Atheist religion

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Evil Teddie:
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.

As opposed to when a Christian holds up a text like the Bible and yells "Look what this book says!" and people are supposed to take it on faith that it's correct and in its correct context, right?

I mean, when you said

Evil Teddie:
Hai! I'm a general Christian, as in I follow the example Jesus set, etc.

You assume that the 'example' you're talking about is correct, and not a mistranslation out of context. Right? That parts not translated wrong, I assume.

I can just hear that snide, "Ha! I got you!" tone. I follow the commandment 'Love your neighbor as yourself', that's what I meant by that statement. The first thing an atheist attacks are religious texts, as they are the easy targets, the whole battle plan of an atheist argument is very predictable, it even has its own web page http://www.wikihow.com/Argue-That-God-Does-Not-Exist. I sincerely hope that many ancient texts have not been mistranslated out of context, such the philsophical texts of Ancient Greece. Feel free to smack the Bible, like so many others, just tell me when you're done.

I'll just leave this here:

C.S Lewis:

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.

Evil Teddie:
I follow the commandment 'Love your neighbor as yourself', that's what I meant by that statement.

But of course, you have no way of knowing if that commandment was a mistranslation or not, or whether it's in the correct context. The context (as far as the NIV Bible goes) has the 'Love your God' commandment before the 'Love your Neighbour'. Which implies you should be putting God before your Neighbour; that God is more important than they are. Therefore if it came down to choosing between loving God or loving your Neighbour, you should choose God.

That, my Ursine Friend, can lead to dangerous things, but a perfectly logical proposition drawn from the context of the passage.

And of course, as noted, that could all still be a mistranslation. You don't know, you're just assuming it's not because it fits your world view better, just like assuming the negative stuff is a mistranslation.

Evil Teddie:

I'll just leave this here:

C.S Lewis:

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.

The words of a fool. False religion can still be of great importance because of the cultural and social impact. Are we to assume that Christianity is not at all important if false despite having over 2 billion adherents?

Laughable. If you're going to quote someone at least make it a fun quote like...

Footballers are:-

Bill Bailey:

"A bunch of vain, illiterate, millionaire, borderline rapists, whose job it is to shepherd a bit of leather into a badly made outdoor cupboard"

And for the record, my tone isn't snide, that implies my tone is nasty. I'm more...cocksure. You know, the 'oozes confidence' kind of tone? Yeah, that's mine. Nasty implies I'm being mean about it.

Cocksure, eh? Heh. That explains a lot... *Sigh* I believe that this arguement has gone on a thousand times before. But then again, the translations from Mayan text could be wrong, the probability of a universe like this being created out of chance is 10^10123, then again God could be the Dark Matter and Dark Energy sciencitist are worrying about, then again there could a massive murder beast out to get us in far space, then again Japan could be trying to brainwash us with anime. All hypotheses, all unproven, all could be right or wrong.

Tell me, why chose atheism?

Evil Teddie:

Tell me, why chose atheism?

I've never seen convincing evidence for anything else. I entertain the thoughts occasionally; I'd like to believe that some form of reincarnation exists, but I don't. I've seen no real evidence for it, so it makes sense to be skeptical to the point of atheism. Negative/Weak Atheism, anyway.

If you're curious as to my upbringing (as people often are when religion gets brought up), my parents were never particularly religious (though when I told my Father I was an atheist he replied with "No you're not"), but I attended a Christian Private School between the ages of 4 and 18 and was a choir boy* for six years at city Cathedral between the ages of 7 and 13, and my first girlfriend was a pretty devout Christian, so it's not like I wasn't embroiled in the stuff growing up.

*Wasn't molested. Our choir master was into the choir girls apparently.

Evil Teddie:

Tell me, why chose atheism?

There is no evidence for the existence of unicorns, gnomes, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, zombies and God.

Seems like quite quite a valid reason to assume they don't exist, until convincing evidence/logic is presented.

