patrick.net

By the way, in my opinion, it's when atheism becomes more about "opposing all the other religions" rather than simply not believing in God, that it becomes a religion itself (meaning like a religion).

Sure, one can nitpick and say technically atheism is not a religion. I call it that though, when it takes on several religious attributes, such as putting their belief system above all others. IT's the ultimate arrogance to want to tell others what their spirituality should or should not look like (unless you are an ordained minister - and even then I prefer not to be told what I should or should not believe).

Get it ?

marcus says

By the way, in my opinion, it's when atheism becomes more about "opposing all the other religions" rather than simply not believing in God, that it becomes a religion itself (meaning like a religion).

Sure, one can nitpick and say technically atheism is not a religion. I call it that though, when it takes on several religious attributes, such as putting their belief system above all others. IT's the ultimate arrogance to want to tell others what their spirituality should or should not look like (unless you are an ordained minister - and even then I prefer not to be told what I should or should not believe).

Get it ?

No. That post would be better directed towards those with religious beliefs rather than atheists. What exactly do you think religious people have been doing for thousands of years, ordained minister or not (though I fail to see why that mitigates your 'ultimate arrogance' argument)?

marcus says

Wow, it's true, he really is a genius. Perfect analogy there timmy.

You know they have an entire subreddit where all the teenagers who have just discovered that there isn't an old white guy with a beard up in the clouds go to impress one another with their brilliant break throughs.

What exactly is your problem? Non-believers have religion rammed down their throats at every turn. A handful of people publically speak out against it and you take a fit. Get a bloody grip.

Bigsby says

Non-believers have religion rammed down their throats at every turn.

Yes, but that's religion.

So if I understand you correctly, you advocate religiosity in atheism.

marcus says

Bigsby says

Non-believers have religion rammed down their throats at every turn.

Yes, but that's religion.

So if I understand you correctly, you advocate religiosity in atheism.

No, I support the right of people to express their views most especially when those views are actually supported by evidence.

Get it?

And seriously, what is your point? That atheists should keep quiet? Why? How about religious people keep quiet? I suspect when that happens atheists won't have much to speak out against. As it is, I don't walk down the street and see large atheist meeting places every few blocks. I don't see atheist TV channels. I don't see countries where speaking out against atheism results in punishment. I don't see leaders standing up when terrible things happen and the first thing they say is asking everyone to think about all the hard-working doctors who are doing their best to save the lives of those injured. And on and on it goes.

I think you've already posted that before, and it didn't impress the first time round.

I am not opposed to all bashing of religion. Especially ignorant fundamentalists.

In my argument with Dan, that has gone on for years, he argues that ALL religion is bad, evil in fact, and he KNOWS that the world would be better with no religion.

People are different. Details man.

marcus says

I am not opposed to all bashing of religion. Especially ignorant fundamentalists.

In my argument with Dan, that has gone on for years, he argues that ALL religion is bad, evil in fact, and he KNOWS that the world would be better with no religion.

People are different. Details man.

Why wouldn't the world be a better place? What would be the terribly negative consequences if there were no more religions? What major advancements have they brought?

marcus says

Wow, it's true, he really is a genius. Perfect analogy there timmy.

General form of argument being proposed by both Marcus and the pedophile example:

1. There exists a harmful thing, X.
2. You notice the harmful thing X.
3. You have to options.
   a. Speak up to prevent X and save people from harm.
   b. Say nothing to avoid offending those in favor of X and thus allowing others to come to harm.
4. You choose option b because social acceptance is more important to you than the well-being of others.

Yes, Marcus, it is a perfect analogy no matter how much you dislike it. And making childish references to masturbation is not a convincing argument otherwise.

marcus says

Sure, one can nitpick and say technically atheism is not a religion.

marcus says

I never said and do not believe that atheism is a religion. Quite the contrary.

Contradiction much?

marcus says

By the way, in my opinion, it's when atheism becomes more about "opposing all the other religions" rather than simply not believing in God, that it becomes a religion itself (meaning like a religion).

Give me one damn reason that I should not oppose great power structures built on lies, deception, and violence that have done great evil throughout history and continue to make the world a far more dangerous and less free place than it should be.

Give me one reason why I shouldn't oppose such evil, especially when I can do so non-violently with reasoning and words.

Bigsby says

What exactly is your problem? Non-believers have religion rammed down their throats at every turn. A handful of people publically speak out against it and you take a fit. Get a bloody grip.

His problem is that the world has finally reached a level of education, knowledge, and wisdom to see that all the arguments in favor of religion and mythology are wrong and that the arguments in favor of rationalism and naturalism are right.

His problem is that the world is now smart enough that it is inevitable that his side will lose. Rationality has won the war on mysticism. Luckily this has happened in the nick of time. Another century of religious bullshit and we'd all be dead in WWIII. Rationality barely won the war in time before our technology far exceeded our wisdom. But damn, it was close.

marcus says

he argues that ALL religion is bad, evil

And I've supported that argument with evidence and reasoning. You support your assertions with

marcus says

Especially ignorant fundamentalists.

I.e., every religious person that does anything that undermines your argument. That's about one third of America and the majority of people in the Middle East. I guess there really aren't any true Scotsmen; just fundamentalists in kilts.

Dan8267 says

Thank you. Exactly. You make my point extremely well. There might be hope for you after all.

African Americans don't waste their time bashing white supremecasts and they don't define their blackness as being all about hating white supremacists.

Similarly Gay individuals have no problems with straight marriage, and never feel the need to bash it, and certainly don't define their sexuality as being all about how they aren't like straight people.

Good job, and thanks.

marcus says

Sure, one can nitpick and say technically atheism is not a religion.

There's no nitpicking about it. Not believing in Yetis, the Loch Ness Monster, or Betty and Barney Hill's alien abduction is not a religion. Ergo, not believing in a Personal God, a Impersonal Divine Architect, or anything else is not a religion.

Bigsby says

What major advancements have they brought?

I got up this morning and created artificial light by flicking a switch, liberating myself from having to plan my day around sunshine. Thanks Science.

Then I made coffee with my hot water heater. The coffee was also brought via an array of combustion engines to the supermarket, which is where I brought it. Thanks Science.

I sit and type on this computer, which is entirely due to science.

I can't think of anything that makes my life better thanks to Religion.

marcus says

African Americans don't waste their time bashing white supremecasts and they don't define their blackness as being all about hating white supremacists.

What? The SPLC, the NAACP, etc. doesn't invest time, money, and energy in combating supremacists? News to me.

marcus says

Thank you. Exactly. You make my point extremely well. There might be hope for you after all.

thunderlips11 says

What? The SPLC, the NAACP, etc. doesn't invest time, money, and energy in combating supremacists? News to me.

Don't waste your time trying to reason with Marcus. Anyone who would suggest that Martin Luther King would advocate African Americans shut the hell up about civil rights in order to not rock the boat during the age of segregation and criminalizing interracial marriages is ether the biggest moron in the world or an outright liar, and a poor one at that.

humanity says

People seem to need to generalize.

Yet when we quote thousands of years of specifics from ancient times to today, we're accused of using "fundamentalists" instead of true Scotsmen. You can't have it both ways.

I can talk damn detailed specifics or universal principles. Both the macro and micro views paint the same picture. Irrationality bad. Rationality good. Superstitious lies bad. Science and the truth good. Rewriting history bad. Accurately preserving historical knowledge good. Quick frankly, I don't see why some people need those things proven, but the plethora of historical evidence supports those conclusions.

Word, Dan, Word.

Assume that Jesus was an historical man - which is doubtful to everybody except Bible Scholars, who are specialized literary critics and not scientists. Assume that Jesus originally said not just what he claimed to have said, but only the "good" things attributed to him. Eliminating the bits about hating your family, eliminating the bits about he has not come to bring peace, but to bring a sword, etc. as a later addition by "Men".

Even so, the Inquisition, Witch Burnings, the worship of suffering and resistance to anesthetics*, rampant anti-Semitism, burning of heretics and unbelievers, flagellation, justification of slavery**, etc. all grow up out of it anyway

. In fact the distortion of what Jesus said happened too.

You know, if the tree giveth forth bad fruit, fuck the tree.

* http://ecti.english.illinois.edu/reviews/52/vannatta-snow.html
** Slavery existed before the monotheistic religions. However, after the Enlightenment got underway, the most resistance to banning slavery came from those who used the Bible to say "Hey, slavery is not condemned in either the New or Old Testament". How many more years of freedom, and how many less years of slave ships, would there have been if this crutch didn't exist for slavery defenders?

So Dan equates as follows:

Marcus says: or implies, that most (what 95%?) individual African Americans don't waste any of their time or energy bashing white supremacists and they do not define themself by their hate for white supremacists.

(the meme says, you can be a black American without bashing white supremacists. I agree. Very much like I think you can be an atheist without CONSTANTLY bashing religion.)

Dan's translation of this:

Dan8267 says

Anyone who would suggest that Martin Luther King would advocate African Americans shut the hell up about civil rights in order to not rock the boat during the age of segregation and criminalizing interracial marriages is ether the biggest moron in the world or an outright liar, and a poor one at that.

And he almost simultaneously talks about my use of straw man argument and poor reading comprehension.

What is the point of debate or conversation, when one won't try to understand the other's point of view ? When the only goal is to win ?

What's a good indication of who is actually right in a discussion or debate like this ?

I think it's, which person is most willing to accurately understand and portray the other person's position ?

thunderlips11 says

Word, Dan, Word.

So you agreee:

Some religion is bad, therefore all religion is bad.

That's cool. Dan always points out my lack of argument with most everything he says. I don't need to argue it. I only need to clearly state his position.

You guys can have all the fantasies you want about my arguing that there is an old dude with a long white beard in the clouds, or that I support atrocities committed in the name of religion. Go for it. I have no need to argue any of the mischaracterizations of my original point here.

thunderlips11 says

How many more years of freedom, and how many less years of slave ships, would there have been if this crutch didn't exist for slavery defenders?

We have no way of knowing how different the world would be if there had never been anything resembling religion or spiritual beliefs. Is it possible that humans would be even more malevolent than they are ?

But it is interesting that you note the way that people used religion to rationalize slavery (correct), and yet totally ignore the extent to which religion was involved in the movement to end it.

All religion is bad, Marcus. All religion eventually leads to fundamentalist branches.

In fact, converts to cults are overwhelmingly people who grew up in nominally or liberal denominations. Interestingly, those with either a very atheist or very fundamentalist background don't join cults often.

Liberal/Mainstream Religion gives cover to extremists. because they support reverence to God and the Spiritual, which allows extremists to state that what they are doing is no different, only a higher level of commitment.

"Those men have simply been misguided. The (INSERT RELIGION NAME) doesn't teach that killing people is the way to achieve (Nirvana/Afterword)".

humanity says

But it is interesting that you note the way that people used religion to rationalize slavery (correct), and yet totally ignore the extent to which religion was involved in the movement to end it.

Christians helped end slavery, because they were good people, not because of the moals their religion taught. In fact they had to cherry-pick and "soften" their biblical interpretations (that overwhelmingly support slavery) in order to justify their opposition to slavery which is contrary to what the Christian God of the bible demands.

I think this is an interesting question.

Is fear the only thing behind the human attraction to religious or spiritual belief ?

Are there possibly any positive causes behind the root human primitive desire and need that religion or spirituality satisfies ?

To say that we would be better off without religion, is to say that whatever is the cause of religion is bad.

This takes us back to the big question. And my answer is, I don't know.

I love truth. Therfore I assert, I don't know.

No cognitive dissonance here.

leo707 says

Christians helped end slavery, because they were good people, not because of the morals their religion taught

But what comes first, "good humans," or is it whatever the root primitive impulse that causes a super majority of humans to have some kind of religion or spirituality in their lives ?

I'm honest. So I say, "I don't know."

You seem to know that these things are mutually exclusive, and that historically as well as now, one can (could have) exist(ed) without the other. My point is only that
I don't know this.

(even if I do know that individuals within their current, historical, cultural, and evolutionary context are obviously capable of "being good" without religion).

A big congratulations to Dan, curious2, thunderlips, humanity, and other contributors. At (30-45) years of age, you've got it all figured out, nailed down, and the universe is your oyster! What are you going to do for an encore?
I don't understand people who absolutely MUST stamp out every trace of mystery in the universe and insist that they (or some scientist somewhere) knows all the answers already. Humanity has come a long way, but we've still only scratched the surface of scientific knowledge. We're still not completely sure what gravity is, for goodness sake! Lots of theories abound, but that's all they are until someone invents an antigravity car I can fly around in.
So far physicists have gone down several layers of knowledge. But there always appears to be a level of understanding beyond.
The point is: nobody knows much yet. Not the priests pushing centuries old dogma, not the science worshippers who believe everything is known, not the historians who know only what unreliable narrators left behind to read or dig up, not the screamers on Internet chat boards most especially.
We don't know.
And neither do you.
So bashing someone else for their beliefs is like two mentally deficient schoolboys yelling "Retard!" back and forth. Pointless and totally stupid.
Peace

marcus says

leo707 says

Christians helped end slavery, because they were good people, not because of the morals their religion taught

But what comes first, "good humans," or is it whatever the root primitive impulse that causes a super majority of humans to have some kind of religion or spirituality in their lives ?

First off what came first is immaterial to my statement about Christians taking part in ending slavery.

Yes, the majority of humans do seem to have some sort of biological impulse to believe in the supernatural. That drive is not exclusive to Christianity, and is very much tied to whatever religion is popular, "within their current, historical, cultural, and evolutionary context."

If the religion du jour had actually been anti-slavery, or at least not pro-slavery (like Christianity), then good people would have had an easier time at ending slavery, and would not have to made any religious compromises with themselves to do so.

marcus says

You seem to know that these things are mutually exclusive, and that historically as well as now, one can (could have) exist(ed) without the other.

What makes you think that I "know" the biological spiritual drive, and being "good" are mutually exclusive? When did I ever make a comment like that?

Sure they can exist without each other. Being a good human and being religious can exist either together or apart. I am not sure what your point is, because...

marcus says

(even if I do know that individuals within their current, historical, cultural, and evolutionary context are obviously capable of "being good" without religion).

It seems that you know the drive towards spirituality is not necessary for someone to be "good."

marcus says

You seem to know that these things are mutually exclusive, and that historically as well as now, one can (could have) exist(ed) without the other. My point is only that

I don't know this.

I can accept that either I didn't make the point clearly enough, or that you don't understand it.

leo707 says

What makes you think that I "know" the biological spiritual drive, and being "good" are mutually exclusive? When did I ever make a comment like that?

If they are not mutually exclusive and if there is anything positive or even "good" behind the existence of religion, that is if human "good" is in part a reason why religion even exists, then I don't know how one can say we would be better off without religion. In other words if by chance good causes religion to exist. Then no religion implies no good.

I don't know that human "good" is one of the causes of religion (before it is corrupted by human "bad"). But I do not know that this is not the case either.

Again, that's the point. I don't know.

(now please try your hardest to not understand what I just said)

marcus says

That's cool. Dan always points out my lack of argument with most everything he says. I don't need to argue it. I only need to clearly state his position.

Which you then either misinterpret due to dishonesty or stupidity.

I can't believe I actually have to dumb down things even more for you to understand, but ok... What everyone else understood but you didn't is that those pictures of MLK and Edith Windsor say that the mere fact that African Americans and homosexuals have stood up for their rights is what the bigots call "bashing their beliefs".

I mean, Christ, Marcus, how dumb are you? The entire marriage equality debate is going on fiercely right now. Have you not been paying attention?

The evil Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was named to imply that allowing gays to marry each other is an attack on heterosexual marriage. So for gays to not be bashing traditional marriage values, they can never ask for the same marriage rights. That's the entire fucking idiotic argument of those against legalized gay marriages. If we let two men marry each other, than marriage becomes meaningless and all our traditional beliefs go out the windows.

You are making the same damn argument to silence atheists. And it's also the same damn arguments that bigots made against interracial marriage and desegregation back in the 1960s.

Quigley says

not the science worshippers who believe everything is known

Which 'science worshippers' would those be?

Quigley says

A big congratulations to Dan, curious2, thunderlips, humanity, and other contributors. At (30-45) years of age, you've got it all figured out, nailed down, and the universe is your oyster!

What a Straw Man argument!

By this point in life, I've figured out quite a few things such as:
- There is no Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster, or god.
- Anyone who tells you different is a child, a moron, or trying to scam you.
- Every sighting of the above has either been stage theater, a hoax, or a lie.
- People who believe in those things are either powerless or dangerous. Either way, it's better if they didn't and you certainly don't want those people running your country.

If you haven't also figured out the above things by this time in your life, well that says more about your intelligence level than mine.

The basic fallacy of what Marcus claims to be his point can be observed easily by comparing his thread history with Dan's. Having gone back several pages in each thread history, I estimate that a Marcus thread is around twice as likely as a Dan thread to be about religion or atheism. Moreover, even looking within the threads that mention religion or atheism, a Marcus thread appears significantly more likely to single out atheism and atheists for special scorn (usually unfounded, as in this thread), whereas Dan's are more likely to cite scientists who happen to be atheists, presenting evidence based explanations for the universe that happen to disprove religious creation stories, but without even necessarily mentioning religion directly. So, comparing the threads of Marcus and Dan shows that Marcus is the one attempting most of the bashing. The fact that Marcus ends up losing every time, but persists anyway, is the reason why I linked to to the "STUPIDITY" poster in the other currently active thread that he started on essentially the same topic. Even though Marcus can't sort out his own beliefs, anyone who claims to be a math teacher ought at least to be able to count his own threads.

Bigsby says

Quigley says

not the science worshippers who believe everything is known

Which 'science worshippers' would those be?

I think those are the ones stuffed with straw.

Dan8267 says

What everyone else understood but you didn't is that those pictures of MLK and Edith Windsor say that the mere fact that African Americans and homosexuals have stood up for their rights is what the bigots call "bashing their beliefs"

I believe that MLK advocated for equality, in a way that didn't even give any recognition to ignorant white supremacists and what they believe. No bashing of those ignorant idiots and what they believed was necessary.

Fighting for a groups equality, and civil rights is best done without even acknowledging the existence of a group of fools who think it is undeserved. That would imply that there is even the slightest plausability to their ignorant beliefs.

Bigsby says

Quigley says

not the science worshippers who believe everything is known

Which 'science worshippers' would those be?

The mere phrase "science worshippers" says a lot more about the speaker than the spoken about. Quigley obviously doesn't get that having a rational confidence in a methodology based on empirical evidence and hard math is different from faith.