Aggressive Atheism

[AveSatanas]

Not only am I an atheist, but I am a anti-theist. Religion has proved negative many times throughout history. Although religion does great things, can any of these things not be accomplished without religion? Good and moral people will do good and moral things, while sinister and unmoral people will do sinister and unmoral things, but if you want a good person to do sinister things you need religion. Only religion could see a newborn baby as a work in progress, and to complete the baby you have to saw and cut it's genitalia a bit. Only religion could make a few fundamentalists kill thousands of innocent people in order to obtain a desired afterlife. Only religion could blind people of rationality, critical thinking and evidence. Religion was mankind's first attempts at understand our enviroment, and since it's the first it's the worst. People should stop giving the religious the benefit of the doubt as they continue to unfulfill their burden of proof.

 

[monoxide_child]

Not only am I an atheist, but I am a anti-theist. Religion has proved negative many times throughout history. Although religion does great things, can any of these things not be accomplished without religion? Good and moral people will do good and moral things, while sinister and unmoral people will do sinister and unmoral things, but if you want a good person to do sinister things you need religion. Only religion could see a newborn baby as a work in progress, and to complete the baby you have to saw and cut it's genitalia a bit. Only religion could make a few fundamentalists kill thousands of innocent people in order to obtain a desired afterlife. Only religion could blind people of rationality, critical thinking and evidence. Religion was mankind's first attempts at understand our enviroment, and since it's the first it's the worst. People should stop giving the religious the benefit of the doubt as they continue to unfulfill their burden of proof.

i completely agree with this, i'm just to lazy to go through the effort of converting people to atheism

 

[Vimana]

It's a bit fallacious to assume the world would be perfect without religion, but it's not far-fetched whatsoever to say that it would be with less conflict. Without religion (especially ones with a "this is THE way" mentality like Christianity and Islam), cultural barriers would be less existent. It would be easier to get along, and politics would be less complicated. Ironically, without (theistic) religion, something many people turn to to simplify their lives, life could be a whole lot simpler.

Also, while people discount aliens having an influence on human civilization as a bunch of nonsense, it is nonetheless possible. Our solar system is young, our universe is old, even given the time and energy it would take to travel from the nearest rocky planets, it is more than possible that aliens could have arrived on our planet long before our species existed. It certainly is far more possible that the miracles were the works of beings beyond us technologically than actual miracles. As someone famously put it "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable form magic." Or something like that. I am no advocate of Ancient Astronaut theory, but I would support things that are very unlikely, but possible, over things that are very unlikely and not very possible.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I'm Currently Reading the Book Titled "Atheist Manifesto" by Micheal Onfray. I'd say that his book is what could be considered aggressive Atheist philosophy. The style is very much like a philosophical paper with different sections talking about various aspects of religion, the real history, and how and why it became to be what it is. Just finished reading a part talking about how Constantine and his conversion was more of a political move for control of people then a real divinely inspired conversion.

So far what has been news to be is the figure of Paul of Tarsus who was such a neurotic headcase that it is more so his ideals and conception of the world that influences the masses and not so much what the supposed figure of Jesus said (probably because no one writing the bible knew him)

 

[Vimana]

It annoys me when people attribute things like the popularization of Christianity and Islam to acts of God. It's not because I don't believe in God, but because people are just disregarding a whole lot of history they know barely anything about in order to support their beliefs. Christianity in part spread because it was a religion that was not culture-specific. Anyone from any culture could become a Christian. Add to it this whole "it'll save you from your false gods" message, and it's only natural a lot of people would adopt it out of curiosity.

Islam, on the other hand spread for some of the same reasons as Christianity, but also out of fear. The Arabs were somewhat powerful in the early days of Islam. They were a center of knowledge and trade, so they had a lot of influence. Slavery was a common practice back then, and naturally no one wanted to be a slave. People who got wind of the Arabs and their religion learned that they were not allowed to enslave other people who were part of it. So, of course, they converted to Islam. This is how people converted to Islam in Ghana (the kingdom, not country) in a time period when there wasn't a whole lot of trade between them and the Arabs. People converted because they feared that at any time the Arabs could come over and enslave them, and they wanted to be safe.

Of course, people would not have stayed Christians if they got nothing out of it (obviously being immune to slavery was a pretty sweet deal for Muslims). I'd imagine it was a similar appeal to that of cults. People were convinced that their lives were less meaningful and that joining a loving group of people would promise them happiness.

Religions that have a message of saving people from their norms tend to spread over cultural barriers. It happened with Buddhism. Even though Buddhism was atheistic, it had a message that those who stopped devoting themselves to gods would have simpler, and happier lives. It spread from India to many parts of East Asia, and is still adopted by New Age douchebags today, though they tend to adopt the practices of the more mystic sects, ignoring that Buddhism was an atheist religion.

This is just the kind of answer I give to Christians when I tell them that you can't prove or disprove Huitzilopochtli any more than their god, and they respond with "then why do so many people believe in my god and not that one?"

 

[Silver Incubus]

Well in response to the ^above post, Christianity's Insanity was spread due to the might of the Roman empire. Constantine being the focal point there.

Also, Christianity(and the other 2 of the big 3) should be viewed upon as a death cult, you punish yourself in this life, you live in suffering and anguish as a test to your faith so that when you DIE you will have eternal happiness. This is the insanity of those religions. They justify so much based on a God that judges, that they themselves feel that to be followers they to are able to judge based on Gods (or more accurately inspired by god)word. The massive amounts of intelligence that was lost due to the christians and their mass stupidity and hatred of Science. We could be in an amazing future devoid of all this silly worshiping of invisible and invented beings to focus on life in the here and now, to make this world better for living in, having reason and logic outweigh the opinions of idiots with a fairytale full of supposed 'facts' on how things really work "down here".

 

[Dak]

you punish yourself in this life, you live in suffering and anguish as a test to your faith so that when you DIE you will have eternal happiness.

Suffering and anguish are really quite subjective terms. You need to reform your position.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Suffering and anguish are really quite subjective terms. You need to reform your position.

Strict rules and regulations that cause suffering and anguish in this like. Like repressed sexuality, restriction on the types of things one can do. It is much more of an observation then.

Religion is kind of like a wrong diet, it promises you certain things but you have to deny yourself many things and in then end you are the same or worse then when you started.

 

[Vimana]

I actually agree with Overwatch. For many people, they don't see abstaining from sex and going to church as a loss because they feel they will have eternal happiness after death.

I still don't support theistic religion and identify myself as an atheist. However, I'm not an atheist for the Dawkins reasoning of "there almost absolutely is no god!" I'm an atheist because I believe any god could exist. Of course, there is no logical or scientific evidence for any of these gods, but the possibility of any god that I could make up existing is a deterrent from me investing logic-compromising faith.

I'm against theistic religion more for the reasons Buddha was. I believe that devotion to something you cannot prove while expecting things to go your way is a self-imposed illusion. I find it much easier to accept that shit happens and do whatever I can to change things I don't like.

I'm only aggressive when provoked. I think a lot of the time the reason atheists get in peoples' faces about their beliefs is when they willfully ignore things, like the evidence for evolution. Look up Richard Dawkins' interview with Wendy Wright on YouTube, that'll sum up the whole issue.

I watched that video a while ago, and it sums up the arguments I had about evolution with fundamentalists. They kept throwing out non-sequiturs in desperation, hoping to stop me from bringing to light the undeniable evidence they literally isolated themselves from.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I actually agree with Overwatch. For many people, they don't see abstaining from sex and going to church as a loss because they feel they will have eternal happiness after death.

The promise of eternal happiness after death is the poisoned thinking that creates the worst that the 3 major death based religions have.....

That feeling creates a neglect to the here and now in favor of the blissful afterlife with the one they believe absolutely is the one god.

Even aspects in Buddhism teach to strive for more then the material world. Although certain things like meditation(and prayer) have been known for their trance and calming effects.

There are way to many ill effects of this thinking to list, as it would start simple and work its way down further and further until the conclusion is that it is bullshit, unreasonable, unrealistic, childish, to believe that [you] a being who is almost completely different every 7 years or so, that can change in an instant, would prevail as a static image for eternity.

To me, the only real logical conclusion to the whole god nonsense is that the being known as god is just an Alien part of a race of Aliens whom created from terrestrial beasts, mankind from the earlier hominid species that are to be our ancestors of such.

Is there evidence of this? Probably more then one would think.

 

[Dak]

Strict rules and regulations that cause suffering and anguish in this like. Like repressed sexuality, restriction on the types of things one can do. It is much more of an observation then.

Religion is kind of like a wrong diet, it promises you certain things but you have to deny yourself many things and in then end you are the same or worse then when you started.

I don't follow. "Repressed sexuality" is subjective, and "restriction on the types of things one can do" is infinitely ambiguous. Are you advocating the absence of law entirely? Law and religion are not synonymous. Your points lack clarity and objectivity.

Also, "being worse in the end" is subjective. Who is worse? The acolyte? Those around them? Worse in what way? Is there an objective standard of "better" and "worse"?

 

[Silver Incubus]

I don't follow. "Repressed sexuality" is subjective, and "restriction on the types of things one can do" is infinitely ambiguous. Are you advocating the absence of law entirely? Law and religion are not synonymous. Your points lack clarity and objectivity.

Also, "being worse in the end" is subjective. Who is worse? The acolyte? Those around them? Worse in what way? Is there an objective standard of "better" and "worse"?

Well for one they are not Illegal restrictions on what one could do. I finding you to be quite dense in understanding language here. I have given the diet example. I will elaborate on that one for simplistic sense.

So say a grapefruit diet.... seems pretty crazy right??/ I mean how could a human body get all the nutrients it needs from only one thing. It can't, in the same way that our minds can't believe in religion because if they did then that person would be devoid of Intelligence in the same way a body is devoid of essential nutrients on a grapefruit diet.

Plus I was never talking about law, but I do not agree with the way the law works, because it is based on religion and its horrible dogma. Law should be relativistic in the situation that the 'wrong' of the complainant is dealt with in a just and productive manner, depending on the circumstance.

Who's worse? Everyone.

 

[Vimana]

To me, the only real logical conclusion to the whole god nonsense is that the being known as god is just an Alien part of a race of Aliens whom created from terrestrial beasts, mankind from the earlier hominid species that are to be our ancestors of such.

Is there evidence of this? Probably more then one would think.

I would only consider that a logical conclusion if in fact the superstitions of people all around the world were based more on reality than on imagination.

Sure, there are plenty of things from different mythologies that could be interpreted as space travel technology from more advanced beings, but that doesn't mean that those weren't the products of the imagination of the people.

I should start a new thread to talk about aliens.

 

[Dak]

Well for one they are not Illegal restrictions on what one could do. I finding you to be quite dense in understanding language here. I have given the diet example. I will elaborate on that one for simplistic sense.

So say a grapefruit diet.... seems pretty crazy right??/ I mean how could a human body get all the nutrients it needs from only one thing. It can't, in the same way that our minds can't believe in religion because if they did then that person would be devoid of Intelligence in the same way a body is devoid of essential nutrients on a grapefruit diet.

This comparison is amusing as it is lacking in any coherency.

Plus I was never talking about law, but I do not agree with the way the law works, because it is based on religion and its horrible dogma. Law should be relativistic in the situation that the 'wrong' of the complainant is dealt with in a just and productive manner, depending on the circumstance.

Who's worse? Everyone.

You didn't answer my question. You merely re-asserted the supriority of your premise. What is the objective definition of "worse", and how can it be applied universally?

Relativistic, situational, non-binding laws are not laws. They are pointless guidelines.

 

[Silver Incubus]

This comparison is amusing as it is lacking in any coherency.



You didn't answer my question. You merely re-asserted the supriority of your premise. What is the objective definition of "worse", and how can it be applied universally?

Relativistic, situational, non-binding laws are not laws. They are pointless guidelines.

Here, since you are seriously having trouble reading what I write in paragraphs I'll make it simple for you....

RELIGION makes you STUPID.That is WORSE. OBJECTIVELY being SMARTER and having more options available to you is BETTER.

Therefore.... Stupid People do stupid shit because they believe that it is right because they are stupid and made subservient to an IDEA in a book claiming to be from the CREATOR like so many before it.

Normal people are never seen pick-iting with signs that are anti gay, only religion teaches to hate those that are different in such ways.

Normal people are never seen in front of abortion clinics because they are not blinded by a black and white morality.

Normal people aren't encouraging people strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent civilians.

Real religious people are fanatical. That is the opposite of normal.
Moderate Religious are never true anything, because they pick and choose what they like and don't like about religion and it becomes only a farce at that point.

Sin is a total mindfuck to small children that if anyone says otherwise is only lying to themselves.

Teaching religion to a child is in my eyes child abuse.

I could write a whole book so I might as well stop. If you haven't gotten the message yet..... then I think you are hopeless Overwatch

 

[Dak]

Here, since you are seriously having trouble reading what I write in paragraphs I'll make it simple for you....

I'm having trouble hearing what you say over your attitude and ambiguity.

RELIGION makes you STUPID.That is WORSE. OBJECTIVELY being SMARTER and having more options available to you is BETTER.

Does religion make you stupid? Or do the stupid merely gravitate towards religion?

How does the stupidity of religion automatically spread out and make you herp the derp in all areas of life? If a person enjoys the various aspects of community and purpose in the various religious communities, who are you to say they are worse off? I don't know many peaceful, content athiests.

Therefore.... Stupid People do stupid shit because they believe that it is right because they are stupid and made subservient to an IDEA in a book claiming to be from the CREATOR like so many before it.

Kind of like how stupid people swarm celebrities and suck up consumerist propaganda? The messianic adulation of political figures and legal documents?

Normal people are never seen pick-iting with signs that are anti gay, only religion teaches to hate those that are different in such ways.

Normal people are never seen in front of abortion clinics because they are not blinded by a black and white morality.

Normal people aren't encouraging people strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent civilians.

No, normal people hold signs protesting anti-slavery. Normal people are often seen in jail because they are not blinded by any sense of morality. Normal people drop bombs from 10,000 feet on innocent people. Of course, religious people do those things too. So what is the difference?

Real religious people are fanatical. That is the opposite of normal.

Ima go back and reference the celebrity/cult status of actors/musicians/politicians.

Moderate Religious are never true anything, because they pick and choose what they like and don't like about religion and it becomes only a farce at that point.

True.

Sin is a total mindfuck to small children that if anyone says otherwise is only lying to themselves.

What is the difference between "thou shalt not murder" and "it's against the law to murder"?

Teaching religion to a child is in my eyes child abuse.

I could write a whole book so I might as well stop. If you haven't gotten the message yet..... then I think you are hopeless Overwatch

There are many things that I believe are child abuse. That is why I do not do them to my children. Teaching morals (as opposed to religion) is not one of them.

Most parents drug their children, neglect them in pursuit of personal pleasure, abandon them to the state, etc. I don't see you ranting about those ills.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I'm having trouble hearing what you say over your attitude and ambiguity.




Does religion make you stupid? Or do the stupid merely gravitate towards religion?

How does the stupidity of religion automatically spread out and make you herp the derp in all areas of life? If a person enjoys the various aspects of community and purpose in the various religious communities, who are you to say they are worse off? I don't know many peaceful, content athiests.



Kind of like how stupid people swarm celebrities and suck up consumerist propaganda? The messianic adulation of political figures and legal documents?



No, normal people hold signs protesting anti-slavery. Normal people are often seen in jail because they are not blinded by any sense of morality. Normal people drop bombs from 10,000 feet on innocent people. Of course, religious people do those things too. So what is the difference?



Ima go back and reference the celebrity/cult status of actors/musicians/politicians.



True.




What is the difference between "thou shalt not murder" and "it's against the law to murder"?



There are many things that I believe are child abuse. That is why I do not do them to my children. Teaching morals (as opposed to religion) is not one of them.

Most parents drug their children, neglect them in pursuit of personal pleasure, abandon them to the state, etc. I don't see you ranting about those ills.

You need to read some fucking books and stop talking out of your ass.

All you do is rip apart what I say and ask questions. That is fucking annoying. You add absolutely nothing, you are a conversational parasite.

You should go back to church, because you belong with all those idiots and their grand contradictions which are all true and without error of course.

Plus the things you have said are absolutely meaningless, all of it.
When people are fanatical about real things, and real people, it is at least real.

Morals need not be divine to be effective.

until you state your case I will not respond to you Overwatch, you are in way over your head. I feel like I am talking physics formulas to someone who only gets basic arithmetic.

 

[derek]

To be fair, he's simply posing questions regarding your statements. It's a perfectly valid form of argumentation.

Take it as an opportunity to fine tune your own thoughts (or perhaps re-analyse them) as opposed to an occasion to take umbrage and fling out insults.

As a side, I take some of the beliefs of religion as taught to children to be tantamount to a form of abuse, so we are in agreement on that front, Silver Incubus.

 

[Dak]

You need to read some fucking books and stop talking out of your ass.

All you do is rip apart what I say and ask questions. That is fucking annoying. You add absolutely nothing, you are a conversational parasite.

Which is it? Am I talking out of my ass, or ripping apart what you say? If both, then what does that say for your arguments? Perhaps it is you who are adding nothing. Your entire response displays a lack of logical and coherent thought.

It is annoying to you, because you obviously cannot answer basic questions about your opinions, as you have resorted to an entire post of ad hominem attacks.

This is the philosophy forum, where ideas may be critiqued. Do not post if you are not capable of defending your ideas and opinions, and if you cannot abstain from chaining together logical fallacies.

You should go back to church, because you belong with all those idiots and their grand contradictions which are all true and without error of course.

Pot, meet kettle. But no thank you, I do not wish to go to church. Another ad hominem attack though. Number two.

Plus the things you have said are absolutely meaningless, all of it.

Merely saying it does not make it so, like your other arguments. Why are they meaningless? Are the comparisons not accurate? Or does it not matter what stupids things the non-religious do?

When people are fanatical about real things, and real people, it is at least real.

A man named Jesus did exist. So did Muhammad. So did other religious authors. If they were charismatic liars and actors, how are their respective personality cults any different than a politician or a Hollywood actor?

Morals need not be divine to be effective.

Of course not. My question is how can one be traumitizing to a child and the other is not?

until you state your case I will not respond to you Overwatch, you are in way over your head. I feel like I am talking physics formulas to someone who only gets basic arithmetic.

I will not make a case to someone who is in constant violation of the basic principles of logical discourse.

Logical Fallacies

Read up.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Merely saying it does not make it so, like your other arguments. Why are they meaningless? Are the comparisons not accurate? Or does it not matter what stupids things the non-religious do?

This thread is about atheism you are diverging the point and that is why you are annoying with your strawman arguments.

You say essentially that non religious do the same things for other reasons, that whole issue is moot. It is not what we are talking about here. It is the FACT that religion causes people to act in a certain way which is detrimental to the overall intellectual evolution of the human race.

Example 1: THE DARK AGES- where religion held supreme. And so did ignorace. How many libraries did Christians burn..... more then you apparently know.

Example 2: The Crusades

Example 3: Totally rejecting science and its discoveries.

Individuals acting in harmful ways to their children is horrible in any situation, but it is their fault and their responsibility. When it comes to a societal dictation in the forms of a belief system that is contradictory and causes these harms that could otherwise been prevented by non believe then it should be self evident that the removal of that belief system is beneficial despite what small insignificant benefits they think they get from being religious.

A man named Jesus did exist. So did Muhammad. So did other religious authors. If they were charismatic liars and actors, how are their respective personality cults any different than a politician or a Hollywood actor?

Oh really..... Jesus is a real person is he..... you met him in person did you?
Just like all the people who wrote about him 50+ years after he died. You know how many other soothsays existed in that day and age? Jesus was nobody, its just that people created a perplexing tale of a character.

Of course not. My question is how can one be traumitizing to a child and the other is not?

Stawman argument
I never said either were good, you are assuming I am.

I will make a case to someone who is in constant violation of the basic principles of logical discourse.

Logical Fallacies

Read up.

I can respond to every question you asked and back it up with proof. The real problem is that the questions you are providing add nothing to the argument and therefore don't need to be addressed. That is why I told you to read a fucking book. When you have a valid opinion on this subject then feel free to add to it.