LOVE is the main theme of the Bible. I am a Christian as in i believe in God and Jesus Christ as my Savior but i hate Religion. Religion is of man and is evil because for some reason hypocrites always come to lead a Religion. They become greedy and power hungry so they start so called wars in the name of God, rob people blind, etc. When Jesus came he didn't start a Religion, he came to destroy it. The pharisees were corrupt and hypocrites who only cared about money, looking good infront of people, and themselves. Jesus said "Do as they say, not as they do" because they knew the law but did not follow it. Jesus was killed(he willingly died for our sins)not because didn't believe he was son of God, but because he was ruining what they had and was taking over. They offered judgement, while Jesus offered love and acceptance. Religion is the cause of most problems in this world, but God is not. Many Christians are mislead by Priest and modern day Pharisees to believe and do things Jesus said not to do, what's funny is the Bible says that would happen, infact everything going on world wide the Bible said would happen.
I am a Christian, i love every one and that means every one, i support Gay rights and marriage, my goal is to spread love across the world,i help whoever calls out to me, i shun no one, i am not Hollyer than Thou because i am a sinner because we all are sinners(something the church forgot)i'm very open minded and i love the fact that America allows religious freedom, because God allows it as well, God will never make you do anything you don't want too because he gave us free will. All of you are loved no matter what. Real Christians love others, Mainstream Judge others. I hope all of yall have a wonderful day and may Jesus bless you and your families. God Bless.

Evil Teddie:
Tell me, why chose atheism?

Do you find it somehow strange and bewildering how anyone could demand evidence for something before they believe in it?

colby694:
LOVE is the main theme of the Bible. I am a Christian as in i believe in God and Jesus Christ as my Savior but i hate Religion. Religion is of man and is evil because for some reason hypocrites always come to lead a Religion. They become greedy and power hungry so they start so called wars in the name of God, rob people blind, etc. When Jesus came he didn't start a Religion, he came to destroy it. The pharisees were corrupt and hypocrites who only cared about money, looking good infront of people, and themselves. Jesus said "Do as they say, not as they do" because they knew the law but did not follow it. Jesus was killed(he willingly died for our sins)not because didn't believe he was son of God, but because he was ruining what they had and was taking over. They offered judgement, while Jesus offered love and acceptance. Religion is the cause of most problems in this world, but God is not. Many Christians are mislead by Priest and modern day Pharisees to believe and do things Jesus said not to do, what's funny is the Bible says that would happen, infact everything going on world wide the Bible said would happen.
I am a Christian, i love every one and that means every one, i support Gay rights and marriage, my goal is to spread love across the world,i help whoever calls out to me, i shun no one, i am not Hollyer than Thou because i am a sinner because we all are sinners(something the church forgot)i'm very open minded and i love the fact that America allows religious freedom, because God allows it as well, God will never make you do anything you don't want too because he gave us free will. All of you are loved no matter what. Real Christians love others, Mainstream Judge others. I hope all of yall have a wonderful day and may Jesus bless you and your families. God Bless.

Your goals are laudable. Your support for equal rights for all is also laudable.

However the "Real Christians" falls squarely into the "No true scotsman" fallacy. And as for the Bible being about love....no. I have never seen a larger collection of hatred and jealousy. Really the god talked about in it is a very much a complete dick. And what his followers do in his name is terrible.

That being said, you are the kind of Christian I do wish other Christians (especially in the US) were like. I'd happily call you neighbour. So for what it's worth, I hope you too have a wonderful day, and may your beliefs in your deity bring you happiness and joy. (No I am not being sarcastic. I am being sincere.)

Danyal:

Evil Teddie:

Tell me, why chose atheism?

There is no evidence for the existence of unicorns, gnomes, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, zombies and God.

Seems like quite quite a valid reason to assume they don't exist, until convincing evidence/logic is presented.

Atheism has only to do with Theism. It says nothing about the other things you list.

taciturnCandid:

Danyal:

Evil Teddie:

Tell me, why chose atheism?

There is no evidence for the existence of unicorns, gnomes, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, zombies and God.

Seems like quite quite a valid reason to assume they don't exist, until convincing evidence/logic is presented.

Atheism has only to do with Theism. It says nothing about the other things you list.

No, but by phrasing it that way he won't reply with 'absence of evidence is no evidence of absence'.

Danyal:

Evil Teddie:

Tell me, why chose atheism?

There is no evidence for the existence of unicorns, gnomes, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, zombies and God.

