, religion allows excesses of action (based on the hatred it created) far beyond what a secular worldview allows. To an atheist, there is no justifiable reason to hate someone for “insulting” any religion, since we already know them to be myths. To a person who suffers from the cognitive shutdown that necessarily accompanies the acceptance of dogma, the concepts mentioned above (blasphemy, etc) not only go from complete non-significance to significance, they also get elevated to issues of THE GREATEST SIGNIFICANCE. Because, many religious people rationalize, IT IS THEIR GOD BEING INSULTED, not their silly superstitious beliefs or their own level of intelligence. Therefore, in defense of their god (who apparently is so fragile as to need extreme measures to defend him/her/it), no response is too wildly disproportionate as to be out of bounds. Their very god is being threatened, and as “good Christian soldiers” (a term I’ve always found repellent) it is unquestionably their DUTY to react with great anger, violence, etc to do whatever is necessary to kiss up -er, prove their faith- to their god and show how completely they’ve chugged the Kool-Aid. I believe I have demonstrated rather conclusively that certain conditions are created by the presence of religion in our society that are the genesis (heheh) of varieties of hate/violence that would not exist without it, and that the degree of extreme hate/violence that results is far beyond that which a secular humanist would be capable of.
So no, I don’t think I can justify allowing religion to go unchallenged. It is rather a moral imperative that I do not stand idly by and let religion continue to harm the progress of humanity. It is not acceptable for people to fail to mature in life to a minimum standard of adulthood, that of developing an internal moral compass. If you are so morally deficient that you need to have an imaginary parental disciplinarian figure in your life to impose morality upon you, you are in effect a child for the duration of your life. That is sad, unnecessary, and unacceptable.
Custador says: January 18, 2012 at 1:16 pm
In the interest of correcting a misconception about religion and science Id like to address that above. Much like modern science many ancient religions were a way of men trying to explain their observations of the world around them. Over time superstitions and tribal bigotry found themselves wound into the fabric of religion. (As an agnostic, I honestly feel that all atheist should take a basic theology course so they KNOW how religions develop rather than following the dogma of their beliefs.)
As to religion contributing nothing to human knowledge…some of the very first star charts were in fact religious in nature. This is especially true in non-judeao/christian religions. Most calendars were of a religious nature. The Bible refers to the earth being a “Circle” when science had the world figured as flat. A passage even refers to all of our parts being down in writing within the embryo (sound like DNA to you?). Many many religious writings touch on scientific principles. It wasnt until the dark ages that religion became a hindrance to science…Bash religion on its base as a tool to control other men but at least give some of the writers their just due as men TRYING to explain the human condition.
There’s quite a big difference between inventing something for narrative convenience despite not even having the means to observe it (which happens to be something you could kind of twist to sort of resemble the facts if you’re not too fussy about semantics) and building a testable hypothesis to explain something based on observations.
The Scientific Method wasnt developed until Aristotle and took hundreds of years of development until Roger Bacon (1214–1294), a Franciscan Monk finally set it to writing described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification. He recorded the way he had conducted his experiments in precise detail, perhaps with the idea that others could reproduce and independently test his results.
Much of modern science grew out of religion, or religious institutions.
Nonsense. Even if Roger Bacon was a monk, his methodology had nothing to do with religion. Saying that somehow that means religion contributes to science, is like saying moustaches increase our knowledge of the universe, since Einstein had one.
Einstein, of course, was a religionist who followed a non-dual, contemplative religious path.
No he wasn’t: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/14/einstein-letter-belief-in_n_101626.html
Only if you quote-mine him
Man, I’m getting tired of religious people trying to usurp Einstein’s fame.
Have a look at some of the Einstein quotes Christians don’t mention:
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.”
“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Einstein himself said that he followed a non-dual approach to religion and God.
“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties his knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.” Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
He would be right home with contemplative/mystical religionists of any religion just they are with each other.
Your question should be how can we know “that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties his knowledge, this feeling” He distinguishes between the phenomenal and the non-phenomenal. How to know the non-phenomenal is the entire purpose of religion. As Einstein said, it “is the core of the true religious sentiment”.
“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion…. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.”
You’ve disproved yourself with your own quote. Einstein is saying, pretty unambiguously:
“I have a very strong sense of wonder, and so do religious people, but that’s the only similarity between us”.
If a sense of wonder is the only similarity, then one of the differences must necessarily be that they believe in God and he doesn’t.
You’re also ignoring the fact that science talks about a lot of things that are not tangible yet, while working very hard to find ways to make them tangible. In the process of doing so, God’s supernatural lebensraum has been made smaller and smaller. Every previously “non-tangible” thing that science has made tangible was previously explained by religionists as “Because God”. Their record so far is 100% wrong – Not exactly something I want to put faith in.
No religion at its core postulates an individual God. All you Atheists who whine about an individual God, a personal God argue only the peripheral fundamentalist/literalist sects. You do not argue with the main core of the world’s religions.
Lolwut?! I could give a crap what form religion postulates its Gods in, frankly. It’s an irrelevant distraction from the discussion.
Sure, if your definition of religion is feeling some sense of awe and wonder and mystery and the will to explore the unknown, then Einstein was deeply religious. That’s a rather blurry and uncommon definition of religion, though.
@ Peter, re: your posts in this sub-thread.
excellent. I agree wholeheartedly.
@trj re: “That’s a rather blurry and uncommon definition of religion, though.”
indeed it is, and in agreeing with Peter and Einstein in this sub thread, i think its worthy of adding serious contemplative credibility to the common theist’s retort that ‘thats not what is at the core of religion’
I tried earlier to herald a cry toward activism against fundamentalism in all of its expressions. even citing some proof that religiosity is scientifically proven to bring less violence approval, less psychological aggression and less intimate partner violence. where the evidence shows that fundamentalism is key to adding more approval of violence, psychological aggression and intimate partner violence.
…Despite religious organisations attempting to crush them…
Much like modern science many ancient religions were a way of men trying to explain their observations of the world around them. Over time superstitions and tribal bigotry found themselves wound into the fabric of religion.
You’re romantisizing things quite a bit. Religion wasn’t some detached method of observation or a set of pure ideas which over time got contaminated with superstition and tribal bigotry. Those things were there from the start, forming the very basis of the religious ideas.
Youve made a study of theology and primitive religions in isolated society? I assure you, Im not romanticizing. Take god out of most primitive religions and youll see that the belief system is just as I described,
If I remove god/gods from religion then it’s no longer religion.
It’s the belief in a higher power, the deity, that makes religion a special case. You can’t criticize the people nor their beliefs because only god can judge them, and moreover, you can’t criticize one person’s religion or another person will try to make you be nice. However, they tend to judge because they are so sure. That’s how it works for them.
The bible and other holy books seem to have dozens of passages dealing with how to self-select, and how to empower oneself against disbelievers, and makes up horseshit about disbelievers, as a selling point to its relevance and veracity. It’s that there’s a god, who can see you and you can’t see it, and for example, in the US, in court or other official business, to swear to god with your hand on the holy bible is a magical ritual that changes what you say from possibly true to absolutely insured by god.
Many aspects of our culture tend to lean towards religion, but not as far. Red Sox fans, for example. Yankees baseball is equally valid, and some say better. Not a lot of people in Boston would like to hear it, and some might physically attack you for it.
“Religion wasn’t some detached method of observation or a set of pure ideas which over time got contaminated with superstition and tribal bigotry. Those things were there from the start, forming the very basis of the religious ideas.”
And you know this how????
Religion arise in response to intuitions of man’s spiritual nature.
You answered your own question with an ad hom fallacy. Tsk. Tsk.
The answer is to develop other meanings of knowing in addition to the mathematical/logical ones that Atheists depend on.
You fantastically stupid twit. You cannot utter the words “ad hom(inem)” again until you figure out what the f*ck it means. Take your keyboard, and smash it against your face until you understand that you have absolutely no clue what the definition of the phrase is.
You’re a moron because you dismissed someone’s claim with some hand-waving, then posited your own half-baked claim that could be dismissed in the exact same way you just dismissed the other.
**You can’t sound smart if you don’t know the definition(s) of the word(s) you’re using.
I know this because humans have always interpreted the world according to their own skewed perception. We anthropomorphize, we invent explanations that appeal to our emotions, we think up invisible spirits or forces whenever we don’t know the reason for something, we have confirmation bias, we see ourselves as incredibly important and interpret things accordingly.
You really think those factors didn’t shape religion from the start? Hell, you yourself readily claim the eixtence of some spiritual nature without the slightest shred of evidence. Doesn’t seem like detached observation to me.
eixtence -> existence
There is plenty of evidence for spiritual natures but Atheists are not using or cannot use the methods to know those natures.
Well then stop hiding it trot out the evidence.
“Atheists are not using or cannot use the methods to know those natures.”
Oh. I see you have your excuses already prepared for why you don’t have the evidence.
Why did you bother posting again?
Please provide this alleged evidence.
Oh geez, don’t you understand – we won’t understand the evidence because we cannot do the methods! Peter just outsmarted everyone here and we’re persecuting him because atheists aspire to Stalin and Pol Pot.
Bullshit. Religions arise because humans have evolved to be curious and need to feel like they have answers. Six thousand years ago “Why are we here?” could only really be explained by “Magic sky-man did it” – But it’s not six thousand years ago, it’s today. Time to move on.
God or the ‘magic sky-man” if you prefer is not an individuated entity. The ancients knew that. The contemplatives/mystics of today know it. The only people who don’t know it are the literalists such as Atheists.
As for moving on, modern science is essentially rediscovering what the ancients already knew. Nothing that modern science has come up with invalidates the knowledge of the ancients.
Show me a working ancient space station, starship, AI computer, transporter, or computer with 1trillion ghz. You know, since we’re just “rediscovering” what the ancients already knew, and nothing we find out will EVER invalidate their knowledge.
“Nothing that modern science has come up with invalidates the knowledge of the ancients.”
You mean science has confirmed there IS a bowl of water over the sky?
OK, Nzo. In 1100 B.C. the Chinese invented the first analog computer. The Greeks were using a very sophisticated computer in 100 B.C. which suggests previous prototypes. By the 1100′s A.D., the Muslim were using computers, including the first programmable computer.
Indian and Mayan sources clearly space traveling thousands of years before Christ.
Oh…Kaaaay… You’ve been reading Erik Von Daniken, haven’t you? Just to point out the flaw in your argument I can see without even having to think about it, the Antikythera Mechanism (that would be the Greek “computer” from 100BC you mentioned) is essentially very basic clockwork. All that was required to build it was a knowledge of gearing; it’s not a “computer” in any sense of the word.
And to claim that the Mayans were space-faring (in between human sacrifices, worshiping funny-faced Gods and building pyramids) is patently absurd. I mean really, do you have any actual evidence for that position? No? Thought not.
Religion has contributed nothing to the sum of human knowledge, except to illustrate the depths to which people will sink in warping logic as they attempt to portray religion positively.
Star charts? You don’t get star charts from religion, you get them from science. If science was done under the auspices of religion, it was still the science that yielded the knowledge. Any religion subsequently added to the scientific knowledge could only serve to make interpretations less accurate and diminish the understanding we could have gained from it. Hmm, that’s unless god came down and gave us start charts personally, or someone had a religious vision that completely described the stars as accurately as scientific observation did. Mmm, nope, that didn’t happen.
As far as religion being close to the right answers here and there, that just flinging shit at the wall long enough that some of it sticks. Another word for such ventures of uninformed opinion would “guesses.” Some guess are correct, but many more -especially in the case of religion- are not only wrong, but laughably wrong to the extent that they clearly contradict known facts. So religion, as always, is not a useful tool for understanding the world around us. It is in its best moments a poor sister to science, just spitballing around for truth with haphazard guesses that make no genuine attempt to understand facts. But then of course those failed guesses become codified as “the word of god,” making them “sacred” to idiots. Which of course actively holds back human progress by means of enforced ignorance, with the stakes being your eternal destination, and what it shall be, based on how much ignorance you can eagerly swallow.
Shakespeare said ‘God has given you one face (identity) and you make yourself another’.
And this is the whole of mankind’s quandary summed up nicely. (Gen 1:26)
Do explain. Preferably in English, instead of JCese.
You wouldn’t be able to understand it.
I see you don’t understand it either.
You don’t seem to understand well-written, to-the-point responses, as you still attempt to sound smart by saying my insults are “ad hom”, implying that I’m fallaciously using a verbal attack against you as the basis for my refutations.
What the f*ck chance do you have of understanding JC’s rhetoric?
And Confuscious say: “Man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day.”
Hahahahaha! That was worth reading this whole thread for! :-D
Keith, Oh how very wrong you are…star gazing and celestial map making is a bogus example. It was a way to attempt to predict harvest time, seasonal herd migration and/or seafaring peoples means of way-finding.
It was not a sort of ancient religion side project, a sort of tribal workshop titled “what the hell are all those flashy things at night?”
In fact, if you really want to muddy the waters, ancient religion seemed pretty ok with the whole ‘destruction of entire villages if not outright genocide of competing peoples/tribes thing’. To use them as an example of “but…but religion gave birth to science” is rediculous on its face.
Better yet, how far do you think science was set back with the destruction of the Library of Alexandria?
Celestial map making was due to attempts to understand the messages/codes of the universe.
You should not be too eager to talk about destruction and genocide when the three most vile Atheists of recent times – Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Pol Pot – killed tens of millions of people. Perhaps Atheism should be banned.
As for the Library of Alexandrea, there are several versions of how it was destroyed. Of the four usual explanations, four are due to war and only one suggest collateral damage as a result of a suppression of Paganism. Even in the last suppression scenario, it is unclear whether there were any books in the library at that time of the destruction of the temple.
Provide a link between atheism and those dictators that doesn’t sound like, “all bald people are murderers and rapists, because they have no hair”.
They were self-declared Atheists.
Atheism doesn’t have any dogmas or tenets attached to it. It’s simply a philosophical stance on one area – it’s simply a lack of belief in a deity. You can’t kill in the name of it. Equating atheism with those horrible atrocities would be like pointing out that as Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao didn’t believe in the Loch Ness Monster, the lack of the belief in the Loch Ness Monster was a contributing factor in their crimes.
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were totalitarian dictators who were trying to consolidate power by eliminating their political and cultural enemies. That isn’t intrinsic with a atheistic philosophical stance.
Peter, listen very carefully and try to understand: Correlation is not causation. Their atheism was irrelevant to the fact that they were murderous dictators, and once again, they were the objects of personality cults. That’s not really atheism, is it?
Nobody kills in the name of atheism. Lots of people kill in the name of religion. That’s the difference.
Peter, dear Peter … now everybody has been smacking you down, dare I say showing you up, because of your somewhat pathetic arguments – I was thinking to use ridiculous, stupid, ignorant maybe even just plain stupid arguments but I settled on pathetic as that seems most appropriate in your case.
Personally I really can’t be bothered with that and would rather just say you’re a bit of a thick twat who couldn’t argue his way out of a paper bag if his life depended on it … hope that helps and I’ll pray for you.
Sorry for the double post above. Got excited to see the ‘reply’ button and got over zealous hitting ‘enter’….lol
Don’t worry, Teh Srvr Munkehs spotted it and asked me to fix it for you :-p
A thought experiment (sorry, this will be long) based on the whole atheism vs. religion body count.
Lets say there is a disease. This disease has no pathophysiology, no discernable symptoms and otherwise is unnoticable except if one admits to having it. It is contagious.
A certain group of ‘experts’ contend that the disease is real, has side effects and must be spread. They provide documentation that lists all sorts horrible symptoms with some good side effects. The documentation is morally ambiguous at best; it says all who do not have the disease have been justifibly killed in the past, maybe we should kill them now/maybe not: the disease stricken are persecuted and should fight back/maybe not: someone afflicted with a different disease should be killed/maybe just try to convince them etc., etc.
Some people take the documentation and ‘experts’ seriously. They proudly proclaim that because of the disease they go apeshit killing people who won’t contract the disease willingly. Some attempt to destroy entire cultures and use the documentation as proof to abuse, rape and otherwise commit despicable acts.
Now, as a counter. A bunch of people who don’t have the disease go apeshit killing people for other stated reasons. These may include a promised better-way-of-life, greed, power etc., etc.
Do we now establish that the unafflicted people kill, rape and destroy because they do not have the disease?
That is hilarious. But don’t expect any of the Atheists here to get its point because they don’t recognize that they have yet another disease, perhaps a mutation of the first disease
You glossed over the “some good side effects” aspect of the first disease. These “side effects” could have provided the the counter group (and our current Atheists in this forum) with an antidote.
You are so over your head its silly.
My point was about the religion vs. atheism body count argument. It was the fact that there has NEVER BEEN any group of people, nationality, culture or etc. that has stated their motives were do to atheism. No scholar has ever made the case that any historical violence WAS DO SPECIFICALLY TO ATHEISM.
Yet there is AMPLE evidence for the religious justification of death and destruction.
As for my analogy…here’s a hint for you: THERE IS NO FUCKING DISEASE!
Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. These leaders were all avowed Atheists. Their countries were based on Atheism. And they each murdered millions of their citizens to advance their Atheism.
You seem to be confusing religion with politics. Religion used as an excuse to cement or expand political power is a misuse of religion. You are arguing against the misuse of religion not against religion itself.
Another element is literalist/fundamentalist people, you know, like Atheists, who cannot grasp the subtleties of religion and therefore are left with a caricature of religion, tend to have a literalist view of scripture and God, assigning their own stunted values to religion, in effect, changing religion to suit their own small natures. Atheism’s argument is only with other fundamemtalists/literalists. It is an amusing side show – much like watching a dog chasing its own tail.
Peter: you’re quite pigheaded aren’t you…
Logical fallacy: Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness):
Continuing to assert something after everyone else thinks it is well enough disproved. For example, there are still Flat Earthers.
Starting a rebuttal with an ad hom loses credibility for the rebuttal.
That Atheists disagree with the idea of avowedly Atheist states or don’t want to recognize that they existed does not mean those states didn’t exist.
HOLY CRAP! Peter used the phrase “Ad Hom” in the correct context! Quite possibly for the first time in his entire life!
TO THE FAINTING COUCH! *swoons*
@peter: That would be true if the ‘ad hom’ statement was unsupported by fact. In this case, however, you have continued to erroneously conflate atheism with the atrocities of communism. You’ve been shown that is a fallacy. You pigheadedly continue to assert it. My statement was not ad hominum, just fact.
Please stop using that phrase until you learn what it means. You are an ignorant lying fuck.
Atheists, who cannot grasp the subtleties of religion and therefore are left with a caricature of religion, tend to have a literalist view of scripture and God, assigning their own stunted values to religion, in effect, changing religion to suit their own small natures. Atheism’s argument is only with other fundamemtalists/literalists.
Your caricature of atheism, and consequent criticism of atheists is filled with DURR. No, we haven’t ignored your fluffy mystical version; yes, we reject it; yes, we know you think you’re special; no, you aren’t special.
1) Yes, they were athiests. Not sure how one “avows” being atheist, though. I suspect you’re experiencing a semantic fail.
2) No, their countries were not based on atheism. They were based on personality cults.
3) No, their people were not atheists. They worshiped their respective personality cults.
4) Yes, they murdered a lot of people.
5) No, they didn’t do it to “advance their atheism”. I don’t even know what that means – How does one “advance atheism”? Presumably the same way one would “advance not collecting stamps”?
(1) logical fallacy of equivocation.
(2), (3), (4), (5) factually wrong.
1) Contains no logical fallacy whatsoever and actually agrees with your original point. You dick. 4) Agrees with your original point, and you’re now claiming it’s wrong. You dick. 2), 3), 4) and 5) All factually correct. You dick.
It is not being “special” when millions of others are like me.
I understand that Atheists are not capable of engaging the core practices of religion which, in turn, makes them feel inadequate. But trying to claim that religion is false, as a means of covering up that inadequacy, doesn’t work. The inadequacy doesn’t go away and now the Atheist is conscious of living a life of self-deception.
Peter, are you don trolling now? Because, really, you keep using words you don’t understand, you keep making ridiculous assertions, and it should be very obvious that you’re not welcome here. So… Why are you here? Are you getting a thrill out of “witnessing” to us? Because, pro tip: You don’t make converts by pissing people off with your own stupidity.
You keep saying that, but it’s not true. You don’t back up your statements with any evidence, you just keep saying them, but that doesn’t make what you say true.
I wish I had read this comment first before responding to the one above.
“Their countries were based on Atheism. And they each murdered millions of their citizens to advance their Atheism.”
I don’t think you have studied Communist history to a great deal, if at all. Atheism is not a political belief. Communism on the other hand, is a political belief. The economic system and state system were based on a Communist political belief. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a deity. Arguing that they were based upon atheism makes no sense. For example: did a lack of a belief in a deity lead Communist officials to decide to adopt the Five Year Plan in order to rapidly increase industrialisation of the Soviet Union based upon a the economic theory of productive forces? No it didn’t. You simply cannot make a link between the manner in which a country’s economic and political system are designed with atheism. Atheism is a response to one question, namely: “Do you believe in a god(s)/deity(s)?”. Atheism is a lack of a belief, so it goes without saying that its response is “no”. You can’t draw a political system from that. So saying that they were ‘atheist countries’ is a meaningless statement.
And they never murdered people to advance their atheism. They murdered people because they were opposed to the totalitarian Communist state. There’s a big difference. Communists couldn’t have competition in terms of ideology. Yes, they murdered and persecuted religious people, but they also murdered capitalists, monarchists, social democrats, ethnic nationalists, ethnic and social minorities, left-wing reformists, Communists who were not towing the party line and other people who did not absorb their ideology in the manner they would have liked to have seen. They didn’t solely murder because they were anti-religious (and I might like to say that being anti-religious is not a necessary facet of being an atheist), but rather they eliminated anyone who posed a threat to their aims of fully indoctrinating the society. Many other religious leaders have done the same thing as well. In fact in the USSR, whilst the state did persecute religious officials, they did at some points use them as tools of the Communist regimes.
“You are arguing against the misuse of religion not against religion itself.”
I can do both actually.
“Atheism is not a political belief. Communism on the other hand, is a political belief. The economic system and state system were based on a Communist political belief. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a deity. Arguing that they were based upon atheism makes no sense.”
Those countries were explicitly Atheist.
“They murdered people because they were opposed to the totalitarian Communist state. ”
They were totalitarian Communists states. Do you ever read what you write before embarrassing yourself by posting it.
The irony of this post is incredible, Peter. The dictators you mentioned. They murdered people. Because those people were opposed. To the totalitarian Communist states. That those dictators ruled over. Does that help your epic reading comprehension fail any, or would you like it in single syllable words?
You know so little. Communism IS a religion. The only real difference is that the state replaces god(s). See: “Why I am not a Communist” by Bertrand Russell
Just to nitpick, ha. A lot of Communist systems used indoctrination techniques similar to those used by religions, but I don’t think we should water down the term just to critique the indoctrination processes in religion.
On a brief search of the various definitions of religion, they all point to a supernatural agency as being a necessary part of them. The Communist systems in China and the USSR rejected supernatural agencies.
Plus I’d like to point out that Communism at its core does not need a cult of the personality or a worship of the state.
There are many angles to criticism Communism from, but sadly this isn’t one of them. This may feel like I’m nitpicking, but I think that when people try to expand the definition of religion, it can be a double-edged sword as the same point could be used to incorrectly criticise secularism, humanism, capitalism or any other stance.
We should call them what they are. So I think we should stick to not incorrectly referring to Communism as a religion.
I guess that depends on the criteria used to analyze communism. Perhaps I should have suggested an allegorical correlation, however, these are all strongly comparative features:
Communism has all the trappings of an organized religion: its messiahs and saints—Marx, Engels and Lenin; its sacred scriptures—the writings of these men; a band of apostles and prophets—the Communist Party; an elect nation—the Russian (or Chinese) people; sin—defined as rejecting communism; conversion—becoming a communist; and above all faith—that complete trust one must have in the truth of communism’s holy dogmas.
I’d call communism a philosophy; it does have that much in common with religion. And any philosophy which is adhered to fanatically and defended against all criticism is functionally indistinguishable from a religion.
One might also lump capitalism under this aegis.
Theory_of_I says, “Communism has all the trappings of an organized religion…messiahs and saints…sacred scriptures…a band of apostles and prophets…an elect nation…sin…faith.”
Atheism is a religion that follows the Negative Theology path variously known as known variously as the Via Negativa path of Roman Catholicism; the Jnana Yoga path of Hinduism; the Lahoot Salbi path of Islam, found principally the Shia and Sufi paths; the Ein-sof aspect of Judaism plus Buddhism and Taoism or Daoism.
As a religion Atheism has its founding father (Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach) , saints and adepts, belief system and faith, creed, rituals, congregations and communion, holy days, scriptures, witnessing and proselytizing, rites of passage, and symbols.
It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck (fundamentalist, of course), swims like a duck and waddles like a duck. It is a duck.
