Do you think we should tiptoe around religious issues for fear of offense?
Hell no, we should try offend them, maybe then they will rexamine their beliefs.
4.5% (6)
4.5% (6)
Absolutely not, religious people should hear how insane their views are to an outsider.
18.7% (25)
18.7% (25)
Not really, it is just another viewpoint open to discussion, respect should only factor in to the same extent as one would give an opposing political view.
64.9% (87)
64.9% (87)
Yes, to an extent, but some things must be examined and possibly changed.
7.5% (10)
7.5% (10)
Yes, it is important not to hurt peoples feelings at all.
0.7% (1)
0.7% (1)
You missed my viewpoint you bastard! (Other, explain)
3.7% (5)
3.7% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Respect, Religion and Offense

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Dijkstra:

It's not his job to convince them.

If he wants Judaism to no longer exist, then he most certainly does need to convince them.

Dijkstra:

And boohoo, old wounds, that's a pretty lame excuse to try to say people aren't allowed to hate a religion.

Not really, its pretty well known that Jews have been on the receiving end of hate for quite a while and as a result, they don't take well to people telling them how much they hate Judaism.

Bashfluff:

Again, you cherrypick of the good parts of Amish society and the bad parts of modern living. You ignore the whole and ask me to disprove the positives of Amish living and the negatives of modern living. It is a fundamentally dishonest way to debate, and if you want to continue, stop.

I'm not cherry-picking, I'm pointing out that not every aspect of Amish society is bad and how that isn't a negative. I never said they were perfect. The only dishonestly in this debate is your agenda of poorly attempting to condemn all religions and convince others to harass people who are religious because you don't like them. I understand why you might hate the WBC, but there is no reason to harass Amish people or monks living on remote mountains in Greece.

Bashfluff:

I am not generalizing. Do people in those countries suffer because of the prominence of Islamic beliefs? YES.

Yes you are generalizing if you think the standard of living in Turkey is the same as Afghanistan just because Islamic beliefs are prominent in both countries.

Insulting your opponent is a good way to incite sectarianism and have them place themselves firmly on the other side from the guy insulting them.

That said, I do think that religion is a ridiculous idea and should be met with the same scorn as any other silly superstitions would.

tstorm823:
There are three types of societal movements- the sudden leap, the slow creep, and the wave. People seem to think modern atheism is one of the first two, that we are moving uniformly towards the end of religion, but the way I see it, you're riding high on a wave that is going to fall eventually, it has risen and fallen many times before, and soon enough you won't even be able to imagine religion going anywhere.

You're underestimating the influence freedom of information, especially in the case of the internet, have. Modern technology makes obtaining the knowledge needed to critically examine ones beliefs much easier, something I can personally attest to. As long as people are able to freely and easily access said knowledge, I don't think atheism will die anytime soon.

Bashfluff:

Faux Pas of being religious? Like...how close to 70% of America is religious? It's a Faux Pas to admit you're NOT.

If religion was a unified concept, you'd be right, but as a catholic, I'm just as likely to pre-judge someone for being protestant as I am for being atheist. Lots of religious people right now judge others for being religious, just so long as they aren't the same religion.

People are growing, worldwide, more secular. People in the past four freaking years, even, have stopped with their radical homophobic beliefs for the most part. Jon Stewart said it best when he compared how the Fox News Network treated gays politically, and the support of them, versus how we treat them today. And this is ONE issue, and not even a core one. But what about Noah's Ark being figurative, like Adam and Eve? Evolution being accepted by people of faith as it should? The devil in his modern form? Hell?

The romans had a lot of gay sex, the Catholic Church acknowledged the non-historical nature of the bible within decades of the books of it being chosen, the cartoonish version of the devil and hell are medieval fiction, and people of faith have done more for science than anyone else historically.

You feel as though millenia-old trends are being overturned, but most of the things being undone were not set much longer ago than the 1980s.

secretkeeper12:

You're underestimating the influence freedom of information, especially in the case of the internet, have. Modern technology makes obtaining the knowledge needed to critically examine ones beliefs much easier, something I can personally attest to. As long as people are able to freely and easily access said knowledge, I don't think atheism will die anytime soon.

Die? No. Ebb? Yes. It's a tide... it comes and goes with the times.

tstorm823:

secretkeeper12:

You're underestimating the influence freedom of information, especially in the case of the internet, have. Modern technology makes obtaining the knowledge needed to critically examine ones beliefs much easier, something I can personally attest to. As long as people are able to freely and easily access said knowledge, I don't think atheism will die anytime soon.

Die? No. Ebb? Yes. It's a tide... it comes and goes with the times.

Why would it ebb in the first place, though? The situation we face now isn't the same we had in the Renassiance. Religion is rejected not out of social unrest, but by scientific knowledge and reason. For religion to become significantly prominent again, either information would have to become significantly harder to come by (given the outrage over SOPA, I don't foresee that as a likely possibility) or the majority of the populace would have to delude themselves (possible on the small-scale, highly unlikely on the large).

Edited for clarification

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

Again, you cherrypick of the good parts of Amish society and the bad parts of modern living. You ignore the whole and ask me to disprove the positives of Amish living and the negatives of modern living. It is a fundamentally dishonest way to debate, and if you want to continue, stop.

I'm not cherry-picking, I'm pointing out that not every aspect of Amish society is bad and how that isn't a negative. I never said they were perfect. The only dishonestly in this debate is your agenda of poorly attempting to condemn all religions and convince others to harass people who are religious because you don't like them. I understand why you might hate the WBC, but there is no reason to harass Amish people or monks living on remote mountains in Greece.

Bashfluff:

I am not generalizing. Do people in those countries suffer because of the prominence of Islamic beliefs? YES.

Yes you are generalizing if you think the standard of living in Turkey is the same as Afghanistan just because Islamic beliefs are prominent in both countries.

I never said harass, for one. That's you bringing your prejudices to the table and labeling me. ALSO dishonest, by the way. I think it's an overall detriment to people in every group everywhere. It deserves scorn and it should get it. I never said we should harass anyone, and if those things mean the same thing to you, you have very poor definitions.

I never said the standards of living were the same. I said that they suffer. Do they? YES. As I said before.

tstorm823:

Bashfluff:

Faux Pas of being religious? Like...how close to 70% of America is religious? It's a Faux Pas to admit you're NOT.

If religion was a unified concept, you'd be right, but as a catholic, I'm just as likely to pre-judge someone for being protestant as I am for being atheist. Lots of religious people right now judge others for being religious, just so long as they aren't the same religion.

People are growing, worldwide, more secular. People in the past four freaking years, even, have stopped with their radical homophobic beliefs for the most part. Jon Stewart said it best when he compared how the Fox News Network treated gays politically, and the support of them, versus how we treat them today. And this is ONE issue, and not even a core one. But what about Noah's Ark being figurative, like Adam and Eve? Evolution being accepted by people of faith as it should? The devil in his modern form? Hell?

The romans had a lot of gay sex, the Catholic Church acknowledged the non-historical nature of the bible within decades of the books of it being chosen, the cartoonish version of the devil and hell are medieval fiction, and people of faith have done more for science than anyone else historically.

You feel as though millenia-old trends are being overturned, but most of the things being undone were not set much longer ago than the 1980s.

secretkeeper12:

You're underestimating the influence freedom of information, especially in the case of the internet, have. Modern technology makes obtaining the knowledge needed to critically examine ones beliefs much easier, something I can personally attest to. As long as people are able to freely and easily access said knowledge, I don't think atheism will die anytime soon.

Die? No. Ebb? Yes. It's a tide... it comes and goes with the times.

The Romans alone had a lot of gay sex, and they we looked down upon it....why? What is the number one reason for the hatred of homosexuality in America? What secular reason is there to hate it? NONE. It comes from the religion. Just as we ignored or skimmed over the other horrible things in the Bible, we now are starting to ignore homosexuality's condemnation bibically as a society.

The Catholic Church did WHAT? I'm sorry, but that's just plain fictitious. I'm sure the Church has interpretations of the Bible that say that some things weren't pointing to history or were fabrications. But all the things I said I recent things. They build on each other, and we continue to see them build, continue to see the foundation have bricks taken out from it. Yes. The cartoonish version of the Devil and of Hell are fictions born of the Middle Ages. But you miss something...PEOPLE BELIEVE THEM. They did before. They did not as WIDELY as before. This big change did not come overnight.

Of course people of faith have done more for science than anyone else. Most people are of faith. Does that mean that faith did more for science? NO. These trends are being overturned, and this is clearly evidence of it.

Bashfluff:

I never said harass, for one. That's you bringing your prejudices to the table and labeling me.

I never said you typed the word "harass", just that this....

Bashfluff:
When Hitchens said that the number one source of hatred in the world is religion, organized religion, I agree. It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

...is harassment.

Bashfluff:
I think it's an overall detriment to people in every group everywhere. It deserves scorn and it should get it. I never said we should harass anyone, and if those things mean the same thing to you, you have very poor definitions.

If you don't like that a person is religious, that's fine but its not up to you or anybody else whether or not a person is religious. A person should have just as much of a right to be proud that their Hindu as they should have the right to be proud that their a Libertarian.

Bashfluff:

I never said the standards of living were the same. I said that they suffer. Do they? YES. As I said before.

How do they suffer? You keep repeating that people suffer from being religious but you never specify. What exactly is a person suffering from if they choose to believe in a religion?

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

I never said harass, for one. That's you bringing your prejudices to the table and labeling me.

I never said you typed the word "harass", just that this....

Bashfluff:
When Hitchens said that the number one source of hatred in the world is religion, organized religion, I agree. It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

...is harassment.

Bashfluff:
I think it's an overall detriment to people in every group everywhere. It deserves scorn and it should get it. I never said we should harass anyone, and if those things mean the same thing to you, you have very poor definitions.

If you don't like that a person is religious, that's fine but its not up to you or anybody else whether or not a person is religious. A person should have just as much of a right to be proud that their Hindu as they should have the right to be proud that their a Libertarian.

Bashfluff:

I never said the standards of living were the same. I said that they suffer. Do they? YES. As I said before.

How do they suffer? You keep repeating that people suffer from being religious but you never specify. What exactly is a person suffering from if they choose to believe in a religion?

Depends on what religion, Sir.

You make NO case for harassment. None at all.

A person has a right to be proud of being a child rapist. And...? What's your point? A person has the right to be proud of moral and immoral things. I never disputed a person having the right to believe whatever idiocy they wanted to.

Bashfluff:

Depends on what religion, Sir.

Ok since you seem convince that all major religons are a source of suffering, elaborate on that and give me specifics because as of right now you have not clearly pointed to how they suffer.

Bashfluff:

You make NO case for harassment. None at all.

I just did when I quoted you. You wish to create a environment where they constantly feel they are hated because they have the audacity to not conform to Atheism.

Bashfluff:

A person has a right to be proud of being a child rapist. And...? What's your point? A person has the right to be proud of moral and immoral things. I never disputed a person having the right to believe whatever idiocy they wanted to.

No, you just endorsed making them feel like shit and being in a hateful environment for being religious . Basically forcing them to either give up their beliefs or suffer from depression from the environment you wish to create for them.

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

Depends on what religion, Sir.

Ok since you seem convince that all major religons are a source of suffering, elaborate on that and give me specifics because as of right now you have not clearly pointed to how they suffer.

Bashfluff:

You make NO case for harassment. None at all.

I just did when I quoted you. You wish to create a environment where they constantly feel they are hated because they have the audacity to not conform to Atheism.

Bashfluff:

A person has a right to be proud of being a child rapist. And...? What's your point? A person has the right to be proud of moral and immoral things. I never disputed a person having the right to believe whatever idiocy they wanted to.

No, you just endorsed making them feel like shit and being in a hateful environment for being religious . Basically forcing them to either give up their beliefs or suffer from depression from the environment you wish to create for them.

Yes, I have. Before in other posts. You're welcome to read them if you'd like, but I do not like repeating myself to people who have a penchant for ignoring their debate opponents.

"You wish to create a environment where they constantly feel they are hated because they have the audacity to not conform to Atheism."

Remember when I said that? Remember? I don't. Because I never did. I never implied it. I never meant it.

"No, you just endorsed making them feel like shit and being in a hateful environment for being religious . Basically forcing them to either give up their beliefs or suffer from depression from the environment you wish to create for them."

Remember when I said that? Remember? I don't. Because I nev...

Bashfluff:

Yes, I have. Before in other posts. You're welcome to read them if you'd like, but I do not like repeating myself to people who have a penchant for ignoring their debate opponents.

I guess that's one way to dodge someone calling your bluff. We briefly talked about Amish society, but all you did was tell me that their lifestyle was bad. You never once specified when I asked you to. In fact, when I specified some of the benefits of Amish society, you just called that cherry picking. Now then, I'm asking you to "cherry pick" some specific negative points of a person being religious.

Bashfluff:

"You wish to create a environment where they constantly feel they are hated because they have the audacity to not conform to Atheism."

Remember when I said that? Remember? I don't. Because I never did. I never implied it. I never meant it.

You most certainly did when you typed your quote about how you endorsed Hitchen's idea that religion should be treated with "ridicule and hatred".

Bashfluff:

"No, you just endorsed making them feel like shit and being in a hateful environment for being religious . Basically forcing them to either give up their beliefs or suffer from depression from the environment you wish to create for them."

Remember when I said that? Remember? I don't. Because I nev...

Then you have poor memory, because you made it quite clear.

secretkeeper12:

Religion is rejected not out of social unrest, but by scientific knowledge and reason.

I disagree. Not even the people here really care about what scientific knowledge is, and I've been told outright by a certain user that the scientific method is outdated when it didn't support his stance. People aren't growing in scientific knowledge and reason, they are just taking all their meme pictures of baby animals subtitled with "God is awesome" and replacing it with "science is awesome."

Not that either of us can do much to back up our stances, but that's what things look like from my perspective.

Bashfluff:

The Catholic Church did WHAT? I'm sorry, but that's just plain fictitious.

St. Augustine, a great scholar of the Church, was writing in the 4th century that the Genesis stories are not a physical description but a spiritual one. It doesn't take quantum physics to guess that two stories about the same event saying contradictory things aren't an exact historical document. Everyone who acts like modern science stopped people from believing in a literal genesis is buying into revisionist history. The flat earth society is not very old.

tstorm823:

secretkeeper12:

Religion is rejected not out of social unrest, but by scientific knowledge and reason.

I disagree. Not even the people here really care about what scientific knowledge is, and I've been told outright by a certain user that the scientific method is outdated when it didn't support his stance. People aren't growing in scientific knowledge and reason, they are just taking all their meme pictures of baby animals subtitled with "God is awesome" and replacing it with "science is awesome."

Not that either of us can do much to back up our stances, but that's what things look like from my perspective.

Bashfluff:

The Catholic Church did WHAT? I'm sorry, but that's just plain fictitious.

St. Augustine, a great scholar of the Church, was writing in the 4th century that the Genesis stories are not a physical description but a spiritual one. It doesn't take quantum physics to guess that two stories about the same event saying contradictory things aren't an exact historical document. Everyone who acts like modern science stopped people from believing in a literal genesis is buying into revisionist history. The flat earth society is not very old.

"I've been told outright by a certain user that the scientific method is outdated when it didn't support his stance."

ONE user? As opposed to the majority of the atheist community, that actually cites science, that actually knows how it works, is actually USES it? That's pretty weak.

"People aren't growing in scientific knowledge and reason, they are just taking all their meme pictures of baby animals subtitled with "God is awesome" and replacing it with "science is awesome.""

That is demonstrably wrong. You're under the delusion that atheists are just submitting science in for God, just as dogmatic and unthinking. But that's just plain wrong. You've never spent much time in the atheist community if you can think that. You don't know what leads most people to it, you don't know what the community turns to, and you don't know what it values. You're asserting that based on...one guy?

"Not that either of us can do much to back up our stances, but that's what things look like from my perspective."

I just did provide something. You can't say, "a community of people thinks this way!" without knowing that someone who has been in that community is actually going to know what's up. That's totally something people can provide evidence for!

"St. Augustine, a great scholar of the Church, was writing in the 4th century that the Genesis stories are not a physical description but a spiritual one. It doesn't take quantum physics to guess that two stories about the same event saying contradictory things aren't an exact historical document. Everyone who acts like modern science stopped people from believing in a literal genesis is buying into revisionist history. The flat earth society is not very old."

Revisionist history? Please. You claimed "not historically accurate," not that parts weren't. That's what *I* said that they said. Why did you feel the need to respond to that? I know that the Catholic Church has done that. I WILL also say that modern science has had a hand in it. Plenty of people do believe in the literal Bible, and science kinda has put a stop to it.

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

Yes, I have. Before in other posts. You're welcome to read them if you'd like, but I do not like repeating myself to people who have a penchant for ignoring their debate opponents.

I guess that's one way to dodge someone calling your bluff. We briefly talked about Amish society, but all you did was tell me that their lifestyle was bad. You never once specified when I asked you to. In fact, when I specified some of the benefits of Amish society, you just called that cherry picking. Now then, I'm asking you to "cherry pick" some specific negative points of a person being religious.

I have outlined this in other posts. If you'd like farther than an inch up your page, you'll find I made a list. I called what you did cherry picking because of how you phrased it. You contrasted a negative aspect of modern living with the biggest positive of Amish living, then asked me to name a negative.

I'm not saying that there are no positives. I'm saying that just about every positive to religion would exist without it, and a lot of negatives would disappear.

Bashfluff:

"You wish to create a environment where they constantly feel they are hated because they have the audacity to not conform to Atheism."

Remember when I said that? Remember? I don't. Because I never did. I never implied it. I never meant it.

You most certainly did when you typed your quote about how you endorsed Hitchen's idea that religion should be treated with "ridicule and hatred".

What the hell does that have to do with creating this horrible environment for religious people? My BOYFRIEND is a Christian. I love him to death, and I would never dream about doing that to him. And I love that phrase, "conform to atheism". Nice slant. I've clarified this before. What I want is for people to treat it the way they would treat someone saying the Earth was flat. Not that we all shout them down and berate them, but that everyone kinda...knows what people think of the idea. Maybe that they look at other people, confused, or at people look away, politely trying to say nothing, but maybe saying, "Catholic? Like, you believe in that book about the homohatin?" Looking uncomfortable in the new revelation. It's quite clear what people think of the religion.

Bashfluff:

"No, you just endorsed making them feel like shit and being in a hateful environment for being religious . Basically forcing them to either give up their beliefs or suffer from depression from the environment you wish to create for them."

Remember when I said that? Remember? I don't. Because I nev...

Then you have poor memory, because you made it quite clear.

You have a penchant for making unreasonable assumptions. That's never what I've asserted.

Bashfluff:

You have a penchant for making unreasonable assumptions.

There was nothing unreasonable, you made it clear you wanted to create an atmosphere of hate for those who practice some form of religion.

101flyboy:
That's never what I've asserted.

Then you should have clearified when you were endorsing what Hitchens said.

Also, you still haven't specified what are the negative aspects of being religious. You can stop dodging the request anytime.

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

You have a penchant for making unreasonable assumptions.

There was nothing unreasonable, you made it clear you wanted to create an atmosphere of hate for those who practice some form of religion.

101flyboy:
That's never what I've asserted.

Then you should have clearified when you were endorsing what Hitchens said.

Also, you still haven't specified what are the negative aspects of being religious. You can stop dodging the request anytime.

You admit you're wrong, but you won't admit to jumping to unreasonable assumptions AND you simultaneously say that you continue to assert the thing you are wrong about. Are...are we done here? I'm afraid I don't quite understand what the hell you are doing.

Goddamn. I've never dodged it! I've told you to stop being lazy and click the page back button.

First, by definition, religion is not necessarily harmful, nor are all religions harmful or even necessarily wrong.

"Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.[2]

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social".[3] A global 2012 poll reports that 59% of the world's population is religious, 23% are not religious, and 13% are atheists.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Second, the harmful actions of a group or individual should be separated from the religion itself, as having a belief does not necessarily mean or can be interpreted into causing harm to oneself or others. Everyone has " beliefs" in one form or another, those beliefs usually vary even among a group that has a code or system of beliefs, and without initial beliefs thoughts or ideas about life or the universe, our science would not have been possible. Many religions are not incompatible with science, nor are they harmful. The history of our medicine, physicians and science began with the beliefs of those who started us on this path of understanding.
Einstein on Religion and science:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
History of Medicine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine
History of Science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

In regards to respect, the idea that disrespect is deserved unless you earn "respect" is far more harmful than benefical, and serves no purpose other than an attempt to feed ones ego of false "superiority" over another and boils down to nothing more than one guy saying, " I can piss farthest!" and the other saying " Nuh-Uh I can piss farther and I can prove it!" I see the harm outweighing the benefits from such behavior and feel that these are the very things that holds our society back rather than working together to move forward towards common goals.

Bashfluff:

ONE user? As opposed to the majority of the atheist community, that actually cites science, that actually knows how it works, is actually USES it? That's pretty weak.

You have no idea how many times I've had to explain the scientific method to the people defending it from me. Everytime somebody says "scientifically proven" I want to smack their face.

That is demonstrably wrong. You're under the delusion that atheists are just submitting science in for God, just as dogmatic and unthinking. But that's just plain wrong. You've never spent much time in the atheist community if you can think that. You don't know what leads most people to it, you don't know what the community turns to, and you don't know what it values. You're asserting that based on...one guy?

I've spent enough time around atheists to know that 99% can't finish an arguement without resorting to "teapot is space! invisible dragon!" They just cite things by people they don't know without serious enough consideration into why those things were said to handle little old me in an debate. Sounds sort of like the people who defend their religion with bible quotes. Hell, even your description of what the community values and what leads people to it makes it sound like organized religion.

I just did provide something. You can't say, "a community of people thinks this way!" without knowing that someone who has been in that community is actually going to know what's up. That's totally something people can provide evidence for!

Then do it. I dare you. Find me that evidence. You provided nothing but your personal statement that I am wrong.

Revisionist history? Please. You claimed "not historically accurate," not that parts weren't. That's what *I* said that they said. Why did you feel the need to respond to that? I know that the Catholic Church has done that. I WILL also say that modern science has had a hand in it. Plenty of people do believe in the literal Bible, and science kinda has put a stop to it.

If I wrote a novel based on a true story and then added in a helicopter gunship fight over las vegas, you'd still say the material as a whole is not historically accurate.

More people believe in a literal Bible as backlash against anti-theists than anything else.

tstorm823:

Bashfluff:

ONE user? As opposed to the majority of the atheist community, that actually cites science, that actually knows how it works, is actually USES it? That's pretty weak.

You have no idea how many times I've had to explain the scientific method to the people defending it from me. Everytime somebody says "scientifically proven" I want to smack their face.

That is demonstrably wrong. You're under the delusion that atheists are just submitting science in for God, just as dogmatic and unthinking. But that's just plain wrong. You've never spent much time in the atheist community if you can think that. You don't know what leads most people to it, you don't know what the community turns to, and you don't know what it values. You're asserting that based on...one guy?

I've spent enough time around atheists to know that 99% can't finish an arguement without resorting to "teapot is space! invisible dragon!" They just cite things by people they don't know without serious enough consideration into why those things were said to handle little old me in an debate. Sounds sort of like the people who defend their religion with bible quotes. Hell, even your description of what the community values and what leads people to it makes it sound like organized religion.

I just did provide something. You can't say, "a community of people thinks this way!" without knowing that someone who has been in that community is actually going to know what's up. That's totally something people can provide evidence for!

Then do it. I dare you. Find me that evidence. You provided nothing but your personal statement that I am wrong.

Revisionist history? Please. You claimed "not historically accurate," not that parts weren't. That's what *I* said that they said. Why did you feel the need to respond to that? I know that the Catholic Church has done that. I WILL also say that modern science has had a hand in it. Plenty of people do believe in the literal Bible, and science kinda has put a stop to it.

If I wrote a novel based on a true story and then added in a helicopter gunship fight over las vegas, you'd still say the material as a whole is not historically accurate.

More people believe in a literal Bible as backlash against anti-theists than anything else.

"You have no idea how many times I've had to explain the scientific method to the people defending it from me. Everytime somebody says "scientifically proven" I want to smack their face."

Heehee...I can agree with you there. =)

"ve spent enough time around atheists to know that 99% can't finish an arguement without resorting to "teapot is space! invisible dragon!" They just cite things by people they don't know without serious enough consideration into why those things were said to handle little old me in an debate. Sounds sort of like the people who defend their religion with bible quotes. Hell, even your description of what the community values and what leads people to it makes it sound like organized religion."

1. Those are good points. They display the argument from the burden of proof, a key argument. It's not like citing a book to prove a book or a God is true. It's actually important.

2. There are different things writing communities value, or people who like anime and fantasy. In a lot of ways, they're similar. Philosophers with key views that are shared might be more likely to share other core views. IT's not a religion unless it has certain things. Communities share a lot of things because they attract like minded people--at least in certain respects.

"Then do it. I dare you. Find me that evidence. You provided nothing but your personal statement that I am wrong."

Okay. All I can really do is give you popular atheist communities so that you can see what they have in common, unless you'd like to look up studies.

/r/atheism
/r/debateanatheist
I can cite, "Don't take this the wrong way!" Which is a video by the most popular atheist youtuber where he mentions what the atheist community is usually concerned with and why, although with little citation. Or hell, Thunderf00t, enough said! I could talk about the Reason Rally, or how the skeptic community and the Rationalist community are heavily intertwined with the atheist community, But all you really need to do is look at those communities and see what they're about.

"If I wrote a novel based on a true story and then added in a helicopter gunship fight over las vegas, you'd still say the material as a whole is not historically accurate.

More people believe in a literal Bible as backlash against anti-theists than anything else."

Fine. You explained yourself very poorly. I don't think it's historically accurate on most anything. I admit, there are a few things in there that are kinda cool. Mostly, no. It's more like you took a small personal argument and then wrote that a war happened, to me.

And you need citations for literal belief in the Bible, because I don't believe that statement for a second.

Lil devils x:
First, by definition, religion is not necessarily harmful, nor are all religions harmful or even necessarily wrong.

"Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.[2]

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social".[3] A global 2012 poll reports that 59% of the world's population is religious, 23% are not religious, and 13% are atheists.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Second, the harmful actions of a group or individual should be separated from the religion itself, as having a belief does not necessarily mean or can be interpreted into causing harm to oneself or others. Everyone has " beliefs" in one form or another, those beliefs usually vary even among a group that has a code or system of beliefs, and without initial beliefs thoughts or ideas about life or the universe, our science would not have been possible. Many religions are not incompatible with science, nor are they harmful. The history of our medicine, physicians and science began with the beliefs of those who started us on this path of understanding.
Einstein on Religion and science:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
History of Medicine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine
History of Science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

In regards to respect, the idea that disrespect is deserved unless you earn "respect" is far more harmful than benefical, and serves no purpose other than an attempt to feed ones ego of false "superiority" over another and boils down to nothing more than one guy saying, " I can piss farthest!" and the other saying " Nuh-Uh I can piss farther and I can prove it!" I see the harm outweighing the benefits from such behavior and feel that these are the very things that holds our society back rather than working together to move forward towards common goals.

I do not think that you met your burden of proof in saying not all religions are harmful. I don't think many people disrespect religion because they don't think it's true, but because it harms people.

"I see the harm outweighing the benefits from such behavior and feel that these are the very things that holds our society back rather than working together to move forward towards common goals."

This is how I feel about religion.

tstorm823:

I've spent enough time around atheists to know that 99% can't finish an arguement without resorting to "teapot is space! invisible dragon!" They just cite things by people they don't know without serious enough consideration into why those things were said to handle little old me in an debate. Sounds sort of like the people who defend their religion with bible quotes. Hell, even your description of what the community values and what leads people to it makes it sound like organized religion.

The same analogies are used because honestly they are perfectly valid analogies. It sounds similar to the bible quotes because it is the repetition of an argument multiple times. Its as comparable to a bible quote as it is to the chorus of "Drunken sailor" simply because of the repetition. They arnt similar in any meaningful way.

Anyway this discussion seems fun (Even though BashFluff scares me... i mean wow atheism can get scary as shit)

I think atheism is undeniably unique and most certainly here to have a much firmer foothold than it did previously.

Youve heard the argument before yes? Take an island and populate it, repeat this infinitely. How many religions will there be? Thousands. Billions. Infinite. What about the science? It stays the same. The water boils at the same temperature on every island and all facts are discovered from the same fundamental fabric. Humanity will always have faith, but that faith will die and be replaced with radically different things while science and knowledge, no matter how often you kill it, will return in the same form every time because its universally applicable. (This is an example, i know you understand and dont dispute the scientific method).

Similarly atheism will be one of the only ideological constants on the island. If i had a billion dollars and had to bet, of a random island, which attitude toward a deity i would find present i would say "This is all bullshit" because chances are that will exist on every island. You could never begin to guess the other religions they invented because there is the capacity for infinite myths and legends. You can always guess someone will think "This is bunk". Atheism is a constant. It is the denial of belief. You can invent a thousand different religions and let them change but honestly atheism at its core is the same and always will be the same. The SINGLE idea that "I dont think God(s) is real".

Expanding further you seem to think secularism is on the rise and here to stay yes? I argue that secularism is going to cause atheism to rise or maintain higher levels than it did before. Indoctrination by government funded religion schools and institutions created a section of believers in the main religions. To this day a portion of believers are recruited in this way. Removing that section who DONT find their religion personally but have it spoon fed to them opens up more members for ALL possible ideologies because of the freedom of choice, atheism included. I think due to rising secularism that the MAIN religions will lose members. Quite a few. And instead the less popular/vilified beliefs will attract some of these members instead. I think the religious beliefs will balance out.

And honestly thats what i expected to see. Islam is no more fundamentally correct than Norse or Christian beliefs. Its all a billion horses in the race of "WHICH ONES RIGHT!?" And none have any sort of real ideological advantage. I expect if secularism really took off we would see equal % of belief in a LOT religions that have survived to the modern day rather than a lot in two or three because of this equal footing they all have on their claim to the truth.

And in arguing religion is harmful or good i have only this to say:

I cannot think of a good thing achieved by religion that an atheist couldnt also achieve.

I can think of some terrible things that could never be justified in the name of atheism committed by religions (human sacrifice).

These negative things are small. A VERY small list. So the only conclusion i could draw worst case is that religion is very slightly harmful maybe. But that removing it entirely wouldnt do any harm to the world as it is today.

Bashfluff:

tstorm823:

Bashfluff:

ONE user? As opposed to the majority of the atheist community, that actually cites science, that actually knows how it works, is actually USES it? That's pretty weak.

You have no idea how many times I've had to explain the scientific method to the people defending it from me. Everytime somebody says "scientifically proven" I want to smack their face.

That is demonstrably wrong. You're under the delusion that atheists are just submitting science in for God, just as dogmatic and unthinking. But that's just plain wrong. You've never spent much time in the atheist community if you can think that. You don't know what leads most people to it, you don't know what the community turns to, and you don't know what it values. You're asserting that based on...one guy?

I've spent enough time around atheists to know that 99% can't finish an arguement without resorting to "teapot is space! invisible dragon!" They just cite things by people they don't know without serious enough consideration into why those things were said to handle little old me in an debate. Sounds sort of like the people who defend their religion with bible quotes. Hell, even your description of what the community values and what leads people to it makes it sound like organized religion.

I just did provide something. You can't say, "a community of people thinks this way!" without knowing that someone who has been in that community is actually going to know what's up. That's totally something people can provide evidence for!

Then do it. I dare you. Find me that evidence. You provided nothing but your personal statement that I am wrong.

Revisionist history? Please. You claimed "not historically accurate," not that parts weren't. That's what *I* said that they said. Why did you feel the need to respond to that? I know that the Catholic Church has done that. I WILL also say that modern science has had a hand in it. Plenty of people do believe in the literal Bible, and science kinda has put a stop to it.

If I wrote a novel based on a true story and then added in a helicopter gunship fight over las vegas, you'd still say the material as a whole is not historically accurate.

More people believe in a literal Bible as backlash against anti-theists than anything else.

"You have no idea how many times I've had to explain the scientific method to the people defending it from me. Everytime somebody says "scientifically proven" I want to smack their face."

Heehee...I can agree with you there. =)

"ve spent enough time around atheists to know that 99% can't finish an arguement without resorting to "teapot is space! invisible dragon!" They just cite things by people they don't know without serious enough consideration into why those things were said to handle little old me in an debate. Sounds sort of like the people who defend their religion with bible quotes. Hell, even your description of what the community values and what leads people to it makes it sound like organized religion."

1. Those are good points. They display the argument from the burden of proof, a key argument. It's not like citing a book to prove a book or a God is true. It's actually important.

2. There are different things writing communities value, or people who like anime and fantasy. In a lot of ways, they're similar. Philosophers with key views that are shared might be more likely to share other core views. IT's not a religion unless it has certain things. Communities share a lot of things because they attract like minded people--at least in certain respects.

"Then do it. I dare you. Find me that evidence. You provided nothing but your personal statement that I am wrong."

Okay. All I can really do is give you popular atheist communities so that you can see what they have in common, unless you'd like to look up studies.

/r/atheism
/r/debateanatheist
I can cite, "Don't take this the wrong way!" Which is a video by the most popular atheist youtuber where he mentions what the atheist community is usually concerned with and why, although with little citation. Or hell, Thunderf00t, enough said! I could talk about the Reason Rally, or how the skeptic community and the Rationalist community are heavily intertwined with the atheist community, But all you really need to do is look at those communities and see what they're about.

"If I wrote a novel based on a true story and then added in a helicopter gunship fight over las vegas, you'd still say the material as a whole is not historically accurate.

More people believe in a literal Bible as backlash against anti-theists than anything else."

Fine. You explained yourself very poorly. I don't think it's historically accurate on most anything. I admit, there are a few things in there that are kinda cool. Mostly, no. It's more like you took a small personal argument and then wrote that a war happened, to me.

And you need citations for literal belief in the Bible, because I don't believe that statement for a second.

Lil devils x:
First, by definition, religion is not necessarily harmful, nor are all religions harmful or even necessarily wrong.

"Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.[2]

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social".[3] A global 2012 poll reports that 59% of the world's population is religious, 23% are not religious, and 13% are atheists.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Second, the harmful actions of a group or individual should be separated from the religion itself, as having a belief does not necessarily mean or can be interpreted into causing harm to oneself or others. Everyone has " beliefs" in one form or another, those beliefs usually vary even among a group that has a code or system of beliefs, and without initial beliefs thoughts or ideas about life or the universe, our science would not have been possible. Many religions are not incompatible with science, nor are they harmful. The history of our medicine, physicians and science began with the beliefs of those who started us on this path of understanding.
Einstein on Religion and science:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
History of Medicine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine
History of Science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

In regards to respect, the idea that disrespect is deserved unless you earn "respect" is far more harmful than benefical, and serves no purpose other than an attempt to feed ones ego of false "superiority" over another and boils down to nothing more than one guy saying, " I can piss farthest!" and the other saying " Nuh-Uh I can piss farther and I can prove it!" I see the harm outweighing the benefits from such behavior and feel that these are the very things that holds our society back rather than working together to move forward towards common goals.

I do not think that you met your burden of proof in saying not all religions are harmful. I don't think many people disrespect religion because they don't think it's true, but because it harms people.

"I see the harm outweighing the benefits from such behavior and feel that these are the very things that holds our society back rather than working together to move forward towards common goals."

This is how I feel about religion.

Burden of proof is on the one making the accusation, or the prosecuter, not the defense. If you make the accusation that ALL religions are harmful, you would then be forced to prove such accusations and prove that each of the thousands of religions on earth are harmful.

My tribe has many beliefs, traditions and customs, since the Hopi(meaning peaceful ones)was built by many tribes who finished their migrations coming together to live as one people bringing their own customs, histories and beliefs. My clan, the Bear Clan, was the first to finish their migration and settle where they currently still reside. When the other clans and tribes arrived, the bear clan welcomed them as family to share the land with us and live together as one people in peace. Though we have many differing beliefs amongst the clans, villages and tribes, the core belief that all the people of this world are all brothers, all family, all related still holds true to this day. In our tribe, the belief that it is our responsiblity to take care of the earth and all that dwell upon it whether it be plant, animal or the soil, air and water itself or we will have to endure the consequences and suffer through our own choices is still mutally held by most. These are the core principles for the basis of our religion, the stories, history, and traditions vary among the people but we still hold these core beliefs as a mutal bond. We are taught to "replace evil with good" and we will all heal each other and our earth. How that can be taken as " harmful" is beyond me, because I see that as more benficial than harmful, and that if more people of this world held such beliefs we would all be better off for it.

In my opinion offence is a personal failing of the offended party, if you lack enough faith in your beliefs that you are offended when someone questions them or makes a joke about them than that's your fucking problem.

On that note though, I don't think people should criticize other peoples deeply held beliefs or lack thereof, at least in most situations, as there is often little reason why they do or don't believe something.

Lil devils x:

Bashfluff:

tstorm823:

You have no idea how many times I've had to explain the scientific method to the people defending it from me. Everytime somebody says "scientifically proven" I want to smack their face.

I've spent enough time around atheists to know that 99% can't finish an arguement without resorting to "teapot is space! invisible dragon!" They just cite things by people they don't know without serious enough consideration into why those things were said to handle little old me in an debate. Sounds sort of like the people who defend their religion with bible quotes. Hell, even your description of what the community values and what leads people to it makes it sound like organized religion.

Then do it. I dare you. Find me that evidence. You provided nothing but your personal statement that I am wrong.

If I wrote a novel based on a true story and then added in a helicopter gunship fight over las vegas, you'd still say the material as a whole is not historically accurate.

More people believe in a literal Bible as backlash against anti-theists than anything else.

"You have no idea how many times I've had to explain the scientific method to the people defending it from me. Everytime somebody says "scientifically proven" I want to smack their face."

Heehee...I can agree with you there. =)

"ve spent enough time around atheists to know that 99% can't finish an arguement without resorting to "teapot is space! invisible dragon!" They just cite things by people they don't know without serious enough consideration into why those things were said to handle little old me in an debate. Sounds sort of like the people who defend their religion with bible quotes. Hell, even your description of what the community values and what leads people to it makes it sound like organized religion."

1. Those are good points. They display the argument from the burden of proof, a key argument. It's not like citing a book to prove a book or a God is true. It's actually important.

2. There are different things writing communities value, or people who like anime and fantasy. In a lot of ways, they're similar. Philosophers with key views that are shared might be more likely to share other core views. IT's not a religion unless it has certain things. Communities share a lot of things because they attract like minded people--at least in certain respects.

"Then do it. I dare you. Find me that evidence. You provided nothing but your personal statement that I am wrong."

Okay. All I can really do is give you popular atheist communities so that you can see what they have in common, unless you'd like to look up studies.

/r/atheism
/r/debateanatheist
I can cite, "Don't take this the wrong way!" Which is a video by the most popular atheist youtuber where he mentions what the atheist community is usually concerned with and why, although with little citation. Or hell, Thunderf00t, enough said! I could talk about the Reason Rally, or how the skeptic community and the Rationalist community are heavily intertwined with the atheist community, But all you really need to do is look at those communities and see what they're about.

"If I wrote a novel based on a true story and then added in a helicopter gunship fight over las vegas, you'd still say the material as a whole is not historically accurate.

More people believe in a literal Bible as backlash against anti-theists than anything else."

Fine. You explained yourself very poorly. I don't think it's historically accurate on most anything. I admit, there are a few things in there that are kinda cool. Mostly, no. It's more like you took a small personal argument and then wrote that a war happened, to me.

And you need citations for literal belief in the Bible, because I don't believe that statement for a second.

Lil devils x:
First, by definition, religion is not necessarily harmful, nor are all religions harmful or even necessarily wrong.

"Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.[2]

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social".[3] A global 2012 poll reports that 59% of the world's population is religious, 23% are not religious, and 13% are atheists.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Second, the harmful actions of a group or individual should be separated from the religion itself, as having a belief does not necessarily mean or can be interpreted into causing harm to oneself or others. Everyone has " beliefs" in one form or another, those beliefs usually vary even among a group that has a code or system of beliefs, and without initial beliefs thoughts or ideas about life or the universe, our science would not have been possible. Many religions are not incompatible with science, nor are they harmful. The history of our medicine, physicians and science began with the beliefs of those who started us on this path of understanding.
Einstein on Religion and science:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
History of Medicine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine
History of Science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

In regards to respect, the idea that disrespect is deserved unless you earn "respect" is far more harmful than benefical, and serves no purpose other than an attempt to feed ones ego of false "superiority" over another and boils down to nothing more than one guy saying, " I can piss farthest!" and the other saying " Nuh-Uh I can piss farther and I can prove it!" I see the harm outweighing the benefits from such behavior and feel that these are the very things that holds our society back rather than working together to move forward towards common goals.

I do not think that you met your burden of proof in saying not all religions are harmful. I don't think many people disrespect religion because they don't think it's true, but because it harms people.

"I see the harm outweighing the benefits from such behavior and feel that these are the very things that holds our society back rather than working together to move forward towards common goals."

This is how I feel about religion.

Burden of proof is on the one making the accusation, or the prosecuter, not the defense. If you make the accusation that ALL religions are harmful, you would then be forced to prove such accusations and prove that each of the thousands of religions on earth are harmful.

My tribe has many beliefs, traditions and customs, since the Hopi(meaning peaceful ones)was built by many tribes who finished their migrations coming together to live as one people bringing their own customs, histories and beliefs. My clan, the Bear Clan, was the first to finish their migration and settle where they currently still reside. When the other clans and tribes arrived, the bear clan welcomed them as family to share the land with us and live together as one people in peace. Though we have many differing beliefs amongst the clans, villages and tribes, the core belief that all the people of this world are all brothers, all family, all related still holds true to this day. In our tribe, the belief that it is our responsiblity to take care of the earth and all that dwell upon it whether it be plant, animal or the soil, air and water itself or we will have to endure the consequences and suffer through our own choices is still mutally held by most. These are the core principles for the basis of our religion, the stories, history, and traditions vary among the people but we still hold these core beliefs as a mutal bond. We are taught to "replace evil with good" and we will all heal each other and our earth. How that can be taken as " harmful" is beyond me, because I see that as more benficial than harmful, and that if more people of this world held such beliefs we would all be better off for it.

That is 1000000000% correct. I do need to prove my claims, and I believe I have. But conversely, if you're saying, "Hey, you're wrong, not all religions are bad," you have to provide some examples to counter my own. Well, just one, actually. And you have. I don't know exactly what your religion is and the doctrines of it, any punishment, any afterlife, or what have you, but I will say there are a lot of positive things there and I would love to learn more about it. I STILL think those things could exist without the religion, but at this point, neither here nor there.

BiscuitTrouser:

I can think of some terrible things that could never be justified in the name of atheism committed by religions (human sacrifice).

These negative things are small. A VERY small list. So the only conclusion i could draw worst case is that religion is very slightly harmful maybe. But that removing it entirely wouldnt do any harm to the world as it is today.

Small?! Very small?! Listen, I advocate religious freedom whole-heartedly, but some of the worst atrocities in history have been caused by religion. Most unjust murder, bigotry, hatred, etc. has been caused by religion (and many by other non-scientific ideologies which I would also deem at least spiritual if not religious, (i.e. Naziism or the belief that white people are somehow "better" than other races) but I digress). It's kind of ludicrous to say that religions negative impact has been small. That's not to say it hasn't done lots of good, but I personally don't think that the good even comes close to outweighing the bad.

OT: Err, whatever. I think the thread is pretty well derailed anyway. I will say this though: when we discuss religion, we should be careful not to downplay the fact that human civilization probably wouldn't have made it without religion. Religion deserves that respect, but other than that it's just another ideology.

Edit: I kind of made it sound like most unjust murder, bigotry and hatred TODAY is caused by religion. This probably isn't true, at least not in the case of murder.

Bashfluff:

1. Those are good points. They display the argument from the burden of proof, a key argument. It's not like citing a book to prove a book or a God is true. It's actually important.

But those arguements we're only ever meant as a counter to aggressive proselytizing. They are arguements against belief in deities, not arguements against the existance of deities, making them inappropriate in any discussion that isn't someone trying to convert an atheist to a religion. If someone says I may as well believe in an invisible dragon, I could counter them entirely by saying "I don't and don't find your arguement convincing" because they've made no claims about the existance of deities, only about how logical belief is, and I simply disagree with the assumptions in their logic. I don't usually do that because that would lead to an unreasonable response, but I could.

Okay. All I can really do is give you popular atheist communities so that you can see what they have in common, unless you'd like to look up studies.

/r/atheism
/r/debateanatheist
I can cite, "Don't take this the wrong way!" Which is a video by the most popular atheist youtuber where he mentions what the atheist community is usually concerned with and why, although with little citation. Or hell, Thunderf00t, enough said! I could talk about the Reason Rally, or how the skeptic community and the Rationalist community are heavily intertwined with the atheist community, But all you really need to do is look at those communities and see what they're about.

You just namedropped all the worst possible namedrops. Check r/atheism and see how many posts it takes to find something that is a reasoned thought, meaning it isn't a meme, a satire of religion, an insult at religion, or a question about how to do things less religiously. The things you imagine are quality communities of intelligent people inspire other atheists to make things like this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKULc8W7lM and write things like this- http://www.vice.com/read/hey-atheists-just-shut-up-please

And you need citations for literal belief in the Bible, because I don't believe that statement for a second.

Fair enough, I've got nothing.

BiscuitTrouser:

Anyway this discussion seems fun

Wow, you're not kidding, you really did have fun here.

The same analogies are used because honestly they are perfectly valid analogies. It sounds similar to the bible quotes because it is the repetition of an argument multiple times. Its as comparable to a bible quote as it is to the chorus of "Drunken sailor" simply because of the repetition. They arent similar in any meaningful way.

Except if one thinks that the rise in atheism is due to a rise in reasoned analysis of personal beliefs, then they shouldn't expect something so uniform. The meaningful similarity to the chorus of "drunken sailor" is that the words aren't reconsidered or improved each time it's sung, they are just memorized and recited.

I think atheism is undeniably unique and most certainly here to have a much firmer foothold than it did previously.

Youve heard the argument before yes? Take an island and populate it, repeat this infinitely. How many religions will there be? Thousands. Billions. Infinite. What about the science? It stays the same. The water boils at the same temperature on every island and all facts are discovered from the same fundamental fabric. Humanity will always have faith, but that faith will die and be replaced with radically different things while science and knowledge, no matter how often you kill it, will return in the same form every time because its universally applicable. (This is an example, i know you understand and dont dispute the scientific method).

Similarly atheism will be one of the only ideological constants on the island. If i had a billion dollars and had to bet, of a random island, which attitude toward a deity i would find present i would say "This is all bullshit" because chances are that will exist on every island. You could never begin to guess the other religions they invented because there is the capacity for infinite myths and legends. You can always guess someone will think "This is bunk". Atheism is a constant. It is the denial of belief. You can invent a thousand different religions and let them change but honestly atheism at its core is the same and always will be the same. The SINGLE idea that "I dont think God(s) is real".

Expanding further you seem to think secularism is on the rise and here to stay yes? I argue that secularism is going to cause atheism to rise or maintain higher levels than it did before. Indoctrination by government funded religion schools and institutions created a section of believers in the main religions. To this day a portion of believers are recruited in this way. Removing that section who DONT find their religion personally but have it spoon fed to them opens up more members for ALL possible ideologies because of the freedom of choice, atheism included. I think due to rising secularism that the MAIN religions will lose members. Quite a few. And instead the less popular/vilified beliefs will attract some of these members instead. I think the religious beliefs will balance out.

And honestly thats what i expected to see. Islam is no more fundamentally correct than Norse or Christian beliefs. Its all a billion horses in the race of "WHICH ONES RIGHT!?" And none have any sort of real ideological advantage. I expect if secularism really took off we would see equal % of belief in a LOT religions that have survived to the modern day rather than a lot in two or three because of this equal footing they all have on their claim to the truth.

Have you considered the possibility that all religions are wrong due to human fallibility, all their disagreements stem from just ignorance, but they all stem from the same spiritual nature of humanity and seek the same ultimate truths? We call them millions of religions, but tradition is most of what seperates them.

And I expect if I took the equally vague compliment to your guess at people's belief and guess that people will believe in a god, I'd be pretty much dead on.

And in arguing religion is harmful or good i have only this to say:

I cannot think of a good thing achieved by religion that an atheist couldnt also achieve.

I can think of some terrible things that could never be justified in the name of atheism committed by religions (human sacrifice).

These negative things are small. A VERY small list. So the only conclusion i could draw worst case is that religion is very slightly harmful maybe. But that removing it entirely wouldnt do any harm to the world as it is today.

cough cough cultural revolution cough cough

Also, your logic applied ad nauseum leads to anarchy.

I apologize that my replies to you are a bit concise, but I finished replying to bash and got a text from friends to go out. I'll do better next time.

Shadowstar38:

Ryotknife:
The sad part is that im seeing very little difference between religious fanatics and some of the athiests posters in this thread.

Statements like this make you seem just as fanatical as any Christian group that hates X group because of what their scriptures allegedly say. Your hatred ends up being totally pointless.

I really don't get this reaction. I feel like you're being facetious, but I'm not seeing the punchline. He's just saying that there are atheists around here who attack Christianity with the same determination to put their opponents down with the same amount of reasonability and cultural respect (basically none) as those Christian hate groups (which, by the way, there are). Granted these discussions aren't as bad as they used to be, but things still get pretty nasty and I've learned to stay pretty observational when the topic comes up.

The always popular argument against religion is to point to the wars and atrocities in it's wake and the people who caused them because they believed the nonsense or exploited the beliefs. The latter not making the case for religion any better since they needed people who did believe and was willing to commit these crimes against humanity. So "but religion is exploited" holds no weight whatsoever. It just exposes a system that are constructed for manipulation and is a perfect tool to control the gullible and ignorant.

"But there is a lot of peaceful religious people". Yes there is, but they also vote against stem cell research, want prayer in schools, want fairy tales into science classes while ignoring scientific evidence on Evolution, both regarding life on earth and the evolution of the Universe. Morally they claim the high ground while believing in a book which praise god blessed atrocities that would make any sadistic serial killer go green with envy. Condemning homosexuals and in their utter arrogance think they have the right to decide over a woman's right to her own body, they on top of all this poster them selves as the pillars of the community.

Now that is offensive. Those are the peaceful ones. For the rest who actually believe faith and prayer is a private thing, have at it. You I have no beef with.

Lilani:

Shadowstar38:

Ryotknife:
The sad part is that im seeing very little difference between religious fanatics and some of the athiests posters in this thread.

Statements like this make you seem just as fanatical as any Christian group that hates X group because of what their scriptures allegedly say. Your hatred ends up being totally pointless.

I really don't get this reaction. I feel like you're being facetious, but I'm not seeing the punchline. He's just saying that there are atheists around here who attack Christianity with the same determination to put their opponents down with the same amount of reasonability and cultural respect (basically none) as those Christian hate groups (which, by the way, there are). Granted these discussions aren't as bad as they used to be, but things still get pretty nasty and I've learned to stay pretty observational when the topic comes up.

Sorry for the confusion. I was quoting Blashbluff.

Shadowstar38:
Sorry for the confusion. I was quoting Blashbluff.

Aaah, I see. I saw some of those posts...and then I stopped. Too many bad memories from discussions long past.

Rastelin:
The always popular argument against religion is to point to the wars and atrocities in it's wake and the people who caused them because they believed the nonsense or exploited the beliefs. The latter not making the case for religion any better since they needed people who did believe and was willing to commit these crimes against humanity. So "but religion is exploited" holds no weight whatsoever. It just exposes a system that are constructed for manipulation and is a perfect tool to control the gullible and ignorant.

"But there is a lot of peaceful religious people". Yes there is, but they also vote against stem cell research, want prayer in schools, want fairy tales into science classes while ignoring scientific evidence on Evolution, both regarding life on earth and the evolution of the Universe. Morally they claim the high ground while believing in a book which praise god blessed atrocities that would make any sadistic serial killer go green with envy. Condemning homosexuals and in their utter arrogance think they have the right to decide over a woman's right to her own body, they on top of all this poster them selves as the pillars of the community.

Now that is offensive. Those are the peaceful ones. For the rest who actually believe faith and prayer is a private thing, have at it. You I have no beef with.

I wouldn't consider those " the peaceful ones." Everything you pointed out here is the opposite of what my tribes religion teaches. We have no issue with medical research, as long as it is does not cause harm, for example experimenting on people without their consent is harmful and should be considered illegal. We do not view stem cell research as harmful however, and have been quite active in treating illness even prior to the arrival of the Spaniards. We see medical usage to better take care of the earth and those that dwell upon it as the proper role of the people of this earth and technology. Our religion also teaches that we have not always been the way we are now, and supports evolution, it is not in conflict with it at all.

From our persepctive, in the "first world"(age), we were tiny insect like creatures, that the first world lasted for a very long period of time, longer than our others, and that during that world we transformed into animal like creatures, by the time the second world (age) had began, we had become more like we are now. Our view of " creation" is not in conflict with science, and as science progresses with our understanding of life and the Universe, it is actually more in agreement with one another, rather than less. In the past, it was more difficult to communicate these things without being persecuted as " wicked, or as" witches' for discussing this than it is now, and I for one and thankful that age of man is passing. We do not have books, we have stone tablets, with a simple lifeplan. It is pretty easy to understand. as for " two spirits" ( homosexuals) they were considered to be blessed and exhalted in our communities. We believe that everyone is given a special gift, and that two spirits were exceptionally blessed with talent. We do not believe in " wasting people", that everyone was given a gift and that we should help them find that gift so they can have a happy and successful life. When Hopi children are growing up, we look for their special gifts, so that we can better help them find what best suits them for their own happiness, then we try to give them the tools they need to be successful at it. We celebrate our differences as great blessings given to us rather than persecute those who are different.

We do not believe authority was ever given to one person over another, that we can offer advice, but it is not our place to live their life for them. We do not believe in force or " converting " people, instead we were taught that in the early days of man, there were 4 brothers, ( tribes) and each were given their own instructions and lifeplan and sent on migrations to populate the earth. They had their own promises to keep and their own instructions, and it is not our place to decide that for them. Those tribes that came to live with us after their migrations are encouraged to keep their own traditions, histories and beliefs. In my tribe, we do not believe in forcing others, not even our own children, that for them to be inducted into any of the different religious societies, they must do so of their own free will, and of their own choice. We are encouraged to learn as much as we can about the world and all of it's religions before making a decision. There is so much emphasis on free will and choice in my tribe, that even before a woman is joined with a mate, no one can talk to her before the joining, as she is given alone time to decide if this is truly the choice she wants to make. No family members or friends are permitted to talk her into anything, it must be a decision she makes on her own.

The people often exhalted as " pillars of our community" are the two spirits, those with autism, or other ability that we feel places them above us in their ability and understanding. I know many feel that odd looking in from the outside, but to my tribe, it is the proper positions defined for them by their natural born abilities.

To blanket statement all religions due to the few who support such brutality against others isn't exactly fair or true to all of the religions of this earth.

tstorm823:

Bashfluff:

1. Those are good points. They display the argument from the burden of proof, a key argument. It's not like citing a book to prove a book or a God is true. It's actually important.

But those arguements we're only ever meant as a counter to aggressive proselytizing. They are arguements against belief in deities, not arguements against the existance of deities, making them inappropriate in any discussion that isn't someone trying to convert an atheist to a religion. If someone says I may as well believe in an invisible dragon, I could counter them entirely by saying "I don't and don't find your arguement convincing" because they've made no claims about the existance of deities, only about how logical belief is, and I simply disagree with the assumptions in their logic. I don't usually do that because that would lead to an unreasonable response, but I could.

Okay. All I can really do is give you popular atheist communities so that you can see what they have in common, unless you'd like to look up studies.

/r/atheism
/r/debateanatheist
I can cite, "Don't take this the wrong way!" Which is a video by the most popular atheist youtuber where he mentions what the atheist community is usually concerned with and why, although with little citation. Or hell, Thunderf00t, enough said! I could talk about the Reason Rally, or how the skeptic community and the Rationalist community are heavily intertwined with the atheist community, But all you really need to do is look at those communities and see what they're about.

You just namedropped all the worst possible namedrops. Check r/atheism and see how many posts it takes to find something that is a reasoned thought, meaning it isn't a meme, a satire of religion, an insult at religion, or a question about how to do things less religiously. The things you imagine are quality communities of intelligent people inspire other atheists to make things like this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKULc8W7lM and write things like this- http://www.vice.com/read/hey-atheists-just-shut-up-please

And you need citations for literal belief in the Bible, because I don't believe that statement for a second.

Fair enough, I've got nothing.

BiscuitTrouser:

Anyway this discussion seems fun

Wow, you're not kidding, you really did have fun here.

The same analogies are used because honestly they are perfectly valid analogies. It sounds similar to the bible quotes because it is the repetition of an argument multiple times. Its as comparable to a bible quote as it is to the chorus of "Drunken sailor" simply because of the repetition. They arent similar in any meaningful way.

Except if one thinks that the rise in atheism is due to a rise in reasoned analysis of personal beliefs, then they shouldn't expect something so uniform. The meaningful similarity to the chorus of "drunken sailor" is that the words aren't reconsidered or improved each time it's sung, they are just memorized and recited.

I think atheism is undeniably unique and most certainly here to have a much firmer foothold than it did previously.

Youve heard the argument before yes? Take an island and populate it, repeat this infinitely. How many religions will there be? Thousands. Billions. Infinite. What about the science? It stays the same. The water boils at the same temperature on every island and all facts are discovered from the same fundamental fabric. Humanity will always have faith, but that faith will die and be replaced with radically different things while science and knowledge, no matter how often you kill it, will return in the same form every time because its universally applicable. (This is an example, i know you understand and dont dispute the scientific method).

Similarly atheism will be one of the only ideological constants on the island. If i had a billion dollars and had to bet, of a random island, which attitude toward a deity i would find present i would say "This is all bullshit" because chances are that will exist on every island. You could never begin to guess the other religions they invented because there is the capacity for infinite myths and legends. You can always guess someone will think "This is bunk". Atheism is a constant. It is the denial of belief. You can invent a thousand different religions and let them change but honestly atheism at its core is the same and always will be the same. The SINGLE idea that "I dont think God(s) is real".

Expanding further you seem to think secularism is on the rise and here to stay yes? I argue that secularism is going to cause atheism to rise or maintain higher levels than it did before. Indoctrination by government funded religion schools and institutions created a section of believers in the main religions. To this day a portion of believers are recruited in this way. Removing that section who DONT find their religion personally but have it spoon fed to them opens up more members for ALL possible ideologies because of the freedom of choice, atheism included. I think due to rising secularism that the MAIN religions will lose members. Quite a few. And instead the less popular/vilified beliefs will attract some of these members instead. I think the religious beliefs will balance out.

And honestly thats what i expected to see. Islam is no more fundamentally correct than Norse or Christian beliefs. Its all a billion horses in the race of "WHICH ONES RIGHT!?" And none have any sort of real ideological advantage. I expect if secularism really took off we would see equal % of belief in a LOT religions that have survived to the modern day rather than a lot in two or three because of this equal footing they all have on their claim to the truth.

Have you considered the possibility that all religions are wrong due to human fallibility, all their disagreements stem from just ignorance, but they all stem from the same spiritual nature of humanity and seek the same ultimate truths? We call them millions of religions, but tradition is most of what seperates them.

And I expect if I took the equally vague compliment to your guess at people's belief and guess that people will believe in a god, I'd be pretty much dead on.

And in arguing religion is harmful or good i have only this to say:

I cannot think of a good thing achieved by religion that an atheist couldnt also achieve.

I can think of some terrible things that could never be justified in the name of atheism committed by religions (human sacrifice).

These negative things are small. A VERY small list. So the only conclusion i could draw worst case is that religion is very slightly harmful maybe. But that removing it entirely wouldnt do any harm to the world as it is today.

cough cough cultural revolution cough cough

Also, your logic applied ad nauseum leads to anarchy.

I apologize that my replies to you are a bit concise, but I finished replying to bash and got a text from friends to go out. I'll do better next time.

Uh...no. I don't know if you understand those arguments. They're meant to combat belief, yes, but in the way that person used the argument in a way that certainly does so!

"You just namedropped all the worst possible namedrops. Check r/atheism and see how many posts it takes to find something that is a reasoned thought, meaning it isn't a meme, a satire of religion, an insult at religion, or a question about how to do things less religiously. The things you imagine are quality communities of intelligent people inspire other atheists to make things like this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKULc8W7lM and write things like this- http://www.vice.com/read/hey-atheists-just-shut-up-please"

So a reasoned thought can't be in the form of a meme? It can't be satirizing religion? It can't insult it? I'm not saying anything but how those communities THINK. Scientifically. Rationally. It's like a bar for atheists, where they can be loud, rowdy, and uncouth. But it still shows lots of things about the community as a whole in so far as what we value. You probably want the /debateanatheist stuff if you want "soft," reasoned debate, as well as the Atheist Experience T.V. show (although they can get a bit heated sometimes). I'm not talking about places that play nice. I'm talking about places that show how we think. There are plenty of places where we do play nice. I don't care to visit them much, but I know they exist. *shrugs*

Yes, people get offended. I know that. And?

"Except if one thinks that the rise in atheism is due to a rise in reasoned analysis of personal beliefs, then they shouldn't expect something so uniform. The meaningful similarity to the chorus of "drunken sailor" is that the words aren't reconsidered or improved each time it's sung, they are just memorized and recited."

Yes, they should. If applied in the proper context, an argument can be repeated. There's no lack of intelligence in doing so as long as it's RELEVANT. When someone asks you what 2+2 is, you say four. Or what pie is. Or what the capital of Washington is. That more and more people are doing this means that they are MORE educated, to draw a parallel. What matters is how the argument is applied.

Bashfluff:

tstorm823:

Bashfluff:

1. Those are good points. They display the argument from the burden of proof, a key argument. It's not like citing a book to prove a book or a God is true. It's actually important.

But those arguements we're only ever meant as a counter to aggressive proselytizing. They are arguements against belief in deities, not arguements against the existance of deities, making them inappropriate in any discussion that isn't someone trying to convert an atheist to a religion. If someone says I may as well believe in an invisible dragon, I could counter them entirely by saying "I don't and don't find your arguement convincing" because they've made no claims about the existance of deities, only about how logical belief is, and I simply disagree with the assumptions in their logic. I don't usually do that because that would lead to an unreasonable response, but I could.

Okay. All I can really do is give you popular atheist communities so that you can see what they have in common, unless you'd like to look up studies.

/r/atheism
/r/debateanatheist
I can cite, "Don't take this the wrong way!" Which is a video by the most popular atheist youtuber where he mentions what the atheist community is usually concerned with and why, although with little citation. Or hell, Thunderf00t, enough said! I could talk about the Reason Rally, or how the skeptic community and the Rationalist community are heavily intertwined with the atheist community, But all you really need to do is look at those communities and see what they're about.

You just namedropped all the worst possible namedrops. Check r/atheism and see how many posts it takes to find something that is a reasoned thought, meaning it isn't a meme, a satire of religion, an insult at religion, or a question about how to do things less religiously. The things you imagine are quality communities of intelligent people inspire other atheists to make things like this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKULc8W7lM and write things like this- http://www.vice.com/read/hey-atheists-just-shut-up-please

And you need citations for literal belief in the Bible, because I don't believe that statement for a second.

Fair enough, I've got nothing.

BiscuitTrouser:

Anyway this discussion seems fun

Wow, you're not kidding, you really did have fun here.

The same analogies are used because honestly they are perfectly valid analogies. It sounds similar to the bible quotes because it is the repetition of an argument multiple times. Its as comparable to a bible quote as it is to the chorus of "Drunken sailor" simply because of the repetition. They arent similar in any meaningful way.

Except if one thinks that the rise in atheism is due to a rise in reasoned analysis of personal beliefs, then they shouldn't expect something so uniform. The meaningful similarity to the chorus of "drunken sailor" is that the words aren't reconsidered or improved each time it's sung, they are just memorized and recited.

I think atheism is undeniably unique and most certainly here to have a much firmer foothold than it did previously.

Youve heard the argument before yes? Take an island and populate it, repeat this infinitely. How many religions will there be? Thousands. Billions. Infinite. What about the science? It stays the same. The water boils at the same temperature on every island and all facts are discovered from the same fundamental fabric. Humanity will always have faith, but that faith will die and be replaced with radically different things while science and knowledge, no matter how often you kill it, will return in the same form every time because its universally applicable. (This is an example, i know you understand and dont dispute the scientific method).

Similarly atheism will be one of the only ideological constants on the island. If i had a billion dollars and had to bet, of a random island, which attitude toward a deity i would find present i would say "This is all bullshit" because chances are that will exist on every island. You could never begin to guess the other religions they invented because there is the capacity for infinite myths and legends. You can always guess someone will think "This is bunk". Atheism is a constant. It is the denial of belief. You can invent a thousand different religions and let them change but honestly atheism at its core is the same and always will be the same. The SINGLE idea that "I dont think God(s) is real".

Expanding further you seem to think secularism is on the rise and here to stay yes? I argue that secularism is going to cause atheism to rise or maintain higher levels than it did before. Indoctrination by government funded religion schools and institutions created a section of believers in the main religions. To this day a portion of believers are recruited in this way. Removing that section who DONT find their religion personally but have it spoon fed to them opens up more members for ALL possible ideologies because of the freedom of choice, atheism included. I think due to rising secularism that the MAIN religions will lose members. Quite a few. And instead the less popular/vilified beliefs will attract some of these members instead. I think the religious beliefs will balance out.

And honestly thats what i expected to see. Islam is no more fundamentally correct than Norse or Christian beliefs. Its all a billion horses in the race of "WHICH ONES RIGHT!?" And none have any sort of real ideological advantage. I expect if secularism really took off we would see equal % of belief in a LOT religions that have survived to the modern day rather than a lot in two or three because of this equal footing they all have on their claim to the truth.

Have you considered the possibility that all religions are wrong due to human fallibility, all their disagreements stem from just ignorance, but they all stem from the same spiritual nature of humanity and seek the same ultimate truths? We call them millions of religions, but tradition is most of what seperates them.

And I expect if I took the equally vague compliment to your guess at people's belief and guess that people will believe in a god, I'd be pretty much dead on.

And in arguing religion is harmful or good i have only this to say:

I cannot think of a good thing achieved by religion that an atheist couldnt also achieve.

I can think of some terrible things that could never be justified in the name of atheism committed by religions (human sacrifice).

These negative things are small. A VERY small list. So the only conclusion i could draw worst case is that religion is very slightly harmful maybe. But that removing it entirely wouldnt do any harm to the world as it is today.

cough cough cultural revolution cough cough

Also, your logic applied ad nauseum leads to anarchy.

I apologize that my replies to you are a bit concise, but I finished replying to bash and got a text from friends to go out. I'll do better next time.

Uh...no. I don't know if you understand those arguments. They're meant to combat belief, yes, but in the way that person used the argument in a way that certainly does so!

"You just namedropped all the worst possible namedrops. Check r/atheism and see how many posts it takes to find something that is a reasoned thought, meaning it isn't a meme, a satire of religion, an insult at religion, or a question about how to do things less religiously. The things you imagine are quality communities of intelligent people inspire other atheists to make things like this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKULc8W7lM and write things like this- http://www.vice.com/read/hey-atheists-just-shut-up-please"

So a reasoned thought can't be in the form of a meme? It can't be satirizing religion? It can't insult it? I'm not saying anything but how those communities THINK. Scientifically. Rationally. It's like a bar for atheists, where they can be loud, rowdy, and uncouth. But it still shows lots of things about the community as a whole in so far as what we value. You probably want the /debateanatheist stuff if you want "soft," reasoned debate, as well as the Atheist Experience T.V. show (although they can get a bit heated sometimes). I'm not talking about places that play nice. I'm talking about places that show how we think. There are plenty of places where we do play nice. I don't care to visit them much, but I know they exist. *shrugs*

Yes, people get offended. I know that. And?

"Except if one thinks that the rise in atheism is due to a rise in reasoned analysis of personal beliefs, then they shouldn't expect something so uniform. The meaningful similarity to the chorus of "drunken sailor" is that the words aren't reconsidered or improved each time it's sung, they are just memorized and recited."

Yes, they should. If applied in the proper context, an argument can be repeated. There's no lack of intelligence in doing so as long as it's RELEVANT. When someone asks you what 2+2 is, you say four. Or what pie is. Or what the capital of Washington is. That more and more people are doing this means that they are MORE educated, to draw a parallel. What matters is how the argument is applied.

There is a difference between arrogance and intelligence. Even among the greatest minds known to man have been those humble enough to admit they do not know.
"Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the god of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, and criticized atheism, preferring he said "an attitude of humility"

" Agnosticism and atheism

Einstein rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[16]

Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Bashfluff:

Uh...no. I don't know if you understand those arguments. They're meant to combat belief, yes, but in the way that person used the argument in a way that certainly does so!

Well, communication had to break down eventually, and I finally lost you. I'm not too worried about that though.

So a reasoned thought can't be in the form of a meme? It can't be satirizing religion? It can't insult it? I'm not saying anything but how those communities THINK. Scientifically. Rationally. It's like a bar for atheists, where they can be loud, rowdy, and uncouth. But it still shows lots of things about the community as a whole in so far as what we value. You probably want the /debateanatheist stuff if you want "soft," reasoned debate, as well as the Atheist Experience T.V. show (although they can get a bit heated sometimes). I'm not talking about places that play nice. I'm talking about places that show how we think. There are plenty of places where we do play nice. I don't care to visit them much, but I know they exist. *shrugs*

Everyone who says that entertainment and comedy can send serious messages has a poor concept of serious. And if those places show how you think, you think like one piece of a stagnant, circle-jerking hivemind.

Yes, they should. If applied in the proper context, an argument can be repeated. There's no lack of intelligence in doing so as long as it's RELEVANT. When someone asks you what 2+2 is, you say four. Or what pie is. Or what the capital of Washington is. That more and more people are doing this means that they are MORE educated, to draw a parallel. What matters is how the argument is applied.

But an arguement is dependant on its assumptions. 2+2=4 only works because 2 and 4 mean the same thing to everyone. "God" (amongst other things) does not mean the same thing to everyone, even among atheists, and as such, identical arguements need not reach identical results.

Bashfluff:

Goddamn. I've never dodged it! I've told you to stop being lazy and click the page back button.

I looked at what you said and the only specific point that you made was that you felt that religion is closed minded and serves to only promote its own dogma...that is the only specific point. The rest of what you said is just general statements about how you think religion poisons the mind, body and society. I'm curious about that middle one, how does every religion do harm to a persons body? What exactly is physically harmful about being a Buddhist?

Lil devils x:
snip

Telling how your religion which no one I know have even heard of is peaceful and grabbing the opportunity to do a little preaching at the same time is not addressing the issue. You have told me about your belief before. Small powerless religions are not the problem here. They never was. It is the established influential ones that is and any supporters they manage to muster.

But ignorance and a wacky view on how the world works are not assisting the general intellect. Stone tablets and whats not are no more part of any science that talking snakes or virgin births are. Your firm belief makes you think you hold the answers however outrageous the claims. There are others who do the same as you, like say every other religion out there.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked