patrick.net

yeah, had to make it much more restrictive after someone started abusing iframes, dan.

P N Dr Lo R says

So is atheism.

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

www.youtube.com/embed/j4PaFqc8sRU

Claiming that atheism is based on faith is utterly stupid and disingenuous. Such a claim is an admission that faith is a vice as the claim is an attempt to discredit atheism on the false basis that it is based on faith.

If atheism is a faith then my property is a place of faith and thus must be exempt from taxes. Until that happens, you have no case that atheism is a faith.

curious2 says

But here's the real question: who else fared better?

There are four doors before you. Behind the first door is a lion that wants to eat you. 30% of people went through this door and got eaten. Behind the second door is an ISIS suicide bomber. 20% of the people went through this door and got blown up. Behind the third door is a madman. 50% of people went through this door and got tortured, but lived. Behind the fourth door is ten million dollars and Scarlett Johansson waiting to blow you. 0 people went through this door because no one realized it was an option.

Why would you not go through door number four?

Dan8267 says

If atheism is a faith then my property is a place of faith and thus must be exempt from taxes. Until that happens, you have no case that atheism is a faith.

Atheist don't even believe in themselves. You are right, Atheism isn't a faith.

If Atheists don't believe they are special or cosmically important other than an ambulatory bag of trace minerals, should it be legal to kill them? After all, their own argument makes their lives worthless, and further, their accomplishments meaningless.
I submit that it is only the belief in God of other people that keeps such people safe, since believers consider it a sin to destroy human life without great necessity.
When atheists like Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Pol Pot come into power, they are unphased by ideas that human life is special or important because they believe it is most certainly not.
A good reason to marginalize crackpot perverts like Dan. Humanity has never fared well under their rule. Dan is destined to rule a cubicle with an iron fist. That's about all the responsibility he should be allowed.

Quigley says

After all, their own argument makes their lives worthless, and further, their accomplishments meaningless.

Well I don't believe their lives are worthless. They are, like everyone, made in the image of God, but they have the choice to reject Him. I've had two good friends for over a decade who are atheists of the Ayn Ryan objectivist variety, but it doesn't keep us from enjoying each other's company--they know I'm a Christian as well as our mutual friend Matt who is a Catholic. We share our common interest as record collectors and he's the founder and proprietor of radiodismuke.com which a critic in the UK last month judged one of the best online radio stations in existence. This past New Year's Eve we had a tenth anniversary of a six hour broadcast of playing records and making commentary.

reggie says

Atheist don't even believe in themselves.

You're right, they believe in the State, their highest source of benevolence. That's the main point Whittaker Chambers makes in his 1952 book Witness--the conflict between other systems is not economic, but whether or not you're going to worship God or man and under communism the choice is to worship man as the highest measure of existence. That's why atheists are almost always people of the left, the state is their highest source of everything.

ja says

I always thought that jizya was what make in practice Islam better than Christians. Whatever the theory was, we Chistianity didn't have a scape valve to tolerate the other tribe. We just had to kick them out.

actually, jews were tolerated (more or less) in europe right from the beginning of christianity for their literacy and their utility to the ruling classes, though repeatedly expelled from one country or another upon gaining too much economic power, always under some pretext. jews didn't try to convert or kill anyone. they just wanted to run their businesses and didn't really care what non-jews were up to.

islam is very different. it's a foreign army in religious clothing, explicitly dedicated to converting or killing their neighbors via armed conflict if they won't pay a ransom. how do you tolerate that?

the weakness in the west is that we attempt to tolerate it by ignoring the overtly violent political aspects inherent in islam from its beginning, and pretend islam is only about certain customs and prayers. that's a huge mistake.

it's a foreign army in religious clothing

that fights its enemies in the public square where people are going about their daily lives unarmed and helpless.

reggie says

Atheist don't even believe in themselves.

More nonsense from anti-atheist bigots. The religious can't stand reason.

P N Dr Lo R says

They are, like everyone, made in the image of God, but they have the choice to reject Him

1. Your false god is made in the image of man, not the other way around.

2. I have no more choice in disbelieving in your god than I have in disbelieving that George Washington rode a T-Rex in the Battle of Hasting while battling Nazis during the Boxer Rebellion to win America it's freedom from France. A rational person does not choose what he believes, he is compelled to believe by evidence and reasoning.

3. You are an atheist with respect to all other gods. You disbelieve in Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Animikii, and thousands of other gods. When you understand why you reject those gods, you will understand why I reject yours. Until then, you acceptance of your culture's god and rejection of all gods of other cultures is nothing more than bigotry and racism.

P N Dr Lo R says

You're right, they believe in the State, their highest source of benevolence.

More nonsense. If I believe in the state like you believe in your false god, then why do I call for prosecution of criminal cops so often? Why do propose rewriting the Constitution from scratch? Why do I not own a single flag? Why did I never pledge allegiance to the flag when all the other school kids did?

Stumbled on this because of another thread. It's awesome.

0.0% of Icelanders 25 years or younger believe God created the world, new poll reveals

40.5% of people who were 25 years or younger said they were atheists, and only 42% said they were Christian.

The poll found an even more dramatic difference between different generations when it probed how people believed the world had been created. Of those younger than 25 93.9% said the world had been created in the big bang and 0.0% believed God had created the world. 77.7% of those between 25 and 44 years old believed the world had been created in the big bang and 10.1% believed God had created the world. In all but the oldest age category a majority accepted the big-bang theory. Only 46.1% of those older than 55 believed in the big bang, and nearly a fourth, 24.5% believed God had created the world.

Rationality, atheism, jailing bankers, and hot women. If it weren't for the weather, I'd move to Iceland. Maybe I should give up on Florida and embrace global warming.

www.youtube.com/embed/wcW_Ygs6hm0

At least there's this to look forward to.

It's even cooler. The Pirate Party is slated to be a major party in the 2017 elections.

And that chick I told you about, she started a neoSumerian religion, in order to fight the religion support tax, and they rebate the income they receive from the government to their members in cash.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pirate_Party

I wish there were a Pirate Party in the U.S.

killing their neighbors via armed conflict if they won't pay a ransom. how do you tolerate that?

It's a fair tax for the inconviniences of having another religion living in your own home. You are internalizing an externalize. If you cannot do this, then you have to do all sorts of social engineering to accomodate the demands of the ruling class (segretate them, kick them out, saw a star on their clothes). I'd prefer ruling classes didn't impose make minorities to conform, but if they have to, capitalism (tax the problem) is the best option

Dan8267 says

Liberalism is a social, not economic, philosophy that advocates the following principles.
1. All people are equal under law.
2. We are a nation of rights, not privileges.
3. The purpose of government is to protect rights (from life to liberty to property).
4. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are not violating the rights of others. Corollary: There should be no victimless crimes.

Principle 1: nothing specifically liberal about it, this was stated multiple times by the prophets of the Old Testament. Back then it was a huge breakthrough, now it is just a repetition.

Principle 2: the same.

Principle 3: this is, indeed, a socialist invention. Starting from Marx Socialism/Communism always saw the gov’t as a tool for people’s well-being, not a servant of the kings and nobility. Except you make one little mistake (which you repeat again in Principle 4). You mix liberal principles with libertarian ones. Liberal/Socialist principle is not equal rights but equal well-being which is enforced by confiscation and violation of the property rights.

Principle 4: again, this is a Libertarian principle. Liberals/socialists declare you a criminal if you a member of a “criminal class”. It is the *class struggle* that is a major socialist principle. Being rich is a crime in itself and all the *poor* are its victims.

The problem with modern liberalism is, it is still a young religion (~150yo). It believes in omnipotent and benevolent government that will solve all the problems, real and imaginary (just like Christians believe in God). Therefore, all the power should go to the Government because it represents the People (hint: it does not).

Judaism came up with the idea of limited government ~2200 years ago. Christianity ~500 years ago. Liberalism still has not.

Dan8267 says

Why would you not go through door number four?

That's a good question. If you look at history, can you cite any examples where groups of atheists set sail to found a new republic with no religion? America might be the closest to an example, with no official religion, but it remains a comparatively religious country; ironically, the countries that most Americans' ancestors emigrated from are actually less religious.

still1bear says

limited government

A very interesting analysis that also shows why most identitarian "conservative Christians" are neither conservative nor Christian.

Lastly, if I may bring the thread back to its original topic:

"Islamic State setting up terror training camps in Europe, police agency warns"

"EU Unveils New Anti-Terror Center
***
Europe faces the most significant terrorist threat in over 10 years.
***
Wainwright said over 5,000 EU nationals have been radicalized by fighting with Muslim extremists in Iraq and Syria, and that many have returned home.

"The current threat demands a strong and ambitious response from the EU," said Europol's chief."

Apparently, if you allow enemy fighters to travel back and forth across your borders, or actually subsidize their arrival, they become much more of a "threat" / expense / revenue opportunity.

Dan8267 says

You disbelieve in Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Animikii, and thousands of other gods

That's right, and you can add Hindus and Buddhists into the mix as well. There is only one God, Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. He makes claims none of the other "dieties" make, such as being present at creation.

Liberalism is a social, not economic, philosophy that advocates the following principles.
1. All people are equal under law.
2. We are a nation of rights, not privileges.

still1bear says

Principle 1: nothing specifically liberal about it, this was stated multiple times by the prophets of the Old Testament.
Principle 2: the same.

Old Testament is pro-slavery

Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861) justified human slavery on the basis of the 10th commandment.

Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."

Deuteronomy 5:21"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Although an owner could beat a male or female slave, she/he would have to avoid serious injury to eyes or teeth. The owner would have to avoid beating the slave to death. But it was acceptable to beat a slave so severely that it only disabled him or her for two days:

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

One could purchase a slave from a foreign nation or from foreigners living with them. These slaves would remain in slavery forever, unless the owner chooses to frees them An Israelite who was a slave could be freed by a family member or by himself if he had the money. The cost of freeing a slave was computed on the basis of the number of years to the next Jubilee Year; this could be 1 to 50 years. Male Israelite slaves were automatically freed during the Jubilee Year. Depending upon which verse was being followed, female Israelite slaves might also have been freed at that time as well. Foreign slaves were out of luck.

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."

A slave was considered a piece of property, and thus could normally be resold to anyone at any time for any reason. However, special rules applied for Hebrew slaves. If a person bought a female slave from her father and she displeased him, he had no right to sell her to a foreign owner. If the owner required her to marry his son, then the owner was required to treat her like a daughter-in-law. If the owner marries his slave and later marries another woman, he was required to treat his slave as he previously had.

"If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."

A man who rapes or engages in consensual sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married to another man must sacrifice an animal in the temple in order to obtain God's forgiveness. The female slave would be whipped. There is apparently no punishment or ritual animal killing required if the female slave were not engaged; men could rape such slaves with impunity.

Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

Various other pro-slavery passages in the Old Testament...

Leviticus 25:39: "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return."

Exodus 21:16: "And he that stealeth [kidnaps] a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
Deuteronomy 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."

Exodus 22:3: "...he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

II Kings 4:1: "Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the LORD: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen."

Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

Deuteronomy 20:14" "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

A male slave would be required to undergo circumcision. This would be a very painful operation for an adult. It was life-threatening in the days before modern medical techniques. A small percentage of slaves would die from infection caused by the operation.

Genesis 17:13: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

Genesis 17:27: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

Being property, female slaves could be required to engage in sexual intercourse and become pregnant against their will. The perpetrator could be their owner, or anyone that their owner designates.

Genesis 16:1-2: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."

Genesis 30:3-4: "And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."

Genesis 30:9-10: "When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son."

New Testament is pro-slavery

The New Testament is just as bad.

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term "servant girl" or "maid" in many English translations of the Bible, like the American Standard Version, Amplified Bible, Phillips New Testament, Revised Standard Version, etc. refer to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.

This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of having taken it:
bullet Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Way to go Jesus. Not.

One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul's infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that they obey Christ:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Other passages instructing slaves and slave owners in proper behavior are:

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

Conclusion

Christianity clearly has never advocated that all people are equal under law. In fact, the despicable religion has been pro-slavery for 90% of it's existence and only started rejecting slavery after being forced to at literal gunpoint. And certainly Christianity has not advocated nations be a societies of rights. The Christian Bible is full of advocation of privileges like the passages above.

3. The purpose of government is to protect rights (from life to liberty to property).

still1bear says

Principle 3: this is, indeed, a socialist invention. Starting from Marx Socialism/Communism always saw the gov’t as a tool for people’s well-being, not a servant of the kings and nobility. Except you make one little mistake (which you repeat again in Principle 4). You mix liberal principles with libertarian ones. Liberal/Socialist principle is not equal rights but equal well-being which is enforced by confiscation and violation of the property rights.

Also complete bullshit. The origin of the concept of rights goes back at least to the ancient Greeks. Rights were not applied universally as liberal philosophy says, but certainly the state was used to protect the rights of the people who possessed them.

still1bear says

Principle 4: again, this is a Libertarian principle. Liberals/socialists declare you a criminal if you a member of a “criminal class”. It is the *class struggle* that is a major socialist principle. Being rich is a crime in itself and all the *poor* are its victims.

That is just a batshit crazy statement. I am the most liberal person on PatNet and a perfect example of a liberal. Liberals do not say that being rich is a crime.

What matters is how a person becomes rich. If you become rich making the world a better place like the founders of Google did, the middle class and liberals support you. If you become rich by selling slaves, starting illegal wars to steal natural resources, or committing financial fraud that causes a depression, then no, neither the middle class nor liberals support you.

You have your head so far up your ass that you have no sense of reality. As such, your opinion on any subject matter should not be taken seriously. Your view of liberals is laughably ridiculous and unrealistic and only serves to show your bigotry and ignorance of how real people think.

still1bear says

Principle 4: again, this is a Libertarian principle. Liberals/socialists declare you a criminal if you a member of a “criminal class”. It is the *class struggle* that is a major socialist principle. Being rich is a crime in itself and all the *poor* are its victims.

The problem with modern liberalism is, it is still a young religion (~150yo). It believes in omnipotent and benevolent government that will solve all the problems, real and imaginary (just like Christians believe in God). Therefore, all the power should go to the Government because it represents the People (hint: it does not).

Agreed. Though modern liberalism only hijacked the work liberal, it's really leftism/socialism. The original Liberals were conservative Libertarians. Also the demise of religion and rise of atheism as well as increased participation of women in governments doesn't necessarily bode well as you can see in Europe which is literally inviting the conquering savages. When all faith disappears society will be looking up to those with faith left, even if it is not to their advantage. We have now politicians openly talking about the danger of Europe's invited demise: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/206339#.VqSu5_l95ph
It may be a mistake to discount a prevalent religious culture/tradition in your society as it may be the fabric that has kept the nation strong.

curious2 says

If you look at history, can you cite any examples where groups of atheists set sail to found a new republic with no religion?

Prior to 1991, I cannot cite any examples of web sites. That does not mean that web sites cannot exist or must be exceedingly rare.

The fact is that mankind has lived in ignorance and superstition for the overwhelming majority of its existence. However, as ignorance and superstition has been replaced with rationalism, naturalism, and liberalism, mankind has
- literally flown in the sky
- walked on the moon
- created a world-wide telecommunications network united the entire globe and replicating mankind's vast knowledge in every corner of the world
- wiped out disease
- practically eliminated infant and childhood mortality. People used to have five to eight children expecting most of them to die before adulthood.
- doubled the human lifespan
- reduced warfare greatly
- eliminated almost all of rape and murder. Yes, it still happens but in orders of magnitude less than before science.

The 20th century alone is irrefutable testimony to the power of rationalism, naturalism, and liberalism (RNL). And the fact is that we are only in the beginning of the RNL revolution. It would be foolish to suggest that a RNL society is somehow inferior because it hadn't been invented in the past 10,000 years. Electronics hadn't existed in those 10,000 years. One would not say that electronics are a foolish and useless idea.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

You disbelieve in Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Animikii, and thousands of other gods

That's right, and you can add Hindus and Buddhists into the mix as well. There is only one God, Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. He makes claims none of the other "dieties" make, such as being present at creation.

And this brings us back to Patrick's position that Christianity is inherently different from Islam and my counter-argument that it is not. Although Islam today is far worse than Christianity today, they are fundamentally the same thing as P N Dr Lo R demonstrates in his irrational post. And P N Dr Lo R cannot even understand how irrational and ridiculous his statements are because he is so brainwashed. Let's be honest. Is P N Dr Lo R really any different in his irrational, obsessive, and unquestioning devotion to a bunch of lies than the person in the following video?

www.youtube.com/embed/-8b3vhTO248

And that is what religion does to a mind. It makes people irrational and close-minded. It makes people ignore all facts, all information contradicting their agenda, and all reason.

People like this idiot Muslim and the idiot Christian P N Dr Lo R cannot realize that there are people who just fervently believe that their god is true and the Christian/Islam god is false and heretics who believe in it must die. They cannot be reasoned with, and that makes them dangerous both directly and indirectly. The are dangerous in their actions, in the spreading of their bad ideas, in their influence to use government as a tool of suppression. And this is why we rational people should be united against religion itself, not just some particular religions, but all religions and all possible religions. Religion is inherently evil. Faith is intrinsically vile.

Dan8267 says

Is P N Dr Lo R really any different in his irrational, obsessive, and unquestioning devotion to a bunch of lies than the person in the following video?

Yes, and it's the same as the difference between Fortwayne, whom I call Forthood, and the actual Fort Hood religious fanatic. If they had actually been the same, then disagreement might have ended in massacre.

mell says

The original Liberals were conservative Libertarians.

Yes, and I feel dismayed that most people who call themselves "liberal" support policies that I consider illiberal, e.g. Obamneycare. It's amazing to consider that the first five Presidents, who lived a median 82 years, would all have been punished by Obamneycare because they never bought medical insurance.

mell says

It may be a mistake to discount a prevalent religious culture/tradition in your society as it may be the fabric that has kept the nation strong.

The strongest countries have (or had) Christian majorities, but some of the weakest still do, e.g. Haiti, so a prevalent religious culture or tradition might not provide a reliable predictor of strength. Also, in the west, even many of the Christian religious leaders are welcoming Islam. ("The pontiff used an address to Vatican ambassadors on Monday to urge European governments to keep welcoming migrants....") Meanwhile, eastern European countries are resisting, even in countries that are relatively less religious (e.g. Hungary and the Czech Republic). So, the correlation at the level of whole countries seems relatively weak, and there is a lot of irony within countries: while the opposition to Muslim immigration comes mainly from Christian nationalists, in fact the atheists are at greatest risk from Islam and should be most opposed to it. If you believe (as P N Dr Lo R claims to) that you can "access" an omnipotent god who is watching over you all the time, then hapless Muslims with mere rifles and pipe bombs would seem trivial in comparison; if you believe that you're on your own, then suddenly those Muslim terrorists become an existential threat to the only life you will ever have. I attribute the misalignment between religious belief and political opinion to the tendency to adopt identitarian beliefs: most people don't really think through what they claim to believe or support, they merely agree to agree with a partisan or sectarian community affiliation.

curious2 says

Yes, and it's the same as the difference between Fortwayne, whom I call Forthood, and the actual Fort Hood religious fanatic. If they had actually been the same, then disagreement might have ended in massacre.

Put someone like P N Dr Lo R in a society like Afghanistan or Medieval Europe and you may get the same result. Sure external factors suppress the violent tendencies of the religious, but the mental state is largely the same.

Dan8267 says

Afghanistan

Coincidentally:

"An Afghan official says that a policeman has turned his weapon on fellow police officers at a checkpoint in the country's south, killing 10 policemen.
***
Taliban spokesman Qari Yousaf Ahmadi says the attacker was their man and that he is now with the Taliban.

Such insider attacks are often happening in the remote areas of the country especially where Taliban insurgents have a strong presence."

I agree about P N Dr Lo R, in fact I think he's another Forthood closet case but lives alone with his cars instead of in a miserable and flatulent marriage. As Christians though, they merely post ignorance on the Interwebs, where ignorance abounds anyway. If they had been born to Muslim families, they would more likely seek violent martyrdom in the name of Islam.

Religion does not guarantee violence, of course, but it does guarantee irrationality and the disregard of evidence and that does greatly increase susceptibility to becoming violent, promoting violence, or condoning violence done in the name of one's own tribe. Additionally, those two things promote all sorts of bad decision making while undermining wise decision making.

Against that, what good does religion offer that cannot be achieved without religion?

Dan8267 says

And P N Dr Lo R cannot even understand how irrational and ridiculous his statements are because he is so brainwashed

And you're not? Right out of Saul Alinky's Rules for Radicals, dedicated to Lucifer, the Father of LIes, which makes it appropriate. What is amazing is the endless anger I provoke, which is always entertaining--and predictible.

P N Dr Lo R says

What is amazing is the endless anger I provoke,

You are confusing pity and disappointment for anger.

P N Dr Lo R says

Right out of Saul Alinky's Rules for Radicals, dedicated to Lucifer, the Father of LIes, which makes it appropriate.

Lucifer is a fictional character. If you do not understand that, you are crazy and proving my point that religion needs to die.

As P N Dr Lo R demonstrates, religion destroys the ability of people to grasp reality. This is a very dangerous thing. Not all evils are caused by this, but many of the greatest evils are.

Christianity has a long history of such insanity from its beginnings all the way to today. Christianity isn't some "tame" religion that no longer causes harm. It destroys minds.

All religions, including Christianity, do more brain damage than lead poisoning, and exposing children to it is child abuse.

P N Dr Lo R says

What is amazing is the endless anger I provoke, which is always entertaining--and predictible.

Islam provokes anger too, but that isn't something to be proud of:

"The FBI prevented a Milwaukee mass shooting by a 23-year-old man who hoped to kill 30 people at a Masonic temple in an attack that would “terrify the world,” authorities said Tuesday.

The Wisconsin man “wanted this mass shooting to be ‘known the world over’ and to ‘ignite’ broader clashes,” Acting United States Attorney Gregory J. Haanstad said in a statement."

Dan8267 says

irrationality and the disregard of evidence...does greatly increase susceptibility to becoming violent, promoting violence, or condoning violence done in the name of one's own tribe.

True, but some doctrines show a much worse risk of producing that result. Christianity tells believers to love the unbelievers and to pray for them, and to forgive them for calling the believers foolish. Islam tells believers to cut off the unbelievers' heads. If I have to choose between annoying Morons trying to sell me their underwear, vs a team of armed Muslim assailants trying to kill me, I'll survive the Morons. (Beware of Morons in Mountain Meadows, though, and never vote the way they tell you to vote.) Even when Christians commit mass shootings "for the babies," it's one lone Christian wacko; when Muslims do the same, it tends to include a whole support team (partly because each martyr perpetrator can name up to 70 helpers for inclusion in paradise).

curious2 says

If I have to choose between annoying Morons trying to sell me their underwear, vs a team of armed Muslim assailants trying to kill me, I'll survive the Morons.

very true.

not all religions are the same. in fact, they are very different from each other.

islam is unique in having hate of unbelievers as its core doctrine.

curious2 says

Yes, and I feel dismayed that most people who call themselves "liberal" support policies that I consider illiberal,

Agreed, but the term has now stuck deep for anything left of the spectrum. Similar though for what passes as conservative, original conservatives were more isolationist in nature (as opposed to the southern democrats then turned republican), and neocons are no conservatives.

curious2 says

The strongest countries have (or had) Christian majorities, but some of the weakest still do, e.g. Haiti, so a prevalent religious culture or tradition might not provide a reliable predictor of strength. Also, in the west, even many of the Christian religious leaders are welcoming Islam. ("The pontiff used an address to Vatican ambassadors on Monday to urge European governments to keep welcoming migrants....") Meanwhile, eastern European countries are resisting, even in countries that are relatively less religious (e.g. Hungary and the Czech Republic). So, the correlation at the level of whole countries seems relatively weak, and there is a lot of irony within countries: while the opposition to Muslim immigration comes mainly from Christian nationalists, in fact the atheists are at greatest risk from Islam and should be most opposed to it.

Most of the strongly resisting eastern European countries are fare more Christian/nationalist/religious than their western brothers and sisters, so I see some correlation here. Also, religion plays a strong role in the resistance, for example in the anti-immigration rallies in Poland. I see the Pontiff and the western nations more as NATO/UN puppets, so they do as they have been told.

Dan8267 says

Against that, what good does religion offer that cannot be achieved without religion?

While religion often offered little explanation for rules a lot of the rules made sense before they could be scientifically explained such as the bleeding out of meat followed by salting it (to reduce food borne illness) or discouragement/intolerance of (esp. male) gay sex (spreads STDs much more rapidly). It also served and still serves as a moral compass for people who would otherwise potentially act far worse. It is questionable whether humans behave better without faith despite all the shortcomings and shortcuts faith-based action/lifestyle may come with. Some of the "best" (in terms of do-gooders and altruists) people I know are deeply Christian and I support their causes even though I stay mostly out of organized religion.

mell says

Dan8267 says

Against that, what good does religion offer that cannot be achieved without religion?

While religion often offered little explanation for rules a lot of the rules made sense before they could be scientifically explained

In other words none today now that we have science and reasoning. I would argue that just because cultures used religion to codify knowledge gained by trial and error, religion was not a necessary or an optimal way to codify that knowledge in culture.

curious2 says

True, but some doctrines show a much worse risk of producing that result.

islam is unique in having hate and murder of unbelievers as its core doctrine.

Yes some doctrines are far worse than others, but the fundamental problem of faith crosses all religion. And faith causes even the best written religion to become evil. Jesus was all good and hippie since the beginning of Christianity and yet that did not prevent Christians from committing atrocities throughout the ages including genocide, slavery, mass rape, torture, terrorism, burning people at the stake, and countless other evil actions. The noble -- and I use that term loosely -- New Testament did not stop Christians from behaving as badly as Muslims for a thousand years.

Good doctrine + faith = evil
Evil doctrine + faith = more evil
Evil doctrine - faith = repeal of evil doctrine

Without faith, society can build moral systems and establish socially just systems. With faith, even the best foundations will become corrupt and evil.

The most dangerous aspect of faith is not the particular doctrine accepted but the fact that the faithful accept doctrines to begin with. Doctrines are inherently dangerous.

and again, a small group of devout self-directed muslims planning to kill as many random people as possible:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/fbi-man-plotted-machine-gun-attack-on-masonic-temple/article_9ad823a6-903e-5758-ad4b-e344ee82fe7c.html

Yep, another Paleban attack.

Hamzeh had been under investigation by the FBI since September, which used confidential informants who secretly recorded him. Undercover FBI agents arrested him this week after he tried to buy automatic weapons from them, the complaint says.

Hamzeh originally had planned to travel to Jordan to attack Israeli soldiers and civilians in the West Bank, but ditched those plans because of logistical issues and focused on attacking a target in the U.S., according to the criminal complaint.

He hatched a plan to attack a Masonic center in Milwaukee with two others, who were actually the informants cooperating with the FBI.

Last week, Hamzeh and the informants went to a local shooting range and practiced firing a handgun. Afterward, they went to the Masonic center and got a tour of the facility. Later, Hamzeh spoke with the informants in detail about the planned attack, according to the complaint.

mell says

curious2 says

... Also, in the west, even many of the Christian religious leaders are welcoming Islam. ("The pontiff used an address to Vatican ambassadors on Monday to urge European governments to keep welcoming migrants....") Meanwhile, eastern European countries are resisting, even in countries that are relatively less religious (e.g. Hungary and the Czech Republic). So, the correlation at the level of whole countries seems relatively weak, and there is a lot of irony within countries: while the opposition to Muslim immigration comes mainly from Christian nationalists, in fact the atheists are at greatest risk from Islam and should be most opposed to it.

Most of the strongly resisting eastern European countries are fare more Christian/nationalist/religious than their western brothers and sisters, so I see some correlation here.

This reminds me of something else I read recently:

"when some high-ranking Christian cleric, as part of his Interfaith Outreach, offers this slippery solipsism — All religions are a force for good. Islam is a religion. Therefore, Islam is a force for good. — he is wrong"

Respectfully, I think you are perhaps too quick to give religion more credit than it deserves, maybe a result of trying to find common ground among the mostly religious Texas culture. I mentioned the example of the Czech Republic because it is even less religous than France, and far less religious than Germany. A much stronger predictor along the east/west European divide is that the Eastern Europeans have experience of being invaded and occupied and dominated by a foreign ideology, which they only recently got out from under. Occam's razor applies: the simplest explanation is, "once burned, twice shy." The western Europeans have no comparable experience since the Nazis, so long ago that only the elderly remember; the young tend to draw oversimplified and sometimes wrong lessons from it (e.g., "religious discrimination is bad"). The elderly tend also to be more religious, so there is overlap, and that may explain some of the Christian/nationalist/anti-Islam overlap. The #1 predictor though is actual experience. Most western Europeans have been free so long they've taken it for granted, even become bored with it. Most eastern Europeans, from the least religious to the most, remember their experience behind the iron curtain, and value the progress they have made since then.

and again,

thunderlips11 says

another

In fairness, those both report the same thwarted attack that I had already linked to, so it's one thwarted attack, not three.

curious2 says

this slippery solipsism — All religions are a force for good. Islam is a religion. Therefore, Islam is a force for good. — he is wrong"

The logic is not incorrect. The premise is. It is not true that all religions are good.

However, I have made a case, which no one has presented any counter-argument against, that all religions are bad because all religions intrinsically require faith, which is inherently bad as faith is the suspension of rationality, open-mindedness, and objectivity and the replacement of these things with blind acceptance.

With a correct premise, one can state with 100% mathematical confidence...
All religions are a force for evil. Islam is a family of religions. Therefore Islamic religions are forces for evil.
All religions are a force for evil. Christianity is a family of religions. Therefore Christian religions are forces for evil.

I do distinguish between religions, which are specific power structures based on faith, and families of religions with a common mythology. Christianity was at one time a religion, but it split into Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy during the Great Schism and later fragmented into many religions under the Protestant reformations. Same is true for Judaism and Islam. If one makes the case that Catholicism and Lutheranism are the same religion because they share the same mythology and fictional god, then Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all the same religion that worships the same false god of Abraham. Personally, I prefer unambiguous terms.

mell says

Most of the strongly resisting eastern European countries are fare more Christian/nationalist/religious than their western brothers and sisters, so I see some correlation here.

This fact would appear to contradict the hypothesis that Christianity is the factor that made the greatest nations in history great. The "best" nations by our economic, political, and social standards are those in Western Europe, not Eastern Europe, yet Western Europe is far less religious than Eastern Europe.

However, this is how we view those very Christian Eastern European nations.

www.youtube.com/embed/1mYqY5YELd0

That and the fact that Western Europe and America only got good when Christianity got neutered and people stopped going to Church.