Seems like quite quite a valid reason to assume they don't exist, until convincing evidence/logic is presented.

since i dont know much about unicorn mythologies i cant comment on those.

gnomes were never said ever to be omniscience beings, and are possible to discover if they did exists. we have not found any gnomes so its declared false. maybe gnomes are just midgets, since we do literally have people labeled as dwarves.

ghosts, well quantum mechanics allows for ghost or paranormal like phenomenon but you probably mean ghosts like old school cheesy ghost that go boo.

vampires, easily discoverable and were never claimed as real by its original creator.

werewolves, not really stealthy creatures so if they were real we would probably killed a few and they would of been discovered.

zombies are based in voodoo myth and don't really eat people. the victim usually ingest a poison which causes them to appear dead and has amnesiac effects. after the poison wears out the person will awake, usually buried and confused and highly suggestive, after which the person who poisoned digs them up and forces them to do work for them. this hasnt been tested under pure science but has been observed by a few people, but whether its true or not is highly debatable since the only evidence is testimonies and poisons that do make people appear dead. Every one knows flesh eating zombies dont exist.

keiskay:

Danyal:

Evil Teddie:

Tell me, why chose atheism?

There is no evidence for the existence of unicorns, gnomes, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, zombies and God.

Seems like quite quite a valid reason to assume they don't exist, until convincing evidence/logic is presented.

since i dont know much about unicorn mythologies i cant comment on those.

gnomes were never said ever to be omniscience beings, and are possible to discover if they did exists. we have not found any gnomes so its declared false. maybe gnomes are just midgets, since we do literally have people labeled as dwarves.

ghosts, well quantum mechanics allows for ghost or paranormal like phenomenon but you probably mean ghosts like old school cheesy ghost that go boo.

vampires, easily discoverable and were never claimed as real by its original creator.

werewolves, not really stealthy creatures so if they were real we would probably killed a few and they would of been discovered.

zombies are based in voodoo myth and don't really eat people. the victim usually ingest a poison which causes them to appear dead and has amnesiac effects. after the poison wears out the person will awake, usually buried and confused and highly suggestive, after which the person who poisoned digs them up and forces them to do work for them. this hasnt been tested under pure science but has been observed by a few people, but whether its true or not is highly debatable since the only evidence is testimonies and poisons that do make people appear dead. Every one knows flesh eating zombies dont exist.

The unicorn is mentioned in the Bible.

Job 39:9-12
King James Version (KJV)
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?

12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

Psalm 29:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Isaiah 34:7
King James Version (KJV)
7And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

So you think it's more logical to believe in omniscient invisible gnomes than in gnomes?

So vampires and werewolves are easily discoverable, but an omnipresent creator who influences all our lives, created the entire universe and supposedly sends messengers/his Son to contact people is not discoverable?

Danyal:

keiskay:

Danyal:

There is no evidence for the existence of unicorns, gnomes, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, zombies and God.

Seems like quite quite a valid reason to assume they don't exist, until convincing evidence/logic is presented.

since i dont know much about unicorn mythologies i cant comment on those.

gnomes were never said ever to be omniscience beings, and are possible to discover if they did exists. we have not found any gnomes so its declared false. maybe gnomes are just midgets, since we do literally have people labeled as dwarves.

ghosts, well quantum mechanics allows for ghost or paranormal like phenomenon but you probably mean ghosts like old school cheesy ghost that go boo.

vampires, easily discoverable and were never claimed as real by its original creator.

werewolves, not really stealthy creatures so if they were real we would probably killed a few and they would of been discovered.

zombies are based in voodoo myth and don't really eat people. the victim usually ingest a poison which causes them to appear dead and has amnesiac effects. after the poison wears out the person will awake, usually buried and confused and highly suggestive, after which the person who poisoned digs them up and forces them to do work for them. this hasnt been tested under pure science but has been observed by a few people, but whether its true or not is highly debatable since the only evidence is testimonies and poisons that do make people appear dead. Every one knows flesh eating zombies dont exist.

The unicorn is mentioned in the Bible.

Job 39:9-12
King James Version (KJV)
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?