You actually revel in your ignorance, don’t you? I mean, there’s no way you can back up a single thing you’ve said here, but dammit you’ll say it anyway. Do you enjoy looking this stupid in front of people? Honestly, I’d love to know.
Atheism is a religion that follows the Negative Theology path variously known as known variously as the Via Negativa path of Roman Catholicism; the Jnana Yoga path of Hinduism; the Lahoot Salbi path of Islam, found principally the Shia and Sufi paths; the Ein-sof aspect of Judaism plus Buddhism and Taoism or Daoism.
I looked some of that up, but my eyes glazed over. They all seem to be philosophical systems that still require a God or higher power or something, just that instead of attributing specific characteristics to him/her/it describe it only in terms of what they theoretically _aren’t_. The difference with basic atheism is that there is no need to say anything at all – there isn’t anything to say something about, or else it is so unknowable that nothing at all can be said about it, whether positive or negative attributes.
As a religion Atheism has its founding father (Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach)
Never heard of them.
…saints and adepts,
Who? I don’t know of anyone I’d celebrate for being adept at not believing in something.
…belief system and faith
Say what? Faith is the evidence of things unseen, apparently, or translated into “I think something is so but have no proof.” Failure to believe something without proof IS NOT FAITH. By definition.
Creed? rituals? Wanna describe them?
…congregations and communion,
There is no place that one must go every week in order to fulfil the requirement of atheism. You can be as social or anti-social as you want.
…holy days, scriptures,
Did someone announce an atheist holiday of which I am unaware? ’cause I could sure use an extra holiday in about August. No holy book or compulsory reading, no guidebook for being a good atheist, given taht all you need to do is not believe in god. There’s no such thing as doing that wrong.
…witnessing and proselytizing,
I could potentially pay this one, if one ignores the fact that atheists are generally more concerned with the stupid things done in the name of religion that affect everyone in society than in ‘converting’ people per se.
…rites of passage, and symbols.
Again, what??? What are these rites of passage? I could pay the red A symbol, but again, there’s no requirement to revere it.
It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck (fundamentalist, of course), swims like a duck and waddles like a duck. It is a duck.
I think you’re trying to see a duck in a cloud pattern and failing miserably.
Ooh, the inadvertent power of misused tags… Srvr Mnkys?
Mogg broke the internets!
Not broken, just leaning a bit to the right. If I’d made the internet all Comic Sans, now, that would be broken.
It gives the thread that charming, homespun look.
Russell was an effete upper class snob. The logical mistakes littering his writings would have gotten him a failing grade in any 1st year philosophy course.
Atheism is littered with, indeed depends upon factual or logical errors, so it is no wonder that people like you promote Russell as an example worthy of emulation.
You don’t understand logic. You don’t understand philosophy. You argue against things you don’t understand. You look very, very stupid. Why don’t you just fuck off now, Peter?
Just as an FYI, this is an example of starting your comment with an Argumentum Ad Hominem, or “Ad Hom”, as you’ve been calling them:
“Russell was an effete upper class snob.”
And this is an example of a fallacious assertion:
“The logical mistakes littering his writings would have gotten him [Russell] a failing grade in any 1st year philosophy course.”
I might take half an hour later to go through all of your posts and point out where you’ve unwittingly done things that you’ve falsely accused other people of. That could be fun.
It’s so cute when they pretend to be an authority on something.
Did I say cute? I meant nauseous.
Atheism for religionist dummies:
‘A’ = ‘without’ ‘theism’ = ‘belief in God’
Now, say it slowly, A + theism……. A~theism……. Atheism…… = Without + belief + in + God…… Without belief in God! See, not really THAT hard is it?
There ya go, Pete – twist and shout your way out of that.
Theory_of_I , it is the belief system that Atheism (without a belief in God) depends upon that contains logical and /or factual errors. Atheism, is, in effect, a circular argument. It goes round and round just like a dog chasing its tail.
By the way, your take on Atheism is only one of many.
Wow, after all this you still don’t know what atheism is. I guess you probably think you understand what you’ve been taught that it is and you’re unwilling to listen to people who actually know what it is because we are atheists.
@Peter: “…it is the belief system that Atheism (without a belief in God) depends upon that contains logical and /or factual errors. Atheism, is, in effect, a circular argument. It goes round and round just like a dog chasing its tail.”
Atheism equals a system of belief? How stupidly nonsensical can you be? A false analogy centered on a pious lie. A lexicologist would laugh in your face and tell you what a ridiculous statement that is. Obviously, you’re not dyslexic, you’re fake-lexic. Just for amusement, please describe this ‘system’
“By the way, your take on Atheism is only one of many.”
Provide your list of ‘many’ then – you can leave Agnostic and Apathetic out – and define the variants.
Seriously, you’re a know-nothing idiot.
The ad hom is the is last resort of the Atheist who cannot defend (or even articulate) his/her position.
Your posts have so far been without content. Falsely asserting things you believe many times is not an “argument.” There’s no reason to just hand you the credibility you think you deserve, and not just straight to mocking you. You haven’t backed up one thing you say, you complain a lot for no reason, and you lie.
Trj’s response to you there wasn’t an argumentum ad hominem, because it made no attempt to address any issue other than the fact that you’re a know-nothing idiot. And he’s right, you really are a know-nothing idiot.
Atheists do not believe in any supernatural being or magical workings. It is not a political movement except in cases to keep religion out of government (and some atheists are apathetic), and perhaps (but not necessarily) to support civil rights of human beings who are at risk of being marginalized at the very least, and physically harmed at the worst, just because someone’s religious beliefs uphold their cause, either independently or to involve the government infringing on the rights of its citizens.
It is not communism. Communists who may be atheists are just as much susceptible to the cult of personality as, say, the pope. That is not what atheism is, and is not the direct result of not believing in mystical or magical authorities or cosmic designers. There is no evidence of such a being or beings, and you have provided nothing but nonsense so far regarding what you believe about the “contemplative/mystical” bullshit, either/or what you believe about atheists. We’ve moved beyond having to be polite with you because you seem to need to and invite being beaten by the clue stick. You’re incapable of anything but logical errors and passing forth any lies you read by someone before you. Think about the things you say before you say them again. It doesn’t seem like you have the intellectual depth to support your ironic views that atheists don’t have the capability of grasping your horseshit.
No, calling you an idiot is not a last resort. It is merely a succinct summary of your mental capabilities concerning logic and evidence. I call you an idiot because practically every single one of your statements have demonstrated idiotic reasoning.
Normally I’d make an effort to point out where I think you’re wrong, but you display all the characteristics of being a know-nothing who think he knows everything, which tells me arguing with you is a waste of time. And there’s really no need, is there? You make one extraordinary claim after another (even babbling about spacefaring Mayans, for fuck’s sake), but you are unable to back any of them up with evidence or logic. I don’t even need to engage in a discussion with you to show how ludicrous your claims are; you do that all on your own.
BTW, I just remembered I did recently post this comment which addresses your unsupported, idiotic claim that communist regimes do their killing in the name of atheism.
Look up “The Dunning-Kruger effect” Peter. You’re a prime example of the far left side of it.
To append the above:
You’re in over your head. While you’re perfectly capable of reading the definition of “ad hominem”, you fail the comprehension to understand it.
The forum you’ve chosen to post on contains people whose average intellect so far exceeds your own, that you’re not able to reach the mud on our playing field. Bugs take more effort to squash than you do.
You’re uneducated, stupid, delusional, and proud of it.
Kodie, Custador and trj – three people whose debating skills consist of denial, injective and repetition of their arguments that have been shown to be false. Hmmmm. Not too impressive.
injective World English Dictionary injection (ɪnˈdʒɛkʃən) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]— n 1. fluid injected into the body, esp for medicinal purposes 2. something injected 3. the act of injecting 4. a. the act or process of introducing fluid under pressure, such as fuel into the combustion chamber of an engine b. ( as modifier ): injection moulding 5. maths surjection See also bijection a function or mapping for which f( x ) = f( y ) only if x = y
injective World English Dictionary injection (ɪnˈdʒɛkʃən) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n 1. fluid injected into the body, esp for medicinal purposes 2. something injected 3. the act of injecting 4. a. the act or process of introducing fluid under pressure, such as fuel into the combustion chamber of an engine b. ( as modifier ): injection moulding 5. maths surjection See also bijection a function or mapping for which f( x ) = f( y ) only if x = y
I’m sure I do that all the time!
Strange, I must have missed where you actually showed any of our arguments to be false. And by “show” I don’t mean just asserting you’re right and we’re wrong, which seems to be be your standard method of argumentation. Well, that and whining about ad hominem attacks – which you don’t understand the definition of, and which you employ yourself when it suits you.
So where exactly in the atheist bible did it state that we should starve our farmers to death, or to execute all suspected political dissidents?
In the section where it discusses morality and points out that because Atheism believes in no Absolutes, Atheists are capable only of a utilitarian morality. They are free to do whatever they want, remembering, of course, that some other Atheist has the same right to covet they have acquired.
…And now the stupid bastard thinks he knows what utilitarian ethics are, but (surprise surprise) really doesn’t…
I don’t read this page…ever. Just saw it on a fb post and found it interesting. I subsequently read the posts and found the conversation interesting as well and sometimes amusing. There’s a couple funny f***ers on here! Anyway, perhaps the simplest answer is ~ no one KNOWS anything and there’s no real way to find out so maybe we should all just agree to disagree, quit being hateful…because hate is really the problem regardless of where or how it’s taught. I will not even share MY beliefs with you because do they even matter to anyone else but me? The answer is a resounding NO!
Thanks for the excuse to not clean the garage and for the few laughs and food for thought!
We “know” that penicillin helps heal the sick.
We “know” that jet propulison allows us to travel faster and farther than imagined 200 years ago.
We “know” that we can now all have a library worth of information in our pockets at all times.
We “know” that travel to the moon is possible.
And we know that all of those things were not made possible by people who threw up their hands and said “no one knows anything.”
I respect your position and I thank you for not evangelising. That’s a refreshing approach around here, believe me! I disagree, though. There are plenty of things that we know; there are unalterable physical constants and laws in the universe that mean certain actions will always have certain results. Entropy and the conservation of linear momentum are the first examples to spring to mind of fairly simple concepts which are nevertheless known. If you want a slightly more complex example (that’s still not particularly complex), we know that for an object experiencing linear acceleration, S=UT+1/2AT^2. I don’t hate people who don’t know these things, and I don’t hate people who know them but don’t believe them. I pity the latter group. I pity their children more, though.
hmmmm….I was really talking about the existance or non-exisitance of God not physics and medicine ….but okay. It’s nice to branch out…good for you and your large craniums :)
The existence or non existence of god matters a great deal to the ones trying to pass laws based on their religious beliefs. I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree except the religious keep trying to pass laws based on their beliefs and strip away the rights of other human beings. Until they are willing to agree to disagree we have no choice but to fight back. In this case fighting back means exposing their hateful actions to the world.
Also, while we can’t (yet) rule out a supernatural being in general, we can rule out specific versions of supernatural beings simply through the process of ruling out the supernatural claims made on their behalf. For example, the Creationists version of God created the universe in a week, about six thousand years ago. Except the universe wasn’t created in a week, and it wasn’t created six thousand years ago. QED, the Creationist version of God does not exist.
Scripture is not intended to be taken literally. It is only fundamentalist/literalists sects such as the Creationists and Atheists that the Bible literally. Scriptural messages are given in metaphor, parable, allegory, etc.
The Divine is not defined by space and time and therefore is not presentable in literal language. Poetic language is used in an attempt to change the literal mindset and allow it to move beyond its self-imposed limits. In the case of the two groups mentioned above, they have failed to do this.
The creation story of Genesis is actually a comment on the chakra system the usage of which is necessary to attune oneself to the Divine.
Yes, Peter. You’re a moron. We get it. Hush now, let the grown-ups talk.
“The Divine is not defined by space and time and therefore is not presentable in literal language.”
If this is true then religion has no functional purpose.
Plus, religion plays a key role in the debate about what’s knowable. If every time we reach an unknown we say: “we don’t know that, so it must be god behind it,” we never find actual answers to questions.
While my atheism is rooted in the lack of evidence for god(s), I think we can make a strong argument that even the god hypothesis can suppress advancement.
Religiosity vs Fundamentalism!!!
fundamentalist: we don’t know that, so it must be god behind it. even further, and don’t ask questions.
Religiositer?: we don’t know that, there is an answer and god can assist us in figuring it out.
further, religiositer: there is an answer, even if it proves my previous beliefs absurd.
big difference between the two groups. Fundamentalism is close minded, it can’t be figured out and questioning the staples of their belief is blasphemy. this expression of faith is beligerent and instigates wars and right wing dogma.
religiosity, open minded, open to correction, able to think outside of the box and humble to receive reproof. this expression of faith is pliable, and considerate of all knowledge, encourages growth and reproof.
religiosity is able to coexist with other beliefs fundamentalism is not.
I don’t know who you’ve been talking to.
Ah, but finding answers that prove that your previous beliefs were absurd is a very common path to atheism, which even the moderately religious are warned about. There’s an inherent skew away from finding things out and accepting them.
religiosity, open minded, open to correction, able to think outside of the box and humble to receive reproof.
While your ability to receive reproof is remarkably rare from the religious folk here, you’re still making one huge mistake.
this expression of faith is pliable, and considerate of all knowledge, encourages growth and reproof.
Considerate of all “knowledge”. That’s the issue. Not everything you hear, or see, is useful knowledge beyond knowing that you have heard or seen it. For example:
C1 to C2) “Glory be, Rufus just got healed by the LORD JESUS HIMSELF” C2 to C3) “Rufus got healed by Jesus!”
The only thing a truly reasonable person can conclude, is that C1 said something crazy. That’s it. C2 seems to think there was actual knowledge gained in hearing C1 say that. Why?
A reasonable person would say “show me”, and probably require an arab-looking Jewish carpenter (skills need to be shown) that healed Rufus’ legs and arms, after they were amputated, can heal anyone that asks, walk on water, and turn water into wine, (why not?) just to start the preliminary investigation into the truth of the matter.
“Religiositer?: we don’t know that, there is an answer and god can assist us in figuring it out.”
How can one tell if god is helping or not?
Please provide your evidence god exists and therefore can help us figure out anything.
Science in its infinite wisdom currently believes the cosmogony of this universe to be a case of “First there was nothing. Then it exploded.” Not too convincing.
Come back when you get your phd’s in particle physics, observational astronomy and cosmology. Until then, STFU about subjects you obviously do not comprehend.
I’m sure the phd’s above couldn’t give a rat’s ass whether you find it ‘convincing’ or not.
Futhermore, i doubt any atheist here made the decision of unbelief simply because of the big bang.
Go back to being the ‘smartest guy at the bible study’ cause you just figured out that wikipedia has a big bang article.
//It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck (fundamentalist, of course), swims like a duck and waddles like a duck. It is a duck.//
Or a witch.
I could also show you tons of news where atheist kill people, hate people ect. You find people like that everywhere and of every kind. This doesn’t mean all Christians act like this. I also think the news likes to twist things to make them sound as radical as possible.
Atheists don’t generally kill people out of the sanctioned belief in the imaginary. They might hear voices, but you’d call that crazy, wouldn’t you?
Christians claim that being a christian somehow makes you more moral, or just all-around a better person. These people are doing things BECAUSE of the bible. Atheists have no similar forum to excuse hatred, murder, rape, etc.
It is the Atheist belief system, aka Bible, that enables them to practice only utilitarian morality and therefore are able to do whatever they need to in order to get whatever they want.
It is interesting to see how Atheists overgeneralize about religion and take its most misinformed (such Jim Jones) to be representative of all religion. It is an elementary logical error. And one that pervades the musings of virtually all Atheists.
Glad to see you’re not overgeneralising there.
Is there an atheist belief system now? No, there isn’t.
An atheist bible? No, there isn’t.
The cited examples in this post are people who acted terribly in the name of religion. They felt their religion called them to act this way.
Please cite an example of someone claiming they acted abhorrently because they felt atheism required them to?
Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh.
At least you didn’t add the good catholic boy to the usual list. These guys did what they did not because of their atheism, while they were nominally atheist they didn’t kill in the name of their non-god but in the name of a religious like ideology, they didn’t encourage a free examination of the fact but instead replaced the old religions with new ones centered around themselves. The example in the picture on the other hand involve people acting because of the way they interpret what they believe are direct orders from their god, and whether you like it or not your magic book has a lot of passages that can support that interpretation.
Jane, just as an FYI: In America, 10% of the general population are atheists. About 85% are Christian. In prison, however, just 2% are atheists and 97% are Christian.
Still feeling like atheists don’t have a right to criticise “Christian” morals?
(inb4 no true scotsman)
If atheist want to believe we came from dust go ahead. I will believe we came from God. In the end if I’m wrong I guess I will have nothing to lose I will just not exist anymore. If your wrong you go to hell for unbelief. I think I will believe in God, not dust thank you.
You’ll probably go to hell because you believe in the wrong god. Why do you think atheists think we came from dust if you believe your god created us out of dust? You have magical thinking out the bazoo, plus you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“You have magical thinking out the bazoo, plus you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Redundant. It is a logical error to believe that the more times you repeat something, the more likely it is to be believed. This is a common Atheist error. It is aptly named the’ argumentum ad nauseum’.
You have failed to define “transcendental” in any way that it’s distinct from “imaginary” or show evidence or proof of your claims. Pointing out perceived logical errors is not an adequate support to your claims, the ones you keep repeating, the ones you are nauseating us with. That you perceive logical errors without understanding them does demonstrate you to be stupid enough to call “stupid,” and calling you stupid does not say anything about the validity of your arguments, since you haven’t actually made any, nor supported them with evidence which we can discuss. It’s ok to call you stupid if you bear resemblance to it, and it’s ok to call your beliefs imaginary until you provide support for your claims in the form of evidence. If you want to say over and over again that your beliefs are transcendental and that atheists are incapable of the methods to achieve evidence, then you have nothing, and you will probably hear over and over again that you are stupid and your beliefs are imaginary. If you understood what those words meant the first time, nobody would say them to you again, but you keep trucking out your weakness and keep providing more evidence of your stupidity.
Better hope you gambled on the right god.
“If atheist want to believe we came from dust go ahead.”
I’m pretty sure it’s Christians that believe we came from dust … have you ever read your Bible – that’s why you’re going to hell!
If theists want not to be laughed at maybe they should stop making stupid strawman arguments. And can you please come up with some new material, this Pascal’s wager thing is really getting old.
Jane, if you want to believe that you (and we) came from God, then that’s fine. I won’t object nor will I try and stop you – I’ll even defend your right to believe that. I’m pretty sure that goes for all the other atheists here as well.
But if you try to have legislation passed that is based purely on your beliefs and that in any way reduces the rights of others or forces people to comply to a way of life that you say is based on what your beliefs tell you is the correct way to live, then I will object and I will try and stop you.
I can’t believe I missed a perfectly good opportunity for this.
Jane you ignorant slut!
Toes. Try to stay on them.
Just spent about 2 hours reading the original post and all the comments. Found it quite entertaining, guys. Haha. Maybe a few nutjobs here and there, but that’s what makes it interesting! So, not attacking anyone here, just curious. This post was made by an atheist? And I’m pretty sure every post in the collage was of the wrong- doings of Abrahamic religion-followers. So if the atheists on here hate religion because of these violences, what do you think of religions that encourage non-violence? (i.e Wicca, Buddhism, Unitarian, Universalism). Obviously you don’t believe in any of them since you’re Atheists, but I’m just wondering what comes to mind when you hear these names? I appreaciate to-the-point responses, and I generally enjoy hearing others opinions, but please no bashing or slandering.
What comes to mind are religions that do not go door to door talking about the good word. They do not try to change the laws to benefit them, and infringe on the rights of others. They do not bring up ‘the good lord’ or the jewish carpenter in every conversation.
Unitarians or Unitarian-Universalists are an Atheist sect. The only one to enjoy tax-free status in North America. And they make concerted efforts to proselytize in order to make money to support their club houses, oops, excuse me, churches.
Buddhists also seek converts.
I don’t know too much about Wicca but you are wrong in at least 2 out of 3 of your opinions
Orly? How exactly do Buddhists seek converts? I have never, ever seen a buddhist try to convince anyone of anything unless they were inquired first. In fact, their religion *demands* they do not do so unless asked first. It’s the whole point of the gig.
(Then again, Christians are also supposed to pray quietly, so for all I know there might be proselytizing buddhists out there – though I bet they’re less obnoxious than abrahamic religions. People are awful at following their own books/rules.)
Wicca as far as I know do not force their brand of silliness on anyone, either. Nor do Taoists.
Not all of the examples in the collage were of violence. Parents who pray for their children to get well instead of get them medical care is bad. Some of those religions you mention, or the practioners, I should say, make mistakes such as this: anti-vaccinations, alternative herbs and crushed up endangered animals, chiropactics, healing chants, sweat lodges, magnets, and homeopathy, to name a few. Some of these can be actively dangerous, and some are harmful if used in place of scientific medical research as prayer would be.
Here is a chart that I found online a while ago, it’s an interactive chart on the effectiveness of popular supplements you might use for various health issues. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/snake-oil-supplements/ Not all natural remedies are bad, just that a lot of them are more bullshit than you wanted them to be, and if you have serious heart condition, for example, fish oil by itself isn’t going to cut it.
@Kodie, Well, not all of them were direct violence, true, but in not doing anything, it’s child neglect and endangerement, and eventually homicide. Maybe they aren’t beating their kid over the head with a stick, but it’s just about as bad. It makes me sick to think any parent can be so deranged to do that to their child and have them suffer like that. Most of the stuff you mentioned about the herbal remedies is true, they don’t replace medical research. But I’ve never really heard of someone trying to use those things instead of medical research in fully developed countries. I’m sure there are people, but it makes me think more like under-developed countries where many times, certified medical remedies aren’t available. I’m not at all saying it doesn’t happen in developed countried, but honestly, what are you to do if you live somewhere in Africa or South America where those treatments aren’t available? Do nothing or try your luck with a Shaman?
@Nzo: Exactly! I mean, how many times do you see a Wiccan come to your door asking you to go to their Coven where they possess the true word? Oh, by the way, theres an admission fee!
Through reading through all your comments, what I’ve gained is there’s an extremely fine line between faith and extremism. Personally, I’m not an Atheist, but I believe that we’re all headed to the same place. Whether that’s the great Hereafter or a hole in the ground I don’t know. I haven’t gotten there yet. But I believe that no matter where we’re going, there’s a lot of paths, and there’s no right or wrong one. The difference between the Abrahamic religions and the few spiritualities I listed in my previous comment is that nowhere is there a religious text in those spiritualities that says you MUST do anything to get into the hereafter, while the Abrahamic religions have this book that says there’s only one way and everyone else can go to hell. I’m not sure who said it, but I know itwas said by someone in the comments, that the problem stems at the Holy Book, not the interpretation.
By the way, sorry if my comments are hard to follow. Sometimes I feel I have difficulty getting my thoughts into the comment box unjumbled…
Did anybody try posting this: or this to see if it resolved this issue yet?
Apparently that didn’t work.
Go in Mogg’s post upthread and close her italics tag.
Can’t – WordPress is borked for me at the moment. The dashboard crashes my browser whenever I try to access it :-/
Well that’s an emphatically formal bummer.
That was … odd. Has that ever happened before?
Not to my knowledge
My WordPress is all messed up as well; won’t recognize me as logged on when I try to comment, wouldn’t let me edit comments when I tried to fix the tag issue.
I’ve seen the open tag thing a couple of times before, but it is usually better contained (usually by a similar close tag down the thread) and/or fixed quickly.
It did happen once on the original host, if I recall correctly. I have no idea what’s going on with Dashboard though – It crashes my browser most times I try to use it, and even when it does work it won’t let me edit posts, remove spam etc. Sounds like Elem is having the same issue; I suspect WP have updated and there’s a bad script on the page, plus it’s changef some of the profile settings
There’s no evidence of a hereafter, the lights just go out. Do you think there’s a tree heaven for trees that get cut down? Their hereafter is being made into toilet paper, for example. That must have been a very bad tree? Probably not high enough quality to be made into an armoire, or the right kind to be made into a bowling alley.
Plenty of people in industrial societies are suspicious of such things as “big pharma” and vaccinations, and treat serious illnesses with ancient remedies or homeopathy. Homeopathy is water, and certainly one needs water, and a lot of illnesses go away on their own. I would divide parental neglect into 2 categories – sadly, people who intentionally abuse or neglect their children, and others who love their children so much and only want the best, where they are so fouled with god, they don’t make intelligent choices that are really better for their children. If the child doesn’t die of something antibiotics or insulin (for example) could have cured, the next stage of their disease is they grow up as ignorant and god-fearing as their parents – out of love. Natural selection doesn’t select out lack of brains, so the problem persists until we can educate it. But in those other religions you mention, and other new-agey types of faith, can believe that modern medicine is poison (side effects can be a little off-putting, sure) and choose alternative medicines because they are ancient and/or natural. Anything can be followed dogmatically and prove the practitioner superstitious.
