Atheist religion

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I was planning a rant about all the negative effects of religion, but that will require a little more research. So instead of trying to start another huge debate of flames and controversy, I'd like to hear your thoughts about this video.

Fullscreen, 1080p?

I'm not sure about the amount of lives I've got, and I'd like to be right about my assumptions...
My assumptions about the universe, about God, about the afterlife, about death, about morality...

Discuss.

I'm gonna sleep now and will read your replies in the morning. Sleep well!

Oh, and everyone, both the religious and the non-religious, if you've got similar videos, please post them!

Ok, what do you want us to discuss? What are your assumptions? I don't think this video had the impact on me that you wanted it to. It isn't something that I haven't thought about before. I actually think about that quite often.

Atheist religion? Hmm...


Mods are asleep. Post Metalocalypse.

Anyway... Hurray for Carl Sagan and the awesomeness of the universe, I guess? I have no idea what you want us to discuss. Explain yourself Danyal! EXPLAIN!

Firstly, the title has just about nothing to do with the OP.

Secondly, eh, crap video. If you need to stick music and random video clips in to make your point, you've done something wrong. Also, FFS, don't use stuff from movies, that's jsut embarassing.

As for teh content of the video...yeah? That's all veyr well and good, but what's your point?

Ahh Carl Sagan.

Two Quotes off of this guy:

Carl Sagan:
The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

Carl Sagan:
An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.

I agree. To be an Atheist is to be very stupid. Agnostic, cool bro. To be skeptical of everything including faith is best. To outright reject something... sound familiar.

Excluding the old testament and all else after the death of Jesus you can boil the remains of the bible message down to: Be good, don't be a dick :)

This is the last in a series of 13 Episodes, each an hour long. Watch this and if you are still watching after 25 mins... start off on episode 1 :)

Comando96:

Carl Sagan:
An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.

That's the definition of a Strong (or 'Positive') Atheist.

Read more.

But while we're quoting smart people:-

Christopher Hitchens:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Amnestic:

Comando96:

Carl Sagan:
An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.

That's the definition of a Strong (or 'Positive') Atheist.

Read more.

The definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism overlap and in the common toung Atheism describes the possitive assertion and Agnostic the Negative assertion of Dictionary atheism.

That is the definition in which he made that statement.

there is only one mounted picture in my entire house.

its in the living room above the fire and its "Earthrise" taken on Christmas Eve 1968 by Bill Anders of Apollo 8.

image

and while i'm glad you've apparently come to appreciate Sagan's "pale blue dot" monologue for its "spiritual" worth i don't personally need you to post it as it's content is pretty much etched into my very soul.

Oddly enough I was having this discussion with my roomates just the other night thanks to that Scale of the Universe someone posted. Other than that, I'm not certain what you want to discuss... hooray for an intelligent person making a philisophical point I wish more people would take to heart?

Danyal:
I was planning a rant about all the negative effects of religion, but that will require a little more research. So instead of trying to start another huge debate of flames and controversy, I'd like to hear your thoughts about this video.

I have a question for you. Why do you think you can prove you are a better person than religious people by being one of those snotty little anti-theists (because I will not insult all of the wonderful ones I know by calling you an atheist) who can't handle the idea of people thinking differently from them? Yes. People have done and continue to do bad things for the sake of religion. We get that, and all of us sane people don't approve. You can stop preaching to the choir now, we've had quite enough and continue to get enough from the Internet as it is. There is absolutely nothing you can say or research that hasn't been said a thousand times a day here on the Intertubes for a couple of decades now.

Danyal:
I was planning a rant about all the negative effects of religion, but that will require a little more research. So instead of trying to start another huge debate of flames and controversy, I'd like to hear your thoughts about this video.

Fullscreen, 1080p?

I'm not sure about the amount of lives I've got, and I'd like to be right about my assumptions...
My assumptions about the universe, about God, about the afterlife, about death, about morality...

Discuss.

I'm gonna sleep now and will read your replies in the morning. Sleep well!

Oh, and everyone, both the religious and the non-religious, if you've got similar videos, please post them!

as of right now since you are not incredibly clear in what you want us to discuss in your OP all i can do is leave you with a video of the deceased Leon Botha. a wonderfully inspirational man who lived a long life considering his disease.