12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

Psalm 29:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Isaiah 34:7
King James Version (KJV)
7And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

So you think omniscient invisible gnomes are a better alternative to believe in?

So vampires and werewolves are easily discoverable, but an omnipresent creator who influences all our lives, created the entire universe and supposedly sends messengers/his Son to contact people is not discoverable?

if believing in omniscience invisible gnomes makes it easier for you in this world then sure. might explain were your socks and underwear go when they disappear from the wash.

weird it seems that unicorns might be mistranslated since i saw another translation that said wild oxen.

depends on what kind of creator you believe in. consider this the big bang has yet to be proven factual but its considered acceptable. one of the modern hypothesis for the big bang was that the universe was a constant (which requires us to ignore the laws of cause and effect), but then couldn't god be a constant as well? quantum mechanics also allows for the possibility of a god in an alternative dimension then others that can periodically make contact with us. the problem we have here is trying to prove the existence of an omniscience being. which can only be done by becoming omniscience yourself.

keiskay:

weird it seems that unicorns might be mistranslated since i saw another translation that said wild oxen.

However, the linguistics of the text cannot conclusively prove how many horns the biblical unicorn had. While modern translations typically translate re'em as "wild ox," the King James Version (1611), Luther's German Bible (1534), the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate translated this Hebrew word with words meaning "one-horned animal."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible

depends on what kind of creator you believe in. consider this the big bang has yet to be proven factual but its considered acceptable. one of the modern hypothesis for the big bang was that the universe was a constant (which requires us to ignore the laws of cause and effect), but then couldn't god be a constant as well? quantum mechanics also allows for the possibility of a god in an alternative dimension then others that can periodically make contact with us. the problem we have here is trying to prove the existence of an omniscience being. which can only be done by becoming omniscience yourself.

And that's the problem. Wait I want to draw it. F*ck I can't make graphs here. Well what I mean....

The chance that a homophobic God exists who tortures unbelievers for eternity without giving those unbelievers any rational reason to believe in him is somewhere around 0,0000001%.
Yet, the Pope and others are nearly 100% sure that he exists. And loads of people believe in this extremely unlikely hypothesis.
The chance that some kind of non-human intelligent life forms exists that may or may not have influenced life on earth is way bigger. Yet there are way less people who try to actually prove that this life exists or try to think of all logical possibilities that those beings/being exists.

Danyal:

keiskay:

weird it seems that unicorns might be mistranslated since i saw another translation that said wild oxen.

However, the linguistics of the text cannot conclusively prove how many horns the biblical unicorn had. While modern translations typically translate re'em as "wild ox," the King James Version (1611), Luther's German Bible (1534), the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate translated this Hebrew word with words meaning "one-horned animal."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible

depends on what kind of creator you believe in. consider this the big bang has yet to be proven factual but its considered acceptable. one of the modern hypothesis for the big bang was that the universe was a constant (which requires us to ignore the laws of cause and effect), but then couldn't god be a constant as well? quantum mechanics also allows for the possibility of a god in an alternative dimension then others that can periodically make contact with us. the problem we have here is trying to prove the existence of an omniscience being. which can only be done by becoming omniscience yourself.

And that's the problem. Wait I want to draw it. F*ck I can't make graphs here. Well what I mean....

The chance that a homophobic God exists who tortures unbelievers for eternity without giving those unbelievers any rational reason to believe in him is somewhere around 0,0000001%.
Yet, the Pope and others are nearly 100% sure that he exists. And loads of people believe in this extremely unlikely hypothesis.
The chance that some kind of non-human intelligent life forms exists that may or may not have influenced life on earth is way bigger. Yet there are way less people who try to actually prove that this life exists or try to think of all logical possibilities that those beings/being exists.

your statistic is laughable unless your considering a quantum mechanics statistic. since given current circumstances a omniscience god or quantum mechanical god is not scientifically testable. so its either 0% or 100% but since we cant tell some people choose 100% while other people chose 0% with others being somewhere in between. eh the god i learned about wasn't like that, but thats your interpretation so whatever. you should probably look up universal reconciliation and the united methodist chruch before making claims like that.

keiskay:

your statistic is laughable unless your considering a quantum mechanics statistic. since given current circumstances a omniscience god or quantum mechanical god is not scientifically testable. so its either 0% or 100% but since we cant tell some people choose 100% while other people chose 0% with others being somewhere in between. eh the god i learned about wasn't like that, but thats your interpretation so whatever. you should probably look up universal reconciliation and the united methodist chruch before making claims like that.