I find there are at least 2 versions of most of those religions also. A lot of boring, white people do reject Christianity they were raised with and meet new people in college, for example. Rather than realize they could be an atheist, they assume there are answers and they have to find them spiritually, and adopt themselves to a form of Buddhism, paganism, ghost-hunting, or some soup like that that appeals to them. The course to atheism is blocked by many people’s earlier learning that there a) is a god, and b) atheism “is a religion” that lacks a whole lot of what they want in a faith. That “god-shaped hole” that makes life seem so much more meaningless. As Nzo said, a lot of these people aren’t canvassing, and at least diversify the culture so Christians can’t make presumptions on everyone’s beliefs. As far as beliefs go, they are superstitions, but if they aren’t killing people, harassing people, accidentally killing or harming themselves or their children with a faulty idea what medicine is, being too afraid of immunizations that they send chicken pox lollipops in the mail or sicken whole classes with polio, or altering the government to assume one true faith, they’re not horrible.
I am so distracted by the italics on the page, so I’m sorry if that’s less than coherent. Your assumption that only primitive cultures use primitive cures and treatments is false.
Well, the whole “the lights just go out” is just as opinionated and controversial as the concept of heaven, is it not? And maybe the trees are reincarnated? I guess I’ll reveal my personal faith, as I can’t really support my point without doing so. I was baptized and went to a Lutheran Church. I quit going to church because, quite frankly, I just plain don’t buy into the dogma and hierarchy, let alone the rewritten “Holy Book”. I considered myself atheist, and personally, I thought it was pretty lonely. I started to research religions one day just for the hell of it, and I found a liking for Wicca. Everyone’s case is a little different when it comes to converts. That was merely my situation. Others are perfectly happy being an Atheist. I find that people who are looking for answers are either Atheist or religious. People who are just looking to be content and just live life are either Atheist or spiritual. That’s just my finding though. Of course there are many shades of gray between black and white.
And your assumption that I assume only primitive cultures use primitive methods is false. What I said was merely an example, and I do believe I pointed that out quite clearly in my comment.
Everything’s harder to read in italics. It’s not your fault, someone forgot to close their tag upthread. I don’t know what you found “lonely” about being an atheist. It’s only controversial to say “the lights go out” because everyone wants to believe there’s more. Nobody has shown evidence or proof, only make up stories what they want there to be. Why would there be anything? Where have you observed this hereafter? How does it comfort you? Being an atheist isn’t a religious belief, it’s a rejection of fantasy and supernatural beliefs and superstitions. It is one thing to search for the god that appeals to your way of thinking already, there just happens to be a lot of beliefs out there to choose from, like at a deli. None of them have proof, only circumstantial wishful thinking and confirmation bias. An atheist doesn’t say, “I miss my invisible friend, so I think I’ll go look for him again.” If you can reject the dogma of your Lutheran upbringing, I mean, you didn’t say you rejected that the god of your Lutheran upbringing exists, but I accept you probably went through a period of doubting and considered yourself to be an atheist. I don’t know what a Lutheran upbringing is like, since I was raised in a secular home, but I can imagine they teach you things like what they consider “disbelief.” Nobody knows what really happens after you die, but that’s no reason to make up stories, when you can see that you’re alive and other things are alive, and what happens to them when they die. Decay. The organs stop and decay begins.
Why would that be “opinionated” to say so, when that is what is clearly observed.
There is plenty of evidence of a “hereafter”. All you need to do is learn how to find it. That is what religions and spiritual paths are for – to provide the processes for accessing the divine.
Religions talk about ‘transcendence’. What do you think is being transcended? Answer: the literalist mind set rooted in the phenomenal. Religions and spiritual paths show people how to get out of the self-imposed prisons they have walled themselves in through their dependence on manipulating sense data.
One can lead an Atheist to water but cannot make him/her drink.
One can explain rational thinking to a believer, but cannot make him/her think.
Your mind playing tricks on you is more wishful thinking and not so much “evidence” of any such thing. Evidence would be, show your work. You seem to think atheists will tear your argument apart on the faulty premises you’ve laid out, that we “don’t want to see” or “aren’t able to” go there. You want to call “argumentum ad nauseam” when you’re the king doesn’t make it right, so tu quoque on your ass. Show your evidence. That would be something to discuss. If you are trying to win by pointing out logical errors that you perceive, that distracts from whatever argument you are trying to get across, and leaves only the discussion to what size and kind of a twit you are and where on your bottom to land the boot.
Say something constructive instead of beating us with lies.
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion’s truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
Here is your first clue: you have the burden of proof, you are the one making the claim.
quoting Ray, the banana, Comfort does not a convincing argument make.
Guys, stop feeding this troll, seriously. He’s got the understanding and debating ability of a 13 year old. And not a very bright 13 year old, at that. Just leave the irksome little tit to wallow in his own ignorance and think he’s clever. Honestly, all he’s doing is talking absolute bollocks and then proclaiming victory to his equally retarded fundie friends. He’s utterly, irretrievably, willfully stupid – Completely without ability to learn or develop. Just ignore him.
Sigh. Once again, denial does not constitute refutation. Nor does ad hominem attacks.
If you want to know about the “supernatural” you need to spend time learning about how to access it. Just as one spends a lot of time in various types of schooling before becoming an astro-physicist, so too is a lot of study and practice required before one has a clear understanding of the “supernatural”.
If Atheists are too lazy, incompetent, or complacent in their ignorance to take the time to know that which they deride, their being so doesn’t invalidate the existence of the mechanisms and processes of the spiritual.
Ok, sorry to the rest of you, but maybe, just maybe, this will work.
THE RESPONSES TO YOU ARE NOT AD HOMINEM. YOUR CHARACTER, SHITTY AS IT MAY BE, IS NOT THE BASIS OF ANY REFUTATION OF ANYTHING YOU’VE SAID. YOU ARE NOT BEING SMART BY SAYING THIS PHRASE, YOU’RE PUTTING YOUR IGNORANCE ON DISPLAY.
It’s painfully obvious that you’re patently incapable of, in ascending order of approximate difficulty: reading comprehension, learning the definition of a word, rational thought, answering a question.
Custy, can we do a bucket-list for this one? After all, it IS fair that he has one last chance to answer questions before leaving.
** For fuck’s sakes, make one of the questions “define ‘ad hominem’ and show a ‘correct’ example of where it was used” <– make this mandatory, with no less than a perfect score, or sincere apology required. Is anyone else as sick as I am of hearing this misused?**
I’m going to the climbing wall in a little while, but as soon as I get back I will be happy to oblige.
In what way is it like astro-physics? In what way does it takes years of study? In your last installment, you say you have led us to water, but you can’t make us drink. Which is it? You don’t like to answer questions so much as swat them away. That doesn’t support your claim. I see you did not answer to me the validity of calling you stupid and calling your beliefs imaginary. If your only answer to that is to call atheists incompetent and in denial, you do realize, you haven’t actually shown any evidence. You can’t say we are unwilling to accept your beliefs if you haven’t given anyone anything to try and understand about them, or what distinguishes “transcendental” from “imaginary.” An example of ad hom would be calling atheists lazy or incompetent to understand when you haven’t said anything. YOU HAVEN’T SAID ONE WORD about how the methods to access your beliefs that we could try. How can we be too lazy to try them or too incompetent if we don’t have instructions to try them.
That’s why everyone hates you, Peter.
If you don’t show evidence of: your beliefs how to access your beliefs how your beliefs are different from imaginary how accessing your beliefs is as difficult as studying and mastering astro-physics
THEN YOU HAVE NOT SUPPORTED YOUR CLAIMS. You keep making more and more strange claims in order to avoid supporting any of them with evidence.
A common mistake with theists, and what makes you particularly tedious.
Seeing as not many replied to your original question, I thought I’d give it a shot. I tend to think of the examples you mention as Mostly Harmless, with a generous side serve of potentially problematic Fuzzy Thinking. I don’t see any more validity to them in terms of evidence and truth of claims, so wouldn’t go for them myself and don’t really get why anyone would if they can understand why the Abrahamic religions don’t stand up to scrutiny. In addition, as already pointed out, the correlation between those involved in alternative spirituality/religion and rejection of scientific understanding of medicine and diet in particular seems to be high, and is concerning to me as it can, like traditional religious beliefs, affect me and my society in negative ways. I do know a worryingly high number of people who really believe that meditation and positive vibes can cure cancer, vaccination is evil, a dairy and gluten free diet is the only true path to health, and magic water and herbal tinctures can cure disease.
