[quote]ephrem wrote:
…yes, we should form the Atheïst Alliance and get back at them for 2000 years of oppression and persecution![/quote]
Shut the hell up man. The only logical term to use would be the United Atheist League. Don’t make me shoot you.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
too bad none of you will be welcome at Valhalla.
what ever more meat and beer for me.[/quote]
and valkyries
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
too bad none of you will be welcome at Valhalla.
what ever more meat and beer for me.[/quote]
and valkyries
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…
Your beef is with the crooked timber of humanity, not with religion - and religion, despite its flaws, is one of the few things that actually mitigates some of humanity’s worst excesses. Don’t worry, so does Reason, but neither does the job by itself - and their tension is indispensable.[/quote]
Homage to Isaiah Berlin, perhaps?
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
I took that quote to mean that an atheist or agnostic, when faced with a life or death situation, will/can abandon their lack of belief and start believing in God.
To me, the only thing that points out is that human beings, when put in a situation where their very life is at risk, will abandon a strongly held belief in order to try and comfort themselves.[/quote]
Thats generally what I interpret the quote to mean as well. Either interpretation (this one or the fact that there are indeed no atheists in fox holes) seems wrong at best, and petty and childish at worst.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…yes, we should form the Atheïst Alliance and get back at them for 2000 years of oppression and persecution!
Shut the hell up man. The only logical term to use would be the United Atheist League. Don’t make me shoot you.[/quote]
What an idiot. Obviously the only logical, rational term to use would be International Atheist Alliance. I thought everyone knew this already. Jesus Christ people…
[quote]Bondslave wrote:
The only real parallel I could find was the story of a flood, which is found in many ancient writings. A person like myself could infer that the widespread belief in a great flood, no matter of your culture or religion, is evidence for it. While a skeptic would maintain its myth borrowing from myth. Go ahead and hold that position, but your inadequate sources have done nothing for the argument that Christianity has borrowed from mythology.
[/quote]
I’ve always found the fact that many different cultures had a “flood story” interesting, and the best explanation I’ve heard for it (I’ll believe the God explanation when I see good evidence for it… Really, I will) is that because so much of ancient life depended on living right next to a large body of water, a massive flood would indeed kill everyone off… Unless you were special of course.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…yes, we should form the Atheïst Alliance and get back at them for 2000 years of oppression and persecution!
Shut the hell up man. The only logical term to use would be the United Atheist League. Don’t make me shoot you.
What an idiot. Obviously the only logical, rational term to use would be International Atheist Alliance. I thought everyone knew this already. Jesus Christ people…[/quote]
Oh, my science…
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…yes, we should form the Atheïst Alliance and get back at them for 2000 years of oppression and persecution!
Shut the hell up man. The only logical term to use would be the United Atheist League. Don’t make me shoot you.
What an idiot. Obviously the only logical, rational term to use would be International Atheist Alliance. I thought everyone knew this already. Jesus Christ people…[/quote]
HE’S AN OTTER! GET HIM!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Please. I avoid this place most of the time, not because of the “believers/christians” but because it has become filled with closed minded fear mongers and trolls who act like the world is about to end.
[/quote]
It’s becoming very obvious that you don’t have the mental capacity to hang here. You seem to be imagining posts and arguments that don’t exist
You really seem to be thin skinned. It’s nobody’s fault but your own that you are so easily insulted.
There have been several discussions on here about religion and I can’t recall someone reacting quite as emotionally as you. Are you on your period?
Weak. Just answer the question.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You seem to be missing the point. That doesn’t surprise me, but coming from people who are experts in “logic”, I was hoping for more.
[/quote]
I never claimed to be an expert in logic…but anyway.
yep
like what? global warming?
If something can be proven with logic, there is not need for faith.
huh?
You haven’t called me on anything. Unless you consider random emotional thoughts addressing made up posts.
How have insulted anyone’s intelligence? Let’s start with a few simple questions.
How is the belief in Christianity any different than believing in greek mythology, scientology, aliens, or lucky rabbit feet?
Do you consider any of these beliefs silly?
[quote]
I haven’t seen anyone in this thread call atheists stupid, silly or moronic…yet insults abound from you.[/quote]
Where?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i blame religion for the existence of blind followers because religion, and it’s leaders, can only thrive if the flock of willful ignorant people stayes as large as possible. It’s this huge flock, regardless of denomination, that grants power to those who’ll abuse it, and it’s this flock that acts on the will of it’s leaders which does not benefit mankind as a whole. Since our society changed so much over the past 200 years and we are now capable of thoroughly destroying us all, instead of just a [relatively] small portion of the planet, i think i have a very strong argument against religion…
No, you don’t, because nothing you described is an inherent problem for religion - what you describe are inherent problems with anything Man creates, deals in, or institutionalizes.
Your beef is with the crooked timber of humanity, not with religion - and religion, despite its flaws, is one of the few things that actually mitigates some of humanity’s worst excesses. Don’t worry, so does Reason, but neither does the job by itself - and their tension is indispensable.[/quote]
…religion, in all it’s various forms and incarnations, is exactly the reason why there have been so many excesses throughout the ages. Yes, religion is an expression of a human flaw disguised as something pertaining to a supernatural being, and religion offers the believer solace, comfort and belonging precisely because of that flaw…
…it’s like this: we feel lost and crave answers to the most important questions we have, but we don’t know the answers and we so desparately need to believe we won’t die that we’d rather make up stories and an afterlife and a god an all that then face the fact we will perish. You will die and then there’s nothing…
…what is so cynical about religion is that it offers us a way out of death, but instead of celebrating life religion gives us an excuse to kill and opress other’s who don’t believe the same. I’m not just talking about christianity, it’s religion in general that, despite it’s good intentions, causes more harm and despair than good…
…we go on and on about this, but until people in general find a way to forgo the childish need of continued life, things will only further escalate. It may already be too late…
[quote]dhickey wrote:
It’s becoming very obvious that you don’t have the mental capacity to hang here.
[/quote]
This is the new level of debate here?
Note to all long term members like Boston, thunderbolt and others…what the fuck happened to debates like we used to have?
There are threads from 5 years ago or more about religion that were actually interesting. They went on for pages because…well, we weren’t stupid. They seem to have been replaced by people like this who need things spelled out in bright colors…possibly along with a recess break.
I can see why I avoid the place now.
No, dhickey…you are clearly superior to me in every way. I’ll let you and the other Kings Of Logic get back to what you were doing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
dhickey wrote:
It’s becoming very obvious that you don’t have the mental capacity to hang here.
This is the new level of debate here?
[/quote]
Not at all. You are not participating at a level that allows debate. Show me a portion of any one of your posts that encourages debate.
[quote]
No, dhickey…you are clearly superior to me in every way. I’ll let you and the other Kings Of Logic get back to what you were doing.[/quote]
Again, I never said this. Very weak.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
dhickey wrote:
It’s becoming very obvious that you don’t have the mental capacity to hang here.
This is the new level of debate here?
Note to all long term members like Boston, thunderbolt and others…what the fuck happened to debates like we used to have?
There are threads from 5 years ago or more about religion that were actually interesting. They went on for pages because…well, we weren’t stupid. They seem to have been replaced by people like this who need things spelled out in bright colors…possibly along with a recess break.
I can see why I avoid the place now.
[/quote]
I would say the respect level has dropped which makes the types of debates that we had impossible.
I might not have agreed with everything that was said, but I was willing to learn from it. I don’t think we were trying to convert each other to our belief\non belief view either.
It was more important to learn things then it was to be right.
Movies like religious are the exact opposite of the spirit the debates from 5 years ago exhibited.
just my .02
I thought this was an interesting article on it.
[i]
Ideologically, he is mercurial, and happy to offend all colours in the political spectrum. He is pro-Israel, pro the death penalty, pro-abortion, and anti-Iraq war. Politically, he says, ?My heart leans towards the Democrats, but I’m an independent. I like Barack Obama, but I don’t like his ideas on increasing the war in Afghanistan. In this country you have to be for some war or else you’re a pussy.?
His own view of religion is that it’s not worth the bother. ?I’m not an atheist, though, because the belief that there is no God only mirrors the certitude of religion,? he says. ?No, I’m saying that doubt is the only appropriate response for human beings.? He bemoans the mingling of religion and politics in the US, citing Tony Blair’s belated conversion to Roman Catholicism as a classic illustration of the difference between the British and American political systems. ?In the UK, if you announce something like a conversion to Catholicism while in office they say you’re a nutter, but over here it’s the exact opposite.?
[/i]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i blame religion for the existence of blind followers because religion, and it’s leaders, can only thrive if the flock of willful ignorant people stayes as large as possible. It’s this huge flock, regardless of denomination, that grants power to those who’ll abuse it, and it’s this flock that acts on the will of it’s leaders which does not benefit mankind as a whole. Since our society changed so much over the past 200 years and we are now capable of thoroughly destroying us all, instead of just a [relatively] small portion of the planet, i think i have a very strong argument against religion…
No, you don’t, because nothing you described is an inherent problem for religion - what you describe are inherent problems with anything Man creates, deals in, or institutionalizes.
Your beef is with the crooked timber of humanity, not with religion - and religion, despite its flaws, is one of the few things that actually mitigates some of humanity’s worst excesses. Don’t worry, so does Reason, but neither does the job by itself - and their tension is indispensable.[/quote]
'Crooked timber of humanity…" sounds like the post-Fall state of man described in Genesis 3.
This ‘blind followers of religion’ is some sort of idiotic canard that fails to acknowledge the differences between religions and the differences within religions themselves.
Christianity, for example, is broadly divided into 3 traditions: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox. Some of these traditions are much more democratic than others in their church polity. In the Reformed/Prebyterian tradition, church officers are elected (a term superior atheists should be familiar with) by parishioners. Other traditions are much more top-down, like Roman Catholicism.
I’m not that familiar with other religions, except for Islam, which I do believe produces ‘blind followers’ because the doctrine of ‘naskh’ essentially contradicts the Law of Noncontradiction, without which, reason is impossible. There are also several ahadith and surahs exhorting believers to obey the sheikh (Surah 4:59, Bukhari 1.11.662, 1.11.664, 2.89.256) even if he is “an Ethiopian slave with a head like a raisin.” Then there were the first 4 “Rightly Guided” Caliphs who were unelected dictators.
Perhaps Makavali can fill us in on Hinduism.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Christianity, for example, is broadly divided into 3 traditions: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox. Some of these traditions are much more democratic than others in their church polity. In the Reformed/Prebyterian tradition, church officers are elected (a term superior atheists should be familiar with) by parishioners. Other traditions are much more top-down, like Roman Catholicism.
[/quote]
Muslims don’t recognize the divinity of Christ.
Jews don’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
Eastern Orthodox Christians don’t recognize the filioque clause of the Nicene Creed.
Protestants don’t recognize the authority of the Roman Catholic Pope.
Baptists don’t recognize each other at Hooters.
And I don’t think anyone recognizes just how few non-religious people actually identify themselves as “atheists.”
By way of a metaphor, Just because one refuses to join a political party, it does not follow that this person is an anarchist, nor that he denies the existence of government, nor even that he is disinterested in politics. He just prefers not to associate with shysters, hypocrites, and power-trippers, with which political parties are invariably filled.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And I don’t think anyone recognizes just how few non-religious people actually identify themselves as “atheists.”
By way of a metaphor, Just because one refuses to join a political party, it does not follow that this person is an anarchist, nor that he denies the existence of government, nor even that he is disinterested in politics. He just prefers not to associate with shysters, hypocrites, and power-trippers, with which political parties are invariably filled.
[/quote]
Hey, it is the atheists here who are trying to make several different definitions for the word as if it doesn’t mean “disbelief in God or any omnipotent being”.
No one has said that non-religious people are necessarily “atheists”.
However, we are getting debate here as if “lack of belief” doesn’t mean “disbelief” or “an active disbelief” in deities.
I have nothing more to contribute to this thread, but I think Emo Philips does.
I was in San Francisco once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. So I thought I’d try to stall and detain him, at least long enough for me to put the film in.
I said, “don’t jump!” and he turned…
You’ve heard of the elephant man. He was kind of like that, he had a, well, you could say he had the head of a horse. And my heart went out to him. I said, “why the long face?”
He said, “all my life people have called me mean names like horse-head or Flicka or chess-piece or Trigger?”
I said, “well, don’t worry about it, Ed. It can’t be that bad.”
He said, “my girlfriend’s suing me!”
I said, “for palomino?”
He said, “why was I put on this Earth?”
I said, “my friend, anywhere else you wouldn’t stand a chance.”
He said, “nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you, you silly ninny.”
He said, “how do you know there’s a god?”
I said, “of course there’s a god. Do you think that billions of years ago a bunch of molecules floating around at random could someday have had the sense of humor to make you look like that?”
He said, “I do believe in God.”
I said, “are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “a Christian.”
I said, “me too. Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “me too! What franchise?”
He says, “Baptist.”
I said, “me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reform Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist.”
I said, “me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist
Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
So I said, “die, heretic!” and pushed him off the bridge.