The New Atheist - Mock and Ridicule Believers

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]strongmanvinny wrote:

Tl;dr: no faith in humanity cause ignorant Christians.[/quote]

There’s your problem right there – you’re looking to place your faith in humanity. Big mistake.

Your faith belongs elsewhere.[/quote]

Faith belongs nowhere. In the words of Mark Twain, “faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”

I have no need of faith if faith is based on belief. I don’t believe anything. I either think a thing is true, or I think a thing is not true, or I don’t know. Believing is not a meaningful option for me.[/quote]

This makes no sense.

[/quote]

LOL. You wrassle with him for awhile.

“I have no need of faith if faith is based on belief i[/i]. I don’t believe i[/i] anything. I either think i[/i] a thing is true, or I think i[/i] a thing is not true, or I don’t know. Believing i is not a meaningful option for me.”

Okey dokey, pardner.[/quote]
Leave it to a religionist to intentionally mischaracterize another’s words. Intellectual honesty should mean something.

I clearly think thinking something to be true and believing something to be true are meaningfully different, but you can’t recognize that obvious fact and instead choose to insult. Typical.
[/quote]

Left column. Ninth word.[/quote]

Third column, third down.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I mean no ill will to any of ya’ll fellers. Just want you to sharpen up your game.

This isn’t preschool and we’re not here to build your self esteem.

Think before you speak (write).[/quote]

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
Of all the things that I can’t understand about atheist’s or what have you. Is the fact that they seem to spend most of their time trying to bash religion, or disprove God.[/quote]

Atheist don’t need to disprove god. It’s up to religious types to prove the existence of god…

[/quote]

Nonsense.

It takes a fair amount of hubris to make this demand. Unmerited hubris.

Atheists have faith. In spades, they have faith.

In fact, it takes far more faith to look at this universe and say, “Nope! Ain’t no God out there, I’m purty darn sure of it.”
[/quote]

Push, you’re just saying words, there’s nothing behind them.

And my statement is not nonsense. If you and I are out taking a stroll through the woods and we come upon an old cabin and you turn to me and say “you know Edge, I do believe there’s a beach ball in this here cabin, as matter of fact I’m sure of it.”

I look sideways at you and say “you’re kidding, right?”

You say “No, I’m sure of it, there’s a beach ball in this cabin”.

I’m going to say prove it and it’s up to you to do so.

In short; you can’t just make shit up and expect people to believe you without proving it.[/quote]

Yep.

The burden of proof is on the one who says that the sun froze in the sky and a man rose from the dead after three days and a serpent tempted the first woman (who’d been from a rib) to eat an apple (and this is why our mothers had such a hell of a time giving birth to us) and the first ever man was made from dust and water was walked on and also turned to wine, not on the person who finds no good reason to believe any of it.

That said, Push is right about atheism (as certainty of godlessness): it requires a great deal of faith, possibly more than theism*

Theism generally, not any specific religion.[/quote]

BS. Atheism requires no faith whatsoever. What idea must I accept on insufficient evidence in order to be an atheist?[/quote]

Um…the idea that G-d doesn’t exist?
[/quote]

Ha, ha. None of you guys know what an atheist actually is. Think about it.

A-theist. It merely means NOT a theist. A theist believes there is a god. I don’t believe there is a god, but I also don’t believe there isn’t one. I don’t know. This makes me agnostic. But if you don’t know, then you don’t believe, therefore you’re not a theist either, so you are A-theist.

I’m not claiming there is no god. I’m claiming I don’t know if there is a god.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Clarity is offensive.

If atheists communicate clearly, it will be offesive, because religion is almost always ridiculous, and often evil.
[/quote]
Insults and mocking are certainly clear. It doesn’t mean anything, it has no basis in fact or point. It’s sad, small and petty, really. If you have to resort to insults and mocking, it just means you have no point and pretty much concede you lost the argument. If you have to resort to it, who’s being ridiculous and evil, really?
What’s Dawkins really saying here? If you come across a religious person, act like your a 12 year old bully repeating 6th grade? That’s fabulous advice, glad you’re taking it to heart.[/quote]

No, it means point out the truth clearly. Evolution is a fact. The Big Bang happened. The earth is not less than 10,000 years old. It’s at least 400,000 times older. We DO have common ancestry with other apes.

Clarity is offensive because much in religion is silly. Take Christianity. God sacrifices himself (but not really,since Jesus is supposedly alive and well) to himself so he can protect us from his wrath that resulted from us being exactly as he made us to be. Well Adam sinned, but god still set him up to fail, on purpose, and everyone else is just born into a losing struggle such that they literally have to beg forgiveness for being born.

It’s psychologically unhealthy to feel guilty for being being born.

This is taught to children who are brainwashed to think they are literally evil and deserve to be tortured alive in fire forever. Love god or he will TORTURE YOU FOREVER. Literally. This is taught to CHILDREN. Do you think telling children they are evil and deserve to be torched forever is not psychologically harmful? It borders on abuse.

Not to mention the evil commandments in the Old Testament. Almost no one lives according to Old Testament because anyone acting the way god commanded the Israelites to would be on death row because our morality has progressed.

Slaughtering entire cities. Literal genocide. Well, sometimes the virgin women were allowed to live. Guess why. Would you thrust a sword through the belly of a child? God ordered men to do this according to the Bible. God commanded that women marry the man who raped her. God commanded people be put to death for imaginary crimes like witchcraft, and for homosexuality. He also commanded half of Israel to be subject to ritual genital mutilation. Lot is called a good man, even though when the men of Sodom come to his door to rape the angels he offers up his daughters to be raped. A man who offers up his daughters to literally be gang-raped is called a good man by GOD. God thinks gang-rape is ok apparently.

This is clarity.

Clarity is saying what everyone is thinking but for so long it was considered rude to state explicitly. Religion has had it far too easy for far too long. [/quote]

That’s not clarity. That’s a sophomoric grasp of theology. Clarity is not insulting. Misrepresenting, creating straw men out of people’s beliefs and then mocking the believer for something you say they believe, but don’t actually believe is mocking and rhetorical propaganda. It’s not illumination, it’s ignorance.
You aren’t tearing ideas down, you’re tearing people down based basically on bullshit.

Just because you don’t understand the subject matter, does not make other people who do understand it stupid. It means you’re uneducated on the topic, it doesn’t mean religious people are silly.
[/quote]

What bullshit? Everything I said is in the Bible. Is there a context in which murdering gays, genital mutilation, making women marry their rapists, genocide so you can steal land, are ok?

Exactly what have I misrepresented?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Is any of this an insult? Do my remarks have substance? Is the substance inaccurate or accurate? [/quote]

The substance is inaccurate. I think it’s meant to be insulting, but it’s more of an indictment on yourself and your lack of knowledge on religion and theology. It’s what you think religious people believe, but it does not represent what people actually believe.
You are attempting to make it look absurd and illogical, when in fact there is a rich history and philosophy behind religious beliefs. They aren’t just loosely thrown together passages of the Bible out of context thrown together as some bizarre worldview or paradigm. All of these things are carefully studied in the context of the history and culture of the peoples for whence it came.[/quote]

If scripture is not everywhere true how do you decide which parts are and aren’t? How do you decide which parts are the word of god?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

BS. Atheism requires no faith whatsoever. What idea must I accept on insufficient evidence in order to be an atheist?[/quote]

Oh? You believe it, don’t you? A lack of belief in God doesn’t mean you don’t believe in anything. It means you believe something else. Not believing in God doesn’t make the big questions in life disappear, it means you have different answers to them… based on faith.
You don’t know existence is base ex nihilo, you don’t know the universe happened by chance, you don’t know consciousness is a bio-chemical accident, you believe it, you don’t know it.[/quote]

Still don’t get it. It means I believe NOTHING. I don’t know what happens after death. I don’t claim answers to big questions. I think somethings can be ruled out, like a conventional view of heaven and hell, but I don’t know if I just disappear, or if I get reborn as another person with no memory of this life, or what. I don’t need to know.

This is why I make a distinction between belief and thinking. I don’t have answers to these questions. I have thoughts, feeling, preferences, but I don’t know what’s true. I’m willing to embrace my ignorance.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

BS. Atheism requires no faith whatsoever. What idea must I accept on insufficient evidence in order to be an atheist?[/quote]

Oh? You believe it, don’t you? A lack of belief in God doesn’t mean you don’t believe in anything. It means you believe something else. Not believing in God doesn’t make the big questions in life disappear, it means you have different answers to them… based on faith.
You don’t know existence is base ex nihilo, you don’t know the universe happened by chance, you don’t know consciousness is a bio-chemical accident, you believe it, you don’t know it.[/quote]
This is wrong. Faith and knowledge are not the same thing. Faith and belief are not the same thing. A Christian should know this.

And not all answers are based on faith. There is something called reason. [/quote]

And reason is not on your side. Do you know God doesn’t exist, or do you just think religion is ridiculous?[/quote]

I don’t know god doesn’t exist. I do know religion is ridiculous.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

How many atheists believe Richard Dawkins? We should be mocked and ridiculed for our beliefs? This isn’t non-belief, this is raw, pure hatred. I want to hear from atheists, do you practice what is preached?[/quote]

You know, this anti-Christianity nonsense is vulgar.

And the belief that a lot of the human condition will just go away if we get rid of religion is stupid.

And that we have ditched millenia of wisdom because it rested on a premisse that at least to me is a bit questionable was probably not the wisest move either.

But, other than that, fuck religion, grrrrrr…[/quote]

What wisdom have we ditched?
[/quote]

That there is such a thing as human nature.

That we are made of crooked wood and predictably so…
[/quote]

Who denies this? I certainly don’t. Evolution doesn’t create perfection. The only silly person expecting perfection is the imaginary Yahweh.

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Clarity is offensive.

If atheists communicate clearly, it will be offesive, because religion is almost always ridiculous, and often evil.
[/quote]
Insults and mocking are certainly clear. It doesn’t mean anything, it has no basis in fact or point. It’s sad, small and petty, really. If you have to resort to insults and mocking, it just means you have no point and pretty much concede you lost the argument. If you have to resort to it, who’s being ridiculous and evil, really?
What’s Dawkins really saying here? If you come across a religious person, act like your a 12 year old bully repeating 6th grade? That’s fabulous advice, glad you’re taking it to heart.[/quote]

No, it means point out the truth clearly. Evolution is a fact. The Big Bang happened. The earth is not less than 10,000 years old. It’s at least 400,000 times older. We DO have common ancestry with other apes.

Clarity is offensive because much in religion is silly. Take Christianity. God sacrifices himself (but not really,since Jesus is supposedly alive and well) to himself so he can protect us from his wrath that resulted from us being exactly as he made us to be. Well Adam sinned, but god still set him up to fail, on purpose, and everyone else is just born into a losing struggle such that they literally have to beg forgiveness for being born.

It’s psychologically unhealthy to feel guilty for being being born.

This is taught to children who are brainwashed to think they are literally evil and deserve to be tortured alive in fire forever. Love god or he will TORTURE YOU FOREVER. Literally. This is taught to CHILDREN. Do you think telling children they are evil and deserve to be torched forever is not psychologically harmful? It borders on abuse.

Not to mention the evil commandments in the Old Testament. Almost no one lives according to Old Testament because anyone acting the way god commanded the Israelites to would be on death row because our morality has progressed.

Slaughtering entire cities. Literal genocide. Well, sometimes the virgin women were allowed to live. Guess why. Would you thrust a sword through the belly of a child? God ordered men to do this according to the Bible. God commanded that women marry the man who raped her. God commanded people be put to death for imaginary crimes like witchcraft, and for homosexuality. He also commanded half of Israel to be subject to ritual genital mutilation. Lot is called a good man, even though when the men of Sodom come to his door to rape the angels he offers up his daughters to be raped. A man who offers up his daughters to literally be gang-raped is called a good man by GOD. God thinks gang-rape is ok apparently.

This is clarity.

Clarity is saying what everyone is thinking but for so long it was considered rude to state explicitly. Religion has had it far too easy for far too long. [/quote]

That’s not clarity. That’s a sophomoric grasp of theology. Clarity is not insulting. Misrepresenting, creating straw men out of people’s beliefs and then mocking the believer for something you say they believe, but don’t actually believe is mocking and rhetorical propaganda. It’s not illumination, it’s ignorance.
You aren’t tearing ideas down, you’re tearing people down based basically on bullshit.

Just because you don’t understand the subject matter, does not make other people who do understand it stupid. It means you’re uneducated on the topic, it doesn’t mean religious people are silly.
[/quote]

What bullshit? Everything I said is in the Bible. Is there a context in which murdering gays, genital mutilation, making women marry their rapists, genocide so you can steal land, are ok?

Exactly what have I misrepresented?
[/quote]
Cherry picking events in the Bible from biased, propaganda articles from www.infidels.org is hardly representative knowledge of scripture, religion or religious peoples.
Your misrepresentation is, that like most militant new atheists you try to paint religion and scripture as inherently evil, where probably like more militant new atheists, evil has no actual meaning since it is relative.
You haven’t read the Bible, you don’t know the Bible yet you see fit to criticize it.
For some reason, in the context of the Bible, it’s the only book where people who have not read it, do not understand it in any context see fit to criticize it. Where any other such treatment of a book, where a person who has not read it and has no actual knowledge of it would be roundly and mercilessly criticized for doing so.

I can already hear it now. “How do you know I didn’t read it?” or my favorite line, “I read it more time than you have!” No, you haven’t. It’s interesting, though, that the people who make such claims seldom know more about it than what’s in the average “Atrocities in the Bible” articles on their favorite atheist propaganda website.

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

BS. Atheism requires no faith whatsoever. What idea must I accept on insufficient evidence in order to be an atheist?[/quote]

Oh? You believe it, don’t you? A lack of belief in God doesn’t mean you don’t believe in anything. It means you believe something else. Not believing in God doesn’t make the big questions in life disappear, it means you have different answers to them… based on faith.
You don’t know existence is base ex nihilo, you don’t know the universe happened by chance, you don’t know consciousness is a bio-chemical accident, you believe it, you don’t know it.[/quote]

Still don’t get it. It means I believe NOTHING. I don’t know what happens after death. I don’t claim answers to big questions. I think somethings can be ruled out, like a conventional view of heaven and hell, but I don’t know if I just disappear, or if I get reborn as another person with no memory of this life, or what. I don’t need to know.

This is why I make a distinction between belief and thinking. I don’t have answers to these questions. I have thoughts, feeling, preferences, but I don’t know what’s true. I’m willing to embrace my ignorance.
[/quote]

I am not comfortable with ignorance. I may have to accept it in some cases, but I want to know as much as I can know. There are things you can know and there are things you think and there’s knowing the difference.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Clarity is offensive.

If atheists communicate clearly, it will be offesive, because religion is almost always ridiculous, and often evil.
[/quote]
Insults and mocking are certainly clear. It doesn’t mean anything, it has no basis in fact or point. It’s sad, small and petty, really. If you have to resort to insults and mocking, it just means you have no point and pretty much concede you lost the argument. If you have to resort to it, who’s being ridiculous and evil, really?
What’s Dawkins really saying here? If you come across a religious person, act like your a 12 year old bully repeating 6th grade? That’s fabulous advice, glad you’re taking it to heart.[/quote]

No, it means point out the truth clearly. Evolution is a fact. The Big Bang happened. The earth is not less than 10,000 years old. It’s at least 400,000 times older. We DO have common ancestry with other apes.

Clarity is offensive because much in religion is silly. Take Christianity. God sacrifices himself (but not really,since Jesus is supposedly alive and well) to himself so he can protect us from his wrath that resulted from us being exactly as he made us to be. Well Adam sinned, but god still set him up to fail, on purpose, and everyone else is just born into a losing struggle such that they literally have to beg forgiveness for being born.

It’s psychologically unhealthy to feel guilty for being being born.

This is taught to children who are brainwashed to think they are literally evil and deserve to be tortured alive in fire forever. Love god or he will TORTURE YOU FOREVER. Literally. This is taught to CHILDREN. Do you think telling children they are evil and deserve to be torched forever is not psychologically harmful? It borders on abuse.

Not to mention the evil commandments in the Old Testament. Almost no one lives according to Old Testament because anyone acting the way god commanded the Israelites to would be on death row because our morality has progressed.

Slaughtering entire cities. Literal genocide. Well, sometimes the virgin women were allowed to live. Guess why. Would you thrust a sword through the belly of a child? God ordered men to do this according to the Bible. God commanded that women marry the man who raped her. God commanded people be put to death for imaginary crimes like witchcraft, and for homosexuality. He also commanded half of Israel to be subject to ritual genital mutilation. Lot is called a good man, even though when the men of Sodom come to his door to rape the angels he offers up his daughters to be raped. A man who offers up his daughters to literally be gang-raped is called a good man by GOD. God thinks gang-rape is ok apparently.

This is clarity.

Clarity is saying what everyone is thinking but for so long it was considered rude to state explicitly. Religion has had it far too easy for far too long. [/quote]

That’s not clarity. That’s a sophomoric grasp of theology. Clarity is not insulting. Misrepresenting, creating straw men out of people’s beliefs and then mocking the believer for something you say they believe, but don’t actually believe is mocking and rhetorical propaganda. It’s not illumination, it’s ignorance.
You aren’t tearing ideas down, you’re tearing people down based basically on bullshit.

Just because you don’t understand the subject matter, does not make other people who do understand it stupid. It means you’re uneducated on the topic, it doesn’t mean religious people are silly.
[/quote]

What bullshit? Everything I said is in the Bible. Is there a context in which murdering gays, genital mutilation, making women marry their rapists, genocide so you can steal land, are ok?

Exactly what have I misrepresented?
[/quote]
Cherry picking events in the Bible from biased, propaganda articles from www.infidels.org is hardly representative knowledge of scripture, religion or religious peoples.
Your misrepresentation is, that like most militant new atheists you try to paint religion and scripture as inherently evil, where probably like more militant new atheists, evil has no actual meaning since it is relative.
You haven’t read the Bible, you don’t know the Bible yet you see fit to criticize it.
For some reason, in the context of the Bible, it’s the only book where people who have not read it, do not understand it in any context see fit to criticize it. Where any other such treatment of a book, where a person who has not read it and has no actual knowledge of it would be roundly and mercilessly criticized for doing so.

I can already hear it now. “How do you know I didn’t read it?” or my favorite line, “I read it more time than you have!” No, you haven’t. It’s interesting, though, that the people who make such claims seldom know more about it than what’s in the average “Atrocities in the Bible” articles on their favorite atheist propaganda website. [/quote]

Nope. I haven’t read the whole Bible. I’ve read the entire New Testament, at least once, but not the Old Testament. I’ve read Genesis through Exodus probably at least twice. But it gets SO boring after that.

What context do you need? In what context is forcing a woman to marry the man who raped her a good idea? In what context is slaughtering an entire city just so you can take their land ok? In what context is killing homosexuals ok? In what context would you be willing to let your daughter marry a man who raped her? Would you ever be willing to let this happen? No, you’d more likely kill the man that let that happen.

These words ARE IN THE BIBLE. That’s all the knowledge you need.

This isn’t any old book. It’s a book many people want to use to reshape the world. And it commands things, at least did command things, that would make most people on death row feel guilty.

Please explain how you “understand” the Bible such that these things are good. I understand it as well as you do, and you’ve provided no evidence, no argument even, to explain otherwise. I was a Christian in a fairly fundamentalist sect.

You can’t define objectively good health. How dare you ever say anything is healthy or unhealthy.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

BS. Atheism requires no faith whatsoever. What idea must I accept on insufficient evidence in order to be an atheist?[/quote]

Oh? You believe it, don’t you? A lack of belief in God doesn’t mean you don’t believe in anything. It means you believe something else. Not believing in God doesn’t make the big questions in life disappear, it means you have different answers to them… based on faith.
You don’t know existence is base ex nihilo, you don’t know the universe happened by chance, you don’t know consciousness is a bio-chemical accident, you believe it, you don’t know it.[/quote]

Still don’t get it. It means I believe NOTHING. I don’t know what happens after death. I don’t claim answers to big questions. I think somethings can be ruled out, like a conventional view of heaven and hell, but I don’t know if I just disappear, or if I get reborn as another person with no memory of this life, or what. I don’t need to know.

This is why I make a distinction between belief and thinking. I don’t have answers to these questions. I have thoughts, feeling, preferences, but I don’t know what’s true. I’m willing to embrace my ignorance.
[/quote]

I am not comfortable with ignorance. I may have to accept it in some cases, but I want to know as much as I can know. There are things you can know and there are things you think and there’s knowing the difference.[/quote]

Science requires comfort with ignorance. Your mind can’t truly be free unless you’re comfortable not knowing.

I want to know as much as I can, but it’s wanting to know as much as I can that requires that I be comfortable with ignorance. Only by being comfortable with ignorance and fully acknowledging everything that I genuinely don’t know can I even start to accurately understand what I do know and how certain I can be of that knowledge. Without being comfortable with your own ignorance, you’ll lack the clarity of thought necessary to recognize what you’re actually ignorant about, and thus you’ll end up thinking you know things that you don’t.

[quote]Science requires comfort with ignorance. Your mind can’t truly be free unless you’re comfortable not knowing.

I want to know as much as I can, but it’s wanting to know as much as I can that requires that I be comfortable with ignorance. Only by being comfortable with ignorance and fully acknowledging everything that I genuinely don’t know can I even start to accurately understand what I do know and how certain I can be of that knowledge. Without being comfortable with your own ignorance, you’ll lack the clarity of thought necessary to recognize what you’re actually ignorant about, and thus you’ll end up thinking you know things that you don’t.[/quote]

Sounds good.

But how do i know when i know and when i don’t know ?

And how do i know that i know when i know and when i don’t know ?

And how do i know that i know that i know when i know and when i don’t know ?

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Science requires comfort with ignorance. Your mind can’t truly be free unless you’re comfortable not knowing.

I want to know as much as I can, but it’s wanting to know as much as I can that requires that I be comfortable with ignorance. Only by being comfortable with ignorance and fully acknowledging everything that I genuinely don’t know can I even start to accurately understand what I do know and how certain I can be of that knowledge. Without being comfortable with your own ignorance, you’ll lack the clarity of thought necessary to recognize what you’re actually ignorant about, and thus you’ll end up thinking you know things that you don’t.[/quote]

Sounds good.

But how do i know when i know and when i don’t know ?

And how do i know that i know when i know and when i don’t know ?

And how do i know that i know that i know when i know and when i don’t know ?

[/quote]

Good questions. Answers aren’t easy. For a start, just ask the question: How do I know the things I think I know? Most people exert so little effort doing that that doing this will put you well ahead of most people.

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Science requires comfort with ignorance. Your mind can’t truly be free unless you’re comfortable not knowing.

I want to know as much as I can, but it’s wanting to know as much as I can that requires that I be comfortable with ignorance. Only by being comfortable with ignorance and fully acknowledging everything that I genuinely don’t know can I even start to accurately understand what I do know and how certain I can be of that knowledge. Without being comfortable with your own ignorance, you’ll lack the clarity of thought necessary to recognize what you’re actually ignorant about, and thus you’ll end up thinking you know things that you don’t.[/quote]

Sounds good.

But how do i know when i know and when i don’t know ?

And how do i know that i know when i know and when i don’t know ?

And how do i know that i know that i know when i know and when i don’t know ?

[/quote]

Good questions. Answers aren’t easy. For a start, just ask the question: How do I know the things I think I know? [/quote]

For an atheist, the challenge is to answer these questions without saying or implying any variant of “i believe”.

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Clarity is offensive.

If atheists communicate clearly, it will be offesive, because religion is almost always ridiculous, and often evil.
[/quote]
Insults and mocking are certainly clear. It doesn’t mean anything, it has no basis in fact or point. It’s sad, small and petty, really. If you have to resort to insults and mocking, it just means you have no point and pretty much concede you lost the argument. If you have to resort to it, who’s being ridiculous and evil, really?
What’s Dawkins really saying here? If you come across a religious person, act like your a 12 year old bully repeating 6th grade? That’s fabulous advice, glad you’re taking it to heart.[/quote]

No, it means point out the truth clearly. Evolution is a fact. The Big Bang happened. The earth is not less than 10,000 years old. It’s at least 400,000 times older. We DO have common ancestry with other apes.

Clarity is offensive because much in religion is silly. Take Christianity. God sacrifices himself (but not really,since Jesus is supposedly alive and well) to himself so he can protect us from his wrath that resulted from us being exactly as he made us to be. Well Adam sinned, but god still set him up to fail, on purpose, and everyone else is just born into a losing struggle such that they literally have to beg forgiveness for being born.

It’s psychologically unhealthy to feel guilty for being being born.

This is taught to children who are brainwashed to think they are literally evil and deserve to be tortured alive in fire forever. Love god or he will TORTURE YOU FOREVER. Literally. This is taught to CHILDREN. Do you think telling children they are evil and deserve to be torched forever is not psychologically harmful? It borders on abuse.

Not to mention the evil commandments in the Old Testament. Almost no one lives according to Old Testament because anyone acting the way god commanded the Israelites to would be on death row because our morality has progressed.

Slaughtering entire cities. Literal genocide. Well, sometimes the virgin women were allowed to live. Guess why. Would you thrust a sword through the belly of a child? God ordered men to do this according to the Bible. God commanded that women marry the man who raped her. God commanded people be put to death for imaginary crimes like witchcraft, and for homosexuality. He also commanded half of Israel to be subject to ritual genital mutilation. Lot is called a good man, even though when the men of Sodom come to his door to rape the angels he offers up his daughters to be raped. A man who offers up his daughters to literally be gang-raped is called a good man by GOD. God thinks gang-rape is ok apparently.

This is clarity.

Clarity is saying what everyone is thinking but for so long it was considered rude to state explicitly. Religion has had it far too easy for far too long. [/quote]

That’s not clarity. That’s a sophomoric grasp of theology. Clarity is not insulting. Misrepresenting, creating straw men out of people’s beliefs and then mocking the believer for something you say they believe, but don’t actually believe is mocking and rhetorical propaganda. It’s not illumination, it’s ignorance.
You aren’t tearing ideas down, you’re tearing people down based basically on bullshit.

Just because you don’t understand the subject matter, does not make other people who do understand it stupid. It means you’re uneducated on the topic, it doesn’t mean religious people are silly.
[/quote]

What bullshit? Everything I said is in the Bible. Is there a context in which murdering gays, genital mutilation, making women marry their rapists, genocide so you can steal land, are ok?

Exactly what have I misrepresented?
[/quote]
Cherry picking events in the Bible from biased, propaganda articles from www.infidels.org is hardly representative knowledge of scripture, religion or religious peoples.
Your misrepresentation is, that like most militant new atheists you try to paint religion and scripture as inherently evil, where probably like more militant new atheists, evil has no actual meaning since it is relative.
You haven’t read the Bible, you don’t know the Bible yet you see fit to criticize it.
For some reason, in the context of the Bible, it’s the only book where people who have not read it, do not understand it in any context see fit to criticize it. Where any other such treatment of a book, where a person who has not read it and has no actual knowledge of it would be roundly and mercilessly criticized for doing so.

I can already hear it now. “How do you know I didn’t read it?” or my favorite line, “I read it more time than you have!” No, you haven’t. It’s interesting, though, that the people who make such claims seldom know more about it than what’s in the average “Atrocities in the Bible” articles on their favorite atheist propaganda website. [/quote]

Nope. I haven’t read the whole Bible. I’ve read the entire New Testament, at least once, but not the Old Testament. I’ve read Genesis through Exodus probably at least twice. But it gets SO boring after that.

What context do you need? In what context is forcing a woman to marry the man who raped her a good idea? In what context is slaughtering an entire city just so you can take their land ok? In what context is killing homosexuals ok? In what context would you be willing to let your daughter marry a man who raped her? Would you ever be willing to let this happen? No, you’d more likely kill the man that let that happen.

These words ARE IN THE BIBLE. That’s all the knowledge you need.

This isn’t any old book. It’s a book many people want to use to reshape the world. And it commands things, at least did command things, that would make most people on death row feel guilty.

Please explain how you “understand” the Bible such that these things are good. I understand it as well as you do, and you’ve provided no evidence, no argument even, to explain otherwise. I was a Christian in a fairly fundamentalist sect.

You can’t define objectively good health. How dare you ever say anything is healthy or unhealthy. [/quote]

You don’t believe in good and bad, to be asking these questions. In your world none of these events are actually wrong. It would require you to fess up to something you can’t prove, “evil/good.” Faith, in other words.

Now, by our faith, God determines what is good and bad. Not us for him, but him for us. Because, he is completely insurmountable. And despite your assurances, your tone doesn’t convince me you’re of a kinder, gentler, mindset. You crow about your hatred, and your disbelief in the reality of evil. The two together, in the body of an individual who actually truly believed as much (not just trying to sound enlightened) would be a frightening thing. Yeah, frankly, I think your utopia would turn into a nightmare within generations.

I’m always amused by the moral outrage of people who don’t believe there actually are moral goods and evils.

Edit: Anyways, German I final done and in the books! Thanks to my PWI friends for all their support!

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Clarity is offensive.

If atheists communicate clearly, it will be offesive, because religion is almost always ridiculous, and often evil.
[/quote]
Insults and mocking are certainly clear. It doesn’t mean anything, it has no basis in fact or point. It’s sad, small and petty, really. If you have to resort to insults and mocking, it just means you have no point and pretty much concede you lost the argument. If you have to resort to it, who’s being ridiculous and evil, really?
What’s Dawkins really saying here? If you come across a religious person, act like your a 12 year old bully repeating 6th grade? That’s fabulous advice, glad you’re taking it to heart.[/quote]

No, it means point out the truth clearly. Evolution is a fact. The Big Bang happened. The earth is not less than 10,000 years old. It’s at least 400,000 times older. We DO have common ancestry with other apes.

Clarity is offensive because much in religion is silly. Take Christianity. God sacrifices himself (but not really,since Jesus is supposedly alive and well) to himself so he can protect us from his wrath that resulted from us being exactly as he made us to be. Well Adam sinned, but god still set him up to fail, on purpose, and everyone else is just born into a losing struggle such that they literally have to beg forgiveness for being born.

It’s psychologically unhealthy to feel guilty for being being born.

This is taught to children who are brainwashed to think they are literally evil and deserve to be tortured alive in fire forever. Love god or he will TORTURE YOU FOREVER. Literally. This is taught to CHILDREN. Do you think telling children they are evil and deserve to be torched forever is not psychologically harmful? It borders on abuse.

Not to mention the evil commandments in the Old Testament. Almost no one lives according to Old Testament because anyone acting the way god commanded the Israelites to would be on death row because our morality has progressed.

Slaughtering entire cities. Literal genocide. Well, sometimes the virgin women were allowed to live. Guess why. Would you thrust a sword through the belly of a child? God ordered men to do this according to the Bible. God commanded that women marry the man who raped her. God commanded people be put to death for imaginary crimes like witchcraft, and for homosexuality. He also commanded half of Israel to be subject to ritual genital mutilation. Lot is called a good man, even though when the men of Sodom come to his door to rape the angels he offers up his daughters to be raped. A man who offers up his daughters to literally be gang-raped is called a good man by GOD. God thinks gang-rape is ok apparently.

This is clarity.

Clarity is saying what everyone is thinking but for so long it was considered rude to state explicitly. Religion has had it far too easy for far too long. [/quote]

That’s not clarity. That’s a sophomoric grasp of theology. Clarity is not insulting. Misrepresenting, creating straw men out of people’s beliefs and then mocking the believer for something you say they believe, but don’t actually believe is mocking and rhetorical propaganda. It’s not illumination, it’s ignorance.
You aren’t tearing ideas down, you’re tearing people down based basically on bullshit.

Just because you don’t understand the subject matter, does not make other people who do understand it stupid. It means you’re uneducated on the topic, it doesn’t mean religious people are silly.
[/quote]

What bullshit? Everything I said is in the Bible. Is there a context in which murdering gays, genital mutilation, making women marry their rapists, genocide so you can steal land, are ok?

Exactly what have I misrepresented?
[/quote]
Cherry picking events in the Bible from biased, propaganda articles from www.infidels.org is hardly representative knowledge of scripture, religion or religious peoples.
Your misrepresentation is, that like most militant new atheists you try to paint religion and scripture as inherently evil, where probably like more militant new atheists, evil has no actual meaning since it is relative.
You haven’t read the Bible, you don’t know the Bible yet you see fit to criticize it.
For some reason, in the context of the Bible, it’s the only book where people who have not read it, do not understand it in any context see fit to criticize it. Where any other such treatment of a book, where a person who has not read it and has no actual knowledge of it would be roundly and mercilessly criticized for doing so.

I can already hear it now. “How do you know I didn’t read it?” or my favorite line, “I read it more time than you have!” No, you haven’t. It’s interesting, though, that the people who make such claims seldom know more about it than what’s in the average “Atrocities in the Bible” articles on their favorite atheist propaganda website. [/quote]

Nope. I haven’t read the whole Bible. I’ve read the entire New Testament, at least once, but not the Old Testament. I’ve read Genesis through Exodus probably at least twice. But it gets SO boring after that.

What context do you need? In what context is forcing a woman to marry the man who raped her a good idea? In what context is slaughtering an entire city just so you can take their land ok? In what context is killing homosexuals ok? In what context would you be willing to let your daughter marry a man who raped her? Would you ever be willing to let this happen? No, you’d more likely kill the man that let that happen.

These words ARE IN THE BIBLE. That’s all the knowledge you need.

This isn’t any old book. It’s a book many people want to use to reshape the world. And it commands things, at least did command things, that would make most people on death row feel guilty.

Please explain how you “understand” the Bible such that these things are good. I understand it as well as you do, and you’ve provided no evidence, no argument even, to explain otherwise. I was a Christian in a fairly fundamentalist sect.

You can’t define objectively good health. How dare you ever say anything is healthy or unhealthy. [/quote]

You don’t believe in good and bad, to be asking these questions. In your world none of these events are actually wrong. It would require you to fess up to something you can’t prove, “evil/good.” Faith, in other words.

Now, by our faith, God determines what is good and bad. Not us for him, but him for us. Because, he is completely insurmountable. And despite your assurances, your tone doesn’t convince me you’re of a kinder, gentler, mindset. You crow about your hatred, and your disbelief in the reality of evil. Yeah, frankly, I think your utopia would turn into a nightmare within generations. [/quote]

Your god’s goodness is arbitrary. How does he determine it? How do you know he’s not the villain and Satan is the hero? How do you know he’s honest?

I’m incapable of not judging your god based on his supposed works. I would have to lie to myself. If torturing billions of souls for eternity is good according to your god, then I stand proudly defiant in support the superiority of my morality to god’s, for mine is based about caring about conscious creatures, not hating them and torturing them for not being what they could not be. It takes a certain kind of crazy to hold people responsible for things they had no role in.

And god’s god who left him in charge of this little universe for a brief time will reward me with omni-heaven for seeing through the sham while you’re left in omni-hell.

I’m not in person who I am online. I hope you aren’t either.

Utopia is impossible and undesirable. That’s why liberalism is prone to such stupidity. Liberalism’s motto should be “Utopia Now!”

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m always amused by the moral outrage of people who don’t believe there actually are moral goods and evils.

Edit: Anyways, German I final done and in the books! Thanks to my PWI friends for all their support![/quote]

When you get older you’ll see things aren’t always as simple as they when you’re young.

I’m always amused by people who think might makes right.

So you do now believe in the reality of good and evil? Your language and tone betrays your faith.