Comando96:
This is the last in a series of 13 Episodes, each an hour long. Watch this and if you are still watching after 25 mins... start off on episode 1 :)

Gee, thanks for posting this! Now I'm completly occupied for tomorrow :D

As for the OP's question: Fullscreen, 720p. My monitor has a native resolution of 1280x1024 so going 1080p would be a waste of bandwith ;)

OP's video:
...everyone you ever loved... *Shows picture from Twilight*

...

Get outta here.

Lilani:

I have a question for you. Why do you think you can prove you are a better person than religious people by being one of those snotty little anti-theists (because I will not insult all of the wonderful ones I know by calling you an atheist) who can't handle the idea of people thinking differently from them? Yes. People have done and continue to do bad things for the sake of religion. We get that, and all of us sane people don't approve. You can stop preaching to the choir now, we've had quite enough and continue to get enough from the Internet as it is. There is absolutely nothing you can say or research that hasn't been said a thousand times a day here on the Intertubes for a couple of decades now.

Because I'm supposed to care.
I'm supposed to care about everyone who suffers and I'm supposed to help them and donate money to save them. But when they're screwed by religion...
Just accept it Danyal! You can't change anything about it!

When their's a famine in Somalia, I'm supposed to donate money. But I can only think about Al Shabaab and how much of a cause they are of the famine.
When their's a revolution in Egypt, I'm supposed to celebrate a new age of tolerance and freedom, but I fear a Islamist coupe; and I'm right; Egypt is now under the 'guidance' of the Muslim Brotherhood; "God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."
When Moroccan boys harass Dutch girls because they show their hair, I'm told not to think about Islam, I should be ashamed of my own racism, my own privileges, because that's the 'real' reason of the f*cked up behavior of those Moroccan boys; Poverty caused by racism.
When an American state bans abortion or thinks of rape-link prerequisites, I'm supposed to react that I'm shocked and how horrible this is, but I can't criticize the underlying reasons for this ban; f*cked up Christian morality.
I'm supposed to support affirmative action because I'm a white male and we've discriminated so much against women and non-whites, but when their's a discrimination against women and Jews that's 10,000 times as worse in the Islamic world, I'm supposed to not give a f*ck.
I'm supposed to be horrified by 'racism' against Muslim, but all Islamic 'racism' against nonbelievers is ignored.

And the worst thing; if a thing causes so much pain and suffering, we keep it and don't criticize because it's probably worth very very much?

NO! It's false! It's clearly demonstrable false!

History is our information about the past. Religion is not history.
Science is our knowledge of the universe. Religion is not science.
Philosophy is our way to gain knowledge about morality, ethics, the goal of life and the afterlife. Religion is not philosophy.

Religion is just being dogmatic about an ancient, cruel book.

And yes, even if I am dictator of the entire world, I'll protect your right to believe. I'll protect your churches, mosques and temples.
I don't need cruel, drastic measures to combat something as silly as religion.

The only thing someone needs to escape religion is good education.
If I'm the dictator of the entire world, everyone can visit public schools where God is never mentioned as the supreme dictator of the universe. It will be completely secular. In history class, we'll talk about all religions, and in science/biology class, we'll talk about evolution, about the big bang. And the children will be taught to be critical about everything, to question everything, and to live adogmatic.

Our entire world is globalized and modernized, but religion is still here and it has resisted too many changes. It doesn't make any sense anymore. And I hope, I really hope, that we will be able to trigger a new Enlightenment, where we can finally try to make sense of religion. Where we drop the idea that on blind faith alone we can know exactly what God wants, because this idea is nearly the only idea that can explain all the differences between all the religions.

I really, really hope that some kind of globalized religion emerges, a religion that tries to make sense of all holy books, that inspects all holy scriptures, that actually tries to figure out the truth.

BreakfastMan:
Hurray for Carl Sagan and the awesomeness of the universe, I guess?

Valanthe:
hooray for an intelligent person making a philisophical point I wish more people would take to heart?

That, yes. Thanks for all the videos, posters!

Comando96:

I agree. To be an Atheist is to be very stupid. Agnostic, cool bro. To be skeptical of everything including faith is best. To outright reject something... sound familiar.

But there's also the matter of how you live your life. Do you live it as if god COULD be there, watching, or do you just dismiss the claim and live as if he was not there? If it's the latter, you're an atheist. I live in a reality in which god isn't any more plausible than magical gnomes or unicorns. That still makes me an atheist.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins wrote about several tiers of theism, seven to be exact. The last was strong, or de-facto atheism, defined by someone who knows god doesn't exist. He didn't put himself in this category, and stated that you won't find many people who are as such. Because to blindly believe in atheism contradicts the method with which most atheists reach their state of belief (i.e. research and rationale). To be an atheist means to be skeptic and ready to admit you were wrong, to be an agnostic means to believe that we will never find whether god exists or not. I find that statement to be exaggerated, and not at all true.

Atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby and abstinence is a sexual position.

Now I am an atheist, and have been classed as a militant one (kinda funny considering militant Christians kill abortion doctors and militant Muslims blow people up, I've never killed or harmed anyone over my lack of belief in a deity), however I do not say for certainty there is no deity. It is after all possible. It's just highly implausible, and we've zero evidence for it. Doesn't mean there wont some day be evidence for it, and at that time I will re-evaluate my position.

However as already posted "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - Hitchens.

Agnosticism - believing that it is impossible for anyone to prove either way that a God exists
Atheism - believing that there isn't a God.

The two beliefs are mutually compatible - most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. There seems to be confusion in this thread.

OT: what does the video have to do with atheism as a religion?

Esotera:
Agnosticism - believing that it is impossible for anyone to prove either way that a God exists
Atheism - believing that there isn't a God.

The two beliefs are mutually compatible - most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. There seems to be confusion in this thread.

Actually, that's still debatable. Many atheists will tell You Atheism = the lack of belief in any deity. Those terms are still mutually compatible (i.e: I don't believe in any deity, but I think it would be impossible to prove or disprove the existance of many of the proposed concepts), but the distinction between believing something doesn't exist and not believing something exists is vital. It's not much of a difference in practice, but it's a huge difference in concept.

~Sylv

You guys really need to stop calling Atheism a religion. Calling Atheism a religion is like calling OFF a TV channel. I'm not bashing Atheism (I'm Agnostic), but this is a really bad mislabeling.

Comando96:

Carl Sagan:
An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.

I agree. To be an Atheist is to be very stupid. Agnostic, cool bro. To be skeptical of everything including faith is best. To outright reject something... sound familiar.

Depends with definition of atheism you use, as Sagan correctly pointed out, and you neglected. Weak atheism is not a definite statement that God exists.

Excluding the old testament and all else after the death of Jesus you can boil the remains of the bible message down to: Be good, don't be a dick :)

And that he hadn't come to do away with the OT law. Oops.

Comando96:

Amnestic:

Comando96:

That's the definition of a Strong (or 'Positive') Atheist.

Read more.

The definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism overlap and in the common toung Atheism describes the possitive assertion and Agnostic the Negative assertion of Dictionary atheism.

That is the definition in which he made that statement.

Which one? He referred to multiple.

And regardless, you don't get to define what people are - they label themselves.

Incidentally, I do love how bogged down in this detail some people get - usually in religious discussions. Ok, so you got us - we're all agnostics, not atheists. How does that make one whit of difference to the complete dearth of evidence religion has going for it?

double post

Danyal:

History is our information about the past. Religion is not history.
Science is our knowledge of the universe. Religion is not science.
Philosophy is our way to gain knowledge about morality, ethics, the goal of life and the afterlife. Religion is not philosophy.

Religion is a part of history, and history is a part of religion. History is not fact, it is a narrative intended to convey historical truth. Religions are, in great part, narratives intended to convey spiritual truth. Sometimes, these truths intersect.

To say that religion is entirely separate from philosophy is absurd, and demonstrates either ignorance of or willful blindness toward the history of philosophy. To the extent that they intersect, both involve the attempt to understand what is true.

You are correct, insofar as religion is not entirely the same concept as history, science, or philosophy. You are incorrect, insofar as you imply that religion is completely removed from or inherently inferior to these other concepts. It fulfills a different purpose.

Danyal:

Religion is just being dogmatic about an ancient, cruel book.

And aren't you being rather dogmatic about opposing religion?

dog-mat-ic [dawg-mat-ik, dog-]
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal.
2. asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.

Reducing the concept of religion to "just being dogmatic about an ancient, cruel book" seems rather dogmatic itself. Not to mention cruel.

Danyal:

The only thing someone needs to escape religion is good education.
If I'm the dictator of the entire world, everyone can visit public schools where God is never mentioned as the supreme dictator of the universe. It will be completely secular. In history class, we'll talk about all religions, and in science/biology class, we'll talk about evolution, about the big bang. And the children will be taught to be critical about everything, to question everything, and to live adogmatic.

So children will be taught to be dogmatically adogmatic? Nifty.

You fail to account for the well-educated people who are religious. A good education may weaken a person's faith. It might also strengthen it. A good education is one that teaches a person to think for himself.

Danyal:

Our entire world is globalized and modernized, but religion is still here and it has resisted too many changes. It doesn't make any sense anymore.

It doesn't make sense to you.

Danyal:

And I hope, I really hope, that we will be able to trigger a new Enlightenment, where we can finally try to make sense of religion. Where we drop the idea that on blind faith alone we can know exactly what God wants, because this idea is nearly the only idea that can explain all the differences between all the religions.

Many religious believers do not hold their particular religious beliefs on "blind faith alone." And many make no such claim that they "know exactly what God wants." Unfortunately, those that do are generally the most vocal about it.

And in any case, you don't imagine that other differences of opinion, or differences in cultural outlook, or differences in history, might also account for the differences between religions?

Comando96:
The definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism overlap and in the common toung Atheism describes the possitive assertion and Agnostic the Negative assertion of Dictionary atheism.

That is the definition in which he made that statement.

No, you are completely wrong. You are claiming that belief consists of a scale from theism to atheism, with agnosticism in the middle. This is completely and utterly bogus.

In fact, atheism and agnosticism answer two completely different questions. Agnosticism answers the question "Is it possible to know for sure whether or not there is a god?". Both theists and atheists can be agnostic, and the vast majority actually are. Whether or not you believe that it is possible to know for sure whether or not god exists really has incredibly little impact on whether or not you believe in god. So, therefore, not only is agnosticism completely different from atheism, it is also largely irrelevant to atheism or theism.

Let's say you have the question of whether or not you like strawberries. Saying that agnosticism is the middle ground between theism and atheism is like saying liking blueberries is the middle ground between liking and not liking strawberries. It is nonsensical.

Agitated Owl:

Danyal:

History is our information about the past. Religion is not history.
Science is our knowledge of the universe. Religion is not science.
Philosophy is our way to gain knowledge about morality, ethics, the goal of life and the afterlife. Religion is not philosophy.

Religion is a part of history, and history is a part of religion. History is not fact, it is a narrative intended to convey historical truth. Religions are, in great part, narratives intended to convey spiritual truth. Sometimes, these truths intersect.

The parts of religion that give reliable information about the past should be kept and studied; all other information about the past is unreliable and should be dismissed.
The parts of religion that give reliable information about the universe should be kept and studied; all other information about the universe is unreliable and should be dismissed.
The parts of religion that try to construct a morality/ethics/a goal/think about the afterlife and are based on logic should be kept; claims about morality/ethics/a goal/the afterlife that are not based on logic/evidence should be dismissed.

I have no problem with people who see Jesus as a moral teacher and admire him and his morals.
I have no problem with people who are philosophizing about a possible afterlife.
But I do have problems with people who base their ethics on dogma and 'blind faith', like the imam[1] who refused to sit on one table together with a women, what I just had to watch on TV.

And aren't you being rather dogmatic about opposing religion?

dog-mat-ic [dawg-mat-ik, dog-]
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal.
2. asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.

Reducing the concept of religion to "just being dogmatic about an ancient, cruel book" seems rather dogmatic itself. Not to mention cruel.

I'll try to make a beautiful post using lots of sources and reasons and facts about why I oppose religion, in the very near future. But it'll take some research, so keep waiting please.

You fail to account for the well-educated people who are religious. A good education may weaken a person's faith. It might also strengthen it. A good education is one that teaches a person to think for himself.

Thinking for yourself=adogmatic.

Could you give me three examples of persons who are...
-'accessible' using the internet (who are interviewed, described on Wikipedia, not 'my uncle')
-raised in a non-religious family (no indoctrination)
-had a good, secular education where they were taught about a lot of religions, flawed arguments, common fallacies, evolution, the big bang
-that were intelligent
-and who became religious, without experiencing some kind of trauma? (for example, a drug/alcohol addiction, loss of a child, loss of wive, etcetera)

It doesn't make sense to you.

And it doesn't make any sense to a lot of religious people. Otherwise we would not have heard 'God works in mysterious ways' and 'God transcends logic' so often.

Many religious believers do not hold their particular religious beliefs on "blind faith alone." And many make no such claim that they "know exactly what God wants." Unfortunately, those that do are generally the most vocal about it.

No religious person has ever managed to explain me why their beliefs could be rationally accepted as 'the truth' or 'very likely to be the truth'. They always have to resort to 'well, that's why tell call it 'belief', I guess' or something like that.

[1] Or Sharia-expert, don't know exactly what he called himself

Okay. I'm just going to say this as it's been on my mind for a while now. First, making a thread on the Escapist that is pretty much saying Yay Atheism is redundant and has been done to death. I don't know how much more back patting you are going to give yourself for having a different view point than someone else but enough is enough.

Second is religion is not the reason for all conflict in the world as some seem to think. Case in point, a friend from high school who is now a liberal gay atheist posted very mean cruel and hateful things about the singer Adele based completely on her weight. In fact he thinks it's impossible to be attractive if you are overweight and if you are then the government should be in charge of your life so you can stop being disgusting.

And third, and lastly, Danval, you are kind of a dick. Every thread I have seen of yours is condescending and mean. So you don't believe in god. Great. But stop hating on other people for their views. So you want to fuck a dog. Ew. It's never going to be decriminalized. Just do it behind closed doors. You seem to think you are smarter than every other person around. You may be. But you are also a colossal ass.

mikey7339:
You guys really need to stop calling Atheism a religion. Calling Atheism a religion is like calling OFF a TV channel. I'm not bashing Atheism (I'm Agnostic), but this is a really bad mislabeling.

he's not calling atheism a religion. he just picked a title so his thread could get views.

Danyal:
I was planning a rant about all the negative effects of religion, but that will require a little more research. So instead of trying to start another huge debate of flames and controversy, I'd like to hear your thoughts about this video.

Fullscreen, 1080p?

I'm not sure about the amount of lives I've got, and I'd like to be right about my assumptions...
My assumptions about the universe, about God, about the afterlife, about death, about morality...

Discuss.

I'm gonna sleep now and will read your replies in the morning. Sleep well!

Oh, and everyone, both the religious and the non-religious, if you've got similar videos, please post them!

oh that wonderful video, i've seen it before and it never once swayed me from my beliefs. in fact it strengthened the beliefs of others i have shown it to, atheist and religious folk alike. so i dont really know why you use this video to back up your reasonings for being non-religious when religious people use it to strengthen their beliefs as well.

keiskay:

oh that wonderful video, i've seen it before and it never once swayed me from my beliefs. in fact it strengthened the beliefs of others i have shown it to, atheist and religious folk alike. so i dont really know why you use this video to back up your reasonings for being non-religious when religious people use it to strengthen their beliefs as well.

That's quite strange. I had never thought that religious people (except for Buddhists) could agree with these lines;

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life.

Danyal:

keiskay:

oh that wonderful video, i've seen it before and it never once swayed me from my beliefs. in fact it strengthened the beliefs of others i have shown it to, atheist and religious folk alike. so i dont really know why you use this video to back up your reasonings for being non-religious when religious people use it to strengthen their beliefs as well.

That's quite strange. I had never thought that religious people (except for Buddhists) could agree with these lines;

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life.

really? you don't see how a religious person can take that as a way to increase their testimony of their faith? maybe not the most hardcore creationist or zealots, but religion has never survived on the backs of it's zealots. its all about how interpret the video some will interpret it as a way to build their faith and testimony and others like your self will use it to build your view of non-religion.

i must note though that you seem to only have stereotypical knowledge of religion if you failed to see how any religious person aside from a Buddhist would accept that phrase as a truth and way to build faith.

Danyal:

The parts of religion that give reliable information about the past should be kept and studied; all other information about the past is unreliable and should be dismissed.
The parts of religion that give reliable information about the universe should be kept and studied; all other information about the universe is unreliable and should be dismissed.
The parts of religion that try to construct a morality/ethics/a goal/think about the afterlife and are based on logic should be kept; claims about morality/ethics/a goal/the afterlife that are not based on logic/evidence should be dismissed.

At a principle level, I don't disagree with you. However, you take it to an unnecessary, radical extreme. There is information that is historically unreliable, scientifically unverifiable, and logically unprovable that is, nonetheless, valuable. Why not dismiss Aesop's fables while we're at it? Surely, neither history, nor science, nor logic could ever support a fox carrying on a conversation with a crow.

Danyal:

I have no problem with people who see Jesus as a moral teacher and admire him and his morals.
I have no problem with people who are philosophizing about a possible afterlife.
But I do have problems with people who base their ethics on dogma and 'blind faith', like the imam[1] who refused to sit on one table together with a women, what I just had to watch on TV.

Whether you agree with the imam or not, to attribute his code of morality to "blind faith" is most likely incorrect. It may be true that his morality is rooted in a religious system in which he has faith, but that religious system carries with it a long history of legal interpretation and self-reflection. I didn't see the program you're referring to, so I don't know exactly what happened. But is it possible that the imam was concerned with temptation? Or possibly with his own social status? Neither possibility requires that the imam be correct. But they suggest that his decision was not based solely on "blind faith."

My issue here is that you seem to categorize all religious believers as people who follow their faith "blindly" and that is simply not true.

Danyal:

Could you give me three examples of persons who are...
-'accessible' using the internet (who are interviewed, described on Wikipedia, not 'my uncle')
-raised in a non-religious family (no indoctrination)
-had a good, secular education where they were taught about a lot of religions, flawed arguments, common fallacies, evolution, the big bang
-that were intelligent
-and who became religious, without experiencing some kind of trauma? (for example, a drug/alcohol addiction, loss of a child, loss of wive, etcetera)

No, because I don't particularly care to spend my time hunting down examples that meet your exacting requirements to prove a point that a reasonable person would concede. There exist in this world well-educated, introspective people who choose to believe in a religious creed.

Your criteria are absurd, especially when taken as a whole. Not raised in a religious family? The insulting parenthetical aside, what do we define as a non-religious family? A family consisting of nothing but self-avowed atheists? Or a family that doesn't attend church regularly? And how far do we take the examination of the family unit? The vast majority of families are associated with some religious faith, either historically, or in the extended family.

And a good, secular education where they were taught about a lot of religions, flawed arguments, common fallacies, evolution, the big bang? How many people study "a lot of religions" in school? Especially coming from a non-religious family?

And no trauma? So, life experiences aren't supposed to have an effect? In short, I'm supposed to drum up a list of at least three comparatively famous individuals who had no background with religion at all, yet nevertheless studied religion, science, and philosophy extensively, and spontaneously converted for no apparent reason?

Off the top of my head, the best I can give you is C.S. Lewis.

Danyal:

And it doesn't make any sense to a lot of religious people. Otherwise we would not have heard 'God works in mysterious ways' and 'God transcends logic' so often.

That a religious believer is unable to explain his or her faith 100% does not automatically mean that it is 0% rational.

[1] Or Sharia-expert, don't know exactly what he called himself

I'm an atheist and yet I have my own religion. Religion does not mean theism.

Danyal:

Lilani:

I have a question for you. Why do you think you can prove you are a better person than religious people by being one of those snotty little anti-theists (because I will not insult all of the wonderful ones I know by calling you an atheist) who can't handle the idea of people thinking differently from them? Yes. People have done and continue to do bad things for the sake of religion. We get that, and all of us sane people don't approve. You can stop preaching to the choir now, we've had quite enough and continue to get enough from the Internet as it is. There is absolutely nothing you can say or research that hasn't been said a thousand times a day here on the Intertubes for a couple of decades now.

Because I'm supposed to care.
I'm supposed to care about everyone who suffers and I'm supposed to help them and donate money to save them. But when they're screwed by religion...
Just accept it Danyal! You can't change anything about it!

When their's a famine in Somalia, I'm supposed to donate money. But I can only think about Al Shabaab and how much of a cause they are of the famine.
When their's a revolution in Egypt, I'm supposed to celebrate a new age of tolerance and freedom, but I fear a Islamist coupe; and I'm right; Egypt is now under the 'guidance' of the Muslim Brotherhood; "God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."
When Moroccan boys harass Dutch girls because they show their hair, I'm told not to think about Islam, I should be ashamed of my own racism, my own privileges, because that's the 'real' reason of the f*cked up behavior of those Moroccan boys; Poverty caused by racism.
When an American state bans abortion or thinks of rape-link prerequisites, I'm supposed to react that I'm shocked and how horrible this is, but I can't criticize the underlying reasons for this ban; f*cked up Christian morality.
I'm supposed to support affirmative action because I'm a white male and we've discriminated so much against women and non-whites, but when their's a discrimination against women and Jews that's 10,000 times as worse in the Islamic world, I'm supposed to not give a f*ck.
I'm supposed to be horrified by 'racism' against Muslim, but all Islamic 'racism' against nonbelievers is ignored.

And the worst thing; if a thing causes so much pain and suffering, we keep it and don't criticize because it's probably worth very very much?

NO! It's false! It's clearly demonstrable false!

History is our information about the past. Religion is not history.
Science is our knowledge of the universe. Religion is not science.
Philosophy is our way to gain knowledge about morality, ethics, the goal of life and the afterlife. Religion is not philosophy.

Religion is just being dogmatic about an ancient, cruel book.

And yes, even if I am dictator of the entire world, I'll protect your right to believe. I'll protect your churches, mosques and temples.
I don't need cruel, drastic measures to combat something as silly as religion.

The only thing someone needs to escape religion is good education.
If I'm the dictator of the entire world, everyone can visit public schools where God is never mentioned as the supreme dictator of the universe. It will be completely secular. In history class, we'll talk about all religions, and in science/biology class, we'll talk about evolution, about the big bang. And the children will be taught to be critical about everything, to question everything, and to live adogmatic.

Our entire world is globalized and modernized, but religion is still here and it has resisted too many changes. It doesn't make any sense anymore. And I hope, I really hope, that we will be able to trigger a new Enlightenment, where we can finally try to make sense of religion. Where we drop the idea that on blind faith alone we can know exactly what God wants, because this idea is nearly the only idea that can explain all the differences between all the religions.

I really, really hope that some kind of globalized religion emerges, a religion that tries to make sense of all holy books, that inspects all holy scriptures, that actually tries to figure out the truth.

Danyal, I take back what I said about you before. You just had yourself a Crowning Post of Awesome.

While I think it's not good to feel that all religions are inherently dangerous, it is true that we are expected to be persuaded that it is wrong to criticize it for its failings. No, that is what's wrong. Religion does good in the world, yes, but it does a great deal of harm as well, and frankly we've outgrown the ones that try to explain where the world came from, how we got here, and what we should do. We know the religious answers to those questions are false, and if people are not satisfied with the answers to those questions that come from other sources, or the lack of such answers from other sources, then feel free to come up with a new faith to guide you.

By all means keep giving to charity and giving people hope, but drop the framework that includes in its holy scriptures the burning of witches, the ostracism of homosexuals, and ancient ideas on medicine and the nature of the world that have done so much to hinder us.

Maybe I'm confused about the forum rules but....
But I though threads made for the sole purpose of the OP's masturbation were not allowed.
Because that's clearly whats going on here.

Atheism is not a religion. Did anyone ever tell you believers, somewhere around age 6, that "I know you are but what am I?" is the last resort of an idiot?

The only people making claims they can't back up are religious people.

Have you ever been dead? Obviously not. Pssssh and you call us know-it-alls...

Atheists can do a better job disproving god than you can proving it. Believers fall back on that old, tired, "Well it's a matter of faith!" which is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing.

Good video by the way OP (the message is what was important, pity so many of these retards didn't get the point). Although Sagan doesn't like us atheists, I like him.

Every time, when a topic like this comes up an atheist holds up a text like the Bible and yells "Look what this book says!" What they don't understand is, the texts have been through decades of translations and mistranslations, and many of the contexts have been lost. But seriously, disproving a thing is probably the hardest thing you can do, since you have to look REALLY hard to keep if its not there. I don't see anything wrong with atheism, it is your choice, after all. Each to their own. Hell, even some early Hindus were athesit. I just cannot abide the pride atheists display and their almost crusade-like campaign to stamp out the faith-filled infidels.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked