« previous   misc   next »

Why the religious hate atheists and an epiphany on what god really is


By Dan8267   Follow   Mon, 3 Sep 2012, 12:00pm PDT   23,934 views   178 comments   Watch (2)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (6)   Dislike (4)  

Because I was constantly being told that I'm rejecting God, and I knew that wasn't true, I decided to research rejection, which made me aware of its effects. My studies took me in a completely unexpected direction. The epiphany (pun intended) was rather shocking. The evidence indicates that the personal god is a manifestation of the ego, which explains a plethora of theistic tendencies, including their typical dislike of atheists, who theists subconsciously perceive to be rejecting a part of themselves. God is Tyler Durden; and the first rule of Jesus Club is you have to talk about Jesus Club.

« First     « Previous     Comments 139-178 of 178     Last »

thunderlips11   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 6:06am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 139

Yep. And our President:

In August, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder — under continuous, aggressive prodding by the Obama White House — announced that three categories of individuals responsible for Bush-era torture crimes would be fully immunized from any form of criminal investigation and prosecution: (1) Bush officials who ordered the torture (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld); (2) Bush lawyers who legally approved it (Yoo, Bybee, Levin), and (3) those in the CIA and the military who tortured within the confines of the permission slips they were given by those officials and lawyers (i.e., “good-faith” torturers). The one exception to this sweeping immunity was that low-level CIA agents and servicemembers who went so far beyond the torture permission slips as to basically commit brutal, unauthorized murder would be subject to a “preliminary review” to determine if a full investigation was warranted — in other words, the Abu Ghraib model of justice was being applied, where only low-ranking scapegoats would be subject to possible punishment while high-level officials would be protected.

Yesterday, it was announced that this “preliminary review” by the prosecutor assigned to conduct it, U.S. Attorney John Durham, is now complete, and — exactly as one would expect — even this category of criminals has been almost entirely protected, meaning a total legal whitewash for the Bush torture regime:

http://www.salon.com/2011/07/01/torture_51/

thunderlips11   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 6:28am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 140

I'm getting hay fever from all the strawmen put up in this thread.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 6:30am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 141

Cloud says

Dan speaks for a quarter of the worlds population, " The 141 million Russians and 1.3 billion Chinese don't seem to have a problem living with the acknowledgement that no god exists."

Wow. This is truly miraculous. Dan knows the thoughts and believes of 141 million Russians and a billion Chinese.

freak80 makes the ridiculous claim that the absent of belief in god makes life itself meaningless and I provide real-world empirical evidence that shows otherwise. Then two fools think I'm writing a dissertation on Russian psychology simply by pointing out that during the period of state-sponsored atheism Russians didn't commit mass suicide and they continued to have babies.

You guys really need to purchase another tool for your toolbox. The only arguments you ever make are Straw Man arguments, and that shows how weak your positions are. If you're positions had any real merit, you'd debate the real me not the imaginary one you right-wingers like to debate.

Well, at least that explains the Republican convention.

The thing is, on a forum, the chair can talk back.

thunderlips11   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 6:42am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 142

thunderlips11   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 6:50am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 143


"Uphold Science, Eradicate Superstition"

Raw   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 7:46am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 144

curious2 says

A Noble prize winner in physics (forget his name) said.....

The name you're looking for is Steven Weinberg, and there are two versions of the quote (one from a conference, the other from a subsequent article). The final version, from the article:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

Thanks curious.

Raw   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 7:51am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 145

Cloud says

Steve Wein who?

he he he
Hard to keep up with so many brilliant atheist scientists, isn't it?
The next time a scientist invents something that makes your life better or even saves your life......remember it was probably an atheist.
:)

Bigsby   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 10:32am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 146

Cloud says

Still waiting for your list by the way...

What list? Are you still talking about a list of atheists? Just pick your scientists. And given the % of scientists who are atheist, perhaps you should stop posting about scientists from centuries ago who were believers. Times change.

Raw   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 10:49am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 147

Cloud says

Still waiting for your list by the way...

I already sent it. Not just 5, but hundreds.
Check comment #125.
For your convenience I am resending the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

Bigsby   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 10:50am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 148

Ah, that firm believer Einstein. I don't know how many scientists will be remembered, do I? Most people can only name a handful, if that, but that doesn't mean they haven't made enormous contributions to society. They have. Just list all the great scientists there have been in the last 50 years say and tell me how many of those are/were believers.
And I see you've resorted to name calling again. I'm not going to respond in kind - it would be too easy.

Raw   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 10:54am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 149

Cloud says

The reason no atheist here wants to hand love over to me is because they can't; and yet they use the word their whole misguided life.

You really are hung up about love aren't you?
what exactly do you want? A valentine card?

curious2   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 11:33am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 150

Raw says

Cloud says

The reason no atheist here wants to hand love over to me is because they can't; and yet they use the word their whole misguided life.

You really are hung up about love aren't you?
what exactly do you want?

Maybe Cloud's parents gave too much love to their god(s), and had none left for Cloud. It would be interesting to study whether religious parents are more likely to have excessively needy children. Along with the increased risk of child mortality associated with religions that refuse medical care, this might become an argument for prohibiting religious people from getting married, at least to each other. Personally, I support marriage equality, but some of the more religious posters don't.

Raw   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 11:41am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 151

Cloud? Does your God love this innocent child?
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/vulture-stalking-a-child/

Bigsby   befriend   ignore   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 8:43pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 152

Cloud, just grow up.

freak80   befriend   ignore   Tue, 11 Sep 2012, 1:52am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 153

Parents shouldn't be allowed to brainwash their children with their ideology. Children should be brainwashed with MY ideology! ;-)

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Tue, 11 Sep 2012, 2:58am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 154

The First Amendment doesn't cover:
1. Threats of violence.
2. Slander and liable.
3. Cyberstalking.
4. False reporting of emergencies.
5. Perjury.
6. Violations of personal privacy including posting kiddie porn.
7. Corporate speech including spam.

Any comments that violate those rules will be deleted. So far, you have been the only person on any of my threads to violate any of those rules. As long as you don't violate those rules, you're free to post any bat-shit crazy thing you want. Of course, others are free to demonstrate how bat-shit crazy you are.

Anyone is free to argue that the First Amendment should cover one of the above exceptions, but given that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the citizens from government and keep government as honest and transparent as possible, I doubt there's much ground to make such a case as the exceptions all deal with protecting individual persons and their rights.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Tue, 11 Sep 2012, 11:41am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 155

Cloud says

Dan, I just want to know if you think the government should protect in accordance with The First Amendment (with force if necessary) a person's right to assemble and have a religion?

Yes, if a armed person is shooting people for attending church, the government should take him down.

Conversely, if the any politician passes a law granting privileges to any religion or forcing a religious belief on any person, that politician should be banned from government.

Cloud says

By the way, interesting that this is the first of the Bill of Rights.

The whole reason it's in the Bill of Rights is that the founding fathers came from an England in which the Catholics and the protestants were actively slaughtering each other. The First Amendment is a reaction to that.

That said, the First Amendment does not mean that religion gets to be privileged. Nor does it mean that Christian mythology is allowed to determine secular legislation. Nor does it mean that the people can't actively call out religion for the bullshit it is and discourage such irrational thought and behavior.

Finally, when forced to choose between freedom of speech and freedom of religion by the religious, I'll always side with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech trumps freedom of religion. So when your religion prevents people from free speech as in the case of profanity on television and radio, free speech takes precedence. Freedom to marry whomever you want also takes precedence over other people's religion, and this includes gay marriage.

Bap33   befriend   ignore   Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 4:22am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 156

Dan8267 says

. Perjury.

Quick question Dan: In order to be convicted of purjury, do you have to be "under oath"? If so, who or what is the oath sworn to?

curious2   befriend   ignore   Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 4:27am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 157

Bap33 says

do you have to be "under oath"?

Oath or affirmation, in a government setting, e.g. court testimony, judicial depositions, official investigations. For example, when a baseball player is required to testify before Congress, he is warned that if he lies he may be prosecuted for perjury. The oath or affirmation is to the forum itself, either judicial, legislative, or executive; the legal penalty is in essence for breach of a social contract.

There is no legal penalty for lying to a preacher though, so next time you go to confession, feel free to go nuts. "Father, last night three women and I got stuck at the top of a ferris wheel for five hours. The night before...."

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 4:38am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 158

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

. Perjury.

Quick question Dan: In order to be convicted of purjury, do you have to be "under oath"? If so, who or what is the oath sworn to?

Not your god. Perjury is a crime because all parties involved in a testimony freely agree that it should be a crime to lie in the testimony. This is done so that all parties can have a certain degree of trust in each others statements regarding facts. The agreement is between the state and the parties making the agreement. There is no supernatural being necessary for this legal contract.

As a liberal, i.e. someone who believes in liberty and personal self-determination, I strongly hold the opinion that no one should be forced into such an agreement under any circumstances and that if they are, the agreement is not valid or even a real "agreement".

Hence, I do not support perjury charges on anything that you are forced to sign including IRS tax returns. Now, I'm not advocating lying on tax returns, but since you are forced to fill them out against your will, it should not carry a perjury charge. Actually, I don't think you should be forced to give government any information you don't want as it violates both the First and Fifth Amendments, but that's another story.

Similarly, I don't believe that people in court should be required to take an oath or answer all questions. A defendant should be able to choose which questions he/she wishes to answer and to what extent. The prosecution, however, should not since it's not their ass on the line.

thunderlips11   befriend   ignore   Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 5:14am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 159

Some folks really, really, need an ultimate authority figure to appeal to. Ironically, these people are usually the noisiest complaining about freedom:

"What, McDonalds has to post calorie information by law? That's an assault on freedom!"

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 5:31am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (2)     Comment 160

thunderlips11 says

Some folks really, really, need an ultimate authority figure to appeal to. Ironically, these people are usually the noisiest complaining about freedom:

"What, McDonalds has to post calorie information by law? That's an assault on freedom!"

Homo Economicus. A Legendary Creature, like Bigfoot, claimed to exist by Pseudoscientists.

They appeal to authority when they try to get their draconian laws passed, but appeal to freedom when anyone places a reasonable restriction on business to protect the consumer, employee, or competition.

What are regulations? They are laws to prevent criminal behavior by corporations. But because the laws apply to corporations rather than the individuals, we call them "regulations" instead of "laws" and imply that they are a bad thing. Why don't we get rid of regulation of drug use, how much clothing one has to wear in pubic, and the content of speech on public airwaves?

But this goes back to why monotheists insist that there must be a god, but then also insist that there must be only one. If you have more than one god, they can disagree, which means they can disagree with the draconian propositions of the believer.

All the false arguments that our universe must have a creator would also apply to our universe having many creators. And doesn't cooperation in the creation of a complex thing make more sense than one entity doing it all?

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 6 Dec 2012, 8:56pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 161

@Patrick,

Hey, what happened to all the comments in this thread? The comment count shows 218, but there are no comments being displayed.

Patrick   befriend   ignore   Fri, 7 Dec 2012, 2:14am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 162

OK, fixed now. Thanks for telling me! It was a problem where deleting spam caused the comment number stored in the threads table to get out of sync with the real number of comments.

Please tell me about any more bugs to fix, or suggestions for improvement.

thunderlips11   befriend   ignore   Sun, 9 Dec 2012, 2:25am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 163

Dan8267 says

What are regulations? They are laws to prevent criminal behavior by corporations. But because the laws apply to corporations rather than the individuals, we call them "regulations" instead of "laws" and imply that they are a bad thing. Why don't we get rid of regulation of drug use, how much clothing one has to wear in pubic, and the content of speech on public airwaves?

Jesus Dan, this is gold.

Restrictions on personal behavior - upholding "standards of decency." (ie stopping shit I find "icky" or bothersome for some reason I can't exactly put my finger on but something to do with tradition.)

Restrictions on the use of property - an assault on freedom.

Peter P   befriend   ignore   Sun, 9 Dec 2012, 7:35am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 164

thunderlips11 says

"Uphold Science, Eradicate Superstition"

Whoever said that was trying to sell their own belief system.

Peter P   befriend   ignore   Sun, 9 Dec 2012, 7:39am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 165

There are many religious atheists. They are religiously rejecting other belief systems.

Truthplease   befriend   ignore   Sun, 9 Dec 2012, 10:34am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 166

thunderlips11 says

Dan8267 says

But more dangerous. If religion takes off in Russia, it could cause them to be the next Afghanistan only with nukes.

Don't worry, it won't. It's just respect for tradition, and goes it mostly no deeper than St. Patrick's Day, Clovers, and Green Beer. Of course, there are always a few old farts that get all mystical as they approach death.

I think Putin thinks sponsoring Orthodoxy is important because the US is trying to encircle and fragment Russia, so it gives the Russians a piece of national identity. Not that I think the US project to break Russia into a thousand pieces has any chance of success either way.

When you compare the USA to the Nazis, it shows your ignorance. You are ignorant of the world Dan; very ignorant.

thunderlips11   befriend   ignore   Sun, 9 Dec 2012, 11:32pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 167