Aggressive Atheism

[Silver Incubus]

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

One gets you put in jail (law)and the other has no effect on you at all(religion). I really can't believe how stupid some the shit that gets put in this thread. Did you really need me to explain that to you???

 

[Silver Incubus]

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.

Have you actually read some of the questions he asked like

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

Does that piss you off as a logical thinker to have someone ask you such a pointless question that a microsecond of thinking can solve?

And what the fuck is a non binding law? Could you explain to me how a law could be non binding?

 

[Dak]

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

You apparently do not understand what a strawman argument is.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[

In what way have I misrepresented your position? In what way have I twisted your words? My questions are an attempt to get you to gain consistency in your position, since you are so narrowly focused on the purported dangers of religious dogma, to the exclusion of all else, including the the danger you yourself pose to the freedom of others.

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.

The issue is not "moot". Have religions advocated the killing of others? Yes. But what system has been responsible for the killing and harming of more persons than government? If all the world were to suddenly renounce their religious beliefs, this would not lead to utopia, since the oppression, murder, abuse, etc. would continue.

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

How many did they burn? Rome burned the great Alexandrian library, pre-Catholic era. Not to mention, the libraries in that era were almost entirely comprised of religious writings. So you should be thankful.

Example 2: The Crusades

Which brought Muslim(religious) architecture and scientific influence back and helped bring Europe out of the dark ages.

Example 3: Totally rejecting science and its discoveries.

Yeah, there have been no religious scientists that discovered anything, and no religious people use electricty, the combustion engine, refrigeration, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_scientists

Notables include Isaac Newton, Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, and Max Born amongst hundreds of others.

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.

Like government? What is harmed is people. What is destroyed is freedom. You also seek to destroy freedom by not allowing people to freely associate and hold personal beliefs.

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.

We could say this about everyone not personally met but written about in history. Hardly a sound argument.

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

I never said you did. I asked you to clarify. Again, learn what a strawman is.

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.

You have backed up weak arguments with nothing. Questions add nothing to an argument? Very amusing. I have opinions. I have hinted at them so far through my questions.

Opinions are irrelevant if they are not backed up with anything. Just coming in here and ranting and raving and spouting undefendable opinions lacking in context is not discussion, debate, or an exercise in philosophy.

Further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

 

[Silver Incubus]

You apparently do not understand what a strawman argument is.



In what way have I misrepresented your position? In what way have I twisted your words? My questions are an attempt to get you to gain consistency in your position, since you are so narrowly focused on the purported dangers of religious dogma, to the exclusion of all else, including the the danger you yourself pose to the freedom of others.

Freedom of others? You have to be joking. Religion is a cancer on society, and the fact that I want to get rid of it is wrong? Sorry don't mean to cure your cancer, I don't want you to miss the opportunity to die a slow and painful death..... get real bud.

The issue is not "moot". Have religions advocated the killing of others? Yes. But what system has been responsible for the killing and harming of more persons than government? If all the world were to suddenly renounce their religious beliefs, this would not lead to utopia, since the oppression, murder, abuse, etc. would continue.

Do you honestly believe the religion has no effect on the government whom primarily is comprised of religious people?
AND once again, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE WITH THIS?
Who is talking about Governments here??? Only you bud.
The dangers of government and Nationalism is a whole other topic.

Seriously, most governments in the past where run by kings. Kings are supposedly the person GOD chose to rule on earth..... so the name has change in democrazy, but doesn't that just make all those religion fuckheads get a voice that is guided by preachers and popes? Might I add, misguided beliefs on how the world should work.... according to GOD?

How many did they burn? Rome burned the great Alexandrian library, pre-Catholic era. Not to mention, the libraries in that era were almost entirely comprised of religious writings. So you should be thankful.

And what is this suppose to prove again? That fire was supposedly made to burn the port, and quite a few scholars think that no library was burned then, just a housing for records for transactions.

Which brought Muslim(religious) architecture and scientific influence back and helped bring Europe out of the dark ages.

If that is all the excuses you can come up with then you are only grasping at straws to prove your point.

Yeah, there have been no REAL religious scientists that discovered anything IMPORTANT, and no religious people use electricty, the combustion engine, refrigeration, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_scientists

Notables include Isaac Newton, Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, and Max Born amongst hundreds of others.

Do you understand just how often Religion has butted heads with science and lost...... Every single battle.
Well when it is either be religious like everyone else or be called a witch and burned I think that these people chose the former and feign belief for safety.

So Copernicus, when he said the galaxy was heliocentric, that the earth went around the sun, do you know what happened because of the church?

Even today there are christians who denounce the proven fact of evolution. Are you really that naive to think that this type of stupid bible bullshit hasn't been going on since the beginning of the religious movement.

I bet you that non of those scientist are true believers if they are true scientist. More then likely they are Moderates, and therefore pretenders.

Like government? What is harmed is people. What is destroyed is freedom. You also seek to destroy freedom by not allowing people to freely associate and hold personal beliefs.

Religion is not a personal belief., NO person wakes up one morning saying, "I think I'll believe in god today" when they have never had a concept like god shown to them. Your whole premise is ridiculous. You are certainly giving me tons to laugh at with you attempts at rebuttal.

We could say this about everyone not personally met but written about in history. Hardly a sound argument.

Or more sound then you care to recognize. Do you know how many people in other religions have the same if not identical stories to all of Jesus' divinity? Being born a virgin is NOT a first with christianity. Raising from the dead can be found right in Egyptian mythology. As well as concepts of an afterlife and judgement. And the list goes on and on but that is something you should look into, as I already have.

I never said you did. I asked you to clarify. Again, learn what a strawman is.

Why would I need to clairify it? It should be self evident from my earlier postings on these types of things.
So I say:"X is abuse for children."
You say: "Well Y people do similar kinds of abuse to children."

So basically what you are missing out on, which should be completely and utterly obvious to you is that Religion IS THE MOTIVATION AND CONVICTION to do those things, whereas druggy parents, and lacklusters whom abuse their children have mental problems not associated the the normal Maternal and Paternal instincts to protect and love(care for unconditionally) your offspring.

Are you really that stupid, that I have to spell it out for you like a 5 year old. You have a brain, try to use it and come to your own conclusions logically.

You have backed up weak arguments with nothing. Questions add nothing to an argument? Very amusing. I have opinions. I have hinted at them so far through my questions.

No, not any questions, YOUR STUPID questions, which you should be able to answer yourself with logic applied to it.

Opinions are irrelevant if they are not backed up with anything. Just coming in here and ranting and raving and spouting undefendable opinions lacking in context is not discussion, debate, or an exercise in philosophy.

So you finally get it. Your are not participating in this debate properly. non defensible opinions? Lacking IN context? The Context is Atheism, you fucking moron. All of my stance are based on Non religion, is this topic just too complex for you to understand?
I could cite everything from one book
Here is further reading for you
ATHEIST MANIFESTO by Michel Onfray.

Oh, but I don't need to because I have a vast and extensive list of anti- religious musings.

 

[Dak]

Freedom of others? You have to be joking. Religion is a cancer on society, and the fact that I want to get rid of it is wrong? Sorry don't mean to cure your cancer, I don't want you to miss the opportunity to die a slow and painful death..... get real bud.

Pretty humble of you to ignore how you falsely accused me of a strawman attack (sarcasm). You chafe under the restriction of your freedom posed by religious zealots, yet you respond with the same violence in turn. You do not want freedom, you want to impose your vision on the world. How are you any better than the militant religious?

Do you honestly believe the religion has no effect on the government whom primarily is comprised of religious people?
AND once again, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE WITH THIS?
Who is talking about Governments here??? Only you bud.
The dangers of government and Nationalism is a whole other topic.

It is a different topic, what I am doing is pointing out the parellels and relativity in action and results. Religion does not affect government, it is government that affects religion. Constantine is an easy example. 501C3 status is another easy modern example.

Seriously, most governments in the past where run by kings. Kings are supposedly the person GOD chose to rule on earth..... so the name has change in democrazy, but doesn't that just make all those religion fuckheads get a voice that is guided by preachers and popes? Might I add, misguided beliefs on how the world should work.... according to GOD?

Who told the people the kings were chosen by god? The kings. The priests on their payroll.

And what is this suppose to prove again? That fire was supposedly made to burn the port, and quite a few scholars think that no library was burned then, just a housing for records for transactions.

Ok. let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct. So list some other, more legitimate libraries full of scientific, non religious information that were burned by religious people. I am curious. Are there any?

If that is all the excuses you can come up with then you are only grasping at straws to prove your point.

Is what I said not correct?

Do you understand just how often Religion has butted heads with science and lost...... Every single battle.
Well when it is either be religious like everyone else or be called a witch and burned I think that these people chose the former and feign belief for safety.

Can you prove this? I doubt it. Therefore this is inadmissible in an argument. This reminds me of this dialogue:

I remember once arguing with an honest young atheist, who was very much shocked at my disputing some of the assumptions which were absolute sanctities to him (such as the quite unproved proposition of the independence of matter and the quite improbable proposition of its power to originate mind), and he at length fell back upon this question, which he delivered with an honourable heat of defiance and indignation: “Well, can you tell me any man of intellect, great in science or philosophy, who accepted the miraculous?” I said, “With pleasure. Descartes, Dr. Johnson, Newton, Faraday, Newman, Gladstone, Pasteur, Browning, Brunetiere – as many more as you please.” To which that quite admirable and idealistic young man made this astonishing reply – “Oh, but of course they had to say that; they were Christians.” First he challenged me to find a black swan, and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The fact that all these great intellects had come to the Christian view was somehow or other a proof either that they were not great intellects or that they had not really come to that view. The argument thus stood in a charmingly convenient form: “All men that count have come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they do not count.” ~ ~ G. K. Chesterton

So Copernicus, when he said the galaxy was heliocentric, that the earth went around the sun, do you know what happened because of the church?

Ah yes. I agree. The church is evil, and this is just one of many evils. Did what he say conflict with the Bible though? The Quran? The Torah? The Talmud? etc.

Even today there are christians who denounce the proven fact of evolution. Are you really that naive to think that this type of stupid bible bullshit hasn't been going on since the beginning of the religious movement.

It can't be duplicated was not observed. It is the leading theory which has yet to be disproved. No other theory has as much evidence at the time. That does not make it a scientifically proven fact, like nuclear fission for instance.

I bet you that non of those scientist are true believers if they are true scientist. More then likely they are Moderates, and therefore pretenders.

See my black swan reference.

Religion is not a personal belief., NO person wakes up one morning saying, "I think I'll believe in god today" when they have never had a concept like god shown to them. Your whole premise is ridiculous. You are certainly giving me tons to laugh at with you attempts at rebuttal.

Amusing. If this premise were true, then where did the idea come from? According to this statement, no one could imagine such a thing. Therefore, at some point, an actual god must have revealed himself.

Conversely, if independent original ideas are impossible, then there would have never been any inventions.

Or more sound then you care to recognize. Do you know how many people in other religions have the same if not identical stories to all of Jesus' divinity? Being born a virgin is NOT a first with christianity. Raising from the dead can be found right in Egyptian mythology. As well as concepts of an afterlife and judgement. And the list goes on and on but that is something you should look into, as I already have.

And? "Some guy who wrote music. Lots of people wrote music. How do I know Beethoven existed and it wasn't some other guy writing the music."

I am quite aware of the similarity between Christianity and other "Dying God" religions. David Livingstone outlines many of them in his book, "The Dying God". Of course, he is Muslim, so this might create a paradox for you.

Why would I need to clairify it? It should be self evident from my earlier postings on these types of things.
So I say:"X is abuse for children."
You say: "Well Y people do similar kinds of abuse to children."

So basically what you are missing out on, which should be completely and utterly obvious to you is that Religion IS THE MOTIVATION AND CONVICTION to do those things, whereas druggy parents, and lacklusters whom abuse their children have mental problems not associated the the normal Maternal and Paternal instincts to protect and love(care for unconditionally) your offspring.

Are you really that stupid, that I have to spell it out for you like a 5 year old. You have a brain, try to use it and come to your own conclusions logically.

You still do not understand. You submitted the argument that behaving in a certain way due to commands given by a god or religious group are child abuse.

My question is: If the command is the same as given by a secular organization, how is this command child abuse? Either you are suggesting that the command itself is child abuse, or that teaching the basis for the command is child abuse.

If it is the former, how is "thou shalt not/do not commit murder" child abuse (for instance). If it is the motivation that is taught [invisible man commands (eternal afterlife consequences)/arbitrary secular laws(physical consequences)] that is child abuse, what is the difference as long as the result is the same?

You take questions as an attack. This is a sign of immaturity and a weak position. Simply plainly state your position, and clarify when requested. Discussion is for learning.

I see no traces of logic in your arguments or attempts at rebuttal, and therefore cannot use it to understand your arguments.

No, not any questions, YOUR STUPID questions, which you should be able to answer yourself with logic applied to it.

Then what would be a non-stupid question? Please give an example. As I stated before, I cannot understand the illogical. This is why I pose questions.

So you finally get it. Your are not participating in this debate properly. non defensible opinions? Lacking IN context? The Context is Atheism, you fucking moron. All of my stance are based on Non religion, is this topic just too complex for you to understand?

The context is Aggressive Athiesm. I am questioning it's purpose and foundation by comparing religion to other, potentially more pertinent societal ills.

You continue with the ad hominem attacks. Your preceding paragraph contains but one of many in this post I am responding to. Your lack of civility discredits and sheds doubt on the benevolence and intent of your motives.

I could cite everything from one book
Here is further reading for you
ATHEIST MANIFESTO by Michel Onfray.

Oh, but I don't need to because I have a vast and extensive list of anti- religious musings.

Ah. Would you say it was your Bible? What are these other writings?

 

[Lugreech]

I Haven't read anything XDD
but here is my opinion about religion:
-I think everybody can believe in what they one they want even in the flying pigs ( like the pink floyd one) the important thing is the respect... people will never be in peace if they think that the only right thing is what they say. I can believe in whatever i want but i cannot follow somebody with a book and tell him that i am right and that he or she will die in hell.

Extremely religions people are the same shit than aggressive atheism people . again you CANNOT go around and say to everybody that they are motherfuckers or Jackass beacuse they dont think like you!. of course people that use another people ignorance or true faith ( it exist there are people who really believe no all priests and believers are pedophiles) to earn money are the biggest shit.

- Religion doesn't make you stupid..not always, Of course some people don't analyze what its around them ( extremely religious ideas that are dangerous in different life aspects ) , but it doesn't mean they are jackass, if just they don`t have the enough wherewithal or education.

I'm not into any religion, but in my family and friends i know people who is atheist, catholic, hare Krishna, buddhism, agnostic, evangelist ,etc.
Some of them are motherfuckers , others great people.

Religion doesn't made you good or bad person.

And again i say: the important think is the respect! i don't think religion is the cancer of the society, if there weren't religion , we have political ideas or millions of subjects where we cannot be agree , people will continue fighting... the cancer of the society is the selfishness ... thinking that we always have the right and that the others cannot believe or think in a different way.

 

[Vimana]

I think the world would be more peaceful without religion, but not utopian. It's really not that much of a leap of logic to assume that with one less thing to disagree on, people would fight less.

 

[Dak]

It really doesn't matter how many things are disagreed on. It matters how people handle it.

 

[Vimana]

That is true, but it also depends on the thing being disagreed on.

 

[Blowtus]

It really doesn't matter how many things are disagreed on. It matters how people handle it.

I think it's important they handle it with irrational dogmatism and nuclear weapons. Do you agree?

Some disagreements matter

 

[Dak]

That is true, but it also depends on the thing being disagreed on.

"Whether or not you are as human as I" is usually the one that results in violence.

 

[Vimana]

But it's also been "whether you worship the real god or not," too. A lot of Muslim conquest was based on that.

 

[Dak]

As were the Crusades. At least that is the line sold to the armies. It's always about power for the leaders though.

 

[Vimana]

But with less things at one's disposal to sway people into battle, it's not outlandish to assume less battles would be occurring.

 

[Dak]

Excuses can always be found. THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS!

 

[monoxide_child]

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?"

Religion is a wheelchair for the crippled mind
and Christianity works perfet for that description of religion
when tornadoes/hurricanes destroy your place to live, when serial killers slaugher your loved ones, things like this make it difficult for some people to live as atheist and Christianity works perfect for alieviating (or at least seeming to) PTSD

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

If only religion, Jesus, et al was something revealed to only those who were old and wise enough to fully understand(instead of foisted on helpless and weak kids), and thus was something to be earned and thus such knowledge given to only those who truly came into their own; I wonder how many would actually subscribe to it.

No, I don't wonder at all. That number would be zero.

 

[monoxide_child]

religion foisted on helpless and weak kids

i consider this brain-washing

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Indeed. I consider it child abuse.

 

[monoxide_child]

Indeed. I consider it child abuse.

yes
brainwashing a child is child abuse
brainwashing an adult is "psychologically abusing the mentally handicapped"