That said, the problems with alternative believers are not as bad because they tend to be happy to let others be and don’t generally lobby governments to force their religions’ morality onto others who don’t subscribe to them, for example.
“That said, the problems with alternative believers are not as bad because they tend to be happy to let others be and don’t generally lobby governments to force their religions’ morality onto others who don’t subscribe to them, for example”
Unlike Atheists who actively proselytize and continually lobby governments to institute Atheism as the state religion
Atheism isn’t a religion.
I’m afraid that the terms “dead horse” and “flogging” come to mind.
Bwahahaha! Wow, you are clearly not living on the same planet as the rest of us.
I look forward to the additional atheist holidays – no wait, we already have those according to you. But at least there’ll be tax deductions for all those atheist churches – no wait, there aren’t any.
Wait, I can say something total BS without evidence too….ummm:
Unlike Theists who actively eat minority babies and poop toxic waste as they fornicate upon big piles of money.
Wow, that is fun. Of course, I have no evidence, but simply making a claim like that should be enough to prove my argument.
This collection made me sick. I remember reading many of these cases earlier, but it was extremely disturbing to see this awful list of tragedies going on, and on, and on…
Yes, so good to know that ‘religion’ is not the true offer in Christ, eh? Not even close. Thankfully.
Good to know that running around with 12 people, who gave up everything to follow you, at your command, while telling everyone you’re god, (or god’s son, who cares) isn’t, ya know, trying to start a religion.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic.
You don’t even know how ignorant you are. It’s sad really. It truly makes no sense to me that someone can be as consistently wrong as you have been, dismiss the well-reasoned refutations, then claim someone obviously more informed is ignorant.
Truly mind boggling.
He’s just a more belligerent version of John C. Kind of a refreshing change from the normal gloop.
Peter, I have prepared the following list of questions based on your comments that you need to answer before this discussion continues:
1) Please provide examples of atheists ”actively proselytize and continually lobby governments to institute Atheism as the state religion” (Submitted on 2012/01/25 at 4:50 am | In reply to Mogg).
2) Please provide links to irrefutable evidence of supernatural occurrences that do not rely entirely on personal testimony from individual persons (Submitted on 2012/01/25 at 4:48 am | In reply to Peter Beacham).
3) Within the remit of question 2), please also provide multiple , substantive, reliable proofs of the ”hereafter” (Submitted on 2012/01/24 at 6:24 am | In reply to Kodie).
4) Please provide citations for the following assertions: ”Unitarians or Unitarian-Universalists are an Atheist sect”, and ”Buddhists also seek converts”. (Submitted on 2012/01/24 at 6:18 am | In reply to Nzo).
5) i) Please demonstrate any occurrence in this thread of any person (other than yourself) who the following criticism could apply to: ”It is a logical error to believe that the more times you repeat something, the more likely it is to be believed”.
5) ii) Please provide examples of the criticism detailed in question 5)i) that fulfil the following criteria: ”This is a common Atheist error”.
5) iii) Please provide a definition, with citation, for ”argumentum ad nauseum[sic]” and cite instances of any person in this thread (other than yourself) who is guilty of it. (Submitted on 2012/01/24 at 6:13 am | In reply to Kodie).
6) Please demonstrate with logic, evidence or argument from recognised theological authority that the Bible forms the basis of ”Atheist belief system, after first demonstrating that Atheism is a belief system. (Submitted on 2012/01/24 at 6:04 am | In reply to Nzo).
7) Please provide citations from any contemporary, published, professional physicist who has ever said that ”[science] believes the cosmogony of this universe to be a case of ‘First there was nothing. Then it exploded’”. (Submitted on 2012/01/24 at 5:59 am | In reply to Bill).
8) Please demonstrate with logic, evidence or argument from recognised theological authority that ”The creation story of Genesis is actually a comment on the chakra system the usage of which is necessary to attune oneself to the Divine”. (Submitted on 2012/01/24 at 5:56 am | In reply to Custador).
9) Please provide, with citation, an accurate definition of utilitarian morality and explain how it is related to the following: ” They are free to do whatever they want, remembering, of course, that some other Atheist has the same right to covet they have acquired” (Submitted on 2012/01/24 at 5:49 am | In reply to Twin-Skies).
10) Please cite instances where you have shown any of the arguments presented be Kodie, Custador or TRJ to be wrong. (Submitted on 2012/01/24 at 5:46 am | In reply to Peter Beacham).
11) i) Please demonstrate that atheism requires any logical or factual errors, or circular reasoning.
11) ii) Please demonstrate with logic, evidence or argument from recognised theological authority multiple different meaning for the word “atheism”. (Submitted on 2012/01/24 at 5:40 am | In reply to Peter Beacham).
12) Please demonstrate with logic, evidence or argument from recognised theological authority that the following statements are true: ” Atheism is a religion that follows the Negative Theology path variously known as known variously as the Via Negativa path of Roman Catholicism; the Jnana Yoga path of Hinduism; the Lahoot Salbi path of Islam, found principally the Shia and Sufi paths; the Ein-sof aspect of Judaism plus Buddhism and Taoism or Daoism… As a religion Atheism has its founding father (Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach) , saints and adepts, belief system and faith, creed, rituals, congregations and communion, holy days, scriptures, witnessing and proselytizing, rites of passage, and symbols.”. (Submitted on 2012/01/22 at 6:47 am | In reply to Mark the Pilgrim).
13) Please provide a definition, with citation, for ”ad hominem” and cite instances of any person in this thread (other than yourself) who is guilty of it.
14) Please provide a catalogue of logical errors which you claim to be present in the writings of Bertrand Russell. (Submitted on 2012/01/22 at 6:31 am | In reply to Theory_of_I).
That will do for now. Please bear in mind that my patience for allowing you to shit all over this thread is starting to wear very thin, so I’ll state your choices explicitly: Answer the above questions or stop commenting.
Just ban him and check the filter for his ip address if he replies..
You forgot to add pictures of the rest of those evil people like you know, mother teresa, mahatma ghandhi, martin luther king, buddha, dalai lama, jesus, confucius, nelson mandela, clara barton, etc.
Or are we just trolling?
Mother Teresa WAS evil, and Jesus can’t be proved to have existed.
Not that listing evil people was the point. Religion excuses piss-poor behavior, and creates a social paradigm where that behavior is seen as a good thing.
All of the terrible things in the collage are specifically due to affects of religion. Pretty much none of your examples are, and the ones that are are dubious either in outcome for those affected (Mother Theresa, whose beliefs caused people to die unnecessarily horrible and deprived deaths due to her belief that suffering is good for the soul), or due to the lack of evidence that the people concerned ever said what is attributed to them (Jesus, Buddha, Confucius). In addition, the teachings of the two more verifiable of those three, Confucius and Buddha, are less religion and more philosophy – Buddha told his followers to question everything, even his teachings, and Confucius was a humanist in the sense that he was most concerned with how people behaved themselves and treated each other and had not much to say about gods or spirits. Your other examples may have had more or less strong beliefs (although Barton may have been a Universalist and Ghandhi seems to have synthesised a bunch of philosophies from all over the place), but all of them became famous due to their work on humanitarian issues and none of them required or encouraged any particular religious belief or condemned anyone for not having one.
For you fundies saying that religion is like technology, governments, etc (good things can be used for evil) please tell me, how does religion do good? Is there anything good religion does that cannot be done by something else? Now think of something bad that ONLY religion could have done. Easy.
wow it’s sad how mean many people are in the discussion comments! when the point of it was all the false judgment and hate religion spreads. :/
Surely you understand this is an atheism blog. It appears you may have brought a bias against atheism into your reading of the thread. What you consider meanness is mostly a display of frustration in response to the constant stream of comments by religionists whose intent is to attack atheism via a never ending barrage of utterly empty assertions, illogical arguments and implied moral superiority. This, despite the clear and concise refutation and thoughtful commentary initially offered in rebuttal. Typically, the specious claims continue ad-nauseam with no attempt to provide even basic substantiation, evidence or logic, and commonly, in a show of disrespect, the counter-arguments are ignored, distorted or equivocated through some other vacant allegation. In time, it is easy to see that no effort is being made by the religion afflicted posters to participate in a purposeful dialogue, so they are eventually treated with the respect they earn, IOW negatively.
Follow Patheos on