Print

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

[Leafsnail]

And in every case regarding religion with questionable motivations, religion is used as an excuse for manipulating political or economic factors. You can't blame the excuses, and you can't blame the tools. You can't seriously ignore all other factors and actual motivations either. Someone actually sat down and decided "I'm going to be dick". Religion, at least the ones I promote, don't actually encourage this on their own.

This isn't really relevant to what I said.  And attempting to go out and convert people - for, say, Jehovah's witnesses - is often extremely annoying.  If religions make people feel that it's the right thing to do to go out and attempt to convert people, doesn't that make it somewhat... worse?

Granted, but I've never seen it where an atheist was actually concerned about more than proving someone wrong, or a religious person is actually making an appeal that didn't include the well being of a person in question.

Never heard of the WBC, who are basically just taunting everyone else in smug superiority?  Or other churches of a similar nature?  Fortunately they represent a tiny (but ridiculously vocal) group of Christians, but they are definately still out there.

Hell, I don't even approve of those extreme religions. You don't even have to lead them away from God to get them somewhere happier. There's other arguably better religions to follow.

I didn't say you approved of these ones.  But being freed from such a cult and feeling that there is no God who's constantly looking to punish them can liberate someone from fear and suffering.  Converting someone away from such a belief is a matter of psychological necessity.

[Andir]

In that case, surely many of the arguments of an atheists aren't exactly driven by compassion for the religious person at the other side of the argument, but surely religious people interfering with other people's life aren't exactly always driven by pure compassion either.

Granted, but I've never seen it where an atheist was actually concerned about more than proving someone wrong, or a religious person is actually making an appeal that didn't include the well being of a person in question.

I'm driven by trying to teach humanity to think logically.  If that's your definition of "proving someone wrong" then by all means.  However, praying in your deathbed for "Jesus to help you" through this while declining medical treatment that could save your life doesn't seem logical if you are both going to die by not doing the treatment.  (Because said treatment might include "killing" the baby in your womb that's a contributor to your problem)

Also, you tread a fine line when you state that the well-being of an individual is always in the minds of the believer, because in a good quantity of those cases well-being includes indoctrination into said believer's religion.  There are many who believe that such a collection of closed thinking individuals can really be detrimental to the mental (and physical, see above) well-being of some people.

IMHO, the well-being of all humanity is in the minds of all Atheists because believing in invisible wizard(s) in the sky hampers humanity's ability to push forward... but I guess that depends on what your idea of "well-being" is.

[Ampersand]

But anyway I like how you try to disprove a claim of biblical error with a quote that says that the sea is a bowl made out of cast metal.

Spoiler: I can't resist. (click to show/hide)

I could reply to more, but I think the thread is going elsewhere now...

I saw this and and I thought of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2afuTvUzBQ

I freely proclaim ignorance of the contents of the bible, because I feel that it is utterly irrelevant to me and my life. Do not mock me for not having such a deep and abiding understanding it as you do.

[Idiom]

If religions make people feel that it's the right thing to do to go out and attempt to convert people, doesn't that make it somewhat... worse?

If someone is a perfectly happy Jehovah's Witness and you smash them online, completely undermine their ability to function as they were, and only because your correctness made you feel it's the right thing to do, isn't that somewhat... worse? Pot. Kettle. Black. You're both having the same urges to do something that you agree is very annoying and rude.

Fortunately they represent a tiny (but ridiculously vocal) group

Right there. What you said right there. Tiny as hell. Remember what you replied to? "I've never seen"? That's because it almost never happens. You're focusing on outrageous but tiny details. Logical fallacy. Drop that whole thing from your argument.

Converting someone away from such a belief is a matter of psychological necessity.

"Such a belief"? Then you might actually agree with me that there are theists that are perfectly fine with the belief they're currently under?

I'm driven by trying to teach humanity to think logically.  If that's your definition of "proving someone wrong" then by all means.  However, praying in your deathbed for "Jesus to help you" through this while declining medical treatment that could save your life doesn't seem logical if you are both going to die by not doing the treatment.

Having people think logically has NOTHING to do with destroying their religion. If someone is refusing medical treatment out of personal beliefs, you will have MUCH better success getting their peers or at least someone almost on the same page as them to convince them in the terms of their own belief otherwise. You don't have to completely dismantle people to get them to change their opinions about things. It's like removing stains with a shotgun. There are much less destructive, invasive, and inconsiderate methods of doing it.

Also, you tread a fine line when you state that the well-being of an individual is always in the minds of the believer

Never claimed that. I'm saying, the majority of the time, the theist's motivation is the well being of the other person. He was saying that the theist doesn't always have respectable motivation either, and that atheists can have respectable motivation too. My rebuttal, no claim, is granted what he said is true, that still the majority of theists tend to make appeals to the other's well being in comparison to atheists in my experiences.

Also, in address to the recent fad of atheism, I should note that there are many who believe that such a collection of closed thinking individuals can really be detrimental to the mental well-being of some people.

[dreiche2]

Hell, I don't even approve of those extreme religions. You don't even have to lead them away from God to get them somewhere happier. There's other arguably better religions to follow.

Ah, so there's good and bad religions? And by which measure is this decided?

And in every case regarding religion with questionable motivations, religion is used as an excuse for manipulating political or economic factors. You can't blame the excuses, and you can't blame the tools. You can't seriously ignore all other factors and actual motivations either. Someone actually sat down and decided "I'm going to be dick". Religion, at least the ones I promote, don't actually encourage this on their own.

Which religion would that be? Christianity? If so, are you denying that the bible is full of morally questionable content and rules?

Also, I'm not American myself, but what about these arguments about whether evolution or creationism should be taught in schools? How can this be resolved without having actual arguments in between atheists and theists?

Edit:

My rebuttal, no claim, is granted what he said is true, that still the majority of theists tend to make appeals to the other's well being in comparison to atheists in my experiences.

I just don't think so.

Also, in address to the recent fad of atheism, I should note that there are many who believe that such a collection of closed thinking individuals can really be detrimental to the mental well-being of some people.

Recent fad? Sorry dude, but as long as there is further scientific progress, religions will be on the retreat.

[Idiom]

Ah, so there's good and bad religions? And by which measure is this decided?

Absolutely. I'm claiming that there are good religions, and there are perfectly fine theists that you atheists pointlessly bash. Hell yes there are bad religions. Generally this is decided by peers, but while the lot of you atheists are all up on your high horse, I'd think you could at least be somewhat selective of what you bash. Again, getting people to think logically has NOTHING to do with completely dismantling a person's personal beliefs.

Also, I'm not American myself, but what about these arguments about whether evolution or creationism should be taught in schools? How can this be resolved without having actual arguments in between atheists and theists?

Creationism = Intelligent Design = Science Fiction Theory. It's been a theory, not just a hypothesis, since genetically modified foods starting in the 80's. Arguments between atheists and theists can be solved by the both of them pulling their heads out of their asses about "incompatibility" between science and religion.

I just don't think so.

You don't think so? Well, I'll tell you what I see, not what I think. I'm essentially in the middle of theist-ville. Atheist claims are all hoopla over a handful of nutjobs.

Recent fad? Sorry dude, but as long as there is further scientific progress, religions will be on the retreat.

THAT. EXACTLY WHAT THE FUCK I JUST SAID about people being all stuck up about a "war" between science and religion.

[Idiom]

OK, before I get ninja edited again, this post moves towards another idea.

as long as there is further scientific progress, religions will be on the retreat.

There is no retreat. There is no "victory" over "religion". Religion isn't a thing. It's a set of ideas on a TOPIC. It's the TOPIC concerning the nature and purpose of the universe, generally involving creationism. When "Science" triumphs over "religion", that bit of science that did WILL BE religion. What you said makes as much sense as "Winning the war on health". I know I'm not the only one here that's said this.

There is no resolve between atheists and theists when atheists are a bunch of stuck up "conquerors" of religion.

[Leafsnail]

If someone is a perfectly happy Jehovah's Witness and you smash them online, completely undermine their ability to function as they were, and only because your correctness made you feel it's the right thing to do, isn't that somewhat... worse? Pot. Kettle. Black. You're both having the same urges to do something that you agree is very annoying and rude.

I didn't say anything of the sort.  What I'm saying is that, even if the religion causes people to think they're doing good in forcing their views on others (such as the case is with Jehovah's witnesses).  I would not attempt to "smash" anyone online, even if I did somehow obtain that ability.

My point is just that if a religion is making someone do something rude and inconsiderate that is not an excuse for it.

Right there. What you said right there. Tiny as hell. Remember what you replied to? "I've never seen"? That's because it almost never happens. You're focusing on outrageous but tiny details. Logical fallacy. Drop that whole thing from your argument.

But you must've seen them.  A lot.  Hence the "vocal" part.  And I wasn't actually making an argument - just correcting your overgeneralization.

"Such a belief"? Then you might actually agree with me that there are theists that are perfectly fine with the belief they're currently under?

Uh... I didn't say there weren't?  At any point?

Having people think logically has NOTHING to do with destroying their religion. If someone is refusing medical treatment out of personal beliefs, you will have MUCH better success getting their peers or at least someone almost on the same page as them to convince them in the terms of their own belief otherwise. You don't have to completely dismantle people to get them to change their opinions about things. It's like removing stains with a shotgun. There are much less destructive, invasive, and inconsiderate methods of doing it.

But it's a motive people have for converting someone that isn't purely dickish...

Also, in address to the recent fad of atheism, I should note that there are many who believe that such a collection of closed thinking individuals can really be detrimental to the mental well-being of some people.

Uh... what?  I don't follow.  Some people have been drifting away from religion ever since the Enlightenment... how would this make a "fad"?

Creationism = Intelligent Design = Science Fiction Theory. It's been a theory, not just a hypothesis, since genetically modified foods starting in the 80's. Arguments between atheists and theists can be solved by the both of them pulling their heads out of their asses about "incompatibility" between science and religion.

THAT. EXACTLY WHAT THE FUCK I JUST SAID about people being all stuck up about a "war" between science and religion.

Uh... for someone telling us to calm down and not force beliefs on people...

There is no retreat. There is no "victory" over "religion". Religion isn't a thing. It's a set of ideas on a TOPIC. It's the TOPIC concerning the nature and purpose of the universe, generally involving creationism. When "Science" triumphs over "religion", that bit of science that did WILL BE religion. What you said makes as much sense as "Winning the war on health". I know I'm not the only one here that's said this.

I don't get this either.  I think you're confusing the term "religion" and "philosophy", perhaps?

[dreiche2]

Idiom: I was about to write a reply, but then I realized, I don't even know what we're discussing here. What is it you are actually saying? That atheists should never attack religions? But again, you're basing your whole defence on the argument that religion is just about personal beliefs. And that's just not true.

Also, you didn't address this:

"Which religion would that be? Christianity? If so, are you denying that the bible is full of morally questionable content and rules?"

For example, stoning to death, example:

32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

So that's what the bible says should happen to someone who works during Sabbath. It's not just about political powers or whoever abusing religion.

[Dwarf]

Thrown in:


Shouldn't believing members of a religion do everything to convert the people around them?
Non-believers would go to hell, and it would be evil to knowingly send them there, no?

[dreiche2]

Ps:

I agree that there are "better" religions than others. My favourite? Buddhism. Because I think that it promotes some valid and important philosophical insights. And:

Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But when you know for yourselves—these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness—then do you live acting accordingly.

Any religion that tells you to be sceptical and form your own opinion can't be that bad.

[Dwarf]

For example, stoning to death, example:

(sorry for double-post)
And, even more.
Jesus, the avatar of love and compassion:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword.
Matthew 10.34

But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and slaughter them in front of me!’”
Luke 19.27

But I tell you most certainly,there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the kingdom of God.”
Luke 9.27
(I think we can assume that all people who 'heard' this are dead by now.)

So, we can conclude that Jesus is intolerant, a liar, and a warmonger.
Luke 19.27 even justifies the crusades.

[Idiom]

Fuck it, I can't keep up with all the replies now. I'm going to boil this back down again.

then I realized, I don't even know what we're discussing here. What is it you are actually saying? That atheists should never attack religions?

Atheists shouldn't go about bashing every theist they come across. Granted there are theists who would do better with that, there are also as you've agreed perfectly fine theists that exist fine as theists. As I said before, there's no way to properly target these people through the internet without being extremely disruptive and rude to everyone else. The theists you think would be happier as atheists you shouldn't be too concerned about, as they tend to gravitate away from theism on their own. The theists that actually need to be dismantled are very tiny numbers, anomalies that always exist in a population, no matter how loud or often seen or how dangerous they appear, and may even be better dealt with in the terms of their own beliefs rather than completely dismantling them. It is extremely rude to do so, and atheists should probably be a lot more low key when online than they are currently. Now, I'm not saying they should never bash theists. There's certain groups of theists that atheists should focus on more than they do. Like extremists or Scientology or people doing something stupid like refusing vital medical care. There's less invasive methods of of making people think more logically than the traditional atheist approach as well that would result in less "incompatibilities" between the two groups. Namely there's currently a complete lack of respect in the standard approach.

I think I can sum that up as attack for selective breeding of desirable theists rather than trying to exterminate the whole group. I think I'm being very reasonable here.

I think that was everything. Hold on, I'll try to clear up all the single quote replies next.

[dreiche2]

Ninja reply!

Atheists shouldn't go about bashing every theist they come across.

Fair enough. Although of course you like to generalize over all atheists as well.

There's certain groups of theists that atheists should focus on more than they do. Like extremists or Scientology or people doing something stupid like refusing vital medical care.

What about believing that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."  Is that stupid enough to argue against? Because that's apparently what 45% of Americans believe.

[Dwarf]

Fun fact:

Why do most of the postgraduate, hence, intelligent people, believe in evolution?

Atleast it's getting better.