Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you want to revoke their tax status, you need to go through the IRS. They have a form, though I forget which number it is, for this kind of thing. You can file it against any religious organization if you have proof that they've delved into politics.

[kaijyuu]

Dude, Nadaka and his mother (and sister?) escaped from a violent Christian church (and the only reason I do not use sect here is because he has not made clear how sect-like it was) themselves, so it is literally why he is an atheist.

Perhaps this is something for another thread, but that's actually a terrible reason to be an atheist. Great one to be anti-(insert the christian denomination he previously was part of here), though.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Dude, Nadaka and his mother (and sister?) escaped from a violent Christian church (and the only reason I do not use sect here is because he has not made clear how sect-like it was) themselves, so it is literally why he is an atheist.

Perhaps this is something for another thread, but that's actually a terrible reason to be an atheist. Great one to be anti-(insert the christian denomination he previously was part of here), though.

No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.

[Helgoland]

Dude, Nadaka and his mother (and sister?) escaped from a violent Christian church (and the only reason I do not use sect here is because he has not made clear how sect-like it was) themselves, so it is literally why he is an atheist.

Perhaps this is something for another thread, but that's actually a terrible reason to be an atheist. Great one to be anti-(insert the christian denomination he previously was part of here), though.

No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.

But not that particular religion's inability. If you believe that all religions are (on some level) like this, then it's a legitimate point of view, of course.
Not a particular reasonable one, but still.

[GlyphGryph]

It's hard to be theist when that's the sort of stuff you associate with god, on a purely emotional level, I'd wager.

[kaijyuu]

No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.

Claiming religion intrinsically harms people physically and/or emotionally is quite the tall claim.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.

Claiming religion intrinsically harms people physically and/or emotionally is quite the tall claim.

There's quite the pile of evidence.

[kaijyuu]

That individual religions do it? Yes, there is. I know that quite well myself.

Doesn't mean it's intrinsic to the concept of belief in supernatural deities, though.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Being that there is no reason to believe in supernatural deities, any such belief will be based on a denial of evidence and will eventually either die out or delve into unhealthy behavior in order to maintain the belief in the face of stark reality.

[Helgoland]

No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.

Claiming religion intrinsically harms people physically and/or emotionally is quite the tall claim.

There's quite the pile of evidence.

There's quite the counterexample: Post-70 AD judaism, for example.
To argue a la Marx (look at my avatar, my avatar is amazing, give it a lick...) that religion in most instances was used to harm the workers, that's a more defensible position. Different discussion, though.

Being that there is no reason to believe in supernatural deities, any such belief will be based on a denial of evidence and will eventually either die out or delve into unhealthy behavior in order to maintain the belief in the face of stark reality.

Also no reason not to - that's the beauty of an intrinsically unproveable concept

[GlyphGryph]

No it isn't. Religion's inability to operate without hurting people physically or emotionally is a completely legitimate reason to be an atheist.

Claiming religion intrinsically harms people physically and/or emotionally is quite the tall claim.

Remember, kids, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Not all gun users are irresponsible murderers, so it's wrong to think gun culture is intrinsically harmful...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

To argue a la Marx (look at my avatar, my avatar is amazing, give it a lick...) that religion in most instances was used to harm the workers, that's a more defensible position. Different discussion, though.

Marx's argument was that religion is a tool for control, regardless if that control is used for good or evil. Hence, opiate of the masses. Of course, Marx being Marx, he disapproved of controlling people altogether.

Being that there is no reason to believe in supernatural deities, any such belief will be based on a denial of evidence and will eventually either die out or delve into unhealthy behavior in order to maintain the belief in the face of stark reality.

Also no reason not to - that's the beauty of an intrinsically unproveable concept

Irrelevant. This is not a level playing field. There is an infinite number of absurd concepts with no evidence "for or against", but people disbelieve in almost all of these. That they throw a blind dart and defend the one they hit with "but you can't prove it ISNT" is just plain stupid.

[Helgoland]

To argue a la Marx (look at my avatar, my avatar is amazing, give it a lick...) that religion in most instances was used to harm the workers, that's a more defensible position. Different discussion, though.

Marx's argument was that religion is a tool for control, regardless if that control is used for good or evil. Hence, opiate of the masses. Of course, Marx being Marx, he disapproved of controlling people altogether.

Same thing, basicaally - when's it ever been used for helping them?

Being that there is no reason to believe in supernatural deities, any such belief will be based on a denial of evidence and will eventually either die out or delve into unhealthy behavior in order to maintain the belief in the face of stark reality.

Also no reason not to - that's the beauty of an intrinsically unproveable concept

Irrelevant. This is not a level playing field. There is an infinite number of absurd concepts with no evidence "for or against", but people disbelieve in almost all of these. That they throw a blind dart and defend the one they hit with "but you can't prove it ISNT" is just plain stupid.

"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts

I only contest your claim that any irrational belief will have to die out because of its intrinsic contradictions (Hegel's kinda cool, too; complete nonsense, bu cool ) - just imagine Russell's teapot in a world without telescopes, or something analogous.

[penguinofhonor]

Not the right thread for this.

[10ebbor10]

Being that there is no reason to believe in supernatural deities, any such belief will be based on a denial of evidence and will eventually either die out or delve into unhealthy behavior in order to maintain the belief in the face of stark reality.

Also no reason not to - that's the beauty of an intrinsically unproveable concept

Irrelevant. This is not a level playing field. There is an infinite number of absurd concepts with no evidence "for or against", but people disbelieve in almost all of these. That they throw a blind dart and defend the one they hit with "but you can't prove it ISNT" is just plain stupid.

"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts

I only contest your claim that any irrational belief will have to die out because of its intrinsic contradictions (Hegel's kinda cool, too; complete nonsense, bu cool ) - just imagine Russell's teapot in a world without telescopes, or something analogous.
[/quote]
We're going existenialistic again, but there's no reason to believe that you can trust your senses, and that you actually exist and live this live, as opposed to being a sidewatcher in some cheap B-Movie virtual world plot.

Also, humans can and will cling to all their beliefs, even if there's no proof. The idea of the American dream's a good one, for example.

As for the latter part, when you can prove that there isn't a diety/pantheon/whatever. What makes your version of reality better than mine*? Who says that there are such things as laws of nature, or rationality/predictability on the universes part. An transcedent God is impossible to disprove, while scientific laws are proven wrong and adjusted time over time.

*Note: Version of reality being defended might only partially or not at all overlap with my opinion.

Now, the point of most/several/whatever religions is not to explain how the universe worse. There's no science in scripture. However, each religion and each subfaction has it's doctrines and it's intrepretations of it's holy texts which sketch an ideal of a better world.

Edit: Apologies to Nadaka
Edit2: Might continue this on the right thread.