patrick.net

omgbacon says

thomas.wong1986 says

Ask yourself why they quoted the bible in Space during the Apollo 8 Moon mission ?

Because they were brought up religious? God didn't build their space ship. Attributing their success to god and their faith in god is disregarding the actual hard work people did and the risks they took to perform such an extraordinary task.

I bet there were a lot of atheists involved in the Apollo missions, scientists and engineers, who kept their mouths shut out of fear of being fired if it got out they were atheists.

Yes, that is a conjecture, but it's a pretty damn reasonable one.

thomas.wong1986 says

Therefore wearing a Lynyrd Skynyrd T-Shirt is treason...

Do you know of anyone calling any member of LS a biggot or racist, either in the 70s up to today

sedition is any act that lends itself toward insurrection toward the establish political order.

raising the rebel flag and celebrating those who acts to overthrow the legitimate government and clearly stating their intent to do it again is sedition.

we've prosecuted muslims for less than that when it comes to "providing material support" to terrorists.

omgbacon says

no, it is a fact. the prayer they use to start the day is non-demoninational and equal access is given to all religions. it's not exclusively christian. if it was, it would be illegal.

I would argue that it is wrong to use an extremely expensive tax payer project as a theological platform at all. I pay NASA tax dollars to do science, not religion. And if the astronaut had said something like "Gagarin was right; there is no god up here.", you can bet your ass that all the Christians in America would be up in arms even if an astronaut said it as a personal observation and not as an official statement of the government.

Dan8267 says

I would argue that it is wrong to use an extremely expensive tax payer project as a theological platform at all. I pay NASA tax dollars to do science, not religion. And if the astronaut had said something like "Gagarin was right; there is no god up here.", you can bet your ass that all the Christians in America would be up in arms even if an astronaut said it as a personal observation and not as an official statement of the government.

I agree with that. I also think that congress should be able to operate just fine without starting the day with an overt religious prayer.

congress would do well to recognize that the highest recognized authority in the US is man, not god, and that laws of man come from man, not god.

which means they should concentrate on doing their job to the best of their ability. god's not going to save you.

Dan8267 says

That's what Jesus said. Yes, he actually said that.

How could you possibly know that? I thought the Gospels were forgeries created Emperor Constantine.

Most people prefer the earth. Anything else is boring. It's a nice place to live. Perfect for sustaining people. Star Trek is boring. Id rather go to a lecture on mating habits of a Robin. Don't gaze at the stars. You'll only strain your neck. Unless your in the desert of course. Other than that. No one for the most part really looks up or cares.

omgbacon says

the highest recognized authority in the US is man, not god, and that laws of man come from man, not god

Scary, isn't it? Especially when 0.1% of our population is in control of the US government.

Dan8267 says

No matter how you polish the turd, the story in this posting shows what religion drives people to: hatred, violence, and discord

Or, it shows how when you attack the culture of a community, things get ugly. That's human nature. Not a good thing necessarily, but it's real psychology.

wthrfrk80 says

How could you possibly know that? I thought the Gospels were forgeries created Emperor Constantine

It took way, way more than Constantine to put that little religious show together. Now that took a lot of work. Years of putting it together. Before rolling it out I'm sure. The key is the Hebrew religion of course. The derivation of. The collaboration. Trades and exchanges made. The Muslim religion similar rollout. Very much a derivation of. Hey the Christian thingy worked. Some collaboration. One of the keys once again you can pacify or insite accross a nations borders. In fact a whole country can be taken out by a religion. To members of the religion selected or persuaded other people seduced by the said religions. THIS is where some of the religious persecution arrived. Meaning the actually spreading of that religion. I'd say from what I know 700AD the start of Christianity and 1012 AD for the Muslim religion.

Scewed up pathetic atheists.. LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/GcsROMfxNyY&feature=related

omgbacon says

the prayer they use to start the day is non-demoninational and equal access is given to all religions. it's not exclusively christian. if it was, it would be illegal.

It sure isnt Budist, Shinto or Islam. Deal with it!

wthrfrk80 says

Dan8267 says

That's what Jesus said. Yes, he actually said that.

How could you possibly know that? I thought the Gospels were forgeries created Emperor Constantine.

To clarify, the character Jesus in the Bible said that.

All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

wthrfrk80 says

Dan8267 says

No matter how you polish the turd, the story in this posting shows what religion drives people to: hatred, violence, and discord

Or, it shows how when you attack the culture of a community, things get ugly. That's human nature. Not a good thing necessarily, but it's real psychology.

If standing up for Constitutional rights means attacking a culture, then so be it. Whether we're talking about religious rights or the civil rights movement of the 1960s, some cultures need to change.

It was a culture that inter-racial marriages were taboo, but the right for two consenting adults to marry challenged that taboo and the underlying culture and won. The same thing will happen with gay marriage and the separation of church and state. And rightfully so.

Dan8267 says

If standing up for Constitutional rights means attacking a culture, then so be it. Whether we're talking about religious rights or the civil rights movement of the 1960s, some cultures need to change.

So you're going on the record as saying it's ok to attack a culture? That's a very authoritarian statement.

Bush thought the culture of Afghanistan needed to change. So he attacked it. Do you agree with that?

I can't quite figure you out, Dan.

On one hand you seem to be very libertarian: porn is ok, marijuana should be legal, etc. Fine.

But on the other hand, you seem to be very authoritarian: some cultures must be attacked because they NEED to change (because you say so). Religion must be eliminated...because you say so (even though people like religion almost as much as they like porn, and religion has existed since the stone age...just like porn).

wthrfrk80 says

So you're going on the record as saying it's ok to attack a culture? That's a very authoritarian statement.

So be it. In Saudi Arabia women are stoned to death in honor killings because of the culture. I'll gladly go on record as saying that culture and others are bad and should end. Culture is not an inherently good thing and some cultures sure as hell are better than others.

I'm not going to pussy out and pretend that all cultures are equal. Cultures that subjugate, enslave, torture, or brutalize people are inferior to cultures that do not. Fuck political correctness when people's lives are on the line.

wthrfrk80 says

Bush thought the culture of Afghanistan needed to change. So he attacked it. Do you agree with that?

Bush thought god was talking to him and telling him to kill Muslims for the glory of Christianity. Fuck Bush. Read any of my posts about him if you want to know my opinion.

However, this is a Straw Man argument. The so-called war on terror is really a war on human and civil rights and an attempt to take over the natural resources of other countries. Of course, I don't think it's right.

That doesn't mean we should try to stop rape, torture, and genocide in other countries because it would interfere with their cultures. There are legitimate reasons to go to war, as expressed in international law.

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

http://worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

However, one does not have to use war or military force to "attack" a culture. You can change -- my word -- a culture in many ways.

America's culture has changed a lot for the better -- an in some ways for the worse -- over the past two hundred years. Europe completely changed its culture during the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment. The American south was forced to change its culture when the federal government stepped in to prevent lynchings, segregation, and outright racial discrimination. And that was the right thing to do. If the some backwaters county needs to be dragged out from the Dark Ages and into the 21st century kicking and screaming, so be it. Better then letting these injustices fetter.

wthrfrk80 says

I can't quite figure you out, Dan.

On one hand you seem to be very libertarian: porn is ok, marijuana should be legal, etc. Fine.

But on the other hand, you seem to be very authoritarian: some cultures must be attacked because they NEED to change (because you say so).

It's not hard to figure me out. I'm quite consistent in my political philosophies.

First of all, realize that the messenger is not important. The fact that I am making this arguments instead of someone else is completely irrelevant. All that matters is the argument itself, not where it comes from. Or to put it another way,

http://www.youtube.com/embed/29pPZQ77cmI
The concept is valid no matter it originates.

Of course, one can go too far,
http://www.youtube.com/embed/g_47mmt5SZY

As for my position, I have given ample evidence across multiple threads of the severe death, destruction, and injustices caused by religions across the millennia. I have also shown that technology has advanced to the point where such irrationality could lead to the extinction of our species through nuclear war or ecological collapse. These are more than sufficient threats to warrant the abandonment of Bronze Aged myths and to embrace more rational philosophies.

Furthermore, I have been quite consistent in upholding the principle that individuals should be allowed to do what they want provided that they are not violating the rights of others including freedom of speech, freedom from religion, and property rights including public property rights such as the right to clean air and clean oceans. If you understand this philosophy, you'll see that I am quite consistent in my arguments.

I often feel like Doolittle talking to the bomb on this site.

Dan8267 says

As for my position, I have given ample evidence across multiple threads of the severe death, destruction, and injustices caused by religions across the millennia

Yes, and he's also taken a serious look at the positive side of religion and spirituality in general. By interviewing many people who are advocates for spiritual pursuits, such as the dali lama, and several of the most famous American authors who look optimistically about the possible future of religion, and those who note the historical contributions of religion to civilization in the past, Dan has been able to do an unbiased analysis of both the negative and the positive side of religion, bringing him to his nuanced position on its place in mankind's future.

OH wait, that wasn't Dan, I'm thinking of someone else. Nevermind.

marcus says

Yes, and he's also taken a serious look at the positive side of religion and spirituality in general.

Marcus, if you want to make a point that religion does good, go right ahead. I reserve the right to point out that good people would do good things regardless of whether or not religion exist, but that religion often causes good people to do bad things.

Christianity certainly didn't invent compassion. Evolution did. I have yet to see compelling evidence that religion has done more good than evil in history or even that religion has significantly increased the amount of compassion in our world. There certainly is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

The best argument I've heard in favor of religion is that it can be used to trick the stupid into doing the right thing. That's a weak argument at best and certainly doesn't justify the extreme costs imposed on our society by religion.

However, if you want to make the case, go right ahead.

Dan8267 says

I have given ample evidence across multiple threads of the severe death, destruction, and injustices caused by religions across the millennia.

Replace the word 'religions' with 'governments' and you will have a statement that is more true. And yet I don't know that this constitutes an argument that governments are inherently evil, or that we need to do away with them.

Like religions, governments are a reflection of us.

Maybe the real answer is for us to evolve in to machines and do away with man?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/BlpyGhABXRA

Dan8267 says

Christianity certainly didn't invent compassion

In the past, I believe you generalized your thesis beyond just organized religion to any and all types of 'spirituality.'

IT's not clear to me what part is learned versus what might be physiological or perhaps even related to something that some refer to as "a soul," but it seems to me that many people interface with the world through what could be called a spiritual lens.

Who knows, maybe it's just ego. Maybe by feeling that connection (make believe - or not) they are able to feel a sense of enhanced self esteem or empowerment.

It's not so unlike the extremist atheists (not the ones who simply don't believe - but have a live and let live attitude), who seem to get an ego boost by putting down the religious majority as being so sadly mistaken with their pathetic beliefs.

marcus says

Replace the word 'religions' with 'governments' and you will have a statement that is more true.

One true statement isn't "more true" than another. As for which has caused more deaths, religion or government, it's hard to say when the two are so intertwined.

marcus says

And yet I don't know that this constitutes an argument that governments are inherently evil, or that we need to do away with them.

The correct answer is to limit the power of government and to distribute power so evenly and thinly throughout society that no one person can do great harm to another legally.

marcus says

Like religions, governments are a reflection of us.

I disagree on both accounts. Religions are passed down to the next generation through brain washing. Governments are often forced on people who have no control or say in the matter. Even in the United States, how much say do you really have in what your government does? Image how much worse it is in Syria. Religion and governments are reflections of the people in power, but not necessarily a reflection of the powerless people in a society.

marcus says

Maybe the real answer is for us to evolve in to machines and do away with man?

Now why would I want to trade a rotting meat body for a nice shinny metal one? Being human is great. Eating, shitting, dying, what's not to love? It's not like the things robots can do -- fly through space without a space suit, shoot lasers, connect to the Internet at will, bench press 100 tons, transform into supersonic aircraft -- are really all that fun. Don't worry. When the machines rise, I'll be on the side of humanity.

marcus says

but it seems to me that many people interface with the world through what could be called a spiritual lens.

Beer goggles are more accurate imaging devices.

marcus says

Maybe by feeling that connection (make believe - or not) they are able to feel a sense of enhanced self esteem or empowerment.

A false sense of empowerment is not good. If you have cancer, you can't pray it away. Best to go see a real doctor.

Now real empowerment is a good thing, but that comes from understanding your world so that you can affect it. Sp ritual beliefs do not enhance understanding, they detract from it.

marcus says

It's not so unlike the extremist atheists (not the ones who simply don't believe - but have a live and let live attitude), who seem to get an ego boost by putting down the religious majority as being so sadly mistaken with their pathetic beliefs.

Trust me. I don't get an ego boost from pointing out the follies and dangers of religion or disproving the existence of a god or showing how the religious myths are copies of older pagan myths. I do it because it is important to stop the irrationality that allows assholes like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum from getting elected and passing evil agendas that compromise life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If we extreme atheists manage to get the masses to abandon all superstitious beliefs, then we succeed in taking away one tool from the toolbox used by evil. Yes, it's only one tool, but it's a damn important and often used tool. Eliminating that tool would greatly improve the condition of the world.

marcus says

It's not so unlike the extremist atheists (not the ones who simply don't believe - but have a live and let live attitude), who seem to get an ego boost by putting down the religious majority as being so sadly mistaken with their pathetic beliefs.

I am not an atheist. What I am really not is pliable. Not susceptible to any bullshit artist that shows up in my life. Throwing fear into me. By telling me there is someplace. That I am going to burn in forever. If I'm not a good boy. Turn into a child or pumpkin or whatever the fuck keeps me out of hell. There are individual bullshit artists. Then youv'e got your organized bullshitters.

Deal is youv'e got one fucking life. That's it. The rules are set up as something that keeps you in line. I don't need to be kept in line. As a grown adult you should recognize that. Rules are for kids under 12 and under. Societies do not keep things in line. The earth does. God dosen't he could give damn.

So to many its society that keeps everything in order. Society can't find it's ass with both hands. So that obviously isn't the way it is. The other way you can go is that some space wookie is controlling all of life, intervening in life. Or not intervening letting you get hit by a car because it makes for a really interesting sometimes, funny mystery. Believe either. Especially society keeps things in line. Your leaving the door wide, open for a lot of victims. If you BELIEVE, society keeps things in line or God does your screwed in life. Your always going to be someones peon. Which leads to being other peoples peon. Or your going to be some invented outerspace Gods obeident monkey. Which means they don't have to worry about you any more because your way fucking out there.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/jaxtBqw_TkE

Dan8267 says

I don't get an ego boost from pointing out the follies and dangers of religion or disproving the existence of a god or showing how the religious myths are copies of older pagan myths. I do it because it is important to stop the irrationality that allows assholes like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum

Maybe we should just kill all of the religious. You would take out the Rick Perry and Santorum types,...I guess the millions of religious people with more character, intelligence, integrity and wisdom than you would just be collateral damage.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

I don't get an ego boost from pointing out the follies and dangers of religion or disproving the existence of a god or showing how the religious myths are copies of older pagan myths. I do it because it is important to stop the irrationality that allows assholes like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum

Maybe we should just kill all of the religious. You would take out the Rick Perry and Santorum types,...I guess the millions of religious people with more character, intelligence, integrity and wisdom than you would just be collateral damage.

Only a religious person would think that the solution to irrational religion is to kill the people who are religious.

marcus says

Maybe we should just kill all of the religious. You would take out the Rick Perry and Santorum types,...I guess the millions of religious people with more character, intelligence, integrity and wisdom than you would just be collateral damage.

Great Straw Man argument, Hitler. Please expand on it.

Ironically, I'm watching The Third Reich: The Fall on the History Channel as I write this. Marcus sounds just like one of the Nazis.

Dan8267 says

Yep, there are lots of violations of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution. None of them are good.

Dan,

Please reread your constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1) congress (nor any other governmental body) made a law forcing the school to display the banner.

2) forcing the school to either remove or revise the banner violates their right to "freely exercise" their beliefs that students should be held to a certain standard of conduct – and ask for the help of divine providence in keeping with a particular moral tradition.

**************

An atheist by definition has no religion. Belief in God (however one defines the term) is a precursor to being religious. So the argument that because someone does not believe in a heavenly father equates to a violation of their 2nd amendment rights. I just don’t see how one makes that leap of logic.

Furthermore, belief in God has always been a part of our national heritage, from the Pilgrims, through many of the founding fathers, straight on through to today.

Even the declaration of independence draws on the belief God.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Do I agree with the death threats? No.
Did her local repetitive cross a line with what he said? Probably

But on the whole, I think that people who wage this battle in the belief that somehow acknowledging a creator / saying "Amen" in public / professing a belief in God / paying tribute to our religious heritage in a public fashion somehow equates to a egregious violation of the 2nd amendment – I just don’t think they understand the reality that, like it or not we are, and always have been a nation with religious underpinnings and specifically, Judeo-Christian values and mindset.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

An atheist by definition has no religion

So Buddhists aren't protected by the First Amendment and the cops can prevent Buddhists from practicing Buddhism? Thank whatever fictitious god you believe in that you're not on the Supreme Court.

Freedom of religion means freedom from religion. If you can't say no, you're not free. Atheism is most certainly protected by the First Amendment. And if our rights to not have religion forced down our throats isn't respected, then we won't respect your right to worship.

Tolerance is a two-way street and if atheists are protected on the same level as Christians, then I say let's burn every Bible in the country. I'd go to war over this issue since I've seen what Christians do to outsiders when they get control of the government. Remember Germany, 1930s?

By EastCoastBubbleBoy says

Belief in God (however one defines the term) is a precursor to being religious.

Then I define "God" as a puppy dog.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

Even the declaration of independence draws on the belief God.

And that makes it right why? The first draft of the Declaration of Independence cited slavery as one of the grievances against King George. It was removed to appease the southern states. I can accept the principles of liberty without accepting religion, the enemy of liberty.

In every society, the priest is the enemy of liberty.

- Thomas Jefferson, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

Furthermore, belief in God has always been a part of our national heritage, from the Pilgrims, through many of the founding fathers,

Sort of like slavery? Some things should change.

The founding fathers wouldn't approve of interracial marriage either, but they did have sex with underage girls as young as 12 including their slaves.

One can believe in the philosophy of liberty without turning the founding fathers into demi-gods.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

o the argument that because someone does not believe in a heavenly father equates to a violation of their 2nd amendment rights. I just don’t see how one makes that leap of logic.

Neither do I. The 2nd Amendment deals with the right to bear arms.

Got me there. Darn autocorrect. I meant 1st.
Anyhow. we argree to disagree. So be it.

Dan8267 says

Great Straw Man argument, Hitler. Please expand on it.

I'm impressed that you didn't argue my point that there are millions of religious people with more intelligence and integrity than you.

Maybe you aren't as imbalanced as I thought after all.

Honestly, I wouldn't give a shit what silly things people want to make murals out of as long as they'd stop trying to teach my kids that there's some kind of 'controversy' about how life came to be.

Kevin says

marcus says

Dan8267 says

I don't get an ego boost from pointing out the follies and dangers of religion or disproving the existence of a god or showing how the religious myths are copies of older pagan myths. I do it because it is important to stop the irrationality that allows assholes like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum

Maybe we should just kill all of the religious. You would take out the Rick Perry and Santorum types,...I guess the millions of religious people with more character, intelligence, integrity and wisdom than you would just be collateral damage.

Only a religious person would think that the solution to irrational religion is to kill the people who are religious.

Dan is what I consider very religious in his zeal for atheism, and in his belief (he would say proof, haha), that we would be better off with zero religion and with nobody having any of what is often referred to as spirituality.

How does a person get to where they have an ego such that they would say that if mankind is really going to benefit and move forward, they should have his beliefs? I have only met a couple of Christians in my life that are THAT RELIGIOUS.

But I assumed it was obvious that I was being facetious, with the comment about killing the religious. And one would have to have seen the history of my religious arguments with Dan to get my point.

Actually I don't think that Dan would even be close to advocating such a thing, so it isn't really a straw man.

But in my opinion (or by my definition) Dan is as religious, in the negative sense of the word, as a person can be.

What is religious tolerance anyway? Is it enough just to say that you don't advocate killing everyone in a certain group?

If someone makes an argument (that they call a proof) that religion of any kind is evil, is that tolerance ?

I thought tolerance (in the social context) means more of a "live and let live," I'm not going to judge you based on your race, or your sexual orientation or your religious beliefs etc.

marcus says

Dan is what I consider very religious in his zeal for atheism,

1. There is nothing wrong with "zeal" for atheism any more than there is anything wrong with "zeal" for mathematics, history, or Opera.

2. Unlike religion, atheism hasn't been used as the justification for enslavement, rape, and murder of outsiders or for genocide.

3. There are plenty of damn good reasons to abandon religious beliefs.

marcus says

How does a person get to where they have an ego such that they would say that if mankind is really going to benefit and move forward, they should have his beliefs?

I believe the world is round. If you disagree with this belief, you are wrong. My beliefs are faith, they are knowledge. So this isn't about ego, except for you.

I believe that the enormous amount of pollution that we are putting in the atmosphere is causing climate change that may have many dire consequences. If you disagree with this belief, you are wrong and you are endangering our species survival. The real world impact of climate change can result in the whole of Britain being underwater and the British using their nuclear arsenal to secure other lands. That's damn serious shit.

Yet, it's one of my "beliefs". Marcus, you need to stop using the word belief because you are confusing "faith-based doctrine" with "verifiable knowledge". The two things are completely different.

When I say that religion has caused countless atrocities throughout history, this "belief" is readily verifiable.

marcus says

Actually I don't think that Dan would even be close to advocating such a thing, so it isn't really a straw man.

Um, actually it still is a Straw Man argument. Only it's a disingenuous one, which most Straw Man arguments are.

marcus says

But in my opinion (or by my definition) Dan is as religious, in the negative sense of the word, as a person can be.

And your welcome to that opinion. In my opinion, you are simply jealous of my intellect and your fragile ego cause you to be obsessed with fighting everything I say even when you know it's right. Instead of learning from me, which a more mature person would do, you throw little tantrums.

And the one time, I gave yo the benefit of a doubt, you immediately revert back to a child.

marcus says

I thought tolerance (in the social context) means more of a "live and let live," I'm not going to judge you based on your race, or your sexual orientation or your religious beliefs etc.

Some things should be tolerated and others things shouldn't be. If you have a problem with gays, you should be tolerant. Better yet, you should not have a problem with gays at all, in which case you aren't tolerating anything. To tolerate X implies that X pisses you off. As gay people don't piss me off, I'm not tolerating them. However, I doubt you'll be able to understand this distinction and you'll do your best to deliberately misinterpret it.

However, other things shouldn't be tolerated. The belief that black men who are intimate with white women should be lynched, obviously should not be tolerated. The idea that a women who has been raped should be stoned to death to restore family honor should not be tolerated. Even though that belief is a religious one. Yes, religious beliefs should not be tolerated when they directly cause death and destruction.

You don't get a "get out of jail free" card simply because your crime was motivated by religion.

In the words of Bill Maher:

"Atheism is a religion like Abstinence is a sex position".

Saying that you require evidence of something in order to accept it is not a religion; it's exactly the opposite of that.

Dan8267 says

When I say that religion has caused countless atrocities throughout history, this "belief" is readily verifiable.

I'm not calling that a belief.

What I am calling a belief is your inference from this that therefore religion is evil. Sounds like so much emotion to me. You disregard that good comes from religion too.

Humans have done all of the evil things you ascribe to religion, and so much more. Why don't you condemn humans as evil and not worthy of existing?

I know why. Because you are a human and therefore you see a positive side to humanity.

Kevin says

Saying that you require evidence of something in order to accept it is not a religion; it's exactly the opposite of that.

But when the extremist type atheist proselytize about the evil of religion, and take it to an irrational emotional and arrogant place, they are in my view being religious about it.

They are implicitly putting their beliefs above others in much the way that one religion puts theirs above other as the one true path. The parallels are obvious.

I do agree that religion can sometimes be dangerous or even evil. And in my view Dan's religion falls in to both categories.

Dan8267 says

I've seen what Christians do to outsiders when they get control of the government. Remember Germany, 1930s?

Thank you for discrediting yourself with that statement.

Dan8267 says

If we extreme atheists manage to get the masses to abandon all superstitious beliefs, then we succeed in taking away one tool from the toolbox used by evil

Dan, what is "evil"? That sounds like a superstitious belief.

In nature, the powerful dominate the weak. That's how evolution works. Survival of the fittest. That's not evil, that's nature.

marcus says

I do agree that religion can sometimes be dangerous or even evil. And in my view Dan's religion falls in to both categories.

Agree. Any ideology can be dangerous if its adherents belive it is SO GOOD that it must be forced on the unwilling. Dan has gone on the record saying force should be used to advance his ideology for the "betterment" of the human race. That's just as fanatical as the Crusaders of old or the present day Jihadists.

He says he doesn't like it when Bush starts a war to (supposedly) spread Christianity to the Islamic world, but he says we must defintely spread Atheism to the the Islamic world; by force if necessary.

Justice MUST be poured out...as long as it's Dan's version of justice.

Evil MUST be destroyed...as long as it's Dan's version of evil.

Dan is just as much a "true believer" in his ideology as any religious fanatic.

The demons that Dan wishes to slay are staring at him in the mirror!