Well, let's add monotheistic.

I don't think the chance a omniscient, homophobic, omnipresent, monotheistic God exists who punishes unbelievers for not believing in him while not giving them any rational evidence to do so, yet creating them with a rational mind is any bigger than 0,0000001%.

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.

Let me tell you something very interesting about that. People not long ago(HP Lovecraft used it in his stories, for example) thought that space was made up of aether. We now know that is not true, but I believe in something similar. In Greek myth, there was these things called Protogenoi. They were the first beings to come into existance, the very first things, or so the myth tells. Chronos, in particular, I believe I have a connection of some sorts to, but that isn't the point. They embodied different elements and aspects and ideas. No, that's a wrong way to put it. They are more then anthropomorphic personifications. What they represent, they are. The brother and sister Erebus and Nyx were darkness and night. And that's what I think surrounds us. Erebus and Nyx. Enveloped by them.

So that paragraph doesn't bother me. It makes sense. We're just a speck. And we're being watched over by beings much our greater.

*Sigh* the rabid dogs are at it again.

keiskay:

your statistic is laughable unless your considering a quantum mechanics statistic. since given current circumstances a omniscience god or quantum mechanical god is not scientifically testable. so its either 0% or 100% but since we cant tell some people choose 100% while other people chose 0% with others being somewhere in between. eh the god i learned about wasn't like that, but thats your interpretation so whatever. you should probably look up universal reconciliation and the united methodist chruch before making claims like that.

Gotta have to call you out on that. But not in the way you think:

You grossly misrepresented Quantum Mechanics and treated it as some magical device that somehow proves god. Let me assure you: It is not. QM is just another scientific theory: it makes predictions of measurements. The only thing exceptional is that trying to translate the math into something understandable proves to be rather tricky. And let me tell you: it does usually not involve god. As such, the amount of "proof" you find in QM is exactly as much as in any other physical theory. Please stop mystifying it.

And before you ask: yes, I know what I speak of being a physicist and all.

Also don't get the above wrong: I'am not here to offend you and I don't really care if you believe in god or not. Just don't make it look as if the oh-so magical QM clearly states "there is god". It does not.

Dajosch:

keiskay:

your statistic is laughable unless your considering a quantum mechanics statistic. since given current circumstances a omniscience god or quantum mechanical god is not scientifically testable. so its either 0% or 100% but since we cant tell some people choose 100% while other people chose 0% with others being somewhere in between. eh the god i learned about wasn't like that, but thats your interpretation so whatever. you should probably look up universal reconciliation and the united methodist chruch before making claims like that.

Gotta have to call you out on that. But not in the way you think:

You grossly misrepresented Quantum Mechanics and treated it as some magical device that somehow proves god. Let me assure you: It is not. QM is just another scientific theory: it makes predictions of measurements. The only thing exceptional is that trying to translate the math into something understandable proves to be rather tricky. And let me tell you: it does usually not involve god. As such, the amount of "proof" you find in QM is exactly as much as in any other physical theory. Please stop mystifying it.

And before you ask: yes, I know what I speak of being a physicist and all.

Also don't get the above wrong: I'am not here to offend you and I don't really care if you believe in god or not. Just don't make it look as if the oh-so magical QM clearly states "there is god". It does not.

fine I'll accept that but i never stated that quantum mechanics says there is a god but opens up a possibility. but thats more or less dealing with string theory. so next kindly do not put words in my mouth when i nowhere in my post did i once point or declare that Quantum mechanics prove god. But i do appreciate that you refute my points with actual arguments based on the matter, instead of making up BS so i concede.

Danyal:

keiskay:

your statistic is laughable unless your considering a quantum mechanics statistic. since given current circumstances a omniscience god or quantum mechanical god is not scientifically testable. so its either 0% or 100% but since we cant tell some people choose 100% while other people chose 0% with others being somewhere in between. eh the god i learned about wasn't like that, but thats your interpretation so whatever. you should probably look up universal reconciliation and the united methodist chruch before making claims like that.

