How I see athiests who wish to prosthelytize
By marcus Follow Tue, 27 Dec 2011, 7:57pm 12,771 views 157 comments
Watch (0) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike (2) Most Liked Comments
Sort by time instead
|
marcus is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,078 comments
Please now project some bs sky daddy childs view of god on to me, and maybe grab some humorous images off of r/athiest about what idiots believers are.
It will make you feel better.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,704 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
marcus says
So it's arrogant in your limited view for a person to stand out on a limb against false beliefs that have cause countless deaths and endless suffering over the past 10 millenni. I guess Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, and Rosa Parks were all arrogant asses as well.
Christopher Hitchens did not hold a hard line against religion out of personal pride. It was a very difficult, tiresome, and quite frankly dangerous position to take. His risked his life, his safety, and being ostracized in order to defend rational thought and liberty from the tyranny of religion and superstition. That is a most selfless act.
The fact is, we live in an age where we could easily destroy ourselves through nuclear annihilation or ecological collapse. Even barring that, we could kill billions or cause suffering on a massive scale. Under such conditions, all religions and all superstitions are materially dangerous -- far more dangerous than terrorism, which ironically is motivated largely by religion and the belief in fictitious gods.
Furthermore, as Thomas Jefferson so succinctly put it, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to Liberty." This is true even today. The greatest threats to human and civil rights come from those who are most religious and so-called "pious".
There is nothing smug about upholding an unpopular truth. Unfortunately, some people like Marcus consider any manner of stating that there is no god or that religions are based on falsehoods to be by definition smug. This is, of course, ridiculous for the exact same reason that it would be ludicrous to consider any statement about the sky being blue to be smug.
I challenge Marcus to provide an example of a "non-smug" argument that states no god exists without caving in to the religious. In other words, show us "smug" atheists how to hold the line without being smug.
I, for one, will not accept a lie no matter how popular, especially a lie that causes so much death, destruction, and violations of human and civil rights as the god lie has.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,078 comments
Dan8267 says
There are atheists who simply don't believe. They keep it to themselves. They don't preach. Their views are not so extreme as to condemn those who do believe in god as being responsible for all human shortcomings.
But then there are those who spend a lot of time doing what IS SO EASY, pointing out contradictions in religion, especially literal biblical religious faith. I get it, they are in a process of freeing themselves from their previous beliefs. But man, it isn't pretty.
This type of atheist isn't satisfied with just not believing. They believe all human evil is directly tied to belief in god. They feel superior in intelligence to the 80% of the world that are believers. The whole topic is blown way out of proportion and imbalanced for them.
If you don't want to seem smug, then don't preach. Practice live and let live, or the golden rule, or whatever you want to call it.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,704 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
leoj707 says
Pointless yes, but it would take less than 2000 words. Here it goes…
The positives of religion are the exact same positives of smoking pot and snorting coke. You get a false high, experience delusions, and feel really good about life and that the whole universe makes sense if you just imagine we're flees living on a dog and whoa look at all the pretty colors when I move my hand. The negatives of religion are also exactly the same.
leoj707 says
Two words: God Helmet.
And unlike religion, this doesn't require faith because the experiment is repeatable and has been conducted many times.
As the human brain got bigger and our ancestors got smarter, they started to realize that they were mortal and worst still, they started to think about their mortality and how short life was. This, of course, led to depression, which in turn compromised their ability to service their genes because the host humans would commit suicide or in the very least not try hard to gather resources necessary for survival and reproduction.
To keep the hosts productive and to prevent them from self-terminating, our ancestors' genes came up with a trick. It fooled the hosts into thinking that they were immortal, that their consciousness continued after death. A little mutation here and there in the genome resulting in a bit of structural changes in the brain, and ta-da, humans that think they have some kind of "soul" that continues living after death.
Once this mental virus has been planted in the hosts, the individual cultures can customize the idea any way they like: reincarnation, return to the Earth life force, an afterlife, etc. But all religions have to present the idea of some kind of immortality. That's the whole reason nature tricked you into believing in the supernatural/spiritual. It keeps you in line and making babies.
Of course there are many problems with being content to accept this delusion. Our genes tell us to do a lot of bad things such as immoral, unethical, and illegal things. Even more surprising, our genes tell us to do things that are not in our, or even their, best interests. Our genes tell us to eat lots of sugary things because evolution noticed a correlation between ripe (nutritious and vitamin packed) fruit and sweetness. So now we eat junk food that makes us obese and prevent us from acquiring mates. That's bad for us, and for our genes.
You see, genes aren't very smart, and they act on obsolete information. Success lies in reproducing so many copies in so many variations that you are bound to get lucky in some combinations.
As such, we should use our minds instead of our instincts when it comes to shaping our world and our view of that world. Thinking trumps instinct, and some ancient "needs" are better left unanswered even if it means going through withdraw.
leoj707 says
I'm all for some people talking nicely to the religious. But that's been tried for hundreds of years to no avail. Just ask Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Hypatia, and thousands of other less well-known people.
Sometimes, people have to take a harder stand against something that is wrong and ludicrous. It wasn't polite begging that got the Civil Rights Act passed or, more recently, the Consumer Protection Agency Bill. Sometimes you have to take a strong stance demanding reasonable action and opposing the status quo. Those profiting from the status quo or brainwashed by it will always fight you.
But to put things in perspective, my vinegar is a lot less bitter than the Inquisition or even the more modern examples of terrorizing and falsely imprisoning atheists, who by definition, must also be communists.
leoj707 says
Marcus, it ain't a feeling. It's a fact. A feeling is an emotional response. I'm not gloating over the fact that atheists are statistically far more intelligent than the religious, but I do acknowledge that fact just like I acknowledge all other facts. Countless scientific studies have confirmed this fact. It is indisputable by any rational person at this point.
Supermodels are statistically far more beautiful than non-supermodels. If beauty is an advantage, which I think we're all adult enough to admit it is, then supermodels are superior to us in this regard. I have no problem admitting that Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom are superior looking to me.
Strength, by definition, is a strength. I also have no problem admitting that during most of their lives, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura were superior to me in strength. Actually, they probably still are.
And Plácido Domingo, José Carreras, and Luciano Pavarotti are all superior to me at singing.
Since I have no problem acknowledging the superiority of others in particular qualities, there is no reason why I should have any problem acknowledging my superiority in intelligence to someone who can't figure out that a book is bullshit if it contains allegedly true stories that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, a man lived after being eaten by a whale, and all the animals on the planet fit on a wooden boat.
I am intelligent, and intelligence is a good thing. If that hurts your ego Marcus, than like the Fonze said, sit on it. I'm not going to apologize for having a strength that makes you feel insecure, nor am I going to pretend that it's not a great quality to have. That's false modesty like if Scarlett Johansson said she thought she was plain looking.
That said, my vocal opposition to religion and superstition has nothing to do with my self-image and everything to do with a deep and strong belief that the world would be far better off if we stopped infecting each other and the children with this sick virus that has caused so much destruction and suffering throughout history. Furthermore, the level of technological advancement and man's recent destructive capacity has made it more important than ever that we stop basing our policies on fairytales and start basing them on rational thought.
And even ignoring all of that and all the rational, objective evidence that shows religion and superstition to be dangerous, there's still the overwhelming drive I have to fight against forces that infringe upon human and civil rights. And religion is most certainly one of these forces. And if you read my other threads, you'd know how much I hate tyranny and the abuse of power. Religion is a prime example -- not the only example as my numerous other threads have pointed out in detail -- of a force that is used to violate human and civil rights.
And none of those reasons have anything to do with my intelligence or self-perception. You, Marcus, have simply invented in your head fictional motivations that you have imposed upon me. They do not reflect reality.
And ultimately, as I have said many times before, the messenger is irrelevant. It's the message, the argument, that matters. Making a personal attack on an individual does absolutely nothing to suggest that individual's argument is flawed in any way.
marcus says
You can take issue with the statement "there is no god", but do so by offering a counter-argument or at least addressing the arguments presented. Instead, the only thing you do is make personal attacks, which is a sign of weakness in debate. It's like Rush Limbaugh saying "we need to lower taxes or the economy will fail and unemployment will skyrocket", and they you reply, "well, your fat Rush!". In such a situation, you just look the fool. Attack the arguments, not the arguers.
As for the statement "there is no god", I have already proven that for various definitions of god -- all the accepted ones -- so just see any of the prior threads. I don't see a point in repeating them, so I'll just summarize.
I've disproved all possible instances of the Standard Monotheist God or SMG using a dozen independent proofs, not evidence, proofs. No one has even attempted to challenge a single one of my proofs. We can be sure that SMG is as possible as the square root of two being the ratio of two integers. This, of course, completely discredits the three major western religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three require SMG to exist.
I've demonstrated that the Clockwork God or CWG isn't a god at all, but at best, Sheldon Cooper working in a lab with a particle accelerator. Similarly, I've shown that Undefinable God or UG by definition can't be a god and is just a cop-out.
I've ignored the Standard Polytheist God or SPG since no one advocates that or even considers the polytheistic gods to meet the criteria of god. Even if they existed, the would be at best powerful alien lifeforms.
There really is no definition of god left for me to disprove, but if anyone comes up with one either I'll disprove it or show that it ain't what people call god. You could, of course, be absurd and define god as a teacup pig and then, by that definition, I would not be an atheist. But the politicians aren't passing legislation based on what they think a teacup pig wants us to do.
marcus says
Once again, Marcus, you make assumptions about what's going on in the inner minds of others without any basis. I most certainly believe in fuzzy logic, continuous spectrums of behavior, and both the in-between and the orthogonal. I'm pretty much the exact opposite of what you just claimed I am.
For example, in the double slit experiment, you can adjust the size of the slits to produce full particle behavior, full wave behavior, or a continuous spectrum of behavior from particle to wave. If the slits are small relative to the electron's wavelength, then the behavior becomes particle-like. If the slits are large relative to the electron's wavelength then the behavior becomes wave-like. Particles and wave are just two endpoints in a spectrum of behavior. That's why physicists treat low-frequency, low-energy photons as fields or waves and high-frequency, high-energy photons as particles.
Second example, I'm neither left nor right, but orthogonal to this absurd one-dimensional view of politics. I have a view of politics that involves over a dozen dimensions. So the terms left and right are meaningless in this view. In my paradigm, there are many more degrees of freedom than in yours.
marcus says
I firmly believe in the Theory of Relativity, and I understand it. I remember when I was 7-years-old and on a boat for the first time. I stood on the boat by an obstruction to wind, and I took out a ball and dropped it straight down to see if it would move with the ship and land between my feet or just fall "straight down" and thus land to the right of my feet towards the ship's rear end. You see because the ship was moving fast. Little did I know at the time, I was testing the Theory of Relativity.
However, what I don't believe in is the nonsense that the existence of god is subjective. God is not Tinkerbell. He doesn't exist just because you believe he does, any more than unicorns would exist if you believed in them.
Furthermore, acting on a false believe is at best foolish and at worst deadly.
marcus says
I don't label myself with terms that are frequently changed and misused. It's not useful. I believe in liberty, rationalism, and personal responsibility. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" claim to believe in these things. Neither side demonstrates it.
I believe in the scientific method and good engineering practices. And I'd like to see both applied to government in replacement of politics. The merit of ideas should be based on empirical evidence, verifiable experiments, and sound mathematical analysis rather than the talking points politicians and the media use. I'm willing to accept any idea, no matter how ridiculous it seems, if it can be proven to be correct. I'm actually a text-book example of an INTJ. Google it.
marcus says
Hardly. Have you read my ratings of the U.S. presidents from Ike to Obama? You commented on it.
Did you notice that I've ranked them across a wide spectrum, and that I gave both high and low marks to both Democrats and Republicans, and that I went into great detail on how I graded each president back up with objective, historical facts?
Just because you choose to ignore the crimes against humanity committed by Obama during his admistration simply because he's a Democrat, doesn't mean I have to follow your hypocritical example.
Whereas you ignore Obama's crimes, Bap ignores G.W. Bush's crimes. The fucked up thing is, there both the exact same crimes! Any rational, objective person would have to rate Obama and Bush the same regardless of whether that's a high rating or a low one. And I'm the one who can't see beyond party lines?
Just a little recoup on that list… The scale was parabolic from 0 to 10, with 0 being Hitler and 10 being Superman. Parabolic in the sense that the distance from 3 to 4 or from 6 to 7 is more significant than the difference from 4 to 5 or from 5 to 6. But not hyperbolic because the extremes don't go to infinity, but rather cut off at a threshold. Since you're a math teacher, you should understand what I'm talking about.
And on that list, I rated the presidents:
6 Ike
7 JFK
3 Johnson
3 Nixon
4 Ford
4 Carter
3 Reagan
5 Bush Sr.
6 Clinton
1 Bush Jr.
1 Obama
That's a pretty wide range. If it wasn't for the pro-torture, pro-murder without trial presidencies of the past twelve years, the range would have been 3-7 with complete coverage of all integer values. And I don't see shades of grey?
Also, I've notice that you didn't object to Bush Jr. getting a 1 and Bap didn't object to Obama getting a 1. But you both objected when I held the other accountable to the exact same standard. Yeah, I'm the biased one.
marcus says
I've never argued that. Quite the contrary. See the teacup pig example above.
And yes, I can be absolutely certain of some things. Not everything, but certainly some things. I'm not going to get all Immanuel Kant on your ass. Feel free to read his books if you want to understand the detail. I'll give you the executive summary and I'll use modern, colloquial terms instead of the standard philosophical ones since I know you hate that intellectualism.
There are three kinds of knowledge. Two of which can be proven beyond doubt. [Damn, I can't use the term a-prior, ok…]
1. Mathematical/Logical
A statement that can be mathematically or logically proven is unquestionable. For example, the square root of two is an irrational number. As a math teacher, you should know that we can prove that beyond any doubt whatsoever. We can be completely certain of this kind of knowledge.
What you probably don't know is that mathematics isn't the only subject where this is possible. Technically, it can be done with any subject that uses a precise modeling language. For example, code written in languages with certain rules -- and I'm not going into details because then I do have to get technical -- such as no undeclared exceptions can be formally verified. This is an expensive and time consuming process, but if done, you can be 100% certain the code works.
2. Empirical
We can be 100% of empirical facts. For example, I can prove beyond any doubt that a given desk is 4 feet tall by carefully measuring it.
Naturally, any statement derived solely from other statements of type 1 and 2 can have 100% certainty, and so on.
3. Correlations
This is the part where some people get tripped up and end up thinking we can't be certain of anything.
The Scientific Method uses correlations to establish an imperfect, but highly confident, likelihood of a statement being true. For example, a theory predicts that the gravitational attraction between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the radial distances between their centers. We then observe this prediction to hundreds of decimal places, the best we can, and conclude that the theory is almost certainly correct, as the chances of it being wrong are astronomical due to repeated, precise observation and confirmation.
Yes, that's less than 100% certainty. But none of my proofs against the existence of gods or the supernatural require this type of knowledge. I used type 1 exclusively in those arguments.
By the way, Marcus, that will be $10,000 for my efforts in squeezing over 200 years of Western Philosophy into five minutes. It would cost you much more to learn this shit in college at today's rates.
marcus says
I suppose I could dumb it down a bit more for you. But there are limits to how simple I can make a subject matter, so try to pay attention this time. In simplest terms…
1. God does not exist.
2. Yes, we can be certain of point 1 because of rational, logical reasoning.
3. No, it does not matter if you believe in god. Believing in a fictional character doesn't make that character pop into existence.
4. No, it doesn't matter how emotionally attached you are to this delusion, it's still a delusion.
5. No, it's not a harmless delusion. See all of history.
6. No, it's not a delusion that was just harmful in more primitive times and is ok now. Look at the Middle East. Listen to G.W. Bush saying "God told me to invade Iraq.". Look at all the really bad and rights-violating legislation passed by the U.S. Congress for religious reasons. Look at how religion interferes with the education of our children in areas like evolution and consequentially medical research and practice. These are really important issues, and I've only scratched the surface.
7. Yes, the world would be better if we all started thinking a bit more rationally instead of using superstitions and religious dogma as a crutch. We could build better systems of government and economics if we stopped using mythology and started using good science and engineering practices. Such system would be much more socially just than systems based on any Bronzed Age or Iron Age desert religion.
8. Finally, people should promote rational thought and argue against irrationality, especially religion and superstition, in order to further point 7. For in a democracy, and to a lesser extent, in a republic like the United States, an intelligent, educated, rational, and thinking population results in better government, better economics, more social justice, and fewer and less severe human and civil rights violations.
Please Marcus, show me that you have enough intelligence to at least understand these eight points. They aren't rocket science.
marcus says
That sounds like bullshit. First, there's a huge difference between judging a person and judging an idea that person believes. Second, all beliefs should be critically evaluated.
Third, it sounds like your just pussying out of having an uncomfortable conversation because it might be controversial. Well that sucks. The Civil Rights movement would have never gotten anywhere if controversial race issues could not be discussed. Controversial issues are exactly the issues that need to be discussed precisely because they are controversial. You don't need to talk about shit that everybody agrees with.
Finally, I don't buy your statement. You don't judge the beliefs of other people in a negative way because you're so humble and all ideas have merit. Right? That's total bullshit. Counter-example: Tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Islamic men in the Middle East, deeply and religiously believe that it is a moral imperative to honor kill a woman in their family if she has had sex with a man who isn't her husband, even if the woman was raped.
Tell me that you "respect" that belief. It's a deeply held, religious conviction from another culture. Are you saying you would tolerate honor killings out of respect for these men's beliefs? I don't think that you are that fucked up. And the only alternative is that you are engaging in politically correct bullshitting.
And that's just one counter-example. I could provide an infinite number of others, but only one is necessary, and this is a very real world, non-academic example that greatly impacts peoples lives right now. It is cowardly and wrong to ignore such atrocities simply to make yourself more acceptable to other people. Grow a backbone and stand up for human rights even if it means pissing off some assholes with shitty beliefs that happen to be religious beliefs. You can't make any positive impact on the world without pissing somebody off.
marcus says
Translation: Marcus wants to implement the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell on atheists. You know, because it worked so well with gays.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,704 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
veritas says
No matter how hard you try to push the false meme "atheism is a religion", it doesn't make it true.
Religion is based on lying about the truth to gain power. Atheism is a conclusion based on facts and reasoning that does not give power over others to you, but rather empowers all individuals to make the most of their lives.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,704 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Part 1
marcus says
I didn't answer the question because it was obviously a trolling attempt to entrap, distract, and poison the well. There was no sincerity behind the question. It was the equivalent of the Republicans asking Clinton about having sexual relations with Lewinski, irrelevant to the topic at hand and asked for purely selfish political reasons.
However, if Marcus wants to suggest that there is anything I am afraid to honestly answer -- obviously bullshit to anyone who even remotely understands me or people like me -- then I'll address it in detail, but on my terms, not Marcus's.
Let's go over each question in ordered asked.
Are there a significant number of people who are more intelligent than you that believe in god in some way?
In this question Marcus is trying to trap me into either sounding childishly arrogant or submitting that it is reasonable to believe in god since "more intelligent" persons than I do. Let's address each of those core arguments first and then the question itself.
There is no more humble paradigm than that of a rational, atheistic, naturalist. I do not believe that the universe was created for my benefit. I do not believe I was create in some deity's image. I believe that my very exist and the existence of my entire species if pretty damn arbitrary and could have easily not have happened if countless trivial things had not happened.
For example, if my great-great-grandfather hadn't stopped in a restaurant for a cup of coffee one morning, he would not have ran into my great-great-grandmother walking on the street ten minutes later, and my entire family would not exist. That's right, I'm saying that everything I am is simply because of a completely arbitrary and unimportant decision my ancestor made a century ago. And there are quadrillions of such arbitrary and unimportant things that must have happened for me to even exist. The same goes for you and our species, and even life on Earth itself, perhaps even life in the universe itself.
This paradigm is far more humble than anything religion offers. To suggest that atheists are arrogant because they are certain that there is no god is ridiculous. It takes humility to admit that your very existence, your entire world, doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the universe. If a black hole were to swoop by and swallow the Earth, the universe wouldn't even notice the difference.
The second point Marcus was trying to make in his loaded question was that if any person smarter than I am believed in god, the belief in god was justified. This is a false and, quite frankly, silly conclusion. First off, it's too personal and local. As I've said many times, the messenger is irrelevant; all that matters is the message. Who proposes a theorem has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the theorem. Whether or not I or you or the pope or anyone else believes or disbelieves in one or all gods does not make a damn bit of difference as far as the truth of whether or not there is a god. This should be freaking obvious, and that's why I don't consider Marcus's question to be sincere. He's trying to poison the well. Dan is bad, therefore anything Dan says must be bad. It's a logical fallacy and a weak position to hold in a debate. The correctness of an argument is determined by the contents of the argument, not the person who wrote the argument. The messenger is irrelevant.
Again, this line of reasoning follows the principles of humility and objectivity. I have never argued that people should accept that god doesn't exist because I say so and I'm smarter than they are. This is what Marcus wants you to believe, as evident in the title of this thread How I (Marcus) see athiests (his misspelling, not mine) who wish to prosthelytize (again his misspelling). The very title and the image linked to shows bigotry against atheists. Even referring to telling the truth as "proselytizing" or preaching is utter bullshit. If I prove that the square root of two is an irrational number, am I proselytizing? If I give an accurate account of evolution, continental drift, the age and size of the Earth, or world history, am I proselytizing? The Earth is round and if your religion says otherwise, your religion is wrong. And I am not proselytizing by pointing that out. It's actually an important fact that the Earth is round. It affects things like national security, GPS, flight paths for commercial airlines, shipping lanes, etc. Similarly, it matters whether or not a god or your particular god exists. It affects laws, rights, liberty, diplomatic relationships, wars, reproductive rights, taxes, free speech, education, and a shitload of other very important things in your daily life.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,704 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Part 3
Are there atheists who are significantly more intelligent than you, who chose to be the kind who just don't believe but don't really have much to say about what others believe, and who would even totally neutral as to whether non-fundamentalist religious people are a good or bad thing for humanity ?
This is a complete bullshit question, like "Have you stopped drowning puppies? Yes or No, damn it!".
There certainly are people, atheist or not, that I consider more intelligent than I am in many areas. I don't know of anyone more intelligent than I am in all areas, but it's plausible. I just happen to be damn good at what I do, which although is a large area is still just a tiny fraction of all subject matter. Perhaps I am the best at what I do, perhaps not, but I work my ass off in being good at what I do. That's not arrogance. That's pride in workmanship, and it's a good thing. Everybody should be like me in this respect regardless of their career. Imagine if all doctors, lawyers, policy makers worked as hard to correctly do their jobs as I do instead of doing mediocre jobs or taking bribes from lobbyists. The world would be much better off.
However, the really stupid part of this question is the childish implication that I am "unkind" because I tell the truth and do so convincingly and objectively such that my opponents cannot come up with any counter-arguments. So, instead of attacking my arguments -- which are evidently unassailable -- they resort to making personal attacks on me. Again, the messenger is irrelevant, but since Marcus wants to keep trying to poison that well, I'll snip this in the butt.
I am being quite kind and nice. First off, I have never attacked a religious person for being religious, for being an asshole, sure, but that's fair game. I'd attack assholes for being assholes and trolls for being trolls regardless of how religious they are. What I have done is attacked the arguments that a god exist, that only one god exists, that a particular (Judeo-Christian) god exists, that a soul exists, that heaven or hell can or do exist. I have done so in purely objective and verifiable ways, and that's precisely is what pisses off people like Marcus, because there is no counter-argument he can make, no flaw he can exploit.
It isn't being mean to point out that a belief is incorrect. In fact, I would argue that I'm looking out for everyone's interest. The false belief in gods has caused enormous suffering in the world throughout history and to this very day. Just the direct consequences of religion from wars to suppression of reproductive rights to the harm done to the education of minors are themselves grave. The indirect costs of religion on society and every individual in the world are incalculable. So, when I illustrate why religion is wrong and there is no god, I'm being nice and trying to make the world a better place. I have nothing to gain, and in fact probably have lots to lose, by pointing out this fact and educating people. So I object to the very premise that I am being unkind by sticking up for truth and rationality.
In Marcus's last question are implied two other points. The first is that even though all of religion is a lie, it is better for the world that the dumb ass masses believe that lie because it does more good than bad. OK, I'm willing to discuss that topic. We haven't done that yet, although we've skirted the issue in other threads. If Marcus wants to have an honest, adult debate with me on this topic, let's do it. I'll let you know right now I'll take the position that the lies cause more harm than good and that a socially just society can only be sustained on a foundation of truth, transparency, and equality, but I'm more than willing to hear Marcus's arguments to the contrary. This debate does not change the fact that all religions are based on deliberate lies, drug-induced hallucinations, and the tales of idiots and the mentally ill. (And no, I'm not saying the mentally ill are idiots, so don't even try that bullshit.)
The second point implied by Marcus's last question is that all the bad things that happen because of religion are all due to a tiny, fringe group he labels "fundamentalists" and that almost no "normal" religious people do bad things in the name of religion. This is, of course, a No True Scotsman fallacy. You'll notice that Marcus never gives a definition or criteria for "fundamentalist". Basically, if I ever show that religious person X does something bad because of religion, then Marcus says person X is a fundamentalist and doesn't count.
So hundreds of millions of Muslims are "fundamentalist" and should be ignored when questioning whether or not religion is a good or bad thing. Also, everyone who lived before 1700 A.D. is a "fundamentalist" who should be ignored when asking whether or not religion is good. But wait, all those good American Christians during the 19th century who supported slavery and used the Bible to do so or who supported segregation were also "fundamentalists" and should be ignored. Oh, and about one third of modern Americans, today, right now, while you and I are having this discussion, one third of Americans who oppose gay marriage, define personhood at the moment of conception, and propose teaching "intelligent design" in schoolbooks (I'm talking to you Texas), are all "fundamentalists" and have to be ignored when discussing religion. That's right, I have to ignore one out of three people in my immediate vicinity when evaluating whether religion causes people to do more good or bad.
But even if I did all that, there would still be negative effects of religion. They would have to be small, by the arbitrary process of labeling a "fundamentalist" anyone who actually did something non-insignificant, but even that multitude of small effects would add up. And these effects have everlasting consequences as they slow down the progress of social and political reform and the gathering of wisdom by our society. Every high school student who's mind is poisoned with "intelligent design" is no longer capable of applying evolutionary theory to find a cure for cancer or AIDS or to even contribute to the path to such a cure. So even the small evils you overlook are incredibly significant over decades, centuries, and millennia.
And that is my answer to Marcus's "questions".
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
marcus says
And how they see Marcus:
Based on Marcus' comments, I can easily picture him saying an elephant must be bigger than the moon, because the elephant feels bigger, even looks bigger. On the other hand, Marcus' use of a different browser to stalk people he pretends to Ignore, and his endless attempts to debate Dan, and his profanity-laden tantrums based on false accusations, make it simply impossible for me to picture him teaching math.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
robertoaribas says
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,704 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Dan8267 says
Well, I guess this isn't going to happen based on Marcus's childish remarks.
I take the time to explain, sincerely and honestly, every fine point related to Marcus's questions and the subject matter of religion. Instead of rising to an adult level and accepting, questioning, or challenging the actual arguments I made, Marcus once again resorts to baseless personal attacks.
Well, Marcus, you are entitled to your opinions about me, but as such opinions have no basis in reality, the rest of us are entitled to thinking your opinions really reflect your pathetically small mind rather than the persons you bitch about.
Bigsby says
It's like Fox News. If you cannot make a good argument, you simply repeat lies and hope the audience is dumb enough to accept the lies if they are repeated enough times. Unfortunately, some people are dumb enough to believe ridiculous lies if they are repeated enough times. How else do you explain Republicans carrying almost half the popular vote?
curious2 says
I often, too, questioned Marcus's claim that he is a math teacher. He makes every logical fallacy known to man, avoids reasoning, thinking, and objectivity wherever he sees it, contradicts himself continuously, and avoids even indirectly addressing the subject at hand. He obviously discourages questioning beliefs. He's the antithesis of everything a teacher, particularly a mathematics teacher, should be.
Any good teacher encourages students to question everything.
marcus says
This is a perfect example of Marcus contradicting himself. This very thread accuses atheists of "proselytizing". And just a few moments ago Marcus says
And then he claims that he never said atheism is a religion. Oh, I'm sure he'll make up some semantic bullshit about how there is a difference between "atheists being religious about atheism" and "atheism being a religion", but it's all still bullshit and contradiction.
Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.
marcus says
I just got done with literally a 12-hour work day, one of several in a row. Yet, I still can discuss a matter coherently. Don't blame tiredness for your lack of articulation. Have you've been tired every time you posted in the past year?
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,704 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Waitup says
You do realize that most atheists grew up in religious communities, including myself, right?
I have first hand experience with religion having attended parochial schools. Hell, I had to take a Church History class in high school. I am fully aware of the mythology, doctrines, customs, rituals, history, theology, and practice of Christianity. Perhaps far more so than most Christians, which is exactly why I'm an atheist.
I have also studied history, and yes, that matters. For over two thousand years, the "great" religion of Christianity has promoted slavery, torture, rape, murder, and the oppression or destruction of all opposition. In big and in small ways, it still does. From reproductive rights to preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa, the Catholic Church, Christianity at large, and religion in general, continues to harm the world.
My opinion is not based on "pre-judging" religion, but rather "judging" it based on its history. And there is nothing wrong with doing that. At least I'm not burning people to death or drowning them like the religious did to atheists, gays, and pagans until recent history when modern men stopped them from doing just that.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,704 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
marcus says
Even if I am an arrogant prick, I'm still right and you're still wrong.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
http://www.philly.com/philly/health/132456883.html?viewFirst=y&
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
thunderlips11 says
Are they former Mormons? ;-)
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,407 comments
Davis, CA
Here's John Safran doing door-to-door atheism:
http://youtu.be/U58wgn-9Y3c
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,704 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
Yes, but not everyone is killed before they had a chance to live.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,078 comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities
Dan, maybe you could write one of your 2000 word comments where you feel that you accurately compare all the positives of religious belief with the negatives.
Oh, wait, you can't do that because on a deep level you need to convince yourself that there are NO positives.
This desire for a lack of conflict is enough of a common sense reason for being agnostic rather than an atheist, because then you can avoid the kind of inner conflict that drives your imbalanced view.
I believe we have a deep need for spirituality (for a lack of a better word) that is in our hard wiring. In your case I believe this tendency finds its expression in your antireligion religion.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
That's why Dan is on ignore. I think he's just as extreme as any religious fanatic.
Follow
Befriend
10 threads
767 comments
Dublin, CA
billy graham and bill maher both pander to their followers and make money off their need to belong to a tribe. they could care less about principles and integrity.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,078 comments
leoj707 says
Meh.
Militant agnostic is sort of like talking about extreme moderation. Doesn't compute for me.
Yes, I'm careful about what I believe and the ways in which I judge what others believe. That's just my nature.
(it doesn't mean that I don't see the negatives with religion in history, or the negatives now - which are mostly confined to fundamentalists)
On the positive side, nobody has any clue where we would be if there had never been religion, and anyone who ponders it, knows that along with the crusades and other atrocities, the church had an incredibly positive impact on European civilization (the precursor to our own)