patrick.net

wthrfrk80 says

bdrasin says

By "understand Christianity" he means "become a Christian". If you believe that Christianity is true, ipso facto anything you think is an issue must be a misunderstanding.

Not true.

It's possible to understand Islam w/o beoming a Muslim.

It's possible to undertand atheism w/o becoming one.

I've actually gone on the record as saying Christianity has been shown to be false by genetics: there was no Adam and Eve first couple.

I wasn't trying to convert anyone to anything.

Very sorry for my misunderstanding. I'll be more careful in the future.

Dan8267 says

Bow out? WTF you talking about, Willis? I made a dozen points, all of which you completely ignored. Meanwhile, I have addressed every single point you made in exquisite detail. Sorry honey, but you've already dropped your entire case and conceded all of my points through silence.

That will work - it's the first time I've seen you use that one.

or click on this.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

marcus says

Your logic as far as I can tell: Religion is sometimes evil, therefore end all religion.

Or religion is sometimes evil. Religion involves belief in god. Therefore belief in god is evil.

By similar reasoning you could say, humans are sometimes evil....

It's so weak. I thought you were smarter than that.

It makes for cool sounding rants for everyone else. And I get it. "Too much conflict ...can not compute...does not fit my simplistic model....error...stack overflow..."

marcus says

It's so weak. I thought you were smarter than that.

It makes for cool sounding rants for everyone else. And I get it. "Too much conflict ...can not compute...does not fit my simplistic model....error...stack overflow..."

Once again, I've tried to keep this conversation on the issue, but you still have to revert to personal attacks. So be it.

marcus says

marcus says

Your logic as far as I can tell: Religion is sometimes evil, therefore end all religion.

Your reading comprehension skills illustrate why our educational system is doomed. If a so-called teacher has such poor grasp of the English language, then what hope do your students have.

I have never even implied that religion is "sometimes" evil. I've stated that religion "is" evil by its nature.

And you are still dodging all the points. How about address just one?

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?

Or are you still too pussy shit to address that?

I have addressed every lame ass argument you made and answered every entrapment question you had. You have failed to address even one of my points. That proves beyond any doubt that you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to support your childish and foolish positions.

The fact that you are too lazy to read through more than a few lines of text also makes me cringe to think that you are actually a teacher of anything. I'd say god help your students, but I know that no one is listening. It's actually kind of like talking to you.

thunderlips11 says

In an early, cult-like religion, this is a useful quote, since many who join a small outlandish cult will be ostracized by their family. It gives the converted comfort. Now that Christianity is the dominant religion, and has to deal with a situation where most adherents have family members of their own and are not members of a small cult, this verse is "Depreciated", and indeed, almost all the big Christian groups now advocate "Family Values".

Yep, it's all marketing bullshit. Religions are always started as scams, grow if they are successful scams, and have to cover up their old scams with new ones to prevent collapse. Religion was the first scam, and it's still the most popular one.

leoj707 says

Kind of like when scientologists ignore quotes from Hubbard like, "If you want to get rich start a religion."

I've always thought that Hubbard started Scientology as a lark, and then some con artists decided it could make real money and took it to the next level.

Dan8267 says

Or are you still too pussy shit to address that?

For the third (or is it fourth) time.

marcus says

I can understand people taking issue with fundamentalist christians or islamic fundamentalists as being an impediment to progress or worse. Maybe my language was not clear, but I was assuming people would know what I meant.

If someone wanted to argue that the world would be better off without religious extremists or without fundamentalists (who take their Bible or Koran literally - when it suits them), I could accept that as a reasonable assertion.

But to me this is far different than asserting that the world would be better off without any religion - and without any belief in god, even if it is possibly true (since eliminating all religion does eliminate the extremists and or fundamentalists- but still unknowable since it eliminates all religion - the belief of 80% of the world(some kind of belief in god)), but still also in my view possibly false.

I said this before you made this argument.

I give up. I think I get it. You're so emotionally challenged you want to be on my permanent ignore, so that I'll stay out of all your threads. I called it right before. You're an adolescent.

I respond repeatedly to what you say is your biggest best argument, and it's something I addressed before you even made it. And I repeatedly quote it, and still all I get is.

"you're avoiding my question."

I get it. You've got nothing other than:

Sometimes religion is evil, therefore to this genius engineer all religion and all belief in god is evil.

Dan8267 says

Your reading comprehension skills illustrate why our educational system is doomed

Yes, I said your logic is weak. So now you say I'm an idiot, and I guess you get to think you've got more than:

**"Sometimes religion is evil, therefore all religion is evil, and any belief in god is incorrect and detrimental."

just because I'm an idiot, okay, hide from your own sad excuse for logic.

Even you must be able to see how terrible the logic is in that statement (**).

Notice how I can boil my argument down to a couple of simple statements that you can't refute (see **) ? OTher than calling me iliterate and a sad excuse for a teacher.

Dan8267 says

I've always thought that Hubbard started Scientology as a lark, and then some con artists decided it could make real money and took it to the next level.

There's rumors that they made a bet over who could make money off religion. Supposedly, Hubbard started Scientology, while Heinlein wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land". Which is all about cults and organized religions and even a little about how cults become organized religions.

Surprised the two were friends. Heinlein was in an entirely different class than Hubbard.

It's interesting that most religious founders we know about in recent times - L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Charles Dederich, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the TBN crowd, Wiley Brooks, etc. - could be considered charismatic delusionals at best, and sociopaths at worst.

marcus says

For the third (or is it fourth) time.

Your quote does not even begin to address the question.

Here, I'll give you a hint at how you should answer the question.

Hell no! Honor killings are utterly inexcusable regardless of any religious context. Religion does not give any person the right to slaughter another person.

So, no I wouldn't respect a Muslim's belief that he is morally obligated to kill his daughter after she's just been raped. I'm not a total idiot devoid of any common sense.

See? That's how you're suppose to answer the question.

marcus says

I called it right before. You're an adolescent.

Spoken with such maturity. You set a fine example for your students.

thunderlips11 says

There's rumors that they made a bet over who could make money off religion.

Sounds plausible.

thunderlips11 says

It's interesting that most religious founders we know about in recent times - L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Charles Dederich, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the TBN crowd, Wiley Brooks, etc. - could be considered charismatic delusionals at best, and sociopaths at worst.

A-MEN!! a most excellant point. I agree 100%.

Who gets credited for starting the religion of Higher Education Western Progressive Leftist Liberal Anti-Christians ... aka-Atheism???? (lol -- but really, who is the guy the atheists point to as the Joe Smith of their system of non-belief?)

Bap33 says

Who gets credited for starting the religion of Higher Education Western Progressive Leftist Liberal Anti-Christians ... aka-Atheism???? (lol -- but really, who is the guy the atheists point to as the Joe Smith of their system of non-belief?)

There is no Joe Smith, Mohamed, Jesus, L Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy, etc. equivalent in atheism, it has been around for thousands of years.

thunderlips11 says

L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Charles Dederich, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the TBN crowd, Wiley Brooks, etc. - could be considered charismatic delusionals at best, and sociopaths at worst.

Right, and this is only because we know so much more about them than founders of religions 500+ years old. If we had court documents, personal letters, diaries, news paper articles, etc. from the times of Jesus, Mohamed, etc. we would probably come to the same conclusions about them.

leoj707 says

Right, and this is only because we know so much more about them than founders of religions 500+ years old. If we had court documents, personal letters, diaries, news paper articles, etc. from the times of Jesus, Mohamed, etc. we would probably come to the same conclusions about them.

I completely agree. I think Mohammed would be really interesting in particular. And also Jesus' words about leaving your family for his sake are words you'd hear from any cult leader - Matthew 19:29.

Bap33 says

Who gets credited for starting the religion of Higher Education Western Progressive Leftist Liberal Anti-Christians ... aka-Atheism???? (lol -- but really, who is the guy the atheists point to as the Joe Smith of their system of non-belief?)

Atheism doesn't have a leader, any kind of hierarchy, holy book, prophets or dogma/belief system. It simply posits that there are no Gods or God, other than that one point, atheists usually agree on very little. I just don't understand how folks can compare non-belief to any belief system.

Ummm. I don't think delusional. I think slick. Their followers are delusional. Especially the people that commisioned any literature to be printed for the followers. They are really slick. Pat Robertson ran a magical healing carnival before he became oh, respectable religious wise then ran for President. (let the reader take note. I told you about psychopathic liars. They never quit.) Christians for the most part don't like healing carnivals. They are embarassing and really hard to explain given the facts. They have to back down rationlize the crap out of Christianty and start all over again. When they hit the magic healing issue

I am sure there had to be the first ateist ... lets call him Alpha Atheist , or AA for short. AA was the one that shared with others that he did not believe all of the stories about ancient times told by the old people (in text or around the cave fire). There MUST be an AA ..... and I bet you really smart guys know why.

Bap33 says

I am sure there had to be the first ateist ... lets call him Alpha Atheist , or AA for short. AA was the one that shared with others that he did not believe all of the stories about ancient times told by the old people (in text or around the cave fire). There MUST be an AA ..... and I bet you really smart guys know why.

Two things.

1. Actually it was probably the other way around. As human brains and society evolved to the point where religion was viable there was probably an Alpha Spirit Seeker, or ASS for short. This ASS started to tell stories to explain things that primitive humans did not understand. The ASS probably made up stories like angry gods make rain and thunder, etc.

2. Either way AA or ASS there was most likely no single originator of either.

leoj707 says

This ASS started to tell stories to explain things that primitive humans did not understand.

Oh, one more thing. There have been "primitive" tribes found that do not seem to have a single ASS among them. So even primitives are at least capable of recognizing resiting the allure of an ASS.

Bap33 says

I am sure there had to be the first ateist ... lets call him Alpha Atheist , or AA for short.

Man did not start out believing in a god. Man started out believing in other superstitions, monsters and magic. Some of the monsters were real: lions, and tigers, and bears. Others were imaginary. Some of the magic was real: herbal medicines containing chemicals that treated food poisoning and other ailments. Most of the magic was imaginary. But at this time, there were no gods, no polytheism, and no monotheism. Everyone would have been an atheist if the question of god was brought up by anyone. But, of course, no one thought to bring up such a question.

Later tribes invented the idea of the spirit. All living things had "spirits". Many non-living things did too. Animals, trees, rocks, the ocean, all had spirits.

Only when tribes started settling down did they invent a kind of "god". Gaia, the Earth goddess, was the first god. She represented fertility, both human fertility and the fertility of the land.

But Gaia and other Earth fertility spirits fell wayside when agriculture took off and man started building cities. This became the age of male gods, gods of war and power. The Egyptians were the first to capitalize on this given their strategic location that served as a trade hub and had mild weather compared to the competition north.

The ancient Greeks had their own pantheon of gods. It is at this time that the first atheists are known to exist as some of the Greek scholars rejected the idea of gods controlling the world and sought natural explanations.

At about 2500 BCE, the first monotheist religion Zoroastrianism was invented. This religion set the ground work for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Zoroastrianism is not only the first monotheist religion, but is also one of the oldest religions still practiced today. In its beginning, Zoroastrianism competed with polytheistic religions.

Of course, Hinduism is also much older. It is possible that there could have been detractors of gods from Hindi cultures, but I don't know of any records of that.

In the very least, we know that there were atheists in ancient Greece including Aristophanes and Epicurus. There were also agnostics like Protagoras. And Aristotle believed in a clockmaker god that had no effect on the universe after creating it.

"Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?" - Aristophanes

"Men create gods in their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life." - Aristotle.

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" - Epicurus

"As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life." - Protagoras

In any case, doubt is old. And the more intelligent and educated the person and more enlightened the society, the more doubt and disbelief there is. This pattern holds throughout history regardless of a few notable exceptions who lived in highly religious cultures.

I'm not an atheist. I really DO NOT like anything that puts something into a category. You give an American or a propaghandist something or someone to put into a category your screwed. Those bastards will throw you in a box. Put a fucking label on it and ship you off somewhere. All the morons will stare at the box (category) your in. Will sit there and shake their little goober heads up and down saying yep er we know what that is sure do.

I said the word liberal on Patrick.net once. MY fucking bad. The goobers were all over me. Goobers an idiot that lives in the back of a gas station. Hes got bed a TV, refrigerator a toaster oven, electricty and well plenty of gas. He's got Weaver's Department Store and a food store in Mt. Pilot. Hes not to bright of course. Andy tells him what to think. Cause goober can't "process" all that well. Andys polite of course. Andy, calls having sense, "processing".

I used to say it take a village to raise the village idiot. I'm changing that now in light of recent developments. How people don't listen. How they sit in front of the television glassy eyed with their mouths open, drool running down their chin. Believing everything they see and hear. Yes the idiots are actually, running the village. Turns out the village loves their subconscious, childhood and fantasy.

That just some of the benifits of living in this society. Being in debt up to your hairline. Learning only how to buff and shine to a high gloss someone elses shoes. Congratulations your 6 years old again.

The village is actually filled with superstitious people that have to believe in "something" if it ain't religion well I guess its government or the "family", group or some other inane thing that keeps their little minds occupied. Otherwise their little brains start squirming when they realize the situation they are in just isn't all that good. Point out fact. They crawl under the bed.

......and atheists say they don't proselytize....LMFAO

Why don't you have the balls to just call atheism what it is...a religion...stop hiding.

veritas says

Why don't you have the balls to just call atheism what it is...a religion...stop hiding.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/A41WZBcmnfc

No matter how hard you try to push the false meme "atheism is a religion", it doesn't make it true.

There is a growing trend in this country that needs to be called out. And that is to label any evidence-based belief a religion. ... It's a dodge of course. It's a way of saying, "we all believe in some sort of faith-based malarkey, so let's call it a push". No...

It's not fair that people who can't defend their own nonsense get to make a fake "fair and balance" argument, the way they do when they assert that evolution and creationism are equality valid.

...

But when it comes to religion, we're not two sides of the same coin. And you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason.

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.

So in addition to Christianity, you're a believer in
non-santaism; non-toothfairism, non-unicornism, and a wide variety of other religions?

It makes more sense to say you don't believe than you believe in all possible opposites.

Hence atheism is the lack of belief.
Someone once said, I contend we are both atheist, you just believe in 1 less religion than me.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Stephen Roberts

(I saw a reference to this thread and the classic Dan (his words) quoted from above.)

Dan never did answer this, and I think I know why.

marcus says

1) Are there a significant number of people who are more intelligent than you that believe in god in some way? Are there possibly even a million or more such people?

More importantly

2) 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 ?

(a little later in the same comment)

marcus says

I don't have much else to say on this, but I would love to hear your answers to my questions above.

Maybe you could just make it a simple yes or no, and then devote another comment to the thousands of words on why if the answer is yes, it doesn't bother you and also why if the answer is yes, these people aren't by your definition superior to you.

marcus says

Dan never did answer this, and I think I know why.

marcus says

1) Are there a significant number of people who are more intelligent than you that believe in god in some way? Are there possibly even a million or more such people?

More importantly

2) 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 ?

Perhaps he thought there was no point in responding because your query is irrelevant. Let's say the answer to both questions is 'yes.' So what? Do you think that means that person is then not allowed to express their views?
There are all sorts of religious people. Those that keep their religion entirely to themselves, those that practice it openly, those who proselytize etc. etc. Which ones are acceptable to you? All of them? None of them? Why exactly is an atheist supposed to tow a particular line that you prescribe for them? Why can't they openly express their opinion on a matter that is obviously of some importance? After all, religions have been doing it for many thousands of years. A handful of atheists openly speak out for a few years and all of a sudden it's a problem. Forgive me if I don't think it is.

Following post split due to character limit...

Part 1

marcus says

1) Are there a significant number of people who are more intelligent than you that believe in god in some way? Are there possibly even a million or more such people?

More importantly

2) 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 ?

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.

Part 2

So the question itself is bullshit and disingenuous, but let's try to answer it honestly and as accurately as possible. The question was, "Are there a significant number of people who are more intelligent than you that believe in god in some way?".

Well, it's not my fault it's a shitty question even disregarding the motives behind it. The fact is, it is a meaningless question that cannot be answered. This is so for a number of obvious reasons.

First, how do we measure intelligence? IQ tests are pretty much bullshit and certainly don't work well as a comparison between the top 1% of the population, for example, by using the Mensa test criteria, which I have passed. How do you compare the genius of Mozart against the genius of Einstein? Is there even a meaningful way to do so? I think that intelligence is far better modeled as a vector space than a scalar, so any heuristic that reduces the vector space to a scalar will be arbitrary and subjective. Having the ability to reason would be important in figuring out if god myths are bullshit or not. Having the ability to compose music would not be important for that purpose, but is still an important aspect of intelligence and needed for other tasks. Marcus wants to force the complexities of the universe to fit in his simplistic worldview. Nature has no obligation to conform to the unimaginative worldview of human beings.

But let's say there were some magic way to meaningfully rank all the people in the world by intelligent in a very precise and objective way. Then we have the problem of determining if each person ranked above me (an arbitrary person) believes in god. Well, this presents a number of insurmountable problems. First, everyone has to agree on the exact definition of god, or this whole exercise is meaningless bullshit. Try getting that to happen. Then we have to determine if each person believes in one or more gods by that definition. Well, you can't just ask the people, even if doing so were practical, which it isn't. The problem is that people, even smart people, lie to themselves. A smart person who disbelieves in god will say that he is "spiritual, but not religious" or "agnostic" in order to avoid being alienated by the multitude of dumb asses he has to live with in his society every single day. Remember, history is full of atheists being tortured and burned alive by these idiots. Today, atheists are still heavily discriminated against. In fact, they are the most discriminated against group. We'll have a black, female, Islamic president before we have an atheist president according to every poll conducted on the subject. So, we would need some way of telling what people really believe rather than what they say they believe.

So there is no way I, or anyone else, could possibly answer Marcus's first question honestly or accurately. But let's say, for sake of argument, that the most intelligent people on Earth believed in the Christian god. Hell, let's say that I, nay, the entire world universally believes in Jesus Christ and every Catholic doctrine. Does that make us correct? Hell no. The truth is independent of the number of people who believe in it. And the truth is, that by ever definition of god used by every popular religion, god does not exist and this is objectively provable using a priori logic and/or historical facts.

Are there possibly even a million or more such people?

The second question is meaningless for the same reasons as the first discussed above.

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".

Dan8267 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.

Well, you sure have my number. It couldn't have been because of the quote below, or because I think you could benefit a little from being more humble, or because of a desire to introduce a little "cognitive dissonance" in to your mind.

Dan8267 says

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.

I don't have much else to say on this. I still haven't figured out the answer to what interests me at this point about this behavior of the atheist who is religious about their non religiousness.

As for definitions of God, or ontological arguments for the existence of God, I don't think I ever even tried to make these. But the history of famous philosophers and Mathematicians who enjoyed these is impressive. Who knows, maybe a few of these could hold a candle to your awesome intellect.

(I shouldn't have brought this up (ontological arguments), because here comes another 20,000 words.)

marcus says

or because of a desire to introduce a little "cognitive dissonance" in to your mind.

By the way, just a small comment/observation. I hope your code is a little more concise and a little more elegant than your comments above.

marcus says

I don't have much else to say on this. I still haven't figured out the answer to what interests me at this point about this behavior of the atheist who is religious about their non religiousness.

As for definitions of God, or ontological arguments which I don't think I ever even tried to make, but the history of famous philosophers and Mathematicians who enjoyed these is impressive. Who knows, maybe a few of these could hold a candle to your awesome intellect.

(I shouldn't have brought this up, because here comes another 20,000 words.)

He's already very effectively addressed those points and yet you trot them out again. Why?

Bigsby says

Do you think that means that person is then not allowed to express their views?

Of course not.

Bigsby says

Why exactly is an atheist supposed to tow a particular line that you prescribe for them?

They aren't. I wouldn't say a religious christian is supposed to not prosthelytize either. But that won't prevent me from expressing preference and greater respect for those who keep their beliefs somewhat to themself. This is my view, that I'm free to express.

And I guess I would add, that I think it's very possible to be an atheist, without it becoming your religion. This is just another way of my saying what this thread says, and what this thread says.

I think the fact that you are still trotting out the extraordinarily tired 'atheism is a religion' line after all that has been said speaks volumes.

I get that you have nothing to say here. I never said and do not believe that atheism is a religion. Quite the contrary.

marcus says

I get that you have nothing to say here. I never said and do not believe that atheism is a religion. Quite the contrary.

I rather think you have nothing to say outside of repeating the same tired lines. And good grief, if you don't believe atheism can be a religion, then why are you saying (repeatedly) such things as:

marcus says

it's very possible to be an atheist, without it becoming your religion.

I hope English isn't your first language.