Well, let's add monotheistic.

I don't think the chance a omniscient, homophobic, omnipresent, monotheistic God exists who punishes unbelievers for not believing in him while not giving them any rational evidence to do so, yet creating them with a rational mind is any bigger than 0,0000001%.

okay well now you surely narrowed your god down to a few select religions but even then your arbitrarily pulling a number out of your ass. also when you write a number thats supposed to be less then one you use a period not a comma.

While it is true that the philosophy of atheism is not a religion, it certainly seems that the New Atheist movement is dead-set on inventing an atheist religion. The ironically-named "Reason Rally" on March 24th at the National Mall certainly has all the appearances of a proto-religious gathering, particularly its claim that atheists are being oppressed. Pope Dawkins is going to make an appearance, so I have no doubt that plenty of loud-mouthed internet anti-theists will magically have a new set of pithy anti-religion arguments in their arsenal to endlessly recycle on March 25th.

Katatori-kun:
While it is true that the philosophy of atheism is not a religion, it certainly seems that the New Atheist movement is dead-set on inventing an atheist religion. The ironically-named "Reason Rally" on March 24th at the National Mall certainly has all the appearances of a proto-religious gathering, particularly its claim that atheists are being oppressed. Pope Dawkins is going to make an appearance, so I have no doubt that plenty of loud-mouthed internet anti-theists will magically have a new set of pithy anti-religion arguments in their arsenal to endlessly recycle on March 25th.

im just curious how they can claim to be oppressed when they don't have a belief to be oppressed for?

keiskay:

Katatori-kun:
While it is true that the philosophy of atheism is not a religion, it certainly seems that the New Atheist movement is dead-set on inventing an atheist religion. The ironically-named "Reason Rally" on March 24th at the National Mall certainly has all the appearances of a proto-religious gathering, particularly its claim that atheists are being oppressed. Pope Dawkins is going to make an appearance, so I have no doubt that plenty of loud-mouthed internet anti-theists will magically have a new set of pithy anti-religion arguments in their arsenal to endlessly recycle on March 25th.

im just curious how they can claim to be oppressed when they don't have a belief to be oppressed for?

They just trotted out that old survey that says Americans tend to dislike or distrust atheists more than other groups (a survey that I have already argued has severe methodological flaws) and are presenting that as oppression- conveniently forgetting that in the US you don't have the right to being liked. Especially when the loudest members of your group are prone to insulting everyone not in your group.

As an atheist I don't believe in anything, except reality...
image
and it's awesome ;)

Also similar videos I guess would be: this, this, this, this, this, this & this :)

Live long and prosper :D

Katatori-kun:
particularly its claim that atheists are being oppressed.

"Oppressed" might be a bit extreme. However, they're consistently noted as being (one of, if not) the least trusted demographic in America. It's still considered general political suicide to identify as an atheist.

There's reports of Atheists being discriminated against in the military (which is generally quite Christian. Surprising, right?) and child custody cases - atheists seem to be more distrusted than Christian parents. It took fourteen years of ACLU Lawsuits to get the Pentagon to withdraw support from the Boy Scouts of America - an organisation which discriminated against atheists.

So maybe having a rally to raise awareness of atheists not being insane immoral psychopaths might do some good?

Katatori-kun:
Pope Dawkins is going to make an appearance, so I have no doubt that plenty of loud-mouthed internet anti-theists will magically have a new set of pithy anti-religion arguments in their arsenal to endlessly recycle on March 25th.

So...what, you would rather Atheists just shut up and sit in the corner while the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum are running around? You don't think that atheists might have a vested interest in maybe standing up and making themselves known?

Amnestic:

Katatori-kun:
particularly its claim that atheists are being oppressed.

So maybe having a rally to raise awareness of atheists not being insane immoral psychopaths might do some good?

Im sorry but if you expect dawkins to be civilized and rational and to remove the stereotypes of atheist your in for a rude surprise. considering it is people like dawkins which are causing so much hate from religious communities onto atheist communities. so chances of the rally actually being about atheist awareness are quite slim. its more then likely just gonna be dawkins and other people alike preaching their view on why religion is evil, irrational and illogical.

keiskay:

Amnestic:

Katatori-kun:
particularly its claim that atheists are being oppressed.

So maybe having a rally to raise awareness of atheists not being insane immoral psychopaths might do some good?

Im sorry but if you expect dawkins to be civilized and rational and to remove the stereotypes of atheist your in for a rude surprise. considering it is people like dawkins which are causing so much hate from religious communities onto atheist communities. so chances of the rally actually being about atheist awareness are quite slim. its more then likely just gonna be dawkins and other people alike preaching their view on why religion is evil, irrational and illogical.

Because hatred and distrust of atheists is only a recent phenomenon.

Blaming Richard Dawkins, of all people, for such is clear lunacy. This is a result of deeply held beliefs about the necessity of religion for morality, not a reaction to annoyance. The perception that Christianity is somehow "under attack" is just an excuse.

keiskay:

Im sorry but if you expect dawkins to be civilized and rational and to remove the stereotypes of atheist your in for a rude surprise. considering it is people like dawkins which are causing so much hate from religious communities onto atheist communities. so chances of the rally actually being about atheist awareness are quite slim. its more then likely just gonna be dawkins and other people alike preaching their view on why religion is evil, irrational and illogical.

I often hear that it's all Dawkins' fault (or people 'like Dawkins', in your case), but I never see any real backup for that. Can you provide citations for it? I read a few chapters of the God Delusion when I was back at my mother's house for Christmas and I certainly didn't get the impression that Dawkins thought religion was evil. "Irrational" and "Illogical" are pretty much synonyms and...well, how logical is it to believe in something with no falsifiable evidence?

It's a common turnabout, but wouldn't you consider someone with a completely deep-seated and earnest belief in Unicorns a bit irrational?

Generally I find people's hate on Dawkins seems to be because of who he is rather than what he actually says. Perhaps you're different though?

Katatori-kun:
While it is true that the philosophy of atheism is not a religion, it certainly seems that the New Atheist movement is dead-set on inventing an atheist religion. The ironically-named "Reason Rally" on March 24th at the National Mall certainly has all the appearances of a proto-religious gathering, particularly its claim that atheists are being oppressed. Pope Dawkins is going to make an appearance, so I have no doubt that plenty of loud-mouthed internet anti-theists will magically have a new set of pithy anti-religion arguments in their arsenal to endlessly recycle on March 25th.

I'd like to go No True Scotsman on that, but fucking hell...I can see people adding "but not one of those crazy ones" when they tell people they are atheist.

Amnestic:
Generally I find people's hate on Dawkins seems to be because of who he is rather than what he actually says. Perhaps you're different though?

Well, he hasn't read the Haryr Potter books, but he's sure they are corrupting kids and turning them towards Christianity. He thinks Catholic priests sexually abusing kids isn't nearly as bad as bringing kids up Catholic. He's also said that every Muslim in existence is in favour of child abuse.

Fucking embarassing fauxgressive scum. Fine, they want to live in a world where people aren't forced to belong to a religion, good for them. They shouldn't expect the rest of us to pat them on the back and overlook all of their privileges because of it.

thaluikhain:

Well, he hasn't read the Haryr Potter books, but he's sure they are corrupting kids and turning them towards Christianity. He thinks Catholic priests sexually abusing kids isn't nearly as bad as bringing kids up Catholic. He's also said that every Muslim in existence is in favour of child abuse.

Since you provided no citations I had to go look for stuff myself.

So, let's have a look.

Dawkins on Harry Potter

Uh...nope, he didn't say what you said he said at all, so that's a -1 for you.

Can't find a good source for the second claim, but he does appear to have said something along those lines, so I'll grant you that. Pretty douchey thing to say really. I'm sure there's he thinks there's a justification for that statement, but I disagree with him on that one.

And I can't find anything to support your last claim other than the fact that he thinks raising children as religious should be considered child abuse, but that's not what you said. He's defended that point himself, so you can go take it up with him. I'm not entirely sure I'd go as far as to call it child abuse, but I would say that raising children as religious is a dick move considering how impressionable they are at a young age. You're not really giving them fair choice.

So yeah, source on your last claim or another -1.

thaluikhain:

Fine, they want to live in a world where people aren't forced to belong to a religion

How the hell is that a bad thing?

Ah, I'd misremembered what he said about Harry Potter, my mistake. Haven't been able to find the source for the last again, I afraid.

Amnestic:

thaluikhain:

Fine, they want to live in a world where people aren't forced to belong to a religion

How the hell is that a bad thing?

Er...note the first word, and the three after the end?

Amnestic:

keiskay:

Im sorry but if you expect dawkins to be civilized and rational and to remove the stereotypes of atheist your in for a rude surprise. considering it is people like dawkins which are causing so much hate from religious communities onto atheist communities. so chances of the rally actually being about atheist awareness are quite slim. its more then likely just gonna be dawkins and other people alike preaching their view on why religion is evil, irrational and illogical.

I often hear that it's all Dawkins' fault (or people 'like Dawkins', in your case), but I never see any real backup for that. Can you provide citations for it? I read a few chapters of the God Delusion when I was back at my mother's house for Christmas and I certainly didn't get the impression that Dawkins thought religion was evil. "Irrational" and "Illogical" are pretty much synonyms and...well, how logical is it to believe in something with no falsifiable evidence?

It's a common turnabout, but wouldn't you consider someone with a completely deep-seated and earnest belief in Unicorns a bit irrational?

Generally I find people's hate on Dawkins seems to be because of who he is rather than what he actually says. Perhaps you're different though?

i just dont really like how he conducts himself. i would compare him to our own danyal here. such as when confronted by a religious person in a rational argument he decides to take a route and start throwing out things like the spaghetti monster and Bigfoot. instead of trying to actually explain himself and try to at least share the sentiment of respect . i much prefer hitchens to dawkins since hitchens at least conducts himself as an adult when engaged in a discussion and debate.

thats odd maybe he's not as aggressive in the god delusion, but he has equated god to a computer virus. he equates religion to a mental virus and believes that the young are supposed gullible and lack the ability to question religion (which is un-true you can ask any moderate religious person and i guarantee you a large number will say that they have questioned their beliefs) but then does not equate that the same effect is possible with atheistic parents. dawkins also ignores all writings about religion and goes off his own baseless assumptions with no real knowledge of the subject he is attacking.

Amnestic:

Katatori-kun:
particularly its claim that atheists are being oppressed.

"Oppressed" might be a bit extreme. However, they're consistently noted as being (one of, if not) the least trusted demographic in America. It's still considered general political suicide to identify as an atheist.[/QUOTE]

True, but this doesn't make them oppressed.

There's reports of Atheists being discriminated against in the military (which is generally quite Christian. Surprising, right?)

I fully endorse rooting out all Christian influences from the military- in fact I regard it as a matter of national security to do so. But until I see evidence of atheists being discriminated against, I'm not going to just "take it on faith".

and child custody cases - atheists seem to be more distrusted than Christian parents.

Last I saw that was a single judge in a single district that ruled against an atheist family, which was portrayed on this board as a general statement of discrimination against atheists in America. Obviously, that's a bit of a stretch.

So maybe having a rally to raise awareness of atheists not being insane immoral psychopaths might do some good?

When they name their event the "Reason Rally", I'm pretty confident that they aren't going to successfully convey that message.

Katatori-kun:
Pope Dawkins is going to make an appearance, so I have no doubt that plenty of loud-mouthed internet anti-theists will magically have a new set of pithy anti-religion arguments in their arsenal to endlessly recycle on March 25th.

So...what, you would rather Atheists just shut up and sit in the corner while the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum are running around? You don't think that atheists might have a vested interest in maybe standing up and making themselves known?

This is the ultimate problem with atheism. To be logically sound, atheism must be an absence of belief. To be politically effective, it must state a claim. Pope Dawkins's followers like to flirt between the two extremes as suits them, leading to intellectually dishonest positioning all around.

A rally to say, "People who don't believe in god are decent people" makes as much sense as a rally to say, "People who don't believe in leprechauns are decent people." Unless you're trying to expand the strength of atheists as a political bloc, there really is no point in holding a rally.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked